There must be an interesting psychology lying behind protest and public disobedience on the one hand and the more general acceptance and approbation of the protest in wider society… or is the ol’ probligo getting just that little more reactionary in his old age?
F’rinstance –
Forty years ago, the prospect of giving a number of very important people a sleepless night and to inform them of contrary opinion was not only supported in spirit but in fact. The main person to be kept awake – if that were possible – was one LBJ, then Vice-P of the USofA. He was spending a night or three in Auckland in the course of a junket round the world drumming up support for a military action that was going rather sour in a remote and previously ignored little slice of land somewhere down and to the right of China.
That was considered to be all in good fun. It was “right” to protest the military invasion of a nation – whether by invitation of the government or not – irrespective of the validity and justification of the rationale behind the action. To have the figurehead of the military action at hand and within protest range was a prospect far too good to miss. Oh, and I can not help wondering how many marriages resulted from the protest – I know of one certainly; a very dear friend whose response to the toasts at his wedding breakfast included the observation that his marriage was LBJ’s fault, that he had met his wife in the gutter outside the Intercontinental Hotel when they were both about to be arrested.
Similarly, there was the occupation of Bastion Point by Ngati Whatua. That one lasted for over a year (507 days to be precise). The objective of the protest was the land itself; its ownership; the means by which that ownership was obtained; the right of the protesters to regain what they considered to be their manawhenua – ownership – of a piece of land that had gone from disputed to extremely valuable over a period of some 120 years. Long time readers might recall my rather jaundiced view of the disputes of “right of domain” (I think that is right) in the US. The Bastion Occupation coloured thinking here a very deep colour of red.
But something seems to have changed.
The “Occupy…” protests in NZ have seemed futile from the start. On a global scale, the validity of the point being made had some strength as my previous post acknowledged. I wrote that some 3 months after the “occupation” of Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington. In recent times – these past four weeks – there has been increasing activity by “the powers that be” to clear the protests from the respective central city sites. As this has been happening, the nature of the protesters has changed; there has been quite a clear acknowledgement from the movement that began it all that their message had been infiltrated and converted by others with other agendas.
In Wellington, the coincidental death in hospital of a local character known best as “Blanket Man” had become the central point to the protest. In Christchurch, the protest against “the 1%” had morphed into a local issue – the pay increase granted by the City Council to its Chief Executive. The Auckland protest had become more about “the right to occupy” rather than the figmental 1% with which it had started.
So, I guess, the ol’ probligo has joined the ranks of the reactionary. No longer is there much point to the protest of “the 99% against the 1%”. And that raises the sad question of “Why?”.
One of the fundamentals of “capitalism” relies upon a small number of people controlling a large proportion of total wealth and a large number of people relying on the owners of that capital to provide them with something approaching an adequate living. From the time of Adam Smith to Friedman and Samuelson that division has existed and been recognised. It is not going to vanish in the twinkle of a tax-man's eye; it depends from the "natural human instinct" (TFS might call it "God-given instinct"?) of advantage, possession and greed. The real point to remember here is that "corporate greed" is nothing more than "human greed" in a pin-stripe suit and briefcase.
On the other side - as well illustrated by all the "occupy" movements - is the opposite emotion of envy; the "natural human instincts" of disadvantage, of dispossession, of not having.
As I started, the connection of these mirror images would likely make an interesting study. For my part, I can sit back this evening and reflect that I have as much as I need, that in large part I have as much as I want, and the best part of all is that I earned the best part of it for myself.
How smug. How self-satisfied. How selfish...
Showing posts with label differences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label differences. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Rampaging idiocy posing as television presentation...
The following is the text of a letter I have sent to the Editor of old Granny Herald.
No, I do not expect that it will be published.
This is why it was writ...
You want a sword to fall on? I got one. And it is blunt.
UPDATE -
Latest addition to this sorry story is that the offender (offensive offender) has been suspended until 18 October without pay.
