Sunday, 19 October 2014

Ilisaiji

I love teaching. I love watching people learn and I enjoy the classroom interaction (between student and student, and between teacher and student).

My regular readers will know that I'm an admirer of Lev Vygotsky. I try and apply his psychological insights into my classroom, and try and mix covering the subject matter, exegeses of text, input from the students, and providing couching.

These are adult students so I don't have to pretend anything. When I make a mistake the whole class including me laugh about it. Being open and honest as a matter of course provides the students to not only share with the group without having to feel self-conscious but also provides room to apply their own knowledge in a safe environment. I'm naturally a lover of ideas but I try and make the basic principles of discourse alive while cognizant of the fact that learning is not based on a schedule but is a currency of social interaction.

When one approach is losing the students I try another approach. My analogue of knowledge is not a castle with many rooms but rather a landscape with land marks. These land marks are based on geology (principles and theoretical frameworks) and built up on ideas (the biomass that has the capacity to evolve and even generate original insights).

In this particular case of teaching medical terminology/interpreting, the anatomy and physiology are the geological foundations that scaffold the basic coordinate system which in turn holds the key to latin- and greek- taxonomic principles of medical terms and concepts. The major land marks comprise the skeletal mountain over there, the circulatory hills between muscles and organs, etc.

Granted, the analogy is a bit stretched but it's the organizing principles that act as a mnemonic device where one concept supports another which in turn supports another concept. One memory links up to another memory and the overview informs the learner. Ever the linguist, I try and take every opportunity to point out certain recurring patterns in medical terminology and what the prefixes, roots and suffixes refer to. When the linkages are made by the students themselves with terms in common usage a whole new world is opened up.

Though I try and not underplay the Inuit Language terminology (which, to me, is utterly important), I know that acquiring the skills to unlock and decipher the source scientific concepts reinforces the Inuit Language skills and the students' ability to describe and explain them to themselves and others. The English language is on equal footing with the Inuit Language.

In my line of work I have that fortunate but rare luxury of being able to discourse in one language and when that doesn't seem to be working to revert to another language 'til the students find their bearings again. This approach actually works, and it works beautifully.

The whole point of learning to me is to demystify knowledge and re-enchant the world with informed creativity and wonder. The power to surprise and delight is unlocked. Human dignity is reclaimed.

Jay

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Theology: an abomination

I recently had an experience—a negative spiritual experience if you will—that shook me to the very foundations of my yet-naive faith. I've been regularly attending a weekly Bible study group since I moved to Rankin Inlet, and I considered it a sign-from-heaven of sorts that I would meet people who have similar perspective and desire for sanity in our lives. That is, until someone in the group chose to speak about the doctrine of eternal damnation.

His session went relatively well. I mean, as believers in the Gospel of Christ, I do not think any one of us in the group would deny the discourse of our Lord on the serious realities of evil and hell, and the Lord's admonishments against the subtle wiles of fleshly passions and selfish regard: "your sins are forgiven...go and sin no more".

It was the week after that, when someone chose to speak about the doctrine of eternal salvation, that things took a turn to something akin to seeing Yoda's dark side. That the proponent of eternal damnation would emphasize particular words in his selected passages with much gusto (let's say) and that at no point does the Holy Scriptures say that should one ever go back to "boozing, whoring and back-biting!" kind of floored me. I was stunned. And I don't think I was the only one.

Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3: 1-3a:

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly.

I'm still in that state of spiritual infancy (am practically a zygote, as it turns out). I must admit that I'm not even averse to the notion that I'm a fool when it comes to the Bible and prone to sin without much effort. But I strive for growth and awareness.

This is why I would not be surprised if someone could tell me and convince me that I am wrong to think that theology is evil (and even satanic). I seem to recall a passage in the bible that basically says that to think we can measure the width, breadth and height of G*d is a grave sin indeed (hubris). But I haven't been able to locate exactly where that is.

AW Tozer, in his sermon titled, Facing the Infinite G*d, writes:

God dwells in a mode of being totally beyond us and wholly above us and infinately removed from us yet when we think about God we are trying to think about someone unlike anything we know. God says, Who am I like? or to whom will you compare me? The answer being, nobody; nobody's like God, nothing's like God. God is like Himself.
...
You see, friends, theology is what we can learn about God but knowing God is quite something else altogether. Now, anything that I'll say this morning, any intelligent sinner can understand and then go to hell. But eternal life is knowing God and not knowing about God. The difference between a theologian and a saint is that the saint knows God and the theologian knows about God. (http://www.neve-family.com/books/tozer/FacingTheInfiniteGod.html)

and he continues:

But if you're studying doctrine, you can teach doctrine, and study doctrine and not be a Christian. And I have no doubt that many Bible teachers aren't truly Christians; they only know about God, they are specialists in the Book of Romains [sic] and Ephesians and Hebrews but they don't know the God of Romains nor Ephesians nor Hebrews. And you can go to Bible conferences and you can hear theology--or doctrine as we like to call it--you can hear doctrine, and you can understand the doctrine, and yet not know God at all.

"This is eternal life that they might know (God) Thee", and "know" there means experience. There is a difference between knowing and experiencing. I know about Eisenhower but I have never experienced Eisenhower. I have never see him, I have never shaken hands with him. I have never heard his voice, except over the radio; I have never experienced Eisenhower, and yet I know about Eisenhower. Anything that I can or shall say about God this morning any sinner can get it, if he's intelligent, and yet go to hell in the end. So don't get puffed up if you happen to feel, well, you understand about God's infinitude. That doesn't mean anything to you, unless you have been born of the Spirit and washed in the blood, because over here in the book of First Corinthians we read this: "It is written, Eye hath not seen, nor eye heard, neither has it enter into the heart of man the thing which God hath prepared for him that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so, the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God."

My recent experience of Yoda's dark side frightened me. My view of these experts in G*d's Word has changed. Has my faith in the Gospel of Christ changed? I don't think so. If anything, it seems to have been renewed and that I have grown from the experience: though the Way, the Truth and the Life is constant and eternal, we (human beings) are all fallible, even fragile. We have our off days and we have our good days.

I have compassion for all of the guys in the Bible study group. But the leadership in these types of fellowships must always consider the possibility of an off day lest the souls in their charge lose faith.

Jay

Monday, 13 October 2014

Proofiness

"We are lucky to have a PM who is an expert in so many fields....it makes you wonder why we are paying so many people to do jobs Stephen Harper could easily do himself."
-Melvin Argue, in a posted comment in a Post Media article (http://o.canada.com/news/national/stephen-harper-intervenes-in-purchase-of-new-missiles-source)

One of my favourite authors on mathematics is Charles Seife. He wrote Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. He also wrote another book called, Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception.

In the intro section of Proofiness he writes:

Our world is now awash in proofiness. Using a few powerful techniques, thousands of people are crafting mathematical falsehoods to get you to swallow untruths. Advertisers forge numbers to get you to buy their products. Politicians fiddle with data to try and get you to reelect them. Pundits and prophets use phony math to get you to believe predictions that never seem to pan out. Businessmen use bogus numerical arguments to steal your money. Pollsters, pretending to listen to what you have to say, use proofiness to tell you what they want you to believe.

Sometimes people use these techniques to try and convince you of frivolous and absurd things. Scientists and others have used proofiness to show that Olympic sprinters will one day break the sound barrier and that there's a mathematical formula that determines who has a perfect butt. There's no limit how absurd proofiness can be. (Proofiness, p.4)

In a word, these people, including Stephan Harper, are willing to "commit sociology" to advance their own interests. They're relying on (counting on) our basic ignorance and fear of anything mathematical to make us behave in ways they'd like us to behave—whether we behave exactly as they want us to or achieve inaction out of frustration or confusion...the house always wins.

