tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6125157546218346103..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Summer open threadEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger254125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33023156390736707642019-09-05T10:34:02.222-07:002019-09-05T10:34:02.222-07:00There must be an element of time in purgatory. Bu...There must be an element of time in purgatory. But time does not exist after death. Therefore, our purging (suffering) happens during our lifetimes. Evil people who don't suffer much go to hell. Good people who suffer too much are suffering for others.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3064830750320135372019-08-28T20:04:44.199-07:002019-08-28T20:04:44.199-07:00I'd like to see Feser respond to the review of...I'd like to see Feser respond to the review of <i>Aristotle's Revenge</i> at <a href="https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>The Orthosphere</i></a>, first part here:<br /><br /><a href="https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2019/08/08/aristotles-revenge-1-on-the-philosophy-of-science/" rel="nofollow">https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2019/08/08/aristotles-revenge-1-on-the-philosophy-of-science/</a><br /><br />Or to a post by the same author on dilemmas in natural law reasoning:<br /><br /><a href="https://bonald.wordpress.com/2019/08/21/the-vampires-dilemma-practices-of-natural-law-reasoning/" rel="nofollow">https://bonald.wordpress.com/2019/08/21/the-vampires-dilemma-practices-of-natural-law-reasoning/</a>Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302131576186856435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34329746787199317272019-08-24T06:33:10.439-07:002019-08-24T06:33:10.439-07:00Dr Feser had once posted, " For classical the...Dr Feser had once posted, " For classical theism, to say that God creates the world is not merely, and indeed not primarily, to say that He got it going at some time in the past. It is more fundamentally to say the He keeps it going now, and at any moment at which it exists at all. As Aquinas says, to say that God makes the world is not like saying that a blacksmith made a horseshoe – where the horseshoe might persist even if the blacksmith died – but rather like saying that a musician makes music, where the music would stop if the musician stopped playing."<br /><br />Can someone give a source for the St Thomas quote, please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6674686601560798892019-08-24T02:35:38.033-07:002019-08-24T02:35:38.033-07:00Pax et bonum. Check your replies again.Pax et bonum. Check your replies again.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81582681952006481272019-08-23T17:06:03.958-07:002019-08-23T17:06:03.958-07:00I literally did respond directly to the quotes. Ei...I literally did respond directly to the quotes. Either you have poor reading comprehension or you have no response. So now you jump to twisting more quotes you have found somewhere (presumably not through careful reading of Burke). I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. I can see why you are considered a troll and Dr. Feser told you to leave. You have strange intellectual obsessesions and argue in sophistic ways for them.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14438877105818376002019-08-23T05:55:03.164-07:002019-08-23T05:55:03.164-07:00Burke played a great and controversial part in def...Burke played a great and controversial part in defending the free market that was being invented in reality and ideologically at the time.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84375822789288592019-08-23T05:49:40.063-07:002019-08-23T05:49:40.063-07:00Jeremy Taylor,
since you don't seem want to c...Jeremy Taylor, <br />since you don't seem want to comment on the quotes so far provided, here is more: "The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes: and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of men are a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned". Discernment for Burke was not based upon reason itself, because it might be found in an individual or a dogmatic institution, but in historical society: "the individual is foolish... but the species is wise, and, when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right". So much for natural law.<br />Religion? "... taking ground on that religious system... we continue to act on the early received and uniformly continued sense of mankind". Religion is validated as part of a universal traditional wisdom of mankind into which political, moral and religious principles are lumped. It is the romanticist argument for religion, but it is not Christianity's own justification. Burke's religion does not depend on any Church or revelation. <br /><br />There are other quotes from Burke above, and many more of which I am aware (be at rest, your suspicions are unfounded), but it's probably a waste of time, as you won't accept their relevance because of "context".<br /><br />The context which you mention is true, but does not contradict the meaning of these citations as they appear here. The fact that Burke was reacting to rationalist errors does not mean he did not defend other errors. This might be a mitigating factor if Burke was being accused of some crime, but this is not the case. All I am saying is that his ideas are wrong on natural law and other matters.