For example, Sophocles’ “Theban Plays” contain in them the consequences of hubris and teaches us to avoid it like the plague. Seneca’s “On the Shortness of Life” forces us to reckon our mortality and reminds us that life is too precious, to note waste it on idle things like sports events, fashions, and other fickle things. Euclid, the “Father of Geometry”, created in his “Elements” the single greatest source of logical thought and gathered together some of the most beautiful theorems/ideas in nature even to date. The “Logic” of Aristotle is considered one of the finest and most beautiful sources of organized logical thought ever written – the syllogism (If A then B, etc…) can be attributed to his musings. Aeneas, Virgil’s epic hero of the “Aeneid” can probably put any action hero to shame with his bad-assedness! Considering even the book of “Proverbs” written by King Solomon over his lifetime, they contain some of the most helpful thoughts on life – like not to waste time reading useless books, that there is no end to them (think David/Amy Sedaris or Danielle Steel)!

The classicists had it all! What modern philosopher alive today, or author currently living, can be said to produce works that are as lasting and as applicable, or even as profound as any of the above? You can probably count them on one hand! Religious writers, political authors, journalists, very little is written today that has any lasting value or is worth considering anymore.

Granted that during the time of these classicists there must have been a ton of people generating volumes and volumes of garbage. These works endured because they were buoyed above all the flotsam. Still, considerably little is generated today, and nothing that even compares in quality to the works of the ancients.

I almost never read anything written today, save for the news. Life is so short, why fill your head with garbage when you can live with the wisdom of a great many people and lead a higher quality of life (Seneca)? Live happy, read classics!

I don’t profess to be a political genius, or understand every bit of the way the American government runs, but one thing’s for sure, President Obama is a good politician. I had no reason to dislike him or his administration, but after one public statement he recently made, I began to question his motives.

Obama predicts that by 2030 humans will not only land on the moon, again, but will also go to Mars. Amazing! Truly marvelous! How on Earth (no pun intended) is he going to back that claim? I mean, really. President Bush already had a plan to go to the moon, now it’s being 86ed in favor of some new plan that the Obama administration came up with. What is it with Democrats replacing all the hard work Republicans have performed, and Republicans undoing all the effort Democrats have done?

Obama’s plan is great, now. It puts some hope in people’s eyes once again. “Where is my flying car?” people used to ask, “NASA failed us”, people would say. This plan gives us reason to hope in NASA once more. It gives us reason to think that America stands out in some really significant way that other countries don’t.

Unfortunately, this plan, in my opinion, from my understanding, will fail. It’s unrealistic. It’s too dangerous given our level of technology and competence, and is quite possibly pointless. Far too much could go wrong between here and Mars. The closest help is at least 40 days away. We’re not ready for that kind of thing.

This will backfire terribly on future scientists working for NASA or for those relying on NASA for grants. If it doesn’t happen, which it won’t, NASA looks dumb, the public’s opinion of NASA goes down, funding goes down, and plenty of scientists will be jobless. If it does happen, which it won’t, the chances of things going wrong are incredible! All it takes is one tennis ball sized asteroid and the mission is over. NASA will still look dumb, the public’s opinion of NASA goes down, funding goes down, and plenty of scientists will be jobless. If it does happen, which it won’t, and everything goes smoothly, the pioneers return home safely, then I will gladly eat my own words, with joy!

Thinking politically, this is a genius move – it is truly masterful timing! Why not use what hope people want to have in NASA to make yourself look good? 20 years from now he’s not going to be in office, who cares if history shows him mistaken? Certainly not him. If we don’t make it to the moon, say, he could blame the future presidents for failing, or he could just say “at least I tried”. He’s setting himself up for reelection at the expense of the scientists and engineers working for NASA 20 years from now. A pretty damn cowardly act, if you ask me.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing effects me directly. It’s tragic. It renders my graduate school educations almost pointless. I may end up working for NASA only to be screwed by a power hungry politician. I want a political hero to believe in like in the old days with the founding fathers! I want to believe in a political hero like the honest John Marshall, like the upright John Adams, and like the valiant George Washington who would not tell a lie! One’s who genuinely loved their countrymen like their own, such as the lionhearted Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt. We need more men like them.

