Grayling does an excellent job explaining how the West moved from the Spanish Inquisition (in the 1500s) into the relative daylight of liberty enjoyed in contemporary democracies.

One of the highlights of Prof. Grayling's book is his clear explication of the importance of John Locke in the story of liberty.

Wheras Hobbes' argued that human life in a state of nature is "nasty, brutish, and short," Locke argued that what is most important about individual human nature is not its violence, but its unique capacity (among animals) for reason and freedom. This shifted the debate concerning the role of the State from the Hobbesian one (the State is a "Leviathan" that a people surrenders its rights to in the name of collective safety and protection) to a Lockean one (in which the State is at the service of protecting the ability of individuals to reason and exercise freedom).

The book thus lays out clearly what is at stake for the West if we collectively succumb to the temptation (in the name of security) of conceiving of our world as a Hobbesian one (as opposed to a Lockean one).

According to Grayling, we have to be very careful not to erode our hard won liberties in the name of "the war on terror," or mute our freedom of speech in the name of multicultural and religious sensitivity.

Grayling is a liberal in temperament, not a conservative, and he deals with these issues in a moderate and nuanced fashion, while nevertheless emphasizing the frailty of our liberties, and reminding us of how difficult they have been to attain, and how easy they might be lost in a time of economic or war-time crisis.

Grayling is not as polemical as Dawkins or Hitchens, but he is every bit as intelligent and interesting to read.

Here's the book at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Light-Liberty-Struggles-Freedom/dp/0802716369/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Setelah sarapan saya nunggu di lobby sesuai perintah dari "Bapak" (panitia) yang terrnyata cewek semua. Yang datang pertama orang Vietnam (bener nih tebakannya), Orang Cina, Orang Bangladesh, dan terkahir orang India. Akhirnya kami berkumpul, yang menarik adalah kedatangan mahasiswa tahun ke 3 mungkin semester 6. Dia volunteer untuk menjemput kami. Wah lebih terkejut lagi pada waktu mobil yang dipakai ternyata mewah banget (bus limousine). Hmmm pokoknya asyik banget, sambil tegang mau dibawa kemana. Kami berlima dibawa ke gedung AED, Academy for Education Development. Surprise berikutnya adalah jumah panitia yang memang hanya 2 orang. Dua perempuan (Shanon Roe dan Mia Gutierez), bayangkan kalau di Indonesia, itu pasti berjubel panitianya. Setelah kami berkenalan maka kami mendapat gambaran tentang kegiatan yang akan kami lakukan selama di Washington. Untuk kegiatan di Virginia sepertinya akan dijelaskan oleh local Host.

Tidak lama datang Jill dari Department of State mengucapkan salam dan berbicara cukup detail. Setelah itu ada penjelasan teknis yang sangat spesifik sehingga kami para peserta rada-rada kebingungan. Shanon dan Mia sepertinya senyum2 lihat kepolosan kita.

Orang Vietnam cukup pendiam mungkin karena Englishnya, Orang Cina yang berapi-api, yang paling aktif ya orang India dan Bangladesh. Mereka sudah Ibu-ibu, wakasek pula. so, mereka cukup dominan deh. Setelah selesai, Shanon dan Mia mengajak ke ruangan internet dan telephone. Sayang untuk nelpon rumah rada-rada gak ngerti hehehe. Buka email, ada tabakan Mas Ikhsan yang tepat. Yaitu makan Mie pas datang hehehe.

Setelah acara perkenalan selesai maka saya diajak jalan ke Restoran Kaukus, konon di restoran itu tempat para anggota Senat nongkrong dan melakukan lobby. Tempat masuknya kecil dan tidak terlihat mewah, tapi di dalamnya uihhh exclusive banget deh. Banyak orang2 berdasi dan sedang berkumpul, dipikiran saya pasti ada project penting atau hal bisnis lainnya.

Menu? jangan tanya, semuanya berbau tokoh negara di dunia. Ada Napoleon Salad, Beef Medalion, dll. Nah saya coba deh tuh Beef Medalion, karena dah pasti makan seperti itu tidak akan pernah di daparkan di Indonesia. Aji mumpung ya hahaha. Rasanya uih... hampir-hampir tidakhabis itu daging dua potong. Setelah itu datang Mr. Dunn seorang profesor masalah UU Federal. Uihhh keren banget dan sangat inspiratif. Gak nyangka deh, dia bicara hampir gak berhenti. Saya cukup terkejut dengan statemen dia yang mengatakan bahwa Konstitusi itu bukan Kitab suci yang tidak bisa dirubah. Konstitusi adalah acuan bagi suatu bangsa untuk menuju kesempurnaan. Statement itu cukup inspiratif dan membuat keyakinan saya tentang UUD semakin terbuktikan. Bukan masalah dia orang Amrik sih, tapi ya memang begitulah sebuah konstitusi adanya.

Dia juga mengatakan bahwa semua hal yang berkaitan dengan perundang-undangan tidak bisa dilakukan hanya sebatas lobby dan kepentingan sekelompok orang. Pertaruhan bahwa dirinya adalah mewakili siapa benar-benar dibuktikan. Hal prinsip yang pertama di pegang adalah, menjaga hak2 warga yang diwakilinya tetap terjaga. HHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa jadi sedih deh kalau dibandingkan ke kita. Siapa mewakili siapa, atas nama rakyat padahal ... entah kepentingan siapa. Buktinya, ya sekarang ini betapa banyak wakil rakyat ternyata bejat dan biadab. Naudzubilah.

Yang menarik adalah isu Check and balance dengan teori Trias Politica John Locke. Keren banget, serasa kuliah lagi tapi ini lebih dalem gitu loh... padahal pembicaraan tadi dilakssanakan setelah makan siang, sambil desert gitu... Tapi pembicaraan dalam itu luar biasa. Dia cerita bagaimana 2 orang mewakili tiap negara bagian akan berusaha kerasa membawa issue dari negara bagian tersebut. Dan itu jelas berkenaan dengan harga diri dan prestasi. Dia memberikan contoh, waktu USA mau membuat 15 pangkalan militer, itu dilakukan dengan alot. Karena jelas, kalau ada pangkalan militer, maka ekonomi rakyat disitu mati. Karena akan ada area yang luas dan tidak boleh dimasuki. Nah lobby dalam memilih daerah dan kompensasi dari daerah itulah yang jadi acuan utama.

Patokan mereka, tetep ... jangan ada hak-hak rakyat yang terganggu walau untuk kepentingan negara. Rakyat di atas segalanya. Sehingga undang-undang yang dibuat bukan berdasarkan program seenaknya dari para penguasa tapi benar-benar dibutuhkan oleh dan diinginkan oleh rakyat.

Sayang pembicaraan itu terhenti oleh program berikutnya yaitu keliling Wahington...

Ceritanya nanti ya, mau sarapan dulu nih..

Wahington, Carlyle Suites Hotel (23 Juli 2008)

Maybe John Locke blows stuff up all the time so he can tidy things up again?

<
(By nightdancer342 for youtube)

Something I found interesting, particularly given the timing of Locke's writing were his comments on the Hebraic pre-text underlying the Greek language of the letters themselves.

The language wherein these epistles are writ is another, and that no small occasion of their obscurity to us now: the words are Greek; a language dead many ages since; a language of a very witty, volatile people, seekers after novelty, and abounding with variety of notions and sects, to which they applied the terms of their common tongue with great liberty and variety: and yet this makes but one small part of the difficulty in the language of these epistles; there is a peculiarity in it that much more obscures and perplexes the meaning of these writings than what can be occasioned by the looseness and variety of the Greek tongue. The terms are Greek, but the idiom, or tun of the phrases, may be truly said to be Hebrew or Syriac. The custom and familiarity of which tongues do sometimes so far influence the expressions in these epistles, that one may observe the force of the Hebrew conjugations, particularly that of Hiphil, given to Greek verbs, in a way unknown to the Grecians themselves. (p vi - Preface)

Given the prominence that the Hebraic Roots and New Perspective movement have given to the importance of recognizing and understanding Semitisms (semitic idioms) in the text, I found it fascinating to read John Locke's comments. After all, whether a book was originally written in Greek or subsequently translated into Greek is sort of a moot issue. The point is that they were written, without exception (other than the possible exception of Dr. Luke) by Hebrew speakers, to whom the Hebrew language and the Hebraic mindset were native.

