This post is a tribute to fellow cannabis law reform activist, “the Big G.”
He’s “been trying to get the funkin’ job done.” One of the few. Respect.
All posts by Richard
I am Jesus
Phew! It’s hard work trying to be *like* Jesus. Even harder work trying to actually *be* Jesus.
But at last! I’ve joined the exclusive Messiah Complex Club. My Christ delusion is complete.
I’m the latest in a long list of poor deluded fools to join the ranks.
But this time is different.
I’m the first person who thinks he’s Jesus who has logical proof to back the claim!
Here’s my argument.
(P1) I am the light of the world. – John 8:12
(P2) You are the light of the world. – Matthew 5:14
Therefore, (C) I am you and you are me.
So there you have it. Deductive proof that I am Jesus and Jesus is me. It’s a valid argument, which is to say, the conclusion follows from the premises. The premises cannot both be true and the conclusion false. And it’s sound. The premises are true. Take my Word for it.
It’s a Rock solid argument against which even the gates of Hell shall not prevail.
as ever: what is to be done?
I can do nothing without myself. I don’t know what you think you can do. (Just kidding. I read your mind. And your email.) But here are some ideas.
(1) Humour me. (Please don’t point out that I don’t have enough hair to be Jesus. That’s just cruel.)
(2) Medicate me. (Just send me the drugs. Contact me privately and I’ll give you the address.)
(3) Appeal to the last vestiges of reason in my poor deluded fool mind. (I’m probably still more rational than you’ve ever been.)
The last one’s your best shot IMOO.
Putin is cool
Putin is cool.
Putin is cool like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. But far be it from me to judge. That’s just the opinion of the deathly cold shiver running down my spine.
Those shades. Look at those shades.
Does Putin wear them to be cool? Or does he wear them to keep out the light of the world so he can continue his uninterrupted walk in darkness? (False dilemma or true? Putin is effortlessly cool, either way.)
How did Putin get to be so cool?
There could be a simple explanation. Russia’s a cold place. Only hell is colder (when it freezes over). Perhaps Putin’s still thawing out after the Cold War. But here’s how I think Putin got to be so cool. The chilling effect of censorship in Russia.
In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders.
Putin is cool. The camera doesn’t lie. But the photographic evidence is redundant. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
Put on your God-goggles. Now what do you see? You see the hidden person of the heart. Do you see the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious, or do you see a crooked heart, a heart that devises wicked plans, which is an abomination to God?
Still got the God-goggles on? Good. It’s mirror time.
Four ways to escape Behemoth
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (KJV)
Behemoth ranks first among the works of God
“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?” (NIV)
Behemoth is coming.
Ministry of Stupid
Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health tells us that synthetic cannabinoids pose no more than a low risk of harm to people using them.
Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health goes into further detail.
(What did you understand we meant by “no more than a low risk of harm”? Let us tell you, because I think you misinterpreted us. We meant …)
difficulty breathing
feeling cut off from the world or what is happening
seeing, feeling or hearing things that are not real
high blood pressure
chest pain
racing heart rate
chest pain
shaking and twitching
eyeballs move up an and down rapidly
nonstop vomiting
fainting or loss of speech and eyesight
extreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
loss of contact with reality (psychosis)
seizuresproblems sleeping
nightmares
heavy sweating
nausea
low appetite
headaches
moodiness
irritability
restlessness
craving drugsextreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
on-going nausea and vomiting
confusion and memory problems
depression
suicidal thoughts
high blood pressure
racing heart
anger
aggression and violencereduced self-care
less school attendance
less motivation
more apathy
less thought about the consequences of actions
less ability to focus and pay attentionDisorientation
Painlessness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Heightened sense of awareness
Mood changes (some reporting happier moods, some reporting an increase in anxiety)
Loss of co-ordination
Loss of balance
Nausea and vomiting
Inner unrestDisorientation
Sensitivity to light
Nausea and vomiting
Sleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Heightened sense of awareness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Inner unrest
Pins and needles sensation
Low mood
Altered perceptions
Sense of hopelessness
Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”
Feeling faint
Willing to take more risks
DehydrationSleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Altered perceptions
Disorientated
Low mood
Pins and needles sensation
Use of cannabis to self-medicate symptoms
Dehydration
Cold flashes
Now look here, Ministry of Stupid. I’m a libertarian and I don’t think you should be involved in regulating psychoactive substances at all. But I’m a realist too. I know it’s not like I have a choice. But didn’t I hear you say, “it’s for your own good”? If you really must get all paternalistic about it, couldn’t you at least get that bit right?
