Philosophy

Where it says pages and about – that’s where you might want to put other (sports) pages or readers’ partners.

Another test!

What works well with cif is that there is a starting article. The 3 day limit can be frustrating (though at other times something of a relief).

The rambling nature of your blog is both a strength and a weakness. Overall the length of the blog has to count as a disincentive to contributors.

As to the civilised nature of your blog, perhaps you have been lucky so far. I do not know if you can edit or remove contributions. This has not happened to me (yet) on cif, but it is often done in a contentiously partisan way that I find off putting. On the other hand you would not want to see a good blog ruined.

My suggestion is to start new threads at weekly, fortnightly or monthly intervals and start with your own (or invite someone else) article that both summarises points of interest that have arisen in the past week or month and starts the ball rolling on a particular topic. You might also want to take up some issues that have been aired recently on cif.

I think this would permit the rambling to continue but making blogs more manageable and less of a potential turn off for anyone new to your pages.

Personally, I feel repetition is a problem (on cif and your page) : I find I just have basically two or three things to say and that I am more or less saying the same things over and over again; but I suppose that is just life!

P:S see if you can moderate by correcting the spelling mistakes.

Success!

Total power eh!

:-}

Dear Boltonian and others,

I can’t hide my ‘technophobia’ (man, I hate these neologisms, esp since ‘techne’ might be an important little word). But, basically, this absolutely has my backing. I think the most important thing is to retain the friendly, non-agonistic vibe. I don’t think this needs to be self-consciously pursued: in my experience it is an invisible boundary within which we seem to do our thing chez Boltonian. I imagine that were a more unseemly line of argument to develop, others would not rise to the bait. Just to prove the point, I bet no-one will get drawn into the childishness that follows: I am clevererer than all you combined and my motto is taken from James Watson’s autobiography, ‘Avoid Boring People’, except I avoid him cos I am clevererer than him too.

On a more serious note, a friend v recently told me of a lecture he went to by Watson in Cambridge a few years back, in which he spoke of his (and Crick’s) famous discovery. I don’t wish to kick a man when he’s down, but it did strike me. It basically went like this. ‘Loads of people were working really hard on the web of related questions. X was working really hard on this. Y was working really hard on that. And z was working really hard on several things. Really really hard. And then I came along, and thought about it a little bit, and then we made our discovery.”

As ‘useless’ as the days of compulsory classical education might have been, at least people knew the meaning (and imagined the consequences) of ‘hubris’.

One little question, though: how will you arrange new ‘threads’?

Nonetheless, all this considered, please do count me in.

Hi boltonian

This is better in terms of multiple threads….

….and, of course, I echo ChooChoo’s plea for a continuation of “the friendly, non-agonistic vibe” – although, on reflection, maybe he means “non-antagonistic” ?

;->

My only caveat would be that you be certain you want a *blog* (where you, and only you, regularly seed the discussion) as opposed to a *forum* (where others can also start threads, but you retain dictatorial control)….www.createforum.net would be a way of doing that; well, whatever you decide, I’ll try to maintain contact; it’s been fun, and I hope it continues….

Thanks all.

Steve:

I have unchecked that particular box (I think) at Gerry’s suggestion.

I would like anybody to be able to write a piece that starts a discussion. It would be far too demanding of my time otherwise and it would be ridiculously narrow.

Gerry, can you check that this can be done.

Many thanks.

To be honest, I had not thought about that particular issue…

However, under the user category in the dashboard you can allocate certain roles to identifed users such as administrator, editor, author, contributor – which has issues of a hierarchy surrounding it – but does allow more than one person to start a discussion.
Or you can keep it like this and if you feel you would like the new topic that somebody has started on this post to have a separate page, you could create the new page.

I’m a little bit concerned by your sign off, Steve. Perhaps I’m being too sensitive here but there seemed to be a whiff of adieu. I would hate to feel responsible for anyone even of thinking of going – especially someone of your calibre – and will advocate a return to blogspot forthwith if a proposed move results in the departure of such valued commentators.

This is all very posh isn’t it? I am a Luddite of the first rank and I have no idea how this works, so I’ll leave that to you and learn as I go along. Can I echo the comments about politeness and how we can correct each other on ‘facts’ in order to share and learn, not to ridicule. To that end I will refrain from anti ACG rants; at least tonight. I trust in the spirit of the Boltonian.blogspot of blessed memory that metaphysics are allowed. I will also take this opportunity to salute Boltonian on his haven of manners among the glib, the facile and pseudo-intellectual masturbation point scoring that passes for rigorous thought on many a blog.

Thanks again for your contributions.

Gordy – let’s see how this develops and if I need to change the settings again I will seek your advice.

Simon – metaphysics was the soul of Blogspot and I hope will be here as well but I know that it is not everybody’s glass of claret.

Steve – can I echo Gordy’s entreaty? Talking of which, you don’t get paid your butt of sack (or bottle of sherry, at least) at the AA for nothing; where are your latest poetic masterpieces?

BTW, I have unchecked the requirement for people to give their names and email addresses, so you can remain anonymous if you wish. Will this encourage participation, do you think?

Just a thought. Perhaps anybody with an article to post could send it to me in an email and I will transfer it to the blog. I will let everybody know when I will be away.

Would this work ok, Gordy? Also, do you think I can appoint a deputy?

1) I believe so
2) I’ll test it out for you…

Thanks.

‘Time for bed,’ Florence (or was it Zebedee?) -Magic Roundabout.

See you all tomorrow.

No, guys – I wasn’t throwing a hissy fit or threatening to leave….I’m happy with whatever format boltonian goes with….as regards the doggerel – there have been a few half-hearted efforts elsewhere….a limerick about Prof Flew on Vernon’s CiF thread, and a couple of skits on the Walrus and the Carpenter, which was Poem of the Week last week on GU books….(beginning : “The Walrus and the Carpenter/ Were picked up by the fuzz….”)….I’ve even got 4/5 of a limerick in mind, specially for ChooChoo, including his favourite word (the “e” word)….the last full scale piece I did was on a literature blog (where oddly enough, I *did* throw a hissy fit and leave….long story)….it’s too long for here, though, and too full of in-jokes for that particular crowd….

1. My first experience of on-line interactivity was in the pre-Internet Delphi environment back in the early 80s but I doubt anyone here has heard of it; then Delphi gained Internet access via a clunky gateway, opening its users up to things like IRC.

I grew tired of this, and for some years used computers at home only for accessing mainframe databases like those of Dialog as a paid researcher.

Then in the mid 90s I subbed to a Unix-based mailing list and was very active on it for several years. Then, of course, everything began to change, faster and faster, mailing list companies being bought up and aggregated, many ending up as Yahoo Groups. Some of us, too, experimented with combining conferencing (the word used before “chat rooms”) and group meditational/light trance exercises. I can recall posting about the strange word “blog” to someone on a mailing list — at the time, they were the only other person on that list to have heard of it.

So I am most familiar with mailing lists and their dynamics — they reside in the back of my mind as “normal” or “home” when it comes to electronic interaction; everything else seems like a Johnny-come-lately, new “advanced” features notwithstanding. Thus it matters not to me where we interact — I enjoy the company regardless.

2. I searched downtown Boston for New Scientist, intrigued by Boltonian’s comment, only to discover it was no longer carried by any of the stores (Harvard Square in Cambridge likely has it somewhere, but that was a jaunt I lacked the time for).

Instead, I succumbed to their on-line sneakiness (try reading an article to see what I refer to) and must be careful not to allow my credit card to be charged for ever and ever as a result.

I read the QM article but decided I am not qualified to do anything more than to be aware of its contents — I lack the specialized knowledge required to do anything more.

On the other hand, I do have a rudimentary knowledge of the issues.

I have also directly experienced probable realities and once visited a completely different “physical system” — maybe twice, now that I think of it — (I may have posted about this to the earlier blog), and believe these are connected to the Many Worlds interpretation, but there is no way I could build a mathematical model based on my experiences while those experiences would take quite a lot of space to describe — too much. Based on my experiences, I believe that in some future reality humans will regularly traverse worlds, dimensions, probable realities — whatever words are used — and develop suitable mathematics, science, and technologies for doing so.

3. I purchased The World of Late Antiquity based on Choochoo’s recommendation and look forward to reading it; I’ve only had time to read the introduction but it looks promising and is not the very thick book I had imagined.

4. Boltonian: Have you ever explained the nature of your nom-de-keyboard or is that a secret? (Please don’t tell me it has anything to do with a certain U.S. official; when I cast aside that association, I rather like the name.)

Regards

Bill

Hmm. So we can’t preview or edit or did I miss something? Oh well. I would have made a few minor edits but what I posted will do.

BTW — I posted the following link in a comment on the latest CiF God thread; it leads to an interview (written) of Deborah Blum by Greg Taylor of The Daily Grail and is quite good: http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5186 .

Bill

Steve:

I look forward to ChooChoo’s limerick.

Bill:

I was born in Bolton, Lancashire (not Greater Manchester, please), which is an old cotton mill town in the north of England. I was very young when we left – my mum, dad, and almost all my relations are Bolton born and bred.

I don’t know if we can preview before posting. Perhaps Gordy can advise?

Re- QM I would like to know SpaceP’s take on the article if only he would re-appear.

Given what has been said about posting an article as a means of initiating a discussion, would somebody like to volunteer? It need not fit into any of the categories I have devised – it is easy to add new ones. Perhaps one of you has an off the shelf screed we could use by way of a test.

Boltonian – towards the end of the blogspot (RIP) discussions, you mentioned the recent issue of New Scientist, and two articles which caught your attention: (if I’ve got the issue right) evolutionary approaches to altruism/selfishness, and quantum physics. At work on Sat, I (wholly against protocol) took it out for my brief evening break. Didn’t have time to read both, but started the former. Perhaps you could kick things off with your reflections on one of these (I’m inclined to the former)…

Bill – I hope you enjoy The World of Late Antiquity. It’s certainly not a thick book. (I think Thames and Hudson used to do a whole range of introductory history books with wonderful pictures – I have, somewhere, Hugh Trevor-Roper’s – the poor Hitler Diaries man – on the Dark Ages, which hasn’t dated so well. Poor guy). That said, I am nervous and regret mentioning my ’staff pick’. Have you seen the Big Lebowski? I am mindful of the bit where the big Lebowski’s aide is gearing the Dude up to negotiate with the kidnappers of his employer’s wife [Bunny], and keeps emphasising, ‘Her life is in your hands’. I feel like the Dude. Though I am not the – or a – Dude).

Steve – aha! I have been inclined towards pedanty recently, so why let up now? (I hope this is not for points-scoring). ‘Agonistic’ is a word I picked up as an undergrad – and have always rather over-used ever since. In Greek, ‘agon’ means something like contest or struggle. In theatre, the ‘agon’ was something like a debate between two characters: this is literally – I imagine – where our ‘protagonist’ and ‘antagonist’ comes from. I am sure it’s where we get ‘agony’ too. That said, I stress the ‘over-used’ point: I went through this incorrigibly and unforgivably (save, perhaps, for those divine humans who can either correct or forgive) pretentious phase of using ‘bathetic’. All the time. For everything.
I too look forward to this limerick. (It’s quite an honour for me). Forgive my poor imagination and memory: what is my favourite word again? (Incredible – absolutely in synchronisation with my typing, my aporia has dissolved and I think I’ve got it: could I quite happily dispense with this ‘e’ word and use something like ‘good-natured’ or ‘peaceful’ instead? If I’m right, then you’re quite right to put it in a limerick: I use it way way more often than I should).

Might the article I posted a link to above serve as a test topic?

This is an interview of Deborah Blum, the science writer, by Greg Taylor of The Daily Grail, the topic “Science and the Afterlife.” (Maybe that’s unacceptable.)

Speaking of tests, the first time I tried to post this I included two test video clips I made and put on Youtube some time ago. (Based on that experience, I decided making a proper video clip requires investing quite a bit more time and energy than I’ve been able to create since, while having assistance for anything beyond a video blog seems like a good idea.)

Then EduBlog deleted my post, thinking the URLs to my clips were spam and advising me to remove the beginnings of the URLs. We’ll see whether this is allowed:

youtube.com/watch?v=WehKC2wjftg

youtube.com/watch?v=wUrRK9tsO-o

(You’ll need to add H T T P : / / to the front of these.)

Bill

I hope Boltonian et al don’t mind the following.

On the recent Grayling thread – an egregious (crap – was that the ‘e’ word you meant, Steve?) piece – Gerry71 (=Gordy) was discussing the sociological relation between contraception and abortion with Followyourheart. I totally forgot to mention something which might be of interest. What follows is very speculative and is nothing really to do with ‘ethics’ (at least as we often envisage ethics nowadays).

Gerry – to recap, you were casting doubt on the notion that contraception provision can – indeed, must – bring down abortion rates, and F-y-heart was casting doubt on your dubiety (self high-five!). I’d note two things here. First, it is intuitive that we might be inclined to think that using contraception makes abortion less likely: x and y do their business with contraception; this renders the chances of conception less likely than otherwise (pace Billings); thus, the chances of being in a situation where abortion becomes a question are lowered. Second, the sociological reality of introducing contraception and/or abortion into a society are, as it happens, far more complicated. (One very vague but not counter-intuitive thought on these lines relates to the first, intuitive point: x and y, who used contraception, do not want a kid and have acted in keepiing with this: thus, where conception does occur, they might be more inclined to follow through this desire).

The interesting point – again, I stress speculative – comes here. I have got this largely from two(?) studies on contraception penned by the economist George Akerlof. (He is a Nobel prize winner for economics, but that had nothing to do with his work on contraception). He looked at the broadly sociological effects of the introduction of contraception into American society from (?) the 1950s onwards. In very very very generalised terms, his conclusions run as follows (taking into account my poor memory). Prior to contraception, there were all sorts of interesting and subtly different forms of human relations: one might be the prevalence (relative to now) of ‘courting’. (I saw a ‘Royle Family’ episode last night which used the word, but that’s for another time). This is not to paint either an exagerrated golden age or hyperbolic repressed 50s picture. One point is this: gals and guys still had sex before marriage. Where pregnancy ensued, there was more likelihood (than now) of what Akerlof calls ’shotgun marriages’ – and there was a complex of reasons why this happened. (I’d be scornful of arguments that a prioristically assume that all shotgun marriages entail psychological misery for those involved: it simply isn’t true as a rule).

With the advent of contraception, Akerlof discerned a shift. Consider from a male perspective (and bear in mind contraception here is a female thing – the pill etc). A guy wanting to get jiggy could compare, first, a more ‘old-fashioned’ gal (non-contracepting) who, either, might want to parry his advances until marriage or would expect, in the event of pregnancy post getting jiggy, a marriage to follow; second, a newer gal (contracepting) was willing to get jiggy and, precisely because of using contraception, no explicit or implicit commitments in the case of pregnancy were envisaged. In Akerlof’s terms, this put the former category at ‘competitive disadvantage’ (I love economists).

But, of course, contraception is not foolproof. Thus, when pregnancy did follow after contraceptive sex, for a variety of reasons, the males involved were far less likely to be in a position from which they would either directly or indirectly be involved in the rearing of the ensuing child. Akerlof connected this with things like rising crime rates etc on two counts: first, there were more children brought up without fathers; and, second, more young men went without the ‘civilising’ influence of having a gal and baby.

There are potentials for minor point-scoring in my presentation of his ideas (’oh, so men have to ‘look after’ women and children cos they’re so weak they need looking after etc’). This is to do with my presentation and poor memory when it comes to remembering his articles (which are far more jargonistic). There are also some more controversial points about crime (more in a sec – I don’t yet know what I think about this incidentally).

One conclusion is this, though: the impact of contraception on a society is not simply a game of total numbers of pregnancies that follow. But it is also about people’s attitudes to the pregnancies that follow, especially after contraception has failed.

The interesting point for your debates with F-y-heart is that, by Akerlof’s analysis, contraception in US society might actually have raised the number of “unwanted pregnancies”. By this – this will sound silly – I don’t mean the number of pregnancies which might, in some senses, not be desired: I have a friend who was born a few months before her parents married, and who now has numerous siblings and two happily married parents. (Incidentally, all this talk of ‘marriage’ reflects the period Akerlof was looking at). Rather, I mean ‘unwanted pregnancies’ in the sense of those pregnancies which were ‘unwanted’ to the point of considering something like abortion. (Incidentally, here, ‘unwanted pregnancies’ is a bit of a misnomer: what is not wanted or is felt to be an impossible burden – is rearing a child). In sum, the introduction of contraception into American society might well have contributed to the perceived need for abortion. This does not mean a universal sociological rule about contracepton-abortion can now be formulated: but it does suggest that the ‘obvious truth’ of fighting abortion with contraception hides a far messier underbelly.

On crime: people have heard of the recent book Freakonomics, in which it is suggested that abortion has reduced crime (for instance, in NY) since those who might have gone on to live criminous lives were not born. (I must say that, whatever my thoughts on the morality of abortion – and while the sort of gross – as in fat – consequentialism that might be weaved out of this is most certainly not my cup of tea [what would GEM say?] – it is hardly a stupid claim). What I find interesting is the possibility of putting Akerlof and Freakonomics together (in an egregious act of layman economics). Indeed, they ostensibly seem to fit together quite nicely. I think Freakonomics considers the late 70s and 80s in particular, a period when contraception was widely available. The larger point, to reiterate, of relevance to your discussions is that it would appear that contraception – at this period – far from lowering abortion, might have been one of the contributing factors. The figures you quoted (abortions per 1,000) since 1967 in this country might also bear this out: the increase is hardly reflective of a reduction in the use of contraception. (Perhaps the opposite). In this mini-debate, people point to young people who, out of rashness or ignorance, do not use contraception and find themselves (or girlfriends) pregnant, in order to boost their argument. Perhaps there is some truth to this. But it ignores the numbers of people who use contraception and nonetheless find themselves in a position of deliberating over abortion.

Altogether, in the abortion debate, there is one note struck which (a lot of) people seem to agree on: we all (or most of us) seem to want fewer abortions. (One interesting thing which I note here is that this is almost exclusively envisaged as fewer conceptions/pregnancies = fewer abortions. Again, not stupid. But it does not consider the important factor of one’s attitude to a pregnancy). What I find interesting is that it seems increasingly unlikely to my mind that contraception – again, on which several people, e.g. on CiF, were united a week or two ago – will necessarily be especially efficacious in this. On a final note: I think conservative contractarians who oppose abortion shoot themselves in the foot here: reducing abortions might require that thing – society – whose existence they risk denying.

ChooChoo – we’re all conditioned by our training; and mine, in pharmacology, puts very specific meanings on the words “agonist” and “antagonist” – very different, surely from their original (and still correct) meanings….so I was just being a smarty-pants….in everyday language “antagonist” holds no fear for me, but “agonist” is unclear (or, as GWB might say, “uncular”….)

….ah, now: ChooChoo’s favourite word: I have it as a sixteen letter, seven-and-a-half syllable leviathan of a word….not, I think, associated with “good-natured” or “peaceful”….

….and (I can’t resist) – your use of “pedanty” instead of “pedantry” above was either an excellent joke, or an inspired typo by your inner muse….

:->

Incidentally, I felt rather sordid having got in a cheap shot on Flew (Mark Vernon’s CiF thread) as well as the limerick, to find out subsequently that Flew was actually mentally rather fragile….MV was very slapdash, I think, in his lack of background reading on that piece….we posters respond to the seed article only, plus the odd link therein, and not for the first time (the name Bunting oddly comes to mind….) we’ve been misled….MV is usually better than this, whether one agrees with him or not….

(Choochoo and I must have posted at the same moment — using the New Scientist article as a test is fine with me.)

Choochoo: “That said, I am nervous and regret mentioning my ’staff pick’. Have you seen the Big Lebowski?”

Of course — that’s a great flick! (You mentioned the Hitler Diaries and the flap surrounding them. Have you seen Downfall, starring Bruno Ganz?)

You have no need to be nervous — The World of Late Antiquity is a fine book (I have Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox, too, but have never read it — are you familiar with it?).

Everyone here has had superior educations to mine — I am mostly self-educated and never completed college. (This is a long story. Short version: I was very rebellious during the Vietnam era, along with many of my contemporaries.) As such, I respect your opinions.

Bill

Ok, I promise to try to take a minisabbatical (a few hours or even a day) before posting again.

Steve – I’ve got the word! I will vow never to ruin the Big Lebowski when I next watch it with those who have never seen it before if you get that into a limerick (with reasonable scansion etc).

As for pedanty/pedantry – no, it wasn’t a clever ‘joke’. Nor an inner muse. It was a divinely inspired cock-up (the best) to teach my humility.

On the Flew article – I think you’re right. I haven’t dived into the thread – I am tempted to dabble. But there’s been too much kneejerking again (although some interesting posts and poems too).

Bill – I thoroughly enjoyed (not the right word) Downfall. It was absorbing. What was so interesting was to see these figures, whose names are synonymous with ‘evil’, in a more fleshed out representation (like in the secretary’s interview with Hitler). I am inclined to say that there’s some ammo for discussion here.

Back to late antiquity – the Robin Lane Fox is good too (and thicker). It’s more detailed etc. But Brown’s is just so wonderfully written (he has an ear for metaphors) and, as I said, is such a sumptuous invocation of a historical period.

On education, colleges etc etc etc – in my experience, these can often hinder as much as help. There are plenty of examples of wisdom in history long before the days of MAs and BAs. (Not quite the same thing: but most of the figures in the history of philosophy were decidedly not university professors). Indeed, it’s ironic that we speak less of wisdom and being wise in this age of ever professionalising university educations. On the other hand, I don’t want some econometric historian undertaking a quantitative analysis of ‘wisdom’ over the past 122 years. Indeed, the fact of such an undertaking, whatever its findings, would (to my stubborn mind) confirm my thesis.

Went to a seminar the other week by a very well respected medievalist: and I was charmed to see his name printed in small letters at the top of his handout and it resounded in non-tenured glory: Mr. Alexander Murray.

Some of the wisest and many of the most virtuous people I know have never seen the inside of a university. And more and more, I wonder whether this might not just be coincidence.

Ok I will start the ball rolling with a longer summary of the QM article in New Scientist than I posted on Blogger.

I will try to do it tomorrow. If anybody sees SpaceP on CiF ( I rarely attend these days) I have need of him.

ChooChoo:

I am interested in the Late Antiquity book you recommended for Bill. The E word escapes me so I shall just have to wait for the limerick.

The words ‘Agonistic’ and ‘Agon’ are used liberally by Karen
Armstrong in the hefty tome of hers I am still ploughing through.

University also passed me by for lots of complicated and fairly boring reasons. I have since acquired various vocational qualifications, including a diploma and Masters degree for career purposes. I also taught first year undergrads for a couple of terms – never again! I do not think that the academic world suits my temperament, although I would like to study philosophy formally whenever I can afford to retire.

Bill:

I have a couple of books by Robin Lane Fox – a very fine writer in my view. I am about halfway through his Classical World – I was mainly interested in the Greek bit, which I have now finished.

I am not a man of my word.

Boltonian – that’s a swell idea. (I will be more of a spectator or almost wholly ignorant commentator for QM). Will pick up the NS when next at work. The evolution article piqued my interest. Perhaps that could be a second little ball roller.

On late antiquity – the Peter Brown book (which I am going on and on about) is v interesting. Briefly, here’s why.

This period ‘late antiquity’ (roughly, let’s say 300-500) was rather neglected as a field of study until not so long ago. (Can’t – but should – remember who coined it). The Greeks and Romans have always garnered interest. And the Renaissance was always interesting. The Enlightenment grand narrative (this is ridiculously generalising, but still) was one of Decline and Fall (and rebirth). You’ve got the grandeur of Rome and, the story goes, the barbarism of the ‘Dark Ages’. This liminal period – now called late antiquity – was seen as a precursor of obfuscation, of decline and fall. For Gibbon, it was Christianity and Barbarism which signed the death warrant.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, there have been interesting reappraisals. Those au fait with high medieval societies have shown that Renaissance inspired scorn was not so well founded. (On a sidenote, analytical philosophy has many commonalities it might share with scholasticism, but doesn’t with what intervened). Early medieval Europe – the ‘dark ages’ – is getting more illuminated too.

What of the liminal period? It was never wholly neglected. For the ecclesiastical historian, theologian or philosopher, it was always still interesting: numerous vital church councils, translation of the Vulgate, Neo-Platonism, Constantine (who was, admittedly, always of historiographical interest) and, first among equals, Augustine. But a more recent shift occured.

Basically – and insofar as one can reduce these shifts to just one or two people – the period was not so long ago made sexy. Ironically, one of the works which did this is incredibly boring to read: A.H.M Jones’ multi-volume work on the socio-political history of this period, which put it back on the map. And Peter Brown did the same for cultural history with idiosyncratic excellence. And TWOLA (c.early70s) is a good symbol of this.

In addition, all sorts of other shifts have occurred: a good example is the study of barbarian migrations and the disentangling from distinctively 19thc, often Germanic, preoccupations. Another one is the acceptance of renaissance as a term to describe what happened under the Carolingians in the 9th century. Of course, Brown and Jones do not deserve the credit for all of this: much of it has happened elsewhere. But Brown serves as a great model for judicious historiographical reappraisal, a model which is pertinent for studying any aspects of the cultural history of the ‘dark ages’.

ChooChoo:

Many thanks.

Everybody:

There is a BBC 4 prog tonight ( 9pm) fronted by the theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. I have a couple of books by him and he is interesting and very accessible. It is the first of three.

Happy to do the same for the evolution article if that is what is wanted.

I have imported ‘Free Will’ from Blogger for reference and to have everything in one place.

ChooChoo started up one of those sites
Where the godless and godful pick fights
Sadly, epiphenom
enalism, dot com
Was unparsable, even by Brights….

I cheated! (Is unparsable even a word??)
Maybe someone else has an idea how to finish this one (pick a better second line, if inspiration strikes….):

Epiphenomenalism
Is a word on which Paxman should quizz ‘em
…

ChooChoo
Very interesting stuff. I remember reading Hebblethwaite’s biography of Paul VI a few years back which seemed to imply that Paul in general and Humanae Vitae in particular were due for reappraisal on that very score. A long time ago I remember taking a PSE class (something I do not like doing) and I was trying to see if this class could see a procreative function of sex. They quickly latched onto the notion that sex was a lot of fun. I dropped a few hints…’how did we get here?’ …’Bus sir?’ ‘No. What might be another purpose of sex?’ Samuel came from a devout evangelical family so Iwas certain he would get the answer when a flash of recognition came across his face…’It’s to keep you fit, sir.’

@Boltonian
Yes you can defintely give admin status to whoever you like provided you have an email address for them. I’ve just done a dummy run on a friend’s blog.

Gordy

Many thanks. Would you (or anybody else) like to play that role?

Steve:

Good effort with a brute of a word.

I’d be honoured to help. I’ve just sent you an email from the relevant email address.

Boltonian
The email’s been bounced back. My email address is ronnieg71@googlemail.com

Steve – I am dead impressed. Just the effort to incorporate the monster’s worthy of respect. I don’t wish to tread on your toes, but I’ve tried the following to refine (with some cheating abbreviations):

ChooChoo started a site
Where godless and godful pick fights,
But epiphenomen…
…alism dot com’s
Unutterable even for brights.

I tried another couple out – apologies in advance (it’s my first time for years):

There was a young man, ACG,
Who loved the word ‘votary’,
But Gibbon’s ghost rose
And battered his nose,
Snorting, ‘you got that from me!’.

Or, another one:

There was a verificationist from Maynooth,
With an A.J. Ayer sweet tooth.
A thinker from Chiswick,
Who loved metaphysics,
Shouted, aha, where’s your proof?!

Ok, I’ll stop before it becomes a vice inflicted on others.

Gordy/Gerry71 – heard of the Hebblethwaite but know v little about it. I think you mean positive reappraisal, non? I guess – though for various reasons there is no way I can know this for sure – a reappraisal is more feasible now. The sense of absolute outrage is no longer there. Indeed, there are actually some v interesting differences between, say, Casti Conubii and HV, a difference that, in part, reflects the (actually, rather interesting) ‘phenomenological’ take on love and sex which people like Hildebrand and Wotyla undertook. (I love the slightly-immature-to-mention-out-of-context fact that Wotyla – future pope – talks about the rectitude of striving for female orgasm in sex. Though I still remember my utter embarassment and ensuing muteness when my ex-girlfriend’s mother pointed this out to me. There is another article – pre-HV but forgot author – which effectively pre-empts the arguments and talks about mutual orgasm as something quasi-sacramental (sacrament not quite in the technical sense of the seven, but as more general sign).

Like you, I am sometimes puzzled by precisely what calls for more or better sex education actually entails. (I remember getting to put condoms on test tubes for our special PSE day: the two other memories I have are, first, the most attractive teacher, a Mrs. X, in the school took the test-tube session, which elicited puerile jokes though she was a feisty one herself, who could give it back and then some; and we had one of those special drama group sex education sessions, which made the Legz Akimbo theatre group in the League of Gentleman resemble everything other than a sketch). I am tempted to generalise a bit and say that it is a v good example of fostering a normative ‘instrumental rationality’ with sex (though this is partly compromised by the good intentions behind most of these calls).

A wider question, about which I am genuinely curious. I understand that it is in vogue (which probably sounds more dismissive than I intend) to find evolutionary explanations for all aspects of human behaviour. (One quick point: a potential problem, as I see it, is that such explanations are often functional and seek to offer aetiologies for particular forms of behaviour. They do not broach questions of intentionality, for instance. Here is where the ease with which our ethical discourse may one day be replaced by or suffused with evolutionary explanation does not convince me). So, you hear things like kin selection, our attraction to x because of the signals about reproductive possibilities, passing on genes etc etc etc.

What have evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists written about contraception? It does not seem to me to be so easily explicable along these lines: it is curious since the intentionality (and I’ve already tried to signal that this is itself an area for dispute) pertains precisely to avoiding reproduction?

Gordy:

Many thanks. You are now class monitor and have just attained the rank of administrator.

ChooChoo:

I have just read the review of a book debunking the Men from Mars and Women from Venus line. She (the book’s author) says that people are far more complex than mere vessels inheriting characteristics from a hunter-gatherer past.

One idea she demolishes is that women prefer pink because they needed to look for ripe fruit, whereas men like blue because a blue sky is easier for hunting. Except that 100 years ago tastes were the exact opposite. Her theme is that people behave according to the circumstances they find themselves in – women senior managers will behave assertively at work but more consensually at home. And men likewise. There are some physiological differences, obviously, but these lead to small variations in behaviour compared with the huge amount we have in common.

PS loved the limericks. Steve, you have a serious rival.

Re possible evolutionary explanations for contraception – perhaps it’s as obvious that we feel as a species that we’re successful enough – ie, numerous enough – that not every sexual act need be a potentially productive one. Thus we can afford to “use” sex primarily as a pair-bonding mechanism, or just for recreation (both Good Things, surely). Were we to be bottlenecked again as a species, we’d think and act differently.

Alternatively – we haven’t yet finished running the contraception experiment, so it may not necessarily prove to have any evolutionary advantages to explain….as you say, many of these things are rationalised post hoc….but as a species we do many things that run counter to natural selection….medicine, for one….I’m not sure the contraception issue is one for the evolutionary boys….

I am old enough to have escaped the kind of school sex education classes described above. We just had one biology lesson where dear Mrs C invited us to write down anonymously any questions we might have, and she read aloud and answered the serious ones. All these seemed to be about menstruation, as I recall, which didn’t help me much. No mention at all of contraception, or condoms in those pre-HIV days.

‘I am old enough to have escaped the kind of school sex education classes described above. ‘

Me too, thank God!

Crapster – I just typed something and forgot to do the anti-spam word and lost it and kicked my computer and stubbed my toe. There’s a lesson (indeed, two) for us all.

Boltonian – what’s the name of the book?

Steve – don’t listen to Boltonian, you’re the metrical Dude to my assymetrical Walter, the elegaic Hamlet to my prosaic Horatio, the singing, resplendent humming bird to my asinine, tautologous ass.

Medicine is an interesting example. In one sense, it is ‘unnatural’. In another it is ‘natural’ insofar as it attempts to restore, e.g., organs to their working order, to how they are ‘naturally’, to how they should be. (Palliative medicine complicates things further: I think questions of specific humanity are unavoidable here).

I realise that your suggestion wrt contraception is speculative. I hope this is not too agonistic, but I do not find it compelling. I think that we might adequately couch an explanation for contraception without mention of the usual bones of evolutionary explanation (functional behaviour, reproductive fitness, species fitness etc). Indeed, often we might just ask an agent, ‘Why did you do that?”, and the answer will provide a satisfactory – perhaps, the most satisfactory – explanation. I think this holds for many (I add, not all) human actions, questions of duplicity, delusion etc notwithstanding. Suppose I see a woman kiss a small boy, and I ask – rather oddly, were I actually to do this – ‘Why did you just do that?’, she might reply (and notice something else interesting – she would most probably know what I am referring to), ‘Because I love him’, I’d be quite happy to take this and leave it as it is (without adding something about kin selection or hormones), whether she’s the little boy’s mother, grandmother, aunty, godparent, sister-in-law, family friend or – even – teacher.

In fairness, you hint that there are things which might be beyond the remit of the “evolutionary boys [and occasional girls]“. This propounds, I think, some more questions (though I’m not sure I’m directing them specifically at you). What exactly are the criteria for determining whether a question falls under the remit of sociobiologists or not? What implications does this hold for the more – as I understand it – totalising ambitions of an E.O. Wilson? Indeed, what would a sociobiological explanation for why sociobiologists write books about sociobiology look like? (Are they damned if there is one and damned if there isn’t?). As fascinating as I find evolutionary thinking – and I really do – I am still unsure about the cogency of some purported explanations and don’t think we (I really mean silly laymen like me) reflect enough upon precisely what kind of explanations these really are.

ChooChoo:

You ask difficult questions :-}. It is recycling day here and I had thrown out the Sunday papers for collection. Anyway I have just dashed out, rifled through the bag, found the mag and ripped out the relevant page just ahead of the collection van. The book is called: ‘The myth of Mars and Venus,’ by Deborah Cameron.

The need for identifying and, indeed, accentuating difference brings us back, I suppose, to the discussion we had recently on pattern recognition. So, my thesis is that the variations might be small, illusory even, but the need for categorisation and the search for difference is an evolutionary trait.

The Karen Armstrong book (in case you meant that one) is, ‘The Age of Transformation.’

I have posted a link to here on Mark Vernon’s blog.

I think we ought to set up a philosophy of religion thread here as I thought the tone of the CiF discussion was far superior to most on the subject there ( with the usual exceptions, of course).

I enjoyed the Martin/PG exchange and Peitha’s posts – I wonder if she could persuaded to contribute here.

Steve’s verse was first class.

Perhaps I could ask Mark or Mel Thompson to write us a piece as a way of starting off the discussion.

Anyway, i have a piece to write for the philosophy of science thread here.

Boltonian I have changed the about section. Please feel free to edit my edit. I too have enjoyed those posts and exchanges and agree with your suggestions for invitations.

gordy:

Thanks. Where is the ‘about’ section?

I have sent you an email asking how we put my piece in the ‘Philosophy of science’ category.

Hi folks.

Lots of interesting stuff here, but I got my guitar restrung at the weekend so I’m far too busy doing a Cate Blanchette and pretending to be Bob Dylan to write anything very thoughtful.
So in brief:
ChooChoo – you are forgiven, of course. If you ever fancy a day trip to the coast to get out of London drop me a line. Same goes for anyone else stuck in the smog. It’s lovely here.
Bill – I *so* did not expect you to look like that (youtube). I pictured someone more cuddly looking with a beard. One day I might post a picture of myself on my myspace page (which has lots of my dog – Steve I never did explain that the risque photos that I referred to once were of my dog naked (without his collar on)).

I’m compiling my next book order. Has anyone read Terry Eagleton’s book “Jesus Christ, the Gospels”. It looks good.

Gordy:

Found it!

Biskie:

Eagleton and Jesus Christ seems an unlikely juxtaposition at first glance. I would be interested in your summary (if you wouldn’t mind).

Must look out for Bill.

Boltonian
Picking up emails at work is a bit tricky. I hope you don’t mind but I’ve changed the presentation of the site. I hope it makes it a little easier to find your way round. If you now go to the top of this page you should see the other pages including the about section. In this style leaving comments on pages other than the front one is a lot easier. If there are concerns about these changes it’s very easy indeed to revert back to how it was…

Gordy:

Brilliant. That’s a million times better and clearer.

Thanks

Biskie – I saw the pictures of Biskie the Jack Russell a while ago – not that I expected any other type of image….no smog here btw….it’s a bright Autumn day, and the various trees which we planted over the past ten years for Autumn colour are colouring well….some good birches with peeling silver and copper bark, too….

I may have got the wrong idea about the Terry Eagleton book – it looks like it is a re-writing of the gospels with an introduction, rather than a book *about* the gospels. Can’t find much about it on the net. No reviews on Amazon yet.

Steve – yes, lovely morning here too. I’ve already been to the top of Kingley Vale and back.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingley_Vale (put http in front)

Sadly, Biskie, I can’t access your wiki link, or any wiki any more….seriously….for the past few weeks, every time I try to bring up a wiki page, it tries to load, but never succeeds, just leaving me with a white page….it’s a mystery, not a browser problem (no other sites are affected), and if anyone has any ideas as to how to fix it, I’d love to hear them….I know that some countries (eg China) block sites like wiki, but can’t imagine that my ISP (Tiscali) is routed through one of these….besides which, if that were the case, wouldn’t I see an error message? (Which I don’t – just a white screen)….the only benefit of this is that I get to make a Shakespeare joke – nothing wiki this way comes….but it is an absolute pain….help….

That looks fantastic, Biskie. Allow me to make suggestion for your book order. The Bhagavad Gita Penguin Classics edition. Translated with an introduction by Juan Mascaro. Mascaro was a Catalan who translated from the Sanskrit directly into English. His introduction is one of the most interesting pieces of writing on religion I’ve ever read. His translation of and introduction to The Upanishads is equally good (also in Penguin Classics) Both are available on Amazon. My excuse for mentioning the Gita is that it gets a mention in Mark Vernon’s thread this morning…Oppenheimer also quoted from it in relation to the atomic bomb…

Boltonian
I just wanted to show you what your new scientist article summary would look like as a post on the ‘front page’. As it is a ‘post’ rather than a ‘page’ it has a category – I’ve stuck it in Philosophy of Science. If you would rather keep it as a page then please feel free to delete it as a post but I just wanted to know what the different options look like….

Biskie:

‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus,’ by Geza Vermes is a good one. He tries to get to the historical truth (or as near as he can) by stripping away all the later editorial baggage and immersing himself in the period.

In fact anything by Vermes on this period is good.

1. Biskie: My apologies for appearing to lack all cuddlyness; I might endeavor to develop some of this quality under different, more relaxed circumstances (I may yet create those but at the moment must deal with a frenetic globe-trotting high-tech management consultant as primary client; this tends to keep me both highly caffeinated and angular). Versions of me have sported beards in other time periods but I’m not likely to do so until the perpetually more complex and costly replacement razors exceed my means.
(Instead of the simple and effective Wilkinsons, we have the unnecessarily high-tech Gillette products to contend with here.)

Video production is so very different from simply posting written thoughts, with so many additional parameters to take into account; even so, I hope to explore this latest on-line means of expression in some future situation. (I made a short film once, many years ago, and this was great fun but involved a good number of friends and associates and required an almost unbelievable amount of time and energy.)

2. Regarding education: Attending Boltonian College, with its very impressive staff (including the renowned Professor Choochoo) may offer the best remedy for neglecting to attend Corpus or some American equivalent.

3. Agon and agonistic:

I was very surprised to hear the word “agon” pronounced by the very attractive commentator of a Channel 4 show on Helen of Troy last night (a local Public Broadcasting System station often offers British fare; I tend to avoid television but even so confess to having watched, on rare occasions, the activities of Inspector Lindley, Miss Marple, and — just once — the amazing Mrs. Pritchard) as she described the origin of the term while actors demonstrated it.

Regards

Bill

Gordy:

I think it is fine as a post. What do others think?

Bill:

Boltonian college, eh? I like it. We certainly have plenty of collective brainpower here to fuel a small city.

No comments so far on the article. Where are the scientists?

Ah, they are still battling it out on CiF, I see.

Gordy:

I have posted an article kindly supplied by Mark Vernon on ‘Philosophy of Religion’ – can you check that I have done it right and let me know what I should have done if not. Also, why has the comments closed on the science article?

All:

Please see Mark Vernon’s article on religion. thanks Mark.

Comments are back on for both articles.

Eileen:

I hope you managed to find your way here. If so, welcome. I look forward to your comments.

Dear all,
I’ve taken the liberty of deleting the separate page version of the NS article – but I pasted Bill’s original in the ‘post’ version before I did so. To the untrained eye, I might now look as clever as Bill. The same thing in two places seemed to be causing confusion.

Best wishes

I’ve also renamed this ‘our main chatroom’ in an attempt to help us find our way round the new premises and got rid of the da dee dum test type posts. I hope these changes meet with everyone’s approval and promise to stop changing things without getting prior approval.

gordy:

Many thanks.

Please do not stop your innovations – they are are all immeasurable improvements. Left to me the whole thing would have collapsed by now.

There are two headings at the top of this: Free Will and the NS summary – how do we show others, such as Mark Vernon’s article?

Gordy: “I’ve taken the liberty of deleting the separate page version of the NS article – but I pasted Bill’s original in the ‘post’ version before I did so. To the untrained eye, I might now look as clever as Bill. The same thing in two places seemed to be causing confusion.”

Dear Gordy:

I’m not too clever. What puzzled me, at first, was being able to post to both versions, but then I realized this must have been owing to the timing of my first posting (or, maybe, my first post appeared in that location because I observed it there…)

Bill

@Boltonian

“There are two headings at the top of this: Free Will and the NS summary – how do we show others, such as Mark Vernon’s article?”

I don’t know I’m afraid but from the home page

i.e. http://boltonian.edublogs.org/

all the articles are more clearly visible. You can get to the home page easily at any time by clicking on the word Philosophy at the very top of any page. By clicking on the Philosophy of religion category section, at the bottom here, Mark’s piece can also be found.

Gordy:

Many thanks.

All:

I have posted a comment on the religion thread but not much is happening on the QM thread.

Gordy:

How long should we keep each open and can I post another article on, say, philosophy of science whilst this one is still live?

Following your encouragement this is my second visit to your blog, old and new sites. I’m reading with interest but not likely to have much to contribute unless the “sport” category gets into league two football! I could start one I guess but then I’d need to understand how these things work. Hmmmm

I’m really not sure how long to leave it open for… I’m alomost certain you can post another article under the same category while the QM one is still live. I’ll try it out.

Yes Boltonian you definitely can do that, I’ve just tried it.

Hi Rita! Please feel free to write a post here (just like you did) and it can then be placed as a separate post in the sports category but it will look as if Boltonian or I placed it there.

Any particular League 2 team?

Rita

Welcome.

You can start a thread at anytime. To be sure, if you send it to my email I will post in the sport category and then anybody can comment.

I would encourage everybody to post something, perhaps following an interesting book you have read, or a thread on CiF (if you are an aficionado).

Gordy:

Can anybody post an article or must it come through one of us?

Gordy:

Sorry, our posts must have crossed in the post. :-}

There was a young lady from Slough,
Who, though timid, dropped by anyhow,
Peeping out from her book,
She took a quick look,
And said, Hi Mr. b, I’m here now!

PS I promise no more limericks! Oh, and ‘young’ is being a tad kind to myself, but ‘old’ would be a tad harsh as well

PPS But have to pop out in a few minutes

Peitha

Welcome.

I enjoyed your posts on the recent Mark Vernon CiF thread.

He has kindly contributed an article here to get us started in the philosophy of religion category.

We encourage limericks here, otherwise Steve will enjoy a monopoly and that is not good for him or his versifying. :-}

Thank you for the kind words and the welcome.

I did wonder if Steve might want to consider ‘untypeable’ rather than ‘unparsable’ in his limerick. I’m not sure if ‘untypeable’ may not be a neologism as well though.

I’ll pop over and look at Mr. Vernon’s piece now.

All:

Kaku is on BBC4 again tonight at 8pm. I don’t know if it is a repeat of his first programme or the second in the series.

I shall watch it and find out.

peitha:

ChooChoo suggests unutterable. I don’t know which is best (or worst).

Look forward to your comments on the philosophy of religion thread.

Hi, everybody,

Just checking in to register my presence on the new site, although I am not feeling very cerebral at the moment, so probably not up to making any worthwhile contribution (I tend to go into dormouse mode – mentally, at least – as the days get shorter).

I have just bought two more books to add to the tottering ‘to-be-read’ pile: Karen Armstrong’s latest ‘The Bible’ and Peter Brown’s ‘The Rise of Western Christendom’ 2nd Edn). Judging by my first quick glance between the covers, the former appears to be as much about the history of biblical exegesis and interpretation as about the compilation of the Old and New Testaments. As for the latter, I found it while looking for ‘The World of Late Antiquity’ which I confess, with shame, I have not read. It was not yet published when we studied the period at University in an experimental but very stimulating and illuminating series of seminars, and I have some catching up to do .

There is, incidentally, an interesting review of the Armstrong book in New Humanist, which is fairly scathing about the Dawkins school of Atheist criticism.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1592

All:

The Kaku prog is a repeat but well worth catching if you didn’t see it the first time.

E:

Welcome to our new site, thanks to Gordy (aka Gerry71). What do you think?

I hate this time of year too but it is more of a general frustration than a depression. Still, my retirement fantasy includes at least three winter months in Thailand (my wife’s country).

Now I really must buy Late Antiquity. I am sure ChooChoo is on commission. :-}

I will be very interested in your views on the two you are reading. Would you be prepared to post something on the history thread here (or the philosophy of religion if you prefer)?

I will now access your link to the Armstrong review.

Elephant’s Child
Many thanks for the link to Fraser’s review of Armstrong’s book. Interesting stuff. I’m sure Fraser’s point that liberal biblical criticism hurts fundamentalists more than the ‘New Atheist’ critique contains much truth. What I have found curious is the extent to which many contributors on CiF who are most scathing about Christianity seem only to have found out recently that a literal approach to the Bible does not add up.

Bill:

Now I know what you look and sound like. :-}

E:

I must agree a little with the reviewer’s opinion (despite his obvious partiality) on what he calls celebrity atheists.

ACG used to peddle the line that we would all have been much better off without Christianity (I notice he gives Islam an easier ride). How on earth does he know? I realise he has a high opinion of himself, but really!

Gordy:

I published on the Free Will blog a very long objection to biblical literalism.

Literalists do exist out there, and are becoming more prevalent in the US (perhaps Bill could confirm this). But their fox was shot long ago, not least by Bishop Colenso in the middle of the 19th century.

I could bang on about how the Bible as metaphor then leads to equally difficult issues but that properly belongs on the philosophy of religion thread.

Gordy:

Steve is having problems accessing this site so I have suggested, as a temporary measure that he can email either of us and we will post for him.

Is that ok?

No worries. It does seem to be slow today.

hi guys. digging the new premises.

dOm:

Glad you like it – all of it down to the inspiration and efforts of Gordy (aka Gerry71) – blushes not spared here!

I am pleased you checked in because I have a favour to ask of you. How about you and I collaborating on a post about Buddhism for the philosophy of religion category? If you agree, would you write a few words on, say, Mahayana/Zen/Pure Land and I will do something on Therevada? Feel free to say no.

All:

Many apologies for the problems the site is experiencing. I don’t know when it will be fixed but please keep checking in. They promise it will be fantastic when the work has been completed.

My next task is to post my summary of the evolution article from NS. I have written it, so it just needs posting.

Also, I had not forgotten, peitha, that I have still to complete my response to you.

As I should have said in my previous post, I think the new site and format is a great improvement, allowing both a continuation of free-wheeling conversation in this chat room and more coherent discussion of specific topics. So all due thanks to gordy.

Boltonian.
Yes, if people are interested, I will certainly post something on the two books in question, although I haven’t actually started reading either of them yet, and I am not a particularly fast reader at the best of times, so you may have to wait a while.

On the subject of ACG, I concur. The first piece of his that I read on CiF was in that vein, and I was profoundly unimpressed. He ought to know better.

btw: I didn’t mean to imply that I dislike this time of year – far from it; October is my birth month, and the autumn colours in the garden have been, and still are, gorgeous (although, that said, it has been raining stair-rods today and the ‘dead’ period around new year can be a bit dismal). Rather than becoming depressed, I just seem to get a bit dozy, and it is all too tempting to curl up in the warm with a not too demanding novel.

Well done Gordy. Agree with EC about the format improvements. It looks damn good too.

As most of my meditation practice has been in the Therevada tradition, I don’t really feel qualified to write about Mahayana/Zen/Pure Land. But I would love to do so anyway and what the hell. I would also quite like to write a little about my ancestral home of Thessaloniki, which for centuries was home to Jews, Muslims and Christians living side by side.

E:

Thanks for agreeing that. There is no timescale – just when the inspiration grabs you.

I thought you might be a SADS sufferer – glad you are not.

I tend to read more in the winter as I am outdoors as much as work will allow the rest of the year. The colours, I agree, are spectacular just now.

All:

Evolution piece now posted.

Peitha:

Finally responded with part two.

dOm:

Many thanks. Offer (s) gratefully accepted (before you change your mind).

With the Buddhism post if you let me have your words by email: gengmaak@hotmail.com

I will splice them into whatever I write and publish them in the philosophy of religion category. There is no hurry – whenever the mood grabs you.

With the other just send it to this site as you have here and Gordy or I will post in the relevant category.

Boltonian: “Literalists do exist out there, and are becoming more prevalent in the US (perhaps Bill could confirm this).”

I believe they are more visible, not more prevalent, owing to political manipulation. The U.S. has always had far too many of them but they only appear to be more prevalent when the rest of us have been obscured by politics and a willing media.

There are regions rarely focused on in the media. Western Massachusetts and southern Vermont, for example, is one area where neopagan communities are thriving.

Bill

dOm:

I once spent six months in Greece – mainly Crete – and had a whale of a time. I was very interested in Greek and Minoan history at the time (still am, really). I learned modern Greek and when I went to the mainland everybody instantly knew that I had come from Crete. This was 30 years ago and I can hardly remember more than a few words now, which is a bit sad.

E:

Whilst I was out there I visited some fantastic archaeological sites, particularly Knossos and Phaestos. Have you been?

peitha:

This is going to sound very cheeky but on the predecessor to this site there was quite a lot of interest in Quakerism but none had any expertise. I wonder if you wouldn’t mind contributing a piece on the subject: history; beliefs; rituals etc? I think there would lots of interest from the assembly here. I could post it on the philosophy of religion section.

Bill:

Thanks. I thought there was some raging war happening between biblical literalists (creationists) and evolutionists. We get a very partial reportage of what happens in the States over here.

boltonian:

I’ve never been to Crete but many people have told me it’s fantastic so I would love to visit. My great grandfather briefly abandoned a young family in the Pelopennese to go off and fight the Turks there. I remember as a child being in awe of a photograph my mother has of him from this period looking all mean with his fustanella, bushy mustache and rather fearsome looking scimitar on his lap while flanked by two other men in similar attire. Not very responsible of him go off like that, but as a young boy I was dead impressed by that sword.

It is a pity that languages are so difficult to remember unless one practices them regularly. And accents are extremely funny things. Last year I was in Madrid for a couple of days and people were perplexed by what was clearly a foreign accent, yet at the same time Mexican (I lived there for a few years). People just didn’t expect that combination.

Elephantschild – will be very interested to know what you make of Rise of Western Christendom. I have a copy now, but not read all (or even most) of it yet. In the opening, Brown mentions Christopher Dawson. Out of interest, does anyone know anything by Christopher Dawson?

(The reason I ask is: with respect, there might be some interesting inter-generational comparisons here. He is not in vogue at the mo’, though at one stage he was a very popular historian. Moreover, he is interesting because he was not a professional historian in the sense of being tenured etc).

Things seem to be working a lot more quickly this morning. Let’s hope they stay that way…

dOm:

Despite all my best intentions I have never returned to Crete, so I don’t know if it has been completely overrun by hotel complexes. The process had already started when I was there in 1977/8.

All Cretan men in the countryside sported bushy mustaches and looked fierce but they were the kindest and most gentle people I had ever met. Looking back they were all very poor but everybody made me welcome.

A lazy day, in which I have accomplished little, other than to indulge my inner dormouse by making parkin (comfort food/nostalgia for childhood).

Boltonian – I have indeed visited Crete twice, although both times it was a one day stopover, so I cannot claim to know the island well. The first occasion was with my parents in 1966: we had spent two or three days in Athens (you could still wander round the Acropolis unimpeded in those days), then a morning at Knossos and the afternoon in the museum at Heraklion, before travelling on to Rhodes (before the days of high-rise hotels and mass tourism). The second visit was on a Swan Hellenic cruise (not a very ‘authentic’ way to travel, but a good way to see a great deal in a short time, with minimal hassle, and with the bonus of guest lecturers and guides who really know their stuff). A group of us spent the day exploring the less heavily restored and less frequented sites at Phaistos, Ayia Triadha and Mallia which, on the whole, I preferred to Knossos, although Knossos is fun and the restorations very impressive despite their sometimes questionable accuracy.

I also have a wealth of memories of other places visited – Delos, Delphi and the church of Hosias Loukas, Epidauros, Mistra, Istanbul and sites in western Turkey, of which my favourite was Xanthos; totally unrestored – just the ruins with wild gladioli growing among them and goats grazing. Ephesus was memorable, too, partly because we arrived there on the day of a local festival, and the theatre was full of people watching a childrens’ dance display. My only regret is that we did not call in at Santorini to see Akrotiri, but maybe one day …..

Have you ever been to Malta and seen the prehistoric sites there – the stunning megalithic temples and the hypogeum? There are also some extensive catacombs (prehistoric to early christian) which I saw thanks to the good offices of a cousin of some friends there. Then there are the fauna from the cave of Ghar Dalam, including mini-elephants – graphic evidence of natural selection!

ChooChoo – I suspect that you are far better qualified than I to evaluate ‘The Rise of Western Christendom’, but it will be interesting to compare notes. I’m afraid I know nothing of Christopher Dawson beyond what can be gathered by googling – clearly another gap in my knowledge.

E:

Ah parkin. That takes me back to my Lancashire childhood too.

I agree with you about the superior merits of Phaestos and Mallia over Knossos. What surprised me most about Knossos was its position – it sits in a bowl, which would not be easy to defend. Perhaps it showed the confidence of the Minoans in their ability to defend the whole island from he sea. I know that Evans’ restoration has been questioned but I enjoyed not having to work so hard in imagining how it might have looked.

The other benefit I found with Phaestos is that it was quiet.

I lived for five months in the charming Venetian port of Rethymnon on the north coast. From there I got about the island pretty well using a mixture of bus (scary), hitchhiking and walking. I went to Mount Ida, where Zeus spent his early childhood. The cave , where he was supposed to have lived, is isolated and quite terrifying – I can see why there are so many stories attached to it.

I too visited the mainland but not, alas, Delphi. My visit was confined to Athens, which I loathed, and the Peloponnese. I was a little disappointed with the sites of Argos, Tyrins etc but the highlight for me was the theatre at Epidauros. Magnificent!

My plan was to take the ferry from Crete to Piraeus via Naxos and Thera but the sea was very rough and all sailings were cancelled (this was February 1978 and all Europe had a stormy winter that year), so I flew to Athens and spent the next week or so in Nafplion.

Thence by train to Patras (over the Corinth canal), ferry to Brindisi and a slow overnight train journey to Rome via Bari, Foggia and Naples. I stayed with some friends of my brother in Rome for a couple of weeks and experienced my first visit to Florence (wow!). They lived in Ostia Maritima, so a trip to Ostia Antica was a must. Have you been? It is as magnificent as Pompeii in its way.

Choo Choo,

Enjoyed your comments on ACG today, as you may know, these days I limit my contributions to two words and a name so must talk to you in this haven of manners.
Re: your article, any chance your father went to school with Zubin Metha? If so could you get me and Boltonian some tickets for the Maggio Musicale?

Dear me! I have just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading ACG on faith schools.

Boltonian, I wouldn’t worry ACG wastes whole months on faith schools.

But he gets paid for it.

The World of Late Antiquity, by Peter Brown and recommended by Choochoo, is a good read.

I get a sense of perpetual change and fluidity, movement in energy and ideas, that isn’t as nearly pronounced in those books that focus primarily on the downfall and end of the Western Roman empire.

Here (so far, anyway), the shift to the East is much more evident, seen as a continuation of the empire, even as changes in belief and practice ripple through everywhere (this despite the counter trend of a kind of worship of the classical past; that, in its way, feeds the change as it draws provincials into it).

This dynamic sense is valuable, and of course applies everywhere and in all times, including the present, our view of our own societies (and beliefs) constrained by the limited perspective of single lives with their short duration.

Bill

Boltonian and Elephants Child and dOm, I have never been to Crete or mainland Greece, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reminiscences of sojourns and old photographs. A quick question for you: did any of you find out whether all Cretans are liars?

EC – will do on the notes front. On the Brownster – I once heard that he is the best-paid historian – in terms of his tenured salary – in the world. On Dawson: he was a (literally) non-professional historian who wrote loads of books, famously on European history and what he called meta-history. (Another guy who could write a good sentence). What’s interesting is that, at one point, he was a famous name and widely read (I’m guessing in the 1920s-40s, perhaps thereafter). But he has since fallen from eminence, esp after the po-mos hit the scene. (I think Hayden White writes critically of him, though I haven’t read what he has to say first hand). From the scraps I’ve read, his breadth and depth is impressive (writing on all manner of things from the ‘dark ages’ to the advent of ‘modernity’). And despite some major changes which adversely affect his work – how historians now analyse, say, ‘barbarians’, or how historians write about ‘ethnicity’, as opposed to race – he has, again going on the scraps, nonetheless dated well.

McCabino – I am left in awe of how much you manage to condense into the ‘Deleted by x x’ genre of internet posting (the ACG thread example being a prime one).

On Zubin Mehta – alas, my father was in swaddling bands when Mehta would have been at school. (Mehta, incidentally, went to a ‘faith school’, St. Mary’s. Like many Bombay Parsis of that generation, he went to a Catholic school).

(An aside: my knowledge of matters pertaining to Israel is hit and miss. But, I recently found out some interesting though vague things about my father’s classmates. Whenever I ask my father to reminisce about school, he often mentions various Jewish names. One friend of his, with whom he is still in touch, is called Ruben Solomon. Why this is interesting is that, first, there were evidently many Jews in Bombay c.1950s/1960s. I don’t know much about the community there, but I imagine it was relatively long-standing. On my recent visit to Bombay, I noticed several synagogues still marked on the map, though, sadly, I didn’t have time to see any. But, secondly, my father is not in touch with any of his other Jewish classmates – the one I mentioned also emigrated to England. Nor do any of them or their families live in Bombay any more (so it seems to him). A great many of them moved to Israel, and some (well, I think two) of his classmates were killed fighting for the Israeli army: given that my father was born in 1950, I assume this was most likely 1973, the Yom Kippur war. Incidentally, my father also told me that his first ever sweetheart was a Jewish girl. (As it happens, so was mine). While I am hardly a Bombayite(?), the world he describes, of a Bombay not only seen through a characteristically Parsi lens, but enlivened by various Jewish personalities – something with which I can sympathise growing up in N London – is so far removed from my experiences of Bombay).

Of course, had my father been buddies with Zubin Mehta, I would gladly have got you and Boltonian tickets for the Maggio Musicale.

On the ACG – you must forgive me for drawing upon your ‘votary’ point without always acknowledging it. It really is beginning to grate on me. I was certain that it’s a Gibbonism (not to say that Gibbon coined it). It sounds grand when Gibbon uses it:

“The meaner passions of pride, avarice, and revenge, may be deemed unworthy of a celestial breast; yet the saints themselves condescended to testify their grateful approbation of the liberality of their votaries; and the sharpest bolts of punishment were hurled against those impious wretches, who violated their magnificent shrines, or disbelieved their supernatural power.”

(He’s writing about the ‘cult of the saints’: of course, the Brownster’s treatment is more of a starting point for contemporary historians).

It never sounds so good in the context of a polemical, generic Guardian piece. What’s more, in no context would Gibbon be underscored with the profound and erudite reflections of his readers, along the lines of: “you mooks, faith schools are the biggest abomination of desolation ever, can’t you get it into your thick skulls etc where’s your evidence etc etc”. (By the way, am I flirting with dodgy epistemology or could the ‘where’s your evidence’ line on CiF be added to the list of spurious forms of argument when used inappropriately and/or incessantly?). What really annoys me is that he’s not a stupid man, but his ever-increasing pieces tend to lurch violently to the blustery and polemical. And ACG can be so puerile. Not what I expect of a philosopher.

ChooChoo:

‘A quick question for you: did any of you find out whether all Cretans are liars?’ Ha ha ha.

It was not my experience but it was a different society from the one I had grown up with. The men spent their free time in cafes and tavernas trying to pick up (often successfully) tourist girls. Their wives were at home with the children, cooking and housework.

I teamed up with an America chap for a couple of weeks and he found this distressing to the point of wanting to intervene in some way.

But they were almost all very kind to me and gave me free Greek lessons in the evenings. People in the countryside were even more generous – I was regarded, I am sure, in some villages as an amusing curiosity. I also got to hear some pretty hair-raising and moving anecdotes about the war.

Re-ACG. My take on it is this:

He is vain and probably loves the material comforts in life. Journalism does not sit easily with philosophy because the former needs to arrive at a swift conclusion using fairly simple (if not simplistic) arguments. It has no time for the nuances and subtle shadings of philosophy.

Journalism now provides him with a substantial chunk of his income and a high, ego-feeding profile, which life in academia could not.

I have read a couple of his books and I would regard him as an indifferent philosopher. He is neither original nor deep. I find most of his arguments unconvincing and, in some cases, downright wrong. He might be a good teacher of philosophy but that is a different thing. I think he is knowledgeable but confuses this with wisdom.

Quite so Boltonian,

ACG may well be, I suspect he is, a very good philosophy teacher (textbooks and introductions) yet this does not make him a philosopher. I think Copleston is an excellent example of the first category. I think it would be instructive to compare Grayling with the other (now former) Birkbeck public philosopher Roger Scruton. Politics aside, I find his journalism far more readable though I always did like people who go against the grain. What I will say for Scruton is that he has made original contributions in aesthetics and the philosophy of music; thus in his case the epithet of philosopher does apply.

Often is the time I spot ACG in Bloomsbury and I have to resist the urge to go right up to him, eyeball to eyeball and shout WHIG and then walk away. I never do because, apart from being incredibly rude and threatening, I do not have the courage and in any case he would probably think I was referring to his hair.

Choo Choo,

I was aware that Metha was educated by Catholics and with the Parsi connection I was secretly hoping (for purely selfish reasons) he might be your uncle or something.
I admire your attempts at engaging with ACG, but as has Boltonian found, he will only ever respond to Aunt Sally attacks and not serious questions.

Simon – I see the ACG around Malet Street too. To be fair, the little smirk that enlivens his CiF mugshot is also discernible in person. There’s a little cafe near Senate House library and he sometimes comes in for his lattes. On a couple of occasions, when he has vaguely glanced in my direction, I have smiled at him, but he always appears too deep in thought – about which pastry to order or which shibboleth to shatter? – to smile back.

I too quite like reading Scruton, though I certainly wouldn’t call myself a Scrutonista. I quite enjoyed his ‘Modern Culture’. It has a most readable bibliography: most entries have gnomic summaries, e.g.

“Frith, Simon, Performing Rites, Oxford 1996, one of several studies of pop in which Simon Frith bravely tries to discern something in it.”

or

“Schleiermacher, F.D.E., Hermeneutics: the handwritten manuscripts…1977, from which you will learn much less than you hoped, but something nonetheless”

I have ‘Sexual Desire’ but haven’t read through all of it. V interesting stuff (hitherto).

On the other hand, he can be a bit cranky sometimes. Also, why do all philosopher-journalists seem to have a thing for slightly crazy hair?

ChooChoo, Simon:

Pity about the lack of a Mehta connection. I was rather looking forward to the event.

I too like Scruton, known to me mainly through his journalism – the only book of his that I have read from cover to cover is, ‘A political philosophy,’ which is a mixed bag. Mainly good but with some weak parts towards the end, particularly the last two chapters on the nature of evil and TS Eliot’s conservatism.

ACG has answered none of my questions or engaged with me at all, apart from one snide remark. There are far more interesting people to discuss things with on boltonian’s blog. :-}

Is anybody out there interested in political philosophy? Burke has been an influence on my thinking and so, strangely, has Hazlitt. I also like Popper, although my early flirtation with Bentham and JS Mill has waned. Burke, though, stands the test of time, whereas Marx, for instance, certainly hasn’t.

Boltonian: “Is anybody out there interested in political philosophy? Burke has been an influence on my thinking and so, strangely, has Hazlitt. I also like Popper, although my early flirtation with Bentham and JS Mill has waned. Burke, though, stands the test of time, whereas Marx, for instance, certainly hasn’t.”

I’m not particularly interested, but did you see the recent George Soros CiF article? (This did feature Popper somewhat, a major influence on Soros.)

Having once spent some years involved in sales and marketing activities, the possibilities of interacting on-line with a billionaire intrigue me.

Suppose a comment to such an article inspired an act of largesse on George’s part, such that he chose to bestow huge quantities of pounds on The Boltonian College of Philosophy?

Of course this would require you to formalize things; you’d have to determine suitable salaries and benefits to award yourself and faculty members, hire someone to manage the endowment, purchase a building to house offices and a library plus endless tons of books, bookcases, espresso machines, and easy chairs, etc., to fill it, all of this despite the primarily virtual nature of the institution.)

Never mind; this would likely be a great waste of time and energy, a distraction.

Boltonian – I am interested, though – I am told – hopelessly ignorant on political philosophy. Why don’t you write something about Burke?

“I have ‘Sexual Desire’ ”

noooo……*must* resist…..will NOT comment

Sorry.

Stupid comment. I’m feeling a bit stupid at the moment. I’m not really well-read enough to join in with much, and I know it’s not really my fault or anything (I’ve lost a lot of time on mere survival), but it’s no-one else’s either. I should be more serious sometimes.

Finished the King Alfred book so there’s a start. I’m going to start “The Idiot” by Dostoevsky now, which is probably quite appropriate.

I used to have a thing about Antonio Gramsci in my youth. I haven’t read much on political philosophy for some years. In fact I don’t read much on politics now. I quite like Hattersly’s stuff in The Guardian – as an aside, for my money, he is a good example of an atheist who really understands religious belief. I think his dad had been a Jesuit… I digress. I would like to know more about Burke.

As a political philosopher Marx may not be too impressive – don’t buy dialectical materialism and determinism – but as a political economist his description of capitalism is peerless.

Bill:

Well, I think we have a reasonably eclectic, talented and underpaid band of tutors here, so if you could persuade your new friend Mr Soros to part with a few shekels I am sure we could put it to good (educational) use.

Biskie:

‘Sexual desire’ sounds like a whole new blog on its own.

On a less interesting subject would you be prepared to compose a summary of the ‘Alfred’ book for the history category here?

I once read the ‘Brothers Karamazov’ and it depressed me so much that I have not attempted any Dostoevsky since. Please let us know how you get on with ‘The Idiot.’

ChooChoo and others:

I will try to summarise Burke but it will have to wait a little – research, time, inspiration etc.

dMo:

Marx is an example of someone whose intentions were so pure but the result disastrous. Although, as he famously said, he would not have been a Marxist. I read the Communist Manifesto as a young man and then looked around me. It cured me of my youthful Utopianism. A bit like the effect the Republic seems to have had on Popper.

No, Biskieboo, don’t apologise. I’ve already made loads of silly jokes about ‘Sexual Desire’ and Scruton (and scrutonising) in my time. I am a very silly boy at heart. I still think it’s funny to put stickers on people’s backs at work (colleagues, not customers).

One of the most intelligent and erudite people I know is also one of the silliest when it comes to joking around. He’s about 30 and, curiously, still finds farts inherently funny: one minute he’s trying to explain how some arcane discussion by medieval philosophers about ‘being’ is relevant to his own study of modern legal systems in Asia – to which I might respond with a baffled look – before letting rip and roaring with laughter – to which I might respond with a baffled look.

Apologies to all for the vulgarity.

Hey, its after lights out – vulgarity is allowed and frivolity positively encouraged at this end of the day.

Apologies to Bill who is still in the sober part of the time spectrum.

One of the most excruciatingly funny moments in my life came at the retreat I was at in August when one meditator let off a really loud one. It was a total Bigus Dickus moment. He/she picked the most inappropriate moment as well. The metta meditation was being introduced and in ridiculously low tones, the teacher’s voice on the tape was going “may aaaall beings share my peeeeeeace, looooooove, may aaaaall beings be haaaaaappy” (apparently lots of groups break into fits of spontaneous laughter even without the added farting). I nearly bit my finger off.

Boltonian:

Part of the reason why Marx initially appealed to me as a political economist is because studying economics at university I felt that orthodox neoclassical economics (which came about as a reaction to Marx) was a highly superficial description of how the world actually works. Neoclassical economics corresponds to what would be termed the exchange domain in Marx’s labour theory of value, but this is just a thin layer on top of the value domain, where economic activity is concentrated. Marx’s theory isn’t a perfect theory, but it is in my opinion stil the most complete one there is.

In recent years my belief that Marx got it right about capitalism has been reinforced as I’ve moved from seeing the extraction of surplus value in abstract theoretical terms towards seeing the practical mechanisms of how it works.

I work as a financial journalist, now freelance but mostly for a highly esoteric field not that for removed from the bricks and mortar of the real economy. A few years back my magazine gave a deal of the year award for the refinancing of the debt on a Californian power station. The station had been bought by a private equity firm which sold it again after it had pocketed a cool $200 million on the refinancing. Try and imagine a business making x amount of profit each year over a 20-year period, then visualise all that profit being sucked out in one great big slurp. They squeezed it like an orange.

It was all above board and you’ll hear all sorts of justifications in terms of “pricing risk” etc. But the bottom line is that it is quite possible the executives I spoke to never once set foot in that power station. And they could do it because they could navigate their way around an abstract mathematical world – Marx’s money domain – that most of the people who work in that station will never understand.

Make a Re: Political philosophy;

Burke, a Whig we can all look up to, one of my favourites, I’d like to see what Boltonion’s take on him is. On an applied level I think his prescience saved this country untold misery. On the top of my head those I’ve enjoyed have been Lord Acton, Michael Oakshott, Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant (the most overlooked French thinker in history), Giuseppe Mazzini, Simone Weil (the second most overlooked French thinker in history) and Karl Polanyi. I’ll second Karl Popper but poo poo Bentham as naïve though Mill has probably had more influence than all the others. Marx, despite my many reservations is an exemplary sociologist and some Marxist (Hobsbawn, Gramsci) studies of history are some of the best reading one can do.

Boltonian: “Hey, its after lights out – vulgarity is allowed and frivolity positively encouraged at this end of the day. Apologies to Bill who is still in the sober part of the time spectrum.”

There’s really no need to be apologetic, Boltonian, although you are definitely very good at fulfilling the role of proprietor in this college.

All things considered, you really have your hands full with this particular combination of tutors and students (I include myself in this last), but even so, they are behaving remarkably well.

(When I was much younger, a few of my contemporaries were highly esteemed; they excelled at _lighting_ farts. Fortunately, none managed to set their trousers on fire.)

We interact by writing here; this is clearly quite different from what speaking to each other would be like. My own writing — and the person I feel myself to be, inwardly, when doing so — continues to change.

As you know, I have been experimenting with writing in varying degrees of trance for some time, having reached a point where I can move in and out of a mild trance very quickly. (The truly deeper trance condition that some writers I know can enter continues to elude me, but then during my days I am dealing with mundane business matters and can ill afford to go too far in that direction.)

Possibly, there is some area of philosophy that directly pertains to such endeavors, or some branch of psychology, perhaps, that may have stopped decades ago. (Of course some will suggest this would be abnormal psychology, but such a suggestion doesn’t bother me — this is a an exploration I find quite stimulating, combining various interests.)

Simon:

I hope you will help me with my summary of Burke.

Constant I don’t know and Weil is unfairly overshadowed by Sartre (surely one of the most over-rated of many over-rated 20th century French philosophers).

Agree about Bentham and I realise that Mill has had undue influence on British politics – my father, who was a life-long socialist, drilled into me from an very early age the mantra, ‘The greatest good for the greatest number.’ I wish I had had the presence of mind to ask him who decides what is good.

This raises an interesting point about childhood indoctrination (viz the recent ACG thread). My father brought me up to be an atheistical socialist, although fair dos to him he did not prevent me from attending church as a child. If I can be described as anything at all now it would certainly not be this. Was I deliberately perverse (more than possible) or did this early ‘Education’ have no bearing on my world view as an adult?

Bill:

If it is a challenge it is (so far) a very easy one.

I know it’s terribly passe and all, but is it ok with you guys if I stick to older words like ‘ideas’, or ‘concepts’ (or even tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions and ways of making pots) instead of the evidently more scientific and conceptually coherent ‘meme’? (Though, I guess it would make writing poetry easier).

I heard a meme the other meme that gave me the meme to write a meme on this meme in order that we might come to some firm memes. Anyway, I’d be terribly interested to hear whether others have been infected by this meme.

Meme to self: tell Henderson to bring forward the deadline for that meme-theory report to Friday.

Aaaargh!! Damn meme meme. Bloody meme’s lodged itself in my head. Meme meme meme meme meme meme meme. Memomix!

A meme message by meme carrying and soon to be meme suffering meme disseminator who won a meme for these kind of memes in 1948
Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man’s (meme(1) masquerading as altruistic beneficence when in fact the reciprocal nature of said gift/meme is instrumental to furthering the survival capacity of the gift maker so to make himself feel like a smug little git – thus raise his sexual proclivity – at the expense of the competing male – whose lost his religion which is the meme(2) par excellence but we won’t go down that road) and that man’s scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I (meme(3) of kin acknowledgement of death that instructs the carrier to breed like a rabbit and replace the lost, thus illustrating the utility function of mourning; really you could do this all day)
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Meme no.2 wins in the end so don’t bother reading the rest.

Did I spot all the memes?

Would you believe it? ACG is at it again! This in particular is priceless, (speaking of those who venture to disagree with him)

‘ ….even the obviously certifiable among them can sometimes prompt one to think, mainly about the lack of historical knowledge, the lack of logic, and the lack of an ability to read attentively (or indeed to read anything much apart from blogs, it seems) that some of them display.’

Pots and kettles, anyone?

I had just come back from a walk in the woods on this fine crisp November morning. As I sat at my computer I noticed I had trod is some mess left by a bear and began to remove the offensive material. It was then that I looked up, and, to my amazement saw that ACG had written another article on CiF about religion. However this time I think Choo Choo’s exemplary good will and manners have paid off as he makes an oblique reference in your direction; I think

I am resisting making another cheap shot about the British Academy.

Boltonian

Re: Burke, very busy at the moment with thesis and all but when its over I’ll try and find if I still have any notes from my undergraduate days – now that’s going back.

Well, well, well. Do you think that a nerve has been hit?

Arrogance and a thin skin – not an attractive combination.

Simon:

No probs. – I will start playing around with a few ideas over the next day or so. I shall be rather dependent on Conor Cruise O’Brien’s biography.

Does anybody know whether it is reliable or not?

I’ve sent an email to gerry/gordy with some Alfred scribblings. Too busy to write anything else!

Sorry, I weakened (ACG’s CiF thread), although it will probably be deleted by the moderators.

Boltonian – I don’t think your comment to ACG’s article ought to get moderated. In fact, it actually makes an interesting point. To be fair, he did get a fair bit of vitriol following previous articles. And some of this vitriol was from ‘votaries’. But not all of it was.

Moreover, he doesn’t quite seem to acknowledge that there have been a plethora of reasoned posts responding to his pieces both from votaries and knights of reason.

That said, perhaps I was a bit intemperate with my silly ’shit stirrer’ suggestion. On the other hand, if being a little mischievous is good enough for the ACG, it’s good enough for me.

Forgot to add: had an embryonic idea for a discussion prompting (hopefully) thing. Some time back I mentioned Maximillian Kolbe and an act of heroism on his part, giving up his life for another at Auschwitz. I’m not interested, lest anyone is worried, in going into hagiography, though I must confess it’s a mighty impressive act. (Indeed, the fact of our responses of this sort might be of some relevance). It might be an interesting way to consider some of the things we have discussed on ethics (in the richer sense) and free will etc (and all the neighbouring constellations). What do you think? Won’t be ready for a bit, but not too far off either.

ChooChoo:

Thanks and YES please!

Biskie:

Thanks for the article – I will read it this evening when I return.

I have just tuned in to CiF to find an outbreak of tribalism on the Hobson thread. Lots of heat, not much light, to coin a cliche.

Theonewiththebighair:

Thanks for the plug on the Grayling thread. How could anybody mistake you for the prof. BTW? But I would like to ask if you have posted here under another handle? Please feel free not to answer, of course.

ChooChoo:

What is this about you really being WML? Strange.

Peitha:

You mentioned in one post on CiF about being saddened by those who do not share your belief in the ‘Good News,’ as I think you put it. This raises an interesting point about empathy. We cannot really ever know what it is to be somebody else, only what we would feel like in those circumstances. I listen to a beautiful piece of music, for instance, that might leave you cold and I think, ‘What a shame she cannot feel what I feel.’ But we mistake these feelings for true empathy, which is beyond us. That is partly why, I suggest, that we try to do everything we can to persuade others of the rectitude of our case (sometimes to the point of coercion) – it also makes us feel less lonely.

Hi Boltonian, I was born again on the first of Linda Grant’s username threads as t.o.w.t.b.h. Thought I’d stick with d0m here. Haven’t forgotten the Buddhism article btw.

dOm:

Mystery solved. Thanks.

I think I will keep out of the Hobson thread. It was getting fairly unpleasant when I last looked in.

Thanks, also, for the prompt about Buddhism. I will start getting my thoughts together on that as well.

I was also volunteered by an expert delegator here to write a piece on Burke, for which I need to do some research. And…three of the four vols of the Kenny have arrived. Also, I haven’t finished the other half-dozen books I am reading. All of a sudden it feels like I am doing my MBA again. I hope my tutors will be kind to me if I am late delivering my assignments.

Boltonian – on being WML (which is the title of my forthcoming autobiography) was a little witticism which might have gone horribly wrong.

It was in the ‘love-in’ thread which Linda Grant wrote about someone called IShouldApologise: my cynicism about such fellow feeling was won over by the warmth on show. On the questions of pseudonyms, anonymity and how we imagine other posters, I – thinking it might be funny – ‘came clean’ that I am really WML. Rather like the time, a few years back, when my fellow student flatmates thought – and I thought with them – that it would be funny to throw water onto drunken student passers-by from our lights-off, first floor kitchen window, it seemed to be a good idea at the time.

By the way – the ‘empathy’ question is an interesting one. Perhaps we might return to it in more detail…

No hurry with getting your thoughts together on Buddhism. I have been spending far too much time over the last week or so on CiF and various other means of procrastination, with the result that I am once more seriously behind on an article I need to write. A lot of the stuff on on the Hobson thread is pretty nasty even by the standards of abuse he normally receives.

If anyone else is contemplating reading Peter Brown’s _The World of Late Antiquity_ let me say that it begins to heat up when the Christians arrive.

(I’m not quite halfway through it and may go back and read it again once done, as only now am I really beginning to tune into Brown’s perspective. He certainly has no love for Gnosticism. The extreme dualism is not to my liking but I feel there’s more to their story than Brown may be aware of.)

My apologies to anyone I might have offended on the recent CiF threads — I am continuing to play with certain ideas and differing ways to express them, using such threads as an opportunity for doing so.

(I note the reappearance of Longsword on those threads, and now have a better understanding of some of the comments here re: Grayling, after his lavatory remark.)

dOm:

I have emailed you with my initial thoughts on Buddhism.

Now to Burke – this will take a little longer.

Boltonian: Cheers, I shall take a look this evening.

Bill: I’m not sure how you might offended someone. You’re far too polite to.

I agree. Bill being offensive sounds like an oxymoron.

There are a couple of articles on the science page (31) of today’s DT. One by Marcus Chown, who has a new book out, and the other by Roger Highfield on art and the brain.

You can find it on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science

I’m going to be Rogering Scruton!
No, I mean Scrutonizing Roger!

There were *three* of his books in the library, which is frankly amazing. I was actually looking for Alsitair McGrath books but they didn’t have any

One of them is enormous – “Modern Philosophy” which is going to take me months to get through, but will hopefully learn me a lot about philosophy.

Biskie:

. You made me lol, which is just the job for a miserable, wet, Tuesday evening in November.

Just started playing around with the Kenny opus – good so far.

Its all gone very quiet.

How are you getting on with Buddhism, dOm?

I will start thinking about Burke this weekend. Funnily enough the street where I live is named after the great man.

I have just dipped into the Mediaeval volume of the Kenny, about the re-discovery of Aristotle and his influence, and found I couldn’t put it down.

E – I forgot to say that I have never visited Malta, although an uncle went on holiday there every year for about 10 years.

Simon:

I have sent you some notes on Burke. I would appreciate your comments.

I’ve got my second stinky cold of the month so I’ve been holed up at home reading “The Idiot” which is simply brilliant. If I’d known that Dostoevsky was this readable I would have got stuck in a long time ago. My friend Mary has been raving on about him for years and I can now understand why. The Scuton books haven’t had much of a look in yet.

Biskie:

I hope you are feeling better. You have encouraged me to give Dostoevsky another go – perhaps I shouldn’t have started with the ‘Brothers.’

Here in the U.S. we now exist in the strange zone between Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Year’s, with end-of-year accounting looming for those in business. My own annual Thanksgiving trek across Massachusetts and back in bumper-to- bumper traffic in one direction, the traffic moving but at far too great a velocity — often 80-85 mph — and the cars too close to each other, on the return trip, inevitably requires some recovery time after driving 350 miles total in a faithful but old car (a 1990 Jetta with 213,000 miles).

(Picture me gripping the wheel, running on caffeine and nicotine. Driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike is like this because the budget for the State Police was reduced years ago, making troopers few and far between — the speed limit is rarely enforced and it can even be dangerous to drive at that speed — 65 mph for many stretches — as you will be in the way of constantly approaching faster vehicles. The result is to drive much faster, feeding into the overall madness.)

Despite all of this I am continuing to read The World of Late Antiquity; this gets better and better; more on this later.

I’m warming up for Philosophy by posting to CiF.

Bill

Bill – ever seen documentaries about Wildebeest migrations?!

By the way, “running on caffeine and nicotine” – I take it you’re a fellow addict. This isn’t schadenfreude, but a sense of solidarity. (It is interesting: any of you who smoke or have done, might be aware of this. It seems to lubricate social interactions, particularly when you are new to somewhere, in a bizarre way. For instance, at work – not so sure with new regulations and the office variety. Which does not constitute a good argument. I couldn’t possibly mention Anscombe incessantly and then couch such an argument in consequentialist terms). Glad to hear you’re liking World of Late antiquity. It is a slim volume. But, as I said, it is masterful as an introduction to a period of history (esp if you’re more interested in social and cultural history).

Boltonian – sorry, have been a bit busy, but will try to do my homework asap…

Bill:

Sounds worse than the M62 here (or the M25 for southerners).

ChooChoo:

No probs. Been enjoying your joust with a certain dogmatist in another place.

E:

I know you are in hibernation mode but I am toying with the idea of importing the book reviews we did between us on evidence for the events in the OT and the textual analysis of the NT. I thought of putting it into the history category here. What do you think? I have been on a recruitment drive on CiF and I think this might be of interest to some.

dOm:

I know you are very busy just now but I have just seen your alter ego on CiF and would like to ask how you are progressing with Buddhism. Not a nag but would you rather I ran with what I have so far or wait for your input? The latter is my preference but please let me know (by email if you wish) if you haven’t the time.

Re-smoking:

I gave up cigarettes 30 years ago and cigars 10 years ago last month. Since then I have felt healthier, free from the slavery of addiction and insufferably virtuous.

I also take the Auberon Waugh position that young people should be encouraged to take up the habit because then they will pay much more in taxes over their lifetimes and die younger, which will more than offset any additional burden they impose on the NHS. I have seen figures quoted by both sides in the debate to support their respective arguments. Does anybody here know the actual numbers? And then there is the libertarian argument…This sounds like a whole thread on its own.

Boltonian
I have just been reading the Timothy Garton Ash thread on CiF and noted the renewed debate on the historicity of Jesus. WML seemed to be getting the worst of it, but he never seems to know when to give up, does he? I thought of enlarging on your post concerning the nativity story, but chickened out in the end.

If people want to continue the discussion here, then I agree that it would be a good idea to import the relevent sections from the other site.

I have still not finished reading the Karen Armstrong book on biblical exegesis, but hope to do so over the weekend, provided that there are not too many distractions. I will then attempt to compile a synopsis for submission here.

ChooChoo
In solidarity I, too, must confess to the nicotine habit. I have given it up several times, sometimes for years, but to date have always weakened again. It seems to help me concentrate, especially when I am writing (it is a wonder my posts don’t arrive reeking).

I thought that the point you made on the TAG thread, citing the oral evidence for your gt gt gt grandfather was a good one. In my family, also, we had a good deal of anecdotal information concerning my mother’s family, going back to my gt gt gt grandparents around the beginning of the 19th cntury. Some of the stories seemed a trifle far-fetched, but our researches have shown them to be substantially true – not just the names, dates and places but the circumstantial details and various specific incidents (with a bit of imaginative padding they would provide material for at least two novels!)

E:

Many thanks.

Why don’t I put together a piece on the book reviews and email it to you so that you can edit it and correct my errors. I can then post it on the history section here. I will try to put something about the nativity as an adjunct.

Look forward to your book summary – I have still not finished, ‘The Great Transformation,’ to my shame.

I too enjoyed your ancestral tales, ChooChoo.

It pains me but my divorce from cigarettes enters its third year. I enjoyed everyone, the sheer luxury it afforded of being able to stand on your own to do nothing but something; a licence to indolence. There was a time when you could smoke in the passage way under the tower at Senate House; I do not want to think how many cold mornings and sunny afternoons I spent there.
If you are still smoking how the hell you do manage with the ban?
The deciding factor for me was Gordon Brown as well as the pathetic choice of brands in the UK since Muratti, the finest cigarettes (lovely packet; dark blue and red – Mastroianni smokes then in La Dolce Vita) on earth were impossible to come by. I smoked cigars before fags (I was a real tit at school) so I still, but rarely, do my bit for communism in the Caribbean without waking up the next day desperate for the little white stick.
What I will say is that giving up was extremely easy, yet in all truth I feel no different though I can enjoy wine once again and I realise how smelly the tube can be on a Friday night. It is becoming a distant memory but my 30 daily breaks are remembered as one would an ugly affair. The first one is always he best.
However if I get to eighty then I do want to start again.

Testing

The smoking theme is actually quite interesting. A sociable smoke really is a pleasure. I still wonder about – don’t scoff – moral questions. (One of the most intriguing discussions I ever saw was two people arguing whether smoking is a ’sin’).

Elephantschild – like you, I find smoking helpful when writing something. (There is, I am sure, at least one alternative, though I haven’t found it yet). Does this sound familiar – wanting to want to give up (darn second order desires again)?

Simon – I remember smoking in that very passageway. (To those unfamiliar with it – it’s a covered area, but, effectively, without any doors: it feels outdoors in winter). The ban, so far, I have negotiated ok. It means you smoke a little less and enjoy it a little more – a little troupe scampers out and shivers together. I have no qualms with a ban, per se. But some of the details are so heavy-handed and silly. Special hotlines to ‘dob in’ people you see offending (’yes, hi, there were some teenage boys smoking by the bus-stop. I know it was raining, but one of them had half a foot under the shelter’). And there are sillier aspects: if your work means you drive, you can smoke while commuting. But, during the day, if going to see clients for example, your car might be classed as a place of work (even if no clients will enter it) in which case you can’t smoke on your way to clinching the Henderson deal or whatever.

Never tried Muratti – but I find most pre-rolled cigarettes intolerable nowadays (with some exceptions). Can’t afford fancy rolling tobacco though I occasionally dabble.

A quick question (and I feel people here will be better placed to answer than me): there is a certain etiquette, I guess, to smoking. But how does rolling cigarettes – an occasionally messy affair if ‘off form’ – fit in?

Boltonian – “Since then I have felt healthier, free from the slavery of addiction and insufferably virtuous.”

The ’slavery of addiction’ is most apt. Augustine’s notion of freedom is related to this sort of idea, incidentally. And it’s interesting. On the other hand, I’m imagining you happily sitting indoors while I shiver outside, maliciously wishing a weak will upon you…

I haven’t divorced roll-ups. We don’t live together and are careful not to be rumbled (especially by my son who does not approve) but we have several illicit affairs throughout the year. I’m looking forward to our next tryst at Christmas.

Well, you should say a quick hello to your faithful friends at Christmas shouldn’t you.

I agree about the heavy-handedness of the legislation.

I found giving up easy but the thought of it almost intolerable. It was during a bout of summer bronchitis, when I wasn’t smoking anyway, that I just carried on not smoking.

If I could trust myself to enjoy the occasional cigar I would but I know it would become habitual again very soon.

And, just to put your mind at rest, ChooChoo, my will is extremely weak in lots of other areas.

All:

Please note that there is a new article on Buddhism in the Philosophy of Religion category. Comments very welcome.

For the first time in a month, have managed to read this site without it blowing up my browser….

I note you discussed Crete some time ago….one of my favourite places….first time I went, met a Cretan on the ferry, who offered us his apricot orchard in a tiny hamlet as a place to camp (this may have had more to do with the five student nurses I was with, rather than my charm….) Did anyone try the raki? I did….then I fell down a cliff, broke my wrist, got concussion, lost my memory, and learnt quite a bit about the Cretan medical system….also played backgammon for a tenner a game (we’re talking early 80s….)….only to be shown afterwards by my opponent how he cheated….nonetheless, remember being awestruck by Knossus….and most things Cretan, really….

I now have a blog of my own (as of yesterday), although many of you will recognise much of the stuff there, as I’ve gathered up bits and pieces from various blogs where I’ve previously posted:

http://thedoggerelsbollocks.wordpress.com/

Now the moment of truth: will this comment post without causing browser Armageddon….

Hey, Steve:

Welcome back.

I have fond memories of raki. I found myself deep in the Amari valley and when I arrived at the village (I think it was Amari village) I was surrounded by lots of middle aged ladies who took me into a low, smoky stone building and sat me down. Before I could protest I was forced do down glass after glass (in Cretan fashion) of freshly distilled raki. When my eyes had become used to the gloom I could see where the liquid was coming from and what was causing the smoke – a still in the corner.

I was given food and spent a pleasant and idle afternoon chatting to the villagers whilst waiting for the bus back to Rethymnon. I felt neither drunk nor drowsy – the secret apparently is to eat apple with the raki.

The Ouzo story had rather a different ending; suffice to say that I cannot stand the taste or smell of aniseed these days.

I have bookmarked your blog.

b – wonderful stuff, ouzo…. ;->

Just been catching up on other threads here….noticed ChooChoo talked about the Holly Bush on Biskie’s Alfie thread….that pub was my local for a year when I lived in Hampstead, sharing a flat with two ferociously intelligent brothers….and I doubt I’ve thought about it for 25 years until reading ChooChoo’s comment….

Completely off topic – have mentioned before how spiky and immature I thought Dawkins’ forums were, despite broadly agreeing with HMV there – have recently registered with and posted on Randi’s forum (JREF)….and again, found them an unwelcoming bunch of cliquey sods….despite agreeing with them on matters of fact….what is it with these sites? I’m put in mind of the descriptions in “1066 and all that” of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads – “wrong but wromantic” [sic] versus “right and repulsive”….

joedavola on the CiF parallel world thread mentioned David Lewis, so I looked the man up on Wikipedia.

After reading the article, I noticed the lists of Major Contemporary Western Philosophers at the bottom of the page, divided into “Analytic” and “Continental European.”

Then I thought of all of the other philosophers I’d ever heard of.

I then imagined the time and energy it would take (without discovering some amazing new and incredibly swift method of absorbing and processing information) to become familiar with all of their work.

Meanwhile, I’m still reading The World of Antiquity even while gathering together everything I have by William James*, hoping to dig in soon.

In the first case I’m many centuries behind the Major Contemporary Western Philosophers, in the second only about one century, but I hope to eventually catch up; reading the posts here helps, although it can be a tad discouraging, too.

(*Still inspired by Deborah Blum’s _Ghost Hunters_, I created a tiny new and slowly growing “Psychical Research” section at

http://www.realitytest.com/resource.htm#link18

and, owing to my fondness for the antique “subliminal self” term found in that book, I created a new exercise — Exercise 7. Your Subliminal Self at the Keyboard — found at the bottom of

http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm ,

(There’s no preview here, so I’m reluctant to see what happens when I use HTML. Has anyone tried it?)

even as thoughts of philosophy, parallel worlds, and after-death speculation & investigation swirl through my mind and nicotine/caffeine/occasional herbal substance laced brain.

There is so much to think about (even as I value deliberately suspending thought), yet so little time in which to do it, this without even considering interacting with others on these and other topics and without mentioning all of the other areas of personal interest.

Away from my computer monitor, outside in the 3D reality, the first snowstorm of the season approaches.

Bill

Steve:

Your last para does not surprise me at all. I think I have bored everybody to death about my childhood rounds of churches but the only one I found to be intolerant was a Pentecostalist church run by Americans who were, what would be called nowadays, fundamentalist. They were not only intolerant of non-Christians but also of non-literalists. They were a real hell-fire and damnation bunch. The nearest I have come to that personally since is some elements of the political left and quite a few atheists. The kill all apostates school of civilisation.

The CofE, when I was growing up, seemed to be welcoming, tolerant, charitable and trying to do some good in the world. I was agnostic even then but nobody seemed to think this was an issue.

Gordy:

Thanks for keeping on top of things. Pquod from CiF is rather taken by the pic at the top of the page and would like to know where it is. Me too – it is rather splendid.

While we’re on the subject of islands – I spent a very enjoyable fortnight on Gozo in 1992 during the Feast of the Assumption which is a big deal over there – it was also the fiftieth anniversary of the lifting of the WW2 siege. Partly as a result of WW2 I think, I found the Maltese very friendly towards the British – and English is widely spoken. Both great sieges of Malta have ended on feast days connected with Mary a fact which may partly explain the great devotion shown to the saint on the island!

Boltonian, have you ever read Ernle Bradford’s ‘The Great Siege’? Judging from other books you have mentioned, I’m almost certain you would enjoy it – I don’t understand why it’s not been made into a film. On the other hand maybe that’s a good thing given how other books have fared when given the Holywood treatment.

Boltonian

Our paths/posts must have crossed. Re the nice picture, much as though I’d like to pretend that it was just a sanp I took on holiday this year, I’m afraid I don’t know – it came with the template. The small fields and the green are reminiscent of The Emerald Isle but that’s a complete guess.

Steve

Glad the technical hitches seemed to have been sorted out.

Gordy:

No I have not been to Gozo but E was recommending Malta and (I think) Gozo as being stuffed with archaeological treasures.

Funny about the picture. When I first saw it I thought ‘Clew Bay’ but where are the islands?

Thanks for the book recommendation – yet another for the list. If the film industry’s treatment of Patrick O’Brian is anything to go by let’s hope they don’t spot the opportunity!

Bill

I’m sorry that it took such a long time for your post to appear – it had been held for moderation. Strange – as you had never struck me as immoderate. The settings are such that anyone should be able to post unmoderated. I was curious about this (why pick on Bill?) and discovered that the default setting for this blog is to put comments containing two or more links into moderation because this is apparently a feature of many spammed comments. To add insult to injury it has placed your comment where it would have been had it not been moderated and thus more difficult for the rest of us to find. So…

Please scroll up to read Bill’s comment!

Would there be any interest in writing book reviews – I mean for novels? (I think the idea of writing pieces inspired by works on quantum physics etc is already an accepted one). The reason I mention this is that, although I haven’t been reading many novels of late, have started ‘A Man in Full’ by Tom Wolfe and find it fascinating. (Still a long way to go – it’s rather a slab). Needn’t be too long – but there may be interesting spurs for discussion. Biskie on Fyodor perhaps?

(In the case of Wolfe’s work, the nuances of his depiction of Atlanta might not be the best subject – anyone ever been there? – but his reflections on notions of manhood, which is what the novel seems to me to be about so far, is really absorbing).

Obviously, I am continuing my policy of coming up with half-baked ideas and not contributing any further. That piece on Kolbe I will write up when I get some time to write peacefully. And am willing to commit myself to a survey or response to Wolfe’s novel when I finish.

(Boltonian – thanks again for your challenging thoughts on the Vernon thread. I hope I haven’t irked you at all – thoroughly interested rather than [I hope] dogmatically stubborn, and the ‘killing you’ line was just a joke, if a bit distasteful. Rest assured, I have no plans to kill you. Will try an adequate response shortly.)

Finally, it’s a pleasure to see Steve back (and his new lair is a swell idea).

One more thing. Some time back, a friend pointed me in the direction of the American comedian, Demetri Martin. And I have since been hooked (though I’ve never seen him live). He is masterful in delivery and the vast majority of his jokes are plays on words (and even grammar) – he is thankfully light on George Bush jokes. (I’m sorry, but whatever his failings, they’re almost always not funny. What’s interesting here is that comedians, styling themselves as subversive, create stifling orthodoxies. Has anyone ever had the misfortune of watching Mock the Week?).

But, I also wonder whether I am hamming up the Demetri Martin being oh so funny line (not exactly laugh out loud – but his jokes slowly bed down). So wouldn’t mind second opinions. So just type in Demetri Martin at YouTube. Or, if you’re feeling really lazy, click on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AGouxcCyiA&feature=related

I want a book group! I want someone to talk to about “The Idiot”, has anyone else read it, or want to read it so I can talk about it with them?

I keep going around the house saying “Lizaveta Prokofyevna” in a hammy Russian accent. I love it!

Chooch – I can’t watch YouTube at the mo but will check the chap out later. Have you ever seen Milton Jones?

Is anyone going to the CiF meet next Tuesday?
It’s a bit of a trek for me to come up for just a few hours, so I can’t decide whether to bother or not.

Biskie – try here for a book group of sorts:

http://literaturelover.createforum.net/index.php

Under “book talk”, and then “what we’ve been reading”, there are a few people who like to discuss books. (You’ll need to register, but no big deal.) Some are knowledgeable, some not, but you’ll get feedback. (Tell them I recommended the site!)

As to the CiF gettogether – please go, and report back….if I lived closer, I’d be there….

PS, Biskie – haven’t you seen that film “When Biskie met Woolly”?

;->

Snort!

I thinks he’s safe. Unless I have an awful lot to drink.

ChooChoo
Enjoyed the clip a great deal – thanks for that. I’m a Phil Silvers Man myself – something of an anorak in that regard.

Hi all:

What’s this CiF thingy? I haven’t visited for a while. The Biskie and Woolly combo sounds intriguing.

Funnily enough I was thinking of organising a small gathering of this blog’s kibitzers and contributors sometime following the first anniversary in March. If there is any interest I will try to fix something up – location and timing might hamper things a bit.

ChooChoo:

Not at all irksome. And I didn’t take you entirely seriously – I try to discourage psychopaths, murderers and other assorted ruffians from gatecrashing this forum. Gordy has arranged some heavies who lurk discreetly in the shadows.

I saw some of a couple of episodes of Mock the Week, which I found singularly unfunny. Middle-aged men trying to be outrageously shocking tends to leave me cold. But humour, like musical taste, is very individual. I have not heard of your guy but if I get the chance I will tune in.

Ah Phil Silvers – part of my childhood. I presume, ChooChoo, that your name refers to the character in Top Cat, so you should feel right at home with Bilko.

Biskie:

There is no reason why we could not start a book review section as part of this blog.

Gordy – will check out Phil Silvers. By the way, cogent and concise exegetical point on the Eagleton CiF thread. I think the response was telling in its literalism. I quite like Woolly Crystal, but I’m exhausted.

Biskie – I’ve caught something by Milton Jones before. (Demetri Martin’s like an American version in some ways). V funny guy. I remember a ‘death by autopsy’ line.

Would gladly discuss ‘The Idiot’ – but I can’t promise I’ll have read it in the next week or anything…

On the CiF shindy – I must admit it feels a bit awkward (even if a well-intentioned idea). I may have a seminar to supply my excuse, though it won’t be terribly far from Soho.

A Boltonian Blogspot get together, on the other hand, I wouldn’t hesitate over. I’d go so far as to cancel a hypothetical date with an Audrey Hepburn time travelled forward from 1954 so that I could attend. Well, that’s pushing it. But I’d definitely bring her along.

Oh! I know Sgt Bilko. (I remember one summer holiday it was on quite late once a week and I’d stay up with my sister and watch it). So I guess that means I do know Phil Silvers. I love that sort of thing: it’s comedy where sex and cynicism – what ‘my generation’ have been raised on (and I’m not immune: the thick of it is hilarious) – aren’t the main ingredients in comedy. (Sex is depicted so much more powerfully on screen, I think, when restrained, and that goes for comedy too).

By the way the name is not – unless subliminally – from Top Cat’s Choo Choo (though I remember that gang). My parents called me (and my sister occasionally still does) ‘choochoo’ (from gujarati) as a child. I have no idea of the dictionary definition but it’s somewhere between the affection of a chatterbox and the irritation of a whinger.

Gordy: No apologies necessary for the moderation — now we know what happens when two links are included in a post.

ChooChoo: My association with your name is with the child’s word for a steam engine train locomotive in the U.S., also used in a related way in the song “Chattanooga Choo choo.” (I have no idea whether the word is used this way elsewhere in the world.) I had imagined you, then, as a kind of human locomotive using books instead of logs or coal for fuel.

Speaking of books, I read a few more pages of Brown’s book in a diner tonight. (What an impressive illustration on the page I’d stopped at — the photo of a colossal head of Constantine.) The Christians are gaining sway, and Brown’s prose filled my mind with images suitable for accompanying the latest CiF Jesus thread.

Then, too, there are parts of his depiction that resonate with my own subliminal self.

On a related topic, can you imagine yourself as having been one of Hypatia’s many students?

Bill

ChooChoo

Thanks for that. Re Top Cat you might already be aware that TC is almost entirely based on Sgt Bilko (Officer Dibble is Col Hall etc) the voice for Benny the Ball was done by the guy who played Duane Doberman.

I was interested to read about your Gujarati origins – my wife’s from a Jain Gujarati family. No turkey for Christmas then.

We have a very fussy new ‘Mary Whitehouse’ filter at work and am unable to view the Eagleton thread and many others from here but if I could I’d point out to WML that Jesus’ metaphor re those who do the will of his father depends upon the 4th/5th commandment being upheld.

E and I have retrieved the summaries of three books loosely concerned with the history of the Bible from the old site, beefed them up and posted them in the history section here.

Bill – as it happens, I was in school choir (until around 14or15) and we sang ‘Chattanooga Choo Choo’. I can still hum the tune. As far as internet pseudonym visualisations go, a version of Thomas the Tank engine is not one with which I’ll quibble.

As for Hypatia – no, I guess I couldn’t! I remember reading about her when studying for a religious violence essay: the image I have in my mind is horrible and pathetic. (It was actually quite interesting: mine focussed on a document purporting to tell the story of the conversion of Jews on Minorca in the early 5th century). But I can’t picture her as anything other than the painting that’s in the Anthony Kenny history of philosophy (the painting will be online – it’s late 19thc).

Gordy – have you ever been to India or, specifically, Gujarat? As it happens, on my father’s side, my family have lived in Bombay for a long time, though both my mother’s parents were born in Gujarat. But Parsis tend to speak gujarati still (even those who have been in Bombay for many, many generations).

I should add that the connotations of ‘choochoo’ are more negative – whinger. But – my whinging notwithstanding – my parents used it affectionately of me. My gujarati is absolutely awful – perhaps your wife might be able to help out. (That said, I understand that there’s something particular – and even peculiar – about the way Parsis speak gujarati…).

ChooChoo

Sadly I’ve never been but Sasuji – mother in law – is out in Goa at the moment – I recommended that she go during the feast of Franky X. She was born in rural Gujarat and raised in Mombassa and educated in Bombay. Her husband was born and raised in Uganda. They met in London in the 60’s. Mrs Gordy only speaks a little Gujarati now but she understands it well enough to get by. The three boys all have Indian forenames; Kiran, Vivek and Nikhilbaba.

I’d love to go – I imagine that I could spend a long time there. I’d be particularly keen to go to Kerala. I used to teach in Croydon and a lot of our kids came from Kerala and put on shows of Keralan drama and dancing – Kathakali. There was a very good South Indian restaurant called The Banana Leaf as well so I’d like to check the food out.

Sasuji! I love the complex web of names for relations (and all the -jis and -babas: my dad still calls me baba if we speak after Arsenal lose a game, wrongly but beautifully cautious that I will become a psychological wreck). There are four different sets of words for uncles/aunts depending on whether they’re your mother’s/father’s brother/sister.

(I only have a mama/mami – mum’s brother and wife – and fuis/fuas – father’s sisters and husbands. There’s a Parsi phrase which is a kind of typical parent to child mild telling off, as in, ‘I don’t want to wash up’, ‘well, who’s going to do it, your kaka [brother's brother]?’. Smart arse choochoo that I was, I’d always reply that I didn’t have a kaka. That said, I was never sufficiently smart arse to get out of washing up).

I would love to go to Goa, or indeed Kerala. I know a guy who’s married to someone from Karnataka and he just loved it there.

I’ve heard of the Banana Leaf. As it happens, I am not overly familiar with South Indian cuisine proper (though Keralan fish curry is v popular in Bombay). Through an ex-girlfriend, I was introduced to the sheer delights (and occasional pains – though watering eyes are worth it) of Sri Lankan food. There’s a good (and cheap!) restaurant near where I live called Mo’s. Can I suggest to our dear host that, were we ever to have a little get together and were slightly ‘very spicy’ food palatable, then a south indian/sri lankan restaurant’s not a bad choice. Out of interest – and I assume you’re not gujarati – do you eat guju food at all? (I love poori and all those other vegetarian delights: by the way, okra cooked in any sort of Indian way – whether N or S – is just delicious: the smell also happens to make my sister’s stomach turn, which means more for me. While on the subject of smelly food, I must mention ‘boomla’. It’s a fish you get in Bombay, called, incongruously, bombay duck. It’s quite slim and not firm – almost like jelly. It also comes dried. It stinks. Words – not even words like ‘olfactory’ – can convey the smell). But, of course, the most tasty (and gloriously messy) thing in the world ever is…crab curry.

Sorry kaka is not ‘brother’s brother’, but your dad’s brother.

I once worked for an architect from Bombay, one Barun Basu (he specialized in Hindu temples).

Barun was a tea drinker, using the Tetley Tea bags once common that had messages and sayings printed on little cards attached to the teabag strings.

One day, he asked why I had yet to complete some task; as I began to stumble through some impromptu answer, he read the little message attached to his teabag, prefacing it with the “Professor Ingle” he called me, this was: “Excuses are the leaning posts of fools.”

I’ve been very careful, when dealing with tea drinkers, ever since.

Bill

ChooChoo:

The Indian/Sri Lankan suggestion is fine by me, except that I can’t stand Okra.

…….

Talking of family names etc Thai has specific names for uncles and aunts depending on which side of the family; brothers and sisters whether they are older or younger. And so on. My wife thinks English very cumbersome in this regard.

Tea drinkers are generally very shrewd judges of character, Bill. My mum is a two cups per hour addict.

I have a suggestion.

Everybody participating on the blog is furiously buying and reading books, often duplicating, and I wondered if we could get some sort of book sharing circle going. I am not sure of the precise details but it might be something like this:

- One publicises any book that one is happy to lend and sends it whoever might be interested.
- If more than one person would like to borrow it the first person sends it to the second, and so on.
- The owner can request its return at any time and that must be honoured.
- The borrowing time should be either agreed between the parties or it could become a condition of the scheme.
- the communication between the parties could be done by email rather than publicly in the chatroom.

What do you all think? If there is some demand we could set up a separate category called, ‘Books’ where available books for lending could be publicised.

