I often see human history as an overlapping, intertwined series of smaller trends and histories each of which has a common theme or outcome which can only be seen in retrospect. For example the history of human creativity can be seen as a historical line starting with cave paintings and progressing through various art forms to what we have today and, presumably, this will continue until humanity is expunged. Similarly the history of violence starts with pre-human survival techniques (a la Kubrick's 2001) and continues apace today with knife crime and warfare. This technique can also be used for shorter term histories, e.g. the history of analogue telecommunications which begin with Marconi et al's visions and continued throughout the 20th century. I would estimate that we are currently in the end-phase of the history of analogue telecommunications. Even saying this I find it hard to be objective about something I am currently participating in. This makes it extremely hard to analyse these histories unless one can look at them retrospectively.
Two of the most intriguing histories are the history of organised religion and how it has impacted humanity and the history of ideology and how that has/does affect society.
Both these histories are on-going so it's very hard to be objective, but I would say that the history of organised religion is on the wane. No longer can the Pope or other religious leaders start wars or define an era as much as they have done over the last 2 thousand years or so. There is still a very large influence, of course, however with church-going reducing and the general increase in agnosticism I don't see organised religion ever having sway over the masses ever again.
The history of ideology, however, is still waging. Consider the Cold War where communism (of sorts) and capitalism (of sorts) battled it out on a global stage. There were many thousands of literal casualties and millions of indirect casualties. The planet is still in the middle of this particular ideological history, but it's starting to become clearer what happened in the post-war period, for example, and the impact that it has had on our current culture and what influence it might continue to have.
The latest ideological battle (although one could argue that it's one of the oldest, initiated by that "whore" Helen) is the battle between Western "free"-thinking "Christians" and radical Islam. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still going strong.
US foreign policy can be blamed (and usually rightly) for many of these problems due to their influence and power. For too long the needs of the few have outweighed the needs of the many.
I think we're still in the middle of a history which involves the selfishness of humanity (which is necessarily biologically programmed via evolution) and started in the misty pre-history of humanity. The fact that we have incredible technology today (check out my new iPhone) and yet millions of humans die through starvation every year is appalling. I blame myself somewhat for this, but my culpability is surely only a tiny fraction compared with George Bush and executives at Haliburton, AT&T etc etc? I would gladly and tearily join with others in a greater society which has at its core the progression of science and knowledge, but also can feed its people and care for those less fortunate.
The hardest thing to understand about this is that this dream is shared by more people than those who don't. It's a revolutionary's wet dream, however I don't think this history has played out by at least a hundred years from now (perhaps when free energy is generated we will be able to address these problems) and as long as the ideological history is still continuing we will always have conflict.
There is probably a term to describe this way of looking at history and trending, but, not being a Historian, I have no idea what it might be.
Another history of the history of democracy which could be said to date back to Athens, where they coined the term, but didn't practise in quite the same way we do today (mainly due to the fact that what people call today's Democracy is really not a democracy at all. We in the West live in oligarchies rather than democracies due to the fact that we don't have any direct say in any issues (except for Switzerland where they use referendums quite wisely).
I support and applaud Ralph Nader's politics for two reasons. One, he's right about the corruption, abuse of power and Machiavellian nature of modern party politics and that must change, and, two, the more people talk about Ralph the more they will realise that the current oligarchical system is corrupt and desperately needs change. I would vote for him in a second, however we have nothing like Ralph in the UK so I continue to boycott my vote and try to educate everyone I talk with about politics of the need for a change to the ways we run our countries.
Referendum is an interesting word. Every once in a while the media need to refer to a referendum and get their knickers in a twist over whether the plural should be referenda or referendums. I'm of the opinion that this sort of thing doesn't matter too much, but it is difficult to understand what the correct for should be for scholars and linguists let alone anyone else, however if possible I think one should make the effort to get this right. Referendum is a neuter, gerundive form of the Latin verb refero and therefore it's a pretty obscure word at the best of times and so to create a plural of this in Latin would not be referenda and therefore I think the common knowledgeable acceptance is of referendums as the plural in English.
Similarly the English word ignoramus has a plural of ignoramuses instead of ignorami due to the fact that ignoramus is not a Latin noun (it's a verb: "we do not know") and, hence, does not take the normal Latin form of pluralisation.
