Posted by kevin m daley on 04/04/10

Happy easter!

It is perhaps important that I establish first the intent of my discourse; namely, to address claims of divine intervention from a faithful but somewhat critical perspective; and to scrutinize, openly and with some rigor, the sincerity of more organized faiths; and to provoke discussion in that regard, to whatever extent seasonally appropriate.
Today's evangelical movement has, in its generally sound motive (the spread of the common, universal message to whoever will listen, endowing its title with strong aptitude), been charged with falsely promoting the search for obvious divine intervention at the visible scale and immediate scope. Likewise, its emphasis on lay rediscovery of the most fundamental pillars of Christian theology presents to many newcomers an impenetrable barrier of inanity to understanding the true taxonomy and proper justification of the basest subjects of devotion.

This erratic god-speak---this rote naming and mistaken, mystified locating of the omnipresent Spirit as if in stupor---defies the rational confidence typical of traditional Christian thought, and begs a question: are the religious masses searching blindly for the apparition of Christ? Perhaps there is, embedded in some sects even of the very religious, a reductionist element. That is to say, the likening of metaphysical objects of observations---experiences, reactions, and so forth---to mere sequences of physical matter, so that God exists too in all thoughts, actions, and words. In sum, a violent erasure of sin and punishment and its replacement with a transcendent Christianity, in which actions have no consequence and thoughts bear no meaning, so there is only happiness to speak of.

If this is the case, it would justify tenfold the predicament of modern Christianity, taken to its more popular extremum: that is, the blissfully selective moral perception allowing, among other things, the characterization of common, mundane occurrences as "divine intervention" while the obvious injustice or immorality of others is simply removed from focus. This conflicts with Paul's wisdom regarding charity, mirroring the rabbinical teachings of Christ: namely, those placing it chief among earthly virtues and characterizing it as selfless, tireless, unprejudiced and unrelenting. A blindness to, or exclusion of, those things which present immediate obstacles to the honest and righteous exchange of empathy must therefore be considered blunt passive aggression against the crux of all humanist virtue and regarded with intense ideological hatred.

And yet it is this very blindness which, at the opposite end of the spectrum, garners Christians of intense and well-intended faith in the organized exclusion of apocryphal claims of intervention the spine of less civil critics whose intent is to replace organized theology with a "rational" devotion to Carl Popper's positivism---that is, they would have us kneel to the God of the machine. While such a debate is clearly beyond current scope, it indirectly calls into question the sincerity of these organizations whose primary enemy---the corruption of the soul warned of in Matthew 10:28---is, as it grows, leading schoolchildren to a secularized faith in social engineering and countless adults to an unmotivated bitterness, impervious to their ministry? It would be understandable if the countless Catholic and Anglican communities attempted---and failed---to provide competitive private education and nonprofit outreach to the truly poor-- those perfectly content in a socialized wasteland, unmotivated to seek the true freedom promised by selfless charity in the name of faith. And yet these very organizations, in their support for unwieldy taxation, impossible foreign aid strategies, socialist reform, dangerous immigration policy and the fascism of public education, have turned against their existential mandate and continue to outsource their supposedly god-given power to the leviathan state.

It is in reaction to this tragic departure from resurrection that my Lenten reflection has led me to resume my rational pursuit of the true nature of individual freedom. Let today be remembered as the philosophical return of the infinite and infinitely reciprocal exchange of charity; the telescoping freedom which, sustained by the defiance of our will to meaninglessness, is revered as Lord and in turn provides us sustenance. And instead of a ritual and unnecessary celebration of this barely-nameable entity, we can and must channel ourselves into Its continued growth.

Posted 04/10/10 Ike Hall Clarkston, GA

Thank you for your article. I have talked to people who believe that natural rights are simply not possible without a belief in a Creator. While I tend to disagree, and view our rights as simply due to our nature as acting beings, I am sympathetic to the argument. Perhaps the question of the existence of a Creator is best left to the philosophers, but should be assumed by those working for Liberty.

Posted by kevin m daley on 02/11/10

reposting for ease of access. Previously in comments; nothing new here.

Alice In Wonderland---Lewis Caroll
Through the Looking Glass--Lewis Caroll
The Wind in the Willows---Kenneth Grahame
The Holy Bible
The Baghavad-Gita
Kinder- und Hausmärchen---Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Matilda---Roald Dahl
The Jungle Book---Rudyard Kipling
The Three Musketeers---Alexandre Dumas
Kidnapped!/Treasure Island---R.L. Stephenson
Moby Dick---Hermann Melville
Macbeth---William Shakespeare
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy---John Tolkien
The Odyssey---Homer, trans. Stanley Lombardo
Inferno---Dante Alighieri, trans. Stanley Lombardo
Beowulf---(anon). trans Seamus Heaney
Immortal Poems of the English Language---ed. Oscar Williams

The entire english Wikipedia
precalculus mathematics in a nutshell--George F. Simmons
Calculus with Analytic Geometry---George F. Simmons
What is Mathematics?--Richard Courant
Mathematics: Its Content, Methods and Meaning--Andrey N. Kolmogorov

The mathematical theory of communication, by Claude Shannon
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science
The Practice of Programming---Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike
The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 1--Donald Knuth
Six Easy Pieces---Richard Feynman
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1---Richard Feynman.
Six not-so-easy pieces---Richard Feynman.
A Brief History of Time---Stephen Hawking.
The Road to Reality--Roger Penrose.
General Chemistry---Linus Pauling
Genome--Matt Ridley

Human Action---Ludwig von Mises
Ten Philosophical Mistakes--Mortimer Adler
Man, Economy, and State---Murray Newton Rothbard
Democracy: the God that Failed---Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Common Sense---Thomas Paine

Any additions?  Replacements?  Suggestions?  Please feel free to comment.

Posted 02/11/10 LizLiz Brooklyn, NY

I would say Hamlet accompanied by Hamlet 2000, Mel Gibson's Hamlet, and Hamlet with Kate Winslet and whats his face... Great interpretations of the SAME play - and of course. the 'to be or not to be' speech comes in different places in each play - something to note. Maybe Hedda Gabler - Ibsen Clouds Wealth Frogs - Aristophanes and maybe Mysteries of Udolpho - Anne Radcliff(quite graphic but written by a 14 year old!)

Posted 02/15/10 kevin m daley Milton, GA

I exclude film adaptations, as they're beyond the scope of this list. But if you want adaptations of Hamlet, the best is if you can get to see the test recording of John Barrymore. But nobody gets to see that. And of course Olivier. If the soliloquy is in the wrong place, it's not Hamlet =0. McKellan was the best Macbeth, IMO. Why aristophanes when it already has Caroll? Caroll is much better anyway, so much darker. Never read Radcliffe or Ibsen, but I don't think there's much to be gained from reading tons of character dramas. There are a few great ones...Nabokov, I might recommend. To be fair, though, my literary views mirror those of Pound much more so than say, Harold Bloom. Both are credible. Also, keep in mind some of these books are for younger kids; I read Caroll at age 5/6 and Stevenson at 8, Simmons at 11.

Posted 02/15/10 kevin m daley Milton, GA

But yeah, if I were doing literature mainly, a good three fourths of it would be poetry.

Posted by kevin m daley on 02/04/10
Last updated 02/04/10

"However much we may have lost interest in the old problems of faith and religion, the American people have come to believe thoroughly in education"---Ellwood Cubberley

It has, to my observation, been rare amid lay discourse regarding the subject of education for any brave soul to question the necessity of such a task.  It always falls on the rare critic of our nation's most fascist system to dispel the mythology of order; that is to say that, whether masquerading under the banner either of a more "communal liberalism" (a term used by Burkean scholar and literary critic Russel Kirk) or of left-liberal secular progressivism, a theocratic sort of reverence for the success and perfection of our young people is firmly planted in our minds.

The reality is that we only see progress because we have committed ourselves so firmly to eugenics.  The children who are destined to fail under a system of task-based evaluation will, as it stands, scarcely be allowed the comfort of exemption, while their peers will overshadow them in what becomes a competition for knowledge.  And, while competition is a natural activity for humans to engage in in the event of scarcity, only a filter of infinite capacity can turn knowledge into something scarce.

This is, and has for a century been, seen as the role of the state.  It is, however, inevitable that the fascist element will be recognized, and this establishment come tumbling like the Berlin wall downward.  We will be free; I tell you this with great certainty; whereas I may be wrong, I cannot be proven wrong.  Of all the futures our race may have, this is the only one we could possibly survive to confirm

...and there you see it.  A moment of fear in the eyes, the brow the mouth furrowed in fake hesitation.  And here now, the inevitable public greed, the watering of eyes as our crutch is now invisible, our myth broken, our sanity returned to us.   It is too much to ask.

Which is why we have eventually to stop asking and begin forcibly reclaiming.  We must stop burying ourselves secretly in the books and letting older men carry our grievance with less than the intensity of a victim.  Their task is finished and their hearts satisfied; having wasted their capacity to discover the virtue of constructive and original purpose, they have performed what society has asked of them and made known their dissent.  Being younger and more agile as we are, our duty is greater, and even beyond there lies the joy our fathers do not know.