It sounds a good idea to me. As does the proposed get together.

Gordy:

Good. I will give it a week or so to see what the response is to both of these and then organise something.

The get together I envisage happening in the spring but I can start the book circle immediately if there is the demand.

In Our Time was very good this week. The subject was genes and genetic mutation.

I like the book circle idea. I like anything that saves me money.

Meet up in the spring sounds good too.

That goes for me, too.

This is very encouraging.

I shall be quite busy this week but I will try to do something about the books asap. Can I have your ideas about my proposal above – other suggestions most welcome.

On the get together we have a bit of time but venue suggestions would be helpful – I would be more than happy to travel to London but that might not suit everybody.

Thanks.

In the 18th Century, the young Edward Gibbon was a voracious reader, not to be rivaled until the appearance of the 21st Century’s Choochoo.

The first volume of his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire didn’t appear until 1776 (odd timing, considering how that year is associated with the rise of a later empire, now in decline, in our time), while his “aggressively scathing” views of Christianity in chapters XV and XVI would undoubtedly generate endless comments, were they to be posted as CiF blogs.

I am contemplating actually reading his famous work.

Has anyone here done so?

Regards

Bill

The three volumes stare out at me from the bookcase and make me feel guilty each time they catch my eye. I bought them five years ago and have probably read 2 pages.

Bill – I am compelled to correct you in that your comparison – while kind – is grossly misleading. Here are some things I’ve never read: anything by Dickens or Austen, ditto for pretty much all contemporary respected novelists (with the exception of Iziguro and the first 30 pages of a Zadie Smith novel), the actual texts for all manner of thinkers on whom I still, oddly, feel qualified to pronounce (none of Kant’s biggies), relevant books of the Iliad (before a disastrous undergraduate Greek exam), a depressing amount of source material and historiography I ought to have looked at by now, Augustine of Hippo by (our friend) Peter Brown, the Collected Poems of ChooChoo Vols.I-XII (though, in fairness, these are yet to be written, let alone published) and, of course, Gibbon.

I bought the Wordsworth (dirtcheap) classics heavily abdridged but still rather plump version years ago and it has since been used as a doorstop, a coaster for tea cups – did I say tea? – coffee mugs, a book-end and a decorative ornament. It is ironically dog-eared but I have only glanced at a single page (on Constantine).

More recently, I was gifted with a complete set of his Decline and Fall – long story, but it was effectively excess stock from a small semi-private library. Each volume (there are seven in this edition) has its own case. I have removed one of the volumes, though only God (of the enlightenment philosophers) knows which, before promptly placing it back in.

Anyone fancy borrowing it?
_

Boltonian – I have emailed Gordy with a possible Kolbe piece, but now think perhaps I oughtn’t to have burdened him with it. I tried the gengmaak email address above, but it don’t work…

ChooChoo:

And, as if by magic your article appears. It was thanks to that master of illusion, Gordy, not me I hasten to add. Thanks, I will read it anon.

I have just tested the gengmaak@hotmail.com address and it seems to be working. Let me know if you experience problems with it in the future.

Not read Dickens, Austen or Wordsworth, forsooth!

Choochoo: I gather it was Gibbon’s trip to Rome that triggered his decision to embark on the writing of his masterwork. Have you been? (I suppose a trip to Istanbul might have such an effect, too.)

Years ago I obtained the first volume of a three-volume hardcover set, remaindered somewhere, for a few dollars.

After scrutinizing two different multi-volume sets in two different used bookstores — one in Marblehead, Massachusetts, a very old town next to Salem (worth visiting, should anyone here ever visit the Northeast U.S. coast), the other in yet another old town, the nearby Manchester-by-the-Sea (this always reminds me of Puddleby-by-the-Marsh), I chose to order the two remaining volumes of my set, used, at Alibris.com. Our world, needless to say, is a far cry from that of Gibbon’s.

Further, I believe a good portion — if not all — of the book is scanned into Google, but I have yet to purchase an ebook reader and doubt I could read this monster on my monitor.

If I actually read it, please stop me if, afterwards, my prose begins to resemble that of Winston Churchill.

Bill

Thanks Gordy and sorry Boltonian!

Also I have read some (a tiny bit, but just enough to qualify) Wordsworth – I meant those Wordsworth Classics (do you know them? They do all manner of things – Descartes’ Meditations for £1.50 – you get them here and there). They have a fat edition of Gibbon.

also, I should add, I have started both Great Expectations and Pride and Prej.: in both cases, wrong time (in terms both of age – cynical late teen – and context – long distance flights). Must revisit, I guess, or else I’ll keep making these cloying confessions for the rest of my life.

boltonian – just thought you might like to know, in case you’ve missed it, you’ve been namechecked twice here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224922,00.html

(comments at 5:25pm & 8:54pm – won’t spoil the surprise by naming the poster….)

:->

ChooChoo:

I have a few of them myself. Perhaps you need a long train journey.

Steve:

Hey, that must make me famous! What’s a letter between friends – Bolton, Boston – nearly the same place? :-}

Boltonian – that’s a piece of sound advice.

By the way, I didn’t realise quite how famous you are – namechecked twice on a CiF thread! Also, I was unaware that you are the Chairman for the Royal Society for the Promotion of 18th Century Physicians.

While I certainly don’t want to deny that we’ve been on a journey and – to continue the analogy – we must have reached somewhere, I was nonetheless curious to read that we’ve come a long way (baby) since Descartes and Locke when it comes to the whole mental / physical game without being informed of precisely where it is we’ve come to. Perhaps I need not only to concentrate on great books during my long train journeys, but also keep an eye out for where it is we are.

Bill – I don’t know an awful lot about Gibbon, though it does mean I get to mention yet another book I have which lies unread: Roy Porter’s biography of Gibbon. (I picked it up at a brilliant one off book sale put on by the – grand sounding – Institute for Classical Studies library. It was a book rejects sale. For 4 quid, I got the Porter, a Bernard Williams book (half-read and mostly forgotten), and two editions of the Journal of Roman Studies (with some Peter Brown articles – I think I’m supposed to mention something about his idea of the ‘holy man’ in late antiquity and use the adjective ’seminal’)).

But, I do think that Gibbon’s visit to Rome was a vital catalyst in his writing. (Isn’t there a famous description of Rome he penned?). Curiously, given his grand narrative (barbarians and, of course, Christians really bad, civilised Romans good), I do recall that he briefly converted to Roman Catholicism. (I think this was rather rebellious in the context: I can’t remember if I’ve ever mentioned it, but a delightfully sweet girl lived opposite me in college days. She was a music boff: people would complain about her loud music and she would joke, ‘But it’s Bach!’. Anyway, born to, in her words, ‘typical liberal Jewish parents’, her form of teenage rebellion against parents was…to join a Catholic choir). Will make a thing of trying to get more snippets about Gibbon in the coming weeks – we can exchange notes. I should add that I have come across snatches of Gibbon quoted here, there and everywhere. He is rightly praised for his style: it may be absurdly long, but his sentences are rather readable.

Boltonian – just an idea for the book sharing scheme. Perhaps one way of advertising would be to pen (short) reviews of a book up for communitarian grabs? (Finished the Tom Wolfe book: absurdly dissatisfying resolution, but still enjoyed some fascinating chapters).

ChooChoo:

Whilst we are in confessional mode, I have not read War and Peace nor anything by Conrad, despite having the Tolstoy and the Complete Conrad on my bookshelves.

I am not sure where we are either, so I suggest you ask he who knows everything, and knows that he knows everything. Socrates, I suspect, would have had some great sport with him.

Good idea about the books.

Gordy:

Should we set up a separate category for books, do you think?

But Boltonian, Socrates was pre-Enlightenment, so why should an individual endowed with all the benefits of a modern scientific education pay any attention to him?

As to where we are – Crewe Junction perhaps?

E:

Of course, silly me. :-}

Boltonian

Yes – I’m sure it is I’ll set up a new page if you like that will appear at the botttom of the picture called ‘books’ or something equally imaginative.

All

After more than a month it might be a good time to take stock of the new premises. What do you think? There are of course a number of different ways comparing the two sites and I’m well aware that the number of comments is not everything -but if my counting is correct in Metaphysics blogspot of recent fond memory there were 750 comments over a period of just over seven months whereas in Philosophy edublog there has been 344 comments in just over one month. Any thoughts?

Gordy:

I realise that I am the co-owner of this site but I hope I am allowed an opinion too.

There has been, I am gratified to say, an encouraging surge of activity since we started our new premises. My main reservation is that we have a very narrow franchise (more so than previously). Maybe it’s because it’s new and that more will join eventually.

It might be that some will get bored and the active population will decline even further. I would like to encourage those that visit but do not post to become involved. I would also like to get those who used to be regular attenders to return: I am particularly thinking of Lesterjones; Krapotkin; Emma100; SaraB; Basildon; PassingStarship etc. Also, erstwhile regulars like SpaceP and Martin seem to have reduced their input recently.

I know that Simon is working abroad in Rome and said to me that his contributions might be sporadic over the next few months.

I would really like your suggestions as to how we could attract more people. I have asked friends and most have looked in but few have contributed as yet.

Boltonian

Sorry for that – I did think about putting ‘All and Boltonian’ but thought that that sounded even stranger.

Yes – your point about the narrow franchise is well made and I am sure would be borne out by further analysis of the statistics. I suspect that an important way of inviting more people is for more of us to do what you do already by strategically putting the the address of this site in on our comments on CiF. I’ll have to think further for more ideas about encouraging a wider range of contributors. Would you have the email addresses of those that we used to hear more from? There’s scope there for an invitation to pop in…

….and now Biskie & ChooChoo get namechecked….

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/emma_beale/2007/12/so_far_soho_good.html

I hope Biskie gives an account of the evening here….

Gordy:

I wasn’t being entirely serious – one of the problems of disembodied communication.

Thanks, by the way, for setting up the books category.

You and I have SpaceP’s and Martin’s email addresses but nothing for the others I mentioned.

Oh, Ok Steve, if you insist.

In the end my curiosity turned out to be greater than my apathy. Child and dog care for the day were forthcoming so there was no excuse not to go. It’s not like I do anything else all day.

I went up early to have a look at the big crack in the floor at the Tate Modern:

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/dorissalcedo/default.shtm

I was fascinated by how it had been done. The crack is *really* deep in places.

They have lovely enormous sofas on one of the floors, so I parked myself there in order to finish the last few pages of “the Idiot” before crossing the Millenium bridge and walking to Soho.

I got there early and plonked my copy of the Guardian down on the table so that hopefully someone would come up and introduce themselves. Phil Hall (IShouldAplogise) was the first to do so and then we realised that TigerDunc had been sat behind me with his Guardian out without me noticing (that’s NOT a euphemism but it should be).

More people trickled in over the next hour or so. I had a good old girly chat with MsWoman, Emma100 and Georgina Henry and did quite well mingling but didn’t get round to speaking to everyone.

I somehow managed to completely balls-up my return journey, firstly by heading in the wrong direction for the tube station that I needed, and then by there being severe delays on some of the lines. At one point I was in a taxi but the kind driver told me that there was no way he was going to make it to Victoria in time and let me out again without me paying.

My choices were then to either find my way to Victoria and wait for the first train of the morning or to go back to the venue and see if anyone would be kind enough to offer me a sofa for the night. Luckily Emma100 is one of the nicest atheists you could hope to meet and was quite up for letting someone who she had only just met stay at her house for the night.

I had a really good evening. Without exception everyone was very nice.

Thanks for that, Biskie. Glad you had a good time, transport disaster notwithstanding. I’d have been intrigued to put faces to names, but live too far away.

Boltonian: “I would really like your suggestions as to how we could attract more people. I have asked friends and most have looked in but few have contributed as yet.”

Dear Boltonian:

I have been experimenting with dropping links into posts to CiF (and elsewhere, such as Michael Prescott’s blog) for some time now. Gradually, this is generating small but steady and slowly increasing traffic to http://www.realitytest.com .

It turns out (based on my measurement software) that many read CiF comments long after a thread has closed and tend to bookmark my site and return later. CiF, then, apparently attracts a good-sized “lurker” contingent. (Some of the traffic happens when a thread is live, of course.)

Then again, I’ve just begun an experiment in more direct advertising, eschewing the Google Ads approach taken by millions of websites for a more idiosynchratic approach.

This is accessible via the low-key ‘advertisements’ link near the top of the homepage of http://www.realitytest.com .

The idea, of course, is to attract genuine advertising revenue, but until that happens I will offer you, absolutely free, one of the 100×100 pixel locations (it must be tasteful!).

I can’t quarantee anything, nor is the “targeted audience” necessarily the same as those you seek, but the offer stands, nevertheless. The image will be clickable, taking the clicker here.

Bill

Gordy:

Note a post of mine “awaiting moderation.”

(I was responding to Boltonian’s comment and included two URLs.)

Bill

Bill:

De-moderated (if that is a word). Thanks for your very kind offer.

Biskie:

Sounded like a good evening. Emma used to be one of our contributors on the old site.

All:

My suggestion is that ours should be a lunchtime so that those from afar can get home. What do you all think? Venue ideas (apart from Indian/Sri Lankan cuisine?

Lunch sounds good to me, Boltonian.

Biskie: Missing the last train out of the city can happen in Boston, but then Boston is little more than a modernized colonial outpost compared to London — I’m really surprised trains don’t run all night there.

(It sounds as though your impromptu arrangement more than made up for this.)

I’m hoping to get across the water again before too long; I’ve had great fun meeting up with those encountered online over the years (including a fantastic adventure some years back with the initial rendezvous at Cleopatra’s Needle near the Victoria Embankment Gardens. The website version at http://www.realitytest.com/gcpe/2001.htm leaves out quite a bit, including the fact that another, even stranger and larger group, had chosen to meet at the same location, creating some momentary confusion).

Bill

Boltonian

Have made a couple of changes on what apparently is termed the ’sidebar’ which I hope meet with your approval. The ‘recent comments’ one seemed useful to me.

A few friends have made honourable mentions in the CiF awards – your good self included.

gordy:

Another successful innovation. I saw the reference to a ‘Sidebar’ whilst I was mooching around the site earlier today but it would have taken me about a year to work out how to do such a thing. Well done!

I didn’t know there was such a thing as the CiF awards. I very rarely inhabit the place these days, so I am surprised to get a mention. I will check it out.

I don’t know when you posted the rugby clip but I only noticed it the other day. It made me feel quite nostalgic.

I share your sense of nostalgia for that era – is it something to do with the professional age?

A story is told of the then Watford manager, Graham Taylor who showed the team a clip of Gaelic football. Each player then had to write one word on the flip chart to describe the clip. Words such as ‘committed’, ’skillful’, ‘fast’, ‘athletic’ were all used. Taylor then turned over the flip chart to reveal one word in large letters, ‘UNPAID’.

Gordy:

Good story.

I was discussing this very thing with some mates in the pub the other week. We are all guilty of selective memory and perhaps we only remember the good games.

I call recall afternoons freezing on the touchline at Old Deer Park or Richmond Athletic ground watching a prolonged bout of mud wrestling and hardly getting a sight of the ball all match.

But there is no doubt that the atmosphere is changing and not really for the better. Inevitable, I suppose.

Hi guys

Just a notice to anyone who hasn’t seen it, but some people might want might want to check out Mark Vernon’s piece on CiF, “God and the multiverse”. So far far the discussion is completely devoid of trolls and sky pixies, so it might also be a good place to put in a few plugs to this site.

re the prospective get together

I will definitely bust a gut to make sure I’m there. Love Indian/Sri Lankan cuisine, though though also think a hearty lunch in a decent pub with good beers would somehow feel appropriate.

oh well, I guess it was inevitable that WML would eventually turn up and spoil things.

dOm:

Inevitable as night follows day. He does not seem to have a life outside CiF.

All:

I will fix the get together to suit everybody’s diary. Simon is working in Rome at the moment and it might be difficult for him to remain in contact for the next couple of months. I will email him nearer the time to see if he can make it.

I have put something on ‘books’ if anybody is interested.

Just to say that my summary of Karen Armstrong’s book on the Bible has now been posted. My apologies for the inordinate length; I did try to cut it down, but….. (must be my academic tendencies re-emerging

Good grief! this site does emoticons, too!

Hi all,

Nothing to contribute really, except to identify your picture as Azores. I had a couple of weeks on Sao Miguel a few years ago when the direct flights from Gatwick started up. Excellent walking and relatively uncrowded and undeveloped compared to, say, Canaries/Madeira.

There was a program recently about the Indian Railways centred on Bombay. Apparently the line to Goa is now very busy as it has become the weekend playground for Bombay’s middle class, despite the 14 (?) hour journey time. I was down that way 30 odd years ago for a while and have fond memories of the wonderful beaches and spectacular sunsets. The memory of Kerala that sticks in my mind is eating meals from banana leaves and trying to stop the cockroaches crawling up my legs.

Our Cretan experience was memorable only for food poisoning in the village at the bottom of Samaria Gorge.

Any way, I’m enjoying the Karen Armstrong, which seems like a return to form. I’d previously read Bible Unearthed thanks to recommendations on the old site.

I gave up smoking 7 years ago and although I soon started to dislike the smell, it was 1-2 years before I adjusted to the loss.

Any jazz lovers on the blog ?

I’ve given up posting on CiF, but have read the current God/Multiverse thread, which isn’t bad. I was disappointed that you got rid of Longsword, B, although I suppose your criticism was justified.

In case anyone’s interested: there’s a poetry competition on the GU books blog, open to anyone….the rules have been set to make it fun:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/12/poem_of_the_week_your_turn.html

Chris:

Hi and welcome back.

I have never been to the Azores but I would never have guessed – I was thinking Wales or Ireland. I suppose we all try to make sense of things in relation to our own experiences.

The Samaria gorge – wonderful spot.

Longsword, BTW, has never been banned from either here or the old site. One would need to guilty of more than prolixity for that. I know he irritated one or two regulars here occasionally (including me now and again) but that is not a crime against blog law.

Jazz, no, although I enjoy it live whenever I go. More classical and traditional music (including Blues) of any kind, although the recent Led Zep reunion brought back lots of memories (mainly hazy ones).

I hope you will stay involved and attend our proposed get together in the spring.

By Jove, E! You’re right.

Chris:

I love some Jazz. I recently bought ‘Moanin’ ‘ by Art Blakey and I can’t seem to get it out of my head. My Dad was a great lover of Louis Armstrong and so I have a fondness for Trad. too.

To allow for the possibility of more pages being added, I’ve deleted the ’some interesting links’ page and stuck these links on the sidebar. The offer still stands about sending us your suggestions.

Bill, Steve – would you like your sites posted there?

Gordy – I’d be delighted to have my blog linked to here….(assuming boltonian agrees)….as I have said on my blog, I’m very grateful to blogs such as boltonian’s, which allowed me to get going, and as soon as I get the hang of the software (I’m still struggling….pictures don’t show when they should, and I can’t even control spaces and para breaks….), I’ll put in return links. Thanks.

Of course he agrees.

Thanks….I owe you an article, or a poem….

…or both?

I’ve just finished my first experience of serving on a jury, something that was interesting but very tough from a time/schedule perspective. The U.S. legal world isn’t one I’m very familiar with (this was a civil, not criminal trial, btw) but of course I know nothing at all of law elsewhere (beyond a bit about the Star Chamber as it was centuries ago, while the tale of how a distant version of me included a very much alive lion as part of his own court of justice is far too long and complex to tell at the moment). Some here may be puzzled by the American system of a jury of peers, I don’t know; conceptually and practically it is somewhat intriguing.

Chris: I’m a jazz fan, too. (I’m listening to wgbh.org at the moment, but on an old fashioned FM radio, not the streaming version found on the web.)

Gordy: You are most welcome to provide a link to RealityTest.com!

(My new commercial experiment mentioned briefly here is found, again, by clicking on “advertising.”)

Seasons greetings, btw!

Bill

hey how nice to see mr bill here !and biskie
i only arrived here this evening and i already had three posts “i just had to make” great place you got here boltonian

dib:

Hi and welcome. Thanks for the compliment – it is entirely a collaborative effort.

If you feel moved to contribute an article you would be very welcome. Just let either Gordy (the presiding genius of the site – I am merely its titular figurehead) or I know and we will post it for you.

Bill

I can’t think of serving on juries without thinking of Henry Fonda and Tony Hancock who played his part in an English parody of ‘Twelve Angry Men’.

“What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain? That brave Hungarian peasant girl…”

Anyway having put your link up in the blogroll, I now realise that anyone who clicks on your name by your comments gets taken there anyway. Ho hum.

dib (it took me a second to recognize you): This is a great place! Welcome!

Bill

Sincere season’s greetings to everyone on the blog….

Should ChooChoo pop in, he may find this amusing (I’d planned on teasing him about this certain word, but a prior opportunity arose):

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/12/lyrics_poetry.html#comment-843176

Let me echo steve’s thoughts.

Best wishes and happy Christmas to everybody.

Hi everybody,

Just dropped by to wish everyone a Happy Christmas.

(Dare I say, perhaps somewhat mischievously, in light of recent CiF threads, best wishes to everyone from the baby Jesus as well. )

Peitha

Say — has anyone else noticed the cover story on the latest issue of New Scientist?

This is “The Santa Delusion.”

Bill

Peitha

And a Happy Christmas to you, too. Full marks, by the way, for your recent contributions on CiF – they were excellent.

Peitha:

Good to see you back. I hope we will see more of you here in 2008.

Happy Christmas to you and yours too.

Bill:

No I haven’t but let us know if the article is worth reading.

And from me, also. Happy Christmas everyone!

Here’s to warm fuzzy feelings.

I have just listened to In Our Time, which this week was about the Nicene Creed – very relevant to a couple of recent posts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
history/inourtime/inourtime

It is brilliant as usual.

E:

I have just read a favourable book review of Coln Renfrew’s, ‘Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind.’ Have you read it or heard any comments about it? I don’t know whether to buy it, wait for the paperback or ignore it altogether.

I must admit that I thought he was long dead – I remember reading him more than 30 years ago on, I think, Neolithic Britain among other things.

Boltonian:

Thanks for the tip regarding ‘In Our Time’. I found it a very good listen.

Gordy:

My pleasure.

One drifts through life with a certain number of pegs in the ground and thinks that one has understood so and so. And then one day somebody comes along and sweeps away all one’s preconceptions in a blizzard of unanswerable brilliance.

I thought I had really got the deal on the Council of Nicaea until this programme.

Boltonian

Yes, Colin Renfrew is still very much alive, although now retired from his former position of Prof of Archaeology at Cambridge. In fact he contributed a piece to CiF about two weeks ago, fulminating against the cuts in funding now affecting the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

As it happens I have just acquired a copy of the book in question, although I have not yet read it or seen any reviews. It is a fairly short, covering developments in the study of prehistory over the past 150 years or so, current issues and problems engaging prehistorians, and what he sees as the likely direction of future studies – particularly in cognitive archaeology (hence the book’s subtitle). His ideas are usually interesting, though sometimes controversial.

I will let you know what I make of it when I have read it; then, if you are interested, you can be first on the list to borrow it.

E:

Yes please.

Thank you.

A belated Merry Christmas to you all.

Boltonian – do you remember this?

Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis
vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent:
Sibylla ti theleis; respondebat illa: apothanein thelo.

Apparently, Eliot is quoting from a bit of Petronius’ Satyricon. I know v little about this, but apparently the fuller context is this (in ch.48):

“Rogo, inquit, Agamemnon mihi carissime, numquid duodecim aerumnas Herculis tenes, aut de Vlixe fabulam, quemadmodum illi Cyclops pollicem poricino extorsit? Solebam haec ego puer apud Homerum legere. Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: “Sibilla, ti thelis?”, respondebat illa: “apothanin thelo”.

Translated (not by me) as:

“Tell me, my dearest Agamemnon, do you remember the twelve labors of Hercules or the story of Ulysses, how the Cyclops threw his thumb out of joint with a pig-headed crowbar? When I was a boy, I used to read those stories in Homer. And then, there’s the Sibyl: with my own eyes I saw her, at Cumae, hanging up in a jar; and whenever the boys would say to her ‘Sibyl, Sibyl, what would you?’ she would answer, ‘I would die.’”

I’ll leave the tricky hermeneutics business with you.

But one thing struck me: I found this out by googling idly out of half-hearted curiosity after recalling your mention of it. It made me think about those in Petronius’ own day – before the codex rendered the book format half-recognisable to us, before indices, before uniform scripts etc. The concision, the memory that went into such works makes my mind boggle when I stop to think about it.

ChooChoo:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too.

I remember very well and thanks for doing the research.

I agree with you about the prodigious feats of memory required by the ancients. I recall Robert Graves in the White Goddess describing the levels of Druidic mastery culminating in the more than 20 years training for those at the top of the profession.

Think about reciting the Iliad (or the Tain) from memory! And the audience would know it almost as well as the poet, so one would not be able to cut corners. I think that one theory concerning the refrains in all these epics is that they act as mnemonics – prompts for the next passage or pauses for the gathering of thoughts.

NoH8inO8passitonM8

this THE year,,,(why not ?)

Happy New Year!

Greetings from the past to the future!

It’s still 2007 where I am.

Ooh, my head don’t half hurt this morning.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! Have a great 2008 everyone.

I better get back to sleep now.

d0m: “Ooh, my head don’t half hurt this morning.”

….theonewiththebighairofthedog….?

HNY!

Happy New Year, evryone!

I couldn’t resist buying Bertrand Russell’s _A History of Western Philosophy_ when I saw it on sale for $10.00 at Borders, even though it was originally published in 1945 and I can find much more information at Wikipedia. I’m finding the William James section quite interesting, but reading the whole thing will have to wait until after I read Gibbon’s work, so I may not get around to posting about it until my next (in a linear time sense) “incarnation.”

Meanwhile, I’m almost done with Brown’s _The World of Late Antiquity_. The short version of a review might read: “Things change.” Glimpses of how the Sassanian Empire connected Byzantium with Central Asia and both India and China (towards the end of the book) have been fascinating and may lead me to read other books.

James, btw, defined “pure experience” as “the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection,” holding that there is “only one primal stuff or material” out of which everything in the world is composed” this being the above “pure experience.”

Bill

Saw a very good programme tonight that many of you may be interested in, called Extreme Pilgrim. Trendy looking English vicar goes to Chinese Buddhist monasteries (shaolin).

There is a link as well. You can even download it! But hurry as it will only be on there for a week or so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b008lzht.shtml?q=extreme+pilgrim&start=1&scope=iplayersearch&version_pid=b008lzhp

Biskie:

As me and my son were on the train today on our way to Portsmouth to do the Victory and Spinnaker tower thing in Portsmouth I thought of you as we went past Chichester. Then our paths crossed on CiF! Coincidence?

Hi Gordy –

I just happened to notice that programme was on before turning the TV off when a friend came round last night. I’ve recorded it so will watch it later.

We loved the Victory tour – we did it when my son was quite small. He went on about the “hardtack” sailors’ biscuits for ages afterwards. The sailors had to knock their biscuits on the table to get the maggots and weevils out.
It does conjure up a strong visual image.

I’ve yet to go up the Spinnaker Tower. It was on our summer holiday list but we didn’t get round to it. I bet the view was great.

I liked your school report for Woolly, very fair I thought.

That struck a chord with my boy as well. Even yesterday the view from the tower was great – perhaps the best thing for us two train spotters ( I mean locomotive enthusiasts) was the view you get of Portsmouth Harbour station – it’s like your own special Hornby set.

There’s a new guy on CiF called Dimpatsu. I thought his comment on this face to faith thread was very mischievous (and I like that quality in a person) as well as being funny. But nothing like as funny as the confusion that it seemed to bring to certain other posters who didn’t quite seem to get the joke. Read it and weep:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2235796,00.html

hi biskie,,i was the first poster to comment (obliquely) on dimpatsu
and i thought it a was new name
taking the micky out of kimpatsu,the comment was right on,,apparently its kimpatsu taking the micky out of me
in which case the comment was not so right on,,i am not convinced kimpatsu really understood what was going on either,,they say “i have had my name for years”,,yet dimpatsu has never been used before,,i expect this will carry over to other threads that kimP shows up to carpet bomb
at one am gmt,,has anyone ever seen a positive comment from kimpatsu ?

dib
I am convinced someone was having a pop at kimpatsu.
No I have never ever seen a positive comment from kimpatsu.

Exegetical controversy! Textual criticism!

This was Dimpatsu’s post:

“Why does The Guardian persist in this myth peddling nonsense. For whose benefit is this rubbish? What kind of idiot spends every single Saturday of the year reading this claptrap and then goes on and on and on and on and on and on about how irrelevant it is to his life?
Eh?
I ask you.”

Surely…

For what it’s worth, my theory – just a hunch – is that it might be Germont.

Gordy :

I quite enjoyed Extreme Pilgrim, although I kept getting the same feeling as with Tribe, that it was all somewhat contrived. I’ll certainly watch the next one, though.

I’m not a fan of Blakey’s playing, but he was an important leader; a bit like John Mayall was for brit blues.

There’s quite a good thread on the simulation argument here :

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html

Chris:

Thanks for the NS ref. – fascinating. Not so much the article as the comments.

Paul Davies’ thoughts on simulated universes is based on the fact that we can see a way that it could be done and probability.

The reality issue is interesting. I agree with some of the commenters who say that it is an irrelevant distinction as the world, and our place in it, seem very real to us.

I will now return to the thread and read on.

I will also try Extreme Pilgrim if I am around. Still not yet seen the ‘Hidden Jesus’ – I don’t know whether it is still accessible.

Hi Chris

Points taken regarding contrived nature of Extreme Pilgrim another similarity would be with ‘The Monastery’ – I wouldn’t mind betting the credits overlap. Nevertheless better than the the usual Friday evening fare for those interested in spirituality and brought up on such programmes as The Water Margin and Kung-Fu.

Was intrigued by your Mayall-Blakey comparison but have to admit to insufficient knowledge to comment on Blakey’s drumming. I’m very keen on The Bluesbreakers though – ‘On Top of The World’ is IMHO a very under-rated track.

Jazz is not really my first love (to be honest I prefer soul) but the first time I heard Moanin’ I had to ask the guy in the record shop what it was and buy it there and then – I’m not an impulsive buyer of music but that was different. I later heard that Gospel was a big influence on Blakey which is probably why it had instant appeal to a soul-lover like me.

Boltonian
You can still get Hidden Jesus on Ch4 website at this link:
http://www.channel4.com/video/the-hidden-story-of-jesus/series-1/episode-1/the-heart-of-the-matter_p_1.html

Did anybody watch ‘Extreme Pilgrim’ tonight?

I thought it was quite interesting but inevitably superficial. What did he actually learn from his retreat in the mountains? How long was he actually alone (without the film crew)? What had he gained from the gurus and saddhus he engaged with? Etc

I learned at least one thing – the derivation of the word ‘Guru.’

Boltonian – aw! I meant to watch it and forgot. (As it happens, I ended up watching a documentary on Jean Vanier and the ‘l’Arche’ communities he set up – totally engrossing stuff). Please do divulge the ‘guru’ derivation…

(And will get back to you on our most recent discussion – too tired to think it through at the moment).

Hello all and a belated happy New Year. I see you have all been very busy as the site more and more begins to resemble a Bloomsbury salon (though not of the ACG type I’m glad to see). Will try and be a bit more communicative in 2008.

Choo Choo,

When was the Vanier documentary on?

Hello all, I’ve just been catching up on the comments.
ChooChoo, did you ever finish ‘A Man In Full’ ? I read it a year or two back (oddly enough, largely in Bombay airport, where waiting times for connections seem always to be 5 hours), and would be happy to see your take.

On the NS VR thread, a quick skim of the comments did not pick up any that raised consciousness as an issue. Has this problem been definitively solved while I was digesting the goose ?
My take on the VR discussion, as reflected in the comments to the NS thread, is that it fills the same sort of need as UFOs and crop circles. A yearning for an outside, an answer to the question ‘is that all there is ?’, however unsatisfactory.
In the film ‘The Truman Show’, seeing through the illusion was seen as a feelgood ending. My thoughts on leaving the movie were that Truman would be more likely to go mad.

Simon – It was recorded off EWTN by someone I know. Have no idea when it was on, though it looked suitably dated. It was a little cheesy in parts: it opened with beautiful stillness shots, with the obligatory close up of a leaf, though it was interesting that their founding house is in a village on the edge of the Compiegne, which is synonymous with so much bloodshed (as narrator pointed out – WW1 and WW2 connections – and you can go further back too). But, in the main, it was captivating and Vanier was an attractive figure. It was interesting, too, to get a sense of how organically – and, thus, with some subtle surprises – l’Arche has grown.

Eeyore – yes! I did finish ‘A Man in Full’. (Indeed, this week I also read ‘I am Charlotte Simmons’). I thought it was good. A few portions were riveting (Conrad in jail, the chapter in which Charlie Croker sets off the fire alarm). Unsurprisingly, the character sketches and dialogue were good. I really enjoyed it, particularly the Conrad segments and the increasingly complex portrayal of Charlie Croker (he seemed a bit of a buffoon to begin with). I did think that the culmination which tied the plot together felt a bit rushed: I don’t think that you need to bring things together like that, but can keep things parallel (like George Eliot in Middlemarch). That said, he does the same thing much more convincingly in ‘I am Charlotte Simmon’ (which I also really enjoyed) – might be of interest – there’s an occasionally recurrent strand to do with neuroscience…

Forgot to ask – what’s your take on Bombay airport?

Simon:

Welcome back. How is/was Rome?

ChooChoo:

Gu=Dark
Ru=Light

A guru is somebody who leads you from darkness into the light.

Just listened to ‘In Our Time’ on the Charge of the Light Brigade. Fascinating.

Rome? A magnificent whore of a city; eternal is justified in her case. Despite her current state of a second class world city the obscene weight of history crushes the provincial mindset of its inhabitants (whom I love) and the abject failure of the Italian State to match up to the republic, the Caesars, the Papacy, the Renaissance and the Counter Reformation. She’s biding her time since she’s seen it all before and will still be around when we’re all gone.

At the moment, apart from the rubbish in Naples there is a protest by scientists against Benny 16 opening the new academic year at Rome University (how long before this reaches Cif or Dickie Dawkins’s love in website – cue desk banging encouragement from princes of reason = Galileo and all that.

What is more interesting in things ecclesiastical is that the Jesuits are about to vote for a new Black Pope; this following a ticking off and a public finger wagging from the Curia telling them to toe the line and remember their vow of loyalty to the Pope. There is a civil war for the soul of the Church and to grossly simplify things we have Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and liberals versus the Curia, the Pope, conservatives, and Opus Dei. However this has been going on since the 1950s and things are still warming up; a year in Roman time is like a month elsewhere.

Still very busy but will try and keep in touch.

Is anyone else going to follow the “blogging the Koran” on CiF?

I thought I would, as it’s been a long time since I looked at it, and I don’t really remember all that much about it.

I’ve read up to half way through “Women” over the weekend, and already I feel myself coming over all WoollyMindedLiberal about it. I’m trying very hard to stay open-minded, but I keep coming across things that are troubling. I really understand now how people feel when they read the OT (which I’ve also dipped into to check on events mentioned in the Koran).

I don’t have the historical understanding of the time and place to be able to offer some sort of context to the passages that worry me, and even if I did I am not sure that it would reconcile me with what appears to be being advocated in them.

The translation that I have got is the Penguin Classic by N J Dawood.

I know that many people say that Islam is a religion of peace, but so far I don’t remember reading the word “peace” (though I may be wrong) and there seems to be a lot of talk about fighting and battles. I’ve also noticed that, whilst other prophets are acknowledged, it seems to be Abraham who is “bigged up” the most.

I’d really appreciate a chance to talk about some of this stuff on here, I know that I can email in any questions to the blog (which I might well do) but it’s not really the same as having a good old discussion with others.

Biskie:

It is many years since I have read any of the Koran, and then only very superficially, so I cannot offer you any scholarship.

As you know the Bible, in particular the OT, is not my idea of a guide to modern morals nor is it much of a metaphysical treatise either. Some of the NT, because our ethics is at least in part inherited from the Gospels, is still relevant.

My journey from indifference to hostility (moderated somewhat nowadays) towards the Bible as a religious document was initiated by the sheer unpleasantness of the god of the OT. He filled his chosen people with fear, demanded absolute obedience and adoration, and carried out the most barbaric and brutal acts, which I was asked to believe was the work of a benevolent and loving omnipotence.

