I read this morning on CNN.com that the FBI will "hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/dnc-email-scandal-explained/index.html).

Really?

Did former Secretary Clinton's cyberspace use pose a threat to the U.S.? 

Um . . . yeah! 

So said James Comey, head of the FBI. And I quote:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless [i.e., /ˈst(y)o͞opəd/ : lacking intelligence or common sense; unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, idiotic, dumb, moronic, pea-brained, ill-advised, ill-considered, unwise, injudicious] in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information [they? their? spreading the blame around, are we? Don't you mean she? her? Was Hilary Clinton the head of the State Department or not?].

For example, seven e-mail chains [if seven, why not seventy? we have no way of knowing, one way or the other, do we?] concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters ["I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified," said Hilary Clinton. Really?]. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation [ergo, Hilary Clinton is unreasonable, even /ˈst(y)o͞opəd/]. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it [if they don't, they lack judgment or common sense or both - really /ˈst(y)o͞opəd/].

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government [when did "everybody else is doing it" become a valid excuse for doing something reckless, dangerous, and /ˈst(y)o͞opəd/?].

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence [only indirect evidence] that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked [i.e., we don't know if it was hacked]. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence [i.e., so it very well could have been hacked]. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account [i.e., we're pretty sure it was hacked].

So that’s what we found [she broke the rules, showed poor judgment, behaved recklessly over a long period of time, endangered national security, and lied about it...]. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter [its effect on the selection of the next leader of the free world], I think unusual transparency is in order [i.e., I'm begging you, people, PLEASE read between the lines!].

Although there is [a lot of] evidence of potential [real] violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor [or FBI head, who wants to keep his, or her, job] would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges [like who appointed the prosecutor, attorney general, and FBI head; what is professionally and politically expedient; and where will they sit at the next State dinner]. There are obvious considerations [whether the accused is potentially the first woman president or not; whether anybody in the Obama administration would dare to prosecute her; whether, given the Clintons' penchant for "misbehavior," scandal and recovery, there is any use in pursuing the case], like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible [I repeat, professionally expedient] decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past [a lot of other people (John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, Stephen Kim, busted; Hilary Clinton, never].

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts [because we would probably all get fired]. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling [whether Hilary's was either of those, at the least it was reckless and stupid] of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct [no inference of intentional misconduct, just stupidity, arrogance, and carelessness]; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here [because we have our blinders on].

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences [just not Hilary Clinton- she is apparently above the law]. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now [You'll have to do that, America, at the ballot box. I've been as "transparent" as I can without losing my job...you have the facts of the case. Since she will never be prosecuted by the Obama administration, it is up to you to prosecute her at the ballot box. Vote "No" on Hilary Clinton].

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions [except in this case where you, the American people, can make the final decision ... at the ballot box] on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case [because it won't do any good to bring charges under the Obama administration nor under the jurisdiction of Prevaricator General, Loretta Lynch].

Can we trust that the FBI will hold people responsible? I don't think so.

We the people will have to do that.

Caprine Capers

Hello, all You'uns!

You are no doubt wondering how the crazy Chuns fared on their trip to Kansas City with a large U-haul and a van full of goats and chickens. Well, I'll tell you - it was an Oddyssey!

But before I commence the tale, I'd like to thank you all for your love and support. Without your help and elbow grease, we would not have been able to more or less meet our self-imposed deadline. We were really getting anxious to be over here with Ki, even though that meant leaving all of you for a time. Without your packing, lifting, hauling, loading, cleaning, sorting, and keeping us company, we would have fallen all apart in the process. Anyway, thank you! And if you're ever out in Kansas City to see the sites, come see us, too. We're at 1438 E. Haven Lane, Olathe, Kansas 66062, just off I-35 south of Santa Fe.

At first I was so excited to finally have a place to go to, to be with Ki, that I was ready to load the goats into the back of the van, drive it up onto one of those auto transports, climb into the U-haul cab with Leanne and Levi, and hit the road, just the three of us. Then one night, after a long day of sorting and packing (believe it or not, we did do a lot of that before you all came on Thursday and Friday!), it suddenly hit me that I was going to be, first, driving for at least 18 hours with a heavy, swaying load; second, taking probably several hours to unload, and then driving another 6 hours round trip to deliver the goats to the farm, plus taking an hour or two to get them situated and give a goat-milking lesson. That all made me think twice about driving the whole way by myself! So, I invited Cody, my big little brother, to help out, to which he readily agreed. Bless him! And here we are, safe and sound!

But now, as to how we got here, that is a story . . . .

Most of you last saw us sometime on the evening of August 25th, Thursday night, after one more long day of packing and scrubbing, And most of you knew we planned to load the goats into the back of our Honda Odyssey and head off through the Rocky Mountains and over the Great Plains to Tanager Hill Farm (my sister AJ's place) in southeastern Kansas before heading up to join Ki in Olathe. Friday morning found me coaxing three hesitant goats into the back of my van which had first been "floored" with three layers of 7 ml plastic and a healthy dose of duct tape to keep it stuck to vinyl sides of the inside of the van, plus a couple of fork fulls of straw. We had taken the seats out and put them in the U-haul to be carried over the prairie to Kansas City, so we tethered the goats to the steel seat "grips" so as to keep them somewhat stationary. Last thing I wanted was the ceiling of my van poked full of goat horn holes. In addition, my mother and I had a chicken rodeo in the backyard - sorry, Sister Watkins, if we woke you up! - to capture Hank, the infamous crow-er, and his girlfriend, Glory, the only hen that actually "sat" on eggs (matter of fact, she hatched three eggs before we departed). We codged together a two story chicken condo composed of a large plastic planter (that our live Christmas tree came in), upended, with Glory inside, and topped by a smallish paper box with holes punched for Hank to get some air by. The whole thing was duct taped together and then duct taped to the vinyl insides of the van for stability. Logan would be proud.

Once the goats and chickens were safely loaded, we prayed mightily for Providential care and set off with Cody and Leanne in the U-haul, Levi and I in the Oddysey! Thanks to all your wonderful packing, Cody's load seemed to ride well, with very little swaying from side to side, and we made good time going down the road. We did stop in Coalville to gas up and then off we went on the long haul. We stayed together until Cheyenne, then Levi and I peeled off and headed south toward AJ's place and let Cody and Leanne continue on I-80. They made it to Kearney, Nebraska that night and slept over in a hotel. The next day, Sunday, they drove on into KC and were met by 12 strapping elders from Olathe 1st ward. Ki had been to church in the morning and recruited their help for unloading. I hear that what took us 2 full days to load, they unloaded in 45 minutes. We were sorry to call them out on the Sabbath but felt that the ox was in mire, so to speak. We were grateful for their help.

Meantime, Levi and I pit stopped in Fort Collins to see Ki's sister and wound up staying the night. We tethered the goats outside the van for a few hours to let them get their land legs, nibble some grass, and also to milk Mama. And we cleaned out the muck. You can imagine us driving the 7 1/2 hours to Fort Collins with our conversations punctuated by the sounds of goats urinating or plopping little "goat berries" down on the straw covered plastic. Other than that, the goats made no sound and in fact rode along in a state of complete relaxation, except for Fred who stood front and center with his horned head between Levi and I, looking intently down the road or side to side as if to make sure we were going the right direction. He was pretty curious about the whole thing and kept Levi and I company all the way. Mama and Alex just lay down and slept. We did have a little excitement when we pulled out the green grapes, all plump and juicy. Fred leaned so far over Levi's seat on his tip toes, trying to wrap those hairy lips around Levi's supply, that we were obliged to put the grapes away or else share them with him, which we did . . . one for Levi, one for Beth, one for Fred. As long as he knew he was getting his fair share, he was content to stand in place like a civilized goat. The only other sound from the critters was the occasional unhappy "cockadoodle" from Hank.



We did get some curious and funny looks from people driving down the road who happened to parallel us long enough to really see what was in the van. When we stopped for gas, people came up to us and said, mostly incredulously, "Are those GOATS in there??!!" They thought that was a novel, and pretty cool, way to transport the kids.

We were glad to get to Ft. Collins, though, because after 7 hours, the plastic floor was more like (plug your ears . . . uh, cover your eyes, if you don't want to be disgusted) a urine pool than a barn stall. Yeah. Goats pee a lot! In Ft. Collins Patti and Ryan helped us clean out, dry out, and air out the back and replenish it with wood chips which are a LOT more absorbent than straw (next time you plan to transport goats in your van, remember that -- use wood chips, not straw). After spending a wonderful evening with Patti and Ryan and little Evan, eating pizza, milking the goat together, visiting, we loaded the van in preparation for the next day's travel and then put the goats in too. We wanted to protect them from marauding coyotes and also have them already loaded so we could make an early start. We hoped they would be as peaceful in there all by themselves all night as they had been while driving down the road with us. Turns out, they were. It must've felt like a cozy little stall to them. When Levi and I got up at 4:00 a.m. to start again, they all stood up from their resting places to greet us but then settled right back down to sleep as we went down the road. I found it a surprisingly comforting, pastoral experience riding across the prairie in our modern wagon with the AC and the Gospel Country music, while keeping company with goats.

We did have a hitch along the way - about 20 miles north of Wichita, the transmission stuttered and we smelled burnt transmission fluid. I know, because it's happened before. Providentially, we were not 100 yards from an exit to Casey's Gas & Convenience, so we pulled off straight away and coasted to a stop in front of the shop. Problem was, Kansas was sweltering hot that day and now we had no AC. We only sat there pondering what to do for 30 seconds - that's all it took for the smell of super heated goat droppings (and stuff) to hit our olfactory nerves. We knew if we didn't get the goats out of there, not only would they die of heat exhaustion, but we would most certainly die of COD, catastrophic olfactory destruction. Anyway, it seemed the humane thing to do. Problem was, it was a busy day at Casey's. There were lots of people to see the side doors and hatch fly open, and a flurry of caprine activity as the goats disembarked. I didn't look up, but Levi tells me people were flat staring and that he was quite embarrassed. Luckily there was a fence to tether them to and long bit of deep grass for them to enjoy while we figured out what to do. And a hydrant from which we filled their water bucket repeatedly (oh, good, just what they needed . . . ). We also carried the chicken condo out and put it under a tree to try and revive Hank and Glory with some water and bird seed. Good thing we did - they were both pretty wilted. The short story is that the critters all enjoyed a snack and a good stretch while I rounded up a mechanic and tow truck. We drove 12 miles to his air conditioned shop where I paid him $120 for the tow, a couple of quarts of transmission fluid, and his short course on where to find the fill hole for Honda transmission fluid (turns out that while he was a really nice guy and probably an able mechanic, with a very comfortable air conditioned shop, he didn't know much about Honda's). In the end, we both decided the Honda was drivable but needed an expert to look over the transmission when I got to Olathe. Levi and I were grateful for his help, especially that he humored us with the goats and chickens and provided a very comfortable place to be while he checked things over. We did decide it's best not to travel on Sunday if you don't have to. If I'd been a little more confident in the mechanic-ing department, I would've just put some transmission fluid in myself and saved us the 5 hours and $120 bucks. Still and all, though, we were back on the road. We finally got to AJ's place around 10:00 p.m., well past dark, but we bedded the goats and chickens down in their new homes and they seemed wonderfully happy to have finally arrived! I must say, we were too! We pulled the plastic barnyard floor out of the van so that it wouldn't bake goat smells into the vinyl all night and then went up to the cabin where Mitch, Tate's brother and caretaker of the farm while they are in Alaska teaching, was an excellent host, sharing hunks of his freshly baked bread with us, and a lovely cold shower. We fell into Walt and Ella's bunk beds and slept soundly til morning.

In the morning we gave Mitch a goat milking lesson, helped with a few chores, and then got on the road, anxious to finally get to Olathe and rendezvous with Cody, Leanne, and Ki. We had a pleasant drive without incident, even though we traveled a bit slowly for fear of dropping our transmission out in the middle of the road - the three hour trip took us four. But it's such a beautiful drive that before we knew it, we had arrived! We found Leanne and Cody resting and waiting for us. The beds were all set up and boxes placed strategically here and there. After a round of hugs and kisses, we went to work with a vengeance, unpacking and organizing, and within a couple of hours we had everything sufficiently stowed. It's a small place and we had gotten rid of a lot of stuff or left it at home in Lehi, so it didn't take us long to get situated.

When Ki came home from work we celebrated with a lasagna dinner and dedicated the new home. It is lovely to be here.

We miss all of you, but somehow we feel that we are in the right place at the right time. If we figure out the why's and wherefore's we will let you know. For now we are content to leave it in the Lord's hands.

More from the Wee Chuns later . . . .

Wee Chun

Hello, dear family! 

