See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... ·
To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... ·
If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad
I don't hold with killing cats. I do not relish the death of cats. I borrowed the nod at a popular saying from Lee, a guest poster with Introibo.
Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Dangers of Randonautica
By Lee, Monday, December 12, 2022
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-dangers-of-randonautica.html
Who refers to St. Thomas Aquinas, in two quotes.
I will now take the quotes, not from
Tour of the Summa, but from Summa Theologiae online. As in the
Tour, I will quote only the corpus of each article on curiosity, which is II-II, Q 167.
Article 1. Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?
Here I will intersperse my quotes with own comments.
I answer that, As stated above (II-II:166:2 ad 2) studiousness is directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in the pursuit of knowledge. Now we must judge differently of the knowledge itself of truth, and of the desire and study in the pursuit of the knowledge of truth. For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1, "Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin.
On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue." On like manner, those who study to learn something in order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of Jeremiah 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored to commit iniquity."
So, a scientist who forgets his maker or a man trying to learn things about bondage or psychiatry ...
Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways. First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [Epist. xxi ad Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls."
We live in a society in which so many have so few duties incumbent on them.
The example given by St. Thomas was apt about his own day, with many priests of whom more than one could have easier made his salvation if remaining a layman. Looking at you, Andreas Capellanus! (Yes, he was a contemporary of St. Thomas, as a chaplain obviously a priest and made a kind of Ars Amandi).
In our day, one could rather complain about priests forsaking Shakespear and Tolkien to read psychology or Biblical criticism ...
We may presume that those using Randonautica usually do not have duties they neglect to go on their random randonnés (walks). Especially, as going on a walk is also a duty, to the bodily health.
Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."
And Oedipus and Orestes got into huge trouble by listening to them.
Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things."
This sounds more like a cue to throw out science books than to throw out randonautica.
Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Sirach 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Sirach 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."
Something people like Thomson Lord Kelvin and Rutherford should have thought of before proposing to search out the age of Earth without looking into Genesis 5 and 11.
Now, here is article 2. Please note that the man translating something as "sight-seeing" is very far from the current usage of that term in so doing. It is about seeing "spectacula" - dramas.
I answer that, The knowledge of sensible things is directed to two things. For in the first place, both in man and in other animals, it is directed to the upkeep of the body, because by knowledge of this kind, man and other animals avoid what is harmful to them, and seek those things that are necessary for the body's sustenance. On the second place, it is directed in a manner special to man, to intellective knowledge, whether speculative or practical. Accordingly to employ study for the purpose of knowing sensible things may be sinful in two ways.
Let's see.
First, when the sensitive knowledge is not directed to something useful, but turns man away from some useful consideration. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 35), "I go no more to see a dog coursing a hare in the circus; but in the open country, if I happen to be passing, that coursing haply will distract me from some weighty thought, and draw me after it . . . and unless Thou, having made me see my weakness, didst speedily admonish me, I become foolishly dull."
Well, here the problem is not so much the look at the spectacle - and when
Tour of the Summa translates sight-seeing, that is bad. Deliberately to seek out a sight of something quiet is different from vetting an appetite for cruelty (as St. Augustine did in his youth), or to deliberately seek weighty thoughts, but forget them because a distraction dulls one. By the way, fatiguing someone to cure him from "curiosity" can dull him too. Georgina Kirrin, back in the age when she preferred to be called George and when Tim was alive, didn't allow Tim to chase rabbits. I think those were more plentiful than hares, in Cornwall.
So, the problem is actually double here, for St. Augustine:
- he risks backsliding into enjoying cruelty to animals (as he had done more frequently in his youth, and even if in this case the immediate perpetrator is also just an animal) - well, he no longer risks that, he's in heaven, but I mean he risked it then and those like him now risk it now;
- not keeping concentrated on a thought directed to piety and to the edification of others. (Likewise, no longer a problem).
The problem is not being captivated by a random sight, which is not cruel, and when one is not neglecting important thought for it.
Secondly, when the knowledge of sensible things is directed to something harmful, as looking on a woman is directed to lust: even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction. on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.
Let me highlight two quotes here:
even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction.
Like the guys who inquire busily into my hours spent on internet, consider every second on a youtube as the vice of curiosity and detract from my capacities as a writer and as a Catholic one?
Involves both shrinks, I shouldn't wonder, and priests who would have done better to imitate Andreas Capellanus, scandalous as he was, than to have psychology studied at seminary!
Now, the other thing is, pretty apt about Randonautica.
on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.
The sustentation of one's nature involves the sustentation of one's mental nature. And part of that is not seeing
just the same things every day.
This being the purpose of Randonautica, one cannot say the purpose is wrong. But are the means? Lee evokes four cases of unpleasant surprises.
The app has as many as 10.8 million users as of July 2020, gaining popularity amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as restrictions have been lightened.
Now, four unpleasant surprises is pretty low among 10.8 million users. Therefore, one cannot assume it is demonic on this account. Are there more? Certainly. How many more? Probably not 100 as drastic as this one.
In their questions page, Randonautica's creators have said that if the app generates coordinates inside a private property, it is a violation of their terms and conditions to trespass. In addition, Randonautica has also received allegations that the app is used for human trafficking, which its creators have denied, saying that data collected by the app are anonymous. It also ensured that the app is not designed to violate religious customs, saying that "the app is simply a tool. Just as a knife can be used either to prepare dinner or to cut somebody."
Now, the creators cannot absolutely know from their own actions whether someone else can be abusing their app for human trafficking. Just as the highways in the seventies could not be kept responsible for the crimes of Ted Bundy. Who abused the custom of hitch-hiking. My ma taught me some good things about hitch-hiking, like walking up to gas stations, and talking to the people you want a ride from. However, Ted Bundy could be charismatic, but even so, I think he
more often picked up victims very quickly, with less time for getting an impression, who were walking along the way with their thumb up. When he didn't just grab, as with his last victim.
However, as to human trafficking, some place types could be especially attractive to girls, and if the trafficker puts himself in waiting there, and also uses the app ... may God avert it.
Furthermore, in two of the four cases evoked by Lee, Randonautica can have saved a life. Even if Mykena didn't call the help that saved the bleeding person from dying, it is possible and even probable someone else was also directed to that place and did call the ambulance. And the person who had a shop burned down was saved. The story doesn't tell what kind of shop it was, and I actually cannot find the story.
Now, is using Randonautica a vain observance? Here I will have to quote, not St. Thomas, but Lee.
How does it specifically know things so hidden as to be able to lead people to an exact location, with no possible history of stored data that leads to such things, which cannot be traced, such as expired driver's license from 15-20 years prior?
The app didn't know it. God did. As far as I am concerned, the connexion between using the app and finding the licence, is God's providence.
I personally believe that the app itself has some form of demonic power. Why? It has been known to bring about bad luck in peoples lives who use it obsessively.
If you go on random destinations very often, sooner or later you can come to a dangerous one.
It has the ability to know exact locations without any foreknowledge; a symptom of possessed people.
A software doesn't
know exact locations, but
stores them. Precisely as google translate doesn't know language, but stores language data. Stores and combines, in a way showing how statistic coincidence rules very much of correct translation, but very far from all of it. I have seen the Swedish word "uppståndelse" translated (by Bing) as "commotion" in the context of Easter where the correct expected translation is "resurrection" - or a Spanish poem from past centuries praised the Blessed Virgin as "preciosa" - meaning precisely as in English "precious - and a translator used the more usual meaning in modern colloquial Spanish, namely "funny" ...
It lures people away from belief in God or the devil by trusting it more.
The last person who started using it as a Christian, clearly Orthodox, not just believing in a God who is good, but also that this God has created an angel which recreated himself into the devil, and who ended up losing faith over using this app is who? Because, I have never heard of one. Indeed, by God's providence, the app could lead someone to a Church or a Christian bookstore and therefore to God.
It becomes like a god.
It does? How many other things do? Is each inherently bad because some so abuse it?
Lastly, it could lead to somebody's death if the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is indeed a danger of any innocent walk. And some of Ted Bundy's victims were doing their studies ... with studousness/
Even if the "intention" is good it can be a path leading right to Hell.
We can agree that dying in a car accident is death, and dying in a car accident in the state of mortal sin if Hell. Now, some Pilgrims on the way of Santiago have died crossing a certain road, because the paths with the yellow arrows point across this road (or did back in 2004). Is it mortally sinful to walk to Santiago too?
Gaucelmo died on arrival. He is honoured as a saint, accoridng to my memories from 2004, even if I can't find him on Spanish wikipedia. A woman was murdered in I think 2015 or 16 by faked yellow arrows leading her to the killer.
So, is walking to Santiago a mortal sin, because there are risks?
Staying locked inside during a confinement has its risks too. In France, wife murders skyrocketed during the first confinement. So, has the prospect of taking walks to unseen corners of your neighbourhood after it saved lives? Probably.
Let me give a parallel. You may be a celibate man, you may suck at cooking, or have no time to do it, and you may have the means to eat at restaurant every day. Is it mortally sinful to roll dice over which restaurant to use on each particular day? Mind you, on a Friday, one would pick Sushi Bar over Mongolian Barbecue without any dice, for obvious reasons, but on a day when meat is allowed? Could it lead to your death? Well, if it directs you to the restaurant where you get dangerous food poisoning, yes. Does that make it sinful? No. Variation in diet is healthy.
According to the Theologians McHugh and Callan, vain observances are described as:
Let's see if it fits.
(a) those (things) by which one puts into use vain ceremonies or objects in the expectation that they will secure certain desired effects, or puts an exaggerated confidence in lawful rites or sacred objects;
There is no vain ceremony in randomising, if the desired effect is a surprise or "a change" - it is a natural means to that end, not a quasi-supernatural ceremony for it. Case dismissed.
(b) those by which one directs one's life through fortuitous and impertinent happenings in the belief that they have the power to influence one's fortunes favorably or adversely.
We do not deal with this when the fortuitousness itself is used as a means to improve one's mood. Given that some people are now doing breast surgery because they carry Georgina Kirrin's child and teen quirk to the cube of too far, improving moods may be very vital these days.
This form of superstition is like divination by omens; the difference is that in using omens one chiefly seeks for knowledge of the future, while in observing chance events one chiefly intends the direction of one's conduct. Examples are found in persons who fear to make a journey on Friday or to begin any important affair during the dark of the moon.
Fridays and darks of the moon are not fortuitous. People avoiding important affairs during the dark of the moon may not fear, and I am not sure St. Thomas did not do it. Seeing 666 as a bad omen is arguably one preservation against rapidly and willingly taking the mark, and I do wait a little before logging in if the time is 13:32. I prefer making a prayer up to 13:34, since 1334 is two times 667. The next and last paragraph of this essay is on line 144 in the html. Was it bad to put two previous paragraphs toegether (not very separate logically) to avoid it going past 144?
And unlike this kind of thing, randonautica is about
not fearing journeys and about affairs of free time, how to spend an afternoon. Again, case dismissed.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Advent
17.XII.2022
