Choice

The liturgical commemoration of today and tomorrow are very much related.  Today we have John the Baptist who loses his head (literally) for standing up to what he believes to be true and right.  Tomorrow we have Jeremiah complaining to Yahweh that he cannot resist him!! Try as he may, he cannot but speak His word and be a prophet.  

One thing common in both John the Baptist and Jeremiah, is that they end up paying a heavy price for their adherence to what they believe as true.  Like Jeremiah, there could have been moments in the life of John too when he could have just walked away.  Given up all that he felt deep within, and taken the easy path - the path chosen by most people, anyway!  None would have noticed. None would have accused him of 'being normal'. Yet, neither of them gives in to that temptation, that desire, that feeling.  They continue living a life, not really chosen by them but they find themselves embracing it none the same! 

Rationally this is difficult to explain.  They did not choose to be the 'odd ones out' in the first place.  But by carrying on, are they really consenting to that life-style?  Surely there is more than the mind here at play.  Difficult to get the mind around it.  The heart finds its way! 

Validity

On Validity, as conceived in social sciences... (extracts from here, an article by Eric Schwitzgebel)

Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) begin with a seemingly clear commitment: validity is a property of inferences. 

Validity is a property of inferences. It is not a property of designs or methods, for the same design may contribute to more or less valid inferences under different circumstances.... So it is wrong to say that a randomized experiment is internally valid or has internal validity -- although we may occasionally speak that way for convenience (p. 34)

Inferences are not true or false. They are valid or invalid. What is true or false are propositions: the premises and the conclusion.

An inference is one thing and a claim is another! Shadish et al., despite emphasizing that validity is a property of inferences, confusingly add they will treat "inference" and "knowledge claim" interchangeably. But an inference is not a knowledge claim. An inference is a process of moving from the hypothesized truth of one or more claims to a conclusion which, if all goes well, is true if the claims are true.

Psychologists' and social scientists' claims about validity, in my judgment, make the most sense on the whole and are simplest to interpret if we treat validity as fundamentally a property of claims or propositions rather than as a property of inferences (or methods or instruments or experiments).

Validity, in the psychologists' and social scientists' sense, is best conceptualized as a property that belongs to claims: the property those claims have when they are true.

I diagnose the confusion as arising from three sources: First, ... Second, a tendency among those who do want to rigorize to notice that the philosophers' logical notion of validity applies to arguments or inferences, and consequently some corresponding pressure to think of it that way in the social sciences too, despite the dominant grain of social science usage running a different direction.

Consistent constancy

Every time we think or speak of St Monica, it is always in conjunction with St Augustine, her son.  The connection is obvious and therefor easy to make.  Nonetheless, one ought to be able to appreciate her commitment and consistency, rather than what she achieved.  

For someone to be so consistent and committed, one has to either be in love or utterly desperate.  Monica's consistent attachment to her son (and her husband too) is something that we need to celebrate.  She could have very well given up on him - after all, he was no small child or teenager.  But when has a mother ever given up on her children? 

In Monica's loving dedication and optimistic constancy one gets an opportunity to appreciate the same virtues we see in our own mothers. Perhaps we don't always appreciate it, but none can deny (or escape) it! 

Hard days (and) night(s)

 Nothing better describes my present state than the opening lines of this song of The Beatles... 

It's been a hard day's night, and I've been working like a dog...

Having spent the last couple of days getting one of my PhD chapters ready for submission to the university review panel has been really taxing.  Not so much the amount of work, but the lack of continued application.  In short, have been quite lazy and laid back.  So had to make up in a hurry! 

Unchristian catholic

Sometimes one wonders how come some have such a range of convictions, one contradicting another so fully and clearly, yet comfortable with them all and proudly claiming to be loyalists to one side. 

Simple example (from a recent news article, with no prejudice against the person): 

...has positioned herself as a strong supporter of Mr Trump and is pro-gun, pro-border wall and anti-abortion.

This is the profile of an American politician holding opposite ends of the ethical spectrum and still claiming to be a Christian.  So on the one hand she is against abortion - that's a typical christian stand.  At the same time she upholds the border wall, something that divides and dehumanizes another human being (not to mention oneself)!  And as if that is not enough encourages the gun culture.  How can one who upholds life at one stage or form (that of babies) be against the same life at another point in age (youngsters or adults)?  And to top it all, there's 'Mr Trump' in the same sentence! 

This sort of comfortable cognitive dissonance is not something entirely new or shocking.  I've come across people of this kind, and they just don't see the polarity!! Just not!! But what is shocking is that there are more and more such people becoming leaders and policy makers! Now that's something catastrophic. 

My faith as a Catholic is just as plain and direct as being a good human.  If I can't be a good human, then I can never claim to be a Catholic either - and the vice-versa too! 

Human palms and language

 Learning of the day... human palms are of lighter colour than our skin. Even though this is most evident with those of us who are dark skinned but even those with lighter complexion, this becomes evident when one undergoes a tan.  The colour of our palms somehow still remain lighter than the rest of the body.  No other animal has this feature.  

