Sunday, July 19, 2015

It Does Affect Me?

I have written a lot recently about the false sense of community Catholics unconsciously adopt from the secular world, and it adopts from us too. First of all, there is no community in the Medieval or Greek sense of the word in North America, at least not one represented by the state. CBC attempts to prove there is one so they can be it, so does the Canadian Government, etc. But they are not and nothing unites us as a community. We simply share space and believe we must therefore be a community.

But I've talked about that. What I want to talk about today is kind of the flip-side of that: how I have an interest in other people's lives because I cannot get away from them. No, that doesn't make a community. It makes nothing more than a negative relationship. The question is, can I be a libertarian, really? I say I am one by default because I don't want people I do not respect to affect my life. One friend of mine always says, in effect, that it's all stupid because there is no Catholic state, therefore everything's a mess and there's no use to talk about any of this.

If I am going to adopt a libertarian position then I have to leave people alone too. Is that possible? Is it possible to let the public school system do its thing as long as they leave the Separate Board alone? They don't leave the Separate Board alone, so that's a mute point. But what if they actually did? I am starting to think that not even that is possible. What if the Separate Board decides that September 18th is 'Naked Day,' and all their kids walk to school naked and spend the day at school naked? Well, that affects me because I would see them go to school, so would my kids, and even if we didn't, what kind of country will that produce? If I want to be immune from their influence I would then have to leave the country, or at least Ontario. Of course, it's easy to see that 'gay marriage' affects much more than just the couple undertaking it - and that's the point. And while it might seem unfair for me to take a position on something that does not directly involve me: it does indeed affect me in many, many ways. But what the right degree? If I don't like bikinis, do I have a right to commit political mayhem to get them banned? Banned from everywhere, banned from libraries, banned from grocery stores...?

Now many half-wits operate from the maxim that because there is nothing inherently wrong with X then X is always good. Because Zulu women go topless, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, therefore it can happen anywhere regardless. That type of rationale explains the trajectory of the whole sexual revolution. Animals are not monogamous, therefore there is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy. Their reasoning stops short with cannibalism, although not, apparently, in the minds of Planned Parenthood. Homosexuality does not do any direct damage, therefore it is fine. How one can quantify direct damage to include smoking and not sodomy is beyond me, of course.

I am not a big fan of rules. I like to do things my way. I am not a herd animal. Trends offend me. That's me, and I've always been that way - hence my t-shirts at mass tirade. Sleeveless shirts at mass gravely offend me.

But how ought one go about recommending fair conduct?

1. By compromise: I won't wear shorts, if you don't go sleeveless?

2. By far-reaching regulations: no one has anything uncovered ever?

3. By no regulations: I wear whatever I want, you wear whatever you want?

Is barn-raising actually a political metaphor?
Obviously, all of these are doomed to fail eventually. Reaching a satisfactory state of affairs is never going to happen. The Amish (2) sort of present an image of having solved the problem with the second type of solution. The 'French Riviera' (3) solution seems to make people happy there.

How do we know who's solution is better? Is there more AIDS, more happiness, more X, Y and Z with the Amish or at the French Riviera? Does it even matter?

I think a really good example of (1) is Madonna House. I am always amazed how well their inter-sexed scenario seems to work. They have rules, but I would not say that they are especially far-reaching as to put them in the Amish category (although some might beg to differ). Of course, in the case of Madonna House, it's not the rules that make it; it's the community's commitment to prayer and to following the Gospel. The rules are secondary and yet logical extensions of the primary reason.

It's hard to get a real read on this. Gay people get such a great sales-pitch from the MSM and Hollywood. Yet is it the case that all non-Christian living leads to AIDS and catastrophe? It depends what you mean by catastrophe. Abortion is catastrophe and it is essential to maintaining the status quo. Divorce is too. Then again, war is catastrophic, and I think one would be hard-pressed to say that nations can exist without it.

Where did Plato go wrong when he set out to plan the ideal state in the Republic and the Laws? I think when he set out to plan the ideal state. Does not Paul tell us quite simply that laws cannot do this, only grace can? Although most students of Plato would agree that Plato's plan in the Republic was not quite as I have set it out here, yet I think that all his provisos aside that are attached to his particular kind of idealism, he still could not think of something much better in politics than a state run with the best laws. Can we think of something better than this? Well, the Church, the City of God... however much those two articulations actually coincide. There is yet one essential wisdom in the Church political view: there is no right formula to be found here on earth.