You know, you really dug yourselves into a hole when Peter Dunne was calling the spadework. Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid Dunne. But maintaining blatant contradictions on your website? That’s a special kind of stupid. Hasn’t anyone told you? When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Notwithstanding what I said a couple of days ago, the moles from the Ministry of Stupid really have abdicated their tiny minds and evicted themselves from the realm of reality. Will they ever find their way back? They’ve lost their moral compass so maybe we should send out a search party.
Right now I’m
Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”
I think I need a smoke.
It’s time to drive a stake through the heart of Objectivism
I’m not sure how I ended up here. But I did.
The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two aspects are necessarily interrelated, but a man’s desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term “prestige.” . . .
Unearned greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who seeks it cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it impossible. He needs the irrational, undefinable slogans of altruism and collectivism to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.
– Ayn Rand in “The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness
And I was mortified. Just a few days ago I accused Rand of this.
The conventions that govern our use of stipulative definitions demand that any use of a word stipulatively defined is preceded with the appropriate disclaimer, i.e., “In what follows, I use ‘X’ to mean ‘Y’. Rand rode roughshod over this convention with cavalier contempt.
But in these two paragraphs (the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Prestige) not only does Rand adhere to the rules meticulously, – (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) – she levels the very same charge at those who desire unearned greatness that I’d leveled at her.
I hastily posted an embarrassed retraction to atone for my rush to judgement. 🙁
But then I realised. I’d thought I was wrong but actually I was right. The two paragraphs do not exonerate Rand. They seal her doom.
Rand knew the rules. She knew the danger of ambiguity. She acknowledged the need of one who seeks unearned greatness for “irrational, undefinable slogans … to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.”
And she went and broke the rules. She capitalised on the foggy murk of the very ambiguities she introduced to underwrite her egoistic creed. She satiated her need for prestige with the irrational, undefinable slogans of Objectivism – not to support her own self-deception but to deceive her wretched victims – her own followers.
Rand knew exactly what she was doing.
If I’m not wrong, I’ve resolved something that has long puzzled me. You see, I’ve spent considerable time in the virtual company of Rand’s deluded disciples. And over the course of that time I’ve developed a grudging respect for Objectivism’s founder. The lady was smart, super-smart. But her philosophy simply doesn’t stack up.
It was never meant to stack up. It’s a philosophy for life on earth. Rand’s life on Earth, surrounded by an inner-circle of adoring sycophants. And her philosophy served its purpose. It created an army of hapless dupes in thrall to their evil dominatrix.
Rand earned her greatness. But what shall she give in return for her soul?
Where to buy drugs
Want to buy drugs but don’t know where to shop?
The National government has thoughtfully provided a list of authorised tinnie houses and their locations.
Thank you National government!
For further information call the National Poisons Centre on 0800 764 766. 🙂
What is rationality? (Part 1)
It’s been a while, but tomorrow night The New Inklings meet again! The time is 7 pm. The place is the Downtown House Bar and Cafe at the Downtown Backpackers, corner of Bunny Street and Waterloo Quay, Wellington.
We discuss philosophy (mainly) and theology. You’re welcome to join us, provided that you are (1) irenic, and (2) rational. If you don’t know what it means to be irenic, Google is your friend. If you don’t know what it means to be rational, well … tomorrow night’s discussion topic is for you!
the nature of rationality and what a commitment to Reason entails
So I thought I’d jot down a few recent thoughts … and start a series of posts … on this fundamentally important to everything topic.
Here’s my all-time favourite Ayn Rand quote.
To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
I used to love to brandish this one at Ayn Rand’s hypocritical followers. I say ‘used to’ because it’s just dawned on me that Rand got it completely wrong! (Yet again! Wotta surprise!)
To arrive at a contradiction is NOT to confess an error in one’s thinking. To arrive at a contradiction is the strongest confirmation possible that there is NO error in one’s thinking!
And to maintain a contradiction is NOT to abdicate one’s mind nor to evict oneself from the realm of reality. At least, not in the short-term, probably not in the medium-term and possibly not even in the long-term! NOT to maintain a contradiction, in the short-term at least, would be irrational in the utmost extreme!
