The priest performed his functions with an easy conscience because he had been brought up from childhood to believe that this was the one true faith which had been held by all saints that had ever lived and was held now by the spiritual and temporal authorities. He did not believe that the bread became flesh, or that it was good for the soul to pronounce a great number of words, or that he had really devoured a bit of God - no one could believe that - but he believed that one ought to believe it. But the main thing that confirmed him in this faith was the fact that, in return for fulfilling the demands of this faith, for eighteen years now he had been drawing an income which enabled him to support his family, and send his son to a high-school and his daughter to a school for the daughters of clergy.
Tolstoy, Resurrection
How hard to preach without being aware that your salary depends on the very people you are preaching to. How hard not to adapt the message to that the are expecting to hear (be that good or harsh). How hard not to use the terminology they are expecting to hear from a minister of the Lord. How hard not to convince yourself that the doctrines they expect you to believe are actually true. How hard...
12/12/2007
18/11/2007
Rick Warren
Check this out...
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71
As you will notice (Rick repeats this more than once in his talk), his main book has sold already about 30 million copies. Am I the only one that finds this talk (tone, words, arguments...) terribly annoying? Is this the image that christians want other people to remember when they think of Christianity?
Moreover, if Christianity is a religion that prides itself in its honest search for Truth, is this book by Rick Warren the best example of such an enterprise? According to Dan Dennett, the answer is NO:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94
And I think his judgement on Rick's book might actually be right. What do you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71
As you will notice (Rick repeats this more than once in his talk), his main book has sold already about 30 million copies. Am I the only one that finds this talk (tone, words, arguments...) terribly annoying? Is this the image that christians want other people to remember when they think of Christianity?
Moreover, if Christianity is a religion that prides itself in its honest search for Truth, is this book by Rick Warren the best example of such an enterprise? According to Dan Dennett, the answer is NO:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94
And I think his judgement on Rick's book might actually be right. What do you think?
10/11/2007
Lilies
'Consider the lilies of the field' is the only commandment I have never broken
Emily Dickinson
I have, and I repent...
Emily Dickinson
I have, and I repent...
08/11/2007
Phantoms
You'll need to helpers (I will call them Julie and Mina). Sit in a chair, blindfolded, and ask Julie to sit on another chair in front of you, facing the same direction as you are. Have Mina stand on your right side and give her the following instructions: 'Take my right hand and guide my index finger to Julia's nose. Move my hand in a rhythmic manner so that my index finger repeatedly strokes and taps her nose in a random sequence like a Morse code. At the same time, use your left hand to stroke my nose with the same rhythm and timing. The stroking and tapping of my nose and Julia's nose should be in perfect synchrony'.
After thirty or fourty seconds, if you're lucky, you will develop the uncanny illusion that you are touching your nose out there or that your nose has been dislocated and stretched out about three feet in front of your face. The more random and unpredictable the stroking sequence, the more striking the illusion will be. This is an extraordinary illusion; how does it happen? I suggest that your brain 'notices' that the tapping and stroking sensations from your right index finger are perfectly synchronized with the strokes and taps felt on your nose. It then says, 'The tapping on my nose is identical to the sensations on my right index finger; why are the two sequences identical? The likelihood that this is a coincidence is zero, and therefore the most probable explanation is that my finger must be tapping my nose. But I also know that my hand is two feet away from my face. So it follows that my nose must also be out there, two feet away'.
V.S. Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain
This remarkable book shows, in a careful series of scientific experiments, that the logic that works within our brains is much less logic than we would like to think. In fact, if you get a chance to read the book, you will see that the experiments show much more bizarre 'logics'. Our brains seem to be filled with phantoms.
I was wondering what are we... Am I a phantom? Am I an illusion that thinks is coherent and makes sense, but only because is dreaming? Martin Heidegger dared to suggest many years ago that the essence of our beings is not in space but rather in time. Is that true? Are we who we are because we have been here some time? When I say 'I', what do I mean by that? What do you?
After thirty or fourty seconds, if you're lucky, you will develop the uncanny illusion that you are touching your nose out there or that your nose has been dislocated and stretched out about three feet in front of your face. The more random and unpredictable the stroking sequence, the more striking the illusion will be. This is an extraordinary illusion; how does it happen? I suggest that your brain 'notices' that the tapping and stroking sensations from your right index finger are perfectly synchronized with the strokes and taps felt on your nose. It then says, 'The tapping on my nose is identical to the sensations on my right index finger; why are the two sequences identical? The likelihood that this is a coincidence is zero, and therefore the most probable explanation is that my finger must be tapping my nose. But I also know that my hand is two feet away from my face. So it follows that my nose must also be out there, two feet away'.
V.S. Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain
This remarkable book shows, in a careful series of scientific experiments, that the logic that works within our brains is much less logic than we would like to think. In fact, if you get a chance to read the book, you will see that the experiments show much more bizarre 'logics'. Our brains seem to be filled with phantoms.
I was wondering what are we... Am I a phantom? Am I an illusion that thinks is coherent and makes sense, but only because is dreaming? Martin Heidegger dared to suggest many years ago that the essence of our beings is not in space but rather in time. Is that true? Are we who we are because we have been here some time? When I say 'I', what do I mean by that? What do you?
05/11/2007
Comprehension
Comprehension does not mean denying the outrageous, deducing the unprecedented from precedents, or explaining phenomena by such analogies and generalities that the impact of reality and the shock of experience are no longer felt. It means, rather, examining and bearing consciously the burden which our century has placed on us - neither denying its existence nor submitting meekly to its weight. Comprehension, in short, means the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality - whatever it may be.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
We cannot pretend to forget all that we now know - that would be lying to ourselves, going against the truth towards which we try to walk. Any religion that asks this from us, that asks us to pretend not to know that which we know, is not worth being called religion, since it goes against truth. And religion is another word to refer to our search for truth... or is it?
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
We cannot pretend to forget all that we now know - that would be lying to ourselves, going against the truth towards which we try to walk. Any religion that asks this from us, that asks us to pretend not to know that which we know, is not worth being called religion, since it goes against truth. And religion is another word to refer to our search for truth... or is it?
31/10/2007
Wisdom, knowledge, information...
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T.S. Eliot, The Rock
The whole is bigger than the parts. We have heard that many times, but sometimes it is hard to accept it. However, it must be true. And the steps chosen by T.S. Eliot seem very relevant. There is a big leap to be taken between information and knowledge, and maybe even a bigger one between knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps a leap of faith...
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T.S. Eliot, The Rock
The whole is bigger than the parts. We have heard that many times, but sometimes it is hard to accept it. However, it must be true. And the steps chosen by T.S. Eliot seem very relevant. There is a big leap to be taken between information and knowledge, and maybe even a bigger one between knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps a leap of faith...
26/10/2007
State of the Union
This is a really good video by David Ford:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qv4QBRS-U50
I hope you enjoy it. I did...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qv4QBRS-U50
I hope you enjoy it. I did...
25/10/2007
Real freedom
One particularly telling representation of the fundamental relation between man and freedom is offered in the biblical myth of man's expulsion from paradise.
The myth identifies the beginning of human history with an act of choice, but it puts all emphasis on the sinfulness of this first act of freedom and the suffering resulting from it. Man and woman live in the Garden of Eden in complete harmony with each other and with nature. There is peace and no necessity to work; there is no choice, no freedom, no thinking either. Man is forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He acts against God's command, he breaks through the state of harmony with nature of which he is a part without transcending it. From the standpoint of the Church which represented authority, this is essentially sin. From the standpoint of man, however, this is the beginning of human freedom. Acting against God's orders means freeing himself from coercion, emerging from the unconscious existence of prehuman life to the level of man. Acting against the command of authority, committing a sin, is in its positive human aspect the first act of freedom, that is, the first human act. In the myth the sin in its formal aspect is the acting against God's command; in its material aspect it is the eating of the tree of knowledge. The act of disobedience as an act of freedom is the beginning of reason. The myth speaks of other consequences of the first act of freedom. The original harmony between man and nature is broken. God proclaims war between man and woman, and war between nature and man. Man has become separate from nature, he has taken the first step towards becoming an 'individual'. He has committed the first act of freedom. The myth emphasizes the suffering resulting from this act. To transcend nature, to be alienated from nature and from another human being, finds man naked, ashamed. He is alone and free, yet powerless and afraid. The newly won freedom appears as a curse; he is free from the sweet bondage of paradise, but he is not free to govern himself, to realize his individuality[...]
There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all me and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties but as a free and independent individual.
Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom
I knew a church long ago in which one of the funcions of the authority was trying to control our thoughts and actions. Some people would call it a sect, but since it doesn't appear in the introductory books about sects, then it escapes the name. I remember the fear to think for myself, to question, to criticize what I thought was going wrong with these people: in fact the fear to even think that something was going wrong. Any question, any doubt, any criticism was sin, sin against the leaders of the church, and therefore sin against God. The myth of creation works and continues working today in the minds of many Christians.
However, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Jews of the first century held together many different myths about creation, not only the one in Genesis 1-2. In another book, 1 Enoch, the myth of creation and the fall is not related to acquiring knowledge, as if knowing and thinking was in itself a sin. Rather, knowledge in itself is good, and what is bad is its misuse. This fits better with what I think... I wonder why these other texts and myths haven't continued being read along with all the other 'inspired' books of the canon. I wonder if the leaders of the church had anything to do with that... Hmm...
The myth identifies the beginning of human history with an act of choice, but it puts all emphasis on the sinfulness of this first act of freedom and the suffering resulting from it. Man and woman live in the Garden of Eden in complete harmony with each other and with nature. There is peace and no necessity to work; there is no choice, no freedom, no thinking either. Man is forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He acts against God's command, he breaks through the state of harmony with nature of which he is a part without transcending it. From the standpoint of the Church which represented authority, this is essentially sin. From the standpoint of man, however, this is the beginning of human freedom. Acting against God's orders means freeing himself from coercion, emerging from the unconscious existence of prehuman life to the level of man. Acting against the command of authority, committing a sin, is in its positive human aspect the first act of freedom, that is, the first human act. In the myth the sin in its formal aspect is the acting against God's command; in its material aspect it is the eating of the tree of knowledge. The act of disobedience as an act of freedom is the beginning of reason. The myth speaks of other consequences of the first act of freedom. The original harmony between man and nature is broken. God proclaims war between man and woman, and war between nature and man. Man has become separate from nature, he has taken the first step towards becoming an 'individual'. He has committed the first act of freedom. The myth emphasizes the suffering resulting from this act. To transcend nature, to be alienated from nature and from another human being, finds man naked, ashamed. He is alone and free, yet powerless and afraid. The newly won freedom appears as a curse; he is free from the sweet bondage of paradise, but he is not free to govern himself, to realize his individuality[...]
There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all me and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties but as a free and independent individual.
Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom
I knew a church long ago in which one of the funcions of the authority was trying to control our thoughts and actions. Some people would call it a sect, but since it doesn't appear in the introductory books about sects, then it escapes the name. I remember the fear to think for myself, to question, to criticize what I thought was going wrong with these people: in fact the fear to even think that something was going wrong. Any question, any doubt, any criticism was sin, sin against the leaders of the church, and therefore sin against God. The myth of creation works and continues working today in the minds of many Christians.
However, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Jews of the first century held together many different myths about creation, not only the one in Genesis 1-2. In another book, 1 Enoch, the myth of creation and the fall is not related to acquiring knowledge, as if knowing and thinking was in itself a sin. Rather, knowledge in itself is good, and what is bad is its misuse. This fits better with what I think... I wonder why these other texts and myths haven't continued being read along with all the other 'inspired' books of the canon. I wonder if the leaders of the church had anything to do with that... Hmm...
19/10/2007
Models and truth
It would... be subtly misleading to say, 'The medievals thought the universe to be like that, but we know it to be like this'. Part of what we now know is that we cannot, in the old sense, 'know what the universe is like' and that no model we can build will be, in that old sense, 'like' it... There is no question here of the old Model's being shattered by the inrush of new phenomena. The truth would seem to be the reverse; that when changes in the human mind produce a sufficient disrelish of the old Model and a sufficient hankering for some new one, phenomena to support that new one will obediently turn up. I do not at all mean that these new phenomena are illusory. Nature has all sorts of phenomena in stock and can suit many different tastes.
C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, p.221
This may be true in some sense - science doesn't provide as clear-cut answers to our problems as we would like. However, it surely cannot be completely true that the change from one worldview to another depends only on the fact that our minds are simply changing and that we need another model different from the one we had. Surely we must be getting closer to the truth, even though we may still be very far away from that final Model or theory of everything. Or are we not?
C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, p.221
This may be true in some sense - science doesn't provide as clear-cut answers to our problems as we would like. However, it surely cannot be completely true that the change from one worldview to another depends only on the fact that our minds are simply changing and that we need another model different from the one we had. Surely we must be getting closer to the truth, even though we may still be very far away from that final Model or theory of everything. Or are we not?