I wonder if Dr. Robert Lindsey ever read Locke's book?

I felt compelled to write this blog, surfers, after listening to one of my favorite radio show podcasts. The topic is one that I have been thinking about for 27 years. What? I know what you're thinking; Neo de Caussade has been thinking about the state of human nature since infancy? You are too kind, and very perceptive. Somehow I always knew this about you.

The state of nature discussion is like the tide. The popularity of the topic ebbs and flows over time; coming into our consciousness and falling back again. For our little discussion I would like to introduce you to Ockham's Razor, that favorite radio show I mentioned. Specifically, I would like you to read the transcript or listen to the podcast for a talk presented by Tim Dean.

In my first philosophy college course I debated with classmates the state of nature as outlined by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Just to briefly review "Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance." In another opinion "Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a 'war of all against all', and thus lives that are 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'"

Clearly, there are no absolutes and along the morality scale some people, and I include religious leaders in this group, rate more moral and others less. Human nature just that way, some folks more moral than others. The big question is is humanity more inclined to be moral or less? I will not pull any punches, and I will hit you straight in the mouth with this; I believe human beings are good at their core. Where do you fall on the topic?

..."it was long thought that we learn language, the vocabulary and the grammar, from scratch. Yet in the 1960s Noam Chomsky turned this view on its head. He suggested that much of our language faculty was innate. Essentially, we were born with the tools required for language, and all we needed was exposure to the raw material of the language around us, and the rest wrote itself." "And the same appears to hold true for our moral faculty. A string of recent research in psychology has shown that we are able to negotiate complex moral issues with little or no internal reflection on the rules leading to the judgment."Tim Dean.

Surfers, you will run into people who will tell you that without religion there will be no morality. They will say that religion teaches us morality. Science is showing us that morality is innate to our basic state of nature. It is becoming clear that religion is not needed to keep a moral compass for our humanity. What good is religion? You decide.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.

- John Locke

Burke med Locke utan Kant fast med Rand.

Bilden är från dagens IKEA-besök.

The history of America is littered with government documents which pledge allegiance to the Monarchy of England. The oldest of these, the Mayflower Compact, argues: "Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience." This argument lays down that the colonies have the authority, in the absence of the British parliament and King, to create laws and the various other legal documents for their protection and security.

The Declaration of Independence, a trans-colonial document, asserts from the outset that unlike previous colonial documents such as the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration is not being presented to maintain peace and security in the absence of the British government. Rather, the colonies for the first time are taking leave of their British government and setting out on their own to govern themselves. Furthermore, they are announcing that not only are they setting out on their own but that they have the right under the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

The assertion of the Laws of Nature is a slow process that has taken thousands of years since the ancient Greek philosophers announced Natural Right. In his Nicomachaean Ethics, Aristotle argues for two types of justice: that which is just everywhere, and that which is just only in the city. Furthermore, there are two specific types of justice: legal and ancestral. The latter is just or unjust based on how the ancestors viewed it while the other is just or unjust based on the positive law of the day. This was altered centuries later by St. Thomas Aquinas who introduced the Natural Law. The Natural Law is that law which is inscribed on the hearts of all mankind; it is the Divine Law. The first knowable law is Self Preservation, which argues that you have not only a right but an obligation to protect your life. By the time of the Enlightenment and modernity the Natural Law had become the Law of Nature; a law which can be derived through reason and logic based on observations of nature. Once again, the first knowable Law of Nature is Self Preservation.

By invoking the Law of Nature, Thomas Jefferson and the colonies are invoking the belief that a state is obligated and permitted to separate from a parent for the first sake of Self Preservation. In fact, the charges made against Parliament and the King strike at the heart of Self Preservation. Furthermore, the Law of Nature dictates that when the child has matured they are to split off from their parent, such as the Bible says. In this instance, it is only right for the colonies to split from Mother England to govern themselves.

The following is an exercise in historical imagination, only meant to elicit what is possible from what we know. Perhaps a fiction bent towards fact.

Wim Klever has brought to my attention a detail which sheds some light upon the possible lens polishing techniques Spinoza employed. Admittedly the connective tissue for a conclusion is not there, but the inference remains.

Professor Klever tells me that in his "Insignis opticus: Spinoza in de geschiedenis van de optica" he cites Freundenthal's publication of the advertisement of the auction of the Spinoza's estate in the Haarlemse Courant. The advertisement was printed on November 2nd, and occurred on November 4th (almost 9 months after Spinoza's death). It seems likely that Constantijn Huygens jr., and/or his brother the famed scientist Christiaan,  bid at and purchased what remained of Spinoza's estate. This is how Wim Klever roughly translates some of the items:

books, manuscripts, telescopes ('verrekyckers, mind the plural!), microscopes ('vergrootglazen', also plural), glasses so grinded ('glazen soo geslepen'), and various instruments for grinding ('en verscheidene slypgereedschap') like mills ('molens', also plural!) and great and small metal dishes serving for them ('groote en kleine metale schotels daartoe dienende') and so on" (en so voort).

It is the number of devices and equipment that is Klever'spoint. Spinoza is not a dabbler in optics. He does not grind a few spectacle glasses for the near-sighted, but rather is interested in full-blown optical instrument production. There are multiple telescopes and microscopes to be had, as well as perhaps something more important, his grinding dishes, and other small details of his process. Certainly the bill of sale attests to a rather thorough industrial investment on Spinoza's part, making of his optical enterprises something quite substantial, but what I am most interested in is the timing of this auction, in the view of the events that immediately are set to follow, events which may give clue to the nature of just what it is that Constantijn Huygens purchased for his brother.

Spinoza's death, and auction occurs right at the doorstep of a very important moment in history: the official discovery of protozoa, bacteria, and then spermatozoa by Van Leeuwenhoek in nearby Delft. And it is this discovery which will eventually catapult the single lens simple microscope into European renown. But there is, I suggest, a good chance that Spinoza had been making, using, giving to others andpossiblyselling this kind of microscope for a very long while (Klever translates "vergrootglazen" as "microscope" as one should, but there is another word for microscope, and this word means "glass that magnifies" perhaps more suitable for a single lens microscope.)  

First, I should point out that ChristiaanHuygens had been a neighbor to Spinoza since 1663 when Spinoza moved to Voorburg, a sleepy village just outside ofThe Hague. He is a profound experimenter and scientist, having, among other remarkably brilliant things, invented the pendulum clock and discovered the rings of Saturn in the very same year of 1656. Spinoza had, most agree, become a conversational friendinthe summer of 1665, when the two of them discussed optical theory it seems with some regularity and detail. The Huygenses lived about a 5 minutes walk from Spinoza's room at the house of master painter Daniel Tydeman, just down the road. Christiaan moved to Paris in 1666 to take the prestigious position of founding Secretary to Académie Royale des Sciences established by the Sun King Louis XIV to rival the Royal Society of London. There was no doubt extreme pressure to counter and surpass the great flow of knowledge that was collecting at the Royal Society under the supervision of Oldenburg. 

During the intervening years, as Huygens attempted to bolster his Academy, in letters written to his brother back in Voorburg he expressed interest in Spinoza's lens polishing technique. As early as 1667, he writes Constantijn "the [lenses] that the Jew of Voorburg has in his microscopes [I don't have the original word here] have an admirable polish" and a month later again, "the Jew of Voorburg finishes his little lenses by means of the instrument andthisrenders them very excellent". Here we have an attestation to both the mystery of the quality of Spinoza's polish, (it was a technique which Spinoza apparently kept to himself); and also there is the hint that the instrument used was meant for very fine work, on the smaller of lenses. (In general, the difficulty in acquiring a fine polish on lenses was a significant aspect of lens-crafting technique, as polishing away the pitting of the glass brought in the grinding often would change the spherical shape of the lens.) In 1668 Christiaan then writes to his brother a concession over a debate that he must have been having with Spinoza, that Spinoza is right that the smallest objective lenses make the very best microscopes.

