If you guessed title for a college paper, you nailed it. And, of course you did because no-one but uni students comes up with titles as precious as that.
Yah, and get this: I got an A on it (larfs). It was a serious paper in one of the requirements for my ol' Dad's "Dimensions of Death" course but it's incumbent on any college kid to come up with a precious title to ridicule it with as many contradictions as possible. If you're carefully modulating the limelight then it's not at all a sign of indifference.
Maestro, rim shot, please.
This was one from earlier which I did not use as (cough) I still do it. This was to be a response to the Cloying Cabal of Clods from the atheist battalion with "The Twittering Twaddle of Terpsichorean Twerps." Since the response would be propagated out to Twitter, it's just more twittering twaddle in which almost everything out there is a fast dance with the facts.
The "Dimensions of Death" gets an immediate charge of morbidity but that wasn't even close to the focus of the class and, regrettably, the manuscript was a paper copy because he had not yet submitted it for publication and ultimately never did. It was a one-quarter class so we will skip the three months of discussion to get to the punchline: everything dies.
(Ed: what about stars?)
Supernova
(Ed: what about atoms?)
Physicists haven't found anything yet which they couldn't smash in a collider
The cyclical nature to things in that is fundamental the philosophy here and it's not that everything dies but rather everything goes around. When a star explodes, the bits go to make another one. When the atoms are smashed, the bits go to do who knows what but they don't die so much as come to different existence within something else in collusion with whatever other bits are floating about.
That cyclic nature is the Big Wheel which keeps on turning and perhaps you think it's only piffle but, just as my ol' Dad, we present it and you do whatever you like with it. Perhaps it seems Christians try to obviate the cycle with Heaven but we don't see that as our understanding is Christians may expect whatever they do in Heaven but they don't expect it to be like this. Therefore, that's the start of another cycle rather than a continuation of this one.
(Ed: word dancing!)
Perhaps. That's your call ain't it. Be careful with that carefully-modulated limelight ... and also the axe, Eugene.
(Ed: you're only copying your Dad!)
Perhaps but I see it as something I learned and appreciate from him. Some of the sibs think whatever they will of his thinking and seem possibly to think more came from our ol' Mother but I feel both of them in me and I'm proud of that. Their contributions were quite different but no less impactful in what I believe.
For example, my ol' Mother often sang "Que Sera, Sera" while she cooked in the kitchen in Australia and that's just a song, right? The next line is 'whatever will be, will be' and the connection to what my ol' Father was saying in the class years later seems clear to me. We don't always know what the bits will be after something blows up but we always know they will become something. That aspect wasn't a focus of the class so much as everything dies but the inevitable question is then what?
The biggest lesson for me is the extension of the general thinking of the class. If you're not willing to look at everything then you will never learn anything.
This has been an evolving thought as I went all gonzo on Lotho when he first started saying openly he believes. In other words, I was a complete asshole but thinking evolves and that became part of everything is everything as well. Apologizing is senseless because if my words already don't say it then a cheap apology doesn't amount to anything now. There's nothing in what I say or write which denies the existence of some type of God and that's not in deference to him but whatever I glean from the sum of what I have read; there is no logical reason to deny the fundamental existence and there's no point in playing games with the words after the fact because none of them contradict the fundamental premise.
The above isn't what he said but rather what I take from it and that still doesn't tell you what to believe which I've said repeatedly is your call. The aspect of your call is definitely from him and I will honor him endless for leaving it to ourselves to make such decisions for ourselves. He handled Lotho's revelation one hell of a lot better than I and major high five to him for that.
Yah, and get this: I got an A on it (larfs). It was a serious paper in one of the requirements for my ol' Dad's "Dimensions of Death" course but it's incumbent on any college kid to come up with a precious title to ridicule it with as many contradictions as possible. If you're carefully modulating the limelight then it's not at all a sign of indifference.
Maestro, rim shot, please.
This was one from earlier which I did not use as (cough) I still do it. This was to be a response to the Cloying Cabal of Clods from the atheist battalion with "The Twittering Twaddle of Terpsichorean Twerps." Since the response would be propagated out to Twitter, it's just more twittering twaddle in which almost everything out there is a fast dance with the facts.
The "Dimensions of Death" gets an immediate charge of morbidity but that wasn't even close to the focus of the class and, regrettably, the manuscript was a paper copy because he had not yet submitted it for publication and ultimately never did. It was a one-quarter class so we will skip the three months of discussion to get to the punchline: everything dies.
(Ed: what about stars?)
Supernova
(Ed: what about atoms?)
Physicists haven't found anything yet which they couldn't smash in a collider
The cyclical nature to things in that is fundamental the philosophy here and it's not that everything dies but rather everything goes around. When a star explodes, the bits go to make another one. When the atoms are smashed, the bits go to do who knows what but they don't die so much as come to different existence within something else in collusion with whatever other bits are floating about.
That cyclic nature is the Big Wheel which keeps on turning and perhaps you think it's only piffle but, just as my ol' Dad, we present it and you do whatever you like with it. Perhaps it seems Christians try to obviate the cycle with Heaven but we don't see that as our understanding is Christians may expect whatever they do in Heaven but they don't expect it to be like this. Therefore, that's the start of another cycle rather than a continuation of this one.
(Ed: word dancing!)
Perhaps. That's your call ain't it. Be careful with that carefully-modulated limelight ... and also the axe, Eugene.
(Ed: you're only copying your Dad!)
Perhaps but I see it as something I learned and appreciate from him. Some of the sibs think whatever they will of his thinking and seem possibly to think more came from our ol' Mother but I feel both of them in me and I'm proud of that. Their contributions were quite different but no less impactful in what I believe.
For example, my ol' Mother often sang "Que Sera, Sera" while she cooked in the kitchen in Australia and that's just a song, right? The next line is 'whatever will be, will be' and the connection to what my ol' Father was saying in the class years later seems clear to me. We don't always know what the bits will be after something blows up but we always know they will become something. That aspect wasn't a focus of the class so much as everything dies but the inevitable question is then what?
The biggest lesson for me is the extension of the general thinking of the class. If you're not willing to look at everything then you will never learn anything.
This has been an evolving thought as I went all gonzo on Lotho when he first started saying openly he believes. In other words, I was a complete asshole but thinking evolves and that became part of everything is everything as well. Apologizing is senseless because if my words already don't say it then a cheap apology doesn't amount to anything now. There's nothing in what I say or write which denies the existence of some type of God and that's not in deference to him but whatever I glean from the sum of what I have read; there is no logical reason to deny the fundamental existence and there's no point in playing games with the words after the fact because none of them contradict the fundamental premise.
The above isn't what he said but rather what I take from it and that still doesn't tell you what to believe which I've said repeatedly is your call. The aspect of your call is definitely from him and I will honor him endless for leaving it to ourselves to make such decisions for ourselves. He handled Lotho's revelation one hell of a lot better than I and major high five to him for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment