BrothersJudd Blog

BrothersJudd Blog

This is Blog (short for Weblog, I've recently discovered) is both an example of good writting, and of how to successfully use Blogger as a form of online conversation. This, along with my recent online discoveries about good writting, should have an immediate impact on the quality of work I am producing.

A special thanks to the Economist, for it's demeaning article about Blog writters, characterizing them as the "musings of teenagers." (more accurate citation later) The article angered me into re-assessing the nature of my endevor.

in a funk...

What a crappy few days. It seems that I've been spinning my wheels the last few days trying to get anything done. Everything seems disorganized, and the more I try to organize it, the worse it gets. It seems Anya's visa to come visit could be in doubt (after I've already bought the tickets!) and the only solution seems to be to send a bunch of money to her so that she can show that she can pay for the trip herself. Which seems to be just raising the stakes on an already difficult situation. My HHT research seems to be at a standstill. I have to figure out how to send the blood and who will take it and if they're honest and if the candidates even have the stupid disease! Studying seems to be at a standstill, I haven't been running very much, I'm not happy with the 'friends' around me, nor my ones from Nevis who I couldn't contact to meet me in St. Maartan after they had made such a big deal about meeting me there this semester... THAT MEANS YOU VIJAY AND JESSICA AND EVEN YOU RRRRRRRAHUL!!! I HOPE YOU SEARCH FOR YOUR NAMES ON GOOGLE AND SEE THIS YOU BBBBBBBBBBASTARDS hehe... just kidding, sort of... :)
The three day weekend was a bust, just went out on Saturday night and got too drunk and stupid for comfort (I still need to pick up my backpack and liquor bottles from Robert's house). The internet connection doesn't seem to be working with Anya, so that trying to talk on internet phone is frustrating at best. The marriage visa is on hold for now, as are the wedding plans. Oh yeah, and my sleep schedule is all f***ed up. ...good thing I don't have a dog; it'd probably die...

What else. Oh yeah. Friggen Google doesn't seem to want to list my website so all the work that I've done on it seems to be just for my own shits and giggles. And that’s ok I guess, since the content parts of it are all haphazard and f***ed up still anyway. I checked yesterday; yep, I'm still the only one who’s ever seen the thing.

I do like this venting on the web thing, just wish I had something creative to say on it.
...which reminds me, I should take my St. John's wort now.
I wonder, if I died, how long it would take my family to get around to calling and find out. 2 weeks? a month? Assuming that the medical school for some reason didn't call them and let them know, like if I was hiking around the island or something and nobody knew what happened, I think they would probably email a couple of times after a couple weeks to ask where I am. ...no, it would take longer than that, I've been out of touch for a month or so before I ever remember getting an email. I'd bet 2 months would be the limit before they'd check on me. Although now, Anya would probably find out pretty quick and... no; it'd probably take her a couple of weeks to figure out that something was really wrong too. And she might have a hard time getting a hold of anyone anyway. Funny, I set them all up with internet phones that I made sure worked and showed them all how to work them when I was at home. interesting.

I'm really developing a loathing for the way a lot of people work. No, not my family and Anya, new subject. That is, politics and news about the world around us really gets me mad these days. How is it that we aren't helping the more than a million people in Darfur that are being burned out of their villages? Kofi Annan (that f***ing bastard) said that he's "not prepared to call it genocide yet." F*** HIM. He knows that the term genocide is a legal term necessary to give the UN the authority to go in and stop the thing. He knows that even if we go in today we won't be able to save everyone. He knows that the Sudanese government is working with the militias to burn the villages, rape the women, and poison the wells. He knows that... anyway.