Wee Chuns have been working hard over here and missing and thinking about all of you. We want to wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving! Hope you have lots of good food and wonderful company there where you are. We wish we could all teleport, then we would just come over and see you!

We've had a few projects going on over here:

Levi has several cute goats that he is raising for a packing goat team, two wether goats (in other words ... not bucks, if you get my drift), one of which is a La Mancha/Saanen mix named Alex, the other of which is a pure bred Alpine named Fred. We have Alex's mama, too. She is just over a year old herself and Alex is her first kid. She had never been milked before, but we wanted to get her milk before she'd completely weaned her kid. Boy! she did not like that! She would jump back and forth and try to butt you, if you even grazed her teat. But after watching Tate & AJ in action with their stubborn mama goat, we learned how to fix her wagon - we tied her head up to a tree, then Ki grabbed ahold of one of back legs, forcing her to stand mostly still while I milked. Once Ki didn't tie her head up enough and bent down to milk her by himself. He got the head butt of his life! But he had a two-by-four handy and butted her back! After that, she didn't butt! It took only about 8 milkings before she would stand still, with her head tied, munch oats, and let herself get milked. We find we quite like goat's milk. Anyway, the family project came when we had to get hay for the winter. We had to build a miniature hay barn to keep it out of the weather. Got that done, hallelujah!

We also borrowed Grandma Danny's chain saws and cut down a bunch of our mangy poplar trees in the back yard. They'd grown too tall and were shading the garden too much. Our tomatoes wouldn't grow. And we learned that poplars exude an enzyme into the soil to keep down the competition. No wonder our garden was not so good this year. (Course that could also be because we probably spent a grand total of 20 hours in the garden.You reap what you sow, I guess). But anyway, we've been cutting & hauling logs and stashing them away into our little garden shed to keep them out of the weather. They will be great for weeny roasting in the spring & summer. Still have a bunch of leaves to rake, even though the Chunsters came over and helped us handle a lot of them. But we've had snow & rain on and off. We'll try to get them raked up and stowed away over the Thanksgiving break so that we will be ready for winter.

Kids are busy at school and a bit lazy at home, I have to say. Their parents have been too busy and haven't really cracked down on the chores. But tomorrow is a new day! 

I do have to say that Lorin's schedule is terribly full and hectic, with her CNA class, early morning seminary, two online classes, and a lead role in the school play, Curtains. She is just incredible! A voice like honey and so sassy on stage! I've wondered if she might want to go on in college and do some musical theater or something. She definitely has a flair.

Leanne acted as a techie - the costumer - for her school play, Peter Pan. It entailed her sitting back stage by herself, a lot, and waiting for the actors to come back for their costume changes. After Thanksgiving she will try out for Seussical, the Musical. She is playing the piano like a crazy woman and is getting SOOO good. It is a pleasure to work around the house and hear her playing all kinds of wonderful songs in the back ground. 

Levi became an 11 year old scout on his birthday in June and in only 5 months is almost through his Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class ranks. He has also earned his First Aid, Personal Fitness, Personal Management, Swimming, and Space Exploration merit badges, and gone camping several times with his troop. He is a wonderfully kind young man with a real compassion for others and a strict sense of justice. He roots for the underdog!

Lacy is a hard working young college student. She lives near the University of Utah and will be done with her bachelors in 3 semesters or so. And she got herself a significant job at the brand new local Target store as the Human Resources Director, so she works full time and goes to school. She comes to hang out with us on the random Saturday and Sunday. We love her good company.

Logan landed himself a job at Sewell Direct in Orem. He's the life of the party wherever he is, with his wit and humor, and his easy style. He surprised us all on Halloween Night for a visit and it was wonderful to see him and share an insightfully philosophical discussion about the geometry of Peanut Butter Reeses Pieces and the cosmic implications of their size & shape. We love that young man!

Ki is up to his elbows in business deals with his China business, Renasis, Northrock, and various other entrepreneurial efforts about town here, with various like-minded people. I help at the office a couple hours each day, keeping the books, but mostly keeping him company. We like to work together. In his spare time, he devours online documentaries and downloadable books. He is full of interesting information & stories that he is learning.

I'm the Relief Society President, which means I lead a group of about 95 women in our humanitarian and compassionate service endeavors. Just this past week one of our neighbors was close to death in her 8 year fight with cancer, so we helped her with a project she's long wanted to do: sew a jeans quilt for her husband and one for each of her four kids. We did a marathon sewing session and finished them in one day, in time to give them to her so she could give them to the children before she passed away. I have to tell you there was some inspiration and the hand of the Lord in all of that!