It seems that the general rule is if the word is originally a Latin noun word then in English we can use the original plural (e.g. curriculum/curricula and medium/media etc)
However, for modern usage it's common not to use the "more correct" Latin because it just sounds wrong! e.g. forum/fora/forums or octopuses/octopodes etc etc
Salvatore Allende was a Chilean president (1970-1973) who tried to socialise Chile to enable the underprivileged to have a decent life. Unfortunately it didn't quite work out the way he wanted. Various reasons abound as to why Socialism and Communism around the world failed, but the work of the United States in underhand espionage and often outright war must not be underestimated. It's sure that many communist regimes were corrupt, but the ideology of caring for everyone in society and the idea that everyone has a place and a valuable contribution is not one which US leaders (business as well as political) ever seem to grasp (certainly not for long enough to forget about their pay packets!).
The extent to which Allende is lauded is evidenced by streets being named for him all over the world (France, Spain, Serbia, Italy, Cuba, Uruguay, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Austria, Venezuela, Paraguay, Colombia, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, Bulgaria, Holland, Mozambique, Hungary, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Canada etc). However, compare the UK's only (I think) reference: the David Blunkett-initiated Sheffield's Allende Way. There's nothing in London compared with over 50 in France and over 90 in Paris alone!! This disparity is yet another reason for me to move to France! (a strangely compelling one too - it reflects a culture of community and society instead of one of selfishness like the UK although this is far too simplistic, of course)
And yet another reason to detest Margaret Thatcher for her friendship with Pinochet (Allende's rival) and to push for a common funeral for her when she finally shifts off down below.
One of the US companies that worked against Allende by supporting Pinochet's coup and hence, for their own ends, supported a malignant regime was ITT. My dad worked for ITT in the 1970s albeit in a relatively benign capacity. Therefore there's a (distant) connection between the Chilean coup of 1973 and me!!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The first black president of the USA #2
I still think he's going to have a hard time. I would probably not vote for him (Ralph Nader would get my vote), but he's a very welcome addition to the pseudo-democratic pot we have in the West.
Watch this space. I hope I am proved wrong.
Watch this space. I hope I am proved wrong.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Claire Wilson
At what point are human actions the responsibility of the person acting? There are many legal precedents for people who are criminally insane, but is there a biological threshold? If there is it's certainly beyond medical science in 2008.
In 1966 Charles Witman took actions which ultimately murdered 17 people. He mercilessly bulleted them from the safety of a clock tower in Austin, Texas.
His brutality and wanton callousness included shooting an 8-month pregnant women in her abdomen, killing the child and rendering the mother infertile. He proceeded to shoot and kill the father of the child as he tried to protect his unborn baby.
As if this was not enough to take in, this obscene killer was buried with military honours! Since he had been a US marine several years earlier he was entitled (somehow) to have a flag on his coffin. The mentality that would allow this kind of honour is beyond me and even more difficult to believe since Witman was a far from ideal soldier (he was discharged after several incidents involving gambling and firearms issues and worse).
It has been widely accepted that Witman had a brain tumor during this period. This was not diagnosed during his lifetime, but probably would be today due to his depression and associated mental problems which were known to local psychiatrists at the time.
Was he responsible for his actions? In my view no. A brain tumor that eats away at the nerves that control behaviour can have only one short term outcome: maladjustment of behaviour (see Phineas Gage for a more obvious example).
At some point in the next 50 years humanity will have to confront ideas about mental capacity and action.
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a mental problem which was not monitored and aided by society (brain tumor)?
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a lower mental capacity for compassion or goodwill towards others? What we may call psychopathic (literally) behaviour is often lauded in our society, but is only a whisker away from causing tragedy.
In the next 50 years moves will be made to determine the capacity and makeup of the brain functions of society's member. This will be done in order to pre-empt tragedies.
I hope this isn't wishful thinking on my part. I don't wish ill on anyone, but I think that society has a responsibility to help those that are at risk of hurting others. Pre-emption is crucial and the only way to do that is profiling and analysis. Of course there will be hostility to this idea and in 2008 I would agree with it. Society needs to move forward both to be able to proceed with this form of analysis, but also to be prepared for the results.
