April 1, 2018

"Imagine a Being who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. What does such a Being lack?"

"The answer? Limitation," writes Jordan Peterson, recounting "an old Jewish story." He continues, now with his own insight:
If you are already everything, everywhere, always, there is nowhere to go and nothing to be. Everything that could be already is, and everything that could happen already has. And it is for this reason, so the story goes, that God created man. No limitation, no story. No story, no Being. That idea has helped me deal with the terrible fragility of Being. It helped my client, too. I don’t want to overstate the significance of this. I don’t want to claim that this somehow makes it all OK. She still faced the cancer afflicting her husband, just as I still faced my daughter’s terrible illness. But there’s something to be said for recognizing that existence and limitation are inextricably linked.
Peterson proceeds to talk about Superman, who got boring when the plotline was that he had powers that worked on anything that could happen. His story was revived by giving him limitations:
A superhero who can do anything turns out to be no hero at all. He’s nothing specific, so he’s nothing. He has nothing to strive against, so he can’t be admirable 
AND: I feel a pop-song cue to the Talking Heads' "Heaven." That link goes to Lyrics Genius, where you can play the song, read the lyrics, and see line-by-line commentary on the lyrics. On the line, "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens," someone has added:
This refrain at first seems nonsensical, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek: Why would the most perfect place in all of creation be so…well…boring? However, consider: Once a state of perfection is reached, anything deviating from that is then imperfect. And if Heaven is imperfect, what’s the point? How’s it any different from Earth? This at first frustratingly rational take on spirituality also serves as a reminder of how boring life would be if things really were perfect: In the immortal words of Dolly Parton, “The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.”
If those Dolly Parton words really are immortal —  omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? — why did I keep finding them only in quotes (like that one) and not in song lyrics? Because it's a paraphrase, I think. People haven't remembered the words, only the idea. I think I found the song, a song for children, "I Am a Rainbow." The line is, "To make a rainbow you must have rain/Must have sunshine, joy, and pain."

This is my favorite rendition of a song about rainbows — it's never boring...

230 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 230 of 230
Lydia said...

Some here seem to think heaven is the final goal for Christians, but it's not -- here's N.T. Wright on the confusion about this:

We should remember especially that the use of the word ‘heaven’ to denote the ultimate goal of the redeemed, though hugely emphasized by medieval piety, mystery plays, and the like, and still almost universal at a popular level, is severely misleading and does not begin to do justice to the Christian hope. I am repeatedly frustrated by how hard it is to get this point through the thick wall of traditional thought and language that most Christians put up. ‘Going to heaven when you die’ is not held out in the New Testament as the main goal. The main goal is to be bodily raised into the transformed, glorious likeness of Jesus Christ. If we want to speak of ‘going to heaven when we die’, we should be clear that this represents the first, and far less important, stage of a two-stage process. That is why it is also appropriate to use the ancient word ‘paradise’ to describe the same thing.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The Martha Stewart case is very very easy to understand. There was no complicated book-keeping, just straight up insider trading. Using Martha Stewart as an example is not helping your case.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The case against Black was started by his own shareholders, not the guvmint.

Tank said...

@ARM

Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to the FBI about a crime that did not exist, i.e. a process crime. Her prosecution was a travesty. Get your facts straight.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

From Wiki:
According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Stewart avoided a loss of $45,673 by selling all 3,928 shares of her ImClone Systems stock on December 27, 2001, after receiving material, nonpublic information from Peter Bacanovic, who was Stewart's broker at Merrill Lynch. The day following her sale, the stock value fell 16%.


This is the action that triggered the investigation. It has never been in dispute. The sad thing is the pathetically small amount of money involved.

Tank said...

@ARM

What Stewart did was not insider trading. Her broker told her something bad was happening with a stock she owned and she sold it.

ZZMike said...

Guildofcannonballs said... (quoting one William Francis Buckley - it's "Frank") - " It ought not to surprise us that an offense against that majesty should be infinite in its consequences."

That's hard to comprehend. Can an elephant be annoyed by a single ant? Is God not only the jealous God of the Old Testament ("Thou shalt not have other gods before me", implying that there may be other, though lesser, gods), but also so authoritarian that He demands perfection of us, and brooks no disobedience?

Fernandinande said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
...This is the action that triggered the investigation


You said she was convicted of insiders trading. She wasn't. IIRC, she was essentially convicted of telling a different story than someone else told.

I sure felt safer when she was off the streets, though. I mighta bought some curtains or dish towels, who knows?

Guildofcannonballs said...


---Guildofcannonballs said... (quoting one William Francis Buckley - it's "Frank") - " It ought not to surprise us that an offense against that majesty should be infinite in its consequences."---

Devotional terminus neglagile negligee ruby booty slippers after the twheloe o clook moon-pied piped hoit copper lines.

Justified.

Francis, check check 10-4 over ought.


Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Tank said...
What Stewart did was not insider trading. Her broker told her something bad was happening with a stock she owned and she sold it.


Curious to hear a definition of insider trading that doesn't include Martha Stewart's actions.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Fernandistien said...
IIRC, she was essentially convicted of telling a different story than someone else told.


So you are OK with her lying to investigators in order to cover up her insider trading, which has never been in dispute?

