Two peculiar traits that I experienced during last weekend. One is of procrastination, while the other is of excessiveness. Both are opposite to each other.
Trait 1, on the procrastinate trait. I didn’t wear any underwear since Friday till Sunday. All my undies were at the drying area and I was lazy to collect them back even though they are already dried for some while.Trait 2, on excessiveness trait. I was filled with inspiration to blog. Hence I broke my own record for numerous blog-posting over a weekend. I posted 14 blogs in two days!
2 posts on Rev. Dr. Stephen Tong.
9 posts to complete the discussion on "The Conquest of Canaan: Did It Happen?"
3 posts on Westminster Theological Seminary’s Historical & Theological Field Committee’s theological approach:
So it makes me wonder whether is there a ‘cause & effect’ relation between not wearing undies and blogging inspiration? I was inspired to blog because I didn’t wear underwear, or I didn’t wear underwear because I was inspired to blog?
Anyone has similar experience?
If the former is true, then I guess Steven Sim, Dominic Foo, and Kenneth wear underwear most of the time, since they seldom blogs nowadays.
If the latter is true, then I guess Kar Yong, Jim West, and Xiaxue don’t wear underwear most of the time, since they blog so frequently.
Perhaps both are false. And wearing undies and blogging inspiration has no whatsoever relation at all.
OK…time to pretend to be learned. The above scenario is a metaphysical problem on ‘causation’. “Causation is the relation between two events that holds when, given that one occurs, it produces, or brings forth, or determines, or necessitates the second…” (‘Causation’, in Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Ed)
The above scenario is asking ‘how’ event A relates to B if they relates at all, which is a much more complex issue from the ‘does’ question. But even on the ‘does’ question, Immanuel Kant and David Hume differ with each other.
To Kant, event A ‘does’ relates to B.
Hume doesn’t think that such relationship exists because, to him, there is no continuity in our perception. He wrote, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other… I never catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception” (Quoted by Thiselton in The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, p.246). In other words, without continuity, there is no relation.
Of course Hume is dead wrong la. And of course it is not I who say so. It’s Thiselton who pointed that out. I’m not quoting Thiselton here because his discussion is complex. He drew his points from many people (see The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, p.246). So I’ll just use an illustration to make the same point.
We experience ‘continuity’ in our daily activities on one hand, and we assume it as our ground to make our daily activities possible on another. For eg. We try to understand the narrative of a movie when we watch it. We perceive the narrative by assuming ‘continuity’ underlies each different scene. Without such assumption, the experience of following the narrative is impossible. Thus, there must be continuity in our perception. So the ‘does’ question is settled. The ‘how’ question is open for further discussion in the future.
Ok… 9am soon… time to start work…