stonewallsposts - Tumblr blog

stonewallsposts · 4 days

Text

April 2024 Reading

Neve, cane, piede- Claudio Morandini (2016) Story of an old mountain man/hermit, Adelmo Farandola, who hates being around others. He lives alone high up in an alpine valley, when an old dog makes his way to him. At first he tries to chase the dog off, but the dog stays and they develop a companionship. Through a tough winter, the man reminisces to the dog about his abusive childhood, hiding in the mountains to avoid the wartime conflicts, and his learning to deal with hunger, thirst, and sleep deprivation in order to stay hidden.

But as Adelmo has gotten older, his memory is slipping and his thoughts, while locked in his cabin for the long winter months, are becoming more disjointed. He also struggles with sounds he hears from the movement of the snow and ice. Avalanches are an ever-present, and real, concern.

Adelmo and the dog converse. The dog acts as a kind of 'second opinion' where alternative ideas are sounded out. The dog's opinion is the device for the old man's inner dialogue. Clearly, Adelmo's memory is slipping badly as the book moves along. In the spring, after they make their first trip down the mountain to restock on food, they discover a foot sticking out of the snow.

Adelmo figures there is no rush to do anything about it since the man is dead already. The dog suggests maybe they should tell someone in the village about it. The man puts it off. Later he does attempt to tell the shop owner in the town, but she doesn't realize he is serious. At some point later, Adelmo begins to recall perhaps having shot the man some time earlier, and his body had come down in the landslide. He decides he will bury/hide the body in an abandoned mine. Adelmo then decides to lay down with the cadaver and has a long conversation with it too.

Sicily- An Island at the Crossroads of History- John Julius Norwich (2015)

A history of Sicily. Sicily's history goes back to around 700BC. The island was colonized by the Greeks in the east and the Carthaginians in the west. After the Punic Wars the Romans had effective control over the island. When the Roman empire fell in 476AD, the island was left largely to itself until the Byzantine empire invaded in 535 and took back the island for itself until around the mid 800s. The Arabs were invited over, then conquered the island for themselves and Sicily became an Emirate until the mid 1000s. When the Normans came, Sicily entered a golden age of multi-cultural prosperity that was the wonder of Europe. But when the island was turned over to the Hohenstaufen (German) dynasty through marriage around 1200, the island ceased to be an independent kingdom.

From that time on, the history of Sicily is told in the history of French, Spanish, and Austrian decisions made outside of Sicily. The island passed from one nation to the other with little to no regard for what the Sicilians themselves wanted.

Relegated to provincial status, treated as a place to be exploited, Sicilians learned to trust no one, and look out for themselves and themselves only.

As a Sicilian/American, it's heartbreaking to read. I loved learning more about the history of Sicily, but it's tough to take at times.

Thus Spake Zarathustra- Friedrich Nietzsche (1883-5)

Reading the prologue, it's not hard to see the philosophical connection between Nietzsche and some of the more heinous political systems that arose in the early to mid-twentieth century. I know Nietzsche fans will say that they didn't properly understand him, which may be true. I'm not saying that the Nazi's thought: Nietzsche's the thing... how can implement a system that best encapsulates his philosophy?

But looking at the philosophical ideas floating around at the time: Darwin was relatively new and people were still wrapping their heads around survival of the fittest, and the evolutionary idea that selection will find a way to get genes into the future.

Nietzsche talks about the coming superman; the fact that we won't be the superman, but we may be the direct ancestor of the superman. He speaks of the glory of manliness and being a warrior. These things tie in nicely with the idea of how we best bring about this new superman, who will usher in a new era of human proficiency.

Fascism then saw themselves as constructing a society built on such new men. They preached the need or manly sacrifice, and the need for war to toughen men's bodies and keep them from getting soft. This new society would bring about new men, which would be better than the effeminate populace getting too soft on comforts, and unwilling to sacrifice for a greater good.

I find it fascinating to read the book more for that sense of grasping the kinds of ideas that were capturing men's attention at the time. Fascism didn't just spring up out of nowhere with the idea: hey let's kill a bunch of people! It was a political response to people's fears and hopes of the times, and it must have seemed a plausible response to what people saw as the failures of the systems in place at the time.

Nietzsche hated Christianity and saw its doctrines as effeminizing men and turning them into docile sheep with no creative ideas. He preached strength and virtue, but virtue in more of the old Roman understanding than the Christian. He thought equality was stupid and contra-nature. He criticizes modern (late 1800s for him) culture, but sees Christianity at fault for most of the weaknesses of that culture.

One of the important concepts of the book is 'will to power'. But what exactly this means is hard to pin down. Maybe 'self-determination' would be a good word. Nietzsche writes that all creatures are obeying creatures. There are two sub-categories: those that command themselves and those that are commanded by others. Commanding oneself however is difficult and carries responsibility with it, so it is often avoided. Those then that are stronger will command others. But it is in the nature of life to continually surpass itself. I think this is saying that the strong will naturally rise up and rule in power. Life inherently has the will to power, and it is the weakness of modern man that he has chosen to submit himself and be commanded.

In the third part of the book, Zarathustra, defines existence as an eternal recurrence.

The Return of the Native- Thomas Hardy (1878)

Hardy's novels, and I've now read five of them, tend to start slow, but by the time I'm halfway through, I can't put them down. This one concerns mainly two couples, and a few secondary characters.

Thomasin Yeobright is a pretty young girl that lives on the Heath in England. She is engaged to be married to Damon Wildeve, known in the parts as a bit of a player. The marriage ceremony hits a snag and is unable to go through. We find out that Wildeve is perhaps more in love with another beauty on the Heath, Eustacia Vye. He had been involved with her, but when he expressed interest in Thomasin, Eustacia broke things off. Now they were meeting again, mostly because Eustacia sees him as a way out of the Heath. Wildeve and Eustacia both long to leave, while Thomasin grew up on the Heath and can't imagine leaving.

Eustacia's interest is pulled immediately away from Wildeve on the arrival of Thomasin's cousin, Clym, just arrived from a successful business stint in Paris. Eustacia sees a way out of the heath in Clym, and shortly after, they are married.

But Clym has no interest in leaving the Heath. He explains this to Eustacia, but at heart she thought she could bend him towards her will and change his mind. She grows morose when he insists on staying.

Meanwhile, Wildeve comes into some fortune and Eustacia starts to reconsider her path: perhaps Wildeve would become the way out, but she feels she can't just leave her husband.

Without giving away the ending, the story has to do with thwarted desires and frustrations, and the expectations of society versus personal desires.

Agnes Grey- Anne Bronte (1847)

The novel really serves as an exposé for the treatment of governesses at the time. The main character goes to work for two families as a governess, where she is entrusted with raising children, but given no tools to succeed. In fact, both families raise their children to be dismissive and superior to those "beneath them". The governess is charged with teaching the children manners as well as schooling them, but they are allowed to rule over her. It is their wishes that must be followed, not hers. Yet she is blamed for the resultant problems.

Cranford- Elizabeth Gaskell (1853)

A book with no discernable plot, about a group of ladies in the fictional town of Cranford. These ladies have sticks way up their butts about class, and they're way overconcerned about all the ways in which they can show themselves better to particular people. This is the main concern of their lives: finely dissecting the layers of society and then demonstrating to themselves that they are better than those "below them" in the execution of just about everything they do. Like I said... sticks WAY up their butts.

