AMONG friends all things should be in common. Erasmus thought he could not begin his Collection better than with this apothegm, which is of great antiquity, and much celebrated, and for the same reason it is here placed first.
Nothing is so frequent in our mouths, nor is any thing less common than such a conjunction of minds as deserves the name of Friendship.
“When a friend asks, there is no tomorrow,” for he is another self. “Ne ay major espejo, que el amigo viejo.” Like a glass he will discover to you your own defects ; and “mas vale buen amigo, que pariente primo,” a good friend is better than a near relation.
A man, the Italians say, without friends is like a body without a soul. “Chi si trova senz’ amici, e come un corpo senz’ anima.”
The French, by a very delicate phrase, denominate friendship love that is without wings, ” L’amitie” est 1’amour sans ailes,” meaning that it should be a permanent affection, and not easily to be obliterated.
” Ova d’un ora, pane d’un di, vino d’un anno, amico di trenta,” that is, eggs of an hour, bread of a day, wine of a year, but a friend of thirty years is best; and “Azeyte, y vino, y amigo antiguo,” oil, wine, and friends improve by age.
Friendship, Montaigne says, ” unlike to love, which is weakened by fruition, grows up, thrives, and increases by enjoyment; and being of itself spiritual, the soul is reformed by the practice of it.”
And according to Sallust, “Idem velle et nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est,” to have the same desires and dislikes, to love or hate the same persons, is the surest test of friendship. But instances of such exalted friendship, if they do exist, are very rare.
“Tantum ego fucorum, tantum perfidiae in hominum arnicitiis reperio, non in his modo vulgaribus, verurn his quoque quas Pyladeas vocant, ut mihi jam non libeat novarum periculum facere” — I find so much dissembling, says the good Erasmus, so much perfidy among friends, not only those between whom there subsists only a slight intimacy, but those connected, as it would seem, by the strongest ties of affection, that I have altogether given up the search after such a phenomenon.
The same writer, at a more advanced stage of his life, and as the result of long experience, says, “Quin in totum, eo degenerarunt hominum, mores, ut hodie, cygnus niger, aut corvus albus, minus rarus sit avis, quam fidelisamicus.” In short, men are become so degenerate, (a complaint that has been made in every age), that a black swan, or a white crow, are not so rarely to be met with as a faithful friend.
And another writer says, ” We talk of friendship as of a thing that is known, and as we talk of ghosts but who has seen either the one or the other !”
” Friendship,” Lord Verulam says, “easeth the heart and cleareth the understanding, making clear day in both; partly by giving the purest counsel, apart from our interest and prepossessions, and partly by allowing opportunity to discourse; and by that discourse to clear the mind, to recollect the thoughts, to see how they look in words; whereby men attain that highest wisdom, which Dionysius, the Areopagite, saith ‘ is the daughter of reflection.’”
Spenser gives a beautiful description of three kinds of affection, to women, to our offspring, and to our friend, and gives the preference to the latter.
“For natural affection soon doth cess. And quenched is with Cupid’s greater flame ; But faithful friendship doth them both suppress, And them with mastering discipline doth tame, Through thoughts aspiring to eternal fame. For as the soul doth rule the earthly mass, And all the service of the body frame, So love of soul doth love of body pass, No less than purest gold surmounts the meanest brass.”
One of the benefits (curses?) of working 3rd shift and field service is that you get a lot of time to think.
Trust me there is only so many hours of music you can listen to before it starts grating on the ol’ nerves. The audio book industry started with a customer demographic of the blind – then truck drivers became a profitable market niche and suddenly “audio books” were mass market.
Yes, podcasting and the iPod deserve a mention. Apple, Inc did NOT INVENT the technology, maybe “perfected” and certainly “popularized” –
Not to get lost in the weeds – BUT Steve Jobs didn’t come down from the mountain with the first generation iPod and say “now ordinary people may listen to music free from restraint!”
I’m not bashing Apple, Inc or Steve Jobs. Mr Jobs was exceptional – BUT “how do we make this product better” is much different than CREATING something new. The history of “mobile audio” starts with “recorded sound” in general and then magnetic tape, and then … different subject
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Information exchange
My pick for the biggest “leap forward” in the speed of “information exchange” is STILL the movable type printing press. But even there we needed a lot of “prior art” for there to be a demand for those Gutenberg Bibles and Shakespeare First Folios.
(… and if you happen to have a genuine “full and original” First Folio of Mr Shakespeare’s work – you probably get $10 million+ for it at auction … and we are moving on …).
The “revolutionary part” of movable type printing goes beyond just making printed books less expensive and more available. The “paper” industry as we think of it today came into existence because of the printing requirements.