18/10/2007
Sermons don't dialogue
The Christian discourse has some degree of involvement in doubt, the sermon operates absolutely, solely with authority: scriptural, or of the apostles. In a sermon, then, it is absolute heresy to get involved with doubts, however well one knows how to handle them[...] A sermon presupposes a priest (ordination); the Christian discourse[r] can be an ordinary person.
Soren Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals
I would rather have a proper dialogue than a hundred wonderful sermons. Unfortunately both are as complicated to find.
Soren Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals
I would rather have a proper dialogue than a hundred wonderful sermons. Unfortunately both are as complicated to find.
17/10/2007
Hitchens - McGrath
If you enjoyed the debate between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins, then you probably will enjoy this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&hl=en
Pretty interesting... Let me know what you think...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&hl=en
Pretty interesting... Let me know what you think...
16/10/2007
Pride
"I did that", says my memory. "I could not have done that", says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually - the memory yields.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
It seems to me that everyone, be that christian or atheist, believer or unbeliever, as long as we are dealing with human beings, falls prey to this truth that Nietzsche, to whom some people regarded as crazy, tells us.
Blessed are the crazy, because they'll see what others cannot, and they'll say what they see despite the attacks of the blind.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
It seems to me that everyone, be that christian or atheist, believer or unbeliever, as long as we are dealing with human beings, falls prey to this truth that Nietzsche, to whom some people regarded as crazy, tells us.
Blessed are the crazy, because they'll see what others cannot, and they'll say what they see despite the attacks of the blind.
08/10/2007
An unimportant moment
He was so interested in it all that he often did things himself, rearranging the furniture, or rehanging the curtains. Once when mounting a stepladder to show the upholsterer, who did not understand, how he wanted the hangings draped, he made a false step and slipped, but being a strong and agile man he clung on and only knocked his side against the knob of the window frame. The bruised place was painful but the pain soon passed, and he felt particularly bright and well just then. He wrote: 'I feel fifteen years younger'. He thought he would have everything ready by September, but it dragged on till mid-October. But the result was charming not only in his eyes but to everyone who saw it.
Leo Tolstoy, The death of Ivan Ilych
That was the moment that changed his whole life...
I was thinking of Ivan Ilych today. How easy for us to become imbued by the world around us and forget to look inside ourselves and even ask a couple of risky and life-threatening questions! I am very busy these days. And I am scared I will lose the capacity to stop and ask myself some of those important questions now and again. I don't want to be like Ivan, and wait until I am dying to remember who I am, or what I am.
I think I love this character, and also hate him. I love his humanity, his similarities with everyone else and with me. I love his need to find something else and his incapacity to find it. But I hate his apparent inability to realize all those things I've just said, his self-deception, his blindness. Are we all that blind?
Leo Tolstoy, The death of Ivan Ilych
That was the moment that changed his whole life...
I was thinking of Ivan Ilych today. How easy for us to become imbued by the world around us and forget to look inside ourselves and even ask a couple of risky and life-threatening questions! I am very busy these days. And I am scared I will lose the capacity to stop and ask myself some of those important questions now and again. I don't want to be like Ivan, and wait until I am dying to remember who I am, or what I am.
I think I love this character, and also hate him. I love his humanity, his similarities with everyone else and with me. I love his need to find something else and his incapacity to find it. But I hate his apparent inability to realize all those things I've just said, his self-deception, his blindness. Are we all that blind?
26/09/2007
Think for yourself
THE LITTLE MONK: But I would mention other reasons. Let me speak for a moment of myself. I grew up as a son of peasants in the Campagna. They were simple people. They knew all about olive-tress, but very little else. While observing the phases of Venus, I can see my parents, sitting by the hearth with my sister, eating their cheese[…] They are no rich but in their misfortune there lies concealed a certain invisible order of things[…] They call up the strength to sweat up the stony paths with their baskets, to bear children, yes, even to eat, from the feeling of continuity and necessity which is given them by the sight of die soil, of the trees springing with new green foliage every year, of the little church, and by listening every Sunday to the Bible texts[…] What would my people say if they learned from me that they were really on a little bit of rock that ceaselessly revolves in empty space round another star, one among very many, a comparatively unimportant one?[…] So do you understand that in that decree of the Holy Congregation I perceive true maternal compassion, great goodness of soul?