Henry said...

Okay, now I would like to see a movie in the style of "My Dinner with Andre" or "Frost/Nixon" made up of conversations between rhhardin and The Crack Emcee.

Sounds more like a podcast. Like "Stuff You Should Know" but "Succubus You Should Know"

Fernandinande said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
So you are OK with her lying to investigators


Yes. Since it's legal for the investigators, i.e. "public servants", to lie as part of their jobs, citizens also have that right. But I'm not agreeing that she lied.

I just pointed out that you were wrong in saying she was convicted of insider trading.

in order to cover up her insider trading, which has never been in dispute?

I don't think insider trading should be illegal; using your own knowledge shouldn't be illegal. It wasn't illegal in most countries until fairly recently.

Friedman, IIRC, said insider trading was fine because it causes the stock to attain a more representative or accurate value more rapidly.

Tank said...

Stewart did not commit insider trading, nor was she convicted of it. Among other things, she wasn't an insider. What she did was act upon advice from her broker, just millions of other people do every day.

Why not just admit you were mistaken?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Fernandistien said...
I don't think insider trading should be illegal


What about front running, are you OK with that?

Why do you think these laws exist? What would be the impact on investing if a large number of investors came to view the stock market as even more rigged than it currently is?

Bad Lieutenant said...

buwaya said...
I suggest you research the matter of Conrad Black, ARM.

Why do you waste your time? To say the least the truth is not useful to him.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

From wiki:
On March 5, 2004, Stewart was found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men on all four remaining counts against her: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator.


It is technically correct that Stewart was not convicted specifically of insider trading, but all of these convictions were directly related to her insider trading activity or the avoidance of its exposure.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
To say the least the truth is not useful to him.


The truth regarding Black is very useful, his own investors initiated actions against Black, with good cause.

Lucien said...

Resolved:
A being which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is indistinguishable from the universe.

Discuss.

Gahrie said...

Maybe he would walk the face of the world that he liked repeatedly,

Let me guess..you watched Dogma recently?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Why not just admit you were mistaken?

4/1/18, 5:47 PM

Because ARM never, ever does that, even when confronted repeatedly by multiple posters. He'll insist he was right for a while and then he'll try to change the subject.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Multiple posters all repeating the same right wing group think is not quite as convincing as you seem to imagine.

Michael K said...

Multiple posters all repeating the same right wing group think is not quite as convincing as you seem to imagine.


I missed most of the comments but I am as certain that you will not ever be convinced of anything not left wing as I am that the sun will rise in he morning.

Happy Easter

Bad Lieutenant said...

rhhardin said...
The Rhinemann Exchange, and The Osterman Weekend, are two DVDs I just bailed out of early, for violent action that was too non-violent. Nobody can watch wimpy off-camera single stabs ending the fight for long.

The latter was full of tits for some reason. I can't say if that continued.

4/1/18, 9:16 AM


I'm sorry that the boobies scare you, RH, but there will be plenty more violence later in The Osterman Weekend. (I didn't see, and don't remember reading, the other.) As Osterman has Rutger Hauer and John Hurt, two of my favorites, as well as Craig T Nelson, you might want to try to watch the whole thing.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Bad Lieutenant said...
To say the least the truth is not useful to him.

The truth regarding Black is very useful, his own investors initiated actions against Black, with good cause.
4/1/18, 6:18 PM


When any person is imprisoned for financial crimes, and Jon Corzine walks the Earth a free man, Truth is not the point.

Rusty said...


Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"Multiple posters all repeating the same right wing group think is not quite as convincing as you seem to imagine."

Neither is anything you post and yet......

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I missed most of the comments but I am as certain that you will not ever be convinced of anything not left wing


Perhaps you should read the comments. I presented the facts of the two cases. Other posters just kept repeating the same mythology, which is only loosely tethered to the facts in the cases.

Martha Stewart committed essentially the same actions as Samuel Waksal, the head of ImClone, who plead guilty to insider trading. If they hadn't also prosecuted Stewart they would have been accused of favoritism because it was widely know what Stewart had done. The prosecutors had very few options regarding Stewart and none after she lied to them.

Conrad Black's troubles started with an investor revolt at Hollinger. Nothing to do with the government. It was the investors who went to prosecutors.

Michael said...

ARM

You would do well to read Black's book on the case. The non compete agreements at the heart of the case ended up being validated in the most apparent of ways. The newspapers he sold almost all went down the tubes, newspapers which made money during the period of his ownership. Without those non competes he could have gone back into each of those markets and crushed the buyers.

With Black out of Hollinger the company was looted by its overseers andecame worthless.

The Govt's case was weak and shameful. They seized his assets making it impossible to hire appropriate legal counsel. Thus it is the Feds have something like a 95% conviction rate. Sick.

ZZMike said...

lucien said "Resolved:
A being which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is indistinguishable from the universe."

In what way is the Universe sentient?

Rusty said...


"The Govt's case was weak and shameful. They seized his assets making it impossible to hire appropriate legal counsel. Thus it is the Feds have something like a 95% conviction rate. Sick."

Ah. But you see the ARMs of this world want it that way. They don't want justice. They want punishment. They want the people they don't like to suffer.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 230 of 230   Newer› Newest»