Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
...The kynd of luf [love] es this, thar it es trayst [trustful] and trew:
To stand styll in stabylnes, and chaunge it for na new.
The life [man] that lufe myght fynd, or ever in hert it knew,
Fra care it turnes that kyend, and lendes in myrth and glew [glee].
For now lufe thou, I rede [advise], Criste, as I thee tell,
And with aungels take thy stede [place]; that joy loke thou noght sell.
In erth thou hate, I rede, all that thy lufe may fell [fall];
For luf es stalworth as the dede [dead], luf es hard as hell.
Luf es a lyght byrthen, lufe gladdes yong and alde;
Lufe es withowten pyne, als lofers [lovers] hase me talde.
Lufe es a gastly [ghostly] wine, that makes men bygge and balde [bold].
Of lufe sal [shall] he na thyng tine [lose], that hit [it] in hert will halde.
Lufe es the swettest thyng that man in erth hase tane;
Lufe es Goddes derlyng; lufe byndes blode and bane [bone].
In lufe be oure lykyng, I ne wate na better wane [dwelling?].
For me and my lufyng, lufe makes bath be ane [one].
Bot fleschly lufe sal fare as dose the flowre in May,
And last and be na mare than ane houre of a day;
And sythen [afterward] syghe ful sare [sore] thar lust, thar pryde, thar play,
When thay er casten in kare til thyne that lastes ay.
When thair bodys lyse [lies] in syn, thair sawls may qwake and drede,
For up sal ryse al men, and answer for thair dede [deed].
If thay be fonden [found] in syn, als now thair lyfe thay lede,
Thay sal sytt hel within, and myrknes [murkness, i.e., darkness] hafe to mede.
Riche men thair handes sal wryng; and wicked werkes sal by,
In flawme of fyre, bath knyght and keyng, with sorow schamfully.
If thou wil lufe, than may thou syng til Criste in melody.
The lufe of Hym overcoms al thyng; tharto thou traiste [trust] trewly.
I sigh and sob, bath day and nyght, for ane sa fayre of hew.
Thar es na thyng my hert may light, bot lufe, that es ay new.
Whasa had hym in his syght, or in his hert hym knew,
His mournyng turned til [into] joy ful bryght, his sang intil glew [music].
In myrth he lyfes, nyght and day, that lufes that swete chylde;
It es Jesu, forsoth I say, of all mekest and mylde.
Wreth [wrath] fra hyrn walde at away, thof [though] he wer never sa wylde,
He that in hert lufed hym, that day fra evel he wil hym schylde.
Of Jesu mast lyst [most pleaseth] me speke, that al my bale may bete [my ill may balm].
Me thynk my hert may al to breke, when I thynk on that swete.
In lufe lacid [ensnared] he hase my thoght, that sal I never forgete.
Ful dere, me thynk, he hase me boght, with blody hende and fete...
Needless to say, if someone else is functioning on a mediocre level of rationality and intelligence you have that much less reason to be offended by their opinion; in fact, you are yourself a fool if you are. By the same token, it makes obvious sense to take seriously only the views and beliefs of those who show sincere and thoughtful concern about something. For if they don't actually care, say, for instance, about government, justice, humanity, public welfare, the environment, etc., what purpose does it serve being affected or influenced much or at all by them?
Now with (ahem) "these" people, as you may already know, things are warped because they attribute any and everyone's interest and desire (say, for someone and something) exclusively to selfishness, and themselves have no genuine or heartfelt sense of empathy or sympathy, and so construe these last as merely feigned and or egoistical pretexts and disguises.
They want the real, but not the truth. Yet how can you have the one without the other?
Needless to say, if someone else is functioning on a mediocre level of rationality and intelligence you have that much less reason to be offended by their opinion; in fact, you are yourself a fool if you are. By the same token, take serously only the views and beliefs of those who show sincere and thoughtful concern about something. For if they don't actually care, say, for instance, about government, justice, humanity, public welfare, the environment, etc., what purpose does it serve being affected or influenced much or at all by them?
Now with (ahem) "these" people, as you may already know, things are warped because they attribute any and everyone's interest and desire (say, for someone and something) exclusively to selfishness, and themselves have no genuine or heartfelt sense of empathy or sympathy, and so construe these last as merely feigned and or egoistical pretexts and disguises.
They want the real, but not the truth. Yet how can you have the one without the other?
(Does anyone by chance and in passing know the current going rate for autographs of Phil Tucker, Dwain Espser, Arthur Wontur, or O'Dale Ireland?)
It's true I tell you! It's true! Stupid, ignorant, and irrational people everywhere are being, recruited, enlisted, and indoctrinated -- en masse -- to become cannibals and attack the human race!
(Awww, but what good does it do...?)
Not so long ago, I came across somewhere in my reading someone saying to the effect something like "Abuse (or else scolding) is not instruction." This morning try as I might, I could not recall or find where I'd read it. This not inconsiderably disappointed me; as the statement expressed something both very correct and relevant, and which I would have liked to have quoted. Oh well, at least I remembered the basic idea, and yet to which further we might expand by saying -- abuse or scolding are useless as methods of teaching unless the person who resorts to them can, at the same time, also explain their meaning and intent calmly, objectively, and logically. The addition or qualification is important because most people who do frequently scold cannot explain themselves very rationally or rationally at all to begin with.
Later. I found it! The quote comes from a book of Latin phrases and reads "Abusus not tollit usum," and which literally means "Abuse does not abrogate (or annul) use," but which one translator extends further to "Abuse is no argument against the use of anything."
They betrayed and gave up everything good and of true worth for money, but now get less for their money than anyone else because they don't know the real value of anything.
Sign (and Taste) of the Times
Notwithstanding all the Starkist nay-sayers of days gone by, looks like Charlie has the last laugh.
“THE FINEST SOIL IN THE WORLD FOR THE CULTURE OF LAURELS…": One of Gen. Greene’s aides, Capt. William Pierce, Reports News from the Southern Department; for which see http://www.gunjones.com/Capt-William-Pierce.pdf
Mischievous Peter Pan is but a demon in low gear; Jack the Ripper, the same but set to high.
"And Indeed that Christ Was Not Only Man, But God Also; That Even as He Was the Son of Man, So Also He Was the Son of God.
"But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. For there is a great risk of saying that the Saviour of the human race was only man; that the Lord of all, and the Chief of the world, to whom all things were delivered, and all things were granted by His Father, by whom all things were ordained, all things were created, all things were arranged, the King of all ages and times, the Prince of all the angels, before whom there is none but the Father, was only man, and denying to Him divine authority in these things. For this contempt of the heretics will recoil also upon God the Father, if God the Father could not beget God the Son. But, moreover, no blindness of the heretics shall prescribe to the truth. Nor, because they maintain one thing in Christ and, do not maintain another, they see one side of Christ and do not see another, shall there be taken away from us that which they do not see for the sake of that which they do. For they regard the weaknesses in Him as if they were a man's weaknesses, but they do not count the powers as if they were a God's powers. They keep in mind the infirmities of the flesh, they exclude the powers of the divinity; when if this argument from the infirmities of Christ is of avail to the result of proving Him to be man from His infirmities, the argument of divinity in Him gathered from His powers avails to the result also of asserting Him to be God from His works. For if His sufferings show in Him human frailty, why may not His works assert in Him divine power? For if this should not avail to assert Him to be God from His powers, neither can His sufferings avail to show Him to be man also from them. For whatever principle be adopted on one or the other side, will be found to be maintained. For there will be a risk that He should not be shown to be man from His sufferings, if He could not also be approved as God by His powers. We must not then lean to one side and evade the other side, because any one who should exclude one portion of the truth will never hold the perfect truth. For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when be is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the 'Son of David,' so as God He is proclaimed David's Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man 'under the law,' [Galatians 4:4] so as God He is declared to be 'Lord of the Sabbath.' And in the same manner as He suffers, as man, the condemnation, so as God He is found to have all judgment of the quick and dead. And in the same manner as He is born as man subsequent to the world, so as God He is manifested to have been before the world. And in the same way as He was begotten as man of the seed of David, so also the world is said to have been ordained by Him as God. And in the same way as He was as man after many, so as God He was before all. And in the same manner as He was as man inferior to others, so as God He was greater than all. And in the same manner as He ascended as man into heaven, so as God He had first descended thence. And in the same manner as He goes as man to the Father, so as the Son in obedience to the Father He shall descend thence. So if imperfections in Him prove human frailty, majesties in Him affirm divine power. For the risk is, in reading of both, to believe not both, but one of the two. Wherefore as both are read of in Christ, let both be believed; that so finally the faith may be true, being also complete. For if of two principles one gives way in the faith, and the other, and that indeed which is of least importance, be taken up for belief, the rule of truth is thrown into confusion; and that boldness will not confer salvation, but instead of salvation will effect a great risk of death from the overthrow of the faith."
~ ~Novation (?-258 A.D.), Treatise on the Trinity, ch. 11.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- and Creation. So that by and aside from this paradigm, there might be said to be no other person or thing. Moreover, in these, and these alone, lie perhaps the end and all of sanity and meaning.
And here is, to me at any rate, an interesting thing:
The value pi is the circumference of a circle over its diameter; which we might schematized thus:
So that we have in this a formula of 4 main elements: 1) The circle; 2) its circumference; 3) the diameter; and 4) the ratio of 2) to 3). The value of which last is, of course, 3.14; noting as well that all common ratios are measured in threes (2,3,4), and which three in turn express or give form to or from a unity and or physical (or empirical) existent (1).
