The many and varied languages of the world: do they all historically derive from a single parent "proto-language"? There is much speculation on that question, especially with the use of computer technology to compare language data in order to find common elements and trends between languages. Happily, some languages have a well-known and well-documented parent language, e.g. Latin, Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Achamenid Persian. Yet, there is no conclusive proof that all human languages arose from a single blissful and proverbial Garden of Eden-type scenario, completely devoid of all communication confusion. Nevertheless, the more we discover similarities between existing languages, the more tempting the speculation of the existence of a prehistoric "proto-language" becomes, as an object of further academic pursuit.
The first most obvious sign of historic kinship between languages is similarity of vocabularies. Yet often, lexical items referring to sophisticated economic, religious and socio-political institutions, as well as to science and technology, may easily be borrowed from one language to another, with no evidence of historic kinship between the donor and recipient languages in question. Far less likely to be mere borrowings, and thus more likely to be relevant and useful to prove linguistic kinships, are words referring to mankind's most primitive state of existence. Those words are: 1)counting numbers, 2)names of body parts, 3)names of family relations, and 4)names of natural phenomena. In considering lexical items for comparison, phonological differences, as well as similarities, may point to a common origin of two or more languages, so long as the phonological differences are correspondingly regular, systematic and predictable.
Also important to compare is language grammar, far less transient than individual words in languages. Do the languages in question have similar sentence structure and word order? How do the languages conjugate their verbs? Do the languages in question decline their nouns and adjectives by means of a series of case endings, or is the spatial relationship between nouns defined only by prepositions and postpositions?
Most importantly, it must be remembered that no one single consideration alone proves and conclusive historic relationship between languages, but all evidences must be weighed together as a whole. The bottom-line point here is that definite and reasonable criteria do exist to guide us, in proving and defining historic relations between languages.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, February 11, 2010
In Christ By Whose Hand?
The atheistic secular humanists in America today often brand Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals as "fanatics", "ayatollahs", "bigots", etc. and accuse them of seeking to forcibly impose Christianity upon the entire society by armed violence, torture and mayhem. They equate Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fanatic groups like Hamas, Al-Qa'idah, Hizb-ul-Lah and the Taliban. QUESTION: Can Christianity be spread by force of arms, as the atheistic secular humanist Left supposes?
Certainly, outward superficial expressions of the Christian Establishment can be implemented by military force of arms, as human history more than adequately illustrates. But is this real Christianity per se?
The apostle Paul wrote of men who, in the last days before Jesus Christ returns to earth, would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof"(II Timothy 3:5). This statement finds its Biblical antecedant in the admonition of Jesus Christ to "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing", and by spiritual fruits, not outward appearances, would true Christians be identifiable(Matthew 7:15-27). Most importantly, said Christ, men would know His disciples by their love to one another, and by their observance of the Golden Rule. (John 13:34-35; Matthew 7:12). Would those who resort to violence and military force of arms in attempt to impose God's kingdom on earth, care to have this same means to righteousness exercised upon themselves by others? Such coercion certainly is not any loving example to emulate!
Even so, military successes of men cannot necessarily guarantee the realization of God in the hearts and minds of the conquered people: without God's sovereign spiritual drawing of men to Himself, no man can come to God(John 6:44, Romans 9:15-16). God has absolute sovereignty over all men, in choosing out a people for Himself, and in no way can any man force the hand of God in this decision.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Certainly, outward superficial expressions of the Christian Establishment can be implemented by military force of arms, as human history more than adequately illustrates. But is this real Christianity per se?
The apostle Paul wrote of men who, in the last days before Jesus Christ returns to earth, would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof"(II Timothy 3:5). This statement finds its Biblical antecedant in the admonition of Jesus Christ to "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing", and by spiritual fruits, not outward appearances, would true Christians be identifiable(Matthew 7:15-27). Most importantly, said Christ, men would know His disciples by their love to one another, and by their observance of the Golden Rule. (John 13:34-35; Matthew 7:12). Would those who resort to violence and military force of arms in attempt to impose God's kingdom on earth, care to have this same means to righteousness exercised upon themselves by others? Such coercion certainly is not any loving example to emulate!
Even so, military successes of men cannot necessarily guarantee the realization of God in the hearts and minds of the conquered people: without God's sovereign spiritual drawing of men to Himself, no man can come to God(John 6:44, Romans 9:15-16). God has absolute sovereignty over all men, in choosing out a people for Himself, and in no way can any man force the hand of God in this decision.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, February 7, 2010
If There Be No God...