That only leaves the question -
"Suspended by which portion of his anatomy?"
No, I do not expect that it will be published.
Sir,
He has apologised? Any apology from that man has the dignity and worth of the seven year old who knows that in better times he would have been facing a goodly walloping from the old man, but that now he might get a couple of hours peace and quiet in his bedroom.
There is no apology that he can offer, to Sir Anand, to New Zealand, or to anyone else, that would satisfactorily make up for his current sins.
If he wishes to do penance perhaps he could consider crawling naked across the Northern Motorway in the 5 p.m. rush hour tonight.
Alternatively, to just leave the country permanently might be sufficient apology.
Yours,
This is why it was writ...
On TVNZ's Breakfast yesterday Henry suggested Sir Anand's successor should look and sound more like a New Zealander.
Henry made the comments while questioning Prime Minister John Key.
"Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time ... Are we going to go for someone who is more like a New Zealander this time?"
Mr Key seemed taken aback and said that Sir Anand was a New Zealander.
...
I am sincerely sorry if I seemed disrespectful to him (Sir Anand), that was not what I intended and I certainly didn't intend to sound racist.
It was wrong for me to ask the questions that I did."
Henry said Sir Anand's background was far more "dignified" than his own.
"Most people think that I am British but the truth is much, much worse than that, like the Governor-General I was born in New Zealand but, however, I am at least half what they colloquially call in Europe a gippo (gypsy).
"So let me make it quite clear I will never apologise for causing outrage, however, I will, and do apologise for causing real hurt and upset to anyone, no matter what their background, who works to make this country a better country.
"So in that spirit I apologise unreservedly to Sir Anand and his family, he is a very distinguished man I am a gippo television presenter."
You want a sword to fall on? I got one. And it is blunt.
UPDATE -
Latest addition to this sorry story is that the offender (offensive offender) has been suspended until 18 October without pay.
That only leaves the question -
"Suspended by which portion of his anatomy?"
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A Christmas Story...
The best of the Christmas stories for this year, and I fail to see how any could best it unless the Pope is caught in bed with a call-girl would have to be the brou-haha that blew up around the ears of the Vicar at St Matthew in the City.
This is a church with some personal connections; my step-mother was Deacon there for a number of years, she and at least one of my sisters were bell-ringers. It is a very handsome church, well preserved and well supported.
It is also known for being one of the more open and inclusive Anglican churches in the city. No less so this Christmas...
From Herald last Thursday (17 Dec.)
The vicar of St Matthew's, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said: "Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view, it is also interested in engaging with those who differ.
"Its vision is one of robust engagement," he said.
But the Auckland Catholic Diocese has called the image inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive to Christians.
Spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer said that for a church to put up a poster which implied the Virgin Mary and Joseph had just had sex was disrespectful to the church.
"Our Christian tradition of 2000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she said. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
Mrs Freer said the idea that the poster was made to provoke conversation amongst non-Christians was not a defence, but completely offensive.
On Friday...
A paint-bomb attack on a controversial Christmas billboard will not stop the church from continuing its campaign, church leaders said yesterday.
A replacement has been ordered after the billboard was defaced about six hours after it was put up outside St Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland.
By Saturday...
A paint-bomb attack on a controversial Christmas billboard will not stop the church from continuing its campaign, church leaders said yesterday.
A replacement has been ordered after the billboard was defaced about six hours after it was put up outside St Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland.
The image depicts the Virgin Mary and her betrothed, Joseph, in bed together.
A person was seen defacing the image just after 4pm yesterday, covering Mary's face, Joseph's face and the slogan that read: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."
Church leaders at St Matthew's said the point of the image was to get people thinking about the Christmas story.
Yesterday St Matthew's communications manager, Clay Nelson, said the defaced billboard would stand for a day, as a testament to the single-minded view that some people had.
"They are driven to give threats and abuse - and [yet] they say 'we love Jesus and he loves us'. I'm sorry, but they don't get the irony of their behaviour.
...and...
Earlier, the parish defended the billboard, even though the Bishop of Auckland, John Paterson, had slammed it as "insensitive" and said he was disappointed at St Matthew's decision to continue with the display.
As the story spread around the world yesterday and church staff were interviewed on American TV stations, a defiant Archdeacon Cardy told the Herald: "I know what the bishop said. But at this stage we have no plans to take it down."
Archdeacon Cardy said the billboard was designed to let people outside the church realise that many Christians and church leaders did not believe in the literal virgin birth, and didn't believe that was the true meaning of Christmas.
"We're not out just to deliberately stir the pot. We're out to critique the idea of a male god impregnating Mary and the literalism of the virgin birth.
"The topic is ... something the church has talked about for centuries, but what is new is that we have the audacity to laugh at something quite so ridiculous as a male god
OK TF, sit back and relax. I am not going to use this to make fun of the Church.
There is need though to sit back and reflect. Not just, as the Vicar of St Matthew wished, on the story of the conception of Jesus. There is a need for some Christians to examine with care the justification of fundamental beliefs, and the extent to which some believers are prepared to react to perceived slights and insults. In my mind there are people, even within the major churches, whose response brought back memories of Islam's reaction to the Mohammet cartoons of a few years back.
And as Clay Nelson said - some people just do not get it.
UPDATE Forgot the photo and discovered "some" three times in one sentence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -
All of the quotes included are from NZ Herald on the days indicated. Thanks.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
On "there being enough to go around..."
This exchange with Fraser Stern follows my exposition on the idea of a probligo utopia (resulting in confirmation of my strong feeling that any utopia is an impossibility because there will always be some idiot turn up to spoil the party)...
Now I started this with the intention of a rather ascerbic scrute at the idea of "god-given rights" but, as TF points out we have traversed that ground before without any consensus ad idem.
No, it is the thought that "there is sufficient to go around" that draws the eye this time. It is a thought that has exercised economists, sociologists and others far more learned than I. It still bugs me though, on a number of levels.
First is the idea of "sufficient". At one level, there is "sufficient" as measured by the fact that both TF and I, along with about 20% of the global population, can "exist" on high carb, high fat, high protein diets compared with the subsistence-and-less diets of perhaps the lower 50%. There is "sufficient" in that we both are able to expend significantly excessive amounts of energy in our daily living, compared with the energy sources available to many who have just sufficient to cook a daily meal. There is "sufficient" in that we are able to live in permanent housing having significant economic value compared with the very large numbers who have no prospect of owning land (a concept that might even be foreign to their culture) let alone erecting permanent structures on it. There is sufficient water that we both can use what might be equivalent to a days supply from the community well for all of the family just to wash the family car.
The counter argument of "effort", "earning", "saving", and "value" mean little to people whose lives are essentially subsistence. For many at this level the idea of "subsistence" can be seen as a reasonably comfortable standard of living if you leave out essentials such as education, functioning health services, effective law enforcement, or the trappings of what TF and I might see as "civilisation". I have in mind those such as Samoans, ni-Vanuatu, and Tongans who because of the climate in which they live have better than adequate food supplies, adequate shelter, and not much more. There is a second generalisation that can be applied here; self-sufficiency. Does that mean that these people are happy to live as they do? No!, for the simple reason that they have the same desires for better and more that we all have. No tv? It becomes a desire, then a want, then a need. Minimal education? The same.
The second is the "what" that "has to go around". I would list as examples land and specifically arable land, water and specifically potable water, and mineral resources.
To that extent TF is quite right when he says -
This particular line of logic is based upon the same line of thought that gives rise to this -
TF's statement that "...such limits are burst by innovation..." is also "true". However, there are also an increasing number of instances and some within the past year or two which illustrate the first cracks in that argument.
