text:
Why the sacramental break between East and West?
Well-educated Catholics know a thing or two about why the Great Schism, separating the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity, occurred in the eleventh century. But most of us know just that -- only a thing or two. I'll include myself in that group: when students ask me, I say something about the filioque and papal authority.
A recent piece by historian George Demacopoulos posted on the blog of the Greek Archdiocese of North America shows the importance of contextualizing the split in the fuller contexts of canon law and the Crusades. He asks: "[H]ow exactly did it come to pass that the Orthodox Church forbid sacramental union (baptisms, marriages, the Eucharist, etc.) with Western Christians in the first place?"
A careful reading of the historical sources reveals that the canonical grounds for refusing sacraments to Western Christians are more tenuous than most recognize. Equally problematic is the extent to which the modern reflection on these canonical and ecumenical questions has been hindered by a combination of intellectual stagnation and an ecclesiastical super-structure that, in the post-Byzantine world, has largely failed to resolve important theological questions.
Demacopoulos goes on to describe the rather sparse canonical engagement with the question of sacramental communion. And the two canonists who did engage the issue, Balsamon and Chomatenos, were "Crusade-weary" sources whose opinions were not evenly followed. Demacopoulos argues it was only during the later "Ottoman captivity of the Orthodox Church," a "period of intellectual decline," that "Balsamon's legacy gained a disproportionate hold on subsequent canonical assumptions in Orthodox canon law."
Demacopoulos admits, of course, that major obstacles to sacramental unity remain. But it is salutary to learn the historical contextualization of the two canonists whose viewpoints still "dominate [the Orthodox] approach to Western Christianity." In this one prominent historian's assessment, at least, they "both failed to offer precise theological or canonical arguments for their proscriptions against sacramental unity. Instead, these interpretations emphasize political and cultural animus against the Crusaders and those Greeks who conspired with them."
About the Author
Michael Peppard is associate professor of theology at Fordham University, author of The World's Oldest Church and The Son of God in the Roman World, and on Twitter @MichaelPeppard.
37 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Perhaps ecumenical engagement would stimulate both East and West to revisit our respective positions that have resulted in sacramental division?
Granted the 10th century was not a good time for Christianity: Crusades, schisms, pogroms. The only catastrophic crises yet to come in history for the church that even come close in magnitude are the Reformation; and then in our own time, the wanton serial rape and sodomy of children by bishops and priests.
But don't yah think that after a millennium of mutual condemnation and excommunication between Chrisitian traditions that that is just about enough?
Don't yah think that Jesus would be totally scandalized by these divisions among his disciples?
I can almost hear in my head how the pleading of St. Paul would sound about how we are all members of the same Body.
The Byzantine rites are every bit the equal of the Roman rite. Perhaps now after a millennium Christianity needs a new rite which gives new expression to modern realities and culture? [Like the equality of women, a reverence and celebration of human sexuality, and a truly servant priesthood of the people.]
I enjoyed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swm6gu5J338 for a 6-minute history of the Church, seen from an Orthodox perspective.
A Catholic version of the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBKhm7YJ5Ic
A funny Protestant version of the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coOMnNPjgys
My impression is that on the Western side, Catholics would by and large be happy to be reunited with the Orthodox and would have few objections to ending the sacramental break.
Vatican II called the Eastern and Western Churches "sister Churches", but, like all sisters, they also seem to me to be very different even in some basic ways, ways that might make it hard for them to communicate.
I don't know much about Eastern theology (nor Western, as you've probably noticed:-), but on the surface It seems to me that there are a couple off big reasons why the Eastern and Western theologians might find it difficult to make progress: lack of common vocabulary and sometimes very different methods of doing theology. Even their grounds for doing theology differ somewhat. In other words, their epistemologies are different. So how can they go about establishing which of two conflicting truth claims is true?
Eastern theologians even define "theology" differently -- they see it more as spiritual intuition and religious experience than making arguments, so they do not have the strong tradition of rational argumentation that Western theology has. Western theologians, at least since the medieval period, have been highly dependent on the use of reason and have developed a philosophical vocabulary that has proven useful to Western theologians.
Look at the history of the philosophers in the regions: Eastern theology has not, produced any philosopher-theologians whose philosophy has proven of lasting and universal importance. In Judaism, Islam and Christianity theologians were more often than not also philosophers, and those three traditions produced both theology and its "handmaident" philosophy (as Aquinas put it). Look at Moses Maimonides, Avicenna, and Aquinas. All great philosophers. But I can't think of even one Eastern Orthodox philosopher-theologian of the stature of any of those three. Are there any I've overlooked?
Further, If the Eastern theology is so dependent on spiritual, mystical intuitions, and given that the Western and Eastern spiritual/mystical intuitions are very different in some ways, then that would seem to make it particularly difficult to discuss spiritual experience and its place in theology.
So I'm wondering if the contemporary Eastern and Western theologians even have enough common vocabulary and intellectual background and truth criteria to talk very profitably, at least at the beginning.
Vatican II called the Eastern and Western Churches "sister Churches", but, like all sisters, they also seem to me to be very different even in some basic ways, ways that might make it hard for them to communicate.
I don't know much about Eastern theology (nor Western, as you've probably noticed:-), but on the surface It seems to me that there are a couple off big reasons why the Eastern and Western theologians might find it difficult to make progress: lack of common vocabulary and sometimes very different methods of doing theology. Even their grounds for doing theology differ somewhat. In other words, their epistemologies are different. So how can they go about establishing which of two conflicting truth claims is true?
Eastern theologians even define "theology" differently -- they see it more as spiritual intuition and religious experience than making arguments, so they do not have the strong tradition of rational argumentation that Western theology has. Western theologians, at least since the medieval period, have been highly dependent on the use of reason and have developed a philosophical vocabulary that has proven useful to Western theologians.
Look at the history of the philosophers in the regions: Eastern theology has not, produced any philosopher-theologians whose philosophy has proven of lasting and universal importance. In Judaism, Islam and Christianity theologians were more often than not also philosophers, and those three traditions produced both theology and its "handmaident" philosophy (as Aquinas put it). Look at Moses Maimonides, Avicenna, and Aquinas. All great philosophers. But I can't think of even one Eastern Orthodox philosopher-theologian of the stature of any of those three. Are there any I've overlooked?
Further, If the Eastern theology is so dependent on spiritual, mystical intuitions, and given that the Western and Eastern spiritual/mystical intuitions are very different in some ways, then that would seem to make it particularly difficult to discuss spiritual experience and its place in theology.
So I'm wondering if the contemporary Eastern and Western theologians even have enough common vocabulary and intellectual background and truth criteria to talk very profitably, at least at the beginning.
You are a pretty first rate philosopher but the Russians have theirs as well. Aside from the obvious names like Dostoevsky, Pushkin, and Tolstoy. I would add Berdyaev. He is among my favourite and had a big impact and wish I had known him in my undergraduate years eons ago!
I think his essay on Uniting Christians east and west summarizes and accurately characterizes the philosophical framework of each "lung":
I know that the Catholic world is very rich, complex and manifold, that there are many currents in it. But it is no accident that in the Christianity of the West Aristotelianism prevails. The way of Western Christianity can be expressed in the categories of the Aristotelian philosophy, in the Aristotelian doctrine of form and matter [forma et materia], of potentiality and act [potentia et actus]. The form organizes the matter of life, the matter of the world; the world must be assigned finally to the organizing form. The ecclesiastical hierarchy which is assigned to a uniform highest center, the ecclesiastical doctrine is a forming, organizing principle, which must rule and cannot tolerate that matter which would flow chaotically or separating itself off. Potentiality is imperfect, is non-expressed being which has not yet found its expression, half not-being, -- only the act is true and full being. God is pure act [actus purus], and in Him there is no potentiality. So the Catholic Church is longing to be on earth pure act and not to tolerate the dominance of the potentiality, the not-coming to expression with all its manifold possibilites. In this regard the Christianity of the West, Catholicism, has inherited antiquity's thinking: it is classical, it fears infinity, it sees in finiteness, in definiteness the sign of the perfectness of being. In Christianity of the East there prevails another spirit. For the East Platonism is far nearer than is Aristotelianism. Orthodoxy is more meditative and eschatological, less bellicose and actual. In the Orthodox Church one finds more the potential, the historically not yet worked out, and it does not regard this as a sign of imperfection or a half not-being. The eschatological perspective of life must maintain moreso the potential possibilities.
Energy will not be spent on an organized act of history, the spiritual forces remain concentrated in the interior. There is a great eschatological and apocalyptical expectation, a turning to the end of the world, the Second Coming, the celestial Jerusalem, which is to come into the world. Orthodoxy is less built up than Catholicism; characteristical for it is more the insight of intelligent beings, the world of ideas, the world of wisdom, the sophiotic character of the creature. It does not conceive of life as form ruling over matter. The life in the world is not organization but rather organism, and the Church is first of all an organism, the Body of Christ. The element of organization is not so important, it is secondary. The inner unity of the Church is not to be defined by the external organization of ecclesiastical unity. Ecumenicism is not something horizontal, but rather vertical, qualitative not quantitative. An immense freedom of spirit finds definition in Orthodoxy by the fact, that Orthodoxy has not first of all the aim to be world organization, to give form to matter by force, to actualize the life of the Church. The Kingdom of Heaven comes unseen [cf Luk 17:20]. Orthodoxy is in no way aims at a victory upon the earth at all costs. This also gives freedom to it; the organized army cannot feel free in the war, on the battlefield, in the fortress; it must be strongly disciplined and assigned to a warlord. But life is not only war, and the Christian people is not only an army. This can be seen also in the Catholic Church, in which developed a more complex creative life, a richer culture than in the East. But the idea of an organized, bellicose Church still predominates.
On the theme of unity:
Russian religious thought, in which many a creative religious idea has arisen, remains almost unknown in the West. We ourselves are guilty in this. But it seems that we do not recognize, that the time for the Orthodoxy has come, to break out of this closed circle. Our spiritual forces are not so exhausted in too much historical activity and being organization, in the Russian people there is the great capability to give birth to a Christian renaissance, just as there is also the capacity, to fall under the spirit of the Antichrist. But we must however overcome the historic hostility and the suspicion towards Catholicism. This hostility and this mistrust was fanned by the politics of conquest of the Catholic Church. The fundamental condition for a solidarity and a unification of Orthodox and Catholics is that the politics of conquest must be ended. The Catholics must stop seeing the Russian people as an object which must be converted to the true Faith; they should see in it a religious subject, should be attentive to the inner spiritual life of the Russian people and to the positive spiritual richnesses of Orthodoxy. The greatest hindrance on the way to spiritual community and unity between Orthodox and Catholics is the fixation on the relation to the Orthodox exclusively from the point of view of a conversion to Catholicism. The self-contentedness of the Orthodox, just as also in the Catholic world, must be gotten over. These worlds lack the whole fullness, and they need completion. One ought not strive for unification at any price nor resort to arbitrary means. Forced external unity, which does not correspond to an inner spiritual unity, is only of little worth. It requires a free and open association without any mistrust and without ulterior motives. I repeat yet again, the Holy Spirit will unify the Churches, when the hour for it has come, and which the Providence of God has determined. But Christian mankind must prepare the spiritual soil for this and create a favourable psychical atmosphere. Such a spiritual soil, such a psychical atmosphere can only be a spiritual unifying in love, mutual acquaintance, prayer for the other and a living in brotherhood in Christ. Maybe the unification of Churches and the ecumenicism of Christianity will only be visible and totally actualized when there is an end to time, when the apocalyptic epoch is come (so thinks Vladimir Soloviev in his "Narrative of the Antichrist"); but it is our duty in each moment of our life to strive innerly for it, to prepare spiritually for it.
Perhaps the basic reason for conflict is the attempt by the Western church to "reconcile faith and reason," equating logic and dubious observation (Natural Law) with reason, but unable to reconcile real science with this medieval notion of reason (systematic and valid logic, but often dependent on faulty observation, discarded science, and mere assumptions).
The Eastern Church has avoided this mistaken reconciliation of faith and reason, and ironically is therefore in a better position to live comfortably with modern science while continuing its dedicated reflection on the life of prayer and the relationship to God of the individual, the congregational community and the church as a whole (theology), with Christ as the connection.
As the kids say, just saying.
George D. ==
I have already agreed that the Eastern Church has important mytical theologians, but so far as I know none of them are metaphysicians or epistemologists of great and lasting reputation, nor are they expert in any other area of philosophy. Granted, Berdyaev might be of lasting importance in the philosophy of religion (did he learn a lot of philosophy from his friend Maritain?), and Dostoievsky will surely be remembered in philosophy books but only because in The Brothers K. he presents some powerfully expresed philosophical arguments about the nature and existence of God. I must admit I haven't read the others (I did manage about 5 pages of War and Peace), so I can't say how their philosophical ideas will be remembered. But i must also say that in the philosophical ommunity they aren't known as great philosophers. And who are the morable Orthodox philosopher between 1053 and Dostoievsky?
My point is that the Earnerners just aren't very interested in philosophy, it hasn't been their handmaiden, and so haven't produced any philosophers of the stature of Maimoonides, Avicenna, or Aquinas or in more modern times, Leibniz. And that probably makes it difficult for East and West to talk theology to each other. Yes, I think that that philosophical concepts and arguments (some of them anyway) are of great usefulness in doing theology.
Catholic theology, it seems to me, has struggled incorporating even modern philosophical ideas like even phenomenology. John Paul II was heavily influenced by it but even he had to move away from those ideas. And what is the status of Kant in Catholic circles these days?
I was taught that Gilson (who I respect) was pretty much the aribter of Catholic philosophy and he argued that there is, indeed, something that can be referred to as Catholic philosophy and Kant's approach to metaphysics was problematic for that reason.
The point is that I think the problem with the idea of ecumenism is not so much canonical, doctrinal, or even ecclesial, it is that the philosophical "operating system" is so different and has developed differently. Think Mac and Windows
I hope this burst of interest serves to encourage more Catholics to read and learn about Orthodoxy and its interactions with what the Christian East has long considered - often with good cause - its boorish Western relations. As a cradle Catholic who loves Orthodoxy, yet has met too many arrogantly triumphalist Orthodox -- usually adult converts from Western traditions who never stop thinking like Protestants (even those who were formerly Catholic) -- to swim the Bosphorus, I long for the family reunion that I know is not likely to come easilly or soon. Getting Westerners to read enough history to push past cartoonish accounts of complex processes, such as the Great Schism or the Crusades, would be a great start. Of course we should read the primary sources as well as scholarly accounts from an Eastern perspective or Eastern preference, such as Meyerdorff, Runciman, Ware, and Zizoulas, but there's more. It took me a lot of study, conversation, thought, and prayer to apprehend that the East is different and gets many things better than the West, but it is not, at its core, inherently better, or more spiritual, liturgical, or patristic. The Jesuit liturgical historian and archimandrite in the Byzantine Rite, Robert Taft, has spoken extensively on this, with no shortage of opinions. Here's a brief taste:
Bishop Sheen used to repeatedly say, the philosphers that he was, that the business of Philosphy is to make simple things complicated. There is also another saying which goes that any fool can make things complicated. It takes a genius to make things simple.
Aren't most conflicts a matter of turf and/or control. Cfr: Marriage. The vast majority of wars are motivated by greed. That's how slaves are created. Yet we rhapsodize over ritual and we glorify war. You can criticize anyone but soldiers (even tho they are not taken care of when the get to civilian life.
Ego, power, greed etc. Philosophy follows that lead.
I agree that those short videos are cartoonish - what else can one do in presenting all of church history in 5 minutes - but I find it interesting what they choose to mention. In both Catholic and Protestant cartoons, after the Great Schism the Orthodox disappear from their radar. This matches the beginning of the post: "something about the filioque and papal authority".
Claire: I think the videos are fine starting places, especially for anyone who recognizes the blindnesses you point out -- namely, that Orthodoxy should somehow cease to matter after the mid-tenth century, or worse still, that Orthodoxy "split away from" Catholicism. The cartoonishness I had in mind is the subtler form that uses historical complexities like the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Galileo affair as crude bludgeons with which to club opponents in verbal assualts that are, as the Maliozzi brothers say, "unencumbered by the thought process."
For example, the First Crusade sack of Jerusalem and the Fourth Crusade sack of Constantinope were - no doubt about it - world class atrocities. But to extract the Crusades from the historical context of the Byzantine-Seljuk wars, rival Musim caliphates, the improving material status of the West, and the birth of European proto-nation-states, is to get matters comfortably wrong and leave it that way.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Crusades, which were awful, but not necessarily more so than current Western misadventures in the region. Though what little I've come to know about this history may have only rearranged my prejudices, it helps me to remember that judging across centuries is much harder than it first appears.
I have always read/heard that *a* primary sticking point is the role of the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox Churches are willing to see his role as "first among equals" and the RCC simply won't go along with that.
Let me introduce the important historian of Christianity, Jarislov Pelikan. He started out as a Indiana Lutheran and converted to Orthodoxy. His extensive work, much of it dune whaile at Yale, earned him the prestitious Kluge prize early in this 21st century for his lifelong contribution to the humanities. And he is really readable.
Furthermorre, during the early years ofWW II a number of Eastern Orthodox scholars left the East and settled in France. Their work was certainly known and respected by people like DeLubac and Congar. It was conceptually rich. That this eastern thought has not shown up in Western philosophy may well say something about the insular dominance of so much, not all, Anglo-American philosophy as well as the 20th century enschrinement of a particularly mindless marxism by Sovien rulers.
John McG. --
I agree that the most intractable conflict between the Eastern and Western Churches revolves around the problems with the Christian mysteries: they imply self-contradictions. The disagreement between East and West is about what to do about the contradictions. The East says they are beyond our finite minds, so don't waste too much time trying to reconcile the contradictions. The West says, yes, God is infinitely beyond us, but by using reason to clarify our language and to correct our presuppositions and other premises as best we can, we can eliminate some of the errors in our thinking and even extend our positive knowledge of our Mysterious God.
I don't agree that "the Western church" equated logic and reason with natural science, at least not the great medieval Aristotelian Scholastics. The latter all clearly distinguished the methods of logic, empirical observation, philosophy and theology. The fact that subsequent philosophers have failed to read the Scholastics and interpret them otherwise is not the fault of the Scholastics. True, the medievals weren't the greatest observers (they didn't have microscopes, for instance), and they didn't have a full systematic scientific method (that came with Francis Bacon and probability math even later). But modern empirical science began mainly with the English Franciscans (especially Grosseteste and his pupil Roger Bacon) who developed Aristotle's scientific method. The history of science in the last hundred years has uncovered some very surprising facts about the sophistication of the medieval scientists and the attitude(s) of the official Church. I say attitudes (pl.) because Rome's opinions, contrary to popular opinion, has waxed and waned about matters scientific.
George D. --
I agree == the post-medieval official RCC became progressively more and more closed-minded. Thank God for Vatican II -- as late as the '50s one couldn't even *read* what "the other side" had to say.
Berdyaev's notion that the Eastern and Western Churches should just co-exist stems, I suspect, from the notion shared with the RCC that the Faith is mysterious, and hence it inevitably leads to contradictions. The Eastern Church thinks that because contradictions are inevitable we shouldn't make too much of them, we should even ignore them at times, and each Church should go its own theological way. This, of course, is intolerable for the Western/Roman Church which, though it admits that contradictions will happen within our finite minds, still thinks that solid theological truth is at least partially attainable, and truth never contradicts truth. So to find the best understanding of the Faith the RCC thinks it is necessary to use not just intuition, but also reason as far as it will take us. It listens to the mystics, but criticizes them soundly when necessary. We must, therefore, be critical both of our own theology and that of others. But the East isn't very much into criticism because it doesn't care very much about self-contradictions in the first place. Hard to find common ground, except to repeat the Creeds, and even the lead to trouble (contradictory interpretations).
As i understand Gilson, he thought that there are topics of special interest to Catholic philosophers, but no Catholic philosophy as such. In other words, there are Catholic philosophers who do philosophy and who have special philosophical interests, e.g., the existence of God, how do we know anything, what are people *for* if anything, is the cosmos designed by God, is it designed at all, what is the value of logic). He's quite Thomistic in strongly distinguishing philosophy from theology.
i don't know how much Kant is still influencing the Catholic theologians. I'd say that generally he has been on the wane even in philosophy since the emergence of pragmatism and materialist empiricism in the 19th century.
It seems to me that the situation in Catholic philosophy at the moment is very fluid and complex, at least in English-language philosophy. There is a strong over-lap of interest between the Scholastics and the linguistic analysts -- both are extremely interested in logic, the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of language, epistemology and ethics, and there have been a few highly regarded 20th century Catholic English philosophers , e.g. Anscombe, Geach and Dummett. A few English Thomists like Herbert McCabe, O. P. who also know the analysts, got them into Aquinas.
Since Vatican II Catholic philosophers have become much more open-minded, and in the English-speaking philosophical world they are finally engaging with the non-Catholic ones directly. See, for instance Edward Feser's blog this very day -- he's arguing directly with a conspicuous neo-atheist. The debate is so heated is has a referee :-) So I think things are looking-up. But I still couldn't name one giant of a Catholic philosopher since the late middle ages.
I also agree that the institutional Church didn't meet the challenge of the Enlighttenment. It was afraid of the powerful new Enlightenment thinkers. On the other hand, it is also true that the heirs of the Enlightenment have never understood the value of some of the ancient and medieval philosophers. In England, the birthplace of the empiricism that has dominated 20th century anglophone philosophy, the study of philosophy began with Descartes, with a little Plato and Aristotle's ethics thrown in as a nod to the past. So there has been mutual scorn between the Enlightened and the post-medieval, Thomists, at least the ones called "manual Thomists". The latter were so bad that many didn't even read the primary sources. (Oops -- I've left out the Spanish Scholastics who did do some pioneering work after the high medievlas in ethics-and-economics and political philosophy.)
Conclusion; from about the end of the 14th century to the 20th, Scholastic philosophy hasn't been much to brag about either. In the 20th century there have been some major Catholic philosophers on the continent (e.g. Maritain) but who among them is likely to be remembered for even a hundred years? No giants there either.
Enough philosophy for today.
Ann O: Eastern theologians even define "theology" differently -- they see it more as spiritual intuition and religious experience than making arguments
That seems better than Rome's approach.
John M:
Perhaps the basic reason for conflict is the attempt by the Western church to "reconcile faith and reason," equating logic and dubious observation (Natural Law) with reason, but unable to reconcile real science with this medieval notion of reason (systematic and valid logic, ....
The Eastern Church has avoided this mistaken reconciliation of faith and reason....while continuing its dedicated reflection on the life of prayer and the relationship to God .... with Christ as the connection.
As the kids say, just saying.
Out of the mouths of babes (kids).....
Ann O: "..... the most intractable conflict between the Eastern and Western Churches revolves around the problems with the Christian mysteries: they imply self-contradictions. The disagreement between East and West is about what to do about the contradictions. The East says they are beyond our finite minds, so don't waste too much time trying to reconcile the contradictions.
That sounds like common sense. It seems the Orthodox are wise enough to realize that human beings cannot ever "know" God's mind "infallibly" and so stress spirituality and mystery. That simple (but not simplistic) wisdom escapes Rome and those philosophers and theologians who attempt to know that which they cannot know.. Perhaps Rome overcomplicates things and the Orthodox understand what is important about the christian faith and what is not.
There are at least two commentators associated with Commonweal who have expertise about Orthodoxy, including Orthodox-Catholic relations, who will hopefully weigh in on the topic under discussion.
John Garvey, Commonweal columnist and Orthodox priest, has for many years produced excellent columns about Orthodox beliefs and the common ground between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Although I haven't read it yet, his new book – "Seeds of the Word: Orthodox Thinking on Other Religions"—looks to be as informative and catholic (small "c") as his open-minded columns.
And if I'm not mistaken, Father Komonchak is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which has issued a number of statements on knotty theological problems and common grounds between the two faiths.
My feeling is that that the two faiths will move inexorably closer together as a result of these efforts and outside pressures, particularly the rise of secularism in the world. As the "nones" grow in polls about religion, I think many of the adherents of the different Christian faiths will come to cherish more the many common bonds they have with one another. As Catholics, we are probably most closely aligned theologically with the Orthodox and the Anglicans. In addition, outreach efforts by John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and I'm sure Francis as well, will hopefully bear fruit by increasing the awareness that what we have in common greatly outweighs our differences.
In its latest joint statement in October 2010 titled "Steps Toward a Reunited Church: A Sketch of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future," the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation noted both the importance of what we share and the urgency of rapprochement:
"In light of the divine gifts that we share, then, it seems all the more urgent to us that our Churches grow closer together, in ways that the men and women of our time can see. The fact that our two Christian families have been separated in some central points of theology and Church discipline for almost a thousand years, and as a result no longer share in the sacramental communion that bound us together during the first millennium, is not only a violation of the will of God, as expressed in the prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper that his disciples 'may be one' (John 17.21), but is also a serious impediment to effective Christian engagement in the world, and to the effective realization of our common mission to preach the Gospel. Marriages involving members of both our traditions are increasingly common, especially in ethnically pluralistic countries, creating serious problems in Christian education and practice for the families involved. All of these factors urgently call our Churches to overcome their division. As our largely secular world reaches constantly for new technical means of communication, and for mutual understanding within all its cultural and political diversity, it is urgent that Orthodox and Catholic Christians find an effective way to realize our common tradition of faith together, and to present the world with a unified testimony to the Lordship of Jesus. To be what we are called to be, we need each other. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, 'The divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her' (Unitatis Redintegratio 4). To become what we are, effectively and permanently, we cannot stop short of re-establishing full Eucharistic communion among ourselves. Clearly, this cannot be achieved without new, better harmonized structures of leadership on both sides: new conceptions of both synodality and primacy in the universal Church, new approaches to the way primacy and authority are exercised in both our communions."
Anne C. --
True, wisdom must always be based on experience and to some extent to feelings about experience. But experience is subjective, so we get into terrible problems of whose experiences to trust, as well as the problem of *which feelings* to trust. Mystics aren't always admirable or wise people. What was it that was said about the Janssenist mystic nuns at the convent of Port-Royale -- "Pure as angels, proud as devils". There also have been psychotics with delusions of grandeur who claim to have special wisdom, who crave disciples, and sometimes manage to find them, and it ends badly. See Jonestown. Sometimes it's difficult to separate the wise from the mad, and then we have to use reason.
I certainly grant you that reason, being a tool, can be badly misused. But as I see it reason is our best tool to protect us against our beloved self-deception and the self-deceptions of others.
How can we distinguish the feelings that reliably tell us what ought to be done (or not) from the feelings which are not reliable? As I see it, this is one of the greatest problems in all philosophy/theology/whatever.
Does anyone know if the Eastern theologians get into this problem? Do they even see it as a problem?
Brian --
Thanks for the site. Looks a bit as if the Patriarch of Moscow might view himself as a sort of counter-pope of the East. Politics, politics, politics???
Who in the past 50 years thinks the Byzantine Rites are inferior ro the Roman Rite? After 50 years of tinkering, vernacular, guitars and attempting to make liturgy ordinary and destroy the haven the Church used to be to the world we have succeeded in making the Roman Rite Levittown, or Norwalk, where all the homes are made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same. Ordinary, un-otherworldly, plain, bland, with treacly songs instead of hymns, anthems and motets.
No one can thiknk the Byzantine Rites are inferior. The Roman Rite in the US is the inferior of the liturgy at Jay's Hamburger Stand. And NOW, we're adding big screen TVs so everyone can read the magnified words to songs so empty of theological import that it will drive away more and more youngsters and oldsters who managed to weather the first hurricane of iconoclasm in the 1970s and its veneration of the now-thoroughly discredited "Spirit of Vatican II".
Who in the past 50 years thinks the Byzantine Rites are inferior ro the Roman Rite? After 50 years of tinkering, vernacular, guitars and attempting to make liturgy ordinary and destroy the haven the Church used to be to the world we have succeeded in making the Roman Rite Levittown, or Norwalk, where all the homes are made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same. Ordinary, un-otherworldly, plain, bland, with treacly songs instead of hymns, anthems and motets.
No one can thiknk the Byzantine Rites are inferior. The Roman Rite in the US is the inferior of the liturgy at Jay's Hamburger Stand. And NOW, we're adding big screen TVs so everyone can read the magnified words to songs so empty of theological import that it will drive away more and more youngsters and oldsters who managed to weather the first hurricane of iconoclasm in the 1970s and its veneration of the now-thoroughly discredited "Spirit of Vatican II".
Ann: Moscow, or at least the Moscow Patriarchy, has long considered itself the Third Rome, and with the 15th century fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, has understood Russia as the Empire's legitimate successor. With the accession of Kiril I as Patriarch, the language of symphonia - the harmonious coperation of church and Imperial state - has assumed renewed prominence. (The more triumphalist Orthodox I've engaged with argue that Kiril, and not Bartholomew, is the real pastor of Orthodoxy, using language that really does begin to sound like a Moscow counter-papacy, though they would vehemently deny that.) If the Orthodox have done a far better job of keeping factions worshipping together than the West ( after all, ortho-doxa means, as the late Aidan Kavanagh liked to point out, right worship or right praise and NOT right belief or right teaching) the relationship between Orthodox churches and national governments has been endlessly complex and fractious, with the subsequent political maneuverings often appropriately called Byzantine. Stanley Harakas is, I'm told, a good Orthodox source for understanding various Orthodox theories of social ethics, and some writers, such as Aristotle Papanikilaou , have tried to articulate an Orthodox theology of democracy.
Ann O, I hesitate to continue, because I do not have the background in philosophy or theology to take on this subject at the level you and others do. I have no idea who most of the people are that are mentioned by name, with the exceptions of those like Aquinas, so I don't know what "thinking" any of these philosophers represent. But, I will blunder on - an average Catholic, more concerned with the little problems of everyday life than with theorizing as to why or why not the Orthodox and Catholics continue to shut one another out as far as communion goes a millenium after it happened. Since I am among those who believe in open communion for all christians, I disagree with both churches!
But experience is subjective, so we get into terrible problems of whose experiences to trust, as well as the problem of *which feelings* to trust. Mystics aren't always admirable or wise people.
Yes of course experience is subjective. When the east talks of mystery, and experience, are they narrowing this to the experience of mystics only? Or do they include the feelings and experiences of ordinary people (no visions or levitations or whatever) - life experiences rather than mystical experiences. Is acknowledging the existence of mystery limited to mystics?
When discussing "which feelings" to trust, how does anyone know this? I have read a tiny bit about Ignatian discernment and acting on feelings of desolation and consolation. It seems to be entirely subjective - what "consoles" and what doesn't. Perhaps Crystal could comment on this.
