Perfect Failure : The Tao of Spencer

" I'm a Failure :-) "

The Remainders suffered 

Total Defeat

Remove the Scots and the Irish from the equation - 

despite the corruption of Cosmopolitan Urban Elites and their Identity Politics, The English and The Welsh voted  overwhelmingly to Leave and came out in their droves to say so - this was an absolute landside.

The Remainders were utterly routed at the ballot box - they have been decisively beaten, and taken a blow to their confidence that will shatter all of their assumptions and from which they will never recover.

WE ARE GODZILLA

YOU ARE JAPAN

and from now on, things are going to be done a little differently around here....

You have been weighed,

You have been measured,

And you have been found wanting a pair of Big Brass Testes.

Well, you're very fortunate, in that case....

Because take a good look at theses, boys...

YOU HAVE HIT ROCK BOTTOM

WHICH MEANS THAT FOR YOU, THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER...

AND THE ONLY WAY IS UP, BABY...

4U + ME, NOW

"Jesus, this is such an obviously dull and foredoomed notion that I don't have much stomach for it, myself ... and frankly I doubt if we could generate much stomach for it in anybody else.

This visceral reaction just occurred to me, about eighteen seconds ago. And now, after eighty more seconds of further reflection, I can see where 

I couldn't possibly involve myself in any kind of political effort, next year, that wouldn't focus on
 TOTAL VICTORY OR DEFEAT 
in November 1972. 

Anything less than that would deprive us, I think, of that energy edge that comes with running an honest, full-bore campaign... and the loss of that edge would be fatal to the only advantage we have. 


What we have to decide, then, is what exactly would constitute a flat-out run for a "victory" in '72....

Hunter S. Thompson,

Manifesto for Project Iguana,

Woody Creek, 1971

1972 Presidential Election Result,
November 7th 1972

"The Strength of this Movement is that we are consistently, and systematically UNDERESTIMATED by The Opposition, who do not know truly what it is that we got.

And we accept that.

We Accept That."

- Bro. Steve Cokely

Agape (Ancient Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē) is 

"love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."

Not to be confused with "philēo" – brotherly love – agápē embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends, that serves regardless of circumstances. 

The noun form first occurs in the Septuagint, but the verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead." 

Other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros, an affection of a sexual nature.


In Christianity Agape is considered to be the love originating from God or Christ for humankind.

In the New Testament, it refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one's fellow man...

Harrowing of Hell : Christ leads Adam by the hand. 
On scroll in border, the motto 'Entre tenir Dieu le viuelle'

Jesus Christ was tried on a Thursday, 
Crucified and Buried on a Friday, 
and raised up and returned to Life and Eternal Glory on a Monday.

And from Friday, through Sunday, Christ went to went to Hell....

And Life, followed with Him....





  "The whole world's watching! 
Knock me out!!

Harder! 
Can you hit hard? 

Hit me harder!

Yeah!

My mother hits harder than that!
Come on!!

A little harder. 
Hit me in the face!!

C'mon, Champ!

You ain't so bad!!
Ain't so bad!

You ain't nothin'!"

Fight Club - Homework scene from Adam Fletcher on Vimeo.

"This week, each one of you has a homework assignment. 

You’re gonna go out, you’re gonna start a fight with a total stranger…

[there’s a pause as he drools blood]

You’re gonna start a fight... 

...and you’re gonna lose."

"And you open the door and you step inside.

We're inside our hearts

Now imagine your pain as a white ball of healing light

That's right, your pain

The pain itself, is a white ball of healing light"

I DON'T THINK SO.

This is your Life, 

Good to the last drop

It doesn't get any better than this.

This is your life, 

and it's ending one minute at a time

This isn't a seminar. 

This isn't a weekend retreat.

Where you are now, you can't even imagine what the bottom will be like

Only after disaster can we be resurrected

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything

Nothing is Static 

Everything is Evolving

Everything is Falling Apart

This is your Life

Doesn't get any better than this

This is your Life

And it and it's ending one-minute at a time

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake

You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else

We are all part of the same compost heap

We are the all singing, all dancing, crap of the world

You are not your bank account

You are not the clothes you wear

You are not the contents of your wallet

You are not your bowel cancer

You are not your grande latte

You are not the car you drive

You are not your fucking khakis

YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP

YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP

YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT SOMEDAY YOU WILL DIE

Until You Know That, 

YOU ARE USELESS

I say let me never be complete

I say may I never be content

I say deliver me from Swedish furniture

I say deliver me from clever art

I say deliver me from clear skin and perfect teeth

I say you have to give up

I say evolve, and let the chips fall where they may

This is your Life

Doesn't get any better than this

This is your Life

And it and it's ending one-minute at a time

YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP

YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP

I WANT YOU TO HIT ME, AS HARD AS YOU CAN

Welcome to Fight Club

If This is Your First Night - You have to Fight.

