Author Archives

by

Jesus’ Burial Cloth- Why Folded? – Reading the Bible – why are people so slpppy?

I got an email today, which referenced this article by Ma CiCi – a true Biblical scholar, no doubt.  She’ wondering why Jesus folded the burial “napkin” that was “on his face” in the tomb. Jesus’ Burial Cloth- Why Folded?.

Did you ever wonder and think: Just ‘why’ did Jesus fold up this cloth and lay it, separated from the other linen after His resurrection?

She decides to link this idea to a “Hebrew tradition” of table manners: when you’re don eating – really done – you’re supposed to wad your napkin up and throw it on your plate.  If you’re just going ptty or something, you instead fold your napkin to indicate to the waiters that you are coming back (not to clear your place).

In order to understand the significance of the folded cloth, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition. The folded napkin had to do with a clear message between a Master and his Servant. Every Jewish person knows this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for his master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. After the table was perfectly furnished perfectly then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating. The servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished.

So, first of all, I’ve never thought of this as a Hebrew tradition between Master and Servant – I learned it when I started going to restaurants other than IHOP, as just common restaurant etiquette.  I’ve noticed many times that this etiquette has mostly disparaged in Amerika.  But, here’s a short description of how to use your napkin at a restaurant (from http://whatscookingamerica.net/Menu/DiningEtiquetteGuide.htm):

As soon as you are seated, remove the napkin from your place setting, unfold it, and put it in your lap. Do not shake it open. At some very formal restaurants, the waiter may do this for the diners, but it is not inappropriate to place your own napkin in your lap, even when this is the case.

The napkin rests on the lap till the end of the meal. Don’t clean the cutlery or wipe your face with the napkin. NEVER use it to wipe your nose!

If you excuse yourself from the table, loosely fold the napkin and place it to the left or right of your plate. Do not refold your napkin or wad it up on the table either. Never place your napkin on your chair.

At the end of the meal, leave the napkin semi-folded at the left side of the place setting. It should not be crumpled or twisted; nor should it be folded. The napkin must also not be left on the chair.

I mean, the burial cloth is NOT a friggin napkin!  It’s interesting how many translations do refer to it as a “napkin” – even more interesting, the number of different terms used (see bottom of this post). But, for certain, it’s not a restaurant: it’s a tomb!   So, the whole argument she’s making – The folded cloth give this clear message, saying, “I’m not finished yet. I’m coming back!” – is just not valid – that is to say, her conclusion is not made in a valid way.

I’m not saying that the message is wrong.  I don’t even really care that Miss CiCi has limited academic skill, but feels the need to spread theological musings among people who also lack the academic skills to assess her conclusions for themselves.  I actually want to know what the truth is!

It bothers me, too, that  Miss CiCi says “on his face, ” when the NIV translation she quotes says:

the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head.

This also varies in translations (see below).  The point is: how can you say one thing in one sentence, and then some something different in,like, the next sentence.

The actual Hebrew tradition involves the Tachrichim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachrichim). Here are some salient observations:

The traditional clothing for burying the dead are tahrihim, simple white shrouds.

Regardless of gender, they include shirt, pants, a head covering, and a belt.

If the body has been prepared for burial with ritual cleansing (taharah), the body will automatically be dressed in tahrihim.

Tahrihim swaddle the entire body, including the face, so that the deceased is both clothed and protected against the gaze of other people. If shrouds are used, the body is placed in the coffin, which is then closed. In Israel, it is customary to bury the deceased (except soldiers) without a coffin – The body is carried to the grave wrapped in a tallit..

Finally, why does she think that Jesus folded the burial garments? In John 20:12, Mary meets the two angels that had attended to Jesus.

and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

I’m thinking they folded the stuff.  I mean, you think the angels said to Jesus, “Hey, we’re not folding your crap!  What,you’re leaving your tomb a mess? Fold that Tahrihim up before you rise from the dead!”

But, in the end, all this bitchin’, and I don’t have an alternative answer!  Except to say that Hebrew tradition is so much stronger than any WASP/Amerikan trandtions that it is difficult for non Jews to “feel” the inherent power in traditional acts, when they are presented.  In other words, the writers of the scriptures simply would not think of leaving the Tahrihim unfolded.  Just like some people do get offended if you don’t immediately unfold your napkin at a restaurant and put it in your lap.