Without wanting to stray too far into neuroscience it's interesting to me that both Phineas Gage's and Charles Witman's experiences are similar in that the brain's ability to reconcile right from wrong and a fundamental shift in moral outlook both occurred even though the lesion was in a quite different area (Frontal Lobe v's Hypothalamus respectively). This is not new to any modern brain researcher, but useful for the armchair or layman neuroscientist in that it indicates a non topographical location for consciousness or at least the lower forms of intelligence.
Stick that in your Phrenologist's pipe Franz Gall!!
In 1966 Charles Witman took actions which ultimately murdered 17 people. He mercilessly bulleted them from the safety of a clock tower in Austin, Texas.
His brutality and wanton callousness included shooting an 8-month pregnant women in her abdomen, killing the child and rendering the mother infertile. He proceeded to shoot and kill the father of the child as he tried to protect his unborn baby.
As if this was not enough to take in, this obscene killer was buried with military honours! Since he had been a US marine several years earlier he was entitled (somehow) to have a flag on his coffin. The mentality that would allow this kind of honour is beyond me and even more difficult to believe since Witman was a far from ideal soldier (he was discharged after several incidents involving gambling and firearms issues and worse).
It has been widely accepted that Witman had a brain tumor during this period. This was not diagnosed during his lifetime, but probably would be today due to his depression and associated mental problems which were known to local psychiatrists at the time.
Was he responsible for his actions? In my view no. A brain tumor that eats away at the nerves that control behaviour can have only one short term outcome: maladjustment of behaviour (see Phineas Gage for a more obvious example).
At some point in the next 50 years humanity will have to confront ideas about mental capacity and action.
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a mental problem which was not monitored and aided by society (brain tumor)?
How accountable can someone be for their actions if they have a lower mental capacity for compassion or goodwill towards others? What we may call psychopathic (literally) behaviour is often lauded in our society, but is only a whisker away from causing tragedy.
In the next 50 years moves will be made to determine the capacity and makeup of the brain functions of society's member. This will be done in order to pre-empt tragedies.
I hope this isn't wishful thinking on my part. I don't wish ill on anyone, but I think that society has a responsibility to help those that are at risk of hurting others. Pre-emption is crucial and the only way to do that is profiling and analysis. Of course there will be hostility to this idea and in 2008 I would agree with it. Society needs to move forward both to be able to proceed with this form of analysis, but also to be prepared for the results.
Without wanting to stray too far into neuroscience it's interesting to me that both Phineas Gage's and Charles Witman's experiences are similar in that the brain's ability to reconcile right from wrong and a fundamental shift in moral outlook both occurred even though the lesion was in a quite different area (Frontal Lobe v's Hypothalamus respectively). This is not new to any modern brain researcher, but useful for the armchair or layman neuroscientist in that it indicates a non topographical location for consciousness or at least the lower forms of intelligence.
Stick that in your Phrenologist's pipe Franz Gall!!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Update
It's been a month or so since my last post, mostly due to not having enough to focus into a post (I usually like to have a couple of things I can link together, e.g. a theory and a practical recent example), but also quite busy with other things although I don't really have much to show for it!
Anyway, here's another random post to show that I still exist (at least I think I do).
We spent the last couple of days in London with Marco and Helene and had a great time. Max had an absolute ball too (we had to wake him up at 8.50 this morning!!).
I have been accepted onto an MSc in Database Systems in September. It's a couple of nights a week in London and so it puts even more pressure on us to be "darn sarf" before then.
Watch this space ....
Anyway, here's another random post to show that I still exist (at least I think I do).
We spent the last couple of days in London with Marco and Helene and had a great time. Max had an absolute ball too (we had to wake him up at 8.50 this morning!!).
I have been accepted onto an MSc in Database Systems in September. It's a couple of nights a week in London and so it puts even more pressure on us to be "darn sarf" before then.
Watch this space ....
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
New directions in music part 23
I'm often on the lookout for new kinds of music. It seems to me that (apart from particularly esoteric and often unlistenable music) there is no new direction obvious at the moment. In the past 100 years Western popular music has taken on many new forms from (not in any particular order) Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, 60's pop, Rock, Prog Rock, Punk, New Romantic, New Wave, Heavy Metal, Thrash, Death Metal, Electronic and Dance, to miss out many others. Each new scene has something unique to it, but more recently the advances in technology have opened a new world of innovation.
In my view most of the newest forms of electronic music are still very rhythm-based. I'm very fond of electronic music, however I wonder what the new direction will be.