"No-1 wants 2 B defeated..."
Michael Jackson,

Beat It

"Wrong! Conan! What is Best in Life?"

Crush your enemies. 
See dem driven befo' you,
and
Hear dee lamentations of der vimmen.

"If you don’t understand your own weird, shitty side...

If you don’t understand the fact that there’s someone in there who will kill your mother, if need be – 

If you can’t take that on... 

If you can’t take that on board and realise that Charles Manson and me and you are not much different... 

That John Wayne Gacy and me and you are not much different 

– except that he did it. 

Y’know, there’s those days when I’m gonna kill that motherfucker over there – but we don’t do it.

But it’s in us, and it’s there. 

And so much of this is denial. 
That we have no dark side. 

You know: the hippies, and those lovely people in the rave era who were all on ecstasy – they tried to pretend we have no dark side. 

And what happened was they got fucked up by their own dark side. 

As will ALWAYS happen.

So let’s kiss our Dark Sides

Let’s FUCK our Dark Sides. 

Get him down there where He belongs. 

And He can tell us stuff.

 Y’know, that thing’s useful.

But above all: let’s become plex-creatures. 

Complex, superplex – be able to take on new personality traits; able to take on new ideas; able to adapt; 

able to extend our boundaries into what was previously the ‘Enemy Territory’ – 

until the point where 
We Become what was once our Enemy, 

and They are Us, 

and there is no distinction."

Grant Morrisson

GET BEHIND ME, SATAN !!

Pennsylvania Syndrome

"If you walk up to the front gate of the White House and ask to speak to the President, they will say to you "No, go away"; if you then go around to another gate and ask to see the President, you are immediately picked up and taken away to St. Elizabth's Psychiatric Hospital.

They have an actual diagnosis for this, they have about 120 or so a year - they call them "White House Cases".

If you try to get into the White House, then you're delusional - and the reason that you're delusional is because they think the President of the the United States wants to help them - this is in writing." 

- John Judge on the wave of would-be-Clinton Assassins, 

October 1994

Milk (Not Mother's)

The apron and its symbolism

By Bro. F.R. Worts, M.A., P.A.G.D.C. HISTORY OF THE APRON¹  There can be no doubt that the Masonic apron has been developed from the apron worn by operative masons in the middle ages. The few examples surviving show that the operative apron was fashioned from the skin of an animal, most probably a sheep. It was large enough to cover the wearer from chest to ankles, and its fall was held by a leathern thong which passed round the neck. From each side a thong, firmly stitched, enabled the mason to tie the apron round his waist, and the tied bow tended to fall as end-strings. The use of this rough apron continued for many centuries ; the woven apron used by modern masons is comparatively late; it came into use in the eighteenth century.  The earliest representations of the Freemason’s Apron are seen on the engraved portrait of Antony Sayer, the first G.M. of the modern Craft. (1717), and on the frontispiece illustration of Anderson’s first Book of Constitutions (1723). In the former, unfortunately, only the upper part of the apron is visible, and what appears to be the bib or flap is raised. In the second example a Tyler is bringing into the hall a number of aprons ; these have long tie-strings which seem to be of leather. They are also large, well capable of covering a man from chest to: ankles. The method of tying-on the apron was that of operative masons, with the bow and strings in front ; this method was continued later, even when silk or linen strings were used.  The leather apron died hard. Despite the use of softer materials from possibly 1740 onwards, it survived in use until at least 1811. The evidence of this is the first official reference to the apron found in the G.L. minutes of 17th March, 1731 : ²

Masters and Wardens of particular Lodges may line their white leather Aprons with white silk, and may hang their Jewels at white Ribbons about their Necks." (A.Q.C., x, p. 146.)

