From the in-expensive, symmetrical and narrowly-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick
to
the expensive, a-symmetrical, dys-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick.
*
FROM:
AND:
.....TO:
*
Monday 10 September 2012
Fifty years of progress in modern architecture in one sentence
*
From the in-expensive, symmetrical and narrowly-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick
to
the expensive, a-symmetrical, dys-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick.
*
FROM:
AND:
.....TO:
AND:
AND:
*
From the in-expensive, symmetrical and narrowly-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick
to
the expensive, a-symmetrical, dys-functional glass-steel-and-concrete-brick.
*
FROM:
AND:
.....TO:
*
Unsurprised by vitality
*
C.S Lewis's biography was entitled Surprised by Joy - and joy points us towards God (of course we can refuse to accompany it).
(It points to God because it points beyond this world: joy is a desire, the experience of which is beyond happiness but the satisfaction of which is impossible on earth and thus implies Heaven.)
*
A golden thread of joyful experiences constitutes our true biography - yet about these inner delights we cannot communicate; or only seldom, and to few.
(I would guess there are many more people who have scorned Lewis's account of joys than have resonated with it.)
Certainly, modern culture has supplanted joy, in its usual manner: by subversion.
*
Joy, which comes upon us as a surprise and is private, has been supplanted by vitality, by energy, by actions on a public stage - witnessed, video-recorded, broadcast to the world.
The modern idea of a joyful person is one who does a lot of cool stuff - the kind of stuff which plays well in the arena and sounds good in casual conversation with strangers... abseiling 2000 feet into an active volcano to provide clean water to orphaned African cripples, perhaps.
By contrast, Lewis's prime example was when his brother showed him a miniature garden made from mosses and constructed in a biscuit tin.
*
Vitality is elite: but joy is for anyone (although, sadly, not everyone.)
Even the wretched may experience joy.
And it may be that media exemplars of vital, high energy extreme-happiness have never experienced joy, not even once.
*
C.S Lewis's biography was entitled Surprised by Joy - and joy points us towards God (of course we can refuse to accompany it).
(It points to God because it points beyond this world: joy is a desire, the experience of which is beyond happiness but the satisfaction of which is impossible on earth and thus implies Heaven.)
*
A golden thread of joyful experiences constitutes our true biography - yet about these inner delights we cannot communicate; or only seldom, and to few.
(I would guess there are many more people who have scorned Lewis's account of joys than have resonated with it.)
Certainly, modern culture has supplanted joy, in its usual manner: by subversion.
*
Joy, which comes upon us as a surprise and is private, has been supplanted by vitality, by energy, by actions on a public stage - witnessed, video-recorded, broadcast to the world.
The modern idea of a joyful person is one who does a lot of cool stuff - the kind of stuff which plays well in the arena and sounds good in casual conversation with strangers... abseiling 2000 feet into an active volcano to provide clean water to orphaned African cripples, perhaps.
By contrast, Lewis's prime example was when his brother showed him a miniature garden made from mosses and constructed in a biscuit tin.
*
Vitality is elite: but joy is for anyone (although, sadly, not everyone.)
Even the wretched may experience joy.
And it may be that media exemplars of vital, high energy extreme-happiness have never experienced joy, not even once.
*
Sunday 9 September 2012
Genius is about understanding, creation an acknowledgement of inner reality
*
To be a genius is to understand, to understand is to have appropriated to the imagination.
And this appropriation is not so much 'mastery' as being-mastered-by that which is understood.
*
Most people's 'understanding' on most (or all) topics is at the level of accepting. Accepting what people say, accepting rules or laws or maxims - and applying them.
Everyday so-called-understanding is passive, submissive, sociable, empathic, ego-denying: moves from the outside inwards.
Hyper-intelligent people are typically no exception - they simply grasp, memorize and apply instructions more rapidly - they don't understand them.
*
But for the genius in relation to the thing about which they are a genius: understanding is an act of internalizing; making of the thing a part of themselves - no, it is more than this - it is to bring that thing within them, and give that thing life (or allow it life).
To understand a thing is, therefore, to have it inside the imagination and in connection with the mind and body - to observe and feel its growth and workings.
To understand is therefore to-be-possessed-by that thing.
Extreme 'understanding' of one's imagination is therefore psychosis: when a person is possessed by the reality of their own thoughts and hears the thoughts as objective voices, believes ideas as delusions - but genius is also to be possessed by (for instance) thoughts and ideas, but in a manner which can be moved-into and out-from.
*
And this is the basis of creativity.
To be creative is first to understand in this inner, imaginative and real sense - to feel the thing at work within and to have a relationship with it, indeed to be mastered by it - and then to perceive the implications of this real, lively, living, dominating thing within: to see what it means.
*
Thus the genius is at root a type of personality, and personality is a way of thinking.
The genius is rare because balanced between externally-dominated normality and the internally autonomous state of psychosis.
Compared with normality, a genius is possessed by his imagination, and this inner life is independent from normal social influence; but compared with a psychotic the mastering imagination of a genius retains significant communication with the external world.
*
(All of which is to re-state HJ Eysenck's perception that genius is a state of moderately-high Psychoticism; midway along the scale; where Psychoticism is a trait with the socially submissive, socially-engaged empathic, conscientious rule-follower is at the low extreme and an egotistical, psychopathic psychotic is at the highest extreme.)
To be a genius is to understand, to understand is to have appropriated to the imagination.
And this appropriation is not so much 'mastery' as being-mastered-by that which is understood.
*
Most people's 'understanding' on most (or all) topics is at the level of accepting. Accepting what people say, accepting rules or laws or maxims - and applying them.
Everyday so-called-understanding is passive, submissive, sociable, empathic, ego-denying: moves from the outside inwards.
Hyper-intelligent people are typically no exception - they simply grasp, memorize and apply instructions more rapidly - they don't understand them.
*
But for the genius in relation to the thing about which they are a genius: understanding is an act of internalizing; making of the thing a part of themselves - no, it is more than this - it is to bring that thing within them, and give that thing life (or allow it life).
To understand a thing is, therefore, to have it inside the imagination and in connection with the mind and body - to observe and feel its growth and workings.
To understand is therefore to-be-possessed-by that thing.
Extreme 'understanding' of one's imagination is therefore psychosis: when a person is possessed by the reality of their own thoughts and hears the thoughts as objective voices, believes ideas as delusions - but genius is also to be possessed by (for instance) thoughts and ideas, but in a manner which can be moved-into and out-from.
*
And this is the basis of creativity.
To be creative is first to understand in this inner, imaginative and real sense - to feel the thing at work within and to have a relationship with it, indeed to be mastered by it - and then to perceive the implications of this real, lively, living, dominating thing within: to see what it means.
*
Thus the genius is at root a type of personality, and personality is a way of thinking.
The genius is rare because balanced between externally-dominated normality and the internally autonomous state of psychosis.
Compared with normality, a genius is possessed by his imagination, and this inner life is independent from normal social influence; but compared with a psychotic the mastering imagination of a genius retains significant communication with the external world.
*
(All of which is to re-state HJ Eysenck's perception that genius is a state of moderately-high Psychoticism; midway along the scale; where Psychoticism is a trait with the socially submissive, socially-engaged empathic, conscientious rule-follower is at the low extreme and an egotistical, psychopathic psychotic is at the highest extreme.)
Saturday 8 September 2012
By their fruits shall ye know them
*
It can be hard to discern evil when it first emerges, but after a while this usually becomes very clear.
From the perspective of spiritual warfare, this could be conceptualized as a reflection of the fact that purposive evil is impatient in its destructiveness of the Good (that is indeed one of its hallmarks) - so that evil cannot be very strategic, nor long-termist.
Thus, something of evil intent that is not obvious will (so long as it succeeds) sooner rather than later reveal itself in gratuitous acts of destruction against truth, beauty and virtue.
*
So, communism. It was at first difficult for many people to recognise this for the evil it is, many people were fooled by its stated intentions - but as there have been dozens of implementations of communism around the world and within most societies, its evil became very obvious (to those with eyes to see) in the systemic dishonesty, destruction of beauty and moral inversions.
'In theory' communism may be imagined to be of good intent, or at least this is debatable - but in practice we know (insofar as we know anything, because anything can be and is denied by evil) that the fruits of communism are evil.
*
In contrast, Mormonism. When it first emerged it would be hard to say whether it was a good or a bad thing, and on the whole perhaps it looked like a bad thing - in theory, perhaps, it looked considerably worse than communism.
But after about eight generations it is as clear as it ever will be that Mormonism is certainly not evil, and therefore (since nothing is neutral) Mormonism must be on the whole Good. The fruits have shown us what it is.
(Of course, in a fallen world, Good things may become bad, that is indeed the tendency - but I mean up until now.)
*
But it is strange that so much discourse and debate ignores the fruits of ideas - ignores how things turn-out.
People still talk about atheism, the sexual revolution, or affirmative action, in a totally theoretical way, as if we had to discern and predict their implications - but these are old ideas, and their fruits are as obvious as anything ever is in this world.
We know how these ideas worked out.
By their fruits we should judge them.
*
It can be hard to discern evil when it first emerges, but after a while this usually becomes very clear.
From the perspective of spiritual warfare, this could be conceptualized as a reflection of the fact that purposive evil is impatient in its destructiveness of the Good (that is indeed one of its hallmarks) - so that evil cannot be very strategic, nor long-termist.
Thus, something of evil intent that is not obvious will (so long as it succeeds) sooner rather than later reveal itself in gratuitous acts of destruction against truth, beauty and virtue.
*
So, communism. It was at first difficult for many people to recognise this for the evil it is, many people were fooled by its stated intentions - but as there have been dozens of implementations of communism around the world and within most societies, its evil became very obvious (to those with eyes to see) in the systemic dishonesty, destruction of beauty and moral inversions.
'In theory' communism may be imagined to be of good intent, or at least this is debatable - but in practice we know (insofar as we know anything, because anything can be and is denied by evil) that the fruits of communism are evil.
*
In contrast, Mormonism. When it first emerged it would be hard to say whether it was a good or a bad thing, and on the whole perhaps it looked like a bad thing - in theory, perhaps, it looked considerably worse than communism.
But after about eight generations it is as clear as it ever will be that Mormonism is certainly not evil, and therefore (since nothing is neutral) Mormonism must be on the whole Good. The fruits have shown us what it is.
(Of course, in a fallen world, Good things may become bad, that is indeed the tendency - but I mean up until now.)
*
But it is strange that so much discourse and debate ignores the fruits of ideas - ignores how things turn-out.
People still talk about atheism, the sexual revolution, or affirmative action, in a totally theoretical way, as if we had to discern and predict their implications - but these are old ideas, and their fruits are as obvious as anything ever is in this world.
We know how these ideas worked out.
By their fruits we should judge them.
*
Friday 7 September 2012
The causes of Mormon fertility
*
I have added a summary to my blog archiving some summarized studies of UK Mormon fertility
http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/british-mormon-fertility-and-its.html
*
I have added a summary to my blog archiving some summarized studies of UK Mormon fertility
http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/british-mormon-fertility-and-its.html
*
Media negativism - a necessary discipline for reactionaries
*
In the politically correct era of ethical inversion, 'disbelieving' the mass media is not enough. It is a necessary skill for modern reactionaries to have a 'negativistic' attitude to the major stories: to believe the opposite of whatever are the main stories of the day.
*
Negativism is a psychological description for a behaviour pattern characteristic of (approx.) 2 year old toddlers, and some patinest with catatonia, whereby - reflexly, without needing to think about it, they do the opposite of whatever they are told to do.
The tiny minority of reactionaries need to adopt a similar attitude of negativism towards the major stories of the international mass media. They need to believe the opposite of whatever message is being pushed.
*
Media negativism for reactionaries is based on the insight that the international mass media is primarily an instrument of Leftist propaganda, and the major such instrument.
Therefore, all major, high impact, especially mulit-national media stories are primarily Leftist propaganda - whatever else they may be in addition to this.
If a media story was not, or could not be made, an instrument of Leftist propaganda, then it simply will not become a major story; or if it already is (accidentally) a major story, then it will rapidly be killed by replacing it with something else, and ceasing to refer to it.
*
The modern mass media only unleashes hype for bad things - for things destructive of traditional values (of truth, beauty or - especially - virtue).
From the mass media perspective, therefore, that which is traditionally Good is re-presented as bad; and vice versa.
People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually Good - and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the mass media; then it will invariably be the case that they are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
*
Thus, the major output of the modern international mass media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
*
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major mass media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore reactionaries must develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the mass media output.
Usually pure negativism will suffice, and is most efficient: after all, the mass media generates vast numbers of false stories all the time.
But if a more precise reaction is required, then reactionaries merely need to decide whether a specific story is a simple inversion, or whether it is the explanation or 'framing' of the story which is inverted.
*
In the politically correct era of ethical inversion, 'disbelieving' the mass media is not enough. It is a necessary skill for modern reactionaries to have a 'negativistic' attitude to the major stories: to believe the opposite of whatever are the main stories of the day.
*
Negativism is a psychological description for a behaviour pattern characteristic of (approx.) 2 year old toddlers, and some patinest with catatonia, whereby - reflexly, without needing to think about it, they do the opposite of whatever they are told to do.
The tiny minority of reactionaries need to adopt a similar attitude of negativism towards the major stories of the international mass media. They need to believe the opposite of whatever message is being pushed.
*
Media negativism for reactionaries is based on the insight that the international mass media is primarily an instrument of Leftist propaganda, and the major such instrument.
Therefore, all major, high impact, especially mulit-national media stories are primarily Leftist propaganda - whatever else they may be in addition to this.
If a media story was not, or could not be made, an instrument of Leftist propaganda, then it simply will not become a major story; or if it already is (accidentally) a major story, then it will rapidly be killed by replacing it with something else, and ceasing to refer to it.
*
The modern mass media only unleashes hype for bad things - for things destructive of traditional values (of truth, beauty or - especially - virtue).
From the mass media perspective, therefore, that which is traditionally Good is re-presented as bad; and vice versa.
People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually Good - and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the mass media; then it will invariably be the case that they are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
*
Thus, the major output of the modern international mass media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
*
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major mass media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore reactionaries must develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the mass media output.
Usually pure negativism will suffice, and is most efficient: after all, the mass media generates vast numbers of false stories all the time.
But if a more precise reaction is required, then reactionaries merely need to decide whether a specific story is a simple inversion, or whether it is the explanation or 'framing' of the story which is inverted.
*
Thursday 6 September 2012
My (big) problem with music in church
*
Rant alert...
There are many problems with music in church and at many levels.
The problem arises because I am a pretty 'musical' person by nature; which is to say discriminating about music: I simply cannot help it. I am never neutral about music - if not positive my response will be negative; if I do not like music I find it uncomfortable, painful, sometimes almost unbearable. At any rate I cannot ignore it, much as I often wish to.
Problems with church music:
1. The music is bad. This is the norm.
2. The music is arbitrary - such as Gregorian chant and the like. i.e. the tune does not fit the words, indeed there is no discernible tune.
3. The music is 'good', but I don't like it (e.g. many old hymns are just depressing).
4. The music is good but the performance is unsatisfactory (for example, listening to a church organ is not really a very pleasant experience; choirs may be bad in bad ways - I'm not so worried about competence and polish, but there are bad ways of being bad like warbling).
5. The music is good, and well played, but showing-off. Egotistical. Un-Christian - this is common in the expert choirs of cathedrals and the like.
6. The music is good, but does not fit the words - in the sense that the feel of the music and the feel of the words clash - like the 'sacred' music of most great classical composers.
7. The music is good but anachronistic to the words. 16th century language and 19th century music especially...
*
So what are we left with?
Not much.
Book of Common Prayer (essentially 16th century) words sung to 16th century English music by a sincere and competent choir without an organ...
Pretentious? Moi?
*
Rant alert...
There are many problems with music in church and at many levels.
The problem arises because I am a pretty 'musical' person by nature; which is to say discriminating about music: I simply cannot help it. I am never neutral about music - if not positive my response will be negative; if I do not like music I find it uncomfortable, painful, sometimes almost unbearable. At any rate I cannot ignore it, much as I often wish to.
Problems with church music:
1. The music is bad. This is the norm.
2. The music is arbitrary - such as Gregorian chant and the like. i.e. the tune does not fit the words, indeed there is no discernible tune.
3. The music is 'good', but I don't like it (e.g. many old hymns are just depressing).
4. The music is good but the performance is unsatisfactory (for example, listening to a church organ is not really a very pleasant experience; choirs may be bad in bad ways - I'm not so worried about competence and polish, but there are bad ways of being bad like warbling).
5. The music is good, and well played, but showing-off. Egotistical. Un-Christian - this is common in the expert choirs of cathedrals and the like.
6. The music is good, but does not fit the words - in the sense that the feel of the music and the feel of the words clash - like the 'sacred' music of most great classical composers.
7. The music is good but anachronistic to the words. 16th century language and 19th century music especially...
*
So what are we left with?
Not much.
Book of Common Prayer (essentially 16th century) words sung to 16th century English music by a sincere and competent choir without an organ...
Pretentious? Moi?
*
The modern belief in the virtue of voting is psychotic
*
Reading about the scale of voter fraud among US Leftists just hammers home our bizarre, nay psychotic, cultural belief that however it is manufactured the results of a vote are not just legally binding, but morally binding - that voting is the only just way to make decisions, and that justice is whatever is the result of a vote.
This is, I guess, simply one of those bizarre aspects of human psychology - that on the one hand someone can engage in fraud: intimidation, bribery, threats and promises, direct fakery of returns and miscounts, mob rhetoric... pretty much anything... and yet at the same time genuinely believe that democracy is morally superior to all other forms of government; and indeed that any other form of government is evil and must be sought-out and stamped-out at any price, anywhere in the world and in every form of group or organization.
And in organizations that personal authority is intrinsically corrupt (which of course it is, since humans are intrinsically corrupt) but that a decision made by a committee is intrinsically superior to individual authority: that somehow committees and voting remove (or significantly diminish) the corruption of the individuals of which they are composed...
So people personally manufacture a result, or personally experience a manufactured result imposed on them; and then these same people believe that the result was objective, and correct, and virtuous...
This is what people believe - and because there is no reason for this belief, the belief is impervious to experience - which is to say it is psychotic (false, irrefutable, yet dominating); and because this psychotic belief is morally-driven, even to think about it or challenge it makes one a moral outcast (to at least some extent).
What a mess...
*
Reading about the scale of voter fraud among US Leftists just hammers home our bizarre, nay psychotic, cultural belief that however it is manufactured the results of a vote are not just legally binding, but morally binding - that voting is the only just way to make decisions, and that justice is whatever is the result of a vote.
This is, I guess, simply one of those bizarre aspects of human psychology - that on the one hand someone can engage in fraud: intimidation, bribery, threats and promises, direct fakery of returns and miscounts, mob rhetoric... pretty much anything... and yet at the same time genuinely believe that democracy is morally superior to all other forms of government; and indeed that any other form of government is evil and must be sought-out and stamped-out at any price, anywhere in the world and in every form of group or organization.
