Fusion Rocket Engines, SETI and Science: Seriously

Posted on July 29, 2023 by Brian H. Gill
Clockwise from upper right, 'Towards thermonuclear rocket propulsion', Gerald W. Englert, Lewis Research Centre, US National Aeronautics and Space Administration, reprinted from 'New Scientist' (1963); Fusion Rocket Concepts, NASA Technical Memorandum (1971), Fusion reactions and matter–antimatter annihilation for space propulsion', Claude Deutsch, Naeem A. Tahir, Cambridge University Press (2006); ESA's Nuclear fusion space propulsion (2021).
Thermonuclear fusion rocket research, 1963-2021.

Nerd alert!

This week I used words like deuterium and magnetohydrodynamics.

And I may have gone into more detail that necessary about why we didn’t have fusion power generators in the 1960s.

A British company’s plans for test-firing a fusion rocket engine got my attention last week. I’d planned on writing about it then, but a dental procedure and household matters got in the way.

So I researched and made more notes over the weekend, and when my town’s power came back online late Monday afternoon: the notes weren’t there any more. That’s something I may talk about, sometime next week.

Anyway, I re-researched, got stuck and/or distracted a couple times — I’ll talk about tralphium and mindsets in a bit — and ended up with this post.

Which, as it turned out, included a bit about NASA’s interest in UAPs and the serious search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Sunshine, Energy and Mass: Fusion Basics

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Solar Dynamics Observatory's photo: a coronal mass ejection. (August 31, 2012) via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.
Our sun: a coronal mass ejection. (2012)

Hydrogen fusion happens naturally.

Two hydrogen nuclei combine, making one helium nucleus and a fair amount of energy. The helium nucleus is a tad lighter than the two hydrogen nuclei. The missing mass becomes the energy.

All you need to is a ball of hydrogen with a mass about 25,000 times Earth’s.

That’s the mass of a small red dwarf star. The (basically) same fusion reactions are happening in our star, the Sun.

But we didn’t know about these reactions until very roughly a century back.

Speculation about mass and energy being interchangeable goes back at least to the 18th and 19th centuries. That’s when folks like Newton, Swedenborg, Umov and De Preto wrote about particles, ether and kinetic energy.

Around 1900, a whole bunch of folks noticed a connection between the speed and mass of charged particles.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) sparked ongoing debates. One point was whether E = mc2 is anything more than a first approximation. As of 2009, that question still wasn’t settled. Or, rather, it had been: several times, with assorted answers.

In 1920, Eddington said maybe the Sun stays hot by fusing hydrogen into helium. That was in “The Internal Constitution of the Stars”. As it turns out, he was right.

In 1937, Oliphant smashed hydrogen nuclei together, producing helium nuclei and a whole lot of energy. Actually, he used 2H (deuterium, AKA heavy hydrogen) and got 3He (not-so-heavy helium).

Good news, we had proof that hydrogen fusion was a real thing.1

Rather unsettling news, the Cold War started about a decade later.

Thermonuclear Weapons, History and Ideas: Very Briefly

Hollywood Pictures, Cinergi Pictures, Edward R. Pressman Film Corporation; via IMDB.com: John Wagner, Carlos Ezquerra, Michael De Luca's 'Judge Dredd;' Diane Lane as Judge Hershey. Judge Hershey in 'Judge Dredd,' the first film version. (1995)The Cold War started in 1947. Or it had been in progress since 1917, or it started in 1945: but right now the Truman Doctrine seems to mark the preferred starting line.

I’ve talked about history, periodization and the 20th century’s global war before — along with a very quick look at why I think it may eventually be called the Colonial War.

“…Many Enlightenment-era folks thought going through something like the Thirty Years War again would be a bad idea. I think they were right.

“‘More of the same’ wasn’t an acceptable option.

“It’s just shy of 370 years since the Thirty Years War ended. I don’t know when we started using that name. Not exactly.

“Like I said, names change. Folks living 370 years after the end what we call World War II will almost certainly have another name for it. I don’t know what it’ll be.

“Maybe some will call the 1914-1945 conflict the Colonial War when 2315 rolls past.

“I’m not the first person to call it that. My father suggested the name, somewhere around 1970. His interests, habits and quirky mental processes were much like mine, so likely enough he’d run across the idea somewhere. Or its component pieces.

“Maybe he noticed the probable motives behind both phases — merging an adjective and noun to get a new name….”
(“Marlowe’s ‘Dr. Faustus,’ Freedom, Censorship and Speculation” (September 10, 2022), Periodization and Impractical-But-Fun Speculation)

Anyway, a distinct ambivalence regarding the workers’ paradise is one reason that the first hydrogen fusion device was a bomb.

Another reason is that lighting off deuterium in one whacking great flash is one thing. Fusing deuterium and keeping it ‘burning’ is another.

And it’s not easy.2

Getting Back to Fusion Basics

Sarang's diagram of the proton–proton branch I chain reaction (September 4, 2016)Again: the simple, natural way to start hydrogen fusing into helium and energy is to pack about 25,000 times Earth’s mass of hydrogen into a star-size ball.

Then, thanks to gravity, the ball’s center gets hot and dense enough to push hydrogen nuclei together.

It’s simple and natural, but making stars is something we can’t do. Not yet, at any rate. And that’s another topic.

Make that fairly simple.

I mentioned 2H (deuterium, or heavy hydrogen) before, and how someone fused deuterium nuclei together to get 3He.

Scientists figure that deuterium fusion, where two deuterium nuclei fuse into a 3He (helium-3) nucleus, is one of two fusion reactions happening in our sun. Another is the proton-proton chain reaction.

Or, rather, others are proton-proton chain reactions: plural. There are three of the things. That diagram shows the one called branch I.

Now, about the last reaction on branch I: 3He + 3He yielding two 1H, one 4He, plus energy that’s not shown on that diagram. That reaction doesn’t make stuff around it radioactive.

It’d be great for a fusion power plant.

But there’s just one problem, Helium-3 won’t fuse unless it’s a plasma even hotter and denser than we need for fusing deuterium. So getting power from helium-3 reactions will wait until we work the bugs out of deuterium fusion reactors.3

Before talking about plasma and a fusion rocket engine that may be ready for testing next year, a few (for me) words about 1H (just plain hydrogen). 2H (deuterium), 3H (tritium), and 3He.

They’re all isotopes. And isotopes are — meh. I’ll quote a couple definitions.

“Introduction to Isotopes“, Understanding Isotopes, A Step-by-Step Tutorial
TerpConnect
Division of Information Technology, University of Maryland
“Isotopes are atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons. For example, different isotopes of the element Carbon can have 6, 7, or 8 neutrons. The number of protons does not change.”

“What is an Isotope?” (September 26, 2022)
MSU Alumni, Michigan State University
“Simply put, isotopes are different versions of elements—the same ones you’d find on the periodic table. The core, or nucleus, of each element holds protons and neutrons. Each element contains a fixed number of protons. But when you vary the number of neutrons, you create different isotopes of the same element.

“There are 118 elements on the periodic table. There are more than 3,000 isotopes that we know of and likely thousands more waiting to be discovered. At FRIB, home to the world’s most powerful isotope-making accelerator, scientists can create isotopes that have never been seen before, giving them the ability to look at research through a whole new lens.”

Tralphium?! — or — Gamow, “New Genesis”, God and Chesterton

NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's image: the LEDA 48062 galaxy (the faint, sparse, amorphous galaxy on the right) in the constellation Perseus. The large, disk-like lenticular galaxy on the left is UGC 8603. Other, more distant galaxies litter the background.Another name for Helium-3, 3H, is helion. And yet another name for it is tralphium.

I spent more time than I maybe should have this week, learning where the word tralphium came from.

The earliest use of “tralphium” I could find was in a piece by by George Gamow: a lighthearted look at another scientist’s ideas about nucleosynthesis.

“…However, the key reaction would take place at a sufficient rate only if Carbon-12 had a very particular property…. Fred Hoyle predicted this property; Willy Fowler measured it and found it as predicted.