First to come to mind is the "alternative fuels" debate. The conversion and diversion of food-producing land and crops to "fuel-producing" has impacted on (just one instance) global food prices. Suddenly, it was "better business" to produce crops for alternative fuels than it was for food. Prices for cattle-feed grain went through the roof leading to higher beef prices. Why is that? It is the simple, direct application of Economics 102.
On the same line, does it matter if Indonesia or Brazil burns and clears "unproductive" land of the overlying jungle and wild animals? Better to have "productive" land than not, surely? Well truth is that we know as much about the possible impacts of rain forest clearance as we do about the causes of global warming. In other words, not a lot.
Only one example? No.
Go look for a description of the "Sinai Aquifer". This is one of the largest freshwater reservoirs on the globe. It stretches from the north Sinai Peninsula to Cairo and further south. [About 20 years back there was major concern that the water being taken for Cairo was becoming brackish (increasing salt levels). Investigation indicated that the level of the water in the aquifer had dropped to the point where it had gone from "positive pressure" at its outlets under the Mediterranean (giving rise to outflow in the Med) to "negative pressure". The result? Not only was Mediterranean salt water "leaking back into the aquifer, but the salinity of the Mediterranean itself was increasing to the point where fish stocks were potentially under threat.]
Want another example?
Pelargic tuna stocks in the Pacific forty years back were at a level estimated to be equivalent to roughly ten years fishing, "just under sustainable levels" at the rate of fishing in the 1970's. The most recent census (taken by MAF NZ and several Pacific nations) is indicating that the predominant species of bluefin and yellowfin tuna are endangered, and possibly close to extinction. Remember that with the next can of tuna you add to a sandwich or salad.
Want another example, closer to home?
Check out the Newfoundland cod fisheries. That was about 40 years back. It is recovering, slowly, but Britain and Europe will not see cod and chips on the menu for some while for sure.
Or how is about the Lower Colorado irrigation area where the demands on land and water supply are so great that the farms are getting "saltified" as the water evaporates and the river itself is struggling to make the sea.
OK, so "technology" will solve all of these problems? Innovation and production incentives will increase the numbers of bluefin tuna? How much would it cost to provide Cairo with desalinators and then to run them so that that city had "sufficient" (not the amount we use) fresh water.
TF, I suspect that I can explain the difference between your statement that "...my increase does not mean someone else must decrease..." and "... there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase...".
That difference comes from what best fits with "a different point of view". My up-bringing, my culture, the nature of my community is such that we have very narrow physical boundaries. Nowhere is more than 50 mile from the sea. Beyond that is more than 1000 miles of water to the next major habitations. Those boundaries have, for better or worse, made NZers generally far more conscious of the "outside world".
I had a word in mind when I proposed my challenge. I was reticent to use it at that time as it could be mis-taken as insult rather than descriptive.
"insular a ... 2. of or like islanders, esp. ignorant of or indifferent to other countries and their culture, narrow minded. [Concise Oxford Dictionary]
It started as a suspicion, but these more recent comments confirm, that for so many Americans (observation again, TF, and generalisation) the problems of "the outside world" just do not exist. Well, not at least until they impinge themselves directly upon the US. Hence, until such time as the lack of a resource does impinge upon "my" ability to obtain it, there is no shortage; there is plenty for all; any deficiencies must be the fault of those who can not afford to buy what they need. Of course, at the time that the last tuna is taken it will be the fault of the UN, of "big government", of faceless bureaucrats et al that more was not done to ensure that there would be tuna for dinner next year...
UPDATE -
Sometimes I should read my own advice. I based my commentary on the Sinai Aquifer on memory of a series of articles in SciAm, Nature, and the news of the time. As is so often the case my memory is faulty. Sorry to those who went chasing geese as a result of my error.
TF
...I would like to add a comment to your line, "To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have."