But there is no charity in intention.  I will make a proposal not for what the world needs thrust upon it, but which the world's children must have waiting for them.  I suggest that there must be an alternative not to progressivism but to collectivism; not a class of citizens or a community of future leaders or what have you, but a humanist fellowship.  That is, a free network for scholar to act as mentor to scholar, or for troves of knowledge to act as stimulus for creativity and research, with all the structure of a community but without the burden of compulsion or of forcible order.  A web for the sharing of ideas, independent of state or parental oversight, to expel and replace education not in form but in essence.

This is not beyond our reach, yes?  I think with enough exposure and material/technology, this nation can and will achieve educational independence by the decade's end, in a fit of triumph that would make Kennedy jealous.  

Posted 02/09/10 ramsey67 Omaha, NE

I like this. Can you point me toward some resources?

Posted 02/11/10 kevin m daley Milton, GA

Thanks! And sure, what sort of resources? Regarding education freedom, you mean? If so, I'd suggest the book An Underground History of American Education linked to on the website; it's an excellent introduction to and compelling argument for the fallacy of mass human ignorance, in a nice historical context. There are also a number of other people who, like Gatto, support a method of education known as "unschooling" (really just homeschooling without a formal curriculum). So those could be some good sources. As for resources for...say, teaching kids, look no further than the way they've learned for centuries. Namely, books. I know a lot that can help: Alice In Wonderland---Lewis Caroll Through the Looking Glass--Lewis Caroll The Wind in the Willows---Kenneth Grahame The Holy Bible The Baghavad-Gita Kinder- und Hausmärchen---Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm Matilda---Roald Dahl The Jungle Book---Rudyard Kipling The Three Musketeers---Alexandre Dumas Kidnapped!/Treasure Island---R.L. Stephenson Moby Dick---Hermann Melville Macbeth---William Shakespeare The Lord of the Rings Trilogy---John Tolkien The Odyssey---Homer, trans. Stanley Lombardo Inferno---Dante Alighieri, trans. Stanley Lombardo Beowulf---(anon). trans Seamus Heaney Immortal Poems of the English Language---ed. Oscar Williams The entire english Wikipedia precalculus mathematics in a nutshell--George F. Simmons Calculus with Analytic Geometry---George F. Simmons What is Mathematics?--Richard Courant Mathematics: Its Content, Methods and Meaning--Andrey N. Kolmogorov The mathematical theory of communication, by Claude Shannon Probability Theory: The Logic of Science The Practice of Programming---Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 1--Donald Knuth Six Easy Pieces---Richard Feynman The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1---Richard Feynman. Six not-so-easy pieces---Richard Feynman. A Brief History of Time---Stephen Hawking. The Road to Reality--Roger Penrose. General Chemistry---Linus Pauling Genome--Matt Ridley Human Action---Ludwig von Mises Ten Philosophical Mistakes--Mortimer Adler Man, Economy, and State---Murray Newton Rothbard Democracy: the God that Failed---Hans-Hermann Hoppe Common Sense---Thomas Paine that should be more than enough to teach a kid anything.

Posted by kevin m daley on 12/30/09
Last updated 02/04/10

The unfurling cloud of determined secrecy regarding so-called "climate change", like the resulting embarrassment, should carry no shock.  The letters being released in droves now serve to detail an uncanny efficacy in the exclusive concentration of the state's prowess: namely, deceit.  

How else could so many scientists have sacrificed the value of their word but for want of political and financial favor?  And it is no question that scientists are not to be trusted.  We are only seeing confirmation of what has been known to us: the theory of anthropogenic global warming, while ostensibly valid, is being twisted into a collectivist statement of public apprehension.  Unfounded, as is necessary for all such claims, according to more scientific methods of inference, and furthermore far removed from the scope of all scientific discipline, this PR disaster thrives on dated tactics used by old media (television, radio, newspapers) to conceal not only the fragmentation of logic or total absence of background but also sway laypeople with the blind credibility of experts.  I say dated because it works on television, where you are being passively lectured by an isolated and all-encompassing set of personalities, and not online--- where you are (or play) the scholar, actively seeking information---and, from that, related information perhaps written from the opposite viewpoint.