It does not surprise me that the Koran contains much violence and unpleasantness because, like the Bible, it was composed by human beings for a specific purpose. And that purpose was the getting and retaining of power. As myths that describe the culture of the peoples from whose standpoint they were written they are priceless.They are valuable historical documents that tell us much about the age and its inhabitants but we cannot view them in this way because of the faith issue.

Imagine a Muslim historian writing a historical analysis of the Koran and coming to the conclusion that it is a political document composed by several hands to justify the actions of a particular ruler at a specific period of time. Would he long survive the inevitable Fatwa?

This was the position in much of the Christian world until relatively recently. Apostasy was (and still is in the Islamic world) punishable by death, or at least ostracism.

We cannot undo our history, though, and this why I have softened my antipathy over recent years. The Enlightenment and the resulting Open Society, which I value, is at least in part the doing of our Christian inheritance. Also, I enjoy sacred music and love ecclesiastical architecture. And the Renaissance without its religious art is unthinkable.

Just in case people are wondering who this Jean Vanier fellow is, I’ll do a woolly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Vanier

(I found a few other profiles online – if you’re interested, the ones on l’Arche websites are doubtless decent enough – though some were a bit cheesy and did not, I think, do him justice. Apparently, Aberdeen University did a 2006 symposium thing with both him and Stanley Hauerwas – an interesting – though I am still rather ignorant – and, as he himself is aware, foul-mouthed American philosopher-theologian. That must have been some symposium).

Eeyore (and, indeed, others): if you’ve read ‘I am Charlotte Simmons’, would be interested to know what you make of Wolfe’s grotesquery of characters and, also, of the culmination. (I thought the end was actually rather sad, the culmination of a narrative of corruption).

Boltonian – I must ask for a small sabbatical re our ongoing discussion. Most enjoyable, but am quite busy at the mo’. Will try to commit some half-intelligible thoughts to keyboard at the earliest possible juncture (i.e. when the fuzz and haze of the complicated – possibly beyond me – manuscript traditions for early medieval penitentials begins to clear up).

Finally, I have a declaration of love which I wish to publicise and profess: I am slowly but surely falling in love with Flannery O’Connor’s odd and rich stories.

ChooChoo:

Thanks for the ref. I was one of those ignoramuses.

Don’t rush – we can return to the debate whenever you have the time.

Biskie

Early this evening I wrote a fairly long response to your query re the Qur’an (the historical oontext bit, anyway) but when I hit ’submit’ the site was down, so the whole thing got lost in the ether. It’s late, and I’m not at my brightest at this hour, so I won’t attempt to my retrieve my scattered thoughts on the subject just now, but will try again tomorrow if there is time.

I should also have included Islam in our inheritance because the Arabs and Persians were very influential during the Middle Ages on developing science and philosophy in Europe. The re-discovery of Aristotle and his influence on the Church through Aquinas (on which ChooChoo is our resident expert) is one such. Avicenna another, and so on. More frivolously, the Tales of the Arabian Nights although, as I recently learned from ‘In Our Time,’ these were almost certainly more the work of the French translator (Antoine Galland) than anything originally Arabic – in fact many of the tales had an Indian or Persian origin.

E:

I am sorry about that. It seems to happen quite frequently accompanied by a promise to restore within minutes, which actually turns into hours or, occasionally, days.

Thanks Elephantschild – I look forward to reading it.

I read on a bit further last night, and things haven’t got any better, though I have noticed the word “peace” once now.

The promise of reward in the next life is a strong theme. It is even stated that those who fight for the cause of God will be rewarded to a greater degree than those who stay at home. This is not a concept that I remember coming across anywhere in the Bible.

Even this early on in the reading it has become apparent to me that I could never accept that the Koran is the direct word of God (not that I believe the Bible is either, but then nor do many Christians, nor are they expected to). It seems much more like a rabble rousing morale booster for people being stirred up for battle. Many times already I have read that Muslims should not make friends with non-Muslims.
It makes it very hard to see why Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet, so far I have read nothing that resembles his teachings. In fact, the very opposite of all that I understand Jesus to have stood for seems to be being preached.

Biskie:

As we have discussed here recently the Bible is the work of many authors and, therefore, often inconsistent and contradictory but there are certainly passages forbidding Jews (God’s chosen people) from associating with Gentiles and that demand unquestioning obedience to God (I have just skimmed the first few chapters of Isaiah). Also, my impression from some parts of the NT is that faith (rather than, say, doing good works) is the only route to Heaven. This is very much the position of many (particularly American) fundamentalist churches.

Biskie:

PS – I am really enjoying, ‘The Idiot.’

Biskie

The following was written in Word, to avoid a repetition of yesterday’s frustrating experience. I hope that the length of it does not try your patience.

As my reading of the Qur’an has been limited to leafing through my grandmother’s copy when I was in my early teens and the occasional quotation encountered in various contexts, I can’t really comment on the book, but I do have a sketchy knowledge of the historical background, if that is any help. For a more detailed discussion I would recommend Peter Brown’s ‘The Rise of Western Christendom’ , which has a section on early Islam.

Mohammed was born in 570 CE, and between 610 and his death in 632 he transmitted to his followers a series of what he claimed were messages from God. Although the Arabic script had been developed in the 4th century CE and the earliest surviving documents date from 512 CE, the Arabs still had a largely oral culture at this date; the messages were originally memorised and transmitted orally. They were not committed to writing until after 660. In preliterate cultures and those with a strong oral tradition there were often people capable of memorising long stories and epic poems and reciting them verbatim, so it is quite possible that the transmission of the text was accurate. The Qur’an in any case differs from both the Old and the New Testaments in that it represents the words of a single prophet within a single book.

The two major powers in the region at this time were the eastern Roman empire (mainly Christian) and the Sassanian (Persian) empire (officially Zoroastrian but containing some Christian communities), and since 540 CE these had been engaged in an almost continuous war for control of the middle east. The political frontier fluctuated over an area comprising Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine but bore little relation to any social or cultural boundary and, despite the wars, this wide border region remained relatively prosperous and contained a number of important centres of learning representing several different strands of Christianity. Both empires took little notice of the Arabs, whom they regarded as barbarous nomads (although the nomads were, in fact, outnumbered by those living in settlements established around permanent sources of water and scattered throughout the northern and central parts of the Arabian peninsula). The Arabs, nevertheless controlled the main trade routes between Syria and Mesopotamia and were vital to the economy of the region.

Arab society was strongly tribal, and each tribe depended for its safety and the protection of its livestock and wells on the ability of its members to defend it against all comers. So the men were expected to bear arms and to be able to fight. Nevertheless, the tribes were not entirely inward looking; ideas (including religious ideas) as well as goods were transmitted along the trade routes. Some tribes had adopted Christianity, others Judaism, while some retained their traditional polytheistic beliefs. According to Mohammed, Jews and Christians had strayed from and distorted the messages from earlier prophets. The message which he had received was the true voice of God, calling people to return to the original purity of Islam, and it was directed first of all to the Arabs who, it was believed, were descended from Ishmael, son of Abraham by his concubine (which is presumably why Abraham features so largely in the Qur’an). Mohammed and his first followers, who were caravan merchants and warriors, formed, in effect, a new tribe, and set out to defend their cause in traditional tribal fashion, by force of arms (the original meaning of ‘jihad’ apparently means something like ‘to strive’ or to fight one’s corner). What was new was that they had a particular cause and thus greater determination than tribes who limited themselves to raiding one another’s livestock etc. They fought to defend their religion and to subdue stubborn opponents, starting with the polytheists in Mecca.

By the time of Mohammed’s death they had created a confederation of towns and tribes in the Arabian peninsula, united by a common acceptance of Islam, and were ready to look further afield. In the meantime the forces of the Roman empire had succeeded in driving back the Persians, but both had become exhausted in the process. The Arabs, erupting from their homeland, quickly defeated them in Syria and Egypt, and by 642 CE had also defeated the Persians. Within six years after that they had taken North Africa, and the Visigothic kingdom of Spain fell to them in 711. Their success in creating an enduring Arab empire was due in large part to the fact that they were able to enlist the active collaboration of surviving members of the administrations of the conquered territories (there are parallels here with the barbarian kingdoms in western Europe, although the administrative apparatus in the former territories of the eastern Roman and Persian empires, unlike that of western Europe in the 5th century, was still in full working order). There was a risk that the Arabs might have become submerged fairly rapidly within the wider population of their empire and lost their sense of identity, but this was counteracted by emphasis on their religious and Arabic heritage, and Arabic rapidly became the common language, at least at government level. The Qur’an was seen as universal, but it was supplemented by commentaries and additional narratives which placed it in a strictly Arabian context. There was no attempt at mass conversion until much later. Jews and Christians became to some extent second class citizens – they were more heavily taxed, for example – but they were not barred from holding office or from teaching, their learning was valued, and all contributed to the mix which culminated in medieval Islamic culture.

The nature of Arab society and the circumstances in which Islam arose probably account for the martial tone of parts of the Qur’an which seem so disturbing, and I think in this context it is illuminating to compare the origins of the three monotheistic religions. The Israelites lived in a region dominated by two empires – the Egyptians and the Assyrians (followed by the Babylonians) – and for much of their recorded history were a vassal state of one or the other. As they faced the threat of conquest and annihilation by their more powerful neighbours, their religion became the core of their sense of identity as a people, and their ideas about their relationship with God were coloured by their experience. If the God whom they trusted to protect them allowed them to be conquered, it must be because they had displeased him – hence the contradictory depictions of him in the OT. Judaism arose out of this tension. Christianity developed and spread relatively gradually in the interstices, so to speak, of the Roman empire, and was already widespread when it was adopted as the official religion. Christian armies at a later date may have believed, like those of Islam, that God blessed them when they fought in his name, but Islam was different, in that, from the first, it was spread by the sword and by conquest

hi all ,,bad timing,,i just got a crack cocaine like addiction to the poetry
blog on the GU and totally forgot about this wonderful place,,and so many posts i would have liked to respond to
at the time,,too many to absorb right now,,but i really want to make some koran comments that you might not see any where else,,i have to read
elephantschild first,, have a nice day
dropinbucket

This is such a civilized place you have here, Boltonian; it seems so quiet and relaxed.

I’ve finished Peter Brown’s _The World of Late Antiquity_ (thanks for recommending it, Choochoo!).

I would recommend it as well. It contains a short version of the rise of Islam, clearly much expanded in his book mentioned by Elephantschild.

There is thought and there is life; the two are connected, somewhat, but often in peculiar ways.

My current train & diner book is the Dalai Lama’s _The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality_. He is an intelligent writer, telling the entertaining tale of his exposure to western thought and science and technology (I haven’t gotten very far).

I’ve also purchased yet another used book, _The Etruscan Cities and Rome_, by H.H. Scullard, as I have a long-standing interest in Italy.

Meanwhile, aside from the absolute madness of attempting to work for a manic-depressive non-stop travelling management consultant with a slowly worsening substance abuse problem, combined with shoveling snow from recent storms, recovering from a severe head cold, and dealing with various and sundry other aspects of my life in this peculiar time we live in, I continue to interact with a wide range of personalities on-line.

At one extreme is a clutch of channellers, at the other the fray of CiF (the former would all be considered bonkers by most who interact within the latter). I view The Daily Grail and this pleasant place as being somewhere between the two, but I do engage in both occasional meditation and a primitive form of communication with my own inner self (we’ll call it), thus maintaining or muddying my own credentials, depending on what you might believe.

Recently, between waking and sleeping, I asked of my oversoul (we are really one, but it’s fun to play with the illusion that we are two) my perennial question: How can I come up with significant $$$ quickly? “William” began to answer very clearly, saying “There are four ways. The first involves Norse…” at that moment, I came to full consciousness, abruptly ending the comment.

I did look up Norse +”Cape Ann,” however, discovering that someone once found a 1,000-year old ceremonial Viking battle axe close to where I live. Was William referring to an undiscovered cache of Norse artifacts? I don’t know.

Meanwhile, pondering thoughts posted here by various personalities, I dug into “dualism” a bit, discovering that there are many versions of this.

I view most of these now as simply what happens when someone attempts to label or describe certain facets of reality. (The Persian, Cathar, or Bogomil version of Dualism is too extreme for me, and that was what I had referred to when using the word; but it also can refer, of course, to Mind/Body, Mind/Brain, and Objective/Subjective, amongst other perceived features of reality.) More on this in the future. Clearly the crux of many discussions (a crux that defines the range of my on-line interaction) lies here.

Back to life. I intend to succeed in my efforts to garner financial resources and free myself from the above consultant, a man associated, inwardly, with the Roman Emperor Nero.

My projected list of activities to engage in when I accomplish this includes a trip to London (to investigate the unusual properties of Hyde Park/Speaker’s Corner and visit the Guardian’s
Visitor’s Centre) then a trip to Northern Italy (back to Montevecchia and its unusual hills), followed with a trip to southern Spain and then an inspection of the so called “Pyramid of Amphion” close to Athens, in what was once called Thebes.

Hopefully someone here will be amenable to coffee (tea?) and conversation at one of these stops.

Bill

E:

Thank you. A book’s worth of information in a few paragraphs.

dib:

What do you mean forgotten about us? How could you? I am deeply hurt .

Bill:

Thanks. If it is so it is because the contributors make it that way.

I really must tackle ‘Late Antiquity’ and soon. The Dalai Lama book sounds interesting too.

I am not an expert on dualism (or anything else for that matter) but I am referring to the mind/body dualism of Descartes, which I agree is a false trail, when the subject crops up.

I hope you can be in London sometime in March when I intend to arrange a get together for as many as can make it. If not please let us know when you will visit so we can try to meet up.

boltonian,,i said addiction,,this is not rationality,,poetry is addictive,,i still have not read ec post,,but i have written a lot of rhyme elsewhere,,

mr bill sir,,i know a super duty power spot in vancouver if you ever come this way,,

what was that about bonkers ? oh well
i know what i know,,i dont try to explain

next up koran jihad history indoctrination
ritual poetry arabs,,hope i dont make an idjit of me self,,or forget again

i did return ,,spent a long time writing and lost it on the anti spam word screw up, very annoying,,end of my day

Aiieeee ! My Significant Other just gave me Hofstadter’s “Godel, Escher, & Bach” as an anniversary present. Only 700pp, so I should be back in circulation before next Christmas.

Bill, I hope you have more luck with Russell than I did. Reading the ‘History..’ in adolescence terminated my interest in Philosophy, for several decades. No doubt I was looking for Golden Ambrosia and didn’t find it.

In the meantime, and while I’m eating the thistles down in my boggy patch, I thought I’d enliven you with this post from the ‘Overcoming Bias’ blog :

“There’s a body of psychology research which shows a certan set of stable biases are a part of mental health. Specifically, happy, mentally healthy, and effective people have significant positive biases in the areas of self esteem, estimation of degree of control over the environment, and optimism about the future.

By contrast, the set of people who have objectively validated self-assessments in those areas are those who are moderately to severely depressed.

A good, although not recent, synthesis paper is Taylor & Brown, ‘Illusion & Well-Being’ :
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~morton/modern_drama/depression2.pdf

The ideas have been developed & popularised by Martin Seligman, he of ‘Positive Psychology’ fame.

So, would the team rather be biased, happy, healthy, and effective, or unbiased, depressive, and inhibited ?”

Depression Rules, OK !

dib

Sorry for that. One way round it is to become an edublog member by visiting the following link

http://edublogs.org/wp-signup.php

You don’t have to set up a blog. But you can get your pc to always remember you when you visit an edublog site like this and thus forget about anti spam words and the like. The only problem is that usernames have to be at least four characters long…

Thanks to your advice to dib, Gordy, I’m now realitytest.

dib: I have yet to get to Vancouver. I’ve always heard great things about it. Have you ever heard of a place (somewhat nearby, I assume) called Chilliwack?

eeyore: I have never tackled Hofstadter (his books seem so forbidding), while Russell’s book is merely a kind of paper Wikipedia for me at the moment. Regarding “objectively validated self-assessment”: What’s that? Btw — is your mention of thistle an indication of a personal connection with Scotland?

Boltonian: I’ll keep March in mind. (What a difference a day can make. I may have a new primary client based in London, likely making occasional trips necessary — and deductible.)

Bill

Eeyore:

Your name rather gives you away :-}

What if one is an intellectual pessimist but temperamentally sanguine, like me? Am I just confused?

I found the Russell tome a wonderful read, and I still dip into it from time to time, but I did not tackle it until I was about 50 (the right age for doing philosophy, according to Plato). The jargon of philosophy tended to put me off the subject as a young man, with one or two exceptions.

dib and others:

I try to get into the habit of composing longer posts on Word and then copying them here. Elephantschild recently lost one and it has happened to me before.

Eeyore

Depression? Been there and slain that particular dragon. But then a) like boltonian. I seem to be temperamentally sanguine and b) the depression was reactive (had identifiable causes) rather than endogenous. So no, as far as I am concerned, it does not rule!

I skim-read the paper you linked too, but it would take a bit more to convince me. How were the test subjects chosen? Self-selected or random? It might make a difference.

dib et al. On a couple of occasions when I forgot or made a mistake with the anti-spam word I was able to retrieve the post and make the necessary correction by hitting the back button. When I lost one completely (see above), it was because the site went down while I was writing it.

EC – thanks for the Qur’an post (I keep writing Koran cos that’s what it says on my book).
For a supposedly holy book I am surprised there is so little (so far) on how to achieve peace and get beyond the level of tribal society.
One of the reasons I find Christianity so attractive is because I believe that following the example of Jesus can lead to peace, both on a personal level and in a wider sense (but you do have to *really* follow, rather than just pay lip service, like some of our present world leaders).

Re: lost posts – I try to remember to put the security word in before I start writing. I have managed to retrieve posts by being very quick on the back button when I’ve forgotten.

for any one interested in the smallbeer
gossip and minutae of cif the great termite
hill of blogland,,dimpatsu has reappeared and outed themselves as Jackanapes,,
kimpatsu has not yet responded,,theos
face the faith thread,,reading some of the old posts on this thread i see some names
that can only be a positive contribution to discussion,,kinda “same team players”but they dont seem to be here any more,,passingstarship,,lesterjones and the
grand elaborati longsword,,personally i love longswords (longs word) posts,,he and i make the same journey to the same
destinations,,he goes via 9 other cities
in a carnival float covered in banners and flags,,i go down the street and round the corner on a bicycle,,we get to pretty much the same place ,,his digressions into the roots of language are however an invaluable perspective..i would like to post on his site but i can never get everything to work for me,,

i did get a new name and a edublog account but on reflection i dont want to be any one other than ‘dropinbucket’,,i use ‘dib’ because it was “bestowed”upon me by other posters in a friendly fashion,,i could be ‘dropin’ another “bestowed” contraction,,i am planning on always putting the code in before starting text,,
usually i do write everything in notepad before posting,,the koran post was a new site ,,i had no routine to follow and it was a really pleasing composition to have lost,,
the sense of deprivation,,of tangible loss
was profound as it is a subject i wished to do an essay on for a long time ,,have tried a few times and fallen off me bike,,
“once more into the blog dear friends and
fill the screen up with the words in the head,,

dib:

The Koran thread is here in the chatroom.

I’ve added a search facility on the bit at the side that might help – it seems to find some terms but not others.

gordy:

Many thanks.

What is a ‘Pingback?’ We have one on the Dennett thread.

b
I don’t know but I’ll find out. When you click on the red writing it takes you to a website that contains amongst other things a link to the Dennet article on this website – it’s probably to do with that.

boltonian
Apparently it’s just a notification that somebody else has permanently made a link to this blog. I’m intrigued why they haven’t appeared when this has been linked in several CiF pieces though.

More on this here:
http://www.optiniche.com/blog/117/wordpress-trackback-tutorial/

gordy:

Thanks. Good sleuthing.

The Koran thread is here in the chatroom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
did you ever look all over for your glasses whilst they were on the top of your head ?

duh,,first i lose the post,,then i lose the thread,,next up,, my mind

gordy:

This is weird. I usually receive an email when there is a new post but not always. I have just received nine emails for posts dated early November. Has this happened with you?

No emails recently but I usually get them only on
threads where I did the posting.

Odd

Another dozen or so arrived today from the same period. I seem to remember there was a problem with the site around then, so maybe that is the cause. Although, as Hume would have it – tricky fellow, causation.

Got one later on from that same period – early November that is – not eighteenth century.

(Boltonian – haven’t forgotten our ongoing discussion, but am going mad with work at the moment…)

By the way, has anyone ever seen Carlito’s Way? Watched it other day. I think Scarface is terribly overrated, but this De Palma – Pacino collaboration was stunning.

(I’ve just realised that watching Carlito’s way and the suggestion of work overload may not appear compatible…)

If you’re still in the business of plugging this site, boltonian, the following might be an appropriate thread:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/01/how_the_internet_links_philoso.html

Thanks, steve.

I’ve had a clear up this week and found (amongst other lost things) my notes from a conference on human origins that I went to when I was a student. It’s amazing what you can find under your bed.
This was the one that I mentioned on one of the threads here, and includes stuff about the aquatic ape theory of human evolution. Elaine Morgan (author of “The Aquatic Ape”) gave one of the talks.
I also found an essay on bipedalism which covers some of the other theories as well as the aquatic ape one. If anyone is interested I can do a write up. I’m not sure what the current thinking is on the evolution of bipedalism, I might have to look into that first to bring myself up to date. My work is from 1991 and ideas might have changed considerably since then.

Biskie:

I would be very interested in your write-up.

Boltonian

I would be very interested in your article. Its been years since I heard of the aquatic ape theory. I always loved that just because of my love of the sea and swimming in it, as opposed to just swimming in general.

Im glad to see your site is still as congenial and interesting as always, and I hope to be a bit more regular if thats Ok.

DIB

Nice to see you in these here parts!

LesterJones

Lester:

Welcome back. Good to see you and we look forward to your contributions. If the urge to compose an article grabs you please email it to either myself (gengmaak@hotmail.co.uk) or Gordy for posting.

The article on bipedalism is solely Biskie’s idea and I cannot, alas, claim any credit.

boltonian

Thanks.

March will soon be upon us and I’m looking forward to meeting up with as many as possible. The first three Saturdays in March (1,8 and 15th) have so far been left free by she who must be obeyed. Has anyone else got preferences?

Jim Al-Khalili on “Arabic Science”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2248970,00.html

Warning: the Usual Suspects are in evidence, too….

gordy:

Weekends are a bit difficult for me. Also, I might be struggling to make a date in March now as my wife is recovering from major heart surgery and will need me around here for a few weeks.

I suggest that you agree a date that suits the majority and I will try to make it if I can.

steve:

I read an article in the DT yesterday by Jim Al-Khalili (an author whom I greatly respect) on the subject, which I presume is the same piece.

Melvyn Bragg has recently covered both Averroes and Avicenna on, ‘In Our Time.’

boltonian

All the best on your wife’s recuperation. My thoughts are with you.

Lester:

Thanks.

boltonian

Just want to echo Lester’s thoughts – very sorry to hear about that. Perhaps we ought to put the ‘meeting up’ event until later in the year. I’m very keen to meet up with everyone who can make it but quite frankly it won’t be a boltonian event without boltonian.

Gordy:

Thanks.

I will keep everybody posted on my availability – late March/April might still be a possibility. Sorry to be a pain.

Hope your wife makes a swift recovery. No hurry to meet up.

Half written the bipedalism post but I keep being distracted. It might be a while before I finish it, as I’ve got loads of other stuff to do round the house. I’ve just read Russell Brand’s Booky Wook and was so jealous when I read he had a housekeeper. What luxury.

Biskie:

Thanks.

I am looking forward to reading your article.

Best wishes to your wife, Boltonian. I do hope she quickly has a full recovery; and in the mean time look after yourself.

Sorry not to have contributed lately, the time just does not seem to have been there – a poor excuse I know. Anyway, Hello to everyone on board.

Martin:

Thanks.

Great to hear from you. If you feel moved to contribute an article please let me know.

It’s a couch potato weekend for me.

The most open 6 nations for yonks. Anybody prepared to stick their neck out before it starts?

I’ve posted on the edublog forum about getting rid of the blank avatar thing – if that is what people want. Please let me know your thoughts – in the meantime I thought I’d stick in a recent(ish) picture for my avatar

Suffering badly from insomnia, won’t be posting for a while.

Biskie:

I am sorry to hear that – insomnia is horrible.

I hope you return soon – this blog hath need of thee.

Best wishes for a rapid recovery.

Greetings & Hallucinations!

1.) Has anyone aside from Longsword read The Ever-Present Origin by Jean Gebser?

2.) Who is familiar with the old Roman road from Londinium to Colchester?

3.) I second Boltonian wishes, Biskie.

4.) If you’re curious about the “avatar” (and if it shows up), a full explanation — some may have already read this — is found at http://www.realitytest.com/gcpe/2004.htm .

Regards

Bill

Greetings & Hallucinations!

1.) Has anyone (aside from Longsword) read _The Ever-Present Origin_ by Jean Gebser?

2.) Who is familiar with the old Roman road from Londinium to Colchester?

3.) I second Boltonian’s wishes, Biskie.

4.) If you’re curious about the “avatar” (and if it shows up), a full explanation is found at http://www.realitytest.com/gcpe/2004.htm .

Bill

‘In Our Time’ on the multiverse this week is worth a listen.

I will try to compose an article on something or another in the near future which I hope will start a discussion.

b – It’s tough continually finding new material to keep blogs & forums going….as I know from my own site….I was recently reduced to posting up garden pics, just so the regulars know I’m still around….anyway, I still look in here regularly, and I hope all’s well with you & the gang.

I’ve given up completely posting on CiF – it’s been a religion-free zone for a while, with only Adam Rutherford’s Darwin threads worth reading. They seem to be disappearing up their own fundaments with all the Max blogs *yawn*. Have only spotted sporadic interventions from Biskie & Martin thereabouts (& ChooChoo on the books site), so I guess others feel similarly.

Regards

steve

Boltonian
I look forward to listening to that. I was pleased to see your namesakes in the football world make more progress in Europe last night.
A question that I think you might be well placed to answer has been going round in my head for a few months now. What would Hume have made of evolution? Any thoughts?

Steve:

Thanks. I hope to post an article on Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series of novels, which I am re-reading (all 20 of them) at the moment. Then, perhaps, something on Spinoza.

I have not visited CiF for ages and find that I have not missed the experience at all.

Gordy:

Yes – into the last 16 for the first time in their history. I might even start taking an interest in football again, although not during the six nations.

I think Hume’s position might be something like this:

‘On the basis of the available evidence (limited though it is) Darwinian evolution has more merit than any other current hypothesis. But one must not make the error of induction by leaping from the specific to the general to arrive at a particular truth.’

Of course he would have put it far more elegantly than this. Hume was atheist (or at least agnostic) so the theory would have appealed but he was also a sceptic and he would have found the rush to eliminate all other possibilities and establish it as the sole orthodoxy alarming. ID is not sufficiently rigorous for his forensic and questioning mind, I think. Always doubt, always keep an open mind, always question, always challenge – but always with a light touch and a sense of humour.

But this might just me projecting my own approach onto somebody long dead and for whom I have the highest regard.

It’s good to see even a little activity here, Boltonian.

I need to interact somewhere if only to practice writing and CiF often serves this purpose, even if I am typically forced to steal moments from my business activities to post, my concentration split, while a recent frenetic situation meant a lack of time to fully develop my thoughts on a Darwin-related thread or even to respond to one person I’d gotten into a dialog with.

I hope to further develop a perspective distinct from that of the usual materialist vs. religionist POVs found in such CiF threads but participation in on-line discussion can leave you woefully unprepared for a real-life encounter.

Just yesterday I sat next to a fellow on a crowded commuter rail train who was reading about intelligent design. I made the mistake of commenting, only to quickly realize I was dealing with a rabid Christian fundamentalist; my mind was filled with the various CiF points and counterpoints as they have developed over the months but those were all over the poor fellow’s head and, after all, a close-range physical conversation is very different from, say, a reply to WML on CiF or an exchange with Longsword.

By the time he left to get off at his stop, I was thoroughly exasperated. (I’ve never been called a heretic before!)

Monday I commence a new business situation with a fellow who lives in Ingatestone; I’m back to technology markets after a far-too-long stint in the administrative and accounting trenches necessitated by the now quite bygone technology downturn of 2001.

Bill

Bill:

I would have been proud to have been called a heretic by one of the closed mind fraternity. If he meant by that a heterodox, iconoclastic liberally-minded, questioning, undogmatic person perfectly capable of sifting the available evidence and drawing his own conclusions. Or perhaps he just meant it as a term of abuse for anybody not agreeing with his narrow view of the world. Even so, I should wear it as a badge of honour.

…hope you are all well. Have spotted some of you here and there. (Steve, I must apologise for inflicting my incessant readings of Flannery O’Connor etc on that books blog).

Am currently in the midst of a PhD upgrade process (i.e. to ‘approve’ you). Submitted some materials today and give a presentation next week. Normally, I am really Bob Marley about these things. I’ve never before been so filled with anxieties. Aaaah! It has cut down on my online scavenging, barring a few spurts (as above and following that horrific football injury on the weekend). I really look forward to resuming the posting here and there, the usual long-winded meanderings. Perhaps, Boltonian, we can continue those long overdue discussions…see you next week?

ChooChoo:

Good luck!

All:

I have just caught a trailer for a Stephen Hawking TV series starting next Monday at 9 pm on Channel 4.

The trailer urged me not to miss it, so I will try to obey.

I’m sure you’ll wow ‘em and sail through, ChooChoo….

Thank you and thank you. (I’m not so sure Steve. Seriously, as opposed to some cringeworthy ‘No, I’m such a putz [remember that controversy?!]‘ which really means ‘I am the supreme mixmaster who’ll scratch them into stunned submission upon the decks of early medieval history’).

By the way Steve – wonder about your thoughts (or anyone else’s, mind) about something. Recently felt a tug to resume a very on-off (more off, really) affair with reading poetry. So not really an affair. More a – sometimes, very rarely, we bump into one another at the same cafe – acquaintance. Finding both Stevie Smith and R.S. Thomas very amenable – any opinions on either one?

ChooChoo – I’m not the person to ask regarding poetry….best bet, if you want info or opinion about a specific poet is to pop a question on the Gu poem of the week thread – it starts each Monday, but by Wednesday has generally gone so far off-topic that you can get away with general questions, or those only sinuously related to the focal poet. Indeed, this week we’ve been “doing” a different Thomas (no, not Dylan), which gives a good “in” to an RSThomas question….there are some very knowledgeable people there who are invariably helpful….

Just came across a couple of links which may be of interest. Last year, the philosopher Charles Taylor had his book, ‘A Secular Age’ published. I haven’t read it yet, but have been meaning to.

There’s an interview with him which Prospect conducted (including the ACG). It’s unsatisfactory stuff, though there are some interesting points lurking. (I always find Taylor v interesting on Quebec):

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10030

And there are some interesting discussions of Taylor (including by people like Robert Bellah – he is possibly most famous for being principal author of ‘Habits of the Heart’ – and an interesting fellow himself):

http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/category/secular_age/

Fingers crossed for tomorrow! I hope to be spending more gentle time here with my trusted online peripatetics very soon.

Choochoo: “Fingers crossed for tomorrow!”

Dear Choochoo:

Since you are destined to become first Dr. Choochoo, then the renowned & eminent Professor Choochoo, I’m quite sure this went very well.

I’m looking forward to purchasing your books (maybe even getting bound original printed editions signed by you, not just the standard electronic versions!) but that of course is some years from now.

(I may show these to visitors and casually mention that I actually interacted with you on-line, when you were still a student.)

Bill

Bill – thank you, though I’m not so sure that those books will see the light of day (or be terribly interesting if they ever do).

Just in case I wasn’t clear – this is a roughly ‘mid-way’ point: you go (hopefully) from provisional to approved phd student status.

Presentation was yesterday. It ended up being a wonderful little day. Saw supervisor before, who gave some brilliant last minute tips. Was nervous, though also excited in afternoon. And then gave it. Didn’t think I answered questions v well. Anyhow, supervisor had to leave before the whole thing finished (another person gave his ‘upgrade’ paper, which was really interesting), but I got a thumb’s up. And the response afterwards, over a little glass of wine, was positive. Most of the fellow students and profs are modernists (either technically or relatively speaking) and they can often be quite dismissive when it comes to medieval stuff. But a few seemed interested and asked me various things (which, again, I dodgily answered). It certainly went better than I had hoped, though I’m not so sure about how my materials – sample chapter especially – will go down!. Anyhow, then I rushed off to a pub to drink slow pints with a friend and watch Arsenal (eventually) walk to victory in Milan. And my bus came as soon as I got to the stop. An all-round woo-hoo, which was further complemented today when I bumped – in two separate incidents – into two good old friends after quite a while. And one of their friends treated me to a home-cooked fisherman’s pie.

On the other hand, as I walked home an hour ago, some radical anarchists – or lads on a night out (the line is fine) – chucked an egg at me from their car window!

Apologies for all this detail – but over the past few months, I’ve been cutting down on human contact. You forget how delightful the unconspicuous gestures and words can be.

Hi all. I’m back on track again and might even finish that bipedalism article some time soon.

Hi Biskie:

Great to have you back. I look forward to your article.

Dear all

Can I suggest a date in mid to late April for our get together?

Any suggestions? I would prefer a weekday but could make a Saturday if that was the prevailing view. When we have agreed a date I will contact everybody who has contributed by email.

Looking forward to it.

Most of the first two whole weeks of April (7th – 18th) are good for me because of the Spring holidays (formerly known as the Easter holidays) but I am doing one or two revision classes in that first week – the second week is free at the moment. Other than that I’m limited to weekends or evenings.

I could make Monday or Tuesday of the week commencing 14th April (Friday is a possibility also).

How are others fixed?

Any of those three days suits me.

Gordy:

As there has not exactly been a rush to name preferred dates I will email everybody who has posted anything here to ascertain:

a) whether there is sufficient demand for a meeting; and

b) if so, whether the 14th, 15th (or 18th) April is preferred.

Congratulations Choochoo.

What was your PhD about? (sorry I know that is a big Q and perhaps I have missed reference to it somewhere)

All:

I have emailed all contributors with a proposed date for our get together. I have kept it brief just to test the demand and simply copied and pasted the message to each, so if it sounds a little impersonal I apologise.

Nobody is excluded, of course and if I have missed anybody it is by purest accident, so please let me know here if you would like to come and I have not sent you a personal email.

I did not go back before Planck time in the history of the blog universe, merely to early December – any contributors who last posted before then would also be welcome.

Also, I am aware that there are those who look in from time to time but have yet to contribute – you would also be very welcome to come along.

If we get a decent turnout and it is deemed a success perhaps we could repeat it, say, in the autumn.

Could I please have a volunteer for proposing and arranging the venue.

Many thanks

A rendezvous sounds swell.

Martin – PhD is on “Abortion (and Contraception) in the Early Medieval West, c.500-900″ – focusses on conceptualisation / evaluation (rather than practice of) abortion. Effectively, I’m focussing on the 9th century, though that has only been the case since the end of the summer.

Boltonian – apologies for delay in responding to you. Had the final bit of the upgrade process today (discussion with panel). And zonked out after Saturday night. Briefly, a friend got hit by a car a few feet in front of me. Thankfully, she is ok (and was characteristically jokey, with her husband, on the phone when I called her). But for about ten minutes things were very scary – she was flung fifteen or so feet forward and, for all I can remember, about eight feet up, and laid face down, unconscious, face down on one side and with her head bent at what seemed to all the world to be a dangerous angle. Miraculously(?!) she didn’t break a bone and thankfully didn’t hit her skull. But, several of us went to hospital until well into early hours of the morning.

Sorry, just in case there’s any lack of clarity: I haven’t finished my PhD – far from it! This is an ‘approval’ to continue and (hopefully, one day) finish it, a rough halfway point. So, no congratulations in order (though the intentions behind them gratefully received). This ‘upgrade’ process is taken with varying levels of seriousness in different departments: a geologist friend submitted two pages the night before his deadline and his supervisor said, ‘yeah, fine’ by email. In my department, it seems to be taken rather more seriously. Anyhow, I’m looking forward to not speaking about it – you become (even more of) a frightful bore when you have these deadlines and pressure points because it’s all you talk about! Onto free will and biblical hermeneutics and our get-together!

ChooChoo:

Sorry to have anticipated your forthcoming elevation to the academic peerage.

I am glad that your friend was ok after the accident – it sounds like a fortunate escape.

All:

AN Wilson this week threw in a bit of a wobbly for me. He, you might know, has written a couple of books on the NT – one on Jesus and the other about Paul, both heavily influenced by Vermes. In his column this week he seemed to renounce Vermes saying that he has almost completely ignored Paul in his analysis because it doesn’t suit his theory and yet Paul is more important than the Gospels because he was more nearly contemporaneous with the events.

This I must investigate because Vermes has also been a big influence on my thinking. But we know that Paul was heavily edited by the early church transcribers. I must read Vermes’ latest opus (Resurrection), which Wilson was particularly scathing about.

Anywhere central would be good for me and presumably for a number of others- Covent Garden? I went to a nice Turkish (not everyone’s cup of erm coffee) restaurant there a couple of years ago. Can I propose,nominate, and second ChooChoo to be i/c restaurant nominations as a man of letters and man about town I think he’s in an ideal position to suggest and advise…

Sorry about that ChooChoo.

I’ll eat almost anywhere…

Thirded!

And, I think, carried unanimously.

Central is fine for me too – I arrive at Kings Cross. Also, not fussy about type of restaurant. I know that Turkish restaurant if it is the one just round the corner from the Theatre Royal and it is (or was) fantastic. I was last there about 12 months ago.

Can I unfourth that? (Still patron-less, I haven’t the means to be a man about town. And I’ve mucked up Covent Garden directions before, embarassingly, on a date a few years back).

But Covent Garden would, I imagine, be easyish for people to get to. I don’t know this restaurant, but if you give me rough directions, when I go to college on Tuesday, I’ll take a walk and check that it’s still there.

Are there any objections to Turkish? (Absolutely fine by me – and don’t get me started on the coffee). In which case I’ll take a walk around for other candidates.

Boltonian:

I think the following link might describe the restaurant we may have in mind…Sofra?

http://www.london-eating.co.uk/maps/22852.asp

What time of day is good for you (I think you have the biggest journey)?

Gordy:

It wasn’t the one I had in mind but it is fine with me.

My train arrives at 10 30 in Kings Cross and I was intending to have a coffee with a former colleague and then trot over to the restaurant at the appointed time. 12 30 or 1 would suit me.

Sounds good to me – I’m not sure it was the one I had in mind either – can you remember the name?

I cannot but I might be able to find out – there were a few of us that night.

I have had five definites and one probable so far. There are two ‘Noes’ and the rest have yet to respond. I will re-send to the latter as I foolishly omitted a subject and they might have fallen foul of fire walls etc.

Most are not strongly pro or anti Monday or Tuesday and can make either. One or two have expressed a slight preference for the one or t’other.

Just listened again to, ‘In Our Time.’ The subject this week was Kierkegaard and I found it very interesting, particularly as we are in the throes of a discussion on Christianity and Rationalism. Kierkegaard’s twin sources of inspiration were Socrates and Jesus.

If anybody knows anything about the philosophy of Kierkegaard would you like to post something – he is not a philosopher whom I have read first hand to any degree?

Sorry, I won’t be attending your get together.

I had heard of aquatic ape hypothesis, but not for a long time. This link is worth checking out for the way machines are developing quadrupedal walking, although it’s more double bipedalism.

http://gizmodo.com/368651/new-video-of-bigdog-quadruped-robot-is-so-stunning-its-spooky

I’ve just got round to viewing Channel 4’s Stephen Hawking : Master of the Universe, which is worthwhile and still available on 4oD.

Chris:

I am sorry we won’t see you at our inaugural lunch, I was looking forward to meeting you.

I saw both the Hawking programmes and thought they weren’t as impressive as the Kaku series on BBC4, although it is difficult to convey the complexities of the state of our collective knowledge to a wide audience through TV. I think using Hawking as the presiding genius of physics was a mistake.

Anyway, nice to hear from you and keep posting.

All:

I have sent out a reminder for the lunch by email to those who had not responded. There has been no further response since and I think we ought to finalise the date now.

Can I suggest that we make it Tuesday 15th April at 12 30 for 13 00, Sofra Turkish restaurant, Covent Garden – use Gordy’s link above for directions.

If Tuesday is a problem for anybody please shout now so that we can change it to the Monday.

Gordy, who is i/c booking, you or ChooChoo?

If everyone confirms here their attendance asap we can book the restaurant and ‘Bob’s your uncle.’

Boltonian:

I’m happy to book – please let me have the numbers when you find out. Looking forward to it.

Peitha:

I may have recently sent you a blank email by escape – sorry (or should that be mea culpa?). I was thinking of sending another email to apologise for the first one….

Gordy:

Thanks

Sorry, but it looks like I won’t be able to make the meet
Have fun!

Biskie:

Sorry that we won’t see you. Perhaps next time.

Count me in.

E:

Great, see you there.

I’ll be there

dOm:

Look forward to seeing you.

The restaurant has been booked for 1230 on Tuesday 15th April.

Gordy:

Many thanks.

In Our Time this week is on Newton’s laws of motion – fascinating.

My sister’s been in town and on Friday, she invited me along to meet her Italian friend. And we ended up at…Sofra (in Covent Garden). Good nosh. Looking forward to revisiting!

ChooChoo:

Looking forward to it too. See you there.

Hi guys. Well, it’s finally happened, they’ve banned me from CiF. Wondering whether argue with them, start posting under a different name, or just stop posting at CiF (and it does take up too much of my time). Anyway, will let you know my new one if that’s what I end up doing.

dOm:

You must tell us the whole story on Tuesday. Do not spare the gory details – I can take it. I hope (selfishly) that this means you will have a little more time to devote to us here.

I have not visited CiF for months and I feel much the better for it – it was becoming too much of a time waster and I found myself learning less and less (except about the more unsavoury side of human nature). It also brought out the worst in me on occasions (which must not be encouraged), so it had to go.

I think I’m going to take up your advice on this one and just step away.

Not any gory details really, just banned me for writing ‘Reinstate Khartoumi’ at the end of all my posts. When I first started doing this months ago, I realised there was a possibility I might get banned for it but I never heard anything until now, when they banned me completely out of the blue.

I’ve noticed in the last few days that the moderation has become more heavy handed, and I think there is a new regime in place.

dOm:

I do not mind any organisation having an editorial policy provided that they follow it themselves – this is one sign of a civilised and open society. An example is that the police must obey the law that they uphold.

I am not sure that the Guardian follows this precept. It bangs on about freedom of speech but allows some regular posters to continue who I know act as a deterrent to potential contributors, which is a form of censorship. It also bans those who are not symapthetic to its (unstated) editorial line.

I am shocked d0m. Is there a clue in the thread you were on? I am not sure about whether the Guardian bans those who are not sympathetic to its editorial line. It does seem to tolerate a number of monothematic nutters, whose purpose seems to be to deflect the thread and elicit quantity rather than quality of response.

I do not think that there is a clear editorial policy: the moderation is too erratic for that.

Banning in this way simply invites pseudonymous trolling.

Bad luck, d0m – there are quite a number there who should have been banned long ago but get away with it….they’ve always been touchy about the khartoumi thing though, so can’t say I’m totally surprised….anyway, Cif is unbearable now, nothing more than a troll creche alongside the fawning Ally & Cath fan club….I look in occasionally but rarely read the threads and almost never post (under this name at least )

Boltonian, Thank you for your kind luncheon invite. I would have very much liked to have come, but sadly, I will be away from London for most of next week.
d0m, CiF’s moderation and banning policy is, or seems, so arbitrary that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or spit. Personally, I pretty much confine myself to the book pages, which are a little bit more civilized. Oh, to be sure, there are eruptions of bile and invective and I’m as guilty as anyone else, but there’s nothing like the toxicity that pervades CiF. It’s a pity, really, because there are some very good posters. Sadly, they tend to get drowned out by the ‘I’m right, You’re vile’ brigade. Still, this seems like a civilized and thoughtful place. Glad I found it. I’m always delighed to find another O’Brian afficianado, Boltonian…

mishari:

Next time, perhaps.

I hope we never descend into CiF playground type antics here otherwise it would defeat the reason for its existence. It was set up deliberately to encourage discussion for the purpose of learning – tribalism is discouraged here.

All:

I am not sure which is worse: having an unstated editorial policy, the punishment for contravening which is banishment; or a completely capricious system of banning those whose posts the moderator happens to dislike. I had assumed the former but it seems that the latter is more likely to be the case.

Perhaps there are lessons here for us.

Boltonian, re “some regular posters to continue who I know act as a deterrent to potential contributors”; I do not know if you were including WML or not, but after his vituperative comments at you about agnosticism, it may amuse you to know that a few weeks ago he boldly asserted his belief in freewill, claiming it to be self evidently true. I replied that I had no more need for a belief freewill in deciding what to do than I had a need for a belief in God (which it appears some people feel they need).

So it may be that he is a ‘believer’ after all!

Nonetheless I do actually think that overall he does serve a useful purpose on cif. Before he raised it, I had not really questioned the historical authenticity of Jesus, for example. One day I would like to use the WML character in a blog as a latter Mr Pooter. I cannot help myself imagining evening interchanges between Mr and Mrs WML.

Martin:

Yes he is one but there are others. I know people who simply will not get involved because they feel they will be attacked for not sharing the prejudices of the more short-trousered poster.

Pooter is a good parallel for him – completely devoid of self-knowledge.

Hello everyone,
I don’t post much on CiF anymore, though some threads are just too tempting for me to resist. Is it me or is it dumbing down a little? There’s still a lot of serious stuff but the non-serious stuff used to be just a bit of afternoon fun but now it just seems to be getting stupid. It doesn’t bring out my best side either. I should resist. It would save me losing chunks of time I could probably put to better use.
Anyway, I don’t have much choice in the matter as I won’t be near a pc very much for a while so will not need to exercise any will power. I’ll just have to read some books and improve my mind instead.
I’ll be thinking of you all on Tuesday!

Not sure if it was related to any particular thread Martin, think it might just be more of a case of a new broom at CiF. Generally, appears as if they might be clamping down on off topic stuff and some of the more personalised abuse, which on balance I think is definitely a good thing, even if they can be a little overzealous.

I fired off a slightly curt email to them after they banned me, which the didn’t respond to, but when I have a moment and can be bothered I’ll write another one asking for clarification. Since the banning I’ve noticed some previously banned posters have returned, so it may be there has been a kind of amnesty

Since getting banned myself I’ve also noticed a few previously banned posters have returned to CiF, which means there may have been some kind of amnesty. I’m certain they’d let me back if I agreed to stop writing ‘REINSTATE KHARTOUI’ at the end of my posts, but on principle I won’t do that unless they’ve made changes to their policy on bannings.

The thing with bannings is that it is such a blunt instrument and breaks up continuity. For all his trolling, I am quite fond of WML and would hate it if he were banned. But he does frequently overstep the mark, and I think a good way of keeping threads focussed, reducing deletions to a minimum and maintaining continuity would be to introduce a system of yellow and red cards. This way if someone is being obnoxious, ban them from the thread, while complete bans on could be used only in extreme cases.

But all in all I probably should keep away from CiF for a while, especially as it has in recent weeks been bringing out my slightly ruder side.

Oops, now there’s a problem when you end up with various different names in various different blog sites; your browser remembers the last one you’ve so you have to make sure to remember to change it back.

Biskie – A chain of events was set in motion ever since you mentioned Milton Jones in these here parts and, to cut to the chase, I’m going to see him on Friday. Thank you in advance!

Right, better go, or I’ll be terribly late.

Thanks all for a fabulous afternoon. Next one in October sometime – half-term or thereabouts?

I’m all agog, and trust there will be a report; illustrated if possible….

Really enjoyed meeting you peeps (and hopeful of meeting some of the others one day). If I manage to get the gift of the gab in the next two days, maybe we can convince Milton Jones to come along too…

(Biskie – I realise that I still owe you a tea…)

I’m having issues with my email. Did people get the photos?

Gordy:

Yes, thanks but see my email to you when you are functioning again.

Good lunch guys, great to meet you all (steve, it felt like you were there with us in spirit . Got the email Gordy, thanks a lot for the photos.

Thanks for the photos….I’m trying to put names to faces….is it as obvious as the one with the big hair being theonewiththebighair….? In which case I’d guess his near-identical twin is ChooChoo….the other pic I have also shows a man in a pink shirt – boltonian? – and a woman in a pale blue top, where (assuming Biskie didn’t have a last minute change of heart) I have to admit defeat – sorry – by elimination, the photographer is presumably Gordy….

I hope you all had a good time anyway, even if I’ve misidentified the entire corps….

steve:

Pretty darned good. The lady is Elephantschild, so 8/10 for you.

As the bighairedone said you were there in spirit and one victim of our relentless (and entertaining) gossip – I hope you were suffering from warmish ears. All of which inspired me to visit your blog this evening – very impressed. If I can find some inspiration from somewhere I might submit a humble contribution (always subject to editorial improvement of course).

Apologies to Ms Elephantschild – these gender nonspecific names are sometimes confusing….deliberately so, I presume….I was disappointed to have missed you all….now that who’s who has been confirmed, I can safely (I hope!) say that bighair & boltonian look almost exactly as I’d previously imagined; ChooChoo though is completely different from my mental picture, although uncannily he’s the spitting image of one of my best mates from school (complete with 70s haircut…. )

Anyone curious enough to compare my beard with the others can look here:

http://thedoggerelsbollocks.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/beards-in-the-garden/

Contributions welcome – sometimes we play around with quickfire doggerel in the comments too; anyone can join in….

steve:

Good stuff! I sort of had you with a beard but wasn’t sure of the shade. Great garden, BTW.

Boltonian: “Next one in October sometime – half-term or thereabouts?”

I might actually be able to meet up — I have to attend a business conference in Berlin in October and can maybe swing by before or afterwards. This idea isn’t too far fetched.

Meanwhile, aside from recently witnessing an especially vituperous Seth Freedman CiF thread, the worst thing I’ve seen on CiF in some time was AC Grayling’s offensive and personal dig at Longsword. I was unable to come to Longsword’s defense before the thread closed owing to a computer problem, and felt quite sorry for him.

Please don’t invite Professor Grayling to your October lunch!

Bill

Bill:

Good to hear from you and I hope you can make it to the next event.

‘Please don’t invite Professor Grayling to your October lunch!’

Of course not – we have our standards to maintain!

Just to say that I, too, thoroughly enjoyed the lunch and the opportunity to talk and gossip with some of you face to face. Here’s to the next time.

Steve, no need for apologies. The gender nonspecific name was, indeed, a deliberate choice – I wondered whether people would be able to tell . I did toy briefly with the idea of using Mudnymph – a nickname I acquired one very wet digging season – but it took only a moment’s reflection to realise that it would probably have been asking for trouble.

Grayling doesn’t seem so bad in his New Scientist pieces. He even commented quite reasonably below the line on his recent China/Tibet CiF thread, although this was mainly self-serving.

I also noted WML’s belief in free will with some amusement. This wired piece is on topic :

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

d0m :

Khartoumi is now AxleofElvis. I was nearly banned myself recently when I started posting again as a distraction from illness.

gordy :

I didn’t get the email with photos.

I realise that my contribution to the Michio Kaku thread will have induced disbelief in all who read it. Apart from my partner who also witnessed these events, I’ve only met one other person who claimed to have seen ball lightning and even though it was a more mundane sighting than mine, I still had trouble believing it.

Perhaps such unlikely events have led me to take the simulation argument more seriously than most. An alternative hypothesis, to which I’ve alluded before, is that synchronicity is related to the state of consciousness. The universal unconscious is infinite and can interact with individual consciousness under certain circumstances. Probably, it’s easier for others to assume I’m deluded or lying.

Atman is Brahman.

I forgot to add: in case there is anyone is not aware already, the first of the Medieval Mind series is on BBC 4 at 9 this evening

Sorry, Chris, I didn’t realise you wanted to see the pics – I will forward them to your email address.

I think the simulation hypothesis has much to recommend it.

Yes, Martin commented on WML’s position on free will – very funny. Motes and beams springs to mind but that might be a little below the belt in his case.

E:

Thanks for the tip.

Does anyone know whether the ‘Medieval Mind’ is repeated at any point / available to watch online etc?

ChooChoo, I was under the distinct impression that all BBC television progarms are avaiable online for viewing. I’m not sure if you actually download the progarm or if you stream it, bu I do know that you’re obliged to downlhough I could be wrong.oad and install the BBC’s Media Player, called, I think, i-player. Actually, I’m not especially busy so I’ll check for you…be right back

ChooChoo, for some unexplained reason this particular program is not available for download. You can, however, watch it in its entirety here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=the+medieval+mind&go=Find+Programmes

Hope this is of some help to you

Regards, Mishari

Mishari – thanks for that! Will check it out (within 6 days).

The message was fine and the presenter ok but all the audio-visual distractions were an irritant for me. This aspect of TV documentaries is either pure self-indulgence or the programme makers think its audience is made up of seven year olds with the attention span of a premiership footballer.

It brings out the grumpy old man in me, which
is one reason why I prefer to get my information from radio and books on the whole.

I quite agree, boltonian. It is the rare documentary that simply allows the images of the subject and the words to suffice. Oh, no. We have to have tricksy visual effects and ‘interesting’ camera work, much of it cribbed from music videos. As often as not, this witless nonsense will render a subject I’m interested in too irritating to watch.

I thought Andrew Graham-Dixon’s recent 3-parter on the Art of Spain was rather well done. They eschewed all the tricksy nonsense and allowed the art to speak for itself. Dixon’s commentary was interesting although a few small errors of fact weakened the sometimes already weak case he was making for his analysis, in my opinion. Still, far better than average.

I enjoyed Jonathan Meades’ recent 3, ( think) part program on Northern Europe. The words, by Meades, were very entertaining. Ascerbic, erudite and unsentimental. Nonetheless, they couldn’t forego the bloody tricks camera work..sigh..

Oh for the dear old days of AJP Taylor, Jacob Bronowski and Lord Clarke of Civilisation.

One of the influences in turning me on to philosophy was the Bryan Magee chaired discussion series in the 1970s. Each week would feature a famous philosopher introduced by a writer or teacher and Magee would probe the speaker until he was sure that the audience had thoroughly understood the main components of the philosopher’s work. It also highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each philosophy.

One of its main attractions for me was its freedom from jargon, which, I’m afraid, philosophy is prone.

I have the book of the series somewhere.

@Mishari/Boltonian – totally agree with you on documentaries. (Did the Magee series spawn “The Story of Philosophy”?). I wonder whether an alternative approach might be a Louis Theroux history season, where he unceasingly asks (and repeats) questions to leading historians, following them around for a month or so.

Quick question on jargon: I am sympathetic, but we might have to distinguish. Sometimes one reads jargon, finds it inaccessible but (somehow) can still recognise it is working to some end (that it is a language to be mastered: consider the profusion of Latin terms in legal discourse: they function more smoothly and less self-consciously the more familiar one becomes). I think the key with this sort is that it can be translated into simpler terms. (Perhaps designations for positions in debates in philosophy of mind – neutral monism, aspect dualism, substance dualism etc – can be forbidding at first. Yet they are useful and translateable).

There is another sort of jargon which is and will always remain impenetrable and might more readily be considered, literally, ‘bullshit’. (I once had the misfortune of reading something on the inverted ascription of genders to the months March and April in Chaucher’s prologue to the Canterbury Tales. I can’t remember which was which, but traditionally one was masculine, the other feminine. And Chaucer inverts this. And somehow this is homoerotic. And it was replete with jargon.)

ChooChoo:

I have just dug out my copy of Magee’s ‘Great Philosophers,’ which is more or less a transcription from the TV series. I was 10 years out with my dates; it was broadcast in 1987. ‘The Story of Philosophy’ was quite a bit later I think.

I agree with you about distinguishing between various forms of jargon. The stuff I am referring to is (not literally, I hope) the bullshit variety. Some philosophical writings are definitely in this category – Schopenhauer accused Hegel of charlatanism for disguising simple ideas behind a layer of obscurantist verbiage. Wordy dross, in other words.

I always thought that Chaucer was a bit fishy. The way he went on about Judy Garland and Billie Holliday should have been a tip-off…

Jargon can be useful as a sort of shorthand but as ChooChoo says, the acid test is ‘can it be translated into simple language? If it can’t, it’s almost certainly bullshit..all too often, bad jargon merely serves to disguise a lack of intellectual rigour. Going forward, I mean…

Haven’t been here for a few days. The meal was really good and am really looking forward to the next one. I was recently given a copy of Mark Kurlansky’s ‘1968 – The Year That Rocked The World.’ This provides a clue regarding my age. It’s very good so far and I hope to share a review of it when I’ve finished. Interestingly it quotes Abbie Hoffman, the American radical saying about the disparate groups that made up his co-defendants in Chicago that they couldn’t agree on lunch. Well despite our plurality – at least we can.

Anybody catch the programme about cathedrals on BBC4 this evening? It was mercifully free from gimmicks (relatively so, at least).

Boltonian – I missed that one. But – to add to what’s been written on documentaries – there’s less scope for art history / architecture documentaries to overindulge the jumpy camera works and stilted background dramatic reconstructions. (There was a series on ‘Architecture on Britain’(?) I remember enjoying). I must confess that when younger my dream occupation would have been making mockumentaries (esp history ones), and I still retain this silly ambition, if a bit secretly until now. Jumpy cameras and silly dramatic reconstructions, of course, would be prerequisites.

@Gordy – there’s a CiF thread on madonna which is crying out for your anecdote…

ChooChoo:

Let’s hope you take the sensible career option of becoming a serious scholar, adding to our store of knowledge, rather than yet another frivolous irritant who might be responsible one day for increasing my blood pressure . Mind you, you might have more fun in TV.

BTW, have you ever heard anybody say that they thought the camera work, music, sound effects and dramatic reconstructions in these documentaries were great? Some while ago (in the days when I could be bothered) I wrote to the BBC asking about this growing trend and the reasons for it. I also asked if I could see the market research which showed that it was welcomed and enjoyed by viewers. Answer to the first Q – it created atmosphere and to the second – No!

And it’s getting worse. TV audiences, apparently, consist entirely of morons. There was a news item recently about Brown’s visit to the States. A working breakfast was mentioned, whereupon we cut to a group of people (presumably actors) earnestly discussing something whilst pretending to eat. As if we couldn’t possibly understand the concept of a working breakfast without this helpful digression!

E:

Did you see the programme; Norwich cathedral featured heavily?

gordy, I’ve read two books by Kurlansky that I thought were rather good, ‘Cod: A History of the Fish That Changed the World’, (I think. It’s been a while) and A, (or ‘The’) Basque History of the World. I also have a volume of collected culinary-related snippets that he edited which is fun.

ChooChoo, they indulge in that witless shite constantly: ‘ The PM is in America, (cue shots of the White House, The Capitol and the Statue of Liberty, just in case we’ve forgotten where America is) or equally brainless guff like, ‘This fuel hike coukld affect motorists’,( cue: shots of motorists in cars, lest we confuse motorists with flamingoes or something)…have your brain removed, is my advice. It’s clearly interferring with your ability to take pleasure in consuming The Peoples Televisual Feast..

Boltonian,
Sadly, I missed the Cathedrals programme. I meant to watch it but mis-remembered the time and switched on only to find that it had just finished. Given that it was BBC 4, though, it will probably be repeated fairly soon.

I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions expressed on the subject of gimmicky camerawork and ‘reconstructions’ on TV documentaries, not to mention the way they seem to think think that viewers need to have everything repeated at least three times if they are to grasp the simplest point. It is infuriating, distracting and entirely counterproductive. ‘Atmosphere’, forsoooth!Watching the ‘Medieval Mind’ programme I was consumed with nostalgia for the days of Kenneth Clarke and Brunowski.

Aaargh not dramatic reconstructions!

In Our Time this week is about Materialism – sounds interesting so I shall give it a listen.

Interesting, although not much that was new.

You will have to put up with a certain ubiquitous philosopher as one of the panellists. Although he is, of course, a thoroughgoing materialist he did add an interesting coda but you will need to listen to find out what it was.

Hello. It’s gone very quiet out there.

As a follow-up to In Our Time Melvyn Bragg’s newsletter, to which I subscribe, was quite interesting. He gives an account of what was discussed after the programme and ACG, whom he is in awe of, suggested a programme on Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Anthony O’Hear, one of the other panellists, felt that the programme had an anti-Christian bias, which Bragg denied.

Another of Bragg’s comments was that even Grayling, who is an atheistical materialist (or a materialistical atheist), does not accept the reductionist hypothesis of eliminative materialism. But he doesn’t say what the alternative might be.

Did anybody listen to it?

I listened to it earlier today but to be honest found it a bit confusing. Materialists believe that everything in the universe is matter, even thoughts and memories, but they can’t show how thoughts and memories are matter, is this right?
Human beings are made only of matter, but if a human being is separated entirely into its component atoms, where does the matter that is thoughts and memories go to? Help!

Biskie:

This is my take on it but I do not pretend to any expertise in this area.

Materialists believe, as you say, that everything is made of matter and thoughts are products of matter interacting. So, an eliminative materialist will say that thoughts are a function of the material brain. But thoughts are stubbornly immune to reductionism, so either we have to take this assertion on trust or find some way of getting to the moment in the activity of the brain when thought occurs and capturing it.

Dualists, on the other hand, believe something equally improbable: that the world comprises ideas and matter and they somehow interact but nobody can show where this occurs.

Idealist think that matter does not exist and everything comprises immaterial or spiritual, if you like, reality that we sort (falsely) into matter and non-matter.

I lean to the last but very weakly for the simple reason that categorisation is not real, merely our way of trying to understand the world. Who would have thought, for example, that energy and matter are different manifestations of the same thing or that light is the visible spectrum of electro-magnetic radiation?

Anyway, I think that even if we could detect the movement of every atom in our bodies we still would not find thoughts – they will not yield to such reductionism.

‘In Our Time,’ this week was on Enclosures and it laid a few canards for me.

It was not the universally evil land grabbing that Marx would have us believe. It was also interesting to note how he derived this notion in the first place. That is not to deny that there were hardships and some displacement but most of the urban population growth in the 19th century was self-generating. The idea that huge swathes of the rural population were thrown off the land and had to migrate to the towns and become factory fodder is not supported by the evidence. The rural population did not diminish during the time of Enclosures but the urban population rose. It could be argued that without the far greater efficiency that Enclosure brought about, enabling the country to feed itself, the Industrial Revolution might not have occurred as it did.

The hardships that did occur were largely as a result of private Acts of Parliament introduced by MPs who were themselves beneficiaries of Enclosure. Another example of how the open society helps to address such unhealthy concentrations of power.

Also, I did not realise that Enclosure had already been half completed by 1600.

Fascinating stuff.

Did anybody catch it?

I listened to the programme yesterday. It did a good job of dispelling some of the grosser misconceptions but invitably, given the time limit, it gave little indication of the complexity of the subject and of the degree to which the implications and effects differed from region to region and even from village to village. I thought that it was a pity, also, that the panel did not include a landscape historian.

The late 18th century and early 19th century enclosures on which the discussion focussed were just the last stage in a very long process which in many areas began early in the medieval period. How, when and where it happened depended to some extent on the very considerable variation in agricultural practices and tenurial customs across the country, some probably originating before the Norman conquest, as well as on economic changes, such as the increasing importance of the wool industry in the later medieval period. Medieval farming practice was never as uniform or as static as it is sometimes portrayed.

Undoubtedly enclosures at different times and in different places caused some hardship, particularly (as was mentioned in the programme) where it involved the loss of customary rights on commons, but in some parts of England, even where the common field systems persisted until a late date, many commons had been taken into cultivation before the end of the medieval period. In some cases, at least, the final enclosures were little more than a rationalisation, where most if not all of the land was already in the hands of a few landowners, and there were few if any customary tenants left to be dispossessed.

I could expand on this at some length if anyone is interested.

E:

Many thanks.

I would be very interested in a more in-depth analysis. Could you perhaps contribute an article on the subject?

Other things that caught my ear were the facts that Enclosure led to re-afforestation as landlords sought to supplement their income from shooting and that commoners rights were so loosely defined. I also imagine that the countryside is far more attractive now than under the open field system.

There is a vignette on the subject in some of the O’Brian A/M novels.

Will do, although although I would like to do some additional reading first, especially on enclosure in the midlands. My detailed knowledge of the subject is largely confined to Norfolk, where I have done some original research based on analysis of medieval and early post-medieval documents as well as the archaeological evidence, and to a slightly lesser extent, Suffolk. Either you will have to wait a bit, or I must drag myself away from the Aubrey/Maturin novels (sigh!).

E:

I could not, in all conscience, be responsible for tearing you away from O’Brian. Mind you, the speed at which you are racing through them should see you complete the first reading by Wednesday.

Wednesday is a trifle optimistic, even if I do nothing else but read, but ten days to a fortnight should be enough, I hope. We’ll see. I have just finished ‘The Reverse of the Medal’, so there are still eight more to go.

That should be (counts on fingers and toes) nine more to go.

Boltonian! I got round to listening to the In Our Time on materialism. I’m an occasional Radio 4 dabbler, but more and more wish I was something of a regular listener. I thought the programme was good (and – as with all of them – ambitious: they did not have the time to get into the 19th century, let alone the 20th: there was no chance of doing all that in 40 mins).

Three things immediately strike me. (Apologies for using numbers: looks v pompous, I admit, but I just mean for it to have the gloss of a sprinkling of structure).

1. A useful and intelligible explanation of eliminative materialism from ACG. I remember failing to get under the surface on your old site. I guess the fundamental point about it – the distinctive feature – is the “eliminative” part and (ostensibly) refers not so much to the hard reality of things but how we approach them. The Churchlands (and some others) are not only materialists, but feel justified in underlining a certain “promissory” aspect: research *will* uncover these mysteries to the point that we will (be able to or – intellectually – have to?) dispense with talks of intentional states, hopes, etc. It is interesting that this is not a position most materialists broadly conceived seem to go along with. (Remember Diderot using metaphors and dream sequences in novels to explore these ideas). And it is interesting that ACG is not swayed by it.

Doesn’t this raise another question: what implications are there if our language of, for want of a better word, mentality is *not* reducible to descriptions of neural states? I also wonder whether the position of a more mainstream materialist and a Churchland are further apart than the ‘materialist’ tag may initially suggest.

2. The presentation of, say, 500-1500 struck me as a bit weaker. I should add that this is not a searing criticism (and is distinct from O’Hear’s gripe). ACG and Bragg were quite right to draw attention to the importance of the language of spirit and matter, or body and soul. But I think, given that the ancient philosophy stuff focussed on pre- and post-Socratic materialists, a sense of how Greek (and esp Platonic) this relation between spirit and body – of the soul in the body – was a little muted.

Moreover, in the high medieval period, the important re-engagement with Aristotelian ideas issued in some potential challenges and changes, with some thinkers (including Aquinas) seeming to go for hylomorphic dualism. Perhaps it’s easiest to think of this as the ensouled body. It has vital repercussions for thinking of soul or spirit (for Aquinas, the soul was the ‘form’ – in Aristotle’s sense – of the body: modern commentators on Aristotle or Aquinas roughly – though in self-consciously imperfect terms – point to something along the lines of a principle of organisation or an internal dynamic). This – I speculate – had v important repercussions for thinking about matter. I also think that these ideas did, in some ways, lurk around before the more dramatic re-engagement with Aristotle.

Also, ACG pointed to an enmeshing of ethical ideas with all of this – and he’s quite right to. (When discussing the 18th century, or Lucretius, this enmeshing was pronounced, albeit in different ways). His equation was quite simple: spirit – good, body – bad.

Now, I understand that such programmes are of their nature only able to go so far. And, given the topic, the focus had to be more early modern / modern. But, for me, this is misleading insofar as it overlooks the very tensions with which Christian thinkers struggled and propounded. (Lest this seem apologetic, it may be, for all I know, another sign of weakness: this is not a simply defensive ‘it’s so much more complicated’!).

If you read, to take some earlier figures, Augustine or Jerome, say, it is easy to understand why someone might come away with this impression. This period saw the birth of eremitic monasticism (the wandering holy men thirsting for God in the desert or else staying on top of a pillar, preferably for a few decades). It also saw the birth of cenobitic (or community) monasticism. In both cases, again, there was an emphasis (though it was far from the only thing) on battling against the flesh and this issued in sexual and culinary strictures. (Incidentally, though this is best saved for another time, while this appears a bit too puritan for us, I think there are important reasons for not using this term. Not just because of possible anachronism, but also because there was, again for want of a better word, a certain eroticism in hagiography, in sermons and even in biblical commentary: I have been fascinated by a line from Hrabanus Maurus’ 9th century commentary on Leviticus, “Quid est sermo nisi semen?” – “What is the word if not semen?”, used to think about the fecundity of the Word and also of the priestly ministry).

Anyhow, reading monastic works or works by Augustine (and later writers), the impression of the spirit-good, body-bad equation is, to reiterate, understandable. But I want to suggest three avenues for reviewing this equation, while accepting it as a useful though imperfect stepping stone.

First, there is the pre-Christian and ongoing non-Christian legacy of ethical enmeshing with ideas of body and spirit. Two very important strands of thought – not uniform of course – were influential on Christian thought: Stoicism and medical texts. In both cases, a praxis of controlling the body, of submitting the body to reason is envisaged, albeit with differing rationales. In the case of the Stoics, this had to do with their ethical-spiritual take on such things as desire. In medical writings, there are some very precise regimens precscribed for healthy living (though ‘healthiness’ was a rather broad thing). This included, importantly, a notion, in many if not all important medical writers, that too much sexual activity (certainly for a man) was psychosomatically damaging. Both of these strands mitigate the view (propounded by some late antique Christians) that Rome was riven with decadence. Moreover, Christian notions of the ethical praxis which stemmed from understandings of the body did not arise in a vacuum. We mustn’t overstate the identity between Christian and, say, Stoic thought (even if some Christians – Clement of Alexandria and possibly Jerome – borrowed heavily, though others – perhaps Augustine – did not). But there are relations, cross-pollinations. Finally, in neither Stoical or medical thought does the body-bad, spirit-good equation quite work, even if – as with Augustine et al. – this might be the initial impression. The body was not metaphysically bad: certainly in medical writings, the aim was for an integrating harmony. Overall, it’s worth bearing in mind that in the 4th century, the century in which Constantine became emperor, the ruler most (in)famous for being abstemious was Julian (”the Apostate”).

Second, the very period in which Christians grappled with concerns over soul and body in ways which issued in imaginative encounters – whether in the desert or urban retreats – was also the period in which there was deep-rooted and even vicious debate over the ethical dimensions of the spirit and body. The likes of Augustine were profoundly rooted in debates over things like Manichaeism. The relevance is simple: the dichotomous equation – body-bad, soul-good – used to summarise Christian thought was precisely the kind of thing with which the Manichaeans (and others) were charged by the likes of Augustine; and moreover the Augustines of the world were keen to argue against these ideas (and the practices which, allegedly, stemmed from it). I’d note that reconstructing the ideas and practices of these ‘heretical’ groups is notoriously difficult. In this case, though, the ‘reality’ is not such a big question given that the ideas – whether really carried out or more imaginary – were problematised by 4th century Christians. And, indeed, later. The resonance of the charge of ‘Manichaeism’ was not diminished centuries down the line.

Added to this were theological speculations. The implication of the brief mention of the Arians on ‘In Our Time’ wasn’t clear to me, but one might argue that the hypostatic union position, far from denigrating the material, was actually connected with baptising it as it were. (Throughout this period and later, Christian thinkers were not afraid of emphasising the flesh and blood of Christ. This developed, in around the 10th century, in v interesting ways focussing on his divine humanity, not least his passion. The humanity of his birth – the annunciation notwithstanding – was also important to Christians). In sum, there was an interlocking constellation of doctrinal and theological points which produced profound tensions on the relation between the body and the spirit.

Third, and this is the hardest for me to articulate, the concerns over Christian (esp monastic) praxis wrt body and spirit could be considered most clearly in the light of an idealised unity, rather than a polarisation. (There is a v interesting and thankfully slim book on Gregory the Great by Carole Straw which looks at this). V briefly: the ‘flesh’ and the ’spirit’ in his thought were not best understood as metaphysical either-ors to which one could lean, but rather as ethical dynamics: one might live in a ‘fleshly way’ and one might live in a ’spirited way’. To do the latter did not mean denigrating the body, exactly, but raising it up, integrating it. For some Christian thinkers, as for some non-Christian ones, it was the involuntariness of the body which could be so troubling. (Augustine took involuntary erections as a possible sign for the Fall). For someone like Gregory, the ethical life entailed, in part, uniting and integrating the body and the spirit and it was this integration which was what it meant to live “in a spirited (or spiritual) way”. (To live in a “fleshly way” was, by contrast, disintegrating). I hope this half makes sense, though I can try to enlarge if its horribly unclear. Alternatively, I can swear never to mention it again if it’s terribly dull or picaresque.

3. A bit (thankfully) briefer: one thing which struck me is that while it seems reasonable and intelligible to trace materialism as a position through the history of ideas, what is understood as “matter” or the “material” seems to have a rather wide scope. For instance – a hypothetical atomic physicist who draws out a metaphysics from his work (while at the same time saying he hates metaphysics) may have a very different concept of the ‘material’ from say an ethologist who looks at (say) bonobos, calls himself a materialist but (at the very least, for practicality, though not without repercussions for his thought) has to assume a certain ontology about the animals he studies (i.e. they can be individuated as beings, they have a certain unity – how else can he speak of this or that bonobo?).

Anyhow, it was a v interesting and ambitious programme – thanks for flagging it up.

Sorry – didn’t mean to sound sneering about my two hypothetical scientist friends. They’re very pleasant chaps in imaginary reality. And I didn’t mean to imply that they’re wrong to call themselves materialists. But their ontologies – respectively, working with atoms and working with a species of animal – can – hypothetically – be really rather different.

Also, quickly, I know B and E have read Karen Armstrong’s “The Bible”, which is on my “to put on my list” list. Has anyone ever come across “Whose Scripture is it?” by Jaroslav Pelikan? Been meaning to read that too.

E:

That will be fine. I would also be interested in your views of the A/M series.

ChooChoo:

I will be out of circulation for a couple of days from tomorrow, which will give me time to digest your (very interesting) comments.

My only observation on the tension (or coalescence) of body and spirit is that asceticism is often felt to be a way to reduce the importance of the body and all its attendant desires, importunities, demands and imperfections, and to enhance the intellect and other non-material elements of our being. It is interesting to note that the Buddha rejected this path, having tried it almost to the point of death.

Why we should feel so guilty about our bodily functions and needs is an interesting anthropological question.

Re-biblical research, I am trying to get to the bottom of the Jesus Seminar’s view (opposed to that of Vermes) that the historical Jesus was a wisdom teacher, rather than a charismatic eschatological preacher.

I also meant to say that I am currently reading, ‘The Resurrection,’ by Vermes.

Boltonian – I think what you write of asceticism is true and, certainly, in practical terms. It is also, of course, culturally embodied: in the late antique context, eremitic asceticism was a self-consciously counter-cultural thing, while monastic communities were the complete opposite a few centuries later (to the point that our recognition of asceticism is rather stretched if we have a strong hermit-ascetic connection).

But I’d question the spirit-good, body-bad equation, not least when it’s raised in the context of discussing materialism. (By the way, this isn’t taking a contrary ACG position for the hell of it: I thought he was the best contributor in the programme). It was a very important contribution, though, insofar as it was the most forceful way of showing a connection between the metaphysics of the material and ethical praxis.

One interesting contrast might be as follows: Manichaeans were charged not just with certain practices (especially sexual ones), but this was seen to stem from their holding to a strict, dichotomous metaphysical scheme whereby the body (or material) was bad, the spirit good. This provided a rationale for an alleged aversion to procreation, for example. Contemporaries were quick to critique not only these practices, but also this underlying basis. This issues in an interesting layer: suppose ACG is right, we have a curious (though not impossible) situation where the people who railed against a body-bad,spirit-good scheme, actually held to it themselves.

There is some important truth in all of this. The taxonomies of all the various ‘heretical’ groups in, say, late antiquity belies a messier miscegenation of ideas and practices. And I have no doubt that both in practice and in theory, some Christians, who certainly did not see themselves as ‘heretics’ and perhaps weren’t even seen as such themselves, nonetheless embodied the afore-mentioned scheme.

But this was a tension – perceived as an excess, if you will – of which many thoughtful christians were aware. V roughly speaking, the same period in which wearing, say, hair-shirts for corporal mortification or fasting spread, the practice of celebratory liturgical feasts and a vast network of saintly relics (including all manner – *all manner*! – of body parts) also spread.

None of this is to deny that christians were more “spiritually minded” than, say, Diderot. Of course they were. But their metaphysics was not mistrustful of matter. (And this was magnified in the thought of Aquinas).

You mentioned guilt around bodily functions: it is curious isn’t it? NOt given it much thought, but two quickies: first, is dirt, muck etc – and dealing with dirt – not just about literally cleaning (or killing germs or whatever) but also about re-ordering one’s environment in accordance with ideas about it (whether ethical or cosmic)? I probably need to go back and read Mary Douglas much more carefully here. Second, it is fascinating how pervasively our (possibly) most primordial syhmbols of evil are defilement and guilt. I’ve borrowed Paul Ricoeur’s ‘The Symbolism of Evil’ from the library, but have made little headway so far. (It’s not an easy read: so far, I’ve got to the second section of the shortish introduction and not read past “The Criteriology of Symbols”). Will let you know if I muster up the courage to pursue.

I nearly forgot – has anyone ever seen ‘The Thin Red Line’? It’s a WWII film directed by Terence Malick which came out around the same time as Saving Private Ryan. Saw it on Friday and thought it was astounding. It’s one of those rare films which is just too big to get your head round within, I imagine, several viewings.

Here are some thoughts on why we, as a species, might associate (excess) pleasure with guilt. These are not based on any science – merely musings.

There is a tension in most of us between addiction and self-denial. I suspect that both have been important to our survival. I heard an evolutionary scientist on the radio a few months ago explain why addiction was so useful to us. It was something to do with (as far as I remember) gorging scarce resources whilst they are around – fruits in season, migrating herds etc. Those who were the most greedy ate the most and so had a better chance of surviving to breeding age and so on. We seem to be pre-programmed for excess consumption.

There is also a balance to be struck from a moral perspective. Social skills give us, arguably, our primary source of competitive advantage. There is some evidence to suggest that groups also possess some kind of survival mechanism – we often suppress what is to our own advantage to benefit the group. Now, if we were all greedy all the time we would have probably wiped ourselves or our food sources off the planet by now. So, this instinct for self-denial is based on group behaviour and allows the individual’s needs to be balanced against the interests of the group. So, guilt and addiction both play vital roles in ensuring our survival.

It might be summed up as, ‘Moderation in all things.’

Some individuals might be more inclined one way or the other – some groups likewise but as long the whole society (however defined) is in balance we can survive. The tragedy of the commons has occurred periodically in the past (Easter Island springs to mind) but not so that the entire species is jeopardised.

Group survival is enshrined in our cultural symbols and values that are, in turn, encapsulated and enforced, inter alia, through religion. And this might be why so many religions have guilt and self-denial aspects to them, so that appetites can be curbed and the worst excesses moderated for the good of all.

Hey, I might have stumbled on a hypothesis here, unless, of course, it has all been said before or, on the other hand, that it is complete tosh.

‘In Our Time,’ this week is on the brain (in at least two senses). I shall probably try to, ‘Listen again,’ tomorrow if I can.

@Boltonian – did you catch the brainy In Our Time? (What was it like?)

V interesting thoughts on the tension between consumption and denial. Very generally, it is intuitive that some sort of balance is socially fruitful – or, perhaps, rather than a balance, either consuming addictively or denying frugally where appropriate. I accept both the plausibility and interest, then, of all of this.

But…(sorry)…remember some time back we discussed evolutionary explanations (I mean this rather broadly and vaguely) for behaviour? Now, I am not a creationist. Nor do I find evolutionary approaches to whichever aspect of human life uninteresting. But there is a problem I encounter – perhaps I’m deluded – in the midst of all of this, a rather general problem.

Take the example of, say, a hunger striker in the imaginary nation of Dialectica. Let’s say he’s a he, who has been (to give it a good, sound moral narrative) wrongly imprisoned and is awaiting a show trial. He has many friends involved in whichever (it doesn’t matter whether religious or non-religious) cause outside. He has gone on hunger strike (let’s quote him) “as a symbolic protest against the oppression of the Dialectican people”.

Now, his hunger strike – it seems to me – raises some tensions with evolutionary explanations. The obvious one, to which people might draw attention, is: supposing he carries it through, how does this conduce to his (individual) survival / reproduction? (Perhaps a more ‘group’ approach is called for – though, of course, the mechanisms of this will be different – and possibly difficult to argue for). That is, how can his actions be explained according to this scheme. The question is not – the confidence of some proponents of sociobiology notwithstanding – a stupid one, though perhaps some answers could be offered.

But, I think there is a more fundamental tension, though not unrelated. We can give reasons for action: to put it another way, we can act for reasons.

(One pre-requisite for this is language. Language, in this sense, is not just meant as a system of communication, but as the means through which we can symbolically represent things. It means that we can represent ideas to ourselves – and self-consciously deliberate over them as our ideas – and to others: it also means that we encounter differing ideas, challenges to our reasons and so on. Some time back I made a bit of a fuss over modal verbs – can, may, ought etc. These are not the whole deal in this regard, but they are interesting insofar as they are – quite literally – reflective means by which differing possibilities are couched. Incidentally, language is not the only pre-requisite – social-ness is another. Indeed – something which Descartes forgot about – social-ness is a sine qua non for language of any sort. Of course, there are interesting evolutionary speculations about how language – the kind we deploy – has come about. Their interest and plausibility notwithstanding, there are possibilities which such symbolic representation open up – from modal logic [yuck! if anyone's ever given it a go] to evolutionary science and so on – and *all* the instances in which we, or some of us, engage in such things are rather difficult to explain simply in evolutionary terms, whether of individual or group survival).

That is, when asked why he is staging a hunger strike, our striker might reply: “As a symbolic protest etc”. That is his reason – it may or may not be a good one – for action. Or, to give another example. If my memory serves me correctly, when Socrates was in prison, awaiting execution, he was asked something along the lines of why he didn’t escape (when he had the opportunity to do so) or why was he staying in his cell. His response self-consiously emphasises the inadequacy of what we might term a ‘naturalistic explanation’ (because his bones and sinews have moved so to keep him there).

My claim here, then, is that when we ask of someone, why is he doing x, in some cases, the most adequate answer will be in terms of reasons for action. (Of course, this is also true if we ask the person in question). As a brief aside, reasons for action need not be the product of extended ratiocination in the manner of the stereotypical (since early modern times at least) philosopher – locked up in his room, sitting on his armchair. As Wittgenstein noted (I think), the seeming immediacy of our actions does not militate against there being reasons for action. (Sometimes, this sort of thing can become habitual: analogously, when we are in the process of learning to do something – tying shoelaces or driving a car or rolling cigarettes – we do so quite self-consciously. As we become more proficient, this becomes more muted, we become more ‘automatic’ in our action).

Anyhow, my rather long-winded attempt at a point is this: when we look at, say, asceticism (or any other endeavour), I think an evolutionary explanation – which by its very form bypasses reasons for actions – is inadequate. Our nature as social, linguistic beings opens up a dimension which is not to my mind explicable in evolutionary terms. (This is not meant to suggest anything mystical or fanciful). It may be the case that a commune of Buddhist or Christian monks come to have similiar functions, which can be thoughtfully considered in evolutionary terms. But their aetiology and genesis is problematic (not insuperably so) in similar terms. And, moreover, any explanation which prescinds from considering the fact that those engaged in these activities are also capable of symbolic representations of ideas and of acting for and thinking about reasons will not be wholly adequate to the task. This tangentially reminds me of something Anthony O’Hear (of In Our Time fame!) once wrote about memes: to paraphrase, if memes are ideas which colonise ‘minds’, rather than ‘minds’ deliberating over minds – that is to say, reasoning over ideas – then there is no reason as reason, on the very memetic account, to accept memetics.

I mean this as no denigration of what I have very vaguely called evolutionary explanations but the precise boundaries and blindspots are often unmentioned: a purported evolutionary explanation of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations or of Winnie the Pooh (has anyone ever read Postmodern Pooh?) would not, I contend, tell us much.

The question, to my mind then, is how do we associate these differing ways of describing human life? Here, I am stumped. Our genesis as a species is clearly not irrelevant or negligible, but nor are our capacities as linguistic (with all that entails) beings. I’m not arguing for exclusivity. But the form of certain kinds of evolutionary explanation – as well as sometimes being the functional dressed up as the aetiological – excludes a vitally important dimension of our being and this dimension is – ironically – the very dimension without which we couldn’t argue about evolutionary explanations in the first place.

_

One other thought on the materialism programme: there was – reasonably – a continuous historical strand presented on the programme, from pre-Socratic materialists to (if not 20th century) early modern materialists. But, of course, not only the metaphysics but the epistemology of pre-Socratic materialists were very different. To them, atoms (a-toms) were very much conceived in the abstract. By contrast, it is not beyond the pale to suppose the possibility of a contemporary physicist who researches, say, atomic motion is not being a metaphysical materialist…

So…how much continuity was there really?

ChooChoo:

The brain was a bit of a disappointment for me because it was on the history of the brain rather than brain as the source of mind.

I think your example of the hunger striker fits quite well with how I understand evolutionary principles to work. One will suppress one’s own interests for the good of the group (even to the point of self-sacrifice) so that the group has a better chance of survival. This is called between group, as opposed to within group, evolution. Many (most, all?) other species exhibit this type of behaviour.

Your hunger striker belongs to a group (tribe) that abhors corruption and injustice. It has its own moral code, symbols, rituals and behaviours. Its survival is threatened and individual members of the tribe will defend themselves, unto death if necessary, if by doing so they can help defeat the enemy tribe. Hunger striking is a tactic of war, just like suicide bombing.

What is your alternative explanation?

Homosexuality, particularly in males, had always puzzled me from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective until fairly recently. I failed to see how it could possibly be of any survival use whatsoever until I heard this explanation from an evolutionary biologist (not Dawkins). Having a small proportion of the male population that was not sexually interested in (and therefore not threatening to) females was useful to the tribe. They could safely be left behind with the women whilst the men were hunting and act as protectors and deterrents to other hostile tribes.

The only flaw that I can see here is that gathering was supposed to have preceded hunting by many millennia (perhaps Biskie can confirm this). In this case the men would have been constantly around the tribe anyway.

I am not sure how one defines reason and separates it from evolutionary-driven behaviours. I am using my reason (I think) at this moment to try to understand something about human behaviour. In this I admit that we might be unique but I cannot think that this ability contradicts Darwinian evolution in any way, at least as I understand it.

Language is a public expression of private feelings. Most of our language use is employed enhancing and cementing social bonds, rather than passing on information (although it does this as well, of course). Communication is how we create, maintain and improve social cohesion, thus strengthening our primary (I would argue) competitive advantage in the world.

I have never really been convinced by the meme argument but I think we can say that Homo sapiens sapiens is a learning species and sophisticated language (oral and written) is our main method for encapsulating and passing on survival lessons. We do not need to learn the same lessons each generation.

I agree that the pre-Socratic atomists were using the concept in the way you suggest but I would also argue that most modern theoretical physicists do so likewise. What is the atom if not a metaphor? We cannot perceive what it might be like, only its effects. We cannot identify both the location and momentum of sub-atomic particles. Nor can we envisage things existing in a multiplicity (infinity?) of possible states until observed. These objects, of which we are all composed, lie beyond our brain’s capacity to understand. They can only be described through mathematical symbols, which are themselves metaphors. Where is the reality here? These entities do not behave in the way that matter in our everyday world behaves and yet the material world consists entirely of these weird phenomena.

Atoms were supposed to be fundamental particles and they were named from the Greek precisely to convey the same concept. We know now that they are not fundamental particles, so perhaps we ought to re-name them.

All, particularly E:

In Our Time this week is on the library at Nineveh.

Sounds good.

Very interesting.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have still access to the great libraries of Nineveh, Alexandria and Constantinople?

Boltonian

I wonder to what extent we disagree on this! I stress that I am neither seeking to critique what I vaguely called evolutionary explanations as contradictory nor to reject them wholesale. I am boggling over how sufficient or adequate they are in various contexts.

As you know, I often struggle when it comes to being concise. But, condensed, two major questions for me are:

a) Should we accept, at a certain level of analysis, reasons for action? In some cases, are these the most adequate answers to questions pertaining to human action – i.e. why is x doing that? (Why am I writing this? Because I find these questions interesting, because I want to reply to Boltonian’s thoughts etc). There is a certain openness here, though I would be hesitant to say ‘open-ended’ if that is taken to imply unbounded.

b) Do ‘evolutionary explanations’ – or all types – treat reasons as epiphenomenal? (I take it that some types do). Is this a problem?

I imagine that most people want to accept both reasons for human action and evolutionary accounts of human action. So the question – is it an idiosynracy that I think this is a problem? – is how to give both of these lodgings in the same town.

I think it is also worth bearing in mind that perhaps we are not speaking so much about explanations – with the connotations this has of unearthing causes as they are commonly conceived – as finding ways of describing things adequately.

I don’t wish to get into a dialectic struggle with example and counter-example, with the texture of arguing over exceptions to an evolutionary-explanatory norm. (For what it is worth, the story of the Jewish Sicarii at Masada is an interesting one). My concern, if this doesn’t sound arrogant and hopefully is at least partly intellegible, runs a bit deeper.

One question, which I hinted at but did not flesh out above, is: are these sorts of evolutionary descriptions functional and retrospective rather than aetiological strictly speaking? Returning to Dialectica (thanks for going along with that one!): I can see how our hunger striker (we really need to give him a name – and, indeed, to clarify that he is definitely a he) certainly aids the good of a group. Moreover, perhaps this forms a conscious part of his intention in acting (i.e. reason for action). As an aside, the group in question – or tribe – does not necessarily form an obvious ‘biological’ unit. I know it’s a hypothetical stiuation, but it recognisably presupposes a group which coalesces around a socio-political cause: it is a conscious (in a sense) identification and while it may comparable to a pack of lions in one way, it is decidedly dissimilar in another.

But, I still wonder if there’s more to say. I assume we are both in agreement over a possible function of his hunger strike. The question is really over how it comes about: are you suggesting – I think you are and I think this is the form which many ‘evolutionary explanations’ take – that this explains the genesis of his actions? I would prefer to say that, though (as I concede for this example) some notion of group survival is at stake, this forms part of the intention of and reason for action which our hunger striker can give. In other words, even if we both agree here on group survival, is there a subtle (and actually quite deep) difference? In this example, it may not be so obvious. But, take a very simple example: what we call love (which our friend Woolly, on CiF, recently implied, with some confidence, is effectively endorphins). X loves y, (to be a bit old-fashioned) courts and so on. Blah blah blah. There are evolutionary approaches (profoundly interesting ones) about reproductive strategies and so on. There are issues of both individual and group survival too. But, certainly, the self-represention of what is going on (and even our third-party, onlooking representions of what goes on with x and y) are not identical to the relevant evolutionary explanations. Are these representations epiphenomenal? Or is there something (I guess the commonly used word is reductive, but I’d prefer…) insufficient about them? I don’t think the answers here can be offered as confidently as some do.

Let me try to dig a bit deeper and more clearly articulate the tension I discern. I raised some guff above about our being linguistic beings and so on. (I don’t deny the relevance of evolution here at all, not least for the possible theories on the genesis of our status as linguistic beings. I don’t preclude a priori the possibilities that other animals could have similar things written about their language, but am interested here in making claims about humans as linguistic beings). Now the relevance of this – for all I can see – is that our being language users of a certain sort opens up some fascinating avenues. As you say, language can mean the public communication of private feelings. But it also entails the communication, the transmission and the self-critique of ideas. (I think that there are grounds for thinking that ideas are, of their nature, not private). It is by being a linguistic being – which necessarily means being part of a linguistic community – that I can come to think not only of the ‘content’ of an idea, but also of its status as an idea and of its status as my idea (not in the sense of originality, but as an idea which I hold). It means I have a capacity for critique and moreover (and for better or for worse) for shaping actions by these capacities. If we really have these capacities – and I take debates within and about something like sociobiology as one example of these capacities – then those account which run the risk of taking reasons for action – which require these capacities – as epiphenomenal run the risk, also, of a marked insufficiency.

(Not unrelated to this, perhaps, is a debate over ‘behaviourism’ in philosophy/psychology. Briefly, ‘behaviourist’ accounts of human, er, behaviour take for granted (though they may be argued for in the abstract) that human action is adequately – and best – described as behaviour without reference to internal psychology or to the ‘mind’. I’m with the anti-behaviourists on this one.)

So, perhaps I’m being melodramatic if these explanations do not necessitate what I call epiphenomenalism on such things as our acting for reasons. (On the other hand, I feel more secure in that some such accounts do, in fact, do this).

I hope this clarifies my concern. Perhaps a way of putting it would be: the work of sociobiologists over the past decade is not best described in terms of sociobiology. Of course, the tenor appears v negative. I have no desire to reject the possible fruits of ‘evolutionary explanations’. But it is the levels at which this can work, the limits, the bounds in which this works – and its interaction with other modes of analysis – which seem v unclear to me. If my memory serves me right, E.O. Wilson’s notion of “consilience” entails eventually coming to translate all human action under a particular sort of analysis. I know the argument from Pooh is not a particularly strong one, but the mock essay in Postmodern Pooh (highly recommended!) on “Biopoetics” (quoting real works in the field) suggests to me that the outlook for this is hopeless. In sum, how does one deal with evolutionary explanations if one is not satisfied by naturalistic (in one contemporary way of speaking) or behaviourist approaches to human action?

One final disclaimer: obviously evolution is particularly charged in the context of the sometimes fascinating, somtimes stodgy ’science-religion’ context. None of my concerns are – consciously at least – are voiced in relation to this.

Am going to pick up a copy of a book by Fergus Kerr, ‘Theology after Wittgenstein’, tomorrow. Have skimmed it before, but have decided to splash out. Despite the title, it’s really an introduction (a respected one, I understand) to Wittgenstein’s thought. I think some of it may be of interest and relevance to what we have been discussing (and to what others have discussed here in the past), so perhaps a little discussion piece can come out of it?

One final thing: on CiF, it’s relatively common practice to cut-and-paste in replies. Maybe we need not go over each and every particular raised here – esp since we’re clarifying (aren’t we?!) the points of disagreement? The irony of the cut-and-paste approach is that it looks like it is treating someone’s points in detail. But not only can the microscopic sometimes be myopic, but it can also mask a lack of engagement. Let’s stay more macro for the time being! (I expect you to deal with the points in this paragraph in individuated detail, of course…).

Forgot to add: read my first ever Father Brown short story today. I think I’m already a fan. Anyone with any views on Chesterton?

ChooChoo:

Just a quick response before disappearing for most of the day.

I realise that my style reads rather like a point by point refutation – it is a product of the way my mind works. Where we agree I say so but that does not mean I think that we completely disagree elsewhere. It means that there are some angles or nuances that I either take issue with, don’t understand or would like to explore further.

Two things I would like to discuss further is your use of the word, ‘Reason,’ and the purpose and implications of language.

An article on the Kerr book would be most welcome.

Finally (for now) I like Chesterton, at least the limited amount I have read. The Father Brown stories are wonderful.

Boltonian

I thought about the point by point stuff not because of your post, but because of mine! I hadn’t addressed everything you raised and yet felt that I hadn’t adequately got into what I did….

On languages – shall we parley over Kerr’s book? I think there may be some things of interest. (This will give me more of a cue to overcome any inertia).

On reason(s) – briefly, I have in the main meant this in the sense of ‘reasons for action’. One tempting way to think of it might be, as I mentioned, some of the answers to the question ‘what is he doing and why is he doing that?’. But, I think it’s also instructive to think in terms of what it is that makes actions intelligible, both to ourselves and others (and the two sides of this ‘both’ are not unrelated). They have a purposive aspect to them, as is true of non-human animal action. But, if capacities to reason (in a second – vaguely – sense) are what we sometimes think they are, the extent of these purposes underlying action are dramatically changed. In this second sense, I just mean the wealth of things we can self-consciously deliberate over, from the mundane to the otherworldly: who scored the winning goal in the 1956 FA Cup final? what is the nature of matter? what does this tell us about the nature of the world? should I do x? should anyone do x? and so on.

ChooChoo:

Can I just clarify your definition of reason? Are you saying that we have a motivation for action over and above (or separate from) our evolutionary inheritance? If so, does this depend on free will?

I think my position is something like this: yes, we are able to rationalise decisions but that reasoning process is itself governed by prior causes. Otherwise, where has it come from? My problem with the alternative is that we become the exception to the functioning of natural laws, as we understand them. Everything is governed by strict laws, except humanity (or, perhaps the higher mammals – but then where does one draw the line?).

We are able to reason because we have spare brain capacity (only 70% is used to keep us alive). The surplus gave us a priceless competitive advantage with our ability to create complex social networks. Whether our large brain was a bi-product of bipedalism or not does not really matter to this argument. The net result was a fantastically successful (hitherto) animal.

An example of between group development that I mentioned earlier is that of moral responsibility. A moral code helps the tribe at the expense of (some) individuals. This hypothesis suggests that groups who developed a moral dimension to their behaviours gained an advantage over others that did not. This might be a reason why there is only one surviving species of Homo.

Our reasoning capacity can be turned to other purposes than social networking such as trying to understand how the world around us functions. Social sophistication includes empathy – trying to understand the motivations and actions of others. Putting oneself in somebody else’s shoes, in other words. This is why we ask such questions as, ‘What is he doing and why is he doing it?’

An evolutionary hypothesis that enlarges on this goes something like this: in game theory ‘Always defect’ is the best strategy when there are only two people involved; whereas, ‘Tit for tat,’ works best within a group; but, crucially, ‘Generous’ is the most successful long-term survival strategy when there is more than one group.

‘Always defect,’ means attack the other person before he attacks you. ‘Tit for tat,’ means only attack when one is attacked. ‘Generous,’ means that if one is attacked the first time one gives the benefit of the doubt but if it happens again one attacks with overwhelming force.

The hypothesis does not state that, ‘Generous,’ happens in every instance, merely that this has been the dominant overall strategy throughout our history. The strategy depends upon a brain that is capable of reasoning and empathy. It is enshrined in our moral code and, I would argue, strengthened by religious doctrine.

If I have misunderstood please shout.

I am looking forward to your article on the Kerr book.

On Choochoo’s initial remarks:

Something to bear in mind, when considering evolution is that there are three or four levels of operation: the gene; the individual and the gene pool of the social group and the wider gene pool (though these may not be distinguishable).

It is not intuitive to understand that the level of the individual is the least important. Biological success is a function of populations and genes. Actions of the individual are only important in so far as they lead to the success of the overall population of the survival of specific genes. In this context though particular focus on individual rationalisation is largely misplaced.

At face value genetics that allow homosexuality or priestly celibacy, might be rapidly selected against, however a look at other social animals should make it obvious that many of the individuals within the group are not directly involved in reproduction, however they do contribute to the success of the group.

There is little point in making up a narrative that ‘accounts’ for the advantages of homosexuality or celibacy in pre historical societies, except to note that such scenarios are possible. On homosexuality, a behaviourist view seems to be the only possible approach. Do homosexuals rationalise their homosexuality – I presume no more than heterosexuals rationalise their behaviour. Is there an anti-behaviourist approach?

However I am aware that the more that I consider these issues the more I find that philosophy and psychology are best dealt with from a third party behaviourist angle.

From a Biologists point of view, the argument is viewed in reverse: homosexuality persists in human societies, when if it were not advantageous in some way it would be selected against, so we should be looking to understand what advantages are conferred on social groups by containing a minority of homosexuals or celibate priests (or even homosexual priests). So you could say that this begs the question.

I imagine that the evolutionary position would treat reasons as epiphenomena, and have a broadly behaviourist perspective. After all to do otherwise is to treat humans as biologically separate to other organisms.

I read the Father Brown stories long ago when I was a young lad. I seem to recall that a convention of the stories was that the legal process was never involved. The only GK Chesterton that I have read recently has been some astute reflections on Dicken’s writing.

The post-modern Pooh is on my ‘to buy or get as a present’ list. I have just looked it up and as I had already guessed it is by Frederick Crews, and is a sequel to the wonderful ‘The Pooh Perplex’.

Choo Choo

Re GKC I as you might expect adore him. The Fr Brown stories are superb. Joseph Pearce’s biography is excellent should you ever wish to borrow it please let me know. Do you know the story of Alec Guiness’ conversion to Catholicism? Forgive me if you have heard it before…

“…one of Guinness’s most memorable characterizations was of this humble, crime-solving cleric. The film was being shot in a remote French village. One evening Guinness, still in costume, was on his way back to his lodgings. A little boy, mistaking him for the real thing, grabbed his hand and trustingly accompanied the “priest.”

That incident affected Guinness. “Continuing my walk,” he said, “I reflected that a Church that could inspire such confidence in a child, making priests, even when unknown, so easily approachable, could not be as scheming or as creepy as so often made out. I began to shake off my long-taught, long-absorbed prejudices.”

I have just spotted a G.K. Chesterton book on my shelves called, ‘A Man who was Thursday,’ which I seem to remember is an amusing tale.

I also recall having to learn a poem at primary school about a donkey (perhaps it was called, ‘The Donkey’).

He also featured in various essays by George Orwell who, I have a vague memory, seemed rather to admire him despite their obvious political and religious differences.

The Man Who Was Thursday concerns a group of Anarchists who arrange their meetings directly outside the headquarters of the Secret Services in order to escape attention. The young Michael Collins read this book and was inspired (perhaps that’s not the right word) to plot against Brittish Intelligence in the same way holding meetings in a bar directly opposite Dublin Castle. In turn, Yitzhak Shamir emulated Michael Collins to the extent of taking Michael as his nom-de-guerre in his campaign against the Brittish during the 30’s and 40’s.

I have just finished reading, ‘Resurrection,’ by Geza Vermes. I found it interesting, although I am not so sure about his conclusions.

I know E has read it – has anyone else and, if so, what did you think?

I have also (following recent discussion here) just bought, ‘Moral Minds,’ by Marc D. Hauser. It is subtitled, ‘How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.’ Has anybody heard of or read this chap?

It seems I cannot walk past a bookshop these days without diving in and buying something. I was actually looking for the Pooh books as recommended by Martin and ChooChoo but the first is out of print and they did not have, ‘Perplexed,’ in stock.

Boltonian & Martin – thank you for your magnifying thoughts on forms of evolutionary explanation. I think the tensions I seem to sense are either silly or poorly articulated (or both, or a mix). I guess one point on the map of our disagreements would be that I am not so sure about behaviourism: not that it might not be useful, but that it might not be sufficient. If we don’t want to shirk from including reasons for action in our descriptions – say, the account we can form of Socrates which makes some reference to purposive action – does that mean I have to reject what I have, to reemphasise, vaguely called evolutionary explanations tout court?

I will try to respond in a way that does justice to your thoughts – and clarifies what I have, perhaps a little boldly, claimed are tensions – in due course.

In the meantime, maybe we can structure our discussion of this in a more focussed manner. (It’s a breath of fresh air to be able to discuss this here and in this temperate manner). More specific questions in more detail? Or perhaps some pieces could be in order? I know volunteering others isn’t really good form, but maybe Boltonian on the Hauser book? (It’s in our shop, where – scandalously! – science is one of my sections, though I haven’t checked it out yet). For my part, perhaps I’ll put Kerr’s book into second place. If I remember correctly, there’s a chapter in Roger Scruton’s “Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Approach” which may be of relevance to these discussions. Some sort of precis/summary may be of interest.

By the way, I have an inkling that The Pooh Perplex, which I’ve not read, might be out of print, though I may be wrong on that one. I do have a copy of Postmodern Pooh and will happily post it on if anyone’s interested

As my acquaintance with Father Brown grows, I must admit that Martin’s remark on the absence of the legal process is ringing in my ears…though I’m still enjoying his company and Chesterton’s little asides.

On a serious note, I’m a Chesterton boff, or an expert on the precise state of the eugenics question in the 20s, but one other book of his – rather like too many of his books, a little more difficult to find (I got bored with penitentials in the british library and ordered it one day last summer) – Eugenics and Other Evils, is an interesting one. It was published in 1922/3(?). Though I am sure there must have been others, for now Chesterton is the only thinker of that period, of whom I know anything about, who wrote against eugenics. (It seems to have been rather in vogue with the self-styled freethinkers of the day). Bear in mind, too, that eugenics could not have had the same ugly resonance and connotations it now has. Yet, he still manages to weave some pretty funny sentences in the course of his essay.

Gordy, I may have to take you up on that one.

I will happily write a piece on the Hauser book but it will take a little time – it is a rather long and daunting read. This means that Spinoza will need to be put back (again).

I would be grateful if Martin would cast an eye over my piece before posting – just to ensure that I have not committed any gross solecisms.

I would also like to do a short paragraph or two on the Vermes resurrection thesis. Would you help me with this, E?

ChooChoo: sounds a good plan to me. I would very much be interested in Postmodern Pooh (thanks for the offer) but perhaps in a week or two when I have got my thoughts together around Hauser.

boltonian:
I’m afraid you are mistaken in thinking that I have read Vermes’s book on the Resurrection, although I do have the one on the Nativity. I could probably get hold of a copy next time I am in the City centre, though.

At present I am being distracted by a small army of workmen busily and noisily dismantling and rebuilding the roof over my head. So far they have managed accidentally to make quite a large hole in the bedroom ceiling and knock the TV aerial askew, and everything, including the computer, is covered in a fine layer of grit and the dust of ages. They tell me that, weather permitting, they should be finished in about two weeks, after which I hope to go to France for a short period of recuperation. I think (hope) that the noisiest part of the operation should be over by the end of this week, so maybe I will then be able to concentrate on some reading.

E:

Many apologies – I was confusing the two books (it’s an age thing).

You have my sympathy, having had our house completely gutted and put back together again last year.

I will submit something on the Vermes book sometime soon and, if you get round to reading it, your comments would be appreciated. You can borrow my copy if you like.

Have you the finished A/M series yet?

B:

I finished reading the A/M books last week (and have reread ‘Master and Commander’ already). I have been meaning to post a comment on the appropriate thread, and plead the abovementiond distractions as an excuse for my failure to do so. Needless to say, I enjoyed them enormously, and fully agree with those who regard them as among the best historical novels ever written.

I am not sure why this chapter has been particularly singled out but you can find a spoof Freudian analysis form the Pooh Perplex here: http://www.heretical.com/freudian/milne.html

I looked up a review of Hauser. I have the impression that he is suggesting that there is an intrinsic (hard wired as the jargon goes) grammar of morality, possibly prompted by Chomsky’s ideas about language acquisition.

The review suggested that the book is uneven and in places something of a slog to get through. Boltonian, if you think I can help check over your response to the book, I am willing to oblige.

Martin:

Many thanks for the offer. I will email you a draft when I have read the book.

So far (very early days) it seems readable but he is, as you say, wedded to this idea of a grammar of morality. Chomsky is very much an influence from what I can gather.

E:

I look forward to your comments on the A/M series.

I don’t know if anybody caught ‘In Our Time’ this week – the subject was probability. Speaking as very much a non-mathematician I found it fascinating.

One thing cropped up that I found puzzling – I think Martin mentioned this some while ago – and that is how the Second Law of Thermodynamics is governed by probability. This I do not understand (and still do not after the programme). Can anybody enlighten me (preferably in very simple Janet and John language)?

Yes I think I suggested that it is a necessary truth rather than an empirical fact that entropy should increase when any event takes place. The underlying assumption for this claim are the mathematics of probability and that microscopic events can be interpreted probabilistically at the macroscopic level.

One way of measuring entropy is a measure of the number of different possible arrangements (in practice of particles and quanta of energy). This gives rise to a very low probability that ordered arrangements (e;g. all the particles and energy in one corner) would occur.

Now I shall go away and think about some simple explanations of this.

Martin:

Thanks.

I can visualise how probability governs the location of particles so that, for example, the probability of all the molecules that comprise air existing in one corner of a room at any point in time is so low as be almost zero. But I cannot see how probability underlies the increase in entropy when work is performed in a closed system. Sorry for being so thick; perhaps some simple examples would help my very small brain grasp the concept a little more easily.