With tongue in cheek you can make a dotted line connection between “paper” becoming affordable and the Renaissance. Seriously – we wouldn’t have all of Leonardo Davinci’s “notebooks” if paper hadn’t become inexpensive. “Books” being available on various scholarly subjects allowed for “Renaissance men” to be “Renaissance men”
Of course Leonardo regretted his lack of formal education mostly because he couldn’t read Ancient Greek and Latin. Which brings us to the point that “communication” == “information exchange” and for “information” to be exchanged both sides need to speak the same language.
I’ll wave at the Tower of Babel as I acknowledge that “interpreters” have been part of the “communication process” for a long time …
Secret communication
Of course the folks that need an interpreter are at the mercy of the interpreter’s skill and good faith.
Having a trusted 3rd party intermediate talks might be fine for “international diplomacy” – but not so much in intimate interpersonal “talks.”
Being able to guarantee the “cyber security triad” of confidentiality, integrity, and availability can become an advanced topic – but the point is STILL that “communication == information exchange.”
I’m five hundred word in and haven’t referenced a movie yet Roxanne (1987) is an updated re-telling of “Cyrano de Bergerac” – the classic 19th Century French play – and also easily one of Mr Martin’s most UNDERRATED movies.
The Jose Ferrer Oscar winning performance Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) is a much more “stage adaptation” version of the story – it is available on most of the “free streaming services” because it holds up very well as a piece of entertainment, and is also in the public domain.
Full disclosure – no the French play doesn’t have a happy ending, of course Steve Martin’s version does …
oh, and Cyrano’s problem in the “19 century tragic romantic play” is much different than Steve Martin’s story problem in the 1987 romantic comedy – if comedians got nominated for “best actor” Academy Awards, Steve Martin would have got nominated that year
Synchronize
That classic dial up internet sound was the sound modems made while synchronizing/negotiating communications parameters.
Basically the “answering modem” says “I’m a modem” -> then the “calling modem” responds “so am I” -> and then the high pitched squeal is the two sides “negotiating” the speed and standards to use for the call.
In the case of modems the analog telephone connection is probably going to be the limiting factor – and then if the “line” gets disrupted the entire connection process need to start over.
fwiw: I’m gonna guess that there are still a lot of dial-up connections in 2025 – just not being marketed to the general consumer. e.g. if security is the primary concern over speed then “”dial up” still has applications
SO it is fun to point out that people can be seen “synchronizing” with non-verbal communication signals. MY cliche example involves a little “people watching” – e.g. watch people meeting at “public place” and how they “synchronize” gives you a lot of information on their relationship.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that anyone violate other folks privacy. A group of young American women meeting always reminds me of that “modem connection noise” – they will talk faster and at a higher pitch if they like other. The young American boys might synchronize by wrestling or by “King of the Hill” style grunting – “yup”, “u huh”
… still information is exchanged and communication happens
Did I have a point?
Well, the problem with ANY attempt at communication is that the “message sent” won’t match the “message received.”
With data processing we have various forms of error checking to make sure “sent == received.”
With people it isn’t always easy to gauge if “sent == received.” At one level that uncertainty is why contract law exists.
BUT with humans there is always the chance that “sent == received” and one side is malicious. i.e Humans can intentionally distort the message for various reasons AND honest ‘miscommunication” can take place.
Lying is intentionally trying to deceive which is a much different animal than “mishearing/misunderstanding.”
This is where that old “interpersonal trust bank” becomes important – i.e. those long term relationships with a HEALTHY trust balance will naturally get treated differently than the long term relationship with a NEGATIVE balance or a brand new relationship.
Chemistry and “clicking”
“Would you believe in a love at first sight?” “Yes, I’m certain that it happens all the time”
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
The “With a little help from my friends” quote came to mind – it jumps out at me today as a form of Greek chorus engaging with the hero/protagonist – great song, but something about nothing new under the song probably applies …
NO, I don’t believe in “love at first sight.’ Of course we have all experienced “instant attraction” or just “clicking” with someone.
THAT instant “clicking” is what I would describe at “high speed synchronization” – i.e. you meet someone and then you care able to talk to them like you have known them for “longer” – THAT is just an example of energy levels and subject matter “clicking”
Now, if that “clicking” gets reinforced with shared values and experiences THAT might look like a “love at first sight.”
Unfortunately the opposite is also possible – “NOT clicking” will feel like instant dislike.
The concept of arranged marriages in “western society” historically gave the potential couple a veto. Which plays out for humor in “Fiddler on the Roof” and “A Midsummer Nights Dream.”
Obviously if a couple is willing to accept an arranged marriage in the first place you would expect the divorce rate to be small – but that doesn’t automatically mean the marriages are happier.
