From a table at Verite Coffee in Ballard:
Qualifying exams start in eight days. At which point we can be tested on, well, *anything* that we should have learned including a large variety of things which we should have been taught (*cough* rehr *cough*) but weren't. Alas. Rather scary.
*September 13th-
- 0900 - Quantum Mechanics
- 1200 - Statistical Mechanics
- 1500 - Superbasic
*September 14th-
- 0900 - Electrodynamics
- 1200 - Classical Mechanics
With the exception of Hamilton-Jacobi theory and anharmonic quasi-frequencies, classical is done. So far, I've been able to complete every quantum test I've tried in less than 20-40 minutes with ~98% accuracy...
Brief digression: I've noticed consistently low expectations for students' abilities to *do* quantum since the beginning of undergrad, continuing through the present. Which is really quite sad. I don't know if that's a reflection of poor intuition for how quantum systems operate or the non-analytic solubility of most quantum problems, but either way it's dissapointing. Or perhaps I'm just really arrogant.
Similar feelings on the Superbasic (thorough knowledge of intro + modern). This leaves E/M and SM. I've spent most of the past week on E/M and have it up to the acceptable level of preparation.. which leaves me near-terrified about statmech. Fortunately, it looks like the next week is going to be the biggest crash course in my life to finally *really* learn what we should have understood after taking a freaking course in the subject during winter quarter. Thank God for the remaining time given.
---
In other recent news:
- Jim got his massive fish tank. It lights up our living room quite splendidly. He also just got a weight bench & such.. in the apparent hope of working out.
- We also just got a pullup bar. I confess I didn't know you could install them in your home until now.. and I'm really quite happy to be so presently informed. Pullups are a blessed gift straight from the Throne.
- Just finished campsitting for Dave/Sarah last week while they went off for a wedding. Was great for all concerned. 'Twas mighty nice to spend time on site.. and on the Woods. I need to get out there after quals and have some serious time at the waterfront with Jesus..
- Kathryn came up this past weekend.. I wish I didn't have to study for most of the time, but we still had a good amount of fun. She's maturing fast. I want to say that I can see God growing her in profound ways.. but I can't quite enumerate/articulate them definitively. Doesn't mean it isn't true though.
- Upon the longstanding recommendation from several folks, Jim and I picked up the first four episodes of '24' a couple nights ago from Hollywood video. Holy crap. Kathryn pointed out how much it pulled Jim/me into it.. apparently Jim bites his cuticles and I start going crazy playing with my beard when we're tense and don't think anyone's watching.
- Got to visit UPS for a bit last week... I'm really happy that folks are back. I look forward to going down as soon as possible.. Bryan is particularly on my mind and heart right now. God be with Him and make his way straight.
---
And now for a theological digresson:
In intellectual pursuits, it is revealing that the stated goal of the study of a subject is often to attain *mastery* of it. This mastery is perhaps best seen in the concise description of complicated abstractions therein and the competent defense of particular viewpoints within the whole. As a 20's-something male, I can attest to the sense of power that comes with both of the above. However, the interesting consequence is that this 'mastery' implies subset inclusion. In other words, subjects or aspects therein that I have mastered are smaller than me in the sense of understanding. To use more martial vocabulary, 'mastered' understanding is tantamount to conquest over the subject matter and the revelation of self-capacity. It need not proceed to contempt, but this certainly happens more often than not.
An interesting investigation from here involves looking at how God wants to keep us humble in the midst of intellectual pursuits where the 'mastery' involved is not illusory. However, let's go to something a little bigger.
I am unable to simultaneously be honest and competently defend things beyond my mastery: I must choose one or the other. But what of God and Jesus? Can I honestly claim to have mastered the knowledge and wisdom of God? Absolutely not.
All of my attempts to intellectually defend Christ are nothing more than the expression of contempt and foolish arrogance.
Perhaps a dry way of looking at this (but still with power) is via epistemology or the process of knowledge-gathering. The progression of the questions of Christianity for which we need knowledge goes thus:
1. Is there a God?
2. What is our relationship to Him?
3. If broken, how broken? If good, how good?
4. If broken, can it be reconciled? If, then how?
At every point, firm knowledge requires revelation. There is simply no other tool available. The measurement of internal parameters offers only speculation as to what lies outside. At this point, atheists rely on whatever a priori tools they can find to justify the epistemological leap of declaring the impasse to in fact constitute disproof. Agnostics may remain intellectually consistent by recognizing the possibility of revelation juxtaposed against an apparent lack (brought on by self-ignorance or genuine ignorance) of revelation. And Christians..
How is one to go and advocate an answer to any of the above questions with worldly means when their resolution demands revelation? Such intention is madness.
Thus informed, apologetics and the advocacy of our faith requires us to start at this simple fact: the revelation that is Christianity is incomprehensible to human understanding. The depths of sin are infinitely beyond anything that worldly wisdom can tell us. Consequently, the fulness of grace is also infinitely beyond human conception.
NOTE: This applies just as well for Christians as for non-Christians. The simple posession of words to describe evident phenomena does not imply understanding of the mechanism that produces them.
The resulting incomprehensibility of the Gospel and Jesus are utterly needed in our relationship with Christ and our presentation of His work to the unbelieving world.
And thus true and full wonder is sparked. Or rather lightning-bolted. And thus also our love for Jesus is made more of what it should be.
"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who believe, Christ the power of God and wisdom of God." - I Corinthians 1:17 (I think)
5.9.06
Derek Webb's coming to Seattle
Specifically, he's coming to my church:
- October 5th, 2006
- 6:45 PM
- Mars Hill Church Ballard
- $12/ticket
For tickets/directions, visit the Mars Hill Website.
If you are able to come, you're also invited to do some 'chillaxing' (in the words of K. Thorpe) in Ballard at our place after the performance.
Additionally: if you come, try to get there a bit early. Kathryn & I are going to go in when the doors open at 6:30 and it'd be awesome to have a group.
For more info about Derek Webb, you can visit his website.
- October 5th, 2006
- 6:45 PM
- Mars Hill Church Ballard
- $12/ticket
For tickets/directions, visit the Mars Hill Website.
If you are able to come, you're also invited to do some 'chillaxing' (in the words of K. Thorpe) in Ballard at our place after the performance.
Additionally: if you come, try to get there a bit early. Kathryn & I are going to go in when the doors open at 6:30 and it'd be awesome to have a group.
For more info about Derek Webb, you can visit his website.
3.9.06
on purity & chivalry [old thoughts]
From deep in the past (slash October 2005):
- context: follow-up from a pleasant late-night conversaton with Nita/Huyck about many things. of particular interest here was a female form of 'chivalry.'
---
I've been thinking about our conversation on Saturday night, namely the female "form of chivalry" and my impulsive word-vomit in response. Over thelast couple days, the thought has gone from being pregnant and not completely formed to.. less pregnant. Sort of like prairie-dogging a baby. Anyway, here goes.
When *most* folks think about purity, they think of chastity, innocence, and Brita water filters. I contend that there is an alternative form of purity thatgets sadly overlooked, especially for women. We'll call it the "purity of identity." The woman who knows who she is and who God made her to be has purity. The woman who remains who she graciously is in the face of cultural pressure and natural insecurity has purity. [As opposed to remaining who you are for self-satisfaction] The woman whose identity is submitted and given to God (not without continual battle) has purity.
All of these aspects of purity are serving to men in and out of relationship with the woman, in the same way that chivalry does not choose who to serve. For those not in a relationship, the woman's purity of identity humbles and sets back men who would try to pressure, manipulate, or take advantage of her. Her purity also shines forth the peace and grace that only come from being at peace with God in identity, regardless of her doubts and insecurities because she is given over to God no matter how she feels, and that act of giving over allows God to always radiate that peace and light to others. For a man in arelationship/marriage with her, her peace with God becomes an example to him tolay his self-imposed burdens down and yield to God. Her purity soothes and serves him in a way that I can't really describe, but simply *know.*
Someone might respond that the description of purity above is general and healthy for all Christians and thus shouldn't be considered with the feminine.In response, chivalry is identified with the masculine and yet the spiritual/life principles involved are universal. The reason why chivalry *is*generally discussed in a masculine context is the same why the purity above should be discussed often in the feminine: the spirit and support therein is most sorely lacking amongst the gender associated. Moreover, there is somethingthat cannot be completely nailed down inside women that responds powerfully toacts of chivalry; the same for men to the purity above. All of this being said, "sweetness" is also a good candidate. However, I think that sweetness follows from the spirit of purity in the same way that chivalry follows from the spirit of service and self-sacrifice. I guess that technically that does make "sweetness" the female form of chivalry, but the sustainable life of "sweetness" is *only* possible with the purity above. It must be the true root, the connection to God's purity and peace. A quick note: the woman who is pure in identity *will* wrestle with insecurity and social/cultural pressure from those near and far. The key isn't that she is excluded from what everyone else goes through, but in her identity's root in God *by* her submitting and giving it over to God.
---
Nearly a year later, I have this to add:
Kierkegaard relates despair as the dialectic partner to faith, and in defining despair he describes two categories:
- despair to will to be oneself
- despair not to will to be oneself.
The more awareness of self and of despair the deeper and more intense the despair becomes (simultaneously bringing closer and pushing further from faith).
How is this relevant?
For young men in the West, the Enemy's current primary tactic involves unawareness and ignorance of the self, thereby leading to unrecognized despair. Or, more sadistic: he helps reveal pieces of the self and then offers substitutes/distractions/ex post facto rationalizations as a means towards purposed ignorance [of the self].
For young women, the questions "who am I?" and "who should I be?" are never far from awareness, thrumming through the common pulse of shared culture. The questions are posed (i.) without fulfillment, leading to conscious despair/insecurity or (ii.) with fulfillment, leading to a misled state (rather than necessarily purposed) of self-ignorance.
In the original writing, the form of purity described is essentially the same as Kierkegaard's description of the state-of-faith/escape-from-despair (to will to be oneself, not to will to be oneself):
wherein the soul, in itself and in relating itself to itself, rests transparently before the Power that established it.
Thus the purity described above is properly viewed as the existence of and product of deep faith, brought about as an incomprehensible gift of grace.
This has the practical effect:
Seeking after this kind of purity is as futile as any other works-based salvation:
- if you think you've succeeded, you haven't.
- if you realize you haven't, your despair will intensify.
Ultimately, the closest thing that we can do to forcefully bring such faith into our lives is to submit. Thus the space for God and His perfect faith alive/purity alive in us.
- context: follow-up from a pleasant late-night conversaton with Nita/Huyck about many things. of particular interest here was a female form of 'chivalry.'
---
I've been thinking about our conversation on Saturday night, namely the female "form of chivalry" and my impulsive word-vomit in response. Over thelast couple days, the thought has gone from being pregnant and not completely formed to.. less pregnant. Sort of like prairie-dogging a baby. Anyway, here goes.
When *most* folks think about purity, they think of chastity, innocence, and Brita water filters. I contend that there is an alternative form of purity thatgets sadly overlooked, especially for women. We'll call it the "purity of identity." The woman who knows who she is and who God made her to be has purity. The woman who remains who she graciously is in the face of cultural pressure and natural insecurity has purity. [As opposed to remaining who you are for self-satisfaction] The woman whose identity is submitted and given to God (not without continual battle) has purity.
All of these aspects of purity are serving to men in and out of relationship with the woman, in the same way that chivalry does not choose who to serve. For those not in a relationship, the woman's purity of identity humbles and sets back men who would try to pressure, manipulate, or take advantage of her. Her purity also shines forth the peace and grace that only come from being at peace with God in identity, regardless of her doubts and insecurities because she is given over to God no matter how she feels, and that act of giving over allows God to always radiate that peace and light to others. For a man in arelationship/marriage with her, her peace with God becomes an example to him tolay his self-imposed burdens down and yield to God. Her purity soothes and serves him in a way that I can't really describe, but simply *know.*
Someone might respond that the description of purity above is general and healthy for all Christians and thus shouldn't be considered with the feminine.In response, chivalry is identified with the masculine and yet the spiritual/life principles involved are universal. The reason why chivalry *is*generally discussed in a masculine context is the same why the purity above should be discussed often in the feminine: the spirit and support therein is most sorely lacking amongst the gender associated. Moreover, there is somethingthat cannot be completely nailed down inside women that responds powerfully toacts of chivalry; the same for men to the purity above. All of this being said, "sweetness" is also a good candidate. However, I think that sweetness follows from the spirit of purity in the same way that chivalry follows from the spirit of service and self-sacrifice. I guess that technically that does make "sweetness" the female form of chivalry, but the sustainable life of "sweetness" is *only* possible with the purity above. It must be the true root, the connection to God's purity and peace. A quick note: the woman who is pure in identity *will* wrestle with insecurity and social/cultural pressure from those near and far. The key isn't that she is excluded from what everyone else goes through, but in her identity's root in God *by* her submitting and giving it over to God.
---
Nearly a year later, I have this to add:
Kierkegaard relates despair as the dialectic partner to faith, and in defining despair he describes two categories:
- despair to will to be oneself
- despair not to will to be oneself.
The more awareness of self and of despair the deeper and more intense the despair becomes (simultaneously bringing closer and pushing further from faith).
How is this relevant?
For young men in the West, the Enemy's current primary tactic involves unawareness and ignorance of the self, thereby leading to unrecognized despair. Or, more sadistic: he helps reveal pieces of the self and then offers substitutes/distractions/ex post facto rationalizations as a means towards purposed ignorance [of the self].
For young women, the questions "who am I?" and "who should I be?" are never far from awareness, thrumming through the common pulse of shared culture. The questions are posed (i.) without fulfillment, leading to conscious despair/insecurity or (ii.) with fulfillment, leading to a misled state (rather than necessarily purposed) of self-ignorance.
In the original writing, the form of purity described is essentially the same as Kierkegaard's description of the state-of-faith/escape-from-despair (to will to be oneself, not to will to be oneself):
wherein the soul, in itself and in relating itself to itself, rests transparently before the Power that established it.
Thus the purity described above is properly viewed as the existence of and product of deep faith, brought about as an incomprehensible gift of grace.
This has the practical effect:
Seeking after this kind of purity is as futile as any other works-based salvation:
- if you think you've succeeded, you haven't.
- if you realize you haven't, your despair will intensify.
Ultimately, the closest thing that we can do to forcefully bring such faith into our lives is to submit. Thus the space for God and His perfect faith alive/purity alive in us.
refocus
One of my character faults/peculiarities: building massive expectations and, when unable to live up to them, shut down that part of my life until I can perform 'properly.'
- really part of my larger strength-idolatry, which therein
- leads to exceptionally hard work
- as well as extreme disquiet when the expectation/strength god is not appeased
- is the reason I haven't updated here for a while.
The same dynamic is operative in journaling. And thus I successfully keep a journal for ~month at the longest.
Anyway, time to refocus this blog ad majorem gloria Dei rather than ad majorem gloria virek.
And so time for a fresh beginning.
- really part of my larger strength-idolatry, which therein
- leads to exceptionally hard work
- as well as extreme disquiet when the expectation/strength god is not appeased
- is the reason I haven't updated here for a while.
The same dynamic is operative in journaling. And thus I successfully keep a journal for ~month at the longest.
Anyway, time to refocus this blog ad majorem gloria Dei rather than ad majorem gloria virek.
And so time for a fresh beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)