The first to notice this and use this biological factor as an evidence for his theory was an anthropologist named Gordon Hewes.  He used this fact as an evidence to support his 'gestures first' theory in the field of origin of language.  That human beings used gestures to communicate far before and more effectively than using verbal words and sounds, is the backbone of this theory.  He speculated that this human peculiarity evolved to increase the visibility of our gestures. However, this is not the strongest of his arguments to prove his theory, nonetheless is an interesting and often overlooked human phenomenon. 

I was wondering how does this apply to the soles of our feet?  After all, they too are lighter in colour when compared to the skin around... unless you are like some of us who prefer to go around barefoot, in which case the soles of our feet are darker than coal!!  So actually speaking Hewes would have to explain the depigmentation on our soles if he was citing the lighter colour on our palms as an evolutionary change to facilitate gestures.  

A cheerful giver

 The saint whose name we heard most while at home as kids, was that of St Lawrence.  That's because both Mum and Dad hailed from Karkala, the place of the famous shrine of St Lawrence.  Besides, Papa was a great devotee of him.  

We grew up hearing different stories and hymns of St Lawrence.  So much so, my younger brother's middle name is Lawrence.  

It is said that St Lawrence when he realised that he would be the next to be taken into custody and face persecution, decided to give away the wealth of the Church to the people!  As a deacon he was the treasurer of the property and rather than let it be added to the wealth of the emperor, he decided to give it all to the poor and needy of the place!  

And then there is the famous line he uttered while being grilled! "This side is done, now turn me over!" Humour and charity.  Those were the two great virtues of St Lawrence.  Both of which were fed by a genuine love of Christ.  

Philomena

I watched the movie Philomena, with Fr Peter this evening.  I had seen it earlier and found it very insightful and deep.  Knew Fr Peter would love it - I was right.  

In this viewing, as in the previous viewing, I again found myself on the side of the journalist - raging, unforgiving and deeply upset.  To really fathom the 'forgiveness' of Philomena and her attitude to what she underwent in the prime of her life, is something very very difficult.  To reach that state of equanimity where you see the past as something you wish didn't happen, but not exactly for the same reasons which you were then told.  

However, this time I understood to some extent the logic of the stubbornness of the former superior of the convent who hid the fact from both, Philomena and her son as well.  Her strong conviction that what she did and the way she did it was the right and the best thing to have done, and that God certainly would approve of it stems perhaps from a deep fear of having to face a past.  If she were to change her opinion and see that what she then did was not something good, would be to negate a whole lifetime - that too while having done and lived it with great fervour and dedication.  That fear of rendering one's whole life's effort - genuine and dedicated - as totally absurd and disgraceful would be too horrible a thing to do to oneself.  Especially at that age and stage of life where one could do nothing more!  When all you have is memories.  But Philomena actually shows that even at that advanced age and time, when unable to do anything more, she could still forgive!  The Sister, on the other hand, couldn't forgive herself!  

Martha's action

Most often while interpreting the episode of Jesus supporting the role of Mary during his visit to his friends' house in Bethany, over and above that of Martha, we try to see and show how both action and contemplation are needed.  From a practical point of view too both are essential.  

Imagine a house where there was only Mary.  Jesus certainly did not go alone to their house.  It was mostly along with his apostles, I guess. What if there was no Martha at home?  Only Mary who preferred to sit by Jesus' side and listen to him.  The apostles and even Jesus would long for someone to offer them some water to drink and a bit to taste!  The word of God satisfies the soul, but it does not satiate actual hunger or thirst.  

The difficulty comes when one has to judge or grade one over the other: action or contemplation?  Martha does that.  She strongly feels that her action is better than that of Mary's contemplation.  She seeks Jesus' opinion to endorse her view - and gets shot down!  The key is to relish what one does best, rather than compare and contrast it with someone else's choice.  

Parasite

Watched the movie Parasite the other day in with another confrere.  Cannot really say that I enjoyed it - not my favourite genre.  Not really.  But what I did like about the movie was the cinematography and direction.  There were no lose ends to any of the sub-plots in the movie.  All instances were well tied up and well connected too to the main plot.  Very well thought out and beautifully shot.  

The fact that one had to follow the english subtitles and at the same time keep an eye on the whole frame being screened was difficult.  But I guess one cannot help it if the movie is in another language.  Nonetheless I should say that there was great care to translate the movie well.  

One moral of the movie that came across strongly to me was the great risk of greed amidst poverty.  That poverty itself is no great curse is my firm belief.  Indeed it's a great opportunity.  However, when coupled with greed and ambition, it can lead one to a disastrous life. In contrast to the protagonist family, there is the couple in the rich man's house itself.  There is the woman working as a housekeeper and the husband living incognito in the basement.  They too were poor like the other family but did not seek the thrill of becoming rich.  They were content with what they had, even if it meant one of them living in the basement.  Contentment is indeed a very noble virtue.