ANYWAY – the point of “arranged marriages” would have been “strong marriages.” SO if the idea is that the parents of bride and groom “know better” and will pick a compatible couple THAT still requires some level of “non negative chemistry”
“Gut reactions” can be overcome – but most of the time going with your gut isn’t a bad choice – i.e. your “gut” is probably picking up on something and is just waiting on your brain to figure it out.
i.e. “instantly liking” someone is probably not as strong a positive indicator as “instantly DISLIKING” is a negative indicator – but I’m certainly not a matchmaker.
fwiw: one of my “sitting and thinking” visual aids “way back when” is based loosely on Paul’s epistles (Ephesians 5) – MY thought was a reaction to people saying they wanted someone to “meet them halfway in a relationship”
The problem with “meeting halfway” is that it can look like a head on collision if both sides approach the marriage/relationship as a contest of wills. Imagine two fists smashing into each other – THAT is “meet me halfway.”
Then if one side feels the need to compete/dominate then you open one hand and smash the fist into the open hand — in THAT case the “fist” might be getting what they want, but probably not the open hand.
With the ideal then being two open hands meeting and intertwining fingers – i.e. each side is 100% for the OTHER side. Which becomes an applied example of “loving your neighbor as yourself”
or as that great philosopher once said
“You can’t go too far wrong looking out for the other fella”
I recently made an observation that “cheesy and sympathetic” never go out of style – with the implied punch line being that “cheesy” can never go OUT of style because by definition it is never IN style.
The folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the non-dairy definition of “cheesy” is “shabby, cheap.” SO something that we call “cheesy” (again in a non-dietary subject) tends to be “low budget” and probably “low quality” – e.g. Plan 9 From Outer Space is a “cheesy movie” – SO cheesy that it is funny.
The path cheesy took to mean “cheap” is almost certainly American slang:
cheesy (adj.) Meaning “cheap, inferior” is attested from 1896, perhaps originally U.S. student slang, along with cheese (n.) “an ignorant, stupid person.”
I’m also told at the time across the pond:
In late 19c. British slang, cheesy was “fine, showy” (1858), probably from cheese
That quote about the United States and the United Kingdom being “separated by a common language” comes to mind …
“England and America are two countries separated by the same language!”
George Bernard Shaw
Not always bad …
It should be pointed out that cheesy doesn’t automatically mean “bad.” Guilty pleasures often have a high “cheesy” content. Why are they “guilty pleasures?” – probably because they are “cheap and underappreciated”
From a “food” point of view – adding cheese/cheese like substance can transform “blah” to “gimme more” — think of the difference between plain nachos vs nachos AND cheese dip.
An “artistic work” that strives for simplicity AND entertainment will almost certainly get labelled “cheesy.” e.g. for MOST of U.S. history “romance novels” have been the best selling genre – and of course “rom-coms” as a movie genre are so popular they have channels dedicated to them – and BOTH are extremely cheesy by design.
Just how MUCH “cheesy” is acceptable can change – but just because it is cheesy doesn’t mean it is worthless.
e.g. Pick up a copy of an Edgar Rice Burroughs adventure story or a Max Brand western and “Cheesy but fun” will be an accurate description 99% of the time.
Giving the audience what they want is always a path to short term profit – but almost never long term respect. e.g. “Max Brand” was a pen name for Frederick Faust to begin with – and is still a brand name today – pick up a Max Brand paper back and the title of the individual book is probably smaller on the cover than “Max Brand”
Edgar Rice Burroughs created Tarzan – and the history of THAT iconic (and cheesy) character is beyond the scope of this article …
Beautiful simplicity
If “simple and entertaining” is done at a high level it might get the “elegant” label.
At first glance elegance and cheesy are polar opposites – but the difference is in the implementation and individual interpretation.
The first Star Wars (A New Hope) comes to mind – I loved the movie as an adventure story when I was 10 years old. By the time I was 20 it had become a little cheesy. When I re-watched it at 40 I notice the “meat and potatoes” under the cheese.
The story being “implemented” in Star Wars has deep mythological roots – what changed was MY individual interpretation of the movie …
While I’m at it Casablanca (1942) AND Citizen Kane (1941) routinely make the list of “great American movies” and both have a certain amount of “cheesy” in them –
AND don’t get me started on The Great Gatsby – (either the 1925 novel OR the movie interpretations) – The 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow version captures the “feel” of the novel – which is VERY “cheesy and sympathetic”
yes, The Great Gatsby is a great novel. – Baz Luhrmann might deserve the “king of cheesy” title, but you know – different subject …
So yes “classics” can be cheesy. BUT in general noticeable “cheesy-ness” is going to be interpreted as profiteering and maybe exploitation. i.e. a little cheesy goes a long way and TOO much ruins the product.
When I was a child …
1 Corinthians 13:11(“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”) drives home the point that “cheesy youthful moral reasoning” is always bad.
Youthful arrogance and prejudice should give way to more mature (and humble) attitudes developed by experience and education. It is a lot easier to “know everything” when your world is relatively small and experience is limited.
In THOSE cases the “cheesy” probably gets consumed with the assumption that it is the norm. Which was kinda the point of Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages” – but that is a different subject …
Ah, but I was so much older then I’m younger than that now
Bob Dylan
That youthful ignorance of the “cheesy” should naturally dissipate with time and exposure to the NOT “cheesy” — BUT just because you enjoyed something when you were “a child” doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it when you “grow up.”