Now, with this is mind, what should we do about bikinis, gay marriage and schools? Always aim for the closest approximation of the Gospel no matter whether it's our place to do so or not? I call this 'pulling a St. Charles Borromeo.' He tried to regulate every aspect of civic life to reflect Gospel values. He brings us closer to the Amish, but is Catholic Amish qualitatively that much better than Amish Amish?

Is the answer that obvious and have I been so disarmed by secular propaganda by my belief that something closer to libertarianism is fairer given our multicultural context?

One thing is clear, of course: everything affects me. When a bore wants to rev his truck up on a quiet Barry's Bay summer's evening, I am affected. When someone wants to get a divorce and raise his kids in my neighborhood relatively unattended, that affects me. When he chooses to swear around his kids in the privacy of his own home, that affects me. When he tells his kids that homework is unimportant, that affects me...

The argument that 'to each his own' and that 'privacy in the bedroom blah blah blah' requires revisiting.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

The Problem with Movies Today, or the Problem with Me

Went to see Jurassic World yesterday. It was okay. Not worth the $ billion it has already made. And then there will be the next Avengers movie that'll make a $ billion too. And it won't deserve it either. How much have super hero movies made cumulatively over the last five or ten years? Many billions, I am sure. Why? I am picking on these kinds of movies, though I could certainly pick others to talk about, like the teen distopians, for instance.
oh no you didn't!

Most movies are boring. Most are trying repetitions of plots and characters we have seen a hundred, or a thousand, times before.

Is there something Christian in this musing of mine, or is this simply a disquisition on fiction? Yes, something Christian too. There has to be something Christian, not because I happen to be Christian and I am the writer, but because the universe is Christian.

And yet, some movies I enjoy. And it's not only about my subjective preferences. I am inclined to think prima facie that better movies reveal something interesting or important about the human condition. Maybe that's not the only factor of importance, but it seems to me it's one of the big ones. I like certain zombie movies for this reason - how can human beings cope with impossibly horrific scenarios? What is courage, foolhardiness, selfishness?

And yet direct treatments of the human condition aren't the only movies I like / good movies. If you took the sci-fi elements out of Star Wars they wouldn't be as good, that's for sure. Excitement is, well, exciting. I, confessedly and rather uncustomary for me, enjoyed the latest Mad Max movie a few nights ago and the only thing I can come up with for why I liked it was the excitement factor.

Pagan wish-fulfillment does nothing for me. What do I mean by this? It's the reason I don't care for super hero movies and those futuristic utopian movies like Interstellar, Tomorrowland, Wall-E, etc. The Facebook guy said recently that one of his goals is to help people live forever. I guess he's never seen a vampire movie nor visited a nursing home. What Zuckerberg's statement reveals is paganism plain and simple: paganism yearns for what only Christ can give: meaning and life. In lieu of that, they say, let's try to imagine meaningfulness. Their version is simple, straight-forward paganism: the same view of immortality that the Babylonian, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc., came up with: more of the same as this life. And what will that forever look like for Zuckerberg and his ilk? You don't need to guess, you can see it in their movies: lots of thin, multi-racial, young people. Being around these vacuous idiots forever, I would call that hell, not heaven.

So what makes a good movie good? I have been enjoying the short stories of Alexander Pushkin - find out all about these at the Catholic Review of Books, online and in print. These stories aren't about amazing things. They are set in the early 19th century and are about people, usually young people of the upper class. Pushkin's characters don't have the recipe for eternal life nor are they able to defeat the dark forces from Alpha Centauri with their magic rings. They are clear and simply-drawn rather average people who manage to reveal something really interesting about the human condition.

Let me close by talking about some of the fatal flaws of movie plots today. I have no remedy for movie-making today other than to say don't do these things.

1) bigger, faster, eviller sinkhole. How do you justify a second Avengers? Well, the enemy has to be even more powerful this time. This was the essential justification for making another Jurassic Park movie: the new dinosaur was even more powerful than the t-rex. If you contrast this with, say, the original Star Trek movies, it was not that each sequel had a consecutively more dangerous enemy to overcome. They were all about very different things: one an alien space craft, another, super-human hybrids, another a guy who could manipulate human fears, etc. The new series seems to have doomed itself to the bigger, faster sinkhole.

2)  Revisiting stale old tropes and caricatures. I think this pretty much explains itself. Are the people who enjoy these movies really this shallow? Rom-coms are legendary for this, but let's not forget like every action movie ever. Jurassic Land was full of these things too: the kids whose parents are about to get divorced. The smart kid who knows everything about the subject at hand (in this case, dinosaurs) and has long, unkempt hair. The mis-matched leading lady and fella who end up falling in love. The 'evil' guy who ends up getting eaten.

That may be so, but just like your electric guitar won't work
without electricity, a movie plot won't work
without meaning/significance.
3) Not dealing with actual life but some special condition that doesn't relate to anything other than the special parameters of this story or dealing with something that no thoughtful person could ever honestly care about. The worst case of the latter would be Pineapple Express, where I am supposed to care about a type of weed that can make you "really, really baked." A lot of this has to do with the manner in which the 'special circumstance' actually exposes something about human nature and life itself that is worth thinking about. The Goonies would be a good example of this. Every contemporary ghost story would be a bad example of this. The remake of Poltergeist was a stunningly bad example of this, the Insidious movies... Arbitrary rules decide the plot.

Anyway, enough about movies. It's interesting, though, how the types of movies being made reveals something about us today, something that is very unfortunate: we are a shallow people. We are a shallow people who look to absurd circumstances to give our lives meaning. At no cost to us, but with absolutely zero return.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

A Real Connection

Long peculating in my thought-sphere (aka my head), is the way secular people do charity. There's lots I can say about it, but I want to focus on one unfortunate aspect: the distance factor.

I was perturbed about a month or so ago by the pay-it-forward phenomenon when I was in the drive-through at Tim Horton's. "The people ahead of you paid for your order," the girl at the window informed me.

"Oh," I responded.

"Yea, it's been going on all day."

It took me a minute to realize that I was supposed to do the same for the people behind me. So my $3.00 order became like $3.80. "That's a weird kind of charity," I thought.

Now, I am not bothered by the fact that I had to pay a niceness tax of 80 cents. I am bothered that people think that this kind of thing makes the world a better place.
Poor. One of us.

When St. Francis and St. Martin of Tours gave their clothes to the poor beggars they did not give it to someone else to give to them. No, they did it themselves, dignifying those down-trodden human beings with actual human interaction. All this go-fund-me stuff is the same. Never having to make a connection and actually look someone in the face. I'm not against this stuff, I am simply saying that it's not enough and it can do you, the giver, more harm than it benefits you. Why? Because you might be convinced by these acts that you have fulfilled your duty to your neighbour. Paying your taxes can't do it; anonymous gifts that cost you nothing more than a handful of change (and no actual sacrifice of time) can't do it.

Cancer runs are great and all that. But their's way too much fanfare and self-congratulations to really fulfill your human obligation. And no time spent with those who suffer.

Let's look at another contrast between this secular ethic and the Christian. Let's look at the Clinton Foundation kind of charity and that performed by a great hero of mine, C. S. Lewis. 'Limousin liberals' are the worst instances of this phenomenon. Other than the fact that their 'generosity' is actually always demagoguery a la Julius Caesar's kind of generosity, the way these people go on and on about fairness and sharing and the poor and yet are themselves filthy rich is just disgusting.

C. S. Lewis was one of the best-selling authors ever. Books is one of the biggest industries in the world. Lewis could have lived an incredibly lavish lifestyle. He was right up there with Stephen King and J. K. Rowling. But he gave all of his author money away. Right away. Not when he died. As soon as he made it.  Nor did he give away a billion and keep 400 billion, like the great tycoon saints we are told to admire today, like Gates, etc. He made millions and kept hundreds. Literally. He lived exactly the same after he attained great fame as before.
C. S. Lewis' house.

Yes, I know, relative generosity is a complex thing. I would say that it has a lot to do, in the end, with the food you permit yourself to eat and the clothes you insist on wearing. St. Francis was convinced of that. So too was St. John Paul, from what I've been told. Some people have to live in New York, and to do that, you have to buy a condo for a few million dollars. I don't care about that stuff. I live in Barry's Bay, and I could buy a whole street for a few million dollars.