One of the most important everyday decisions for married Catholics is to decide how best to support their marriages, and thus their families, in the choice of birth control. It's a practical matter and the bishops in the US and some others around the world are again doing the best they can to force acceptance of the church's official teaching even though it has not been received by the "faithful" - not received because it contradicts the subjective experience of most couples in the context of their own marriage. I am going to focus on this as a current example of "subjective experience" v. "logic and reasoning". I don't know that mystical experience has much to do with it.
The academic theologians/philosophers in the church who define the church's official teachings of the magisterium are 100% male celibates. They have no lived (no subjective) experience of marital sexuality, of marriage in the larger sense – the wholistic sense - or of real family life as experienced by the partners in a marriage. They offer to families an idealized vision of family symbolized by The Holy Family - a mother who is perpetually virgin (we could pull that off if everyone used IVF I guess, but it's forbidden), a marriage that is celibate (and why is that held up as an ideal by the churchmen?), and an only child who is sinless. How we parents would wish to be able to have children who never sin - raising one sinless child would be a piece of cake compared to real families of imperfect parents raising imperfect kids! Not real life. With Humanae Vitae they have constructed a teaching based on what they perceive to be logic and reason – and on how they think God thinks. They try to know the mind of God and then try to insist that their detached academic reasoning is somehow more "truth-full" than the subjective lived experience of billions of married people.
Perhaps the Orthodox understand better that they don't know and cannot know what God thinks – that there are realities - mystery, experience, contradictions - that preclude this. That is real life. It has been demonstrated for decades that most Catholics who have experience of marriage reject the "logical" and "reasoned" teaching on birth control defined by Rome, based on Rome's understanding of "natural law". Humanae Vitae is rejected by majorities (often very large) of Catholics all over the world, even in Africa and the Philippines, where most Catholics are much more conservative and traditional on sexual and gender issues than western Catholics. So what should "count" here - "reason" and "logic" as perceived by male celibates (mostly of European background) or the collective subjective experience of married couples in the global church? Is it not possible that self-deception also exists among those who believe that their own thinking is not influenced by subjective experience but is only based exclusively on "reason" and "logic" and guided literally by the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit not ever speak through the 1.1 billion Catholics who don't wear Roman collars through their subjective experience and feelings? Was Augustine's belief that all marital sex is essentially lustful and so is permitted only for procreation really based on reason and logic or was it based on subjective guilt and self-disgust for his earlier behavior in life, behavior that was dominated by lust? Did he transfer his personal feelings of guilt to ALL married couples? How much of Aquinas' belief that women are failed-to-properly-develop males good only for providing wombs for the mini-males developing in their wombs and for raising the children influenced his understanding of "natural law" and church teaching all the way to the 21st century? Is it really possible that "reason" and "logic" are never influenced by subjective experience – and by scientific knowledge (or lack of knowledge) and that both are influenced by one's time and place and culture in history?
Academics can have great fun together reasoning through many moral questions. But their reasoning and logic may not be of any use to the ordinary folk who don't live their lives in theoretical ivory towers. Their subjective experiences may lead them in a different direction than that the theoreticians believe is dictated by reason and logic. But the subjective experiences may at times represent truth while "logic" and "reason" distort it. It is also quite possible to argue against HV with logic and reason in philosophical and theological constructs and many have done so, but the men in Rome silence those who make the case against HV. Is silencing discussion truly a way to find Truth (with a capital T)? Whose reason and logic is "right"? My "best" friend is a devout Greek Orthodox, and we have discussed differences between Orthdoxy and Roman Catholicism for 35 years now. On this particular issue, the Orthodox leave the decision of birth control up to the couple even though they join Rome in teaching that marriage must be "open" to children. The couple decide how many, and how best to manage their fertility throughout the decades of their marriages. Rome might do well to adopt a bit more of the approach of the Orthodox instead of believing that their human minds can solve every question through "logic" and "reason" and perhaps leave a few things to subjective experience. (I know – sheer heresy)
To quote John McG on another comment thread - just saying...
"( after all, ortho-doxa means, as the late Aidan Kavanagh liked to point out, right worship or right praise and NOT right belief or right teaching"
Brian -
Oh, Lordy. This is an entirely new idea for me. "Doxa" means worship? If this is central to the Orthodox Churches' beliefs about what they think is most important, then it seems to me that the Orthodox meaning and the Catholic meaning sort of reflect what I was talking about above -- that the Orthodox special interest in the experiential/subjective/affective contrasts with the Catholic special interest in the objective/the cognitive/truth. You might say that their objects of greatest interest are goodness/beauty on the part of the Orthodox as contrasted with the Roman greatest interest in truth, though in reality those can't be separated.
If that's true, then it would seem to me that the greatest problem to re-unification -- from the point of view of the Orthodox -- might be the old, unchanging Greek liturgy v. the new Roman liturgy(ies), while the greatest obstacle from the Roman point of view would be our theological differences. And I don't see any common method for resovling the differences. Sigh. How could the Orthodox possibly show that their liturgy is superior without appealing to reasons? Or would they simply say, "Come *experience* how our liturgy is superior to yours"?? In other words, talking with the Orthodo isn't going to take us very far towards re-union.
You might even say that the difference between the Roman and the Orthodox is the difference between saying and showing. Hmmm.
Or what?
Anne C. --
I know some philosophy, but very little theology. But that's never stopped me from giving my theological opinion :-) That's one of the things things I like about dotCMWL -- we're all free to say what we think. I do believe that we pew sitters sometimes have something worth saying. Even the official Church recognizes that at times. So let's hear it from the pews, I say.
I read some of Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" but didn't nearly finish it. It isn't argumentative, just highly descriptive of their beliefs. Some of it is too weird for me, as well as being inconsistent at times. For instance, I find their teaching about "uncreated "energies" to be inconsistent, and their teaching about saints being present in icons is just too close to magic for me. I gather that for them religious experience is a matter of degrees of fulfillment with the greatest degreein this world being some mystical experiences. The fulfillment involves a process they call "theosis" or "divination". So for them religious experience is not limited to just the mystical heights.
"Theosis" is my main problem -- it seems to come perilously close to identifying the mystic with God. I once got into a discussion with an Orthodox Catholic about one of their greatest mystics, St. Symeon the New Theologian. At one point St. Symeon says "I am God" and "if that's heresy, so be it", or words to that effect. (Unfortunately, I've lost that reference.) I say it's heresy, and blasphemous if he meant it literally. (Yeah, I really have problems with their teachings as i understand them.)
I don't know that the Orthodox talk about "religious feelings". There might be a semantic problem there -- in the West we often identify "intuition" and "feeling" thus relegating intuition to the affective realm, but I'm not sure that we're justified in doing that. There might be religious intuitions which are not a matter of affectivity but are sheer cognitions. (I sometimes wonder if that's the typical sort of intuition the Buddha had, but that's waaaaaay off the subject.)
I guess my message is that the interior life is far moor complex than we were taught in our high school religion classes, and that's something that the younger generation seems to know. i say good for them. The Church needs to look around at the religious experiences in other traditions as the young ones do, and the Church nees to make its own contemplative tradition much better known. And I don't mean just teaching us a little Ignatius.
About the "subjective" experience of married people. I agree with you say about it. The word "subjective" doesn't imply that the experience isn't real or not valuable, and it doesn't even imply that it is *only* affective (a matter of feeling). Feelings can be real and valuable. They have their own ontological status. You marrieds know whereof you speak, and *all* the CDF knows about marriage is what *you* tell *them* about it! (And the same goes for knowing what women's experiences as such are!!! We're the experts about that.) Sorry about the rant.
About knowing what God thinks, that's another gigantic problem, though I'm not at all skeptical about knowing at least *something* of what He is and what He thinks. Christ did give us something to work with, and I think philosophy can also contribute. I mean, if we know nothing of God then why do we bother to have these discussions? That's like the mystics who typically say that what they know can't be communicated, and then they write books about it! Why do we say we believe in Him at all if we know nothing about Him? However, I think we do need what I call a theological epistemology -- a theory of what we can know of God and His relationship to man and *how* we come to know Him and His will for us. It would help us, no doubt, in taking with the Orthodox. And as critical as I am about some of their teachings, from what little I know I think they also probably have a great deal to teach us about contemplative prayer and how it too reveals God.
As to "logic and reason", that would have to be part of theological epistemology too.
There's enough for 30 threads :-)
If I get the history right, doxa, which had the primary meaning of "belief" or "opinion" was used by the translators of the Septuagint for the Hebrew kavod ("glory") and thereafter in the NT and patristic writings for "glory" or "worship." See Aidan Kavanagh's On Liturgical Theology in which he distinguishes right worship (orthodoxa) from right belief (orthopistis) and right teaching (orthodidascalia). In fact, you might read On Liturgical Theology simply because it's brilliant, and follow it with an equally brilliant Orthodox take, Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World.
There's a similar Eastern connotation given the word nous, usually translated from the Greek as "mind" but used by the Orthodox -- particularly the hesychasts -- for what Kallisos Ware calls "the intellective aptitude of the heart." See Scott Cairns' lovely poem on that subject.
So there's definitely a language issue at work here –words being used in different ways – that a little assistance from the latter Wittgenstein might help bridge.
Agree on the tendency towards superstition and magic BUT
A couple of points on theosis or divinization, there is strong scriptural support for it. in 2 Peter 1:4, we read:
His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.
In the resurrection story from John 20, we read
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone, and breathing on someone, denotes creation. In Genesis, man is created when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That breath is what made man in the image of God, unlike the rest of creation. Christ's breath is a further new creation but more intimate still.
St. Athanius famously wrote that God became man so that God might become man.
Meister Eckhart ran afoul of Church teaching when he identified the ground of the soul as being identical to the ground of God.
This doctrine is a key doctrine it seems to me and should be understood rightly of course meaning become "sons in the Son". But there is no question that are status as creatures of God has become something different through incorporation into Christ through baptism.
I also am not a fan of intuition. I think what we call intuition is actually a close inductive reading and is a cognitive process. Granted it is a quick cognitive process but it is a cognition for sure. Women, for example, are said to have a "woman's intuition" but that is, I think, a higher attenuation on relationships. I think that it has something to do with the basic Freudian notion of the development of sexes with boys carving their identification through differentiation and separation with the mother figure (and hence external world), whereas girls are seen and experience themselves as continuous to their mothers identity so there is a fusion with the external world. This has been born out in studies. Elementary children have been given tests where they are asked to identify who is friends with who in a classroom. Girls have been shown to be something like 90% accurate whereas boys are around 60% accurate. Girls, through development, make connections better than boys. But this is due (arguably), in part, to socialzation.
Finally, Berdyaev has an ineresting article on fanaticism and according to the translator:
Russian useage has two different words both which translate as "orthodoxy". The word "ortodoksiya", which we render throughout in uncapitalised form as "orthodox", bears a generic and pejorative sense of a narrow-minded adherence to a "right-belief" of whatever the teaching, be it an orthodox Marxism or an orthodox atheism even. In contrast, the Russian word "pravoslavniya" ("right-glory" or "right-doxology") refers to Orthodox Christianity, and is capitalised throughout as "Orthodoxy", which as Berdyaev observes, properly precludes fanaticism
Berdyaev maintains that the opposite of fanaticism is orthodoxy which includes holding two contraries in one's mind. It is an interesting post and touches obliquely on the theme of self deception.
A man, permitting himself to come into the grip of fanaticism, never presupposes such possible about himself. He, certainly, is prepared to acknowledge himself a sinner, but can never acknowledge himself as having fallen into error, into self-deception, into self-smugness. Which is why he considers it possible, amidst his own sinfulness, to torment and pursue others. The fanatic is conscious of himself as a believer. But perhaps, his faith may actually possess no sort of relationship to truth. Truth is first of all an egress from oneself, but the fanatic is unable to go out from himself. He goes out from himself only in malice against others, but this is not an egress to others nor to an other.
The fanatic -- is an egocentric. The faith of the fanatic, his unrestrained and unselfish devotion to an idea helps him not in the least to overcome the egocentrism. The asceticism of the fanatic (and fanatics often are ascetics) does not at all conquer the absorption with himself, nor at all does it turn him to the realities. The fanatic of whatever the orthodoxy identifies his idea, identifies its truth with himself. And he is this idea, this truth. Orthodoxy -- this he is. And ultimately this is always rendered the sole criterion of orthodoxy.
Brian --
Thanks for the book recommendations. I've ordered the Kavanagh -- it looks like it gets to some very, very basic issues. Yes, Wittgenstein is highly relevant again.
It has always puzzled me why many more Catholic theologians haven't taken advantage of the great contemporary developments in language theory, considering that Christ identifies Himself as "the Word". Surely understanding the old theological terms better would be a benefit. Might the word "orthoodoxy", for instance, be a family resemblance term? I'll read Kavanagh with that question in mind. And what about the word "sacrament"? Not to mention the work especially of Austin.
George D. --
I'd like to see a scholarly consideration of those particular texts. The Peter 2, for instance, in Latin talks about sharing God's "nature". But thet Greek word is, if I'm not mistaken, "phuseos". What did that mean to the writer of Peter 2? "Phusis" in ancient Greek meant just "stuff". And is the writer a Platonist talking about "sharing" part of His being? (Like I constanly say, Plato ultimately identifies the Good with the lesser ggods, including man.)
Yes, Eckhardt definitely seems to be saying that the very depths of his soul is identical with God, yet his sermons that I've read give not inication that he was saying anything so outlandish. It's also true that some other great Christian mystics talk like that some times, Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. But their other works don't indicate that they meant to be taken literally -- for them God is also radically Other. At least that my reading of them, bu, again, t I'm no expert.
I think we'd need several threads to get well into the meanings of "intuition". Highly ambiguous word.
Maybe the Church needs a theologial hermeneutic as much as a theological epstemology.
Yes, Berdyaev is interesting on self-deception. But is he deceiving himself about his own wisdom? I think that when Jesus says, "Judge not" He means not only that we shouldn't judge other people's failures, we also shouldn't judge our own competence:-)
Ann O,
Just an FYI, in re Orthodoxy and philosophy:
There was a rise in interest in philosophy in Russia during the Sliver Age. Semyon Frank, for example, wrote about metaphysics. He was a convert to Orthodoxy and is classed among Russian religious philosophers, but his work is more influenced by Neo-Kantianism than by Orthodox theology. Some of his books have been translated into English, such as Man's Soul, The Spiritual Foundations of Society, and The Light Shineth in Darkness.
I believe you are right to say that in general philosophy, as we understand it in the West, has played a very small role in the Christian East.
Rita --
Thanks for the information about Frank. Good to know that the Orthodox faith is at least tolerant of those with metaphysical and logical leanings even if such philosophers aren't encouraged. I, of course, find it sad that the Greek Orthodox at least don't avail themselves very much of their ancient philosophical heritage except, apparently, for some neo-Platonism. I wonder if there were elements in early Christian theology which positively precluded their appreciation of the ancient pagans.
St. Paul, of course, wasn't kind to to the philosophers, but I wonder if his attitude explains the early Greek fathters' disinterest entirely. He, in fact, often presents arguments in favor of his beliefs, not to mention the fact that Peter's second letter advises Christians explicitly to give reasons for their beliefs! I don't remember Jesus saying anything about logic and philosophy one way or the other.
Complexity, complexity.
Hey, I just found this in Acts 17:
"2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah," he said."
In other words, Paul both proclaimed and reasoned.


