Ocean of Truth

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Isaac Newton


I do not know about the rest of the world, but for myself, I think I am satisfied to be the small child on the shore, earnestly gathering and polishing the small, usually broken, shells God strews in my path.

My place is here in the shallows, learning to look, to wonder, to think, ponder, love.

I am not much more than a seashell on the fingertip of God.

But then,  a seashell is an astonishment and a wonder.

Praise to the One who creates the seashells, the ocean of truth, ourselves, and wonder itself.

What a flat world it would be without wonder.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Response

Read Good Books

Find any advice on being a good reader, and you will see good reading being stressed as a requirement. You don’t get good output without good input.

Charlotte Mason said, and I agree, that the mind requires ideas as the body requires food. How do we provide food for our children’s bodies? We serve them plenty of nourishing food, we serve meals regularly. We don’t expect them to just eat whatever they find in a haphazard, careless way. We might study some nutrition so their meals are well-balanced, and we don’t let them spoil their appetites with too many sweets between meals. But what we don’t do is try to digest their food for them first and then serve them pellets of vitamins. We don’t do blood tests at every meal to make sure they absorbed the right nutrients. We don’t put windows on their stomachs so we can examine their digestive processes.
The mind needs regular, healthy meals. Children are born loving to learn. Has anybody ever has to teach a normal child to ask why? of course the child is capable of learning without gimmickry, the same way a child can digest his food without additional supports. The natural hunger of the mind does not need to be tampered with or supplemented unless something is wrong.

What is the proper food for the mind?  Ideas, and Mason said children come into contact with good ideas through reading the best books.  In volume 6, she spend the first half explaining her educational principles and she specifically mentions books over 90 times.  The books are just that important.

Learning is good for the soul.   This is true for children, and it is true for adults as well. Next time you feel frustrated, burnt out, and empty, consider taking a little time to find something good and worthwhile to learn.  It need not be earth-shattering.  Just discover something outside yourself that will feed your mind.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mixed emotions

When you prefer to blog anonymously  because you are an introvert and you have spilled some pretty naked feelings in this space and also used it for fierce
rants you are not always proud of and Kdrama fangirling like a teenybopper…

…And your husband is proud and keeps sharing the link and outing you to people who know you IRL.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Responses

You’re so defensive

I have seen this tactic used a lot (not just or even primarily against me, but in Twitter or FB discussions where I am merely an anonymous lurking reader).  Person A has a very non-mainstream, minority preference (on some medical treatment, a religious POV, on education, or whatever).  Person B argues and quickly is outclassed and resorts to ‘Why so defensive, bro?’

Most of the time, mainstream choices are the default choices, the things you do because you assume that is the way to go.  Assume is really too strong a word, though.  They are givens.  You don’t even know they are assumptions.  I’ve made lots of those choices myself, everybody does, and nobody has time or energy to challenge and investigate every single single one of their culture’s practices over and over.  It’s just the way it is.

But… when somebody does something different, usually that means they very deliberately chose it on purpose, rather than falling back on it because they never even thought of doing things differently.  So there’s no logical reason to be taken aback because they are in favor of their non-default choice and have several reasons they can give you at the drop of a hat to defend those choices.

 

Now, I am not saying that person A is always going to be right.  Sometimes people challenge mainstream practices because they are just contrary iconoclasts.  I expect I’ve done that, too.  Probably being libertarian for a long time was more for that reason than for any other.

But… people who don’t take the default choice are more likely than not to have faced challenges on those choices frequently.  They are more likely than not to have done their homework and to stand  up for what they believe, know what they’re doing and why, and to be passionate  about it.  It leaves those who have taken the default choice without pausing to really investigate it and think about it a bit flatfooted, and that feels irritating.

It’s entirely possible that if somebody who took the default position took the time to investigate alternatives they would *still* choose the default position, only it wouldn’t be default any more.

But… there are a lot of people who take the default position without even realizing they took a position.  That’s okay.  Just be careful about being the kind of person who takes the default position *as* a default stance,  challenges those who didn’t, and resents it when they have an answer.  Explaining why you do what you do when challenged is not being defensive.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Response

Google isn’t any better than Snopes at fact checking

In fact, like Snopes, it’s basically partisan garbage, says one of its victims.

Consider:

Consider the case of a woman named Eileen Wellstone. Out of many thousands of pieces published by The Federalist over the past four years, a single one mentions the name Eileen Wellstone. That article, detailing the sordid history of Bill Clinton, mentions her name exactly once: “Another woman, Eileen Wellstone, claimed Clinton raped her while he was at Oxford University in the late 1960s.”

For some reason, in this “reviewed claim” against The Federalist, Google sends the reader to a Snopes fact-check that argues that Clinton wasn’t expelled from Oxford over this alleged rape — a point I concede sounds completely accurate and is also an assertion that no one has ever made in this publication.

So the question is, does Google tag every article that relays accusations of sexual misconduct or rape as “unproven,” or just the ones against Bill Clinton? Or is the mention of Wellstone specifically worthy of a claim? The Wellstone case has not only been cited in all types of publications (and not in efforts to debunk it, either; 1,2,3,4,5, and so on) but by The Washington Post’s own fact-checker.

In a 2016 article detailing allegations against Bill Clinton that might be brought up by then-candidate Donald Trump, WaPo notes, “Eileen Wellstone says she was assaulted by Clinton when he was a student at Oxford University in 1969.” There is virtually no difference between that statement and the one published in The Federalist. Not that Google search engines users would know this when they search for the influential newspaper.

Or take another purported fact-check regarding climate change, which…”

Read the rest.

Their ‘fact-checking’ is pretty onesided:

“Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.
No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.””

Read the rest. It’s pretty blatant.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


  • The Common Room on Facebook

  • Amazon: Buy our Kindle Books

  • Search Amazon


    Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

  • Brainy Fridays Recommends: