I recently (finally) read Brave New World so when you wrote about the cottage by the sea, I thought of the Savage and the lighthouse. The world is going mad but we aren't there yet. You aren't alone and won't be alone. It will never get quite that bad.
During the late stages of the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire, many an aristocrat concluded that, since the political situation was beyond their control, the sensible thing to do would be to retire to their villas in the countryside and enjoy their remaining years. It's hard to find fault with that reasoning.
Well, Benedict did (find fault with that reasoning, I mean). The western Roman empire never really fell, it gradually disintegrated, and life went on for most people most of the time. Barbarians became generals of legions before they aspired to the imperial purple, and centrifugal forces would have torn the empire apart even without them.
I disagree, but I understand that as a common historical viewpoint, and one that depends on exactly what one means by civilization. One of the interesting developments in recent historical research is that a great deal of creative economic activity went on during the so-called "Dark Ages." Certainly centralized government was to a great degree obliterated. Also, the level of intellectual skills and development declined, but, the majority of people had been illiterate at the peak of the empire. Perhaps a smaller majority than ancient Athens, but still a majority. But Charlemagne, for instance, far from having to build up from absolute barbarism, aspired to rebuild the Roman Empire as a functional state, which means he had some tools to understand what it was, and to see a path to restoring it. Britain, although more separated from the imperial heartland, never really went back to being a pre-Roman Celtic culture, although Romanized Celts did come to the fore.
From about the mid 6th century and lasting c. 150 years much of the world was in a state of economic collapse. Long distance trade all but ceased. Silver ceased to be mined and refined, meaning very few new coins were struck (we know this by analysis of the metals in lake bed sediments).
The Tang in China (which recovered before the others), the Carolignians in western Europe, the Abassid caliphate in the Middle East and the Isaurid Dynasty in Byzantium presided over a renaissance.
Although it would take several volumes to evaluate comprehensively whether that was a collapse of civilization, the scope your summary covers suggests that whatever happened was much more than the fall of the Roman Empire, since civilizations as far away (and different in culture) as China also had to recover. Also, as you note, while Byzantium had some rough years, at no point in this timeline could it be labeled uncivilized. Also, Muhammad was born in 570 AD, so his life covered a good part of the period you mention. During that time, the armies who could no longer fight each other, being brother Muslims, turned outward and found sufficient civilization to adopt (Byzantine in Damascus and Sassanid in Mesopotamia) that these influences clearly could not have collapsed. Which leaves the argument that in the western empire there was a total collapse of civilization. I think it would be more accurate to say there was a sharp decease in peace, law and order, but not a collapse of civilization. There was, but some accounts, considerable advance in agriculture for instance.
Considering the fate of John, that's not particularly encouraging.
I teach that book in my American Govt class. I believe the conversation between John and Mond may well be the most important chapter of 20th century literature.
Dear Rod: I read today's post from you quickly, and with concern. I need to study what you have said in more depth, but I want to say this for now.
Another commentary on Cease said this, "In the midst of their creativity, these creators experienced ill-health, madness, guilt, and regret. The final chapter is written through the eyes of the narrator who listens to his night gardener, a mathematician, who concluded, "that it was mathematics - not nuclear weapons, computers, biological warfare or our climate Armageddon - which was changing our world to the point where, in a couple of decades at most, we would simply not be able to grasp what being human really meant."
Is it best for you right now to be reading concentrating on creative men going mad? And also, anything can be misused, even math. And yes, I think we know that science can do wonderful and terrible things.
Have you read books about God and Physics? Books that are encouraging. For instance, "The Holographic Universe" Michael Talbot, or "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies? Perhaps a balance to this partly frictional and frightening account - though it has its truths and we need to be warned, we also need balance.
I'm also concerned about the attempted parallel between scientific black holes and humanity, first Germany and now us. I do not think it holds up. Science is not Satan's special tool, it is the way God has made the Universe work, and can be misused. Yes, whole societies and even the world can move from various degrees of dark and light.
But my humble opinion, and I could be wrong - I have only what you are writing. Here, particularly in the middle of the piece where you speak more personally about perhaps being worn out. You are not the only one God can use to speak, the burden of the world is not yours alone, you are allowed to rest at times - but of course we love to hear from you and want to share you burdens as you share with us in writing, so it is a balance. You are perhaps staring into the abyss. Jesus loves you so, so much. He does not want darkness for you. I trust you to find focus on the light.
Why do you think it’s wrong to want to escape to a cottage by the sea with your books, your dog and a thick woolen blanket? Perhaps that is exactly the place for you to heal. You’ve been through a lot, too much for a mere mortal. Be kind to yourself. Is that where God is drawing you? Isn’t that where you can find the silence to hear what He wants to tell you? I don’t mean you should totally abandon your family but taking a break, even for a month to go there, may be what you need.
Agreed -- I'm in a standard workaday job, and although I don't write much anymore I still read as much as I ever did. I do the cottage getaway thing twice a year, usually just for a long weekend, spring and fall. I go to the woods, not the sea, but the idea is the same.
There is a place, God given and directed, for Sabbath spaces in our lives. Please pray about this and be obedient to His call, should that be His leading.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no news and he didn't have to be a prophet? He could eat oysters, drink wine, meet friends, enjoy his dog, read books, live in a beautiful place, have a seaside cottage for weekends, write helpfully about anything-but-the-end-of-the-world and especially, could help children, his and others', all day long?
I urge you to read this article about a ground-breaking discovery by scientists who won the Nobel Prize:
“One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half a century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking. “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.”
It is as though the universe as we know it is fundamentally grounded in the principle of conscious attention, with nothing bearing any concrete shape until there is some observer to establish the bounds of what is, as though all things would suddenly cease to be were God to withdraw His gaze.
Two passages from Hebrews come immediately to mind: "He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:3); and "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3), both from the ESV.
It might be a "reading into" scripture, but I am sorely tempted to read those numerous passages of the Old Testament that speak of God "stretching out the heavens" in light of our current understanding of the expanding universe.