OK I was thinking of writing something else relating to probabilities of particle distributions, but instead…;

Rather than consider the change from order to disorder, think about the reverse process and it will be more obvious that energy is required or this to take place.

You add a teaspoon of salt to a pan of water and without stirring or other intervention the salt dissolves and spreads out throughout the volume of water. This we accept will happen, but it is not obviously an energy change.

Now try to reverse the process. It becomes obvious that energy is needed to get you back to a teaspoon of salt and a pan of water.

Or to put it another way making a mess seems effortless, but tidying up again is a chore.

These examples show that an increase in disorder or entropy is a shift to a lower energy state.

Of course you can then ask why should there always be a tendency towards a lower energy state and you are back to entropy and probability again, but it is the disordered state that is much, much more probable (as you point out) than an ordered state.

So this really does mean that the principles of energy changes is a function of the mathematics of probability.

At least that is how I see it.

Martin:

You might just have switched on a light bulb.

So, lower energy is more likely and it takes less energy to create disorder than order, therefore entropy is governed by probability.

Your rhetorical question about why a lower energy state should be more likely could be a fundamental property of matter. Electrons will always occupy the lowest energy position available and it is the combining of electrons that creates molecules. The next question, asked by the irritating child at the back of the class, is why electrons should always try to occupy the lowest energy level. Aye, there’s the rub – without that property no chemistry, no matter, no universe, no us. That is one for the anthropic principle tendency.

Does this make any sense?

No, no, what I meant is that the tendency to a lower energy state is a consequence of the the principle of increasing entropy, which in turn can be mathematically derived as a function of probability, which in turn is derived from mathematical logic.

When electrons return to a lower (potential) energy, they energy difference is emitted as electromagnetic radiation. Since the energy is now in two different components it is more disordered (and in any case the electromagnetic radiation is diluted in increasing space (so more disorder again).

Other than agree that we can only understand within the limits of the capabilities of the human brain (whatever these limits might be), I am not sure what is meant by the anthropic principle. I do not think that it can be used to explain anything.

Ok – I think I have got it. But are not mathematical arguments derived from axioms which, in turn, must be assumed?

Russell thought that the only one that was objectively true was that 1+1=2 – and he accepted that this was unprovable.

Cartesian logic or Humean scepticism?

Re-the anthropic principle, I agree with your scepticism. As I understand it there are (at least) two variants:

1) Weak, which states little more than, ‘We’re ‘ere because we’re ‘ere because we’re ‘ere.’ The world must be as it is for us to exist, I think is the official line.

2) Strong. Everything has either been designed with us in mind or the many worlds hypothesis that from the infinite number of universes one must be just right for us to exist in.

Some fairly eminent physicists sign up to one or other of these. What swings it for Paul Davies is the cosmological constant.

I am not sure either of these conjectures is provable or helpful to our understanding.

Incidentally, I have started the Hauser book and it is a bit dense in places so I flipped straight to the Epilogue to read his conclusions. The ending of the story was a bit disappointing, not to say fairly obvious but I will persevere.

And I suppose the mathematical arguments lead to Gödel.

I should leave a space here for SpacePenguin to comment….

Yes, I do not see what the anthropic principle adds to understanding. It seems to me that if fundamental forces were different, the nature of Chemistry would be different. This would not mean that life (a form that make copies of themselves, but with small variations so that evolution will take place) would not be possible, just that such a life form is not something we could really guess at.

So the life we have got is the life that can evolve with the Physics/Chemistry such as it is.

Gödel, indeed!

Good point about SpaceP. I think he must be keeping a low profile since Gloucester finished top and failed even to reach the final of the Premiership play-offs.

Boltonian – sorry, have not got back to you and Martin. Have been finding it terribly difficult to work and write productively recently – there’s an indolence bug going round, I fear. Am scribbling a Scruton thingy (though it’s actually quite hard to summarise the relevant chapter in a way which takes adequate care of his earlier chapters). Hopefully done sooner rather than later. Perhaps we can then resume…

Caught a programme presented by Michio Kaku the other night – it was looking at various technological possibilities stemming from quantum science and bio-somethingorother-ics. Did anyone else catch it? Some of it was bogglingly interesting (hover-rails, space-cables) and he was certainly adept at explaining the underlying science in layman’s terms. He’s also an endearingly enthusiastic guy.

I did find, though, that there was a certain ’salvific’ undertone to his presentation. At various junctures (for instance, on nanotechnology), he mentioned – and there were soundbites from others – possible problems and even dangers associated with x, y, or z, but it was remarkable how regularly he brushed these off – ‘but, I don’t think this is a problem’. At one point, he went through a taxonomy of civilisational grades relating to intergalactic control. These ranged from 1-3 (we’re currently, in this scheme, a category 0 civilisation). Speaking about the opening up of space for our exploration (and mastery), he spoke of how these expanded horizons would put rest to interhuman strife through national, religious, social etc boundaries. I found this a bit too smooth. His was a progressive narrative of expanded boundaries. At the very least, previous expansions (and increases in the possibilities of mastery) throughout history have not had such inevitably wholesale benign consequences. (Perhaps space is qualitatively different on this front? On the other hand, and despite not being the biggest Star Wars fan…). More pertinently, the messy reality of mankind’s first forays into space suggests the clean narrative is, well, a bit too clean…

Choochoo:

No probs. The indolence virus is more common than is appreciated, I think. And very difficult to shake off.

I saw all of the Kaku programmes when they were first broadcast on BBC4. I think there were four of them. You are right to say that he is unfailingly sanguine – his books, of which I have read a couple, are written in the same optimistic vein.

TV is a particularly unsatisfying medium for this sort of subject because the presenter can only give an overview at the expense of nuance. So, in Kaku’s defence, I will say that if, in his view the outcome is more likely to be successful than not there is little scope to spend time expounding on the negatives without distorting the message. But you are right in what you say about the smoothness of his vision.

In one programme he mentions that there is a danger of a strong bias of the technological benefits towards the rich at the expense of the rest of us. He is similarly dismissive of this scenario without actually stating why.

On the other hand he is a serious theoretical physicist and his optimism is not based on nothing. I would advise anybody to use the series as a entrée to the subject rather than an end in itself.

How are you getting on with Kerr?

Boltonian – still recombing Kerr and trying to condense into a not too unwieldy nugget.

Totally agree with you on the Kaku programme and it’s most prudent to think of it as an entree. (How did you get the accent?). I think I might borrow one of his books from the shop today. I’m aware of his credentials and also of the limitations of such programmes. This is not exactly my special area – I’m not really sure what is (except for, maybe, Ray Parlour studies). Nonetheless, I did find the recurrence with which he brushed off – is that fair? – these tensions quite striking. Being a vague (and hypocritical) Luddite by inclination, there are not insignificant questions to be posed! I did think that the programme placed a pronounced accent on Baconian mastery! I’m not so sure about that the advance of such mastery can be so automatically turned into a moral or salvific narrative. Yet, he’s obviously doing something right for a Lud-dud like me to want to (in time) find out more about the intersection between quantum, computer tech and bio-whateveritwas-ics.

Accent as in the ^. Wasn’t making a Londoncentric jibe about your being a boltonian.

ChooChoo:

Spell check suggested entrée with an accent, so simply right click and choose.

I thought you were referring to Kaku’s accent rather than my impenetrable northern argot.

I think his (Kaku’s) position might be influenced by the role technology has played in saving most of the world from the Malthusian hell that has been predicted for us ever since Adam was a lad.

I have a couple of his books if you would like to borrow either (or both): Einstein’s Cosmos and Parallel Worlds.

Boltonian – most kind. We’ve got Parallel Worlds in the shop, so I’ll exercise borrowing rights. (I was too tempted by the newest Woody Allen collection last night).

Did anyone see the programme ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ on BBC2 last night? ( I think it was shown previously on BBC4). It was a discussion of the thinking of four men – Cantor, Boltzman, Godel and Turing, and the devastating impact which the non-acceptance of their ideas by contemporaries, and/or the effort of trying to prove what was or seemed to be incapable of mathematical or logical proof, had on their lives. It was shown very late, and I was too tired to take it all in properly, so will probably watch it again on I-player

E:

No but it sounds fascinating.

I must try to work out how to watch again. Radio is easy but TV seems beyond me.

How are you getting on with:

a) A/M second time around;
b) the enclosures research; and
c) the hole in your roof?

Boltonian

With any luck this should take you to the right bit on the BBCI player – but you only have four days left apparently…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b007vz2b.shtml?q=dangerous+&start=1&scope=iplayersearch&version_pid=b007vz0x

For some reason if you are using a laptop bbc i player does not like it if you click the large play button the one to click is the little one on the bottom left of the screen. I ought to get out more.

Choo Choo
Thanks for putting me right about that Dimpatsu/Kimpatsu thing.

boltonian:

gordy has beaten me to it with the link to BBC I-player. The programme is 90 mins long, which may partly account for my loss of concentration towards the end.

After re-reading ‘Master and Commander’ I decided to go cold turkey on the rest of the series for the time being. I’ll resume the second reading when I have a bit more leisure.
I have, though, begun a more spasmodic re-reading of the Hornblower books (after a gap of about 40 years) to see how they stand up in comparison. The verdict so far is that although enjoyable in their own way they aren’t as good – partly, I think, because of the comparative lack of variation in pace. Also, they lack the humour of the A/M books, the descriptive passages are less vivid and evocative, and they do not convey the routine of life on board ship nearly so well.

I have not forgotten about the piece on enclosures which I promised, but so far have had little time to concentrate on the additional reading I wanted to do.

The merry men finished work on the roof ten days ago, and the hole in the ceiling was repaired with minimal fuss, but the scaffolders, who turned up last Wednesday and dismantled the scaffolding in front of the building, have not been seen since. Once all the scaffolding is gone there may be some point in trying to clean up the phenomenal amount of filth which the work has generated. I am due to go to France for a week or so early next month, and after that I am expecting visitors here. In the meantime the garden has been taking up quite a lot of my time, but I will try to fit in some research as well.

Gordy and E:

Many thanks. I will probably watch it tomorrow.

E:

Your analysis of the Hornblower series fits my memory exactly from well over 35 years ago. I might pick up one of them for a holiday read some time.

My question about enclosures sounded horribly like a nag, which I did not intend. I would first need to remove the beam from my own eye called either Hauser or Spinoza (or, indeed, Nancy Tanner, which I have yet to finish).

I am pleased the home is getting back to normal – it sounded horrendous.

I have just finished watching, ‘Dangerous Knowledge.’ I agree that it was a little too long but it could have been easily condensed by eliminating the otiose and irritating dramatic reconstructions. Cantor was a mathematician troubled by his discoveries; cue bearded man with furrowed brow in period dress scribbling equations on a piece of paper. Without this intervention I would never have been able to grasp the concept of a nineteenth century mathematician! Needless to say this aspect of the programme grew worse and more absurd as it progressed.

The other problem for me was that Boltzmann did not really fit into the general thesis of the programme. For one thing he was a physicist rather than a mathematician.

Those things apart I largely enjoyed it and learned quite a bit along the way. The paradox that all of them, and Gödel in particular, had great difficulties with is that uncertainty is uncertain by definition but scientist in general and mathematicians specifically have a great psychological problem with this. Cantor’s levels of infinity concept reminded me of Anslem’s ontological proof argument which, of course, stops at God.

A fault with TV programmes about difficult concepts is that they tend to oversimplify things, separating people into definitive groups. I do not think that the idea of uncertainty came as such a shock to the world (or at least the intellectual population) as the programme made out. After all philosophers had been wrestling with the problem since at least pre-Socratic times.

One thing I would like to have seen explored in a little more depth was the history of their insanity. Again the programme took the simplistic view that either it was their pusillanimous peers, who were not as brave or far-seeing as them, or the logical consequences of their own frightening discoveries, that drove them insane. I would have been interested to learn whether there was a history of insanity in the family or incidences of childhood illness that might have contributed to their condition.

So, in summary, I am glad I watched it (thanks, E) but it could have been half an hour shorter without losing any of its message.

Thanks for the “Dangerous Knowledge” heads up, thoroughly enjoyed it and will look into some of the ideas/thinkers.

Mathematicians may have an increased risk of suffering from mental illness according to this study:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/11/36

Out of three siblings I’m the only one to show a gift for maths, and the only one with bipolar disorder.

Biskie:

Very interesting article. The last paragraph, for me, sums up the complex nature of this potential correlation.

Let’s ignore for the moment all the caveats concerning sample sizes, diagnoses, hospitalisation etc and concentrate on what might be going on.

Do those with some types of psychosis tend to be more gifted in certain numerical disciplines than the general population? Or does an obsession (I am not saying that this is the case with you) with numbers tend to lead to some sort of mental imbalance?

I fully accept the point made in the article that this tendency must confer an overall benefit to society (if not the individual) otherwise it would have been selected against.

I have not seen an equivalent study but I would not be surprised to learn that similar findings emerge from a given population of gifted musicians. Excellence in both areas seems to coincide in many people, at least anecdotally.

Whatever the causes it is unlikely to have been the result solely of the enmity of their peers or professional disappointment as suggested by the programme. I do not say, though, that stress caused by professional difficulties had no bearing on the mental state of these four but that it is unlikely to have been the sole, or even the main, cause.

This one’s interesting too:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/10/1904#ABS

and seems to link maths ability to an increased risk of bipolar disorder specifically.

I agree with your last paragraph.

I haven’t had sufficient time to interact here in some time but do occasionally try to catch up by at least reading the comments (interesting!).

Aside from travelling (American English often uses two consonants where British English uses one; something I’ve become very familiar with lately) to trade shows, I’ve had to get up to speed as swiftly as possible on the wonderful topic of climate change and relate it to the business area I’m now in (M2M technology) — so far as I know, I’m the first to do this, something valuable in this Google Era, where anything original soon gets copied everywhere.

Naturally, the topic isn’t nearly as simple as one might suppose from reading the headlines, while looking at it from the perspective of potential business opportunity (as in monitoring) forces me to attempt to position myself between the two greatest concentrations of belief. their adherents labelled by each other as “Warmers” and “Deniers.”

So far as I can tell without actually hiring a balloon, dog sled, and dogs and personally inspecting the Arctic regions, ice there is melting faster and more extensively than in living memory, no matter what anyone might believe about causes and/or solutions.

This leads me to lean towards the Warmer camp, even while attempting to maintain an agnostic position.

On this topic the nasty CiF exchanges are useful, as the more intelligent posters provide links and, sometimes, plausible arguments.

Meanwhile, Biskie writes:

“Out of three siblings I’m the only one to show a gift for maths, and the only one with bipolar disorder.”

“Bipolar disorder” was once called “manic-depression.”

Although it can involve extremes, I don’t truly believe it’s a disorder at all, but rather an attempt to classify those who allow themselves to experience a wider range of feeling by those who don’t (and prefer to restrict their own feelings, believing severe repression to be “normal”).

If “normal” translates as “being able to function well in today’s society” then those who are normal may not truly be so in terms of the entire history of humankind, while any number of visionaries would now be classified as exhibiting some form of psychopathic behavior and sent to their pharmacy for a prescription to some poorly understood nostrum with, likely, very nasty long-term side effects.

Severe mania or depression isn’t fun, true, but less extreme swings in feeling need not be eradicated or medicated out of existence; rather, they can be observed and experienced and gained from.

Traditionally, the best salespeople (I’m moving on from visionaries) are “bi-polar.” Now where might we be now if their gifts had been eradicated by medication?

Possibly, entire economies might never have even arisen. (Salespeople have been around as long as civilization; I think of those who sold fine metals and fabrics in ancient Ur and other Mesopotamian cities, or donkey bells in Jerusalem. I suppose I might make an exception for the Krupps cannon salesmen and their brethren, however — civilization might have been greatly improved if they had all been medicated.)

Bill

Hey Bill – Welcome back.

My view of climate change is that I am sceptical of man-made global warming claims for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the increase of carbon in the system historically follows warming. The essence of the warmist position, as I understand it, is that excess carbon is the cause of the warming trend.

Other reasons for my scepticism are:

- the global temperature has been actually falling since 1998;

- the climate is a dynamic system and has always changed;

- Polar ice is actually thicker now than at any time since the early 1990s;

- I distrust bandwagons;

- we have had warm periods in the past that cannot have had anything to do with carbon emissions (13thC to name but one);

- During the 1960s and 1970s the fear was for a return to the ice age – such a change and within a couple of decades (technically, BTW, we are living in an interglacial period);

- the data are so vast that we cannot possibly detect, let alone predict, patterns – try forecasting the weather in any location more than a couple of days in advance;

- climate is governed by such a huge number of factors, most of which we are either unaware of or do not understand. But because we crave certainty and control as a species we think we have some knowledge and are able to decisively influence our environment. This is a delusion.

- the fashion police are trying to stifle debate and accuse sceptics of heresy, so I think the orthodoxy on this is almost certainly wrong.

None of this is to deny that we should seek alternatives to fossil fuels. In fact, I would go much, much further than the world is prepared to countenance just now. We should be putting almost all of our spare resources into cold fusion and room temperature superconductivity research. My father worked in the nuclear energy industry from its inception at Aldermaston in 1956 and fusion was talked of then as the answer to all our energy problems but the programme was starved of resources.

I would advocate this not to mess about with the climate (which I believe is either beyond us or, if we could exert an influence, it would be almost certainly counter productive) but to allow a limitless supply of cheap energy that would free us from dependence on other nations.

Greetings, Boltonian!

Regarding “cold fusion,” you might find the following item interesting:

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc_1.html

Regarding the Arctic, note details in the following article:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/19/arctics-oldest-and-thickest-ice-is-melting-away/

It’s impossible to deny that something very unusual is and has been happening in the Arctic in terms of melting, despite seasonal variations, even though a bit of research reveals a variety of differing interpretation of the same data.

The situation — so far as I can comprehend it — is more complex in Antarctica.

As I posted, I’m trying to maintain an agnostic position, but much more so when it comes to causes then any observed effects.

Climate is undeniably complex, possibly too complex for humans to model and understand, let alone predict changes with any degree of accuracy.

Even so, never before have 6.5 billion humans inhabited the planet, and these aren’t neolithic humans, either; I can’t truly say that they have no effect on climate and rather doubt it, even if I can’t comprehend or state _exactly_ what this is.

The emissions of millions and millions of motorcars and thousands of coal, gas, and oil-fired of power plants undoubtedly generate effects even as trees and forests diminish owing to rampant development but, again, I can’t say exactly what these effects are, acknowledging my ignorance and inability to comprehend what so many believe _they_ easily comprehend.

I don’t dispute the measurements made over the years at Mauna Loa using an infrared analyzer, measurements showing a definite increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere consistent with other measurements reckoning the atmospheric impact of the last two hundred years of industrialization.

My dim understanding of the effects of these increases is that they aren’t solely responsible for temperature increases (and here there is also variety in interpretation with endless squabbling between advocates of the two basic camps — much, apparently, depends on the details, peaks and troughs, short- versus long-term variation, and so on) but factor into them in a major way, per the latest model.

Is that model correct? I don’t know and can’t say; I neither build complex computer models nor have any education in climatology.

(I have been speaking to climatologists, recently, but these are those tasked with making measurements, not grand pronouncements; I’ve been curious about _how_ they make their measurements, not what they may or may not portend.)

So I continue to attempt to maintain an agnostic position, pushing (in my business writing) for exploiting the business opportunity for a great amount of actual monitoring.

I generally don’t prefer to jump onto bandwagons, either, but at the same time don’t wish to therefore jump on an “anti-bandwagon” in reaction.

Attempting to maintain a position between two loud camps is often an awkward and uncomfortable experience but suits me.

Here Scott’s old words concerning journalism (”…but facts are sacred”) are worth heeding, but just what are the facts? (Note that I differentiate between facts in a simple journalistic sense and what can arise when anyone begins to examine the underlying metaphysics of facts.)

I come back to ice melting at accelerating rates, the opening of the Northwest Passage — this despite waxing and waning — and similar events.

If this continues, no matter what is causing it, there will be serious consequences.

In any event, attaining clean air is a worthy goal while other, non-environmental effects of an utter reliance on fossil fuels are quite evident, climate change or no climate change.

Bill

Biskie:

That was a very interesting link.

I can now understand, as the article suggested, why bipolar disorder has not been selected against but I cannot quite grasp why schizophrenia and other psychoses have not if they are associated with low general intelligence.

Perhaps I have missed something.

Dear Boltonian:

It may be partly because of the timing, but “Your comment is awaiting moderation” is affixed to my most recent comment. (There are two links in it, too; I vaguely recall that that’s enough to put a comment into moderation status.)

Bill

Testing new improved avatar.

(This was only a test.)

Bill

Drat! Where’s that new avatar?

Bill:

I have approved your comment (above). I do not know why it was awaiting moderation – the number of links is a possibility. Our Technical Director (Gordy) will have the answer.

I did not say that I was anti-man-made climate change but merely sceptical of the tendentious and selective employment of ‘Facts’ by the warmist fanatics. Just look at the outrageous claims made by the likes of Al Gore and how he (and others) take the most extreme scenarios and recycle them as facts. I do not like fanatics of any stamp. Not only are they intolerant, loathing freedom as they do, but they are almost always wrong.

Like you, I would be surprised if our activities had no bearing on the environment but how much and of what kind I am not sure. The picture is highly complex and the warmist extremists are reduced to citing the precautionary principle in the absence of any solid evidence to support their wilder arguments.

This, for me, is not a sufficient argument for impoverishing half the poorest populations of the world, replacing land for food with bio-fuel crops and disfiguring our landscape with hideous and very expensive wind turbines.

My sceptical antennae tell me that this is yet another guilt trip by the affluent metropolitan intellectual elites, for whom finding enough food just to get through the day is not an issue.

Just read Bill’s two links above.

The cold fusion article and following debate seemed to produce much heat and very little light (if you will forgive the pun).

Do you have a view, Martin?

The Arctic ice article was a little confusing. It seemed to be saying that, on the one hand the long-term ice profile is changing and, on the other, don’t worry. Do we know what the profile was like prior to this latest bout of warming in, say, 1970? And if it has changed what does it mean?

Boltonian – haven’t been here in a little while. Partly, ashamed of (still) nothing to post, despite promises. It may come from reading too many penitentials, but I feel contrite for my sins of omission. Please accept my apology. In penance, I will risk tainting any remaining honour I have by promising (yet again) to try to give you something sooner rather than later. (I’m thinking of writing a potted review of a novel I read recently which may be of relevance to the original discussion – on ascetics/monastics…Watch this space, even if it is only to read more bleating about contrition. Sorry!)

(That babble, ^, was from me).

Oh yeah – Gordy, hope that’s cleared things up for you.

ChooChoo:

I look forward, as always, to your contributions but don’t feel guilty – one is allowed a life outside the blogosphere.

I am due to write at least two articles – one of which was delegated to me from you!

Hope b & everyone else hereabouts are OK – anything in the pipeline, blogwise….?

Steve:

Good to hear from you.

There will (I hope) be a few articles appearing fairly soon. I am wrestling with:

a) The imminent arrival of a new job (starting Monday); and

b) An evolutionary theory of morality, for which I have promised an article here.

I have been an occasional visitor to your poetry site and will one day contribute, whenever the Muse visits.

b – good luck with the new job!

An evolutionary theory of morality sounds interesting….I promise to contribute….

Meanwhile, although I continue to monitor Cif, I miss the old gang there: have you all been deterred from commenting by the “upgrade”? I’ve seen occasional contributions from Biskie (Hi!) , but few others that I recognise….

Steve:

Thanks.

I have not visited CiF for many months and so the upgrade has passed me by. I might look in if I get the chance, although I have much to do in preparation for Monday.

Hello Steve, Boltonian et al.

Best wishes with the new job Boltonian, I hope it works out well for you.

CiF is more slow and cumbersome. It does have a feature that allows you to look at your own or anyone else’s collected bloggings. Quite useful for detection of one issue obsessives and trolls.

Oh, the cold fusion thing – I do not really know what to say except there seems to be something to investigate. You would expect rather more than excess heat to accompany fusion and in the absence of a theoretical mechanism it remains something of an oddity.

Steve I must have a look at your poetry site, I have not looked in for ages.

Martin – I feel rather embarrassed as the current offering on my site is a rude piece & wholly untypical – honest! New visitors ought to start with “The Craving” or “Come the Revolution”, both in the Feb archives. And the blog has anyway become more of a gossipfest & general chat area – where anyone is welcome.

Yes Steve, I saw your ‘piece’, but I also took the liberty of looking up your contributions to CiF.

There I found your droll troll comment. Nice. I had passed over the Inayat/Harun Yahya car crash! Eek!

I did not find the gossip pages on your blog – I shall have to look again.

Martin – that Inayat/Harun Yahya piece (on Islamic creationism for those who missed it) was a real car crash of a thread. I can’t understand the G’s thinking behind the commission, nor their failure to moderate the cut’n'paste merchant(s) who provided 30-40% of the 600+ comments. It ought to have been terminated early, so embarrassing was it. Even the usual suspects were just going through the motions – no-one likes shooting fish in a barrel. A bizarre episode, but I was impressed with Inayat there – although I’d question his judgement in initially agreeing to take part, he emerged with dignity intact.

Isn’t it a general problem for CiF that a thread can easily be overrun with a blitzkrieg from an individual or even worse a dedicated group?

I am not sure how the moderators should cope with this sort of thing.

I only skimmed through parts of it, but some of the claims were thoroughly bizarre.

For the Guardian, showing some plurality of Islamic thinking seemed a good idea at the time.

Thanks, Martin.

Sounds like I’m not missing very much.

I have read a few science articles recently; here are some nuggets:

- Quantum computers are years, rather than decades from reality, the consequence of which is that processing power will be increased a billion-fold;

- the Japanese seem to have made some sort of breakthrough with wave-derived energy (using advances in warm superconductivity), allowing ships to be powered efficiently without the need for fossil fuels and propellers. It also means that tidal power stations come a step nearer to reality; and

- Our current theory of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is under threat from the huge discrepancies of lithium (too much lithium-6 and not enough lithium-7) in the universe from that predicted by the model. Some particle physicists think the solution might lie in Supersymmetry with the decay of gravitinos and staus (the supersymmetric partners of gravitons and taus) providing the additional baryons required, whilst others say that this is pure speculation. The hope is that the LHC will either support or refute this explanation within a year.

Any comments?

Gordy:

The job is very good so far, thanks, but I cannot edit anything from here – I am hoping the IT wizards can help.

Then Qu’ran programme was fascinating. It seemed to be suggesting that all our current problems stem from Saudi sponsored Wahabbism, which is a perversion (or extreme interpretation) of the Koran.

I suppose human nature is what it is and no amount of pious words will change that. Young men are often violent, idealistic and easily manipulated by older men seeking power.

I really must read the Koran from cover to cover one day – I have read bits in the past – even though it is supposed to lose much in translation.

B
As a quick fix for editing please feel free to send
instructions to me for editing while the IT
people sort out your glitches. On the other hand
, my earlier post seems to be missing letters –
I’m sure it’s something to do with having a link
in there but I don’t want to take the link out.
Hmmm…

There was an excellent programme on The Qur’an on Monday night. If you missed it you might well want to
watch it on the Channel 4 website where you can watch
it over the next six days.

click here

Boltonian
Hope the new job is going well!

It’s gone very quiet out there. Where is everybody?

I am working away from home during the week and I don’t yet have broadband in my flat but I hope to have that sorted within the next few weeks. In the meantime my contributions will be very sporadic so I hope others can keep things going.

I’m reading so I can think of something interesting to say…

Summer hols so lots going on. New toy bought that goes vroom and has two wheels
I’m going back to college in September (joining the IT crowd at last) so don’t know how much time I’ll have left over for internet larks. Well, definitely some, because I’ll be practising my web design.
I watched the Qu’ran programme which reminded me of the esoteric branch of Islam, Sufism, which I have quite a soft spot for. I found an unread book on my bookshelf called “The Essence of Sufism” which I’m reading at the moment.

Gordy:

I am looking forward to a synopsis of your reading endeavours.

Biskie:

I too am interested in Sufism, although I know next to nothing about it. Would you post something when you have finished, ‘The Essence of Sufism?’

My reading has suffered of late but I hope to get back to some arduous research in September – the usual unfinished projects: Nancy Tanner’s human evolution theory (not wildly impressed so far); Hauser’s moral evolutionary hypothesis (even less impressive); and Spinoza’s Ethics, which is much much more enjoyable.

Dawkins on Darwin C4 8pm today.

It was a solid if unenlightening programme and mercifully free from dramatic reconstructions. It was quite amusing to hear Dawkins condemn people (parents mainly) for ‘Making’ their children believe in religious dogma and then saying (almost in the next sentence, ‘Let’s see if we can make them (the schoolchildren he was addressing) open their eyes.’ In other words make them believe what he believes.

What was not explained (and I still find a puzzle) – and perhaps it will be addressed in forthcoming programmes in the series – is why Darwinian evolution has not led to a general move towards complexity. Complex beings are very much the exception, comprising a minuscule number of species. Bacteria and other simple organisms have not changed (so far as we can tell and confirmed by Dawkins) in many hundreds of millennia – why not? If everything we see around us now has evolved from these why have the vast majority stayed as they were?

Perhaps Martin can have a go at this.

I watched Dawkins on Darwin and was left feeling a bit disappointed, but it was evidently aimed at people with little or no prior knowledge of the subject (like the schoolchildren featured). Is the subject no longer taught in schools?

I’m back from France, limping slightly as a result of being mown down by a cyclist in the Bois de Boulogne. We managed nevertheless to cram a fair amountof enjoyable activity into the visit – several exhibitions in Paris, including one featuring more than a hundred Hokudsai prints and paintings, also an afternoon at the Musee du quai Branly (spectacular displays of ethnographic art plus a very interesting garden); a day at Versailles, which for some reason I had never seen before, and an excursion to the Domaine de Villareceaux -a medieval fortified manor, converted in the 16th century into a country retreat with renaiisance style water gardens (recently restored), where the 17rth century owner, Louis de Mornay installed his mistress, Ninon de Lenclos, and with a charming 18th century chateau added. As a bonus there was a delightful guide – enthusiastic, entertaining and informative.

Apart from that I have been spending most of my time in the garden, which needs a thorough overhaul after one year of total neglect, followed by another in which I achieved little except routine maintenance. So I am sorry to say that I have had little time for any serious reading. I haven’t forgotten, though, that I promised a couple of pieces – on enclosures and on Colin Renfrew’s book, and will try to get back on track with those asap.

E:

Welcome back. I hope you have recovered from your matador performance with the charging cyclist.

I also have yet to visit Versailles (and Fontainebleau) which is strange considering the frequency of my visits to Paris.

The most irritating feature of the Dawkins programme is its ‘Strawman’ approach. Of all the many Christians of my acquaintance I know of only one who seriously subscribes to the view that the world was created literally as described in Genesis. Most of us are perfectly capable of holding two (or more) inconsistent concepts in our heads.

Most Christians, in this country at least, are what might be termed soft believers. They enjoy the social and charitable aspects of their religion and the spiritual strength it gives them. In other words the majority, I would argue, are Christians because they enjoy its traditions and values, and the society of like-minded individuals. Doesn’t that describe all of us, whatever our beliefs.

The picture Dawkins paints of swivel-eyed zealots intolerant of difference and determined to impose an anti-scientific, fictional account of creation on the rest of us is not one that I recognise in this country. Of course, the situation may be otherwise in the USA and the programme makers might have an eye on foreign sales.

I don’t know if things have changed since my day (admittedly some years ago now) but science education outnumbered RE by 12 to one, if memory serves (four periods each per week of Chemistry, Biology and Physics against one of RE). Also, RE at my school was not an attempt to convince the class of the rectitude of the Christian message but a serious exercise in trying to uncover the historical events that caused the Bible to be written as it was. Gordy will be the best person, I imagine, to bring us up to date on the modern curriculum.

RE technically falls outside of the National Curriculum and is part of what is known as the Basic Curriculum which is RE plus the National Curriculum this is because it was envisaged that there should be flexibility of content (denominational schools and to meet local demands) Outside of the denominational schools the content is decided locally by faith communities and others here in Brighton and Hove this includes the local Humanist Association. Most school timetable RE for about 3%. My guess would be that Science occupies 15-20% but I’ll check on that. In denominational schools RE should be about 10% but in my experience it is usually much less.

I couldn’t bring myself to watch Dawkins the other night perhaps I’ll have a look on the Channel 4 website but I’ve given up on him talking sense about religious belief

boltonian: I would be pretty useless as a matador: the cyclist came at me from behind unawares, and I fell headlong, pulling a tendon in my foot in the process (the foot is much better now, although I still get the occasional twinge).

While I was watching the Dawkins programme it occurred to me to wonder what he would have made of the woman who taught me biology – including a simplified but lucid account of the theory of evolution – who also taught RE and was, as best I can recall, a practicing Christian. The school I attended was not particularly strong on the science side and I was in the B stream for science subjects because I was comparatively weak in maths, but even we had four periods of science subjects a week to one of RE, and for the A stream the ratio was higher. The RE lessons were much as you describe, plus more general discussions of ethics and moral issues, rather than an attempt at indoctrination.

There is, incidentally a piece on CiF today about the Dawkins programme, making much the same point as you do about his straw man argument (I don’t look in to CiF much these days, but it was drizzling outside, so the garden didn’t hold much appeal).

Changing the subject, did anyone else see the programme (BBC 4) on Patrick Leigh Fermor yesterday evening? I ask because his travel writings, and particularly ‘A Time of Gifts’ and ‘Between the Woods and the Water’ are among my favourite all-time reads.

E:

I caught the last few minutes of the Patrick Leigh Fermor programme (I thought he had died a few months ago) and wished I had watched all of it. It was nice to hear a genuinely old-fashioned (and sadly much derided) upper class accent.

I must start on his travel books – he has been on my list of authors to read for years.

boltonian: The PLF programme is to be repeated next week, but at 12.20am Tuesday, so unless you are a night owl you might do better catching it on iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cp4nx/

I have several of his books – the two mentioned above, plus ‘Mani’, ‘Roumeli’ and ‘A Time to Keep Silence’, so if you would like to borrow any or all of these, just ask.

The PLF programme I thought was excellent – it was the last of three on travel writers and I especially enjoyed the first, on Eric Newby, as “A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush” is one of my favourite books, and “The Last Grain Race” one of the scariest I’ve ever read.

I guess they’ll each be repeated on BBC2 in time….and I’ll watch them again….

boltonian, I just wanted to let you know the sad news that fellow blogger cynicalsteve died early yesterday morning. His blog was a friendly, calm space and he will be sorely missed.

http://thedoggerelsbollocks.wordpress.com/category/the-last-post/

Parallax:

I am so sorry. Steve was one of our most assiduous (and civilised) of contributors.

I think we were all aware that he had been ill for some time but this still comes as a shock.

We will miss him here very much.

Thanks for letting us know.

Very sorry to hear this sad news.

Steve’s memorial service will take place on Tuesday 26th August. Details on his doggeralist blog site.

Pity we can’t arrange our next lunch for that day so that we could celebrate his memory together.

There is a wonderful tribute to Steve in the Guardian Book blog under ‘Poem of the Month’:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/08/poem_of_the_week_50.html

Do read Steve’s bravura poem and add a comment.

I tried a verse in honour of Steve in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam imitation blog and found how hard it is to versify.

Thanks, Martin.

Just caught up with, ‘In Our Time,’ which has started again. Week one (last week), ‘Miracles,’ this week’s brilliant programme was about the Arab translation movement that gave us Aristotle and much else. Next week, ‘Gödel.’

I am still wading my way through the Hauser tome, which is tough going. I am making notes as I go, so at some time in the near future I should be in a position to post something. I am also re-reading Hume (much more of a pleasure) and will let you have a synopsis in due course.

How is everybody else getting on?

Yes – very well thanks. Busy at work though not in a bad way. The Godel episode was particularly good I thought. Hope all is going well with your new job!

I am enjoying my IT course. It’s quite full-on as it’s a two year course run for mature students in a year. I’m keeping up so far.
I’ve booked my bike test and need to get some practice in for it. I’m dreaming of my next bike already.
Between computers and bikes I haven’t got much time for anything else at the moment. It’s nice to be busy again though.