“Here is Gamow’s comment on Hoyle’s discovery:

“New Genesis”

“In the beginning God created radiation and ylem. And ylem was without shape or number, and the nucleons were rushing madly over the face of the deep.

“And God said: ‘Let there be mass two.’ And there was mass two. And God saw deuterium, and it was good.

“And God said: ‘let there be mass three.’ And there was mass three. And God saw tritium and tralphium [Gamow’s nickname for the helium isotope He-3], and they were good. And God continued to call number after number until He came to transuranium elements. But when He looked back on his work He found that it was not good. In the excitement of counting, He missed calling for mass five and so, naturally, no heavier elements could have been formed.

“God was very much disappointed, and wanted first to contract the universe again, and to start all over from the beginning. But it would be much too simple. Thus, being almighty, God decided to correct His mistake in a most impossible way.

“And God said: ‘Let there be Hoyle.’ And there was Hoyle. And God looked at Hoyle… and told him to make heavy elements in any way he pleased.

“And Hoyle decided to make heavy elements in stars, and to spread them around by supernovae explosions. But in doing so he had to obtain the same abundance curve which would have resulted from nucleosynthesis in ylem, if God would not have forgotten to call for mass five.

“And so, with the help of God, Hoyle made heavy elements in this way, but it was so complicated that nowadays neither Hoyle, nor God, nor anybody else can figure out exactly how it was done.
Amen.”
(“New Genesis” (1946?) via Ideas of Cosmology, Center for History of Physics, a Division of the American Institute of Physics) (emphasis mine)

And now I’ve got another new-to-me word, “ylem”, which George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and others got from Middle English.

Ylem is the hypothetical stuff from which became everything in this universe: including scientific laws like the balance between gravitational and other forms of energy.

Probably, if current models of the first moments after the Big Bang are accurate.

Scientific laws, by the way, are what scientists have noticed and confirmed about the way stuff works.4

Those are rabbit holes I’ll leave for another day.

“His Gaze Spans All the Ages…”

NASA, ESA, CSA, I. Labbe (Swinburne University of Technology), R. Bezanson (University of Pittsburgh)'s image (processed by Alyssa Pagan (STScI)): detail of James Webb Space Telescope NIRCam's Abell 2744 ('Pandora's Cluster') image; a gravitational lens magnifying distant galaxies. (February 15, 2023)George Gamow’s “New Genesis”, on the other hand, warrants a bit more attention.

If I thought Gamow’s “New Genesis” was the scientist’s effort to launch a new religion, then I’d have problems with it.

For one thing, God being unable to figure out how nucleosynthesis works downplays God’s knowledge: putting it mildly.

“Immense is the wisdom of the LORD;
mighty in power, he sees all things.”
(Sirach 15:18)

“His gaze spans all the ages:
is there any limit to his saving action?
To him, nothing is small or insignificant,
and nothing too wonderful or hard for him.”
(Sirach 39:20)

“He searches out the abyss and penetrates the heart;
their secrets he understands.
For the Most High possesses all knowledge,
and sees from of old the things that are to come.”
(Sirach 42:18)

Repeating what I said earlier this month: God infinite. Eternal. All-powerful. Incomprehensible. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1, 202, 268-269)

God creates and sustains a (basically) good an ordered world. He is present to all creation, and continuously sustains it. (Catechism, 299-301, 385-412)

God is here and now in every here and now, but God is not ‘inside’ space and time. (Catechism, 205, 600, 645)

Basically, God is large and in charge. And, like Sirach said, “possesses all knowledge”.

I could rant and rave about Gamow’s “New Genesis”, ignoring its context. But I figure that makes considerably less than no sense.

Besides, I think G. K. Chesterton is right. Something that stops making sense when deprived of highfalutin solemnity — may not make sense when it is provided with properly pretentious pomposity. It just takes longer to notice the sense gap.

“…It is the test of a responsible religion or theory whether it can take examples from pots and pans and boots and butter-tubs. It is the test of a good philosophy whether you can defend it grotesquely. It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it….”
(“All Things Considered“, The Methuselahite, Spiritualism; G. K. Chesterton (1908) via Project Gutenberg of Australia)

And that brings me to magnetohydrodynamics. If I think of a “pots and pans” word for that mouthful, I’ll use it. But I’m not hopeful.

Plasma, Magnetohydrodynamics and My Research Roadblock

Edward Aspera Jr.'s Air Force photo: United States Air Force, VIRIN 040304-F-0000S-002 (and VIRIN 060822-F-1111A-001), lightning over Las Cruces, New Mexico. (March 4, 2004) via Wikipedia
Plasma in nature: Edward Aspera Jr.’s photo: lightning over Las Cruces, New Mexico. (March 4, 2004)

The point I’ve been staggering toward is that fusing hydrogen won’t happen unless the stuff is really hot and dense: in the state of matter scientists call “plasma”.

I was going to say that plasma is ionized gas, but — as usual — it’s not that simple:

“…Plasma is typically an electrically quasineutral medium of unbound positive and negative particles…. Plasma is distinct from the other states of matter. In particular, describing a low-density plasma as merely an ‘ionized gas’ is wrong and misleading, even though it is similar to the gas phase in that both assume no definite shape or volume….”
(Plasma (physics), Wikipedia)

Basically, as far as fusion reactions go, plasma is stuff that’s very hot, fairly dense, and conducts electricity.

Now, about electricity and magnetism. Where to start?

Science. Electromagnets. Levitating Light Bulbs!

JET/UKAEA's photo: inside their JET reactor.The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. The other three are gravity, weak interaction and strong interaction.

Fusion happens in stars because gravity compresses hydrogen and everything else, heating it, which sparks hydrogen fusion. It’s probably the simplest way to start a fusion reaction and keep it going.

But since we don’t have gravity generators and can’t make stars, we’re stuck with using electromagnetism.

And that gets me to magnetohydrodynamics.

It’s an eight-syllable name for a mathematical toolbox scientists use when they’re talking about fluids that conduct electricity. “Fluids” in this case includes plasma and liquid metals.

I could try diving into equations like ρ=Σ mσ nσ, but that’s more math than I’m comfortable with. So I’ll over-simplify the situation something fierce.

We’ve known that electric currents and magnetic fields go together since 1820. Since then, we’ve used that knowledge to make everything from telegraphs to particle accelerators.

We’ve also made magnetic levitating toys and novelties, keeping little globes and light bulbs suspended in air.

So how come we can’t ‘suspend’ fusing plasma the same way?

We can, actually. But not for long.

One problem is that plasma that’s hot enough for fusion reactions is so hot that it’ll melt or vaporize anything that’s too close.

Hydrogen bombs work because the fusion reaction only has to last for a very short time.

I gather that the process is over in fractions of a microsecond.

We can start fusion reactions by squeezing little bits of hydrogen into a plasma ball. Or we can hold and squeeze plasma with magnetic fields.

Either way, the trick is getting more power out of the fusion reaction than it takes to start it and — in the case of magnetic containment systems — keep it going.5

Mindsets, Reasonable and Otherwise — or — Angst and Attitudes

Studio Foglio's Mr. Squibbs, used w/o permission.This is where I was going to talk about how thermonuclear weapons work, and how that applies to developing practical fusion power generators.

I researched the topic last week, and this week, and found a great deal of nothing much.

Even getting reliable information about what “very short” means in the context of the 1952 Ivy Mike test has been frustrating, putting it mildly.

I suspect that some of the echoing silence I found is due to concerns, real or imagined, regarding “national security”.

With my less than utter awe for the wisdom of my country’s powers that be, I could be mildly surprised that Enewetak Atoll6 is not officially a non-place that never existed.

I also suspect, based on the tone I perceived in many academic discussions of thermonuclear weapons, fusion research and related topics, that a great many scientists remain appalled at what we’ve learned.

There’s much to be said for realizing that ideas may lead to actions, that actions have consequences, and that ethics apply when we act.

Learning the Right Lessons: Eventually

Nagasaki City Office's photo, 'Memorial Service at the Ruins of Urakami Cathedral (November 23, 1945)' via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.I think many folks had horrifying wake-up calls following September of 1945.