There are occasionally funny lines, for example: "Mrs. Jamieson, meanwhile, was absorbed in wonder why Mr. Mulliner did not bring the tea; and at length the wonder oozed out of her mouth."

As the book progresses, there is a severe financial setback for one of the characters and her reduced means force everyone to reconsider their evaluations of caste and value.

Manon Lescaut- Abbe Prevost (1731)

The story of the young Chevalier des Grieux, who meets and immediately falls in love with the then 15 year-old Manon Lescaut. His unrestrained passion, and Manon's fickle attitude and desire for pleasures, lead him to repeatedly sink into troubles. Forced out of France, they wind up in New Orleans where Manon dies. The story is narrated by des Grieux, and I'm not sure I've found myself thinking: what are you DOING!? so much since the story of Pinocchio. It is both a love story and perhaps a cautionary tale about unrestrained passions.

I will say though, this story had me engaged from page one. I read nearly the entire novel in a day.

Steppenwolf- Hermann Hesse (1927)

"For of all things, what I hated, abhorred and cursed most intensely was just this contentment, this will-being, the well-groomed optimism of the bourgeois, this lush, fertile breeding ground of all that is mediocre, normal, average."

The steppenwolf is the wild wolf of the steppes. Hesse considered that this was an alter-ego that lived alongside the civilized man that the world must be presented with. The wild wolf, he explains, has strayed into civilized territory, and can no longer find its home or the food it likes to eat.

During the story, Harry, the central character, is handed a tract called the steppenwolf, that describes his life, and tells him he is wrong: his personality isn't two mutually exclusive characters, it is a thousand, or more, competing characters. He then meets the beautiful Hermione, a counterpart to his life, who further breaks down his analysis, and sets to build up areas of his life that are deficient- but solely for the purpose of showing him that even being proficient in these areas is still nothing but unfulfilling.

The back cover contains a quote from a NY Times review: "The gripping and fascinating story of disease in a man's soul".

So much of the story is really dealing with meaning. They blame it on the mundane meaninglessness of middle class life. But I think it arises from abundance, and the concomitant depressing thought that if this is all there is, what's the point. Perhaps in times past, or even current times where life is subsistence, the general sense is "If only I were to have enough", then I could really be whole". And it's true that in modern, western societies, we have enough. Many people still think, "I still struggle a bit, so If only I were to have a little more, then I could really be whole."

But enough people, even more than a hundred years ago, had looked around at our prosperous modern western society, and thought, "wait... is this all there is?", and grew profoundly disappointed in it.

On the Road- Jack Kerouac (1957)

The version I got is called the "original scroll". It's basically the original autobiographical narrative he wrote, with all the true names. The names were changed for the published 1957 version.

There are no chapter or section breaks. Or even any 'paragraphs'. It is written as one gigantic stream-of-consciousness flow.

The book is set in the period of 1947-49. Jack Kerouac and friends, particularly Neal Cassady, hit the road moving from NY to California and back, then do it again... then finally down to Mexico City where the book abruptly ends.

They take 'carefree' to the limit of careless, then to criminal and insane. By 250 pages in to this 300 page book, I was so sick of these morons antics, that I was hoping they'd just get locked up. In search of 'kicks', they left a trail of brokenness, and hurt wherever they went. Even their own friends were disavowing Jack and Neal by the end of it.

The Stranger- Albert Camus (1942)

A man kills another man senselessly, is put on trial, and is given the death penalty. Camus was an absurdist; which is a philosophy that proposed life has no purpose. It isn't that everything is "absurd" in the way we typically think of the word now. As the main character muses on his life and death, he sees no real point in either.

2001: A Space Odyssey- Arthur C. Clarke (1968)

This book was a product of a collab with Stanley Kubrick. The story was made into a movie at the same time. Though only Clarke was credited as the author on the book. An unknown, but obviously alien, monolith is discovered on the moon. And a team is sent to one of Jupiter's moons to explore a second monolith, but things go off course when the onboard sentient computer, HAL9000, flips out. One survivor makes it to the monolith to discover it is a portal to other star systems. He is eventually led to the aliens, but we don't learn anything about them.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 5 days

Text

Describe your perfect date: April 25th

I can't forget this meme for today:

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 8 days

Text

My Brother Charles

My oldest brother passed away sometime early sunday morning. He was 68.

After my mom passed away a few years ago, I thought it would be a great idea if I, who live in the LA area, and my brothers, who all live in the San Diego area, got together once a year, right around the time mom passed away. She passed away around Thanksgiving, so we had gotten together for the last three or so years. Last year, I spoke to him about when to come down, and he said it didn't really matter, they'd all be there. So my wife and went down, and when we got there, I saw my oldest brother get helped in by the second oldest: he looked like hell. He was frail, weak, barely able to do much. And after maybe 20-30 minutes, decided he needed to go lay down. We didn't see him anymore that day. I told my wife that I didn't think there would be another yearly get together with him involved.

The story is that I was adopted out as an infant from that family. At around 30, I had an opportunity to reconnect, and I did. But my oldest brother wasn't around at the time. He was a career army guy, having joined the special forces out of high school. So he was still in the military and living across the country when I first met my birth family. But years later, after he was discharged, I finally met him.

It was the weirdest thing, but just like with the rest of the family, as soon as I met him, it was like we had known each other all along. We just clicked. Having been all over the world in his capacity as an Army Ranger, he had all these stories about places he had been and things he had done... at least what he would tell us. A lot of what he did he couldn't really speak about. But we had a good relationship. I really enjoy the time I can get together with my brothers, and I'll miss Charles. But he was a believer too and I have every hope I'll see him again someday.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 11 days

Text

Health Update

On April 1, I hit one year of being off the Leukemia meds. Hooray! Numbers are still stable so they'll be checking me every 3 months now. I would have written about this at the beginning of April, but I had one little scare.

I injured myself after playing soccer back in mid-March. And while taking some tests at the doctor, they discovered a lesion on the spine that they couldn't rule out as being cancerous. Ran some more tests and it turns out to be nothing. But I didn't know that until earlier this week, and I didn't want to crow on about being "one-year cancer free" if something else popped up. Anyway, all good.

Unfortunately, my weight has been creeping back up. I got down to 150 last Sept. I'm back up to 157 now. This is about the time I started the diet last year, and I'm back on it right now to get back to 150 before things get any worse.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 21 days

Text

Capitalism and greed

One of the interesting things to me in the current discussions over capitalism, is that those who talk down about capitalism typically blame the profit model of the free-market for the ills of life under capitalism. Some are convinced that the government ought to be involved in certain things because if you remove, health care, for example, from the free-market, then the profit motive is removed and the system can become more humane and reasonable.

I don't buy that for the reason that profit motive (greed) is just one instantiation of a larger problem of human nature: self-interest. Removing the profit motive doesn't remove self-interest. Self-interest works just as insidiously with someone in a government role as it does in the free-market. Someone working in government, or even whole departments of the government, are just as self-interested and greedy as those in business. Individuals, or departments, will want to make sure their personal livelihoods are as protected and prosperous as anyone else. They will have the same desires to see their lives bettered as anyone else and they will do whatever they have to do to ensure that. People don’t miraculously switch from greedy to altruistic simply because they went from a free-market to a government job.

Maybe worse, at least in the free-market, consumers can choose whether they want to buy from a particular vendor. But if the government is the only vendor, then there is no way to 'vote with your dollars' in a sense. You simply get what you get with no recourse to other options.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 1 month

Text

March 2024 Reading

I try to read one Italian novel, and one history/political theory book per month. I started early on the Italian novel thinking I'd be finished with it after March 1st, but actually finished it before. So technically I read it in February, but I'm gonna count it as my March Italian novel, so it gets included here.

Busy month with 11 books read.

Seta- Alessandro Baricco (1996) An Italian novel about a Frenchman who travels to Japan. Seta means silk, and the novel is about a Frenchman who travels to find silkworms to bring back to his hometown. There is a pestilence that affects Europe and Africa, so he travels to Japan to buy silkworms there. Japan at the time of the novel (1861) was a closed society, so foreigners weren't really allowed to legally do business. While he is there, he meets with a local warlord who sells him the silkworms. But the Frenchman notices the warlord's concubine and becomes obsessed with her. Before he leaves, she gives him a note in Japanese, which he can't read. When he gets home, he takes it to the one Japanese person he could find in France, and she reads the note for him: Come back or I'll die. He returns and they spend one night together. Back home, he is loving to his wife, but she seems to notice something. He goes back the next year but Japan is in a civil war and the warlord seems to have discovered the incident. He tells the Frenchman never to come back. The Frenchman returns home. A few years later, he receives some pages written in Japanese. He takes it to the Japanese lady in France to have her read it, and it is a love letter describing his night with the warlord's girl, but telling him to forget about her. A few years later his wife dies and he lives quietly for a bit, but then he goes to look for the Japanese lady in France again. When he finds her, he asks if she herself had written the note. She confesses that she did not: it was his wife who had written it, and asked her to translate it into Japanese.

The War with Hannibal: Livy (27-9BC)

This Penguin Classics compilation of Livy's writings covers books 21-30, dealing with Rome's conflict with Hannibal. The details of the second Punic war were fascinating to me. In the previous books of Livy, I was not so interested in the battle details, but this was different. I also found the negotiation speeches interesting. The time period covered was 218 BC to 201 BC.

The Dark Heart of Italy- Tobias Jones (2003)

Really interesting book for someone who loves Italy, but has also been frustrated by the country.

He discusses the deep hierarchy that infects much of Italian life below the surface of vivacity. The Italians love of rhetoric over truth, and the impossibility of getting to anything resembling truth in a highly politicized and polarized governmental system.

But he also recounts the many refinements and sophistications that mark the lives of Italians. While the title is the "dark heart" of Italy, the book isn't really about how Italy is all dark. It's just that the darkness is part of the equation.

Villette- Charlotte Brontë (1853)

This is the last novel Charlotte Brontë wrote. The story is of Lucy Snowe, a young English girl who makes her way across to the fictional village of Villette in France (Belgium), where she finds work as a schoolteacher. The main claim to fame the novel has is it's deeper exploration of the character's psychology, rather than the plot itself.

I could have done with less French in the book, which Brontë sprinkles, untranslated, pretty liberally throughout the book. But while I don’t know French, I've had enough Italian and Spanish to not be totally lost.... assuming at least that my guesses were more or less correct.

The book contains a quote by Lucy Snowe that I very much identified with: "The beginning of all efforts has indeed with me been marked by a preternatural imbecility."

In all the plumbing of Lucy's inner thoughts, I feel like I might be able to recognize them in someone else I know, but that's of course conjecture on some level. It did make the novel more interesting to me though.

The Red and the Black- Stendahl (1830)

The reason for the name of the title is apparently unknown. The story is of a peasant carpenter's son, Julien Sorel, in 1830's France, who manages to rise through various opportunities to a place among the most powerful men in the country. Along the way he picks up the hypocrisy of the day.

One of the constant discussions in the book is how conversation, and really even personality, in the upper class Parisian circles were utterly devoid of any substance. The basic reason is that if one were to show anything more than the most banal cliches, it would open that person up to ridicule- the one thing that must be avoided at all times. This resulted in vapid pointless speech, wrapped in vapid pointless 'wit' and the ever-important "courtesy" and decorum that was considered essential.

Julien, occasionally steps outside this mold though and attracts the attention of some notable ladies, including the daughter of the duke to whom he acts as a personal assistant. She becomes pregnant and Julien's once brilliant career totters. But he then returns home and commits an inexplicable crime, which gets him sentenced to death.

The Turn of the Screw- Henry James (1898)

A short kind of ghost/horror story. Not one of my favorites.

The Prince and the Pauper- Mark Twain (1881)

Well-known story about a beggar boy who, about to be beaten by a guard for merely wanted to glimpse the royalty, is taken in by the young prince. The boys swap clothes and discover they look alike. At some point the prince runs outside, but being dressed as the beggar, isn't recognized as the prince. He is then mistreated. The beggar on the other hand is assumed to be the actual prince.

The morality tale show that being the other isn't always what one imagined. The prince learns a little about how difficult life can be for those not born into privilege, while the beggar learns that being a prince isn't all about getting one's way.

Twain wrote this amusing bit about a conversation between two farm girls who come upon the prince after he fell asleep in their barn:

Who art thou, boy? I am the king, was the grave answer. The king? What king? The king of England! The children looked at each other, then him, then at each other again. Then one said, Didst hear him Margery? He saith he is the king. Can that be true? How can it be else but true, Prissy? Would he say a lie? For look you Prissy, an' it were not true, it would be a lie. It surely would be. Now think on't. For all things that be not true be lies; thou canst make nought else of it. It was a good tight argument, without a leak in it anywhere;

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court- Mark Twain (1889)

This is a funny book, which one might expect when the author is Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). It's essentially a satire of medieval monarchy and chivalrous notions, that gives the author plenty of opportunities to contrast modern American ideas of democracy against the feudal times where the story takes place. The basic story is that a young mechanical engineer from 1880's Connecticut gets knocked unconscious and is somehow transported to sixth-century Britain at the time of King Arthur's court.

He uses some of his more modern knowledge to impress the people, then travels around confronting various social paradigms of the day.

The Island of Dr. Moreau- H.G. Wells (1896)

Early sci-fi work of the 'mad-scientist' sub-genre. Dr Moreau builds a lab on an otherwise deserted south pacific island so he can conduct his experiments mixing humans with animals. The half human/half beasts at some point rise up against him and everything goes about as badly as one might expect from such experiments, even if they were possible.

Pere Goriot- Honore de Balzac (1835)

Father Goriot, or old Goriot, is an old father obsessed with his two daughters. He lives vicariously through them, even though they have rejected him, and lives in a state of financial ruin hoping only to see them do well, even if from afar. him to financial ruin

The story also includes two other characters who live at the boarding house where Goriot stays: Eugene de Rastignac, a student from outside Paris, and an older prison escapee, Vautrin.

The Invisible Man- H.G. Wells (1897)

Griffin, a young scientist, discovers a way to make himself invisible. He imagined the positive usages for this, but didn't foresee the negatives. Once invisible, however, he finds himself hunted by society. He descends ever deeper into a me-versus-everyone attitude until he reasons the only way he can protect himself is by instituting a reign of terror over the local people.