I’d have to disagree on this point. Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther. The false warning which I continue to hear is that the earth is too populated, that its natural resources cannot sustain the quality of life which we would all desire or prefer; that simply isn’t true. I refuse to buy into the idea that in order for me to improve my life’s quality that somebody else must reduce their quality of life.
The probligo said...
So the availability of such resources as arable land, potable water, and quality air are infinite TF?
Not in my book.
You often speak of "God-given rights". Is the right for a person living in Somalia to have sufficient food to sustain life "God-given"? If so, why are so many people living there on the verge of starvation? Do you have a "God-given right" to consume (and don't worry, I am no different) far more food than you actually need?
T. F. Stern said...
Probligo, I didn't say these resources were infinite, only that there was sufficient to go around. I continue to believe that there is enough so that my increase does not mean someone else must decrease.
The idea of God given rights is not the same as consumption of natural resources being spread evenly, I would have thought you understood that concept after the many times we've gone head to head.
Now I started this with the intention of a rather ascerbic scrute at the idea of "god-given rights" but, as TF points out we have traversed that ground before without any consensus ad idem.
No, it is the thought that "there is sufficient to go around" that draws the eye this time. It is a thought that has exercised economists, sociologists and others far more learned than I. It still bugs me though, on a number of levels.
First is the idea of "sufficient". At one level, there is "sufficient" as measured by the fact that both TF and I, along with about 20% of the global population, can "exist" on high carb, high fat, high protein diets compared with the subsistence-and-less diets of perhaps the lower 50%. There is "sufficient" in that we both are able to expend significantly excessive amounts of energy in our daily living, compared with the energy sources available to many who have just sufficient to cook a daily meal. There is "sufficient" in that we are able to live in permanent housing having significant economic value compared with the very large numbers who have no prospect of owning land (a concept that might even be foreign to their culture) let alone erecting permanent structures on it. There is sufficient water that we both can use what might be equivalent to a days supply from the community well for all of the family just to wash the family car.
The counter argument of "effort", "earning", "saving", and "value" mean little to people whose lives are essentially subsistence. For many at this level the idea of "subsistence" can be seen as a reasonably comfortable standard of living if you leave out essentials such as education, functioning health services, effective law enforcement, or the trappings of what TF and I might see as "civilisation". I have in mind those such as Samoans, ni-Vanuatu, and Tongans who because of the climate in which they live have better than adequate food supplies, adequate shelter, and not much more. There is a second generalisation that can be applied here; self-sufficiency. Does that mean that these people are happy to live as they do? No!, for the simple reason that they have the same desires for better and more that we all have. No tv? It becomes a desire, then a want, then a need. Minimal education? The same.
The second is the "what" that "has to go around". I would list as examples land and specifically arable land, water and specifically potable water, and mineral resources.
To that extent TF is quite right when he says -
" Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther."
This particular line of logic is based upon the same line of thought that gives rise to this -
TF's statement that "...such limits are burst by innovation..." is also "true". However, there are also an increasing number of instances and some within the past year or two which illustrate the first cracks in that argument.
First to come to mind is the "alternative fuels" debate. The conversion and diversion of food-producing land and crops to "fuel-producing" has impacted on (just one instance) global food prices. Suddenly, it was "better business" to produce crops for alternative fuels than it was for food. Prices for cattle-feed grain went through the roof leading to higher beef prices. Why is that? It is the simple, direct application of Economics 102.
On the same line, does it matter if Indonesia or Brazil burns and clears "unproductive" land of the overlying jungle and wild animals? Better to have "productive" land than not, surely? Well truth is that we know as much about the possible impacts of rain forest clearance as we do about the causes of global warming. In other words, not a lot.
Only one example? No.