That is, the house wins—in this case—if we let it. For the anti-intellectual it is utterly hopeless. The reason, though, all is not hopeless is that we're still capable of thought and honest, critical examination of our basic principles and values of life and then decide what we will do or will not do with a piece of information or fact.

The piece where Melvin Argue is quoted above provides an example of a seemingly relatively harmless politic play (I mean, who really cares which fat-cat gets the contract?). But to regard it as harmless misses a whole complex of public accounting principles, the checks and balances of good governance and even the history of our democratic society where principles of good and responsible government have been used to shed blood and offer up Canadian souls as the ultimate sacrifice. Any one of these reason should suffice to warrant serious investigation or debate in the House of Commons.

But Harper has been able to make a sad mockery of our society and hard-won democratic institutions with (apparently) nary a peep from Canadians and much to the glee of his base, his financiers and the now-bloated media monitoring system he has bought for partisan purposes with Canadian tax dollars.

The oft-used phrase that the Canadian media is biased against Harper's conservative 'values' is a much useful propaganda tool not because the 'leftist media elites' are really against Harper but because the journalistic tradition in Canada has yet a strong bent towards the notion of its civil duties and the belief that an informed citizenry is essential to the vitality of our society as a whole, and Harper does not really make the cut under that system of values.

If there was any authenticity to Harper he wouldn't, shouldn't be mewling every time the system of checks and balances demands solid workmanship to pass his and the PMO's half-baked, anti-democratic ideas that would serve his short-term interests but have long-term detrimental consequences to the Canadian society.

Now, is that the type of character in leadership our 150 years of existence should accept even implicitly?

Our system works and works beautifully. Non-violent, non-coercive and democratic means and institutions are at our disposal. On July 14, 1776 the colonies of the New World issued a declaration against an instituted oligarchy that Harper seems intent on imposing upon the regular citizenry. The Post Media piece should be, must be interpreted as a serious breach and in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which in part says:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Jay

Sunday, 12 October 2014

"Accurate without being true"

As a language scientist, I'd say that my approach to the craft is more in the tradition of 'natural philosophy' (ie, as in Newton defined himself as a 'natural philosopher') than in our modern day notions of what a scientist is. That is to say that I'm less interested in accumulating data-sets, though I appreciate them and am an ironically good analyst, than I am interested in stretching and expanding and reverse-engineering the structures of my craft.

I'm as interested in the science of linguistics as I am in the applied language arts (rhetoric; oratory; poetics; philosophy; politics; etc.). I'm actually an able poet (when inspiration hits me) as I am an analyst; the rhyme and meter fascinate me as much as metaphor and a clever turn of phrase. My belief in the equality of all human languages is a tested and consciously aware conclusion. I've experimented in translation of Western classics, have written poetry in the sonnet form and have created an Inuktitut limerick.

Why am I saying all this?

I have a certain passion for politics.

Harper flummoxes me, irritates me, annoys me, challenges me, fascinates me. His disingenuous, though amateurishly clumsy, treatment of facts in his rhetoric works precisely because his whole milieu is a constructed bubble of demagogic mise-en-scene. He is a blunt little tool and rarely engages in situations where his sole talent would be utterly useless. His fawning audience, his hand-selected cadre of journalists (what we would generously call "publicists"), his immature and unquestioning, spoon-fed cushion of advisers and courtiers give a certain impression of daunting impassiveness.

Any rap star, boy band or Milli Vanelli what-have-yous know these tricks inside out. But we talking about a democracy: our democracy.

One cannot decimate legislation, implement public policy on personal feelings, mix good and sound ideas with bad ones in an omnibus bill for the sole purpose of cheap gotcha politics, and expect sustainability of vision and long-lasting legacy pieces that would attest to your time in the highest office of the land.