Pope Francis talks about smelling like the sheep. That's something we can all learn to do, not just priests. I would say that Jesus basically tells us to brag about the poor people we know personally. Doesn't he?
Stephen King's House

Don't talk to me about 'opening up the borders' when you don't even know any of the Mexicans who already live on your street.

In your car in the Tim Horton's drive-through is a very safe place to be. Everyone in the car with you just happens to be your kind of person. And thank God that the people whose double-double you just bought won't ever actually touch you or breath on you. And, by the way, if they are in the drive-through, chances are they are not poor, at least not poor enough to actually desperately need your $3.80.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Gay Makes me Feel Better about my Shitty Situation

I don't usually use language of this nature, but perhaps it is justified by the punch it conveys.

When you think of those who support homosexual "marriage" most of all, it's the young. And, of course, it's easy to disparage the views of the young. But it's not only the young that support it, but predominantly, it is. And I would say that you could probably inversely graph support for gay "marriage" against age and it would look like this:



Yes, I am into graphs these days.

The point of this post is to answer a part of the "why" that came to me today.

I think a lot of young people support gay "marriage" because it permits them to discount the bad marriage they came from at home. If 50% of kids are now from broken homes, there you have 50% of kids who are struggling to understand what to make of their "bad" family. What's wrong with us?they wonder, even if not always consciously. But if marriage is a flexible polymorphous thing, then it's no big deal what happened to my family.

If it sounds a little far-fetched then I don't think you are really aware of the fundamental role that family life has in the formation of one's sense of self.

The obsession with not wanting to appear judgmental (the chief sin in our Post-Modern world) is because we know that our lives cannot stand up to scrutiny. I call it the "American Beauty effect."

Now, I hate bashing conservatives, but they do tend to believe their lives can stand up to scrutiny, and that is why they are more inclined to adhere to objective morality. Both approaches are wrong. As Tolstoy said, I love the truth so much that I teach it even when I fail to live up to it, or something to that effect. I agree. Conservatives love rules, because they have managed to abide by them. Liberals hate rules and love compassion because they recognize their own incompetence. Can you imagine Bill Clinton not supporting gay marriage? Who the hell does he think he is given rules to others! And that's why he doesn't insist on any rules governing personal conduct.

Conservatives are proud and liberals are libidinous. Conservatives see themselves as alphas, liberals betas. Kids of divorced parents see themselves as betas and try to cast that in the best light possible. One way is to say that the rules don't matter and that they were created by bad people anyway. Sounds a lot like Karl Marx, doesn't it? It's the quintessence of left-wing psychology.
One might add: cheated on his wife.
Didn't believe in marriage. How convenient.

Gays are losers - that is how they see themselves. No one has to treat them that way; they already see themselves that way. They feel better once they cast the "rules" aside and they feel twice as good when they call it compassion and revolution and progress.

And yet, we recognize that the rules aren't what the conservatives make of them; they were given by God. They were given by God for our good and our happiness.

And since this is so, gay cannot make you feel better about your shitty situation, at least not indefinitely, and this is why there is so much suicide. Especially by the most desperate, the so-called trans-gendered. All the sympathy in the world will not bring an end to the trans-gendered suicide epidemic. In fact, saying the rules don't matter, makes it worse for them, because they adopt a losing strategy, rather than seek the help they really need. They were not made into the wrong sex; that was not their problem; abuse and other things are to blame.

If you get rid of God, all you have left is the word of man. If men think you are a loser, who will ever love you unconditionally, if there is no God? The homosexualists have a whole set of conditions: you must believe what they tell you about yourself otherwise they will treat you like a pariah.

God does not think you are a loser because you are too short, are not handsome, are big-boned, have a big nose, are too masculine for a woman, too feminine for a man. But if there is no God, no objective rules, then you condemn yourselves to the blind judgments of men.

It's not easy coming from a shitty family. Dad left, mom sleeps around, brother goes to strip clubs... And yet God's plan for marriage and family is a great blessing to the world. Saying life is only what you wish it to be is of no help to anyone. Just because you came from something shitty, doesn't mean you deserve to continue on in something shitty.

But God loves losers. I'm one of His favorites!

A face that God could love. Thank God!