If there be no God, as proponents of Charles Darwin's evolution theories claim, what are the mathematical odds, that the entire universe, starting with the components inside the smallest living cell on upward in creation, would exhibit such complex, systemic and interdependent order without any external cause? In a mirror reflection of universal physical order, why do men so deeply crave spiritual order as well, even at the cost of liberty if necessary, to achieve it through institutions of law and government? The very existence of totalitarian dictatorships of one flavor or another throughout most countries of the world is testimony to the inability of men to live with the uncertainties of liberty. Men seem to have a deep-seated wish to control other men, all in the name of order, that order being to the advantage of the rulers notwithstanding.
Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed in motion to occur; hence, neither model of life's origin is true science. Both ideas are speculative philosophies, based on partial and plausible evidences at best--nothing finally conclusive. Evolutionists claim an ever-upward march in the complexity of organisms over time, all the while saying too that genetic changes in them are random, and genetic mutations are usually harmful or even fatal to the organism in question. Creationists, for their part, have never produced any physical entity, detectable by one or more of the five human senses, reasonably discernable to be God--Bible claims of Jesus Christ being God in the flesh dwelling among us notwithstanding.
Creationists, in an apparent refutation of Charles Darwin's theory, have concocted a counter-theory of irreducible complexity. This theory states that entire living biological systems appeared abruptly on the scene, with no previous simpler stages of development, e.g. the Cambrian explosion. Every component now extant in the system, the theory goes, is sine qua non to the entire system's existence and function. This is similar to the idea expressed by the apostle Paul in the Bible, I Corinthians 12:12-26: can the ear say to the eye, "I have no need of thee"? Can the brain say to the heart, "I have no need of thee"? Every part of the entire body has a crucial role to play in the survival and success of the entire entity. Important, too, is not just the presence of all component parts, but their order of placement and location within the biological system as well. Is this not the signature of an outside intelligence responsible for the biological system's existence? Note well the high degree of systemic order and interdependence involved in the living organism.
How can life possibly arise from non-life, if there be no God? Transformation requires causation, and the Bible tells us God is before all things. Nothing can arise at any point in time ex nihilo, including the atoms and molecules comprising the alleged primordial slime pits from which evolutionists say early life arose, including those of the atmospheric gases providing the environmental milieu for this prehistoric event.
If there be no God, how otherwise does existence exist? If, with God, all things are possible, such possibility includes science to provide us with the answers by penetrating the alleged wall of separation between itself and religion.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed in motion to occur; hence, neither model of life's origin is true science. Both ideas are speculative philosophies, based on partial and plausible evidences at best--nothing finally conclusive. Evolutionists claim an ever-upward march in the complexity of organisms over time, all the while saying too that genetic changes in them are random, and genetic mutations are usually harmful or even fatal to the organism in question. Creationists, for their part, have never produced any physical entity, detectable by one or more of the five human senses, reasonably discernable to be God--Bible claims of Jesus Christ being God in the flesh dwelling among us notwithstanding.
Creationists, in an apparent refutation of Charles Darwin's theory, have concocted a counter-theory of irreducible complexity. This theory states that entire living biological systems appeared abruptly on the scene, with no previous simpler stages of development, e.g. the Cambrian explosion. Every component now extant in the system, the theory goes, is sine qua non to the entire system's existence and function. This is similar to the idea expressed by the apostle Paul in the Bible, I Corinthians 12:12-26: can the ear say to the eye, "I have no need of thee"? Can the brain say to the heart, "I have no need of thee"? Every part of the entire body has a crucial role to play in the survival and success of the entire entity. Important, too, is not just the presence of all component parts, but their order of placement and location within the biological system as well. Is this not the signature of an outside intelligence responsible for the biological system's existence? Note well the high degree of systemic order and interdependence involved in the living organism.
How can life possibly arise from non-life, if there be no God? Transformation requires causation, and the Bible tells us God is before all things. Nothing can arise at any point in time ex nihilo, including the atoms and molecules comprising the alleged primordial slime pits from which evolutionists say early life arose, including those of the atmospheric gases providing the environmental milieu for this prehistoric event.
If there be no God, how otherwise does existence exist? If, with God, all things are possible, such possibility includes science to provide us with the answers by penetrating the alleged wall of separation between itself and religion.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Saturday, February 6, 2010
LKM On Cultural Awareness Month Celebrations
The author of this BLOG finds no wrong-doing with this practice of ethnic awareness month celebrations, so long as two conditions are present: 1)all ethnic groups comprising the American scene are allowed--with mutual respect and honor--to engage in this practice, and therefore, 2)persons of dual or multiple racial ancestry will faithfully observe hommage to all sides of their personal racial heritage. God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and it is sinful for us to show partiality for purpose of racial hubris over other ethnic groups.