When people like Calandra, Del Mastro, Poilieve, etc. stand up in the House and make spectacularly outrageous offenses against our notions of good governance, when costly pieces of legislation are thrown out because they do not meet constitutional standards, when one is seen to favour one region over another, when public announcements do not pan out, when trusted and respected public figure are viciously attacked for speaking out, etc. etc. all of these things add up to not a "master strategist" at work but incompetent indifference the best of which is illustrated by a fictitious character like Joffery from the Game of Thrones and at worse a diva-like third world dictator.

The title of this entry comes from a quote by David McLaughlin (former head of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy) who was commenting on Harper's performance and public statements contrasted against Commissioner Julie Gelfand's recently released report on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions:

He says Harper's statements to the House of Commons are factually accurate in that Canada's overall emissions are currently lower than they were when the Conservatives came to office in 2006 and the economy has grown since then.

A multitude of factors are involved in those lower emissions, notably the global financial crisis that began to bite in 2008 and created a major recession in 2009.

"The economy went off a cliff," said McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. "The emissions upward path dropped in conjunction with the drop in economic growth. Same thing happened in the U.S."

Harper's response in the Commons, said McLaughlin, "is a classic example of accuracy versus veracity."

"It's accurate without being true — in the sense that it's accurate the numbers show that, but it's not true in showing we're on a path to reducing overall emissions and to meet targets."

Harper is on shakier ground, however, when he claims emissions decreased "thanks to our plan."

Industries are more energy efficient, they've moved away from energy-intensive manufacturing to service industry work, and provincial measures — notably Ontario's move away from coal-fired electricity generation — have also played a major role.


"It's not true that it's on the basis of a series of distinct government actions, at the federal level anyway," McLaughlin said. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/10/stephen-harper-ghg-emissions-economy-baloney_n_5964354.html)

Actually, everything that Harper does and says has always been on "shaky ground"—in an amateurish kind of way. The above quote illustrates this perfectly: he tends to take credit for a certain aspect of a given situation he's had nothing to do with while placing blame upon others for the less flattering aspects of the self-same thing.

What makes it amateurish is that his claims to credit and attribution are provable 'objective' facts rather than attributable to anything he has done or chosen to have not done based on his oft-claimed but rarely demonstrated "set of principles". He is rather like a kid who says he fixed the car because his father let him hold the flashlight while changing the oil.

What really irks me about the demagoguery of Harper is that he's made no effort to actually learn the craft of sophistry, to let us be seduced with his wares if only for a moment. It irks me because it's a glaring statement about the failure of our education system on him and his generation. He has no personality, is not a character, and what is left is a love letter from a creepy Peter Griffin who only nibbled your ear and now your ear feels filthy.

Jay

Saturday, 11 October 2014

Ephesians 6:12

When I was a kid I used to have terrifying night terrors about the end of the world. I hated going to church, and my leeriness of attending church persists today. I doubt I'll willingly ever set foot in a church again. As a believer in Christ I really do not see a contradiction: I'm a Christian, psychological anatheist ('anatheism' is defined by Richard Kearney as 'seeking a rebirth of faith after the loss of faith' and it is this and this alone on which I base my self label as anatheist).

After many, many years away from church and *simplistic folk religion I think I finally heard the 'still, small voice'. I think my many years of Asperger's-like obsession with the mathematico-physical sciences played a role in my anatheism. When I read the first few verses of Psalm 19 during the period of dark fear that recently dominated my life my decision to 'seek the rebirth of faith' was set.

*'simplistic' here does not mean the saintly people of simple faith that have always been drawn to Christ but the black-and-white, militantly antagonistic, demonic corporatism of right-wing ideology.

The vulcanization of corporatism in the so-called "christian right" and "islamic fundamentalism" (ie, using G*d's name in vain) is part of the culmination of sectarian violence that currently threatens world peace.

