Monday, December 31, 2007

Bling Bling Burgers

0 comment(s)
Bertus: Dude, my stomach feels gassy.

Ernius: Your stomach and your brain. Care to tell me more? Like, maybe after the Apocalypse?

Bertus: Whoo, I think it was that second rice, shrimp, seaweed burger I had at Bling Bling Burger.

Ernius: Look, man, respect some boundaries. Don't bring that up again. Or at least, bring it up here on the pavement and let's be done with it. I already had to watch you eat it. You killed the two creatures from the lagoon, now don't pick through the pieces post mortem.

Bertus: What, you don't like Bling Bling's? It's different. It's not the same old, same old burger place.

Ernius: Well, eyelid cancer is not the same old, same old tumor either, but it still is what it is.

Bertus: Bling Bling's started in Japan, so it's got to be good enough to survive the international market. Gotta give props. Props?

Ernius: Actually, I think I know what Bling Bling's is. All the ideas other fast food places can't sell, they channel into one cover company: Bling Bling Burger. It's like a furniture store that periodically sells furniture-shaped kindling on the side. "Sales indicate the Seaweed Sassafrass isn't very popular in the Sunbelt. Let's…work it through the Bling-Blinger, give a snazzier name, High Seas High, or something like that."

Bertus: My stomach is gassy, and this is the sympathy I get from you.

Ernius: No, seriously, I read about it in the New York Times. Or at least, I dreamt of reading about it in some phantasmagorical publication I'll call the Times. Some companies hide their money laundering in off-shore shelter companies; the fast food gods just hide their ill-begotten nubbins in Bling Bling boxes.

Bertus: Eww, you said nubbins. We just ate. Come on, we've been walking for like two minutes. Where did you park?

Ernius: Exactly where my car is.


Ernius: All right, all those motorcycles moved out of my way from when we got here.

Bertus: I hate to break this to you, but at some point you're going to have to learn how to back you car out of or, dare I say it, into a parking space. You can't rely on these sweet spots to always open up so you can just roll in and roll out. Driving is not bowling.

Ernius: Statistically speaking, you're right. Some driver will at some point get stuck in some spot for some reason and have to pull off some complex maneuver to back out. Odds are only so good. But I am not some driver. The spots I pick are like magical asphalt shoes and my car is a gas-powered foot. I go in at the heel and just come right out the toe-end.

Bertus: I think you just committed a misdemeanor. Something about defacing public language and the common good.

Ernius: Oh, go back to bilging out your stomach. No, wait, you have to be my eyes for this one. That Mitsubishi's leanin' on me. A four-door!

Bertus: Sure, I'll be your eyes. I mean, why back out smoothly and efficiently when you can whittle your way out from here to the exit?

Ernius: The exit's just up there on the left. The front end is no problem. I'll just ease her on out….

Bertus: Ah, yes, easing her on out in this position. I believe it's called a 17-point turn. We read about it in Appendix G of my high school driving manual.

Ernius: Eyes, be my eyes! I'm concentrating. How's the Mitsubishi? Is it still leaning on me?

Bertus: No, no, it's fine. It backed out when you were on the eighth or ninth point of easing her on out.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

So when…?

0 comment(s)
Ernius: I couldn't believe it, the other day.

Bertus: What? What other day?

Ernius: My coworker. He was telling us about how he messed up being Santa.

Bertus: Yeah?

Ernius: Yeah. He forgot to set his alarm for the middle of the night. So he forgot to put a special something under the tree.

Bertus: Busted.

Ernius: Plus, the cookies and milk were still there. You'd think the mice at least might have shaved off a little of the evidence.

Bertus: So what did he do?

Ernius: The boy?

Bertus: No, the guy, your coworker.

Ernius: He ran some cover story about Santa sometimes comes later, since some gifts need more time for packing, or something.

Bertus: It's cases like these that drive psychotherapy.

Ernius: Funny thing was, the kid ended up running a better story himself.

Bertus: Yeah?

Ernius: "Dad," he said, "there's no chimney, and the door is locked."

Bertus: Ahhhhh, nice.

Ernius: That's exactly the sound this guy made when he told the story too. A long, raspy "Ahhhh," like no chimneys and locked doors was the best thing he'd heard of in months.

Bertus: So how old is this kid?

Ernius: That's what I asked too.

Bertus: So, how old is the kid?

Ernius: He's seven. Can you believe it?

Bertus: What, you never believed in Santa Claus?

Ernius: Sure I did. But it's amazing to see in retrospect how much effort parents put into the tale, for how long they feel obliged to, I mean.

Bertus: So when did you stop believing in Santa?

Ernius: I don't know. In those young years. They all blend together, except for the occasional flash of a horrible birthday party or some unnerving visit to the doctor. Six, seven? How about you?

Bertus: Well, I stopped believing pretty early. It was kind of hard.

Ernius: What happened?

Bertus: My dad got into a fist fight with Santa in our living room.

Ernius: Incredible. Was he in snow-frosted, red gym shorts or anything freaky?

Bertus: No, he was just a tower of crushed velvet and silver garlands. My dad kept ranting about, "Does this guy have a warrant?" and "How did he get in here?" Meanwhile, Santa kept waving his hands at my dad to calm him down. "Ho-ho-hold on, now, mister. I'm just blah blah blah."

Ernius: You saw all this?

Bertus: Yeah, I was hiding behind the Christmas tree. I was four or five.

Ernius: I'da pissed my pants. So they started fighting?

Bertus: Well, they kept their distance stepping in a slow circle for a little when. Santa kept backing up to the fireplace, and then he reached in and whipped out a massive reindeer antler. That's when my dad bum-rushed him. The Big Red One whacked at my dad a couple times with the antler, but it just bounced off his thick wool bathrobe. That's what my mom said she got him the year before.

Ernius: The antler?

Bertus: No, the bathrobe.

Ernius: Go on.

Bertus: Well, by now ornaments were tumbling off the tree, popping and cracking under them as they scrapped. The tree was pulled sideways like a bowing scribe in ancient China.

Ernius: Whoa, was that some kind of Santa mind trick?

Bertus: No, the string of tree lights was all twisted and bunched up under Santa and my dad. My mom was throwing tinsel at Santa, chanting something about the snowy light will fight him, but it was mostly just falling on my dad's head, getting in his eyes and mouth, so he kept wiping it off his neck and saying, "Leave this to me." Santa kept shouting out names like Donner and Blitzen and Rudolph, but my dad just kept saying, "Go back to the North Pole, fat man, go back."

Ernius: You must have been terrified.

Bertus: Actually, I was enthralled. I mean, this is my dad––beating the milk and cookies out of THE Santa Claus. Not like every other Christmas when he beat up some nobody impersonator at the mall. Once he got that antler out of Santa's leather glove, it was over. Santa kept squirming and rolling under my dad, trying to get to the fireplace. He got his arm under the hearth and was sucked right up the chimney like the fat kid in Willy Wonka. The wire for the tree lights must have caught on his boot or something, because when he went up, the tree shot down onto the carpet and slid to the fireplace till the cord snapped.

Ernius: Did anyone call the police?

Bertus: No way. Come on, whose gonna bust Santa Claus? You piss him off and the whole building goes giftless the next year.

Ernius: And that was the end of it?

Bertus: I wish. My dad's standing there huffing and puffing, shaking the antler in his hand like it's a key he doesn't know which door to put it in. All of a sudden we hear this high-pitched rushing sound, and a big red leg comes out of the chimney and kicks my dad in the back of the knee.

Ernius: Freaky.

Bertus: And up goes the whistling sound again, followed by a crazy ho-ho-ho chuckle. My dad stuck his head up the fireplace but soot started pouring down, so he shut the flue and said the hell with it. He made waffles and then we opened our gifts. Whichever ones weren't trampled in the fight, I mean.

Ernius: So did Santa ever come back?

Bertus: Not that I know of. I know once or twice we got long distance phone calls from Greenland and northern Canada. And once, but I can't really say this is Santa, my dad's car got all scratched up with horns or claws or hiking boots or something.

Ernius: So, uh, Christmas must have been a pretty awkward holiday after that?

Bertus: My parents made the best of it. There were some lean years, though. Years when we only got gifts like muffin mix, or "wise" lectures written in our cards. One year I even got conditioner. I was ten. I think Santa must have screwed around with my parents' buying options, or they were just dead-set on working around him. I don't know, but fortunately when I was thirteen or so, my dad got a better job and just started giving us money. "Don't worry, son," he said, "these are unmarked bills so NO ONE can trace them." He always said it that way, too: his eyebrows rolled up and over and his yes went left and right when he said "no one", and he pressed the money into my hand like it was gold dust, all of which I never really picked up on, or at least understood, till after college. "Memory believes before knowing remembers," and all that.

Ernius: So did you ever try to get things straight with Santa, later in life, I mean?

Bertus: I can't say I hate Santa. I mean, he does a lot of good for a lot of kids. But he took a cheap shot at my dad, so how can I respect that?

Ernius: True. Very true. You gonna finish that egg nog?

I would like to develop this into a short comedy sketch. It's at a support group, in an empty office room. A guy stands up and says, "My name is ________, and I don't believe in Santa Claus." Then he starts telling this story. Meanwhile, every half-minute or so, a pack of power-suit traders stampedes across the room behind him, yelling "Buy, buy, buy!" as they run in one direction and "Sell, sell, sell!" as they run in the other. Each time they cross through, they would string one long spiraled phone cord between the doorways. As he tells his tale, the action takes place in front of the support group, though they are only aware of his speaking; the audience can see the boy, and the tree, and the fighting etc.This is one of a series of dialogues I'm created between Ernius and Bertus. I may work them up into a short sketch piece, sort of a surreal, dead-pan social commentary. The first piece is called "On the Earth…" and the second is called "They're like pigeons…" I'm still not settled on each character's voice––attitude, you could say––but there definitely should be a straight man in each dialogue.

The key, you see, is to see the key, you see…

0 comment(s)
"In any decision, the essence of foresight is to remember that hindsight is always better than insight." -- Elliam Fakespeare

Sunday, December 16, 2007

On the formalization of…

0 comment(s)
my ig'nance.

On 7 Nov. at ScIn I asked how to represent "and" in formal logic. Shortly after that, while reading Nagel's and Watson's Gödel's Proof, which in fact spurred my inscitia, they showed me how )on pg. 76).

p • q ≡ ¬(¬p V ¬q).

In other words, "It is not the case that 'not p' or 'not q'." Hence, it is the case that p and q.

So if I said, "John is tall and fat," I could formalize it, I think, as

(p is 'tall')(q is 'fat') → ∃x J(x) if x is ¬(¬p V ¬q).

Presumably, defining "or" in this way would happen thus:

p V q ≡ ¬(p • ¬p) ∧ ¬(q • ¬q)

which means, "It is not the case that both 'p' and 'not p' and 'q' and 'not q'."

As always, I stand wide open for correction.

Tres inscitiae…

1 comment(s)
at ScIn.

Come, marvel at my childlike ignorance!

Friday, December 14, 2007

That dirty old ditch has gots to be dugged

2 comment(s)
On October 26, I posted about the "positivity" of Christianity. This was in response to the blogs Brandon is/was doing about Lessing's various "ditches" poised between historical truth and rational faith. I have been busy with my own matters for the past month+, but I was finally able to get out of my system some points I had tried to make along the way in the comboxes there. I strongly encourage anyone interested to re-read both my post about the positivity of Christian faith and my post about paganism and history. Read them before or after reading these comments, I don't know, but they are all intended to hang together.

Mr. Loftus's argument seems to be that something of infinite value cannot be mediated by way of historical knowledge. Because historical knowledge is contingent and finite, then commitment to something absolute and infinite is not possible, historically speaking.

I find this to be a fallacious objection, since, first, all truths are historically mediated, and, second, I am certain Mr. Loftus acts according to infinite commitment with respect to at least one historically mediated matter: namely, his own personal identity. As for the first problem I have with his quibbles, we note that even deductive truths "make sense" given the proper historical context and experience. A being who had never handled more than one object could simply never grasp how 2 + 2 make 4. Nevertheless, that proposition is true and the being's failures to live according to it do not speak to truth value of my own commitment to it. My experience, my existential "handling" of life, is simply different from that of Mr. Loftus's, and hence, his own difficulties with Christian faith, while unfortunate, are not probative against my own.

As for the second, matter, personal identity, it cannot simply be assumed we are the "I" we think we are. In other words, the "I" we invest infinite and ceaseless care into protecting, cultivating, and preserving, is but a conjured suppositum of value based on a series of empirical stimuli we have, for who knows what reasons, assembled into an infinitely extensive, irreducible nexus of commitment. We cannot help but value our own ego as an object of infinite attention, since as soon as we lessen its value for altruistic, aesthetic, metaphysical, etc. reasons, we are but simply restructuring the materials at hand (Da-sein!) into a new form of egocentrism. JFK's assassination and the Lord's Resurrection may both be irrelevant ('ditched', so to speak) to Mr. Loftus, but the constant index of what arranges them in relation to his own commitments is nothing less than the historically constructed Self he chooses to assert, valuatively, over this evidence or that, this event or that claim.

The point of all this is that Mr. Loftus's reservations about history prove too much, so much in fact that he is left with no basis for countenancing ANYTHING as worthy of infinite commitment. Indeed, as I asked at the very beginning of this series of posts about Lessing, what does Mr. Loftus consider meet for such commitment? If nothing, then he simply has no ability for assessing the value of Christian faith, as it proclaims a category of commitment he can't even countenance. If anything, on what grounds does he lay hold of it? Is his atheism worthy of infinite commitment? Why? Because the evidence compels him beyond all ditches? Denial of God is an infinite claim about the universe; such claims about the All are inherently religious and therefore inherently fraught with leaps beyond what we KNOW deductively. Anything short of such an infinite denial of God, aka agnosticism, is only a personal objection to Christianity, not an argument against it. There is no countering an absolute claim with personal diffidence. I may believe, wrongly, there is a green unicorn under my bed, but it is not a RATIONAL objection against that belief to say, well, I myself don't think there is. Until Mr. Loftus is willing to say, not simply that the evidence sure seems weak to him, but that, in fact, there is evidence that manifestly refutes Christianity, then his problems are more pastoral than philosophical.

All this is because the human person is ESSENTIALLY relative, essentially trinitarian, essentially opened-upwards -to-God and outwards-to- neighbor. The human person is ESSENTIALLY faith-based and naturally guided by created desires for good. We act based on trust incalculably more than on knowledge. Absent a knock-down inductive proof against Christianity (or some long-sought deductive argument there against), Mr. Loftus's only weapon is to argue it is irrational to believe without the evidence he assumes we need. But unless there is already a common fund of lexical, conceptual, cultural, etc., background about what counts for and against the question, he cannot so easily parse rationality for me or someone else.

Further, faith is eminently rational; it fulfills two core criteria of rational choice theory.

1) It does not stand in flagrant violation of pertinently known evidence. The whole point of this Lessing business is that, while evidence is certainly there, it's not "there enough".

2) It accords with numerous other rational goods, namely, that of extending the field of trust (as we see it in families, companies, relationships, teams, societies, mobs, scientific communities, religions, languages, etc.) in a wholly human way, and securing the good of peace of mind, empowerment through love, peace with others in light of higher goodness, guidance for unresolved issues based on higher truth, etc.; as such, religious faith is a coherent good among other goods, and in fact a higher good, since it integrates and orders many other goods. Mr. Loftus must show it is almost always irrational to believe in and act according to what we believe, with whatever knowledge we have, is a great, and perhaps our greatest, good. If we are famished, is it irrational to lunge at a sandwich if we believe it will stop our hunger, even if we don't know what's in it (for good or ill), where it came from, if someone else has a claim on it, etc.? Not at all evidently so. In short, Mr. Loftus's objections to faith ignore the bedrock of emotional, moral, social, etc., inclinations and "lenses" we live by (or die without), a bedrock which makes countless decisions, even if lacking knowledge, rational. And that's really all it comes down to: faith is rational if it is not irrational (regardless how hard Mr. Loftus finds such rationality to make his own). Mr. Loftus will say the believer always "falls back" onto faith. What he fails to grasp is: when or how does anyone not do the same thing in innumerable, extremely important matters?

His clinging to an outdated foundationalism is all of a piece with his individualized, "de-relationalized" conception of human nature. It doesn't help that he's now got a small second career riding on his atheism. The irony: in his own (proverbial) book, having personal, emotional entanglements about these issues counts against making a rational assessment of them. Where Mr. Loftus's personal, emotional attachments to atheism fit under that stricture, I'm not sure.

Revelation is inscribed in the whole man

0 comment(s)
I updated my post, "The seductive power of adjectives", about the theology of history, with the following words:

Revelation can illuminate history, as a filament brightens the bulb, because it is formally, but not materially, distinct from history. As Xavier Zubiri put it:

…[I]t is essential to underline that the concept of tradition we have used here is not an historical concept; it is a theologic concept. From the point of view of a historical science[,] tradition is understood as the continuity of a documentary proof. Is there a tradition that Pythagoras may have discovered the mathematical theorems attributed to his name? Not an extensive one, some have said no, and others have said yes. However, they are in the Elements of Geometry of Euclid, and clearly we do have an historical continuity of this. However, this is not the concept of tradition we are discussing here. The concept of tradition here is purely theologic; it is the reactualization of the revealed deposit. …

[W]ith hindsight anything can be fitted into a syllogism, including reading these pages. But this does not mean it was the way to discover it. The great masters of speculative theology did not admit the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, a few poor Franciscans felt the devotion to the Blessed Virgin as the Immaculate Conception. And it is there where the truth of the deposit of revelation was. The revealed deposit, and therefore, the progress, is inscribed in a situation of the whole man, and also in a religious situation.

(Christianity Copyright 2001-2005 by Joaquín Redondo, used with permission granted on his website)

inFORM: A Catholic Review

0 comment(s)
BUY HERE (und_r co_str_ct_on)

inFORM: A Catholic Review is a freelance periodical concerned with the ecumenical & multicultural intersection of faith, science, history, ethics, & the glory of God.

We welcome original essays, stories, poems, photography, & artwork (subject to editorial whims), but cannot (yet) promise compensation.

Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to or by mail to Hernesto Kriegmann at 17 Zhong Qing Rd., Taizhong (406), TAIWAN (ROC) [台灣台中市北屯區中清路17號], c/o “inFORM”. We are on the web at

© 2007–08. All rights reserved.

The CosmoPolitan Issue (1A)

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Liccione on Oakes on the Immaculate Conception…

0 comment(s)
It doesn't get any better than this.

One of my favorite bloggers, Michael Liccione, does a précis of an article by one of my favorite Jesuits, Fr. Edward Oakes, on my favorite Mother, our Lady of the Immaculate Conception. A threefer!

The money quote in Liccione's post, "Our solitary boast", is here:

Christ's human will freely chose to suffer and die—even though that, along with the Incarnation itself, had been eternally, unalterably, and in that sense necessarily decreed by the Trinity, and therefore by the person of the Son, who is solely and identically the person who is and acts as Jesus Christ. The retroactive causality of the Passion on Mary, in the form of making her kecharitomene beginning with the IC, was simply the way she was similarly decreed to enjoy a pre-eminent capacity to have and exercise the kind of freedom her Son did in undergoing the Passion. The grace with which she was filled at the IC was not, then, an overriding of her human freedom, but was rather a necessary condition for exercising the kind of freedom her Son was to exercise as a man and which made her own possible. That's the kind of freedom she was to exercise by consenting to the Incarnation.

My own thoughts on the matter are:

If I were to parse the article Liccione linked about St. Maximus vis-à-vis the IC, I might say this:

As humans, both our Lady and our Lord had a natural human will. Both of them had sinless tropoi, which is why they both were free from the gnomic will (which I will here assume is roughly like the idea of concupiscence). Their common natural will is due to the order of creation. Their freedom from a gnomic will is due to their properly ordered tropoi. The difference is that Mary's holy tropos (as the personal mode of her natural will) was provided by grace based on the utterly free dytheletic holiness of Christ's wills. She was afforded the freedom to imitate His tropic holiness by virtue of His tropic freedom of sacrifice to redeem man. What Christ did "naturally" as God, Mary was enabled to do by a grace that freed her tropos to will in an immaculate way.

The EO objection I think might be that, if God can give such a good tropos to Mary, why could He, and, worse, did He not give it to all people as well? My first response is that, well, that's the thing about grace: it's a gift, so there's no antecedent reason (law) why it should be dispensed in some other way. Second, though, I sense a deep mystery lies in the fact that Mary was the only person who in fact did tropically live up to the grace, given her at conception, precisely when she spoke her Fiat. It tends back into the causal circle Oakes mentions, and seems to be circular, but it suggests a subtlety beyond my means to articulate at this time (it's late here in Taiwan!) What I am getting at is how, even if thousands of young ladies like Mary were, ex hypothesi, given the grace to live tropically all-holy, only Mary in fact did so, hence "ratifying" the grace infused into her soul before she could ever merit it. It was grace because it preceded all her efforts; it was perfect grace because it was received with perfect love for its source.

Lastly, I will note how the IC seems to be the basis for a lot of good sf. If science could rise only in a Christian context (Jaki, Duhem, Hooykaas, et al), then I think a fortiori science fiction could arise only in a Christian environment. The head-bending idea of a woman being saved by the son she hasn't even had yet, and of the Son who saved her coming to be only after she bore him, is so rich with potential, that I'm willing to bet a whole slew of time-travel books have been spawned by it, even if unwittingly.

The sf implications of the IC are such that, in the Greco-Roman milieu, it was a concept which may have shattered the pagan fatalism unlike anything else. It is one thing to draw aesthetically from the gods as superhuman sources of potential narrative twists; it is quite something else to break the entire kosmos in which they were all subject to Fate. It was nothing for the pagans to affirm Athena sprang from forehead of Zeus; it was inconceivable (pardon the pun!) that Zeus might spring from the womb of Athena! Mary was the concrete icon of necessity––to which humans and even the gods were, in the end, subject––being broken on the anvil of personal freedom in response to pure gift. For once the heavens were hanging on a word from the earth, rather than earth always cowering in expectation of a lightning bolt from the heavens.

In support of this idea, I will draw from the citation Liccione gives in his latest post, "Elemental Powers", from Pope Benedict XVI's rcent encyclical, Spe Salvi:

…Saint Gregory Nazianzen…says that at the very moment when the Magi, guided by the star, adored Christ the new king, astrology came to an end, because the stars were now moving in the orbit determined by Christ. This scene, in fact, overturns the world-view of that time, which in a different way has become fashionable once again today. It is not the elemental spirits of the universe, the laws of matter, which ultimately govern the world and mankind, but a personal God governs the stars, that is, the universe; it is not the laws of matter and of evolution that have the final say, but reason, will, love—a Person. And if we know this Person and he knows us, then truly the inexorable power of material elements no longer has the last word; we are not slaves of the universe and of its laws, we are free. In ancient times, honest enquiring minds were aware of this. Heaven is not empty. Life is not a simple product of laws and the randomness of matter, but within everything and at the same time above everything, there is a personal will, there is a Spirit who in Jesus has revealed himself as Love.

Mother! Whose virgin bosom was uncrossed
With the least shade of thought with sin allied;
Woman! above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature's solitary boast.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

The things kids say…

0 comment(s)
Today at Taichung Ichung (my Saturday class) I decided the students would translate Li Bai's quintessential Tang poem, "Night Thoughts" (Yè Si). I did this last year for the same class but unfortunately I don't think I wrote down their version. This year, with a different group of guys, I was tickled by their translation (seven groups doing one line each) and decided to preserve it. I will add the Chinese later when I have more time (between periods right now). Admittedly some of the poetic touches are due to my hand, but the guys did the lion's share; I just trimmed the mane.

A kettle of wine lies int he flowers, but no friends drink with me.
Raising a wineglass, I toast the moon. Me, my shadow, and the moon make for three.
The moon has no idea how fine this wine is. My shadow is with me step by step.
The moonlight shadows joined me for a time. We shall find joy when spring is upon us.
I sing when the moon surrounds me, I dance and the reflection is shattered.
We woke and together we laughed; we became drunk and had to art ways.
This heartless wandering will be over soon; then we shall be reunited at that silver river.

What's interesting is that, because enrollment was so large and another teacher bailed on the class, I will do this same activity in the next group this afternoon. Let's see what they come up with. Somehow it seems wrong to translate such a poem without actual drink at hand, but, alas, I shall have to restrain my self in the name of teacher-decorum! Young minds and young livers and all that, Heh!

Now, here is the translation for this afternoon's class (with three versions of line 7, due to there being three rather than six groups):

A bottle of wine lies between the flowers. I drink alone.
I raise my cup to toast the moon; counting my shadow make three of us.
The moon doesn't understand the happy feeling that I drink.
My shadow is suddenly close beside me; to accompany the moon is to know many shadows.
The moon lingered when I sang; the shadow was a mess when I danced.
We had a good time when we weren't drunk; we left each other after we were.
(a) By always befriending things without emotion, I hope we can enjoy together the stars in the sky.
(b) Permanent friends on a trip without feeling, we arrange a date to see the river river.
(c) We make an eternal appointment for a trip without feeling along the starry river.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

They're like pigeons…

0 comment(s)
More fun from our little friends, Ernius and Bertus. You first met them, perhaps, in their conversation about environmental problems. They can also be found in a newer dialogue about "losing faith in Santa Claus". Enjoy the ride. I do.

Ernius: It's still early.

Bertus: So?

Ernius: So I still want to go to the club.

Bertus: Eesh. Keep your social dandruff off me.

Ernius: What? It's just some fun. Have you got a better idea, mon cherif?

Bertus: Sure, pass me my Novocaine. Hopefully it will hit kick in by the time you call me mon cheri. Dull the shock.

Ernius: You have Novocaine? Anyway, man, I just feel like seeing some hot chix. Cuz I know they're gonna be there.

Bertus: Dude, they're always gonna be there. They're like pigeons. They're everywhere and they're all the same.

Ernius: So you don't think I should go?

§ § §

Ernius: Well, if I'm staying home tonight, I'm gonna check out some Russian wives.

Bertus: Oh yeah? I almost bought one of those in college.

Ernius: Really?

Bertus: Yeah, it terrified me. I kept clicking my mouse everywhere and shouting, "Delete! Delete her! Refund her back to Russia!" I thought they charged my account and I didn't know what would happen next. For a few days after that I kept expecting some Russian heavy to thump on my door and break some of my favorite bones.

Ernius: But nothing happened.

Bertus: No. I ended up Russian-bride-free, after all. Hence you have always known me as a Russian-bride-free rogue.

Ernius: I want to check it out, but I mean, is it really reliable?

Bertus: What do you mean?

Ernius: Well, I mean you have to know somebody. Are these girls really any good if they're willing to marry anyone online?

Bertus: They're not willing to marry anyone. That's why they're in that service. It protects them from louses…like yourself, I might add…and protects you from girls who would find a man in some less noble way than a website.

Ernius: But how can you be sure it will be a good relationship? Isn't it a bit phony?

Bertus: Phony? You're a man, she's a woman. Nothing phony in that. As long as you stick to your bedrock priorities––whatever those…might be in your case––and as long as you can communicate, it's a sure thing.

Ernius: But what if she speaks bad English? How can we communicate then?

Bertus: Use your imagination, man. And, never mind what my detractors say, I am not necessarily being lewd and crude. Language is the least important part of communication anyway. Which is why I try to minimize it. Do you mind?

Ernius: You've already read that book. And it's upside down.

Bertus: Foiled again.

Ernius: Look, I'm just trying to say, what if we have nothing in common? I mean different cultures and all that.

Bertus: Nothing in common? She wants out, you want in––there's your common ground.

Ernius: Well, I'll give it a shot.

Bertus: Me too: a long shot.

The beatific vision, you see

1 comment(s)
The following is two comments I left in the same thread at Energetic Processions about "Drawing Near to God". They captures my latest understanding of man's final end pretty well, and, besides, the beatific vision is utterly beautiful to contemplate. Also, posting it here is just one more small part of my housekeeping measures in the blogosphere.

What I still have a hard time accepting is how such analogies [as some use to explain the essence-energies distinction in Palamism (e.g., the sun and its rays)] cut against Thomism (viz. the beatific vision). The analogies indicate not an inability to know God’s essence in principle but an inability, a handicap, on the part of the knowers. This is basically the Thomistic position as I understand it. No glorified saint is deprived of the vision of God but each one is illuminated with that divine light to different degrees based on one’s synergistic openness to divine grace as hypostasized in the Holy Spirit. The problem is not God’s essential self-enclosure, which He has disclosed (’apocalypticized’) in Christ anyway, but in the incapacity of human nature to fully “take in” that essence as revealed. In heaven, to borrow from your analogy, all dogs know their master but some dogs simply Him better. The problem is not God’s essence but the wounded blindness of our nous in the first Adam. We must have that inner eye cleansed and transformed into His image (Romans 12:1–2, Colossians 1:19–23, 3:9–10, Ephesians 1:17–18, , so that we may KNOW Him as fully as we are able. As is says in 1 John 3:2 (NAB): “we shall be like him, FOR we shall see him as he is.” Much the same is promised in 1 Corinthians 13:9–12:

“For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.”