That enjoyment should be re-framed and not glorified by nostalgia – i.e. “I remember loving this when I was smaller” vs “Things today will never be as good as my memory of ‘whatever’”
A little learning is a dangerous thing ; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring : There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope
Nostalgia isn’t evil …
There has been “research” done that pinpoints the age at which “musical tastes” get locked in.
As I remember the study – they came to the conclusion that the music we are exposed to under the age of 10 tends to have a watershed type effect – i.e. it can have a positive OR a negative impact on later musical preferences.
My guess is that “parental relationships” become a lurking variable — if music reminds someone of their parents THAT is what they are reacting to, not the music.
e.g. “I LOVE that song my mother/father used to play that all the time” vs “I hate that song my mother/father used to play it ALL the time”
Childhood memories aside – the human brain keeps developing into our late 20s – and it is around that time when “band names start sounding the same” and “music just isn’t as good as it used to be” to the average person.
If someone works in the “music industry” in some form – then their tastes may not calcify as much as non-music industry folks. However that is also going to be an exercise in the “expert mind” vs the “amateur mind” – which is also a different subject.
SO if someone hears a song AND it reminds them of being in the 7th grade (13ish) – MY guess is that the song will FEEL “cheesy” to them simply because they are being reminded of that time in their life.
“Beautiful” by Christina Aguilera came up a “cheesy and sympathetic” – yes, it is one of those songs that has a very high perceived “cheesy” content level – but get past the “cheese” and it is about self acceptance and independence. Scratch the surface and the message is “think for yourself” and/or be a critical thinking individual
Ms Aguilera was 19ish when she recorded/released the song in 2002 – and I’m gonna guess that at 44ish in 2025 SHE probably has a different view of “Beautiful” – but my point is that there is “meat” under the “cheesy”
umm, but for me I still hear “talented 19 year old” because I’m that guy in the back of the room yelling “Play Freebird!” 😉
The longer answer starts with a reference to a book published in 1992 titled: “When Did Wild Poodles Roam the Earth? An Imponderables Book”
Poodles
Back in the times “before Google” books full of answers to “weird” questions were popular. The “imponderables” series were funny and sold well – I don’t think the author of the series David Feldmen is the same David Feldmen (comedian) but it isn’t important.
SO just when DID “wild poodles roam the earth?” The answer is “never.” People have been “domesticating” dogs for a LONG time (at least 15,000 years). Poodles were bred as water retrieving hunting dogs in 17th Century France.
That distinctive “poodle haircut” started for practical reasons as well – to help the dog dry faster after retrieving something from the water.
To connect the dots – the title of the book was a joke. The author had (probably) been asked the question in some form about various modern dog breeds – and the answer is basically “it is easy for humans to breed dogs for selected characteristics.”
MY guess is that most “smaller non working” dog breeds started out as “companion animals” for people – and part of the “companionship” might have included killing rats.
e.g. Chihuahuas didn’t descendant from tiny dogs fighting for survival against larger dogs. There were NEVER packs of wild Chihuahuas roaming ancient Mexico.
Of course one of the big geographic differences between ancient Mexico/Central/South America and Africa/Europe/Asia was that they didn’t have a lot of large land animals. Which meant that smaller dog breeds were common in Mexico/Central/South America. e.g. The Aztecs used selective breeding to start us on the way to modern Chihuahuas.
Random thought: when the indigenous tribal folks in North America first saw the horses that Europeans brought over that called them “big dogs.” Most of the cattle in North America also descended from animals brought over by Christopher Columbus et al –
The point being that the JOKE starts by how the question is framed. More to the point “Was Jesus an illegal immigrant?” STARTS with errors in the framing of the question.
Illegal Immigration
SO any MODERN “illegal immigration” question starts with two assumptions:
that “nation States” exist with defined borders, AND they are actively monitoring/policing those borders
large numbers of people are “immigrating”
You cannot have “illegal” immigration unless there are laws to break. There cannot be “immigration laws” to break unless there are “nation States.” Makes sense right?
THEN the way “human devised laws” tend to come about is that there is a problem that folks in power want to stop – so then then make a law prohibiting “whatever the problem was.”
Did the Ancient Roman Empire or Egypt at that time have laws prohibiting immigration? Well, not like WE think of them.
Of course travelling long distances easily, safely, and relatively secure didn’t become possible until relatively recently in human history. Arguments could be made on a specific date – but the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th Century is as good a place as any to pinpoint as the beginning of “modern” travel.
Fun to point out: if folks are “happy and prosperous” they aren’t thinking about immigrating. If folks are starving and oppressed THEN they start thinking about immigration.
In the United States MOST people lived and died within 20 miles of where they were born until trains and automobiles made it safe and easy to move about the countryside.
The history of “immigration” laws in the U.S. starts out as “descriptive” BEFORE it became “restrictive.” The early laws were much more about defining who was a citizen for voting purposes. The early U.S. actively encouraged immigration from outside the U.S. simply because there was a lot of empty land out west – and the need to laborers was high.
It wasn’t until the 1800 when laws restricting entry to the U.S. started happening. BUT that is also a different subject …
Where was Jesus born?
Now, I get the impression that a lot of folks that are asking the “was Jesus an illegal immigrant” question PROBABLY aren’t historically literate or familiar with the Biblical texts.
SO I’ll point out that what commonly gets called the “New Testament” starts with four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Collectively they are called the “Gospels.”
Doing a “harmony of the Gospels” is beyond MY limited ability – I’ll just point out that the four texts tell the story of Jesus’ life and ministry and death. The four texts “dovetail” together – but the part important for THIS discussion starts in the second chapter of Matthew verse 1
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
SO where was “Bethlehem of Judea?”
The Google AI overview tells me “In the 1st century CE, Bethlehem of Judea was a small, humble village situated about six miles south of Jerusalem, in the fertile hill country of Judea, near the border of the Judean desert. “
Roman officials had ruled the area since 63 BCE – at that time THEY would have referred to it as the “province of Judaea”
Where residents of the Province of Judaea Roman Citizens?
No. Most of the permanent residents were Jewish – which was defined by tradition, religion, and language not by geographic borders.
Jews could become Roman Citizens. e.g. The book of Acts follows the Gospels in the New Testament. The conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus and then the start of his travels/ministry are in the second half of Acts – at one point Paul is about to be flogged and his Roman Citizenship prevents the flogging.
i.e. without a doubt being a Roman Citizen had benefits – but just living in a province ruled by Rome did NOT automatically make someone a Roman citizen
Wise men from the East
Ok, pop quiz – how many “wise men from the East” brought the infant Jesus gifts?
I can confidently say that – having seen countless “Nativity scenes” with three wise men – MOST folks will say three.
Notice that the text doesn’t say how many “wise men came from the East” – it says they brought three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh) BUT doesn’t give a number of “wise men from the East.”
Oh, yes, there is symbolism to those gifts – but that is a different subject.
Under the category of “just me guessing” – travelling long distances at the time would have been dangerous and difficult, it is hard to imagine ONLY three people making ANY long trip especially one with this significance. I imagine a small armed entourage attached to each “gift.” All of which is conjecture on my part …
Flight to Egypt
The “wise men” part of the Gospel of Matthew account also provides the background for WHY Jesus and family went to Egypt – i.e. Herod – the secular leader of the Jews at the time – wanted to harm the child:
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
… and when the “wise men” didn’t return and tell Herod where Jesus was …
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.
Old Testament Prophecy
Notice that Gospels refer to parts of the “Old Testament” as prophecy that was being fulfilled. The expectation at the time in 1st Century Judaea was that the Messiah was going to appear – but those 1st Century Jews were probably expecting a “King David” type to come and defeat the Romans.
umm, and that is another “Harmony of the Gospels” things …
Was Jesus an “illegal immigrant” in Egypt?
again, no.
Egypt at the time was ALSO a province of Rome. You know, Cleopatra, Marc Anthony and all that.
Again, “conjecture on my part” – There was probably a “Jewish community” in Egypt that Joseph and Mary were able to blend into without much difficulty. Obviously just because MOST of the residents of Judaea were Jewish doesn’t mean that ALL of the Jewish population lived there.
THEN Joseph has a few “divine dreams” directing him where to go and another Prophecy gets fulfilled:
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
21st Century immigration
What baffles me is exactly what the folks who are pushing “Jesus was an illegal immigrant” think they are going to accomplish.
Ok, I get that THEY think they have found a metaphorical “loose brick” in the argument of their political opponents. BUT it comes across as “Jesus was an illegal immigrant so open the borders!”
Personally I think the “west” needs to make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to come here and work.
Part of that process should include assimilation training for immigrants. Voting privileges and access to the “welfare state” are things that must be earned.
i.e. honest hard working immigrant willing to risk their lives to come to the “west” should be treated as a positive resource to be optimized NOT a disease to be eradicated.
I’m in favor of making it harder on the human traffickers preying on immigrates — but it also needs to be recognized that “immigration WITHOUT assimilation” is an “invasion”
The best selling book of 1925
Yes, I’ve read the entire Bible more than once – no I am NOT a minister. I’ve got some resources for individual Bible study on the top menu – (https://www.iterudio.com/?page_id=830)
as always the only “authoritative source” for Bible study should be the Bible – finding a modern translation is useful – e.g. my Bible quotes are from the “New King James”
fwiw: I found a database of different Bible versions and I have been working on generating pdfs – which will get posted on this site when completed.