These references by Christiaan establish that the Huygens brothers' had interest in techniques which Spinoza was not free with, and that Spinoza was on the side of the debate that theoretically would favor the use of single lens microscopes; this, at the very least, confirms their acquisition of his equipment and lenses to be something of a notable event. If there was anything to Spinoza's technical capabilities which resided in the equipment he used (small grinding dishes, the nature of his lathe, an abrasive recipe, a polishing material), this fact might be evidenced by a sudden change in the capacities of either brother in making microscope lenses.

And remarkably, such a change was to come.

Now the issue of timing. Here is a timetable of events that led up to Christiaan Huygens presenting a "new microscope" to the Académie Royale des Sciences, one that perhaps reflects something of Spinoza's technique in crafting lenses.

9 Oct. 1676  Van Leeuwenhoek sends his letter regarding the discovery of protozoa and bacteria.

21 Feb. 1677  Spinoza dies at the The Hague.

22 Feb. 1677  Van Leeuwenhoek's letter 18 to the Royal Society is read aloud, the "first ever written account of bacteria" (Dobell).

August 1677 Van Leeuwenhoek discovers the animalcules in semen, spermatozoa

4 Nov. 1677 Spinoza's auction, the Huygenses seem to have acquired some of Spinoza's equipment.
@ 4 Nov. 1677 Van Leewenhoek writes to the president of the Royal Society, William Brouncker, about his observation of the spermatozoa in semen. This sample was brought to him by Leiden medical student Johan Ham (who also might have had a single lens microscope).
Late 1677 Christiaan expresses interest in the Van Leeuwenhoek/Ham discovery (OCCH 8:77; and 62-3, 65).

March 1678  Hartsoeker explains to Christiaan how he makes lenses from beads of glass.

16 July 1678  Christiaan presents to the Académie Royale des Sciences the "new microscope" that differs from others in Holland and England only in the very small size of the lens.

Aug. 1678  Christiaan writes "my microscopes" have made a "great noise" in Paris.

One must know that single lens microscopes had already been in use in the Netherlands for some time before these dates. It had been used, but its capacity for magnification had not been regularly harnessed to make scientific discovery. Part of this was due to a difficulty in using it, for it must be pressed very closely to the eye, requiring great patience, and lighting techiques for the specimen in contrast had to be developed. And part of this dearth of scientific discovery was due to simply the lack of a conceptual framework for the microscopic world. This was a new world. Few as yet would even know where and why to point such a small and powerful viewing glass. Be that as it may, the microscope technique of forming tiny bead lenses from threads of melted glass was certainly known and talked about in a close scientific circle of experimenting savants (a short history of the spherical glass here). Among those notables were Spinoza's correspondent Johannes Hudde who made them at least since 1663 when he showed his design to the French diplomat Monconys, and possibly used it as early as 1659 when he youthfully writes in a letter how he will uncover the secrets of generation through its powers. The scholar Vossius has one in 1663 which he also shows to Monconys, and in 1666 publishes the claim that the smaller the lens the stronger the magnification. And then to greatest attention Hooke describes his own bead microscope in the Micrographia in 1665 (some comments here), complaining though that it is too difficult to regularly use, fearing the loss of his eyesight.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="410" caption="Hooke's Fly's Eye, from the Micrographia"][/caption]

And of course, it is the king of all microscopists, Van Leeuwenhoek, who exclusively employed this kind of microscope, making over 500 of them almost all for his personal use (some comments here). When he began using them is of much debate. He makes a claim late in life that had had made bead microscopes as early as 1659 (so simple are they to make!), yet some scholars find him to have been directly informed by the description left by Hooke in the Micrographia. We do not hear of his use until 1774, and the nature of his microscope he keeps secret for sometime. It is Van Leeuwenhoek's microscope - upon the reading of his 18thletterto the Royal Society, the day after Spinoza's death - that will suddenly take center stage through its discoveries (although its nature at this time remains largely unknown). The single lens microscope is the strongest microscope in the world, but only now will Christiaan Huygens be coming to realize it.

For many years it seems Johannes Huddehad to defend his tiny spherical lenses against Huygens' intutionthat larger, compound scopes would do a better job of magnifying. It seems quite likely that Spinoza found himself mostly on the Hudde side of the argument, even I think it likely that it was Hudde himself, or one in his circle who disseminated the technique to him, either in Amsterdam or at Leiden. To this possibility, the famed Leiden anatomist Swammerdam attributes Van Leeuwenhoek's technique to Hudde, as he does his own' and Borch in his diary mentions the heavy influence of Hudde upon these Cartesians. Apart from this debate, Christiaan as a user of the compound scope as late as January 1675 to Oldenburg expresses an outright pessimism towards Van Leeuwenhoek discoveries already relayed to the Royal Society. These may be founded on his own frustrations when attempting to repeat the experiments, as he simply did not have enough magnification power, or they may even be a product of Van Leeuwenhoek's low social standing as a mere draper in Delft (while Christiaandoesnot strictly know what kind of microscope Van Leeuwenhoek possesses, he may have guessed. There may be a class issue that folds into the conception of the microscope. Bead lenses are simply, too simple. They are not the shiny, gearing tubes of an upper machinery):

I should greatly like to know how much credice Mr. Leeuwenhoek's observations obtain among you. He resolves everything into little globules; but for my own part, after vainly trying to see some of the things which he sees, I much misdoubt me whether they be not illusions of his sight...(Dobell 172)

Christiaan Huygens Makes His Turn

But back to the excitment. Something has turned Christiaan Huygens' pessimism of the simple microscope into an enthusiasm. Most certainly some of this can be attributed to the sudden notability of Van Leeuwenhoek's discovery of the protozoa and bacteria in marshy and boggy water. In November he will have discovered what male semen looks like under high magnification. At stake were arguments over just how Life itself was generated. (Did it arise spontaneously as it seemed to do in moulds, or was there some "mechanism" to it?) One can imagine the primacy of such a question. Secondly though, it is thought that Christiaan Huygens's sudden leap towards the simple microscope was nearly entirely triggered and faciliated by the young microscopist Hartsoeker, who not long too before had discovered this technique for himself. The two were in correspondence and in March 1678 Hartsoeker reveals to him his secret. As Edward Ruestow narrates in his wonderful history The Microscope and the Dutch Republic:

The announcement of the discovery of spermatozoa in the fall of 1677 arouses the particular interest of Christiaan Huygens and, through the young Hartsoeker, drew him belatedly to the bead microscope...but having heard of a young man in Rotterdam whose microscopes could reveal the recently discovered spermazoa, Christiaangot in touch with Hartsoeker.

The essential account of their first contact, which is Hartsoeker's, is tainted by its entanglement with his later claim that he had in fact been the first to discover spermatozoa. The surviving correspondence begins with a reply from Hartsoeker in March 1678 in which he explained how he made the bead with which he observed the "animalcules" found in semen. He presented Christiaan with a number of these sphericals, as well as some wood and brass devices to hold them in place, and by the endofthe month had himself come to The Hague to show Christiaan the spermatozoa of a dog. Hartsoekercontinued to correspond with Christiaan about the employment and improvement of these instruments, all of which Christiaan meanwhile shared with his brother Constantijn. The following year Constantijn spoke of Hartsoeker as "the inventor of our microscopes," and years later Christiaan recalled Harksoeker having taught them to make little spheres that served as lenses (24-25)

This is all very convincing. Christiaan, after many years of resistance to the idea of tiny spherical lenses, debating with Hudde and possibily Spinoza, spurred on by the need for more powerful magnfication due to the discovery of protozoa, bacteria and then the most importantly, the elusive key to life, spermatozoa, collaborates with a savantish, largely unknown young man from Rotterdam who even claims that had discovered the technique himself when he was a young boy, and suddenly is applying his own rather vast device-making knowledge to craft the best microscopes in Europe, presenting them to the Paris academy, confirming Van Leeuwenhoek's discoveries only three and a half months after having learned how to bead lenses himself. Huygens is shopping his microscope across the continent, while Van Leeuwenhoek refuses to allow anyone to look into or even see his.

But the problems with this quick reversal narrative is subtle. For one the lens-bead techique is extremely simple. Hartsoekerhimself said he discovered it while toying with a thread of glass and a candle. Swarmmerdam says that he could make 40 more or less servicable bead lenses in an hour. It also, as I have said, was rather ubiquitous. To recount: Huddehadbeen in possession of it at least since 1663, was willing to depart with it for at least Swammerdam and Monconys, andin fact had discussed its advantages with Huygens in April 1665. As M. Founeir describes Huygens' objection to Hudde:

Hudde discussed the merits of these lense with Huygens [OCV, 308-9, 318, 330-1], who declined their use. He particularly deplored their very limited lack of depthof field. He foundit inconvenient that with such a small lens one could not see the upper andunderside of an object, a hair for instance, at the same time ("Huygens' Design..." 579).

Vossius, Huygens's friend seems to be in possession of it then, and it is no doubt related to the "flea glasses" that Descartes speaks of in 1637, "whose use is quite common everywhere".  Further, of course, when Hooke describes it in brief in his 1665 Micrographia, he exposes the method to the whole English reading world. This text Huygens remarkably had in his possession very soon after its publication, one of the few copies in Europe despite the Anglo-Dutch war of that year; and we have that copy, a section of which is annotated with Huygens' hand.  Huygens had even been so kind to actually translate some of the English for Johannes Hudde.

Further in evidence that Christiaan Huygens was well-familliar with this lens, in November 1673 Hooke demonstrates to the Royal Society "microscope withonlyone globule of glass, fastened to an instrument with many joints" likely made in wide production by the Dutch instrument maker Musschenbroek. And even more conclusively, Christiaan's own father Constantijn Sr. a few months later writes of a powerful "machine microscopique" used by both Swammerdam and Leiden professor of Botany Arnold Seyn (Ruestow, 24 n.96); and we know that Swammerdam later favored a single lens scope. Given their prevalence, simplicity andthe extent of Huygens' likely intercourse with these lenses, it could not be that Christiaan Huygens and his brother were somehow deprived, waiting to be told how to bead glass by the 22 year old [Leiden student?] Hartsoeker? It may be imagined that perhaps Hudde kept his personal means of grinding tiny lenses secret from Huygens due to some competitive antagonism and Huygens' obstinancyover the larger, compoundlens microscope design. Perhaps. But it could not be that all of educated Europe keep it a secret from one of the foremost scientific minds of the time. Something does not sit right. Was it simply Huygens's disinterest in such a low-depth of field, simple lens, andhis proclivities for certain other types of lens formations (compound, like his telescopes) that kept him from wanting to know? Was Hartsoeker simply the expedient when Christiaan needed to catch up quickly? The way that Edward Ruestow tells it we get the sense that it merely took the interest of Huygens, the timely injection of technique, and then the application of the Huygens' brothers marvelous technical sense. Perhaps.

But I suggest that one piece is missing from this puzzle. It may be not until the Huygenses acquired the lens-grinding equipment and lens examples from Spinoza's estate that they possessed the technical means of polishing these small spherical bead lenses: a talent for minute polish which Spinoza had showed early on. Could it be that this was the link, the technical means which accelerated the rapid development of the Huygens microscope from concept to actuality?

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="337" caption="The Huygens droplet design, as it ended up in late 1678"][/caption]

Ruestow cites the kinds of changes that the Huygens brothers made to the Hartsoeker lens technique, such as "removing the molten globule from the thread of glass withametal wire, or, with one end of the wire moistened, picking up small fragments of glass to fuse them into globules over the flame" (25). All these seem aimed trying to make the sphere smaller and smaller, increasing its magnification. In the endChristiaan would proclaim to his French audience that his microscope is not much different than those in Holland and England, other than the size of its smaller lens, supposedly something which he alone had achieved.

He also produced a casing that was built around this tiny lens, "mounting their own beads in small squares of thin, folded brass; with the bead trapped between the opposing holes pierced with a needle through the two sides of the folded brass, those sides were pinched together with hammered pieces of wire. The microscope would go through several revisions.

As Ruestow writes of its appearance in Paris:

"on July 16th he presented to the assembly the 'new microscope' he had brought back withhim from Holland - one that, according the the academy minutes, was 'extraordinarily small like a grain of sand' and magnified incredibly...before July was out, Christiaanusedthe instrument to show the members of the academy the microscopic life Leeuwenhoek had found in pepper water, soon after publishing the first public announcement of their discovery in the Journal des Sçavans, Christiaanalsoidentified it with the discovery of the spermatozoa." 

By August his microscope had caused the "great noise" all over Paris, so much so that John Locke at Blois had heard of it. Through the next year he had "cultivated the impression" that Van Leeuwenhoek's observations were made with a microscope like his own. French instrument makers set to copying his invention. The response was not altogether gleeful. In London Hooke was somewhat put out that so much excitment surrounded what for him was a well-known device, one that he himself had fashioned, used and written of. And Hartsoeker, having finished his third year at the University at Leiden, all the while had been left in the shadows, not something that sat well with his rather conceitful temperment. Traveling to Paris Hartsoeker sought in some way to unmask his role in the creation of this remarkable device, exposing Huygens to be something of a plagerist. As Ruestow reports, knowing wisely Christiaan steered him from that course,

but [Christiaan] quickly took his younger compatriot under tow and wrote a brief report for him, published in the influential Journal des Sçavans, that asserted Hartsoeker's active role in making new bead microscopes (27).

We have here evidence of Christiaan's tendency to obscure the origins of his microscope. Yet was there more to the development than simply Hartsoeker's revelation of the thread melting techique? Was it that in the purchase of Spinoza's lens-polishing equipment they acquired something of the techiques long appreciated by the brothers? Does this technique prove essential to Christiaan's implementation of a rather simple bead-glass lense? Was Hartsoekersimply solicited for the one remaining aspect of the technique that Spinoza's equipment would not provide, that of simply melting the glass into a lens? We do know that the grinding of the already quite spherical bead was common among its users. For instance Van Leeuwenhoek ground and polished almost all of his tiny bead lenses, (and modern assayers do not quite know why). Further, Johannes Huddealsopolished his bead lenses, reportedly with salt. Was there something to Spinoza's knowledge of small lens-crafting that facilitated Huygens' suddenly powerful microscope design? Something even that Hartsoeker was privy to? And lastly, if Spinoza's equipment and techniques are implimented in this sudden rise of the simple microscope, what does this say about Spinoza's own microscope making practices.

All this fantastic story is just speculation of course

It could merely be a coincidence that, with Spinoza having died just as protozoa and bacteria were being discovered; and with his equipment coming into the hands of the brilliant Huygenses almost 9 months later, they they then just happen to be aided by a young microscopist that gives the means needed to suddenly develop a microscope that will sweep across Europe in merely a few months. Christiaan Huygens and his brother were brilliant enough for that. Perhaps Spinoza's ginding dishes and recipes simply sat in the dust, having been acquired. But it should be noted that many years before this, the physcian Theodor Kerckring, a friend of Spinoza's and a member of the inner, Cartesian circle, son-in-law to its central member Franciscus Van den Enden, writes of his use of Spinoza's microscope:

"I have to my disposal a very excellent (praestantissimum) microscope, which is fabricated by that noble Benedictus Spinosa, mathematician andphilosopher...What I in this way discovered with the help of this admirable instrument...[are] endless many extremely small animalcula...."