That is the essence (no pun intended) of the beatific vision: not simply a knowledge of God, which we can enjoy mediately in this life, but a face-to-face vision of God Himself in His own glory. The Father, Jesus promises us, will dwell with us, not apart from us, that we may see Him by grace, even if the radiance of His glory is too much for us to exhaustively “adjust to” even in eternity (1 Tim 6:15–16; CCC 1028, 1032, 1045). While we can know God (with dianoia) via the grace of natural revelation (Rom 1, Sir 13, etc.), one final Day, the analogies shall fall behind and we shall see God as His earlier manifestations intended to promise us by faith. Romans 8:24–25: “For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” indicates we hope for what we cannot now see but one day will see what we now believe in. That’s the beatific vision.

In John 15 Jesus describes our bond to Him as branches on a vine, which is analogy replete with imagery of natural union, not being touched or warmed at a distance. A vine’s branches exist intimately in union with the vine, ‘knowing’ it as its own being from the inside out. This is not an essential bond, since we are grafted in by grace, but it certainly more of a union than sun rays on leaves. Also in John 15:15 Jesus says His disciples are no longer servants, ignorant of their master’s business, His inner life, but are friends on intimate terms with what Jesus reveals of the Father.

I think what rubs me the wrong way about Palamite energies is how it seems to multiply God’s self-disclosing activities beyond the Holy Spirit. Someone left a comment on my blog about the fruits of the Spirit (in Galatians 5) being energies of God. What bothers me is how the term energies slips in between what Galatians 5, Romans 8, 2 Peter 1, etc. seem to teach above all: we do not merely have God’s gifts but God Himself in the inner gift of the Holy Spirit. By His hypostatic presence in our hearts, we are incorporated into the triune life of God, a life entirely constituted by relationship and self-giving. It is the case that we will never fully see the Father but in our ultimately total knowledge of Christ, the very image of God in whom all God’s pleroma dwells, we shall know God. The worries over seeing God’s essence seem to blur the issue of seeing the Father as monarchial source of the Trinity and seeing God in the face of Christ and in the inner light of the Spirit.

Photios interjected the following:

"John 15 is talking about two things that are homogenous in essence not heterogeneous. In other words, it speaks as us as Christ’s body, Christ’s Church, Christ’s consubstantiality with us. We are identified with his very Incarnate body. Our participation in Christ’s humanity is one of identity. A person’s participation in the divine energies is a heterogeneous relationship. You need to think of this in terms of Christology first. To make a homogenous relationship between two different kinds of natures is to confuse them. This is why we don’t partake of the divine essence, but we will know the operations of that essence."

To which I replied:

I want to note there are, strictly speaking, two currents in my line of inquiry, only one of which has become the central theme here. The first is what place theology about general revelation has in EO. I won’t call it natural theology in this setting, despite my qualifications of the term, since Perry objects to that as inadvertent obfuscation. I would still like to know how far against something like Thomistic natural theology this blog’s position against dialectical theology cuts. That’s all my questions about basic metaphysical categories were about. Is there not some level or metaphysical arena in which God and man do coinhabit, or is the infinite transcendence of God qua ousia hyperousia such to render all analogical talk meaningless and therefore pointless?

The second current is the matter of essence-energies and, in turn, the beatific vision. The reason I have trouble just rolling over and accepting the Palamite analogies and explanations here, is twofold. First, I don’t think the idea of “participation” is adequately clear in this discussion, which is much the same point Fr Patrick made. I find Perry’s frequent recourse to 2 Pet 1:4 as a proof of Palamism and a refutation of the beatific vision not at all as straightforward as he presents it. The word “partakers” in that verse is koinonoi, a word with a broad range of meaning, basically which means one who shares in something, a companion, a comrade, a FRIEND (cf. John 15).

What does a glorified saint share in in heaven? In the vision of God as He is by nature, without sensible, conceptual or analogical mediation. And what is God’s nature? Triune. God IS triune love. Hence the beatific vision is more about sharing in the triune fellowship of God AS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than about some overblown idea we fully “understand” the divine essence. Seeing God’s essence AS tri-hypostatic love is not in conflict with not being able to see all of it (or God’s incomprehensibility, as Benedict XII called it in Benedictus Deus). The beatific vision is not that we are pumped full of divine “essential oil” like a bag, but that we are fully welcomed into beholding, immediately, the divine persons in perichoresis, a vision limited only by our graced capacity to receive such light as God strengthens our nous for it. Thus we can partake of the divine nature as sharers, invited companions, in the TRIUNELY divine nature, which squares with 2 Pet 1:4, and its preceding verse. I have drawn the thrust of this point from Karl Rahner in his entry on the beatific vision in the Encyclopedia of Theology (Herder & Herder; big fat red book).

The second way I see in which participation can be amplified without Palamite gain or Thomistic loss is to look at Thomistic anthropology and how it plays out vis-à-vis the beatific vision. The beatific vision works in Thomism in two steps. First, the intellect knows the divine essence, beyond the order of faith and/or reason, and then the will is perfectly drawn to that infinite good as a concretely maximized good, not a mere intellectual abstraction. We can only love what we first know. If we cannot know God essentially, we cannot love Him essentially. Once, however, we see God in essentia, we can desire him (theletotropically, as it were) perfectly and eternally.

This latter fact takes care of the problem of a post-glorified lapse, since Adam and Eve enjoyed only a natural vision of God, whereas the glorified enjoy a perfect, albeit not exhaustive, vision of God, and therefore exist perfectly in a state, as Dominique Garrigou-Lagrange puts, beyond liberty. Transfixed by the unmediated, unfiltered beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12, Wis 13:3), we are incapable of lapsing back to a state of life beneath heavenly perfection (hence, non posse peccare). We see God as He sees Himself, albeit, again, not as completely. Seeing God perfectly entails we love Him perfectly AS the infinitely actual good which our nature desires. This is hardly a violation of freedom; it is a vindication of freedom towards its true telos. Freely loving God without equivocation or diminution becomes a permanent habitus of the soul, perfectly illumined as it is by an intellectual grasp of the essentia divina.

The confusion, I think, in the debate, is to hear that, in Thomism, the intellect “becomes” what it perceives and then to assume that because we shall perceive God in essentia, we shall become divine essentially. Rather, while our intellect does “become” divine by apprehending the divine essence, we still remain human by virtue of only our will being perpetually drawn to God. So, we partake of the divine nature intellectually (indeed, notice the emphasis on “knowledge”/epignoseos in 2 Pet 1:3) but not essentially. We are drawn, by the motion of our wills, into the divine glory (2 Pet 1:3) by sharing in a knowledge/vision of the essentia divina. I draw much of this from Garrigou-Lagrange’s Life Everlasting.

As I’ve said, I think the Trinity is adequate to describe and explain the same things energies are meant to explain. God is hypostatically immanent in us as the Holy Spirit, and thus grace is no mere created grace, EVEN THOUGH the effects He has in us, as created beings, resemble created entities. Further, the fundamental way in which we become koinonoi of the divine nature is by our sacramental union with Christ AS God. We can partake of the divine nature without becoming essentially divine because “part” of the divine nature includes the humanity of Christ. His glorified “one flesh” (mia sarx; cf. e.g. Colossians 1:22) is the ontological “antechamber” in which we dwell, which allows us, by nature, to partake in the divine nature qua tri-hypostatic love, EVEN THOUGH we cannot partake of the divine essence any more than intellectually so. The humanity of Christ fulfills what the energies are intended to do. We were buried IN the man Jesus Christ and thus we live IN the Lord God. Thus, we are homogenously joined to Christ and heterogenously joined to God IN Christ. We dwell with the Father IN the temple of Jesus Himself (God was IN Christ, etc.).

Out of the ashes…

0 comment(s)
"The city coroner's office and fire department toady released a joint report on the recent fire on K. Street. Having sifted through the rubble, the report says, all that workers were able to salvage was a handwritten note, apparently by a Mr. [ILLEGIBLE] Forester. Mr. Forester's note reads: 'I am adored by hordes of middle schoolers, my mom consistently says I'm cool, and in whatever dreams I have, I am a success. This is the good life, my friend, the good life.' Officials have not yet made official statements about how Mr. Forester is connected with the fire. Cynthia Sovenaw, reporting."

Turns like an L

0 comment(s)
If speaking English were riding motorcycles, native speakers would speak like automatics around sharp turns, while Chinese-speakers of it would speak like manuals around those curves (Ls, THs, etc.). Both have to slow down for some sounds, but native speakers can shift more smoothly than the clicking, clunking you hear, however faint, in clutch bikes.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Ambling in Palamite fields…

1 comment(s)
I left some comments and questions on Energetic Processions (in the post "Drawing Near to God"), but, despite some feedback from Perry, they got little play, so I will post the relevant bits here for the record and my own future reference, if needed.

Before I do so, however, For the record, let me state in brief what my inquiry boils down to, and why I think it's significant:

If the energies are ESSENTIALLY divine, then they partake of the divine essence. If our own energies participate in our essence, then they partake of our own essence. If we are fully present in our energies, then how can we not be in them essentially (or they in us essentially)? Likewise for God. If His energies are fully divine, how are they not essentially divine? If we––or at least our energies––partake of the divine energies, how can we not thereby partake of the divine essence in which they themselves participate?

Are the divine energies essentially divine? If the divine energies are not essentially divine, then they are only accidentally divine, which means no matter how deeply we participate in them, we are still only partaking in an accidental, and therefore not essentially divine, emanation from (creation of?) God.