text:
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie - Coloring Page 1
Print out this wonderful coloring sheet for your kids. Adapted from the children's' book, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.
Grade Levels: Pre-K - 3
To view this printable you need Adobe Acrobat Reader. Click to download Acrobat Reader - it's free!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(January 8, 2013)--All Sam's Club Pharmacies are offering five free health screenings on Saturday.
Visitors to the store will have an opportunity to be screened for glucose levels, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, body mass index and vision testing.
The tests are available to members and nonmembers from 11 a.m. until 3 p.m.
Pharmacy patients also have the opportunity with each visit to utilize the SoloHealth Station which provides free screenings for vision, blood pressure, weight and body mass index, along with a symptom checker and overall health assessment.
Sam's Club Pharmacies are located in Temple and Waco.


text:
I am going to create a forum for my clan from a game and I was looking for a way to point/redirect to an ugly/long domain name from a shorter domain name.
I am looking for a provider similar to http://www.freedomain.co.nr/ but I am looking for more options and different domain extensions to decide which one would be easiest to use.
So it would be something like www.niceclanname.domainext -> www.unglyhardnametouseandremember.com/clan/
What are the available services that do this?


text:
3-5/8" X 3-5/16" Anodized Aluminum Cupholders
Large anodized aluminum cupholders. I.D. 3-5/8" Diameter, Depth 3-5/16. O.D. hole cut 3-3/4". Low profile, straight flange.
Looking for a purple cup holder?
Unfortunately we do not have listed a purple cup holder.
This product ships in 1 business day.
Add to Cart and enter your Postal Code to determine the shipping charges and estimated delivery date.
Most products and orders leave our warehouse in 1 business day. However, select items may take more processing time. Alaska and Hawaii orders please add 1 additional warehouse processing day.
Standard Shipping Policies