—————————-  How is “napkin” tranlsated in John 20:7? ———————

New International Version (©1984)
as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

New Living Translation (©2007)
while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.

English Standard Version (©2001)
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

International Standard Version (©2008)
and that the handkerchief that had been on Jesus’ head was not lying with the linen cloths but was rolled up in a separate place.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He also saw the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head. It wasn’t lying with the strips of linen but was rolled up separately.

King James Bible
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

American King James Version
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

American Standard Version
and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.

Bible in Basic English
And the cloth, which had been round his head, not with the linen bands but rolled up in a place by itself.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.

Darby Bible Translation
and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself.

English Revised Version
and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Weymouth New Testament
and the towel, which had been placed over the face of Jesus, not lying with the cloths, but folded up and put by itself.

World English Bible
and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.

Young’s Literal Translation
and the napkin that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but apart, having been folded up, in one place;

by

just a wild thought – what about Des Moines Noir?

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1220384697061650839PZNYDn

fiction could be no truer than the sordid crime being perpetrating outside one of the cold-calling debt collection agencies in downtown Des Moines Iowa. I mean the smoking area for employees of course, outside the front door of Debt Collection Solutions or whatever on Grand or something.. it’s so real it doesn’t have to really have any elements of reality!

downtown Des Moines?  never been there? that’s because no one has ever been there – really.  if you ever saw the Twighlight Zone where the girl is waiting for the bus at the bus depot – forever! -for the bus that will never come! then you have some picture of Court Street, in the wee hours of the morn.

Noir!? I’d call it “Nuage”… Des Moines Nuage

by

book review Miami Noir: the timing of unfelt smiles, by john dufresne (sunny isles)

Miami Noir – Google Books.

via Miami Noir – Google Books.

the “noir” books started, I guess, with Brooklyn Noir – you know, “noir” stories set locally, written by local writers. so, they are anthologies, and as such, have their ups and downs.

I thought “the timing of unfelt smiles” by john dufresne was a gem, from a philosophical point of view (could have been written better, but a great deal of fiction these days is “one-legged” – just happy to be ambulant at all!). You can read this entire story at google.books.

the “detective role” in this one as played by a character who has a special cognitive ability.  this interests me, aside from its development as an element in the story (has everything to do with the title).  he is desribed as an “intuitionist”, says he “read(s) faces and furniture”, can “look at a person, at his expressions, his gestures,his clothing, his home, and his possessions, and I can tell you what he’s thinking.”   the author even psuedo-cites Dr. Cabrera from University of Miami’s Cognitive Thinking Lab.

well, they probably wouldn’t call the lab “Cognitive Thinking”, would they.  There is The Center for Cognitive Neurosciences at UM, however, which is also a little dumb, in the same way, isn’t it?  anyway, I’m a charter patient….

in the end, it’s his ability to read the expressions (which fails him) that provides us with the climax to the story.  there are  indeed some interesting observations about how people physically plot a fairly complete personal geometry.  but I’m reading a lot into this..

“She had a dimple on her right cheek, like she was used to smiling out of one side of her face. This ingrained unevenness suggested a lifetime of feigned emotion.”

I also like this:

“You don’t think he’s sincere?”

“I think sincerity is his honesty.”

I though about that a lot – drawing a distinction between how a person can be completely committed to his or her own values, even though those values were completely contrived – had no basis in an “honest” assessment of oneself or of the worlds around.”  if that’s what he meant…. he talks about it at the end…

“people who feel that the world has let them down, who can’t imagine existence without their own presence. Dishonest people.”

don’t know if I follow this completely.  but I do believe that  illogic flourishes in modern life, enabled by humans rather advanced cognitive ability to craft discrete worlds of their own, which are impenetrable by an accidental intrusion of “truth” or “fact.”  we’ve gotten smart enough to build the best mouse trap – one invented by the mouse himself!