I don't see how people aren't disgusted by every person in power. There is no good man who has stood up and said "we will not allow this to happen, we will commit the full resources of our government to stopping this from happening!" The US is spending 100 billion dollars (give or take) to make war in Iraq against a "brutal dictator" and yet we haven't committed anything worth while to Darfur! FUCKING BASTARDS. Where’s the moral accountability, where's the justice? But of course Kofi Annan is not really the problem in this case. He's just a symptom like all the rest of them. The world was looking for something to give them an excuse not to act. Had he not provided fodder, they would have found it elsewhere. The leaders of the world have no intention of going charging in to Darfur with tons of food and medicine and military strength to guarantee that it gets to the people who need it. They'll deliberate and debate and make comparisons to Rwanda in 1994 and look for a "political solution." Colon Powell himself set the precedent years ago when he called for an "even handed" approach to the "conflict" in Sudan. WHAT "even hand?" There's no even hand to be had in this situation! One side is, and has been driving the other out of its houses and villages.

Eventually, far too late (it already is) they'll send a small UN "peacekeeping" mission to the region to allow themselves to continue taking the high road when they debate ethical issues in public. They needn't bother. They've lost it already. They lost it in 1994 when they let a million die in Rwanda, they lost it in Yugoslavia when they let thousands be 'cleansed' from their country, they lost it in Liberia when America refused to stop the fighting when BOTH SIDES were asking them to help. They lost it in Iraq when they left Sadam in power in 1991 and when they sanctioned the economy of the country for a decade instead, they compounded it when they showed the world that they could spend 100 billion dollars on war without batting an eye, yet couldn't devote a fraction of that amount to building anything. France and Russia are showing it when they negotiate to make the new government pay back most of Sadam's debt. India and Pakistan show it when they build nuclear arsenals to aim at the other rather than giving the people of Kashmir the freedom to choose their future. The Arab world shows it when they continually feed their people scenes of horror regarding the west and Israel while refusing to acknowledge the evil of their own brutally (what kind of bastard saws a man's head off!!!!). The democrats even showed it when they selected Kerry, a man born of the same breed of politicians as Bush. Didn't they know that he supports the war in Iraq? If the war in Iraq is wrong, why would they support a man who refuses to oppose it; just because it was (somewhat) popular at the time? Are the democrats too willing to sell their soul for what they think will bring them votes!?? Of course they are. As a group we've shown that we all are. As a group we support each other's psychoses. We give each other the impression that there is meaning and structure and validity to the irrational behavior that we all have created.

"...those who write out evil writs and compose iniquitous documents, to subvert the cause of the poor, to rob the rights of the needy of my people, that widows may be their spoil, and fatherless children their booty: what will you do on the day of punishment, when the calamity comes from afar?"

I don't see it. My mother always told me, if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat...

I am not an idealist; this is life, this is TRUE. There is nothing we can say which can make the words actions of the governments of the world right. Go ahead! Vote Bush out of office. See if Kerry gives you peace of mind. When Kerry is president, will he devote thousands of troops and billions of dollars to the millions dieing in Sudan?


This is what I wrote this morning:

(Using numbers off the top of my head) The world has a maximum of 10% of the population who have the resources available to take care of those who are suffering from within the other 90%. The US, for instance, has 250 million people. Of those, maybe 150 million have sufficient resources to contribute significantly to those around. Assuming the rest of the world has, at maximum, 450 million people with the same capability; our world has 600 million people with significant extra resources available to help the others.
Not all of the rest of the world is poor. A large percentage have enough to get by, without having much extra. Still, we are left with perhaps a third of the population, 2 billion people, with fewer resources than they require. This means that for every 1 person with substantially more than they need, there are 3 or 4 with less.
Most of the "adopt a child" programs that I've seen advertised estimate that it costs $1/day to support a child in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest population as a whole, in the world. This comes to $30/month. So, assuming that it's the moral responsibility of those with extra to assist those with not enough, the person with extra resources must give, at very minimum, around $100/month to those less fortunate.
This number assumes that every person with extra money does his/her part. This is not the case. Most people, whether they realize it or not, are bastards. So to say that it is our responsibility to cough up $120/month, and no more, is inadequate. Just to make up for the jerk next door, a person must double the amount. It also assumes that costs for sub-Saharan Africa are standard. They are not. $1/day goes a long way towards food and medicine in Africa, but that number can only be a small fraction of what it costs to root poverty out of the world at large. That said, it goes without saying that even $500/month would not too much to ask of our wealthy brothers and sisters. That’s like asking them to make a car payment to the rest of the world. Not all that much...