St Paul is clear and could not be clearer: this religiously -driven and -defined unrest is utter evil not because it is a fight of 'good against evil' (all parties to this culmination all seem willing to justify the means to their nefarious ends), but because of unsustainable, historic developments of institutionalized evil (violence, greed, hubris, envy, ignorance, willfulness, etc.): For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12)

This evil does not start in far-off lands, away from the geographical and ideological divides that delineate 'us from them'. It is a reactionary bomb whose fire is currently consuming all of us. One side is reacting against what they perceive to be historic wrongs; the other side is reacting against what they perceive as threats to long-standing but crumbling power structures.

The rise of people like Harper, Rove and the Koch brothers is mirrored by the rise of a decidedly millennial Islamic fundamentalism. This being the case, the devil we know is not very assuring.

The apocalypse is often portrayed as ultimate fight of good against evil, but that is rather wrong-headed in my view: it is G*d and the Messiah judging human society as violent and evil and intervening to protect the 'remnant'in every instance of G*d intervening in Jewish (and human) history since the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt has always been to protect a remnant, seemingly irrespective of whether the individuals are morally and religiously worthy of salvation, at least to worldly expectations. In the book of Nehemiah, the remnant, after many years of exile, has become ignorant of the Jewish religion and need to be retaught the Book of the Law of Moses during the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

In fact, the remnant in St John's Book of Revelation seems to have little or no active role in the ultimate war. War is already happening when the Christ comes down with His heavenly army to protect His remnant. This makes sense because the Christ and the prophets before Him have always claimed that G*d is not interested in religiosity (and neither in our status within a religious community) but how we treat each other as human beings.

Jay

Saturday, 4 October 2014

Plain and simple wins the race

It has always been humanity's experience that plain and simple ideas are the most beautiful. Elegance is beautiful while convoluted agglomerations are ugly.

Not all things of complexity are ugly. Most of the natural phenomena and specialized fields of activity/study tend to achieve a level of complexity but what makes them elegant is that their reality are based on first principles linked by internally consistent logical systems (ie, can be explained and/or described as simple systems or in rationally logical terms).

Some require specific intermediate steps and the right combinations and conditions to achieve full development; some require only specific shapes and geometries. Life processes and chemical compounds are of the former type; the material implements of the Inuit culture are of the latter. I've often been struck by the inherent elegance of Inuit cultural artifacts.

The other day I attended an opening ceremony of a college course where an Inuk woman was talking about and explaining the mechanical and material principles of optimizing the use of a qulliq (Inuit ovoid-shaped lamp) while she prepared the qulliq for lighting. She described the geometry, orientation, and physical properties of the different materials used to make a qulliq, the chemical make up and uses of different types of oil and wick material, and, at the end of her demonstration, she pointed out the calmness that had descended upon the room (even on those who didn't understand her spoken words).

The first principles she described made no appeal to latin or complicated scientific terminologies and yet she was able to achieve something only few and rare species of teachers and mentors can achieve: insight and comprehension. Her style of teaching reminded me of the fable "stone soup":

Stone Soup is an old folk story in which hungry strangers persuade local people of a town to give them food. It is usually told as a lesson in cooperation, especially amid scarcity. In varying traditions, the stone has been replaced with other common inedible objects, and therefore the fable is also known as button soupwood soupnail soup, and axe soup. It is Aarne-Thompson tale type 1548. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup)

This is Inuit style of teaching par excellence. It involves the student's natural intelligence, linguistic and motor competence and curiosity/imagination; it watches for and celebrates the internal happenings in the student as things (first principles) become clear and lucid enough for the student to gain confidence to try things out and/or innovate.

I try and not give in to the temptations of  romanticizing Inuit culture. My belief and knowledge with respect to Inuit culture and language is that these can more than stand on their own. Its practitioners may not have the language and/or conscious awareness to fully bring out the beauty but it is there nonetheless underlying everything the person utters and does. You may have seen its ineffable reality.