GALILEO: Goodness of soul! What you probably mean is there’s nothing there, the wine’s drunk up, their lips are parched, so let them kiss the cassock! And why is nothing there? Why is the orderliness in this country merely the order of an empty cupboard, and the necessity merely that of working oneself to death? Among bursting vineyards, beside the ripening cornfields! Your Campagna peasants are paying for the wars which the representative of gentle Jesus is waging in Spain and Germany. Why does he put the earth at the hub of the universe? So that the throne of Saint Peter can stand at the hub of the earth. That’s why! You are right: it’s nothing to do with the planets, it’s to do with the peasants in the Campagna.
I encourage anyone to read this marvellous play: Life of Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht. You can read a shortest version here: http://www.vidyaonline.org/arvindgupta/lifeofgalileo.pdf. I have recently come across Part 7, entitled: A Conversation (you can read a small section in this message). It’s worth reading. It addresses some of the questions that I have made myself more than once. And the conclusion of Galileo sounds about right to me: if you don’t care about the truth, others will. Thinking for yourself, tiring and dangerous as it might be, at least allows you to decide what kind of life you want to live, instead of living the life other people expect you to. Some people say: blindness is bliss, or faith is blind and ignorance is bliss. I suspect that all those who invent these sentences are not as blind and ignorant as they proclaim we all should be.
GALILEO: Goodness of soul! What you probably mean is there’s nothing there, the wine’s drunk up, their lips are parched, so let them kiss the cassock! And why is nothing there? Why is the orderliness in this country merely the order of an empty cupboard, and the necessity merely that of working oneself to death? Among bursting vineyards, beside the ripening cornfields! Your Campagna peasants are paying for the wars which the representative of gentle Jesus is waging in Spain and Germany. Why does he put the earth at the hub of the universe? So that the throne of Saint Peter can stand at the hub of the earth. That’s why! You are right: it’s nothing to do with the planets, it’s to do with the peasants in the Campagna.
I encourage anyone to read this marvellous play: Life of Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht. You can read a shortest version here: http://www.vidyaonline.org/arvindgupta/lifeofgalileo.pdf. I have recently come across Part 7, entitled: A Conversation (you can read a small section in this message). It’s worth reading. It addresses some of the questions that I have made myself more than once. And the conclusion of Galileo sounds about right to me: if you don’t care about the truth, others will. Thinking for yourself, tiring and dangerous as it might be, at least allows you to decide what kind of life you want to live, instead of living the life other people expect you to. Some people say: blindness is bliss, or faith is blind and ignorance is bliss. I suspect that all those who invent these sentences are not as blind and ignorant as they proclaim we all should be.
24/09/2007
Christian suggestion
There are many leaders in the world today that use this very method to manipulate our thoughts and actions. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7s6yklp80Q
We are gullible and easy to cheat. We need to learn to think for ourselves and question the authority figures that control our lives. Socrates said once: 'An unexamined life is not worth living'. This is self-evident since you are not really living your own life as long as you are being manipulated.
There is one thing that should characterize Christianity: the capacity of believers to think and analyze for themselves the different statements and affirmations that are being proclaimed. Jesus never said: 'Follow me, but leave your brain at home'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7s6yklp80Q
We are gullible and easy to cheat. We need to learn to think for ourselves and question the authority figures that control our lives. Socrates said once: 'An unexamined life is not worth living'. This is self-evident since you are not really living your own life as long as you are being manipulated.
There is one thing that should characterize Christianity: the capacity of believers to think and analyze for themselves the different statements and affirmations that are being proclaimed. Jesus never said: 'Follow me, but leave your brain at home'.
Random coincidences
Amid the action and reaction of so dense a swarm of humanity, every possible combination of events may be expected to take place, and many a little problem will be presented which may be striking and bizarre
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle
It is the law of the large numbers.
It is ironic that the very existence of random possibilities in the complex world in which we live may provide one of the basis for the prayer life of many religious people. It is ironic considering the war that many christians have against the existence of such random events.
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle
It is the law of the large numbers.
It is ironic that the very existence of random possibilities in the complex world in which we live may provide one of the basis for the prayer life of many religious people. It is ironic considering the war that many christians have against the existence of such random events.