In his attempt to do so, he is captured and killed, and as he dies, visibility returns to him so the people can see Griffin.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 2 months

Text

February 2024 Reading

Starting off 2024 doing some heavy lifting: first I read one of the more difficult Italian novels in Quer pasticciaccio brutto de via Merulana, then tackled the nearly one-million-word novel, Clarissa, then knocked out a smaller book on life in Italy, and now this month I launched into Il pendolo di Foucault, an 800 page Italian novel, probably the longest I've read in Italian.

Il pendolo di Foucault- Umberto Eco (1988)

This is an exceptionally involved work. The novel is essentially about conspiracy theories and how people are drawn into them.

The basic story is told by the main character, the student Casaubon. He meets an editor of an academic publishing house, and when asked what he studies, Casaubon replies that he is studying the Knights Templar. Casaubon is told by the editor, Jacopo Belbo, that all of what he has come across in this field are crackpot conspiracies written by delusional kooks. Casaubon acknowledges that there is a lot of legend surrounding the knights, but he is concerned only with the verifiable history.

But Belbo invites Casaubon into a discussion with one such writer who outlines his own studies of the what happened. This man is convinced that he is on the point of uncovering a vast conspiracy. Belbo and Casaubon both conclude he is bonkers, but he disappears the next day.

Casaubon then moves to Brazil where he meets and falls in love with a young Marxist. He discovers links between some of the mystic Afro-Brazilian religions and the legends surrounding the Knights.

He returns to Italy where he and Belbo decide on a ruse: to formulate and elaborate their own 'plan' of what happened to the Knights Templar. But circumstances lead them to start to wonder if their made up plan is actually true.

The book is 800 pages, and filled with detailed explanations of how these things fit together. These discussions serve to illuminate how even educated people can come to see connections when those connections aren't really there. The issue started in these cases with the belief and acceptance of some repository of secret knowledge. This meant that access to that knowledge included interpreting things in a type of code. Doing so required reading things symbolically, and that in turn leads to any manner of intellectual gymnastics that will make sense of things in the individual's mind. So the conspiracy theorist can take just about any number of elements he finds, and if he can reinterpret their meaning to find what he feels is a workable connection, he can find justification in believing they are connected in the way he always intuited them to be.

One of the lessons from all this is that in order even to fake a web, it has to look valid, which in turn requires one to be so intimately acquainted with the theories that he doesn't suggest an obvious error. In emerging oneself so deeply in these theories though, he risks losing his objectivity and becomes himself engrossed in the web, even knowing it was his own invention.

But as he cleans up all the connections, he begins to wonder if there really is something to the order he has created.

Someone asked Eco once if he was a predecessor of Dan Brown and the DaVinci Code. Eco responded that Dan Brown would have been one of the characters in this book.

The Italian City-Republics – Trevor Dean and Daniel Waley (1st edition 1969, 5th edition 2023)

This is a textbook of the Italian City-Republics. The Italian City-Republics generally covers the time period of around the late 900's to the 1200s, and the geographical area of the Po Valley and the area of Central Italy covering Tuscany to Pisa. The Papal lands of Central Italy and southern Italy developed under different circumstances- effectively under a more complete imperial control, that didn't allow the kind of independence that occurred in the north.

In northern Italy, there were alternating technical imperial controls from France and Germany, but those kings were generally too far removed from Italy to exercise direct control. This meant that the cities were, in effect, left to govern themselves independently. From there, they developed their own institutions of local governance. They pursued their own local interests. They developed relations with neighboring cities based on their own interests. They moved from control by local ecclesiastical authorities, who had wielded the effective power in their jurisdictions, to secular authorities who were elected. They went through the process of seeing their economic success lead to an increased business class, who began to assert their combined power against the nobles. They also went through the process of uniting ever larger geographic areas under the aegis of both Florence, Genoa, and Milan to stand up against the larger threats. Interestingly enough, many of these same dynamics played out 1500 years earlier in the Roman Republic.

The basic reason why the republican governments didn't last was factionalism. Unfortunately, self-government seemed to turn small differences into larger. Compromises and 'agreements to differ' were set aside and recourse to violence between factions became a conventional way of settling differences.

Republics usually end because they are unable to provide stable regimes. A single ruler who is able to get things done is seen as a more acceptable alternative.

When an effective single leader found his way to power, the people would eventually find a way to increase the length of his office, until he became the ruler for life.

But, of course, the arrival of the Signorie, the absolute rulers, in Italy didn't just happen either. There were power hungry men who saw the opportunity and schemed and fought for it too.

Black Beauty- Anna Sewell (1877)

A fictional story written from a horse's point-of-view. The story tells the life of a horse about the types of good and bad treatment received from humans. It would be a kind of horse's rights story, meant to instruct people to treat their horses, and by extension, their animals well.

A Doll's House- Henrik Ibsen (1879)

Henrik Ibsen was a Danish/Norwegian playwright. This book contains four of his plays, of which A Doll's House was the titular most famous piece. The other plays are Pillars of the Community, Ghosts, and An Enemy of the People. Ibsen became known as the Father of the Modern Drama. He wrote plays that were meant to depict contemporary, real people in their speech. He said the days of Shakespeare were gone, and so he wasn't concerned with writing poetic depictions of life.

Pillars of the Community was fantastic. Really great plot that kept me engrossed all the way through.

A Doll's House was a little dull to start, but picked up right at the end.

Ghosts is the shortest of the four plays and like the others, brings to light actions that the characters would rather have remained hidden. The title refers to the remnants of past actions that continue to haunt those that try to bury them.

An Enemy of the People tells the story of a man who finds there is something seriously wrong with the main source of business for the town. He tries to do the right thing by alerting people but finds that people are not at all pleased by the potential shut down of their revenue. They all turn on him and he finds himself having to stand nearly alone.

Heidi- Johanna Spyri (1881)

A children's novel about a young Swiss girl who manages to positively affect everyone she comes into contact with.

The Awakening- Kate Chopin (1899)

A sort of first-wave feminist manifesto. Edna is a young mother who is growing disillusioned with her life, which she feels has been scripted. While she has a loving husband who idealizes her, she recognizes that he doesn't really get her. He sees her purely in terms of her role as "his" wife, and "the mother of his children". She grows increasingly independent. She loves another man, but realizes that even there, eventually she would tire of him too. She ends by swimming out to the ocean and drowning as the only way to escape what she feels is a trap.

Les Fleurs du Mal- Charles Baudelaire (1867)

The Flowers of Evil is the title in English of this compilation of all Baudelaire's poetry, written between 1840 and 1867. The book starts with this haunting poem addressed-

To the Reader: Stupidity, delusion, selfishness and lust Torment our bodies and possess our minds, And we sustain our affable remorse The way a beggar nourishes his lice.

Our sins are stubborn, our contrition lame; We want our scruples to be worth our while- How cheerfully we crawl back to the mire: A few cheap tears will wash our stains away!

Satan Trismegistus subtly rocks Our ravished spirits on his wicked bed Until the precious metal of our will Is leached out by this cunning alchemist:

The Devil's hand directs our every move- The things we loathed become the things we love; Day by day we drop through stinking shades Quite undeterred on our descent to Hell.

Like a poor profligate who sucks and bites The withered breasts of some well-seasoned trull, We snatch in passing at clandestine joys And squeeze the oldest orange harder yet.