<br /><br />The passage from his notebook tallies with other comments of his (several of which are on this page awaiting you), is mistaken regardless of whether he thinking of scholastics or not, and is admitted by you as quite possibly his own opinion. Therefore you ought to express some kind of view as to how it can be reconciled with natural law. <br /><br />It is one thing to oppose Hastings', but Burke did much more than that. He expressed a view of religion that is typical of the traditionalist, romanticist currents issuing from the Enlightenment. This is where Burke was coming from. It does no good to say that part of natural law was observed in India under Hinduism and Islam; some of it is observed in North Korea too these days. A couple of comments back, I put in some of Burke's opinions concerning religion from the Hastings speech. You haven't directly commented on them. Mentioning context without being able to that it changes the meaning of all these citations, and pointing out that his writings were not works of theology doesn't change the fact that he expressed opinions that are greatly at odds with and dangerous to any Christian concept of natural law or theology.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49322242064271951562019-08-22T17:40:12.734-07:002019-08-22T17:40:12.734-07:00Well, firstly, the notebooks were a joint work, an...Well, firstly, the notebooks were a joint work, and not a published one. I forget if there is even proof that quote was Edmund Burke's and not, perhaps, his cousins. Secondly, it is a very early work. Thirdly, we have another earlt, though bot as early, work, the Tracts on the Popery Laws, which give a different hue to Burke views on natural law. Fourthly, it isn't clear what Burke (assuming it was the right Burke who wrote that passage) meant by metaphysical and physical speculations here. He almost certainly thinking of enlightenment figures, not the Schoolmen. Burke's overall approach, as I said, is not to dismiss all appeal to general principles - to what we might call metaphysics or theology - but simply to emphasise that when considering concrete situations and how we should act, the circumstances involved need to be strongly and clearly taken into account, or, in other words, casuistry. This is the best way to interpret his overall approach, remembering he wasn't a philosopher and his works general reflect a current, rhetorical need.<br /><br />To say that Burke must see religion in purely social terms is, of course, a fallacious leap. It also ignores the fact Burke did not write philosophical or theological tracts, but pieces of current moment in public affairs. It would have been rather out of place for Burke to start deeply discussing natural and revealed theology. I am not even sure what point you are trying to make when you invoke his comments about dogma. You butcher and twist them worse than a sausage-maker. There is no warrant in the passage as a whole to take him as not saying he doesn't believe in the truth of Anglicanism. A Christian and Thomist can certainly believe that India at the time did somewhat abide by natural law and that its people weren't entirely irreligious savages that Hastings and the East India Company could tyrannise at will. That is Burke's point. Again, I suspect you haven't actually read Burke. <br /><br />I have no idea where you get the idea that Burke was important in the spread of liberal economics. Please prove this. It isn't total proof, but it is suggestive that most conservatives, who explicitly drew from him, in the next century didn't share his economic views.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78056751753270452772019-08-22T16:42:08.490-07:002019-08-22T16:42:08.490-07:00Yes, you're right. That quote comes from his ...Yes, you're right. That quote comes from his notebook. "Metaphysical and physical speculations neither are nor ought to be, the Grounds of our Duties, because we can arrive at no certainty in them. They have weight when they concur with our natural feelings, very little when against them"<br />There it is again, an explicit rejection of Thomist teaching on natural law. Could you explain how it is not so?<br /><br />Religious dogmas are never "of moment" but vital to anyone who believes in revelation and Christianity. The fact that Burke never refers to revelation as the basis for religion gives it all away. The Anglican Church might be a good, or better rendition of what might be the best religion for him, but no orthodox Christian or Thomist can say this because to be one, one has to believe Christian religion is the truth, to the exclusion of all others. No Christian or Thomist could have said that India lived according to justice under the same great principle because it followed Islam and Hinduism. <br /><br />You haven't disputed the reference to Burke's place in the creation of the free market myth, only whether his great, great grandchildren recognise it or care. Of course it's true that Burke loyalists are not very influential today, but he is still commands too much respect various circles of Christians and even Catholics. It is therefore necessary to emphasise the issue, here, for example.