Smoke & Mirrors

If you like Islay single malts and/or smokey dark chocolate, you might like this brew, not to be confused with- but certainly a good accompaniment to- reading the very excellent Smoke and Mirrors by James Robert Brown, one of the earliest and one of the most smarting bitch-slaps to the social constructivist tripe (typically associated with gender studies, intersectionality and other pseudo-enterprises) and surprisingly available for free here.  Speaking of great Canucks, another great take-no-prisoners book from around the same time is André Kukla’s Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. Three great Canuck products.

2013_10_BMBC-1003

Based Mom & Screwtape: Free speech, philosophy, and art

Roger is looking the sharpest I’ve seen him in years but he still retains the Just William hair.

The Strange Death of Europe

The eminently sensible, sane, humane, informed, analytical, eloquent, cultured, honest and ballsy Douglas Murray has a very timely and important book about to hit the shelves. The mass self-delusion of the regressive left and their feckless fellow-travelers (you know, the Sarsourian-type zombies from middle-class families) is the most astonishing and perverse of herd instincts. While they (and their intersectional pseudo-theorists) fetishize “Nazi fascism” (and via “concept creep”, have emptied the term of any meaning), their suicidal astigmatism to the far more pressing paradigm of Islamofascism, is most evident and has been so for quite a while. To my dear Canadian chums who understand the postulates of liberality and the civil condition — M-103 is without doubt the thin, but razor sharp, end of the wedge that will mutilate Canada. On a related note, it’s high time western democracies stop ingratiating themselves with Saudi Barbaria given that their major and most destructive export is actually Wahhabism.

9781472942258

Walker Percy Wednesday 128

percycovercroppea

A RECENT POLL ASKED people what they feared most. A majority of respondents agreed in ranking one fear above all others, above fear of sickness, accidents, crime, war, even death. It is the fear of speaking before a group, stage fright.

Yet in the conventional objective scientific view, man is an organism among other organisms and a man should therefore not be terrified to be surrounded by his own kind, other like organisms who are not merely not hostile but by the very nature of the occasion well disposed, and to open his mouth and speak in a language he has learned from his fellowmen. A wolf howling alone in a wolfpack doesn’t get stage fright.

00000

(e) Is it because you know that what you present to the world is a persona, a mask, that it is a very fragile disguise, that God alone knows what is underneath since you clearly do not, perhaps nothing less than the self itself, and that if the persona fails, what is revealed is unspeakable (literally, because you can’t speak it),

00000

(h) It is better to seek help from a psychotherapist if the psychotherapist knows what not many psychotherapists know, namely, that the shy person may know something the non-shy person does not know, that your self is indeed unformulable to yourself, that you are entitled to your shyness, that, indeed, varying degrees of idiocy are required not to be shy, that the very unformulability of your self is the only clue you have to the uniqueness of yourself, that otherwise one will become yet another Ralph among a thousand Ralphs, or worse still, become an imitation of the psychotherapist.

00000

The actors also enjoyed their stay in the town and the attention they were getting. Even though they, the actors, were not held in the highest regard by the filmmakers—producers, directors, cinematographers, etc.—were in fact often referred to by the latter as “pieces of meat,” “talking faces,” “hollow heads” among other uncomplimentary expressions—they, the actors, found themselves playing enjoyable roles in the town. What roles? They were playing the roles of the superb human beings the town folk believed them to be. Everyone in town remarked what nice people they were. So they became nice. They became nicer than saints. One famous actress in particular, noted for her childish and difficult ways, became a very model of friendliness and graciousness, astounding even the film crew and the town folk by her small acts of kindness, such as inquiring after the health of a stagehand’s sick child, remembering the name of the A & P checkout lady.

9780312253998_custom-879fe996d0c45da2a69a358283ae164595a77f96-s6-c30

Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes

A promising new title from U of Penn with several references to Aristotle, Hume, Oakeshott, Hayek, Aron, Berlin and more besides.

The business of a government [is] not to inflame passion and give it new objects to feed upon, but to inject into the activities of already too passionate men an ingredient of moderation.

— Michael Oakeshott

Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

Long write-up in The New Yorker

Dennett does not believe that we are “mere things.” He thinks that we have souls, but he is certain that those souls can be explained by science.

The Embedded Epistemologist

I was startled to read, in the 6th edition of a well-known textbook, McCormick on Evidence, that the “reasonable doubt” formula “points to what we are really concerned with, the state of the jury’s mind,” whereas “preponderance of the evidence” and “clear and convincing evidence” “divert attention to the evidence.” This has things exactly backwards: As the “reasonable” in “beyond a reasonable doubt” signals, the evidence, and whether it is strong enough, is precisely what the fact-finder should be attending to (and a juror who is absolutely certain the defendant is guilty—but not because of the admissible evidence presented at trial but because of something he learned outside the courtroom, or because of evidence that was presented at trial but that the court instructed the jury to disregard—has an obligation to vote to acquit nonetheless). Legal degrees of proof are not degrees of credence; they are degrees of rational credibility or warrant.

— article available in Ratio Juris

haack

Meaning and Chaos

Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson take another run at a discussion and the result is far clearer and more satisfying than the first effort (I happen to think that the first podcast was not wasted time at all). Having heard Harris and Weinstein and now Harris and Peterson, I think we would be in for a treat listening to Weinstein and Peterson, two of the subtlest minds I’ve heard in a long while on religiosity.

14351277205_dbdf76531d_k

Hall and Oats Speak

First, revisiting Daryl Hall in Salon on the incoherence and idiocy of “cultural appropriation” (nothing more than a species of crude rationalistic fundamentalism, a classic marker of the authoritarian mindset, arrogant enough to think that the mercurial nature of a healthy culture should/could be controlled); and second, John Oats has a memoir about to appear.

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 11.07.04 AM

change20of20seasons