on bizarre terminology

Gabriel referred to somebody else's argument about translating the usual references to the Virgin Mary in Orthodox liturgy. For those unfamiliar, the Greek title most often used to refer to her is "Theotokos" (Θεοτόκος), which roughly glosses as "She who gave birth to the one who is God", if you'll forgive my glossing it as though it were Sanskrit. Most other languages translate this title. Slavonic says "Bogoroditsa", for instance (Богородица). A lot of English Orthodox texts are translated from the Slavonic, so we have the absurd situation of translating from the Slavonic, which was translated from the Greek, not into the target language, but back into Greek. I find it slightly more absurd than using antiquated second person pronouns. Gabriel then goes on to say that he never uses the term when talking with non-Orthodox and rarely even when talking with Orthodox (unless explicitly discussing the third ecumenical council). I find this wise and tactful, because most people have a hard enough time understanding the nonsense we are talking about without our assuming that they know all these crazy big words we're using.

Which brings us to the topic of our conversation. Most people have no idea what the hell other people are talking about, religiously, if they are not a part of your bizarre little religious subculture. This has become more apparent over the last year, since my wife, for some odd reason, has a lot of Protestant friends, and they use common everyday words as though they are imbued with some special meaning that I cannot pretend to decipher and they have all these nonsensical debates which mean literally nothing to me. And they all pretend like they should mean something to me just because the words they are using are all English (imagine if they weren't and they were using hideously outdated German or French).

Of course, this extends beyond religious spheres. Any little coterie is bound to have manners of speaking that become pregnant with meaning, but when outsiders are introduced to them, their reaction is, "You say that as if it should mean something to me, but it doesn't." And, even more insidiously, conformance to these manners of speaking by those inducted can become a substitute for actual understanding. Leaning on the obscure words of others rather than, you know, realizing what you're saying. This isn't too bad if you're just working it out for yourself, but if you're trying to have any influence on other people, I recommend figuring out what you mean before you say it and trying to translate it into something somebody else can understand. This usually means using English words.

As a matter of policy, I pretend not to understand people who don't unless it's clear we know what we're doing. That's part of the motivation behind my post about words that cause me to tune out: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or at least we may not agree about it.

Pascha: Daytime or Evening?

A serious question came up recently. Is the midnight Paschal liturgy to be considered a daytime event or an evening event for the purposes of dressing? On the one hand, it is midnight after all. On the other, it is, liturgically, day, sort of.

Practically, this is the question of whether one has occasion to bring out the dinner jacket (tails would seem a bit much) or whether one should stick with a suit (no American has formal morning attire, but if one has a black peak lapel jacket and striped/checked trousers, one could sneak something by the unsuspecting masses, while a morning coat would just be too much).

I'm not going to suggest that one hire or purchase such clothes for the occasion if one doesn't have them, except to say that every man should have a suit. Nor am I suggesting that we turn the Paschal vigil into an ostentatious display of finery. This is, largely, academic for me, since I don't have a dinner jacket and don't intend to purchase one. I wouldn't wear one even if it were appropriate because I would typically serve and a black bowtie doesn't work well with a sticharion (nor should altar servers wear ties, in my opinion). I've already detailed my opinion on formal daytime attire. Accordingly, my Easter attire is already chosen for me no matter what: a dark solid-colored suit (striped suits are strictly business attire). I'm going with oxford grey.

Words that cause me to roll my eyes

In religious discussions [particularly Orthodox, so others can tune out], here are some words that cause me to roll my eyes.
1. Ancient.
2. Mystical.
3. Mystery.
4. Tradition.
5. This isn't a word, but, well, most apologetics.
6. Pretty much most other conversations. People don't really talk about anything worthwhile, they talk about shit.

Marital Survey

This is all purely theoretical, but it came up somewhere and was curious what you all might think. I'm asking around all the fora (and fauna) I have and would like your input.

Keep in mind, of course, that I have never asked a question about anything I did not already have a strong opinion on that you could not possibly dissuade me from.

1. How long should a guy go out with a girl before asking her to marry him?

2. How long should an engagement last?

3. How much time should elapse between first date and wedding?

Think of these questions as being about several parameters, like minimum recommended wise time, typical time, maximum recommended wise time barring special circumstance, etc.

