Feed on
Posts
Comments

UncleChestnutCover

  The Inconvenient Adventures of Uncle Chestnut, released May 29th, is a fictional work meant to introduce young readers to the worldview and larger-than-life personality of G.K. Chesterton.  Here is the product description from Amazon:

With Uncle Chestnut, the ordinary becomes extraordinary and every day is an adventure – whether you are chasing hats, babysitting, or just taking a day trip to the seaside. These humorous short stories of Uncle Chestnut introduce timeless truths and a refreshing perspective of the world, based on the life and works of G.K. Chesterton. Told through the eyes of his fictional nephew Jack, The Inconvenient Adventures of Uncle Chestnut introduces readers young and old to the writings of G.K. Chesterton, the British author whose prolific writing inspired C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Alfred Hitchcock, and others.

I truly hope that this book will be able to life up to its ambitious goal.  I haven’t read it yet (I just found out about it today), but I plan on it. 

I will consider this a failure if it “Mr. Chestnut” begins to get preachy, or if I catch even the faintest whiff of that unmistakably repugnant stench given off by moralizing. 

I think this book can be a success if it is able to capture even a small piece of the real personality of G.K.C.  If Nowak is able to accomplish, he will leave the reader with a view of life that is filled with both wonder and joy. 

Chesterton had the uncanny ability to make people see ordinary things as startling and miraculous (a viewpoint that is somewhat lacking in the world today).  Will Mr. Chestnut be able to do the same?  Who knows, but I think it will be worth finding out.  I’ll will let you know right after I finish this book!

            Side Note:  The one fictional character that I have found to be the closest match to the real life Chesterton is Albus Dumbledore.  I will not get into it here because I think such a statement deserves a full post.  I’ll just say that I don’t think I am completely off-base thinking so.  J.K.R is a member of the British Chesterton Society after all!

Bookmark and Share

Thematic Problems

If anyone should be happening to visit this site, my apologies for the constantly changing look/theme. Part of the reason why I started a blog in the first place was to learn about the back-end of a website and everything to do with widgets, plugins, etc. Anyway, as is apparent, I’ve yet to decide on what the page is going to look like, so for now expect several theme changes.

I guess that’s kinda appropriate because I also haven’t quite figured out what I’m going to be writing about either! Hopefully, it will all come together soon.

Bookmark and Share

Just as we are beginning to wrap our heads around the concepts and potential of web 2.0 technologies, we are already starting to hear about the promise of web 3.0 lurking on the horizton.  What exactly is web 3.0?  Well, we don’t exactly know yet because it isn’t here, but the basic goal for it is to give the world wide web the capability of understanding the meaning and context of human language and data.  In other words, at some point in the near future, you might be able to go onto Google (or whatever search platform dominates in this area) and type in something like the following: ”Where should I go to eat when I go visit my mother-in-law next week?”

We all know this search would be meaningless if we tried it know, but if semantics can be built into computer language and we put enough personal data onto the web, it is possible that asking the internet this question will be as useful as asking a trusted friend.

 Anyway, this site http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-explained/8908/ is a great (simple) description of the key differences between webs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.  Also, there are some very interesting presentation at the bottom of the page that you can click through.

Bookmark and Share

calvin

Bookmark and Share

Theodore the Studite

Pope Benedict gave his Papal Audience yesterday on St. Theodore the Studite.  Here’s a snippit of the English portion:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today’s catechesis on the life and teaching of Saint Theodore the Studite places us at the heart of the medieval Byzantine period. Born in 759 to a noble and pious family, Theodore entered the monastery at the age of twenty-two. He vigorously opposed the iconoclastic movement since, he argued, abolishing images of Christ entails a rejection of his work of redemption. Theodore also initiated a thorough reform of the disciplinary, administrative and spiritual aspects of monastic life. A particularly important virtue according to Theodore is philergia – the love of work – since diligence in material tasks indicates fervour in one’s spiritual duties. He even described work as a type of “liturgy”, asserting that the riches mined from it must be used to help the poor. The Studite’s Rule holds particular relevance for us today because it highlights the unity of faith and the need to resist the danger of spiritual individualism. May we heed Theodore’s summons to nurture the unity of the Body of Christ through well-ordered lives and by cultivating harmonious relationships with one another in the Holy Spirit.

Bookmark and Share

 

Black text below is G.K.C.

 

What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking. And it has this special and positive point about it, that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.  

 Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this–that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism.

Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad. All of us believe in St. Paul’s Cathedral; most of us believe in St. Paul. But let us clearly realize this fact, that we do believe in a number of things which are part of our existence, but which cannot be demonstrated. Leave religion for the moment wholly out of the question. All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable. Let us state them roughly.

  1. Every sane man believes that the world around him and the people in it are real, and not his own delusion or dream. No man starts burning London in the belief that his servant will soon wake him for breakfast. But that I, at any given moment, am not in a dream, is unproved and unprovable. That anything exists except myself is unproved and unprovable.
  2. All sane men believe that this world not only exists, but matters. Every man believes there is a sort of obligation on us to interest ourselves in this vision or panorama of life. He would think a man wrong who said, “I did not ask for this farce and it bores me. I am aware that an old lady is being murdered down-stairs, but I am going to sleep.” That there is any such duty to improve the things we did not make is a thing unproved and unprovable.
  3. All sane men believe that there is such a thing as a self, or ego, which is continuous. There is no inch of my brain matter the same as it was ten years ago. But if I have saved a man in battle ten years ago, I am proud; if I have run away, I am ashamed. That there is such a paramount “I” is unproved and unprovable. But it is more than unproved and unprovable; it is definitely disputed by many metaphysicians.
  4. Lastly, most sane men believe, and all sane men in practice assume, that they have a power of choice and responsibility for action.

Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought.

 

  Back to me:

I think that one of the most productive things you can ever do is trace some idea that you believe to be true backwards as far as you can possibly go.  It helps if the idea is based in sound and rational reasoning – like an idea that social and economic justice is a responsibility (or something like that).  You eventually arrive at your first principles – which as Chesterton says – are ideas that are unproved and unprovable.  These things you accept as your first principles are your “philosophy of the universe” and they are important to know if you want to think clearly.  This is especially true because there are many schools of thought, popular ideas, and trends out there that, if traced backwards (or forwards) to their natural conclusion, arrive at very different and opposing first principles.

You may choose your first principles how you like, but it is necessary to understand that all of your reasoned thinking after that is build upon these unprovable principles.  That is why all the talk about a tension between faith and reason is such gibberish.  Reason depends on faith because faith is the ground upon which reason stands.  (Note, I am not here talking about a specifically religious faith at all.)  Without these unprovable first principles, which act like anchors, all reasoned thought would be isolated and groundless.  Regardless of how intricately built the argument is, it would be nothing more than a castle in the clouds.

All of this used to be generally known to everyone, but it is a truism that has largely been forgotten since philosophy and religion left the schoolroom.  We need to know our first principles because, as Chesterton says, “before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about.”  Imagine how much more productive political debates would be if people practiced this?

Anyway, notice that in his 4 points at the end, he brilliantly covers almost all of the major schools of thought prevalent today:

 1. Buddhism, Hinduism, and some forms of New Ageism. 

2.  Nihilism, and Atheism (the philosophy not the people).

3.  Pantheism, buddhism, some spiritualists.

4.  Materialism, deconstructionism, extreme Calvinism, strict evolutionism, atheism.

 

 
Bookmark and Share

Bill Watterson painted the world through the eyes of an adventureous and irrepressive 6-year old boy and, thus, his work is a treasure trove of humor, wisdom, and joy.

Here is an example of how he was also ahead of his time.

Continue Reading »

Bookmark and Share

Angels and Demons

I haven’t gone to see Angels and Demons yet, but I can’t wait to.  It looks like it will be very entertaining. 

I have, however, kept an eye open for the usual and tired old accusations about a supposed tension between the Church and science, or the Church covering up some huge scandal, or witholding an embarassing truth.  I have been pleased to find that most coverage has been rather mild and that the only real spurious reviews I have seen have been on a few of the harsher atheistic blogs that I follow.

On the more positive side I found a delightful little interview on Zenit (which can be found here) where Father Wauck makes the rather interesting point that much of why the book is so fascinating to people is simply that the world is fascinated by the Catholic Church (whether they love it or hate it) because the Church is quite unlike anything else in the world.

He goes on to say the following, “If you’re fascinated by history, beauty, and sacred mysteries, it’s hard not to be fascinated by the Church. Standing in St. Peter’s Square, you’ve got, within a few hundred yards, a Roman necroplis, an ancient Egyptian obelisk brought to Rome by Caligula, the tomb of St. Peter, the site of the assassination attempt on his successor Pope John Paul II, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the Pieta by Michelangelo, the Raphael Rooms, Bernini’s colonnade, the world’s greatest basilica, and pilgrims from around the globe. And this isn’t a museum. It’s a living reality that puts us in direct contact with 20 centuries of history — from ancient times to today.”

I’ve been sensing for a long time now that we are on the brink of a Catholic revival although it is very tough for me to express why.  Perhaps this is partly it though.  The Church is really the only institution left in the world that has experienced virtually everything in the world (and held tight to that history).  It has produced a culture that contains nearly everything and yet each separate branch (art, science, history, etc.) is connected and infused with more meaning than it could possibly have on its own if it becomes isolated. 

We live in a world where each of us is supposed to specialize in something.  We become experts at one particular truth.  Some egoist tend to elevate their idea of truth at the expense of all others and don’t even seem to realize that they have monochromatic lenses over their eyes.  But, most people are humble enough to realize that they don’t know everything.  There are so  many facts and so much information out there which always seems to be competing and contradicting that it is easy to end in despair.  Which truth are you supposed to believe?  Thursday’s truth or Friday’s truth?  The economists’ truth or the politicians’ truth?  I think part of the reason that people are becoming attracted to the Church is that it is one of the few places where all truth is welcome and all of it is related.

See, I still can’t say what I mean.  None of that came out right.

Bookmark and Share

 

image from wikipedia

The concept of the long-tail is very interesting, although it is something that I know next to nothing about.  Oh well.  I’m going to write about it anyway.  Please excuse the very incomplete thoughts that follow.

So, for the last 200 or so years, it has seemed that one of the things that goes hand-in-hand with Capitalism  is the trend of businesses getting bigger and bigger (and more influential - think lobbyists).  Inevitably, in competitive environments, someone is going to win.  Given enough time, it usually ends up that as few as 2 or 3 companies will control about 70 percent of the total market for any given product.  One of the downsides of this is that large companies, in order to make money, will mass-produce their products (economies of scale).  So, the products that these large companies promote end up being the only products that people consider.  (I think this is too much control.  I don’t like it.)

What ends of happening is that the desires of consumers end up forming a Poisson Distribution (pictured above).  A good example of this is with movie rentals.  There are thousands of movies available to rent, but it always ends up happening that it is only a few movies (usually new releases) that people focus on.  The vertical axis of the curve is the demand for a particular movie measured in probability of it being rented.  Thus, the total area of the curve is 1 (or 100%).  The horizontal axis represents all of the movies available to rent (each one getting a point along the axis).  So, the area that is shaded in green is saying that only a few movies account for a large percentage of the demand.  The yellow region contains the majority of the movies out there, but each one only has a small amount of demand.

Now, traditionally, companies focus their efforts on producing and delivering only those product in the green area.  This makes sense because they would not stay in business otherwise.  It would be too expensive to produce everything that people could possibly want knowing that most things will be purchased by only a few people.

Enter technology.

For the first time in history, companies like Amazon and Netflix have been able to capitalize on the long-tail (the yellow region of the Poisson Distribution).  3 things converge to make this possible: 1. advanced analytical tools that instantly track inventory (so companies are able to store exactly what they need and no more), 2. centralized warehouses that can quickly deliver to decentralized consumers, and (most importantly) 3. algorithms that are able to assess each consumers individual preferences and recommend products that they might like.

Since everyone has unique tastes, all of a sudden these companies are selling a ton of traditionally low-demand items without getting killed with wasteful production and inventory costs.  Moreover, customers are happy because they are finding things online that are suited to their tastes, but that they can’t find anywhere else!  Big business (which normally brings to mind cookie-cutter style mass production) can now act like a store created specifically for each customer by capturing the long-tail.

I think its wonderful.  It’s like introducing democracy to business by giving everyone a vote that counts.

Bookmark and Share

Mint.com

I just had to write a paper for class analyzing the business model of a web-based company of our choice.  In the search, I stumbled across Mint.com.  Talk about a great business model! Essentially they track, organize, analyze and present to you everything you need to know about your complete financial situation and it is completely free to use (which is great because they will be able to build a huge user community).

By affiliating themselves with nearly every bank and financial company out there, they are able to keep track of all of your assets (debit card, credit card, investments, stocks, 401k).  They categorize all of your spending so that you know how much of your income is going to rent, food, clothes, etc. and assist you in creating a budget.  They help you manage your debt and will alert you when your payments are due.  They keep you constantly up to date on the status of your investments and tell you how you compare to the industry standards.  And, finally, they use algorithms to deduce how you prefer to handle your money (whether you tend to pay off all your credit cards in full each month vs. keeping a balance, whether you keep your money in a bank or in the market, etc.).  With the knowledge obtained from the algorithms, they search through all of the offers out there and recommend certain things that might be able to save you money.  For example, if you don’t like to keep a balance on your credit card they might offer you a card that focuses more on benefits like frequent flier miles rather than one that specializes in low interest rates.

I think its a good business model because they provide value, not only to their users, but also to the financial agencies that they recommend.  It’s a nice win-win.

This is how they make their money by the way.  If you do decide to act on one of the recommended offers (e.g. switch credit cards), they charge the credit card company a fee for their service.  I don’t know if the money they make this way will be enough to cover their expenses, but I think they provide enough value to enough people where they will be able to tap into additional revenue streams in the future.  For instance, once their user community has reached a critical mass, they could probably start charging a modest yearly subscription fee.  It wouldn’t have to be much considering they already have about 5 million users and it will most likely jump to about 20 or 30 million soon.  You do the math.  Or they could charge fees for additional services.

Either way, I thought it was a very interesting business.  I wonder if such financial algorithms will eventually eliminate the need for financial planners?  To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised.  Analytical tools are becoming more complex and more comprehensive all the time.

I also wonder if services like these (that greatly simplify the complex task of managing your money) along with the new “Credit Card Bill of Rights” (which should make offerings more straight-forward), have the potential to really help the entire country to be more fiscally responsible in the future.  Maybe?

Bookmark and Share

Older Posts »