<br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18576118165170532452019-08-22T14:37:52.451-07:002019-08-22T14:37:52.451-07:00The problem is you don't seem to understand th...The problem is you don't seem to understand the context of the quotes. For a start, the one about metaphysical and physical speculation doesn't come from the Reflections, but from a notebook he wrote early in life with his cousin, William. Burke was, again, taking aim at cer enlightenment philosphers. He was attacking the move straight from metaphysics or physics to abstract moral laws that do not take into account circumstance. Burke didn't disagree with metaphysics per se, or natural law, he makes this clear again with appeals to eternal and divine law and justice.<br /><br />The quote about dogmas being all of a moment is also wrenched out of context. All Burke is saying in that passage is that toleration in England is based on view that at least the Quaker or Methodist acknowledges God and some of his law. He literally talks about the great principle they all agree and the great object they all have in common. But he is explicitly rejecting they are all equal or, indeed, anything more than the fact it is better than atheism and irreligion. This is hardly anything but very tendentious support for the claim he saw religion as simply, or primarily, a matter of social evolution.<br /><br />The claims about Burke being an important fount for liberal economics within later conservatism is nonsense, as I said and argued. Do you have any proof it? Preferably real, strong proof, not more tendentious quotes.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88051992785976426682019-08-22T08:22:40.645-07:002019-08-22T08:22:40.645-07:00> DK re; last sentence
Thanks for the response ...> DK re; last sentence<br />Thanks for the response but the attempt to bifurcate science and philosophy founders if science excludes non-materialistic possibilities. If a human is only a naturally-modified amoeba, it is not a "rational animal." Philosophers are left talking to themselves.RGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39661618475965950742019-08-22T08:18:54.434-07:002019-08-22T08:18:54.434-07:00> DK re; last sentence
Thanks for the response ...> DK re; last sentence<br />Thanks for the response but the attempt to bifurcate science and philosophy founders if science excludes non-materialistic possibilities. If a human is only a naturally-modified amoeba, it is not a "rational animal." Philosophers are left talking to themselves.RGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40359586611961792442019-08-22T06:01:02.145-07:002019-08-22T06:01:02.145-07:00Jeremy Taylor,
the point I was making in citing ...Jeremy Taylor, <br /><br />the point I was making in citing Burke's comments on metaphysics, was not that he rejected it per se, but that he did not accept the relevance of rationally developed natural law to political life, preferring social evolutionism as a method for obtaining what was right in this field. In the quotes provided he says this explicitly, and it would save time if you dealt with his own statements instead of wondering how much I have read or pointing out that there has been disagreement. <br /><br />AS far as economics is concerned, despite the obvious variety within Anglo-conservatism - Burke's influence cannot be minimised. He elaborated and controversially defended the free market as a kind of pseudo-sovereign entity with its own rules and even morality, and limited government intervention, even to remedy the effects of free-marketeering. This tendency remains. The specificity of Burke is not so much what might have seemed to coincide with common sense and what had been believed previously, but his innovations, including what he got right, but most certainly his "mistakes". This may seem a one-sided approach, but it the only one that makes sense of anyone's place in history.<br /><br />DE Bonald was very different to Burke, but as an overt philosophical traditional on the European ("continental") model was, if anything, even worse, for a whole range of issues. Even more explicit than Burke in this very mistaken anti-rational ideology of traditionalism, he was just as incompatible with Thomism. Just another romanticist ideology from the nineteenth century.<br /><br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5884439082191511312019-08-21T15:01:38.608-07:002019-08-21T15:01:38.608-07:00When I said some of his enemies claimed he was a C...When I said some of his enemies claimed he was a Catholic, I wasn't suggesting this was necessarily true. As far as his published work is concerned, Burke is openly an Anglican, and a middle of the road, late eighteenth century one. He was hardly likely to lopk favourably on Catholic doctrines about Papal infallibility. But I don't see the relevance of this to the current discussion. If you are some saying the Catholic can't accept all Burke has to say, I completely agree, but I never said that. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80230825993469461352019-08-21T14:56:38.744-07:002019-08-21T14:56:38.744-07:00Again, these contentions are bizarre. Yes, Burke w...Again, these contentions are bizarre. Yes, Burke was a follower of his friend Adam Smith in economics, but anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of conservatism wouldn't think he was particularly influential on its views about economics. For a start, most Burkean or traditional conservatives after him, for nearly a century, were opppsed to (classical) liberal economics, from Southey and Disraeli to Bonald. It wasn't Burke that made conservatism, especially in the Anglo-American world, more amenable to liberal economics, it was the partial triumph of classical liberalism followed by the rise of socialism and the subsequent movement of classical liberals from a radical position to defence of the status quo or earlier victories. The liberals tended either to move left or right. Those who remained separate tended to become politically irrelevant, like the British Liberal Party. You can see this process in the British Conservative Party in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (this is the party you are presumably saying Burke helped found, a rather questionable point - he moved some of the more moderate or conservative Whigs into coalition with Pitt's Tories, who were a forerunner of the later Conservatives).Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87738894606669154892019-08-21T14:45:47.404-07:002019-08-21T14:45:47.404-07:00Actually there is plenty of doubt, hence it has be...Actually there is plenty of doubt, hence it has been a raging controversy for more than a century. Many, like Peter Stanlis, would deny that Burke was talking about all metaphysics. He was specifically attacking the rationalism and radicalism of the Jacobins and their intellectual progenitors, like Rousseau and Diderot. In other works, especially his Tracts on the Popery Laws and his prosecution of Warren Hastings, he makes appeal to at least claims about the divine and natural law. Certainly, he has been accused of implying, whether through a clumsy use of rhetoric or because he actually believed, the dismissal of all metaphysics, but that is fat from clear, and has been rigorously debated. Again, you simply present a one-sided view of Burke, without really proving it or showing yourself aware of the Burke scholarship. To someone who hasn't read Burke and doesn't know the scholarly debates, it might be convincing, but to anyone who has and does, it is underwhelming to say the least. Indeed, I do wonder whether you have read Burke yourself, or whether you are just getting these quotes from a secondary source, given how out of context they are, and how imperfectly they prove your various contentions.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69511845010281913332019-08-21T11:24:00.679-07:002019-08-21T11:24:00.679-07:00Hello,
I've taken time to try to grasp the fi...Hello,<br /><br />I've taken time to try to grasp the first way, but I got stuck at one part. I know that this shouldn't be a problem for Aquinas nor Aristotle, especially since the last one thought motion to be eternal.<br /><br />I'm confused as to *where* the first mover fits. I know that motion means change. But still. Let's take a toy universe example.<br /><br />In this toy universe, there are compounds that can be whatever we want. Let's take the simplest one, small billards balls.<br /><br />Now, I understand that, for some ball to move, it needs to have been set into motion by another one. Similarly, for some ball to stop, it needs to hit another one.<br /><br />I picked these two things especially because I want to understand what I'm thinking wrong. Assume ball X is moving : where is the first mover, in this universe? If I try to "see backwards", then, maybe ball Y hit ball X. And then perhaps ball Z hit ball Y. Etc.<br /><br />But why can't we "simply say" that there is "motion of ball X towards something" at time t, and then all the balls?<br /><br />Please help me to see what I'm doing wrong.Confused Immobilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68182416952281068982019-08-21T05:02:20.304-07:002019-08-21T05:02:20.304-07:00R.C. you're right of course. What I said in re...R.C. you're right of course. What I said in reply to someone else here was that in our joints efforts or alliances, or co-operation on single issues (perhaps the best), we ought not to identify with the ideologies held by others. By just taking up the standard of conservatism, we take up a host of problematic ideas. In a country like the US for example, the first priority in politics might not be the proclamation of some kind of perfect society in detail, but definitely the avoidance of joining in with the errors generally being followed. Work with others but without being absorbed into any kind of ideology. The ideal political movement, now, would be one which focused on some concrete issues (not the free market or government aid!) and absorbed others into a vehicle for activity free of ideology. They could learn a new kind of non-ideological politics on the job so-to-speak. Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4208021722953758232019-08-21T04:48:59.055-07:002019-08-21T04:48:59.055-07:00George LeSauvage.
Not sure where anyone said Roman...George LeSauvage.<br />Not sure where anyone said Roman ways were ditched in toto (the Church is surely the grand continuation and link with the classical world). Q 97 deals with human law, not what was being discussed.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46851029997565515122019-08-21T04:46:47.467-07:002019-08-21T04:46:47.467-07:00Atno, thanks.
