In line with the recent musings on poetry and my intention to manifest that side of me more on this humble weblog, here is one of the eight line stanzas I wrote in recent months using the last line of some one else's stanza as the first of my own. Without further ado...

the world is lazy, we can take what we seek
the law of the jungle no friend of the meek
when ethics are slack the strong plunder the weak
in a variety of ways

optimistic football year
the source of many a tear
the Hawks more laughed at than feared
bring on 2009. [Written on 10/16/08]

Having written on the subject of poetry yesterday, I can now turn to this posting which was intended for then but now can be more adequately tended to in light of that writing. The following is a song from The Band on their second album circa 1969 -an album I reviewed here for those who are interested. I post it today as I have had my late father (may he rest in peace) in mind who was himself a union man for most of his working life. Without further ado...

King Harvest:

Corn in the fields.
Listen to the rice when the wind blows 'cross the water,
King Harvest has surely come.

I work for the union 'cause she's so good to me;
And I'm bound to come out on top,
That's where I should be.
I will hear ev'ry word the boss may say,
For he's the one who hands me down my pay.
Looks like this time I'm gonna get to stay,
I'm a union man, now, all the way.

The smell of the leaves,
From the magnolia trees in the meadow,
King Harvest has surely come.

Dry summer, then comes fall,
Which I depend on most of all.
Hey, rainmaker, can't you hear my call?
Please let these crops grow tall.
Long enough I've been up on skid row
And it's plain to see, I've nothin to show.
I'm glad to pay those union dues,
Just don't judge me by my shoes.

Scarecrow and a yellow moon,
And pretty soon a carnival on the edge of town,
King Harvest has surely come.

Last year, this time, wasn't no joke,
My whole barn went up in smoke.
My horse Jethro, well he went mad
And I can't remember things bein' so bad.
Then there comes a man with a paper and a pen
Tellin' us our hard times are about to end.
And then, if they don't give us what we like
He said, "men, that's when you gotta go on strike."

Corn in the fields.
Listen to the rice when the wind blows 'cross the water,
King Harvest has surely come. [J. R. Robertson]

On Poetry and Lyrics:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is customary to post some poetry and lyrics at times to this site as my mood to do so presents itself. However, the past year has seen next to none of that by my own admission -something I realized when doing a check on the matter when preparing to post some lyrical poetry today from The Band. That will now be postponed{1} as I muse a bit on this facet to my personality which like some others has seen scant if any mention on the weblog over the years.

I have so many sides to my being and poems and poetry (and the enjoyment of them) is one of them. However, this is a side of me that while I started to manifest it a bit on the weblog with the intention of further cultivation has nonetheless in recent years (for a variety of reasons) not happened. Last year was an exception to that pattern though -indeed, I was pleased in reviewing the archives to see that 2007 had a moderate degree of posts pertaining to poetry and lyric related matters{2}: more than any year since 2003.{3}

I did not realize this until I did a quick search of the archival tags for lyrics/poetry and lyrics/poetry/musings in preparing a lyrical post for publishing that this year had been so sparse in that area.{4} And when you omit one which has become a tradition at this weblog every year{5} that makes 2008 that much bleaker still not to mention every year since 2004.{6}

So something that started off solid and carried fairly decently into the second year of blogging really started tailing off in 2004 when the number of poetry and lyric postings fell to six, 2005 when it fell to five, and 2006 which likewise had five such postings. And when you consider that most of the forty-seven odd postings in these categorizations over the years have not been my own poetry{7}, that makes the matter even more interesting to ponder on the part of yours truly.

Now of course it is not necessary that such things be my own creation -I certainly do not possess this gift to the extent of many others by my own admission.{8} However, I have this year made a conscious effort to write more poetry -not only haikus but also some eight line rhyming stanza poems which is a new area for me. Indeed, I have written about two hundred haikus this year -many of which were in formats where I had to use someone else's last line as my first line which makes them a bit harder to whip out in traditional poetic haiku form (which I follow meticulously by the way) than if I do so completely on my own from scratch.{9}

As for why the poetry and lyrical postings have been less in recent years, I am sure to no small measure it was due to the election season of 2004 and various other factors in the subsequent years which were not helped by my noticeably greater focus on geopolitical subject matter since late 2003 on this humble weblog.{10}

But as was noted already, I have this year written a mess of haikus and even some stanza poetry of the sort I have not done in longer than I can remember. Many of this year's compositions will find their way onto the blog in the coming year at various intervals I am sure along with contributions from others in this area. But this is definitely an area I want to give renewed focus to for the duration of this year and into 2009 and beyond; ergo, I will do so.

Notes:

{1} For to explain this detracts from that posting so it will be put up in the coming days as I originally planned to do today before getting in the mood to muse on the subject of poetry in general as I have done here.

{2} There were eight such postings from 2007.

{3} Numerically 2003 was the best year but by ratio, it was unquestionably 2002. For while there were ten such postings in all of 2003, there were eight in the last four months of 2002: the only months we were blogging that year.

{4} Thus far, there have been two such postings in 2008.

{5} I refer here to what has become the traditional Auld Lang Syne posting to start every year which debuted in January of 2004 and starting with January of 2005 has been posted to start every year since with the exception of 2006 when it was posted on New Years Eve 2005 due to extraordinary circumstances of the time. (Starting with 2007, the January pattern was resumed in this regard and this was carried through to the present year.) As is our wont, things start off at times as intuitions that we end up analyzing later on and this was no different. Ergo, in some expository musings posted on New Years Eve 2007, we explained how the original intuition had crystallized over the years in our mind to become more than a mere whimsical gesture but instead had far deeper meanings. For those who are interested, those musings can be viewed here.

{6} For while none of the eight from 2002 or ten from 2003 included this posting, all years starting with 2004 have. (And if this is taken to account, that makes the poetry/lyrics postings from those years even fewer than they already were -particularly 2005 which had two postings of this sort with the second being posted to ring in 2006 on New Years Eve that year.)

{7} Of self-composed pieces there were two posted in 2002, one in 2004, one in 2005, and two in 2007.

{8} Such as Robert Frost (a favourite poet of mine), William Shakespeare, AE Housman, and more contemporarily: my friend Albert Cipriani. (A few of whose poems have been blogged to this weblog over the years with I am sure more to come.)

{9} The same using another person's first line approach was used with the eight line stanzas of which I have written about a dozen of them so far with the most recent one being composed today.

{10} This was not the stark departure that many presumed but instead a return to the sort of postings to discussion boards I used to do both on the web and in other ways long before I wrote any web essays or involved myself so much in theological subject.The latter pattern from 2000-2003 being the novelty rather than the converse as I noted in late 2006 when my friend Apolonio expressed concern about it in a dialogue that I blogged to this weblog in September of 2006. (The correspondence was originally from November 2005 and slightly tweaked to make the response relevant to September 2006 when the material was eventually blogged.)

Miscellaneous Musings:

It seems appropriate to note before the tide of the msm orgasms about how thanks to the election that we are about to be "led out of Egypt" and to a "land flowing with milk and honey" precisely what sort of failed policies have been promoted under the banner of "change." One is the idea of another "New Deal" under the rubric that the first one actually saved the country from the Great Depression when in fact it made matters much worse and turned a recession into a depression that it took the Second World War to extricate us from.{1} This is something we have spoken of before on this weblog at sundry times and in divers manners but it bears reiterating anew at this time. Ergo, we will do so with some examples from the archives before moving on so here goes in order from oldest to newest:

The myth of liberals that FDR's "New Deal" took us out of the Depression continues I see.[...] The truth is, the "New Deal" prolonged the depression as a result of FDR not having a coherent economic plan but instead trying a hodgepodge of things which were often contradictory -this is not difficult to demonstrate if not for wanting to avoid writing a tome on the matter and getting a laugh out of Kevin in the process. (Due to a reputation I have for expository cogitations that he is aware of.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 3, 2008)]

The solution is not federalizing things as that always has historically made things worse. (Such as the New Deal prolonging the Depression which we only went out of by going to war and ramping up military production.) The solution is letting the market work and not trying to coerce it -including not trying to force banks to lend to people who are high credit risks at the risk of federal lawsuits. That is after all how we got into this mess to begin with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 1, 2008) ]

That is why after the depression deepened in 1937 that The New Deal gang was strongly rebuked in the election of 1938 presumably??? (Look it up, this is not even debatable.) And as the above comment is mere wishful thinking and does not reflect what actually happened; no more needs to be said about it at this time...

Of course the efficacy of the programs created is merely presumed by the author but they do not bother trying to substantiate it. This is what happens when people buy into a myth and there is a lot of mythology surrounding the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 28, 2006)]

In case any of the readers are wondering what We at Rerum Novarum happen to think about this very unconventional thesis; for the record your humble servant has not a shred of doubt that it is correct - conventional wisdom be damned. Indeed I have made the argument many times in political discussions that on the whole the New Deal prolonged and made worse the Great Depression.

This created a "need" to go to war to fix the problem via the industrial activity required to rebuild and rearm a nation whose military equipment had become run down and (in some cases) rather obsolete. Obviously this is a very simplistic outline of a rather complex subject but I submit that it is true to form and perhaps sometime I can explain my reasons for seeing things this way. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 22, 2003)]

[H]ow many people like my late grandmother were depression era strugglers who thought that FDR and the Devilcrats ...er... Democrats were their economic saviours??? More than we will know but people of those generations are passing away or some of them are wising up to it now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 6, 2002)]

Along the same theme as massive government intervention in the economy is massive government intervention in health care which will inexorably have the same result as proven by experience in nations where this is the practice amply demonstrates.{2} Having touched on those matters briefly, I want to focus on one more thing and reiterate a principle we have long followed at this humble weblog. For one thing, the rush of many to report on anything they can in order to try and "scoop a story" is something I almost never have done and with good reason. Or as I noted over five years ago when touching on this principle in another context:

For my part, being ahead of the curve in my commentary on issues is a delicacy kinda like a pre-Castro Montecristo or a bottle of Chateau '61 - though not that rare of course...But anyway, this is a delicacy my friends, an exception to our normal protocol.

That is correct gentle readers, you read just what you thought you did. While many blogs may claim to be the next "Woodward and Bernstein", We at Rerum Novarum are not among them. For you see, We prefer to generally let others take the bounding steps forward to be skewered by arrows...Essentially this normative policy means that we can sit back, watch others drop with arrows sticking out of every orifice, and solemnly intone a "there are Indians that way" proclamation.[...] Usually this means we will not be ahead of the curve...

The benefits are (i) there is greater longevity (ii) it allows for better overall musings (iii) we seldom err in our predictions and (iv) I cannot think of a fourth or subsequent advantage offhand. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 28, 2003)]

And the reason for this approach was noted in another posting linked to the above one but omitted from the referenced quote to avoid unnecessary repetition. But here it is for those who are interested:

[T]here is a reason that you will seldom see breaking stories at this humble weblog.[...]

I tend to prefer to let others bring up breaking issues and then I respond to them. There are tactical reasons for this as well as practical ones. Part of the reason is that I am too critical of journalism in general of rushing to print anything they think can make a story and then if they err on A1 - which happens more frequently than most people would believe, they correct themselves on Q14 where no one sees it.[...]

I find if I let others break the story, I can benefit from their efforts and also circumvent the problems that can come with seeking to "break" a story before anyone else. And of course letting others hash out the main points provides an opportunity to approach the subjects in a way that is to some degree different than anyone else. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 11, 2003)]

Now with many who are not concerned because they gamble either on the distractions of a 24/7 media cycle and/or the short memories of others, they can make these sorts of leaps all they want but it affects their overall credibility as far as we are concerned. And perhaps no example of recent vintage illustrates this as well as the claim that even FOXNews fell prey to about a supposed "unnamed McCain campaign staffer" who was purported to have said that Gov. Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent. I knew the moment I heard it that the whole thing was a pile of horseshit yet look at how the msm and many bloggers from the self-identified "progressive" side of things jumped on that one and broadcast it far and wide.

As I said already, I knew it was horseshit from the get-go and it is nice to see The New York Times expose this hoax for what it was -even if the exposure took place after the election. It is better late than never of course but let this serve as a lesson to those who are too quick to believe whatever is reported in the msm without stepping back and engaging in a bit of critical discernment first.

And finally, as far as the previously mentioned commentary on the election results and manifested trends, I am working on it bit by bit and anticipate it will be posted before November 21st as of this writing -hopefully as soon as November 17th. I have realized though before that can be done a concept we have covered directly and indirectly over the years needs to be revisited first if that commentary is to be kept to the reasonable length to which I hope to keep it as we have previously promised. (And that posting will be put up at some point in the next two days time-willing.)

Notes:

{1} Five Myths About the Great Depression (Andrew Wilson)

{2} Public Health Insurance under a Nonbenevolent State (Pierre Lemieux)

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace (Jeffrey Scott Shapiro)

Though there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that can be made against the manner in which President George W. Bush and his administration handled various issues, at the same time, it is also undeniable that the outgoing president has been handled overall by not a few persons in the media and elsewhere quite disgracefully. For that reason, we at Rerum Novarum recommend the above article which was written by someone who was affiliated with the Kerry campaign in 2004.

Points to Ponder:

You cannot survive if you do not know the past. We know why all the other civilizations have collapsed--from an excess of welfare, of richness, and from lack of morality, of spirituality...The moment you give up your principles, and your values . . . the moment you laugh at those principles, and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." [Oriana Fallaci]

Hurricane PALOMA Public Advisory

Any chance we can rename that hurricane "Hurricane PELOSI"???

Ultrabriefly on the Election Results:

I intend to write an analysis of the election trends of 2008 in a post-election commentary to be published sometime later this month. However, at the moment I am mulling over how I want to approach this. The intention is to try to make this commentary shorter than past election commentaries have been but without sacrificing essential points that need to be covered.

I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.{1} Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. It is also with that commentary that I will debut a new blog tag for the president-elect{2} befitting the new station to which he will be ascending and which will be used for all postings pertaining to him after the inauguration.

The more I ponder these matters, the more I conclude that I am probably not of the same mindset on this matter that many who would identify themselves as "conservatives" may be. But that is par for the course I suppose -my approach to these matters is one that recognizes the whole panorama of conservative views rather than one narrow school of thought that is prevalent today. Nonetheless, the commentary will explain this to some extent and I will at that point not discuss election related issues until after January 20, 2009.{3} For a long election campaign has been concluded and battles that will need to be fought starting at that time{4} require one to conserve their energies on these matters.

Notes:

{1} And that is assuming that I even bother to respond to reader email on this subject of course should any be forthcoming. (It is still quite early in the aftermath.)

{2} Who shall likely not be mentioned at this weblog until that time.

{3} The one exception to this pledge is that I may comment further if somehow Dino Rossi wins the governors race for the second time between now and when that commentary is completed and published.

{4} I may however in that interim and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.)

No Pity Party? (Glenn Beck)

My sentiments almost precisely!!!

Why McCain Will Win (Tammy Bruce)

I hope for the reasons she outlines (among others) that she is right on this.

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

A few threads pertaining to the election which is 48 hours away{1} seem to be appropriate at the present time so here goes...

An ACORN Whistleblower Testifies in Court (John Fund)

Here is a bit from the above article...

The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.

But remember folks, Sen. Obama has had no affiliation with ACORN. He told us so, remember ;-) Moving on we have this article on voting from someone who has not been mentioned on this weblog in a few years...

Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote (Karl Rove)

Here is a tidbit from the text to whet the appetite:

Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus. The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout. I know that from experience.

For our part, we at Rerum Novarum will be voting on Tuesday regardless of the so-called "lead" that the msm will assign to Sen. Obama.

Obama and the Politics of Crowds (Fouad Ajami)

Another article well worth reading -I will quote the summary to give an idea of what the article will cover:

The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.

That my friends is something we all need to remember: if we place as some kind of integral source of our happiness weight on who the president is, who runs congress, etc., Ultimately happiness has to come from within because otherwise we would cede to others control over our own happiness which it is never wise nor prudent to do. Then there is this tidbit from the LA Times...

The Los Angeles Times’s Strange Notion of Journalistic Ethics

The title says it all as far as I am concerned, give the article a read to see another example of mainstream media double standards as far as this election is concerned. But it appears finally folks that we may have the "October Surprise" coming out in November and this could affect the outcome of the voting in several key states. Here is the story and some of the reactions from some of those states:

Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry

Here is just a taste:

Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now.

Here is the response from some of the states which would be affected by the Obama energy plan as it pertains to coal starting with West Virginia -a state with five electoral votes and where the GOP has had a weak lead up to now:

Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'

Here is one from Ohio which is a state that was tending towards Obama and which has 20 electoral votes:

Ohio Coal Association Says Obama Remarks Make It Clear: Obama Ticket Not Supportive of Coal

Other states where Obama is weakly leading which could be affected by this latest news include Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes). There is also Indiana (11 electoral votes) where McCain's hanging on by his fingernails which could be bolstered by this latest news not to mention North Carolina (15 electoral votes) where Obama has a very small lead who also has a coal industry.

Anyway, this may be the silver bullet we have been looking for in this election folks...we will only know for sure after tomorrow.

Note:

{1} Though for our part we at Rerum Novarum voted by mail the other day.

Holy Souls Masses Registration:

The following is this years scroll of the dearly departed -individuals of note and also family groupings will be noted by last name:

Richard Dunn McElhinney f
James Dunn McElhinney u
Teresa Mildred McElhinney gm
Paul Dowd McElhinney gf
McElhinney fam
Hugh Dunn gu
Dunn fam


Ed Flynn gu
Cecilia Flynn ga
Flynn fam
McCann fam
Mark Usher sgf
Virginia Usher sgm
Usher sfam
Brooks fam
Hellstrom sfam
Leta M. Allen sa


David Kanski u
Mary H. Kanski gm
Harry Kanski gf
Harold Kanski u
Kanski fam
Haluk fam
Hruby fam
Duma fam
Sharon Rogowski Colson c
Rogowski fam
Mel Denny gu
Denny fam
Omafrey fam

Ann Ripplinger ga
Ripplinger fam
Spence fam
Mel Clark sgf
Jane Clark sgm
Clark fam

James Jenner OP p
Joseph Fulton OP p
Blessed Sacrament Parish/Dom. Priory
St. Pius X Parish
Corpus Christi Parish

Jeff Cox cl
Rasmussen ext-fam
Kathy Rasmussen Hanks ext-fam
Tull ext-fam
Chris DiSomma f ext-fam
Anselmo ext-fam
Evie Baker ext-fam
St. Blogs ext-fam
Mike Mentzer t
Mentzer tfam
Arthur Jones t
Michael Jackson t
Cipriani ffam
O'Grady ffam
Bannon ffam
Ziadeh ffam
Stein ffam
Smith ffam
Tierney ffam
Mockeridge ffam
Blosser ffam
D'Hippolito ffam
Hand ffam
Roy Sabin acq
Anne Sabin acq
Tim's friend (cannot recall his name at the present but God knows)
Brittany Salzano acq

While I am sure more will come to mind than just those later on, they are what will be noted at this time. The link to the Purgatory Project can be found HERE and I encourage my readers to check it out and register the names of family and friends.{1}

Eternal rest grant unto their souls O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me]. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord on that day (2 Tim i,18).

Note:

{1} One should not presume that my recommendation of the above site constitutes a blanket approval of all or even many (or even most) of the other threads they have posted there. Nonetheless, they do have a good thread on explaining purgatory which can be read HERE and that I do highly recommend.

Gotta Love Those PUMAS

Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video

This is an interesting tidbit to pop up here courtesy of the ever-resourceful Matt Drudge. Pay particular attention to this bit:

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him,"

I wonder how many are so happy to be rid of the outgoing president that they will do their part to help answer this prayer in favour of the Al Qaeda petitioner as noted above.

Some Final Week Election Strategery:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I wrote and posted a similar text as this to another forum back on Monday. Without further ado...

Based on a lesson of "wealth redistribution" that I have noted before (and want to reiterate anew at this time) it gave me a good idea for a final election week strategery to drive home to people in ways they can feel the seriousness of Obama's "income redistribution" plans should he become president with a Democratic Congress. First let us recap the lesson before outlining the plan. I got the idea from someone called "AzVet" back on October 24th and Chris Blosser reminded me of it today with another source who had the same concept outlined. Here is "AzVet's" version of things to refresh the mind of the readers:

Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 24, 2008)]

Basically folks, we should all do this before the election. Go out to eat a few times to the extent it is in your budget{1}, get a waiter to serve you, and ask them whom they are voting for in the election.{2} If the waiter says they are voting for Obama, then merely say "ok" or some neutral response not indicating intent, eat up, have them work to serve you, and then when the bill comes invite the waiter over and pay the bill. Tell them that you had a nice tip for them but since they support Obama who wants to redistribute your wealth to people who did not work for it that you will give their tip to a homeless person{3} or to someone else who did not earn it so they can better "share" in the economic plan that Sen. Obama has in mind as president. But that is not all.

If they say McCain, try to find out why they would vote for McCain to see if they are telling you the truth or not. If you think they are, give them a slightly larger tip and tell them that you too believe in rewarding those who actually earn their money rather than taking from those who work and giving it to those who did not earn it. That way, even if they lied to you about their intentions you may well give them something to think about before they go into the voting booth.

Remember, the best education quite often comes from real life experiences as opposed to from books so with those who in the abstract think Sen. Obama would be a "cool president", give them something that they can relate to and in the case of people in restaurant industry, that is their tip money which if they are good can constitute a good chunk of their income.

Anyway, that is my idea for last week campaign influencing the service/hospitality people to reassess a preference for Sen. Obama with a recommended plan of action for implementing the "redistribution experiment" of the aforementioned "AzVet."

Notes:

{1} Because in an Obama presidency it will not likely be as frequent you will be able to do this.

{2} This works better the younger you are by the way as the really youthful demographic is the one most heavily skewed towards Sen. Obama but everyone should try this nonetheless.

{3} I rarely advocate giving money to homeless people though admittedly I do at times nonetheless. However, my usual modus opperandi over the years when downtown is to offer those who ask for money to buy them food instead -usually a breakfast sandwich from McDonalds, a couple items from their "value menu" or whatever depending on the time of day. Those who accept the offer and actually eat the food I view as being potentially in need whereas those who throw the food away or otherwise do not eat it (after claiming they wanted the money for food: and yes I have seen this at times), I chalk up as charletans who would have used the money for something other than food.

Points to Ponder:
(On Logic and Political Priorities)

Let me see if I got this straight. Obama/Biden need preconditions to talk to US news anchors, but no preconditions are needed to talk to our enemies. Yeah, that’s the ticket. ["Gutwrench" (circa October 27, 2008)]

"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)

A few musings on these threads from recent days...

Did W Backfire? (NRO)

Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:

Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:

An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)

The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...

Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)

No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:

[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}

Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.

For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}

It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.

Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:

Barack Obama, False Moderate

The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:

When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.

Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.

Notes:

{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)

{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.

{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)

{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.

{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)

{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.

{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)

{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.

{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)

Points to Ponder:
(On Fundamentals of Income Redistribution)

Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. ["AzVet" (circa October 24, 2008)]

On Logic, Reason, and the Concept of Faith:
("Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)

This is a response to an email from last year responding to an expository musings of your humble servant on the annoyance we have with arrogant atheists who do not realize how much faith is actually involved in their own presumed "faithlessness." The original posting was written in October of 2007{1} and this response was sent by a reader in early November. I was unable to get to and complete this response until the present time for various and sundry reasons. The emailer's words will be in shale coloured font.

Shawn:

I agree entirely with your conclusions on atheistic scientism (which, when severed from intelligible philosophical roots, becomes just another ideology) as to their being hypocritical in their judgment about religion. Unfortunately, I think you muddle the middle steps to that conclusion.

I should note that I am willing to consider the possibility that something I wrote off the cuff is in need of some refining. (And shorter threads -even if they are of an expository character- are at times written in that way.) Nonetheless...

You say:

"Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all."

From the truth that the rules required to utilize logic are not themselves deduced logically, it does not follow of necessity that we take the rules of logic on faith. The reason is that there are other modes of coming to know than by syllogism.

To really take this to brass tacks, faith is something that we give assent to that we cannot prove. I am referring in those words to how we have no way to verify emperically that the rules required to utilize reason and logic actually exist but we must presuppose them in order to reason at all. And even that statement itself embodies an often unrealized element so I will briefly note it at this time.

All presuppositions to some extent require a degree of faith when they are not grounded on proven or otherwise provable tenets. And those who lionize empiricism as the be-all and end-all of verification are involving themselves in a double standard on the laws of utilizing logic and reason that they would never accept in other contexts. Ergo, they inexorably deny the law of non-contradiction by failing to require empirical evidences for the laws of logic and reason the way they would other empirically unverifiable presuppositions. (Such as the existence of God.)

So at bottom, as the existence of the rules required to utilize logic cannot be proven in a fashion that does not presuppose them, they cannot be proven logically. They have to be taken as presuppositions and thus they are taken on a kind of faith. And for this reason, the atheists who mock religious people for believing in something they cannot empirically verify are hypocritical for doing the exact same thing themselves.