And in organizations that personal authority is intrinsically corrupt (which of course it is, since humans are intrinsically corrupt) but that a decision made by a committee is intrinsically superior to individual authority: that somehow committees and voting remove (or significantly diminish) the corruption of the individuals of which they are composed...
So people personally manufacture a result, or personally experience a manufactured result imposed on them; and then these same people believe that the result was objective, and correct, and virtuous...
This is what people believe - and because there is no reason for this belief, the belief is impervious to experience - which is to say it is psychotic (false, irrefutable, yet dominating); and because this psychotic belief is morally-driven, even to think about it or challenge it makes one a moral outcast (to at least some extent).
What a mess...
*
Wednesday 5 September 2012
Dale Nelson's mini book inspired by C.S Lewis's That Hideous Strength
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/under-shadow-of-hideous-strength-by.html
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/under-shadow-of-hideous-strength-by.html
*
Was Tolkien more of a Southey or a Coleridge?
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/was-tolkien-more-of-southey-or-coleridge.html
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/was-tolkien-more-of-southey-or-coleridge.html
*
Your one-stop-shop for Truth, Beauty and Virtue
*
Where, in this world, now - can an English speaker find Goodness - that is Truth, Beauty and Virtue in Unity?
Well, pretty much anyone can read the Authorized/ King James Version of the Bible - it is about as accessible as anything ever has been.
That TBV in U is precisely, and uniquely, what the AU/KJB provides.
(Almost) nothing else does this, has this, offers this.
*
Where, in this world, now - can an English speaker find Goodness - that is Truth, Beauty and Virtue in Unity?
Well, pretty much anyone can read the Authorized/ King James Version of the Bible - it is about as accessible as anything ever has been.
That TBV in U is precisely, and uniquely, what the AU/KJB provides.
(Almost) nothing else does this, has this, offers this.
*
RW Chambers on Tyndale and Coverdale and the Authorized Version of the Bible
*
From RW Chambers, Man's Unconquerable Mind, 1939.
It seems certain that the Bible as we now read it in the Authorized Version has has, and will continue to have, more influence upon the English Language and upon English prose than any other book.
All the more important therefore is to realize that we owe it, not to the seventeenth but to the sixteenth century, to Tyndale, and to a less extent to his followers, especially to Coverdale.
And these writers were not themselves innovators in style or language. They wrote the 'clean English' which had come down to them from an earlier day.
So that the tradition of our English Language is an older one than we usually think.
**
It is remarkable, therefore, that hardly anybody nowadays could recognize the names of William Tyndale or Miles Coverdale.
*
From RW Chambers, Man's Unconquerable Mind, 1939.
It seems certain that the Bible as we now read it in the Authorized Version has has, and will continue to have, more influence upon the English Language and upon English prose than any other book.
All the more important therefore is to realize that we owe it, not to the seventeenth but to the sixteenth century, to Tyndale, and to a less extent to his followers, especially to Coverdale.
And these writers were not themselves innovators in style or language. They wrote the 'clean English' which had come down to them from an earlier day.
So that the tradition of our English Language is an older one than we usually think.
**
It is remarkable, therefore, that hardly anybody nowadays could recognize the names of William Tyndale or Miles Coverdale.
*
Tuesday 4 September 2012
Does Dumbledore really raise Harry 'like a pig for slaughter'? (Reflections after reading the HP saga aloud.)
*
Over the past several months I have read aloud the whole Harry Potter series.
It was a wholly enjoyable experience, and confirmed my opinion of the excellence of these books.
(Which is, itself, a revised opinion: I found the early books uninteresting at the time they were published - and it was only after I had been given 'the key' by reading the later parts of the last book that I was able to go back and appreciate the earlier ones. I pretty much first-read the books in reverse order.)
*
My general impression about quality is that Philosophers Stone and Chamber make up a duo of 'perfect' children's books in which the deeper meanings are only hinted at briefly - but they are certainly present. Azkaban is the teen-novel transition - and also perfect of its kind. I now perceive a sagging in the middle with Goblet and Phoenix, in each volume of which there is some (but not much) 'surplus fat'. And Prince and Hallows become fully adult novels, and make up a single unit, with the quality of writing taking a qualitative step up.
*
Rowling's main limitation as a writer, aside from the need for better sub-editing - which would tidy-up the writing but not really improve the book; is that the quality of prose writing - while perfectly effective - is not as good as the best of the Fantasy genre (e.g. Tolkien, Lewis, Ray Bradbury).
A second problem is that the author's inventiveness with respect to magical possibilities makes it impossible for her to be consistent. The clearest example is the Time Turner, which is much too powerful a device.
Another example is apparation. Or the ability of wizards to become invisible (either with cloaks or disillusionment charms - no wizard would ever know if they were alone/ unobserved).
Or the Polyjuice potion and Imperius Curse (you could never be sure who you were talking-to, or whether they were responsible for their actions). But in general, she cannot keep the magic fully under control.
Also, the big 'set-pieces' do not work very well for me. For example, the episodes when the trio break into the Ministry of Magic and Gringotts are the only parts of Hallows which are not wholly-successful and absorbing. And the descriptions of battles and duels are contrived, especially by comparison with those of ex-soldiers such as Tolkien, Lewis, or Lloyd Alexander. The tasks in Goblet are unconvincing too.
*
But this is the price to pay for such richness of ideas - and I can happily suspend my critical faculties most of the time.
As more-then-compensation there is a deep underlying spiritual (indeed Christian) dimension concerning death, a profound meditation upon love, and some gripping character studies in Harry, Snape, Dumbledore, Herminone, Ron, Luna and Neville (plus a terrific supporting cast).
There is a really enjoyable humour throughout - not just jokes, but comedy in its ancient sense of the play of humours, character.
And the detail is wonderful - the detailed descriptions of daily life at school, having meals, doing homework etc.
*
Yet the biggest virtue of all is the emotional punch of the Deathly Hallows.
I found it harder to read out the Deathly Hallows without breaking down and blubbing, than any other book I have ever read aloud.
That, I think, is a tribute to the author!
*
Any one of these great emotional climaxes comes in the following passage:
Snape, talking to Dumbeldore about Harry: You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment? ... I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me that you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter?
In context, including what follows, this is so moving that we tend to assume it is true, but it is not.
On reflection, we recall that Dumbledore only understood about Horcruxes, and that Harry's scar was a Horcrux, in the last few months of his life - so he could not have raised Harry with this in mind.
On the other hand, what does become clear is that Dumbedore's love for Harry is less than his determination to rid the world of Voldemort - and this is shocking enough, albeit morally less repellent or perhaps even admirable (and Dumbeldore was not asking of Harry more than he was himself prepared to give).
*
As a final aside - I was struck by how often, and how readily, Harry lied all throughout the series of books, and without any strong sense that lying was wrong.
I suspect that this may be a male female difference - since I don't recall heroic and good characters in similarly Christian books by men who have Harry's, ummm, instrumental attitude to verbal veracity.
Or perhaps this is more like the attitude of the pagan saga-men for whom successful deception was a virtue, when deployed in a good cause (ie. for the home team).
At any rate, only after his sanctification by death and rebirth, and in the final pages of the series, does Harry become wholly truthful - final recognition that truth is indeed among the highest values.
*
Over the past several months I have read aloud the whole Harry Potter series.
It was a wholly enjoyable experience, and confirmed my opinion of the excellence of these books.
(Which is, itself, a revised opinion: I found the early books uninteresting at the time they were published - and it was only after I had been given 'the key' by reading the later parts of the last book that I was able to go back and appreciate the earlier ones. I pretty much first-read the books in reverse order.)
*
My general impression about quality is that Philosophers Stone and Chamber make up a duo of 'perfect' children's books in which the deeper meanings are only hinted at briefly - but they are certainly present. Azkaban is the teen-novel transition - and also perfect of its kind. I now perceive a sagging in the middle with Goblet and Phoenix, in each volume of which there is some (but not much) 'surplus fat'. And Prince and Hallows become fully adult novels, and make up a single unit, with the quality of writing taking a qualitative step up.
*
Rowling's main limitation as a writer, aside from the need for better sub-editing - which would tidy-up the writing but not really improve the book; is that the quality of prose writing - while perfectly effective - is not as good as the best of the Fantasy genre (e.g. Tolkien, Lewis, Ray Bradbury).
A second problem is that the author's inventiveness with respect to magical possibilities makes it impossible for her to be consistent. The clearest example is the Time Turner, which is much too powerful a device.
Another example is apparation. Or the ability of wizards to become invisible (either with cloaks or disillusionment charms - no wizard would ever know if they were alone/ unobserved).
Or the Polyjuice potion and Imperius Curse (you could never be sure who you were talking-to, or whether they were responsible for their actions). But in general, she cannot keep the magic fully under control.
Also, the big 'set-pieces' do not work very well for me. For example, the episodes when the trio break into the Ministry of Magic and Gringotts are the only parts of Hallows which are not wholly-successful and absorbing. And the descriptions of battles and duels are contrived, especially by comparison with those of ex-soldiers such as Tolkien, Lewis, or Lloyd Alexander. The tasks in Goblet are unconvincing too.
*
But this is the price to pay for such richness of ideas - and I can happily suspend my critical faculties most of the time.
As more-then-compensation there is a deep underlying spiritual (indeed Christian) dimension concerning death, a profound meditation upon love, and some gripping character studies in Harry, Snape, Dumbledore, Herminone, Ron, Luna and Neville (plus a terrific supporting cast).
There is a really enjoyable humour throughout - not just jokes, but comedy in its ancient sense of the play of humours, character.
And the detail is wonderful - the detailed descriptions of daily life at school, having meals, doing homework etc.
*
Yet the biggest virtue of all is the emotional punch of the Deathly Hallows.
I found it harder to read out the Deathly Hallows without breaking down and blubbing, than any other book I have ever read aloud.
That, I think, is a tribute to the author!
*
Any one of these great emotional climaxes comes in the following passage:
Snape, talking to Dumbeldore about Harry: You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment? ... I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me that you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter?
In context, including what follows, this is so moving that we tend to assume it is true, but it is not.
On reflection, we recall that Dumbledore only understood about Horcruxes, and that Harry's scar was a Horcrux, in the last few months of his life - so he could not have raised Harry with this in mind.
On the other hand, what does become clear is that Dumbedore's love for Harry is less than his determination to rid the world of Voldemort - and this is shocking enough, albeit morally less repellent or perhaps even admirable (and Dumbeldore was not asking of Harry more than he was himself prepared to give).
*
As a final aside - I was struck by how often, and how readily, Harry lied all throughout the series of books, and without any strong sense that lying was wrong.
I suspect that this may be a male female difference - since I don't recall heroic and good characters in similarly Christian books by men who have Harry's, ummm, instrumental attitude to verbal veracity.
Or perhaps this is more like the attitude of the pagan saga-men for whom successful deception was a virtue, when deployed in a good cause (ie. for the home team).
At any rate, only after his sanctification by death and rebirth, and in the final pages of the series, does Harry become wholly truthful - final recognition that truth is indeed among the highest values.
*
What is the modern medicine focused upon? Giving the people what they don't want
*
Traditionally, medicine was focused upon a patient asking a doctor for help in alleviating his condition - the doctor's job was first to make the patient feel better as quickly as possible, secondly (if possible) to cure the disease.
Modern medicine has - under government influence - moved well away from this traditional basis.
*
The main focus of modern medicine is not to make the patient feel better, and only sometimes to cure a disease; mostly it is about (alleged) prevention.
The patient is told by the doctor that (as a result of their medical history, heredity, examinations or tests) they are at risk of some illness, or covertly have some illness that they did not realise they had - and they are given treatment alleged to improve their future risks - but that treatment will usually make the patient feel worse.
*
Blood pressure is an example: most patients who are treated for high blood pressure get drugs not because they went to the doctor complaining of symptoms, but as an attempt by the doctor to reduce the risk of strokes.
In fact, patients treated with blood pressure medication usually feel worse - because most drugs have side effects, and side effects make people feel worse.
(There are exception - high blood pressure may make people feel worse, for instance high BP makes me feel worse! And then the treatment can make people feel better. But this accounts for a small minority of the people taking medication for blood pressure.)
*
So much of modern medicine is about making patients feel worse now and for the rest of their lives, on the basis that this will lengthen their lives and prevent severe later pathology.
This may be perfectly rational and justifiable - but it is important to recognise that it represents almost a reversal of traditional medicine.
And it is important to recognise that this transformation of medicine was imposed, top-down, by governments, and especially by Leftist governments (by politicians but even more so by public administration officials).
This is the kind of medicine which government likes, and where government will channel health service resources.
By contrast, governments are not much bothered about the problem of helping patients get what they want from doctors.
*
(Note: this reversal is particularly bizarre in psychiatry, where making people feel better is pretty much the whole point of psychiatry outside of the context of compulsory confinement or treatment of dangerous or suicidal lunatics. In the past this kind of psychiatry was dominated by drugs which made people feel better - stimulants like amphetamine and tranquillisers like Miltown or Valium. Nowadays, the drugs used tend to make many people feel worse: the SSRIs, the 'mood stabliziers' and (especially) the 'atypical antipsychotics. Both groups of drugs are about equally likely to lead to drug dependence; but in the first instance the patient is dependent on a drugs that made them feel better, in the second on a drug that always made them feel worse but which is alleged or intended to prevent worse things in the future.)
*
Traditionally, medicine was focused upon a patient asking a doctor for help in alleviating his condition - the doctor's job was first to make the patient feel better as quickly as possible, secondly (if possible) to cure the disease.
Modern medicine has - under government influence - moved well away from this traditional basis.
*
The main focus of modern medicine is not to make the patient feel better, and only sometimes to cure a disease; mostly it is about (alleged) prevention.
The patient is told by the doctor that (as a result of their medical history, heredity, examinations or tests) they are at risk of some illness, or covertly have some illness that they did not realise they had - and they are given treatment alleged to improve their future risks - but that treatment will usually make the patient feel worse.
*
Blood pressure is an example: most patients who are treated for high blood pressure get drugs not because they went to the doctor complaining of symptoms, but as an attempt by the doctor to reduce the risk of strokes.
In fact, patients treated with blood pressure medication usually feel worse - because most drugs have side effects, and side effects make people feel worse.
(There are exception - high blood pressure may make people feel worse, for instance high BP makes me feel worse! And then the treatment can make people feel better. But this accounts for a small minority of the people taking medication for blood pressure.)
*
So much of modern medicine is about making patients feel worse now and for the rest of their lives, on the basis that this will lengthen their lives and prevent severe later pathology.
This may be perfectly rational and justifiable - but it is important to recognise that it represents almost a reversal of traditional medicine.
And it is important to recognise that this transformation of medicine was imposed, top-down, by governments, and especially by Leftist governments (by politicians but even more so by public administration officials).
This is the kind of medicine which government likes, and where government will channel health service resources.
By contrast, governments are not much bothered about the problem of helping patients get what they want from doctors.
*
(Note: this reversal is particularly bizarre in psychiatry, where making people feel better is pretty much the whole point of psychiatry outside of the context of compulsory confinement or treatment of dangerous or suicidal lunatics. In the past this kind of psychiatry was dominated by drugs which made people feel better - stimulants like amphetamine and tranquillisers like Miltown or Valium. Nowadays, the drugs used tend to make many people feel worse: the SSRIs, the 'mood stabliziers' and (especially) the 'atypical antipsychotics. Both groups of drugs are about equally likely to lead to drug dependence; but in the first instance the patient is dependent on a drugs that made them feel better, in the second on a drug that always made them feel worse but which is alleged or intended to prevent worse things in the future.)
*
Monday 3 September 2012
Four barriers to being a reactionary: atheism, democracy, kindness, and the sexual revolution
*
There are very few real, solid reactionaries, very few indeed; perhaps the most recent I can think of was Fr Seraphim Rose - who fully lived and deeply understood modernity/ secular Leftism/ nihilism - and wholly rejected it.
Many things hold people back from being a reactionary, and keep them in the incoherent and impotent state of being 'conservatives'.
1. Atheism: The most obvious barrier is lack of religion, more exactly not being a traditional Christian or Moslem (being the only two open religions of reaction).
2. A belief in democracy, the validity of committees, and voting in general. Theory and experience confirm that these are intrinsically anti-reactionary beliefs.
3. An ethic of kindness, which sees suffering in this world as the worst thing - and to be avoided at all costs. This is utterly destructive of meaning and purpose in life, indeed leads to a culture of death - since death is (for those who think that death is the end) the only sure cure of suffering.
(Note: kindness is of course a virtue, and a desirable trait - however, it cannot become the highest virtue, and should not be regarded as the primary value, or else this will lead to multiple terrible outcomes.)
4. Those who adhere to the tenets of the sexual revolution cannot be reactionaries. The sexual revolution must be rejected, pretty much in its entirely, as a normative value, goal or ideal.
For many/ most people refusal to give-up the gratifications and hopes of sexual 'liberation' is the single biggest and most resistant barrier to becoming a reactionary - a cage trapping them within the Leftist world view.
The hippies were therefore absolutely correct that the sexual revolution was the most potent of all subversive strategies.
We are a culture addicted (literally so) to the dreams (not the actuality) of un-constrained/ evolving and self-defined/ self-policed sexual identity and relations.
For so long as this continues, for so long will The West continue its willed descent into destruction and damnation.
*
There are very few real, solid reactionaries, very few indeed; perhaps the most recent I can think of was Fr Seraphim Rose - who fully lived and deeply understood modernity/ secular Leftism/ nihilism - and wholly rejected it.
Many things hold people back from being a reactionary, and keep them in the incoherent and impotent state of being 'conservatives'.
1. Atheism: The most obvious barrier is lack of religion, more exactly not being a traditional Christian or Moslem (being the only two open religions of reaction).
2. A belief in democracy, the validity of committees, and voting in general. Theory and experience confirm that these are intrinsically anti-reactionary beliefs.
3. An ethic of kindness, which sees suffering in this world as the worst thing - and to be avoided at all costs. This is utterly destructive of meaning and purpose in life, indeed leads to a culture of death - since death is (for those who think that death is the end) the only sure cure of suffering.
(Note: kindness is of course a virtue, and a desirable trait - however, it cannot become the highest virtue, and should not be regarded as the primary value, or else this will lead to multiple terrible outcomes.)
4. Those who adhere to the tenets of the sexual revolution cannot be reactionaries. The sexual revolution must be rejected, pretty much in its entirely, as a normative value, goal or ideal.
For many/ most people refusal to give-up the gratifications and hopes of sexual 'liberation' is the single biggest and most resistant barrier to becoming a reactionary - a cage trapping them within the Leftist world view.
The hippies were therefore absolutely correct that the sexual revolution was the most potent of all subversive strategies.
We are a culture addicted (literally so) to the dreams (not the actuality) of un-constrained/ evolving and self-defined/ self-policed sexual identity and relations.
For so long as this continues, for so long will The West continue its willed descent into destruction and damnation.
*
The necessity of picking sides: pro- or anti-Christian
*
If you are not pro-Christian now, in the West, then you are anti-Christian; because all the other sides are anti-Christian either actively or permissively.
Indeed (except for small and closed minorities, who will not be reading this) there are only three sides: Christianity, Islam and secular Leftism - and the two non-Christian sides are (at present) in synergy.