Moreover, is the divine essence essentially energetic? If it is––if, that is, God is essentially a hypostatic unity of essence and energies––then His essence is not utterly inscrutable to the human intellect, in which case it is possible for humans to enjoy vision of the divine essence in the beatific vision. If we can do so in some degree even now, surely we can do so to a full(er) extent in heaven.

Suffice to say, from my hobbled perspective, these seem like problems for Palamism.

I prefer a theory in which we partake of the essence of God, in the intellectual union of the beatific vision, without thereby becoming God any more than knowing the essence of an orange or a formal operation converts us into an orange or a formal operation.

§ § §

On November 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm, I began:

Is God subject to formal categories such as real distinction and opposition? Or is God completely beyond all metaphysical categories whatsoever? Is God subject to logical categories, such as the law of non-contradiction? Or is God utterly beyond such wee dialectical tools? Is God subsumable under any of the same metaphysical categories as humans?

These questions can be treated as three segments of one triptych of inquiry at an issue I cannot articulate adequately. Or they can be read independently of each other. I am really am asking genuinely, without guile. For what I am trying to find out is how deep the rejection of dialectical thinking in EO theologia cuts.

What I am trying to get at is this: it seems God and man are both subject to at least some of the same ‘dialectical’ categories. Indeed, part of what makes man Man, in Palamite anthropology, is that he exists essentially as a compossible harmony (not sure HOW to put this in cataphatic terms) of an essence and energies which irreducibly and freely exists via his powers. This is the bedrock category to which humans are subject: we exist as a “blend” of two formally distinct “things” in our one hypostasis. But does not the same harmonized opposition hold for God? Does not the same formal distinction in the personhood of God hold for God as well? If so, then there seems to be at least a penumbra of dialectical opposition in the revealed God of energies. If not, then it is hard to understand how we can meaningfully argue there is such distinction, which is what Palamism is all about. If there *really* is a distinction, without reduction, between God’s energies and essence, then He seems to be just as subject to the categories (or at least one of them) in which man dialectically thrives.

If it is the case that God *essentially* exists as a nonreducibly manifold agent so to speak “comprised” of essence and energies, and if it is the case that humans likewise *essentially* exist as essence-energies beings, then there seems to be at least one metaphysical category of being shared by God and humans, namely, the real ontological distinction between essences and energies. In which case, humans do seem capable of partaking of the essence of God, His essence being to exist as more than just His essence. If it is of God’s essence to exist not only in/as His essence, AND if it is of humans’ essence to exist not only in/as their essence, then there seems to be an essential identity of ontological ordering between God and humans. Humans and God, in other words, can at least essentially share, co-participate in, the real (and only therefore conceivable) DISTINCTION between essence and energies. Obviously this also seems to bleed over into another domain of mutual divine-human dialectical subjection, namely, the shared subjection to the metaphysical category of essentiality (which, implicitly, exists only in opposition to extrinsicality, contingency or some other metaphysical category).

Or is it only an energy of God, and not His essence, to exist in His energies and essence? If it is not His essence to so exist, then the e/e distinction seems only conceptual, because contingent on its theoretical intelligibility, and not necessary to the revealed God in essentia.

Lest I get lost in a tangle of text, let me try to boil my worries down to gizzards and wishbones:

If we know God exists essentially as energies/essence, then we know of His essence, and it is not “unmanifest,” as Palamas claims.

Hardly a refutation, and not meant to be one. Moreso a noetic itch I can’t scratch, an intellectual charley horse I can’t stretch, as I try to parse these things.

Since I am only slightly less ignorant of modern philosophy than medieval, perhaps someone here could refract the issue through the Kantian problematic of noumena/phenomena, since that is how the issue breaks down in my mind. Essence : noumena :: energies : phenomena. How can these schemata be compared and contrasted?

November 22, 2007 at 4:29 pm, trvalentine said:

… IMNSHO, the West’s typical concept of God is that of a super-man, i.e. having the human concept of love raised to the infinite degree, the human concept of wisdom raised to the infinite degree, the human concept of wisdom raised to the infinite degree, and so forth. Whether ‘proving’ God’s existence by the ‘ontological argument’ (which explicitly raises to the infinite degree that which is regarded by human considerations as good), by the ‘cosmological argument’ (which uses experiences of the created world to demonstrate the need for a ‘uncaused cause’, ‘prime mover’, etc.), by the ‘teleological argument’ (which uses realities of the created world such as entropy to demonstrate the need for a ‘designer’), by the ‘moral argument’ or various arguments from ‘special events’ or ‘experiences’ (which use human experiences – of the created realm – to demonstrate a source for these things, the Western concept of God is rooted in human experiences of the created world.

OTOH, the Orthodox understanding of God is ‘Being beyond being’; if God has ‘being’, the created world lacks ‘being-ness’, but if the created world has ‘being’, God is ‘non-being’ (as the passage from St Gregory Palamas above explains). There is an insistence on an absolute divide between the Uncreated and the created realm. ISTM we have hints of this chasm between the Uncreated and the created in Divine Revelation:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.


For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

It is my perception (and knowing next to nothing about physics, I may be completely off track) that the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics may be analogous to the difference between the wisdom of the created realm (logic, metaphysics, dialectics, ratiocination, etc.) and the Uncreated: completely different systems for completely different realms. Just as a person applying classical mechanics in an exactly correct manner may obtain a ‘solution’ which is completely erroneous in the realm of quanta, one applying human wisdom from the created realm in an exactly correct manner may obtain a ‘solution’ which is completely erroneous in the realm of the Uncreated.

November 24, 2007 at 11:47 am, Elliot B Says:

… Although the latter points you make do point towards addressing my inquiry, I am still looking for a more systematic elucidation of where the dialectical limits of theology can reasonably, coherently be said to end (for EO theology).

As for the initial points you make, I admit I find them mildly troubling. First, I think it’s too simplistic to say “the West” (a monolith?) is “rooted in” anthropocentric theology. I don’t understand the various arguments you noted as working up to PROVE or DEMONSTRATE the contents and coherence of the Faith, but rather, given the faith and difficulties with it or objections to it, work ALONG WITH comprehensible human experience to help the intellect reach what grace provides by faith, namely a “grasp” on the Faith. A second worry I have is that by so radically dichotomizing man and God, you start to sound like a Calvinist. Is not the imago Dei still a viable, coherent reality in our lives? Do we not see the divine nature, and “echoes” of His goodness, wisdom, power, etc., in our very natures, as well as in the larger creation? Again, such insights are not the basis for faith, Western or Eastern, rather, the supplementary lenses we may need absent a purified nous. Such an utter dichotomization of divine-human relations seems not only blind to the role of analogy in theo-logizing, but also grim as far as evangelization vis-à-vis general revelation goes. Is it the case that EO has no place for general revelation?

Probably the biggest problem I have with utterly de-humanizing theology is the little thing known as the Incarnation. God Himself “subsumed”, “subjected”, Himself to all relevant human categories. God became man. Certainly that compromises how blithely we dismiss the “co-inhabitation” of man and God in metaphysical/rational categories if theology is to remain a sound discourse.

I realize God operates in a realm beyond our realms/categories. But the point of my inquiry is to see just how far this idea can be pressed. “If God is not somehow metaphysically essentially like us, even by the faintest bonds of analogy, then it’s hard to see how He could make Himself known to us. I suspect the purpose of analogy in, say, Thomism is akin to the purpose of energies in Palamism: the immanent medium which allows us to know God without REALLY KNOWING God.

November 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm, Perry Robinson Says:


What do you take the difference to be between natural theology and natural revelation?

As for Kant, the analogy is mistaken because for Kant phenomenal experiences are constructed by and enriched by us,but the energies are a thing in and of itself.

November 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm, Elliot B Says:

I see natural theology as the formal discussion and elucidation of natural revelation, the latter being a part of God’s total self-revelation. Natural theology only makes sense because theology, as a kerygmatic, liturgical, pneumatic reality, is primary; natural theology only “works”, when it does, because its bedrock is revelation.

Okay, so, from a Kantian perspective (I’m not a Kantian, just keeping it in those measly terms for this thread), energies would be noumena for us, while essence would be hypernoumena. Would the powers and extrinsic actions of God (in der Heilsgeschichte) be suitably analogous to the Kantian phenomena (sans of course the epistemological scarefest of Kantianism and in an ontological rather than epistemological mode)? Further, would our energies in the synergy of salvation be a sort of phenomena (which we create)? I of course don’t mean to call energies or essence Kantian things, I’m just doing a terminological transformation to see how things play together.

November 25, 2007 at 10:42 pm, Perry Robinson Says:


Natural theology is not an elucidation of natural revelation. It is rather something distinct. Natural theology is not reavealed but rather is our constyruct from sensation and reason alone. It is then elevated via revelation and perfected in Catholic thought.

Kant’s perspective won’t map on to the Orthodox teaching. Th energies are known, at least some of them are and hence this is something Kant would not permit. The energies are not extrinsic to God since extrinsic relations do not constitute their object but the energies are deity.

A phenomena for Kant, a determined one anyhow, is an appearnce that has been subjected to rules of understanding that we have constructed and achieved in order for it to be understandable to us. Energies aren’t mere appearances.

November 26, 2007 at 7:00 am, Elliot B Says:

Well, in this case, I return to my earlier Q: Is there a place in EO theology for natural revelation? Insofar as it is NATURAL, and therefore accommodated to man as a natural being, it seems inescapable to draw from sensation and reason. As for drawing from those things “alone”, I think that’s a defunct form of foundationalist rationalism which I don’t believe magisterial Catholic theology endorses. Every argument against natural theology, in the sense of it being a rational discourse on revelation (rather than a straw-man Socinianism or some such), itself uses the very tools it aims to refute (dialectical logic, categorical terms, etc.). The efforts to show the invalidity of reason vis-à-vis sheer revelation (i.e., by showing its categorically antinomial inapplicability to the divine essence qua hyperousia) strike me as inconsistent, since, as I say, the devices of rational thinking appear ineluctable even in its deconstruction in the greater light of God.