Sometimes, blaming others is a helpful way to cope, though not a morally justifiable one. I often blame my family for raising me “horribly”. They never saw the need, nor had the capability, to educate me when I was younger in things other than the simplest aspects of English and Math. I was able to read when I was 4 from Sesame Street. I learned my multiplication tables when I was 7. But that’s all. … That’s all. They wasted my time on teaching me useless things like the Armenian language and Armenian history. For some weird reason they bought the entire Encyclopedia Britannica since I think they realized I like to learn – I have to ask them why they did that. I memorized everything related to Astronomy in them. I knew various planetary densities, atmospheric compositions, surface gravitational accelerations before I hit the 5th grade. I saw how cosmic rays decayed in the upper atmosphere and knew about tests for special relativity before hitting High School. But these are just facts that anyone could have picked up.

I know I cannot blame them for my lack of creativity, I have to ultimately take responsibility for myself and my own lack of action; my parents did the best they could with what they knew. I wish I was more motivated as a kid to learn and study more. I hear stories of kids in crappy situations with nothing but an Algebra book nearby and they end up reconstructing half of modern Number Theory. I hear of people who are taught Calculus by the age of 12 and go on to become Math Olympiads. People my age have solved some of the toughest mathematical problems ever posed (see Hilbert’s Problems).

What am I doing with the time allotted to me? Fiddling with a Goddamn MATLAB bug. For months, now. I have been running around in circles. For. No. Reason.

If we look at all of the above from the eyes of ancient Roman Catholics, perhaps my damning sin is Envy – at least, as I see it. So-called childhood friends of mine who wouldn’t take the time to get to know me would say that Pride is my sin; I have never heard that from anyone else since. Maybe there is an element of pride in what I say. I find myself envious of the greats of mathematics, philosophy, science, etc… They did so much more than myself with less. I had every opportunity to be better, but I squandered it over video games and stupid childish things like that. I didn’t need to play all those games, I knew it, too.

And here is another point of frustration: there is no personal lesson here. I cannot go back and fix things. The only thing I can do is look forward and ignore my shortcomings, strive all that much more harder.

I don’t know why it happened this way. Where did this schism appear? Why the sudden rift between these two areas of thought and human inquiry?

My study of the human condition led me from Albert Camus and his “The Fall” (a great book, by the way, very accessible and very honest) to Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. There are few things I admire more than honesty; I admire not only honesty, but honesty with oneself. It’s a very difficult thing to be honest with oneself. Camus and Augustine are two men known to be honest with themselves and their state of being. Naturally, I am drawn to such people.

I started my studies of Augustine by reading Gareth B. Matthews’ book titled “Augustine”. I managed to notice something of interest, a quote of Augustine’s:

Whenever the experts of this world can truly demonstrate something about natural phenomena, we should show it not to be contrary to Scripture; but whenever in their books they teach something contrary to Holy Writ, we should without any doubt hold it to be false and also show this by any means we can; and in this way we should keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of knowledge, in order not to be seduced by the verbosity of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of fake religions.

From Galileo quoting Augustine in his “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”

This is exactly how I have been feeling for so long! When uninformed people gather around, talk about science or religion in an uninformed manner, speak of how evil the other is, how it contradicts the tenets of whatever their belief system is, I get this almost irresistible urge to smack people!

For the Christian: If you are threatened by science, by theories regarding the evolution of galaxies, stars, plant life on Earth, animal life on Earth, etc.. the best thing you can do for yourself is take a step back and think about what the theories are saying. Why do people believe, study, and teach the things that they do? What are the main reasons to believe in the model presented to you? Often the first thing many Christians do is take a defensive stance – I know this from experience. This solves nothing!

Another source of strife that I see stems from one’s Hermeneutics: the science of interpreting texts (in this case, Biblical). From my understanding, one’s hermeneutics is, more or less, an axiom/presupposition stated and established in order to understand the Bible in a certain light – possibly to accommodate certain theologies. There is really nothing wrong with that, physicists and mathematicians do physics and math this way all the time! The problem comes when one’s hermeneutic is shown to be incorrect. How can one test their hermeneutic? Against science, of course!

