What's Up With The Trinity

[MiserereNobis]

I feel compelled to point out that what these great physicists are saying is not limited to the LDS point of view -- a perusal of Catholic mystic writings (particularly: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Carthusians) aligns quite nicely.

 

I would recommend Thomas Merton as a starting point for understanding Catholic mysticism in the modern age, especially New Seeds of Contemplation.

 

Here is an intriguing book that is an anthology of writings from Catholics, Orthodox, and protestants (few) on the mystical nature of interacting with God.  It also aligns quite nicely with what these physicists are saying:  Christian Teachings on the Practice of Prayer

 

(note:  in mainstream Christianity, petitionary prayer, where we ask God for something, is only one aspect of prayer.  The prayer mentioned in this book's title is best understand as Christian meditation)

[mfbukowski]

I feel compelled to point out that what these great physicists are saying is not limited to the LDS point of view -- a perusal of Catholic mystic writings (particularly: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Carthusians) aligns quite nicely.

 

I would recommend Thomas Merton as a starting point for understanding Catholic mysticism in the modern age, especially New Seeds of Contemplation.

 

Here is an intriguing book that is an anthology of writings from Catholics, Orthodox, and protestants (few) on the mystical nature of interacting with God.  It also aligns quite nicely with what these physicists are saying:  Christian Teachings on the Practice of Prayer

 

(note:  in mainstream Christianity, petitionary prayer, where we ask God for something, is only one aspect of prayer.  The prayer mentioned in this book's title is best understand as Christian meditation)

Thanks - I for one will check them out.

[3DOP]

I feel compelled to point out that what these great physicists are saying is not limited to the LDS point of view -- a perusal of Catholic mystic writings (particularly: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Carthusians) aligns quite nicely.

 

I would recommend Thomas Merton as a starting point for understanding Catholic mysticism in the modern age, especially New Seeds of Contemplation.

 

Here is an intriguing book that is an anthology of writings from Catholics, Orthodox, and protestants (few) on the mystical nature of interacting with God.  It also aligns quite nicely with what these physicists are saying:  Christian Teachings on the Practice of Prayer

 

(note:  in mainstream Christianity, petitionary prayer, where we ask God for something, is only one aspect of prayer.  The prayer mentioned in this book's title is best understand as Christian meditation)

 

 

Miserere, you crack me up...John of the Cross aligns quite nicely with Einstein? Great! I guess I don't care about physics...in the least. So Einstein could have been a Carmelite? I'm not surprised that much, but I enjoy your making such odd comparisons.

[mfbukowski]

Miserere, you crack me up...John of the Cross aligns quite nicely with Einstein? Great! I guess I don't care about physics...in the least. So Einstein could have been a Carmelite? I'm not surprised that much, but I enjoy your making such odd comparisons.

I find this surprising for one who believes that all truths should be consistent with each other.

 

I can never quite find where you are coming from.  If Ultimate Truth exists, one would think that all these areas would "align", as indeed miserere does.

 

Very confusing.

[3DOP]

I find this surprising for one who believes that all truths should be consistent with each other.

 

I can never quite find where you are coming from.  If Ultimate Truth exists, one would think that all these areas would "align", as indeed miserere does.

 

Very confusing.

 

Yeah, I dunno bukowski. Maybe you are trying to see me expounding something when I wasn't? I wasn't suggesting that there is conflict between truth in any field. I thought it was amusing. That's all.

[Bowtiemenace]

Again, I only glanced at the title of it. New age spirituality idiocy is very popular right now and I made a decent abductive inference, given the fact that I was not going to take the time at that moment to look into it further. I'm reading three textbooks right now, although I'd love to read that next. It sounds very interesting. 

 

Since you've kept posting, i'll re-affirm my objections.

 

One: It would be more useful to have a religion that is true (by my definition), because then you would be more sure of being saved. With pure faith we are no more likely to be saved than by believing in the flying spaghetti monster xD

 

Two: You seem to acknowledge that reason is important in making a decision about religion and not relying on pure faith? Wow, sounds like you've completely changed positions (perhaps I just misread what you were saying?):

 

 

 

Data has nothing to do with religion.