We are looking forward to the Thanksgiving break for a little rest and a chance to just be together with family and with very little interruption. And to sleep!

We hope you will all be safe and happy, and that you will have the chance to help someone in need and feel the goodness that comes from that. 

Happy Thanksgiving, you all!

Love, the Wee Chuns

Horsetail Falls, Alpine, Utah

In July, Levi and I took a strenuous 5 mile hike up the canyon above Alpine, Utah, with a couple of his buddies and their mom, my good friend, Connie Peterson. These are the famous Brothers, the Peterson boys. Their parents married a little later in life, then waited about 8 years until any children came to join them. When they did come, they came fast! Four boys in 5 years. They call themselves The Brothers. If one of them comes home from an activity, he'll say, "Where's The Brothers?" They've adopted Levi - he is one of The Brothers. Pictured here are Levi, Steven, Carl, and John. Missing Michael, the youngest. Good boys all! They had to spend some time dipping their heads in the freezing cold water and seeing who could stay in the longest . . . boys!


It's a rugged and beautiful place, not a hike for sissies! We enjoyed the Alpine forest and meadows, the birds and flowers, a bright blue sky, and a hot July sun.

Which Are You: Mantic, Sophic, or Sophistic?

In an article I recently read, "Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic" in The Ancient State, Hugh Nibley describes three different attitudes or ways of thinking, that characterize civilizations and individuals: the mantic, the sophic, and the sophistic. Understanding these terms and applying them to the thinking, i.e. the language, we hear and read all around us is a useful way to guage how influential we ought to let that thinking be.

According to Nibley, the mantic is a Greek word that simply means "prophetic or inspired, oracular, coming from the other world and not from the resources of the human mind." It means having an expectation of "infinite possibilities," infinite possibilities that are actualities, that is, certainties. Just what those possibilities are is sort of irrelevant; what matters is that they exist and the mantic thinker has the expectation of them. Nibley says that that mantic quality is what makes ancient religions, especially that of the Greeks and the Arabs, the Egyptians and the Jews still so fascinating, still so moving: they "seem to be expecting something," they have a "constant awareness . . . of something beyond this world." He cites Socrates as an example of a mantic:

Socrates ended his life with a speech that emphasized two points: 1) that he had not found in this life what he was looking for, and knew of no one else who had; and 2) that failure had not in the least abated his conviction that what he was looking for was to be found.

In essence Socrates had joined what we now call the Great Debate, the continuous dialogue of mankind in trying to answer the questions Where did I come from? Why am I here? and Where am I going when I die? He expected the answers to come from a source outside himself, a source of inspiration, and did not give up hope even when he felt the answers had not come. Socrates was a mantic. Those of us who believe in modern revelation or inspiration, in a spiritual quality of life, are likewise Mantics.

Sophic, on the other hand, "is the tradition which boasted its cool, critical, objective, naturalistic, and scientific attitude." It is the attitude which says that "no one need look any farther than science for the answers to everything," that by experimenting, one could "discover the secrets of nature and life."

According to Nibley, one can either be mantic or sophic: "the two are totally incompatible," and "[w]hoever accepts the Sophic attitude must abandon the Mantic, and vice versa." He describes what he calls the sophic revolution, a turning from the mantic way of ordering society with the passing of the priest kings to "some other principle of authority for the ordering of society." Nibley argues that certain world upheavals in the early second and first millennia B.C. and culminating in the 6th century B.C. (think of Lehi leaving Jerusalem about that time and fleeing to the Promised Land) left the old sacred order in a shambles and called for a new order of society. This led to the rise of the "heroes of the mind," exemplified by the so-called Seven Sages, who "after giving wise laws and examples to their own cities, wandered free of earthly passions and attachments through the universe, selfless and aloof, . . . seeking only knowledge and carrying with them the healing blessing of true wisdom, . . . having an aura of divinity about them," but being, after all, purely human. Says Nibley, "they were an attempt at compromise between the Mantic and Sophic on the principle that a very high order of human wisdom has something divine about it," but that they represented a "true renunciation of the Mantic." In other words, their wisdom, their "complete humanity" was their glory; they believed that they did not need some sort of supernatural inspiration; that in the end, "a man's only comfort and guide is his own common sense"; that they must "bravely [renounce] the wonders of the Mantic [the prophetic, the inspirational, the supernatural, the revelatory] because they are just too good to be true." Those of us who desire to do good and be wise and rely on reason and intellect alone to do so are Sophic.

Nibley values the Mantic. He argues that the Mantic, not the Sophic, holds the "key for the real order of things, that by "turning from Mantic to Sophic we have tidied up our calculations, but at the price of putting ourselves in a box," and that the Sophics are never "completely reconciled" to their doctrine because though they claim to be done with God, they are "always talking about him; they are seeking the same objective as religion - to explain everything," but with even less a chance of succeeding than the Mantics because they are limited to reason and physical experience alone.

Just a word about the Sophistic. The Sophists took the Sophic to extremes; they were the "popularizers of science and common sense." They "attacked every illusion and every tradition in the name of truth, clarity, objectivity, consistency, and neatness in thinking and speech." They were easy to understand, "flattering to the intellect," and "liberating to the conscience." According to Schmid, as quoted by Nibley, "[i]mplicit in all the Sophist teaching . . . was a basic atheism. . . . Smart people were expected to dismantle and debunk all old beliefs in the name of a fresh, modern, emancipated morality. . . ."

Sounds like the intellectuals, liberals and atheists we hear from today. In my own mind the difference between the Sophics and Sophistics is the level of authenticity and rhetoric of each. Sophic thinkers have their hearts in the right place, I think; they seek to live an authentic life and accomplish all they can by means of reason and common sense but with no real belief in any kind of inspiration from an outside source. They are high on authenticity, low on rhetoric. Our modern day sophists, on the other hand, use rhetoric to make the bad sound good and the wrong seem right, mostly for the sake of expediency and the padding of their pocket books. They are high on rhetoric, low on authenticity. I'm thinking of a recent Newsweek article called "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" by Lisa Miller. She, I believe, is sophistic - using fancy words and twisted logic to make the wrong seem right. (Note to all: I am not homophobic - I just think sexual relations should remain between man and woman.)

My purpose here is two-fold: first, which I've already covered, to give you some basics about the notions of mantic, sophic, and sophistic, for future discussions and food for thought, that you might consider which of these attitudes you lean toward, and second, to explore whether Nibley is right in saying that Mantic and Sophic, that is the religious and the rational, are necessarily exclusive of each other. By definition, in his view, they are. But in my view, they are not.

In fact, I believe that Reason (note the capital -R-) allows for the mantic, that there is a Reasoning Being that uses the mantic to accomplish certain purposes and that man's reason (note the small -r-) is subordinate to that great Reason. Man's reason, his "cool, critical, objective, naturalistic, and scientific" reason is limited. Truths exist outside man's understanding, outside of his reason. To illustrate, let's consider the law of gravity. Did the law of gravity exist before young Isaac Newton "discovered," that is, recognized it, before he described it? Of course. Was matter made up of atoms and molecules before these elementals were recognized and described? Of course. Is it then possible that certain other laws and phenomenon exist outside the current realm of man's reason? It stands to reason that they do. :)

So it is that revelation is not outside the bounds of Reason; it's just that man's reason in general (as far as it goes right now) does not comprehend the rationality of revelation, of inspiration. . . . unless you are a man, or woman, or girl, or boy, who has experienced inspiration, personal revelation. Then you know of the existence of the mantic, because you will have experienced it, a very sophic idea indeed.

To further illustrate the possible connection between the Mantic and the Sophic (according to my definition rather than Nibley's) consider the writing of C.S. Lewis. A classmate of mine said of Lewis that "he has a mantic heart, but a sophic pen." If you've ever read anything of Lewis's, I think you will agree. He acknowledges the power and necessity of the mantic by using a sophic method. And his sophic writing is powerful because it appeals to the mantic desires in us. I think it shows that the sophic can serve the mantic and vice versa.

Consider also this passage from a very mantic source, The Book of Mormon, found in Alma 32. It is Alma's discourse on faith. He calls upon his reader to exercise his sophic thinking, urging him to "arouse his faculties," and "experiment" on his words, to move beyond faith into knowledge through the experiment (a process very similar to a scientist proving out a theory, yes?). In short, man's reason is limited. I trust to the mantic in me to tap into that great Reason where the possibilities are endless.