I’m looking for work and always willing to accept big checks for bloviating on this or that – spam comments get treated like spam
communication, inquires, job offers sent to iterudio at clancameron.us will get looked at – but I’m gonna assume it is spam so you need to make an effort to convince me you AREN’T spam –
I enjoyed reading The Man Nobody Knows – which was the bestselling book of 1925. I wrote a short introduction that points out some of the “1925 references.”
Back in 1925 the contemporary image of Jesus was (probably) derived from famous Renaissance art works – the author of the book was working in the early days of “modern advertising” and takes a “Jesus as modern organizational leader” view.
… ok, just for fun – consider the ultimate “why” of human motivation
Happiness and the pursuit thereof
why does ANYONE do ANYTHING? obviously humans are emotionally complex beings with equally complex motivations – but if we try to get to a “root motivation” for individual actions then (maybe) “happiness” is that “root”
“Moral reasoning” also plays a big part in that “pursuit of happiness” thing — i.e. if someone THINKS that “getting material object” will MAKE them happy, well, they will never be “happy”
now, everyone that has ever worked at a job they hated is gonna immediately point out “I hated working at that job, it didn’t make me happy in any form” -> ok, if it didn’t make you happy, why not quit? -> and the answer might be “I needed the money” -> ok, and what did you do with that money? -> paid rent, bought food, survived -> and did that MAKE you happy? -> no, but it was better than being homeless and starving -> so it DID “make you happy”, just at a very low “subsistence” level
ok, “most folks lead lives of quiet desperation” is always true because MOST folks never sort out what “makes them happy” in the first place – which is where I come back to the old “un-examined life isn’t worth living” line quickly followed by “know thyself”
of course “happiness” for one person ain’t gonna be “happiness” for another person — and that is probably why we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (you know, just off the top of my head 😉 )
THEN one of the reasons humans form gov’ments is because folks “pursuing happiness” can come into conflict with each other — SO in an ideal society folks in the act of pursuing happiness wouldn’t hurt/interfere with OTHER folks pursuing happiness
this is kinda the old “my right to swing my arms ends when my arm swinging starts threatening OTHER people”
… and if you want to boil THAT concept down then it becomes “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (which is Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperitive”)
AND THEN THAT statement is really just the old “golden rule” to “treat others the way YOU would like to be treated”
implementing the mundane details of the grand principle is why the “law codes” contain so much “lawyer-ese” but the principle is easy to understand
OF COURSE if someone thinks that their “pursuit of happiness” requires injuring other folks – well, they have broken the social contract and need to be corrected – obviously correcting a small child when they throw a temper tantrum because they can’t have or do “whatever” is preferable than incarcerating the adult that commits heinous crimes
The prisons are full of folks who think that the only “crime” they committed was getting caught. Yes, they (probably) understand the law they broke and why they are incarcerated – but understanding WHY you are being punished isn’t the same as regretting the crime committed.
Fortunately it isn’t MY job to judge anyone – I’m just making general observations about the human condition.
Virtue
Also fun to consider are the differences between “facts”, “information”/”knowledge”, and “wisdom”/”virtue”
Facts are individual pieces of information – maybe “datum” (singular of “data”) is more precise. THEN if we do something with the facts/data we might call that “information.” THEN doing the “correct” something might be called “wisdom.”
ok, the semantics aren’t important here – a trivial example might be “it is 20° F outside (datum)” SO “wear a coat it is cold outside” – and choosing the “winter coat” because it is below freezing might be “wisdom”
SO parents with a 4 year old child will (probably) just put the correct coat on the child when it gets cold outside. By the time the child is 8, they should be able to choose the correct coat to wear by themselves when the parent says “it is cold outside, put on a coat.” Then when they are 16 they should be able to figure out if it is cold outside all by themselves.
Calling something a “virtue” implies a “moral reasoning aspect” beyond basic self interest. i.e. if it is cold outside and you don’t wear a coat, you will be cold – but the only person being inconvenienced is you. Is NOT wearing a coat “immoral” – well, probably not.
Of course if you are cold, and then decide to steal someone else’s coat because you are cold – then that becomes a different matter.
Maybe trying to change a perceived “bad” habit is a better example – e.g. something like stopping smoking cigarettes – someone might KNOW that smoking is bad for their health AND that second hand smoke hurts others so they resolve to stop smoking. If they have to constantly THINK about NOT smoking, then it isn’t a virtue.
… and one day if someone comes up and offers them a cigarette and they AUTOMATICALLY say “I don’t smoke” – then it has become a “virtue.” They may still be tempted to smoke, but they are no longer a “smoker”
i.e. the HABIT of “making the correct decision” could be called “virtue.”
random thought: I’ve never been a smoker, but I’ve known a lot of smokers. A few of them smoked so much that they didn’t even realize they were smoking when they were smoking – which is neither good or bad, just an example of the fact that “lifelong habits” (good OR bad) are hard to break …
Did I have a point?
well, to point out the obvious – “happy people” don’t plan and commit murders —
The person living the un-examined life – PROBABLY feels like a victim most of the time because “things” seem to be happening to them that SEEM to make them unhappy.