"These and these are true, in the eyes of the Living God." I don't worry much about this stuff. When I look at an apple, it will still be red. When I look away, its chemical composition does not change. When I look at it again, the wavelength of light reflected of the peel will still stimulate my rods and cones to create the perception I know as red.
Sounds like a cool book. Yet another one added to my cart because of this blog. Thanks!
I, too, want to run to the woods and live with my books, dogs, and brew weird Colorado forest beer, which really wouldn’t be that weird considering the beers we have around here. I’ve wanted to do so since my late teenage years (the beer aspect is my middle aged version). I think it’s connected to the first time I read Walden. But as my sister always reminds me every time I talk about it, God has us where we are for a reason.
Werner Heisenberg almost deserves a stained-glass window for his insights. So much of the Christian faith consists such paradoxes as he found in quantum physics. How can the Trinity be three persons, yet one God? How does one understand free-will, vs. predestination; faith and works; Christ be God and Man?, and so on. Heresies arise when one aspect of the paradox is emphasized at the expense of the other. The safest approach is to learn to be content with a degree of uncertainty or, as the Orthodox would put it, say "it's a mystery". I suspect that future editions of "Living in Wonder" may include one or more appendices, if Heisenberg isn't already mentioned. Properly understood, science is an ally, not an enemy.
It is impossible to read Schwarzschild's nightmare vision of the black sun and not think of the rise of Hitler, just a few short years later. Few of us would doubt that Hitler represented a type, or foreshadowing, of Antichrist. Antiochus Epiphanes, at the time of the Maccabees, would be another. Similarly, Our Lord used the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as a type, or illustration of the times of the end. Hitler may have been a dress rehearsal, we may be rushing headlong toward the real thing. Revelation 13:16-17 sounds a lot like a social credit system/deplatforming to me!
I thought the name Ejnar Hertzsprung sounded familiar. Anyone who has had Astronomy 101 should remember him as the Hertzsprung of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram classification of stars. I might just have to add Cease to my list of must-read books.
Rod it looks like Heisenberg went through a lot but was Chrisetian and a believer and remained so after struggles. - I have not read this whole article yet (I will read it) which I just found but it concludes<<<" And so it was with Heisenberg. Despite the vast influence of Platonism on his life and work, he ultimately bowed to the personal God of Christianity, and not to the impersonal One of Pagan philosophy. ">>>
Also, while Wikipedia is not the best source and this is uneven, there are some leads there perhaps something that might interest you in this about "Christians in Science and Technology:. Some are Orthodox Christians. I copied a few.
Igor Sikorsky (1889–1972): Russian–American aviation pioneer in both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Sikorsky was a deeply religious Russian Orthodox Christian[153] and authored two religious and philosophical books (The Message of the Lord's Prayer and The Invisible Encounter).
Arthur Leonard Schawlow (1921–1999): American physicist who is best remembered for his work on lasers, for which he shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics. Shawlow was a "fairly Orthodox Protestant."[195] In an interview, he commented regarding God: "I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."[196]
Charles Glover Barkla (1877–1944): British physicist, and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1917 for his work in X-ray spectroscopy and related areas in the study of X-rays (Roentgen rays).[127] Barkla was a Methodist and considered his work to be part of the quest for God, the Creator"
Robert Millikan (1868–1953): second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Or Georges Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang theory. At first, many astronomers strongly opposed it, since a beginning implied a Creator. Indeed, the term "Big Bang" was coined by critic Fred Hoyle who, like many astronomers at the time, supported the then-prevailing steady-state theory.
Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, another thing that rubbed the scientific community wrong. They didn't want a professed religious playing in their pool. I've seen secular histories of astronomy entirely omit Lemaitre and credit the Big Bang theory to Hubble, despite Lemaitre's work preceding Hubble's.
If those histories did that then they lied, and not only by omission. Hubble in fact did little theoretical work, nearly all his work was on the observational side. He knew enough theory to understand what his observations supported.
Maybe I'm over-posting but its hard to help it. I'm looking now at the "black hole" parts of today's column. - You are aware of one thing a black hold is theorized to be? A portal through other dimensions. But that is beautiful. It says these three dimensions are not all we have.
I think it is important that we know the universe is not "real" in the most "real" sense, if that statement is understandable. God is "real". We don't know, according to "The Holographic Universe" the extent to which this is real. Quantum entanglement, for instance, violates supposedly the that which can't be violated - the speed of light. But we can bear one another's burdens instantly, pray for one another across all space and without delay in time. It is really quite beautiful I think. All creation sings the glory of God. Please remember.
"Cease" sounds fascinating -- will order a copy ASAP.
Interesting that you bring this up, because just last night I read this very long but very fine essay on Einstein and Oppenheimer. If you've not seen the Oppenheimer film (which is fabulous, a masterpiece of modern cinema) the essay has some spoilers, but otherwise it is very much worth reading and discusses some of the same issues that "Cease" goes into.
Einstein, perhaps in response to Heisenberg et alia on quantum theory, said “God does not play dice with the universe.” Though my personal experience inclines me to doubt, I still hope Einstein is right.
Well unless I’m mistaken, Einsteins God was the God of Spinoza and what exactly that is - the universe?- is a little unclear to me but it’s not the Abrahamic God.
Einstein was wrong, and I personally don't understand why Christians have trouble with this. Many Christians have held that mathematics is a reflection of the mind of God. Well, ever notice that randomization and probability are mathematical, that there can be order in them? The idea that randomization is just chaos is wrong. I think it it obvious that God makes use of randomization. It is also Biblical, look at the election of the Apostle Matthias.
Einstein provides the best understanding, to date, of things on the cosmic scale; Heisenberg and others, on the sub-micro, or quantum scale. Relativity yields nonsensical results if applied on the quantum scale, and vice versa. A holy grail of modern physics has been to try to find a way of reconciling the two.
Largely true. However, we have observed the effects of quantum entanglement on non-quantum scales, as Rod's post and other commenters here have mentioned. We (well, an Austrian-Chinese team) has teleported electrons from earth to an orbiting satellite and back via entanglement. Here is my essay on the subject (second time in two days I've posted the link):
Sounds as though physical theories have their own uncertainty principle going on here. The better you pin down the one scale, the less you can say about the others.
Do you think there's an analogy to be drawn between Heisenberg's principle in physics and studies in ecology, anthropology, etc.? I can either weigh a particle or locate it, i.e. I am a participant as well as an observer in any experiment I perform. Similarly, if I do an ecological study of a meadow, my act of walking across the meadow changes it. If I go and study a remote tribe, my being there changes their culture.
Come to think of it, there would inevitably be some impact, although a good observer should know how to keep it to a minimum. The act of observation would be unlikely to have the same life or death effect as it would on poor Schroedinger's cat!
I read an article about the huge number of anthropologists who have romantic/sexual relationships, sometimes even marriages, with individuals in the tribes they study. Of course, one would find it highly likely in any other context that if someone goes and lives somewhere for 4 years, they are likely to seek love or pleasure with people they meet there, but then people feel surprised about anthropologists doing this, as though they are all perfectly celibate monks. It's particularly ironic when one thinks how much anthropology is about sexual/marital practices.
Another thing that anthropology talks about a lot is religious beliefs and rituals. However, when this researcher is questioning the people there on these matters, who is to say that they are not asking him/her the same thing, so he/she becomes an unwitting proselytiser for whatever he/she believes?
The question for any later missionaries is to try and understand those beliefs, and build any possible bridges. I support some LCMS missionaries in Cambodia, and he is currently working on a dissertation on ancestor veneration. For Korean Catholics these days, that poses little problem, since Catholics already have traditions of remembering/praying for the dead, and there is a sharp distinction between respect or veneration, and the worship that is due to God alone. In Cambodia, the practice might be understood differently, and thus much less easily "baptized".
Even just the fact of "irrational numbers" is a clue.
We can't state the number pi - it goes on forever with no repeating pattern. But for every circle that exists, when we divide its circumference by its diameter - how far around by how far across, we get the irrational number pi (3.1415....goes on forever).
The diameter goes around a circle a number of times...we can never say....but yet it goes around. We build things based on this number that we can never say, never know. There is a God!
So much of this discussion, it seems to me, though valuable, reflects what the ancients called “mysterium” - mystery which cannot be penetrated. Still I’m reminded of Matthew 10:29-30: “Can you not buy two sparrows for a penny? And yet not one falls to the ground without your Father knowing. Why, every hair on your head has been counted. So there is no need to be afraid…”
Yes, I think so too. Perhaps one of the great Christian mysteries is "How does a God who is infinitely perfect and who therefore doesn't need us still love us and want us?" Love is the answer, but what of the details?
One attempt to answer the 'mechanics' of such love is a field called "process theology." It seems to me that most versions of process theology are heretical (i.e. they undo part of the mystery as stated above) but not all. One thing that fascinates me is that the (possibly) non-heretical process theologies by analogy seem similar to the logic of transfinite numbers. Now this is highly speculative on my part, I am not a master of either subject, but this is what I get from my limited understanding such as it is.
Simply put, not all numbers are ratios of other numbers. Nor are all numbers solutions to algebraic equations (like the irrational square root of 2). Pi is one of these many “transcendental” numbers.
What I find eerily fascinating is Euler’s Identity:
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0
Here we see all five major constants of mathematics in a single beautiful relationship.
A lot of math developed simply because mathematicians “broke the rules”. At one time, negative numbers were thought to be an absurdity, until they were found useful; similarly, imaginary numbers found their uses very quickly once a certain threshold of acceptability was reached.
Of course, consistency had to be maintained. Dividing by zero remains undefined for reasons similar to those stating that infinity is not itself a number.
Euler was described as an unbelievable genius. But he was also a normal guy. He lived to an old age, and was playing with his grandchildren the day he died.
Interestingly, he is remembered in our Lutheran hymnal along with Copernicus and a long roster of saints and Protestant figures.
British mathematicians had figured prominently until Newton. Thereafter, most advances seemed to come from the Continent. It was as if Newton had sucked all the air out of the room.
I’ve also seen musicians and mathematicians compared historically—Leibniz and Bach; Euler and Mozart; Gauss and Beethoven; Riemann and Strauss.
I do not disagree that God can make use of randomization, but randomness and probability are mathematical pretty much only to the degree that their variability can be fitted to a probability mass (think of rolled dice) or density function e.g. a Gaussian random variable. Some randomness is, well, too random to fit any human model.
A small nitpick: Labatut wrote: "Today, nearly fifty per cent of the nitrogen atoms in our bodies are artificially created..."
In fact, perhaps fifty per cent of the nitrogen MOLECULES in our bodies are artificially created. Artificial atoms are created by transmutation in reactors and particle accelerators, a far different and later process that the Haber-Bosch chemical process.
There is a chemical plant on the Mississippi between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that uses river water, nitrogen from the air, and natural gas to make those molecules (did you know the location Rod?). That plant kept about 2 billion people alive for decades. Now China has built three plants just like it.
Oops, without my morning caffeine I confused Schwarzschild with Schrödinger.
Anyone who has had a nuclear medicine procedure has artificial atoms in their bodies. Nuclear fallout ingested from various sources could do the trick also.
Every atom that is not hydrogen or helium (or a statistically negligible fraction of lithium) is the product of synthesis inside super novas, or of later radioactive decay. All of us., and the planet itself, are "star stuff".
Yes, of course. And the primordial hydrogen, helium, and statistically negligible fraction of lithium are 'Big bang stuff'. All, of course, are therefore natural and not man-made (artificial).
I highly disagree. Humans more than make, at best they are sub-creators in faint imitation of their Creator. I am sure you have had creative events in your life, why denigrate them?
I had the same reaction TFD. Every atom in your body was created by nucleosynthesis in some far off star eons ago. When Joni Mitchel sang "we are stardust", that was more than a beautiful metaphor, it is profoundly true and, to her credit, she knew it.
You said, “Religion is primarily about establishing a right relation to the natural world.” Would it not be more precisely true to say, “Religion is *primarily* about establishing a right relation to the living, personal-infinite God in Jesus Christ”? With such quintessential truths lack of precision can mislead.
Why do I like reading your thoughts, and seeing your heart, Rod? First, because you name Jesus Christ as your God. We are on the same wavelength. Second, because you are not *normally* sane, that is, you are not afraid of madness. You are open to many forms of madness, and you even take them to heart. You are interesting.
About Revelation 5:5. The *moment* I was converted — rescued! — from my Eastern & psychedelic depths in 1968 at age 26 — for I was inwardly dying in the Abyss, a mysterious Thanatos there pulling me into its maw . . . . a woman I was visiting at a place I had worked caring for the disturbed children there, began preaching to me about Jesus Christ, “He died on the cross for your sins!” I resisted her vigorously, thinking her primitive, but shortly a light from heaven shone into my heart, and it was Jesus — I did not see Him physically, but spiritually — I did not see His physical features. The glory, majesty, power, and love of this Person — He was God. He made me alive to Him, and the darkness fled.
Later, when I began reading the Bible, I came across Revelation 5:6, “a Lamb stood, as if it had been slain” — a crucified yet living One. That was what I saw in spirit.
Where we seriously differ is regarding omens, apparitions, and psychic phenomena. Such is this in my view, even though it contains Scripture (for the devil knows how to use such to his advantage — setting a precedent for future use, in your case many uses). Having come from a background of such phenomena, I am wary of counterfeits of the divine. Ultimately I trust only the Scripture. Only.
Nonetheless, I love your mind and heart, and look forward to your new book.
Omens exist. Losing God in the Temple for three days was an omen (to Blessed Mother Mary). Read Tolstoy ("Anna Karenina" is full of omens. And still, Tolstoy ignorant of his own "life or death" omen, died as Anna did (spoiler), fleeing his family in a railway station. He had taken up with a psychophant who alienated him from Sophia, his wife. Vronsky = the psychophant.) "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical. Read the saints--St. Teresa of Avila. You do raise a problem, however. "How to tell works of the devil from a sign from God?" Prayer. Wait, there's always a confirmation in God's time. If the sign is moving you TOWARD God, it will be from God. If it is protecting you (e.g., "don't use drugs" or "no adultery" or "stop gambling"), it is from God. St. Paul said hold everything up to the light.
Yes, you're right -- I should have been more precise. I meant by my remark that religion's function **vis-a-vis the natural world** is to establish right relationship to it. We do that first by establishing right relation to God, and everything else should follow. In Orthodoxy, we don't see the natural world as radically separate from God. The natural world is CREATED, which is not the same thing as the Creator -- we are not animists! -- but we believe that God is mystically present in the created world, through His energies. This is theologically complex, but what it amounts to is that we see Nature as an icon through which the presence of God is manifest, while not itself being divine.
Thank you for the comment about the meaning of religion. As soon as I read that sentence in the article, I thought, “it’s not about a right relationship with the natural world, but a right relationship with God.”
If I remember correctly, Haber was working to harvest gold from seawater as a means of repaying Germany’s reparations after World War One. It was part of that process where he invented a means of cheap ammonia production. It is funny how the Nazis, for all their embrace of high technology weapons, were happy to exile or kill some of the most gifted scientists in the world. But then, Hitler actually feared German inferiority and maybe with good reason.
As for the rest, things have felt very off since 2020. Maybe it is living in a culture which is eroding very rapidly. The column yesterday on China was interesting. China is the opposite of Western culture in many ways. While it currently pays lip service to communism, China now is little different from China one thousand years ago. The Chinese do not hate themselves and their culture. They do not try to destroy their own culture, outside of that blip in the 1960s. Math and science are well respected. I have worked with a number of people from China, and while many have been cordial, I have always had a sense that we were seen as inferior, that we were looked down upon. Maybe that is the state of people who cherish their own place in the world, versus those who hate their own presence in it as it’s been.
I do not see how a culture can survive when an accepted, well, required, tenet of it is that it was built on evil acts.
" I have worked with a number of people from China, and while many have been cordial, I have always had a sense that we were seen as inferior, that we were looked down upon."
Real people have black hair. They just can't help themselves.
If you can bear it , you might also read William Eggintons Rigor of Angels.I found it along with Cease rather tough going. Let’s put it this way, I wasn’t a physics ace. I read Cease about 10 months ago . Much of it is interesting but I feel the author overdid the fictionalization. The Heisenberg section where he stumbled into a cafe in Copenhagen and was slipped DMT or LSD or whatever is to put it mildly a bit contrived. What he goes on a trip and discovers the uncertainty principle? I couldn’t picture Heisenberg that way.That said, while some of the book is quite boring, it has interesting moments.
"It’s only six dollars per month, and you get at least twenty posts, usually more."
My mind flows to the mundane. There is a limit to posting here? Is it 20 per day or 20 per month? Must be 20 per day. I assume that Subsack is able to report to you posts per day per individual and that you can intervene if you choose. Not very important, it just caught my eye.
Most of your post was above my pay grade. I am just a Simple Man of the Soil.
I recently (finally) read Brave New World so when you wrote about the cottage by the sea, I thought of the Savage and the lighthouse. The world is going mad but we aren't there yet. You aren't alone and won't be alone. It will never get quite that bad.
During the late stages of the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire, many an aristocrat concluded that, since the political situation was beyond their control, the sensible thing to do would be to retire to their villas in the countryside and enjoy their remaining years. It's hard to find fault with that reasoning.
Well, Benedict did (find fault with that reasoning, I mean). The western Roman empire never really fell, it gradually disintegrated, and life went on for most people most of the time. Barbarians became generals of legions before they aspired to the imperial purple, and centrifugal forces would have torn the empire apart even without them.
Sorry but I must object. By all parameters it was a crash that basically obliterated civilization.
I disagree, but I understand that as a common historical viewpoint, and one that depends on exactly what one means by civilization. One of the interesting developments in recent historical research is that a great deal of creative economic activity went on during the so-called "Dark Ages." Certainly centralized government was to a great degree obliterated. Also, the level of intellectual skills and development declined, but, the majority of people had been illiterate at the peak of the empire. Perhaps a smaller majority than ancient Athens, but still a majority. But Charlemagne, for instance, far from having to build up from absolute barbarism, aspired to rebuild the Roman Empire as a functional state, which means he had some tools to understand what it was, and to see a path to restoring it. Britain, although more separated from the imperial heartland, never really went back to being a pre-Roman Celtic culture, although Romanized Celts did come to the fore.