Friday, June 26, 2015

The Normal Associated with Gay Marriage

"Stacey, your father and I don't want
you to see that boy again.
His neck is too short."
"But mom!"
Big news about gay "marriage" today, if you think that what Caesar thinks is important, if you still believe that your nation state is your community.

Of course, one of the things that comes into play in this issue is the word, 'normal.' Both sides claim that word for themselves.

But I say that word is not all it's cracked up to be, and I say that it's normal for people to be abnormal.

While it was totally unthinkable just twenty years ago (let alone 200 or 2000 or 200,000) that men having sexual relations with men would be put alongside fruitful heterosexual intercourse, some people act now as if it is obvious it should be so considered. These are people who either have no sense of history and/or biology or think that these two things should be weighed relative to other things like whim and feeling.

And then they pull out the demographic argument, stuff like X number or X percent of people can't be wrong, can they?

Yes, they can. In fact, being wrong is what we have always done best. It's what's normal to us:

- millions of Russians thought they should kill and rob rich people
- millions of Chinese thought the same
- thousands of Germans thought they should invade Poland and Czechoslovakia because they had a better claim to it than the Czech and Poles
- England went from building glorious cathedrals and going on pilgrimages to murdering priests in the wink of an eye
- France went from building glorious cathedrals and going on pilgrimages to murdering priests in the wink of an eye
- billions of people have believed in a God they had no experience of or ever seriously thought about
- millions of people stop believing in this God when they were told to
- millions of people buy products, which they believe are necessary to them
- millions of people believe they deserve and require more money than they will ever spend
- thousands of people believe they have had experience with alien life-forms
- thousands of people believe that the US has a worse human rights record than China
- people have always generally believed that human slavery is morally acceptable
- millions of people believe that abortion is morally acceptable
- millions of people believe that euthanasia is morally acceptable

In other words, the human race has a very poor record. This is just one more of the same. In this case, a short-lived absurdity, like hoop-skirts, powdered wigs and bell-bottoms; or worse, genocide, abortion and wars of aggression.

A man who has a disinclination towards fulfilling his biological imperative and inclination to intimacy with a man is something to be remarked upon. It doesn't require a doctrinal commitment to notice its peculiarity. That we call it good and normal is just us doing what we do best, living inside the cave and calling images on the wall real stuff. We are extraordinarily gullible as a species. We will believe in homosexuality until the powers-that-be tell us to stone them.

In other words, homosexual marriage has less of a place in human history than sacrificing guys on big stumps of wood does.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Graphic Aids for the Slow-Witted

Much controversy has been raised re. my latest post and an incidental comment I made re. the legitimacy of not dressing up for Sunday mass.

Some people thought I said it was wrong to dress up.

Some people thought I said we must all be exactly as St. Francis.

Other people read carefully.

So, here are some graphics to aid comprehension. After all, some of us are visual learners. I think these are all pretty self-explanatory.


















So, I think these charts will finally put this issue to rest.

Oh, I forgot this one:


Thursday, June 18, 2015

Conversion... to What?

The other day I expressed some of my cynicism regarding the capacity of people to believe. Remember, faith is one of the "theological virtues," and, as such, a grace rather than a virtue in the Aristotelian, moral sense of the word, i.e. something that we can build up ourselves by repeated action. I build up bicep strength by repeatedly stressing it. I cannot give myself faith in this way. It is a gift. If you don't agree with me, we'll just then agree that you don't know your Faith.

Anyway. I am not cynical, I am sober. (Of course, who of us doesn't describe himself as realistic? "They are optimists, they are pessimists, but I am realistic...")

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with someone else who I think would also consider himself more of the cynical persuasion. We posed this question of theoretical evangelists: "To what are they aiming?" - What goal to they have in mind for their 'subjects'?

That's an important question, no?

Let's rephrase it: Do they have in mind what, for instance, St. Anthony of Egypt, St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Theresa of Avila had in mind for conversion to Christian living?

If you will accede a discrepancy (that's seems reasonable) what should we make of it? Is it important or incidental?

Perhaps most wold say that of course there's a difference between what modern evangelists are aiming at and what they saints were aiming at. The former are simply concerned with the first stage of conversion, the latter the next stages...

Of course, I bet you that's not universally so. All the saints listed above, but most overtly Anthony and Francis, thought that our bourgeois Catholic life is intrinsically, radically un-Christian.