These days, I read and hear more about the first (and so far only) use of nuclear weapons than other matters that became general knowledge: and that’s yet another topic. Topics, actually.

I’m arguably Lebensunwertes Leben, so I see the reality check we got when results of eugenics as a national policy went public as a significant post-war issue.7 Yet again more topics.

Good news — we started, at least in this country, looking at low-status humans as people rather than readily-available lab animals. I talked about that last month.

“…John Lantos, a pediatrician at University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and expert in medical ethics, says the experiments were indicative of America’s post-war mindset. ‘Technology was good, we were the leaders, we were the good guys, so anything we did could not be bad,’ he says. It wasn’t until the ’70s, after the Tuskegee study, that Congress passed federal regulation requiring a specific kind of oversight.’…”
(“A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Radioactive Oatmeal Go Down“, Lorraine Boissoneault, Smithsonian Magazine (March 8, 2017))

Accepting that self-righteous cockiness can be embarrassing makes sense.

But I’d prefer seeing less of the “technology is bad, we are the bad guys” attitude. Maybe I’m being unfair.

Doing It With (Magnetic) Mirrors

WikiHelper2134's illustration of a magnetic bottle formed by two magnetic mirrors. (June 3, 2013) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.
A magnetic bottle formed by two magnetic mirrors. Illustration by WikiHelper2134.

There’s a whole mess of ways we could — in theory — keep a dense fusion-hot plasma in some sort of magnetic bottle.

With field-reversed configuration (FRC) systems, the plasma is in a “high-beta axisymmetric compact toroid”. Think of it as a smoke ring made from lightning. And that’s still another topic.

FRC systems use magnetic mirrors: electromagnets set up so that a plasma’s charged particles go whirling back and forth between them.

One of these things has been running off and on at Princeton for years. Scientists have been learning a lot from using it, but have yet to get a fusion reaction.

One of the problems is that “plasma stability” isn’t particularly stable.

There’s flute instability, explosive/ballooning instability, diocotron instability — basically, plasma wiggles. A lot.

And that’s why Aksa, Aggreko and Westinghouse didn’t start making fusion generators in the 1960s.8

Describing how hard it is to keep a fusion-hot plasma in place generally involves lots of acronyms and phrases like magnetoacoustic cyclotron instability.

I gather that it’s a bit like trying to run boiling water through pipes made of Jell-O.

That’s not an apt comparison, but it’s the best I came up with.

FUSION ROCKETS TO THE STARS! (eventually)

Pulsar Fusion's illustration: their Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) test vehicle. (2023)
Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) test vehicle. (2023)

“World’s Largest Nuclear Fusion Rocket Engine Begins Construction“
David Nield, ScienceAlert (July 14, 2023)

“Nuclear fusion propulsion technology has the potential to revolutionize space travel in terms of both speeds and fuel usage. The same kinds of reactions that power the Sun could halve travel times to Mars, or make a journey to Saturn and its moons take just two years rather than eight.

“It’s incredibly exciting, but not everyone is convinced this is going to work: the tech needs ultra-high temperatures and pressures to function.

“To help prove the viability of the technology, the largest ever fusion rocket engine is now being built by Pulsar Fusion in Bletchley, in the UK.

The chamber, some 8 meters (26 feet) long, is scheduled to start firing in 2027….”
(emphasis mine)

I agree that this is “incredibly exciting” news.

Particularly since, as far as I can tell, Pulsar Fusion’s prototype won’t just be the “largest ever fusion rocket engine”. It’ll be the first.

Granted, I may have missed news of an earlier prototype. But that seems unlikely.

A device that (1) keeps a fusion reaction going, (2) produces more power than it takes in, and (3) is a working rocket engine is front-page news. In the science-and-technology section, at any rate.

I didn’t find detailed descriptions of Pulsar Fusion’s prototype on their website. But I hadn’t expected to find that sort of information on what’s essentially a promotional site.

They did, however, say that they’re planning to have a prototype Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) ready for static testing next year, with orbital flight tests in 2027.

I’m guessing the processes will take a little longer. On the other hand, although this particular application is new and first-of-its-kind; it’s based on tech that’s been in development for decades.

And Pulsar Fusion gives numbers for their fusion rocket engine’s expected performance.

“The Direct Fusion Drive is a revolutionary steady state fusion propulsion concept, based on a compact fusion reactor. It will provide power of the order of units of MW, providing both thrust of the order of 10-101N with specific impulses between 103-105s and auxiliary power to the space system.”
(Fusion Propulsion | Pulsar Fusion)

About those numbers: 10-101N is thrust in Newtons; specific impulse is a measure of a rocket engine’s efficiency. I’m not sure why Pulsar Fusion’s unity symbols are a capital N and lower-case s. British usage, maybe.

At any rate, 10 to 101 newtons thrust is about 2.25 to 22.7 pounds. Which may not seem like much for an engine that size. But production models of this DFD would be used for deep space missions, where efficiency is more important high thrust.

Exhaust velocity for the Pulsar Fusion prototype should be 110 to 350 kilometers per second, or about 0.1167% the speed of light.

Which, again, doesn’t sound like much. Not compared to still-theoretical Z-pinch fusion engines, which may have exhaust velocities of around 4% speed of light.

But the Space Shuttle’s main engine exhaust velocity was around 4.4 kilometers per second.9 So I see Pulsar Fusion’s DFD as pretty impressive.

Comparing Princeton’s FRC System and Pulsar Fusion’s DFD

Pulsar Fusion's schematic: their Direct Fusion Drive (DFD). (2023)
Pulsar Fusion’s schematic diagram of their Direct Fusion Drive (DFD). (2023)
Christopher Galea, Stephanie Thomas, Michael Paluszek, Samuel Cohen's schematic: their Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration reactor concept. (2023) from Journal of Fusion Energy (2023) 42:4, via Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
Christopher Galea et al.’s schematic: their Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration reactor concept. (2023)

The Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration reactor concept looks a lot like Pulsar Fusion’s Direct Fusion Drive. Probably for the same reasons that Ford and Rolls Royce engines look alike. They’re using very similar tech to do pretty much the same thing.

I’m running short of time, again, so — that RMF antenna in the Pulsar Fusion schematic is a rotating magnetic field antenna: something that helps contain wiggling plasma.10

UFOs, UAPs and NASA

Frame from W. Lee Wilder's 'Killers From Space': Peter Graves surrounded by B movie space aliens. (1954)
Peter Graves and atomic invaders: “Killers From Space”. (1954)

“The UFO reports piquing Nasa’s interest“
For the first time ever, a team of Nasa scientists is taking unidentified anomalous phenomena seriously. But how will they sift out the incidents worthy of investigation?
Zaria Gorvett, Extraterrestrial life, BBC (July 26, 2023)

“It was just a normal day’s flying for Alex Dietrich – until it wasn’t. Streaking through the sky over the tranquil expanse of the Pacific Ocean near San Diego, the US Navy lieutenant commander was taking her F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jet on a training mission with a colleague in another plane. Then came a voice through the crackle of the radio.

“It was an operations officer aboard the warship USS Princeton, asking them to investigate a suspicious object flitting around: on several occasions, it had been spotted 80,000ft (24.2km) high, before suddenly dropping close to the sea and apparently vanishing.

“When the two jets arrived at its last known location, close to the ocean’s surface, the water seemed almost to be boiling. Moments later Dietrich saw it: what seemed to be a whitish, oblong object around 40ft (12m) long, hovering just above the water — like a wingless capsule, which she described as resembling a Tic Tac. As they edged in closer, it was gone, accelerating off into the sky at what seemed an impossible speed, leaving a glassy expanse of regular sea behind….”

First things first.

My tax dollars are not being wasted on a pointless search for pop-eyed space aliens.

That 1954 B movie11 profoundly does not represent what NASA is investigating.

I’m not convinced that calling UAPs Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, rather than Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, will keep journalists from trying a relaunch of the mid-20th-century flying saucer craze.