text:
Area briefs: Limestone softball sweeps Barton
Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 3:15 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, March 29, 2013 at 1:01 a.m.
The Limestone softball team (14-12, 8-2) ran its win streak up to five and maintained a tie for first place in Conference Carolinas with a sweep at Barton (7-21, 4-12) on Thursday. The Saints pounded out a combined 23 hits to easily defeat the Bulldogs by the scores of 10-1 and 11-1.
... The Limestone women's lacrosse team defeated Queens College 20-3. Chelsea Treat led the Saints with seven goals.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Sophomore Katherine Schmidt was named SEC Rider of the Month in Equitation Over Fences.
... The men's swimming and diving team wrapped up its first day of competition at the 2013 NCAA Championships on Thursday in the preliminaries at the IU Natatorium. The Gamecocks were unable to secure any spots in the finals of the three events they swam.
CLEMSON: The volleyball team defeated UNC Asheville 3-0 (25-16, 25-21, 25-18).
USC UPSTATE: The women's tennis team (9-5, 1-2) picked up its first A-Sun victory of the season with a 4-3 win against Florida Gulf Coast.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
I'm a bachelor student majoring in math, and pretty interested in physics. I would like a book to study for classical mechanics, that will prepare me to work through Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. What books would be good for a beginner?
Before answering, please see our policy on resource recommendation questions. Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!
Assuming that you have studied introductory mechanics at the level of freshman physics, The best book on mechanics after that to tackle is Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor. It is very clear and insightful. The author is a very good writer, he has written also the best introductory book on error analysis.
Goldstein's Classical Mechanics is a masterpiece. That's why it's still held in such high regard as one of the best mechanics books available 60 years later after after 3 revisions.
I would suggest that you should stick with this book and work through it sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly. If that is too difficult then sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly.
I'm pretty thick, to be honest, which is why I had no problem over the embarrassement of taking a week trying to understand a page of the first chapter sometimes. Others would take a month, and others I still don't understand fully.
I don't think any book comes anywere close to explaining mechanics concisely and accurately in the first chapter, where others take 300 pages and yet still gloss over the details.
Goldstein is good. However, since you are anyways a math major, you can easily start off with Jose and Saletan or Arnold's Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. There are other books like Hand & Finch and definitely the classics by Landau.
Besides Classical Mechanics What I have used in my studies is An Introduction to Mechanics.
You might be interested in Eugene Hecht's book: http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Calculus-Eugene-Hecht/dp/0534339859
What I like about it is that both fundamental principles (notably Noether's principle) and basic but important techniques (like dealing with significant digits) are consistently mentioned and enforced throughout the book. It also contains a lot of examples and exercices of varying levels of difficulty.
I think Goldstein is a great book which should be supplemented by the internet, rather than a mass of books to clarify every detail.
There's the MIT OpenCourseWare program for classical mechanics:
Here you'll find the videos by prof Lewin, lectures notes, exam questions, study groups etc.
There's also the 10 classical mechanics videos by Prof Susskind of Stanford, but on a level around that of Goldstein:
Since I'm not a math major and have little direct experience with math people learning physics, my answer here is pure speculation. I'll offer it anyway.
You don't want something like Arnold's mathematical book on mechanics. That would be new material, but essentially familiar to you and inside your comfort zone. If you're interested in learning physics for its own sake, what you want to focus on isn't the mathematical structure of the theory, but the physical intuition, since that's where you pick up something new and exciting.
In that vein, I recommend
Thinking Physics by Lewis Carroll Epstein
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
The Mathematical Mechanic by Mark Levi