This is part of the importance of St. Thomas's use of Aristotle's philosophical foundation in developing a Christian understanding of what and how we know.

I take issue to some degree with the idea that there has to be a "Christian understanding" of what and how we know. But that point aside, my intention with that posting was merely to point out that there is no completely naturalistic way to verify the facts of reality when it comes to the laws required for utilizing logic and reason. This is the Achilles heel of the purely rationalist outlook when you take it down to the aforementioned brass tacks.

Aristotle shows how man reasons in syllogism, starting from premises and working deductively to conclusion.

Yes he did but premises are often presumed without warrant and when that happens, any deduction to a conclusion could well be wide of the mark of reality. This is the case even if the deductions undertaken are all one hundred percent solid. Additional problems could well be present when you couple the latter with the sort of common shoddiness that plagues most people who try to engage in deductive reasoning and throw into the equation the tendency of most people to engage in double standards viz. how they treat ideas/persons/etc they are inclined towards as opposed to those they are not so inclined.

He separately shows how the mind works in deriving the predecessor details that create the premises, and it is not deductively.

There are inductive and deductive approaches{2} towards creating premises. I have never said otherwise.

First of all, one must grasp the meaning of the terms. This process is handled in one of two ways: one is organically by natural exposure to objects of experience, leading to more complete and more comprehensive conceptualization of things, so that a child first grasps "dog" under the notion of "short wiggly thing" , then "short wiggly thing on four legs", then short wiggly thing with 4 legs which bites, barks, wags, and eats" until he finally understands the notion of dog as a species of canine. This process of conceptualization is not deductive – it precedes syllogistic activity, for it is merely the coming to knowledge about a thing, i.e. forming a concept giving us one of the terms which form a premise.

Well, we are in what you note now moving into the realm of universals -a subject I have covered on many an occasion either directly or indirectly and do not have time to peruse the archives for examples of at this time.{3}

The second typical way is analytically, by way of experiment and intentional expansion of and testing of one's concept against reality. (These are not exactly opposed methods, they are merely the non-reflective way and the reflective way of doing the same thing.)

I do not disagree with you on this at all. My guess offhand is you are going beyond my limited intentions with that posting and extending on those points a bit which is (of course) fine with me. And for that reason -and because what you wrote has a timeless element or principle to it not just a limited or circumstantial one- I have decided to respond to your note here at a time when I have had some time to do so.

Once things (and their natures) are grasped by the intellect by way of this conceptualization, one can form propositions about them. These propositions can be true or false. But there are underlying propositions which are inherently self-evident to the intellect: As soon as the intellect understands the terms, it grasps directly the validity of the proposition.

What you refer to as underlying propositions would appear to be somewhat synonymous with what I refer to by the term "foundational presuppositions."{4}

The principle "the whole is greater than the (proper) part" is not something that requires a middle term (and hence a syllogism) to grasp validly with certainty.

Is this a reference to the principle known as Law of Excluded Middle???

Nor does one's grasp of it depend upon faith. The natural force of the intellect upon the objects of its thought (the concepts "whole", "part," and "greater") derives both the proposition and its certainty without aid of any outside agent.

You are presuming something even in that statement though and I refer to the notion that items are what they are or what they are said to be: essentially the Law of Identity. That is another foundational presupposition which cannot strictly speaking be empirically proven but instead must be assumed. For the only way to avoid illogic in its usage is to presume it is correct because the only way to prove it rationally is by a self-reference to the object or idea in question which is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii. Implicitly you have in doing that provided an evidentiary proof of what I was saying in the original posting to which you responded to.

Indeed, in a person not malformed by false philosophy, it is almost a definition of self-evident truth that it is a truth about which one cannot be in doubt as to its truth.

There are presumptions in what you have just said also: the idea that there is self-evident veracity.{5} I am not trying to deconstruct this down too far mind you, only point out again the principle I made in that previous posting about it requiring faith in order to reason properly and utilize the tools of logic.

Unfortunately, there are too many people whose self-reflective abilities have been damaged to the point where they imagine doubt about EVERY proposition. (But even here, they imagine doubt when philosophizing, but in actual practical reasoning they use these self-evident principles with just as much certainty as the next person.)

I believe I know what you are trying to say here but again, every proposition which can be sustained by rational argumentation requires an element of faith in the rudimentary tools of reason and logic to be accepted -the laws of logic if you will which strictly speaking cannot be proven but must be assumed. But assuming them as we must, that does not mean that every proposition inexorably involves an element of doubt in reality -though I agree with you that there are those who would presume it.

Some of these self-evident truths are precisely those root principles (non-contradiction, excluded middle) that underlie ALL attempts to reason intelligently, without recognition of which, at least implicitly, one would not even try to argue truth with another. The fact that scientists attempt to argue truth shows that in reality they accept the validity of these root principles.

You have just made the very same point I asserted all along but in a more circuitous and lengthy manner. Furthermore, if I have "muddle[d] the middle steps to that conclusion" which we both agree is the correct one, I fail to see how you have demonstrated that assertion. I simply made the statement up front of the following point:

The ability to reason is either true or false. Logic itself applied as we would say "properly" is either an assemblage of disconnected non-sequiturs which lead us nowhere or else it can lead us to being able to discern if not with certainty what is true than at the very least isolate what is probably and what is most definitely false. The very laws of logic -be they the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.- themselves are presumed to be valid because without them, there is no capacity for logic to be operative; no frames of reference or foundation from which we can then utilize reason and logic itself.

Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all.

For that reason, all this talk about "freethought" is an intrinsic charade. Think about it: the very sort of empirical evidence that people like Dawkins say they will accept is predicated upon accepting without scientific evidence that the basic laws universally accepted for being able to utilize logic and be able to reason do in fact exist and are themselves operative. It is unavoidable therefore that we require faith that those laws are true to enable us to try and explain reality, solve problems, discern what is false, etc. And as it requires faith to even reason at all, there cannot be anything intrinsically "irrational" about having faith in other non-emperically verifiable phenomena unless it is also "irrational" to be rational. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2007)]

Now it is possible that you are merely trying to go into more scholastic-style subtleties here than what I did but know in advance that I try to avoid those to the extent it is feasible for a variety of reasons. One is that most people have enough problems being consistent in their application of reason and logic at the elementary levels so there is no reason to complicate matters further with more complex stuff. The second reason is that on this issue, there is no more complexity needed than what I provided on this matter.

That is why for years I would annoy the self-proclaimed "infidels" and self-anointed "freethinkers" with the same basic questions over and over again on this theme. It is not a complicated issue at all so I see no reason to make it one. Essentially, to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.

If it were true that deductive reasoning were the only kind of activity respecting knowledge which the intellect has of its own nature, then it would be true also that the all reasoning would rest on some basis other than knowledge, and then faith or belief would be the stand-in. But asSt. Thomas explains the workings of the mind, deduction is only one kind of intellectual activity toward truth. God in his wisdom fashioned man so that his intellectual faculty has ALL the operations needed to know truth in the natural order, understanding "know" as a distinct species of activity from belief. The precursors to deduction, i.e. conceptualization and forming propositions which are self-evident, are two of those processes of the intellect.

Since I never gave assent to the proposition as you have framed it viz. deductive reasoning, I fail to see how what you have noted in any way indicts my previous arguments. But even if it does, my assertion that there are points of presupposition in the most rudimentary and essential elements of reasoning and using logic inexorably covers the areas of conceptualiation and forming propositions as well.

For we cannot conceive of something without having some forms of frame references for what we are conceiving. Or as I used to say to the atheists in years past in varying ways "no one's philosophical presuppositions are formed in a vacuum."

Which, by the way, leads me to another bone I would like to pick with the philosophical skeptics.

Pick away.

Generally, they denigrate belief as an act which is INHERENTLY unworthy of the intellect as such, so that (in their view) saying that you believe something is as much as to admit that you use the intellect in a manner in violation of its nature. The ONLY act worthy of the intellect, according to them, is to know.

They do say that and the problem is, they have their own beliefs that they do not readily admit to. But lest I get in the way of your train of thought, please continue.

But, of course, most skeptics have also swallowed the stupidity of the deductive-only crowd, perceiving only deduction as a valid way of "knowing." This of course leads ultimately to the notion that there is no such thing as knowledge properly. (Of course, they "know" this because they reason it deductively from the fact that belief in premises cannot create knowledge, and the only kind of knowledge is deductive. So at the very same time they deny knowledge, they root that denial in their certainty of the rules of logic. Hmmm…)

You are basically saying the same thing I have asserted myself. My point in the post you responded to was that it requires a kind of faith to be an atheist because if your only verification depends on what you can empirically prove, you are presuming without proof that the tools of logic and reason actually can help one discern truth from falsehood. Put another way, they presume principles such as identity and non-contradiction because without them you cannot reason at all but they cannot actually prove without petitio principii that those presupposed rules of logical thought are actually true.{6}

But my point is that while the act wherein we know is a proper act of the intellect, it is by no means theexclusive valid act of the intellect properly understanding human nature.

I never said it was. As I noted earlier this year in 2007 in a dialogue with Jonathan Prejean:

Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

Now obviously we can observe people and situations and from what we have observed make inductive assessments of course. But we are limited in this respect by what we have observed to some extent. And new information or ways of viewing something can change the fundamental presuppositions from which we operate. Take for example the view commonly ascribed to "science" prior to the twentieth century of the genetic defects of black people in the area of the intellect. This view was held to a large part presumably because of the absence of educated, literate blacks amongst the population. Even intellectuals such as Thomas Jefferson bought into this idea{7} and it took a while for this supposedly "scientific" view to go the way of bleeding with leeches in the medical field analogically speaking.

Humans (as I pointed out in my last email to you) are intrinsically social.

Agreed.

One of the ways this is illustrated is in the reality that knowledge is a common good. But it is a common good not only in its very essence (as distinguished from "proper goods" where, if I possess some proper good such as this glass of wine, you cannot enjoy the very same glass of wine, common goods can be held at the same time by multiple persons) it is also common in the process of coming to knowledge. (Scientists of all people should understand this, but they ignore its implications).