This regulation was repeated in the 1738 and in subsequent editions of the Constitutions up to and including Noorthouck’s edition (1784), which was the last edition before 1815.  Crowe contended that by 1738 linen had supplanted leather, but Rylands disagreed ; both scholars, however, thought it possible that in the 1730’s some masons were experimenting with fabrics other than leather for their aprons.³  We do not know when the very long aprons went out of use. Only four of Rylands' plates (Nos. 2, 8, 10, 23), depicting non-operative aprons, show the apron to be long. The most interesting of these is No. 23, dated 1754. It shows a group of six Masons and only one of them is certainly wearing a long apron. He is, presumably, the S.W. ; he wears a level as Collar-jewel, and his apron-flap is down. The sixth figure, probably the Tyler, with drawn sword and no Collar-Jewel, wears his flap up.  The early fashion of wearing the bib or flap up soon fell into disfavour. The flap was either cut off or worn down as a fall. Rylands' illustrations offer only two or three examples of the raised flap (Nos. 1, 1717; 23, 1754; 42, 1784). Of his pictures Nos. 1 to 38, no less than nine, it seems, have no flap; in the remainder the flaps are down.  It is evident from surviving aprons and illustrations of the early period that they were designed to be worn with the flap up and fastened, by means of a button-hole, to a button on the coat or waistcoat. Many of these old aprons have a button-hole in the flap, but there seems to have been a tendency amongst Master Masons to wear the flap down or to dispense with it altogether. ⁴ (See Illustrations c and g.)  From 1731 onwards the apron began to assume a more convenient shape, usually kneelength. Leather gave way to softer fabrics, silk, satin, velvet, linen, and chamois-leather. The flap, when retained, was either cut to a triangular form or in a semi-circular line. The latter was increasingly adopted-by M.M.’s, presumably to mark their distinctive rank. The lower part of the apron was sometimes squared off, but generally the corners were trimmed to give a semi-circular line, and the leather thongs were displaced by ribbons or strings.  According to Dermott (Ahiman Rezon, 1764, pp. 24-3 1), some " Modern" Masons, objecting to the working apron of the operatives, introduced a new mode of wearing their aprons upside down; what was formerly the lowest part was now fastened round the abdomen and the bib and strings hung downwards, dangling in such a manner as might convince spectators that there was not a working mason amongst them. Blackham states that this "subterfuge" was introduced between 1730 and 1740, but it was short-lived. ⁵  Before 1760, elaborately-painted or embroidered aprons came into fashion and continued to be favoured until the Union (1813). Many of these aprons were home-made, often artistically finished and adorned with symbolic designs. From 1760 onwards the printed and engraved aprons appeared, many of them being subsequently coloured by hand. (See Illustration n.)  The tendency to decorate Masonic aprons with symbolic designs began in the 1730’s, and between 1740 and 1790 this practice became widespread. These efforts were mostly crude, but many surviving examples reveal skill and taste. Indian ink, paint and embroidery were commonly used for this ornamentation. The most popular designs usually included the All-Seeing Eye, the Columns, and the Square and Compasses, all evidence of the advance of Speculative Masonry in the second half of the eighteenth century. (See Illustrations o, p, q.) Rylands sums up the matter thus: —

". . . by 1784 the apron was greatly reduced in size . . . for a long time there had been considerable laxity . . . and no definition laid down as to uniformity. So long as the material was white the face might be decorated with any number of Masonic symbols or other symbols without infringing the law, provided always that it did not interfere with the privileges of the Grand Officers, who used a purple edging to their aprons . . . The size had grown smaller and smaller. (See Illustrations a, b, l.)  . . . it was quite within the power of each mason to invent for himself almost any apron he pleased." ⁶

In the Library of the Province of Yorkshire (West Riding) is an apron dated about 1820. It is small, hand-made, of white linen edged with narrow light blue ribbon, and there is no other adornment. The strings are very long and of the same blue ribbon. The flap is down; it is cut to a semi-circular line; but it is also cut into two halves, each half forming a semi-circle, and the two parts being neatly edged with the blue ribbon. Among the "Antients" it became a common practice to draw or paint on their aprons the coat of arms of their own Grand Lodge, but in the main the Atholl Masons adopted the fashions of the "Moderns" ; indeed., they indulged their fancy even more freely than their rivals in the choice and use of embellishments. On 2nd September, 1772, the Atholl G.L. passed the following resolution: —

"It having been represented to the G.L. that several Brethren have lately appeared in public, with gold lace and fringe, together with many devices on their aprons, &c., which was thought inconsistent with the dignity, propriety and ancient custom of the Craft, Resolved and Ordered That for the future, no Brethren, Grand Officers excepted, shall appear with gold lace, gold fringe, gold embroidery, or anything resembling gold, on their Masonic clothing or ornaments." (Ahiman Rezon, 1807, pp. 90-91.)

This was simply a ban on gold decoration ; there was still no attempt to prescribe uniformity of design. BLUE RIBBONS AND BLUE SILK  The resolution of the Grand Lodge on March 17th, 1721, ordained that:

"None but the Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens shall wear their Jewels in Gold or gilt pendant to Blue Ribbons about their Necks, and White Leather aprons with Blue Silk ; which Sort of Aprons may also be worn by former Grand Officers."