So, as with all effective muckraking, the apparently immediate failure of obfuscation as science ends a process of natural disenchantment.  The thought that such a nonsensically direct conflation of unconstitutional and amoral fiscal policy and largely dubious scientific reasoning from bias-driven data should be broken, in the midst of an eventually monolithic exposure, is merely a product of waning tolerance for the emergent statism---the mirage of a prerogative to distract, seduce. and deceive.  And, while in the end we can expect the same blind federal sustenance of "clean energy" projects---projects whose scope and aims are likely not necessary or sufficient to yield meaningful and desired growth, corporate socialism has its limits.  It was IBM's dependence, for example, in the late 1970s and early 80s on revenue on its troves of so-called "intellectual property" (which is, in reality, more closely associated with government intervention) which led to the budding Microsoft's eventual success.  IBM, meanwhile, declined rapidly, losing not only its virtual monopoly but also its entire share in the personal computer market.  Likewise, Cornelius Vanderbilt's famous railroad empire emerged from one of the most obvious and rewarding monopolistic opportunities in American history: public transportation.  Nearly all of the places those lines used to serve are now most surely within few miles of a freeway.  

Whereas innovation is latent, and competitive faculty stiffened, in prominent enterprise, this in the long term causes a collapse when new ideas do inevitably emerge, and thus economic growth is only slowed.  I am not a conspiracy theorist; I do not believe that science or technology can be suppressed when there is a desire to have the truth, and my own experience being published twice is testament to that nontrivial gift of human will to knowledge.  It is for this reason that I argue in anticipation of the eventual explosion of science due to a few bold, young entrepreneurs and investors tired of waiting---just as soon as we've got something ready.  

Posted by kevin m daley on 09/12/09
Last updated 09/12/09

In a recent Yale Alumni magazine one commentator levies harsh criticism against the current state of American education; specifically, he (very aptly) deplores the context-independence of reading skills as they are currently instilled in the early grades. Specifically, E. D. Hirsch, Jr, offers, quite tautologically, that "A reading test is inherently a knowledge test.," and harps on further observation that children simply don't have the background knowledge necessary to comprehend most literate material they are fed.
Now, as I have acknowledged, this is an insightful---perhaps even indisputable---conclusion. Yet, what at first may seem a bold stab at the utter inefficacy of schools swiftly degenerates into a "policy change" proposal---a direct quote---in good Yale fashion. The continuation of a beaurocratic hierarchy of education---weak, deteriorating, but inexorable --- in which meaningless standards are imposed to superficially emulate student achievement, but whose end result on our children is laughable at best, harrowing at worst, withstands no contest here. In Hirsch's view it is not wrong that our citizens are subject to incorporation, early in their development, into a collective mind that doles thought in limited servings, but rather imperative to the common good that he control it.
There are many points through the commentary in which this is illustrated; none is more telling than his embrace of standardized tests to measure inherently subjective faculties like advanced literacy. Whereas in mathematics, and even in philosophy, there are many contexts in which fact is discernable and information indisputable, in reading the boundary is much further blurred between discord and dissent. Moreover, it is rarely examined through a public lens whether these tests even attempt to restrict themselves to what cannot be rationally contested; in this respect we place unprecedented authority in administrative beaurocrats and so-called "experts" and none whatsoever in our own children.

Another aspect he fully glosses over is the extent to which an entire catalogue of human knowledge is available, in some form or another, to every student in a reasonably developed nation motivated enough to seek it. And, while no human is above the occassional misstep, nor anyone capable of eschewing mentorship in every case as some luxury, to place no faith in the inherent curiosity of our children is to admit defeat. You understand the naturally fascist incentive of any agency desiring of such power over a nationalized consciousness---and from that height of glory such an insensitized eye to the human spirit and originality as that which we vest in our autocrats; do not imagine for one second that these policymakers expect any deliberate thoughtfulness from our students.   Indeed, Hirsch speaks about "narrowing the fairness gap" and "inducing elementary schools to impart the general knowledge children need" as if, as is probable, he has all but forgotten childhood.  To which I can only respond, when will we suffer a little faith, opening ourselves to the possibility that we do not need to impart anything or induce anything?  The fantasy-realm we enter now is that of moderation---where, in sacrificing principle, we address only half the symptoms of a rapidly deteriorating condition.

W. C. Williams speaks famously of the process of infancy; for a mindless entity like a flower (as he imagines them), life begins with a gloomy and existential confusion.  And yet we do not see that in our own children; when we think of human infants we remember first their wide eyes, their duty to ---and passion for---exploration, and next their unfaltering joy, interupted only by short bursts of hunger and other superficial, physical urges.  A curious student myself, my personal experience is that this image is buried deep in the memories of most schoolteachers---so deep, in fact, that many of them were not convinced of the wealth of knowledge I had amassed.  So great the force of our imagination is at birth, that the pit of uncertainty becomes for us a climbing-sport.  And so with this touted need for standards, we are needlessly thrusting ourselves into a cycle of eternal collectivism.