These are the folks that are metaphorically hitting themselves in the head with a “hammer” – and then complaining about the fact that their head always hurts.
now, those “head hammering” folks can count on the folks SELLING them hammers to blame the headaches on something OTHER than the fact that they are hitting themselves in the head with a hammer
The “head hammerers” will probably surround themselves with “friends” also engaged in the metaphorical “head hammering” – so THOSE folks aren’t gonna see a problem with hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, after all “everyone is doing it”
SO if well meaning person comes along and points out that the “head hammerers” probably have headaches because they are all hitting themselves in the head with hammers – what will be the expected reaction?
well, a “normal distribution” response would probably include a few (10%?) of the “head hammerers” deciding to stop hitting themselves in the head to see what happens. The other extreme 10% would probably respond with anger and attack the “well meaning messenger.” THEN the 80% in the middle would continue on as normal (leading lives of quiet desperation) because they don’t think the information applies to them …
Values
“The Matrix” (1999) kind of stumbled onto the above point. MY reaction to the movie when I saw it “back in the day” was that they were making the same point as Socrates and the allegory of the Cave – i.e. MOST people in the matrix have no idea they are prisoners and so they have no concept of a “better” existence or of the need to be “freed.”
The sequels to The Matrix kinda make me question the amount the reference is intentional – but that isn’t the point
“Well I know it wasn’t you who held me down Heaven knows it wasn’t you who set me free So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains And we never even know we have the key”
“Already Gone” – On the Border (1974) – The Eagles
IF we are self-aware beings with free moral agency then the responsibility for our “happiness” is “us.”
… OR …
IF we are victims of fate then nothing we do matters and we might as well remain chained to the wall in the cave.
… BUT …
Either way we will can’t escape the “values” question.
EVERYONE has “values.” e.g. The drug addict “values” their next hit – more examples probably aren’t required – just consider why YOU value.
I’m not telling anyone WHAT their values SHOULD be – but folks that have decided to live together in a “society” by definition are going to share some values. Those “shared values” are kinda what defines a society.
“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.”
-Aldous Huxley
At the very least – continued membership in polite society requires NOT being violent. i.e. if someone can’t “play nice” with other folks, well, they gotta be forcibly prevented from hurting others.
JUST IN GENERAL – if someone is attacking you, then defending yourself is acceptable. That defense should be an “appropriate response” to the attack – i.e. if someone accidentally bumps you then pulling out a hand gun and shooting them would NOT be “appropriate response.” — that should all be obvious —
SO if someone points out that people (in general) hitting themselves in the head with a hammer causes all kinds of bad things an APPROPRIATE response might be to defend the individuals right to live the lifestyle they choose.
BUT if the “hammer hitting industry” started trying to introduce “hammer hitting” into the elementary school curriculum – well, parents probably wouldn’t be happy.
Again, no one is saying THEY can’t hit themselves in the head with a hammer, but teaching hammer head hitting to small children would be inappropriate at best.
… and I’m hitting my point over the head with a hammer at this point.
You know who doesn’t climb up on roofs and shoot at people? well, people that are happy and healthy don’t just wake up one morning and decide to shoot someone because that someone holds opposing views.
Famous Assassinations
Merriam Webster tells me that an “assassination” == “murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons”
Julius Caesar
Ancient Rome went a couple hundred years as a Republic before the politicians of their day started murdering each other. Julius Caesar had lead Rome out of a destructive civil war when the members of the Senate decided to assassinate him in 44 BCE.
random thought: William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” was one of the first of his plays that I read multiple times. I remember reading it in high school, and then reading it the second time in an “Introduction to Shakespeare” class in college.
The play seemed much more overtly “political” the second time I read it – HISTORICALLY the Romans were passionately opposed to having a “hereditary monarchy” – and Shakespeare drives home that aspect as motivation for the assassins. BUT most of the conspirators are acting out of selfish interest (except for Brutus who was an “honorable man”).
SO the Senators that assassinated Julius Caesar CLAIMED their motivations was that Caesar planned to make himself “King.”
Obviously Mr Shakespeare was living under a hereditary monarchy when he wrote his play – so the conspirators can’t be the “good guys.” Was Caesar ambitious? yes. Did he desire power? yes, again. Was he gonna make himself “King?” Maybe.
BUT what Caesar was or wasn’t planning isn’t the point – the assassins ended up destroying the last remnants of the Republic and starting another round of civil war.
… and the when Augustus Caesar (Julius Caesar’s adopted son) sorted things out – HE would spend 40 years PRETENDING he wasn’t a “King” – officially he liked to be called “Princeps” which translates to “first citizen.”
SO Julius Caesar is one of the most famous “assassinations” in world history – did the assassins accomplish what they wanted? did they change world history? no, and ‘probably not.’