Wriggling in our brains like a million worms, A demon demos holds its revels there, And when we breathe, the Lethe in our lungs Trickles sighing on its secret course.

If rape and arson, poison and the knife Have not yet stitched their ludicrous designs Onto the banal buckram of our fates, It is because our souls lack enterprise!

But here among the scorpions and the hounds, The jackals, apes and vultures, snakes and wolves, Monsters that howl and growl and squeal and crawl, In all the squalid zoo of vices, one

Is even uglier and fouler than the rest, Although the least flamboyant of the lot; This beast would gladly undermine the earth And swallow all creation in a yawn;

I speak of Boredom which with ready tears Dreams of hangings as it puffs its pipe. Reader, you know this squeamish monster well, -hypocrite reader, - my alias, my twin.

Unfortunately, this was the best piece in the entire book, so... yeah.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 2 months

Text

Gen Alpha kids

When you swipe to the left on Android phones, there are a bunch of articles that are supposed to be related to things you like. I found one today about Gen Alpha kids.

A lot of the attitudes that the writer assigns to Gen Alpha kids are not really particular to this current Generation, they are, in fact, just human nature. There are several quotes from various experts:

"They are persistent seekers of justice, and as a result, will stand up to someone three times their size without hesitation,"

“For example, if an adult enforces a no-electronics rule at dinner but then uses their own cell phone, they are likely to question the inconsistency and challenge the rule,”

“Generation Alpha can oftentimes challenge and refuse to accept the status quo, questioning rules and customs that may seem arbitrary or hypocritical,”

"They are fearless, tenacious, always go after what they want without a second thought, and never back down from a challenge,"

If I look at the behavior alone- they challenge rules and particularly inconsistent application of rules, they go after what they want and don't back down, that stuff is just regular human behavior that we discipline out of kids through time. They are innately selfish by nature and will grab what they want from other kids. They need to be taught to share and disciplined into social behavior.

Some of the motives ascribed to them as to WHY they are like this, namely this: "They are persistent seekers of justice" are probably more attributable to the adults. I mean, we're all about justice when that justice means someone else needs to share with US, not as concerned about justice when it means we need to share with them.

But who doesn't question rules that seem arbitrary or hypocritical? This isn't behavior specific to Gen Alpha, it's just basic human nature. We all do this.

One of the reasons proffered for this alleged unique behavior is the "Millennial parents, who employ different strategies than previous generations."

Uh, I have some news for the writer: I, a boomer, had some of these same dumb ideas when I was a young parent. I too thought that I would not be the kind of father who said things like: because I said so! I would sit with junior and walk him through the rational thought processes, and junior, being fully rational too, would see the beauty of my concern for him, and accept the direction given to him. Or, as the article puts it, "allowing the child to be part of the decision-making process and seeking to better understand them,” says Ryan Fedoroff, MEd, of Newport Healthcare. “This develops independent thinking and problem-solving skills in children, which can make them feel empowered, more confident, and practically fearless."

Sure. Allow your child to be 'part of the decision-making process' which will allow him to 'better understand' the process.... which will 'develop independent thinking and problem solving skills in children', which in turn 'can make them feel empowered, more confident, and practically fearless.' And what, boys and girls, could possibly go wrong if your four-year-old is empowered, confident and practically fearless?

Except, and here's what happened in my case, junior wasn't as rational as I had thought he would be. He was immature and selfish. Selfish because he was a little human and, like all of us, wanted what he wanted, and immature because, well, he hadn't had time to mature. What I had missed in all this was that being rational about where you fit in the scheme of things takes time. It takes failure and the wisdom that comes from learning from those mistakes, and that only comes through time. So rationally walking junior through why he can't have flaming hot cheetohs for every meal was a real waste of time, and at that point I discovered the wisdom of MY father and pulled out the old gem: you can't because I said so.

There was a viral video some years ago when mom was trying to reason with a little kid- maybe 4 or so. And he kept interrupting and saying, "But Judy ( I don't remember the exact name), listen! You're not understanding..." He wanted what he wanted and wouldn’t be dissuaded or reasoned with. Every time she would try to reason with him, he would interrupt and continue to push the same point, which was no more than saying: But I want it!!!! That's not his fault, his reasoning just isn't up to level yet. And it's up to the parents to understand that, not act like he is more mature than he is. Sure, giving junior that much rope to argue his point might feel empowering to him, but to what end? Junior feels empowered to forward purely selfish arguments.

The characterization in the article is that "authority imposed on children" is "harsh". Well, you don't want to impose harsh authority on little boo-boo, do you? What a meany you would be. But the fact of the matter is that as the adult, you are responsible for junior. That makes you, wait for it... the authority. Of course, authority can be either harsh or not. But the law makes the adult responsible, and therefore the authority, whether the adult likes it or not. By all means, you don't want to go out of your way to exasperate your kids, but those kids actions are legally on you. So you ARE the authority. And if that seems harsh that you will have to tell Junior to listen to you whether he likes it or not, and if he doesn't, there's gonna be some paddling in the future, then that's the way it has to be. You ARE the authority, you have the wisdom and the experience, and junior will have to listen to you whether he feels empowered or not. He can get empowered as he gets older.

Motives

I can't help but feel that a lot of the motives attributed to the kids in this article aren't really correct. They sound like the adults quoted in the articles are just projecting on to the kids. "They are persistent seekers of justice" "They are defending each other, defending their families, defending strangers, because they feel so connected to others," “Events experienced by this age group, particularly related to racial injustice and equality, like Black Lives Matter, have increased awareness and influenced a commitment to addressing racial inequalities,”

I'm not convinced that giving these kids devices does anything towards making them ferally empathetic. My own experience with my grandnieces and nephews is that they are nearly zombies in front of their ipads. I say hello, and if I’m lucky, I may get them to look up and acknowledge me. They are utterly zoned in on their devices and are losing human connection. Watching videos of teachers talking about the ipad kids is telling me the same thing. Hopefully this isn't widespread, but as much as Gen Alpha is growing up on devices, they seem severely socially, emotionally, and intellectually retarded, not extra empathetic.

"They may also have an easier time setting boundaries and expressing themselves than previous generations because of their confidence and being raised knowing all feelings are valid (even if all behaviors aren’t)."

One of the things the teachers on these ipad kid videos are saying is that the kids are unresponsive, and if they are "setting boundaries" it's to tell the authorities in their lives that those authorities "can't tell them what to do, cuz, you aren't my mom!"

I suppose you can spin that kind of disobedience as "setting boundaries and expressing themselves" and having "confidence" and "knowing their feelings are valid"… but in reality, it also makes for completely self-absorbed humans who won't learn or cooperate.

The article does acknowledge this, in much nicer terms than I did. The trick in child-raising is to find what junior is good at, and teach him to use those strengths for the good, while mitigating the bad effects. Because just about any trait we have will have both good and bad usages.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 3 months

Text

Obedience and Satisfaction

I was reading in Numbers 11 the other day and in verse 4 it says: "The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, “If only we had meat to eat! ".

