?

Log in

Inklings [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
cellistkjp

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

God works romance, not you [Dec. 15th, 2009|01:16 pm]
cellistkjp
I'm revisiting people places and things of my past that have special meaning to me, however, I am attempting to get my mind off the distractions that beset me and going after writing music. Country is the feel my friends want.

I'm watching some youtube videos of country music songs like Colbie Calliat who sings Bubbly, Nora Jones, Bard Paisley, Barius Rucker, Billy Carrington. I haven't written in a while and hopefully this session at the library will prove today to be fruitful.
linkpost comment

Update for december [Dec. 11th, 2009|04:21 pm]
cellistkjp
[mood |contemplativecontemplative]

So I'm sitting here in the library, hoping to run into someone I know. I did but he's preoccupied. So I'm bemoaning my lack of a companion at the moment, and for some reason I think it won't be too far from now that I find someone. Probably I should take more advantage of this website, seeing as how I do have a journal (diary) at home but this one is more interactive and therefore, even though no one may be reading this journal, at least there is a possibility of someone reading it and commenting on it.

So my mother and I drove to fairfield to see a doctor (psychiatrist) and my mom fell in love with her. So that I think is good news. For whatever reason my mom thinks she is awesome and the bees knees (is that a british expression?). I would love to go to a british rock concert, maybe the Newsboys, maybe Oasis. Maybe the Beatles. I don't know. But I need something like that in my life, but it can't just be me by myself.

The other thing of interest is that I found a book you have to read at the library on Schizophrenia, it is very informative and insightful and I enjoy reading it. However, I believe I have certain food allergies that heighten my symptoms so I need to stay away.

The other thing is I have to teach a piano lesson in 45 minutes so I can't sit here plugging away at diary entries all day. I guess the main thing on my mind these days is, When am I going to be well enough to provide for my own housing and live in my own place, preferably with a roommate, so I'm paying my own bills, taking care of my own place...? I wonder how long it will take to be able to get to that point.

I wonder if I could make a music video how much money I could make.. hmm.... Well, I'm off to read!

No more reading in bed, says the doc!

Love always,
Kevin
link1 comment|post comment

Schizophrenia [Dec. 4th, 2009|02:01 pm]
cellistkjp
So I finally have arrived at knowing what is going on with me from a psychiatric perspective. I do not take drugs or a drug. I do not suffer with bi-polar or manic-depressive. These are all mental illnesses that are grouped along with what I have - schizophrenia. (I personally think that people who take drugs are mentally unstable). It is very helpful to know what I have so that when I do the homework or research and find out how much sense it makes, I can feel on the same page as the researchers in the big universities around the world and the doctors, at least the ones who know what they are doing.

Many thoughts and questions have arrived since the diagnosis two months ago. One is "Was C. S. Lewis schizophrenic" and another is "if Johnny Nash was schizophrenic, what does that mean for other schizophrenics like him"?

I really like having a livejournal, though I do not update it as often as I ought to, for the reason that I can express my thoughts, my experiences, my emotions, and help others.

I am currently doing research on schizophrenia through a reference work at the library called "Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders" by Richard Noll, Ph.D. Third Edition.

I wonder if having this disorder lines up with the fact that when I write notes to myself I disagree with them days or weeks later when I rediscover what I have written.

I wonder if having this disorder has anything to do with my distaste for foul language and abusive speech.

I hope and pray someone out there will love me for who I am despite my disorder.
linkpost comment

3rd Grade Insight [Dec. 13th, 2007|03:55 pm]
cellistkjp
IF ONLY

(a)

(b)

(c)

WHAT IF

(a)

(b)

(c)

PRESENT (NOW)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Print this out and use it as a guide to learn about yourself in the present; where you've been, where you're going and where you're at. ("My dear Phaedrus, whence come you and whither are you going?" - Socrates from Plato's dialogue "Phaedrus")
linkpost comment

William Blake [Jun. 18th, 2007|11:01 am]
cellistkjp
Poem lyrics of The Chimney Sweeper by William Blake.

A little black thing in the snow,
Crying "weep! weep!" in notes of woe!
"Where are thy father and mother? Say!"
"They are both gone up to the church to pray.

"Because I was happy upon the heath,
And smiled among the winter's snow,
They clothed me in the clothes of death,
And taught me to sing the notes of woe.

"And because I am happy and dance and sing,
They think they have done me no injury,
And are gone to praise God and his priest and king,
Who make up a heaven of our misery."
link4 comments|post comment

The Difficult Problem of Truth [Jun. 1st, 2007|11:32 am]
cellistkjp
The Difficult Problem of Truth
THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF TRUTH

Now then, let's take the really difficult case. That difficult case is the case in which you ask, How do I test the correspondence between my own mind and reality, the world, to find out whether what I think is true? Let me show you why this is such a difficult case. Here we have the mind and here we have reality; and the mind is trying to know reality. In the mind is thought. Reality consists of existences. And those existences are things to be apprehended or known. But the thought, "Is that reality in my mind?" that thought is the reality that is apprehended. I don't have in my mind two things, my thought and the object of my thought. Whatever is in my mind is in my mind, and I can't know any "grasp of reality." I have no way of getting hold of reality except by knowing it. But then I can't test whether I know it or not by comparing what I know with what I am trying to know. Don't you see that in this case you can't make the comparison? There is no way of making a direct test between the two things that are supposed to correspond.

Let me put it to you another way. I express my thoughts in statements or propositions. Reality consists of the facts about which I am trying to make the propositions. And the propositions are true if they correspond with the facts. And the facts are the things to be known. The facts not as known, but to be known. The propositions are the facts as I think I know them. It isn't as if I had in one hand the propositions and in the other hand the factsa nd could look at them and say, "Oh, I see. My propositions correspond to the facts," because I have no grasp of the facts except in my own propositions about them. Hence I have no way of making a direct comparison between my propositions and the facts they are trying to state. So there is no direct or even indirect way of telling whether what I think, what I say, my propositions and judgments, correspond with the way things are.

And there is not even an indirect way of doing this because I can't ask "reality" questions the way I can ask another person questions and find out whether what I think agrees with what he thinks. I can't ask reality questions. Or, I can ask the questions, but I can't get any answers. Reality won't speak back to me. And so there is no way of getting by communication the direct or indirect test of whether what I think, what is in my mind, corresponds with reality and the way things are. That is the problem of truth. It's not the problem of knowing what truth is, but the problem of telling whether what I think is true is really true, if truth consists in the correspondence of my mind with reality.

CONSISTENCY IS NEEDED FOR TRUTH

There is the beginning of a solution to this problem. Staying within my own mind, let's suppose I make two statements. Let me call one of them proposition "p" and the other proposition "q". Those are two separate statements. Anything you want to say. Suppose these two statements are contradictory. (In my case it would be what I heard at church two Sundays ago---Unless you are in my church getting health, you have no hope. That's "p". "q" Would be his next statement. ---There's always hope.) Suppose they are like the statements "a is b and a is not b," or "two plus two equal four and two plus two does not equal four." Now we know, don't we, that both can't be true? In fact, one must be true and one must be false. And this test of contradiction or noncontradiction, or consistency, is the beginning of a sign within our own minds, just staying within our own minds and having nothing but the things we think ourselves, our own thoughts; we know that if we contradict ourselves or if we think contradictory things, we are missing the truth somewhere. And this is an interesting point, because for consistency or coherence or the absence of contradiction to be a sign of truth and falsity, or a difficulty about truth and falsity, it self-presupposes that there can be a correspondence between the mind and reality. For if reality were full of contradictions, then the presence of contradictions in the mind would not be a test or a sign of truth or falsity. Only if reality is non-contradictory, if there are in the world of existence no contradictions, we are committed to thinking that which we find a contradiction in our own minds, we have at least come into contact with one thing which is true and one which is false.

Most philosophers are not satisfied with this sign of truth. I say most, there are some exceptions; some philosophers think this is quite sufficient. For example, Descartes takes the view that when our own ideas are quite clear and distinct, when they are so clear and distinct that they are free from all contradiction, then we know we have the truth, then we are sure, we are certain of our possession of thet ruth. And Spinoza says, for example, "What can be clearer or more certain than a true idea as the standard of truth? Just as light reveals both itself and the darkness, so truth is the standard of itself and of the thoughts."

But this is not sufficient, I think. And I would like to show you why it is not. Suppose these two propositions are contradictory. What we know then is that one must be true and one must be false. But which? Either one could be true, either one could be false; we don't know which is true or false from knowing that their being contradictory makes one of them true and one false. How do we solve that problem? We could solve that problem only if in our mind there are some propositions or principles which are given as true, which we are certain about as true; so that these can be used as the measure or standard of thet ruth in other propositions. If, for example, we were absolutely sure that proposition "p" is true, then we would know that if "q" contradicts it, "q" is false. But we have to know first that "p" is true. And we can't know that simply from the fact that p contradicts q. To solve this problem fully we must have some assurance about certain propositions as true and use them to measure truth and falsity in others.