I talked about UAPs and a Bart Simpson balloon last month. You’ll find a link near the end of this post.

But I think the NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena is a reasonable moniker, since right now we don’t know that all UAPs are, strictly speaking, aerial.

And my hat’s off to the BBC author, for writing a level-headed piece.

My own opinion about UFOs, UAPs and the IHTT (Incredible Hovering Tic Tac) is that folks have been seeing things we don’t immediately understand for a very long time.

Wondering what they are is more than just okay. It’s part of being human. We, most of us that is, are curious: we want to learn about what’s around us.

Trying to convince folks who have seen a giant hovering Tic Tac, ball lightning or whatever they’re experiencing is mass hysteria seems silly. So would immediately assuming that an invasion of the Incredible Tic Tac People is imminent.

Sifting through ‘that’s odd’ reports and investigating the ones that warrant closer looks?

Since I think that being curious and learning about this wonder-packed universe is part of being human, I see that as a good idea.

SETI, NASA, Technosignatures and a Flight of Fancy

NASA's illustration: 'Finding Signs of Intelligent Life', from 'Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life: Technosignatures', Pat Brennan, NASA's Exoplanet Exploration Program, Feature (July 11, 2023)
NASA: Often-discussed technosignatures. (2023)

“Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life: Technosignatures“
Pat Brennan, Feature, NASA’s Exoplanet Exploration Program (July 11, 2023)

“Our first confirmed proof of life beyond Earth might not involve biology at all. It’s possible that we might intercept communication through electromagnetic waves, like radio, or find telescopic evidence of epic engineering.

“While the search remains largely focused on non-technological life, NASA scientists also have begun to consider what technological traces of intelligent life — ‘technosignatures’ — might look like. They wouldn’t come from planets in our solar system, but rather far-flung exoplanets that we cannot see up close. Among the possibilities are laser or radio pulses, signs of artificial chemicals in the atmospheres of distant planets, or ‘Dyson spheres’ — massive structures built around stars to collect their energy….”

It’s late Friday afternoon as I write this, so I don’t have time to go on about technosignatures, extraterrestrial intelligence and making sense. Which may be a good thing.

Robert Macke's photo: Brother Guy Consolmagno (research astronomer, physicist, religious brother, director of the Vatican Observatory, and President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation) in his lab. (2014)If we have neighbors — people who are free-willed spirits with physical bodies, like us — I figure they’ll be people. It’s like this scientist said:

“…Frankly, if you think about it, any creatures on other planets, subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics as us, made of the same kinds of atoms, with an awareness and a will recognizably like ours would be at the very least our cousins in the cosmos. They would be so similar to us in all the essentials that I don’t think you’d even have the right to call them aliens.”
(“Brother Astronomer,” Chapter Three, Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial? — Brother Guy Consolmagno (2000))

And I figure that “technosignatures” will, if we notice them, very probably be somewhere outside the Solar System.

But maybe they won’t. Neptune is farther from the Sun than Uranus, but it radiates 2.61 times as much energy as it gets from our star. Uranus only radiates 1.1 times as much.

The last I checked, we don’t know why Neptune is so (comparatively) much warmer.

Uranus is an oddball, too. It’s axis of rotation is tilted 97.77° to it’s orbit’s, compared to Earth’s 23.44° tilt. Odds are that early on in the Solar System’s formation, something about as massive as Earth hit Uranus, giving it a tilt that it’s retained to this day. But we’re not sure.12

Now, I think Neptune’s unexplained heat and the Uranian tilt have natural causes. Probably. It’s the least-unlikely condition.

But, since we don’t know why the poles of Uranus scan the inner Solar System every 42 years; and why something’s keeping Neptune’s interior warmer than we’d expect — I can’t rule out either or both as being the result of planet-scale engineering.

I think it’s very — extremely — unlikely that folks who aren’t human stopped by the Solar System and modified two outer planets. But possible? Maybe.

Here’s a good-enough-for-a-story scenario.

Wildly Improbable, But Not Impossible

Sky and Telescope's illustration: structure of a planet, a planet with a disk and a synestia, all of the same mass. (March 1, 2018)Researchers who weren’t human were curious about a collision that had happened in this planetary system’s third track out from the star.

All that was left of the two planets was a roughly doughnut-shaped mass of vaporized rock. Some researchers said it’d sort itself out as a planet with a ring system, others said it’d become a double planet, and still others didn’t care.

The ‘don’t care’ folks wanted to track developments on the system’s second planet.

So they all set up a self-maintaining power station for a data relay in the ninth-track planet’s core. (Neptune is the eighth planet out from the Sun, but Ceres and other asteroids/dwarf planets occupy the Solar System’s fifth orbital track.)

After tilting its rotation axis, the eighth-track planet made a reasonably stable platform for their instruments, which were placed on the planet’s poles. Then the researchers left.

The instrument platforms scanned the inner planets, sending data to the relay. The data relay collected, stored and transmitted data.

Time passed. The instrument platform’s alignment drifted a bit. But either the researchers’ descendants had lost interest in the system, or the misalignment wasn’t worth fixing.

The third track’s rock-vapor bagel sorted itself out into a mismatched double planet.

More time passed, and researchers who lived on the double planet’s larger member got curious about other worlds in their home system.

Unlikely? Yes. Very.

Impossible? I don’t thing so.

The usual links:

1 More than you need, or maybe want, to know about:

2 Fusion and historical context:

3 Recapping:

4 Tralphium!

5 Even more stuff you probably don’t need to know:

6 The more things change…

7 Horrifying wake-up calls:

8 More-or-less-well-cited background on:

9 Technology and numbers:

10 Two car manufacturers:

“Formation of field-reversed configuration using an in-vessel odd-parity rotating magnetic field antenna in a linear device“
Peiyun Shi, Baoming Ren, Jian Zheng, Xuan Sun; Review of Scientific Instruments, American Institute of Physics (October 2018) via PubMed Central (PMC)

11 Atomic angst and egg-tray eyes:

12 Three planets, a hypothetical doughnut and a serious science:

Posted in Discursive Detours, Exoplanets and Aliens, Science News, Series | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shylock, Salanio, Shakespeare, and Stage Stereotypes

Posted on July 22, 2023 by Brian H. Gill
John Gilbert and George Greatbach, printmaker's illustration for Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice: 'Shylock After the Trial'.
John Gilbert’s “Shylock After the Trial” illustration for “The Merchant of Venice”. (19th century)

On this date in 1598 William Shakespeare submitted “The Merchant of Venice” to the authorities. The play was entered in the Stationers’ Register as “The Marchaunt of Venyce or otherwise called The Jewe of Venyce”.

Before I say anything else, I’d better make something clear.

In my considered opinion, late 16th century England is not early 21st century America.

Back then, printers, bookbinders, booksellers, and publishers licensed their products through the Stationers’ Register.

Looking at it one way, it was an early version of copyright protection. From another angle, it was the government’s way of keeping unauthorized content away from the public.

While the Stationers’ Register protected the common folk from naughty ideas, the Master of the Revels entertained royalty. And kept subversive ideas off the English stage.

These days, we call that sort of thing prior restraint. In America, it’s a hard sell. At least for folks who lack unqualified approval of The Establishment’s1 preferences.

Words, Assumptions and Serious Thinkers

John Norden's map of London, from 'Speculum Britanniae....' Detail, Bankside. (1593) via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.
Bankside entertainment district, from John Norden’s map of London. (1593)

In 1598, “The Merchant of Venice” was cleared as non-subversive and deemed fit for public performance. By 1600, it had been performed “divers times”. So I figure the non-subversive stamp of approval stuck.

Shakespeare died in 1616.

In 1623, two of Shakespeare’s colleagues published “Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies”. That’s a mouthful, so academics generally call it the First Folio.

Despite the “First Folio” moniker, it’s not the first printed edition of Shakespeare’s plays. That’s another topic: and a complicated one, so I’ll skip it this week.

Where was I?

“The Merchant of Venice”.

Elizabethan England isn’t today’s America.