Look around you. Observe. Do simple facts around you contradict what you read in Scripture? Perhaps you are interpreting a text incorrectly. My main quibble, right now, is with the most popular interpretation of Genesis 1. Christian theologians and (mostly) apologists, with absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever, blatantly claim that the universe was created in a matter of literal days, in spite of the evidence (not having considered it deeply) and lead hapless people, who are generally thoughtful souls, in the wrong direction!

It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Ibid.

Does this rob the Scriptures of its power and authority? Absolutely NOT! It only robs man from making a false statement, from going for too long in the wrong direction – which is a win.

I offer my hermeneutic, what I believe Augustine, too, would wish for his fellow believers: I would take a minute to think about ALL the possible ways to interpret a passage and always account for the possibility that I missed one. I would then choose what I [carefully] judge to be the most consistent interpretation with the context, the rest of Scripture, and with what I know of the author, times, and culture of both the author and audience of that passage. It’s hard work, but that’s what being a Christian means.

For the Scientist: I would offer a bit of advice that I believe you would think is sound. Take a step back and think. Why do Christians believe what they do? Why? I would refrain from relying too quickly on intuition and making a judgment call in haste, here – there is a tendency for scientists to do that; after all, scientists are still human.

One thing I would recommend is to ask yourself, “is this view a valid view? Why/why not? I there a basis for such a set of beliefs?” I would then tell myself to not look at the norm. Look deeper into their core beliefs, not simply their most popular writings like what Richard Dawkins has been doing recently in his books. Making too haste a judgment call has led to many earnest Christian thinkers from acknowledging a certain scientific theory, Biological Evolution being a very obvious one.  Too quick a judgment puts people on the defensive, and no scientist can benefit from that. At the very least it leads to a severe lack of funding from a potentially interested group of people. =P

I do strongly believe that Christianity may enrich ones views of nature more than one may initially think. Two forms of arriving at the truth cannot possibly contradict! (This is assuming there exists such a thing as truth, the guiding principle behind both science and religion). Religion (specifically Christianity) is not testable using the Scientific Method, it has different ways of arriving at the truth. Science relies on human effort, while a lot of religion is brought down from on high. It offers a serious source of intellectual thought – something fun for any scientist/philosopher!

This has been on my mind and heart for a long time. It is a severe blunder that both scientists and Christians are so vehemently opposed to one another in such a vile manner!

I loved going to the beach, especially alone. I didn’t really like getting wet, I just liked the warm sand between the toes, the cool breeze through my hair, the smell of salt sea air, the sound of savage seagulls crowing (is that what they do? It sounds like it.) for the lunch of the nearby family. I could get up and go there, anytime! It was about 15 minutes away from home on a good day – which, despite the common opinion of those who despise the city, can be any day. You just have to know when to drive and what road to take.

“Candy hills and marshmallow roads”, as Katie would say.

I moved to Santa Cruz for school in January 2003. Things didn’t really change for me – the private me. The people were a little different than those in Los Angeles, but everything was, for the most part, constant – everyone I communicated with was, barring exceptional cases, polite. I would sneak out at night and drive over to my favorite spot along the cliffs near Twin Bridges. I could feel the water crash into the rocks that I was sitting on while watching the Moon light up a path from me to take along the Pacific. I would continue to look up past the Moon and see a sky completely full of stars, populated  more densely along the Milky Way (even during a full moon). The beaches in Santa Cruz smelled different than those in Los Angeles. Not better, not worse, just different. I could go out there any time I wanted!

Then the forests! Oh, the forests! The only place I knew well where the forest meets the beach, and a beautiful pair they were! I could go on endlessly about how wonderful it smelled, how vividly green it was, how quiet and beautiful things were, how even the ground was soft and BROWN! Not grayish brown dirt that’s hard, but soft, fluffy soil!

I would especially love taking road trips to San Francisco, regardless of the hour. I would love driving! I would take my car out along Highway 1 and just drive! No worry in the world. I would stop along the road occasionally to roll back my “moon roof” (I had my 4Runner then) and just watch the star-lit sky for about 10 to 15 minutes.