Three: I don't care about "moral obligations" to find truth (by my definition) because I care about being right (and being saved, if it can be so). It seems we have different objectives. You want use in this life. I want use in this one too, but I care much more about the next (if there is a next) 

 

Four: You need to justify your special pleading. If there are no intrinsic truths (I'm very confused about you now, since you seem to be citing evidence? Even though you say there can't be science supporting religion? So confusing.) Then it is true that there are no intrinsic truths, and so there is the intrinsic truth, that there are no intrinsic truths. Why should you're argument be allowed to free itself from this contradiction. You must justify you're plea in this matter.
 

Five: By the way, I'm actually 12! Glad I was able to fool you guys I'm home schooled and I'm getting ready for college in a few years. Sorry I lied xD

[Calm]

"It would be more useful to have a religion that is true"

And as soon as you can prove a faith "true" in this way, let us know.

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Again, I only glanced at the title of it. New age spirituality idiocy is very popular right now and I made a decent abductive inference, given the fact that I was not going to take the time at that moment to look into it further. I'm reading three textbooks right now, although I'd love to read that next. It sounds very interesting. 

 

Since you've kept posting, i'll re-affirm my objections.

 

One: It would be more useful to have a religion that is true (by my definition), because then you would be more sure of being saved. With pure faith we are no more likely to be saved than by believing in the flying spaghetti monster xD

 

Two: You seem to acknowledge that reason is important in making a decision about religion and not relying on pure faith? Wow, sounds like you've completely changed positions (perhaps I just misread what you were saying?):

 

Three: I don't care about "moral obligations" to find truth (by my definition) because I care about being right (and being saved, if it can be so). It seems we have different objectives. You want use in this life. I want use in this one too, but I care much more about the next (if there is a next) 

 

Four: You need to justify your special pleading. If there are no intrinsic truths (I'm very confused about you now, since you seem to be citing evidence? Even though you say there can't be science supporting religion? So confusing.) Then it is true that there are no intrinsic truths, and so there is the intrinsic truth, that there are no intrinsic truths. Why should you're argument be allowed to free itself from this contradiction. You must justify you're plea in this matter.

 

Five: By the way, I'm actually 12! Glad I was able to fool you guys I'm home schooled and I'm getting ready for college in a few years. Sorry I lied xD

That's ok let's talk when you grow up.

Edited July 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bowtiemenace]

Again, appeal to ridicule. No substance

[Bowtiemenace]

I never said that I could, nor would I try to "prove something." I try to find truth. There's a difference. Trying to prove something says that I've already made my conclusions in an area. Finding truth doesn't. There are different methodologies for each. Apologists try to prove things. Truth seekers don't.

 

Apologists think: "How can this be true, given other knowledge that contradicts it?"

Truth Seekers think: "Is this true?"

 

Well, I've shown its more probable that God exists haven't I? Not a specific religion, but God's existence. (And you aren't even willing to refute that. Or perhaps you can't.) I discovered God's existence very simply and with a good methodology. There are various definitions of God. I defined God in various ways using certain factors like Immateriality, eternal, physical, advanced alien etc. It became apparent very quickly that the advanced alien version was extremely likely. (Any astronomer will tell you this. There's far too much in the Universe for it not to be the case.) Then I decided that God, as defined existed. The other definitions weren't as likely. 

 

When you actually examine logic, (rather than ridiculing my age, which is unrelated to my logic. You're attacks are purely ad hominem.) You'll find that I'm really quite right. I'm still waiting for substance. Until then, you're argument is dead.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bowtiemenace

[mfbukowski]

I never said that I could, nor would I try to "prove something." I try to find truth. There's a difference. Trying to prove something says that I've already made my conclusions in an area. Finding truth doesn't. There are different methodologies for each. Apologists try to prove things. Truth seekers don't.

 

Apologists think: "How can this be true, given other knowledge that contradicts it?"

Truth Seekers think: "Is this true?"

 

Well, I've shown its more probable that God exists haven't I? Not a specific religion, but God's existence. (And you aren't even willing to refute that. Or perhaps you can't.) I discovered God's existence very simply and with a good methodology. There are various definitions of God. I defined God in various ways using certain factors like Immateriality, eternal, physical, advanced alien etc. It became apparent very quickly that the advanced alien version was extremely likely. (Any astronomer will tell you this. There's far too much in the Universe for it not to be the case.) Then I decided that God, as defined existed. The other definitions weren't as likely. 

 

When you actually examine logic, (rather than ridiculing my age, which is unrelated to my logic. You're attacks are purely ad hominem.) You'll find that I'm really quite right. I'm still waiting for substance. Until then, you're argument is dead.

I never ridiculed your age.

 

You said you were 12 and I took you at your word.  You need more education, that's all.

 

Five: By the way, I'm actually 12! Glad I was able to fool you guys I'm home schooled and I'm getting ready for college in a few years. Sorry I lied xD

Your blog brags about winning arguments over here, as if you didn't provide links so we can see you bragging.  Adults don't do things like that, so I took you at your word.

 

I am sorry if I offended you- honestly, let's resume when you are older- you are obviously a very bright fellow, you just need to gain more information about how the world works, that's all,  We were all young once!

 

Wow, I owned on this forum battle!

 

Take a look at this. I thought I was going to get owned as I'm very new to Mormon Studies, but looks like I did pretty well!

My First Forum Achievement

http://logicalmormon.blogspot.com/

 

Hang in there- you have a bright future ahead!

Edited July 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bowtiemenace]

Lets go over the points again.

 

My point about intrinsic truth can be found on another site, are they "just children who don't understand the world?"

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/postmodernism-dangers.html

 

I'm sure I could find more and I will if I have too...

 

Another objection that I didn't think of...

 

There are, of course, a number of obvious objections that can be raised against the Pragmatist Theory of Truth. For one thing, the notion of “what works” is very ambiguous — especially when one expects, as James does, that we seek it “in the widest sense of the word.” What happens when a belief works in one sense, but fails in another? For example, a belief that one will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal — but in the end, they may fail in their ultimate goal. Was their belief “true”?

James, it seems, substituted a subjective sense of working for an objective sense of working which Pierce employed. For Pierce, a belief “worked” when it allowed one to make predictions which could be and were verified — thus, the belief that a dropped ball will fall and hit someone “works.” For James, however, “what works” seems to mean something like “whatever produces results we happen to like.”

This is not a bad meaning for “what works,” but it’s a radical departure from Pierce’s understanding and it is not at all clear why this should be a valid means for understanding the nature of truth. When a belief “works” in this broad sense, why call it “true”? Why not call it something like “useful”? But a useful belief is not necessarily the same as a true belief — and that is not how people typically use the word “true” in normal conversation.

For the average person, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted, it may be the case that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but not always. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than truth.

Now, Pragmatism may be a handy means for distinguishing truth from untruth. After all, that which is true should produce predictable consequences for us in our lives. In order to determine what is real and what is unreal, it would not be unreasonable to focus primarily upon that which works. This, however, is not quite the same as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth as described by William James.

 

 

 

From atheism.about.com

 

So my objections are childish nonsense? Again, you fail to attack substance, and dismiss my perfectly reasonable objections to your unfounded idea. 

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

You just need to gain more information about how the world works, that's all.

Yes, and observing is how this is done. Would you not agree that in just several years, a critical thinker can gain more information by paying attention than one who does not think critically? Go to church on Sunday, and see how many people say things like "I know the church is true." Its ridiculous. They know nothing about epistemology, logic, philosophy, etc, (And I didn't when I made the connection) and they say that they know? Then go and read about confirmation bias, self-hypnosis and other psychological phenomena and their effects and you'll see that they've deluded themselves. You can't know anything with 100% certainty. Did I read this in a textbook? No. I thought critically about what I had observed in my environment and connected it with what I knew about psychology. There are 30 year olds I see getting up there and saying "that they know." Age really isn't all that relevant. Its how critically you think, how much knowledge you have intellectually, and how well you pay attention. Knowledge about how the world works does grow with age, but is not dependent on age. I think you're assumption is unwarranted. 

[MiserereNobis]

Epistemology and its relationship to linguistics is one of mfbukowski's favorite subjects... beware!

 

(beware The Video!)

Edited July 27, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Bowtiemenace]

Lol. He's probably not even going to respond anyway (at least with substance.) I really should just move to the ex-mormon forums... They'd massacre me and get me thinking. Yeah, I'll probably just leave now...

[MiserereNobis]

Lol. He's probably not even going to respond anyway (at least with substance.) I really should just move to the ex-mormon forums... They'd massacre me and get me thinking. Yeah, I'll probably just leave now...

 

Isn't this the second time you've threatened to leave...?

[saemo]

I don't actually know all that much about archaeology, early Christianity etc, although I'm getting into it, but it seems like there's pretty much a consensus among non-evangelical scholars that the Jews worshiped one God, but believed in many Gods, (were monistic) from what I've read. Most all the other ancient religions were polytheistic (noncontroversially so,) the divine council of Gods is an ancient myth, and creation ex nihlo appears to be a more modern fabrication (the Egyptians believed in the Universe being formed form a primordial soup. Maybe i'm wrong on that however.

 

I will, however, attack on a front that I know very well. The Logical front. This is one of the reasons the church has always made so much sense to me, King Follet discourse.

Now as we know the argument from design is faulty, unless you allow for a God that created God, and a God that created him, basically infinitely. If the Universe is too complex and "fine tuned" for life then, God must be more complex to have created the Universe, and given that, God must also have a designer, who was at least at one point more complex than God. (Even then it is somewhat faulty) You can make the assertion that God is infinite and eternal (but that is an assertion) and I could just as well make that assertion about the Universe or Multi-verse. Aquinas has this problem with his argument as well. God must also have a cause. What these philosophers rely on is the Kalam argument, which doesn't work. A great video on this (and on why Aquinas is NOT supported by modern cosmology can be seen here. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

 

So given this, if the Universe is singular then it appears to have been fine tuned (I think the most recent estimate of the probability for our current fine tuned state naturalistically was 1/10²⁰⁰). By the the way, that's more particles than would be in two Universes (exactly our size.) its very improbable. If our universe comes from God, God must have come from another God and this must go on infinitely.

 

Also lets suppose that there are an infinite number of universes as multi-verse theory suggests. An easy argument would be this.

 

1. in any infinite system, every possible occurrence, no matter how improbable, has occurred an infinite number of times.

2. God is defined as a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge (whichever greater is possible.)

3. We at some point might be able to evolve to become Gods by technological advancement and evolutionary changes without the existence of other Gods.

4. It is at least possible to reach a maximum amount, if not all or infinite knowledge.

5. Therefore, a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists no matter how improbable.

6. Therefore God as defined exists.

 

Either way you have an infinite regression of Gods and both are decent arguments.

 

I'd like to ask you why you don't believe in the existence of multiple Gods (or that we can become them.) Shouldn't our rapid technological innovations in the past few years at least open your mind to that possibility? We've reached an exponential point in intellectual growth. We're learning how to discover better! Machines find the laws of the Universe now. Take Eureqa for instance. http://www.nutonian.com/. Eureqa is even better at it than we are. 

 

Anyways, it always seemed very reasonable from a rational standpoint to me. Hope this promotes some thought!

Hi, your argument presumes God has a species. A Trinitarian like myself, or St. Thomas, would argue that God does not have a species, as God is not created.

As to henotheism, yes, the Hebrews struggled with idolatry, which included a belief that the pagan gods existed. God led them out of their paganism and post exilic Israel are strict monotheists. They lost their belief in the pagan gods as real, and came to believe in one God. Personally, I don't view returning to error from which God led a group from, as a form of truth.

[MiserereNobis]

(PS I'm wondering why this topic got tagged "evangelical" when we Catholics formulated and expounded on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity for about 1500 years before Evangelicalism appeared on the scene... )

[wenglund]

One: It would be more useful to have a religion that is true (by my definition), because then you would be more sure of being saved.Let's test 

 

Let's logically test your assertion with a simple hypothetical:

 

A: Let's say that there is a religion called the Church of the birthplace of Jesus, and this religion has only a single belief: which is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

 

B. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the singular belief of the Church of the Birthplace of Christ is demonstrably true, then:

 

C Does the truth of that singular belief, or in other words the truth of that religion, make the believers therein sure of being saved?

 

D. If so, why or how? And, if not, why?

 

Also, what, to your way of thinking, are people being saved from by having a "true" religion?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2014 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Lets go over the points again.

 

My point about intrinsic truth can be found on another site, are they "just children who don't understand the world?"

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/postmodernism-dangers.html

 

I'm sure I could find more and I will if I have too...

 

Another objection that I didn't think of...

 

 

From atheism.about.com

 

So my objections are childish nonsense? Again, you fail to attack substance, and dismiss my perfectly reasonable objections to your unfounded idea. 

You are a sweetheart, but really don't know much about this topic.

 

Your website is not a very good source- it is a bible website and not at all philosophical in its method of argumentation.  This is a much better statement of your argument- and a recent and definitive statement of your position:

http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412

 

Unfortunately Boghossian's book has been largely lambasted in philosophical circles because it presents a straw man argument which is not even relevant to the relativistic position.

 

In short it PRESUMES a view of truth and falsity that relativists do not accept, and so misses the entire mark, as does your website.

 

This is one refutation of Boghossian's position:

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/2/278.deterding

 

Honestly, I have spent most of my life concerned with these questions, after actually being educated in them.  You are unquestionably bright, and I hope this helps you to think through the issues.

 

Thanks for at last at least attempting an argument, even if it's not your argument.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, and observing is how this is done. Would you not agree that in just several years, a critical thinker can gain more information by paying attention than one who does not think critically? Go to church on Sunday, and see how many people say things like "I know the church is true." Its ridiculous. They know nothing about epistemology, logic, philosophy, etc, (And I didn't when I made the connection) and they say that they know? Then go and read about confirmation bias, self-hypnosis and other psychological phenomena and their effects and you'll see that they've deluded themselves. You can't know anything with 100% certainty. Did I read this in a textbook? No. I thought critically about what I had observed in my environment and connected it with what I knew about psychology. There are 30 year olds I see getting up there and saying "that they know." Age really isn't all that relevant. Its how critically you think, how much knowledge you have intellectually, and how well you pay attention. Knowledge about how the world works does grow with age, but is not dependent on age. I think you're assumption is unwarranted. 

Your very quest for certainty grows from an illusion.  Certainty is impossible.

 

What you really want is the emotional peace the illusion of certainty gives you. 

 

You can get the peace just by praying for it- and then you too will be able to say "I know it is true" because God himself will give you the peace you crave, without any need for certainty.  Your logic is just illusion. You yourself admit it is.

 

 

You can't know anything with 100% certainty.

 

Exactly.

 

So why do you pretend your logic gives you that??  If you had just an ounce of humility, you would see that we are on the same side.

[mfbukowski]

(PS I'm wondering why this topic got tagged "evangelical" when we Catholics formulated and expounded on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity for about 1500 years before Evangelicalism appeared on the scene... )

Uh, I wouldn't brag about that if I were you....  

 

(Love you anyway!) 

[mfbukowski]

Lets go over the points again.

 

My point about intrinsic truth can be found on another site, are they "just children who don't understand the world?"

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/postmodernism-dangers.html

 

I'm sure I could find more and I will if I have too...

 

Another objection that I didn't think of...

 

 

From atheism.about.com

 

So my objections are childish nonsense? Again, you fail to attack substance, and dismiss my perfectly reasonable objections to your unfounded idea. 

Well indeed the arguments the website makes are very poor ones indeed- in fact they are not even "arguments"

 

Essentially it says "Relativists think there is no objective truth!"

 

Duh.

 

That is essentially Boghossian's argument- showing the "bad consequences" of belief in the bugaboo of "relativism"

 

There is no evidence or argument against relativism- just essentially assertions that it is "bad".

 

A relativist would answer "So what?  We already know there is no truth- that it is a linguistic phrase we use within a context and has various meanings according to its usage"

 

So it is not convincing to a relativist that "relativism is bad" - they think it is "good" and there is no way to define it as "bad" OR "good"- because- get ready- truth is relative.

 

That's no argument at all!  A relativist would say "Yep- you got it right, truth is relative".

 

There are, of course, a number of obvious objections that can be raised against the Pragmatist Theory of Truth. For one thing, the notion of “what works” is very ambiguous — especially when one expects, as James does, that we seek it “in the widest sense of the word.” What happens when a belief works in one sense, but fails in another? For example, a belief that one will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal — but in the end, they may fail in their ultimate goal. Was their belief “true”?

James, it seems, substituted a subjective sense of working for an objective sense of working which Pierce employed. For Pierce, a belief “worked” when it allowed one to make predictions which could be and were verified — thus, the belief that a dropped ball will fall and hit someone “works.” For James, however, “what works” seems to mean something like “whatever produces results we happen to like.”

This is not a bad meaning for “what works,” but it’s a radical departure from Pierce’s understanding and it is not at all clear why this should be a valid means for understanding the nature of truth. When a belief “works” in this broad sense, why call it “true”? Why not call it something like “useful”? But a useful belief is not necessarily the same as a true belief — and that is not how people typically use the word “true” in normal conversation.

For the average person, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted, it may be the case that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but not always. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than truth.

Now, Pragmatism may be a handy means for distinguishing truth from untruth. After all, that which is true should produce predictable consequences for us in our lives. In order to determine what is real and what is unreal, it would not be unreasonable to focus primarily upon that which works. This, however, is not quite the same as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth as described by William James.

 

Yes, Peirce and James would disagree about these points.

 

So what?

[mfbukowski]

Question: "What are the dangers of postmodernism?"

Answer: Simply put, postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, postmodernism’s viewpoint is exemplified in the statement “that may be true for you, but not for me.” While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of opinion with matters of truth.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/postmodernism-dangers.html#ixzz38i6fYnTQ

Yep.  They got that right.

 

So what?

 

The rest of the "article" just repeats it in more detail.  No arguments here at all-

Edited July 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here's another good article that explains the problem with Boghossian's position

 

http://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Fear_Of_Knowledge_by_Paul_Boghossian

Fear of Knowledge is a pithy repudiation of the popular claim that every way of seeing the world is just as good as any other. But to his detriment, Boghossian fails to reflect about what might be so attractive about this doctrine in the first place. What’s so attractive is the ineradicable uncertainty we have about our own knowledge (for instance, how do I ever truly know that world is as it appears?), and the feeling of awe inspired by this inability to grasp the world with full confidence. To harbor uncertainty forces us to come to grips with the possibility that things could be other than they appear, or other than the way we think they are. This doubt enriches truth: the process of coming to grips with the world is crucial to understanding the way the world actually is. So we should be loath to wish away the sheer wonderment that is demonstrated by the doctrine of equal validity.

I am always astounded that Mormons or theists in gneral WANT to defend the common sense position that things "really are" the way they appear when obviously God does not "appear" at all.

Defending the existence of an invisible God by maintaining that we must have observable evidence for "truth" is sheer lunacy.

We have no evidence for God- so theists must believe that it is reasonable to believe ideas without evidence.

It is totally obvious.

Edited July 28, 2014 by mfbukowski