11/09/2007
Acceptance
Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: 'You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now; perhaps you will find it later; do not try to do anything now; perhaps later you will do much. Do not seek for anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!'. If that happens to us, we experience grace. We may not be better than before, and we may not believe more than before. But everything is transformed. In that moment, grace conquers sin, and reconciliation bridges the gulf of estrangement. And nothing is demanded of this experience, no religious or moral or intellectual presupposition, nothing but acceptance.
Paul Tillich, The Essential Tillich, p.201
I would like to think that God's grace is similar to this kind of grace, an unconditional acceptance that doesn't look at your wrong-ness or right-ness but rather accepts, simply. And if this is true, if this is God, then Christians should try to find this kind of grace within themselves, and let it grow and go out towards the rest of us. It doesn't often happen this way: perhaps there are not so many Christians out there after all...
Paul Tillich, The Essential Tillich, p.201
I would like to think that God's grace is similar to this kind of grace, an unconditional acceptance that doesn't look at your wrong-ness or right-ness but rather accepts, simply. And if this is true, if this is God, then Christians should try to find this kind of grace within themselves, and let it grow and go out towards the rest of us. It doesn't often happen this way: perhaps there are not so many Christians out there after all...
08/09/2007
The frog and the ox, by Aesop
“OH Father,” said a little Frog to the big one sitting by the side of a pool, “I have seen such a terrible monster! It was as big as a mountain, with horns on its head, and a long tail, and it had hoofs divided in two.”
“Tush, child, tush,” said the old Frog, “that was only Farmer White’s Ox. It isn’t so big either; he may be a little bit taller than I, but I could easily make myself quite as broad; just you see.” So he blew himself out, and blew himself out, and blew himself out. “Was he as big as that?” asked he.
“Oh, much bigger than that,” said the young Frog.
Again the old one blew himself out, and asked the young one if the Ox was as big as that.
“Bigger, father, bigger,” was the reply.
So the Frog took a deep breath, and blew and blew and blew, and swelled and swelled and swelled. And then he said: “I’m sure the Ox is not as big as—” But at this moment he burst.
“SELF-CONCEIT MAY LEAD TO SELF-DESTRUCTION.”
People keep thinking that faith in faith, or faith for faith's sake, is what is all about. They keep thinking that that's enough. Is it? Shouldn't faith have something to do with Truth as well, even when Truth can only be approached but never possessed?
“Tush, child, tush,” said the old Frog, “that was only Farmer White’s Ox. It isn’t so big either; he may be a little bit taller than I, but I could easily make myself quite as broad; just you see.” So he blew himself out, and blew himself out, and blew himself out. “Was he as big as that?” asked he.
“Oh, much bigger than that,” said the young Frog.
Again the old one blew himself out, and asked the young one if the Ox was as big as that.
“Bigger, father, bigger,” was the reply.
So the Frog took a deep breath, and blew and blew and blew, and swelled and swelled and swelled. And then he said: “I’m sure the Ox is not as big as—” But at this moment he burst.
“SELF-CONCEIT MAY LEAD TO SELF-DESTRUCTION.”
People keep thinking that faith in faith, or faith for faith's sake, is what is all about. They keep thinking that that's enough. Is it? Shouldn't faith have something to do with Truth as well, even when Truth can only be approached but never possessed?
06/09/2007
Only words
Respect for the word is the first commandment in the discipline by which a man can be educated to maturity - intellectual, emotional and moral.
Respect for the word - to employ it with scrupulous care and an incorruptable heart-felt love of truth - is essential if there is to be any growth in a society or in the human race.
To misuse the word is to show the contempt for man. It undermines the bridges and poisons the wells. It causes Man to regress down the long path of his evolution.
Dag Hammarskjold, Markings, p.101
They never are 'only words' when these words help us to find a way towards Truth. But it's a pity that many people still use them to walk the opposite way, to conceal Truth, that Truth which is so scary and uncomfortable.
Respect for the word - to employ it with scrupulous care and an incorruptable heart-felt love of truth - is essential if there is to be any growth in a society or in the human race.
To misuse the word is to show the contempt for man. It undermines the bridges and poisons the wells. It causes Man to regress down the long path of his evolution.
Dag Hammarskjold, Markings, p.101
They never are 'only words' when these words help us to find a way towards Truth. But it's a pity that many people still use them to walk the opposite way, to conceal Truth, that Truth which is so scary and uncomfortable.
