samedi 27 octobre 2012
A Heavily Edited Video with me - and my Comments to Editor thereof.
Hans, we finally did the video, you can find it here:
as we had to make a 3 minutes video, we cut a lot of parts, but the referral to your blogs is in the video and also in the notes.
[editor and interviewer]
added after seeing it:
Your conclusion about "completely different choice" as against material and tangible aspects was a bit over the top. But it came through as your conclusion, not as my words. Thank you for that.
However, it was not supposed to exclude the link for conditions for using my work and paying voluntary royalties:
"Did I mention anyone is free to print, sew and sell my essays or any reasonable collection of them (by theme or contrarywise on all different themes)?"
musicalia: What's the deal? C'est quoi ce truc?
"In this society he can't and doesn't want to find a job" is straining it also: as soon as I had a wife or girl friend I could get out in the fields. Or into some private school.
But worst, you make it look as if I wrote and composed without any look at gaining money from it, as if I did not do it as a job.
Finally, that is not quite honest. It is not what my words mean. Some dishonest professor of yours may have told you such a summary is OK, it is not.
Im very sorry if you dont Like it, but we just had 3 minutes of time, and we used 5 because it was impossible to put all in 3.. In 5 it was difficult also so we chose those parts to build your story. I think also that people can understand what you wanted to tell, can be understood easily I think. By the way, if you don't think that I will send you the full version of it and you can edit!
I would like the full version without edits, if possible.
Ok give me a mail and I will send to you
And no, what you wrote does not really help understanding what I wanted to say, it helps a current misunderstanding.
Ok I'm sorry for that, we thought was ok
Hoping to see full version on youtube soon ...
added 27/X/2012 (no youtube yet with full version):
When I write, I write what pleases me to write, but I hope it will please others to read. If not everyone at least those who think or may be brought (by reading me) to think like me.
And if you read all my 2000 essays through on all my blogs, you will not find the thought "living unproductively to please oneself but noone else is a good life". It is not there. It is not there in my mind either. It is attributed to me by people who either do not know or do not want to know what I write. I consider such people my enemies.
As a Christian I have a duty to forgive my enemies, but not to approve what they do. You see, I hope, that what you two have attributed to me is an unproductive life, as if writing and composing were some kind of pot. Here is a link to the latest thing I wrote excepting short notes, and a link to my latest composition. As I mentioned, I want people to print my essays in book form or in their publications and to play for money what I compose:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera: A Difference or Two with Sungenis
musicalia: Mediæval Modal Jingle for Ukulele
Sorry for stating the obvious, but your conclusion rather encourages curiosity about my person.
As to the music, I have not actually heard it yet. Someone else knows if this is good music or merely nice noices (it is not nasty noices, I know that much) and such people can decide each one for himself or herself which composition to play and which not to play.
Since the other essay is about Catholic apologetics, let us look at the competition: Peter Kreeft. Here is a very good example from him, on the Divinity of Jesus Christ:
The Divinity of Christ by Peter Kreeft
All I can add to this is explaining how good the written evidence is:
somewhere else: 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category
But when Kreeft tries to repeat St Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God, he fails to grasp the argument from first mover / cause / necessary being correctly.
Peter Kreeft's version:
The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft
St Thomas Aquinas' version:
Article 3. Whether God exists? - SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)
I think he misses a lot simply by accepting too much of modern science, and also by not understanding how modern science identifies the God of the five ways with natural things - which St Thomas refuted, but not right there, rather when discussing how God is:
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The simplicity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 3)
Peter Kreeft does not understand how much modern "science" (evolution, heliocentrism, big bang) is based on an attempt of giving to the universe attributes belonging to God. And there is where I hope to make a difference. As of course in denouncing modern slavery.
[Since I already quoted the editor on FB, I can do it here too, and I hope he will get my hint and soon hand over a non-overedited version of my interview.]
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude