prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What happens to the high resolution of what we focus on at dawn or dusk?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Inner Reality Unveiled
Inner Reality Unveiled
by DragonFly on April 18th, 2018, 10:54 pm
There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
We don't see across a room or any scene but only across the model of the room/scene  We don't look through a microscope at an actual object but only look at a model of that object  You get the idea  A reflective color spectrum is used to make it look like that more distinctive color is a surface property of an object modeled 
The brain doesn't model everything, as a lot of it would be clutter, and for what remains as useful to portray the brain still doesn't have the resources to model everything at high resolution and so thus whatever we focus on gets all the high res detail put into it just in the nick of time when we look/focus  At dawn or dusk this high resolution becomes a bit less on what we focus on so that what's off to the left or right can be better noted in the dim light 
So far, nothing astounding here to us, although maybe to everyday folk that we only ever see the inside of the head/brain—the model 
Of course, the shocks get worse, such as that our intentions cannot be those of first cause, self-made people, but from prior causes that we weren't able to choose and be responsible for  What is left, in short, is the freedom of action for these inbuilt intentions to operate, at least when not prevented by the weather or any other controlling factors, which 'freedom of action' amounts to compatibilism 
Other notes on the above are that while we can never know if everything is deterministic, although we know that a lot is, whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling and our consistency 
Re: Inner Reality Unveiled
by DragonFly on April 20th, 2018, 3:14 pm
To continue, many feel that the model/qualia is very rich, but there's not anything to compare it to  Some creatures have a fourth primary color to work from and some have more smells and better hearing  Our colors (reflective spectrum) go through some averaging because of the various close frequencies about, but they still have a lot of pop to them  The model seems to be super real, where it has the focused detail, meaning better than real, or super real or surreal; surely colors win out over a bunch of waves (if they could be seen), these colors being very distinctive, which high contrast is what the model seems to be about  Away from the center of focus, the model has to be worse than cartoonish 
Other qualia properties are intense, too, such as pain being able to be very painful, to the max, and such 
Qualia are based on initial isomorphic maps, meaning topographical, when representing the territory  For sounds, the map is for tones from the air vibrations, and for smell it is scents from the molecule shapes; for touch it is a body map  The isomorphism may get carried through even three levels of models, whereafter it seems to become more symbolic and less isomorphic, perhaps indicating that the information is ready to turn into qualia, the point at which the 'hard problem' manifests  It is thought that at least four levels of modules are required for the 'magic' of phenomenal transformation to occur; we have the problem surrounded but not yet solved  Perhaps it is enough to have a truth in lieu of its proof—that there is ontological subjectivity, meaning that it exists, although it may not be fundamental or miraculous 
So, in sum so far, direct realism is an illusion, but is a very useful illusion, which we might better call a fine representation by the model, since the word 'illusion' is more about what's wrong as not really showing its object as substantial and really being behind it  Dreams, then, would be better called illusions; further they demonstrate the power of the structure of the model  When we inspects objects in dreams they look just as good as when we see them awake, although backgrounds come and go inconsistently and there are narrative gaps (all of a sudden we are driving a vehicle without ever having gotten into it, plus the controls are a mystery )
Another illusion is the feeling of having all of the information in a qualia scene as instantly available, as well as feeling that it is all happening in real time, plus that one is directing it all right then and there 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 4:33 am
Yes and all those security cameras in the banks and stores must be a joke because anybody watching cannot see us but only see images on a display screen 
by DragonFly on April 21st, 2018, 12:05 pm
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:33 am wrote: Yes and all those security cameras in the banks and stores must be a joke because anybody watching cannot see us but only see images on a display screen 
You forgot that what the brain maps and models is a reliable representation of what's out there and in here 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 12:16 pm
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 11:05 am wrote:
I was being sarcastic in order to point out this very fact  Whether images on a display screen or human consciousness, they are reliable representations and that means they do see what is really out there  The fact that this is indirect is not without logical implications, but not to the extent that you can say we do not apprehend an objective reality 
by TheVat on April 21st, 2018, 12:29 pm
The evolutionary argument is a strong one, also, for the accuracy of our sensory representations of the external world  If you think a tiger's tail is a pretty flower, and try to pluck it, you won't be around long to reproduce 
I invite anyone who thinks that bus hurtling down the street is nothing but a model in the brain to step in front of it 
Your impression of the bus may be indirect, but it has a direct causal chain of connections to the actual bus out there  You are a photon collector, absorbing photons bounced off a bus  That way, it doesn't have to be you that's bounced off the bus 
by DragonFly on April 21st, 2018, 2:19 pm
Mentally healthy responders need not worry about any unreliable representations due to there being no direct realism  As I showed, the representations are even improvements that bring out what is distinctive and important, as well as my indicating of an 'out there'  (The sarcasm thus fell doubly flat, run over by the bus, either because that mode is the nature of the person or this short thread wasn't read well )
The world out there indeed comes to us (we don't reach out and probe it but for such as feeling our way in the dark), via photons for sight, and similarly comes to us in other ways for the other 'distance' senses  That the brain projects the objects back out there where they are, with depth (objects whose radiation came into us) is very useful  This trivia is mentioned here for completeness, for non scientific readers, but all the like herein is not contested 
Back on track now, with derailment attempts ever unwelcome, but actual meaty posts extremely welcome, many neurologists note that awake consciousness doesn't easily get snuffed out, for a people may have many and various brain impairments yet they remain conscious, which, in short, without going through them all, indicates that there probably isn't any one 'Grand Central Station' where consciousness originates but that it may arise from any suitable hierarchy of brain modules 
Consciousness, like life, requires embodiment, and is now thought to have been around in some form since the Cambrian explosion  As evolution proceeds via physical processes it rather follows that consciousness does too  Billions of years of small steps from a stable organism platform can acculuminate into what otherwise seems a miracle, but then again, miracles are instant  When extinction events wipe everything out, the process just starts up again, and probably has, several times over 
Since qualia are structured, such as I described, plus healing the blind spot and more that wasn't put here, this again suggest that qualia have to be constructed from parts the brain has made from interpretations via physical processes 
How the phenomenal transform springs out remains as the central mystery of all  We think that there are larger mysteries, such as if there is any ultimate purpose to Existence, but this one is easy, for it can be shown that there can be no ultimate purpose  (There can be local and proximate purpose ) More an this another time or place 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 4:00 pm
I shall interpret the above as a request for a detailed point by point response to the OP 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
But this is wrong, derived from delusional semantics as if "seeing" meant absorbing the objects themselves into our brain and mind  Of course, "seeing" means no such thing  "Seeing" means gathering data to construct a mental model of an external reality  We don't, in fact, "see" this inner model at all  This "model" is a product of speculation and abstraction in meta-conscious process of self-reflection 
Our inner viewport is thus one of looking out at the outer reality and not one of looking at the model  We do see across a room -- USING a mental model  We do not see the mental model except by speculative imagination  The most we can say is that by using such a process of mental modeling in order to see, there can be deviations due to a variety of neurological and mental processes being involved, including the role of beliefs in our interpretations  Thus our perceptions cannot be fully separated from our beliefs and our access to the world is fundamentally subjective  The objective can only be fully realized by a process of abstraction through communication with others 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: The brain doesn't model everything, as a lot of it would be clutter, and for what remains as useful to portray the brain still doesn't have the resources to model everything at high resolution and so thus whatever we focus on gets all the high res detail put into it just in the nick of time when we look/focus  
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: Of course, the shocks get worse, such as that our intentions cannot be those of first cause, self-made people, but from prior causes that we weren't able to choose and be responsible for  What is left, in short, is the freedom of action for these inbuilt intentions to operate, at least when not prevented by the weather or any other controlling factors, which 'freedom of action' amounts to compatibilism 
Your philosophical conclusions here will not be mistaken for scientific observations  Your interpretations are based on your own presumptions which I reject as incorrect  The process of human intention and action is certainly a complex one but the fact remains that the first causes do exist  People may be capable of simply watching much of their life pass by as an minimally participating observer (with all sorts of fatalistic and compatibilist dodges and delusions of objectivity), but others choose to take ownership of the first causes within them as a fully responsible participants in their own life 
Also as I have mentioned numerous times before, there is nothing absolute or guaranteed about this freedom of will  It can certainly be greatly diminished by a great number of things such as drugs, illness, habits, and even beliefs  This just means that we are ill advised to judge others according to our own perception and choices 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: Other notes on the above are that while we can never know if everything is deterministic, although we know that a lot is, whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling and our consistency 
We can know that the experimental results show that there are events not determined by any hidden variables within the scientific worldview  People are free to ignore these results and stubbornly cling to presumptions to the contrary but they are being unreasonable if they expect other people to accept the conclusions which they are deriving from such willfulness 
And to head off the typical strawmen, I am not claiming that determinism has been disproven any more than the scientific evidence for evolution disproves divine intelligent design  Science is not a matter of proof, but of accepting that what the evidence and experimental results show us are the basis of what is reasonable to accept until there is evidence to the contrary 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote: But this is wrong, derived from delusional semantics as if "seeing" meant absorbing the objects themselves into our brain and mind  Of course, "seeing" means no such thing  "Seeing" means gathering data to construct a mental model of an external reality  We don't, in fact, "see" this inner model at all  This "model" is a product of speculation and abstraction in meta-conscious process of self-reflection 
Yes, the view point is within the model  We don't literally 'see' across a room  The model gets 'viewed' and navigated and noted and whatnot  The outer reality is not able to be viewed directly but is usefully "looked out at" through a representation  Do you directly see wave frequencies air vibrations, and molecule shapes? I didn't mean 'seeing' in the sense of eye stuff, but I note the word problem 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote:
Yes, I was reading a large road sign with many words and the words at the bottom didn't come into focus until I got down to them  Our computers have many more terabytes than the brain has 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote: Your philosophical conclusions here will not be mistaken for scientific observations  Your interpretations are based on your own presumptions which I reject as incorrect  The process of human intention and action is certainly a complex one but the fact remains that the first causes do exist  People may be capable of simply watching much of their life pass by as an minimally participating observer (with all sorts of fatalistic and compatibilist dodges and delusions of objectivity), but others choose to take ownership of the first causes within them as a fully responsible participants in their own life 
Total libertarians do claim that they are first cause, self made people at every instant  How does this work? A theory of conscious intentions happening without any underlying physical processes ('you') behind them is the toughest sell of all proposals on the will, so it's no wonder that this 'being free of the will' can't be shown  Plus, why does one want this? Perhaps a distaste for having a will that wills things in the subconscious dark  These trillions of connections firing are not portrayed in consciousness, thank goodness 
Yes, as I said, some is indeterminate, so there is no ignoring  (You don't seem to read well, even when seeing it again when you quote it ) The more indeterminacy the worse we are able to carry our our ability to operate, which minimal and trivial capability is called 'freedom of action'  So be it  We have learned something  People want more than this, though, and so they will have to show that that's possible while still retaining the self/will  How is responsibility gained at any point when one was never responsible for prior causes toward one's being/self that couldn't be chosen?
So, prison time need not be assigned for retribution only, more compassion can be granted for those who did as they had to, and we come to better understand our place in the universe  Life is great for experiencing and living, and fatalism isn't recommended, for it could work against the enjoyment 
P S  There is no point at which ultimate purpose/intention could have been applied to what is eternal, as well as none to be applied to something springing from nothing (which, though impossible, I include for completeness, for the "springing" capability would still be an eternal 'something' )
It's fine with me if you want a fully formed Being with a system of intelligence to be there First, amid nothing else, but to stick to the template of ID, then a Higher ID had to be behind it, etc , or we could just forget about the one-off usage golden template of ID  The universe looks to be tuned, if it is, for mostly a lot of hydrogen gas in endless sparse spaces  It took ten billion years for us to be able to persist a bit in our rarity amid the waste  [/quote]
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:
Yes, as I said, some is indeterminate, so there is no ignoring 
Incorrect  You did not say "some is indeterminate " So either you do not write well, cannot understand the logic of your own words, or you make up things as an excuse to attack other people  In fact, this can be identified with a logical fallacy  "Whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling" means our modeling is diminished IF there is anything indeterminate  If A then B does not allow you affirm A, so by equating these two you have committed a logical fallacy  Furthermore it is amazing how far out on a limb you go to concoct such an attack  You said, "we cannot know if everything is deterministic," which is utterly inconsistent with a clam that "some is indeterminate," because if some is indeterminate then you would know that it is NOT deterministic 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: Total libertarians do claim that they are first cause, self made people at every instant 
The philosophers who claim that we have free actions are called libertarians  The radical opposition that libertarians pose to the determinist position is their acceptance of free actions  Libertarians accept the incompatibility premise that holds agents morally responsible for free actions  Incompatibilism maintains that determinism is incompatible with human freedom  Libertarians accept that there are free actions, and in doing so, believe that we are morally responsible for some of our actions, namely, the free ones 
The libertarian ONLY claims that we do have free will actions and affirm the incompatibility of determinism with free will  There is no claim here that free will is absolute, inviolable, and applies to every action and thus that people are "self made at every instance "
Thus in the following it is clear you are burning an absurd strawman 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: How does this work? A theory of conscious intentions happening without any underlying physical processes ('you') behind them is the toughest sell of all proposals on the will, so it's no wonder that this 'being free of the will' can't be shown  Plus, why does one want this? Perhaps a distaste for having a will that wills things in the subconscious dark  These trillions of connections firing are not portrayed in consciousness, thank goodness 
Someone only claims the opposition is selling something absurdly silly because they want to make something only slightly less absurd and silly sound reasonable by comparison  But to make sure you understand   
1  Nobody HERE is selling a theory of conscious intention without any underlying physical processes 
2  Nobody HERE is claiming any "being free of the will"
These are indeed nonsense 
1  As a physicalist with regards to the mind-body problem I oppose the idea of conscious intention without any physical processes  Nor would I assert that there are no unconscious processes underlying our conscious intentions  But as I explained in another thread just because there are such processes does not mean we have no responsibility for them or that our intention does not constitute a conscious cause of our action 
2  As a libertarian it is absurd to think free will means freedom from the will  What we reject is the attempt to separate the self from desires and will as if these were some external thing forcing people to do things  This is nothing but pure empty rhetoric on the part of the opposition  Freedom from the will is the OPPOSITE of free will  If you are not acting according to your desire then this is an example of actions without free will 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: The more indeterminacy the worse we are able to carry our our ability to operate, which minimal and trivial capability is called 'freedom of action' 
Incorrect  This is only because you equate freedom with control  It is not the same thing  Besides the indeterminacy in the laws of physics is only with respect to a system of mathematical laws  It doesn't really say that nothing causes the result, but only that there are no variables to make the exact result calculable 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: How is responsibility gained at any point when one was never responsible for prior causes toward one's being/self that couldn't be chosen?
Again it is because free will does not equal control  Free will only means you choose how to respond to the situation  It does require an awareness of alternatives, but it does not require an ability to dictate exactly what will happen in the future 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: So, prison time need not be assigned for retribution only, more compassion can be granted for those who did as they had to, and we come to better understand our place in the universe  Life is great for experiencing and living, and fatalism isn't recommended, for it could work against the enjoyment 
While imprisonment may be an improvement over the old English law, the inadequacies are legion  It was indeed invented as a means of reforming the convicted even if it fails to accomplish this very well  To be sure, "retribution" is a lousy basis for a system of justice  But the point of "mercy" isn't just compassion but to acknowledge the fact that mistakes are part of the process by which we learn  Therefore, coming down on people like a load bricks for any mistake is counterproductive  On the other hand, we would be foolish not to consider whether a person in question is showing any ability to learn from their mistakes  If not, a change of environment/circumstances is probably called for, even if today's prisons largely fail to be environment needed 
Observe that this analysis of justice and mercy has nothing whatsoever to do with free will  The government of a free society should be founded upon what can be objectively established and free will is not one of these things  In the above consideration of justice and mercy, the question of whether a person truly has free will is completely irrelevant 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: It's fine with me if you want a fully formed Being with a system of intelligence to be there First, amid nothing else, but to stick to the template of ID, then a Higher ID had to be behind it, etc , or we could just forget about the one-off usage golden template of ID  The universe looks to be tuned, if it is, for mostly a lot of hydrogen gas in endless sparse spaces  It took ten billion years for us to be able to persist a bit in our rarity amid the waste 
I consider Intelligent Design to be attack upon science -- shoving theology into a place where it clearly does not belong  Nor do I agree with intelligent design even in theology, for I think that evolution is more compatible with a belief in a loving God (because of the philosophical problem of evil)  Frankly, I consider design to be incompatible with the very essence of what life is 
DragonFly liked this post
Great post, Mitch 
I'm referring to "a lot is determinate", leaving room that some is indeterminate since QM finds this, and some brain doings may be at the micro-macro boundary and be affected, this degrading our ability to operate our intentions 
Here's a "libertarian" example/definition that may fit better:
“Hard Determinism and Libertarianism
Probing further into the free will-debate, we meet two different kinds of incompatibilist positions: hard determinism, which holds that determinism is true and that free will is not compatible with determinism, and libertarianism, which holds that we do have free will and that determinism is false  Given that these positions agree about the definition of determinism, we here actually have a genuine disagreement over fundamental ontological matters – a disagreement about whether determinism is true or not  This is a peculiar question to have strong disagreements about, however, since we know the final answer that we will ever get concerning the truth of determinism: that the state of the world is caused to be the way it is by its prior state at least to some degree, but to what degree exactly can never be known 
The libertarian position has often been criticized with the argument that even if determinism is not true, we still do not have free will, since our actions then simply are the product of a combination of deterministic and indeterministic events that we still do not ultimately choose ourselves, a view referred to as hard incompatibilism  Libertarians do not necessarily accept that this argument shows that we do not have free will, and the reason, or at least a big part of it, should not surprise anyone at this point: they simply define free will differently  According to libertarians, such as Robert Nozick and Robert Kane, one has free will if one could have acted otherwise than one did, and if indeterminism is true, then it may be true that we could have “acted” differently than we did under the exact same circumstances, and that we thereby might have free will in this sense  It should be pointed out, though, that critics of libertarianism are“rightly skeptical about the relevance of this kind of free will  First of all, the free will that libertarians endorse is, unlike what many libertarians seem to think, not an ethically relevant kind of freedom, and it does not have anything to do with the freedom of action that we by definition want  Second, the hard incompatibilist is right that no matter what is true about the degree to which the universe is deterministic, our actions are still caused by prior causes ultimately beyond our own control, which few of those who identify themselves as libertarians seem to want to acknowledge  And lastly, the fact that our actions are caused by causes ultimately beyond our own control does, if we truly appreciated, undermine our intuition of retributive justice, an intuition that libertarians generally seem to want to defend intellectually  So, as many have pointed out already, libertarians are simply on a failed mission 
Together with the want to defend retributive blame and punishment, what seems to be the main motivation for people who defend a libertarian notion of free will seems to be a fear of predeterminism, a fear of there being just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe, which would imply that we ultimately cannot do anything to cause a different outcome than the one possible  Libertarians and others with the same fear have artfully tried to make various models to help them overcome this fear, for instance so-called two-stage models that propose that our choices consist of an indeterministic stage of generation of possible actions, and then our non-random choice of one of them  (It should be noted, in relation to such models, that even if this is how our choices are made, our choice to choose one of these “alternative possibilities” will still be caused by prior causes that are ultimately completely beyond our own control  Nothing changes this fact, again because decision-making is the product of complex physical processes; it is not an uncaused event ) It is generally unclear what the purpose of such models is  Are they a hypotheses we should test? They do not seem to be  Generally, these models most of all seem like an attempt to make the world fit our preconceived intuitions, which most of all resembles pseudoscience 
Fortunately, there is plenty of relief available to the libertarians and other people who have this fear, and it does not involve any unscientific models – neither two-stage, three-stage, nor any other number of stages  The source of this relief is the simple earlier-mentioned fact that we can never know whether there is just one or infinitely many possible outcomes from the present state of the universe  This simple fact gives us all the relief we could ask for, because it reveals that there is no reason to be sure that there is just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe  And, to repeat an important point, we are then left with the conclusion that the only reasonable thing to do is to try to make the best impact we can in the world, which is true no matter whether there is just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe or not, since our actions still have consequences and therefore still matter even in a fully deterministic universe 
Some, especially libertarians, might want to object to the claim that we can never know whether determinism is true or not, and even claim that we in fact now know, or at least have good reasons to believe, that indeterminism is true  Here is neuroscientist Peter Tse expressing something along those lines: “Henceforth, I will accept the weight of evidence from modern physics, and assume ontological indeterminism to be the case ” (Tse, 2013, p  244)  Making this assumption is, however, to take a position on an unanswerable question  Again, rather than making strong claims about this question, we should stick to what we in fact know, namely that we do not know ”
Excerpt From: Magnus Vinding  “Free Will: An Examination of Human Freedom ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/free-w     3363?mt=11
To extend the OP's implications of physical processes/causes dominating…
There are still real values in an existence with no ultimate purpose, this 'value' meaning good and bad valences and actions  It would be of great value to lessen suffering and improve well-being in humans and in all species  (Fixed wills are dynamic, simply meaning that they can learn and thus change to a better fixed will )
As for our model of reality, this is consciousness and it is ever our only view point inside the head in a brain, being what it is like to experience the world from the inside out 
by RJG on April 22nd, 2018, 1:07 am
Direct realism is not possible  We humans can only experience 'experiences' (sensations; sense data), not the 'real' things or objects themselves  Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if these experiences represent 'real' objects, or are just simply products of illusion; hallucination, delusion, dream, mirage, etc 
For this reason, solipsism is a possibility (i e  it is just as plausible as it is not), and true self-awareness is not possible (i e  we don't experience objects, including those called 'self')
DragonFly wrote: There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
Braininvat wrote: I invite anyone who thinks that bus hurtling down the street is nothing but a model in the brain to step in front of it 
Isn't it possible to dream or hallucinate stepping out in front of a bus hurtling down the street? This does not mean that the bus (in the dream/hallucination) is actually 'real' 
One does not normally step out in front of a bus (even in dreams) because they think it is not real, - it is the 'fear' (that it might be real, and) being smashed by it, that compels one not to step in front of it 
Braininvat wrote: Your impression of the bus may be indirect, but it has a direct causal chain of connections to the actual bus out there 
Not necessarily  You are assuming there is an "actual" bus out there (instead of a possible "hallucinated" bus)  We have no way of knowing the cause of our mental impressions 
by wolfhnd on April 22nd, 2018, 3:31 am
A bus that we do not step in front of is an extremely low resolution concept of what a bus is  Only the people who design and maintain the bus really know what a bus is at a relatively high resolution  Even then the designer doesn't really know the bus on the street because a bus is not just a collection of parts but takes it's meaning from an even more complex social and physical environment 
If you're a realist you assume that the bus can in theory be defined down to it's subatomic particles and a high resolution image of what it is can be created  The problem is that human perspective such an approach strips meaning from the image 
The other problem is that the kind of truth that a purely scientific approach provides tends to confuse the thing itself with it's mathematical model  The kind of absolutism that math provides is always subjective first because the parameters are always finite but the environment from our perspective is practically infinite and second because the model is an approximation even if 2+2 is always 4  A reductionist approach is a practical necessity that doesn't satisfy the evolutionary imperative for meaning 
The old view that everything can be reduced to cause and effect is itself challenged by the accepted view that determinism itself breaks down at tiny scales  Myself I'm not bothered by the indeterminate because I'm a pragmatist and close enough seems to satisfy practical solutions, scientific issues and philosophical questions  The philosophers goal is to determine what constitutes close enough to preserve life and meaning 
mitchellmckain wrote: If you are not acting according to your desire then this is an example of actions without free will 
If you act according to your desires, then you are it's slave  There is no free-will in slavery 
We don't control our desires  Our desires control us 
by DragonFly on April 22nd, 2018, 10:40 am
“This distinction between subject and object is not just an interesting oddity  It begins at the level of physics in the distinction between the probability inherent in symbolic measurements and the certainty of material laws  The distinction is later exemplified in the difference between a genotype, the sequence of nucleotide symbols that make up an organism’s DNA, and phenotype, its actual physical structure that those symbols prescribe  It travels with us up the evolutionary layers to the distinction between the mind and the brain ”
“These concepts will help us see how neural circuits are structures with a double life: they carry symbolic information, which is subject to arbitrary rules, yet they possess a material structure that is subject to the laws of physics ”
Excerpt From: Michael S  Gazzaniga  “The Consciousness Instinct ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/the-co     3607?mt=11
by Neri on April 22nd, 2018, 11:13 am
On this topic, I should like to associate myself with the views of Mitch and BIV and will only add s few additional comments 
The question is not whether our experience is equivalent in every way to what lies outside of us, for such a thing is impossible 
[A perception cannot be exactly the same as a material object, for the former depends upon a sentient being for its existence, whereas the latter does not  Further, it is impossible to know everything that may be predicated of any material object by merely perceiving it ]
The real question is: Do sense impressions correspond to material objects in such a way that they are effective in preserving us from dangers that lie outside of us?
This question veritably answers itself  Only a madman would deny the evidence of his own senses 
It is essential to understand that the correspondence of which I speak depends on the reality of motion [from which we derive the ideas of time and space] 
To keep ourselves safe, it is necessary that we have the ability to know when a material object is moving closer or further from us and to be able to recognize an object as a danger  This, the senses give us, for perceptions like all other experiences are memories [are preserved over time] 
An object is recognized as a danger through prior sensory experiences preserved as long-term memories 
In order to be recognized and remembered as a danger, a material object must have the power to produce a particular human experience of it 
That power is part of the nature of the object and is thus truly reflected in the perception of it—even though there may be more to the object than its power to yield a human perception 
To the reasonable mind, the above comments may properly be seen as statements of the obvious  The curious fact, however, is that a whole school of western philosophy has labored mightily to deny the obvious 
I agree; I'm only delving into the inner experience to see how it works and what may become of that 
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 11:57 am
RJG, this tablet ate the quoted part of your post and somehow hid the submit button, so sorry about the missing comment    
No, I was not assuming the in-the-moment knowledge, but rather that facts about buses are physically verifiable when science is applied  It is not difficult to verify that I was neither dreaming nor hallucinating  We are saved from solipsism by the multiplicity of observers and their reports  We can open a book and read complex prose (something that can't be done in dreams) that reveals areas of knowledge utterly unknown to us and beyond our previous experiences  We have senses enhanced by instruments that can show us photons leaving the photosphere of the sun and bouncing off solid objects like buses in particular and regular patterns, etc  Inner phenomenal reality and external reality are seamlessly connected and interacting - it is only big cranium apes like us who erect a wall of demarcation between them  Or drugs or pathological conditions that disrupt the causal connections 
To say that sensory data is incomplete is not equivalent to saying that it is deceptive  We are deceived only if we imagine that our impressions are complete  Our brains are engineered to find relevant data, not complete data  ("engineered" probably needs quotes)
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 12:00 pm
Had to use Quick Reply window to post the above  Anyone else losing the submit button after Full Editor has been open for a couple minutes?? I will try to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone 
by DragonFly on April 22nd, 2018, 1:58 pm
What else, for now:
“Finally, affective consciousness—emotionally positive and negative feelings—has its own brain circuits, it does not require isomorphic mapping, and it may be experienced as mental states rather than mental images (figure 2 5B; chapters 7 and 8)  Thus, isomorphic maps are only one part of the creation and evolution of subjectivity and “something it is like to be”; many other special and general features (table 2 1) are required to create sensory consciousness and ontological subjectivity ”
“Consciousness-associated attention has several subtypes, including bottom-up (exogenous) versus top-down (endogenous) attention 48 Bottom-up attention is driven by the importance of the incoming stimuli and leads to the animal orienting to things that happen suddenly in the environment  Top-down attention, on the other hand, involves proactive anticipation, maintaining attention by concentration and focusing on goals 
Excerpt From: Todd E  Feinberg  “The Ancient Origins of Consciousness ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/the-an     6953?mt=11
by RJG on April 22nd, 2018, 2:58 pm
Neri wrote: The real question is: Do sense impressions correspond to material objects in such a way that they are effective in preserving us from dangers that lie outside of us?
Firstly, we are not consciously aware of the actual causers (the supposed 'real' objects themselves) of these "sense impressions"  We are only consciously aware of the actual "sense impressions" (i e  the actual physical bodily reactions; experiences) themselves,    and of course this is only after they occur (after they impact our body) 
Secondly, we all assume that these "sense impressions" are the result of something 'real' out-there  Whether from a misfiring (hallucinating) brain, or from sensory signals emanating from a real object itself, it is still nonetheless 'real'  We all assume these "sense impressions" are the automatic reaction/response from some 'real' stimuli 
Thirdly, what "preserves us from danger" is NOT the conscious awareness of our sense impressions, but instead, it is the body's automatic RESPONSE to this danger (STIMULI) that "preserves us from danger",    and not the conscious awareness of said response 
Fourthly, if the body auto-responds in a particular way then the likelihood of survivability is enhanced, and if the response is otherwise then it may be diminished 
Neri wrote: To keep ourselves safe, it is necessary that we have the ability to know when a material object is moving closer or further from us and to be able to recognize an object as a danger 
Not so  It is NOT the "knowing" or "recognizing" of the dangerous moving object that "keep ourselves safe"  It is the body's automatic reaction/response to this moving object (stimuli) that "keep ourselves safe" 
Remember, we can only be conscious of (i e  know or recognize) actual bodily reactions/events, and not of other 'external' events  We don't consciously know/recognize how we responded until 'after' we (our body) responds  Our consciousness (knowing/recognizing) is wholly dependent upon our bodily reactions/responses,    NOT the other way around 
Without something (e g  sense impressions; bodily reactions) to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness (   no knowing or recognizing!) 
Braininvat wrote: No, I was not assuming the in-the-moment knowledge, but rather that facts about buses are physically verifiable when science is applied 
Can't one hallucinate they are doing verifiable science?
Braininvat wrote: It is not difficult to verify that I was neither dreaming nor hallucinating   
   We can open a book and read complex prose (something that can't be done in dreams) that reveals areas of knowledge utterly unknown to us and beyond our previous experiences 
I'm not so confident/convinced of this  Have you seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?    or have had family members with mental issues?
Braininvat wrote: We are saved from solipsism by the multiplicity of observers and their reports   
   We have senses enhanced by instruments that can show us photons leaving the photosphere of the sun and bouncing off solid objects like buses in particular and regular patterns, etc  Inner phenomenal reality and external reality are seamlessly connected and interacting - it is only big cranium apes like us who erect a wall of demarcation between them 
Isn't it possible to hallucinate these "multiple observers and their reports",    and their "instrumentation" results?
Other than by 'blind faith', how can one really know that their perceptions are the 'true' representations of reality?    I think it is not possible,    I think we can only 'hope' that our personal view is of reality itself 
We can't perceive beyond our current ("suspect") perceptions 
How about that the 'knowing' is done by the brain that built the qualia showing the danger, for the brain thus already has the information available, in whatever form it uses to 'know' 
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 4:50 pm
Isnt it possible to hallucinate these "multiple observers and their reports",    and their "instrumentation" results?
- RJG
For me, that level of arch-skepticism is an epistemic doldrums zone  As David Hume famously observed about a conference on epistemology on Europe, "on finishing their discussion, the participants all departed by means of the doors  " (or similar; don't have exact quote handy ATM)
Whenever I write numbers in dreams they change as I write them and when I read it often fills up with garbage 
I've been lucidly inspecting my dreams  Some flaws are that bugs appear as triangles  Yesterday, I was going to eat in a cafeteria but you had to bring your own plates from home, so I already suspected something  I did find a pile of plates and took one, but I was soon somehow holding the whole pile, which then happened again and again, so, as in these stuck cases, I clench my whole body and that wakes me up  Other times, for lesser problems or to be sure of the dream state, I am able to open one eye and see the window and then go back to the dream  And sometimes the dream perfectly shows an entire scene in fabulous detail, such as a mid summer dusk, with even those whirly things floating through the air 
by mitchellmckain on April 23rd, 2018, 4:00 am
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: The model seems to be super real,
To me, that seems like a completely nonsensical thing to say to  "Seems real" compared to what? By the only standard we have, it is real, for it is the only standard which we have for making such a measurement  What you say is practically Platonic in the implied imagination of some greater reality somewhere else 
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: So, in sum so far, direct realism is an illusion, but is a very useful illusion, which we might better call a fine representation by the model, since the word 'illusion' is more about what's wrong as not really showing its object as substantial and really being behind it 
In philosophy of mind, naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are  Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them [1] They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly 
In contrast, some forms of idealism claim that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas, and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses  Naïve realism is known as direct as against indirect or representative realism when its arguments are developed to counter the latter position, also known as epistemological dualism;[2] that our conscious experience is not of the real world but of an internal representation of the world 
There is nothing of illusion in direct realism  There is only the foolish rhetoric implying that "direct" in "direct realism" means absorbing the actual object rather than data from those objects  The data IS from actual objects and does provide awareness of actual objects obeying the laws of physics  The implication that anyone is confusing the awareness of an object with the object itself is just ridiculous  Instead you can say that the process of perception is what makes illusions possible  Because we are interpreting data, then it is entirely possible for similar data to suggest something other than what is the case, such as the impression of water from a mirage -- at least until we learn the distinctions 
When you consider the philosophical alternative, plastering the word "illusion" on direct realism implies that idealism is the reality beneath it  And that is an implication I would refute most heatedly  As for indirect realism, as I explained above, I think it is carrying things too far to say that we are experiencing the model instead of reality  Instead I would limits the validity only to the idea that we use a model in the process of perception  In that sense you could say my position is in-between that of direct realism and indirect realism 
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: Dreams, then, would be better called illusions; further they demonstrate the power of the structure of the model  When we inspects objects in dreams they look just as good as when we see them awake, although backgrounds come and go inconsistently and there are narrative gaps (all of a sudden we are driving a vehicle without ever having gotten into it, plus the controls are a mystery )
I think it is unwise to make generalizations about dreams in such a manner  That is not my experience of dreams at all  My impression is that dreams consist of a mental (linguistic) narrative using memory to fill in the details  The only uniqueness in such experiences are the irrational combinations and discontinuities  Because of this, I have no sense this is anywhere near as good as when we see things awake, when we are interpreting fresh new sensory data  For me, this imparts a considerably dim character to the dream experience 
For me dreams are rather comparable to when I envision scenarios for my books  I see them in my mind's eye but not in a manner that is remotely comparable to my experience of reality through the senses  I am not suggesting that everyone experiences dreams this way  On the contrary, the phenomenon of schizophrenia suggests to me that some people can see things in their minds eye with the same vividness of the senses, for otherwise, how can they not know the difference?
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: Another illusion is the feeling of having all of the information in a qualia scene as instantly available, as well as feeling that it is all happening in real time, plus that one is directing it all right then and there 
Calling this illusion is a gross exaggeration  At most it is simply approximation 
by DragonFly on April 23rd, 2018, 11:37 am
'Imagination' (say, of things to happen in a book,) uses the model, too, but the scenes are about 90% transparent, probably so they don't get in the way of the real scenes about 
by DragonFly on April 23rd, 2018, 2:51 pm
Boggling idea of the Subject/Object Cut…
“The Schnitt and the Origins of Life
Physicists refer to the inescapable separation of a subject (the measurer) from an object (the measured) as die Schnitt  (What a great word!) Pattee calls “this unavoidable conceptual separation of the knower and the known, or the symbolic record of an event and the event itself, the epistemic cut 
There is a world of actions that exists on the side of the observer with the observer’s record of an event  There is also a separate world of actions on the side of the event itself  This sounds confusing, but think of the explanatory gap between your subjective experience of an event (I had so much fun body-surfing) and the event itself (A person went swimming in the ocean)  Alternately, you can think of the explanatory gap between the same subjective experience (This is fun) and the goings-on within the brain (Some neurons fired while a person was swimming in the ocean)  These are all just versions of the subject/object complementarity seen in physics  Here is the really wild part: Who’s measuring the events? To examine the difference between a person’s subjective experience and objective reality, do we need a scientist? Who’s measuring the scientist?
Pattee points out that neither classical nor quantum theory formally defines the subject, that is, the agent or observer that determines what is measured  Physics, therefore, does not say where to make the epistemic cut 4 Quantum measurement does not need a physicist-observer, however  Pattee argues that other things can perform quantum measurements  For example, enzymes (such as DNA polymerases) can act as measurement agents, performing quantum measurement during a cell’s replication process  No human observer is needed 
For Schrödinger, the joke was on us  He was trying to point out that there is something missing in our understanding  Pattee got it (in high school) and buckled down to attack the problem  Where should we put the cut, the gap, die Schnitt? With his consuming interest in the origins of life, he came to realize that human consciousness was way too high a layer in the architecture of all living organisms to put the epistemic cut between the observer and the observed, between the subjective experience and the event itself  There are umpteen layers between subatomic particles and human brains  There are plenty of layers between subatomic particles and brains in general (cat or mouse or fly or worm)  Putting the major epistemic cut that high led to the nonsense of Schrödinger’s cat existing as a quantum system  There was no pussyfooting around for Pattee: “I have taken the point of view that the question of what constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics must arise long before we reach the complexity of the brain  In fact, I propose … that the gap between quantum and classical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter 
There you have it  Pattee proposes that the gap resulted from a process equivalent to quantum measurement that began with self-replication at the origin of life with the cell as the simplest agent  The epistemic cut, the subject/object cut, the mind/matter cut, all are rooted to that original cut at the origin of life  The gap between subjective feeling and objective neural firings didn’t come about with the appearance of brains  It was already there when the first cell started living  Two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origin of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself  That is a mind-boggling idea ”
by mitchellmckain on April 24th, 2018, 1:06 pm
The "like" on the above post is not to be construed as complete agreement with conclusions, but rather more with an abundant approval of the questions and issues raised 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: Boggling idea of the Subject/Object Cut…
Absolute agreement here! I have always considered quantum interpretations linking quantum decoherence with human consciousness to be absurd -- with one exception  The one interpretation which makes this link and is not absurd is the Everett Interpretation  THOUGH, I would not count this in its favor! Furthermore, it isn't actually necessary to the Everett Interpretation, for it is quite possible to shift the locus of the decoherence in this interpetation to agree with other interpretations 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: For Schrödinger, the joke was on us  He was trying to point out that there is something missing in our understanding 
Agreed! That is how I have always understood the Schrödinger cat thought experiment  It was not to seriously propose the existence of dead-alive cats but to highlight the absurdities which come from the way that quantum physics was usually being presented 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: Pattee got it (in high school) and buckled down to attack the problem  Where should we put the cut, the gap, die Schnitt? With his consuming interest in the origins of life, he came to realize that human consciousness was way too high a layer in the architecture of all living organisms to put the epistemic cut between the observer and the observed, between the subjective experience and the event itself  There are umpteen layers between subatomic particles and human brains  There are plenty of layers between subatomic particles and brains in general (cat or mouse or fly or worm)  Putting the major epistemic cut that high led to the nonsense of Schrödinger’s cat existing as a quantum system  There was no pussyfooting around for Pattee: “I have taken the point of view that the question of what constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics must arise long before we reach the complexity of the brain  In fact, I propose … that the gap between quantum and classical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter 
And here is where we have a disagreement  While I totally appreciate pushing many things such as consciousness, learning, and creativity down to the lowest levels of the divide between the living and nonliving, I personally do not believe that this has anything whatsoever to do with the quantum measurement problem 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: There you have it  Pattee proposes that the gap resulted from a process equivalent to quantum measurement that began with self-replication at the origin of life with the cell as the simplest agent 
Furthermore, I think this focus on self-replication as the divide between the living and non-living may be a little behind the times  Metabolism first theories of abiogenesis and the study of prebiotic evolution strongly suggest that key features of the life process are located way before the development of self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA  On the other hand, perhaps this idea of self-replication can be extended to processes in prebiotic evolution in which there is a catalysis of chemical reactions which replenish the chemical components  After all, self-maintenance is a definitive feature of the life process and would suggest that any life process must include the regeneration of its components 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: The epistemic cut, the subject/object cut, the mind/matter cut, all are rooted to that original cut at the origin of life  The gap between subjective feeling and objective neural firings didn’t come about with the appearance of brains  It was already there when the first cell started living  Two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origin of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself  That is a mind-boggling idea ”
This would only work if you can make a logical connection with this definitive feature of life in a process of self maintenance  I have already suggested a connection between this and consciousness by pointing out that self maintenance requires some kind of awareness of self, both as it is and as it "should be " Without some sort of "should be" in some form there can be no self-maintenance  It should be noted that there are numerous quantitative features to this, such as the clarity with which this goal of self as it "should be" is represented, the determination/flexibility with which it is adhered to (or in other words the range of circumstances which can be handled in holding to this goal) 
by TheVat on April 24th, 2018, 1:52 pm
It seems likely a paramecium does no representing to a self, and is pretty much a cellular machine lacking sentience 
A paramecium is not full of Schnitt  It is not measuring or having goals or anything else  It is an automaton  To think otherwise would be to invite some sort of Bergsonian "elan vital" or other dualistic essence 
The problem with the term "observation" is that it's prejudicial in common parlance  It implies some sort of sentient observer  It implies a subjective aspect  So a more neutral term would be needed when a microbe registers a chance in its environment and contracts or expands or fires up the cilia or dumps the vacuoles or whatever  Or when a Bose Einstein condensate loses its coherence in a wet noisy puddle 
Braininvat » April 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm wrote: It seems likely a paramecium does no representing to a self, and is pretty much a cellular machine lacking sentience 
But it is not a machine for the simple reason that it is not a product of design  The only reasons for which it does things are its own reasons  It is a product of self organization, and the learning process which is evolution 
I certainly agree with the term "biological machinery," which is to say that there is no reason to distinguish things simply on the basis that one uses the interactions of organic chemistry  Thus I think the locus of difference between the living organism and the machine has to do with origins whether it is by design or by learning, evolution, and self-organization 
Braininvat » April 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm wrote: The problem with the term "observation" is that it's prejudicial in common parlance  It implies some sort of sentient observer  It implies a subjective aspect  So a more neutral term would be needed when a microbe registers a chance in its environment and contracts or expands or fires up the cilia or dumps the vacuoles or whatever 
But the problem with this is that the prejudice in language goes both ways with the presumption of an uncrossable divide between the sentient and the non-sentient, when all the evidence points to a continuum going all the way from the non-living to the living to the sentient  And this is not a linear continuum but a rapidly branching tree with many capabilities somewhat arbitrarily (or rather anthropomorphically) lumped into this term "sentience "
Context 3: A Homily from Easter Sunday, 2017 
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb  But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb  As she wept, she bent over to look[a] into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet  They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him ” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus  Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away ” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew,[b] “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher)  Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father  But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God ’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her 
Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary wept in the throws of grief  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary dragged herself out of bed after a sleepless night and walked to the tomb in a kind of trance  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary cried—scared, confused, alone  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary thought that the powers of death had the last Word  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary heard a voice in the darkness calling her name—Mary 
Throughout this Lenten season, we’ve examined the ways that the powers and principalities hold us captive—how they push us towards securing our own survival, dominating others, using God for our own agenda  We’ve seen how in Jesus’ ministry, he’s constantly in resistance mode—exposing the powers for what they really are and envisioning an alternative way of living in the world  He describes this way as “the kingdom of God,” the living water we drink so we never thirst again, the light of the world  Jesus invites those who follow him into similar acts of resistance—to free us from the power money has on us by giving it away, to choose to see ourselves as Jesus sees us, resisting the shame that says I’m not enough, to practice Sabbath that contradicts productivity, to untie the grave clothes of someone who’s hands and feet are still tied in the trappings of death 
But all Jesus’ acts of resistance had a cost  All of the times he just wouldn’t shut up, all of the crowds he attracted because he actually noticed those who were normally ignored, the powers finally said enough is enough and put an end to his resistance the only way they could guarantee silence and division—by nailing him to a tree 
Just then, she turned and saw a man the shadow of a man behind her; a man she assumed was the gardener, his face unfamiliar in the darkness  He repeated the question—“Woman, why are you crying?” Thinking that perhaps he knew what happened or worse, that he was a culprit, she begged, “Sir if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him and I will get him ” But Jesus interrupted her pleading, interrupted her desperation, and called her by name from the darkness, Mary 
Mary  He calls her name  Her name  The name that captures the particularity of her life  To the gardener, she would just be the crying woman  At other points in her life, she was the possessed woman, the woman who wasn’t enough, the woman on the outside of the group  Never nameless—but still unnamed  Never not Mary, but still, not known 
Early in the morning, while it was still dark, God defeated the powers and principalities in the ultimate act of resistance—resurrection  The grave could not contain the Lord  Even death wasn’t enough 
In the resurrection, God defeats the powers of death and shows that it’s God who has the final Word  Nothing, not even death, can keep us from being fully known by God  The powers try to have the final say on our names, our identities, the markers by which we measure ourselves, the systems that hold people captive or keep people in oppression  But Jesus calls us out of the darkness by name 
On this Easter Sunday, we hear our Risen Lord calling our names from the darkness—Jesus, the resurrected one, the name above all names, the great I am, the Prince of Peace, the alpha and omega, the light of the world  The risen Lord has spoken 
This is the name unto which you were baptized  As you come forward and mark the sign of the cross on your forehead today, hear Jesus speaking your name from the darkness and drawing you into the light 
From our worship service on the fifth Sunday of Lent, April 2, 2017 
“Is the Lord really with us or not?” “Is the Lord really with us or not?” Why did you bring us all the way from Egypt to let us die of thirst in this desert? At least in Egypt, we had water  At least in Egypt, we weren’t so thirsty  At least in Egypt, we knew what tomorrow would hold  At least in Egypt, we weren’t so thirsty 
But no, that’s not the story they give us  They are hard on their ancestors  They tell how it is  The elders who sat and wrote down these stories understood something about our bodies, who we are and how we work  After all the generations these stories passed through, they tell the truth about how quickly we forget, about how quickly we complain, about how quickly we grow thirsty, about how much we need water 
It doesn’t take long, does it  By the end of this sermon, I will no doubt feel thirsty, not from walking on hard dusty ground in the heat of the day, but just from speaking with you  Most of us wake up in the morning needing a drink  Our bodies depend on water  We cannot live without it  Thirst, then, doesn’t happen only one time  When the Israelites panicked that they had no water, they weren’t only thinking of the present moment  They knew what was coming! We need water to live! Without water, we will die! Even if we have water for today, we will need water again tomorrow! We can drink until we are satisfied, only to know that we will eventually be thirsty for more 
The gospel of John tells a story about a woman who gave up on this question all together  She moved beyond wondering if the Lord was really with her, so confident God had forgotten her that she gave up wondering at all  Born a Samaritan into a world that valued other bodies as better than her body: male bodies, Jewish bodies, even married bodies  Even after encountering Jesus, she still leaves their conversation without a name, numbered as one of many, simply called, “Samaritan woman ” She too, was thirsty  Most believe that her shame led her to drink water in the heat of the day, when no one else would be at the rocky well, when she could get a drink alone, without experiencing the stigma and stares of others  When she came to get a drink, Jesus was also at the well, thirsty himself and in need of rest and water from the long journey through Samaria 
The Israelites complaint for water sends Moses to the only one who can satisfy, the only one who can meet this need  Moses turns to God, “What should I do with these people? How can I satisfy their thirst? I’ve looked around, I’ve checked far and wide, turned the house upsidedown, looked under the seats of the car, at the bottle of every bottle, I’ve even looked for dew on the ground and under the lids of jars and there is no water to be found  Where do we go for water? Is the Lord really with us or not?
The Israelites who wrote down this story and allowed the ancestors to look like desperate complainers who doubted God and tested God, they were onto something  They knew that we are thirsty people  Jesus knew also  All who are thirsty, come! All who believe in me, drink this living water! We are desperate to feel God’s presence, to be bathed in the water of the Spirit, to know that this is not all there is, to feel a sense of belonging to the One who is greater than I  We can only make it so long in the desert, so long wandering from one trial to the next, without a drink 
And yet, Jesus also says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled  Notice with me: not blessed are those who are righteous, but those who thirst for righteousness  Not blessed are those who are righteous, but those who thirst for righteousness  Blessed are those who thirst for relationship with God, to know God, to see God 
I wonder, “Does Jesus want us to keep wanting?” Does Jesus want us to keep thirsting? Many faithful followers of Jesus throughout history have never claimed their thirst was quenched, never fully satisfied  You know that moment when you quench your thirst, when you sigh with relief when your throat is at ease once again, that’s the opposite of how many of God’s children have described the life of faith  They describe wanting more, being satisfied at times, while knowing they will be thirsty again 
What will be waiting for you at the rock? Will the water gush out, bursting forth, covering you from head to toe with God’s presence, drenching you in hope, cleansing you from the dust that’s caked to your feet and renewing you for a new day, a new hour, a new moment basking in the presence of God?
What will be waiting for you at the rock? Will the water drip slowly, quenching your thirst for but a moment, giving you just a glimpse of God’s spirit? Will it be so hard to get the water from the rock, that you’ll have to bend down, get underneath that dripping water to try and catch a drop? Will it be just enough for you to know, if only for a moment, that God is really with you? Will it be just enough to satisfy you for this hour, but keep you coming back for more?
What will be waiting for you at the rock? What if it seems like the water has run out, like there isn’t a drop left, the way that Mother Teresa described? What then? We follow her example  She still goes to the rock, over and over again, not to get water quench her own thirst, but to relieve the thirst of God’s other children 
This post was adapted from our sermon series on Interpreting Exodus  Pastor Megan preached this sermon at Butner Federal Prison complex on August 30, 2015 
On Father’s Day 2015, we gathered for worship at the labyrinth in front of UNC hospital, having devoted the month of June to exploring the question, “What happens after we die?” Many have watched their father’s die in this place or other similar spaces  We shared in a time of both remembrance and prayer/meditation, participating in the ancient spiritual practice of walking the labyrinth  A labyrinth is a kind of maze, laid out in a circle 
Tony graciously shared the following reflections from his experience at the labyrinth on the hot June day 
It’s smaller than I expected, stark and hard‐surfaced, with no landscaping for ornamentation or shade  I don’t know what to expect from it… or from myself  But that’s part of the appeal  I stand at the entrance, hesitating, trying to clear my mind  This doesn’t work very well, so I just start walking 
Almost immediately, the path presents itself as a linear and chronological symbol of my life’s journey  Like my physical lifetime, it has a beginning and an end, with an as‐yet undetermined amount between  This could be interesting  I like it so far… although I’m insecure about my style… and unsure about proper protocol  Is someone staring at me? Do I have to meditate? How slowly should I walk? Is it better to focus my thoughts… or to simply let them come? Will I control this thing, or allow it to control me?
I begin to see each step as an increment of elapsed time, an irretrievable expenditure of life energy  I equate my initial discomfort to the natural immaturity of my childhood years  I gradually move beyond it, into metaphorical adulthood  This is much better 
Most of the path is a series of gentle arcs  These are fairly easy to maneuver, like my comfortable life  But these segments are connected by intermittent sharp turns, mostly 180‐degree switchbacks  I see these as representing significant life changes or challenges, requiring more concentration and skill to negotiate  I notice that I am executing some of these turns mechanically, and some more gracefully  I begin to anticipate upcoming turns, and try to maintain good form around each one 
I can’t see much of the path ahead, nor the end  I spend a significant amount of mental energy dealing with this uncertainty, constantly wanting to know my real‐time ratio of “distance walked” to “distance remaining”  This is a recurring distraction 
Today is Father’s Day, and my Dad is on my mind  He recently completed his well‐walked journey, and is now watching me… even if as mere metaphor… or only as an element of my own (self‐) consciousness  I feel his presence embedded in his absence  I’m aware that it’s not only my turn to walk… it’s my only turn to walk 
I think about my children, grandson, soon‐to‐arrive granddaughter, and their descendants  The familiar succession of life, death and new life seems magical, divinely‐derived, and strangely better than living forever  My role is limited, but critical  I love the part, and embrace it 
I am acutely aware that others are journeying all around me  These are friends of mine  We meet, almost brushing, as we walk  The path seems purposefully narrow, perhaps perfectly so  I suddenly understand that it is impossible to walk this close to others without being affected by them  I affect them too… seen as small adjustments in their position or posture  As we meet, I try not to encroach too much, but making sure not to pull away  I put creative energy into maintaining the perfect degree of separation between our bodies  This feels like more art than science… each friend deserving a customized approach  This closeness seems good to me



ground_truth: It becomes a bit less so that what's off to the left or right can be better noted.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is Professor Tulis's forthcoming book?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: UT College of Liberal Arts: College of Liberal Arts University of Texas at Austin Departments Graduate Resources Undergraduate Resources Courses Online Courses Dean's Office Alumni & Giving Faculty by Department Search the College of Liberal Arts
next profile Jeffrey Tulis Associate Professor — Ph D ,
E-mail: tulis@austin utexas edu
Office: MEZ 3 152
Political Theory and American Politics
Professor Tulis's interests bridge the fields of political theory and American politics, including more specifically, American political development, constitutional theory, political philosophy and the American presidency  His publications include The Presidency in the Constitutional Order (LSU, 1981; Transaction, 2010), The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, 1987), The Constitutional Presidency (Johns Hopkins 2009), The Limits of Constitutional Democracy (Princeton, 2010) and recent journal articles and chapters on constitutional interpretation, the logic of political change, and the meaning of political success  Four collections of essays on The Rhetorical Presidency with responses by Tulis have been published, including a special double issue of Critical Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Society, (2007), where his book is described as "one of the two or three most important and perceptive works written by a political scientist in the twentieth century "
He has served as President of the Politics and History Section of the American Political Science Association  He received the President's Associates Teaching Excellence Award at the University of Texas  He has held research fellowships from NEH, ACLS, Olin Foundation, Harvard Law School, and the Mellon Preceptorship at Princeton University, where he taught before moving to Texas  He has held visiting positions at Notre Dame and Harvard  He has served as associate chair of the Department of Government from 1989-2001 and was acting chair during 1992-93  and for part of each year between 1989 and 2001  During the academic year 2008-09, he was a Laurance S  Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton  During Spring 2016, he was a Dahrendorf Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science 
His forthcoming books include: Legacies of Losing in American Politics, with Nicole Mellow (University of Chicago Press, Fall 2017), and an expanded edition of The Rhetorical Presidency in the Princeton Classics series (Princeton, Fall 2017)  For two decades he served as co-editor of the Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought, and he currently co-edits (with Sanford Levinson) Constitutional Thinking, a Series at the University Press of Kansas 
GOV 370L • Pres In Constitutional Ord 38840 • Spring 2017 Meets MW 2:30PM-4:00PM CAL 221 show description
GOV 370 Seminar: The Presidency in the Constitutional Order
Spring 2017 Unique # 38840
MW 2:30 to 4pm GDC 2 402
Jeffrey K  Tulis
In this Seminar we will discuss a series of constitutional problems including: the problem of executive energy in the American Constitution; presidential selection and the problem of political legitimacy; separation of powers; delegation of powers, the constitutional status of war and foreign affairs, administration and bureaucracy and the meaning of leadership in the constitutional order 
Seminar will meet twice a week and regular attendance and thorough preparation for discussion is expected  Unexcused absence from more than three classes will result in failure of the participation component of the course  There will also be pop quizzes on the reading that will count as part of your participation grade  In addition to class participation, course requirements include four short analytic essays, and one in-class test  The course grade will be calculated as follows:
Seminar participation: 20%
In-class test: 20%
Three analytic essays 60% (20% each)
Class participation is especially important  Preparation for seminar and for your in-class test will be enhanced by careful note taking on the readings  If students appear to be unprepared, pop quizzes will be given and the grades on them will affect the participation component of your course grade 
Texts: (tentative)
Joseph M  Bessette and Jeffrey K  Tulis, The Constitutional Presidency
Michael Nelson, The Presidency in the Political System (tenth edition)
Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating the Presidency (third edition)
The Federalist (any edition, or online) GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 38335 • Fall 2016 Meets TTH 3:30PM-5:00PM BEN 1 106 show description
GOV 310 (Honors) (38335) Fall 2016
TTH 3:30-5:00pm, BEN 1 106
This honors seminar offers an introduction to American politics that emphasizes the confluence of ideas, mores, institutions, and interests, in the constitutional system  This course covers more theory, and the readings are more demanding, than other versions of GOV 310  One of the main objectives of the course is to deepen your understanding of the practical aspects of contemporary public affairs by developing your ability to understand the theoretical foundations of American politics  Although we cover the nuts and bolts of politics there is much more theory in this version of GOV 310  If you have registered for this section mainly because 310 is a legislative requirement that you need to fulfill, this is not the right version for you  There is a substantial workload in this class 
Regular attendance, thorough and timely preparation, and active participation are all necessary to do well 
Four essays (approximately 1000 words each)  Three of these will be assigned analytic essay topics  The last will be a book review of a title chosen by the student from a long list of provided possibilities  (15% each essay, 60% of total course grade)
Two in-class tests  These will count 15% each, 30% of total course grade 
Class participation  (10% of course grade)  Both informed participation and occasional leadership of the seminar will be graded 
No make-up exams or late papers, except for documented medical or other emergencies 
Mark Landy and Sidney M  Milkis, American Government: Enduring Principles, Critical Choices, Third Edition
Mary Nichols and David Nichols, Readings in American Government, Ninth Edition
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Its Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 381L • Constitutional Conflict 38660 • Fall 2016 Meets W 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
GOV 381L Fall 2016
Constitutional Conflict
W 3:30-6:30pm, BAT 5 102
Many of the most important debates regarding the nature and character of contemporary American politics are essentially arguments regarding the structure of separation of powers  In this seminar we will consider such questions as whether the American system is prone to deadlock of stalemate in the construction of national policy; whether conflict is a hindrance to institutional responsibility or an essential attribute of responsibility; whether there are “political questions” especially suitable to resolution between President and Congress; how one can distinguish salutary from pathological conflict, and whether it is truly possible to harness the ambition of office holders to the duties of their office 
More specifically, we will review literature and arguments regarding constitutional reform; divided government; separation of powers theory; and case studies of Supreme Court appointments; the budget process; and war powers and foreign affairs  In these contexts we will also discuss current controversies surrounding war authorization, intelligence and secrecy, sequestration, government shut downs and budget resolutions, and debt ceiling politics 
The course is designed to accommodate two different student needs: it will provide a good overview of important literature relevant to the comprehensive examination in American politics and it will provide opportunities for research  This subject area is a treasure trove of “hot” topics, publication possibilities, subjects for MA theses and Ph D  dissertations  I will tailor the written requirements to the objectives of individual students 
1  All students will prepare a short analytic essay early in the semester, and an annotated bibliography at mid-semester  These assignments will count (30%) of the grade 
2  Students interested primarily in exam preparation will complete an examination near the end of the semester based on study questions assigned in advance  OR
Students interested in research will write a 20-25 page paper  (60%)
3  A basic requirement of the course is that students prepare for each seminar by carefully reading the material assigned for that week  Class discussion is an essential component of the course  (10%)
Tentative Texts:
Jones, Separate But Equal Branches
Silverstein, Imbalance of Powers
Wilson & Schram, Separation of Powers and Good Government
Burgess, Contest for Constitutional Authority
Farrier, Passing the Buck: Congress, the Budget and Deficits
Weissman, A Culture of Deference
Zeisberg, War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority
Fisher, Congressional Abdication on War and Spending
Lowi, The End of Liberalism GOV 379S • Regime Persp Amer Poltc-Honors 38105 • Spring 2016 Meets TH 3:30PM-6:30PM GAR 1 134 (also listed as CTI 335, LAH 350) show description
GOV 379S Regime Perspectives on American Politics
This is a seminar on American politics and culture  Two purposes govern the selection of texts for the course and guide our discussion of them  All of our texts attempt to look at American politics as a whole  Most books and courses on America look at only a part, such as the Presidency, or elections, or popular culture  Here we attempt to think about how the parts of America fit together  Even when these texts speak about a part, for example an institution such as the presidency or the Congress, they present the topic from a vantage point on the whole polity  To see the polity as a whole also means that we will have to revisit and rethink aspects of our political life that we take for granted – that we don’t examine because those parts have become so natural or familiar to us  Seeing the polity whole enables us to render the familiar unfamiliar, to make what we take for granted strange and new 
To see the polity as a whole requires that we get some distance from our subject, much as to see the planet earth as a whole requires one to look at it from outer space  Just as it is difficult to get visual perspective on a place living within it, it is difficult to understand the promise or pathologies of a regime from within  To get critical distance from our politics, we will closely study three sets of texts that look at American politics from a distance  The first part of the course will recover the perspective of the founding debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists  This fundamental debate reveals what is a stake in the basic architecture of the American regime  The second part of the course is a close study of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America  Regarded by many as the best book ever written on democracy and the best book written on America, Tocqueville sees our polity whole because he looks at it from the vantage point of Europe, in general, and France, in particular  In the third part of the seminar we think about American politics from the perspective of thoughtful commentators who feel only nominally included in the polity  Half in and half out, these extraordinary black American writers reveal fissures and fault lines in the American regime  We end the class with a discussion of America’s place in the world today – examining a speech by a writer who articulately raises challenges to our self-understanding that are inarticulately expressed today in rage and ranting from enemies of the United States 
Three take home analytic essays, chosen from a list of topics I provide, each weighted 25% of the course grade  Late essays will not be accepted, except with a doctor’s excuse or a Dean’s excuse for family emergency 
OR as an option: you may write the two short essays (both together weighted 25%) and do a longer 15 page paper on a topic of your choice in consultation with me (weighted 50% of your course grade)  Government honors students who are thinking of doing an honors thesis next year may prefer this option to begin to develop research and writing skills for longer work  Students who prefer this option will need to designate their preferred third short essay and have discussed with me a topic for their long paper by March 30  Texts:
Selected Anti-Federalist writings
Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 382M • Democratic Theory 38120 • Spring 2016 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
GOV 382M (38120)
Democratic Theory Spring 2016
This is a graduate seminar on contemporary topics in democratic theory  Topics to be covered include: democratic epistemology; deliberative democracy; the meaning of the people; oracular democracy; agonistic democracy; and possibly new theories of republicanism, representation and partisanship 
Texts (tentative)
Helene Landemore, Democratic Reason
Jeffrey Edward Green, The Eyes of the People
Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy?
Alan Keenan, Democracy in Question
Jason Frank, Constituent Moments
Jason Frank, Publius and Political Imagination
Nadia Urbanati, Democracy Disfigured
Russell Muirhead, Partisanship in a Polarized Age
Bryan Garsten, manuscript
Active seminar participation; an annotated bibliography or review essay; a research/analytic paper  GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 37615 • Fall 2015 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM BEN 1 106 show description
TTH 2-3:30/BEN 1 106
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 370L • Presidency In Constitutl Order 37845 • Fall 2015 Meets TTH 5:00PM-6:30PM PAR 310 show description
GOV 370L (37845)
TTH 5-6:30 PAR 310
The Presidency in the Constitutional Order
A study of the place of the presidency in the American political order that stresses tension between power and accountability inherent in the office and the system  Topics include: separation of powers, presidential selection, impeachment, relations with Congress and bureaucracy, emergency powers, presidential character, and leadership 
This is a very demanding writing flag class  If you are enrolling in this class just in order to satisfy the writing flag, you are in the wrong class  Interest in political theory and willingness to work very hard are necessary for success in this class 
Joseph M  Bessette, The Constitutional Presidency
Andrew Rudalevige, The New Imperial Presidency
Bruce Ackerman, The Rise and Decline of the American Republic
Michael Nelson, ed , The Presidency in the Political System
Michael Nelson, ed , The Evolving Presidency
Louis Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President
Active and prepared class participation
Regular quizzes on the reading
Four analytic essays (approximately 1200 words) 
One term paper, (approximately 5000 words)  GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Politics 38100 • Spring 2015 Meets T 3:30PM-6:30PM MEZ 1 104 (also listed as LAH 350) show description
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 382M • Tocqueville 38135 • Spring 2015 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
This graduate seminar will be devoted to close readings of two principal writings of Tocqueville: Democracy in America and The Ancien Regime and the Revolution  We will also assess some of the best secondary studies of Tocqueville, including work by Sheldon Wolin, Harvey Mansfield, Delba Winthrop, Jon Elster, Francois Furet, and a book by Pierre Manent 
Course requirements will include two very short analytic essays and one seminar paper (20-25 pages)  GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 38722 • Fall 2014 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM GAR 2 112 show description
Joseph M  Bessette and John J  Pitney, American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship
Mary Nichols and David Nichols, Readings in American Government
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 370L • Presidency In Constitutl Order 38977 • Fall 2014 Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM CBA 4 332 show description
A study of the place of the presidency in the American political order that stresses
tension between power and accountability inherent in the office and the system 
Topics include: separation of powers, presidential selection, impeachment,
relations with Congress and bureaucracy, emergency powers, presidential
character, and leadership 
This is a very demanding writing flag class  If you are enrolling in this class just in order
to satisfy the writing flag, you are in the wrong class  Interest in political theory and willingness
to work very hard are necessary for success in this class 
One term paper, (approximately 5000 words)  GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Politics 39395 • Spring 2014 Meets T 3:30PM-6:30PM MEZ 1 104 (also listed as CTI 335, LAH 350) show description
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 381L • Constitutional Conflict 39415 • Spring 2014 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
Lowi, The End of Liberalism GOV 330K • The American President 39140 • Fall 2013 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
This course offers an over view of the place of the presidency in the American political order  Topics covered include: constitutional design of the office; nominations and elections; legislative leadership; leadership of the bureaucracy; staffing and organizing the White House; the presidency and the judiciary; war and emergencies  We will spend extra time this fall on the presidential campaign and election of 2012 
Two in-class examinations (50% of the final grade)
One short (1000 word) take-home essay (30% of the final grade)
Class participation and quizzes (20% of the final grade)
Richard J  Ellis, The Development of the American Presidency (Routledge, 2012)
Richard J  Ellis and Michael Nelson, eds, Debating the American Presidency, (2nd edition, CQ Press, 2009)
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 330K • The American President 39145 • Fall 2013 Meets MW 5:00PM-6:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 381L • American Founding 39040 • Spring 2013 Meets T 6:30PM-9:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
NOTE WELL: Course meets Tuesdays, 6:30 to 9:30pm
Batts Hall 1 104
This is a seminar on American political thought and constitutional design  It is designed for students of American politics and political theory  The principal themes include: 1) the nature of founding and its constitutive significance; 2) the relation of structure and power in American politics; 3) the meaning and significance of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate; 4) the philosophic background of the American founding; and 5) the relevance of the founding to debate to prospects for, and pathologies of, American politics today 
We will conduct a close reading of the Madison’s Notes, of The Federalist, and selected Anti-Federalist writings  We will also study a larger and growing body of secondary literature on the constitutional convention, ratification and early American political thought 
James Madison, Notes of the Debates: In the Federal Convention of 1787
The Federalist (Rossiter, ed )
The Anti-Federalist (Storing, ed )
David Brian Robertson, The Constitution and America’s Destiny (2005)
Pauline Maier, Ratification (2012)
Gordon Wood, The Idea of America (2011)
Jack Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics & Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
Herbert Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For (1981)
Numerous essays and articles (to be posted on line or gathered in packet)
Grading: Active seminar participation, including three short papers and presentations (40%) and one article-length seminar paper (60%) T C 357 • Amer Founding/Probs Const Des 43095 • Spring 2013 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM CRD 007B show description
The American Founding and Problems of Constitutional Design
Jeffrey Tulis, Associate Professor, Department of Government
Sanford Levinson, Professor, School of Law
This Plan II seminar will be built around a close reading of the debates that informed the drafting and ratification of the U S  Constitution  We aim to recover the perspective of these founding thinkers -- their way of thinking -- as much as their concrete ideas, in order to raise fundamental questions about the American political order today  Are some of the most important pathologies of American politics today rooted in design features of our original political architecture? Are the original answers to basic founding questions (such as "how democratic is our Constitution?) still adequate for contemporary circumstances? What features of the Constitution should we preserve and what features should we amend, if possible? Would it be good for the polity as a whole to reconsider these questions in a new constitutional convention today, or would such an event be a political nightmare? Our reading will include notes from the founding conventions, writings by Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and present-day critiques of the American political order  Our aim will be to generate a dialogue between the thought of the founders and some of the best present day critics and supporters of the Constitution 
James Madison, Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention
The Federalist, ed  Clinton Rossiter
The Anti-Federalist, ed  Herbert Storing
Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Robert Goldwin, ed  How Democratic is the Constitution?
a course packet of selected articles, essays, and additional primary materials 
Class participation, including at least one presentation of a short discussion paper 25%
One take-home analytic essay 25%
One term paper 50%
About the Professors:
Professor Tulis's interests bridge the fields of political theory and American politics, including more specifically, American political development, constitutional theory, political philosophy and the American presidency  He received the President's Associates Teaching Excellence Award at the University of Texas  He has held research fellowships from NEH, ACLS, Olin Foundation, Harvard Law School, and the Mellon Preceptorship at Princeton University, where he taught before moving to Texas  He has held visiting positions at Notre Dame and Harvard  During the academic year 2008-09, he was a Laurance S  Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton 
Proefessor Levinson holds the W  St  John Garwood and W  St  John Garwood, Jr  Centennial Chair in Law, he joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980  Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas  The author of over 350 articles and book reviews in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization  He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010  He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia 
GOV 330K • The American President 38675 • Fall 2012 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 330K • The American President 38675 • Fall 2011 Meets MW 3:30PM-5:00PM WAG 420 show description
see syllabus GOV 330K • The American President 38680 • Fall 2011 Meets MW 5:30PM-7:00PM UTC 1 146 show description
see syllabus GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Polit-Hon 39110 • Spring 2011 Meets W 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 (also listed as CTI 326, LAH 350) show description
To see the polity as a whole requires that we get some distance from our subject, much as to see the planet earth as a whole requires one to look at it from outer space  Just as it is difficult to get visual perspective on a place living within it, it is difficult to understand the promise or pathologies of a regime from within it  To get critical distance from our politics, we will closely study three sets of texts that look at American politics from a distance  The first part of the course will recover the perspective of the founding debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists  This fundamental debate reveals what is a stake in the basic architecture of the American regime  The second part of the course is a close study of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America  Regarded by many as the best book ever written on democracy and the best book written on America, Tocqueville sees our polity whole because he looks at it from the vantage point of Europe, in general, and France, in particular  In the third part of the seminar we think about American politics from the perspective of thoughtful commentators who feel only nominally included in the polity  Half in and half out, these extraordinary black American writers reveal fissures and fault lines in the American regime  We end the class with a discussion of America’s place in the world today – examining a speech by a writer who articulately raises challenges to our self-understanding that are inarticulately expressed today in rage and ranting from enemies of the United States 
Four take home writing assignments  Analytic essays, each 1000-1500 words  (Grades weighted: 10%, 25%, 25%, and 25%) Late essays will not be accepted, except with a doctor’s excuse or a Dean’s excuse for family emergency  Regular preparation and class participation: 15% 
OR as an option: By prior arrangement with me by the due date of the second analytic essay, students may substitute one longer research paper (15 – 20 pages) for two of the last three analytic papers This paper will be on a topic of the students choosing , if I approve, and the due date will be the same as the last assigned analytic essay  This project would count 50% of the students course grade 
Selected writings by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin
Solzhenitsyn, “A World Split Apart”
Tocqueville, Democracy in America GOV 382M • Tocqueville 39150 • Spring 2011 Meets T 6:30PM-9:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
See syllabus GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38695 • Fall 2010 Meets TTH 8:00AM-9:30AM UTC 3 112 show description
Course Description: A Study of the political relationship of the President, Congress and Court in the American constitutional order  Has this relationship changed over the course of American history? Is American national politics prone to stalemate or deadlock between the branches regarding major issues of public policy? Do we have a new “imperial presidency?” Should the Court arbitrate disputes between the President and Congress over custody of their respective powers? Has Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibilities? We will examine questions like these in light of practical problems such as executive privilege and secrecy, the war on terror, budget politics and controversies regarding appointments to the Supreme Court  Grading:Three in class essay tests, for which study questions will be distributed in advance  The exam questions will be chosen from the list of study questions  (25% each) One short take home essay (10% each)  Class participation and attendance (15%)  Tentative Texts: The FederalistFisher, Congressional Abdication on War and SpendingRudalevige, The New Imperial PresidencyBessette and Tulis, The Constitutional PresidencySkowronek, Presidency in Political TimeGoldsmith, The Terror PresidencyA course packet of articles and essays GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38700 • Fall 2010 Meets TTH 5:00PM-6:30PM UTC 3 122 show description
Course Description: A Study of the political relationship of the President, Congress and Court in the American constitutional order  Has this relationship changed over the course of American history? Is American national politics prone to stalemate or deadlock between the branches regarding major issues of public policy? Do we have a new “imperial presidency?” Should the Court arbitrate disputes between the President and Congress over custody of their respective powers? Has Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibilities? We will examine questions like these in light of practical problems such as executive privilege and secrecy, the war on terror, budget politics and controversies regarding appointments to the Supreme Court  Grading:Three in class essay tests, for which study questions will be distributed in advance  The exam questions will be chosen from the list of study questions  (25% each) One short take home essay (10% each)  Class participation and attendance (15%)  Tentative Texts: The FederalistFisher, Congressional Abdication on War and SpendingRudalevige, The New Imperial PresidencyBessette and Tulis, The Constitutional PresidencySkowronek, Presidency in Political TimeGoldsmith, The Terror PresidencyA course packet of articles and essays GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Amer Gov-Hon 38698 • Spring 2010 Meets MW 3:30PM-5:00PM UTC 3 104 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38966 • Spring 2010 Meets MW 5:00PM-6:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Prerequisite: Six semester hours of lower-division coursework in government 
GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 39295 • Fall 2009 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM UTC 3 112 show description
GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 39435 • Spring 2008 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM PAR 203 show description
GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 38615-38620 • Spring 2007 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 37600-37605 • Spring 2006 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 34900-34905 • Spring 2004 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM BUR 134 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 34495-34500 • Spring 2003 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM UTC 1 130 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  Publications
Tulis, JK (2011), "Plausible Futures," in Dunn, Charles W  (ed ) The Presidency in the Twenty-First Century, University Press of Kentucky Tulis, J K  and Macedo, S  (2010) The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, J K  and Macedo, S  (2010) "Constitutional Boundaries," in The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, JK (2010), "The Possibility of Constitutional Statesmanship," in Tulis, JK and Macedo, S (eds ) The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, J  (2009) The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J  (2009) Impeachment in the Constitutional Order  In J  Tulis & J M  Bessette (Eds ), The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J  & Bessette, J M  (2009) On the Constitution, Politics, and the Presidency  In J  Tulis & J M  Bessette (Eds ), The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J (and Bessette, J M) (2010) The Presidency in the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives, Reissued Classics Series, Transaction Publishers,Tulis, J and Bessette, J M  (2010, "Introduction to the Transaction Edition," The Presidency in the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives, Transaction Publishers 
Tulis, JK, (2009) "The Two Constitutional Presidencies," in Nelson, Michael (ed ) The Presidency in the Political System, Congressional Quarterly Press Tulis, J  & Mellow, N  (2007) Andrew Johnson and the Politics of Failure  In S  Skowronek & M  Glassman (Eds ), Formative Acts: Reckoning with Agency in American Politics  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Tulis, J  (2007, September) The Rhetorical Presidency in Retrospect  Critical Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Society, 19(2&3)  Curriculum Vitae
Context 3: 
There is a much younger walker behind me, getting ever closer  I’m clearly holding her back  Maybe this means that the younger generation wants me to hurry up and get out of their way  I remind myself not to stretch the symbolism too far… as I pick up my pace 
I now see the end of the path ahead  I have been expecting this part to be emotionally complicated, but it is not  The final section is round… large and unrestrictive… a qualitative change from the narrow linear pathway  The circle opens up to welcome me  It is easy to step into, a perfectly natural thing to do at the end of my walk  Inside the circle, I am centered… comfortable… peaceful… thankful 
16 As Jesus passed alongside the Galilee Sea, he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew, throwing fishing nets into the sea, for they were fishermen  17 “Come, follow me,” he said, “and I’ll show you how to fish for people ” 18 Right away, they left their nets and followed him  19 After going a little farther, he saw James and John, Zebedee’s sons, in their boat repairing the fishing nets  20 At that very moment he called them  They followed him, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired workers 
This is a story about 4 fishermen, Simon, Andrew, James and John  It’s a normal morning at the docks  Each one of them is going about business as usual  They arrived at dawn, bundled up in the cool morning air and started work without much conversation  Simon and Andrew are working on one fishing boat and see the Teacher approaching  “Hey  There he is,” says Andrew  Jesus from Nazareth  You can’t go anywhere without hearing about him lately  What’s he doing down here?” They paddle back to shore, not wanting to miss any trouble this Jesus fellow might stir up  Simon and Andrew get the beach and Jesus comes over to talk to them  It’s like he had come there that morning just to find these two guys  Jesus didn’t say much, “Come and follow me ” Jesus invited these 2 fishermen to be his disciples, to follow after him, to walk behind him, tracing his every step 
Further down the beach, the same scene repeats  This time, Jesus walks directly up to James and John who are focused on repairing their fishing net  Jesus says the same thing to them and now all four fishermen walk behind their rabbi with no idea of what’s ahead of them 
It’s a big deal! The four normal guys, working a normal job, on a normal morning, decide to follow Jesus  Maybe you’ve wondered like I have, how is it that Simon, Andrew, James and John do it? How do they drop everything to follow Jesus? What were they thinking? How did they feel?
It’s interesting  The story doesn’t tell us  There’s nothing about how they felt  It doesn’t say they were excited, or moved, or scared, or joyful or resistant  This story about four fisherman gives us only verbs  Jesus passed alongside the Galilee Sea  He saw two brothers  He said, Come, follow  Then, Simon and Andrew left and followed  Jesus saw James and John  Jesus called them  They followed him 
This is a story about four fisherman who decided to follow Jesus 
This is also a story about fishing  I’ve been fishing been fishing three or four times  Once I realized that fishing was primarily a crack of dawn activity, I knew it wasn’t really for me  Jesus uses a kind of puzzling image about fishing  He says, “Come, follow me, and I’ll show you how to fish for people ” I don’t know about you, but this I find this to be very strange  I realized this week why his image is so confusing to me  What do you imagine when someone talks about fishing? What I imagine when I hear the word “fish” or “fishing” is a fishing pole, the rod, reel, bait, tackle box, worms, that kind of fishing  So I’ve always interpreted what Jesus said this way 
I will make you fishers of men, fishers of men, fishers of men  I will make you fishers of men, if you follow me 
The road Jesus invites these four fishermen to follow him on will mean casting a net of love and welcome to people that they do not anticipate  Jesus will cast his net into the sea of a broken world, filled with sinners, people who have messed up, people who are outsiders, who don’t belong  Jesus will stay in the homes of poor, be guilty of associating prostitutes and touching the hands of people with communicable diseases  Jesus will throw his net into the sea and invite everyone in  Jesus will eventually be arrested and executed because those in power decided his fishing net included a few too many of the wrong people  This is a story about fishing 
This isn’t only a story about four fisherman, or only a story about fishing  It’s also, and perhaps, most importantly, a story about God 
If this is only a story about four fisherman who decide to follow Jesus, the pressures on you and me! After all, aren’t we too called to follow Jesus? Called to be his disciples? Wasn’t that the invitation you first heard when you first heard about Jesus? God has called us and we must decide  Jesus wants us all to follow him, to be like him, to walk in his footsteps, to do what he does  Of course this story is about that! And they do it, don’t they? Simon, Andrew, James, John, they do it! They decide and they do follow Jesus, imperfectly at that  Still, it’s a lot of pressure, a lot of responsibility  If life becomes all about what we do for Jesus, something is missing 
If this is only a story about fishing, have some of us failed? Is it too late for us? Some of us might not be the best at fishing, not all the great about casting Jesus’ loving net to our brothers and sisters  His net is sometimes, or maybe more than sometimes, a bit more expansive than we might be comfortable with  He calls us to be like him and fish for people, and yet, sometimes we can barely get the net into the water  Perhaps for others, we aren’t even convinced that Jesus would include us in the net at all, no matter how deep into the water he goes  He can really mean me? Would his net really reach me? There’s still more to the story 
This is a story about God, who God is, how God acts, what God does  Before Andrew, Simon, James and John follow Jesus, Jesus finds them  Before they follow Jesus, Jesus comes to them! They don’t have to go searching, they have been found  Jesus saw  Jesus spoke  Jesus called  Jesus said, “Come “ We don’t follow Jesus in order to find him, to prove our worthiness with what we do, or even by showing Jesus how big our nets are  We follow Jesus because he first came to us  He came down to the beach to meet these four fishermen  He came specifically for Simon and for Andrew, for James and for John, for you and me 
This blog post was adapted from Pastor Megan’s sermon at Butner Federal Prison on January 25, 2015 