I do not disagree with this. Reason and logic are what I call the "natural lights" because they are accessible to anyone by virtue of being made in the image of the One Who Is. Indeed I have made the point in the past that the day we accept tacitly or otherwise that one has to be learned to be logical is the day we impose an intellectual tyranny on the world{8} and I stand by that assessment on both inductive as well as deductive grounds.

At least 95% of our day consists of actions where we make choices which inherently require prior acts of belief in the validity of other person's knowledge about things. When I turn the key of my car (and especially when I push it to 70mph, I assume that the engineers truly understood the laws of physics when they made it. This is belief on my part, belief that they know. When I pull over for a cop and take a speeding ticket, and go to court and pay it, I believe that they know the law. When I get a prescription filled, I put my belief in the pharmacist's knowledge about chemicals. When a team of scientists set up an enormous super-collider cyclotron, they rely on the accurate knowledge of those who first experimented with mere cyclotrons.

Agreed.

The point is that we rest 95% of our daily acts at least partly on belief in the superior knowledge of those who are more expert than we are on various subjects. These acts of belief are not violations of our intellectual nature, they are a validation of our nature as social. We are MADE so as to rely on others, including relying on others' intellects.

You would appear to be basically arguing that humans being intrinsically social have it built into their nature to rely on others and thus express "belief" in these areas not to the detrument their intellectual nature. I do not disagree with this proposition at all -indeed if we sought to verify every step of everything we do on a daily basis before giving or withholding assent or engaging or disengaging in an action, we would never get out of the house. I do not see how what you are outlining in any way detracts from what I have asserted with regards to the requirement of faith in order to even utilize the natural tools of reason and logic.

For what I was doing with that post was striking at what is at the root and matrix of all rational thought and analysis: the necessity of accepting certain propositions for even being able to reason and use logic which cannot strictly speaking be proven. But the foundation of those who would deny the existence of some kind of First Mover or God{9} is to elevate as the apex of all knowledge reason and logic who then mock those who believe in God on the basis of the latter not being able to be strictly proven in an empirical fashion.

My point was they are in the same position as those whom they mock: giving assent to something they cannot emperically verify without recourse to circularity of argument and thus invalidating the foundation on which they stand. How is what you have argued in any way a refutation of what I have been saying??? If anything what you are saying concurs with me albeit you get a bit more Scholastic and technical in the process from what I can discern.

In human interaction, we cannot function without belief. This is never more true than in marriage. When I commit myself to my spouse in marriage, I have a belief that she interiorly makes the same act of commitment which we both outwardly express in words. I cannot prove this interior reality, as I have no direct vision into her mind. I can reason about it from her outward acts, but this reasoning is never more than probable. Therefore, when I make an act of total commitment in the secure understanding of her commitment to me, I am taking a leap of(natural) faith in her as a person.

Correct, your act of faith is based on induction and thus subject to what I noted earlier with regards to being more or less probable based on the totality of your knowledge and observation of your spouse. But like all inductive rationale it cannot be accepted as binding in the sense of being in any way definitive.

The only way the skeptics could be right about belief as contrary to the nature of the intellect is if all human interaction ought to be rooted in doubt, and this would utterly destroy true marriage. But beyond that, it would make man universally paranoid schizophrenics, attempting to be continually doubting everyone around them consciously, while at the same eating food which they did not grow, getting on planes which they did not build or drive, etc.

Well stated though I think my simpler formula of "something cannot come out of nothing" not to mention the proposition which I have yet to see any atheist I have presented it to disprove rationally is the proposition that it takes faith to even reason at all; ergo the concept of faith cannot be intrinsically separated from reason but indeed is required in order to be able to reason at all.

Dedicated to my friend Albert Cipriani whose birthday is today.

Notes:

{1} Musings on the Core Flaw in the Atheist's Logical/Rational Slaw (circa October 17, 2007)

{2} I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.

Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

{3} I may at some point add some archive examples to this posting in the present footnote should I have time to actually track any down. (Or should I in future postings on other subjects stumble across one or more of them in the archives when looking for previous statements on particular subjects in which those concepts are embodied.)

{4} By this term I mean those principles on which our respective views of the world and its constituent elements are based.

{5} The whole idea of self-evident veracity is a problem because as I noted in the other posting, the ability to even utilize logic and reason is subject to certain presuppositions which are required a priori. Ergo, any utilization whatsoever of logic and reason presupposes those points I noted previously making every exercise of reason an exercise of faith in some form or another.

{6} For without them, it is impossible to reason at all.

{7} Others of his time such as Jefferson's political and intellectual rival Alexander Hamilton expressly rejected this notion in part (presumably) from growing up on the island of Nevis in the Carribean and seeing black people of a different mould than those Thomas Jefferson had seen: an example of how Jefferson's inductive reasoning based on experience and observation differed from that of Hamilton and how induction as a basis for reason and logic while capable of cogency of argument if properly utilized is also capable of serious flaws.

{8} Indeed, the moment it is conceded (even tacitly) that one has to be learned to be logical is the moment that academic elitists can impose an intellectual tyranny onto the rest of humanity. The truth is, intellectuals are often quite stupid and can make stupid arguments. Likewise, recognized "experts" in a particular area of study also can make poor arguments or misjudge matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2006)]

{9} However they perceive Him/Her/Them, Etc.