Some buying tips.
February 08, 2006
Tequila®
From Korrektiv:
From Korrektiv:
Do you have feelings of inadequacy? Do you suffer from shyness? Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist about Tequila®.
Tequila® is the safe, natural way to feel better and more confident about yourself and your actions. Tequila® can help ease you out of your shyness and let you tell the world that you're ready and willing to do just about anything.
You will notice the benefits of Tequila® almost immediately, and with a regimen of regular doses you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live.
Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past, and you will discover many talents you never knew you had. Stop hiding and start living, withTequila®.
Tequila® may not be right for everyone. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not use Tequila®. However, women who wouldn't mind nursing or becoming pregnant are encouraged to try it. Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, incarceration, erotic lustfulness, loss of motor control, loss of clothing, loss of money, loss of virginity, delusions of grandeur, table dancing, headache, dehydration, dry mouth, and a desire to sing Karaoke and play all-night rounds of Strip Poker, Truth Or Dare, and Naked Twister.
'Vator Talk
Riding the elevator. Woman in her mid-to-late twenties is carrying an open package of Lean Cusine that she'd apparently just microwaved in the cafeteria downstairs. She's also holding a Notre Dame mug. I think: that Lean Cusine looks so bad.
"That looks good," says another elevator rider, pointing to her Lean Cusine.
"Yeah it's not bad. I can't complain."
I think: I would.
"I'm on Atkins."
"Oh really? My dad's on Atkins. He'll go on and off it."
The contraction "he'll" sounds like "hill" and between that and other words I realize she's southern. Funny, ND's a national school and all, but don't associate it with our friends in the south.
Riding the elevator. Woman in her mid-to-late twenties is carrying an open package of Lean Cusine that she'd apparently just microwaved in the cafeteria downstairs. She's also holding a Notre Dame mug. I think: that Lean Cusine looks so bad.
"That looks good," says another elevator rider, pointing to her Lean Cusine.
"Yeah it's not bad. I can't complain."
I think: I would.
"I'm on Atkins."
"Oh really? My dad's on Atkins. He'll go on and off it."
The contraction "he'll" sounds like "hill" and between that and other words I realize she's southern. Funny, ND's a national school and all, but don't associate it with our friends in the south.
Predictable Crises in a Blogger's Life
A fellow blogger is contemplating giving up blogging. The reason appears to be mainly a nagging feeling of not being read, and/or because they are simply repeating themself. Blogging can feel like writing into a void. But that can actually be freeing because then you can post something silly and off-the-wall.
I found his complaint about repeating himself a truism. I repeat myself. I repeat myself. (See, I just did.) There's only so much we can say, and we bring out our bag of personal insights that we've gathered over the years and air them and then...re-air them...and re-air...
I think the reason to blog is for the love of it. Before blogging, my writing consisted mostly of trip logs, diaristic entries and wisecracking emails to co-workers. I suppose that is the "core competency" of this blog (unlike Crystal's). Perhaps it's best to write what we would write if no one was watching.
Part of the warmth of the particular blogowner who is thinking of leaving is simply knowing that he or she is there and posting. It's like how the Pope says that sometimes just one's presence makes the difference quite apart from what you do or say. Sometimes I get a feeling of "all's right with the world" when a blogger I like posts, whether or not I find that post all that interesting.
It might also be interesting to consider what characteristics allow a blog to "wear well" over time, and whether personality plays a role. Perhaps it's an idiosyncratic thing. Or maybe it depends on style, or simply whether they post a high percentage of posts you like.
A fellow blogger is contemplating giving up blogging. The reason appears to be mainly a nagging feeling of not being read, and/or because they are simply repeating themself. Blogging can feel like writing into a void. But that can actually be freeing because then you can post something silly and off-the-wall.
I found his complaint about repeating himself a truism. I repeat myself. I repeat myself. (See, I just did.) There's only so much we can say, and we bring out our bag of personal insights that we've gathered over the years and air them and then...re-air them...and re-air...
I think the reason to blog is for the love of it. Before blogging, my writing consisted mostly of trip logs, diaristic entries and wisecracking emails to co-workers. I suppose that is the "core competency" of this blog (unlike Crystal's). Perhaps it's best to write what we would write if no one was watching.