Aristotle makes this point, I think, very clearly when he says, "The human mind uses two kinds of principles. There are the unquestionable truths of the understanding which are axioms or self-evident truths of the understanding which are axioms or self-evident truths and there are the truths of perception, truths which we know, which we possess, when we perceive matters of fact, such as, "Here is a piece of paper in my hand," or "Here is a book, I see a book, I observe a book." That is a matter of fact I can't have any doubt about, just as the self-evident truth that the whole is greater than the part is a truth of my understanding about which I can have no doubt.

Now all that moderns have added to this is an elaborate, carefully, worked-out logic of the methods of empirical verification. But all the truth can be tested by finding whether or not anything else agrees with the facts we know by observation or agrees with the principles which are self-evident to our understanding. With these two at either extreme, we can tell whether anything else we think is true by seeing that it doesn't contradict this or this. I think if you will reflect about what I have said, you will see that it begins to solve the problem of how we tell whether a given statement is true or false in terms of the way that statement accords or disagrees with self-evident truths or truths of immediate perception of matters of fact.

THE IMMUTABILITY OF TRUTH

I think the time is almost up, but I would like to spend a moment more on that very interesting problem about the mutability of truth. Is truth eternal or does it change? There's no question that people change their minds, that the human face in the course of centuries passes from knowledge to error or from error to knowledge in the opinions that it holds. But this is a change in the human mind and not a change in the truth or in what is true. For example, the opinion that the earth was flat, if it ever was false, is always false. And the opposite opinion, that the earth in which we live is round, if it ever was true, is always true. The fact that people have changed their minds about whether the earth is flat or round doesn't make the truth of the matter itself change at all.

But you may say to me, Suppose that the earth tomorrow or next year were to change itself and suddenly become flat or oblong or something else, wouldn't the proposition that the earth is round become false? No, because if I were careful and exact enough, I would say that from the beginning until this year, the earth has been round. So that if next year the earth changed its shape, my proposition still would be true, because it would always remain true that up to this year the earth had been round. Hence I think it is fair to say that truth itself is immutable, even if we as humans in our thinking do not possess the truth immutably.

--Mortimer J. Adler "How to Think About Truth"
link2 comments|post comment

Torrey Students get Creative [Feb. 1st, 2007|01:53 pm]
cellistkjp
Torrey Students get Creative

Paul Williams and Lisa Deats (Torrey Honors Institute Alumni)

Father of light in whom the seen and unseen are known
Good Creator, sweet Sustainer, Director of the dusk and the dawn
For Thy glory, for Thy glory do my body and soul reside

Beloved, begotten Son, the harbor from the tempest
The cleft in the rock.
Your body, Your blood, Your life, Your love You gave

Living Word guide this ransomed heart unto You
Spirit of Christ given by the Father
Redeemer from death to life
Through atoning water and pentecostal fire
Come and consecrate this temple for Your indwelling
You are One divinely united in love
Who lives and reigns
Lives and reigns
Who lives and reigns, world without end!

listen to it performed:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0FTJCP01
linkpost comment

For the beginning writer [Jan. 30th, 2007|09:38 pm]
cellistkjp
Oh Wow. This is the most awesome blog I've ever stumbled upon. And even more fascinating that I'm trying to teach a young student in the classical tradition I find this entry on beginning writing. WOW

"One of the first things we have to say to a beginner who has brought us his M.S. is, 'Avoid all epithets which are merely emotional. It is no use telling us that something was "mysterious" or "loathsome" or "awe-inspiring" or "voluptuous". Do you think your readers will believe you just because you say so? You must go quite a different way to work. By direct description, by metaphor and simile, by secretly evoking powerful associations, by offering the right stimuli to our nerves (in the right degree and the right order), and by the very beat and vowel-melody and length and brevity of your sentences, you must bring it about that we, we readers, not you, exclaim "how mysterious!" or "loathsome" or whatever it is. Let me taste for myself, and you'll have no need to tell me how I should react to the flavour.'"
~C.S. Lewis, Studies in Words, (1960)

Taken from http://yourdailycslewis.blogspot.com/
linkpost comment

Adler on language [Jan. 12th, 2007|01:06 pm]
cellistkjp
Adler on language
For clarity, when I say 'mark' I mean 'spelling', and when I say 'sound' I mean 'pronunciation'.

On HOMONYMs ['same mark or sound, different meanings'; what you use a DICTIONARY for] and SYNONYMs ['same meaning, different marks or sounds'; what you use a THESAURUS for] and the ambiguity of language.