This was the first official mention of Blue Silk as a trimming for aprons, and it is clear that the Blue was originally reserved for Grand Officers. The Rawlinson MS., c. 1740, mentions: " Two Grand Masters aprons Lined with Garter blue silk and turned over two inches with white silk strings."  By 1745-50 Grand Officers were beginning to edge their aprons with purple ribbon. The light blue, gradually given up by the Grand Officers, was soon adopted by Master Masons, and since there was no official ruling on the subject (until 1815), blue-edged aprons became fairly common with the rank and file of the Craft from about 1745 onwards.  Uniformity and regularity in the material, design, form and decorations of the apron were not officially insisted upon by the United Grand Lodge until 2nd March, 1814. The pattern was submitted and agreed to on the 2nd May; then the order for a general uniformity was issued. The Constitutions (1815), p. 123, prescribed:

Washington's Masonic Apron

The apron is perhaps the most symbolically important emblem found in speculative Masonry.  It is made of pure white lambskin and is worn by every Mason to all Lodge events.  The apron is the first symbol explained to the Entered Apprentice (1st degree, Blue Lodge) and the first tangible evidence that he possesses of his admission into the fraternity.  What the Mason probably doesn't know at the time of his initiation is that the apron is also worn by temple Mormons and active practitioners of Wicca (witchcraft).
The Mason is taught that the apron is an "emblem of innocence and the badge of a Mason."  According to Joseph Fort Newton, author of The Words of a Great Masonic Divine, "…'by the lambskin,' the Mason is reminded of the purity of life and rectitude of conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides." 1

In the Mormon temple ceremony, the participant is presented with a green satin "fig leaf" apron. In the "Garden of Eden" portion of the ceremony, the character portraying Adam asks Lucifer, "What is that apron you have on?"  Lucifer answers, "It is an emblem of my power and Priesthoods." 2   Participants obediently follow the narrator's voice as he directs them to put on the apron that has already been explained to them twice as an emblem of Lucifer!

According to William Schnoebelen (former Mormon, Mason, and Witch; author of Mormonism's Temple of Doom), "...in magick, the apron is a symbol of magickal energy or planetary (astrological) force.  It is the badge or rank for the third degree; and represents (when green) the priestly office of Lucifer.  It is the magickal 'tool' of that degree.

"In this third degree of Wicca, the apron serves a practical, magickal purpose.  In this degree, through a bizarre ceremony called the Great Rite, one is initiated into the principle of sex magick (tantra yoga).  The apron is often used during this sort of ritual to help contain and channel sexual energy.  This is why it covers the genital area....it serves rather like putting a lid on a teakettle to help bring it to a boil.  This channeling raises the Kundalini force and supposedly produces enlightenment when the Kundalini serpent strikes upwards and 'bites' you metaphysically at the base of the brain.

"...just as the stole is the emblem of authority in the Catholic Priesthood, so the green apron is the emblem of Lucifer's authority.  In every Satanic group I knew of, the hierophant (High Priest) always wore a green apron, usually of the finest silk or satin." 3

Schnoebelen gives this conclusion of the Mormon ceremony and use of the apron, "...as I saw Lucifer with his Priesthood apron—and as I received my own apron—I was convinced that Christianity reached its highest level of witchcraft in Mormonism.  Jesus, I had been taught as a witch, was a Medium of the highest order, who worked miracles by magick.  Now as I saw the priesthood of Lucifer transferred to Adam in the Apron, I knew it was true." 4   

Egyptian Magick

Darwinism : A Metaphysical Research Programme

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.

Statements or systems of statements in order to be ranked as scientific must be capable of conflicting with possible or conceivable observations."

"Since we should call empirical or scientific only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories... Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. 

They may be described as metaphysical."

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), 

Karl Popper's Challenge 

By Russell Kranz

Is the theory of evolution scientific?

Not according to the eminent philosopher of science, Professor Karl Popper This is all the more interesting because Charles Darwin was an Englishman and Dr Karl Popper is an adopted Englishman with a string of scientific accomplishments that fill half a column in the International Who’s Who. After a hundred years of evolution, what does this respected scientist think of his countryman's theory?  

Not much that Darwin would like.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory," Popper says, `but a metaphysical research programme."1

Popper's views are widely respected in Europe and particularly in England, where he has come to be regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century. Sir Peter Medawar rates him as "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science that has ever been."2 Another well-known mathematician and astronomer says, "There is no more to science than to its method and there is no more to its method than Popper has said." Popperian influence can be seen in medicine, in art even in politics and theology. Leading politicians have expressed their indebtedness to him.  

Not a Law

Professor Popper is severely critical of attempts to turn evolution theory into scientific fact. "There can never be a law of evolution," he wrote in one of his earlier works.3 "The idea of a law which determines the direction and character of evolution is a typical 19th century mistake arising out of the general tendency to ascribe to the natural law the functions traditionally ascribed to God."4

What happened then, he says, was this: "The earlier, naturalistic revolution against God replaced the name God by the name Nature. Almost everything else was left unchanged. Theology. the science of God, was replaced by the science of nature. God’s laws by the laws of nature. God's will and power by the will and power of nature (the natural forces) and later God's design and God's judgment by natural selection. Theological determinism was replaced by naturalistic determinism, that is. God's omnipotence and omniscience were replaced by the omnipotence of nature and the omniscience of science."5  

Demarcation

Why has Popper separated evolution from science and assigned it to the realm of metaphysics? According to Popper's principle of demarcation, only those theories which are open to empirical falsification are scientific. That is, unless there is a way to prove a theory wrong there is no way to prove it is right. As he puts it: "Statements or systems of statements in order to be ranked as scientific must be capable of conflicting with possible or conceivable observations."6 Science deals with matters that can be tested empirically and are potentially falsifiable. "Since we should call empirical or scientific only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories."7 (By empirical, Professor Popper means that which can be tested by the senses - weighing, seeing, touching, tasting, measuring, etc.)

Now, philosophical or metaphysical theories are empirically irrefutable by definition, There is simply no way to test them in laboratory conditions, Popper is prepared to admit that the line of demarcation is not absolutely sharp. There are degrees of demarcation - well-tested theories, hardly testable theories and nontestable theories. The latter, he insists, do not belong to science: "Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical."8

And it is in this "non-testable" category that Popper places evolution, Science is just not equipped to deal with the question of origins. "The search for the law of "unvarying order' in evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of scientific method, whether in biology or sociology."9  

Why?

Simply because if the evolution of life on earth did occur, it was a unique historical process which cannot be tested because it is unrepeatable. "We cannot hope to test a universal hypothesis nor find a natural law acceptable to science ifwe are forever confined to the observation of one unique process. Nor can this observation of one unique process help us to foresee its future development."10  

Repeating Itself

In several of his later lectures Professor Popper finds fault with the theory of evolution on the grounds that it is tautological; it repeats itself.

Natural selection explains evolution in terms of the survival of the fittest, But he points out that this is really no more than saying, "Those that survive are those that survive. Darwinism, therefore, "is by no means a perfect theory."11 When all is said and done, "neither Darwin nor any Darwinian has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ. All that has been shown is that such explanations might exist (that is, to say) they are not logically impossible."12

Evolutionists often try to rescue their theory by adopting a device which makes it irrefutable. By pushing back the frontiers of time, anything becomes probable. Dr. Popper objects strongly.

"Statistical explanation must operate in the last analysis with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the available time, then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to explain almost everything. Even so, we have little enough reason to conjecture that any explanation of this sort is applicable to the origin of life."13

Popper also returns to his argument about the tautological nature of Darwinism. "At first sight, natural selection appears to explain the evolution of variety - and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way."" Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this."14  

Metaphysical Differences of Opinion

Yet, despite his criticism Popper thinks Darwin's theory has been valuable in encouraging some very real and practical researches. That is why it has been so widely accepted. There could be another reason too. It was the first non-theistic theory that was convincing. "Theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."15

At this juncture, Karl Popper makes a very interesting comment. "Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression it is not very much better than the theistic view of adaptation." "It is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical."'6

So what for the last hundred years has appeared as a conflict between religion and science is simply a difference of metaphysical opinion. No doubt Popper's insistence on the nonscientific nature of evolution will come as a surprise to those who cling to outmoded definitions of science, You don't settle metaphysical disputes in the laboratory. On the issue of origins the last word definitely does not belong to the scientists.

It now looks as if the whole evolution/creation question will have to be reappraised in the light of purpose and meaning. I, for one, am convinced that when it comes to providing man with a metaphysical framework in which to view his living experience, the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality. the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest.

REFERENCES 
1 Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151. 
2 BBC Radio 3, July 28, 1972. 
3 Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p. 108. 
4 Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p. 340. 
5 Ibid., p. 347. 
6 Ibid., pp. 38.39. 
7 Ibid., p. 197. 
8 Ibid., p. 257. 
9 Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, p.108. 
10 Ibid. 
11 Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) p. 242. 
12 Ibid., p. 267. 
13 Popper, Unended Quest, p. 169. 
14 Ibid., p.171. 
15 Ibid., p.172. 
15 Ibid. 

"Karl Popper's Challenge" 

<http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm>

CSSHS • Creation Social Science & Humanities Society • Quarterly Journal