I know someone I care about deeply has seen it, felt it. In her stories of her first experiences of Inuit culture (she was involved with an Inummarik) I can see that spark of imagination. She's also asked questions or made observations that have helped me become more consciously aware of things I had took for granted. Her errors and spot-on observations help me perceive that ineffable beauty more clearly.

Jay

Sunday, 28 September 2014

Why dialectical methods are important to cultivating critical thinking skills

As an amateur philosopher I'm a firm believer in striving for excellence, and (though some of my readers would be hard-pressed to believe) clarity and elegance of thought. When I first read Socrates' insistence on beauty and goodness as final arbiters of truth, something stirred deep within me: something that compelled me to look beyond the sometimes frustrating lines of questioning that Socrates employed to challenge his interlocutors to dig deeper than their presumptions and assumptions.

It was not (particular) conclusions and certainty (nor was it striking down his students) he sought but goodness and beauty that is inherent in G*d's creation that is immediately obvious to anyone who'd but reflect upon it. -In his less guarded moments he betrays his belief in a monotheistic G*d, and, right to the end, tries to emulate that beauty, goodness, humility and integrity in all that he does.

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method)

If Socrates had any "enemies" it was the so-called sophists who—like the modern day militant right-wing demagogues (religious and political)—were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain or impress or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching which came to be called the Socratic method. (ibid)

At the heart of Socrates' method is the notion of aporia (usually translated as "doubt") which seems to have reached its maturity in Aristotle's works:

In Aristotle's Metaphysics aporia plays a role in his method of inquiry. In contrast [my emphasis] to a rationalist inquiry that begins from a priori principles, or an empiricist inquiry that begins from a tabula rasa, he begins the Metaphysics by surveying the various aporiai that exist, drawing in particular on what puzzled his predecessors: "with a view to the science we are seeking [i.e., metaphysics], it is necessary that we should first review the things about which we need, from the outset, to be puzzled" (995a24). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia)

Doubt, then, is not a concept—as employed by Socrates—merely to flummox (ie, to perplex and confuse) the interlocutor into silence and frustration but prods them to further seek to clarify and rationally defend their positions (as far as possible) rather than fall back into dogma, prejudice and unexamined chauvinism.

To paraphrase Nicholas Rescher: assertions stemming from certainty have a way of coming back and biting us because taken in isolation that which is utterly believable is often (psychologically and socially) untenable in light of even our own prototypical (ie, unexamined) notions of justice and equity.

The Harper Government and the Tea Party movement in the US, being "rock[s] standing out in an ocean of doubt and compromise" (to quote Roger Waters), seem especially prone to dissonance and spectacular failures of consistency with their own espoused political and ideological principles:

Harper's vitriolic public statements on Putin and the need for imposing economic sanctions on Russia are demonstrably inconsistent with the exceptions he's quietly but unilateral defined for the oil and gas industries of Russia; China and communism were once evil, and, though communism is still evil, China is economically important never mind that its state-owned corporations are its chosen vehicles for trade: Harper's foreign policy has always been about not "going along to get along" but recently he's become seemingly committed to using the Canadian military to fight ISIL while at the same time de-emphasizing the opposition parties' desire for Canada's expressed role in providing humanitarian aid to the internally-displaced and the ever-growing refugee crisis in the Middle East.

As a younger me, I was always so quick to display false intellectual bravado and always had such "strong and certain" political and philosophical positions on anything and everything. Though I still revert back into that certainty at times, I have begun to realize that there is only humble pie to eat, and realize as well that it is there for a simple reason that it is the only spiritually and intellectually nourishing fare.*

There are other forms of dialectical methods. Hegelian dialectics, for example, seem more advanced and sophisticated than the Socratic method but I'll leave that for my readers to explore. It is the basic principles of dialectical method I want to outline here, one based on intellectual honesty and humility that formed and informed the method.

Jay

*for those interested in the notion of humility and grace of G*d, I'd recommend highly, Humility by Andrew Murray (http://www.cec-sd.org/materials/Humility_by_Andrew_Murray.pdf)