Even if you are not yourself religious, you are on one side or another - you are either a pro-Christian non-Christian, or an anti-Christian non-Christian - and there is a great gulf fixed betwixt.
Note: If you are not religious but think that neither category applies to you, then you are anti-Christian.
Everyone has already picked a side; but of course you can repent.
*
If you are not pro-Christian now, in the West, then you are anti-Christian; because all the other sides are anti-Christian either actively or permissively.
Indeed (except for small and closed minorities, who will not be reading this) there are only three sides: Christianity, Islam and secular Leftism - and the two non-Christian sides are (at present) in synergy.
Even if you are not yourself religious, you are on one side or another - you are either a pro-Christian non-Christian, or an anti-Christian non-Christian - and there is a great gulf fixed betwixt.
Note: If you are not religious but think that neither category applies to you, then you are anti-Christian.
Everyone has already picked a side; but of course you can repent.
*
RW Chambers on the Venerable Bede
*
I have been reading a wonderful book of literary history by RW Chambers called Man's Unconquerable Mind, published in 1939.
I came to Chambers via Tolkien. Chambers was an older contemporary and friend of Tolkien, a philologist (one of the best Old English English philologists), a Professor at University College London, and a Roman Catholic+ (best remembered for a wonderful biography of Thomas More).
[+Note added - This is a mistake. Chambers was an Anglo Catholic - that is a member of the Catholic wing of the Church of England.]
(Indeed, it was Chambers late withdrawal from the shortlist for Professor of Anglo Saxon at Oxford that gave Tolkien that Chair at an unusually early age - and despite being, on paper at least, inferior to the other remaining shortlisted candidate, Tolkien's ex-Tutor, Kenneth Sisam.)
*
I would count Chambers as a considerable discovery in my reading, although I have so far only read two and a half of his books: he is wise, creative, a fine writer and a true scholar who immediately won my trust.
*
Man's UM begins with The Venerable Bede, who is a 'local hero' in these parts, and I often visit the museum on the site of his old monastery, with a re-created Saxon farm.
And Bede is a towering figure in the history of the West. But how important?
Chambers (agreeing with George Sarton) states :
During a period of 500 years, from AD 600 to AD 1100, Bede is the only master mind of Christendom...
*
I have been reading a wonderful book of literary history by RW Chambers called Man's Unconquerable Mind, published in 1939.
I came to Chambers via Tolkien. Chambers was an older contemporary and friend of Tolkien, a philologist (one of the best Old English English philologists), a Professor at University College London, and a Roman Catholic+ (best remembered for a wonderful biography of Thomas More).
[+Note added - This is a mistake. Chambers was an Anglo Catholic - that is a member of the Catholic wing of the Church of England.]
(Indeed, it was Chambers late withdrawal from the shortlist for Professor of Anglo Saxon at Oxford that gave Tolkien that Chair at an unusually early age - and despite being, on paper at least, inferior to the other remaining shortlisted candidate, Tolkien's ex-Tutor, Kenneth Sisam.)
*
I would count Chambers as a considerable discovery in my reading, although I have so far only read two and a half of his books: he is wise, creative, a fine writer and a true scholar who immediately won my trust.
*
Man's UM begins with The Venerable Bede, who is a 'local hero' in these parts, and I often visit the museum on the site of his old monastery, with a re-created Saxon farm.
And Bede is a towering figure in the history of the West. But how important?
Chambers (agreeing with George Sarton) states :
During a period of 500 years, from AD 600 to AD 1100, Bede is the only master mind of Christendom...
*
Sunday 2 September 2012
Fantasy as escape, demonism or glimpses of Heaven?
*
There are three common ways of regarding the Fantasy genre of which Tolkien is prime exemplar: as escape, demonism or providing glimpses of Heaven.
1. Escape - the mainstream view, essentially secular and materialist.
Fantasy is contrasted with 'real life', fantasy is unreal, real life is meaningless, purposeless and alienation - so anyone who wants to spend time on Fantasy is trying to escape 'real life': a taste for fantasy is thus a sign of weakness, immaturity, refusal of responsibility.
Fantasy is un-reality.
*
2. Demonism - Christianity is truth, Fantasy is not the same as Christianity and contains themes (or words) related to scripturally-prohibited activities.
A taste for fantasy is therefore seen as either evidence of or tending to produce anti-Christianity.
(The Harry Potter series is often, but utterly mistakenly, regarded in this light; however, the criticism does sometimes apply.)
Fantasy is anti-reality.
*
3. Glimpses of Heaven - the view articulated by Tolkien in On Fairy Stories: that true fantasy is the successful attempt to write about Heaven rather than this earth ('real life') - but this can only be achieved very partially and imperfectly, and indirectly (as a sub-creation within the primary creation); in flashes, or hints, or reminders of what we already know and hope for ('eucatastrophe' is his word).
C.S Lewis sees this feeling as a natural yearning for Heaven and evidence that Heaven is 'real life' for Man.
Fantasy is reality.
*
So Fantasy, as a genre, can appear either irrelevant, evil, or one of the most important things on earth.
*
There are three common ways of regarding the Fantasy genre of which Tolkien is prime exemplar: as escape, demonism or providing glimpses of Heaven.
1. Escape - the mainstream view, essentially secular and materialist.
Fantasy is contrasted with 'real life', fantasy is unreal, real life is meaningless, purposeless and alienation - so anyone who wants to spend time on Fantasy is trying to escape 'real life': a taste for fantasy is thus a sign of weakness, immaturity, refusal of responsibility.
Fantasy is un-reality.
*
2. Demonism - Christianity is truth, Fantasy is not the same as Christianity and contains themes (or words) related to scripturally-prohibited activities.
A taste for fantasy is therefore seen as either evidence of or tending to produce anti-Christianity.
(The Harry Potter series is often, but utterly mistakenly, regarded in this light; however, the criticism does sometimes apply.)
Fantasy is anti-reality.
*
3. Glimpses of Heaven - the view articulated by Tolkien in On Fairy Stories: that true fantasy is the successful attempt to write about Heaven rather than this earth ('real life') - but this can only be achieved very partially and imperfectly, and indirectly (as a sub-creation within the primary creation); in flashes, or hints, or reminders of what we already know and hope for ('eucatastrophe' is his word).
C.S Lewis sees this feeling as a natural yearning for Heaven and evidence that Heaven is 'real life' for Man.
Fantasy is reality.
*
So Fantasy, as a genre, can appear either irrelevant, evil, or one of the most important things on earth.
*
Saturday 1 September 2012
Can we have common sense without God? (No we can't. Another reason why the secular Right fails)
*
In a nutshell, the secular Right is an attempt to have common sense without God.
*
The motivation of the secular Right is to discard the insanity of Leftist modernity, while retaining - indeed increasing - prosperity, comfort, diversions and especially the sexual revolution.
But can we have common sense without God?
In the abstract - yes. In an abstract scheme we can construct a model of reality that can have all the 'good' stuff (i.e. stuff we like) and none of the 'bad' stuff (stuff we don't like): and this is precisely what the secular Right spends its time doing: constructing abstract schemes of governance which give them what they want and not what they don't.
In the abstract we can have common sense without God.
*
But in practice, in real life, we cannot have common sense without God: not now.
We used to be able to do it: that was pretty much what the world was like in pagan times and places.
But now, this side of the triumph of anti-Christianity (i.e. the Left) in the West we can only get back common sense by getting back God.
*
We cannot have common sense without God because without God common sense is arbitrary (not a reflection of real reality) and not binding.
Common sense does not bind us because in the first place it is merely a matter of opinion, and opinions vary; and in the second place (and decisively) even if common sense is regarded as reflecting reality, then there is no reason why we ought to be guided by it.
When the dictates of common sense conflict with expediency (conflict with pleasure, diversion, prosperity, comfort, status, career... whatever), then there is no reason not to ignore common sense: and every reason to ignore common sense.
*
So the idealistic and consistent secular Right are always corrupted in practice; because their bottom line, their motivation, is to be guided by their own likes and dislikes to optimize gratification; and their preferences will fall into line with whatever conforms to their motivating desire for pleasure and to avoid suffering.
*
So the secular Right will favour common sense in the abstract; and in practice they will do whatever gratifies them, because there is no reason not to.
So we cannot have common sense without God.
**
(The God needed to restore common sense need not necessarily be the real Christian God - although obviously it would be infinitely preferable on other grounds than common sense if it were the Christian God.)
*
In a nutshell, the secular Right is an attempt to have common sense without God.
*
The motivation of the secular Right is to discard the insanity of Leftist modernity, while retaining - indeed increasing - prosperity, comfort, diversions and especially the sexual revolution.
But can we have common sense without God?
In the abstract - yes. In an abstract scheme we can construct a model of reality that can have all the 'good' stuff (i.e. stuff we like) and none of the 'bad' stuff (stuff we don't like): and this is precisely what the secular Right spends its time doing: constructing abstract schemes of governance which give them what they want and not what they don't.
In the abstract we can have common sense without God.
*
But in practice, in real life, we cannot have common sense without God: not now.
We used to be able to do it: that was pretty much what the world was like in pagan times and places.
But now, this side of the triumph of anti-Christianity (i.e. the Left) in the West we can only get back common sense by getting back God.
*
We cannot have common sense without God because without God common sense is arbitrary (not a reflection of real reality) and not binding.
Common sense does not bind us because in the first place it is merely a matter of opinion, and opinions vary; and in the second place (and decisively) even if common sense is regarded as reflecting reality, then there is no reason why we ought to be guided by it.
When the dictates of common sense conflict with expediency (conflict with pleasure, diversion, prosperity, comfort, status, career... whatever), then there is no reason not to ignore common sense: and every reason to ignore common sense.
*
So the idealistic and consistent secular Right are always corrupted in practice; because their bottom line, their motivation, is to be guided by their own likes and dislikes to optimize gratification; and their preferences will fall into line with whatever conforms to their motivating desire for pleasure and to avoid suffering.
*
So the secular Right will favour common sense in the abstract; and in practice they will do whatever gratifies them, because there is no reason not to.
So we cannot have common sense without God.
**
(The God needed to restore common sense need not necessarily be the real Christian God - although obviously it would be infinitely preferable on other grounds than common sense if it were the Christian God.)
*
Technology and the arts
*
Recently, I was looking through the pencil museum in Keswick, on the site where the modern pencil (including the coloured pencil) was perfected for mass production.
(Aside, I browsed a book on the history of pencils and their manufacture, and there were many references to Henry David Thoreau and his family. Before reading this, I never knew whether to believe that HDT really was as good at pencil design and manufacture as his biographers stated - but now I am convinced.)
You would have thought that after the pencil was perfected in the mid 19th century, there would have been a renaissance of drawing - but there wasn't. Probably more people drew; but the best were no better than in the past, indeed were probably worse. Pre-19th century technology was not, it seems, a constraint on artistic perfection.
*
And then I thought about musical instruments. The modern classical orchestra did not arrive until the late 19th century, when the design of woodwind and brass eventually settled-down (all kinds of brass instruments were used in the 19th century classical music - keyed brass, saxhorns, cornets where we now use trumpets etc).
You would have thought that this would have led to a renaissance of orchestral music, particularly in terms of orchestration - but it did not; indeed classical music died (or rather split into popular and professional sub-genres).
*
Or one would imagine that typewriters and word processors would lead to better novels, or more productive writers - but not really.
Indeed, it is remarkable how little technology affects the quality of artistic production.
Clearly all arts depend on some minimal level of technology, but it is amazing how little major technological breakthroughs affect artistic quality: certainly they seldom improve it.
*
Recently, I was looking through the pencil museum in Keswick, on the site where the modern pencil (including the coloured pencil) was perfected for mass production.
(Aside, I browsed a book on the history of pencils and their manufacture, and there were many references to Henry David Thoreau and his family. Before reading this, I never knew whether to believe that HDT really was as good at pencil design and manufacture as his biographers stated - but now I am convinced.)
You would have thought that after the pencil was perfected in the mid 19th century, there would have been a renaissance of drawing - but there wasn't. Probably more people drew; but the best were no better than in the past, indeed were probably worse. Pre-19th century technology was not, it seems, a constraint on artistic perfection.
*
And then I thought about musical instruments. The modern classical orchestra did not arrive until the late 19th century, when the design of woodwind and brass eventually settled-down (all kinds of brass instruments were used in the 19th century classical music - keyed brass, saxhorns, cornets where we now use trumpets etc).
You would have thought that this would have led to a renaissance of orchestral music, particularly in terms of orchestration - but it did not; indeed classical music died (or rather split into popular and professional sub-genres).
*
Or one would imagine that typewriters and word processors would lead to better novels, or more productive writers - but not really.
Indeed, it is remarkable how little technology affects the quality of artistic production.
Clearly all arts depend on some minimal level of technology, but it is amazing how little major technological breakthroughs affect artistic quality: certainly they seldom improve it.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)