Part of the warmth of the particular blogowner who is thinking of leaving is simply knowing that he or she is there and posting. It's like how the Pope says that sometimes just one's presence makes the difference quite apart from what you do or say. Sometimes I get a feeling of "all's right with the world" when a blogger I like posts, whether or not I find that post all that interesting.
It might also be interesting to consider what characteristics allow a blog to "wear well" over time, and whether personality plays a role. Perhaps it's an idiosyncratic thing. Or maybe it depends on style, or simply whether they post a high percentage of posts you like.
Restless Soul Syndrome
You've probably heard of restless legs syndrome but are you aware of the soul equivalent?
Photo above of a restless soul in action
What is Restless Soul Syndrome?
Restless soul syndrome (RSS) is a common spiritual disorder characterized by unpleasant sensations of having gone too long without prayer, Scripture and/or Sacrament. The relief of RSS is found in these remedies and in loving God and neighbor. Movement towards God always provides temporary relief from the discomfort of the God-starved.
Is there any cure?
Only Heaven.
You've probably heard of restless legs syndrome but are you aware of the soul equivalent?
Photo above of a restless soul in action
What is Restless Soul Syndrome?
Restless soul syndrome (RSS) is a common spiritual disorder characterized by unpleasant sensations of having gone too long without prayer, Scripture and/or Sacrament. The relief of RSS is found in these remedies and in loving God and neighbor. Movement towards God always provides temporary relief from the discomfort of the God-starved.
Is there any cure?
Only Heaven.
Differentiating Justice & Vengeance
There are good arguments for the cessation of the death penalty but the weakest, it seems to me, is equating its very existence with a thirst for vengeance. One can easily imagine a society dispassionately choosing to assign death as the punishment for murder since there's obviously logic to it.
I think it was Chesterton who said that children long for justice and adults for mercy - about which there's a temptation to say that's because children are innocent and are more sinned against than sinning and adults tend to be manipulative and shady and more sinning than sinned against. Certainly the most innocent among us, unborn children murdered in abortion, are the most sinned against. One might think it's in the self-interest of the guilty to want mercy and for the innocent to long for justice. Which is why the figure of the innocent Christ forgiving his enemies is so startling and foreign to us. Thinking of our enemies as patients in need of healing rather enemies to be destroyed is difficult, to put it mildly.
The Pope recently made casual reference to Rev 6:10 in which the martyrs thirst for justice:
The Navarre commentary has it:
There are good arguments for the cessation of the death penalty but the weakest, it seems to me, is equating its very existence with a thirst for vengeance. One can easily imagine a society dispassionately choosing to assign death as the punishment for murder since there's obviously logic to it.
I think it was Chesterton who said that children long for justice and adults for mercy - about which there's a temptation to say that's because children are innocent and are more sinned against than sinning and adults tend to be manipulative and shady and more sinning than sinned against. Certainly the most innocent among us, unborn children murdered in abortion, are the most sinned against. One might think it's in the self-interest of the guilty to want mercy and for the innocent to long for justice. Which is why the figure of the innocent Christ forgiving his enemies is so startling and foreign to us. Thinking of our enemies as patients in need of healing rather enemies to be destroyed is difficult, to put it mildly.
The Pope recently made casual reference to Rev 6:10 in which the martyrs thirst for justice:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"Taking a book of the bible out of context isn't smart, let alone a passage from a book, but that sounded out of tune with the vision of mercy presented in the New Testament. (Full disclosure: as one not suffering persecution I cannot imagine what they went through and therefore can't imagine the solace the Book of Revelation was for them.) So I went to the scriptural commentaries, which fleshed out this difference between vengeance and justness:
The Navarre commentary has it:
The martyrs' song is a clamour for justice: our Lord refers to it in the Gospel (Lk 18:7) and it echoes the aboriginal lament raised at Abel's death. What the martyrs say seems to be at odds with Christ's prayer on the cross and Stephen's on the eve of his martyrdom but there is really no contradiction. "This prayer of the martyrs", St. Thomas says, "is nothing other than their desire to obtain resurrection of the body and to share in the inheritance of those who will be saved, and their recognition of God's justice in punishing evildoers."From the Jerome biblical commentary
This cry does not express a desire for vengeance, which would not be in accord with the teaching of Christ (Lk 6:27f.). The marytrs call for the securing of justice. God would not be just, nor the Lord of history, if he did not punish injustice. The context and the recollections of the OT show that the souls are imploring God rather than Christ.From Haydock's Commentary:
These holy souls, who had been slain for the word of God, do not beg the Almighty to revenge their blood, through any hatred to their enemies, but through the great zeal which they were animated, to see justice of God manifested: that by this severity they might be moved to fear him, and be converted to him. Thus in Scripture we often read of the prophets beseeching the Almighty to fill their enemies with confusion, to humble them, etc...
Ebola vs. Christ
The dead body swells in
sinister gesticulations bringing
death even after its demise.
The live body swells in
generous benedictions bringing
life even after its demise.
So intent
on spreading pathogen
the organs burst
the blood spurts
from every orifice comes death.
So intent
on spreading health
the organs burst
the Blood spurts
from every orifice comes life.
"And he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit"
For where the breath of a victim
brought death
the breath of a Victim
gave life.
The dead body swells in
sinister gesticulations bringing
death even after its demise.
The live body swells in
generous benedictions bringing
life even after its demise.
So intent
on spreading pathogen
the organs burst
the blood spurts
from every orifice comes death.
So intent
on spreading health
the organs burst
the Blood spurts
from every orifice comes life.
"And he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit"
For where the breath of a victim
brought death
the breath of a Victim
gave life.
February 07, 2006
 |  |
[Pope] Benedict tackles, among many other things, a question that I've come to again and again (with varying degrees of understanding): the relation between eros and agape. My journals tackle it again and again: is the one to be abandoned for the other? Are they distinct, and can they add to each other? How do they, how should they, intertwine in our human loves? In our love for God? Of course, Benedict goes and writes exactly what I've been trying to grasp this whole time...Barbara was so impressed by the introduction that she asked to bring a copy of it to her Quaker Meeting. What a Pope we are blessed to have! - Patrick of "Orthonormal Basis"
“Are all forms of love basically one?” Benedict’s answer is in the affirmative. Although Anders Nygren is not mentioned, the argument is clearly counter to his pitting of eros against agape, which had an enormous influence in the twentieth century. Nor is C.S. Lewis mentioned, but Benedict’s argument is at important points at odds with Lewis’ famous description of the “four loves.” All love is one because the Trinitarian God is one, and God is love. - Fr. Neuhaus of "First Things"
“…it takes a real pastor,” Buttrick continued, “To go into a family where someone has just been promoted to presidency of the local bank and say, Mary, I’ve just gotten the news of your promotion. So I rushed right over knowing that this promotion is placing you in an extremely vulnerable position, as far as your soul is concerned. I wanted to come over and stand beside you during this time of potential temptation. Could we pray?” - Camassia
And, yes, I do realize this is an SSPX site. The last time I cited one of their pages I received a couple of warnings on the dangers of schism. Duly noted. If you are worried that your computer will acquire the schism virus upon accessing an SSPX page, consider this your warning. Oddly enough, no one has ever cautioned me about my rather numerous references to the Book of Common Prayer. Is a puzzlement. - John of "Inn at the End of the World"
Whatever one may say about Monsignor Lefebvre's obedience or prudence, if it weren't for him it's very unlikely that the approved traditionalist movement would even exist. Two thoughts do concern me, though. First, there are elements within the Society of Saint Pius X that are very much on the fringe and hold to ideas and methodologies that seem to have more to do with Jansenism than with Catholicism, a narrow-minded and very un-catholic approach to the world and to the Church at large. Bishop Williamson seems to be of that ilk, and I don't relish the idea of that sort being turned loose upon us. Second, I would not like to see the SSPXers coming to dominate the traditionalist movement as it already exists. - Fr. Jim of "Dappled Things"
I remember a time a few years ago when I was vexed by anger and depression and simply avoiding one particular blog really helped; • The recent anger and depression seem to hit me roughly in proportion to the frequency of my reading a particular blog; so • That blog is now off-limits. -Gregg the Obscure
Have you noticed how the first phrase of the first verse of the first Psalm sets up the essential story of salvation history from Adam to Christ? Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum...Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly... - Bill of "Summa Minutiae"
While walking through the forest, you notice the quiet. But when you stop and listen for 10 minutes, you suddenly realize it is not so quiet. (Ever notice that the longer you look at stars, the more stars you see?) There are many noises that even your quiet walking disguises. I wonder if this is like prayer.... In our prayer, how often are we paying attention? Just like in the forest, maybe a true silence will help us hear what God is trying to tell us-if we would only listen! He is speaking, but we are too busy with our distractions-and often don't even know it. - JCurley of "Bethune Catholic"
I think all this other talk about what magesterium is fallible, and which is infallible is just another way of looking for the loopholes. It makes a person bound by to "the law" (which I find incredibly ironic since liberal "progressive" sorts frequently speak with great disdain for any laws or rules, and yet they want all the behaviors that they favor to be written down, codified and pronounced ex cathedra!) That's not something that interests me at all. I don't want to be looking for how to slip through and barely live my Catholic faith...Instead I want to live it my Catholic Faith, live it fully and live it now!! - Elena of "My Domestic Church"
My own take on the whole thing is closer to Hugh Hewitt's, The Anchoress, and Catholic Outsider. The Catholic Outsider specifically said: "I still believe Catholics should not show fear to Islamic fanaticism, but neither enthusiasm on any kind of religion bashing." It seems to me that some have gone so far into saying that bashing of Moslems is a God given right. Telling the truth with charity is what we are called to do. Prudence is a major component in telling the truth. This does not mean that we have to deny that Islam is a heresy or that both historically and currently that it has mainly relied on the sword and not reason and apologetics to gain followers. Whether the Danish newspaper should have published the editorial cartoons is a matter of prudence, though the government should not be involved in their decision at all. - Curt Jester
This is the single most common objection to the Faith today, for 'today' worships not God but equality. It fears being right where others are wrong more than it fears being wrong. It worships democracy and resents the fact that God is an absolute monarch. It has changed the meaning of the word honor from being respected because you are superior in some way to being accepted because you are not superior in any way but just like us. The one unanswerable insult, the absolutely worst name you can possibly call a person in today's society, is 'fanatic' especially 'religious fanatic'. If you confess at a fashionable cocktail party that you are plotting to overthrow the government, or that you are a PLO terrorist or a KGB spy, or that you molest porcupines or bite bats' heads off, you will soon attract a buzzing, fascinated, sympathetic circle of listeners. But if you confess that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, you will find yourself suddenly alone, with a distinct chill in the air. - Peter Kreeft, via Rich Leonardi
Apparently we still believe in Purgatory. One would never have known it by attending the funeral I played for the other day. Not only was there no mention whatsoever of Purgatory but the assumption behind every word was that good ol' Bob went directly to heaven immediately he drew his last breath. A sort of parochial canonisation ceremony. No jiggery-pokery about investigation of his life or number of miracles for beatification like poor old Padre Pio had to undergo. And just to make sure there was no doubt at all of Bob's final destination, we enjoyed that popular liturgical wheeze in which the third Eucharistic prayer is used so that "Bob" can be inserted as the saint-of-the-day. I wonder if they've done him any favour by "celebrating his life" and leaving prayer for his soul to anyone who still remembers and happens yet to believe the doctrine. - John at "Inn at the End of the World"
Fr. L. drew us into a discussion of free will and predestination after saying that the very short take on Job is "why do bad things happen to good people?" Is it random? Is it because God is smiting you? Does God have a plan for your life? If so, just how specifically does He work in our daily lives? Well, of course, there's no concrete, provable answer to that. It is all opinion and interpretation depending on many factors in each person's viewpoint. I realized that one of the reasons I have never really taken to Job's story is that, in many ways, it is like reading a blog with too many arguing commenters. Everyone spends a lot of time fervently advancing their arguments but there often is no concrete answer because the question is too theoretical...It is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. And that is basically what we are left with in the end of Job ... as life and God are mysteries that none of us can truly comprehend. The big revelation for me was when Fr. L. pointed out that Job and his friends are, at least in part, arguing from the basis that all good things come from God who rewards you for your righteousness. So when those good things are taken away, you must have done something wrong. That is a way of thinking that is all too easy for any of us to fall into in daily life, much less when total disaster hits as it did for Job. What we forget is that all good things come from God and we are not owed any of them. Which all made for an interesting discussion. -Julie of "Happy Catholic"
March 17, 1857 at a Farm in Western Ohio
The scarcity principle being what it is, I long to know more about my family history simply because there's so little of it. Most of my great-grandparents are only names on paper, reduced from flesh and blood to the carved characters on a tombstone.
So I went about it the old-fashioned way, I went to the local library. Googling proves remarkably ineffective when you're talking about folks who have been dead for a hundred years or more.
My great-great grandfather's story is my favorite. He escaped the potato blight in Ireland and bought eighty acres in Western Ohio for $100. (That's about $2,100 today.) The land was so wild he had to mark the barks of trees when he went somewhere to avoid getting lost - which means he had to clear that land in order to farm it. He had saved the money from working for a year and a half on the Miami-Erie canal, hard labor indeed. Forty years later oil was discovered and five wells went up. From poverty to minor Jed Clampett status in one lifetime, definitely the American story.
Being a "Settler" means it was difficult to attend Mass. You had to either travel great distances or hope for a missionary priest to visit. One did, a Fr. Henneberry, who was born in Ireland in 1830. He celebrated Mass at my great-great grandfather's house on St. Patrick's Day, 1857. There's something neat about the definitive. I know definitively (more or less - I wasn't there) that the priest pictured below was at a certain place at a certain time. I don't know why it would make a difference, but somehow it does. It's like praying for someone in which you imagine where they are this instant in time, doing whatever they are doing, and asking God they receive a blessing at that moment. It makes the prayer come alive.
Fr. Henneberry was a traveling missionary. He ended up in far-flung places like South Africa and New Zealand. And he put the "zeal" in New Zealand. When politicians there voted for compulsory secular education he didn't mince words: "If you have Catholic faith and Catholic hearts within you, you will never give a vote to any of these infidels, whom Almighty God will send to hell some day for leading a whole generation away from religion."
Fr. Henneberry
The scarcity principle being what it is, I long to know more about my family history simply because there's so little of it. Most of my great-grandparents are only names on paper, reduced from flesh and blood to the carved characters on a tombstone.
So I went about it the old-fashioned way, I went to the local library. Googling proves remarkably ineffective when you're talking about folks who have been dead for a hundred years or more.
My great-great grandfather's story is my favorite. He escaped the potato blight in Ireland and bought eighty acres in Western Ohio for $100. (That's about $2,100 today.) The land was so wild he had to mark the barks of trees when he went somewhere to avoid getting lost - which means he had to clear that land in order to farm it. He had saved the money from working for a year and a half on the Miami-Erie canal, hard labor indeed. Forty years later oil was discovered and five wells went up. From poverty to minor Jed Clampett status in one lifetime, definitely the American story.
Being a "Settler" means it was difficult to attend Mass. You had to either travel great distances or hope for a missionary priest to visit. One did, a Fr. Henneberry, who was born in Ireland in 1830. He celebrated Mass at my great-great grandfather's house on St. Patrick's Day, 1857. There's something neat about the definitive. I know definitively (more or less - I wasn't there) that the priest pictured below was at a certain place at a certain time. I don't know why it would make a difference, but somehow it does. It's like praying for someone in which you imagine where they are this instant in time, doing whatever they are doing, and asking God they receive a blessing at that moment. It makes the prayer come alive.
Fr. Henneberry was a traveling missionary. He ended up in far-flung places like South Africa and New Zealand. And he put the "zeal" in New Zealand. When politicians there voted for compulsory secular education he didn't mince words: "If you have Catholic faith and Catholic hearts within you, you will never give a vote to any of these infidels, whom Almighty God will send to hell some day for leading a whole generation away from religion."
Fr. Henneberry
Where Charity and Love Don't Prevail...
I think the worst thing about blogging for me is the presence of comment boxes. They are tantalizing little incendiary devices that incinerate any restraint and charitable thoughts I might've possessed before entering them. Caution: You're about to enter a no charity zone!
I resolve to comment less frequently. I find myself offering some ridiculous opinion or other, disagreeing when I don't really disagree merely for the pleasure of being contrary, or desiring to bat down another commenter merely because I find them unlovable. Or else, nearly as bad, playing the sage when the foolscap fits far more comfortably and is more in line with what God sees. (Besides, as Steven Riddle recently reminded me, "a laugh to start the morning is a greater gift than you can imagine.")
I think the worst thing about blogging for me is the presence of comment boxes. They are tantalizing little incendiary devices that incinerate any restraint and charitable thoughts I might've possessed before entering them. Caution: You're about to enter a no charity zone!
I resolve to comment less frequently. I find myself offering some ridiculous opinion or other, disagreeing when I don't really disagree merely for the pleasure of being contrary, or desiring to bat down another commenter merely because I find them unlovable. Or else, nearly as bad, playing the sage when the foolscap fits far more comfortably and is more in line with what God sees. (Besides, as Steven Riddle recently reminded me, "a laugh to start the morning is a greater gift than you can imagine.")
February 06, 2006
The Next Controversy
'Twas a seemingly uncomplicated email. I suggested today a happy hour for "next Tuesday or Wednesday". But Ham o' Bone called for clarification, thinking that the adjective 'next', which strictly speaking means that which is closest to, might've referred to Tuesday/Wed Feb. 7/8 instead of the 14th/15th.
The very presence of the adjective "next" implies that we're not talking this Tuesday, since I would've said "How about Tuesday or Wednesday?". Language seeks ease of use first, like water seeking the lowest ground. When language is utilitarian, it's also economical. "Next Tuesday" is a fruitful shortening of the phrase "Tuesday of next week".
I suggested that 98 out of 100 people would know that referring to "next Tuesday" on a Monday means the Tuesday of the following week. Bone suggested it was closer to 50/50. (This brouhaha reminds me of the infamous "'Bobber Beer Test", published for posterity in Lamentations & Exaggerations and available at no bookstore near you.)
So I went to pick up lunch and while I was gone found a funny answering machine message, roughly paraphrased here:
'Twas a seemingly uncomplicated email. I suggested today a happy hour for "next Tuesday or Wednesday". But Ham o' Bone called for clarification, thinking that the adjective 'next', which strictly speaking means that which is closest to, might've referred to Tuesday/Wed Feb. 7/8 instead of the 14th/15th.
The very presence of the adjective "next" implies that we're not talking this Tuesday, since I would've said "How about Tuesday or Wednesday?". Language seeks ease of use first, like water seeking the lowest ground. When language is utilitarian, it's also economical. "Next Tuesday" is a fruitful shortening of the phrase "Tuesday of next week".
I suggested that 98 out of 100 people would know that referring to "next Tuesday" on a Monday means the Tuesday of the following week. Bone suggested it was closer to 50/50. (This brouhaha reminds me of the infamous "'Bobber Beer Test", published for posterity in Lamentations & Exaggerations and available at no bookstore near you.)
So I went to pick up lunch and while I was gone found a funny answering machine message, roughly paraphrased here:
Hey 'bobber, 'bobber here. I talked about our conversation with Elizabeth* (* - his wife, name changed to protect the innocent).
She thought I was an idiot for even suggesting what I suggested. She agrees with you totally. Matter of fact she goes [imitates her voice:] "If you're going to refer to the Tuesday of this week then you'll say "this Tuesday". Everybody knows that when you say "next Tuesday" you mean Tuesday of next week." [End imitation] Oy vey, what has happened to our English language? I agree "this tuesday" does mean [click of someone picking up a phone] this coming Tuesday but--
[Elizabeth breaks in.] "Tom, he's an idiot."
"Hey I'm leaving a message hon."
"What can I say he's an idiot."
"Oy vey...talk to you later."
Another Atlantic High Quote:
He remains one of the very few people I feel I could approach in the spirit with which then-Monsignor Fulton Sheen once approached Heywood Broun, a total stranger, on the telephone. ("I would like to talk to you, Mr. Broun." "What about?" the famous iconoclast asked gruffly. "Your immortal soul," Monsignor Sheen answered, a few months before receiving Broun back into the church.)
William F. Buckley Imagines Purgatory & Heaven:
From his sea adventure Atlantic High, where the "cooler" is the time of purgation:
From his sea adventure Atlantic High, where the "cooler" is the time of purgation:
To be sure, it is axiomatic to this fantasy that I have been judged and, after sitting it out in the cooler for a few millennia, admitted. What then happens, surely, is that the people there, while not losing their flavor, manage somehow to lose that about them which once made them -- human. They are transfigured, by the central energy; and so you find sweetness that does not cloy, argument that does not vex, humor that does not lacerate, work that does not tire. The oxymoronization of life, the use of which word may jeopardize my chances of making it to Heaven.
...But it is part of the rules that you cannot succeed in describing that fantasy: For it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. I understand this to mean that a No Trespassing sign has gone up for the fantasist, and I for one intend to observe it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)