But who cares - am I splitting hairs here? What's the importance?

Let me outline something of it.

A friend of mine says that he hesitates to go to certain church functions because all the people talk about are sports - in which he has no interest at all - and their latest purchases: especially trips they have or will be taking or renovations they are undertaking. I get that. I haven't taken a trip in... almost twenty years. All my renovations are more like putting duct tape on things and praying like hell that fire does not result. I get that. Since I got married I have always been the poorest of my friends (and family). Sometimes that's hard to deal with. Like now, seeing how my whole family is pressuring us to visit them this summer and I cannot afford to purchase a vehicle that would safely get my family there... Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes. Other times (most times) I don't care.

So, what are evangelists aiming at? I would warrant that they are not thinking of converting the guys who talk about sports, vacations and home-maintenance. These guys go to church and spout the party line. Most importantly, they dress up for mass on Sunday. These things show they are true-believers, part of the club.

I get why people think we should dress our best on Sunday. I don't agree with their arguments, but I understand them. The reason I don't agree is based upon my own experience and my 'conception' of the experience of others who would be like what I was when I was considering joining the Church.

This is a little digression, but relevant to my main point. I purposely do not dress up. It has a lot to do with comfort and laziness, but also a great deal more to do with one of my main concerns: not alienating young people who see the Church as some superficial conformist club. That's how I looked at Christianity as a young person. I am determined to dissuade young men like me of this notion. The Church is not about externals, hypocrisy, bourgeois values, etc. It is about the mass, the saints, mystically connecting with God. I don't care that many don't see it this way. This is how I see it. There are lots of people who feel alienated from the Church. I want them to feel this way for the right reasons, not because they come from a broken home, don't have nice clothes, etc. These are people for whom I feel compassion. I really feel like Nietzsche and Dawkins could have been saved if they met someone like me... Yes, I have grand self-conceptions.

Let's move forward here. Am I mischaracterizing faithful Catholic evangelists as shallow tribalists? Well, it's all a matter of degrees: how much is your evangelization about wanting to re-create people in the image of Christ that is really your image of the image of Christ, which looks more like you, Joe-blow Catholic than it does the very Son of the Living God, and, not only you, but the whole white picket-fence bourgeois view you have of the good life? I see this when I go to church sometimes. If it strikes me, a believer, you can be sure it strikes others.

Nor is the solution to insert another type of person (a cool marginalized person) for sake of the hated WASPs you have in mind, or think I have in mind (WASC, I guess, but you know what I mean).

Young, cool, hip Christians think we need to make the Church all about this:



rather than this:



I say, we should make it about this:



And that these two here below are more like this than the two above:

St. Diego of Alcala (by Murillo).
St. Francis in his tattered attire.

Images are pretty powerful things. Don't we all have some pretty strange mental pictures about things? The girl above would doubtlessly evoke a feeling of admiration from liberals: she is free, authentic, etc., while the second would represent to them hypocrisy and conformism, etc. What does the bloody Christ represent, and the dirty lives of the saints.

Images. Why do pop stars look like they do? Don't tell me it's because that's who they are. Why do homosexuals dress up as they do at their parades? It's not authenticity. It's a costume; it's an image; it's acceptable.

So, in summation, we all have a lot of work to do towards clearing up our notion of who Christ is and who we are supposed to be as a result. Don't confuse exterior trappings with inner spiritual states. The suit tells us something; the nose ring tells other people the very thing the suit tells us. In the end Christ had neither the one nor the other. He would not have hung around with the hippies, nor would He have treated the bankers with special scorn.

Nor is it at all possible to cling on to this world. Have you ever noticed how how evangelists phrase their goals: how do we get people back to church? How do we get people to marry, vote for traditional marriage, etc., etc.? These things might look like intrinsically good things, but don't we all know that people can go to church for all the wrong reasons, support traditional marriage for all the wrong reasons, hate homosexuality for all the wrong reasons?

You can't just put some patches up on Canadian culture and call it the Kingdom of God. As long as we get the church attendance numbers up all will be well, we seem to assume.

Even my good buddy, C. S. Lewis, liked to talk about the Christian presuppositions "we used to all have" (i.e. the image discarded in his The Discarded Image). That is a grand exaggeration.

We all "used to" nothing. And we all never will anything.



For my friend, Mickey Blopp.