The life of faith consists of seasons  One scholar suggests that we can categorize these seasons of life as seasons of being securely oriented, painfully disoriented, and surprisingly reoriented  These generalizations could apply to our self-acceptance, our relations to significant others, and our participation in public or private life  We might think about these seasons as passages of life, stages of growth, or even identity crises  Acknowledging where we find ourselves in a particular season can allow us to be honest about where we are at in our lives and where we are in relation to God 
The Psalms, a collection of prayers, songs, and poems addressed to God, correspond to these seasons of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation  As we read through the book, we find Psalms where the writer is full of thanksgiving to God, securely oriented in life  We also find Psalms that demonstrate disorientation, perhaps categorized by loss, transition, grief, suffering, or even anger  Finally, some Psalms are written from a perspective of reorientation, wherein the Psalmist transitions from a period of being disoriented to being reoriented in relation to God and others 
The Psalms can become our partner in prayer  Giving us words when we have none, we pray the Psalms joining with all those who have prayed them before us and all who will pray them after we are gone  As we pray the Psalms, we find permission to be utterly honest with God about our feelings and situation, free to speak openly and deeply to God about what we are experiencing  Praying the Psalms also helps us to envision God’s future when we can’t see it ourselves  Lastly, the Psalms guard us against religion or merely thinking about God  Using their words in prayer brings us into direct conversation with the living God, in language we may never have imagined would come from our lips 
-Pray the assigned Psalm from the daily lectionary, with set Scriptures to read each day  Click here to see today’s readings, subscribe to the daily readings by email, or download the app 
-Pray the Psalms using the practice of praying in color  Click here for an excerpt from Sybil MacBeth’s book that gives instructions for praying in color  I have the book available if anyone would like to borrow it  You can read more about praying in color on her website 
-Pray a Psalm, followed by journal writing  Consider these prompts: Where do I find myself in this Psalm? Where do I find my community? How am I being oriented to God in this prayer? What images or metaphors do I find striking? Explore the image more deeply 
-Pray through a list of Psalms, one per day or the same one each day for a week 
-Pray them as a family or with housemates at mealtime or bedtime 
-Pray abbreviated Psalms as breath prayers  A breath Ppayer rhythm is simple: Breathe in slow and deep as you whisper or think on a phrase… Hold your breath… Then exhale 
I will sing to my God as long as I am 
Psalm 8: Lord, our master, how great is your name in all the earth 
Psalm 104: Seek the Lord and his power; seek his face forever  Remember the wonders he has done 
-Pray the Psalms using lectio divina  For instructions on praying lectio divina individually or in groups, click here  There are also instructions for doing lectio divina in color from Sybil MacBeth’s book 
-Pray a Psalm from the category of life within which you find yourself—orientation, disorientation, or reorientation 
Psalms of Orientation: These Psalms reflect a confident belief that the world is well ordered, reliable, and life-giving to the person of faith 
Psalms of Disorientation: These Psalms reflect the brokenness of life, when it is no longer orderly but savage  Spoken out of the depths, they are still bold acts of faith 
Psalms of New Orientation: The pit is not the end of life; there is more  New orientation Psalms reflect the surprise of new possibilities that are experienced as pure gift from God  They are full of thanks 
Citations: The Message of the Psalms and Praying the Psalms by Walter Brueggemann and Getting Involved with God, by Ellen Davis 
Joseph’s story opens in Genesis 37 and it’s a long one



ground_truth: Legacies of Losing in American Politics and an expanded edition of The Rhetorical Presidency in the Princeton Classics series.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Mary tell the disciples?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Joseph was one of 11 kids, the youngest son  In Genesis 37, the story says, “Now Jacob (Joseph’s dad) loved Joseph more than any of his other sons because he was born when Jacob was old  Jacob had made for him a long robe  When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him and couldn’t even talk nicely to him ” Sibling rivalry, jealousy, family drama—maybe a little too familiar for some of us 
Just when you want to feel bad for Joseph, show him sympathy, “Poor kid—he can’t help that he’s the favorite,” Joseph makes himself quickly unlikeable  When Joseph’s head hits the pillow at night, he has vivid dreams about the future, dreams where he rules over his brothers  In one of these dreams, he’s in the field working with his brothers  They each tie a bundle of grain together…I imagine it like a hay bail  His bail rises up, towering and floating in the air above the others, while each of his ten older brother’s bails of hay, bows down to his bail, as if he’s ruling over them like a king  What’s worse—he didn’t keep his mouth shut about his dreams  Nope  He went ahead and announced them at the dinner table  When I imagine this scene, I’m reminded of the importance of friends  He seriously needed a friend to say, “Dude, listen, you have some dreams where you’re awesome and your brothers treat you like a king  They hate you, man  Keep your dreams to yourself ” Joseph lacked such a friend, so he bragged about his dreams—that combined with his fancy North Face jacket that Daddy bought for him only and the favoritism their dad showed him, brought his brothers to plot about how they might rid themselves of this pesky brat forever 
Joseph’s brothers considered killing Joseph, but they settled on kidnapping him and selling him into slavery instead  That way, they wouldn’t have his death on their foreheads, without having to put up with him anymore  They took Joseph’s fancy coat and destroyed it, making it look like a wild animal killed Joseph  This they showed to their father, so that he would assume that Joseph was dead; their dad would never suspect they had any part in his disappearance 
Meanwhile, Joseph was taken off to Egypt where he worked as a slave  Though he did well there and followed all the rules, he became a victim for a second time, when his master’s wife accused him of a crime he didn’t commit  Over a period of 13 years, Joseph worked as a slave and spent years locked up in prison  After a series of unlikely events, some terrible and some remarkable, Joseph rose to power and became the king’s right hand man, his adviser 
With the king’s blessing and support, Joseph led his country in preparing for a famine, putting food away on reserve during seven years of plenty  When a famine struck the land, Egypt was in a good position, able to lean on the reserved food that Joseph had put away  The surrounding lands, including Joseph’s homeland, had to lean on Egypt for food or else they would starve 
Joseph shows his brother’s enormous generosity  He has them go home, pack up and move their entire family, including their elderly father Jacob to Egypt to be near Joseph  Not long after making the trip to Egypt and being reunited with his father, their father, an elderly man at this point, Jacob dies 
And the final chapter of the story opens  Jacob is dead  Their father is gone  Now what?
Realizing that their father was dead, Joseph’s brothers said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong that we did to him?” 16 So they approached[b] Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this instruction before he died, 17 ‘Say to Joseph: I beg you, forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you ’ Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father ” Joseph wept when they spoke to him  18 Then his brothers also wept,[c] fell down before him, and said, “We are here as your slaves ” 19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? 20 Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today  21 So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones ” In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them 
Fear is a powerful force  Fear motivates and fear paralyzes 
It’s a little funny how they phrase the words of their father  The brothers put a great deal of distance between themselves and Joseph  Instead of saying, “Our father told us to tell you…” they say, “Your father to us to tell you…” They distance themselves from Joseph and from the message that their dad supposedly gave them to pass along 
And then, they do it again  “Please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father,” his brothers say  They refer to themselves in third person—“the servants of the God of your father ” It’s not “our crime” that “we committed,” but the crime of these others 
Fear not only keeps them from confession, fear also keeps them from receiving forgiveness  They are scared for their lives the moment their father breathes his last, but haven’t they already been through this conversation with Joseph? At the dinner table, when Joseph revealed his identity to them, he tells them not to worry  “It’s ok  Yeah, it was awful, but look where I am! Look at how God has used me to help save those who would be starving now  I’m even saving you!” Joseph has already offered them forgiveness, but they haven’t fully received it  They haven’t believed what he’s said  Perhaps their views of themselves were so low that they didn’t see themselves worthy of forgiveness  Maybe they’ve carried the guilt for so long about what they’ve done, they fear what life will be like without it  It’s become so much an engrained part of their identity, they don’t know who they are apart from the guilt of what they’ve done  They fear receiving Joseph’s forgiveness  They fear forgiving themselves 
To the plea of the 10 brothers, to this made-up, manipulative, last cry for safety, Joseph has two responses  First, he weeps  His weeping—his display of vulnerability and emotion—causes his brothers to begin to weep also  There they are, 11 grown brothers, weeping on the floor of the house  Why did Joseph begin to weep? The story doesn’t say  Let’s notice, brothers and sisters—the road to releasing fear and offering and receiving forgiveness may not come without weeping 
Fear is a powerful force  Fear is an excellent motivator—moving us to do particular things and act in particular ways  But fear not only motivates, it can also paralyze, cause us to freeze right where we’re at, accept things for how they are  This final chapter begins with the brothers saying to one another, “What if…?” What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us…? Fear finishes the sentence, beginning in the words, “What if…?” Fear finishes the sentence  What if…he still bears a grudge against us? What if…we confess our evil to Joseph and he says that’s the end of us? What if…we ask for forgiveness and he denies it—if I say, will you forgive me, and he says, “no”?
“What if’s” sneak into our minds and hearts 
What if…I never get out of here?
What if I fail as a parent?
What if I don’t belong?
What if no one notices I’m gone?
What if I stand up for what I believe is right and it costs me my reputation?
What if I make a mistake at work and lose my job?
What if I risk opening myself up to someone and get hurt or betrayed again?
What if my body fails me?
What if I can never accept that the past can’t change?
What if I’m not worthy of God’s forgiveness or the forgiveness of those I’ve wronged?
What if I can never forgive myself?
We do not have to live in fear  We do not have to be motivated or paralyzed by it  Look at the God that we serve! Joseph explains how God has been with him  He says to his brothers, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today ” Does this mean that God wanted or desired Joseph’s brothers to kidnap him, throw him into slavery and ruin his life to avenge their jealousy? No  God doesn’t desire that jealousy and revenge rule our lives  God doesn’t will for us to do evil or to harm other people  Rather, God is able to overcome evil and transform it  God can overcome evil! When Jesus was captured, tried as a criminal and sentenced to death, God overcame death, raising Jesus from the death 
This post was adapted from my sermon preached at Butner Federal Prison on September 14, 2014 
We were gathered at the plaza, right between the giant bull statue and the unattractive fences of a construction site  Luminary bags weighted with rice and lit candles marked the sacred space surrounding 30 of us, one to represent each person who died as a result of domestic violence the previous year in our state  The vigil began as planned, simple, but meaningful, to remember victims of this tragedy and raise awareness about the suffering that takes place behind closed doors  About halfway through the simple service, a woman stumbled into the vigil, interrupting the solemn mood without realizing that a group was gathered and someone was speaking  She stood silent for a few moments, listening to the speaker  When she realized that the speaker was talking about domestic violence, she began to interrupt, asking questions to the speaker, sharing details from her own experience with abuse  “What would you do…what would you do if…?” she cried  Then, as unexpectedly as she joined us and as abruptly as her interruption, she began to weep, uncontrollably crying for the rest of the vigil  A couple of women gathered around her and held her as she wept  Before long, it was my turn to pray  I barely got the words out…I could hardly project my shaking voice over her loud sobs 
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted,” Jesus proclaims in the second line of the beatitudes  Blessed are those who mourn  How is this weeping woman, this victim of abuse, blessed? She mourns the injustices she’s experienced, her suffering, the ways her life has been shaped by pain and her inability to free herself from her oppression  Jesus says that this woman and all her sisters and brothers that mourn with her are blessed 
The Jewish culture that Jesus was born into has a rich history of mourning or practicing lament, stretching back hundreds of years before he was born  The prophets and the Psalms include poems, songs, and speeches, recounting the words of people gathered together for public mourning  This mourning wasn’t a kind of crying about having a bad day or because of a frustration at home or work  The mourning Jesus is referencing is the kind of mourning that is a response to injustice and oppression, those who mourn the impact of the powers, both material and spiritual, on the lives of the most vulnerable 
Blessed are those who mourn  Another beatitude and another paradox  Once again, Jesus’ words are outlandish and nonsensical  How is it that those who mourn are blessed? Aren’t those who are happy and fulfilled, aren’t they the ones that are blessed? Yet, in this beatitude, in this paradox, Jesus once again exposes the powers and envisions an alternative  Jesus exposes the powers that cause people to mourn in the first place, those who experience unjust suffering and loss, the same injustices that cause people to be poor in spirit  It’s these people, the mourners, that are blessed, Jesus says  These are the people that Jesus came for  In God’s empire, mourners are not written off or ignored as uncivilized, uneducated, or badly behaved  Instead, in God’s empire, they are the ones who receive God’s comfort and consolation; God’s hears their cries 
Our culture tends to restrict mourning or public displays of emotion to something appropriate for home life or private time  Further, spending time in mourning may be quickly relegated to a waste of time or an inactive posture  The expression, “Don’t just cry about it, do something,” illustrates this clearly  But mourning is not a useless waste of time or an inactive practice  Mourn is a verb  In fact, mourning elicits action and engagement  Mourning exposes the powers, shows their true colors  Seeing people in mourning is disorienting  It interrupts the lives we lead that are detached from suffering and injustice, forcing us to take another look, to pause, to listen, and to join 
The woman who interrupted our solemn vigil for victims of domestic violence exposed the powers with her loud wailing  She made me feel uncomfortable, like I wanted to look away and get away from her as quickly as possible  And yet, her cries made it impossible for me to forget her  The sound of her weeping echoed in my ears for weeks following and if I try, I can still hear them now, over nine months later  Her mourning moves me to engage in seeking justice for others who have suffered like she has 
1  James Howell, The Beatitudes for Today  Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005 , 45 
2  James Howell, The Beatitudes for Today, 46 



ground_truth: "I have seen the Lord.".