Wow. The law the Mexican president Vicente Fox will sign in today or Monday will allow Mexicans to own small amounts of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. You can read about it here. If ever it were time to create a strong border with Mexico it is now.
For those of you who know, I decided sometime recently that I want to begin my graduate career in psychology before moving on to philosophy. I applied to Fuller’s Graduate School of Psychology, and I now have an interview with them which will likely determine whether or not I am admitted. I’ll let you know how it goes!
I just watched Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. As with all of Monty Python’s humour, it is a hilarious, if you are into that brand of comedy, and this film is particularly inspired. It is a bawdy, irreverent, occasionally chaotic (and occasionallypsychotic) series of sketches attempting to tease out the meaning of life, or the lack thereof.
The hilarious end of the movie highlights, I think, an important feature of the worldview of the non-Christian. I would like to reproduce for you a bit of the narrative along with my commentary.
Some friends are planning on studying the Theatetus together this Summer. This Platonic dialogue is devoted to answering the question, “What is knowledge?”
In a sort of intellectual anticipation of reading the dialogue again, I was thinking about knowledge, and possibile definitions of it, as I walked into Home Depot today.
Before tackling the big question itself, my goal right now is to answer the question, “What might knowledge be? What are all the possibilities?” Putting all of the possibilities on the table and neglecting none, no matter how unlikely, is a responsible way to begin a search. Then one can go through each possibility systematically and inquire after the thing itself, discarding those possibilities that do not survive the examination.
Here is what I’ve up with so far… can you add to it?
A dramatic section of the Gospel of Mark consists of Jesus triumphantly entering Jerusalem, cleansing the temple, and the subsequent attacks on Him by the religious leaders. The first two events lead to the third: Jesus essentially asserts Himself as the King and High Priest worthy of the praise of the people and with authority to direct the affairs of the temple. The chief priests, scribes and elders, therefore, naturally came to Him to question Him, demanding a reason why He should assert Himself in such a manner. In so doing, they open themselves up to discussion, or “the dialectic”, with questions and answers, which ultimately puts them in a distressing position.
These religious leaders were used to discussion from their rabbinical training. They had establised a system of interpreting the Scriptures by referring to earlier commentaries and considering each viewpoint carefully. (See Luke 2:41-52 for the boy Jesus’ interaction with these rabbis.) In keeping with this method, they approach Jesus to challenge His authority, though their motives appear to be informed by power politics and not a simple search after truth.
Back to sub-par…..and the end of our playoff hopes.
Versus: The Longis Maghonis
Recap: It was ugly from before the beginning until the end of the game. We only had four guys show up–Jonathan thankfully came at the last second, played one play to prevent a forfeit and then we played 4 on 5 the rest of the game. It was brutal–they jumped out to a nine point lead that we never recovered from. The lead was only 11 at half, but by the end of the game they ran away with it (literally) and pushed the lead to 42-21, where it ended. Brutal.
Matt’s’ Line: Not good. Four points (again) and several missed shots that I should have made. Several rebounds, but not nearly enough. It was a forgettable game that pushed us out of playoff contention.
My Bruins had a fantastic run this year, so it was heartbreaking to see them lose one step shy of ultimate college basketball glory in the NCAA Championship game last night in Indianapolis, IN. But as this LA Times article points out, UCLA simply lost to a better team and have nothing to hang their heads about.
It was very fun to see a team I followed all year go so deep in the tournament. My in-laws are big UCLA fans, so now that I’m committed to live in LA for awhile, I adopted the team. My father-in-law said that UCLA would be good this year, so I started watching them when I could. I didn’t know if I should believe him after they fell hard to Memphis and narrowly avoided a loss to Drexel early in the season. Behind the outstanding coaching of Ben Howland, Pac-10 Coach of the Year, the team gelled at just the right time. Characterized by stifling team defense, they held high-scoring Memphis and LSU to 45 points apiece in the Regional Final and National Semifinal.
The other thing I liked about the Bruins was their unselfish play. No one player could claim to be indispensable. In fact, their high-scoring off-guard, Arron Afflalo, averaged only 11.8 point per game in the Tourney. Constantly someone unexpected would step up and give them a great game when they needed it. Even in the face of extreme adversity they maintained single-minded purpose. Down by 17 to Gonzaga, they managed to come back, scoring the last 11 points of that game to win in a 73-71 shocker. That game remains the highlight of the season.
So I’m sad the Bruins couldn’t pull off another great comeback win last night, but there’s always next year. Apparently, the team will only get better. They will retain their top two guards, will gain one of their best big men in JOsh Shipp who was out for the season with an injury, and have several blue-chip recruits on the way. Watch out for UCLA next year!
Apparently, Dr. Eric Pianka of the University of Texas advocated a plan to save the world’s environment by killing 90% of the population at the 2006 Texas Academy of Science Meeting. The Ebola virus was his method of choice. You can read about it on the Free Republic from first-hand witness, Forrest Mimms III, who has been screaming about this all over talk-radio and the internet.
I hesitate to get too worked up over this story because the evidence that the actual remarks made is thin, seeing how it is based on Mr. Mimms’ evidence alone. However, one can imagine it. It makes me think of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1948 thriller, The Rope. I hope that Dr. Pianka doesn’t have any students crazy enough to actualize his theories!