Then I came to Merced. I have no freedom here. There is little beauty in this town. I step out of my house, ready for school, and I smell onions. I walk down to my car and catch a whiff of manure (cows, to be specific), all in the same minute. Perhaps to some it is a wonderful thing. The only lake here is man-made, the river (or creek?) is littered with shopping carts, or dead bodies when the water-level drops a bit. The people are noticeably different – everyone is so grumpy, they do what they want, all the time, despite your existence. Whatever nature exists here gets very angry just before springtime, I managed to develop allergies in my first Spring. I’m constantly warned about going to parks – that’s it’s not safe, except for a few when it’s very brightly lit.

I feel very limited especially since there are only two directions to go from here: North to Turlock and Modesto where little resides, or South to Fresno where even more ugly roams the streets: both options an hour away with nothing in between, both options asleep at 10pm. San Francisco is too far away for a simple drive, Yosemite is a bit expensive if you don’t go there regularly. Perhaps a better feeling is trapped. I have been here for two and a half years and am dying to get out, perhaps more figuratively, not yet literally. I want a beach, I want some scenery, I want a breath of fresh air!

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

-Robert Frost

I’m a huge sucker for Robert Frost. I don’t understand if I am supposed to interpret this for myself and figure out what it means for me, or if I am to figure out the authors original intent, or both! I wanted to describe what I have learned and what it means to me, though this may be utterly boring for everyone else.

When I read a poem I always start with a direct, literal, reading. I believe Frost intended much in this poem to be interpreted literally. The man rides a horse, stops at a location between a wide open lake and a forest, stares off into the forest, perhaps to appreciate its beauty. The horse is confused and wants to get home. The man then snaps out of it, realizes he has to get home because he has responsibilities and obligations.

Even in the literal interpretation there is much! Neuroscientists call it “Dual Representation”, phenomenologists call it “Categorical Intentions”; either way it is what separates us humans from other animals. The appreciation of beauty, the attaching of meaning to things that are commonplace, or different – for example: a child pretending a stick is actually sword, people attributing to certain objects specific meanings, like an engagement ring – I only had to type the word “engagement ring” and a host of images, ideas, preconceptions flooded into your mind!

That’s partially what is being demonstrated here. The man appreciates the forest, the “deep”, “dark”, “lovely” forest. He is compelled to stop for a minute and appreciate the beauty that stands before him, especially as the snow piles. The peace and tranquility that is the quiet sounds of snow falling and the light breeze is refreshing. The horse, on the other hand, cannot compute such beauty. The horse wants his stable, shelter and warmth, some straw to sleep on; there is no appreciation of beauty there. “What is that guy on my back doing? Is he confused? Why stop? Do he hear something? This is most unusual! Maybe I should let him know that he is confused. I’ll shake my bells.”

The bells remind the man that he has obligations elsewhere. Thus, the reason for the first time he says “and miles to go before I sleep”.

Then the figurative, rich with meaning! I have looked up other peoples opinions: professors, amateurs, connoisseurs, etc… I saw none of what they did. I will here describe what I see.

The man stops between a frozen lake and a forest. A perfect analogy nature has set up for him, describing to him his life as it was, his life now, and his life as it will be.

He has been through much. The man is midway through his life. He looks back and sees the empty, open, expanse that is the frozen lake. He can see clearly across the scene. He has been through all of that, he knows what was there. He was born behind that horizon, him and his animal companion, his “little horse”, the animalistic representation of life itself, have travelled long to get here. Life appreciates no beauty, it is blind to such thing. Man has evolved on its back for the little time it spends there. Man arrives at a point where he stops to reflect on how far and long he has travelled.

The man takes a look forward and reflects at what he cannot see past. He might be able to see through a few trees, but not too far ahead. He might expect a warm meal waiting for him tonight, but beyond that, it is not within his foresight. He does not know where it ends, he can only see through to a few trees, after all. He stares. Hearing no sounds except for soft nature, and viewing the rough terrain that lies in front of him, he wonders to himself how far that forest runs, what lies behind the next row of trees. A curious question that haunts all men, to be sure, but still, if only he can get the right angle—

Ring ring….