It could be said that Aphex Twin resides at the extremes of modern music (e.g. see this), however it's really only pushing the boundaries of rhythm. I love Aphex Twin's work and rate him very highly, however I wonder whether the next phase in popular musical development will be to move away from rhythm all together.
Take Imogen Heap's song Hide And Seek (hopefully still here). Whilst having some semblance of rhythm (it's very difficult to be completely arrhythmic) it is constructed solely of electronically-altered voice noises.
I can foresee a new movement based on sounds capes (I know that other artists like Sigur Ros and before them Slowdive and many, many other artists before them, have meddled with this, but always with traditional instruments, chord progressions, and time signatures).
I'm sure that I am genuinely ignorant of some artists who are already producing this kind of electronic sound scape, however it's not reached the popular consciousness yet (Enya notwithstanding!!) and certainly can't be said to be a movement as such.
Perhaps a combination of styles not yet combined might be a way forward, e.g. Prog Rock and Punk, or 60's pop and electronic ambient sound scape.
Either way I wish someone would hurry up and do it instead of churning out the dross that habituates the popular music scene at the moment!
(I would do it myself, but I probably don't have the talent and anyway, I'm too busy making databases)
In my view most of the newest forms of electronic music are still very rhythm-based. I'm very fond of electronic music, however I wonder what the new direction will be.
It could be said that Aphex Twin resides at the extremes of modern music (e.g. see this), however it's really only pushing the boundaries of rhythm. I love Aphex Twin's work and rate him very highly, however I wonder whether the next phase in popular musical development will be to move away from rhythm all together.
Take Imogen Heap's song Hide And Seek (hopefully still here). Whilst having some semblance of rhythm (it's very difficult to be completely arrhythmic) it is constructed solely of electronically-altered voice noises.
I can foresee a new movement based on sounds capes (I know that other artists like Sigur Ros and before them Slowdive and many, many other artists before them, have meddled with this, but always with traditional instruments, chord progressions, and time signatures).
I'm sure that I am genuinely ignorant of some artists who are already producing this kind of electronic sound scape, however it's not reached the popular consciousness yet (Enya notwithstanding!!) and certainly can't be said to be a movement as such.
Perhaps a combination of styles not yet combined might be a way forward, e.g. Prog Rock and Punk, or 60's pop and electronic ambient sound scape.
Either way I wish someone would hurry up and do it instead of churning out the dross that habituates the popular music scene at the moment!
(I would do it myself, but I probably don't have the talent and anyway, I'm too busy making databases)
Why is this funny? / I love the Internet / Slow-motion violence / Imogen Heap
Saturday Night Live's Dear Sister sketch (here) makes me laugh every time. It's obviously supposed to be very silly (and is based on the Season 2 finale of The O.C. ridicu-soap: here). Why is it funny? Apart from being incongruous (see this link for ideas on ingongruity and comedy) each time the music plays there's a sort of fictional link created between the music and the shooting as if it's the music itself that is either directly linked with the event or, in effect, is actually causing the shooter to act. This is obviously ridiculous and I reckon it's some part of this idea that is an inconsistent and unsuitable action that causes us to laugh. Monty Python, "More Cowbell" and so many more comedy artists do this too.
This has obviously struck a chord with many people if the "Dear Sister" phenomenon is anything to go by. It's a circumstance of our modern age (a good one I think) that the Internet occassionally throws up jokes, pastiches and homages to particular events (usually at someone else's expense, e.g. the Star Wars Kid).
I love the inventiveness and collective spirit that these skits pervade. In fact I just love the Internet. Full. Stop.
I'm in a position to remember what the world was like before the Internet and, whilst I have no complaints and the outcome of the exposure to so much information is not yet known, I envy younger people today. I only hope that the Information middle-Age brings yet more pleasure to people in its creativity.
Having said that, I can't help worry about the subject matter of the "Dear Sister" SNL sketch. Is it really OK to portray mindless shooting? I think not. Personally the funniness of that idea could have been shown with a fraction of the violence.
I sometimes feel that I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to what people should and shouldn't be allowed to watch. I prefer to think of it as being more intelligent and aware than most, however. It seems obvious to me (and many psychologists too) that the content of TV and movies has a direct influence on those people who watch it and a diet of mindless and gruesome violence can have a deep effect on people.