Shakespeare, censorship and (by implication) why I’m not fond of prior restraint. Right.

“The Merchant of Venice” was classified as a comedy in the First Folio.

Calling “The Merchant of Venice” a comedy doesn’t sit right with a fair number of today’s serious thinkers, since these days it’s the dramatic scenes that stick in our memory.

Edward Windsor Kemble's illustration for 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn': 'She Hugged Me Tight'. (1885)The play is also, according to at least some serious thinkers, antisemitic. I see their point, but I also see why some serious thinkers called “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” racist.2

“‘…We blowed out a cylinder-head.’
“‘Good gracious! anybody hurt?’
“‘No’m. Killed a [redacted]
“‘Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt….’
(“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Part 2 (1885), Chapter XXXII, Mark Twain; via gutenberg.org)

And that’s another yet another topic, along with my reasons for leaving words like [redacted] out of these posts.

And my conversations, for that matter.

I live in today’s America, think that human beings are people no matter how the powers that be classify them, and I’m drifting off-topic again.

A Shylock by Any Other Name

Brian H. Gill's 'Angst at Acme Casting'. (2013)
My “Angst at Acme Casting”. (2013)

Another problem with “The Merchant of Venice” is that Shylock is a stereotype villain. He’s greedy, scheming, and eventually thwarted by the forces of justice: and Portia.

The criticism has some merit. “The Merchant of Venice” abounds with stock characters.

Detail, Joseph F. Keppler's 'Uncle Sam's lodging-house:' an anti-Irish cartoon. Puck centerfold. (June 7, 1882)Salarino and Salanio, for example, are about as distinguishable as Pat and Mike.

And Shylock — as I see it, “The Merchant of Venice” is a romantic comedy written for London audiences in Elizabethan England.

Again, it is a romantic comedy.

Stereotypes and stock characters are part of the package.

Anticipating anything else makes about as much sense as expecting lyrical locutions and literary allusions in a sitcom.

It’d be astounding if Shylock didn’t conform to at least some of the culture’s expectations and biases.

Let’s remember that Shakespeare and folks at the Globe had to get the play past censors before selling tickets.

Let’s also remember that many in the audience had never seen a Jew. England’s Edward I took care of that, back in 1290, with his Edict of Expulsion.

Yes, Shylock reflects antisemitic stereotypes. And stereotypes can be a problem, even in a romantic comedy, if they reinforce biases.

But one of Shylock’s famous lines, “My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!”, isn’t delivered by Shylock. It’s Salanio, quoting Shylock.

Whether or not the quote’s accurate — that’s a question.

Act II, Scene VIII. Venice. A street.
Salanio
“…[Shylock] did utter in the streets:
‘My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!
…my ducats, and my daughter!…'”
(“The Merchant of Venice“, Shakespeare; via The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, hosted by MIT IS&T)

Act III, Scene I. Venice. A street.
Shylock
“…If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die?…”
(“The Merchant of Venice“, Shakespeare; via The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, hosted by MIT IS&T)

Or maybe “The Merchant of Venice” is anti-Saxon propaganda which somehow escaped the notice of England’s defenders.

I don’t think so. But that didn’t keep me from looking up “Shylock”. Apparently it was a fairly common Saxon name in Shakespeare’s day.

Scholars have found Hebrew names that sort of sound something like “Shylock”, but the name itself (probably) comes from “æsce locc”: “ash lock” — light grey lock of hair.3

Being (part) Irish

Since I’m about as gentile as it gets, west of the Urals, antisemitism hasn’t directly affected me.

And I’m too young for the old “no Irish need apply” hiring practices to have kept me unemployed.

On the other hand, my father and some of his boyhood buddies got free rides on a roller coaster, back in the day. The ride’s operator, I understand, had to test it each morning: and the kids were about the same weight as the sandbags he could have used.

The free rides ended when my father’s mother caught wind of the situation.

Maybe the ride’s operator was giving some poor Irish kids a break, letting them enjoy a ride they could never afford. Or maybe he figured they were either more expendable than sandbags, or a better test load. Maybe a bit of both, plus other reasons I haven’t guessed.

Either way, that helped me appreciate how attitudes and beliefs of my betters may affect me: or other folks who aren’t near the top of society’s ladder.

Not that I’ve been oppressed something fierce.

Looking Anglo and blatantly male wasn’t exactly an advantage in academia, back when political correctness was in bloom.

But I’ve got a noticeable forehead and voice like James Earl ‘Darth Vader’ Jones. Look a little like him, too, in a way, and that’s yet again another topic. The point is that I won’t play the victim card.

I do, however, think that penalizing — or rewarding — folks based on how others see their ancestors may not be a good idea.

Let’s see how that lines up with how I’m supposed to act.

We All Matter

Sporki~commonswiki's (?) photo taken during World Youth Day, Rome. (2000) via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permissionI’m a Catholic, so loving God and my neighbors is a must. And ‘my neighbors’ includes everybody: No exceptions. (Matthew 5:43–44, 7:12, 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; 10:25–27, 29–37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1789)

‘Loving my neighbors’ isn’t, or shouldn’t be, some light, fluffy, abstractly fuzzy feeling.

I should act as if everyone matters. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1928-1942)

Remembering that each of us has a share in humanity’s transcendent dignity and deserves respect as a person — isn’t always easy. But it’s a good idea, anyway.

A Few Thoughts After a Fraught Week

Carl Hassmann's 'The Almightier' illustration for Puck. (May 15, 1907)With a little encouragement, I could be a “serious thinker” myself.

I’m a very emotional man, and never quite lost ideals that were current in my youth, back in the Sixties.

To this day, I think that buying stuff I don’t need with money I don’t have to impress people I don’t like makes no sense. At all.

Small wonder I didn’t enjoy the benefits and penalties of a “successful career”.

I also think that knee-jerk anti-anything is a bad idea.

And I see no point in expecting someone who lived in another century, in another culture, with beliefs, biases and dangers that are not those of my homeland’s last few decades, to live up or down to contemporary standards.

Finally, although I called this a “fraught week”, it really wasn’t all that bad.

One of my teeth has settled down after a routine dental procedure. And I wrapped up my part of a family/household decision Friday afternoon.

The family/household thing involved something that I’ll keep under my hat for the moment: nothing spectacular or spicy, just something that’ll affect us for at least the next few years.

Thing is, doing discussions, organizing ideas and making notes so I’ll remember what we talked about when it comes up again — All that took time. And concentration.

So I couldn’t work on what I’d planned to have ready for today.

Instead, I looked up ‘this date in history’, noticed “The Merchant of Venice”, and started writing this thing. I hope you enjoyed it.

Now, the usual links to stuff that may or may not have anything to do with this post:

1 Elizabethan England and the powers that be (or were), very briefly:

2 Two books and a play:

3 Viewpoints, vocabulary, stories and an English king:

Posted in Being Catholic, Discursive Detours, Journal | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Storytelling, Imaginary Worlds and Being Human

Posted on July 15, 2023 by Brian H. Gill
Carl Spitzweg's 'Der arme Poet', 'The Poor Poet'. (1839) via Grohmann Museum at Milwaukee School of Engineering, used w/o permission.
Carl Spitzweg’s first version of “The Poor Poet”. (1839) via Grohmann Museum at MSOE.

Storytelling is a very “human” thing. But not all of us are storytellers. And some of us don’t even care for reading stories. Which is just as well, since we’re not supposed to be all alike.

“Fiction is Lies”

John Tenniel's illustration: looking-glass world's chessboard landscape, for Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There'. (1871)
John Tenniel’s illustration from Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass…”. (1871)

John Tenniel's Alice and the Knitting Sheep, Alice Through the Looking-Glass.Most of my writing is non-fiction, but I’ve done the occasional story, including an ongoing saga starring two avian fugitives:

Oddly enough, although I’ve been criticized for talking about both religion and science, I’ve yet to be told that storytelling and my faith don’t mix.

On the other hand, I have heard a few folks declare that they read only non-fiction: because it’s “real”. They’ve got a point.