“—Ah yes, the horse, my responsibilities, I have a long way to go before I get home, … and miles to go before my sleep eternal.”

I have been reading The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. I am presently starting Canto VIII, the part after Virgil guides Dante through the Fourth Circle of Hell, where the avaricious are tormented continuously, Canto VII. Avarice is the sin of extreme greed. The punishment for those who died and claim avarice as their sin is to roll a stone with their chest in a semi-circle. They start at one point of a circle, get halfway along the arc, pause, then roll back.

You might be asking, “well, why half-way? Why push a stone in the first place, let alone in a half-circle?” There are two kinds of people that would fall into this level of Hell, those who were greedy and hoarded  material possessions, and those who spent frivolously. We all know people like this, so it seems all the more frightening. The idea of this punishment is simple: it is to point out the worthlessness of the material possessions that occupied the attention of these sinners. Pushing a stone round and around is one of the most meaningless things one can do.

Ring a bell? This is, virtually, the same punishment that Sisyphus was given when escaping Hades as a fugitive. This is no coincidence as Dante mixes many themes and characters from Greek and Roman mythology with a slightly variant form of Catholic theology into his classic. The ancient Greeks thought that there is nothing more meaningless than exerting ones energy by pushing a stone around. Dante adopts this and tries to show his audience that pushing a stone, an entirely meaningless and worthless task, is precisely like greedily hoarding possessions or frivolously spending money. This is the reason for the half-circle, one half is occupied by those who hoarded, and the other by those who spent. They meet half-way, where the balance between the two exists, and thus the punishment is realized, the way they should have been in life was somewhere between where they were, and where their counterparts are.

Recall my post absurd. In there I commented on Camus’ ideas of the absurd. Since Camus explained that one cannot prove the existence of God, or any other purely religious figure being outside the realm of pure logic, the most logical stance one must take is that of the absurd-man; that is, realizing that there is no purpose in the universe, no point to anything. All one can do is laugh and continuously revolt against the human need and desire for purpose. At the end of his essay on Absurdism, he draws an analogy of the absurd-man and describes to us the absurd-hero, Sisyphus.

Sisyphus, being forced to push a stone up a hill and watching it roll back down, then starting over and repeating ad infinitum, is punished with what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought to be the most meaningless task there could be. However, Camus points out that when Sisphus realizes that there is no meaning in the universe anyway, he stands content. Once his task of pushing a stone to the top is spasmodically finished, and it rolls back down, that is when Sisyphus is most happy, he is content in that he conquered the gods, his punishment is nullified, he stands content in the fact that everything is meaningless, so his pushing his stone up a hill is nothing more than a regular punishment that is life itself, nothing changed!

So too with the sinners in the Fourth Circle of Hell. Except the situation is only a little bit different. In life, if one is to be as logical as possible he must stand with Camus and argue that there is no meaning in the world – God cannot be proven to exist, or rather, proving the existence of God is an absurd task, absurd in that it is humanly impossible, or unlikely. However, in death, could one do that anymore? If God is seen with the eyes, in death, if divine punishment is experienced in Hell, is it still a meaningless task to push a stone around?

The fact that Sisyphus is the absurd-hero rests on the fact that one cannot prove the existence of God in life, and thus, of the attainment of meaning in life. However, when standing in front of the Almighty, could you really say that there was no meaning, or better yet, there is no meaning? There is meaning sitting directly in front of you on the Throne of Judgement! There it sits! The punishment for avarice is no longer rendered silly, one cannot be content in pushing that stone. It is, as Dante says, a constant reminder of one’s greed in hoarding, and one’s greed in spending; it is a constant reminder of how one spent their life being the absurd-man.

Epic fail!

Considering the fact that there are things that are not necessarily logical, yet stand true, perhaps considering divine in one’s calculation is not so unreasonable, methinks. I believe this is what causes many people some angst, or perhaps some discomfort, when reading The Divine Comedy, something similar could actually be true!