From about the mid 6th century and lasting c. 150 years much of the world was in a state of economic collapse. Long distance trade all but ceased. Silver ceased to be mined and refined, meaning very few new coins were struck (we know this by analysis of the metals in lake bed sediments).
The Tang in China (which recovered before the others), the Carolignians in western Europe, the Abassid caliphate in the Middle East and the Isaurid Dynasty in Byzantium presided over a renaissance.
Although it would take several volumes to evaluate comprehensively whether that was a collapse of civilization, the scope your summary covers suggests that whatever happened was much more than the fall of the Roman Empire, since civilizations as far away (and different in culture) as China also had to recover. Also, as you note, while Byzantium had some rough years, at no point in this timeline could it be labeled uncivilized. Also, Muhammad was born in 570 AD, so his life covered a good part of the period you mention. During that time, the armies who could no longer fight each other, being brother Muslims, turned outward and found sufficient civilization to adopt (Byzantine in Damascus and Sassanid in Mesopotamia) that these influences clearly could not have collapsed. Which leaves the argument that in the western empire there was a total collapse of civilization. I think it would be more accurate to say there was a sharp decease in peace, law and order, but not a collapse of civilization. There was, but some accounts, considerable advance in agriculture for instance.
Er, Byzantium? which had some rough years due to demographic disaster in Justinian's day, but certainly cannot be labeled "uncivilized"
Considering the fate of John, that's not particularly encouraging.
I teach that book in my American Govt class. I believe the conversation between John and Mond may well be the most important chapter of 20th century literature.
Dear Rod: I read today's post from you quickly, and with concern. I need to study what you have said in more depth, but I want to say this for now.
Another commentary on Cease said this, "In the midst of their creativity, these creators experienced ill-health, madness, guilt, and regret. The final chapter is written through the eyes of the narrator who listens to his night gardener, a mathematician, who concluded, "that it was mathematics - not nuclear weapons, computers, biological warfare or our climate Armageddon - which was changing our world to the point where, in a couple of decades at most, we would simply not be able to grasp what being human really meant."
Is it best for you right now to be reading concentrating on creative men going mad? And also, anything can be misused, even math. And yes, I think we know that science can do wonderful and terrible things.
Have you read books about God and Physics? Books that are encouraging. For instance, "The Holographic Universe" Michael Talbot, or "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies? Perhaps a balance to this partly frictional and frightening account - though it has its truths and we need to be warned, we also need balance.
I'm also concerned about the attempted parallel between scientific black holes and humanity, first Germany and now us. I do not think it holds up. Science is not Satan's special tool, it is the way God has made the Universe work, and can be misused. Yes, whole societies and even the world can move from various degrees of dark and light.
But my humble opinion, and I could be wrong - I have only what you are writing. Here, particularly in the middle of the piece where you speak more personally about perhaps being worn out. You are not the only one God can use to speak, the burden of the world is not yours alone, you are allowed to rest at times - but of course we love to hear from you and want to share you burdens as you share with us in writing, so it is a balance. You are perhaps staring into the abyss. Jesus loves you so, so much. He does not want darkness for you. I trust you to find focus on the light.
Why do you think it’s wrong to want to escape to a cottage by the sea with your books, your dog and a thick woolen blanket? Perhaps that is exactly the place for you to heal. You’ve been through a lot, too much for a mere mortal. Be kind to yourself. Is that where God is drawing you? Isn’t that where you can find the silence to hear what He wants to tell you? I don’t mean you should totally abandon your family but taking a break, even for a month to go there, may be what you need.
Agreed -- I'm in a standard workaday job, and although I don't write much anymore I still read as much as I ever did. I do the cottage getaway thing twice a year, usually just for a long weekend, spring and fall. I go to the woods, not the sea, but the idea is the same.
There is a place, God given and directed, for Sabbath spaces in our lives. Please pray about this and be obedient to His call, should that be His leading.
But he loves eating oysters and drinking wine and meeting friends, old and new. I think only part of him wants to hide in the cottage.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no news and he didn't have to be a prophet? He could eat oysters, drink wine, meet friends, enjoy his dog, read books, live in a beautiful place, have a seaside cottage for weekends, write helpfully about anything-but-the-end-of-the-world and especially, could help children, his and others', all day long?
I urge you to read this article about a ground-breaking discovery by scientists who won the Nobel Prize:
“One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half a century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking. “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
It is as though the universe as we know it is fundamentally grounded in the principle of conscious attention, with nothing bearing any concrete shape until there is some observer to establish the bounds of what is, as though all things would suddenly cease to be were God to withdraw His gaze.
Others have speculated on this, here is my summary of that idea:
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/the-god-particle
Two passages from Hebrews come immediately to mind: "He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:3); and "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3), both from the ESV.
It might be a "reading into" scripture, but I am sorely tempted to read those numerous passages of the Old Testament that speak of God "stretching out the heavens" in light of our current understanding of the expanding universe.
"These and these are true, in the eyes of the Living God." I don't worry much about this stuff. When I look at an apple, it will still be red. When I look away, its chemical composition does not change. When I look at it again, the wavelength of light reflected of the peel will still stimulate my rods and cones to create the perception I know as red.
Sounds like a cool book. Yet another one added to my cart because of this blog. Thanks!
I, too, want to run to the woods and live with my books, dogs, and brew weird Colorado forest beer, which really wouldn’t be that weird considering the beers we have around here. I’ve wanted to do so since my late teenage years (the beer aspect is my middle aged version). I think it’s connected to the first time I read Walden. But as my sister always reminds me every time I talk about it, God has us where we are for a reason.
Your sister sounds like a remarkably smart lady.