This history of violence on the screen is fairly recent and follows a general pattern of society's gradual waning of standards. I applaud the move to show more accurate and realistic events, but draw the line when it becomes stylised to be more appealing. See this for more detail.
Since having a son I find violence on screen more offputting and I simply can't watch violence against children or innocents. I think I'm quite unusual in this, but I don't have any regrets about feeling this way. This disturbed me due to the father's complete selfishness with regards to his daughter's wellbeing. There's no way I would show Max something inappropriate just to feed my ego.
Again, having said this I think there's a balance to be struck and it's important to educate youngsters about the world in all it's gory glory. Let's just wait until they're over 7 shall we?!
(Christina had some very good arguments about this from an "innocence" perspective and threw in some Blake for good measure, but I think I should come back to that in a later post).
The reason I came across the Dear Sister thing in the first place is due to researching the work of Imogen Heap who I found out about a couple of days ago (thanks Marco). She's an artist who I have not heard before (amazingly!) and I have not stopped listening to her music for the last two days (especially this and this). Her music is extremely melodic, intelligently worded and technologically inventive. This is a perfect recipe for my tastes and I will certainly be obtaining her back catalogue. One to watch out for as Dave Lee Travis might say.
On a musical tip Jeff Healey died a couple of days ago. I was genuinely saddened by this as I have loved his music for years and his first album (See The Light) wasn't off my stereo when I was a teenager. I saw him play in Sheffield in about 1989 and was blown away. RIP. x
It's a bit of a rambling post, this, and I feel that I'm probably starting to repeat myself. Anyway, I guess I should go and review some internet phenomena.... or something.
This has obviously struck a chord with many people if the "Dear Sister" phenomenon is anything to go by. It's a circumstance of our modern age (a good one I think) that the Internet occassionally throws up jokes, pastiches and homages to particular events (usually at someone else's expense, e.g. the Star Wars Kid).
I love the inventiveness and collective spirit that these skits pervade. In fact I just love the Internet. Full. Stop.
I'm in a position to remember what the world was like before the Internet and, whilst I have no complaints and the outcome of the exposure to so much information is not yet known, I envy younger people today. I only hope that the Information middle-Age brings yet more pleasure to people in its creativity.
Having said that, I can't help worry about the subject matter of the "Dear Sister" SNL sketch. Is it really OK to portray mindless shooting? I think not. Personally the funniness of that idea could have been shown with a fraction of the violence.
I sometimes feel that I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to what people should and shouldn't be allowed to watch. I prefer to think of it as being more intelligent and aware than most, however. It seems obvious to me (and many psychologists too) that the content of TV and movies has a direct influence on those people who watch it and a diet of mindless and gruesome violence can have a deep effect on people.
This history of violence on the screen is fairly recent and follows a general pattern of society's gradual waning of standards. I applaud the move to show more accurate and realistic events, but draw the line when it becomes stylised to be more appealing. See this for more detail.
Since having a son I find violence on screen more offputting and I simply can't watch violence against children or innocents. I think I'm quite unusual in this, but I don't have any regrets about feeling this way. This disturbed me due to the father's complete selfishness with regards to his daughter's wellbeing. There's no way I would show Max something inappropriate just to feed my ego.
Again, having said this I think there's a balance to be struck and it's important to educate youngsters about the world in all it's gory glory. Let's just wait until they're over 7 shall we?!
(Christina had some very good arguments about this from an "innocence" perspective and threw in some Blake for good measure, but I think I should come back to that in a later post).
The reason I came across the Dear Sister thing in the first place is due to researching the work of Imogen Heap who I found out about a couple of days ago (thanks Marco). She's an artist who I have not heard before (amazingly!) and I have not stopped listening to her music for the last two days (especially this and this). Her music is extremely melodic, intelligently worded and technologically inventive. This is a perfect recipe for my tastes and I will certainly be obtaining her back catalogue. One to watch out for as Dave Lee Travis might say.
On a musical tip Jeff Healey died a couple of days ago. I was genuinely saddened by this as I have loved his music for years and his first album (See The Light) wasn't off my stereo when I was a teenager. I saw him play in Sheffield in about 1989 and was blown away. RIP. x
It's a bit of a rambling post, this, and I feel that I'm probably starting to repeat myself. Anyway, I guess I should go and review some internet phenomena.... or something.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Owning Up, Justice and Revenge - Tales from Ancient Rome #1
The period in Roman history called the "Year Of The Four Emperors" is a fascinating and compelling time.