Go look for a description of the "Sinai Aquifer". This is one of the largest freshwater reservoirs on the globe. It stretches from the north Sinai Peninsula to Cairo and further south. [About 20 years back there was major concern that the water being taken for Cairo was becoming brackish (increasing salt levels). Investigation indicated that the level of the water in the aquifer had dropped to the point where it had gone from "positive pressure" at its outlets under the Mediterranean (giving rise to outflow in the Med) to "negative pressure". The result? Not only was Mediterranean salt water "leaking back into the aquifer, but the salinity of the Mediterranean itself was increasing to the point where fish stocks were potentially under threat.]
Want another example?
Pelargic tuna stocks in the Pacific forty years back were at a level estimated to be equivalent to roughly ten years fishing, "just under sustainable levels" at the rate of fishing in the 1970's. The most recent census (taken by MAF NZ and several Pacific nations) is indicating that the predominant species of bluefin and yellowfin tuna are endangered, and possibly close to extinction. Remember that with the next can of tuna you add to a sandwich or salad.
Want another example, closer to home?
Check out the Newfoundland cod fisheries. That was about 40 years back. It is recovering, slowly, but Britain and Europe will not see cod and chips on the menu for some while for sure.
Or how is about the Lower Colorado irrigation area where the demands on land and water supply are so great that the farms are getting "saltified" as the water evaporates and the river itself is struggling to make the sea.
OK, so "technology" will solve all of these problems? Innovation and production incentives will increase the numbers of bluefin tuna? How much would it cost to provide Cairo with desalinators and then to run them so that that city had "sufficient" (not the amount we use) fresh water.
TF, I suspect that I can explain the difference between your statement that "...my increase does not mean someone else must decrease..." and "... there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase...".
That difference comes from what best fits with "a different point of view". My up-bringing, my culture, the nature of my community is such that we have very narrow physical boundaries. Nowhere is more than 50 mile from the sea. Beyond that is more than 1000 miles of water to the next major habitations. Those boundaries have, for better or worse, made NZers generally far more conscious of the "outside world".
I had a word in mind when I proposed my challenge. I was reticent to use it at that time as it could be mis-taken as insult rather than descriptive.
"insular a ... 2. of or like islanders, esp. ignorant of or indifferent to other countries and their culture, narrow minded. [Concise Oxford Dictionary]
It started as a suspicion, but these more recent comments confirm, that for so many Americans (observation again, TF, and generalisation) the problems of "the outside world" just do not exist. Well, not at least until they impinge themselves directly upon the US. Hence, until such time as the lack of a resource does impinge upon "my" ability to obtain it, there is no shortage; there is plenty for all; any deficiencies must be the fault of those who can not afford to buy what they need. Of course, at the time that the last tuna is taken it will be the fault of the UN, of "big government", of faceless bureaucrats et al that more was not done to ensure that there would be tuna for dinner next year...
UPDATE -
Sometimes I should read my own advice. I based my commentary on the Sinai Aquifer on memory of a series of articles in SciAm, Nature, and the news of the time. As is so often the case my memory is faulty. Sorry to those who went chasing geese as a result of my error.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
On the idea of utopia...
I presented TF with a challenge that he has responded to both promptly and with some considerable thought. I do not propose to present my alternative as a criticism of what he has written. What must be appreciated is that we do, obviously, come from very different backgrounds; similar cultures with a partially shared history; but like the finches in the Galapagos we are the products of habitats which have evolved in very different ways to fit very different “ecological niches”.
So perhaps I can start by echoing his entrance; it is the universal desire of every parent that their family should live in happiness and security. That echo draws the very first contrast. Not only do I wish that for my family and for TF’s, I wish it too for every family on this earth irrespective of breed, and belief. Therein lies the first major challenge as well, for it is true that not every person is born equal on this planet. Not at present that is. Bear witness here that I am taking “equality” here in its broadest and most general sense; I have just eaten lunch. I have just eaten food valued by our system at NZD0.75, USD0.55. In many places on this earth that value would comprise a week’s food for one person, not because their food is cheaper you understand but because that is as much as they are able to buy. At that point I meet the first of the “impossibilities”; I can not increase the “happiness index” (for want of a better term) of those people without decreasing that of others. The ability of this planet to support the increasing demands of our societies is limited. That limitation is distorted to a great degree by the fact that a small fraction (of which I am a member as much as is TF) of our global population are able to obtain, control and consume the greatest part of those resources.