This is found in his Spicilegium anatomicum published in 1670, seven years before Van Leeuwenhoek's acclaimed description of the protozoa and bacteria in letter 18. It is not clear at all what "animalcula" Kerckring saw (some offer that they are post-mortum microbes, or mistaken ciliated action), but there is the possibility that these were the earliest microorganisms to be described, or at the very least, Spinoza had perfected an advanced form of the single lens, bead-microscope whose powers of magnfication approached many of those of Van Leeuwenhoek, and even that of its copist Christiaan Huygens. The timing remains. In November of 1677 the Huygenses lmay have acquired Spinoza's lens grinding equipment, and in 8 months they have a microscope of remarkable powers.

God rejected them [i.e. the Jews] for being his people, and took the Gentiles into his church, and made them his people jointly and equally with the few believing Jews. This is plainly the sense of the apostle here, where he is discoursing the nation of the Jews and their state in comparison with the Gentiles; not of the state of private persons. Let anyone without prepossession attentatively read the context, and he will find it to be so.

Though I am hesitant to invite Locke aboard my ship, his comments remind us that the "state of private persons" view of Romans (or the rest of Paul's letters, for that matter) - the view that sees the salvation of individuals as the letter's primary focus - is not as firmly grounded in tradition as some would have us believe.

Per evitare spoiler torno dopo il salto

Le domande che più mi premono in questo momento sono:

- Qual'è l'origine degli altri?

- Chi è in realtà Richard Alpert

- Come è morto Locke

- Dove è finita l'isola

- Come fa Ben (nonostante sia escluso) a sapere le "novità" dell'isola?

- Sta protegenndo gli Oceanic 6 solo perché sono l'unico mezzo per tornare sull'isola?

Vi inserisco la proposta dei link offerta dal Blog di Lostpedia:

• Per iniziare: gli articoli dell’episodio su Lostpedia, prima parte, seconda e terza parte
• Discuti sull’episodio: il topic nel forum di Lostpedia
  
• I due finali alternativi
• La conferenza stampa dei Sei della Oceanic in versione completa (contiene alcune scene eliminate)
• Prossimanente: Octagon Global Recruiting, la nuova Lost Experience

It shows up in too many places that you wouldn’t want to take your mother or small children. It may give pleasure, but often it merely clouds the judgment.

For numerous examples of rhetoric in its poisonous forms, we need only turn on Fox News or flip through the before-and-after weight loss advertisements in a National Enquirer. There are a lot of people, hard at work in politics, religion, entertainment, and marketing, who give rhetoric a bad name.

John Locke, when he was trying to clear some intellectual space for the first flowerings of Francis Bacon’s scientific methods, perceived rhetoric to be, on balance, a serious barrier to human progress. 

Locke called rhetoric “the arts of fallacy” and “that powerful instrument of error and deceit” (The Rhetorical Tradition 710).

Locke, of course, wasn’t taking a swipe at mass capitalist culture, which had not yet evolved, but at the barristers, parliamentarians, pulpit preachers, and university professors of his day, who, in Locke’s view, too often used rhetoric to prop up dubious or unwarranted claims, putting a trance on the minds of those who attended to their words. “It is evident how much men love to deceive and be deceived," he lamented (710).

Locke’s view of rhetoric here is not just as a persuasive art, but as a dark art, a spell-casting art.

Traditionally, the art of rhetoric, as a subject of study (or derision), has been confined to its use in public speaking and persuasive essay writing, but since the mid-20^th century, communication theorists have steadily expanded rhetoric’s range, so that today, in the 21^st century, it’s not unusual to find academics talking about rhetoric as

something embedded in all messages, from greeting cards to billboards to music lyrics.

One of the early pioneers of this expanded rhetorical territory was Wayne Booth.

In 1961 Booth published a book with the curious title, The Rhetoric of Fiction, which is now widely considered a modern classic in literary criticism, opening up contact between two fields of study—literature and rhetoric—that normally did not explicitly intersect.

A more recent example is an introductory college writing text titled, Everything’s an Argument (2007), written by two prominent and influential professors of academic composition studies. In it, they boldly suggest that even stained-glass windows, meditation, and prayer function rhetorically (Lunsford 15).

Books such as these imply that if we look closely enough, rhetoric, like the Freudian id, is at work just about everywhere, below the surface of things, and can be teased out of the shadows and studied.

English and Speech Communications academics who study rhetoric thus increasingly find themselves sharing research space with linguists who study cognitive metaphors (such as Lakoff et.al), and social psychologists and media theorists engaged in propaganda and cult-formation studies.

Wherever you find an author, a message, and an audience, you find rhetoric. 

Government must act in good faith treating all citizens equally ~ not favouring organised business lobbies and organised labour over an unorganised peasantry

By SUBROTO ROY
First published in The Sunday Statesman Editorial Page Special Article, December 31 2006, www.thestatesman.net

EVERY farmer knows that two adjacent plots of land which look identical to the outsider may be very different in character, as different as two siblings of the same family. Adjacent plots may differ in access to groundwater and sunlight, in minerals and salts, in soil, fertilisers, parasites, weeds or a dozen other agronomic factors. Most of all, they will differ in the quality and ingenuity of thought and labour that has gone into their care and cultivation over the years, perhaps over generations.

John Locke said: "Whatsoever that (a man) removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property… For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no one but he can have a right to what that once joined to, at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others" (Second Treatise of Government). Plots of land are as specific as the families that have "mixed" their labour with them. Locke wrote of labour being something "unquestionably" the labourer's own property; in the same libertarian vein, Robert Nozick opened Anarchy, State and Utopia saying "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)".

But as we recognise the universal sanctity of the individual person and his/her private property, we have to start qualifying it. If you purchase a field, forest or estate through which runs a pathway traditionally used by the public to get from one side to the other then even as the new owner you may not have a right to forbid the public's use of the pathway. By extension, it is clear the State, the community of which you are a citizen, may approach you and demand there should be and will be a public road or thoroughfare through your property in the common interest. Such is the sovereign's right of "eminent domain" recognised throughout the world, not only in times of war or natural disaster but also in normal times where private property may be taken for public use. The individual's right to free use of his/her property is circumscribed as a result.

What may be certainly expected though in all matters is that the State will act in good faith, i.e., that it has conducted proper technical surveys and cost-benefit analyses as well as transparent public hearings, and has honestly decided that the road must be constructed using this route and no other. The doctrine of eminent domain implies that while the right to private property may be basic, it is not absolute, as indeed no right is, not even the right to one's own life. In India, one key difference between the landmark Golaknath (AIR 1967 SC 1643) and Kesavananda Bharati (AIR 1973 SC 1461) rulings had to do precisely with the former recognising the right to property being fundamental as in our original 1950 Constitution, while the latter consented to the Indira Parliament's denial of this.

When private property is taken, fair compensation must be paid. For example, the American Constitution says "no private property may be taken for public use without just compensation". What is just compensation? Typically it would be the "fair market value" -- but that must be properly adjudged accounting for the best future use of the land, not merely the historical or traditional past use of the land.

Consider, in a mature urban real-estate market, a plot made vacant because a warehouse located on it has accidentally burned down. What is the value of the plot now? Another warehouse could be built, but other bids could come in too for construction of offices or residential flats or a multi-storey garage. The plot's value would differ depending on which use it is ultimately put to. And this value would be ascertained by calculating the expected cash flows into the future from each of these possibilities, discounted appropriately to account for the fact the future is less valuable than the present, with the highest value alternative being chosen. That is how a mature private real-estate market works in theory, though in practice there would be zoning and environmental restrictions to account for the traditional nature of the neighbourhood as well as possible pollution by effluent waste etc.

In India, Government departments and ministries have inherited prime urban real estate from British times. Amidst the highest value real estate in Kolkata, Bangalore, Delhi etc. will be found a military camp or flats built for military personnel, having nothing whatsoever to do with furtherance of the nation's defences today. The appalling state of government accounting and audit of our public property and institutions includes the fact that neither the Union nor State Governments and municipalities have the faintest idea of assets, including real estate, that they own. These public assets are frequently open to abuse by managerially uncontrolled government employees.

Fallacies even more curious seem to be currently at work in Indian policy-making, whether by this or that political party. The "eminent domain" doctrine requires a public purpose to exist for acquisition of private property by the State: e.g. construction of a road, bridge, dam, airport or some other traditional public good which is going to be used by the public. In India as elsewhere, "land reform" did involve taking an absentee landlord A's land and distributing it to B, C, D and E who worked as peasants on it. But nowhere else outside formerly communist China has land been forcibly taken from peasants B, C, D and E and handed over to this or that private capitalist in name of economic development (in a reverse class war)!

Eminent domain doctrine requires good faith on part of the State with respect to its citizens and that implies treating all citizens' interests equally – not e.g. favouring an organised business lobby or organised industrial labour over the unorganised peasantry uneducated in the wiles of city people.

Also, there is no reason why Government should be interested in a particular product-mix emerging out of a given private factory (such as the so-called inflation-unadjusted "Rs one lakh car" instead of telecom equipment or garments or textiles). Dr Manmohan Singh's statement last week that he wishes to see "employment-intensive" industries merely added to Government confusion: from Henry Ford to Japanese "lean business" today, everyone knows the direction of change of technology in the automobile industry has been towards robotics, making modern manufacturing less and less manpower-intensive! The Tatas themselves underwent a major downsizing and restructuring in the last decade, hiving off industries not considered part of their "core competence".

Traditional agriculture of Singur's sort represents the most labour-intensive employment-generating kind of rural economy. While such rural life may appear unsatisfying to the urban outsider, there is, as Tolstoy, Rabindranath, Gandhi and others knew, subtle happiness, contentment and tranquility there absent in alienated industrial sprawls. "Surplus" labour occurs in agriculture because of technological improvements in quality and delivery of agricultural inputs as well as new education and awareness (Theodore W. Schultz,Transforming Traditional Agriculture). It is mostly seasonal and all hands are used during the harvest when even urban migrants flock back to help. Industry did not leave Bengal in the 1960s and 1970s because of Mamata Banerjee but because of urban unrest, the culture of gheraos and lockouts, and bad regulations of the labour and capital markets associated largely with Ms Banerjee's Left Front adversaries.

The basic fiction the Union and State Governments have made themselves believe is that their idea of an industrialisation plan is necessary for economic development. It is not. Real economic problems in West Bengal and elsewhere are financial to do with State budgets. "Debt overhang is there" is how the RBI Governor apologetically put it last week. Interest payments on the West Bengal State public debt consume larger and larger fractions of the revenue: these payments were at Rs 13 Bn in 1995 but grew to Rs. 92 Bn by 2004, and may jump to Rs 200 Bn in the next decade. The communists have been in power thirty years and no one but they are responsible. Making the State's budget healthy would require tackling the gargantuan bureaucracy, slashing ministerial extravagance (foreign trips, VIP security) etc. It is much easier to hobnob with the rich and powerful while tear-gassing the peasants.

i was wondering about the finale of LOST how the oceanic six take about a certain jemery bentham. when i saw his name on one of my history study guides, i decided to do a little research and this is what i found...

Bentham was a British political reformer. In an age when the death penalty was imposed for thefts as small as 5 shillings (maybe $20 today), or for unknowingly passing counterfeit money, for which the humane alternative was "transportation" to penal colonies like Georgia or, after the American Revolution, Australia, Bentham proposed an ideal kind of prison, the "panoptikon" ("all seeing"), where prisoners would be under constant supervision. This is more or less what modern prisons are like.

At the same time, Bentham had unusual ideas in other areas. Certainly the most unusual was what he wanted done with his body. Bentham thought that his body should be preserved and kept on display. This would be his "Auto-Icon." He believed this is what might be done with all famous men. His body, indeed, was preserved and is kept at the University College of London (UCL) in a wooden cabinet, modestly and precisely labelled "Jeremy Bentham." The body as such is not visible, since it is clothed and the head has been removed and replaced with a wax one.

my idea is that somehow Locke is uses Bentham's idea and thats why the producers used his name, in hopes someone at home would make the connection.

im not sure, but i have a feeling that this connects to LOCKE somehow, seeing as his body ends up in AMERICA in a casket.
i wonder...

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK

Now before we get started, let me make a statement: Oddly enough, Chris and I each wrote about this same subject without any coordination or knowledge of what the other was working on!  I know that this is an emotionally charged issue for some, but I've really tried to approach this objectively and do my best to simply hold up the position of the founding fathers to the Bible.  So let's jump in!

It helps to understand some of the prevailing philosophies leading up to the late 1700's.  In 1650, a man name Robert Filmer published the book Patriarcha, which was a defense of the notion that kings and rulers had a divine right to absolute authority.  The application of this idea was that kings could do as they pleased, and subjects were required to obey the king no matter what as a matter of religious obligation.  While this was predictably popular with the monarchy, it rubbed a certain theorist by the name of John Locke the wrong way.

Locke's most influential work was entitled Two Treatises of Government, and it swung the pendulum far in the other direction in the year 1690.  In the first half, he repudiates Filmer's claim that kings have a blank check due to divine appointment.  In the second half, he describes his belief in an inherent right of man to pursue his best interest, though not at the expense of the collective interest.  He also states that if government effectually and habitually hinders that cause, then:

"the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good" - Paragraph 220

This leaves the door open for rebellion (including violent ones) and brings us to the 1770's when things are getting heated between the American colonists and Great Britain.  John Locke was arguably the biggest singular influence on the thinking of the eventual authors of the Declaration of Independence.  This much is evident in the wording of the Declaration itself:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - Paragraph 2

It is noteworthy that in the Declaration, there is a tone of patient forbearance over legitimate grievances and a feeling that the action of independence was brought about as the last resort.

So the question is, how does this hold up to scripture?  Let's start with the elephant in room, Romans 13:1-7.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God." - Romans 13:1

Seems pretty cut and dry, doesn't it?  Guess again!  There was (and in some areas still is) an argument that this passage should be interpreted as "being subject to the idea of government in general."  They argued that we should be subject to government, though not necessarily the current one.  In this framework, a people could rise up, overthrow authority, install a new government, then submit to that.  Proponents of this argument will typically use the example of civil disobedience in Daniel, David, Moses, and Peter an John before the Priestly council.

I contend that Romans 13 does, in fact, speak to submission in whatever our current situation is (I am joined by Walvoord & Zuck in this).  I come to this position based on a clear reading of the passage as well as the discussion of taxes in verses 6 and 7 (the context is more specific than general), and Ephesians 6:5-9 where our responsibility is expressly directed towards obedience to God regardless of our situation.  In the case of biblical examples of civil disobedience, we should note that in those cases they were either peacefully resisting in light of God's written commands, or were obeying direct commands from God himself or His prophets.  I don't think there's any record of John Hancock claiming he heard voices from heaven.

I also think the framer's attitudes towards man's "unalienable rights" is faulty.  "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are gifts of grace from God, but certainly not rights we are owed.  All have sinned, and the wages of sin is death.  That is all we deserve, and anything different is mercy and grace from God.

The Bible does speak of freedom for the Christian, but it is freedom from the Mosaic Law (Galatians 4:21-5:13), and freedom from sin (John 8:31-36; Romans 6:15-22).  Interestingly, Paul speaks of things more important than freedom, namely the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19).

To summarize, I personally feel that the justification for the Declaration of Independence is not biblical and, subsequently, is sinful.  Those who wrote and signed the Declaration, while many being devout Christians whom I believe wanted to act within the will of God, let their thoughts be consumed with the prevailing philosophy of the times and succumbed to a faulty interpretation of relevant passages of the Bible.  This is based on exposition of God's word, and is in recognition that if I were in their same position, I might very well have come to the same sinful conclusions that they did.

John MacArthur had the following to say about Romans 13:1-7 in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (1994): "Obviously, [armed rebellion] is forbidden by God, and, judged in light of our present text, it is equally obvious that the United States was born out of violation of Scripture."

The danger I have found while researching this is that many like to pick a side and declare our founding fathers as wholly good or wholly evil.  That is unfair.  There are many examples in church history of recognized pillars of faith that have obvious flaws.  Luther was disturbingly anti-Semitic and Calvin presided over the execution of a heretic.  We can learn from these flaws as well as recognize the positive aspects of past Christian brothers and sisters.  After all we should be mindful to pull the log out of our own eyes before looking to the speck in the eyes of others.

But does this unbiblical beginning make our country a sham?

In my next post, I'll examine the second major work by this same group of men that highlights some of the positive contributions we can thank our founders for... the United States Constitution.

En esta temporada los personajes, la isla, los otros, y la gente de Widmore han cerrado algunas líneas de relato y a su vez han abierto otras.

RESUMEN (traducido al español por Gaviota (RM)):

En los flashforwards, los Oceanic Six - Jack Shephard, Kate Austin, Sayid Jarrah, Sun-Hwa Kwon, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes y el bebé de Claire Litterton, Aaron, llegan a Honolulú en donde son recibidos por los padres de Sun, la madre de Jack, y los padres de Hugo. En la conferencia de prensa, los Oceanic Six dan una historia falsa a numerosos reporteros de todo el mundo. Saliendo de la conferencia, Sayid se reúne afuera con Noor Abed "Nadia" Jazeem, su antigua novia. Tiempo después, Sun visita a su padre en Corea y le dice que él es uno de los culpables de la muerte de Jin, su esposo, y en venganza, utiliza la compensación que le otorga Oceanic Airlines para comprar una parte importante de las acciones de su empresa. En Estados Unidos, los padres de Hurley, le organizan una fiesta de cumpleaños sorpresa a su hijo y le regalan un Camaro antiguo. Hugo está feliz con su regalo hasta que descubre que el odómetro muestra los Números, los cuáles le ocasionan un ataque de pánico y escapa corriendo. En el flashforward final, Jack da un discurso en el funeral en memoria de su padre, Christian Shephard. La madre de Claire, Carole Litterton, le confiesa a Jack que Claire es su media hermana.

En la isla, Jack y Kate siguen la señal del teléfono que arrojó desde el helicóptero Frank Lapidus. En el camino se encuentran a James "Sawyer" Ford, Aaron y a Miles Straume; Kate toma al bebé y a Miles de regreso a la isla. Jack y Sawyer se encuentran con Lapidus, quien ha sido esposado al helicóptero; están a punto de irse cuando deciden rescatar a Hurley de los mercenarios. Mientras tanto, Sayid regresa a la playa en una balsa justo cuando Kate regresa. Sayid y Kate van por Jack y Sawyer pero son capturados por Richard Alpert y los Otros. Daniel Faraday empieza a transportar gente de la isla al barco; Sun, Jin, Aaron y otros tres sobrevivientes llegan al barco, para descubrir una gran cantidad de explosivos C4 abordo.

En su afán de mover la isla, Benjamin Linus, John Locke y Hurley llegan a la estación Orquídea, de la Iniciativa Dharma, que está encubierta entre un invernadero. Ben envía a Locke a la parte "real" de la estación y se entrega a Martin Keamy y a los mercenarios, que habían llegado previamente. Ben no está preocupado ya que él "siempre tiene un plan".

Jack y Sawyer van a la Orquídea en dónde se reunen con Hurley y Locke. Jack y Locke discuten sobre la isla y John le suplica a Shephard que no se vaya porque no ha completado su misión en la misma. Cuando Jack lo rechaza, entonces le dice tiene que mentir sobre la isla en cuanto se vayan para protegerla. Mientras tanto Keamy, los mercenarios y su prisionero Ben, regresan al helicóptero. Kate, Sayid y los Otros atacan a los mercenarios, a quienes matan, excepto a Keamy, quien finge estar muerto. Los Otros intercambian a Ben y permiten que Kate y Sayid abandonen la isla en el helicóptero. Ben va a la Orquídea, en donde le dice a Jack que se vaya lo más pronto posible, y toma un elevador con Locke.

Dentro de la cámara subterránea, Ben, molesto por las preguntas de Locke, le dice que vea el vídeo explicativo de la Orquídea. En lo que Locke lo mira, Ben pone todos los artículos metálicos que encuentra dentro de una cápsula, cosa que consterna a Locke porque el vídeo explica que no se debe de hacer. El vídeo comienza a discutir sobre el viaje en el tiempo y la videocassetera se descompone. Locke de nuevo le pregunta a Ben y este último no le responde nada. En eso Keamy entra a la Orquídea y le dice a Locke que si él muere, la bomba en el barco explotará porque el detonador se activará si el monitor que lleva deja de detectar su ritmo cardiaco.

Ben, enfurecido por la muerte de Alex, mata a Keamy sin remordimiento alguno por los que están en el barco. Ben le dice a Locke que sea el líder de los Otros, y le indica dónde puede encontrarlos. Se despiden y los Otros dan la bienvenida a casa a Locke.

Ben sella la cápsula dónde ha colocado los artículos metálicos y la enciende, generando un agujero en la parte trasera del compartimento. Después de ponerse una chaqueta, Ben baja por el agujero y llega a una cámara congelada, y descendiendo, se hiere un brazo. Después da vueltas a una rueda de metal, para iniciar el proceso de mover la isla. Cuanto termina de rotarla, suspirando y aparentemente arrepentido de su acción, una luz blanca envuelve a la isla. (En el episodio de The Shape of Things to Come, Ben aparece en el desierto del Sahara vistiendo esa chaqueta y con el brazo herido).

Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sawyer, Hurley y Frank Lapidus abandonan la isla en el helicóptero, pero descubren una fuga de combustible, ocasionada por la balacera que tuvieron los mercenarios y los Otros. Para aligerar la carga del helicóptero, Sawyer salta al mar, no sin antes susurrarle algo a Kate en el oído y besarla. El helicóptero alcanza a llegar al barco, cargarle combustible, arreglar la fuga, recoger a Desmond, Sun y Aaron e irse antes de que explote, aparentemente matando a Michael, Jin y al resto de la tripulación. Antes de la explosión, Christian Shephard se le aparece a Michael diciéndole "ya te puedes ir". Daniel, quien está llevando un grupo de gente de la isla al barco, se da la vuelta. Sawyer regresa nadando a la isla, en donde encuentra a Juliet tomando ron, viendo tristemente el humo causado por la explosión del barco.

La gente del helicóptero decide regresar a la isla, pero en lo que se acercan, ven que la isla desaparece enmedio de una luz blanca. No teniendo en dónde aterrizar, se quedan sin combustible y son forzados a saltar al mar. Estando en la balsa inflable del helicóptero, Hurley comenta que Locke tuvo éxito moviendo la isla. Jack se molesta y le dice que no está de acuerdo. Por la noche, son encontrados por un barco propiedad de Penélope Widmore. Jack les dice a los sobrevivientes que deberán mentir acerca de lo que pasó en la isla para proteger a los que se quedaron. Desmond y Penny al fin se reúnen. Todos están de acuerdo en mentir y hacen un plan para que los Oceanic Six lleguen a una pequeña isla de Indonesia con una historia sobre cómo sobrevivieron después del accidente aéreo. Se despiden de Desmond y Frank y llegan a la isla de Mumbata, a unas 3,000 millas de dónde fueron encontrados.

En los flashforwards, Kate, Jack y Walt comentan ser visitados por Jeremy Bentham, el hombre a cuyo funeral asiste Jack. En Londres, Sun se encuentra con Charles Widmore y le dice que tienen intereses en común. Sayid mata a un tipo en el manicomio y convence a Hurley a irse a un lugar seguro... no sin antes darle jaquemate en un juego de ajedrez imaginario con el fallecido Mr. Eko (pobre gordito, lo perdimos con tantos eventos). Kate tiene un sueño en dónde Claire le dice que no lleve de regreso a Aaron a la isla. En el flashforward final, Jack regresa a la funeraria en donde se confronta con Ben, que dice que la isla no permitirá que Jack regrese sin todos los que salieron de ella, incluyendo al difunto John Locke quien supuestamente ha estado contactando a los Oceanic Six con el alias de Jeremy Bentham.

¿Cuáles son sus teorías, mis queridos fanáticos?

MINI RESUMEN EN VÍDEO:

Episodio sexto de la primera temporada de la serie de Perdidos (1x06: House of the Rising Sun, La Casa del Sol Naciente). Jack y Kate descubren dos cuerpos en las cuevas, a los que John Locke denominó como Adán y Eva. Dentro de los cuerpos, Jack encontró en sus bolsillos dos piedras: una negra y otra blanca. Y así quedaba expuesto uno de los misterios de Perdidos de los que menos sabemos y de los que no hemos vuelto a saber practicamente nada.

Hoy en EL CONDENSADOR DE FLUZO, vamos a arrojar un poquito de luz sobre ello. A continuación más datos sobre los cuerpos de Adán y Eva, comentarios de los creadores al respecto y posibles identidades de los cuerpos.

Hay spoilers así que puede que no quieras seguir leyendo.

MÁS DATOS CONCRETOS QUE CONOCEMOS

El deterioro de la ropa nos da alguna pista sobre su identidad. Según Jack, refleja que llevan muertos unos 40 o 50 años. Junto con las piedras son los únicos datos concretos que pueden servir como pistas. Jack cogió esas piedras, y al menos en pantalla, no hemos visto que le haya revelado a John Locke haberlas encontrado.

COMENTARIOS Y PISTAS DE LOS CREADORES

En una entrevista de Marzo de 2.007 con Damon Lindelof y Carlton Cuse (creadores de Perdidos), éstos aseguraron que el descubrimiento de Adán y Eva era la primera pista para enlazar con el tema de los viajes en el tiempo, demostrando así que desde el principio de la serie tenían algunas ideas claras.

En otra entrevista, Carlton Cuse respondió:

La respuesta a esa pregunta está en la línea temporal natural de la Isla. No queremos decir mucho sobre eso, pero hay un par de easter eggs en el episodio Not in Portland, uno de los cuales es un anagrama que actualmente arroja luz sobre los esqueletos y da pistas sobre un misterio mitológico mayor que empezará a destaparse más adelante (¿Quiza la capacidad para mover la isla y viajar en el tiempo?)

Damon Lindelof añadió:

Hay algunas cosas que sabemos desde el principio. Independientemente de que no sabíamos cómo sería el final, sabíamos qué iba a suceder, y empezamos a exponerlo en la primera temporada. Así que los esqueletos son la prueba viviente de ello. Cuando lleguemos al final la gente dirá, "esa es la prueba que desde el principio sabían lo que estaban haciendo"

UN ANAGRAMA QUE ARROJA LUZ A ESTE MISTERIO

Como ya adelantamos en esta entrada, en el episodio Not in Portland existe un anagrama respecto a la compañia a la que representa Richard Alpert: Mittelos es un un anagrama de Lost Time. ¿Será este el anagrama al que hacen referencia? o ¿será otro?

¿A QUIÉN PODRÍAN PERTENECER LOS CUERPOS?

• Nativos antes de la llegada de Dharma: Quizá responsables de la creación de la estatua con el pie de cuatro dedos.

• Supervivientes o descendientes de ellos de La Roca Negra: Podrían haber sobrevivido al naufragio. Aunque más que naufragio, dada la capacidad de moverse la isla en el espacio (¿y en el tiempo?) quiza la isla apareciera de repente y levantara al barco, quedandose este en mitad de la isla.
• Desmond y Penny: ¿Imagináis que al final de la serie se descubre que Adán y Eva son Desmond y Penny? Un grandioso final circular con viajes en el tiempo. Como nota importante añadir una cosa: En el episodio Flashes before your eyes se pueden ver las piedras negra y blanca (aunque algunos dicen que son solo tapones de cerveza)
• Bernard y Rose: Posiblemente ambos jamás abandonen la isla. Las piedras podrían ser una pista respeto a su etnia.
• Jacob y Leah: Dadas las referencias biblicas, en el último capítulo del Génesis, Jacob es enterrado en una cueva junto a Leah.
• Los padres de Charlotte: Dado que Charlotte ha revelado que ha nacido en la isla, ¿serán los esqueletos de sus padres?

Gerald DeGroot y Karen DeGroot

• Gerald DeGroot y Karen DeGroot: Los fundadores de la Iniciativa Dharma bien podrían ser Adán y Eva en esta historia.
• Amelia Earhart y Fred Noonan: Personajes del universo expandido de Perdidos en la red. Amelia Earhart y su copiloto Fred Noonan se supone que se perdieron durante unl vuelo en torno al año 1937.

Pero no son las únicas alternativas, hay otras que aunque aparentemente más inverosimiles, despiertan nuestro interes, ya que muchas revelarían más viajes temporales como los siguientes:

Aaron Littleton y Ji-Yeon Kwon

• Aaron y Ji-Yeon
• Ben y Annie

Sería muy potito que fueran:

• Hugo y Libbie
• Goodwin y Juliet
• Charlie y Claire

Y si no, siempre pueden ser alguna pareja formada por: Jack, Kate, Sawyer y Juliet.

Via | Todo Series

In my post “Ecclesiastical and Government Authority,” I discussed the importance of priesthood authority in conducting the affairs of true religion. I drew on our familiarity with the importance of authority in ecclesiastical affairs to propose this possibility: in order to govern other men, a man must first have authority to do so. I asked the question, “Where do men get the authority to rule other men?”

Joseph Fielding Smith answers this question very clearly:

If the world be the Lord’s he certainly has a right to govern it; for ... man has no authority, except that which is delegated to him. He possesses a moral power to govern his actions, subject at all times to the law of God; but never is authorized to act independent of God; much less is he authorized to rule on the earth without the call and direction of the Lord; therefore, any rule or dominion over the earth, which is not given by the Lord, is surreptitiously obtained and never will be sanctioned by him.¹ (emphasis added)

From this quote, the answer to our question is clear: the authority to rule other men must come from God. This is a fairly bold claim, and it invites us to re-examine many of our assumptions about government. In a later post, I hope to be able to justify this claim using both ancient and modern revelation, and respond to numerous practical and philosophical objections.

The first immediate objection to this idea is that it seems to contradict the founding principles of the United States of America, a nation which claims its authority from the consent of the people governed. However, although these ideas may seem to contradict, I will show how they do not. The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution based those documents partly on the philosophy of John Locke. Almost a century prior to the America Revolution, Locke wrote a book called Two Treatises on Government, in which he claimed that men are born into this world as equals. He wrote:

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is ... a state ... of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creature of the same species and rank ... should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.²

In other words, Locke believed that no man can claim sovereign dominion over other men without divine appointment. When he said that men are born "equal," he is not referring to economic status, family name, or anything of that sort; he means that no man has any claim of dominion over other men merely by virtue of their birth. In fact, his words echo what Alma said to his people: "Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another" (Mosiah 23:7).

John Locke also persuasively argued that no one presently living has the divine appointment necessary to claim dominion over other men, and thus refuted the long-standing idea of the divine right of kings. He subsequently presented his view of how government can form in the absence of divinely appointed rulers. In a later post, I will expand upon Locke's views of government in this state of affairs; right now I will simply say that I find some of it to be quite palatable. For example, Locke believed that in this primal state of equality, men have certain rights or privileges that he may exercise without any special claim to divine authority. Because these privileges are God-given, only a man with special authority from God can deprive anyone of these privileges. It was upon this philosophical framework that the founders of our nation made their claim of independence from British rule. They also drew on Locke's writings as they drafted the Constitution of the United States; and as the Lord said that the Constitution was written "according to just and holy principles," (D&C 101:77) I believe it is valuable to learn just what these principles are.

In my next post I will examine some more of Locke's political philosophy, and in what ways the men who founded our nation drew from those principles. I will assume that no one presently on the earth has a special divine commission to govern, and that the rights God granted us upon our entrance into this world can therefore never be properly rescinded by a mortal government. In a later post, I will also discuss periods of time when God has authorized men to rule on the earth, and my belief that such a time will come again.