I'm not a communist, and I'm not a socialist either. I'm not even a liberal. In fact, it seems that the very foundations of conservative ethics are what require us to make these sacrifices. At what point did "if you will be perfect, go see what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come follow me" become "buy an SUV and follow me to church"? It doesn't make sense to me, and it shouldn't make sense to anyone else either.

Just finished path...

I just finished my pathology block 2 (of 5) exam. ...wow... I think I studied as hard or harder for that exam than I have for any exam I remember, and I still didn't know enough. Who'd have thought that this medical school thing would be so difficult! In the end though, I feel like I really understand something about cardiac and respiratory pathology; I opened up a review journal to an article on acute coronary syndromes and it seemed to be all making a little sense. Anyway, I'm happy it's done... More later, I think...

more about Isaiah

Isaiah 1 is properly made up of 7 parts, the last being 12 statements. The topic is seems to be the judgement of Judah and Jerusalem. Being the beginning of the book, it carries an introduction which lists the author and time in which he wrote. This is significant for 2 reasons: 1st, it means we are able to clearly define when the author claims these statements were made, leaving no doubt as to the author's claim of when the book was written. Thus, if we are to debate the time of authorship, we must first acknowledge that we do not believe the word of the author. 2nd, because it shows that the author considered this information to be important. Most other books do not seem to find this valuable, implying that either: A) Isaiah was written after the other books, in a period in which placing the historical timeframe was already considered important; B) The author (Isaiah) considered that the author and time were necessary in order to estabolish the validity of what is said (i.e. -he knew that prophecies being fulfilled years later must be dated so as to avoid confusion); or C) both.
It does not logically follow that any books not introduced by an author and date must be written before Isaiah. It could be that they were written afterwards, but did not consider these author and date to be of consequence. But it does follow that Isaiah itself was written with an understanding of the weight of his words, and that the book would be read at a time years later, when time and author were not so obvious to the reader.
It could also be that the introduction was added later for clarity; a point made stronger by the fact that the introduction is not written in the 1st-person. This does not negate the authenticity of the text however; telling your audience what they're reading seems to be a natural thing when passing down a text. The question would then become, however, "how much later was the introduction written, and how much knowledge does the author of the introduction have about the actual author and date?" Still, assuming that the introduction was written either by Isaiah, or shortly afterwards, the above points still hold.
Isaiah 1 is also separated by the rest of Isaiah by a further (and shorter) introduction at the beginning of chapter 2. This is significant to us because it allows us to cleanly divide the chapter as a stand-alone text. That is to say, chapter 1 is a prophecy, and chapter 2 and the rest of the text are further prophecies. We can thus deal with chapter 1 as it's own unit.

Again, I see chapter 1 being made up of 7 parts, the 7th consisting of 12 statements. Whether or not I've divided the first [6] parts properly, the last is clearly it's own unit, being preceded by the statement, "Assuredly, this is the declaration of the Soverign, the L-rd of Hosts, the Mighty One of Israel:"
At the risk of oversimplifying, here is an outline of the 7 divisions:
1. The L-rd has spoken: rebellous children don't know their master, they've forsaken the L-rd.
2. You're injured & seek further beatings; your land is waste and daughter Zion is destroyed except for a few survivors.
3. the L-rd says: I hate your sacrifices & sabbaths. When you pray, I won't listen.
4. Wash yourselves.
5. Your sins can be cleaned; if you agree, you will do well, if not you'll be destroyed.
6. the L-rd says: Jerusalem is a harlot.
7. the Declaration of the L-rd (12 statements): I will destroy my enemies, purify you, restore justice, & you will be called faithfull city. Zion will be saved in the judgement, but sinners crushed because of their desires. The 2 (sinners and their desires) will be destroyed together. The last statement, about sinners & their desires, is made up of 6 statements, comparing sinfull desires to a terebinth (tree) and the sinner to a spark, which will burn up together with the tree.