As to American life itself, we must above all celebrate a commitment to equal justice under law by acknowledging all the nation's ethnic group contributions to its greatness. Finally, on these occasions, we are to celebrate the good that men do. The evil they have done before will live sufficiently beyond their own life-times, without effort of special notice from us.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
As to American life itself, we must above all celebrate a commitment to equal justice under law by acknowledging all the nation's ethnic group contributions to its greatness. Finally, on these occasions, we are to celebrate the good that men do. The evil they have done before will live sufficiently beyond their own life-times, without effort of special notice from us.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Two More American Profiles In Courage
The late President John F. Kennedy, before becoming President, wrote a famous book called Profiles In Courage, a saga of Americans with extraordinary vision and resoluteness of character.
The author of this BLOG believes that two more names should be posthumously added to that celebrated book: those of U.S. Senators Ernest Gruening of Alaska, and Wayne Morse of Oregon.
Regardless of what one may think of the politics of American military involvement in Viet Nam during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, the courage of these two United States Senators to stand rock-solid for their convictions against an overwhelming tide of contrary public opinion is hereby duly noted in this BLOG. It was these two U.S. Senators who, on August 7, 1964, stood alone to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This measure was used by President Lyndon Johnson and his Administration as a pretext to conduct open-ended warfare in Viet Nam: this, in context of the President's campaign promise to be a "peace candidate" on Viet Nam in opposition to the ostensibly "reckless" plans of Republican opponent Senator Barry Goldwater. At the time the vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was taken, these two U.S. Senators alone understood its fullest possible implications, while everyone else was blind to them.
By 1970, it was easy to oppose the American involvement in the Viet Nam war because public opposition to it had become popular by that time. But the reward for principled opposition to the war from the beginning, August 7, 1964, absenting popular approbation, belongs exclusively to these two senatorial profiles in American courage.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The author of this BLOG believes that two more names should be posthumously added to that celebrated book: those of U.S. Senators Ernest Gruening of Alaska, and Wayne Morse of Oregon.
Regardless of what one may think of the politics of American military involvement in Viet Nam during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, the courage of these two United States Senators to stand rock-solid for their convictions against an overwhelming tide of contrary public opinion is hereby duly noted in this BLOG. It was these two U.S. Senators who, on August 7, 1964, stood alone to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This measure was used by President Lyndon Johnson and his Administration as a pretext to conduct open-ended warfare in Viet Nam: this, in context of the President's campaign promise to be a "peace candidate" on Viet Nam in opposition to the ostensibly "reckless" plans of Republican opponent Senator Barry Goldwater. At the time the vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was taken, these two U.S. Senators alone understood its fullest possible implications, while everyone else was blind to them.
By 1970, it was easy to oppose the American involvement in the Viet Nam war because public opposition to it had become popular by that time. But the reward for principled opposition to the war from the beginning, August 7, 1964, absenting popular approbation, belongs exclusively to these two senatorial profiles in American courage.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, February 5, 2010
The WHY Of Education
Why go to school? Do not facts wear out and skills obsolesce, as new discoveries in science and technology are made and introduction of new socio-political values give us different perspectives on social sciences and humanities previously studied? Indeed, does yesterday teach us anything about today and tomorrow?
The strongest ostensible justification for the Education Establishment in society is to insure future financial independence of citizens, and even to increase money-earning capacities. Presumably, we must have school, lest ours be a nation of street bums, vagrants, criminals and other types of ne'er-do-wells. "Fitting into society" is the goal.
But this pretext raises two more issues: 1)Why is government compulsion required, to assure an educated society? 2)Why must collective society dictate educational priorities to individuals? Does not "no child left behind" also sound like "no child can get ahead"? Under this scheme, we all march lock-step together, because even as some people "get ahead", others, by automatic definition and comparison, "fall behind".
Are we all of equal intellectual endowments and talents to begin with? Of course not!--Nor should we be. As the apostle Paul writes in the Bible, "Can the ear say to the eye, 'I have no need of thee'?, or can the heart say to the brain, 'I have no need of thee'?" Every individual talent has its purpose in a global scheme of things and, for the benefit of society-at-large, none should be supressed, or even temporarily "placed on hold" while other skills and knowledges are involuntarily acquired at state behest. Only when individuals are free, does society progress and benefit the most. In a climate of freedom are individuals most likely to strive with utmost enthusiasm in the realization of their dreams and visions for themselves.