“Fiction is lies…. All those things are essentially untrue….”
(attr. George R.R. Martin)

I could cobble together “Biblical” support for shunning fiction. Along with a rule that Christians should stay inside after sundown: taking 1 John 1:6 at literal face value.

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
(John 14:6) [emphasis mine]

“Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ,”
(Ephesians 4:15) [emphasis mine]

“Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.
“If we say, ‘We have fellowship with him,’ while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.”
(1 John 1:5–6) [emphasis mine]

That kind of trouble I don’t need.

However, ‘blessed are the storytellers’ isn’t one of the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3–12)

So I could invoke ‘absence of evidence is evidence of absence’ and say this proves that telling stories is sinful. But I won’t. Again, I don’t need that sort of trouble.

Argument from ignorance is an anti-logic landmine1 that’s easy to spot. When it’s defending 24 carat tinplate hooey.

When a person really believes the hooey: that’s another topic.

Giving and Getting Impressions

Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland', pp. 92-93, John Tenniel's illustration (1865) London: Macmillan (1928) edition, via Library of Congress
The Cheshire Cat and Alice, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. (1865)

The 64-dollar question, since I haven’t been warned against the sins of storytelling, is why I thought that fiction might be considered “unbiblical”. Well, maybe a $63.95 question.

For one thing, some — not all — of the folks I’ve heard announce that they never read fiction did so with a tone that mantled their preferences with an air of moral superiority.

Photo of Carry A. Nation with a hatchet. (ca. 1900)For another, I’d gotten an earful of imaginative ‘End Times Bible Prophecies’ on “Christian” radio, back in the 1960s. One chap even said that a Bible bit prophesied a specific item in the then-current Soviet armament inventory.

Then there was the steady drip-feed of guilt, shame and despair. Along with strong implications that ‘blessed are the miserable, for they shall spread misery’ was a Beatitude.

That sort of thing leaves an impression. Not a favorable one.

Bear in mind that I don’t have access to transcripts from that station, and that my memories are of those of a teenager who was experiencing undiagnosed clinical depression: among other issues.

The point is that I’m not surprised when folks afflicted with “Biblical” versions of malignant virtue are — ah, let’s say alternatively-reasonable.

“There are times, Charles, when even the unimaginative decency of my brother and the malignant virtue of his wife appear to me admirable.”
(Lord Peter Wimsey, in “Murder Must Advertise“, Dorothy L. Sayers (1933))

“…counting every thing which the most malignant virtue could shrink from, I have culled eighty lines. Eighty lines out of nine thousand!…”
(“The Good Gray Poet. A Vindication,” William Douglas O’Connor (1866))

And that, finally, brings me to how I could possibly imagine that anyone might regard storytelling as a Satanic snare.

John Tenniel's Cheshire Cat illustration for Lewis Carroll's 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.' (1865)I’m a Christian. And a Catholic, which isn’t oxymoronic, and that’s yet another topic.

Among other things, being a Christian means I think truth matters.

Fiction is about things that haven’t happened, often happening in places that don’t exist.

That sounds like pretty much the opposite of truth.

Coming at Reality from Different Directions

George Bellows' cartoon for Metropolitan magazine, illustrating Billy Sunday's preaching style. (May 1915)So how come I’m not denouncing novels, short stories, “I Love Lucy”, “Seven Samurai”, and “Star Trek”?

Basically, it’s the same reason that I’m not denouncing science and insisting that the wonders we’re finding in this amazing universe somehow threaten my faith.

I think truth matters, and that objective reality exists.

But I also think that expecting a poem, a telephone book and a travel guide to express truth the same way would be silly. Even if all three truthfully described the same town.

Recognizing that there’s more to truth than my preferences and favored viewpoint isn’t a new idea.

“…It’s something too many of us forget, that reality has layers. Occasionally people ask me how I can be Catholic and a science journalist. The answer is simple: Truth does not contradict truth. Both science and religion are pursuit of truth. They’re after different aspects of truth, different layers of reality, but they’re still both fundamentally about truth….”
(Camille M. Carlisle, Sky and Telescope (June 2017))

“…Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: ‘On to God!'”
(Religion and Natural Science, a lecture delivered in May, 1937, originally titled Religion und Naturwissenschaft.
Complete translation into English: “Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers“, Max Planck (1968); via archive.org)

“…Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth….”
(“Providentissimus Deus,” Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893))

Now let’s look at the rest of that George R. R. Martin2 quote.

“Fiction is lies; we’re writing about people who never existed and events that never happened when we write fiction, whether its science fiction or fantasy or western mystery stories or so-called literary stories. All those things are essentially untrue. But it has to have a truth at the core of it.”
(attr. George R.R. Martin, (George R.R. Martin Quotes, IMDB.com))

“Little Less Than a God”

Brian H. Gill's 'Are You Going to Finish That?' (June 5, 2015)
My “Are You Going to Finish That?” (June 5, 2015)

I can’t say “let there be light” and expect illumination. Not unless I’ve got voice activated lights, or use a wall switch as I speak. God’s God, I’m not, and that’s a good thing.

I am, however, human: and we’re pretty hot stuff.

“God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
(Genesis 1:27)

“then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
(Genesis 2:7)

“What is man that you are mindful of him,
and a son of man that you care for him?
“Yet you have made him little less than a god,
crowned him with glory and honor.”
(Psalms 8:5–6)

Since I’m human, I’ve got an imagination. As far as I can tell, that’s standard equipment. What sort of an imagination each of us has varies.

Each of us is unique, and made in God’s image. We share a common nature and dignity, but we’re not all alike. That’s a good thing, although we can misuse our differences. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355ff, 1934-1938)

And that’s yet again another topic.

I can use, or misuse, my imagination. It’s my choice. The extent to which I can make good decisions and stick to them? That’s complicated. (Catechism, 1730ff, 2520, 2708)

Imaginary Worlds and Human Dignity

Brian H. Gill's 'Island Flight'. (September 11, 2015)
My “Island Flight”. (2015)

We’re made “in the image of God”, so it’s hardly surprising that some of us try making our own worlds: in our imaginations. It’s a reflection of God’s creativeness.

I was going to talk about God, secondary causes, human nature and how we got into the current mess. (Catechism, 279-314, 355-379, 385-412, 1701-1709)

But it’s late Friday afternoon, and I’ve got maybe an hour to wrap this up, so that’ll wait for another time: apart from this overly-brief summary.

God started/starts with nothing — picking the right tense may be impossible when talking about God, who’s not ‘inside’ time and space — and is creating everything we see. And that part of reality that we can’t see because it’s not part of the visible world.

Humanity as a whole and me in particular: we’re not God.

But we’re made in the image of God, so I figure it’s hardly surprising that some of us try making imaginary worlds.

I see no problem with using our imagination.

Provided that we remember both who we are, and what we are: people, with a share in humanity’s transcendent dignity.

Our imaginary worlds aren’t “real”, with the profound complexity and interdependence of the visible world. But they can seem real, partly because we start with images, ideas and experiences from the reality we live in.

If we’re doing it right, our imaginary worlds, and stories we make for them, will reflect some truth that’s worth the time and effort spent by both writer and reader.3

I’ll close with an excerpt from what Pope St. John Paul II said to folks in the Los Angeles communications industry, back in 1987. He’d been talking about human dignity:

“…None is excluded because all bear the image of God. Physical and mental handicaps, spiritual weaknesses and human aberrations cannot obliterate the dignity of man. You will understand why the Church attaches such importance to this principle found on the first page of the Bible; it will later become the basis of the teaching of Jesus Christ as he says: ‘Always treat others as you would like them to treat you’ (Matth. 7, 12).

“In particular, social communications must support human dignity because the world is constantly tempted to forget it. Whether in news or in drama, whether in song or in story, you are challenged to respect what is human and to recognize what is good. Human beings must never be despised because of limitations, flaws, disorders, or even sins….

“…I would encourage you in yet another way: to respect also your own dignity. All that I have said about the dignity of human beings applies to you.

