Beautiful

There is a fantastic song that I managed to imbed not here but on a blog I do as part of my work (a work which I will no longer be working at after this week--new job). ANYWAY, go to this link http://arringtonroofing.com/Roofer-Blog/job-photos/ and find the link that is entitled "Banjo Moon." It is a fantastic, fantastic song.

Found these.

Terrible Poetry Jokes.

BY PETER LaVELLE

- - - -

A man, a woman, and a blackbird walk into a bar. "Table for one, please," they say.

- - - -

Byron walks into a bar. He has sex with everyone in the bar.

- - - -

Milton, Homer and Borges walk into a bar. Milton says: "Who the fuck put this bar here?"

- - - -

Wordsworth and Coleridge are watching the Lakers game. They can't get service at the crowded bar. Coleridge smiles and says to Wordsworth: "Lager, lager everywhere, and I can't get a drink." Wordsworth says to Coleridge: "I have pleurisy."

- - - -

Rimbaud, Bukowski, and Dylan Thomas walk into a bar. They are promptly thrown out.

- - - -

A horse walks into a bar where Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound are drinking.

BARTENDER (to horse): Why the long face?

WHITMAN (to everyone): I, too, am a horse.

POUND (to Whitman): Shut the fuck up.

Coming Soon...

I am in the midst of listening to some music that I think we all should hear, I will have more on that soon.

The latest issue of Pequod was fantastic and came, as it always seems to, at the perfect time.  With kind and sincere regard to Mr. Neu's outrageous and inflammatory assertion that I judge people based on what they write in The Pequod....I do not deny it.

I baked cookies tonight.

I had a fever last night.

Also, look for in the near future an amazing new thing that I will explain how to use later.

Today in class one of my 9th grader students asked how Chaucer could be so dirty, given that it was written such a long time ago.

cheerily, PB

Dr. Rosemann's on Wikipedia

Don't trash Wikipedia as a pseudo-academic forum until you read Dr. Rosemann's delightful wikipedia article on a neighborhood not too far away from my office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynnewood_(Dallas,_Texas)

I Know this is a Purely Academic Forum but...

Is anyone in town for Groundhog? There is an Alumni contingency forming.

Poem Typography

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Hi friends, I saw this on First Things and it made me think of many of you and thought I would share.

Responding to the Relativism of the Street

This is the first draft of an article I'm writing for De Rebus, an intraseminary publication on culture and politics. Yes, I'm part of the editing staff. Yes, I'll probably run it next year.

Responding to the Relativism of the Street

Joshua M. Neu

With regards to the relativism rampant in our culture, there are at root two distinct types: the relativism of the scholar and the relativism of the street. Of course, both may be divided and subdivided into their constituent doctrines and adherents, but that more or less does it. The relativism of the scholar, most prevalent in the universities, boasts a wide variety of pedants and ne’er-do-wells, from A. J. Ayer with his heady doctrine of emotivism to Friedrich Nietzsche who supposes that truth is woman whom each man must lure away, but the particularities of these views relate little to the baker, the butcher, or the newspaper delivery boy. No, the relativism of the street, that is, of the man-in-the-street, is much less thought out, and perhaps, therefore, much more honest. As it is on this man that the wheels of our day-to-day culture turn, so it is to this man that the Catholic-in-the-street must respond. With that in mind, I will tease out what it is that the man-in-the-street actually believes and offer a response, constraining myself to comment only on relativism applied to religion, rather than ethics or some other category.

The conversation between the Catholic-in-the-street and his fellow man usually runs a bit like this:

Relativist: “You cannot tell me what to believe. All truth is relative.”

Catholic: “The claim that all truth is relative is a claim about absolute truth.”

Relativist: “But some things are true for me, whereas others are true for you.”

Catholic: “Truth is not merely relative or subjective. You claim that there is a truth, namely that ‘all truth is relative,’ which is true regardless who believes it. In doing so, you both contradict your claim and show that you believe in some sort of absolute truth.”

Usually, the relativist remains unconvinced, while the Catholic walks away mumbling about the principle of non-contradiction and wondering how someone could be so obstinate. It seems that they might as well have had two different conversations. I contend that, for all practical purposes, they did.

The man-in-the-street maintains an unspoken premise, one which he may never have thought through. He believes that truths regarding religion are essentially unknowable. Since it is unknowable, religion is a way of organizing one’s experience, coping, or imparting meaning to one’s life. Therefore the man-in-the-street uses the word “truth” in two ways. The first is exactly as the Catholic means the word in the above conversation—as Aristotle says, “To say that [either] that which is is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is is and that which is not is not, is true.”[1] The second way is that a truth is a belief about that which cannot be known, for the purpose of organizing the believer’s experience, coping, or imparting meaning to the believer’s life. With this hidden distinction, the man-in-the-street can claim that truth is relative and go on unscathed by the Catholic claim that there is an absolute truth.

In a certain sense, the man-in-the-street is correct. Religious truth as such cannot be known through reason. It is known through faith, and faith is a supernatural virtue that is a gift from the personal God who reveals Himself in Jesus Christ. Faith is primarily the belief in a person, not in a set of propositions—crédere in Deum rather than crédere quod Deus sit. This, however, does not justify fideism. The propositions, such as that purgatory exists or that the universe is not founded on an infinite series of causes, are quite important, but they are only knowable through believing in Him who reveals. Were it not the case that God is Who He says He is, then the man-in-the-street would be correct about all religious truths. All would be of the second sort, wanderings through a dark wood while refusing to awaken to life’s essential tragedy.

Is it, then, the case that there is “[n]othing to be done,” as Estragon would like us to believe while he and the man-in-the-street await the arrival of Godot, whether that figure is a person or nothing at all?[2] Of course not, but although intellectual debate of nuanced propositions can be helpful for conversion, the Catholic tradition has always recognized that the Holy Spirit is the one who works, converting the soul to the person of Jesus Christ. In every age of the Church, the Holy Spirit commissions this work to witnesses, beginning with the primary witnesses, the martyrs. One has to wonder if Our Lord allowed Stephen to die just so that Paul could see it happen and have the passing thought that Christ might in fact be Who He says He is.

Augustine arrives only a few centuries later, and as Christ is the archetype for all the martyrs, Augustine may be an archetypical convert. Even Augustine, an intellectual next to Christians like Gulliver hovering over Lilliput, was inspired not by argument so much as by a witness, for example, the life of St. Anthony the Great. Through his well-tuned rhetoric, Augustine’s very Confessions encourage us to follow Christ with Augustine himself as witness.

The Catholic must demonstrate that the truth of the Catholic faith is a truth in the primary sense of the term, and that demonstration is one not of propositions but of martyrdom. The priest or religious primarily submits this proof because all aspects of his life flow from and lead toward the person of Jesus Christ. When truly all aspects of his life are so directed, no one can deny that the religious claim is one of absolute truth. Such an all-encompassing devotion cannot be confused with a belief for the purpose of organizing the believer’s experience, coping, or imparting meaning to the believer’s life. No man is celibate in order to cope. The response to relativism is what all Catholic responses essentially have been, martyrdom for the person of Jesus Christ, in whom the martyr believes as absolute truth.

---

[1] Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b26

[2] Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, I. 1.

---

[1] Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b26

[2] Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

Practice vs. Theory

Is anything without the underpinning of theory?  What is the role of theory in education?  Ought one to teach theory before or after practice?  Many actions can be executed without formal theoretical knowledge: fighting for example can be known theoretically, yet one can still win a fight without formal martial training.  It seems to be the same in Fine Arts--from my own experience.  I was never trained to do art formally until college; however, I was a proficient artist before then.  I am wondering, which comes first practice or theory?  With regard to a pedagogical model, it seems to me one could either begin with the theory behind something (how to draw in perspective for example) and then say, "now go do that," or one could have them actually practice and perhaps succeed (at drawing in perspective) and then tell them, "what you were doing was this thing called perspective."  But which is more beneficial?  Does anyone have a handy dandy Aristotle quote, or an experience with this?  I guess it could also depend on the circumstances, but for the practice of art.  The idea is to literally create an abstraction of reality that attempts to conform to reality.  So is it better to know tricks of the trade if it were or is it better to do it the other way.  I have one student who knowing the laws of perspective has no ability to draw anything unless he can put it in a plane.  But the human figure isn't in perspective, so he can only draw things that look very mechanical.  I wonder how he would do with abstraction.  If he didn't have perspective it may be that he would actually have to look at the world closer, but now I'm just rambling.  So my question again, which do you have them know or do first?  Or is it a bit of both?  I usually will start with the theory and then have them practice the theory in specific ways.  That is working for some, but others have a hard time digesting the theory.  I would greatly appreciate any philosophically based answers, as this is somewhat a philosophy of education question.

Cheers,

Peter

New Project

Greetings,

In light of this Labor Day Weekend, I have decided to begin a new labor, another project.

I want to create a series of paintings that have a common theme, I am going to be working with portraiture, which is something that I have little experience with. So far I want there to be a common theme running throughout the paintings. I want to do a study of facial expressions of wonder, amazement, delight, thoughtfulness, and/or contemplation.

I have a few photographs that I will be working with; here they are. I am in the very beginning stages of brainstorming, thus be not quick to judge. Also, Misko is not going to be in every one, he just happened to be in some of the ones I chose. If you have a good photograph, I would love to see it! I will begin sketching out some of these, and then begin to do oil paintings of them.

Also, at the bottom is a "Josh Neu Face" by Joe Amorella from our 2006 Greece Trip.

More News of the Life and Times of Joshua Neu

Go to the website to check out a news story...
http://www.fox6now.com/witi-090223-hartford-chase-update,0,5177352.story
Apparently, I was in Hartford last February.

I think I've started to bilocate.


By the way, the other day, I drove downtown and bought a cassock. Then I ate at Burger King. It was awesome. Unfortunately, they don't sell Texas Double Whoppers in Philly. So it's not always sunny in Philadelphia.

A reponse to Peter Kane's fun question

The short answer is no.

Now for the long answer. And just so you know, I may stick on some clarifications or points that don't seem all that significant to everyone, but I think there are a lot of places to get confused on this question.

There are multiple questions to consider. The first question regards the participation in evil. Clearly Peter already recognized this issue when he wrote that "publicly funding a direct (and direct is an important word in this) action such as abortion seems to put citizens in a more morally culpable role." He is right to say that "direct" is an important word here, but it is unclear what this term "direct" means in this case. He uses the phrase "direct action," which, as far I can tell, would normally refer to the activity of the abortionist. Since, however, the abortionist already directly kills the fetus, I do not think we can make that action any more direct. I am pretty sure you could rephrase his statement as "the government uses taxpayer's money to support abortion directly."

Now hang on for the ride as I change the terms some more. Usually when a Catholic attempts to engage in a higher level of ethics or moral theology, he begins using the term "direct" in a particular way, namely, in reference to the principle of double effect, in which one must distinguish between direct and indirect effects. If that were the crucial point in this question, then I think our paying taxes would have an indirect effect. But the principle of double effect is not the crucial point. Directness in this case has to do with immediacy or proximity. What we have here is the question regarding the proximate versus the remote participation/cooperation with evil.

The first distinction we need to make when we consider the cooperation with evil is whether the cooperation is material or formal. Material cooperation is basically the being connected with or related to some aspect of the evil by one of our own actions. (E.g. In Nazi Germany, wicked doctors performed heinous experiments upon some of the prisoners. One of the experiments involved freezing human beings until they died in order to determine in what temperatures the human body could sustain life. That's pretty messed up. If a researcher were to use the data collected by the Nazis to create a gear that would allow an human being to stay alive in such conditions, say for scientific research in Antarctica, that is a material cooperation. It's uncomfortable, but I don't think it would be intrinsically evil.) The second aspect of cooperation with evil is formal cooperation. Basically, the question here is about intention. What is the intent of the cooperation with evil? (For the researcher, he would have formal cooperation if he saw himself as carrying out the activity of the Nazi doctors, or some such thing.) A formal cooperation with evil is impermissible.

I think most if not all people that are part of this blog do not intend to aid the abortion of human beings by paying their taxes, so I do not think there is a formal cooperation. At this point, we must determine when a material cooperation with evil is permissible or impermissible. This is were remoteness and proximity come into play. When one's cooperation directly produces the evil effect, it is proximate/immediate/direct. When one's cooperation indirectly produces the evil effect, it is remote/mediate/indirect. There is, however, a sort of spectrum of cooperation from being completely proximate and immediate to being utterly remote and mediate. (E.g. In Lost, when the boy Ecko kills the person, helping the drug lords instill fear into the townspeople, he is cooperating in evil in a completely proximate and immediate way. On the other hand, knowing that the Dallas Cowboys franchise supports Planned Parenthood [jeez, who doesn't?], were a person to go over to a friend's house, be offered a cup of coffee, agree to have one, receive the cup in Dallas Cowboys mug, and then actually drink from the Dallas Cowboys mug, that's about as remote/mediate as it gets.)

It seems to me that paying taxes to the United States goverment, which would in turn fund abortions, would be somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. Though it would be more proximate than our current participation in evil--we already pay taxes to a goverment that actively defends a wicked violation of basic human rights--I do not think that would necessarily make the taxpayer culpable.

There are a few more considerations that we will help us determine the right way of thinking. First off, we are required make our material cooperation as remote as possible. So, all things being equal, we support/engage/utilize whatever is most remotely related to evil. (If the researcher had data from other experiments to find out the temperature a human body can withstand, that would be better to use.) In this case, there are only 2 options: either (a) you pay your taxes and somewhat remotely, somewhat proximately cooperate in a grave evil, or (b) you don't.

In this case, however, not all other things are equal. We have a grave reason to pay our taxes as well as to minimize our material cooperation with evil. We must pay our taxes because of both the natural law--"Man is a political animal"--and divine command--"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." This is not like going to a coffee shop that supports abortion versus going to one that does not. Ethically speaking, you don't have to drink coffee. But you do have to pay your taxes. And remember, sometimes Caesar was a bad dude.

So no, in this case, I do not think it is makes sense for an individual to evade his taxes into order to avoid the somewhat remote/somewhat proximate participation in the evil of abortion. I do not think the individual is obligated to do so, nor do I think it is permissible in this case.

-Josh
P.S. Thanks, Peter, for the opportunity to word-vomit pedantically all over this blog.

An Ethical Question

I have a conundrum for someone like Mr. Neu. If this Health Care Reform Bill passes, and tax dollars will go to health care, and since abortion falls under health "care" in this place, should I pay my taxes?

Now it could be argued that the government does all sorts of dirty-nasties with our money; however, publicly funding a direct (and direct is an important word in this) action such as abortion seems to put citizens in a more morally culpable role. Thoughts anyone? Could/should you evade taxes given such a bill?

ALERT: Josh Neu face not that original!!!

This picture was taken freshman year (January of 2006) in Phoenix before we'd truly discovered (definitely before Laura knew) the "Josh Neu face."
Laura's use of this specific facial expression is certainly a proud statement of how cool she is --this being our first experience with beer-for-breakfast.

(Location: Laura Junkers house)

I'd like to know if anyone else has proof to support my contention that the "Josh Neu Face" is not that original.

Hope I haven't dissappointed you, but I'm just sayin...