30/08/2007
Religion and science
If you are interested in the old debate, science versus religion, you might find very interesting this conversation between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626
It's worth watching and thinking about. It's just a pity that such an interesting interchange hasn't found space in any TV program yet. Perhaps the general public is more interested in the misrepresentation of religion nowadays than in a proper debate about these issues.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626
It's worth watching and thinking about. It's just a pity that such an interesting interchange hasn't found space in any TV program yet. Perhaps the general public is more interested in the misrepresentation of religion nowadays than in a proper debate about these issues.
29/08/2007
Of Birds
Abba Nicetas said of two brothers that they met with the intention of living together. The first thought within himself, 'If my brother wants something, I will do it', and the second thought the same, 'I will do the will of my brother'. So they lived many years in great charity. Seeing this, the enemy set out to separate them. He stood at the entrance to the cell, appearing to the one like a dove and to the other like a raven. The first said, 'Do you see that little dove?'. The other said, 'It is a raven'. They began to argue and to contradict one another, then they stood up and fought till they drew blood, to the great joy of the enemy; and they separated. After three days they returned and came to their senses and each asked the other's forgiveness. They recognized that each of them had believed the bird to be what he had seen and recognized that their conflict came from the enemy. So they lived to the end without being separated.
Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Dessert Fathers, p.157
Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Dessert Fathers, p.157
'All that glisters is not gold'
So I didn't pick up from the ground what lay there shining. It was gold, dear God. It was probably gold.
Clarice Lispector, The Foreign Legion, p.197
Clarice Lispector, The Foreign Legion, p.197
Forgetting
If you ever come to this cloud to live and work in it, this is what you must do: just as the 'cloud of unknowing' is above you, between you and God, so you must put a 'cloud of forgetting' below you, between you and all creation. Perhaps you think that you will be far away from God, with this cloud between you, but surely it follows that you are further away than ever if there is no cloud of forgetting between you and 'all creatures'? By 'all creatures' I mean not only the creatures themselves but everything connected with them, including physical and spiritual beings, irrespective of their state or of how good or evil they are. Everything, without exception, must be removed, hidden under the cloud of forgetting.
At other times it may well be valuable to think of certain people - who they are and what they do - but in this case it is of little value, if any. For calling to mind an individual affects the spirit. Your soul's eye focuses on him just as a marksman fixes his eyes on his target. I can tell you that everything you thus engage your mind in comes between you and God, with the result that you become further away from him. Nothing but God must fill your mind.
In fact, if I may say so with all due reverence, when we are doing this work it is of little value even to dwell on God's kindness or worthiness, or on Mary, the saints or angels, or on the joys of heaven itself. It is no use thinking that such meditation will strengthen your purpose. I can tell you that it will not help one whit. For although it may usually be good to think of God's kindness and to love him and praise him for it, it is far better to contemplate God as he is, and to love him and praise him for himself alone.
The Cloud of Unknowing, pp.28-29
Not sure if all this is true. I'm sure it sometimes helps to let go of some things that keep filling our minds and don't let us enjoy life. I can't help but think of Alexander Pope's poem (Eloisa to Abelard):
How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd
But I also know that if it wasn't for being able to remember, I would probably make the same mistakes again and again. I wouldn't grow, my constant change would not imply growing and learning but rather random move without any purpose nor meaning. Remembering is part of my humanity; perhaps it's even what makes me human. And surely that's how God would want me to relate to him, as a human.
At other times it may well be valuable to think of certain people - who they are and what they do - but in this case it is of little value, if any. For calling to mind an individual affects the spirit. Your soul's eye focuses on him just as a marksman fixes his eyes on his target. I can tell you that everything you thus engage your mind in comes between you and God, with the result that you become further away from him. Nothing but God must fill your mind.
In fact, if I may say so with all due reverence, when we are doing this work it is of little value even to dwell on God's kindness or worthiness, or on Mary, the saints or angels, or on the joys of heaven itself. It is no use thinking that such meditation will strengthen your purpose. I can tell you that it will not help one whit. For although it may usually be good to think of God's kindness and to love him and praise him for it, it is far better to contemplate God as he is, and to love him and praise him for himself alone.
The Cloud of Unknowing, pp.28-29
Not sure if all this is true. I'm sure it sometimes helps to let go of some things that keep filling our minds and don't let us enjoy life. I can't help but think of Alexander Pope's poem (Eloisa to Abelard):
How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd
But I also know that if it wasn't for being able to remember, I would probably make the same mistakes again and again. I wouldn't grow, my constant change would not imply growing and learning but rather random move without any purpose nor meaning. Remembering is part of my humanity; perhaps it's even what makes me human. And surely that's how God would want me to relate to him, as a human.
27/08/2007
Faith in faith
I believe in belief - or rather, I have faith in having faith. Yet I am an atheist... so, how can that be?
It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far beyond the realm of religion: having faith in oneself, in other people, in the existence of truth and justice. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.
Recent advances in behavioral sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, demonstrate that having faith is a common human attitude toward the world. Faith is vital in human interactions; it is no coincidence that the anchoring of behaviour in risky trust is emphasized in systems of thought as diverse as Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist Christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of inner, subjective conviction as the basis for action, the feeling of an inner glow.
Tor Norretranders, What We Believe but Cannot Prove, pp.46-47
It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far beyond the realm of religion: having faith in oneself, in other people, in the existence of truth and justice. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.
Recent advances in behavioral sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, demonstrate that having faith is a common human attitude toward the world. Faith is vital in human interactions; it is no coincidence that the anchoring of behaviour in risky trust is emphasized in systems of thought as diverse as Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist Christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of inner, subjective conviction as the basis for action, the feeling of an inner glow.
Tor Norretranders, What We Believe but Cannot Prove, pp.46-47
Photons
What are photons? A friend asked me this question yesterday. I don't know. But this is an interesting lecture by someone who might know, Richard Feynman:
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/45
Tell me what you think...
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/45
Tell me what you think...
Are you happy?
Evidence of our deluded brains begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Are you happy with your social life? Or, to put it another way, are you unhappy with your social life?
Your answer, you may be surprised to learn, is astonishingly sensitive to which way the question is phrased. People asked if they are happy, rather than unhappy, with their social lifes report greater satisfaction. Responsibility for this peculiar irrationality in our self-knowledge lies with what is known as 'positive test strategy'. As we contemplate that fascinating inner tangle of our attitudes, personality traits and skills, we ask our internal oracle questions to divine what we suppose to be the truth about ourselves. Am I happy with my social life? Do I want to stay married? Would I make a good parent? You then trawl through your store of self-knowledge searching for evidence that the hypothesis in question is correct. You remember that party that you enjoyed last weekend. The touching interest your spouse takes in the small potatoes of your life. Your remarkable talent for manipulating balloons into the shape of animals.
Phrase the question the other way around, however, and your memory throws up a very different pile of evidence. Am I unhappy with my social life? Now you remember what bores you find most of your friends. Do I want a divorce? You think of that dreadful silent meal on your anniversary. Would I make a bad parent? Suddenly your unfortunate tendency to leave valuable possessions behind on public transport comes to mind. That's why people asked if they're happy (rather than unhappy) with their social lives believe themselves to be happier on that front. (The positive test strategy is also the reason you should never ask someone 'Don't you live me any more?').
Cordelia Fine, A Mind of Its Own, pp.62-63
Your answer, you may be surprised to learn, is astonishingly sensitive to which way the question is phrased. People asked if they are happy, rather than unhappy, with their social lifes report greater satisfaction. Responsibility for this peculiar irrationality in our self-knowledge lies with what is known as 'positive test strategy'. As we contemplate that fascinating inner tangle of our attitudes, personality traits and skills, we ask our internal oracle questions to divine what we suppose to be the truth about ourselves. Am I happy with my social life? Do I want to stay married? Would I make a good parent? You then trawl through your store of self-knowledge searching for evidence that the hypothesis in question is correct. You remember that party that you enjoyed last weekend. The touching interest your spouse takes in the small potatoes of your life. Your remarkable talent for manipulating balloons into the shape of animals.
Phrase the question the other way around, however, and your memory throws up a very different pile of evidence. Am I unhappy with my social life? Now you remember what bores you find most of your friends. Do I want a divorce? You think of that dreadful silent meal on your anniversary. Would I make a bad parent? Suddenly your unfortunate tendency to leave valuable possessions behind on public transport comes to mind. That's why people asked if they're happy (rather than unhappy) with their social lives believe themselves to be happier on that front. (The positive test strategy is also the reason you should never ask someone 'Don't you live me any more?').
Cordelia Fine, A Mind of Its Own, pp.62-63
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)