“Daily cares oppress you in ways different from those arising in other kinds of work. Your industry reflects the fast pace of the news and changing tastes. … It places you under extreme pressure to be successful, without telling you what ‘success’ really is. Working constantly with images, you face the temptation of seeing them as reality. Seeking to satisfy the dreams of millions, you can become lost in a world of fantasy.

“At this point, you must cultivate the integrity consonant with your own human dignity. You are more important than success, more valuable than any budget. Do not let your work drive you blindly, for if work enslaves you, you will soon enslave your art. Who you are and what you do are too important for that to happen. Do not let money be your sole concern, for it too is capable of enslaving art as well as souls. In your life there must also be room for your families and for leisure. You need time to rest and be re-created, for only in quiet can you absorb the peace of God.

“You yourselves are called to what is noble and lofty in human living, and you must study the highest expressions of the human spirit. You have a great part in shaping the culture of this nation and other nations. To you is entrusted an important portion of the vast heritage of the human race. In fulfilling your mission you must always be aware of how your activities affect the world community, how they serve the cause of universal solidarity….”
(To the people of the Communication Industry in Los Angeles
Pope St. John Paul II (September 15, 1987))

More of my take on writing and making sense:

1 “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, but evidence of absence is a real thing:

2 An American writer:

3 Reflecting truth:

Posted in Being a Writer, Being Catholic, Creativity, Journal, Series | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Fear, Change, a Loving God: and Choices

Posted on July 8, 2023 by Fr. Mark Botzet
Brian H. Gill's photo: Corpus Christi procession, Sauk Centre, Minnesota. (June 7, 2015)
Corpus Christi procession, Sauk Centre, Minnesota. (June 7, 2015)

This week I’m sharing what Fr. Mark Botzet said during Mass on the last Sunday in June.

I was going to just post his homily and let it go at that.

But then I thought his focus on fear might make more sense if I put it in context of what’s been happening in my part of the world.

So I’ve put a short (for me) look at life in central Minnesota, and the big picture, after Fr. Botzet’s homily.

Fr. Mark Botzet’s Homily — June 25, 2023

Photo by Cathy Behrens, used with permission. Our Lady of the Angels parish, Parishes on the Prairie; Sauk Centre, Minnesota.
Photo by Cathy Behrens, used with permission.

Today Jesus challenges us as his disciples.

To not have fear.

To not be afraid.

God is with us.

Because our life is in the hands of a loving God.

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.

Fear can paralyze, whether that fear is based in reality or whether it exists only in our mind.

Last Sunday in my homily I addressed the issue of our people feeling troubled and abandoned because they are like sheep without a shepherd.

While out at Steubenville at the Priest, Deacon and Seminarian Conference, I met up with a number of priests that are going through restructuring and parish mergers.

Coming home with this fear that, after July 1st, that I would no longer be seeing parishioners at Mass.

Even the fear of arriving at the wrong church at the wrong time.

Steubenville taught me that this fear was coming from the devil.

As I woke up at three on Sunday morning with thoughts of “do not give this homily”.

This fear is not from God.

I come to realize that God never abandons us.

God loves us.

If God loves us then what would possibly cause us to be separated and cast into hell?

Today Jesus tells us that we should fear the one who can destroy both soul and body.

Do not be afraid of speaking the truth in public even if it causes death to the body.

Death of the body is short.

It is the spiritual death of the soul that lasts for eternity.

It is the devil who deceives us and tempts us to turn our back on God when we sin.

After all, God will not be the one to condemn us.

We will have condemned ourselves.

We should be afraid of being separated from God.

By not going to Mass. By not receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, we choose to separate ourselves from God.

A God who allowed his Son to die for us on the cross.

Because He loved us.

My brothers and sisters in Christ.

This relationship is not one way.

We are to show our love for God.

We are being called into a radical relationship with God.

Jesus is our number one priority!

Having a relationship with Jesus is for the salvation of our souls.

When we get up to the pearly gates of Heaven, God will want to know if you loved Him as much as He loved you.

Did we spend time with Him.

Did we receive Him.

Or did we turn our backs on Him.

You see, having a relationship with Jesus means you would do whatever it takes to be with Jesus.

We should not be afraid of having a relationship with God.

We should have a fear of offending God.

A fear of sinning against a righteous God.

That would cause us to be separated from Him.

You see, at Mass there is something that is greater than ourselves that occurs.

The Eucharist reminds us that there is something more important than ‘just me’.

Anything more important than Mass is heretical.

Because Mass reminds us of our relationship between the Father and the children of God.

That is who we are, God’s children.

As I was at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio, two weeks ago, celebrating my 4th anniversary of my Priesthood, feeling all the brokenness in the midst of what our ACC is going through: I came to realize that I am in a radical relationship with God.

As a Priest, I am married to God and His Church.

And as a Priest, I will not let that be taken away from me.

What I do at this altar, is so much more than I can ever imagine.

It is so intimate and close with God.

The Eucharist reminds me that there is something more important than ‘just me’.

No matter what happens after July 1st.

There is this fear of people turning their backs on God.

That would cause them to be separated from God.

Why would anyone ever choose that?

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hated”.

Jesus tells us not to be afraid of proclaiming the truth to the world, even if it costs you your bodily life. Be more concerned about the evil one who will separate you from God by killing both body and soul.

Today Jesus challenges us as his disciples.

To not have fear.

To not be afraid.

God is with us.

Because our life is in the hands of a loving God.

Being at Mass is our number one priority.

God never abandons us.

We should be afraid of offending a loving God with our sins.

If we love God, we will make Jesus our number one priority.

(Fr. Mark Botzet, at Our Lady of the Angels, Sauk Centre, Minnesota (June 25, 2023))

(Thank you, Fr. Mark Botzet, for letting me post your homily here — Brian H. Gill.)

Looking at Four Decades, Two Millennia, and the Long Haul

(Brian H. Gill)

Minnesota drought conditions. (July 4, 2023) So far, still not as bad as the 2021 drought.
Minnesota drought conditions. (July 4, 2023)

I’ve run across fictional representations of “small town America” as blissful Brigadoons, untouched by smog, billboards and the pressures of civilized living. I’ve also seen small town America portrayed as hives of intellectually impaired bigots.

A more reality-based evaluation defined the better sort of small town America as “small-to-medium sized communities (populations between 8,500 and 50,000)….”

And a Brookings Institute evaluation of that evaluation pointed out that those small towns were suburbs: nice places to live, within the outskirts of nice metropolitan areas.

I live in Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

With a population of about 4,500, it’s the largest town between Alexandria and St. Cloud.1 But metropolitan we’re not.

I’ve lived in the Our Lady of the Angels parish of Sauk Centre since 1986. I love it here, but it’s no Brigadoon, untouched by the world’s troubles.

Minnesota drought conditions. (July 6, 2021)This year’s drought is still “moderate” around Sauk Centre. It’s not as bad as the one in 2021. But we need more rain.

For a community where agriculture is a big part of the economy, this is not good news.

Although agribusiness is a major part of Sauk Centre’s economic life, we’re also a regional transportation hub, and I’m wandering off-topic.

I’m guessing that the situation has been worse for smaller towns (this is Minnesota, so officially they’re “cities”) around here.

Under the Circumstances…

Diocese of Saint Cloud Area Catholic Communities (ACC) Map. (updated July 6, 2023)
Area Catholic Communities (ACC) map, courtesy Diocese of Saint Cloud. (updated July 6, 2023)

Right now, here in central Minnesota, in the first couple decades of the 21st century, we’re running a bit short on Catholics and priests.

We don’t have as many parishes in this part of Minnesota as we did back in 1986.

By the time the St. Cloud Diocese reorganized us into Area Catholic Communities (ACC), the Sauk Centre area was down to six parishes. Two of them in Sauk Centre.

Before July 1, 2023, our six parishes had three priests and 10 weekend Mass times. Now we’ve got two priests spread over those six parishes, and fewer weekend Masses.

And some parishes have a smaller share of those weekend masses than others.

We’ve now got two weekend Masses, here at Our Lady of the Angels in Sauk Centre: at 6:00 p.m. Saturday and 8:00 a.m. Sunday.

That’s actually pretty good news. For us. Considering the circumstances.

So was the number of folks who came to last Sunday’s Mass. I ended up sitting a few pews from my usual place.

Since it was the Fourth of July weekend, I’m guessing that a fair fraction of the folks were vacationing or on holiday visits. But even so: for an 8:00 a.m. Mass, on the first Sunday of a new schedule, that many folks in church is good news.

The biggest effect these changes have had on me, so far, is that now I’ll have an alarm clock wake me up each Sunday morning.

How I would have handled this year’s changes, if I was dealing with bigger disruptions to my weekly routine? I don’t know.

But I hope I’d have the sense to see them as what they are: stuff that affects me, but isn’t all that important in the long run.

Promises and the Best News Ever

'The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,' Piero della Francesca. (1463)The Catholic Church has been proclaiming the Gospel for two millennia.

I figure we’ll keep doing so. Mainly because we’ve had help.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:18)

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.'”
(Matthew 28:18–20)

Jesus of Nazareth made those promises about two millennia back now. We’re still sharing the best news humanity’s ever had, with anyone who will listen.

“The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.
The angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.
And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.'”
(Luke 2:9–12)

We’ve hit a few rough patches along the way. They seem to come at about five-century intervals, and that’s almost another topic.

The point is that our Lord gave us standing orders before He left, along with an assurance that He’d be back. When the Father gives the go-ahead.

“When they had gathered together they asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’
He answered them, ‘It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.
But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'”
(Acts 1:6–8)

My guess is that we’ll still be carrying out those orders when the Roman Empire, Song Dynasty and United Nations seem roughly contemporary.

Somewhat-related posts:

1 Small town America, real and imagined:

Posted in Being Catholic, Journal, Reflections | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Independence Day: Freedom, Citizenship and Looking Ahead

Posted on July 4, 2023 by Brian H. Gill

Flag of the United States of America.I like being an American.

There. I’ve said it.

I like living in a country where freedom of speech is part of our heritage.

And where freedom of expression extends even to folks whose ideas aren’t approved by The Establishment’s current iteration.

Usually.

Freedom of Expression, Even for ‘Them’

C. M. Stieglitz's photo for New York World-Telegram and the Sun: Robert Thompson and Benjamin J. Davis: accused of improper political views. (1949) Via Library of Congress and Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.I was born during the Truman administration, so my teens and the 1960s overlap almost perfectly.

Back then, denouncing communist plots, rock music and the Catholic Church were all the rage among ‘real Americans’.

Emphasis on “rage”.

Looking back at that part of my country’s history, I can see why they were so upset. Their world was crumbling around them.

Folks my age didn’t think “freedom” meant lockstep conformity to the values and preferences of a post-WWII American subculture.

And even America’s highest court had exhibited “un-American” tendencies.

I’m not happy about the 1949-1958 Smith Act trials of Communists, for several reasons. But something good did come of them.

In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court said that prosecuting folks for what they do is okay, but prosecuting them for what they believe isn’t.

Time passed. Slogans like “communist menace” and “national security” gave way to “tolerance” and “diversity”.

And folks who are either part of The Establishment’s current iteration, or its zealous supporters, still have conniptions when someone doesn’t agree with them. And says so.

Their responses are less of the “House Un-American Activities Committee” ilk and more of the “cancel culture” sort. And that’s another topic.1

Good Times, Bad Times, and Occasional Flashes of Brilliance

John Trumbull's 'Declaration of Independence.' (1819)
John Trumbull’s “Declaration of Independence.” (1819)

A bunch of formerly-loyal British subjects decided that they’d had enough, and signed “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” on July 4, 1776.

I’m not thrilled about some of what some Americans have done over the last 247 years, and realize that America lacks a spotless record.

But, on the whole, I think we’ve done okay. We’ve even — as individuals, unofficial associations and the occasional government entity or official — had the occasional flashes of brilliance.

Like deciding that having officially-unsanctioned beliefs is not a criminal offense.

As a country, we’ve had ups and downs.

Charles Forbell's 'Club Life in America: the Stockbrokers' Cartoon from Judge Magazine. (November 1929)The 1920s, for many folks, were good times.

For farmers, not so much.

Partly because government actions that looked good during WWI had unintended consequences, partly because the weather hadn’t been ideal.

Then, in 1929, stock market problems got the attention of city folks. And that’s a whole bunch of other topics that I may get to at another time.

But, whether because or despite Federal actions, we survived. By 1939, the Great Depression was over. For most folks, at any rate. And then WWII started.2

But we’re still here. I see that as a good thing.

I also think it’s a good idea to remember that change happens. And that whatever crisis or bonanza is in play at the moment — won’t last forever.

A remarkable number of us survived WWII, post-war boom times, and a breathtaking series of paradigm shifts we call the Sixties. I think we’ll get through today’s smoke from Canadian wildfires and angsty headlines, too.

Another Drought, and Reasonable Hope

Minnesota drought conditions. (June 27, 2023) So far, not as bad as the 2021 drought.
Minnesota drought conditions. (June 27, 2023)

Minnesota drought conditions. (July 13, 2021)This year’s drought isn’t, so far, as bad as the one two years back.

That’s good news.

What’s happening to crops in my part of the world — could be better.

But it could be worse.

Some of the good news is that we learned a lot from the Dust Bowl: including why over-tilling fields is a bad idea. And that’s yet another topic.

I think there’s a reasonable hope that we — and America — will get through today’s drought, smoke and political news. That’s partly because I see America as much more than this country’s federal, state and local governments.

I like being an American in large part because I live in a country with Americans. Most of us are folks who deliberately moved here, their children, or their descendants. I’m several generations in from the immigrant situation, and I’m wandering off-topic again.

Being a Good Citizen Still Matters

Nighttime photo of the 1939 World's Fair, New York City. (September 15, 1939.) Library of Congress / New York Public Archives, via rarehistoricalphotos.com, used w/o permission
“Dawn of a New Day” — “the world of tomorrow”. The 1939-1940 World’s Fair.

America, and the world, has changed a great deal over the last century. Much of that change has happened since my youth.

Some changes have been for the better, some haven’t. Responsibilities that come with being a citizen? Those haven’t changed.

Since I’m a Catholic, contributing to the good of society and taking part in public life isn’t an option: it’s a responsibility. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1915, 2239)

The details, what I do and how I do it, would vary with time and place.

I live in 21st century America, I’ve got certain abilities and limitations: so, among other things, I write something for this blog and post it each Saturday.

Different cultures provide and allow different kinds of participation. That’s okay. (Catechism, 1915)

I talked about freedom of expression earlier. That’s important.

So is religious freedom: being allowed to believe and act as if those beliefs matter.

As a Catholic, I must support religious freedom — for everybody. (Catechism, 2104-2109)

There’s more to being Catholic than being a good citizen. But it’s important. And it’s part of acting as if what I believe matters.

The ‘citizenship’ part of my faith boils down to loving God and my neighbor, and seeing everyone as my neighbor. That’s everyone. No exceptions. (Matthew 5:43-44, 7:12, 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31; 10:25-27, 29-37; Catechism, 1789)

Justice, Charity, Respect: They’re Worth Trying

Brian H. Gill's photo: Sauk Centre's Sinclair Lewis Days parade. (July 20, 2013)I’m just some guy living in central Minnesota, so changing the course of world history isn’t a reasonable goal.

But I must do what I can: working toward a greater degree of justice and charity, and respect for “the transcendent dignity of man,” in America. And in the world. (Catechism, 1928-1942, 2419-2442)

That’s why I’ll occasionally talk about where we’ve been, what’s happening, and where we’re going. And suggest that wanting and giving respect make sense.

We won’t solve our problems overnight. Humanity has an enormous backlog of issues.

But I am sure that we can make our tomorrow something better than our today: and that we must try.

I’ve talked about this before:

1 Freedom of expression, Yates v. United States:

2 Air quality and the Dust Bowl:

Posted in Being a Citizen, Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments