good God, what have I done? [it's marvellous]

This last week, I moved all of my email to gmail and Thunderbird, consolidating them into one place [more or less]. Then, I started playing Nethack. I stopped caring about message boards/web-logs/community sites and such because they were completely eclipsed by the wonders of Nethack. And then I suddenly stopped feeling like caring about Nethack. And now what? I suddenly don't have any ways to waste time on the internet while I'm working on stuff. Checking email is trivial, no more plausibly wasting time by going through four different webmail things to check all my accounts. No more message boards, I don't care what anybody says about anything. No more Nethack, it suddenly got old. I suppose this just leaves me more time to read French newspapers on the web? But that can only be done for so long. I think this might be it.

Of course, web-logging itself is a fine way of wasting time, but I can't write a short post for five minutes every hour if I want to keep quality up. It simply isn't done.

In other news, it turns out I pulled a 3.8 last quarter. Totally undeserved, but I'm happy to have it.

School's Out For Summer

School's out forever.

It's the future!

That's about as personal as this web-log gets, I think.

I remember the last time I didn't have internet.

For like two weeks my internet was out. I did absurd amounts of math and read like 11 novels. It's a sad game that we play.

I feel so dirty.

I'm using "gender" as a verb. I'm reading Foucault. I have a pile of French dictionaries at hand. So sad it has come to this...

condoms in Africa

Mr. Liccione has changed his mind. Here is his conclusion:

Such considerations do not demonstrate, apodictically, that condomistic intercourse is not conjugal intercourse. They do, however, show that condomistic intercourse in the sort of case under consideration tends toward the same results as acts that the Church has always and clearly taught are intrinsically evil. Thus, such considerations provide evidence that Gormally's key premise is correct. And I can find no other difficulty with his argument. In conjunction with the argument from authority, that result leaves Catholics no justifiable alternative to concluding that condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil and thus "grave matter" for sin regardless of further intent. I don't like having to admit that, but the facts on the ground as well as the past teaching of the Church are on the critics' side.

Perhaps I should, too? Much thought will be given to this, I suppose, in the coming weeks, but I'm too busy thinking about monastic spontaneous autoerotism right now to worry about the marital act¹. I'll have to be careful, however, not to fall in love with chastity² while reading Cassian, because Cassian's idea of chastity - at least as described in his Conlationes, which are addressed to a monastic audience and thus perhaps the consideration only accidentally is such - excludes the possibility of any sexual activity. Anyways, my own response will have to be based on the exact nature of the appeals to authority, as I am not Catholic and thus don't necessarily subscribe to the views promoted in those documents⁴. But, as I said, later!

Also for the future: Foucault. I keep bumping into him while doing Cassian and he intrigues me.

Should I be disturbed that I've been thinking about sex in a philosophical context a lot in the past year? I really had not investigated it thoroughly or been willing to discuss it until rather recently. I can't think of any particular events which may have brought this interest to the surface. I also don't think my investigations into it have changed my opinions much from what I was raised to think⁵, except to make me believe Anscombe's arguments about contraception rather than continue in the typical Protestant unreflective acceptance of contraception, but this wasn't a particularly recent move on my part. It happened, rather, several years ago.

And that's all the news that's fit to print.

¹ That didn't stop me from reading a comprehensive 31pp article about what a Muslim must do if he touches his penis.
² That is what one does in Cassian.
³ ie, the marital act, and I for one think it would be rather swell to be married. Hence, just say no to Iohannes Cassianus.
⁴ I may very well do so anyway, but scientific research needs to be done.
⁵ I don't recall any particular instruction from my parents on the issue, actually, but we all knew what was up. Whether I've always done what I know is right, however, is another question for another day.

la politesse

Some ramblings after wine and cheese [more cheese than wine, I argue, but my remarks will speak for themselves about the balance]. I am, at least by reputation and web-logging affiliation, a liberalist. Perish the thought. In what sense? Ideology is the province of the deluded, I only believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. The State will only kill, that's what it does, to keep order. The only telos of man is the eschaton, the final restoration to God, and history is only the great boredom before the second coming [hat tip to St. Augustine via Gabriel]. Ideologically, I can only call liberalism [which is broad and encompasses most of modernism, Republicist and Democrist] a satanic rebellion against the authority of God. The only sense in which I can be considered liberal is the practical: in that I think the "liberal" treatment of a variety of social problems - poverty, education, health care - to be more viable than the prevailing conservative ones and that on a variety of social issues - divorce, for one - it is simply not prudent to legislate against the prevailing social norms. CS Lewis is my political model, I suppose: not publicly taking any stand, noting that as long as a Christian supports the ends a Christian may/must support, one can legitimately believe in a variety of different means - Fascism, Democracy, Monarchism, etc - and be a Christian. And that, in, par example, the matter of divorce, it may not be prudent to insist on regulating as a norm the Christian law in a society which cannot accept it.

BUT I AM DISTURBED by the trends of modern liberalists: it seems more and more that Leftivism, even if one agrees economically and can accomodate, to some degree, the marital demands of the Left, is incapable of tolerating the Christian. The Leftivist demands not only civil recognition of marital rights, but approbation of an entire theological interpretation of the purpose of human sexuality - or perhaps anti-theology is the more appropriate word. In the name of pragmatism, "what works" to "prevent AIDS" and "teenage pregnancy" and "promote a realistic worldview" or whatever, one must have limitless approbation for abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, and all the rest of the treatment of the body as an instrument at the disposal of a mind to do whatever the mind wills with no risk of soiling the mind as such, mens sana in sano corpere [pay no attention to the literal meaning, it's a polemic, it really means reducing the body to an instrument at the command of the mind which is the true self, and this is the siren call of the liberalist, guard yourself well!] is the counterpart of anima sans in corpore morbo, both equally gnostic, both equally satanically deluded, both equally foreign to Christian life, as both deny the sacral nature of the human body which our great God and Savior Jesus Christ did assume and save. Good God if I did it all again I'd major in Gender Studies and look at what it means to have a Christian theology of the body - ain't that a kick in the head to 'em all. And so but like yeah, the moment one dissents in the slightest, suggesting perhaps something is immoral, that perhaps Planned Parenthood is not all lollipops-and-iced-cream, one gets impaled by the Left, and the moment one suggests that perhaps abstinence is possible if not desirable, it'll be a golden stake.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the strawmen the Liberalists erect against "abstinence only" sex-ed are quite right - if one refuses to educate about sex in the way those flammable unreal men indicate, only bad things will happen. But is that what anybody is advocating? Yes, perhaps some idiots are. There's a reason I will never identify with the Right. But my point is that any questioning of the liberalist party line ends in crucifixion: middle ground is impossible, it's either recreational abortion or the hated celibacy for them, it seems.

RE: LA POLITESSE. RSVP veut dire répondre s'il vous plaît. If one says one will come, one must come. And after one comes, one sends a "thank you" note the next day. In these last days, some do not send the "thank you", and this is a portent of the end. We do not speak of those who say they will come and do not, or those who do not respond to say they are not coming, for that is beyond the scope of la politesse even in these last days.