Werner Heisenberg almost deserves a stained-glass window for his insights. So much of the Christian faith consists such paradoxes as he found in quantum physics. How can the Trinity be three persons, yet one God? How does one understand free-will, vs. predestination; faith and works; Christ be God and Man?, and so on. Heresies arise when one aspect of the paradox is emphasized at the expense of the other. The safest approach is to learn to be content with a degree of uncertainty or, as the Orthodox would put it, say "it's a mystery". I suspect that future editions of "Living in Wonder" may include one or more appendices, if Heisenberg isn't already mentioned. Properly understood, science is an ally, not an enemy.
It is impossible to read Schwarzschild's nightmare vision of the black sun and not think of the rise of Hitler, just a few short years later. Few of us would doubt that Hitler represented a type, or foreshadowing, of Antichrist. Antiochus Epiphanes, at the time of the Maccabees, would be another. Similarly, Our Lord used the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as a type, or illustration of the times of the end. Hitler may have been a dress rehearsal, we may be rushing headlong toward the real thing. Revelation 13:16-17 sounds a lot like a social credit system/deplatforming to me!
I thought the name Ejnar Hertzsprung sounded familiar. Anyone who has had Astronomy 101 should remember him as the Hertzsprung of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram classification of stars. I might just have to add Cease to my list of must-read books.
Rod it looks like Heisenberg went through a lot but was Chrisetian and a believer and remained so after struggles. - I have not read this whole article yet (I will read it) which I just found but it concludes<<<" And so it was with Heisenberg. Despite the vast influence of Platonism on his life and work, he ultimately bowed to the personal God of Christianity, and not to the impersonal One of Pagan philosophy. ">>>
https://enlightenedcrowd.org/werner-heisenberg-science-mysticism-christianity/
Also, while Wikipedia is not the best source and this is uneven, there are some leads there perhaps something that might interest you in this about "Christians in Science and Technology:. Some are Orthodox Christians. I copied a few.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Igor Sikorsky (1889–1972): Russian–American aviation pioneer in both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Sikorsky was a deeply religious Russian Orthodox Christian[153] and authored two religious and philosophical books (The Message of the Lord's Prayer and The Invisible Encounter).
Arthur Leonard Schawlow (1921–1999): American physicist who is best remembered for his work on lasers, for which he shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics. Shawlow was a "fairly Orthodox Protestant."[195] In an interview, he commented regarding God: "I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."[196]
Charles Glover Barkla (1877–1944): British physicist, and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1917 for his work in X-ray spectroscopy and related areas in the study of X-rays (Roentgen rays).[127] Barkla was a Methodist and considered his work to be part of the quest for God, the Creator"
Robert Millikan (1868–1953): second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Mustn't leave out the polymath priest-martyr Fr. Pavel Florensky.
Or Georges Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang theory. At first, many astronomers strongly opposed it, since a beginning implied a Creator. Indeed, the term "Big Bang" was coined by critic Fred Hoyle who, like many astronomers at the time, supported the then-prevailing steady-state theory.
I am a Big Bang Denier,
Aristotle posited the eternity of the world and St. Thomas wasn't hostile to the idea--a RADICALLY platonic notion.
But a radically anti-Biblical one.
You're wrong.
Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, another thing that rubbed the scientific community wrong. They didn't want a professed religious playing in their pool. I've seen secular histories of astronomy entirely omit Lemaitre and credit the Big Bang theory to Hubble, despite Lemaitre's work preceding Hubble's.
If those histories did that then they lied, and not only by omission. Hubble in fact did little theoretical work, nearly all his work was on the observational side. He knew enough theory to understand what his observations supported.
Here is the web page for the Orthodox church that Igor Sikorsky helped build:
https://www.stnicholasstratford.org
Maybe I'm over-posting but its hard to help it. I'm looking now at the "black hole" parts of today's column. - You are aware of one thing a black hold is theorized to be? A portal through other dimensions. But that is beautiful. It says these three dimensions are not all we have.
I think it is important that we know the universe is not "real" in the most "real" sense, if that statement is understandable. God is "real". We don't know, according to "The Holographic Universe" the extent to which this is real. Quantum entanglement, for instance, violates supposedly the that which can't be violated - the speed of light. But we can bear one another's burdens instantly, pray for one another across all space and without delay in time. It is really quite beautiful I think. All creation sings the glory of God. Please remember.
"Maybe I'm over-posting but its hard to help it."
Yeah, science has a way of provoking us, doesn't it? ;-)
"Cease" sounds fascinating -- will order a copy ASAP.
Interesting that you bring this up, because just last night I read this very long but very fine essay on Einstein and Oppenheimer. If you've not seen the Oppenheimer film (which is fabulous, a masterpiece of modern cinema) the essay has some spoilers, but otherwise it is very much worth reading and discusses some of the same issues that "Cease" goes into.
https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-varieties-of-travel-experience/articles/the-man-who-was-not-there
PBS's The American Experience had a two hour dramatization about Oppenheimer, available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9DEE-N_Z0&list=PLmh4YIWteoGjNVK4eU9O7BHnN87vwuxd1&index=17
Einstein, perhaps in response to Heisenberg et alia on quantum theory, said “God does not play dice with the universe.” Though my personal experience inclines me to doubt, I still hope Einstein is right.
Well unless I’m mistaken, Einsteins God was the God of Spinoza and what exactly that is - the universe?- is a little unclear to me but it’s not the Abrahamic God.
Einstein said, "The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not."
Einstein was wrong, and I personally don't understand why Christians have trouble with this. Many Christians have held that mathematics is a reflection of the mind of God. Well, ever notice that randomization and probability are mathematical, that there can be order in them? The idea that randomization is just chaos is wrong. I think it it obvious that God makes use of randomization. It is also Biblical, look at the election of the Apostle Matthias.
Or the numerous other times "lots were cast" in scripture.
Einstein provides the best understanding, to date, of things on the cosmic scale; Heisenberg and others, on the sub-micro, or quantum scale. Relativity yields nonsensical results if applied on the quantum scale, and vice versa. A holy grail of modern physics has been to try to find a way of reconciling the two.
Largely true. However, we have observed the effects of quantum entanglement on non-quantum scales, as Rod's post and other commenters here have mentioned. We (well, an Austrian-Chinese team) has teleported electrons from earth to an orbiting satellite and back via entanglement. Here is my essay on the subject (second time in two days I've posted the link):
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/keep-it-real-man
Sounds as though physical theories have their own uncertainty principle going on here. The better you pin down the one scale, the less you can say about the others.
