Opus 2023-150: Symbolism

My mental tangent was chasing some of the recent things I had been reading about science and the Bible.  I had also been reading Psalms about God sending snow storms and such and reflecting on the different places it points out that He is holding the universe together.

That took me to thinking God could never be fit into a math formula.

Then I thought that might actually be the answer.  Physicists were known to make up symbols for their math.  Einstein came up with a triangle that had a value that worked.  He didn’t know what the value was, but it worked.  Why not have one for God.  It might be the compromise that the materialists could work with.

Actually it would not work with them.  Their basic foundation is that there is no God and just because their systems don’t work is no reason to consider something that conflicts with their priorities.  An example I came across was provided by some researchers trying to prove that something called “nonshared environmental variability” was key to differences in educational development.  When coming up with results that did not support the desired result the analysis they wrote, “Rather, we believe that the appropriate conclusion is that the causal mechanism underlying nonshared environmental variability is outcome remain unknown.” p. 259

Wouldn’t that be fun having a math symbol that represented the action of God?  You and I would not notice because they have so many symbols that are nonsense to the uninitiated but it would drive them crazy.

We might as well make math and science fun.  

Murray, Charles.  Human Diversity.  New York:  Twelve, 2020.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-007: Eroding Rights, part 1 of 2

We live in troubling times.  We face a nation that is wilting under all the Marxist attacks.  Liberties and security that we once assumed are being stripped away.  The Biden Administration has been doing everything it can to destroy the economy through inflation, promote scarcity in food, limit our mobility and destroy the first and second amendment rights that are ours.  In spite of all this, if I had to pick out one extreme danger it would be philosophical more than physical.  

I think the biggest threat we face is identity politics.  Charles Murray gives a definition.

“At the heart of identity politics is the truth that ‘who we are’ as individuals is importantly shaped by our race and sex.” Murray, page 4

He starts his background by repeating what I had read before about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  There was a lot of concern that it would lead to quotas and reverse discrimination.  The idea was that two wrongs would not make a right.

“But in the floor debates and in the press, these provisions were described as one-time exceptions justified by the unique injustice done to African Americans.  It’s not as if the act would seriously infringe on traditional American freedoms.” Murray, page 3

It took less than a year for the behemoth of discrimination to emerge from the corner it was hiding in and begin to undermine the rule of law and the American system of individual rights.  Affirmative action went from making it illegal to discriminate to demanding that we discriminate.  The only change was the blind arrogance of the proposals and the change of victims.  

The deep sliver of destruction was on the philosophical level.  

“...a philosophical wedge had been driven between those who wanted strict adherence to the ideal of treating people as individuals, equal before the law, and those who advocated group-based policies as a way to achieve social justice.”  Murray, pages 3-4

We were being forced to think differently about the law, justice and human rights.  No longer were you held responsible for your actions but for the actions of a group.  No longer were you given a reward for your earned individual accomplishments but now you were gifted because of a physical characteristic.  Law was being pushed aside for fiat.  

To be concluded...

Murray, Charles.  Facing Reality.  New York:  Encounter Books, 2021.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-018: Place, Rights, Righteousness

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein has a lot to say in addition to talking about the role of IQ in society.  At one point they give a quick synopsis of the view of man in the philosophies of history.

“For thousands of years, great political thinkers of East and West tried to harmonize human differences.”, p. 528

They start with the ancient Chinese.

“For Confucius, society was like his conception of family....  People were defined by their place, whether in the family or the community.” p. 528

And that is extended for centuries and around the world.

“So too for the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers:  place was all.  All great religious traditions define a place for everyone, if not on earth then in heaven.”  p. 528

The Ancients saw man in terms of their place in society.  Moderns see people in terms of their rights.   Even this has gone through a progression.

“They are equal in rights, Locke proclaimed, though they be unequal in everything else.  Those rights however, are negative rights (to impose contemporary terminology):  They give all human beings the right not to have certain things done to them by the state or other human beings,...” p. 530

Today we have evolved to the point where rights are totally different.  It is not the right to “the pursuit of happiness”, it is now the right to happiness, guaranteed.

“The original concept of equal rights is said to be meaningless cant, outmoded; taking equal rights seriously, it is thought, requires enforcing equal outcomes.” p. 530

The Christian concept is totally different, although most Christians take a stand on the idea of rights.  The Bible see people in terms of their righteousness.  We have no “rights”.  We are hopeless sinners, helpless to change without God’s help and when we change the success is measured in terms of righteousness.  The question is how well we conform to the ethical standards that God demands.

