Where is everyone?

Here is what I know based on recent communications with people.

Steve and Ryan have sworn off blogging because they discovered that they are allergic to high speed internet.

Dusty is too busy scrolling through eharmony.

Steimel is just working too much at McDonald's and his second job. He may have a third job, too, for all that I know.

So I would like to apologize for dropping off the blogosphere and encourage the rest of the missing to come back. Post what you've been up to lately if nothing else.

Personally, I'm feeling sort of blah. My job is good, but the honeymoon phase has worn off. I could really go for a date. It's been a while since I had one of those. Actually I could go for about any positive social activity that consists of more than video games with the guys or drinking with coworkers. Last weekend I got to see what life might have been like at some school other than Wheaton. I went out to celebrate the birthdays of a couple coworkers, and after going out to dinner. One guy convinced almost everyone else to ducttape a bottle of 40 oz malt liquor to one's hand which couldn't come off until the bottle was completely drunk. I can't say that I really enjoy watching out for drunk people. Hopefully my whirlwind of May activity will liven me up.

My sister's college graduation is two weeks away. Then, I get to try out being in a wedding the next weekend, before i take off for Japan a few days later to visit Steve and Ryan. I feel like this is a crappy contribution to the blog, but I wanted to post something since it's been a while.

Senate

The US Senate is presently considering legislation that would create a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, banning same-sex marriages in all 50 states. Ironically, the bill is being co-sponsored by MY senator (needless to say, I've already written and asked her to reconsider her position on the subject). I thought some of you might like to know that our conversation about same-sex marriage has ceased to be a hypothetical problem, so now is the time to figure out where you come down on the issue and write to your senators. Another issue that the senate is currently deciding (the House already passed this nifty bit of legislation) is whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. They tacked that on to an energy bill that is currently being debated in the upper house, so if you have any strong feelings about that, you'd better make them known post haste. [I feel like such an activist... almost like Ryan Schiffer or something!]

University of Texas, Austin

Here is a little picture I found of the (in)famous tower of the University of Texas in Austin (set against a rather lovely sunset, I think). This iconic structure stands only yards from Calhoun Hall, the home of UT's graduate English department-- that is, MY department starting this fall. For some reason, I can't seem to get away from academic institutions that are primarily symbolized by towers (I can't wait for Andy's Lacanian reading). There is a difference, though, because while Wheaton's tower is iconographically synonymous with marriage, UT's tower is a reminder of August 1966 when Charles Whitman shot 45 people in downtown Austin (killing 14) until his 96 minute reign of terror ended with his own death. Not quite so romantic and pastoral, is it? Although some would see both as incidents of male agression, in which case the tower is an all too fitting symbol.

Proposal to Move

Proposal: Let's move our discussions to a Word Press format
Why? Because Word Press categorizes and sub-categorizes posts.
Imagine: Having a discussion that continues for more than a week.


How we would do this: Someone (*Cough* dusty) who has MySQL on their server would start the wordpress blog, tell us about the domain and upgrade us to posting status as we join. I'd be happy to move older posts from this blog over as a labor of love. I just really want to discuss through categories; it seems like the blogger format exagerates our natural propencity to forget, we need some nice catagories running along the right side telling us what discussions have been started.

So what do ya'll think?

Benedict XVI

Well, the smoke poured white from the Vatican today, and a German Cardinal became the 265th Pope, the 16th to bear the name Benedict, but only the second in our lifetime. Watching the CNN coverage of the new Pontiff, it almost seems like a farse, like someone is making a joke of impersonating the pope. For me, the title "Pope" has always been synonymous with the name John Paul II and the face of the man who took that name for his papacy. Today, it really feels like JPII is gone-- more than when he died, more than during his multiple funeral masses, more than when they laid him in the crypt beneath St. Peters. Today, he is both gone and replaced, and the title "Pope" has been taken from his shoulders and laid across those of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It will take a little time before my heart hands the mantle over. [Yes, it's true. I'm not a very good protestant, but I'm better as a popish Anglican than I would be as a skeptical Catholic. The irony is much more healthy this way.]

Sein und Name

Dave has asked me for an essay on the functional similarities of a person’s name and her being. On one hand, this question is not fair. Consider the 250-word requirement: he asks me to tell him about something, but he does not ask me to tell him whatever I know about it; instead, he says, “Tell me this much: no more, no less.” The topic, also, is not one I have chosen but one forced upon me by Dave’s inquisitive mind and questions that are important to him (but perhaps not important to me). He either assumes that there are similarities between a person’s name and her being (itself a problematic construction), in which case he is asking me to walk sans guide into a land he has visited before, or he does not believe there is any connection, in which case he has led me into a trap. You can see why I have “every right” to refuse Dave’s question. Or do I? The question is, unarguably, something forced upon me, something of which I had no participation in the formulation or even whether it would be formulated. It is presented to me unexpectedly, and I am left standing alone with this question and, strangely enough, the responsibility to respond. And this is exactly the similarity shared by a person’s name and her being: she receives both “gifts” or “questions” unsolicited from an other, and she finds herself in an undeniable position of responsibility to respond.