I really don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner … perhaps you don’t see it yet, so I’ll explain.
The simplest example of a contradiction is a proposition and its negation. P and not-P. Two propositions are contradictory, or inconsistent, if they cannot both be true. Three propositions are mutually contradictory, or form an inconsistent triad, if they cannot all be true. Four propositions that cannot all be true form an inconsistent tetrad. And so on and so forth.
None but the completely insane ever believes P and not-P. But believing A, B and C, where A, B and C cannot all be true? This is a commonplace. But most people who believe A, B and C don’t notice the inconsistency. A and B don’t contradict. B and C don’t contradict. C and A don’t contradict. It’s the mutual inconsistency that gives rise to the contradiction. To arrive at the contradiction you actually have to have some logical nous. You have to be able to recognise that
(P1) A
(P2) B
Therefore, (C) not-C
is a deductively valid argument. So to arrive at a contradiction is actually to confirm that you have at least a basic grasp of logic! Which most people don’t.
So you’ve arrived at a contradiction. You believe A, B and C and you are cognizant of the contradiction. You know your beliefs can’t all be true. You know that (at least) one of them has to go. But which one? You’d better sit down and try to figure that one out. But you don’t want to reject the wrong belief. So, in the meanwhile, you’ll maintain the contradiction. Take your time. It’s the rational thing to do.
He that hath seen me
For an entertaining exercise, name the third person of the Unholy Trinity.
Who is it? Mini-Me? Fat Bastard? Frau Farbissina? Or … ?
Brian Leftow on “One Person Christology” is Glenn Peoples’ latest blog post.
How can a Chalcedonian Christology avoid ending up with Christ being two people? If the divine logos (the second person of the Trinity) combined with a fully functioning human body and soul (which some people take to be the ingredients of a human being), that is surely two people and not one, right?
Commenter Nathan thinks it would be an entertaining exercise “to try and define Logos and Human as classes, and then try and bring them together to get incarnate Jesus.” He adds, “but ultimately it won’t work.”
Class, superclass, subclass, interface, implementation, instantiation, inheritance—these are all concepts in object-oriented programming (OOP). Object-oriented programming is a programming paradigm that represents things in the real world as objects with attributes (“properties”) and abilities (“methods”). In software development, object-oriented programming is the one true way. But in theology?
The theology question of the day is not
How can God be three persons?
but the closely related
How can the Incarnate Christ be only one?
By implementing the Human interface, that’s how! Not sure if serious or trolling? I’m serious. I think everything is software.
(Incoming! Genetic fallacy! “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” you say. “You’re a progr(h)ammer, Richard, so *of course* everything looks like software to you!” Nice try but no chocolate fish. Thales was not a tap.)
I’ll try to elaborate. But there’s a problem. Whereas the procedural paradigm is intuitive, the object-oriented paradigm is counter-intuitive. I started out in the procedural paradigm. Next stop, bitter experience. That’s when I made the paradigm shift. But it wasn’t easy explaining the object-oriented paradigm to myself then, and it won’t be easy explaining it to you now. That’s the problem. But I’ll try to elaborate.
I don’t always determine the meaning of a word by looking at its etymology, but when I do I look at the etymology of the word ‘logic’. The word ‘logic’ derives from the Greek λόγος or Logos, which has no exact translation but means, roughly, “reason, idea, word”. But Logos is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is Logos.
God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic.
So says philospher Nicholas F. Gier. Now, what is software but an expression of logic? Think about it.
In the beginning was the Code, and the Code was with God, and the Code was God.
Controversial? Heretical? Or just plain bat-shit crazy? No more so than the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John is any of those things.
A brain (and the body housing it) and a mind (the software running on it) are what constitutes a human person. Christ Incarnate was a human person. He was simultaneously the second person of the Trinity. How come he was not two persons, but just one? Simple. He was running different software. You and I instantiate the class DomesticatedPrimate. Christ Incarnate instantiated the class Logos. Christ is the class Logos. He instantiated himself.
An interface is an abstract class that defines a set of abstract methods. The Human interface is an abstract class that defines what it is to be human in terms of distinctively human attributes and distinctively human abilities. The classes DomesticatedPrimate and Logos have this in common. They both implement the Human interface.
That’s my destructive heresy for today. I’m not teaching it, mind. Just putting it out there.
OOP or Oops!? Be sure to let me know in the comments.