These divisions are not all clear-cut. The 2nd division, about seeking further beatings, seems to be somewhat a development of the 1st idea, about rebellious children. And the 4th and 5th parts, about washing yourselves and the bargain about what will happen if you do, are clearly developments of the idea preceding. However, supporting their separateness, the 2nd part changes pronouns with the 1st. The 1st part talks to "them," while the 2nd turns it into "you." -an interesting switch, requiring that the reader own the sinfulness themselves (or rather, ourselves); this pronoun switch is repeated again in verses 8 and 9, and in 21 and 22, both cases talking about Jerusalem. The 4th part divides itself by virtue of the fact that it is 7 clear instructions for the believer. And the 5th part divides itself by virtue of the fact that it is preceded by a "says the L-rd" statement.

Alternatively, breaking the text down into more pieces, we could divide it thus:
1. The L-rd has spoken: rebellous children don't know their master, they've forsaken the L-rd.
2. You're injured & seek further beatings
3. Your land is waste and daughter Zion is destroyed except for a few survivors.
4. The L-rd says: I hate your sacrifices & sabbaths.
5. When you pray, I won't listen.
6. Wash yourselves.
7. Your sins can be cleaned; if you agree, you will do well, if not you'll be destroyed.
8. The L-rd says: Jerusalem is a harlot.
9. The Declaration of the L-rd: I will destroy my enemies, purify you, restore just counselors, & you will be called faithfull city. Zion will be saved in the judgement, but sinners crushed. They will be tricked because of their desires, and will wilt like a plant without water. They, and their desires, will be destroyed together.

Perhaps even, the text could be divided up thus:
1. The L-rd has spoken: rebellous children don't know their master, they've forsaken the L-rd. You're injured & seek further beatings; you continue to offend.
2. Your land is waste and daughter Zion is destroyed except for a few survivors.
3. The L-rd says: I hate your sacrifices & sabbaths.
4. When you pray, I won't listen, because your hands are dirty. Therefore, wash yourselves, your sins can be cleaned; if you agree, you will do well, if not you'll be destroyed.
6. The L-rd says: Jerusalem is a harlot.
7. The Declaration of the L-rd (12 statements, 6 stand alone, 6 devolop 1 idea in 3 parts): 1. I will destroy my enemies, 2. purify you, 3. restore just counselors, 4. & you will be called faithfull city. 5. Zion will be saved in the judgement, 6. but sinners crushed. 7. Part 1. They will be tricked because of their desires; Part 2. and will wilt like a plant without water; Part 3. They, and their desires, will be destroyed together.

This last way of dividing the text, I think, is most coherant.
I'm dividing up the text this way for a couple of reasons. First, I think the format of the text demands it. Isaiah, like much of the rest of the Tanakh, is written predominantly in poetic verse. This verse, at least as far as I know, uses very little of the repetition of sound and rhyme that we're used to. Instead, it uses the repetition of idea and structure. Picking almost any portion at random, we can see this repetition in verses 18 through 20.

It's written:
-Come, let us reach an understanding, says the L-rd
-Be your sins like crimson
they can turn snow-white
-Be they red as dyed wool
they can become like fleece
-If then, you agree and give heed,
you will eath the good things of the earth
-But if you refuse and disobey
you will be fed the sword
-For it was the L-rd who spoke.

Here, the idea of the L-rd speaking, found in the 1st statement, is repeated in the last. The 2nd and 3rd statements repeat themselves, but say it the 2nd time in a more poetic way. The 4th and 5th statements, rather than repeating themselves, state the opposite alternatives of each other. Thus, the verses reflect on themselves in a coherant and self-contained manner. Expounding upon this, the statements about sins being a stain which must be washed clean, reflect back to verses 15-17 where the L-rd does not listen to the people's prayers because their hands are stained, and then describes the process of purifying oneself. Verse 15 itself refers back to the idea, found in verses 10-14 of the L-rd turning his back on people because of their sin. And verse 10 uses an analogy between Sodom and Gomorrah which was started in verse 9. These references go on and on, creating capsules of information which, though self contained, lead us to other points surrounding and distant.

So the information is there, and written clearly; it is only our eyes which are shut. It is written:

"Surely, this Torah which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nore is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say, 'who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?' No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it." -Deut 30:11-14

"-Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,
raises her voice in the squares.
-At the head of the busy streets she calls,
at the entrance of the gates, in the city she speaks out" -Prov. 20-23

"-It is wisdom calling,
understanding raising her voice.
-She takes her stand at the topmost heights,
by the wayside, at the crossroads,
-near the gates at the city entrance,
at the entryways she shouts." -Prov 8:1-3

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power and G-dhead, so that they are without excuse." -Rom. 1:20

On the other hand, it is said:
"-Hear, indeed, but do not understand,
see, indeed, but do not grasp.
-dull that people's mind,
stop its ears
and seal its eyes
-lest seeing with its eyes
and hearing with its ears
it also grasp with its mind
-and repent and save itself." -Isa 6:9-10

"Yeshua answered and said to him, "Amen, Amen (true, true), I say to you; except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of G-d." -John 3:3

This is not to say that, by analyzing dividing up the text in the manner above, we are "born again." Nor am I saying that G-d has necessarily opened my eyes and ears; this would be an internally illogical assertation. -But in this manner, in this text, we are at least looking. This seems to be, at the very minimum, a prerequisite.

On Isaiah...

The last entry, was an unfinished letter written december 26. This one is an unfinished entry written just a week ago. I've only gotten through an introduction and an outline; even the outline isn't finished. But, I have to bite off little bits, otherwise I'll never finish the whole thing anyway. I hope to get to the contents of Isaiah this weekend; that's really the amazing part...

Here's what I have so far:

Isaiah:
I've started a study of the book of Isaiah, to try to decipher what meaning I may find; and my early readings seem to have borne some fruit. I see extensive meaning within the structure of the book, starting with the basic divisions, down to the patterns of individual phrases amongst each other. These patterns seem to be found so readily, even predictably, that I have little doubt that I will continue to see them as I work through the rest of the book. That is to say, each time I have presented the text with the question, "I wonder if there's any pattern to...?" I have been confronted with a decisive "yes," without having manipulated the text to find it. This manner of inquiry is not an objective way of gathering information; I believe it's known as expectancy bias; however, it does not make the information invalid. The existence of such a bias simply means that I cannot prove, based on my study, that the text does in fact have some sort of overarching meaning.
On this point, it’s important that I am careful what type of overarching meaning I am looking for in the first place. Often, it seems, these discoveries are placed within the context of proof of divine origin. This, it seems, is a quantom-logical leap. At this very moment, to be sure, authors all over the globe are lacing their respective works with sublime passages and 2ndary and tertiary meanings, without any pretense of divine origin. What difference does it make to our proof that these profound meanings happen to be in the Tanakh? In addition, there is always the comparative religionist, ready to point out that there exist innumerable religious texts with similar claims of higher meaning. However, if nothing else, if the layers of meaning are constant, it can be shown that the author at least intended for them to be there. For this to be true, the patterns must be consistant. Clear deviation from the norm must be counted as evidence against the text.
Again, on this point we have to draw a fine line. Believers often (rightfully) assume that deviations from the expected norm represent a shortcoming in their own understanding. This is a problem unique to the analysis of religious texts. The reader is presented with an enormous task. They must, in reading, either determine that the weight of evidence points to divine origin, or that it doesn't. By answering "yes, it is of divine origin" they place huge burden of proof on any contrary evidence. "Is this point important enough to jeapordize my entire belief structure?" -they ask. And so, the fine details of a schema are often brushed aside.
In this context, one must ask themselves, “how many points am I willing to concede before I change my paradigm?” To this question, religion has 2 things going for it. 1) People seldom (i.e. never) keep track of exactly how many points they have conceded in the course of their studies. That is to say, the pursuit of the mind of G-d is littered with suspension of disbelief. 2) Most people (wrongly) believe that faith somehow requires this suspension of disbelief, so that, even if contrary evidence builds past the point of plausibility, there always exists the refrain, “just believe.”
But I digress. This is not to say that an in-depth analysis of the Tanakh and Novoi Zavyet is meaningless. Only that it can be read within the context that we will not, in the end, prove anything (although proof may be there to be found). What I’m looking for is empirical evidence. In other words, in this case I can only say that I observe, upon early analysis, that a pattern exists. My task now is to root it out as far as it readily goes, to see where it goes. I keep open the possibility that it may lead nowhere...