Obviously the Senate assassins ended up bringing about what they were trying to prevent – but the Roman Republic was having other problems before they killed Caesar. SO the names might have been different, but there would have eventually been an “Emperor” even if they hadn’t assassinated Julius Caesar.
… of course William Shakespeare implies that Julius Caesar would have ruled wisely and Rome would have been better off WITHOUT the assassination – but historical hindsight is always 20/20
Abraham Lincoln
John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. Confederacy “sympathizers” had been trying to assassinate Lincoln for a long time – and if they had managed to assassinate Lincoln early in the “War Between the States” it is probable that the “Union” would have let the Confederacy secede.
Of course that is just me speculating – it certainly wasn’t a popular war. the Democrats ran General George B. McClellan for POTUS in 1864 – who ran on a “peace” platform. Of course McClellan still wanted to restore the Union, I’m guessing he thought a “negotiated” peace would be possible.
i.e. if McClellen had become POTUS slavery might have survived as part of a “negotiated peace?” just me speculating …
The one thing that IS 100% sure is that John Wilkes Booth did NOT achieve what he wanted by assassinating President Lincoln. Not only did he NOT get what he hoped for, he (with metaphysical certitude) made reconstruction WORSE for the South.
JFK
I tend to agree with the “lone gunman” theory with the John F Kennedy assassination. Yes, endless conspiracy theories exist – MOST of those theories look (to me) like attempts to deal with the “uncertainty” introduced if one nut job can kill the President of the United States.
i.e. if one nut job can shoot the POTUS then is anyone “safe?” Well, one of the things Kennedy’s assassin had going for him was that it was hard to imagine someone wanting to shoot the POTUS.
Obviously Lincoln’s assassination was during a time of war. McKinley’s nut job assassin in 1901 acted at close range. The attempt on Toddy Roosevelt in 1912 also happened at close range (Teddy’s 50 page speech and eyeglass case slowed down the bullet – Teddy gave his speech and THEN got medical treatment. The bullet couldn’t be removed – Teddy Roosevelt died in his sleep 7 years later due to pulmonary embolism – no idea if the bullet contributed to his death …)
SO previous POTUS assassination attempts had all happened at close range – which was probably what the Secret Service was worried about in November 1963 – not a long distance rifle shot …
What was the shooters goal in shooting JFK? Well, this is where all the conspiracy theories kick in – MY guess is simply that the shooter was a nut job and he THOUGHT that shooting the POTUS would somehow make him “happy.”
McKinley’s shooter was some nut job “anarchist” who was lashing out at “governments” in general, Teddy Roosevelt’s shooter was very obviously deranged – he thought McKinley’s ghost was telling him to shoot Teddy? SO JFK’s shooter thinking that he would be “remembered” for shooting the POTUS us just as plausible as those two motives.
The guy that shot JFK’s assassin wasn’t functioning at a particularly high level either – but that is more speculation on my part …
Did ANY of those shooters get what they wanted? No.
Deranged Shooters
The problem with “deranged shooters” is that they can never be totally eliminated. If someone gets to the point where they think shooting at someone famous or shooting into a school is somehow doing to make them “happy” then they are an obvious danger to society in general.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
Of course shrugging our collecting shoulders in resignation and/or cowering in fear is the WORST possible option. A little basic security can go a long way with “crowd shooters” – and again, these deranged shooters don’t just wake up one morning and decide to go on a shooting spree.
SO “de-glamorize” the deranged shooters is obviously step 1. Making it harder for criminals and mentally unstable folks to get firearms is always a good idea.
Also don’t advertise a lack of security – “gun free zones” have just become an invitation for deranged shooters. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an emphasis on protecting vulnerable targets – just don’t hang up signs advertising the fact that a bad guy with a weapon won’t have to worry about anyone confronting them.
In every country there have been certain men and women whose busy lives have made the world better or wiser. The names of such are heard so often that every child should know a few facts about them. It is hoped the very short stories told here may make boys and girls eager to learn more about these famous people.
“Cornbread is a quick bread made with cornmeal, associated with the cuisine of the Southern United States, with origins in Native American cuisine. It is an example of batter bread.”
I describe this recipe as a “comfort food” – not so much because it reminds me of th comforts of hearth and home but because it is easy to make and fills my belly.
It is interesting seeing some of the (minor) changes in recipes over time –
in this recipe the original instructions started with “7 ounce bars of chocolate” then required chopping those bars into “pea size pieces” —
SOMEWHERE along the way manufacturers started producing bags of chocolate chips of the appropriate size – and of course the “classic chocolate chip” recipe has been printed on those bags of chocolate chips for years
The recipe is still very good – and easy enough for the “cooking novice.” The resulting cookie will be superior to “store bought” cookies if done properly – of course the “economics of scale” allow for “cheaper” cookies BUT nothing beats eating warm cookies straight out of the oven …