Thanks for reading. I welcome your comments and thoughts.

Victoriosa Loquacitas

My mentor at GWC is an intense and enthusiastic fellow named Shane Schulthies (rhymes with "pies"). He has a PhD in Exercise Science from BYU where he also taught for 13 years. He has degrees in Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine as well. (No, he hasn't met Yoko.) He's been influential in the home school movement in Utah and active in government and business. He and his wife have 10 kids, so the man has some experience. He left a tenured position at BYU and a prosperous business to pursue his interest in mentoring and teaching at George Wythe University. He has a way of asking penetrating questions.

At the beginning of a discussion of Hugh Nibley's work The Ancient State, a collection of essays on the influence of ancient life on us moderns, Shane asked, "What can we learn from the ancients?" Seems like a simple question. Keep it in mind.

Just to give you an idea, Nibley's essays carry titles like "The Arrow, the Hunter, and the State" - about how the marked arrow (e.g. marked with the hunter's personal symbol or colors) shows the hunter's possession of his prey and therefore became the basis for establishing empires (my arrow makes possible my conquest and marks my territory); "The Hierocentric State" (I know . . . look it up) - about the "dangerous heritage" of Western civilization, that is, the tendency to see itself as the center of a world empire, a global community; "The Unsolved Loyalty Problem" - about the causes of the fall of Rome in 410 A.D. and maybe of the West in 20-- A.D.

One of my favorites, about the fall of Greece and later Rome, was "Victoriosa Loquacitas" (I know - it sounds like some kind of Harry Potter counter curse; as I understand it, it means "the victory of empty talk"). The full title of Nibley's essay is "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else." Let that sink in a minute.

What is rhetoric? Nibley says that "by far the most common ancient definition of rhetoric" is simply "the power or faculty or skill of persuading," that the "business of rhetoric is to move people, to make an impression," that the orator must know how to "make words ring with conviction" but also use words that will "convince."

In the beginning, the orator's rhetoric, his "learned dialectic," "cunning oratory," and "moving eloquence," combined with his virtuous life, was meant to lift and inspire his audience, but in short order these tools took a "philosophic" turn and became sophistry, that is, rhetoric turned from being a tool used in "the honest search for truth to the business of cultivating appearances"; the successful orator, the sophist, then, was one who "cultivated a new and wonderful art of finding success the easy way. He worked out a technique which enabled him to speak off-hand on any and all subjects, and to prove or disprove any point," to make "the worse appear the better reason," and to earn a great living in the process. In time, the ancient schools of philosophy were taken over by the sophists, and having "gained control of public education," they "completely captivated the public by substituting sweet sounds for ideas; issues gave way to personalities, the most popular speaker being the best entertainer." This turn "made a hash of all values, including . . . the moral order of society - itself."

Ask yourself if any of this sounds familiar. . . .

According to Nibley, the key to this "technique of persuasion is probability." The sophist can "turn any proposition into a probability, which he could in turn build into a certainty by high-powered emotional appeal . . . . the main thing was to establish the probability. The first Sophists showed the way to do this by breaking down the thing that made the Greeks uniquely great, the high moral wall between seeming and being" (remember a certain former U.S. president who said, in regards to a question about whether a certain statement was (is) true, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is . . . ." In case you hadn't noticed, that moral wall has been breaking down in the U.S. for a long time now). The "'less truth there is in an orator's cause,'" says Cicero (a famous Roman statesman), "'the better the job he must do from the probability angle.'" Clinton was big on probability.

Another key to the success of the sophist is a captive audience "eager to recognize even the feebliest signs of talent with "$50,000 grants for $100 ideas"(or a presidency) because they are bored (e.g. they want a change) and he saves them from boredom. The rhetor satisfies "the insatiable hunger of the people for entertainment." More importantly, the successful rhetor is able to find out what the people want and give it to them, whether it's good or right, or not (financial "rescue" programs, mortgage payments, auto industry bailouts, and a little redistribution of the wealth): "Everything must be accommodated to the common judgement and popular intelligence"; the rhetor must "pick out just those things that appeal to most listeners, and not only delight them, but entertain without ever tiring them." The audience is a mob who can "always count on finding orators that [will] never contradict them, society reserving its richest rewards for those who [can] justify, condone, and confirm its vices."