I was reading Boundless.org and one of the authors recommended that one should plan for marriage within about a year, which really did seem quite reasonable as an upper bound to plan for, but I thought I would ask your opinions/experiences.

Resolution

I don't typically do new year's resolutions, but I figured I would make a couple and share them.

1. I will not crush my enemies in 2009.
2. Battle cosmic evil.
3. Seek justice.
4. I suppose I should acquire at least 10 more pounds.
5. Get out of this crummy job into a real one.
6. Eat more offal and pack my lunch more often.

I suppose a couple of these are counter-intuitive or obscure. Trust me, though. I'm a trained professional

A few clear thoughts about the second person pronoun: part I

I have been drawn into two internet discussions in the last few weeks on the use of the archaic second person pronoun in (Orthodox) liturgical translations and other (Orthodox) churchly settings. I, naturally, have derided its use on the grounds that it is "lame", "retarded", and "may turn you gay". Granted, I find these to be fully adequate reasons to switch to real English, but I fear that some people may mistakenly cling to their former delusions. Further, most of the arguments on both sides that I have seen are extremely weak and deserve about as much respect as my arguments above would indicate I give them. Accordingly, I shall try to raise the level of discourse slightly.

But, first, we do have a few things to get out of the way so we all know what we are talking about. There are a number of English translations of Orthodox liturgical texts. The oldest are approximately a century old. Some of them use "Thou/Thee" for every second person singular. Some use "Thou/Thee" only for God. Some exclusively use "You/You". People often cobble together the texts from a variety of sources, so it's not all consistent. There is also the question of what Bible translation to use liturgically – I am not going to address that question. At the very least, we should be consistent, so how should we do this?

One plausible answer is that it does not really matter: we should make a choice and stick with it. If we pick up a text for something which does not conform to the mold, we can either fix it or leave it as it is (if, say, the text is only being used once).

Another plausible answer is that it does not really matter: we should only try not to sound completely ridiculous. This is much like the previous option, except that we do not care so much if some small parts are not the same as the others.

I am not competent to comment on either of these practical approaches and will, thankfully, never be in a position to decide on their implementation at any parish. However, I do feel quite qualified to discuss the theoretical questions in this debate (which the above two approaches neatly sidestep), as I have strong opinions about English style and usage. Fortunately, most people have some real opinion about how things ought to be, even if we all end as pragmatists, and I hope my few thoughts on this matter may help you realize that I am, as always, right.

Before I prove that I am right and you are, if you disagree, wrong, I ought to at least present the arguments of those who disagree with me. Here, then, is the compendium of errors:

1. Thou/Thee is traditional liturgical English.
   The Bible was written in such English. The Book of Common Prayer was written in such English. The Douay-Rheims Bible was written in such English. It was not until recent times that any church used any other sort of language. There are still some pockets in the English-speaking world that insist on using the Authorized Version. Accordingly, we Orthodox should use that idiom to translate our liturgy.
   
2. The language of the liturgy should not be dumbed down like the newspaper or, worse, like casual conversation, text messages, or hip-hop music.
   The liturgy is poetry. We must try to translate it in an idiom similar to that in which it was written. Also, we are serving the Almighty God. Though nothing is worthy of God, we should give what we can. A lot of modern translations of the Bible simply do not sound like they are the Bible because they are so dumbed down. Modern evangelical Protestant “praise and worship” music sounds like it could just as easily be about some girl you just fell for rather than the Almighty God. We must avoid this.
   
3. Thou/Thee has the potential to be more theologically accurate.
   There are some notable passages in Scripture where using the generic second person pronoun leads to some ambiguity where a distinction between singular and plural would yield clarity. Further, the use of the singular for God emphasizes the oneness of God: definitive proof for the Musulmans that we are not tritheists.
   
4. Complete sets of liturgical texts exist in Thou/Thee, but they do not exist in real English.
   Though this is a practical matter, rather than a theoretical matter, it is salient. If satisfactory texts already exist, why bother with all the work of ditching them just because they say Thou instead of You? Making yet another translation of the Horologion, for example, would mean a few thousand man hours, and to what end?