What of the monetary gain aspect of education? Granting that personal financial independence is a valid concern, the Bible tells us man does not live by bread alone. Knowledges and skills put to use outside the context of one's money-earning career can be, and often are, of benefit to society. For example, understanding inter-personal relationships issues--especially those transcending boundaries of racial and national culture--are crucial to survival and success in an increasingly interdependent world. Corporations have learned this lesson by hard experience, in discovery that what sells in America may not always sell with equal success in foreign societal milieus. The reverse is also true. In any case, no amount of money can purchase the blessing of social harmony and concord. In this context, the folly of education exclusively for the sake of monetary gain becomes evident.
How, then, shall the success of education be measured? By the degree of financial prosperity of its graduates? The pornography industry has amply demonstrated ability to make vast monetary treasure by appeal to the lowest bestial side of the human character, rather than to its more noble impulses. Are Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Al Goldstein successful? Education clearly must serve more noble purpose than satiation of human material appetite. It must do much more than keep men out of jail, and enable them to say, "I did not have sex with that woman!" All the President's men graduated from the most challenging law schools in America, and still failed to learn that lessons as they went to prison anyway! Education too, thus failed in that instance.
What, then, is the final purpose of education, and how is its success to be measured? The successful teacher is the one who persuades his/her students to continue study in his/her academic discipline, long after they have left his/her classroom. Voluntarism based on enlightened self-interest, in pursuit of relevance to one's own life, is a far more powerful guarantor of academic perpetuity for a given discipline, than is state coercion based on presumptive plausibility not yet confirmed in the life of each individual student.
The why of education, then, is best summed up by demonstration of an appreciative relevance of the individual to the real and total world in which he or she lives.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The strongest ostensible justification for the Education Establishment in society is to insure future financial independence of citizens, and even to increase money-earning capacities. Presumably, we must have school, lest ours be a nation of street bums, vagrants, criminals and other types of ne'er-do-wells. "Fitting into society" is the goal.
But this pretext raises two more issues: 1)Why is government compulsion required, to assure an educated society? 2)Why must collective society dictate educational priorities to individuals? Does not "no child left behind" also sound like "no child can get ahead"? Under this scheme, we all march lock-step together, because even as some people "get ahead", others, by automatic definition and comparison, "fall behind".
Are we all of equal intellectual endowments and talents to begin with? Of course not!--Nor should we be. As the apostle Paul writes in the Bible, "Can the ear say to the eye, 'I have no need of thee'?, or can the heart say to the brain, 'I have no need of thee'?" Every individual talent has its purpose in a global scheme of things and, for the benefit of society-at-large, none should be supressed, or even temporarily "placed on hold" while other skills and knowledges are involuntarily acquired at state behest. Only when individuals are free, does society progress and benefit the most. In a climate of freedom are individuals most likely to strive with utmost enthusiasm in the realization of their dreams and visions for themselves.
What of the monetary gain aspect of education? Granting that personal financial independence is a valid concern, the Bible tells us man does not live by bread alone. Knowledges and skills put to use outside the context of one's money-earning career can be, and often are, of benefit to society. For example, understanding inter-personal relationships issues--especially those transcending boundaries of racial and national culture--are crucial to survival and success in an increasingly interdependent world. Corporations have learned this lesson by hard experience, in discovery that what sells in America may not always sell with equal success in foreign societal milieus. The reverse is also true. In any case, no amount of money can purchase the blessing of social harmony and concord. In this context, the folly of education exclusively for the sake of monetary gain becomes evident.
How, then, shall the success of education be measured? By the degree of financial prosperity of its graduates? The pornography industry has amply demonstrated ability to make vast monetary treasure by appeal to the lowest bestial side of the human character, rather than to its more noble impulses. Are Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Al Goldstein successful? Education clearly must serve more noble purpose than satiation of human material appetite. It must do much more than keep men out of jail, and enable them to say, "I did not have sex with that woman!" All the President's men graduated from the most challenging law schools in America, and still failed to learn that lessons as they went to prison anyway! Education too, thus failed in that instance.
What, then, is the final purpose of education, and how is its success to be measured? The successful teacher is the one who persuades his/her students to continue study in his/her academic discipline, long after they have left his/her classroom. Voluntarism based on enlightened self-interest, in pursuit of relevance to one's own life, is a far more powerful guarantor of academic perpetuity for a given discipline, than is state coercion based on presumptive plausibility not yet confirmed in the life of each individual student.
The why of education, then, is best summed up by demonstration of an appreciative relevance of the individual to the real and total world in which he or she lives.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