"If you only have money for one newspaper, buy the opposition's."

5/28/2004

I.
a. The denunciation of Judah, 1:1-12:6
i. Judahs condemnation 1:1-5:30
1. The address
2. The indictment from God
3. A promise of restoration after judgment from God
4. Glory in the future kingdom
5. A purging
6. A millennial kingdom
7. The vineyard parable
ii. Isaiahs commission
iii. The Messiahs coming, 7:1-12:6
1. Immanuels sign
2. Maher-shalal-hash-baz
3. Messiahs sign
4. Samarias judgment
5. The retribution on Assyria and the return of Israel
6. The Branch of Jesse and its rule
7. A song of praise

b. The denunciations against the other nations, 13:1-23:18
i. Against Babylon
ii. Against Assyria
iii. Against Philistia
iv. Against Moab
v. Against Damascus
vi. ***Against Israel
vii. Against Ethiopia
viii. Against Egypt
ix. Against Babylon
x. Against Edom
xi. Against Arabia
xii. Against Jerusalem
xiii. Against Tyre

c. The Day of the L-rd, 24:1-27:13
i. Judgments of the Tribulation Period
ii. Triumphs of the Kingdom
iii. Praise in the Kingdom
iv. Israel in the Kingdom

d. The denunciation of Israel and Judah, 28:1-35:10
i. Samarias woe
ii. ***Judahs woe, 29:1-31:9
1. The hypocrisy
2. The alliance with Egypt
iii. The kingdom of Messiah
iv. The destruction of Assyria
v. The judgments of Armageddon
vi. The blessings of the kingdom


II. Sennacheribs denunciation, 36:1-39:8
a. The Taunt from Assyria
b. The Truth from God
c. The Threat from Assyria
d. The Triumph over Assyria
e. The Sickness of Hezekiah
f. The Stupidity of Hezekiah


III.
a. The Greatness of God, 40:1-48:22
i. In releasing Judah
ii. In relation to creation
iii. In reference to idols
iv. In provision of His servant
v. In restoring Israel
vi. In Using Cyrus
vii. In the judging & release of Judah from Babylon

b. The Servant-Messiah and Salvation, 49:1:57:21
i. The servant is commissioned
ii. The servant is contrasted with disobedient Israel
iii. The remnant is encouraged and exhorted
iv. The suffering and the triumph of the servant
v. Salvation song
vi. Salvations invitation: Blessings given to the gentiles
vii. The rebuke to those who refuse salvation

c. Israel’s future: Program for Peace, 58:1-66:24
i. The Contrast between Right and Wrong Worship
ii. The Dealing with Sin 59:1-21
1. Israels sins described
2. Israels sins confessed
3. Israels sins blotted out
iii. The Glory of Israel
iv. Messiah's Ministry of Peace during the Advents
v. Israels restoration, future of Jerusalem
vi. Vengance of G-d
1. What is needed for blessings
2. Gods enemies judged
3. Gods people make confession
4. The repentance of sins
vii. Climax to history
1. Kingdom characteristics
2. Hypocrisy rebuked
3. Israels rebirth The Rebirth of Israel
4. Great rejoicing in the Future

The outline is more important than it may look, I think. Where each topic lies in relation to the other topics is significant. The number of ideas represented in each section is important too. Notice that most portions are broken into either 7 or 12 parts, and notics that the middle section, written to the King and not in prophetic language, seems to fall into 6 sections. Whether these divisions are inherant and intended, or a remnant of the analysis is open to debate of course...