text:
Join an insightful discussion with Hollaback's Emily May and Jeff Matsushita from the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence as we discuss how to incorporate the voice and vision of the diverse communities we serve. Participants will earn new strategies to diversify leadership and how these strategies strengthen efforts to prevent sexual and domestic violence. Be ready to join the discussion by sharing ideas or posing questions to our guests via live phone and text chat.
© 2016 National Sexual Violence Resource Center – Founded by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape
This site is supported by Grant/ Cooperative Agreement No. 1UF2CE002359-03 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


text:
6 People Whose Names Took on Regrettable Meanings
Imagine having your name turned into a common word that will still be in use hundreds of years after your death. Cool, huh? Now imagine that the word named after you means something like "He who has his way with farm animals." Before you say that something like that could never happen to you, consider the fact that it has totally happened to other people. You've almost certainly used some of those words at some point today.
We've told you before about the real men who inspired embarrassing words like "dunce" and "masochism," but they weren't the only ones in that unfortunate situation. Here are six more people who probably wished that everyone would just stop saying their names.
#6. "Chauvinist" (from Nicolas Chauvin)
The Word:
"Chauvinist," as in "Of course I know what 'chauvinist' means, you sexist pig."
The Man:
Nicolas Chauvin was (supposedly) an early 19th century French army soldier and Napoleon Bonaparte's number one fan. When he wasn't singing praises to Napoleon, Chauvin passed the time getting poked at with bayonets. He is said to have been badly wounded in service a total of 17 times, and as a result, he "had three fingers amputated [and] suffered a shoulder fracture and a horridly disfiguring facial wound." And yet Chauvin kept coming back for more, fueled by his insane devotion to his beloved emperor.
Cabinet Magazine
"I only need two fingers to hold this ridiculous pipe."
In other words, the guy was basically a real-life version of the accident-prone Inspector Clouseau from the Pink Panther movies combined with Smithers from The Simpsons (with Napoleon being his Mr. Burns).
While Napoleon himself was apparently fond enough of Chauvin to reward his devotion with a small pension, everyone else saw him as a ridiculous ass-clown who took the whole "patriotism" thing way too far. After Napoleon's fall, Chauvin's name became a synonym for anyone who was extremely patriotic to the point of stupidity. Entire plays and books were written about the poor idiot -- how much of his life really happened and how much came from those stories is up for debate.
This roughly translates to "Chauvin the Shitheaded."
A century and a half later, the word "chauvinist" was adopted by 1960s feminists looking for a better way to describe men who are irrationally convinced of their own superiority, because sometimes "Nazi" just doesn't cut it. The new meaning soon overshadowed the old one, but what hasn't changed is that Chauvin is still a moron.
#5. "Tawdry" (from St. Audrey)
The Word:
"Tawdry," as in "Why did you say 'tawdry' when you could have said 'tacky' or something, you pretentious shit?"
The Woman:
St. Audrey (or Etheldreda) was the daughter of the king of East Anglia, England, who in the seventh century lived in a monastery and devoted her life to God. God, however, wasn't such a huge fan of Audrey, and she died of a nasty case of the plague. To add insult to injury, the Black Plague created a huge red pulsating growth on her neck, which was said to be divine punishment for the fancy necklaces she wore in her youth.
And for all the churches she destroyed as a giant.
After Audrey died, the locals at the Isle of Ely, where she founded a cathedral, honored her memory by holding an annual fair where showy but inexpensive silk and lace necklaces were sold (known as St. Audrey's lace). We're not sure if the point was to remember St. Audrey by covering imaginary tumors in your neck, mocking God for supposedly punishing his loyal servant for such a silly sin or just making money selling cheap stuff.
Whatever the case, the St. Audrey's lace, shortened to "tawdry lace," was considered popular for about 15 minutes before it fell out of fashion and became a synonym for any cheap, gaudy, poor-quality garment, and that meaning just caught on. Even in death, St. Audrey just couldn't catch a break.
#4. "Boycott" (from Charles Boycott)
The Word:
"Boycott," as in "You can't go into Walmart without pants? Let's boycott them."
The Man:
Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott was a 19th century British land agent in charge of managing some Irish farmlands, which at the time consisted of paying Irish workers as little as possible while charging them as much as he could to live there.
"You think this is easy for me? I have a wife and beard to support!"
In 1880, poor weather led to poor harvests, which in turn led to poor tenants who were struggling to pay their rent. Boycott sympathized with their situation by raising their rents, cutting their salaries and finally telling them to gather their things and bugger off. Being evicted in this particular time and place meant almost certain death, but Boycott didn't give much of a shit.
When Boycott tried to evict 11 tenants, the entire community called shenanigans and decided to give him and his family the silent treatment. Workers refused to harvest his crops, postmen refused to deliver his mail, cows refused to give him milk and so on. Since Boycott totally depended on his underpaid Irish workers to keep the farms going, he appealed to the London newspapers to send help and someone to talk to.
John Nash via Today In Irish History
Boycott, being farted at from six different angles.
The British ruling class was outraged by Boycott's case, specifically the part where a rich person was being messed with by some Irish upstarts. Fifty men were sent to save Boycott's crops, plus 1,000 soldiers to protect those 50 men from the pissed-off Irish locals (seems about right). After a nine-hour walk to the farm (horses refused to carry them), Boycott greeted the 50 volunteers by immediately putting them to work and charging them for their potatoes.
In the end, the rescue operation proved to be way too expensive to be repeated every time a greedy landowner was shunned by his community, and "boycotting" became a thing.