In ancient Greece and Rome, such rhetoricians included politicians who "'systematically debauched' the people for their votes." The people were supposed to be a check on the excesses of government then, as now, but after an "intensive campaign" from all sides, "debunking established values, confounding commonsense conclusions, and turning on a vast amount of charm, wit, and synthetic sincerety," the rhetoricians have "succeeded in breaking down the general sales resistance" and we have been brought to our current degraded state of society, the erosion of our freedoms, and even the potential loss of Western civilization as we know it (see future blog about The Clash of Civilizations).

What can we learn from the ancients? According to Nibley, rhetoric, or sophistry, was responsible for the fall of Greece and the fall of Rome, each the greatest civilization of its time.
But rhetoric only succeeds if the auditors aren't listening, if we accept that "learning the hard way" is just too hard, that War Craft is just way easier and much more fun than War and Peace, that others are better at doing the thinking, that "correct speech is more important than correct thought"; if we can't get over our insatiable appetite for entertainment and turn our time and industrious attention to enlightenment, to the pursuit of personal knowledge and understanding of the roots of our American order (see Russell Kirk's book The Roots of American Order) then we will get what the Greeks and Romans got - a place in history. And little Muslim children the world over will read in their whitewashed textbooks of the rise and fall of the decadent West.

Wytheian

You might know that for some years I have been an ardent fan of a small liberal arts college in Cedar City called George Wythe College (now George Wythe University, www.gw.edu), named after Thomas Jefferson's friend and mentor in law, a very shrewd and wise old fellow who also taught the likes of Henry Clay, James Monroe, and John Marshall, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson considered George Wythe to be his "second father"; together they read law and everything else, from English literary works, to political philosophy, to the ancient classics - George Wythe had a lot to do with the learned and able man that became Thomas Jefferson. And I hope we all know the contributions he made to our relative freedom and prosperity!

When I say ardent fan, I mean the obsessive type that returns again and again to a website to ogle its contents and ponder continually on its principle message, its mission: "To build men and women of virtue, wisdom, diplomacy and courage who inspire greatness in others and move the cause of liberty." If ever there were a time when the cause of liberty needed fresh and fervent adherents, it's now.

I first became acquainted with GWC at a home school conference in 1997 when I was casting about for alternatives to public school for my then 9 year old son Logan. I sat down to hear the keynote speaker, Oliver DeMille, president of GWC, expound on the "Five Pillars of a Classical Education": Classics, Mentors, Field Experience, Simulations, and God. Simply put, he urged a method of teaching and inspiring ourselves and our children that struck a chord of truth in me: a teacher really ought to be a mentor who inspires and guides others to teach themselves and shows them how to do it by reading and studying the great classics (be they written or otherwise) and discussing and applying truths contained therein.

Instead of getting a text book interpretation of Darwin's Origin of Species, read it yourself. Instead of Cliff's notes on War and Peace, read it yourself. You want to know how to be a good businessman? Start a business, study business classics such as The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, find a business mentor. The method applies to any discipline. Art? Study the works of Rembrandt, Picasso, Michelangelo, and others, find yourself a mentor and start painting. Science? Mathematics? Study Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Aristotle, Archimedes, Thales, Euclid, Copernicus, Babbage, Newton, Descartes, Einstein, Hawking. Political science? Plato, Aristotle, Aurelius, Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Jefferson and company. Music? Find a mentor and study the classics. Be a mentor. Study, do, and teach. Learn as you go. Pay the price in time and effort. Instead of just dreaming about all these famous people, pick up their works and know them, argue with them, understand their contribution to your way of life. Then go out and make your own difference in your sphere of influence. Apply yourself. Don't know where to start? Visit the George Wythe website and check out the book lists. Pick one . . . and start. I did.

This fall I joined a group of about 20 like-minded individuals who came together to study and discuss great influences on modern social and political thought: the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Objectivists, Subjectivists (Existentialists), people like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Jefferson and other early American political writers, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Nibley, Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Soren Kierkagaard, Jean Paul Sartre, and Samuel P. Huntington. I'll try to share some of what I learned and thought as I dove into my studies, to satisfy your curiosity about what I'm doing. Hopefully you have a lot of curiosity. Feel free to share the blog or comment on it. Ask questions. Disagree. Poke fun. I'm excited to share what I've been learning and thinking with you.

And if you've read this far, I congratulate you, and thank you.