Greener Fields

Here's another web blog opportunity for anyone that's interested. It's a bit more focused than this one. It's set up to specifically discuss what Christian Community might look like if we became a truely sharing people in Christ. The site's hosted by Ariah Fine and it's located here.

Let me know if you have any questions.

No it's not a replacement for this dead site. I still have hopes that the great 611 will one day rise from the ashes and attain to its former glory!

drifting in space

I have a glove and a ball. I throw the ball. I walk to the ball. I turn around. I throw the ball. I walk to the ball. I turn around. I throw the ball.

I say hello, I turn around I say hello, I turn around I say hello.

I tell a joke, I laugh unusually loud for a long, long time. I cry. I laugh. I tell a joke.

I look at the time.

I hold my left foot in my right hand. I jump through my left foot and right hand with my right foot. I fall over.

"Spotter ready?" .... "Falling"


I wake up. I walk in fast circles. No, I cannot see my back no matter how fast I walk. I run: same results.

I open my mouth in an elongated "O." I knock on my head with my right fist. It sounds hollow. I chuckle.

I ask questions out loud that I do not know the answer to. I begin to whisper them into my cupped hands. I hold out my cupped hands and let them fly away.

I sit and wait.

(i.e. I check the blog site)

Fort Campbell

TEFKAMS 1 Satalite image of Dusty's helicopter!!!!
AAAAHHHHH!!! I can see you Dusty!!!

Hello?...(hello...hello...hello...) 

Kangareynolds 

King of infinite space (were it not that I have bad dreams)

I'm sorry if this bores you to tears, but I'm pretty sure that at least a few of you (Stephen, Andy, Dave) will find this interesting. I've been doing some more reading through Jack Caputo's commentary in Deconstruction in a Nutshell (a book that I would place at the top of Dave's book list if he has any bookstore gift certificates left), and I thought I would try sharing enough of this fabulous book to entice you into reading it for yourselves. Everyone who plans on spending any more time in the university (or who ever feels tempted to comment on Derrida, "deconstruction", or "post-modernism") would benefit immeasurably from this relatively short and lucid book. It is very difficult to pick only a few sentences to represent either deconstruction or Caputo's work in this book, but I chose this collection of passages (from pages 54-55, if you're interested) because they are related to a post I've been wanting to write but never found the right time (I would have called it "Is Enlightenment Rationality a Phallacy?"). Anyways, I hope this is as good for you as it is for me:

"While Derrida is often made out to be the sworn enemy of the Enlightenment, he would contend, and we with him, that in fact the deconstruction he advocates is a continuation of what is best about the Enlightenment, but by another means...For it may be that what the Enlightenment seeks cannot be found on the basis that the Enlightenment lays...Derrida's doubts about the absolute judicial authority claimed by and for Enlightenment Reason, by and for 'pure Reason' (capitalized), do not constitute an outright attack upon reason, upon giving good reasons, the best you can under the circumstances. If the old Enlightenment makes everything turn on 'Reason,' the New Enlightenment wants to know the reason for reason, wants to take responsibility for what at a specific point in history calls itself reason and the age of reason, and to consider carefully what is being declared 'irrational' in the name of reason...But the effect of this new Enlightenment would be not to jettison reason but to redefine and redescribe it, for example, by steering clear of the simple opposition of reason and faith and seeing the extent to which reason is deeply saturated by faith...In the new Enlightenment, things are always more unlikely and complicated than the simple oppositions favored by the old Aufklarers-- like Kant and Marx-- might suggest."

Other fantastic titles for things I need to write (or wrote but gave a more mundane nomenclature) include : "Banging in the Bower: Ante-lapsarian Depictions of Human Sexuality in Milton's Paradise Lost" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Beings unto Death: When Stoppard Stops Hiding Heiddeger".

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Isaac Watts, 1707

Dave Update

Ok, so it has been a while since I've written anything of an autobiographical nature on this site; and since I have five minutes to spare, I might as well do the ditty now. "Do the ditty" is a phrase which I just coined, I believe it means, "write an updated autobiographical blurb."

David Jones is currently sitting in the Buswell library of Wheaton College writing his most current autobiographical blurb. Recently, he's been hard at work putting together a groundbreaking training website for the ten Salvation Army corps who have entered the final stage of grant applications for Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers. "I've learned a lot of things as I've worked on this project," says Jones, who is known for his earthshatterly concrete descriptions of his vocational activities. The inside scoop has it he's currently writing articles and researching existing web-resource to help Salvationists incorporate wise principles in everything from urban ministry to fund-raising.

Jones lives with his wife Sarah on the third floor of the Amli apartments near the Danada shopping center. The Danada shopping center was named after Dan and Ada Rice. Isn't that interesting?

Sarah Jones is currently growing at an exponential rate in her general midriff area. She attends a weekly birthing course with her husband, David. This course involves a stuffed placenta, ambient music, and bloody videos, and may not be suitable for anyone under the age of 12.