I'm reading through the Bible for my 21st time this year, and I don't know that I'd ever stopped to think about this before, but they had meat. They left Egypt with livestock and flocks, and they sacrificed regularly from those herds. So they had beef and lamb to eat. The next verses give a little more insight: "We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"

So they mention specifically fish. And it’s probably true that they weren't getting much fish in the desert. But I was thinking about this in my prayer time afterward and of course the application for me in this story is that I can be (and AM) richly blessed and have all I need, yet still look at what I don't have and complain about that. It isn't that I haven't been provided for, I just want more. I would imagine this is a very relevant message for people like me, who live in a time and place in the history of the world where we have abundance far beyond what most people would have ever expected. And yet, we will tend to still look not at whether our needs are met, but we'll find some people that have more, and then think, well I don’t have that much so I'm not being taken care of! When I consider that for just a second, I have to admit it's such an ungrateful attitude. God has given me (and most of us in this modern, first world economy) an abundance. And yet I can look at what I have and still feel it isn't enough?? We are surrounded by influences that are designed to make us feel this way, in great part so that we will be emboldened to buy more. But while these influences are definitely at work around me, I don't excuse myself for falling prey to them. Temptations are always going to be around. But I've also been given the Holy Spirit, and, so I'm told in James 1, wisdom when I ask for it. But ultimately, as James 1 also tells me: "each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed". It's not just temptation... my own evil desires are just brought to the surface when faced with the temptation.

I've generally considered myself a contented person. I'm not a particularly greedy guy and I am well aware that certain life-decisions I've made were made specifically with an aim for peace and happiness as opposed to financial gain. In other words, I chose paths knowing I'd earn less but be happier overall.

That said, there have been other times when I should have been content and yet chose not to be. I chose to go after more than what I had been given. Effectively, I looked at the Lord and said: what you've provided isn't enough! Which is exactly what the people in the Numbers 4 story did.

Why do we do this? Outside of just blaming it on a sin nature, I don't have an answer. It seems a part of humanity to just want more. OK.... but why do we, as believers, do the same thing? Well, of course, we are part of humanity, so it's innately in us too... but we should also have the presence of the Holy Spirit working against the flesh. So my answer is that I was allowing the flesh to have its way rather than allowing the Spirit to guide me. I have plenty of guidance from the Bible, and, unlike perhaps generations past, it is freely and widely available to me. So I don't have much in the way of excuse for not letting the Word guide my life.

I wish I had a more complete answer for why in some instances, I give this place to my flesh, even when I know it won't end well. But I think it comes down to obedience and faithfulness. When I build up small habits of obedience, those begin to form a character of faithfulness. When I stop listening to the small things the Lord tells me, then disobedience... and dissatisfaction... begin to take the lead.

The connection then is that if disobedience leads to dissatisfaction, obedience and faithfulness lead to satisfaction.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 3 months

Text

January 2024 Reading

New year, more books to read. I had nearly finished up my list of novels, but I ran across more that I wanted to read, so I've added a bunch of novels, and more Italian reading, plus I already had a long list of history and political books to tackle too. I'm setting myself another goodreads goal of 50 books for the year.

Quer pasticciaccio brutto de via Merulana- Carlo Emilio Gadda (1957)

This has been one of the most difficult books I have read in Italian. It's a mix of high Italian vocabulary and various dialects, which made it even slower than usual for me. 300 pages has taken much longer than the usually extended time it takes me to read in Italian. And then there's the convoluted narrative and plot.

But.....come to find out... that's kind of the point of the book. The title translates to "That awful mess on via Merulana", and it refers to a series of two connected crimes- a theft and a subsequent murder, and the ensuing investigation. But things get muddy really quickly. Here is why:

"The seething cauldron of life, the infinite stratification of reality, the inextricable tangle of knowledge are what Gadda wants to depict. When this concept of universal complication, reflected in the slightest object or event, has reached its ultimate paroxysm, it seems as if the novel is destined to remain unfinished, as if it could continue infinitely, creating new vortices within each episode. Gadda’s point is the superabundance, the congestion, of these pages, through which a single complex object – the city of Rome – assumes a variegated form, becomes organism and symbol."

The author is using tangled language and complicated plots to reveal his view of life. This makes it easier to accept on one level; after all, I'm really glad my grasp of Italian isn't so poor as it seemed after the first few pages, but none the easier to actually read. Gadda shows an indignation at the harm done by incompetence, expediency, and self-interests, which he portrays through the garbled, conflicting testimonies of those questioned during the investigation.

Oh, and just to top it all off, the mystery is never solved. Feels like it was close, and then then book just ends.

Clarissa- Samuel Richardson (1748)

I believe this was the longest novel in the English language, 1462 pages of small text on larger pages in this version and nearly a million words. But a few people have produced some doozies since then, and it's not the longest anymore. Still, it's a whopper and I've put it off a few times.

The full title of the novel is: Clarissa. Or the history of a young lady: comprehending the most important concerns of private life. And particularly showing the distresses that may attend the misconduct both of parents and children, in relation to marriage. I guess if you're going to write nearly a million words for your book, you might as well toss your reader into the deep end with a long title.

The story plot isn't super involved, and in fact, my initial thought was that this book could have used some serious editing. I'm certain that any modern editor would tell him to chop it down or else no one will read it. But as one famous reviewer wrote: you don't read Clarissa for the plot, you read it for the sentiment.

The basic plot is that a young man, Robert Lovelace, comes to call on the Harlowe family because he has heard of a pretty daughter. But the older daughter, Arabella, isn't as pretty as he had heard, whereas the younger, Clarissa, is. The family hears that despite his family and credentials, he is a famous rake, so he is rejected as suitable. Clarissa imagines how it would be nice to reclaim him to virtue by her example, but can't accept him as is. Their older brother comes home, and knowing and hating Lovelace, throws him out of the house. Lovelace, insulted by such treatment, ends up dueling with, and injuring the brother.

Clarissa's family, deciding that her interest in Lovelace must be dampened by marrying her off, selects a wealthy, but ugly and boorish man as a husband. Clarissa rejects the man, but her brother, looking with greed to some financial inducements the suitor has proposed, and her sister, jealous because Lovelace wasn't interested in her, contrive to convince the family that Clarissa, a virtuous girl, submit to the family's wishes.

Clarissa argues her point in vain, but right before she is to be married off against her will, Lovelace lures her outside the house and abducts her to a safe place. She is happy to be away from the forced marriage, but not to be in Lovelace's power.

In fact, he rents a portion of a whorehouse in London, and pays the whores there to act as if they are respectable citizens... but keep her inside. He himself stays at the same house, to Clarissa's horror, applying pressure for her to give herself up to his advances.

She manages to escape, but is tracked down and he surrounds her with his paid servants, who act like they are his noble relatives. She is then taken back to the whorehouse where she is drugged and raped.

He promises to marry her, but she will not have him. Knowing she is now 'ruined', she wants only to escape him. But Lovelace is all the more smitten with winning her approval. She again manages to escape while Lovelace is away attending to family matters, but the madam of the house has her arrested and thrown into debtor's prison.

Lovelace is horrified by the fact that the whores took this liberty while he was away, but while she is there, she is abused and mistreated until she becomes very ill.

She is eventually set free from the debtor's prison and lives with some nice people who had taken her in, but she knows she is dying and only wishes to maintain her dignity before God. Despite threats by Lovelace to take her away again, and attempts by him to do so, she manages to escape his grasp and ends up dying peacefully. A cousin of Clarissa's tracks down Lovelace and kills him in a duel.

The entire story is told in a series of (over 500) letters back and forth between the various characters. The novel is built around the revelation of the characters, their motives, their internal consistencies and contradictions, and how they both thrive, cope, or rebel against the restrictions of their time and place.

My initial impression was that it was way too long... but as I went along, I came to see it as a fantastic story about the strength of virtue against any series of tools meant to bring virtue down.

Even the length of the book might be read as an insight into the exhausting measures the world will go through in order to break you down, and just how tiring it can be to fight against it.

Italian Ways- Tim Parks (2013)

Tim Parks is an English writer who has lived in Italy for the last 40 years or so. I really like his insights into Italian life, and you really need someone like him, who is not a native, but has lived in his adopted country for so long, to provide those insights. We natives don't tend to notice certain things about our own cultures, or if we do, we take them for granted as simply normal. Whereas an outsider with a different perspective will notice the differences. An astute outsider will take those differences and begin to understand what insights they give in to the culture and nature of the adopted country.

Tim Parks uses travel on the Italian railways, in this instance, to explain life in Italy.

Having traveled on Italian trains a few times, I was actually able to confirm his observations because I had similar experiences. It's a fun book to read for someone from the Anglosphere who is interested in Italy.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 3 months

Text

Good luck!

Luck is the concept of an improbable event happening through random chance- the outcome is beyond the control of the person affected. If the improbable event has a positive outcome, it is considered good luck, if it has a negative outcome, it is considered bad luck.

Wishing someone good luck then is to wish that they find a positive outcome in something beyond their control.

Is luck an anti-biblical concept?

I have had several Christians through my life gently rebuke me for saying something like "good luck!", because, they will say, there is no such thing as 'luck'; God is in control of everything.

I would still allow for something like improbable events happening through random chance. Even granting predestination, all one has to do is accept a version of middle knowledge in order to include that in any possible combination of outcomes, improbable events happen by chance.

If a reader is unsure of what is meant by middle knowledge, let me explain it very briefly.

Middle knowledge is a possible explanation of how human free-will can coexist with divine sovereignty.

The basic problem is that if God is absolutely sovereign and has chosen the outcome of the world, then humans have no real choice in the matter. They will do what they were predestined to do so that the outcome will arrive at what God wants.

To keep things simple for this thought experiment, we'll suppose three possible outcomes if God were to leave humans to their own choices: A, B, and C.

Middle knowledge is the proposal that God has several layers of knowledge: the highest level is the knowledge of all three outcomes, each of which we might call a possible world, meaning just that in each, this would be the world that would happen if human decisions went one way. So at the highest level, God knows how each of the three worlds would play out.

The lowest level of knowledge would be knowing how the specific world we are living in right now will play out.

The middle knowledge is His choice of which one He wants to come to pass.

Middle knowledge is the proposition that God will choose one of the three possible worlds, and that is His sovereign will; but also recognizing that in any of those three possible worlds, the conclusion is derived from humans freely making choices.

I limited the possible choices to 3, but consider the actual possible worlds nearly limitless. In this way, one can reconcile human free will with divine sovereignty.

Some would argue that humans don't have free will. The biblical story of Saul's choices would confirm that humans are indeed freely making choices, since Samuel pointedly tells Saul that had he chosen differently, his kingdom would have endured. If there were no other possibility, then Samuel could not have made that statement. So humans are choosing freely, even within a paradigm of divine sovereignty.

The fact that God chose one of those scenarios of course means that the outcome is determined in the particular scenario chosen by God, but still, no matter which scenario God chose, there are plenty of acts of human will and decision, and within the realized world, there will be improbable events that happened through the random chance of those decisions.

So the concept of luck isn't ruled out by Divine sovereignty. I also acknowledge that there are things that will happen that may seem like luck, yet were purposed by God. It's impossible for any of us to know which events are random and which are specifically designed, but I see no reason why there would not be instances of luck in any world.

My conclusion is then that luck, per se, isn't an anti-biblical concept.

I hope I adequately explained myself about the reconciliation of human freedom and divine sovereignty, and how the existence of that free will in each possible world will result in improbable events occurring due to random chance, or luck.

Is it good practice to wish someone good luck in finding a positive outcome in something beyond their control? I agree with my chastisers that it would be a better practice to pray and ask the Lord for an outcome than rely on luck.

In a recent example, someone said they were trying a new doctor. I said: "Better luck this time."

There is of course a random element in the choosing, but the eventual outcome isn't improbable at all. In this case, there was no element of luck involved, even if the positive outcome sought was beyond the control of the one seeking it. Since there was no improbable event that would occur through random chance, this was not a case of luck, and there would be no reason to wish someone good, or bad, luck in the outcome.

But also in my defense, the off-hand statement was merely a pro forma way of wishing someone a desirable outcome. It was not meant to reveal a worldview based on eliminating the influence of God and nothing more than random chance. So, ya know... lighten up a little!

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 3 months

Text

What does the story of manna tell me?

God provides manna for the Israelites after they up and leave Egypt. The name "manna", comes from the Hebrews asking....man hu?... What is it?

It struck me while I was praying and thinking about this: how often do I misunderstand what the Lord is doing? He gives me something and my response is ... what is this? What am I supposed to do with this? How is this going to help?

The manna was food for their sustenance... they just didn't recognize it as such when it first appeared.

The other thing that struck me about the manna story is the fact the manna would not last for a second day. This kind of hits home because over the last few years, I have had the knowledge that it's an uncomfortable feeling at my age, close to retirement, to have that gung-ho, I'm-not-going-to-worry-about-anything-other-than-trusting-You,-Lord feeling that so many of our worship songs are always mentioning. I am honestly worried about giving my security to the Lord. But just like with the manna, we can't rely on yesterday's provision. There are no guarantees in this life and nest eggs can go bad. We need the Lord's provision continually.

I'm embarrassed for myself about this too because this kind of provision in time of need has been repeatedly met during my lifetime. I've never known the Lord to be unfaithful and leave me hanging... too long...

One other nugget from the manna example: I should also note that God didn't take it away from them either until they entered the promised land.

I have never had any inkling, either through scripture or my lived experience that God is a capricious giver. So for now, I think I'm ready to just trust Him. IF He decides to take something away, I've also learned through experience that I will be prepared in advance and it won't be nearly as devastating as I thought it would be. So why did I get it in my head that I needed to be afraid of this hypothetical loss of security? No idea. It's just stupid. But even if it does happen, the Lord will still make a way for me to get through by trusting Him.

That said, I also need to be prepared.... Luke 9:57-62.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 4 months

Text

Philippians 3:12

One of the recent sermons featured Philippians 3:12 "but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me". Since we often make resolutions for the new year, why not make this a resolution- take hold of that for which Jesus took hold of me. He encouraged us by saying that since God has taken hold of my life for a purpose, I'm going to make my purpose to take hold of His purpose. That's the sweet spot for Christian living.

The frustrating spot is trying to get God on my program. "God... it's not working... I'm praying... this is a good thing... God you need to be doing this thing.... why isn't it working out..."

Trying to recruit God to our plan is frustrating. When we try this, we have it exactly backwards- essentially telling God to take hold of the things for which we took hold of Him.

I have to admit to having done this. It's painful to admit, but painful isn't the point, true is the point. Focusing my efforts on trying to eliminate the pain without regard to whether or not I'm living something that's true or false is just trying to treat the symptom, not the problem. I'm engaged in trying to fix this right now. But to be perfectly honest with myself, I was just unwilling to submit to the Lord in certain areas. As such, it has been a hindrance to my spiritual life... particularly my prayer life. I could try and ignore those areas for a short time, and pray around them, but after a certain point, the Lord would just come back and be like: so... what? You're just going to ignore what I'm saying and then expect me to start answering your prayers? It doesn't work like that. You need to deal with these issues and then we'll go from there.

I was particularly struck by some recent messages from James that challenged me:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."

God will give, but if you doubt, you should not expect to receive ANYthing from the Lord. That hit home. I say I trust in God, but when He tells me to do something, and I say- ' No, I don't want to do that because I think I won't like it very much! ', then clearly, I do NOT trust Him. I, in fact, DOUBT Him, and at that point, what makes me any different from a non-believer? As it was pointed out.... perhaps I should expect to receive nothing from Him... and maybe that even means salvation. After all, our faith is tested, and if I fail the test of faith, then it's proving I don't have faith. And it is by faith we are saved....

I don't know if this is a conflation, but I decided I didn't want to find out. Temporary lapses are one thing, but I was starting to build a habit.... and a lifestyle... of disobedience. The Lord had consistently warned me... and I knew it... and I kept ignoring Him.

But all you can do is start from where you are. So I'm trying to make the requisite changes and listen to the Lord. It's a new year, so why not resolve to take hold of that for which Jesus took hold of me.

0 notes

stonewallsposts · 4 months

Text

December 2023 Reading

I've finished up the year having read 71 books. 10 in this month alone.

Io non ho paura- Niccolò Ammaniti (2011)

One of my favorite Italian stories so far. The story covers Michele, a young boy in a fictitious small farming village in southern Italy. One day, through a dare, he finds what he thinks is a dead body in an abandoned house, but doesn't tell anyone. He goes back to confirm this and finds the boy is alive, but barely intelligible. At first, he imagines the boy might be a secret sibling, but before he can tell his father, he sees a news story about a kidnapped child, and he recognizes the boy as the same one he found.

He tries to befriend the boy, but the captive is malnourished and not making sense. He tries to bring him food each day, but this is difficult with the intrusion in his home of an outsider that is speaking secretively with his father. Michele begins to wonder if his parents are involved with the kidnapping.

One day, he admits his secret to his best-friend, who immediately betrays him. His parents protect him, but admonish him that he can never go see the boy again or the boy will be killed. At some point, Michele knows things aren't working out with negotiations, and the police are closing in....and in an effort to save the boy, he helps him out of captivity. But as he helps him out, the captors arrive and it is Michele's father who shoots Michele, not knowing it was his own son down in the hole.

The Italians- John Hooper (2015)

John Hooper is an English writer that has lived in Italy for many years. He brings his personal experience as well as his knowledge of Italy's history to explain, from his angle, why things in Italy are as they are.

Norwegian Wood- Haruki Murakami (1987)

A story of love and loss set in 1969-1970. Toru and Naoko are two young students love each other, while sharing the loss of a loved one- Kizuki, Toru's best-friend and Naoko's boyfriend. Toru and Naoko fall in love, but can't get past the loss.

The War of the Worlds- H.G. Wells (1898)

A well-known story that I finally decided to read in the original. Martian invaders come to earth and overpower the earthling's technology... then die from pathogens that they weren't used to.

The Handmaid's Tale- Margaret Atwood (1985)

I was not a huge fan of this book. I didn't care for the writing style, which I found kind of choppy and difficult to follow.

The Secret History- Donna Tartt (1992)

The story of six classical studies students in a small Vermont college, who, when trying to experience a drug-fueled bacchanal, end up killing a local farmer. The aftermath brings out different qualities of each of the students and there are lasting effects of their attempt at reviving an ancient cultic rite.

The Time Machine- H.G. Wells (1895)

Another well-known story that I wanted to read in the original. The time traveler goes to the distant future only to find that rather than a more developed mankind, there has been a devolution and a split of mankind into Eloi- the descendants of an upper-class, and Morlocks- the descendants of the working-class, who had been forced underground. An interesting quote towards the end, as he considers the situation: "I grieved to think how brief the dream of the human intellect had been. It had committed suicide. It had set itself steadfastly towards comfort and ease, a balanced society with security and permanency as its watchword, it had attained its hopes- to come to this at last. It is a law of nature that we overlook, that intellectual versatility is the compensation for change, danger, and trouble. An animal in perfect harmony with its environment is a perfect mechanism. Nature never appeals to intelligence until habit and instinct are useless. There is no need of intelligence when there is no change and no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers."

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz- L. Frank Baum (1900)

Another well-known story that I thought I'd read in the original. This telling is somewhat different than the movie version I grew up with. The story starts the same with a tornado, and Dorothy being carried away to Oz. There the house lands on the wicked witch of the east. She sets off towards Oz to meet the wizard who she is told can get her back to Kansas. She picks up the scarecrow, tinman, and Lion on the way. On the way they go through the Poppy field. They reach Oz and the wizard tells each of them that they must kill the wicked witch of the west before he/she/it will help them. They go to the west and the witch sends wolves, crows, and bees against them, but our heroes defeat them all. Finally she dispatches the flying monkies, who bring the group to her, but they are unable to touch Dorothy due to her silver slippers and the mark of the kiss from the good witch. But Dorothy is unaware of her untouchability, and the witch tricks her into submission. At one point, the witch does manage to steal one of Dorothy's shoes, but Dorothy, in a fit of anger, tosses a bucket of water on her and kills her.

She returns to Oz only to find the wizard is a fraud. But he was originally from Omaha, and got there by a balloon, so he decides to try returning by balloon. Dorothy, however, misses getting in, and the wizard and balloon leave without her. She is desperate and is told that perhaps Glinda, the good witch of the South could help her. She leaves to find Glinda and is presented with several obstacles along the way: trees that attack, a land full of china figurines, a forest under threat from a giant spider, and a hill defended by Hammer-heads, creatures with no arms, that knock others over with their heads.

They finally arrive at Glinda's castle, where Glinda uses her power to grant each of the companions their wishes, and finally tells Dorothy that all she had to do was click the heels of her shoes together and take three steps to go wherever she wants. She thus returns to Kansas.

The Tenent of Wildfell Hall- Anne Brontë (1848)

Great book about a young woman who arrives with a secret past. The story reveals that she married believing she could change a profligate but charming man, but found out through hard experience that she could not. Having united herself to him though, she was essentially without rights. The story chronicles societal mindsets about the dual standards of acceptable behavior for men and women, and how very toxic traits are fostered and perpetuated.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?- Philip K. Dick (1968)

As the book cover advertises, it's the inspiration for the movie series The Blade Runner. The story covers a bounty hunter's progress eliminating 6 escaped androids. These androids are a highly advanced type that are very difficult to detect, but the one thing androids can't do is show empathy, which is considered a purely human trait. I suppose the story could essentially said to be about what makes us human. One of the central elements of the novel's post-nuclear war setting is that most animal life has been wiped out, and any animals, even down to insects, are revered as highly prized pets. This human identification with organic life is something the androids, simulated to appear as human as possible to the outside observers, can't appreciate.

0 notes