text:
FORT WORTH (October 1, 2012)—Steven Lawayne Nelson, who's charged with capital murder in the March 2011 slaying of the Rev. Clint Dobson, 28, a 2008 graduate of Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary, went on trial Monday in Fort Worth.
Nelson faces a possible death penalty if convicted.
Prosecutors told jurors Monday Nelson wanted to steal a car so he walked to the NorthPointe Baptist Church in Arlington, killed Dobson and beat ministry assistant Judy Elliott, 67, who was severely injured.
Defense attorneys did not make an opening statement.
Several members of NorthPointe Baptist Church in Arlington testified Monday that they had appointments with Dobson on March 3, 2011, but told jurors he didn't answer his phone or respond when they tried to get in the church.
Elliot's husband, John Elliott, testified that he went to the church that afternoon and got inside.
He said he didn't recognize his wife because she was beaten so badly.
He testified he didn't see Dobson's body at first.
Dobson, a Houston native, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Baylor University in 2004 and graduated from Baylor's Truett Theological seminary four years later.
He joined the staff of the First Baptist Church Arlington in June of 2008 and went on to become the pastor of NorthPointe Baptist Church, which is a satellite of First Baptist Arlington.
Church members described Dobson as a dynamic pastor who always had a smile and hug for them as they walked into the sanctuary before each service.


text:
I have a laptop that, at the moment, runs Windows Millenium Edition. I have been looking and do not know which versions of Ubuntu will work on it, or where to get it from. The problem worsens, as my laptop does not have a USB drive, and can only receive info through the CD drive or through the internet (that doesn't have security)
So around 10 years old. History tells us that in 2001, mid-high-end laptops computers from that era ranged around 600-850MHz Pentium III-M mark with around 256MB of RAM. This is probably slightly newer than 2001 but who knows how good it is. No USB (becoming widespread in 98) so probably fairly low end.
It's essentially a less powerful Raspberry Pi, without the (relatively) powerful graphics and without USB... Probably using several hundred times as much power.
My honest answer? Throw it away and buy something just five or six years old that has loads of USB ports.
But no, you should be just be able to run the 32bit versions of Ubuntu. Obviously I'd suggest something cut-down like Xubuntu, Lubuntu... But yeah, if you can, bury this one far, far underground.
Minimum Hardware Requirements for Ubuntu
yes this could to be a problem.
The Minimum Hardware requirements for the actual Ubuntu 12.04 Editions are here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements/
It sounds your Laptop is a few years too old for the Ubuntu Desktop Ed. So it could be a good idea to try a more lightweight Ubuntu as for example Xubuntu or Lubuntu. This Requirements are on the same website, .. scroll the text down and check the Requirements. RAM quite often, seems to be the limiting faktor:
If No. 2 or 3 matches your hardware:
Alternatively try older Ubuntu versions here: http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/
But keep in mind that updates (including security updates) are limited. According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is the oldest supported Ubuntu, by now.
Be sure and use an alternate CD of Lubuntu or Xubuntu, these may work depending on the computer specifications, but a live-CD will most likely fail,
I would try lubuntu first myself, burn it to cd from another computer.
Here is more information on the "minimal install" for lubuntu, but it takes alot more setup then the alternate install https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Lubuntu/Documentation/MinimalInstall


text:
Lubin School of Business
Prospective Students
Current Students
Faculty & Staff
MBA in Taxation
Chart your own course in this critical specialty
with a Lubin MBA:
Gain analytical, strategic, and technical skills
Study with recognized experts in the field
Intern at a leading international company headquartered nearby
Learn to navigate complex tax environments successfully
Your courses at the globally recognized, nationally ranked Lubin School of Business integrate experiences available only in New York, a premier international corporate and finance center. Blending economics, finance, management, and a concentration in taxation, this degree opens up higher-level career opportunities in this increasingly critical field.
Median salary for controllers and treasurers, nationally
Source: O*NET
The Masters (MBA) in Taxation gives you the quantitative, analytical, research, and strategic skills you need to help an organization make sound strategic decisions affecting corporate income tax, capital gains, and valuation. You will leave better able to quantify risk and predict shifts in the tax environments that affect your industry. Through Lubin's Masters (MBA) in Taxation, you gain:
Critical business management skills
Essential knowledge of taxation process and procedure
Knowledge of complex factors in corporate tax environments
Click to
view curriculum for the Masters (MBA) in Taxation
Lubin puts you at the center of the world's
business life through a network of alumni and corporate partners that reaches into:
Major financial institutions
Media companies
Growing businesses in every industry
Convenient location:
Pursue your MBA in
Lower Manhattan
in the financial district, a vibrant urban campus, blocks from the New York Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Connect with industry insiders:
In addition to the connections and advice our faculty offer, our alumni-who are themselves industry insiders, rising and leading in a wide range of enterprises-actively connect with current students through our
LinkedIn mentoring program
Take full advantage of
dedicated team of advisers
while you're here. They can guide you through the program and into your career, opening doors and making connections for you.
Elite accreditation:
Lubin's dual accreditation by
AACSB International, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
, in both business and accounting, is an elite distinction shared by fewer than 2% of business schools in the world.
* Some program courses must be taken in NYC
A U.S. bachelor's degree or an equivalent degree from a foreign school is the preferred undergraduate degree requirement for admission into the MBA program. In addition to a resume, a personal statement, a GMAT or GRE score report, and two recommendations, applicants must submit official transcripts from all colleges and universities they have attended. If you are an MBA applicant who already holds a business-related master's or doctoral degree, you may request a waiver of the GMAT or GRE. A recent TOEFL score, no more than two years old, is required of all applicants whose native language is not English. Recommended application deadlines are August 1 for the fall entry term and December 1 for the spring entry term. Click for our
Application Guidelines and Checklist
For admission information, please contact:
New York City campus
Graduate Admission
Phone: 212-346-1531
Click for information about
information sessions
online chats
, and other recruitment events, or call 212-346-1323 for more information. To request a brochure, catalog, application packet, or other printed materials, please fill out our
online form
. You may also call 1-800-874-PACE or send your request via e-mail to
Request More Information
Apply Now
Information Sessions and Online Chats
Visit the
Legal Studies and Taxation Department Web site
Lubin's MBA in Taxation is ranked third in the United States
Source: Tax Talent 2016 Educational Survey Series
Here's what to expect with an MBA in Taxation:
Excellent compensation: $115,320
for treasurers and controllers (
Source: O*NET
Significant advantage:
Your career prospects are better with a master's degree or higher (
Source: U.S. Department of Labor
As fast as average job growth
Source: U.S Department of Labor
career opportunities
Varied industries and
professional paths
Exciting opportunities
at respected companies and organizations.
Join our
distinguished alumni
pursuing careers around the globe
In the center of New York City's business life, Lubin introduces you to successful business leaders and thriving multinational corporations. Connect directly with the world-class individuals who serve as an
at Pace. We nurture relationships with many of the world's leading executives, to broaden and deepen your learning experiencefar beyond what you can expect at any other business school:
top executives
when they visit your classes and lecture on campus.
Off campus, we get you
the door and
behind the scenes
for unique opportunities, thanks to our rich and well-developed network of alumni and corporate partners:
A Fortune 100
company headquarters in metropolitan New York City
The Fed:
Research at the Federal Reserve Bank - almost 100 Lubin alumni are employed here
The rush of the trading floor
866-722-3338 General Information
800-874-PACE Admissions
New York City
Prospective Students
Current Students
Parents & Families
Alumni & Friends
Faculty & Staff
© 2011 Pace University
Site Map
A-Z Index
Employment Opportunities
Contact Us


text:
I am very interested in at least trying to implement NAT break through for my senior project. (I am doing a networking API). It's not even a requirement of my project, just a interest of mine. I know the basics of how it works, correct me if I'm wrong: Two clients connect to a server that isn't behind a NAT and this server, knowing the IP of these two clients, tell the clients to connect to each other at the same time. Thus the "Breakthrough".
This seems not terribly easy or terribly hard to code. However, the part I'm stuck at is the testing of this. Is there a reasonable setup I can do with just one router/one NAT and my three available computers?
Thanks for any advice!


text:
Hi Vincen,
as excellent as usual! Besides the hints of Bill try to always get this weather conditions when you step out.
We talked about ND filter use changing from top to bottom a time ago to get rid of very strong sunlight. An idea I got from Seacat. This is what I found yesterday: for one of our favorite lenses:
Something we were missing for the big boys?


text:
I know nothing of Sergeev; if he's as impressive as Sarafanov, then I'm in for a treat.
This is particularly nice for Alexander Sergeev; a feather in his cap to be named to the opening night cast. However, I wonder what happened with Sarafanov, who had originally been listed to dance the title role of the forest monster...
Summer 2009 at the Mariinsky TheaterWhite Nights, debuts, premieres, etc.
Posted 27 June 2009 - 11:34 PM
Posted 28 June 2009 - 12:23 PM
As for tomorrow's cast, based on the premiere booklet, it's likely to be:
Irina Golub
Mikhail Lobukhin
Anton Pimonov
Alexander Sergeyev was impressive as Shurale, Denis Matvienko was outstanding, and Obraztsova was simply breathtaking.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:49 PM
Well, YouTube works quickly. Several vids of tonight"s SHURALE revival-premiere are up, including these two.
Adagio, Obraztsova/Matvienko:
Act II Tatar wedding folk dance, with Obraztsova, female corps and enormous silk scarf (a-la Denishawn Soaring):
By all accounts, another big hit for the Mariinsky, certainly for knowledgeable 'locals' who adore old-fashioned spectacle and pure elegance.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 04:14 PM
Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:39 PM
Very nice videos. I even liked the distinctly "non-Western" feel of the music, too. (The music reminded me of the orchestral music from China with its distinctly Asian themes I would hear from documentaries produced by the Chinese government.)
(Methinks someone had a hard drive digital camcorder and was able to quickly download it to a computer, encode it to YouTube specs, and quickly upload it to YouTube.)
Obraztsova, as usual, was excellent in the role of Siyumbike.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:06 PM
Agree. Setting aside for a moment the finer points of dancing, the production is, IMHO, a major triumphamazing sets, many many beautiful costumes, exotic music, yes, lots of dancing (but not in a <yawn> parade of variations), and a nice dose of humour (there is one variation where four drunk tatar women dance in the courtyard doing a subtle send-up of the cygnettes in Swan Lake ).
By all accounts, another big hit for the Mariinsky, certainly for knowledgeable 'locals' who adore old-fashioned spectacle and pure elegance.
I found it an amazing experience, and most importantly, a very unique spectacle (in umpteen years of going to the ballet)!!
I personally think that *this* is the kind of thing that the company should throw its resources after (this coming from someone who a couple of years ago wondered why the Mariinsky would bother with Ondina).
The central-Asian feel is certainly one of the most attractive elements of the ballet, not just as it pertains to the music and the costumes but also some of the dances.
I even liked the distinctly "non-Western" feel of the music, too.
I think of myself as very fortunate to have been able to attend the premiere.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 04:12 AM
Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:37 AM
Mireille, I can compare with regard to the length as I've seen both the video and a live production by another Russian troupe in Egypt. The Terekhova video lasts about 90 minutes, so at least 30 minutes of the ballet had to be cut out of the filming, including a number of character-folk dances. As far as the dancing is concerned, Obraztsova seems to bring a softer edge to the bird-maiden than does the phenomenal technician Terekhova (and main stager here, after Kugapkina's passing). Matvienko, in early You Tube clips, seems to be stronger and more heroic than the very fine Vadim Budarin in the film. I'd LOVE to see a clip of Alexander Sergeev in the title role of the slimy monster...I heard that he came close to stealing the show last night.
I saw so much 'Odette' in those few clips of Obraztsova. Could Swan Lake be far behind for her? Yes, she can!!!
Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:25 AM
Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:44 AM
Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:53 AM
What's the reason of her not dancing "Swan Lake"? Her height?
Yes. The Mariinsky is very picky about 'emploi' -- who has the physical characteristics to do certain roles. What's more, 'emploi' can change from generation to generation, e.g., the short-but-slender-long-lined Natalia Makarova was considered good enough for Odette/Odille in the 1960s. By the early 1980s -- especially with the Sylvie Guillem craze but also Galina Mezentseva at the Kirov -- Leningrad-St.P coaches stopped considering shorter dancers for the roles of Odette-Odile and Nikiya.
Especially nowadays, when she is longer-lined and more willowy than ever before, Obraztsova should be given a chance at Odette and Nikiya. Certainly Odette; she has already performed Black Swan pdd on tour, to great success.
In a recent interview with Dance Europe Magazine, Obraztsova stated that she believes that she may not be able to become a Principal without Odette in her repertoire. Sad...so a long and ultra-bony flexnatic can be thrust to attempt Odette and Nikiya, thus making her more worthy of "Principal" status? Ridiculous.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:57 AM
Yes, bingham, she is not considered Swan Lake material by Russian standards - you have to be tall to dance the role in Saint-Petersburg these days (cf Lopatkina, Kondaurova, Tereshkina, etc).
So how tall is Terioshkina? Not so tall...but taller than Obraztsova. However, I believe that Obraztsova has so slenderized herself in the past few months -- even more so than normally by the looks of her Simbiuke You Tube bits -- that she is very capable of achieving an acceptable "Odette Look" now. They should at least give her one or two performances "for the road...for her future" a-la Ayupova, who only danced Odette a couple of times, just to complete the Principal Resume. Once she became Principal, she never really danced Odette, did she? But it stayed on her resume and that's all that matters for The Powers That Be. [Not that we want Obraztsova to suffer the same fate of Ayupova -- hardly ever used once she achieved Principal status.]
Posted 29 June 2009 - 07:02 AM
You're welcome. I may get around to posting a more comprehensive review sometime...
Again - many, many thanks for your on-the-ground insights, Windflyer.
...I'd LOVE to see a clip of Alexander Sergeev in the title role of the slimy monster...I heard that he came close to stealing the show last night.
Meanwhile, yes, Sergeyev was magnificent. He practically owned Act I. He slithered about with androgynous grace and exploded in frenetic dance and jumps—and everything in between. I kept thinking that Sarafanov is perhaps not physical enough for the role?
Oh, and by my watch, the net of the performance was just under two hours, so yes, a ninety-minute video (which i have not seen) would have about thirty minutes cut.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 07:08 AM
um, I wouldn't use those you tube bits to make any pronouncements: the aspect ratio of the clips is messed up, giving her a willowier appearance than she has in real lifenot just in Shurale, but also in In The Night last week.
...I believe that Obraztsova has so slenderized herself in the past few months -- even more so than normally by the looks of her Simbiuke You Tube bits...
Having said that, yes, she has slenderized herself some.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 07:12 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):


text:
Is there a nice way to produce a medium-sized dot to use in a formula like this:
$x_{i\cdot} = \sum_{j} x_{ij}$
\cdot is not very visible.
One way would be to use
The following example defines
The centered dot remains centered after scaling by moving the dot to the baseline
before scaling. The depth that is caused by scaling is removed. Exceeded height is truncated to the height of
The width is more difficult. The exact values of the side bearings are unknown. For small scaling factors, the original width might be a good choice. That is implemented in the example below. For larger scaling factors the width might be increased by a smaller scaling factor. At any case, the horizontal and vertical scaling factors of the glyph must be the same, otherwise the glyph looses the circle shape.
The example file:


text: I did not find yet a thread discussing the sigma 4.5mm lens. I have been using this lens with various success and wonder if any of you can share. First the bad, I am not sure if my lens suffer from a flaw but any picture taken with an aperture lower than f8.0 is not sharp at all. The lens otherwise is doing well in the upper level, but obviously for interior shot you need stability. I do have a lots of problems with the sun particularly with my canon 20D infrared where I am at the point of shooting only when there is no sun. Using on my canon 7d I still have reflections and looking for some advice. The good, the lens is fairly forgiving, you can do panorama with only a regular monopod if you are carefull. I prefer using obviously a pano head and my choice so far has been to use nn180 for this lens with four stops. The obvious downside is that you can see the end of the bracket in all pictures (therefore requires editing). The ultimate will work best but budget wise I will stick with my NN5 and nn180 combination. . If any of you are using the same setting (Canon 7d_nn180_sigma4.5) could tell me what is your camera setting on the nn180. Happy pano


text:
After having (and sold) nn3, I purchased NN 5 + RD16 Rotator.
I noticed that camera plate with NN5 came with cork, while previous one was with rubber.
After shooting +50 panos I also noticed that camera plate tends to rotate due to camera weight.
My equipment is not too heavy: Olympus E-30 + Zuiko Digital 8mm fisheye.
Cork also tends to compress so I need to tighten camera plate every so.
I tightened it well but I'm also afraid that I may damage thread on camera If I tighten camera plate too much.
I'm wondering how to ensure that camera plate isn't rotating,
because even small move may cause problems when stiching images into pano.
Doesn't rubber provide better friction and durability than cork?
NN5, especially in combo with RD16 isn't cheap,
so I'm unhappy when small issue like this sometimes causes me trouble in stiching,
or takes extra time because I need to recheck if camera plate is properly aligned with camera
every time I'm attaching camera onto NN.
Any suggestions?
PS: gluing it is out of question