We have value, but only in relationship with God.  If there is no God, we are just smart animals as the evolutionists say.  If there is a God, it does not matter what our rights are.

Herrnstein, Richard J. and Murray, Charles.  The Bell Curve.  New York: 
    The Free Press, 1994.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-378: Family Feud Education

Sometimes you need to get out of the forest to see how many trees have been destroyed by the beetles.  As a teacher I was always being indoctrinated in the idea that there are many types of intelligence.  It is more than book learning and the ability to do well on the SAT.  There is a logic to that, I admit.  I think of my brother who could build you a house but had a hard time writing a letter.  I, on the other hand, can’t cut a board straight.  He would have been what is called kinesthetic.  I was a traditional linguistic.  Originally, according to Gardner, there are seven intelligences.  Not to let a good idea go to waste that was expanded to nine and for all I know has grown beyond that.  I think many of them could be covered with snowflake intelligence because there are so many that can only learn in their isolated safe-space.

What was interesting to me is that Gardner did not honor the traditional method of research and analysis of data.

“Gardner’s approach is also radical in that he does not defend his theory with quantitative data.  He draws on findings from anthropology to zoology in his narrative., but, in a field that has been intensely quantitative since its inception, Gardner’s work is uniquely devoid of psychometric or other quantitative evidence.” page 18

What that means is there is no evidence for his theory.  It is true because he likes the idea.  The dangerous part of this is that education now thinks this way.  The standards and techniques that are in control of education are based on what the elite wants to be considered.  It is kind of like Family Feud research.  If you have watched the program, the right answers are determined by a random group of people giving a response.  It is accurate for those people that day but it is not scientific.

So when someone tells you how smart their child is you need to understand that they may be talking about the kid’s ability to throw tantrums, not his ability to write an essay.

Herrnstein, Richard J. and Murray, Charles.  The Bell Curve.  New York:  The Free Press, 1994.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-374: History Is a Riot

One of the major attacks to our liberty lately has been the riots on university campuses whenever a conservative speaker shows up.  Historically it goes back to the brownshirts of the rising National Socialists.  It is designed to silence opposition and drive them from public forums.  It worked then, it is working now.  When is the last time you were willing to speak up on an issue that the left doesn’t like?

History did not jump from the 1930's to the twenty first century.  This has been going on a long time.  I came across a similar situation as I began working through the book The Bell Curve.  It seems that way back in 1969 even the liberals were noticing that the educational programs of the War on Poverty were not producing the results they wanted.  They made the mistake of asking someone who might know, Arthur Jensen of Cal Berkeley.  He made the mistake of giving them an honest answer.  He did it in the Harvard Educational Review.  He was immediately attacked in print but it even went to the level we have been seeing. 

“During the first few years after the Harvard Educational Review article was published, Jensen could appear in no public forum in the United States without triggering something perilously close to a riot.” page 9

Notice the date.  This was just after the height of the so called Free Speech Movement, also from Berkeley.  The left has been concerned for their own freedom of speech and silencing everyone else for a long time. 

Herrnstein, Richard J. and Murray, Charles.  The Bell Curve.  New York:  The Free Press, 1994.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-11: New Terms: Chastity, part 4 of 5, The Quayle Prophecy

One of the lies that has been sold to young people is that they don’t need to be married to have the benefit of children.  Those of us old enough remember the flap started by Dan Quayle in his statements about “Murphy Brown.”  He was right.  Later it was admitted he was right, but at the time and in all the memories he was mocked for being narrow minded, bigoted and of course, stupid.

What was his sin?  He said that children did better with two parents.  Gasp!  How naive.  The problem is that his statement was true.

Charles Murray has done a lot of research.  It shows the truth of Quayle’s position.

“No matter what the outcome being examined – ...or any...measure of how well or poorly children do in life – the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married. Divorced parents produce the next-best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s socioeconomic status.”

What does that mean?  Single parenting produces the worst results.  Can a child come out of it?  Of course, but the odds are against a successful life.  Why go looking for trouble?

Marriage is not an option for raising children.





Murray, Charles.  Coming Apart.  New York:  Crown Forum, 2012. Kindle Reference, Loc. 2658-72

To be continued...

homo unius libri