Please let me know if I am missing any major arguments for the use of “Thou/Thee” in liturgical translations or if these arguments can be made stronger. My next post will be my case and a rebuttal of these silly arguments.

A spammer? No, worse: a 1L.

I was poked out of my web-logging retirement by somebody commenting on my web-log. I thought, at first, it was a spammer, but I was not so lucky: it was a 1L. Ew.

If you must know, I'm still a bad man. I've taken up picking up heavy things and putting them down since it's too cold out to run and, besides, running isn't actually exercise as most people do it. It just makes you weak and sickly.

I'm planning on taking some graduate classes in some crap next semester if the employer approves, which they should.

And I am always seeking justice. And battling cosmic evil. When I'm not watching Doctor Who.

Been a while.

How are you? I'm fine. I haven't written in a while because I don't have anything valuable to say. I'm in more of a position to listen. Or perhaps to hear, I don't listen very well (I don't hear well, either, really, but we can let that slide for now). I was lying about things being fine. Things are profoundly wrong. Or, rather, I am profoundly wrong. Evil, perhaps, is a better word there. This is hardly the time or place for this discussion, however. I just wanted to let you few faithful readers know I am alive and, since this web-log is often touching on theological matters, why I am not really speaking about them: it is because I really am in no position to do so. I suppose I should clarify, since people can take that many ways: I'm an Orthodox Christian - I just have nothing to say or no right to say anything or discuss anything at present.

on computers in chess

They just cannot make realistic computer opponents that don't give up pieces at the first sign of trouble. I was playing in Chessmaster against one of their opponents nominally rated at like 1950, which is certainly stronger than I am. I had a winning position in a bishop endgame, I was about to penetrate on the kingside, but he had some counterplay and it wasn't sewn up at all. But it would be tricky. The computer's response was to trade his bishop for a pawn. It seems that whenever the computer gets into a tricky position and it's trying to play weakly, it just gives up a piece. This is not realistic, no human player, especially not one rated 1950, would make that particular mistake.

Slightly more annoying is the recap they give at the end and the annotations: since the computer never resigns, one must play through to mate. They have a "worst move" and "missed mates" feature, and their utility is hampered by the fact that I don't care to play the absolute most accurate way when I'm a rook up, so if I lose a pawn or take 10 moves to mate instead of 5, those show up, but I really only care about the part of the game before I got my decisive advantage or where my opponent got the decisive advantage, not where the evaluation changed from +80.31 to +50.32 (FYI, +1.00 is usually winning).

on weak computer opposition

Computers, of course, can play at very high level these days. They aren't strategic geniuses yet, but they have impeccable tactical sense. The hardest problem is to come up with realistic weak opposition for lower-level human players to brush up against. So, I recently purchased the latest Chessmaster software. It's not the strongest computer program available (though it certainly is grandmaster-strength) or the best in terms of, well, various other metrics chess players use. What differentiates it is that it's pretty much the most user-friendly, especially for beginners. I bought it because it was on sale and it's supposed to be fairly good at what I really needed: providing a bunch of opponents of various strengths to play against.

So, to get back in shape a little bit, I set up to play a tournament of G/60s against a bunch of weak opponents, just to get used to playing at longer time controls before using so much of my day against strong opponents. But, come on, a 1500-rated opponent hung a piece on the fourth move. Now, 1500-rated players occasionally drop pieces, even when they're playing at a long time control. But not on the fourth friggin' move. The opponent gave up a piece for a pawn later, as well. Up two pieces for free. I mean, I know 1500 is weak, but it's not "hang a piece on the fourth move" weak. But that's what it's like.

finished my first pass through CT Art.

For those interested, I finished my first pass through CT Art, a computer program containing 1200 or so tactical chess problems. I mostly worked by "skill level" rather than by theme. I'll post my score breakdown below because I don't really see anybody else doing so. Overall, I had a success rate of 69% and a "rating" of 2420. Note that on a couple of these, I went back over "erroneous", so the percentages are slightly higher than on the initial pass, but level 50 and up is straight.

By Skill Level
10. 99% (originally 93%)
20. 91% (originally 86%)
30. 78%
40. 69%
50. 66%
60. 60%
70. 57%
80. 56%
90+. 55%

Levels 10 and 20 were initially a few percentage points lower.

Note that the "rating" provided has little correlation with real rating. I'm probably a weak class B player at the moment, in case you're wondering, though my real rating is public information if you really want to look it up.

Advice for Orthodox Converts

Far be it from me to give advice to any, since I am the chief of sinners and, in most things, the most profitable advice would be to not do what I have done. Still, at various times, in my all-too-brief experience in chilling with Orthodox converts and other sorts, I have been on the receiving end of bits of wisdom which could appropriately be directed to myself which you may find profitable as well.

1. Don't be so "emo". For those of you not quite familiar with the popular jargon of modern youth, call to mind those roustabouts at the mall wearing tight jeans and having long hair on top of their heads and nowhere else: those people are "emo", but it's more than a fashion statement. Relax a little.
   
2. Try to get over being a convert as soon as possible. That is to say, don't ever forget where you came from, but try to get over the fact that you were once not Orthodox as soon as possible. Quit defining yourself in opposition to (viz.) the satanic delusion of Protestantism and start thinking of yourself as Orthodox. Orthodoxy stands on its own without reference to any external system. For a while, you may have to stand on the crutch of opposing yourself to your past, but, seriously, defining yourself as not Protestant is not the same as apophaticism. You should eventually get over it. There's a place for polemics. Odds are, it's not your place yet. Yes, you. I mean you. You. Don't get defensive.
3. A good proportion of male converts want to be priests. A good proportion of all converts want to be monastics. Be realistic about it, don't be a Romantic. See #1. You may be legitimately called to either, sure. That'd be great. Don't be disappointed if you aren't, don't unrealistically think you are if you aren't. EDIT: most importantly, don't go telling everyone or alluding to it, at least not until you're sure.
   
4. You have nothing to offer the Church. It has plenty to offer you.
   
5. Huw had a great post where he mentioned something somebody told him when he was looking for a martial arts school:

   Are these people enjoying themselves? Are they welcoming? Is there a lot of ego on the mat? Are people trying to prove something?

   My point here is that, well, I know my ego's on the mat and I'm trying to prove something. This isn't good. Are you? Should we work on this? Knowing is half the battle.
   
6. Debates are poisonous to the soul, especially if you are compelled to respond to every point and win every argument. Chill a bit, especially if you're on the Internets where the records will exist forever and ever. Somebody once likened winning an argument on the internet to winning an event in the Special Olympics, which I find entirely mean-spirited: I have found in my few days on this earth that the winners of the latter are usually marvelous people from whom I could learn a lot. Not so the former by any stretch of the imagination. Let it go.
   
7. This may just be me, but I don't find my conversion story that interesting, nor do I find yours that interesting. They're all the same, even the ones that are different. In the hagiographies, the conversions of the saints usually barely occupy a paragraph. There are few notable exceptions. They are generally all alike. Usually, anything longer merely indicates you're long-winded or that you're no saint. I'd rather not hear about the latter case.
   
8. The Orthodox Church will not give you what you want or like or expect, it will give you a cross. There are some things you might think God would never allow happen to a Christian. They may happen. Christianity isn't a "system" that "works". There are few guarantees, and they're not the sort you'll like.
9. NEW ADDITION: If you find that you, a recent convert of at most a couple years, are explaining theology to someone who may have been born in the Church, or, my personal favorite, who is a priest, please look back and consider what you're doing.

Well, I wasn't completely honest. A lot of these really don't apply to me except tangentially, but they were certainly deemed wise by me when I heard them. I hope you find this post to be profitable and eagerly await correction if I am being wrong-headed about anything, only please be patient with me, since I did not exactly graduate at the top of my class, as it were.
Much love in the risen Christ,
gzt

Action Plan

Given my performance on the tactics test, I decided to pick up the Chess Combinations Encyclopedia so I could work heavily on those areas where I am deficient. It seems to have the ability to slice and dice the way I would need. My other deficiencies, as pointed out in the previous test, are adequately addressed in the materials I already have. I'll provide a review and results when I get it.