Please help me understand whether EO has natural revelation and what it is. Thanks!

November 27, 2007 at 4:54 am, Elliot B Says:

Perry, let me rephrase things to avoid confusion. By natural theology I do not mean die Naturtheologie of the Enlightenment and Romantic movement. By it I mean “general revelation”, as adumbrated in Romans 1:18f, Wis. 13:1ff., Ps. 19 and Sir. 17:8, among others. I am speaking of the sensus divinitatis and the divinely ordained power of analogy to “trigger” in the created intellect recognition of God and man’s sense of sin. By natural theology I suppose I am speaking more of fundamental theology, theology that lays a framework for discussion of the general contents of reality which may hinder faith or promote it once revelation is presented and accepted.

At that point I suppose Perry decided his family and studies were more important than my Papist aporia heheh.

Sunday, December 2, 2007


0 comment(s)
[-- is the worst rating, ++ is the best. Titles in bold are movies with which I really "click" or which would help another viewer understand me.]

I saw…on or around…

+ Days of Being Wild 阿飛正傳 (1991, 94m) Wong Kar-wai 王家衛
++ In the Mood for Love 花樣年花 (2000, 98m) Wong Kar-wai 王家衛
++ 2046 (2004, 129m) Wong Kar-wai 王家衛
-+ White Chicks (2004, 109m) K. I. WAYANS
++ Ghost Dog (1999, 116m), J. JARMUSCH
+ The Maltese Falcon (1941, 101m), J. HUSTON (Sept. 07)
- Taxi 4 (2003, 91m), KRAWCZYK (20.11.07)
-- Lions for Lambs (2007, 88m), R. REDFORD (23.11.07)
+ Zodiac (2007, 158m), D. FINCHER (20.11.07)
++ The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948, 126m), J. HUSTON (30.11.07)
-- Vacancy (2007, 80m), ANTAL (1.12.07)
-+ License to Wed (2007, 100m), S. KWAPIS (1.12.07)
+ American Gangster (2007, 158m), R. SCOTT (1.12.07)
-+ Rush Hour 3 (2007, 91m), RATNER (2.12.07)
+ Annapolis (2006, 108m), LIN (15.12.07)
-+ I Am Legend (2007, 100m), LAWRENCE (8.1.08)
+ Ivan's Childhood Иваново детство (1962, 95m), TARKOVSKY Тарковский (12.1.08)
++ Judou 菊豆 (1991, 95m), ZHANG YIMOU 張藝謀 (14.1.08)
+ Matchstick Men (2003, 116m), R. SCOTT (16.1.08)
+ The Thing (1982, 109m), J. CARPENTER (17.1.08)
+ No Country for Old Men (2007, 122m), COEN & COEN (18.1.08)
+ Hairspray [3.0] (2007, 117m), SHANKMAN (20.1.08)
+ Evan Almighty (2007, 90m), SHADYAC (24.1.08)
-- Sweeney Todd: The Demon of Fleet Street (2007, 116m), T. BURTON (26.1.08)
++ Blood Simple (1985, 99m), J. COEN & E. COEN (27.1.08)
+ Stranger than Paradise (1984, 95m), J. JARMUSCH (28.1.08)
++ Brazil (1985, 142m), T. GILLIAM (29.1.08)
++ Being There (1979, 130m), H. ASHBY (29.1.08)
+ Night on Earth (1991, 129m), J. JARMUSCH (29.1.08)
+ The Asphalt Jungle (1950, 112m), J. HUSTON (30.1.08)
++ Strike стачка (1925, 82m), S. EISENSTEIN Эйзенштейн (30.1.08)
+ To Live 活者 (1994, 125m), ZHANG YIMOU 張藝謀 (31.1.08)
+ It Happened One Night (1934, 105m), F. CAPRA (31.1.08)
+ Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972, 88m), W. ALLEN (3.2.08)
++ The Thin Blue Line (1988, 102m), E. MORRIS (4.2.08)
++ Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989, 104m), ALLEN (5.2.08)
++ Broadway Danny Rose (1984, 84m), W. ALLEN (5.2.08)
++ Turtles Can Fly (2005, 93m), GHOBADI (6.2.08)
++ Ed Wood (1994, 129m), T. BURTON (7.2.08)
++ 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, 148m), S. KUBRICK (8.2.08)
+ The Sacrifice (1986, 145m), A. TARKOVSKY (9.2.08)
+ You Can't Take It with You (1938, 126m), F. CAPRA (12.2.08)
++ Nostalghia (1983, 125m), A. TARKOVSKY (12.2.08)
-+ Bananas (1977, 82m), W. ALLEN (16.2.08)
++ Ghost Dog (2001, 110m), J. JARMUSCH (17.2.08)
++ Gates of Heaven (1980, 85m), E. MORRIS (18.2.08)
+ Rambo [4.0] (2008, 91m), S. STALLONE (19.2.08)
++ The Conversation (1974, 113m), F. F. COPPOLA (21.2.08)
+ The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972, 102m) BUNUEL (22.2.08)
-+ Lost Highway (1997, 135m), D. LYNCH (22.2.08)
+ In the Bedroom (2001, 130m), TODD FIELD (23.2.08)
-+ P.S. I Love You (2008, 126m), LAGRAVANESE (23.2.08)
+ Hannah and Her Sisters (1986, 103m) W. ALLEN (24.2.08)
- 1408 (2007, 91m) HAFSTROM (24.2.08)
+ The Day of the Locust (1975, 144m) J. SCHLESINGER (24.2.08)
+ Qianxi 遷徙 (2007, 10m), 黃宜婷 HUANG (26.2.08)
+ I Am an Alien 我是外星人 (2007, 20m), 李政忠 LI (26.2.08)
++ Hotel Rwanda (2004, 121m), GEORGE (26.2.08)
++ Lulu on the Bridge (1998, 103m) P. AUSTER (27.2.08)
++ (1963, 138m) F. FELLINI (28.2.08)
++ Andrei Rublev Андрей Рублёв (1971, 205m) A. TARKOVSKY Тарковский (29.2.08)
-+ Little Miss Sunshine (2006, 103m) DAYTON & FARIS (2.3.08)
+ Stalker Сталкер (1979, 163m) A. TARKOVSKY Тарковский (3.3.08)
+ Solaris Солярис (1972, 165m) A. TARKOVSKY Тарковский (3.3.08)
+ Un Chien Andalou (1929, 16m) L. BUÑUEL (4.3.08)
+ Cassandra's Dream (2007, 110m) ALLEN (4.3.08)
+ Eraserhead (1977, 89m) LYNCH (5.3.08)
+ The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985, 84m) W. ALLEN (5.3.08)
-+ Deconstructing Harry (1997, 96m) W. ALLEN (5.3.08)
++ The Man Who Wasn't There (2001, 118m) COEN & COEN (5.3.08)
++ Touch of Evil (1958, 108m) O. WELLES (6.3.08)
++ Voyage dans le Lune (1902, 11m) G. MÉLIÈS (6.3.08)
++ The Squid and the Whale (2005, 81m) N. BAUMBACH (6.3.08)
-+ 21 Grams (2005, 124m) A. G. IÑARRITU (7.3.08)
-- The Kite Runner (2007, 125m) M. FORSTER (8.3.08)
+ Dead Man (1995, 121m) J. JARMUSCH (9.3.08)
+ Down by Law (1986, 107m) J. JARMUSCH (10.3.08)
++ Mystery Train (1989, 113m) J. JARMUSCH (11.3.08)
++ The Conformist (1970, 111m) B. BERTOLUCCI (12.3.08)
++ The Mirror Зеркало (1970, 106m) A. TARKOVSKY Тарковский (13.3.08)
+ Dreams 夢 (1990, 124m) A. KUROSAWA 黒澤 明 (16.3.08)
-+ Sanshiro Sugata 姿三 四郎 (1943, 97m) A. KUROSAWA 黒澤 明 (20.3.08)
++ Blue Velvet (1986, 120m) D. LYNCH (20.3.08)
+ Ikiru 生之慾 [To Live] (1952, 140m) A. KURASAWA 黒澤 明 (21.3.08)
+ La Dolce Vita (1960, 174m) F. FELLINI (22.3.08)
++ The Life of Oharu 西鶴一代女 (1952, 148m) K. MIZOGUCHI 溝口 健二 (23.2.08)
-+ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958, 108m) R. BROOKS (23.2.08)
+ Sansho the Bailiff 山椒大夫 (1954, 124m) K. MIZOGUCHI 溝口 健二 (23.2.08)
-+ Broken Flowers (2005, 107m) J. JARMUSCH (25.3.08)
++ Badlands (1973, 95m) T. MALICK (25.3.08)
++ Days of Heaven (1978, 94m) T. MALICK (27.3.08)
+ Wilbur (Wants to Kill Himself) (2002, 111m) L. SHERFIG (29.3.08)
-+ Cowboys & Angels (2003, 89m) D. GLEESON (30.3.08)
+ Cop Land (1997, 104m) J. MANGOLD (19.4.08)
-+ TMNT (27.4.08)
+ Iron Man (2.5.08)
+ Angels Fall (3.5.08)
+ Fly Boys (17.5.08)
-+ Président (18.5.08)
+ Fractured (21.5.08)
++ Amazing Grace (23.5.08)
+ We Own the Night (29.5.08)
+ I Confess A. HITCHCOCK (3.6.08)
