Dashed Off XI

 Intellectual caution often requires a robust imagination.

"The scientist does not study nature because it is useful, he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights init because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth konwing, life would not be worth living." Henri Poincare

NB that Poincare takes mathematical induction to be based on synthetic a priori judgment.

Animals have fuzzy borders.

One may own things that do not exist and may never exist, e.g., you may by contract own the next book I write, which I never write. How this sense of 'own' relates to more standard cases of 'own' is tricky, however.

Human beings enjoy fitting themselves into a greater intelligibility. This greater intelligibility may be:
social local (family, personal 'identity')
social global (general politics, society at large)
natural local (immediate environment)
natural global (cosmic)
theistic local (relation to divine)
theistic global (role in providence).

Eusebius says that in his time 2 Peter *may* be a second epistle by Peter "for it is doubted" (HE 6.25..8) and that it is not received as canonical but has seemed useful to many and has been studied with the canonical scriptures (HE 3.3.1-2) -- i.e., it was not read in Church, as far as Eusebius knew, (= not canonical) but it was in wide use as possibly but not universally recognized as being from Peter.

The fact that Jude says spilades and 2 Peter says spiloi, as well as the fact that Jude says agapais and 2 Peter says apatais, seems to me to indicate that that the link between the two is (1) oral (either both derived from an oral source, or one derived orally from a source the other hand in writing, or one derived from hearing the other read aloud, and/or (2) entirely by memory.

Oen of the most most important functions of a head of state or head of government is to press others to have reasons for what they do, by asking the relevant questions and demanding the relevant explanations.

The human heart is only really ever held in place by goodness and truth; understanding and love are our most fundamental means of stability.

A recurring pathology in human life is assuming that being right is a license to do wrong.

1 Peter 3:18b-20 interpretations
(1) Descent into hell: cf. Acts 2:27-32, 1 Pt 4:6 with which it easily connects; associated with Alexandrians: Clement, Cyril, Athanasius
(2) Spiritual preaching through Noah: cf. 1 Pt 1:11; associated with Augustine, Bede
(3) Victory over angelic powers: based in part on comparing 1 Enoch with 1 Peter 3:18-20; more recent, see William Dalton's Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits
1 Peter 4:6 interpreations
(1) Spirits in hell: easily connects with 3:18b, 20; associated with Alexandrians
(2) spiritually dead: cf. Mt 8:22, Jn 5:25, Eph 5:14; associated with Augustine
(3) the faithful dead: fits context reasonably well; common among modern scholars

Paul's description of the church in Romans 12:7-8 arguably suggests a structure still similar to that of a synagogue at the time, particularly a Hellenistic synagogue in the diaspora.

Every mutable object has a level of description with respect to which it is immutable.

We do not start with individuals and build communities out of them; we start with communities (families, at the most basic) and build individuals out of them.

the Cross, a dark symbol of the heavenly Throne

2 Sam 6:9 // Lk 1:43

The question of who and what Jesus is comes up multiple times in Mark, and the consistent theme is that people do not, and perhaps cannot, understand the answer. What is more, it's not merely that they do not understand Jesus in his inner self (represented by His repeated withdrawal into prayer); they do not understand even His outward, public face, in His ministry.

1 Tim 6:7, 10 // Polycarp to the Phil 4:1
-- PPhil 3:2 recommends Paulin letters and so 1 Timothy was c. 130 certainly among those that he recommends, since the entire passage after 3:2 is filled with obvious allusions to Galatians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians, and likely 1 Timothy (3:8) and 2 Timothy (2:12).

natural desire argument for the external world (the tendency of our sense organs) (our kinaesthetic impulses)

Newton's Rules of Philosophy as four forms of parsimony

Locke rejects the toleration of atheism because he takes it to be inconsistent not with ordinary daily contracts but witht he social contract itself, there being on atheistic principles no higher arbiter to provide the social contract the force of a contract.

earth : law :: air : life :: fire : light :: water : love

"No one willingly believes that what he greatly admires is admirable only for him." Balfour

If it doesn't improve with training, it isn't real talent.

Civil liberties require an effective rule of law.

Believing is the beginning of loving.

"The Lord Himself dyes us in the color of his Love." SGGS 117
"The world is a garden, and my Lord God is the Gardener. / He always takes care of it -- nothing is exempt from His Care." SGGS 118

empires as utility monsters

propositional attitudes are reflective objectual attitudes

We experience paintings both holistically (as arrangement in apparent space) and sequentially (as possible rhythms for the eye).

use value, sentimental value, and moral value as coloring acceptance of tradition

Appropriate sequence is one of the central pillars of emergency response.

The problem that usually plagues attempts to read the Bible 'as literature' is that they tend to use extremely flat conceptions of 'reading as literature'. Actual readers of actual literature read in the round: this passage is read not merely as part of a texgt but also as part of an interaction between author(s) and readers; thus people read a text in light of other texts by the author, in light of other texts in the tradition, in light of other texts in the genre, in light of the presumed life of the author, in light of the readership receiving it, both as a whole and partwise with detachable parts.

One of the signs of whether you are reading something 'as literature' is whether you are reading it in a way that involves allegorization, not necessarily consistently or as a whole, but occasionally and on the fly, in an ad hoc (but not arbitrary) way. We read literature as concrete expression and comment on general principles and categories, both literal (reading about two friends as expressing and commenting on friendship in general) and figurative (reading events and scenes as emblems, objective correlates, of psychological states).

Chance is an important maker of friends

National borders are functionally a way of reducing conflict.

The Librarian of Congress

 I've mostly been keeping out of political questions, in part because I have been deliberately taking things easy (at least to the extent possible) after a rather brutally exhausting 2024, in part because it has become very difficult to get good information about some things (a lot of news sites seem to have given up on even the appearance of objective investigation), and in part because it's quite clear that, even more than usual, people are completely unwilling to treat arguments seriously, which is my only conceivable reason for talking about the matter here. There are also other cases, like the issue of the Trump administration's civil rights enforcement with respect to Ivy League universities, in which I have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear, and would in any case not be able to remain temperate in giving all sides -- and it would be all sides, including some who certainly think themselves righteous -- an earful. I've never been one to back down from a fight, but I have no moral obligation whatsoever to be a minority of one fighting against everyone else, much less an 'everyone else' who are not bothering to listen, and I have much more constructive things to do.

Nonetheless, there are political questions that have clear  answers, and yet are associated with incorrect arguments that pass my screen so often and in so irritatingly that I just might as well point out the clear answer here rather than just biting my tongue. And one topic that has been irritating me in this way recently is the Librarian of Congress, a topic in which I already have a minor interest. President Trump recently fired the Librarian of Congress. Can the President fire the Librarian of Congress? The answer as a general matter is yes, undeniably. The Library of Congress as an institution serves a number of important functions for Congress, as the name suggests; but the Library of Congress is also an executive branch agency -- it explicitly includes the United States Copyright Office, which performs the executive function of administering copyright law, and the Librarian of Congress has explicitly been recognized by courts as a Head of Department in the executive branch. The Librarian of Congress is also by statute appointed by the President, and therefore, as the statute would usually be interpreted, and as Presidential appointments have generally been interpreted by the courts, the President can remove the appointment and therefore remove the Librarian from office.

Of course, doing so without prior courtesies in consulting Congress is asking for pushback; because the Library of Congress serves some important functions for Congress itself, sudden replacement of the Librarian of Congress has the potential to disrupt Congressional business in various minor ways, and it's not surprising that you would find members of Congress angered by it. But it's not illegal, and almost the only thing Congress can do about it would be to change the law. Presumably they would have to do it by legally removing the United States Copyright Office from the Library of Congress and making all the staff, including the Librarian of Congress, official Congressional staff; although conceivably they might try the simpler and much riskier path of just trying to impose restrictions on removal, which may or may not, and probably not, survive challenge in court because, again, the Librarian of Congress, despite serving Congress in various ways, is clearly and explicitly an executive office under current law. I suppose they could impeach the President for it despite the fact that it is legal -- Congress can impeach and convict anyone for anything for any reason and there is no recourse; this is always a potential option, but good luck with it in practice.

Give Me Then an Ant to Eate

 The Beggar to Mab, the Fairie Queen
by Robert Herrick

 Please your Grace, from out your Store,
 Give an Almes to one that's poore,
 That you mickle, may have more.
 Black I'm grown for want of meat;
 Give me then an Ant to eate;
 Or the cleft eare of a Mouse
 Over-sowr'd in drinke of Souce:
 Or, Sweet Lady, reach to me
 The Abdomen of a Bee;
 Or commend a Crickets-hip,
 Or his Huckson, to my Scrip.
 Give for bread, a little bit
 Of a Pease, that 'gins to chit,
 And my full thanks take for it.
 Floure of Fuz-balls, that's too good
 For a man in needy-hood:
 But the Meal of Mill-dust can
 Well content a craving man.
 Any Orts the Elves refuse
 Well will serve the Beggars use.
 But if this may seem too much
 For an Almes; then give me such
 Little bits, that nestle there
 In the Pris'ners Panier.
 So a blessing light upon
 You, and mighty Oberon:
 That your plenty last till when,
 I return your Almes agen.

'Souce' is actually salt-pickle or the liquid for making salt-pickle, 'orts' are food-scraps, and the prisoners' panier was a basket that prisoners (who were often not fed well) were allowed to hang out their window in order to collect alms. 

Music on My Mind

 

Stellar Kart, "Procrastinating".

Multiformis Nominem Christi Dispensatio

But manifold in name is the dispensation of Christ:

Lord, because spirit;
Word, because God;
Son, because only-begotten from the Father;
Man, because born from a virgin;
Priest, because He offers himself as total sacrifice (holocaustum);
Shepherd, because guardian;
Worm, because He rose;
Mountain, because strong;
Way, because right (rectus);
Harbor, because through Him is the entry into life;
Lamb, because He has suffered;
Stone, because cornerstone (structio angularis);
Teacher, because demonstrator (ostensor) of life;
Sun, because illuminator;
True, because from the Father;
Life, because creator;
Bread, because flesh;
Samaritan, because guardian and compassionate;
Christ, because anointed;
Jesus, because savior;
God, because from God;
Angel, because sent;
Bridegroom, because mediator;
Vine, because we are redeemed by His blood;
Lion, because king;
Rock, because foundation (firmamentum);
Flower, because chosen;
Prophet, because he revealed the future.

[Gelasian Decree, my rough translation]

The Decretum Gelasianum is a decretal that is found in a number of versions in different early collections (going back in extant manuscript to the eighth century); it is always attributed to a council in Rome, although different versions are attributed to councils under different popes from Pope Damasus (d. circa 384) to Pope Hormisdas (d. circa 523). Historically the most common view was that it was due to Pope Gelasius (d. circa 496), probably using material from an earlier council under Damasus (with the opening chapters, including the the above passage, usually being attributed to Damasus). Thus the name. In the main, this is probably still the common view, with many variant forms as to details, although we don't really know anything for sure. In any case, this is a striking passage.