EDIT: On a different, yet similar, note:

I recently read a blog about The Myth of Sisyphus. The blogger pointed out that this analogy used by Camus to illustrate the absurd-man is actually a faulty one. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate his thesis – and neither does what I wrote above – but while for us there may be a sort of absurdity in life, the unattainability of meaning, it is different for Sisyphus. His actions were decreed by the gods, the sinners in the Fourth Circle of Hell are served Justice by God, to push their stones. They had no choice in the matter, there is the establishment of a “higher purpose” in both of these cases.

Something to think about.

Incidentally, the aforementioned blog can be reached here: Review – The Myth of Sisyphus

Starting with casual readings of Albert Camus I have come to learn that one’s initial axioms determine their outlook and response to questions. I have also learned that all forms of trust in some religion is logical-suicide – there is a logical gap one must cross in order to believe: a leap-of-faith, as Kierkegaard once said. As such, the questions I have been asking myself and attempting to answer are the following: “Since Christianity is a belief-system [that is not based on logic], why do Christians exist? Is it pure defiance and frustration against logic, simply a blind trust that people exhibit when they convert? What makes Christianity so different (other than the obvious stories and differences in method of salvation)?”

I have been lead to these questions by studying my own stance on (let’s call it …) cosmology – the origin of the universe. If, as a scientist, I must accept stellar evolution as true (at least) then whatever view I had of the beginning of Genesis must be different than the most commonly held view, that is, the literal translation and interpretation. In a sense, I’m letting my outside views effect my analysis of the Bible, a big “no-no” of Biblical Exegesis; if I had not been a scientist and had not known of the intricacies of astrophysics, would I come to the same conclusion having read only Scripture? Probably not. “Then”, I asked myself, “what exactly is my stance on the way Scripture must be interpreted?” I don’t know. My objective is clear.

In attempting to understand Biblical Interpretation it became clear to me that I must first understand the Bible itself, how it came to be, why it is even considered the Word of God, etc… Biblical Interpretation depends on the Bible. Without understanding it I cannot hope to understand how to analyze it.

I set out to learn  and understand what I need with introductory sources. I began with what I knew, a simple publication by Loraine Boettner called The Inspiration of Scripture. At first, it was inadequate. He danced around the issue. He wrote about Biblical “proofs” and reasons to trust the inspiration of the Bible based on its own self-testimony (circumstantial evidence), showing how Biblical contradictions are actually not when viewed in light of their own contexts (circumstantial evidence), and that many scholars and historical figures affirmed its validity (circumstantial evidence). None of this was proof enough – I was beginning to conclude that here is where the aforementioned leap-of-faith must come in, it is an axiom that the Bible is God’s Word and that’s that! He then, near the very end of the publication said the following:

[Speaking about the aforementioned proofs]. But we simply wish to point out that these proofs which are relied upon so heavily by some are ineffective unless supplemented by the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.

Ah hah! That’s where the gap of logic is! I was reading, alongside this publication, a book I owned called Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen, late professor of theology at Priceton Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary. Even there Machen affirmed this same fact: what renders the Bible so important to believers that they will eschew logic is not frustration with it, but something else altogether: conscience!

The one consistent testimony (that at least I have heard) of the more honest and thoughtful Christians is that their conscience affirms something else within them. The Bible stirs oneself in a way that other writings don’t – it changes them in ways that other writings do not.

Machen warns (p.71 – 72), saying that these inner-stirrings (my words) alone are not enough. A religion it may be, but Christianity it is not. Christianity is based on an event, the crucifixion. External proofs, as Boettner calls them, are necessary, especially Biblical criticism (scholarly and otherwise) in order to secure the validity of one’s beliefs, to affirm cries of one’s conscience – to tie them to something else outside themselves. Otherwise, Christianity is no different than a New Age religion, or some form of mysticism.

This is unique to Christians, this is [partly] what makes them so different: the effect of the Bible on conscience combined with the fact that the Bible has certain claims outside of oneself.

What remains is to understand these claims, and the validity of the book, the Bible, itself. At least, before one may engage in understanding the incredibly huge, and largely unexplored, world of Biblical Interpretation.

EDIT: I recently opened up a book on Biblical Interpretation out of curiosity for what lies ahead. I was overwhelmed by the amount of scholarship needed to posit something… So, at least it is good to know that I am not alone, and that people out there [still] ask the same questions as I do, and that they care.

My personality-type is an INTP, a very introverted kind of personality that focuses on logic, discerning contradictions and inconsistencies. INTP’s are supposed to display great precision in thought and language (eh). Apparently, people of this type are usually good at math, philosophy, theoretical science, and make crappy writers and salespeople; no surprise there. 1% of the population (they say) fall into this category (16 personality-types total). This was the short description given to me after I took the test.

A longer description was what killed me. This guy who wrote the essay was essentially writing about me, and it was quite scary! (http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html). It gave a rundown of all my [perceived] strengths, my actual strengths, and (most scary) my weaknesses. It was one hell of a learning experience.

I didn’t know I could be stubborn! Confirmed by Katie, I get stubborn about random things, things I sometimes think are right, or things that I think should happen. I have to come to a solution to something all by my self before I admit to a course of action. I never thought of myself this way! I thought I was an easy-going, free-spirited guy!

Simple things like this that everyone else knew except for me caught me way off guard. I knew I gave things around me thought, and that I spend most of my time inside my head, even in public settings with friends, but I didn’t know people think I’m aloof and weird… well, I knew people thought of me as weird, but not ‘weird’ weird. I also discovered why people don’t laugh at my jokes, it’s because I leave out elements I don’t think are important, but others (of different personality-types) need more to go off of – also my jokes are “zany”.

I get many evaluations as a teaching assistant. A common theme amongst all of them is that I give too much information about something. I don’t think I do, nobody with an INTP personality-type does! But to everyone else certain things just aren’t important… I didn’t know! I thought I was genuinely helping!

I guess I need to process all of this in order to be a better TA, and a better friend…

I really do! Everywhere is crowded, everyones is busy, up to something, so much hustle and bustle, very cold. Families are agitated with each other because of the added stress of finding presents for each other, among other things. My family was particularly horrible. Lots of yelling, people not wanting to be there, extended family not being very nice and fun to be around, Christmas tree has to be “this way and not that”, constant fighting, yada yada, everyone’s familiar with this story.

I have been having some pretty peaceful post-finals pre-Christmases for a while now. I’ve been away at colleges, life is great(er). No yelling, no family, few friends: bliss. Everything is calmer away from home during Christmas. Normally people want to be in a warm house, fireplace lit, big dinner on the table, people all around. I love the relative solitariness I found myself in! Fireplace lit means someone’s gotta watch it, which means yelling at each other to sit by the fire and attend it; dinner on the table means we all must enjoy the same damn meal, saying the same three things to each other every year; people all around means more people to yell at you, more gossip to spread.

This year, it’s just me and my honey. We gave each other our presents. I usually have to like what I get at home, even if I don’t. I was made to feel guilt for not liking something. This year it was very nice, very pleasant. I got want I wanted, and things I wanted that I didn’t even know about! As a gag-gift I got thermals (omg, they’re so warm! I get cold too fast!). I got two books (<3), one by Camus (a collection) and one by Proust (his vol. 2) – I really wanted them. My computer, recently, has been acting up; I’ve been afraid of it dying on me and taking all my research with it. I couldn’t back anything up because my two external hard drives were stolen. My honey got me an external hard drive, which brought me a ton of relief! I didn’t realize how stressed out I was about losing all that data, not to mention all my anime!

I had gone to Los Angeles (where I’m from) for a bit a while ago. My sister and I went shopping. She got me some nicer looking clothes. I usually dress horribly. I’ve been trying to dress better in more professional settings, so I got some coats and better clothes, especially when I TA. My sister also hates being at home, so we try to get ourselves out and away as much as possible.

This time around, I actually enjoy spending time with people. Maybe I’m getting old, maybe I’m becoming a bit more normal, but there’s something nice about being with people you love, corny as it may sound. A guy could really get used to this sort of thing!

The Christmas season is definitely getting better for me. I used to dread December so much. Now, it’s not so bad! I still don’t like shopping too close to the 25th, and I don’t like driving around crowded areas either, but it’s kind of nice and pleasant with calmer people, loving people.