When Nero's successor Galba (a sensible and careful emperor, although foolishly so) was brutally killed over 100 people claimed the credit. This was in order to get on the good side of Otho (the next emperor).
Otho was no doubt pleased and a list of these names was drawn up.
Otho served as emperor for 3 months before committing suicide, perhaps as a noble gesture.
When Otho's successor Vitellius gained control he executed every one of the 100 or so people who had claimed to have killed Galba (Galba had helped Vitellius the year before).
What goes around comes around.
When Nero's successor Galba (a sensible and careful emperor, although foolishly so) was brutally killed over 100 people claimed the credit. This was in order to get on the good side of Otho (the next emperor).
Otho was no doubt pleased and a list of these names was drawn up.
Otho served as emperor for 3 months before committing suicide, perhaps as a noble gesture.
When Otho's successor Vitellius gained control he executed every one of the 100 or so people who had claimed to have killed Galba (Galba had helped Vitellius the year before).
What goes around comes around.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The first black president of the USA
Barack Obama is doing well in the presidential nomination votes (OK there's only been one so far, but New Hampshire polling looks good as I write this).
About 10 minutes ago I had a Dead Zone moment! It probably says more about me than the vibe in the US at the moment, but I have a bad feeling about his chances. Not his chances of winning, but his chances of staying alive.
I think he's the best candidate by far in many, many ways and I hope more than I ever have before that he makes it all the way to the presidency, but I think there is a long way to go and 5 factors make me think that he'll be assassinated before he gets there:
1. those rallies are so uncontrolled it's crazy. Sure there is security, but it's nigh on impossible to stop a truly determined assassin because ....
2. technology is easy to come by (some of it designed by the US military) which can enable relatively easy "kills"
3. there are waaaay too many hand guns in the US and very easily available (especially in some states which he will definitely have to go to)
4. there is going to be a lot of racist annimosity towards him if he wins the nomination because it basically becomes a two person race and it's pretty close these days so it could certainly go either way
5. it's sod's law that just when something very good can happen it gets snatched right underneath the planet's nose
As I mentioned before I sincerely, truly hope this does not happen, both for Obama and family and for the whole planet. I would not be surprised, however, if it did and this planet is plenty fucked-up for it to happen any day.
About 10 minutes ago I had a Dead Zone moment! It probably says more about me than the vibe in the US at the moment, but I have a bad feeling about his chances. Not his chances of winning, but his chances of staying alive.
I think he's the best candidate by far in many, many ways and I hope more than I ever have before that he makes it all the way to the presidency, but I think there is a long way to go and 5 factors make me think that he'll be assassinated before he gets there:
1. those rallies are so uncontrolled it's crazy. Sure there is security, but it's nigh on impossible to stop a truly determined assassin because ....
2. technology is easy to come by (some of it designed by the US military) which can enable relatively easy "kills"
3. there are waaaay too many hand guns in the US and very easily available (especially in some states which he will definitely have to go to)
4. there is going to be a lot of racist annimosity towards him if he wins the nomination because it basically becomes a two person race and it's pretty close these days so it could certainly go either way
5. it's sod's law that just when something very good can happen it gets snatched right underneath the planet's nose
As I mentioned before I sincerely, truly hope this does not happen, both for Obama and family and for the whole planet. I would not be surprised, however, if it did and this planet is plenty fucked-up for it to happen any day.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Global warming, a kick up the backside and the inner life of God
"That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God."
What?!
This is the first recommendation in the agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (hereon known as NAOCTC) in regard to the Filioque issue (link).
As is my want, I was browsing Wikipedia this morning and happened to go from an article on Gregory of Nazianzus (Wiipedia's featured article today) to an article on The Filioque (using my basic knowledge of Latin I translate this as "and the Son").
It's another fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Christian Church. I find the whole period of early Christianity compelling since most of what we know today about the Church was formed during the first few hundred years after Christ. These little tidbits (e.g. The Filioque) are very interesting to me since, not only do they contain archaic language (some nice Latin) and great history, but they show how important the ideas, prejudices and foibles of Man are to the Church.
