Backyard Science

[_Fortigurn]

By the way, that's one of the most crap, sub-wikipedia, babel-fishy Latin translations I've ever run across (Nicolas of Cusa's amor Dei Intellectualis reduced to "the divine is to be reached through thinkliness."

Goodness, 'thinkliness'? Is that related to 'truthiness'?

Nicky was a mystic no doubt, but his elevation of intellectual rigor, specifically mathmatics, to itself a pathway to god is rather out of tune with a religion that finds "so-called intellectuals" its enemy. Somehow Nicolas escaped having his works censured by the vatican Packards of his day, but his contemporary Mormon counterparts have not been so lucky.

Cusa had some funny ideas, but he wasn't an idiot. He made important contributions to mathematics, astrophysics, and optics. In the field of astrophysics he made the significant discovery that the earth is not a perfect sphere, that it orbits the sun, and that stars are distant suns of other solar systems. In the field of optics, he corrected short sightedness with convex glass lenses, a technology still used in today's glasses and contact lenses.

[_Who Knows]

Holy crap: "vitriolic vociferation," "his voracious vapid vanity vouched for his verbal vacuity," "his voluntary vilifying left his vulnerable vaunting vulgarity wide open for all of us to see," "his verbose voracity" ... ad infinitum.

Maybe he's a fellow "V for Vendetta" fan? I can't remember what exactly he said in the film, but it sounded something like that.

[_Fortigurn]

Holy crap: "vitriolic vociferation," "his voracious vapid vanity vouched for his verbal vacuity," "his voluntary vilifying left his vulnerable vaunting vulgarity wide open for all of us to see," "his verbose voracity" ... ad infinitum.

Maybe he's a fellow "V for Vendetta" fan? I can't remember what exactly he said in the film, but it sounded something like that.

I think it was a lot more polished and suave than that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, how do you download this podcast? When I clicked the download thing, it came up on QuickPlayer. When it was finished, all I saw was garbled text.

Still using an iMac. Help?

Jersey Girl

[_Fortigurn]

Jersey Girl, think about it seriously. Do you really want to listen to Kerry explain how he's going to dig up God's penis, or whatever he thinks he's going to do? I don't. It's just downright offensive.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Jersey Girl, think about it seriously. Do you really want to listen to Kerry explain how he's going to dig up God's penis, or whatever he thinks he's going to do? I don't. It's just downright offensive.

I think you should but an infinity symbol in your signature Fort next to Kerry Shirts name for this website. God's penis, Honestly?

[_Fortigurn]

I think you're right Bond. Or something which is instantly recognisable as standing for 'What's all that about?'. It's just right off the planet. I don't know how more bizarre LDS apologetics can get. What's next, Helen Mar Kimball's hymen?

[_Fortigurn]

I wonder how many other blogs are registered under the category 'Appreciating Hugh Nibley'? Not many, I should imagine.

[_Blixa]

Yes Fortigurn, everyday I appreciate Nicolas of Cusa's work in optics. That's a legacy of real, material usefulness for mankind.

I confess I didn't listen to the podcast because...well...Hugh Nibley. That's a time-wasting vortex I don't wish to be dragged down.

--------

Speaking of Nibley...I could care less about his Mormon 'scholarship,' but since he is touted as being either a 'genius' or even a competent scholar outside of that, I was always slightly interested in seeing some evidence of his other work.

I once ran across a post on the then FAIR-boards where someone quoted something Nibley had written about Roman history/culture. I looked it up and YE GODS! Ok, apparently it was from a collected volume of Nibley's classroom lectures and it read more like a transcription of a tape rather than an edited and polished essay. Even given that, it was a mess.

I am not a Classics specialist by any stretch of the imagination (my scholarly field is far from that) but I have read a great deal of Roman history, and most of that in Latin which, oddly enough, was my undergraduate minor. Even I could find glaring mistakes all through the thing.

To be fair, I too can make mistakes and over-generalizations when lecturing in class, and sometimes on purpose (the generalizations not the mistakes). But if I were publishing my lectures, I would at least footnote those problems or edit them out all together. So, not only was I given pause by the mistakes themselves, but also baffled by whatever lack of attention to scholarship could result in pubishing something in that shape.

Nibley-worship kinda fascinates me, though in a very, very small way. There are much better Mormon scholars/writers, but tellingly, none of them touched the Book of Abraham. That's really why they have to overestimate to him. And yet, Nibley-worship sometimes strikes me as going far beyond that to teeter on a personality-cult.

(Yes, I know Nibley was "assigned" to work on the Book of Abraham, and maybe wouldn't have chosen it himself. And as for better scholars, I am thinking along the lines of Leonard Arrington, B.H. Roberts, etc.)

[_Fortigurn]

Yes Fortigurn, everyday I appreciate Nicolas of Cusa's work in optics. That's a legacy of real, material usefulness for mankind.

Same here. I've been wearing glasses for 24 years. Give Big Nick a medal, I say.

I confess I didn't listen to the podcast because...well...Hugh Nibley. That's a time-wasting vortex I don't wish to be dragged down.

Agreed. When did Nibley contribute anything as useful as Big Nick?

Speaking of Nibley...I could care less about his Mormon 'scholarship,' but since he is touted as being either a 'genius' or even a competent scholar outside of that, I was always slightly interested in seeing some evidence of his other work.

I once ran across a post on the then FAIR-boards where someone quoted something Nibley had written about Roman history/culture. I looked it up and YE GODS! Ok, apparently it was from a collected volume of Nibley's classroom lectures and it read more like a transcription of a tape rather than an edited and polished essay. Even given that, it was a mess.

I am not a Classics specialist by any stretch of the imagination (my scholarly field is far from that) but I have read a great deal of Roman history, and most of that in Latin which, oddly enough, was my undergraduate minor. Even I could find glaring mistakes all through the thing.

Ah, the pleasures of reading cutting edge LDS apologetics. And to think, Nibley was one of their best.

To be fair, I too can make mistakes and over-generalizations when lecturing in class, and sometimes on purpose (the generalizations not the mistakes). But if I were publishing my lectures, I would at least footnote those problems or edit them out all together. So, not only was I given pause by the mistakes themselves, but also baffled by whatever lack of attention to scholarship could result in pubishing something in that shape.

One can only guess.

Nibley-worship kinda fascinates me, though in a very, very small way. There are much better Mormon scholars/writers, but tellingly, none of them touched the Book of Abraham. That's really why they have to overestimate to him. And yet, Nibley-worship sometimes strikes me as going far beyond that to teeter on a personality-cult.

(Yes, I know Nibley was "assigned" to work on the Book of Abraham, and maybe wouldn't have chosen it himself. And as for better scholars, I am thinking along the lines of Leonard Arrington, B.H. Roberts, etc.)

I actually think that between the two of them BH Roberts and Nibley did the LDS church a lot more harm than good.