Do you think there's an analogy to be drawn between Heisenberg's principle in physics and studies in ecology, anthropology, etc.? I can either weigh a particle or locate it, i.e. I am a participant as well as an observer in any experiment I perform. Similarly, if I do an ecological study of a meadow, my act of walking across the meadow changes it. If I go and study a remote tribe, my being there changes their culture.
Come to think of it, there would inevitably be some impact, although a good observer should know how to keep it to a minimum. The act of observation would be unlikely to have the same life or death effect as it would on poor Schroedinger's cat!
I read an article about the huge number of anthropologists who have romantic/sexual relationships, sometimes even marriages, with individuals in the tribes they study. Of course, one would find it highly likely in any other context that if someone goes and lives somewhere for 4 years, they are likely to seek love or pleasure with people they meet there, but then people feel surprised about anthropologists doing this, as though they are all perfectly celibate monks. It's particularly ironic when one thinks how much anthropology is about sexual/marital practices.
Another thing that anthropology talks about a lot is religious beliefs and rituals. However, when this researcher is questioning the people there on these matters, who is to say that they are not asking him/her the same thing, so he/she becomes an unwitting proselytiser for whatever he/she believes?
The question for any later missionaries is to try and understand those beliefs, and build any possible bridges. I support some LCMS missionaries in Cambodia, and he is currently working on a dissertation on ancestor veneration. For Korean Catholics these days, that poses little problem, since Catholics already have traditions of remembering/praying for the dead, and there is a sharp distinction between respect or veneration, and the worship that is due to God alone. In Cambodia, the practice might be understood differently, and thus much less easily "baptized".
Even just the fact of "irrational numbers" is a clue.
We can't state the number pi - it goes on forever with no repeating pattern. But for every circle that exists, when we divide its circumference by its diameter - how far around by how far across, we get the irrational number pi (3.1415....goes on forever).
The diameter goes around a circle a number of times...we can never say....but yet it goes around. We build things based on this number that we can never say, never know. There is a God!
(quick edit: typo)
"Even just the fact if "irrational numbers" is a clue."
Yes, and so are transfinite numbers.
So much of this discussion, it seems to me, though valuable, reflects what the ancients called “mysterium” - mystery which cannot be penetrated. Still I’m reminded of Matthew 10:29-30: “Can you not buy two sparrows for a penny? And yet not one falls to the ground without your Father knowing. Why, every hair on your head has been counted. So there is no need to be afraid…”
Yes, I think so too. Perhaps one of the great Christian mysteries is "How does a God who is infinitely perfect and who therefore doesn't need us still love us and want us?" Love is the answer, but what of the details?
One attempt to answer the 'mechanics' of such love is a field called "process theology." It seems to me that most versions of process theology are heretical (i.e. they undo part of the mystery as stated above) but not all. One thing that fascinates me is that the (possibly) non-heretical process theologies by analogy seem similar to the logic of transfinite numbers. Now this is highly speculative on my part, I am not a master of either subject, but this is what I get from my limited understanding such as it is.
Simply put, not all numbers are ratios of other numbers. Nor are all numbers solutions to algebraic equations (like the irrational square root of 2). Pi is one of these many “transcendental” numbers.
What I find eerily fascinating is Euler’s Identity:
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0
Here we see all five major constants of mathematics in a single beautiful relationship.
A lot of math developed simply because mathematicians “broke the rules”. At one time, negative numbers were thought to be an absurdity, until they were found useful; similarly, imaginary numbers found their uses very quickly once a certain threshold of acceptability was reached.
Of course, consistency had to be maintained. Dividing by zero remains undefined for reasons similar to those stating that infinity is not itself a number.
Yes! Euler's is just the wonderful!
Euler was described as an unbelievable genius. But he was also a normal guy. He lived to an old age, and was playing with his grandchildren the day he died.
Interestingly, he is remembered in our Lutheran hymnal along with Copernicus and a long roster of saints and Protestant figures.
British mathematicians had figured prominently until Newton. Thereafter, most advances seemed to come from the Continent. It was as if Newton had sucked all the air out of the room.
I’ve also seen musicians and mathematicians compared historically—Leibniz and Bach; Euler and Mozart; Gauss and Beethoven; Riemann and Strauss.
I do not disagree that God can make use of randomization, but randomness and probability are mathematical pretty much only to the degree that their variability can be fitted to a probability mass (think of rolled dice) or density function e.g. a Gaussian random variable. Some randomness is, well, too random to fit any human model.
A small nitpick: Labatut wrote: "Today, nearly fifty per cent of the nitrogen atoms in our bodies are artificially created..."
In fact, perhaps fifty per cent of the nitrogen MOLECULES in our bodies are artificially created. Artificial atoms are created by transmutation in reactors and particle accelerators, a far different and later process that the Haber-Bosch chemical process.
There is a chemical plant on the Mississippi between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that uses river water, nitrogen from the air, and natural gas to make those molecules (did you know the location Rod?). That plant kept about 2 billion people alive for decades. Now China has built three plants just like it.
Oops, without my morning caffeine I confused Schwarzschild with Schrödinger.
Excellent observation, and a deeply troubling thought about how we have become synthetic beings in a way.
Anyone who has had a nuclear medicine procedure has artificial atoms in their bodies. Nuclear fallout ingested from various sources could do the trick also.
Every atom that is not hydrogen or helium (or a statistically negligible fraction of lithium) is the product of synthesis inside super novas, or of later radioactive decay. All of us., and the planet itself, are "star stuff".
Yes, of course. And the primordial hydrogen, helium, and statistically negligible fraction of lithium are 'Big bang stuff'. All, of course, are therefore natural and not man-made (artificial).
Man doesn't "make" anything. We only rearrange the original elements.
I highly disagree. Humans more than make, at best they are sub-creators in faint imitation of their Creator. I am sure you have had creative events in your life, why denigrate them?
I had the same reaction TFD. Every atom in your body was created by nucleosynthesis in some far off star eons ago. When Joni Mitchel sang "we are stardust", that was more than a beautiful metaphor, it is profoundly true and, to her credit, she knew it.
Hello Rod,
You said, “Religion is primarily about establishing a right relation to the natural world.” Would it not be more precisely true to say, “Religion is *primarily* about establishing a right relation to the living, personal-infinite God in Jesus Christ”? With such quintessential truths lack of precision can mislead.
Why do I like reading your thoughts, and seeing your heart, Rod? First, because you name Jesus Christ as your God. We are on the same wavelength. Second, because you are not *normally* sane, that is, you are not afraid of madness. You are open to many forms of madness, and you even take them to heart. You are interesting.
About Revelation 5:5. The *moment* I was converted — rescued! — from my Eastern & psychedelic depths in 1968 at age 26 — for I was inwardly dying in the Abyss, a mysterious Thanatos there pulling me into its maw . . . . a woman I was visiting at a place I had worked caring for the disturbed children there, began preaching to me about Jesus Christ, “He died on the cross for your sins!” I resisted her vigorously, thinking her primitive, but shortly a light from heaven shone into my heart, and it was Jesus — I did not see Him physically, but spiritually — I did not see His physical features. The glory, majesty, power, and love of this Person — He was God. He made me alive to Him, and the darkness fled.
Later, when I began reading the Bible, I came across Revelation 5:6, “a Lamb stood, as if it had been slain” — a crucified yet living One. That was what I saw in spirit.
Where we seriously differ is regarding omens, apparitions, and psychic phenomena. Such is this in my view, even though it contains Scripture (for the devil knows how to use such to his advantage — setting a precedent for future use, in your case many uses). Having come from a background of such phenomena, I am wary of counterfeits of the divine. Ultimately I trust only the Scripture. Only.
Nonetheless, I love your mind and heart, and look forward to your new book.
Omens exist. Losing God in the Temple for three days was an omen (to Blessed Mother Mary). Read Tolstoy ("Anna Karenina" is full of omens. And still, Tolstoy ignorant of his own "life or death" omen, died as Anna did (spoiler), fleeing his family in a railway station. He had taken up with a psychophant who alienated him from Sophia, his wife. Vronsky = the psychophant.) "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical. Read the saints--St. Teresa of Avila. You do raise a problem, however. "How to tell works of the devil from a sign from God?" Prayer. Wait, there's always a confirmation in God's time. If the sign is moving you TOWARD God, it will be from God. If it is protecting you (e.g., "don't use drugs" or "no adultery" or "stop gambling"), it is from God. St. Paul said hold everything up to the light.
Re: Anna Karenina" is full of omens.
In fiction we usually call that foreshadowing.
Aha. Thanks.
Yes, you're right -- I should have been more precise. I meant by my remark that religion's function **vis-a-vis the natural world** is to establish right relationship to it. We do that first by establishing right relation to God, and everything else should follow. In Orthodoxy, we don't see the natural world as radically separate from God. The natural world is CREATED, which is not the same thing as the Creator -- we are not animists! -- but we believe that God is mystically present in the created world, through His energies. This is theologically complex, but what it amounts to is that we see Nature as an icon through which the presence of God is manifest, while not itself being divine.
I knew what you meant Rod.
Thank you for the comment about the meaning of religion. As soon as I read that sentence in the article, I thought, “it’s not about a right relationship with the natural world, but a right relationship with God.”
If I remember correctly, Haber was working to harvest gold from seawater as a means of repaying Germany’s reparations after World War One. It was part of that process where he invented a means of cheap ammonia production. It is funny how the Nazis, for all their embrace of high technology weapons, were happy to exile or kill some of the most gifted scientists in the world. But then, Hitler actually feared German inferiority and maybe with good reason.
As for the rest, things have felt very off since 2020. Maybe it is living in a culture which is eroding very rapidly. The column yesterday on China was interesting. China is the opposite of Western culture in many ways. While it currently pays lip service to communism, China now is little different from China one thousand years ago. The Chinese do not hate themselves and their culture. They do not try to destroy their own culture, outside of that blip in the 1960s. Math and science are well respected. I have worked with a number of people from China, and while many have been cordial, I have always had a sense that we were seen as inferior, that we were looked down upon. Maybe that is the state of people who cherish their own place in the world, versus those who hate their own presence in it as it’s been.
I do not see how a culture can survive when an accepted, well, required, tenet of it is that it was built on evil acts.
" I have worked with a number of people from China, and while many have been cordial, I have always had a sense that we were seen as inferior, that we were looked down upon."
Real people have black hair. They just can't help themselves.
You know how the Chinese regard Africans?
A field for international imperialist exploitation.
They also laugh at them as subhuman.
Re: Haber was working to harvest gold from seawater as a means of repaying Germany’s reparations after World War One.
Maybe he was doing that, but the Haber process discovery dates from before WWI
If you can bear it , you might also read William Eggintons Rigor of Angels.I found it along with Cease rather tough going. Let’s put it this way, I wasn’t a physics ace. I read Cease about 10 months ago . Much of it is interesting but I feel the author overdid the fictionalization. The Heisenberg section where he stumbled into a cafe in Copenhagen and was slipped DMT or LSD or whatever is to put it mildly a bit contrived. What he goes on a trip and discovers the uncertainty principle? I couldn’t picture Heisenberg that way.That said, while some of the book is quite boring, it has interesting moments.
"It’s only six dollars per month, and you get at least twenty posts, usually more."
My mind flows to the mundane. There is a limit to posting here? Is it 20 per day or 20 per month? Must be 20 per day. I assume that Subsack is able to report to you posts per day per individual and that you can intervene if you choose. Not very important, it just caught my eye.
Most of your post was above my pay grade. I am just a Simple Man of the Soil.
I thought Rod was referring to HIS posts, not our comments.
It's not comments, many people here would burn through their comments in a couple of days if we were limited to 20.
Ah! it's not about me.
Yeah, my posts. One a day each weekday, sometimes on weekends too.
Keep them coming. I wish your book were coming out before October. Worried about the dread "October surprise."
Ah! It's not about me!