(HOMOPHONEs [literally 'same sound, same or different spellings and different meanings') and ANTONYMs ['opposed meanings/spellings/sounds'] are different; according to dictionary.com, homophone = a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air. and ANTONYM= a word opposite in meaning to another. The word To Chase is the opposite of to Run away, to retreat.)--

What are wind [wind blows..] and wind [you wind the clock]? Same mark, different sound and meaning?

According to Adler, there is "the problem of ambiguity which arises from the fact that we often have many meanings for one and the same word, and also from the fact that we often have many words to express one and the same idea. These two facts that we have too many words sometimes for a single idea, or on the other hand, too many meanings for a single word, really creates the problem of communication."

Now, I wrote this in the margin of my book (The Great Ideas from the Great Books of Western Civilization by Mortimer J. Adler) from Dictionary.com: "two words are HOMONYMS if they are pronounced or spelled the same way but have different meanings [i.e. chase "to pursue" and chase "to ornament metal.", this is what your dictionary tells you - all the homonyms for every mark and sound] and SYNONYM = A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language. [i.e. some SYNONYMs for chase would be hunt, hunting, prey, quest, race, venery; the idea these all have in common is "to pursue".. but then again, wouldn't "pursue" just be another SYNONYM?)

I have always wondered about these terms, homophone, homonym, synonym, and antonym, and their relations and distinctions ever since I was in elementary school. I could never explain them well or have them clearly distinguished in my mind since then.

I think Adler is addressing this issue here. The main confusion is between HOMOPHONEs and HOMONYMs, and the distinction is above, but I'll repeat it. The distinction is thus: two words are HOMONYMS if they are pronounced or spelled the same way but have different meanings, and a HOMOPHONE is a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air. Wind [wend] and wind [wined] are close but are exceptions... I can't think of the name for this...

Kind of confusing, but I think I see it better now. I will work to remember this so I can explain it to another!

Adler continues, "Think about what communication means. Communication has at the root of it unity, community. It involves two minds sharing the same idea. It isn't enough that they use the same word, because if two people use the same word, one having one meaning for it, another a quite different meaning, they aren't communicating. They are communicating only if, when one uses the word and the other uses the same word, they use it to express the same idea, the same emotion, the same thought, or the same intention. Only in that way do you have two minds getting together, coming to terms, sharing experiences of a mental or emotional sort.

One of the problems that people have always faced is how to overcome this difficulty about our conventional languages. Sometimes they think that the problem would be solved if we could invent an ideal language in which each word had only one meaning. But I don't think this would solve the problem because then we would have to find other words to express the relation, the connection, of the various meanings. For example, when we use the word "freedom" we often use it in a number of different senses, but those senses are connected. And the connection of those senses is part of the significance of the word "freedom." If we were to have a different word for each meaning of the word "freedom," we wouldn't be able to express our sense of the connection of those different meanings.

I think the only solution--to the ambiguity of words as a barrier to communication or a difficulty with human speech--the only solution is not one of inventing an ideal or perfect language but rather using the language we have, using the words we have, to clarify the meanings of our words. We have to use speech in order to make speech itself more perfect or more usable or more effective. It is a hard job, one we must be continually at. And only by working at it can we bring our minds together through the medium of language."

This is also something I've thought about... the fact that the words we use have multiple meanings but those meanings are all connected with that one word. And, like the word "rationale", we can break it down into small parts but there still is a connection with all those parts. So we have rationale, rational, ration, and ratio. If you think about all those words you can see a common thread. But you have to spend some time with it and think long and hard for clarity...

This will be a life long project! And anyone who loves language should endeavour to engage and wrestle with this problem. Philologists (those engaged in literary study or classical scholarship), philosophers (those who regulate their lives, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason), theologians (those versed in the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions), scientists (those engaged in the study of knowledge, especially that gained through experience), you name it, everyone who uses language (all men!) should be wrestling with this problem, in order to make our language more perfect and to communicate with one another more perfectly.


Then I have this,

HOMOPHONE = "Same sound, same or different mark and different meaning"
HOMONYM = "Same mark or sound, different meaning"
SYNONYM = "Same meaning, different mark or sound"
ANTONYM = "Opposed meanings, and hence different marks and different sounds"

PHEW, you could go ON and ON with this! This was quite a workout!!


(Theology, philosophy, philology, theosophy)???
link7 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jan. 9th, 2007|10:34 pm]
cellistkjp
IS ANYONE READING MY JOURNAL? If not I can stop posting. I have my own journal in my bedroom and I have myspace that I know people are reading. I don't need this one.

Here's something I performed a few years back... well, Feb of 2000. Grieg Piano Concerto in A minor, second movement. It's nice, eh?

http://www.uploading.com/files/VLSWNL62/05_Grieg___w_Solano_2000_2001.m4a.html
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]