+ Juno J. REITMAN (8.6.08)
-+ The Incredible Hulk (25.6.08)
++ The Bucket List R. REINER (26.6.08)
+ Get Smart (28.6.08)
-+ Kung Fu Panda (29.6.08)
+ There Will Be Blood (2008, m) P. T. ANDERSON (1.7.08)
+ Hancock (1.7.08)
+ There Will Be Blood (2008, m) P. T. ANDERSON (4.7.08)
++ Capote (, m) (6.7.08)
+ Hancock (, m) (8.7.08)
++ Hancock (, m) (9.7.08)
++ Dark Knight (, m) (20.7.08)
+ Superman Returns (, m) (21.7.08)
++ My Fair Lady (, m) (27.7.08)
+ The Mask of the Phantasm (, m) (14.8.08)
-- Meet Dave (, m) (16.8.08)
-+ Cloverfield (, m) (16.8.08)
+ Ice Age 2 (, m) (17.8.08)
+ Stauffenberg (, m) J. BAIER (8.24.08)
-+ Mama Mia (, m) (7.9.08)
++ August Rush (, m) (12.9.08)
++ August Rush (, m) (15.9.08)
++ Batman T. BURTON (, m) (20.9.08)
+ The Forbidden Kingdom (, m) (21.9.08)
++ Batman T. BURTON (, m) (21.9.08)
++ Collateral M. MANN (, m) (23.9.08)
++ The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004, 108m) M. GONDRY (26.9.08)
++ Collateral (, m) M. MANN (26.9.08)
++ Ghost Dog (, m) J. JARMUSCH (26.9.08)
-+ The Wedding Singer (, m) (27.9.08)
+ Good Will Hunting (, m) (29.9.08)
-- The Love Guru (, m) (30.9.08)
-- Smart People (, m) (1.10.08)
++ Donnie Darko (, m) R. KELLY (1.10.08)
-+ Beerfest (, m) J. CHANDRESAKHAR (2.10.08)
+ Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (, m) (2.10.08)
-- Choke (, m) (3.10.08)
++ The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (, m) W. ANDERSON (7.10.08)
++ Tron (, m) (8.10.08)
+ The Royal Tenenbaums (, m) W. ANDERSON (11.10.08)
+ The Suicide Kings P. O'FALLON (, m) (13.10.08)
-+ Dune D. LYNCH (, m) (14.10.08)
+ Shaun of the Dead (, m) D. WRIGHT (16.10.08)
+ Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (, m) J. WHEDON (19.10.08)
++ Serenity (2005, 119m) J. WHEDON (19.10.08)
++ Dr. Strangelove (Or, How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb) (1964, 93m) S. KUBRICK (1.12.08)
-+ The Cooler (2004, 101m) W. KRAMER (20.12.08)
++ Croupier (1999, 94m) M. HODGES (27.12.08)
++ Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004, 94m) A. MCKAY (5.1.09)
++ The Holcroft Covenant (1985, 112m) J. FRANKENHEIMER (10.1.09)
+ Kansas City Confidential (1952, 99m) P. KARLSON (10.1.09)
-+ Diamond Men (2000, 100m) D. COHEN (10.1.09)
+++ Die große Stille (2005, 162m) P. GRÖNING (11.1.09)
++ Croupier (1999, 94m) M. HODGES (16.1.09)
- Tropic Thunder (2008, 107m) B. STLLER (17.1.09)
+ Gran Torino (2009, 116m) C. EASTWOOD (17.1.09)
+ Vantage Point (2008, 90m) P. TRAVIS (19.1.09)
-- Shoot 'Em Up (2007, 83m) M. DAVIS (19.1.09)
+ Son of Rambow (2007, 96m) G. JENNINGS (21.1.09)
+ Ghost Town (2008, 102m) D. KOEPP (21.1.09)
+ The Longshots (2008, 94m) F. DURST (22.1.09)
+ The Professional (1994, 110m) L. BESSON (24.1.09)
+ Wall·E (2008, 98m) A. STANTON (27.1.09)
++ The 39 Steps (1935, 86m) A. HITCHCOCK (28.1.09)
++ The Postman Always Rings Twice (, m) --- (1.2.09)
-+ Yes Man (2009, m) ---- (5.2.09)
+ American Gangster (2008, 158m) R. SCOTT (7.2.09)
-- The Day the Earth Stood Still [2.0] (2008, 108m) S. DERRICKSON (8.2.09)
+ Madagascar 2: Escape to Africa (2008, 89m) E. DARNELL & T. MCGRATH (13.2.09)
++ The Lost Weekend (1945, 101m) B. WILDER (14.2.09)
++ Ip Man [葉問] (2008, 108m) W. YIP [葉偉信] (15.2.09)
++ Once Upon a Time in China [黃飛鴻] (1991, 134m) T .HARK [徐文光] (21.2.09)
-+ Nights in Rodanthe (2008, m) (28.2.09)
++ Once Upon a Time in China II [黃飛鴻之二男兒當自強] (1992, 113m) T. HARK [徐文光] (1.3.09)
+ The Wrestler (2009, 115m) D. ARONOFSKY (4.3.09)
++ Doubt (2008, 104m) J. P. SHANLEY (4.3.09)
+ Slumdog Millionaire (2008, 120m) D. BOYLE & L. TANDAN (7.3.09)
++ Doubt (2008, 115m) J. P. SHANLEY (8.3.09)
+ Stardust (2007, 128m) M. VAUGHN (16.3.09)
+ Stardust (2007, 128m) M. VAUGHN (18.3.09)
- Panic (2000, 88m) H. BROMELL (24.3.09)
+ The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, 166m) D. FINCHER (28.3.09)
++ Taken (2008, 93m) P. MOREL (29.3.09)
++ American Psycho (2000, 101m) M. HARRON (29.3.09)
-- Shopaholic (2009, 104m) P. J. HORGAN (30.3.09)
++ Dark City (1998, 100m) A. PROYAS (3.4.09)
++ Taken (2008, 93m) P. MOREL (4.4.09)
+ The Lake House (2006, 99m) A. AGRESTI (2.4.09)
+ Rear Window (1955, 112m) A. HITCHCOCK (5.4.09)
++ Death and the Maiden (1995, 103m) R. POLANSKI (5.4.09)
++ Dark City (1998, 100m) A. PROYAS (6.4.09)
++ Dark City (1998, 100m) A. PROYAS (7.4.09)
+ The Man from Snowy River (1982, 102m) G. MILLER (8.4.09)
++ Dark City (1998, 100m) A. PROYAS (9.4.09)
+ The African Queen (1951, 104m) J. HUSTON (13.4.09)
- X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009, 107m) G. HOOD (29.4.09)
+ The Fast and the Furious IV (2009, 107m) J. LIN (2.5.09)
-+ Bride Wars (2009, 89m) G. WINICK (3.5.09)
+ Supersize Me (2004, 100m) M. SPURLOCK (20.5.09)
++ Collateral (2004, 120m) M. MANN (21.5.09)
++ Die Kirschblüten - Hanami (2008, 127m) D. DÖRRIE (21.5.09)
+ The Man Who Planted Trees (1987, 30m) F. BACK (22.5.09)
+ Terminator Salvation (2009, 115m) McG (30.5.09)
+ Hear No Evil, See No Evil (1989, 103m) A. HILLER (6.6.09)
++ Midnight Run (1988, 119m) D. BREST (9.6.09)
++ Vernon, Florida (1981, 55m) E. MORRIS (11.6.09)
+ Fast, Cheap & Out of Control (1997, 80m) E. MORRIS (15.6.09)
+ The Grifters (1990, 110m) S. FREARS (16.6.09)
-+ Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009, 150m) M. BAY (1.7.09)
++ American Psycho (2000, 101m) M. HARRON (22.7.09)
-+ Public Enemies (2009, 140m) M. MANN (24.7.09)
++ Erleuchtung Garantiert (1999, 109m) D. DÖRRIE (29.7.09)
+ Standard Operating Procedure (2008, 115m) E. MORRIS (29.7.09)
-+ 態度 (2009, 85m) CIRCUS (29.7.09)
++ An Everlasting Piece (2001, 103m) B. LEVINSON (29.7.09)
++ My Dinner with Andre (1981, 110m) A. MALLE (31.7.09)
+ The International (2009, 118m) T. TYKWER (1.8.09)
++ American Psycho (2000, 101m) M. HARRON (4.8.09)
++ The Fog of War (2004, 107m) E. MORRIS (7.8.09)
+ The Big Kahuna (2000, 90m) J. SWANBECK (7.8.09)
+ Keiner Liebt Mich [Nobody Loves Me] (1995, 104m) D. DÖRRIE (7.8.09)
++ My Left Foot (1989, 103m) J. SHERIDAN (9.8.09)
++ Buck and the Preacher (1972, 102m) S. POITIER (12.8.09)
++ An Everlasting Piece (2001, 103m) B. LEVINSON (15.8.09)
+ This is Spinal Tap (1983, 82m) R. REINER (19.8.09)
+ Blue Velvet (1986, 119m) D. LYNCH (19.8.09)
++ Blindness (2009, 120m) F. MEIRELLES (23.8.09)
-+ Stir Crazy (1980, 108m) S. POITIER
-+ Inglourious Basterds (2009, 148m) Q. TARANTINO (3.9.09)
- The Brothers Bloom (2009, m) R. JOHNSON (15.9.09)
++ Surrogates (2009, 88m) J. MOSTOW (25.9.09)
-+ Pandorum (2009, 108m) C. ALVART (3.10.09)
+ The Informant (2009, 108m) S. SODERBERGH (16.10.09)
+ The Informant (2009, 108m) S. SODERBERGH (20.10.09)
+ 2012 (2009, 150m) H. EMMERICH (22.11.09)
++ The Princess Bride (1987, 98m) R. REINER (8.12.09)
+ District 9 (2009, 112m) N. BLOMKAMP (9.12.09)
+ Avatar (2009, 162m) J. CAMERON (19.12.09)
+ Avatar (3D) (2009, 162m) J. CAMERON (22.12.09)
++ Enemy Mine (1985, 108m) W. PETERSEN (25.12.09)
+ Gremlins (1984, 106m) J. DANTE (31.12.09)
+ 海角七號 [Cape No. 7] (2008, 129m) WEI TE-SHENG 魏德聖 (13.1.10)
+ Monsters, Inc. (2002, 92m) P. DOCTER & D. SILVERSTEIN (16.1.10)
++ The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004, 108m) M. GONDRY (23.1.10)
- The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009, 94m) G. HESLOV (26.1.10)
++ Children of a Lesser God (1986, 119m) R. HAINES (16.2.10)
- Law-Abiding Citizen (2009, 108m) F. G. GRAY (17.2.10)
++ Kagemusha [影武者] (1980, 162m) A. KUROSAWA 黒澤 明 (18.2.10)
+ Burn After Reading (2008, 96m) E. COEN & J. COEN (19.2.10)
+ Thick as Thieves (1998, 93m) S. SANDERS (20.2.10)
++ Shutter Island (2010, 138m) M. SCORSESE (27.2.10)
+ Shutter Island (2010, 138m) M. SCORSESE (3.3.10)
-+ Did You Hear About the Morgans? (2009, 103m) M. LAWRENCE (13.3.10)
++ Sneakers (1992, 126m) P. ALDEN ROBINSON (17.3.10)
++ Nodame Cantabile のだめカンタービレ 最終楽章 前編 (2009, 121m) HIDEKI TAKEUCHI (21.3.10)
+ We Own the Night (,m) (30.3.10)
++ No Country For Old Men (, m) (30.3.10)
-+ L'élégance du hérisson (, 99m) (4.4.10)
++ Terminator (, m) (25.4.10)
+ The Fabric of Time (, m) (27.4.10)
++ Adaptation (, m) (29.4.10)
++ Ip Man (, m) (23.5.10)
+ Edge of Darkness (, m) (23.5.10)
-+ Ip Man 2 (, m) (23.5.10)
+ Street Kings (, m) (30.5.10)
+ The Comfort of Strangers (, 103m) 30.5.10
+ Dangerous Knowledge [on Cantor, Boltzmann, Gödel, Turing] (, 90m) ** 2.6.10
+ Pinoy Sunday 台北星期天 (2010, 85m) ** 4.6.10
++ Nodame Cantabile のだめカンタービレ 最終楽章 後編 (2010, 123m) HIDEKI TAKEUCHI (6.6.10)
+ Kammerflimmern [Offbeat; 最後一次心動] (2005, 100m) H. HÖLZEMANN
++ Nodame Cantabile のだめカンタービレ 最終楽章 前編 (2009, 121m) HIDEKI TAKEUCHI (10.6.10)
-+ Mighty Aphrodite (1995, 95m) W. ALLEN (11.6.10)
+ Mail Order Wife (2004, 92m) H. BOTKO & A. GURLAND (11.6.10)
+ Apt Pupil (1998, 111m) B. SINGER (12.6.10)
+ One-Way Ticket to Mombasa [Menolippu Mombasaan] (2002, 88m) HANNU TUOMAINEN (18.6.10)
+ Angels and Demons (2009, 138m) R. HOWARD (20.7.10)
+ Predators (2010, 107m) N. ANTAL (22.7.10)
++ Session 9 (2001, 100m) B. ANDERSON (25.7.10)
++ Places in the Heart (1984, 111m) R. BENTON (26.7.10)
++ The Ninth Configuration (1980, 118m) W. PETER BLATTY (28.7.10)
+ 8 Million Ways to Die (1986, 115m) H. ASHBY (29.7.10)
+ Narrow Margin (1990, 97m) P. HYAMS (29.7.10)
- Eraser (1996, 115m) C. RUSSELL (30.7.10)
-+ Red Heat (1988, 104m) W. HILL (30.7.10)
+ Inception (2010, 148m) C. NOLAN (31.7.10)
+ Inception (2010, 148m) C. NOLAN (4.8.10)
+ The Last Detail (1973, 103m) H. ASHBY (14.8.10)
++ Annie Hall (1977, 93m) W. ALLEN (15.8.10)
+ Inglourious Basterds (2009, 148m) Q. TARANTINO (16.8.10)
++ Blindsight (2006, 104m) L. WALKER (17.8.10)
++ Devil in a Blue Dress (1995, 102m) C. FRANKLIN (18.8.10)
++ Love and Death (1975, 85m) W. ALLEN (19.8.10)
- Sleeper (1973, 89m) W. ALLEN (19.8.10)
+ Match Point (2005, 124m) W. ALLEN (19.8.10)
+ Manhattan (1979, 96m) W. ALLEN (20.19.10)
+ Videodrome (1983, 89m) D. CRONENBERG (21.8.10)
- eXistenZ (1999, 97m) D. CRONENBERG (22.8.10)
+ Formosa Betrayed (2009, 103m) W. TIAO (25.8.10)
+ Take the Money and Run (1969, 85m) W. ALLEN (26.8.10)
++ Broadway Danny Rose (1984, 84m) W. ALLEN (27.8.10)
+ Ichi the Killer (殺し屋1 - Koroshiya Ichi) (2001, 128m) MIIKE T. 三池 崇史 (31.8.10)
++ Inception (2010, 148m) C. NOLAN (2.9.10)
++ Primer (2004, 77m) S. CARRUTH (3.9.10)
++ Primer (2004, 77m) S. CARRUTH (3.9.10)
++ Primer (2004, 77m) S. CARRUTH (4.9.10)
-+ Knight and Day (2010, 109m) J. MANGOLD (4.9.10)
+ La Jetée (1962, 28m) C. MARKER (5.9.10)
++ 12 Monkeys (1995, 129m) T. GILLIAM (5.9.10)
+ Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005, 102m) S. BLACK (5.9.10)
-+ The Expendables (2010, 103m) S. STALLONE (5.9.10)
++ Inception (2010, 148m) C. NOLAN (5.9.10)
++ American Psycho (2000, 101m) M. HARRON (6.9.10)
+ The Science of Sleep [La science des rêves] (2006, 105m) M. GONDRY (6.9.10)
+ Inception (2010, 148m) C. NOLAN (7.9.10)
+ Bamboozled (2000, 135m) S. LEE (24.9.10)
+ Miami Blues (1990, 97m) G. ARMITAGE (25.9.10)
++ Glengarry Glen Ross (1992, 100m) J. FOLEY (25.9.10)
++ City of God [Cidade de Dieu] (2002, 130m) F. MEIRELLES (27.9.10)
++ City of God [Cidade de Dieu] (2002, 130m) F. MEIRELLES (2.10.10)
+ The Town (2010, 125m) B. AFFLECK (10.10.10)
+ The Year of Living Dangerously (1982, 115m) P. WEIR (11.10.10)
+ Gone Baby Gone (2007, 114m) B. AFFLECK (12.10.10)
++ Take the Money and Run (1969, 85m) W. ALLEN (13.10.10)
++ Raging Bull (1980, 129m) M. SCORSESE (14.10.10)
+ Zelig 15.10.10
+ Shadows and Fog 17.10.10
++ Ghostbusters 18.10.10
+ Death and the Maiden 21.10.10
+ Alien Raiders 4.11.10
- Skyline 17.11.10
+ The American 21.11.10
+ The American 24.11.10
-+ Transsiberian 10.12.10
+ Runaway Train 10.12.10
+ Domino 19.12.10
+ Willow 9.1.11
++ Titus 10.1.11
++ Labyrinth 12.1.11
+ She's the Man 12.1.11
+ The Hills Have Eyes 14.1.11
+ The Last House on the Left 15.1.11
++ Motel Hell 16.1.11
++ The Road to Perdition 17.1.11
++ Donnie Brasco 17.1.11
-+ Monument Ave. 17.1.11
++ True Grit 18.1.11
-+ The Ref 19.1.11
+ The Snapper 20.1.11
++ 127 Hours 24.1.11
-+ Black Swan 25.1.11
+ Megamind 26.1.11
++ The King's Speech 26.1.11
+ Eastern Promises
-+ Hard Candy
- Synechdoche, NY
+ 3:10 to Yuma
+ Watchmen (2009, m) Z. SNYDER
++ Wait Until Dark (1967, m)
+ Monster (, m)
+ We're No Angels (1989, 101m)
++ Wittgenstein (, m) Fri. March X
++ Elephant Man (, m) Sat. March X+1
+ The Way Back (, m) Wed. March
- The Adjustment Bureau (, m) March
+ Battle: Los Angeles (, m) Sat. March
+ Thank You For Smoking J. REITMAN (2004, m) March
+ They Live J. CARPENTER (, m) 30 March 2011
+ Christine J. CARPENTER (, m) 31.3.11
+ Mail Order Wife (, m) 2.4.11
++ An Everlasting Piece (2001, 103m) B. LEVINSON (2.4.11)
++ Midnight Run (1988, 119m) D. BREST (5.4.11)
+ Source Code (2011, m) 1.5.11
+ Thor (2011, m) K. BRANAGH 7.5.11
+ The Lincoln Lawyer (2011, m) 8.5.11
+ Insidious (2010, m) J. WAN 19.5.11
+ Insidious (2010, m) J. WAN 21.5.11
+ Inside Job (2008, m) ** 23.5.11
+ Capitalism: A Love Story (2009, 127m) M. MOORE 24.5.11
+ Three Idiots 3.6.11
+ Gantz (anime) 6.6.11
+ Old Boy 7.6.11
+ The Audition 6.6.11
++ Save the Green Planet 7.6.11
++ Sympathy for Mr. Revenge 9.6.11
+ Super 8 11.6.11
+ X-Men: First Class 12.6.11
++ 127 Hours 17.6.11