David Jones is now currently wondering why, this autobiographical sketch is 1) written in a biographical style 2) not so much about David Jones any more 3) thinking how he should go pick up his wife because it is now 5:00

---

Oh yeah! Guess what? I got into Gordon Conwell a few months ago! So we're planning to move to the Boston Area May 15. Feel free to move out there with me!

OK, time to go now.

Terry Schiavo

Ok, since most of our conversations seem to be stalled right now, I want to jump into a new one: the Terry Schiavo situation. It strikes me that this is a tremendously important issue for all sorts of reasons and is on my mind (and probably yours) all the time as the media gives us a minute by minute accounting of this woman hanging between life and death. So, what do you think? Should her husband have the right to decide what is in the best interest of his wife, to interpret her desire to be kept alive or not by artificial means? Or, conversely, should the parents be able to legally trump the husband (who is, after all, her legal guardian) when they disagree with his decisions? And why in the world has this become so politicized? Schiavo has become exemplary—she is able to function as a signifier in this discourse because she is both just like so many other people (and thus, a representative example), and also somehow different from all the rest such that she stands out and is separate from all those in her condition. And it is this difference that most interests me. What is it about her, in particular, that allows hers to be the one “personal” life and death decision, out of the hundreds made each day, that Congress, and even the President of the United States, takes notice of and tries to intervene in? Think about that—Congress passed a law, that Bush quickly signed, that applies to the body of an individual. This use of federal power is, to my knowledge, without precedent. But even as I say that, I think back to the one rainy day we had over spring break when I sat for a few hours and watched as Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa and the rest testified to a congressional subcommittee, again about their bodies. To what extent should Congress be involved in baseball (which, at its core, is business and entertainment) or the Schiavo case? Should the federal government have the right to exert power over individual bodies? And what does it mean that the Republican party, traditional champion of limited government and states rights, is so aggressively seeking to expand the power of the legislature into these other regions? Maybe those of you with more economic/political science backgrounds can help me out with this. But I think we can all agree that, no matter where we come down in all of this, something very interesting is happening in this country of ours. I have my theories, which I will share in a few days when I have more time, but until then… let’s have a conversation.

ok

I'm bored.

The Big Board

I got some great news yesterday in the I-want-my-PhD category: the English department from the University of Texas at Austin sent me an email informing me that I will be offered admission for the fall and they are currently trying to get a funding package together for me! I still haven't heard from the other schools (it's hard to count the wait list at Boston as hearing from them since I still don't know if I'm in or out), so I don't know exactly WHERE I'll be next year, but I do know that I WILL BE IN GRAD SCHOOL somewhere! Needless to say, I'm now breathing much easier than I was a couple of days ago. So, for those of you who enjoy following my future plans or who have placed bets on what schools will reject me, I offer (in no particular order) this comprehensive list of my admissions status:

University of Pennsylvania: admission: NO
Columbia University: admission: NO [weeping and gnashing of teeth]
University of Texas: admission: YES; funding: 6+ years of TA and AI funding; Response: I'm going to UT in August!
Indiana University: admission: YES; funding: full after 1st year; Response: I turned down the offer.
Boston College: admission: Waiting list; funding: waiting list; Response: I took myself off the list.
University of Notre Dame: admission: NO [HA! who cares!]

I will update the Big Board as my status at each school changes.

Uncle Wystan II

This is intended as a companion to the discussion that Dave and I have been carrying on about theology and the Academy (it started in our discussion on Fish). It is also interesting in and of itself for a bunch of artists and (social) scientists like ourselves. Here is the opening passage from Auden's "Postscript: Christianity & Art" (from "The Shield of Persius"); it has some interesting implications for artists and scientists, that is, for the academy:

"Art is compatible with polytheism and Christianity, but not with philosophical materialism; science is compatible with philosophical materialism and Christianity, but not with polytheism. No artist or scientist, however, can feel comfortable as a Christian; every artist who happens also to be a Christian wishes he could be a polytheist; every scientist in the same position that he could be a philosophical materialist. And with good reason. In a polytheist society, the artists are its theologians; in a materialist society, its theologians are the scientists. To a Christian, unfortunately, both art and science are secular activities, that is to say, small beer.

"No artist, qua artist, can understand what is meant by God is Love or Thou shalt love thy neighbor because he doesn't care whether God and men are loving or unloving [Coye: only interesting or uninteresting]; no scientist, qua scientist, can understand what is meant because he doesn't care whether to-be-loving is a matter of choice or a matter of compulsion."

What do you think?

Words of Wisdom from Uncle Wystan

I've been re-reading a collection of W.H. Auden's essays called "The Shield of Persius" (it's part of a larger collection entitled "The Dyer's Hand"). Auden really was one of the greatest minds of the last century (and one of the greatest English-speaking thinkers ever), and I thought I would pass on a few grains of his wisdom from this particular collection:
"Debt or credit cannot be measured in quantitative terms; a relation between two persons is just if both take no more than they need and give as much as they can, and unjust if either takes more or gives less than this."

Guess what still exists...

No silly, not Reebok Pump shoes!

THIS!