I also liked this romantic idea:

“You can always tell a happy marriage.  People in love begin to acquire each others traits, each others styles , – thye being to look and act alike.  They want to please. They admire each other and, naturally enough, want to be come what they esteem and cherish.”

by

Peyton Manning doesn’t make mistakes

Here are some highlights from the Wikipedia article for Peyton Williams Manning:

  • He is widely regarded as one of the best quarterbacks of all time, and has the record for most NFL MVP awards with four.[1]
  • Manning holds NFL records for consecutive seasons with over 4,000 yards passing and the most total seasons with 4,000 or more yards passing in a career.[3][4]
  • Manning holds the third-highest career passer rating (95.2) among active quarterbacks
  • He is the all-time Colts franchise leader in career wins, career passing yards, pass attempts, pass completions, and passing touchdowns.[5]
  • Since the Colts drafted Manning in 1998, the team has the highest conversion rate on 3rd down (44.6%) and 4th down (61.1%) plays in the NFL. While leading the Colts to their Super Bowl XLI victory in 2007, Manning helped the team to an NFL record by converting 56.1% of its 3rd downs.[7]

Now tell me this: how does that guy throw an interception in the 4th quarter of the Superbowl?  I mean, any OTHER mistake maybe.  But for Peyton Manning? Not an interception.

Oh, Americans kill you if you haunt their football! I mean, how much money do you think was riding on the Vegas call of Indiana by 5?  Of course, you know the way to make money in gambling is to be AGAINST the odds, e.g. that the Saints would win by some crazy circumstance – like an interception in the 4th quarter, trhown by one of the greatest passing QBs in history.  How much?  You think ‘b-b-b-billions?” Or just millions?

by

legion

darn! I wanted this movie to be really good! darn it!

but I am not hating – I actually feel kind of paternal toward whoever the writer was – some 26-year-old probably.  had that feel of the “noble enterprise” to it.  guy wants to write that epic screenplay.

the previews cried out “creepy Satan movie”.  had the old lady crawling on the ceiling like some  kind of bat-rodent. love that. and, actually, that scene in the movie was just what was advertised the old lady eats bloody meat, crawling with maggots, and says “your fucking baby is going to burn.”  that’s the right stuff!

but then “that movie” is over. onto the epic movie of all times, the movie about Armageddon and the Bible and wasted vs. useful lives.  The Grapes of Wrath, written by somebody who just read (yesterday, in Cliff Notes) “Paradise Lost.”  Or, at least the title of that book, or the other one. Or the Bible.

Because then we go into “dialogues” and “character sketches” for almost the rest of the movie.  we get only like two more creepy scenes – and they’re pretty good.  Great imagery-references to Beelzebub and “lord of flies”.

Ok.  there are 3 archangels, not 2.  Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. You can’t just show tow archangels, kid!  This is what we call “integrity” in art. Everything fits together.  Imagine my new movie with the “2 Stooges”!

Angel Alphabet – I guess.  Did the guy really know about the Angel Alphabet, or were those tattoos from Ja-Heim?

And the “good kid” – the one who inherits the sacred symbols and protects the second savior (I guess…don’t really know that story or even if there is such a story.  I mean, we have the Antichrist, which requires a second virgin birth. but nowhere do we think that Savior 2 will be born.  It’s the same guy, Jesus, again!). Anyway, can’t stand that guy’s dumb-honest look for such long screen shots!

All in all, the problem, once again, is the writer’s strike.  Apparently, it had the effect of installing low-paid post-teen writers for even the high price films. Crap! Bad writing ruins another good idea!

by

eliza

I was drawn in, again, to Eliza’s candied web of self-deception, and I will probably begin working on her in earnest. I mean the Eliza invented by Joseph Weizenbaum of MIT’s AI Laboratory in 1966, that simulates a Rogerian psychologist in interaction with the human inputter.

Of course in the 60’s people were quite stupid (prior to the Revolution, the Soft Parade Revolution, lead by Jim Morrison and John Lennon); actually, people remained quite stupid, even after this revolution. But I’m talking about the TV talk shows like Johnny Carson, who would say things like, “Scientists believe that, in the future (that is part of the stupidity), computers may actually be able to think just like humans.” Then, Johnny would say something intelligent like, “Gee whiz, are computers really regressing that rapidly?” followed by uproarious canned laughter, Ed-chortle, Johnny secretly thinking about snorting coke and fucking three women in the same bed in the same night, Ed farting silently, most other Americans thinking “huh, huh, huh, imagine thoses scientists thinkin that kind of thing computers thinking jest like hyoomuns never gonna be thinking jest like ME, no sir-eee,” and then they go to focusing on the real America at that time, which can be summed up with the word “high-ball.”

back to Eliza, though… The point is, at that time, computer scientists were kind of dumb too, and so were psychologists, so all new AI programs were subjected to the (Alan) Turing test, which has human subjects try to guess which of either another human or the AI computer is the actual computer, not being able to see either one, of course –

Gawd! dey weren’t DAT stoopid back den!

– with the 60s-funny conditions that both the computer and the human “foil” would be allowed to lie, i.e., if asked, the computer would say “no, I am not a computer,” and the human…well, you know what the human would be allowed to say, by now.

finally…I might be edging toward the interesting part… most of the web sites, and even (God forbid) the encyclopedia, erroneously report that “people couldn’t tell the difference!” Of course, they could, and did. To date, no program has passed the Turing test.

no, the interesting thing about Eliza was precisely that people DID know she was a computer program, but chose, even after the experiment was over, to GO BACK TO HER. yes, indeed, the byte-chair psychologist – naturally, a chic – sucked the psycho-sick society in. it’s really not so strange, nor does it have anything to do with AI.

I think Eliza is the same as the I Ching, except that Confucius was much smarter than Joseph Weizenbaum, or , Roget, for that matter. The I Ching has a large collection of life scenarios and wisdom-bits, linkable to one another by the metaphorical richness of Chinese folk sayings, but made oddly ‘real’ by the incorporation of chance – in a practice using I Ching, you toss 3 Chines cash coins, then construct a pictogram derived from the head/tails combinations; the pictograms are numbered, and, describe full metaphorical connections. In contrast, the goal of Eliza is to use logical predication combined with a vast lexicon, so that Eliza’s responses are precisely NOT random, or based on statistical probability in any way.

now, the easiest way to write an Eliza is to use the probability – you have a key word, followed by multiple responses, which have probability ratings. This has a logic “flavor” to it, but it usually pisses me off when I see this kind of Eliza – mostly because it might be valid if the programmer were to create an exhaustive analysis of the response-probability, based on an actual lexicon which contained a gargantuan collection of actual responses to all the words/syntax patterns “in the dictionary”. That would be all right, and maybe, more accurate than the logic programming approach, which allows us to string together a long discussion thread. The probability approach just gives you request-response pairs; the only “thread” would be going on in YOUR mind; the logical Eliza would have a thread going on in her mind, as well, and it would likely match yours.

but, now, I question whether the symlogic Eliza is better than Confucius. consider this: the danger of logic, at least the propositional calculus we have developed to represent what we THINK is some kind of natural causality, this type of logic is, ultimately, finitely predictable. That is, using propositional calculus, we can prove anything to be true that we want to – it is a discrete system, immune to the empirical method. in other words, it resembles precisely the way that we as humans lie to ourselves – already! we didn’t need fucking mathematicians to tell us how to rationalize our own behavior, in a way that was most pleasing to ourselves! what we need is someone who challenges us – who surprises us with a radically different way of looking at our problems, which we have analyzed into complete paralysis on our own. This is why I like the I Ching – and the Celtic Runes, and the Tarot, etc… their randomness allows us to use them as “personal oracles” – you don’t know what the oracle will say, because she incorporates that mysterious idea of “fate”. I’ve found even the Catholic Rosary, if you use it in its original, bi-planar way – that is, chant the mantra while simultaneously considering a metaphysical construct (ok…a “miracle”), your own mind becomes the random generator, in that, as with dreaming, the sub-conscious mind will scatter, while the conscious mind will attempt to order – a chaotic feed into a rationaliz-er…eliz-er….Eliza.

so today, I went shopping for an new Prolog implementation; found Visual Prolog, with C and C++ interpreters, to begin building my next-gen Eliza; this time, though, I’m throwing some I Ching into her; and I’m naming her Angelina…

by

what next

so, there you are. you’ve spent some time with a person, and, at a certain point in time, you both become aware that you love one another. happens.

“I love you very much”
“yep. same”

now what? what do you do next? should you do anything?

“well, it FEELS like we should do something” *

even though that “feels like it” idea has had fleck thrown all over it for the last couple of billion years, I think we should find it again. I think it’s intuition, which is NOT an adopted societally conditioned response, although I give you, that the answer,

“let’s get married..”

…probably is.

“just keep on loving each other, I guess…”

wrong. you can’t make that promise. neither of you owns the love that’s between you, nor did either of you make it. you could call it a gift if you were Shel Silverstein, or Leonard Nimoy. it’s like

“I promise you, that I will keep this kite in the sky forever.”

– because the wind is not yours to control***

it’s like a cold that one of you gives to the other; you both have the same cold, spawned from the same virus, and one gave and the other accepted, gratefully. **** but, someday you will either die from the virus, you both will get over it, or one will get over it first, and, like in the animal kingdom, hide it (in this case, the lack of sickness, which is like a sickness, in love) from the other. so, all that generates three new answers:

a) “I promise to love you, till death do us part.” – which is clearly bogus, because it’s so mortal, so limited. like,

“…and then, baby, when I’m dead, I’s gonna find me a NEW one!”

b) “Let’s promise to not be bitter if love leaves us both”

I do like this one, but I’ve tried it several times, and it doesn’t seem to work. I don’t think it ever happens simultaneously, and also, it seems like one of you always feels bitter.

c) “I promise to tell you, if I stop loving you” (well, you could phrase it like, “…when love leaves me behind”)

This is one I’d settle on. Actually, it’s the one I said in the dream, just a minute ago, to the woman who doesn’t exist. It’s what inspired me to write this thing. But then, I woke up. Of course, you break all the promises. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make them. At least one. And try to keep it. a covenant helps. Like Nicorette. So, my clear waking mind tells me:

1) Love is a feeling; it’s real.
2) You know its real, because you didn’t create it (if you did, it’s called a self-serving lie)
3)…because you don’t control it; can’t; don’t want to.
4) there is a next; maybe not a God, but definitely, a next —————————

da footnotes—————————————–

*[and by the way, we’ve already done the “fucking” part, for those of you Weisenheimers just quivering to give YOUR answer.]

**[…to the question. remember? it’s all about the question “What next?”…. my butterfly-driven thought patterns, I fear, allow you to forget the point..me too]

***[ not because you couldn’t control it, given enough time – at least, guide it – I don’t believe you want to control it (and maybe – let’s do go there – it doesn’t want to be controlled)]

****[Mrs. Schmidt told me that colds were gifts from the Holy Spirit – they make you stronger, build up your immunity, clean you out – or, kill you]

by

where – o, how – to start writing

I always have trouble know where to start – writing that is. but now I think…you don’t start. it’s already been started. you’re just jumping in. or butting in. or a footnote. those are your decisions – not how to start.*

*[when to use elipses -the three periods – is NOT a decision you have to make. there are rules, since it’s an orthographic symbol. it means pause. or, pause plus I have more to say (like in a chatroom). I just gotta police myself better!]

by

in St Louis

this one has multiple piercings, in both ears. and, allegedly, his scrotum. this is intermediate-level. advanced is 3-d inserted tattoos and permanent hooks for hanging, in your kneecaps. but, on some people, this guy, it looks like someone really had to force the shit in there. it was clearly painful, but not in the liberating way. like those rings don’t belong there. he had them put there, because he wanted liberation; but he couldn’t be more choked by the shackles of self-control, social decorum, propriety in every single other aspect of his being. so, his piercings shout “Hey! Help Me Out. Out”

this one owns, maybe just runs, a skatepark. does trick bike. has been done unto. “as you would have others do unto you” time and drugs and lots, lots more time. Twoface, from Batman, but in this case, one face is outside, smashed, the other inside, the shining eyes. shining eyes surrounded by faceroads, dirt track, the trick bike and tracks from hard knocks, said the Fox to Nox. but he freed me, saved me, twice, not just once. and not, “either my way or the highway,” either, like Jeshua, “God saves.” “go learn to pump the mini, dude. nobody’s on it. if they come, take your turn. fuck ’em. you paid yer sesh. just gotta walk through that door.”