This issue over the Holy Spirit and from whence it emanates is one that helped split east-west the Church a thousand years ago and still rages today, although the current Pope seems to favour reconciliation over this in some way.
The NAOCTC put together a document to help mend the schism. The quote above is the first line. What struck me this morning most is that they feel that there's a need to write this down and that God has an "inner life"! What does that mean? Where He does His shopping, what music He listens too (Genesis obviously)?! It made me laugh anyway (more of an intellectual pat on the back/chuckle than a guffaw).
..
The wife and I spent a lovely New Year's Eve watching telly and drinking fizzy wine. We watched 2 hours of "Earth - The Power Of The Planet" which is an excellent programme about the science of the Earth. Not only is it fascinating and insightful, but just a little bit environmentally preaching. I don't blame Dr Stewart at all for his viewpoint: I think it's a necessary one, however we were both slightly depressed by the implication that, as a species, we're basically fucked! Unless of course the environment doesn't quite manage to slip into another deep ice age.
The issue of global warming is hardly off the radar of any conscientious Westerner these days, but I still can't help thinking that it will either
a) be fine: the Earth is much more homeostatic than we think (certainly over the timescale of hundreds of years)
b) be the kick up the arse that humanity needs
With regard to the second point I believe that humanity is in desperate need for some sort of catastrophe in order to give it the jolt it needs to start behaving better to itself. I am reminded of Star Trek and its rose-tinted view of humanity when I think of this stuff. Perhaps I too have the same spectacles on, but I hope that humans can get it together before it's too late. It's up to our governments to do more to ensure that we're doing the right thing instead of pandering to the easy and populous arguments.
It may be too late for the human-friendly environment, but in any event this would unlikely wipe out the species. It's not too late for us as humans though and any of us that survive the next catastrophe (there will be one at some point) should be more like Roddenberry's vision than Thatcher's.
What?!
This is the first recommendation in the agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (hereon known as NAOCTC) in regard to the Filioque issue (link).
As is my want, I was browsing Wikipedia this morning and happened to go from an article on Gregory of Nazianzus (Wiipedia's featured article today) to an article on The Filioque (using my basic knowledge of Latin I translate this as "and the Son").
It's another fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Christian Church. I find the whole period of early Christianity compelling since most of what we know today about the Church was formed during the first few hundred years after Christ. These little tidbits (e.g. The Filioque) are very interesting to me since, not only do they contain archaic language (some nice Latin) and great history, but they show how important the ideas, prejudices and foibles of Man are to the Church.
This issue over the Holy Spirit and from whence it emanates is one that helped split east-west the Church a thousand years ago and still rages today, although the current Pope seems to favour reconciliation over this in some way.
The NAOCTC put together a document to help mend the schism. The quote above is the first line. What struck me this morning most is that they feel that there's a need to write this down and that God has an "inner life"! What does that mean? Where He does His shopping, what music He listens too (Genesis obviously)?! It made me laugh anyway (more of an intellectual pat on the back/chuckle than a guffaw).
..
The wife and I spent a lovely New Year's Eve watching telly and drinking fizzy wine. We watched 2 hours of "Earth - The Power Of The Planet" which is an excellent programme about the science of the Earth. Not only is it fascinating and insightful, but just a little bit environmentally preaching. I don't blame Dr Stewart at all for his viewpoint: I think it's a necessary one, however we were both slightly depressed by the implication that, as a species, we're basically fucked! Unless of course the environment doesn't quite manage to slip into another deep ice age.
The issue of global warming is hardly off the radar of any conscientious Westerner these days, but I still can't help thinking that it will either
a) be fine: the Earth is much more homeostatic than we think (certainly over the timescale of hundreds of years)
b) be the kick up the arse that humanity needs
With regard to the second point I believe that humanity is in desperate need for some sort of catastrophe in order to give it the jolt it needs to start behaving better to itself. I am reminded of Star Trek and its rose-tinted view of humanity when I think of this stuff. Perhaps I too have the same spectacles on, but I hope that humans can get it together before it's too late. It's up to our governments to do more to ensure that we're doing the right thing instead of pandering to the easy and populous arguments.
It may be too late for the human-friendly environment, but in any event this would unlikely wipe out the species. It's not too late for us as humans though and any of us that survive the next catastrophe (there will be one at some point) should be more like Roddenberry's vision than Thatcher's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)