CalvinDude.com

Part III of my “work in progress” is now ready. I still need to work on the ending a bit, but this is now the entire scope of the music piece. In other words, I don’t plan making it any longer, and now it’s just a matter of brushing up the rough spots and smoothing them out. I also haven’t decided if I’ll add a brass part or not. I think it works as it is, though, so probably not. (But it’s always fun to experiment so I’ll see what comes up before I become dogmatic on that point!)

Based on some things I’ve read before, I think the feeling is a common one to authors. It’s the feeling when you read something that you wrote but it’s been a long, long time since you wrote it. The feeling…Did I really write this?

In between working on some short stories and editing The 13th Prime for what will hopefully be the last time (we shall see how that goes!), I’ve dug out my old NaNoWriMo story from last November. I read through it last night to get the flavor of the story once more, and I’ve been working on it now too, filling in the gaps, etc. As you may recall from last November, I wrote the novel just to get 50,000 words, and I did succeed at that. But the novel wasn’t finished. I only got the entire first act and portions of the second act (as well as the very end of the third act) finished.

Part of the reason why I didn’t write more on it is because a lot of the sections that are left are extremely complicated to write. Not in the sense of looking for research or anything of that nature. All I can say about it is, once it’s finished you’ll have to read it to understand. And you will understand why it would be difficult to come up with those portions.

Anyway, as I read it there were many times when I felt that feeling: It doesn’t feel like I wrote this. I surprised myself in a few places even. Words and turns of phrases that I forgot I put in.

Ironically, just the other day I was talking to my friend Travis and I mentioned how even working on The 13th Prime, which I think is a good novel, I still feel that Public Tranist was better. Public Transit had a certain quality to it that I told Travis I didn’t think I could ever duplicate.

But having read through my NaNoWriMo project, even hacking out some of the bad prose that I had put in just to ensure I got over 50,000 words, I have to say that that story definitely has the potential to surpass Public Transit in my esteem. I can’t wait to finish it and share it with the world, not because I want money (although that would be nice, of course!) but because I think it’s actually really, really good.

FWIW, I would love to write a book some day that Stephen King would say “I wish I had written that” about. For that matter, before M. Night fell into the deep end of the pool, I wanted to write a script that he said “I wish I had written that” to as well.

Oh well. At least it’s a goal, even if one that I will most likely never attain. :-)

I’ve done a bit more on the musical work in progress, which can be heard here. If you compare it to the first one, you’ll see that the chords at the end that I used to modulate from E minor to E major have now been stylized, including a melody, and after that section I’ve repeated the main melody again only in a major key instead of a minor key. Actually, I kept all the notes for the main melody and the chord structure the same. That is, if you looked at them on sheet music it would look identical. The only difference is that E minor has one sharp and E major has four. As a result, when played in a major key, it has a completely different flavor because some notes are sharp that were not sharp in the minor key. It is interesting to listen to, at any rate.

Despite the fact that I’ve missed a few days blogging, I’ve actually been doing quite a bit. I’ve written first drafts for a couple of short stories (for use when I try to build a base to sucker some agent into representing me). Likewise, I’ve also been doing a bit on some music. You can check out this link for a current work in progress. It is, as the nature of the title suggests, nowhere near complete. But it will give an idea of how music comes to me when I compose.

The theme reminds me a bit of The Moldau by Smetana and the texture is like the beginning to the Russian Easter Overture by Rimsky-Korsakov. And at the end you can hear the chord progression that I will use (with some possible edits) to modulate from E minor to E major. (In case you’re wondering, when I compose I do work both by chord structure and by melody; for example, the opening melody I came up with fairly quickly as its own melody, but the modulation is based on chord structure so I’ll work a melody around that when I get to it. Finally, after the melody and chord structure are both sound, I turn to instrumentation.)

1) The experience of pain is morally evil.
2) To go against moral evil is morally good.
3) Therefore, it is morally good to do that which will alleviate the experience of pain.

However…

4) Stubbing one’s toe on a coffee table inflicts pain on the individual.
5) Therefore, it is morally good to do that which will ensure no one can ever stub his or her toe on a table.

Unfortunately….

6) There are more ways to inflict pain than stubbing one’s toe on a table.
7) It is impossible to ensure that all external ways of inflicting pain are incapable of doing so.

However…

8) Dead things experience no pain.
9) It is inevitable that living things will experience pain.
10) Therefore, it is morally better to be dead than to be alive.

Unfortunately…

11) There are those who will not kill themselves.
12) Those who are alive will experience pain.
13) Since it is a moral good to alleviate the experience of pain, it is morally justifiable to kill every other living thing.

And finally…

14) If you do not act to resist evil, you are evil yourself.
15) Therefore, if you do not kill everyone you are evil but
16) If you do kill everyone you are good.

Thank God atheists aren’t consistent.

I.
Look over beyond what the pale mystic skies show clear
To find a purposeful knowledge, wisdom we forever impart. Near
The catacomb’s shadows and the dungeon’s darkness. Hear
With a heartfelt bitterness. Hate raging, embracing fear.

II.
Look beyond the mystic show
To a knowledge we impart
The shadows, the darkness
With heartfelt hate embracing

Over what pale skies clear
Find purposeful wisdom forever near
Catacombs and dungeons hear
A bitterness, raging fear.

III.
Look beyond the mystic show
Over what pale skies clear
To a knowledge we impart
Find purposeful wisdom forever near

The shadows, the darkness
Catacombs and dungeons hear
With heartfelt hate embracing
A bitterness, raging fear.

Note: It took me about an hour this morning to come up with this little poem. When I wrote it, I was looking more for structure than for any thematic concerns.

The structure, which some of you may have gleaned by reading it already, is as follows. The first block contains the four lines that are in A-A-A-A rhyme scheme. If you take every other word of the first block starting with the first word, you create the first stanza of the second block. If you take every other word starting with the second word, you create the second stanza of the second block. Finally, the third block shows what happens if you alternate between the two stanzas. Thus, the first line of the first stanza of the third block is every other word of the first line of the first block starting with the first word; the second line of the first stanza of the third block is every other word of the first line of the first block starting with the second word. Etc. It may be easier to say that the third block consists of the first line of the first stanza of the second block followed by the first line of the second stanza of the second block, followed by the second line of the first stanza of the second block, etc.

Of course, all of it should be easy to see if you just look at the poem itself :-P

I should note that there can be improvement with my method above. For instance, you can see that the first stanza of the second block has no rhyme scheme at all; this could be fixed if I spent more time on it. Furthermore, the poem itself could use a little ironing out. But all in all I think it’s a fairly successful first attempt at combining two stanzas into one.

One of the things I enjoy most about Triablogue is that we’re not monolithic. Each of us is a separate individual who has his own perspective on various issues. While there is great overlap amongst us, there is also quite a bit of diversity.

I bring that up because I’ve recently been reading over some essays penned by a presuppositionalist who argued that presuppositionalism is the only valid apologetic method. Now, as a presuppositionalist myself, I believe this statement is true in a very limited sense. That is, I believe that those who would use evidentialist approaches to apologetics also rely on presuppositions that they just don’t express. As a result, you cannot escape the fact that at the ultimate level you will need to deal with presuppositions.

However, that is not what this individual meant (note: this is a person I know locally and what I read is not posted anywhere online, so I’m not going to use his name). What he meant was that those who would use an approach different from the presuppositional approach were, in fact, sinning by doing so.

This view saddens me, much like the hypercalvinist view does. In fact, I think that this may be just an example of what James White termed the “cage stage” (only here it applies to someone who just read Bahnsen for the first time rather than a new convert to Calvinism).

This strikes at the heart of apologetics. Apologetics requires us to make a defense for any who should ask. And the fact is that while presuppositionalism is philosophically sound, it probably only works well at converting INTP personalities (a personality type of which I should note only about 2% of Americans are, at least according to the random website I just Googled…). Regardless of the actual percentage, it’s quite apparent that most people couldn’t care less about philosophy.

However, they are drawn toward evidentialist arguments. And while these arguments will never be as “air tight” (as far as the presuppositionalist is concerned) they are often more convincing precisely because they are easier to understand and follow. Jason Engwer does an excellent job at expounding on the evidence for Christianity in such a manner.

But that would just mean that evidentialism is pragmatic, not necessarily that it is not sinful. I would point out, however, that the Bible does use evidential arguments from time to time too. For instance, when Scripture says in Psalm 19:1 that the heavens declare the glory of God, David is referring to how God’s glory is manifested in nature. It is evidenced by nature itself. And Paul echoes that in Romans 1 as well, saying that God’s attributes are seen in what has been made.

Romans 1, by the way, is a beautiful illustration of the wedding of presuppositional thought to evidentialism. That is, we have the fact that the unbelievers refuse to accept what is plainly seen, and what is plainly seen is the evidence found in creation.

That evidence is there. If you offer an evidential claim, you have a reason to do so. Likewise, we know that no amount of evidence is sufficient in and of itself to convince a non-believer of the truth of God. Both must be taken into account.

In my experience, presuppositionalism works best at demonstrating that atheists have no philosophical standing (although see my caveat below). But when dealing with non-atheist, those who accept supernatural concepts and are not limited to materialism, then presuppositionalism is nowhere near as strong as evidentialism. This isn’t to say that presuppositionalism is impotent; just that it is more difficult to employ. To give an example, one could argue philosophically why it is impossible that Tom murdered Fred because of Tom’s nature; but it’s simpler to show the photograph of Tom on vacation in England at the exact same moment that Fred was murdered in Detroit. In the same way, one could argue that the plurality of gods in Mormonism would render the world senseless, but it’s easier to demonstrate historically that Joseph Smith was a conman.

Now for my caveat. When I said that presuppositionalism works best at demonstrating atheists have no philosophical background, it’s not strictly precise. That’s because in reality, presuppositionalism works best when it’s looking at the worldview level. This is most often expressed when dealing with atheists because their worldview is so diametrically opposed to Christianity on all fronts; however, if we got to the level of a worldview (i.e., determining what was appropriate evidence in the first place), then presuppositionalism would flourish against any religious view too. That is, once the unbeliever sees that the evidence is against his position, he will have to retreat to redefine what evidence is or jettison his view. At this point, the presuppositional argument must come into play.

When it comes to apologetics, therefore, I have observed the following (whether it is universal I know not, although it’s certainly widespread here in America). The average person does not care for philosophy, and therefore will be more impacted by an evidentialist apologetic. Those who are most vocal in opposition to Christianity, however, do focus more on philosophy because they’ve moved to the point where the very definition of “evidence” is determined, and those people will be more impacted by a presuppositional argument. In the apologetic setting that T-Blog is usually engaged in (that is, actively engaged with non-believers who are openly hostile to Christianity), presuppositionalism is probably the more effective tool. However, when you’re talking to the average person off the street and evangelizing, evidentialism is probably the more effective tool. (These are generalizations, and not everyone we deal with is a die-hard anti-Christian; T-Blog also provides pastoral posts from time to time.)

One final note. God draws His elect through both methods. There are countless saved by evidential arguments, and there are likewise countless saved by presuppositional arguments (although probably not as many in the latter group). It is not a sin to use an evidential argument. But it is a sin to think that it would be a sin to use an evidential argument. Apologetics must be person-relative. What God uses to convince one sheep to return to the fold is not necessarily what He will use to convince another sheep to return to the fold. God made each of us, and to cite the above (albeit questionable) statistic about the percentage of INTPs in America, God created both INTPs and ESFJs.

So this weekend I woke up at 5:30 in the morning. Why? Because it was 12 degrees inside my room.

I exaggerate only slightly. August is supposed to be one of our hottest months, but we’ve had rain for three straight days and temperatures haven’t even cracked 80 for so long only one word can describe this:

DOOM!

We’re doomed!

The world is going to freeze!

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

“I see you’ve come back.”

“Yes, Mike. It happens every day after work. Amazing, isn’t it?” Larry stretched and glanced over at the chessboard that Mike had set up. “Another game? You can’t be serious.”

“Indeed I am,” Mike responded.

“But I beat you six times in a row yesterday, and they were all Scholar’s Mates.”

“No you didn’t. And your use of the term ‘Scholar’ there is pejorative.”

“That’s the name of the move.”

“You’re just blustering and pretending to be an intellectual elite.”

Larry sighed. “Look, Mike, I just got back from work. I’m tired. I don’t want to play a game of chess right now.”

“Because you’re a coward and you know you lost.”

“No, it’s because I don’t feel like trouncing you again.”

“You know, you’ve got a real attitude. You didn’t come anywhere near beating me. I beat you each time.”

“When I checkmate you, I win. Not you.”

“Your claims of checkmate were unverifiable. I could still move.”

“Moving the king six spaces is not a legal move, Mike.”

Mike put his hands on his hips. “Oh really? Says who?”

“It’s the rules of chess.”

“Oh, the mysterious magic rules of chess. How convenient for you that they just happen to benefit you, huh?”

“They’re the rules—”

“I can’t see them.”

“What?”

“I can’t see them. They don’t exist. You believe in this mythical thing you call ‘rules’ that you’ve never seen with your own eyes.”

“You’ve got to be kidding me.”

“You know what, Larry? You have a serious problem here. You have to win at all costs.”

Larry rolled his eyes. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the object of a game of chess to, you know, win?”

“Yes. But not at all costs.”

“I don’t win at all costs. I win by playing a good offense and a good defense. Yours doesn’t measure up.”

“You really ought to check your elitist tendencies.”

“‘Check’ them. That’s a clever pun.”

“Pun?”

“Never mind, Mike. It was obviously an accidental pun. I should have guessed it, as poorly as you play chess.”

“Now listen here, Larry. Just because you declared yourself the winner by invoking some mystery magic ‘rule’ that floats invisibly up in the air somewhere watching over us while we play a game of chess does not mean that you play chess better than me.”

“Of course not. Rather, it’s my continual slaughtering of your defense and capturing your king that shows my chess skill trumps yours.”

“Such violent metaphors! I’ll bet you beat your wife!”

Larry looked at Mike. “Okaaaaaay.”

Mike stood and gestured angrily at Larry. “I’m not going to stand for this anymore!” He stormed out of the room.

Larry sighed and soon forgot it. Tomorrow was Saturday and he planned to sleep in. Unfortunately, he was woken at eight in the morning by a knock at the door.

“Are you Lawrence Adams?” the man at the door asked.

“Yes,” Larry said, rubbing the sleep from his eyes.

“Get him!”

Before Larry could react, he was thrown to the floor. “What are you doing?”

“Dr. Graves has informed us you’re a threat to yourself.” Larry’s arms were pushed into the straightjacket.

“What?”

“That’s right,” Mike said, entering behind the men. “It’s in my report.”

“He’s a psychology PhD,” the man restraining Larry provided helpfully.

“And I’ve made my report. Larry, you exhibit all the symptoms of a disease known as Mania. You have a narcissistic flair or ‘grandiosity’ to your personality. You are quite intolerant of others. Indeed, you have an ego-centric paradigm that means you simply lack the ability to consider the thoughts and feelings of those around you. It’s all about your thoughts and feelings. Sadly, no facts, reasoning, or logic will change you. On the contrary, arguing with you simply increases your mania, and for that I apologize. I have been provoking, perhaps envoking (I’m not sure which word to use) your illness by playing chess with you.

“The fact is, Larry, when you say, ‘I and those who play chess like me are better at chess than you’ then that’s the first sign that we’re dealing with some mental illness, and we must react with appropriate humanity. That’s why you will be taken back to my asylum and given shock treatments from now on.

“Don’t worry. I’m sure after just a few months of those shock treatments you’ll be able to play chess just as well as I can, and then you can reintegrate into society.”

Mike watched as Larry was dragged out of the house proclaiming his innocence. It was sad. The insane never realize they’re not crazy.

Yes, the answer to this question is obvious, but it still must be asked.

Does anyone believe anything Russia says?

Didn’t think so.