Yes of course the Church could Chris...Atno, thanks.<br />Yes of course the Church could Christianise pagan customs provided it was socially strong enough to change the previous signification, but was was being referred to was the Burkean attitude, which was not so different from the Pagans who opposed Christianity for being dogmatic and destabilising, even though they often didn't believe in anything much themselves. <br /><br />If modern conservatives don't think about much apart from the free market or whether the state should provide assistance, this is an omnipresent preoccupations which Burke can be credited with starting. Add the ideological political party which he helped found, and a few other things: conservatives live in an almost Burkean bubble. And things are continuing to slide. Time to ditch this ideology I would say.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28629026419018965442019-08-21T04:35:40.891-07:002019-08-21T04:35:40.891-07:00Jeremy Taylor,
There is no doubt Burke is unfortun... Jeremy Taylor,<br />There is no doubt Burke is unfortunately referring to something much broader than the Jacobins' metaphysics. Burke rejected any relevance to actual politics: "Metaphysical and physical speculations neither are nor ought to be, the Grounds of our Duties, because we can arrive at no certainty in them. They have weight when they concur with our natural feelings, very little when against them" (Reflections). This alone could provide the benchmark with with to logically interpret all his writings, but he's very forthcoming with other statements confirming this.<br /><br />In Reflections, he agreed with the "many in England" who "think the dogmas of religion... are all of moment: and that amongst them there is... a just ground of preference", supporting all religions because of "the great principle upon which they all agree". (Indifferentism)<br />He criticised the Reformation, not because of doctrine, but because it "introduce[d] other interests into all countries than those which arose from their locality", comparing it to the French revolution (historicism, philosophical traditionalism). Yet he agreed that the clergy should have been made to subscribe to the 39 Articles, being "necessary for the sake of order, and decorum and public peace". <br /><br />If he was a secret Catholic, it would have been for sentimental, not doctrinal reasons. He ridiculed Transubstantiation and any attempt by the Church to "impose" dogma: "This people refused to change their law in remote ages from respect to the infallibility of popes; and they will not alter it now from a pious implicit faith in the dogmatism of the philosophers". This is not mere anti-Catholic bias to be blamed on his times; it an anti-dogmatic, anti-rationalist ideology that foreshadowed the philosophical traditionalism of the nineteenth century. It is the romanticist side of the Enlightenment. Nothing further from Thomism and natural law.<br /><br />It is not "completely one-sided" to point out that it is impossible to make abstraction of these Burkean ideas which are radically incompatible with Religion, and Thomism of course. The evidence isn't weak. <br /><br />His speech against Hastings doesn't defend natural law, whatever has been made of it. In grouping together religions, customs, feeling, law, and even commonsense reflection, Burke was making a profession of philosophical traditionalism. This sees socially useful things like religion as positive because they reflect ages of traditional society. Social evolutionism is the golden mean. So Henry VIII was bad, and Elizabeth I good. This is not prudence.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56154907940205135662019-08-21T04:17:22.683-07:002019-08-21T04:17:22.683-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90083151011491688102019-08-20T23:24:05.275-07:002019-08-20T23:24:05.275-07:00Hi Walter,
The being of tree becomes non-being wh...Hi Walter,<br /><br />The being of tree becomes non-being when the tree is no longer a tree (eg it became a pile of charcoals - which is one potential of the tree).<br /><br />What you probably meant is that the sub-atomic particles that made up both the trees and the charcoals cannot cease existence. If that is what you meant then my response is this:<br /><br /><br />Astrophysics’ BVG theorem proved that the physical universe/multiverse (space-time) has an absolute beginning. That means physical entities (be it sub-atomic particles or other physical entities) have a beginning and they came into existence from a situation when nothing physical existed. (Something non-physical - call it The Unconditioned - brings physical entities or space-time into existence).<br /><br />If physical entities can come into existence from a situation when there was physical entity, then it should not be surprising if all physical entities can become non-existent.<br /><br />Separately, if you look at my proof above on the existence of an Unconditioned Entity, only an Unconditioned Entity can have intrinsic existence. Physical entities are not such an entity.<br /><br /><br /><br />Johannes from Asiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861294994569338054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39310144057788652202019-08-20T10:35:45.830-07:002019-08-20T10:35:45.830-07:00Abstraction implies eidos realities. Plato 1 - Ari...Abstraction implies eidos realities. Plato 1 - Aristotle 0.Theophiliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950090517602251638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31457839749835047382019-08-20T01:14:24.852-07:002019-08-20T01:14:24.852-07:00Burke wasn't opposed to change per se, and as ...Burke wasn't opposed to change per se, and as a Christian he presumably believed that Christianity was a good thing and should be embraced by all.* The question would be, I think, how that change occured. He criticises Henry VIII for how he conducted the Reformation. Burke believed it was tyrannical for one man to change the whole religion of a country, abruptly and through force, including mass theft of the Church's property. As an Anglican, he presumably wasn't objecting to much of the end result of the English Reformation, just how it came about. He would likely have supported a gradual conversion of the Roman empire, one which wasn't simply forced from the top, especially in one fell swoop. What he thought of the actual events, I'm not sure. It is hard to classify that conversion. <br /><br />* I think the idea he thought of religion in purely social terms far-fetched.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.com