They’re a little something I like to call “Liberal Arts”

I was asked last night how I know so much. I guess four and a half years of a liberal arts education (you know, lots of history and foreign language and literature and such) has paid off. I replied that I’ve been in college… the sad part is that I’m still not really close to done.

Tonight, I’ll be watching lectures for the Hero & Quest class I am in, studying Arthurian Legend. Thankfully, it is something about which I am well-informed. I’m also going to start working on my new wiki, in which I will store notes for the book I’m (still) working on. I’m going to start researching the Middle Ages and those notes will go in there, as will notes about the land, the characters, religion and politics, geography, etc. It stores my work in a place where it can’t be destroyed by a fire, and it also lets me get to my notes from just about anywhere. Plus, it’s a new program/toy I can play with.

Hour and a half of overtime so far this week. Maybe I’ll get to come home early tomorrow.

I’ll cut a hole and pull you through

Over at the FnC blog I’ve written an entry about passion after several weeks of blog-silence there. Brian has updated once or twice, but I simply haven’t taken the time. The time I had originally scheduled for updating that blog… well, it never really existed, I was just making it work. I’m going to need to figure something out.

My class schedule is set in soft wax for next semester, and I’ll transfer it to stone sometime next week. I’ve been really worried about the upcoming semester, but I think it’s going to work out very well. Right now, I have two telecourses picked out, Monday and Tuesday evenings at 5:30 p.m. This means a number of awesome things.

  1. The latest class will go is probably 6:30 p.m.
  2. They will not conflict with FnC or small group.
  3. I have 5 (FIVE) nights free a week! (Counting Sunday nights, which is D&D night; I traditionally do not count D&D night as free, since I have to entertain the guys and run it and it requires a fair amount of work on my part, but even 4 (FOUR) nights free is super exciting to me.)
  4. The classes in question are 100 level, which means they are OMGeasy.
  5. These are the last Gen Ed classes I have, excusing the capstone course. After this current semester is over, I lack 24 credit hours to graduate.

Last night, I was worrying about financial issues again, as I am wont to do, and April squeezed my hand and said we are going to be OK. I love her, and I am going to continue working on trusting God. Lord, I have faith; help my unfaith.

We’re close. We’re so damned close and I just can’t wait.


I’ve been studying astronomy for the last few days in preparation for a test I have tonight. Now that I’ve watched all the classes (telecourse via CD), I’m reading through some passages in the book as a refresher and to make sure I have everything right.

I can’t go in-depth on this thought, but I wanted to copy out something I just read.

The idea of looking for a simpler arrangement has become a key element in the scientific method. As early as 1340, the English scholar William of Ockham proposed the famous idea that among competing theories, the best theory is usually the simplest theory–that is, the one with the fewest assumptions or the fewest quantities that have to be combined to make a prediction. We did not discuss this in Chapter 1, and it would be difficult to do so because simplicity is an aesthetic judgment. Are the simplest and most elegant theories always correct? Or is the belief that the universe is simple merely a human conceit?

I have a problem with Occam’s (as it is usually spelled, though perhaps it should be Ockham’s?) Razor, the idea that between two competing theories, all things being equal, the simplest is probably right. I ran into a situation at work today where that definitely wasn’t the case, and I think it belittles our intellect and ability to reach a real conclusion to rely regularly on this assumption: that simplicity = correctness. Still, it’s something to think about.

Question for my readers: If a person holds a belief, and you attack that belief, are you attacking that person, or just their beliefs? Is there a… I don’t know, a scale of importance for beliefs, to the extent that certain beliefs/ideas can be separated from the individual and other ideas cannot?

Is a person their beliefs/ideas/faith, or are they separate enough to ever be discussed objectively?

I begin my own response with the question: Do you honestly think it is possible, as a human being, to hate the sin yet love the sinner?