The second truth that TF included with that first was his right “to make a living without governmental bureaucrats mucking up the works or worrying about world affairs and political upheaval.” Again, I must – can only – agree. So too does every other person on this earth have that right. There is a subsidiary thread that starts at this point and which I will return to pick up toward the end. For the moment, there is any number of books that can and have been written on the topic. Which brand of solution you want to select will depend from the type of political outlook you have. It has to be accepted that “government bureaucrats” is one of those simplistic generic terms that are floated by people who really mean to include all who are involved in the process of government from elected representatives to the desk clerk and receptionist and refuse collector. Again that sentiment has to be included as a universal. My response to the line of argument which usually follows is that every society ends up with the government it deserves. The challenge here is to accept that fact and also to have the tolerance to accept those differences. That challenge is also as universal as the sentiment.
I am also in agreement with TF’s quotation from The Federalist. Again, I can not escape “the shades of difference” between us. Where TF sees Federalist as “…if everyone acted to the best of their ability…” I can not dispute that. I must however lay alongside that the thought “…all must be allowed to act to the best of their ability…”. In that subtle distinction lies all manner of challenges for those of us who live in advanced and rich communities. Again, I come to the subsidiary thread I referred to in the earlier para. Now is not yet the time to pick up that thread. Note too that I do not make “money” the problem here any more than does TF.
At this point in his piece TF and I really do part company. I have said many times that I respect his beliefs. That I do in the same way as I respect the beliefs of the Sikh lady in the desk behind me, the Presbyterian boss, the Catholic lady my wife plays tennis with or the Buddhist Chinese family over the road from us. Therein lies a very major difference in point of view, of world view, in the nature of our respective utopias.
Whatever a utopia might be, however a utopia might “work”, its very first fundamental must be of tolerance and acceptance of difference. To do otherwise must create the tensions and the distinctions that TF has striven to avoid. It is not just differences of religion. It is as basic as differences in personality, in ambition, and in capability. All of these barriers to utopia have been well discussed at many levels; from learned papers in universities to science fiction novels.
What those differences do however is to stir the contentious pot of supremacy. TF avoids this potential through the simple mechanisms of exclusion and close focus. His utopia depends (including "hangs from") on the thread of "one-ness" of culture and religion. There are no alternatives. Again we find that thread.
It is easy to argue that my utopia has the defect of the opposite; that variety and inclusion introduces the seeds of destruction. I have to agree. There would need to be agreed means of imposing rules; ensuring common justice; guaranteeing equitable and universal rights. Conflicts between cultures and ideas have always been at the heart of the development of our species. But the greatest barrier to my utopia is that of conversion and change. To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have.
The differences between TF and I might be expressed as –
TF sees his utopia as existing only through the culture and society in which he lives. He excludes difference. I don’t imagine for a moment that it was intentional. I believe though that (in my family at least) the spoken word that reveals underlying and hidden truth is often referred to as a “Freudian slip”. For someone like TF to speak his present reality as the foundation of his utopia is no grounds for criticism. It must be accepted as his expression of his truth.
My reference at the beginning to “evolution” was intentional. It is one of the very many differences that TF and I have. He has certainly not tried to persuade me that his paradigm is “correct”, and I have respected that by not challenging his viewpoint when expressed (perhaps other than an occasional mild poke in the ribs).
The point I have reached is this. My comment, the one picked up by TF, was born from the feeling that the existence of any person’s utopia is very dependent upon the evolution of that person’s society, even their family. The other extreme from TF might be the utopia of a member of Taliban, or Ibo, or Inuit. The fundamentals might even be similar; peace, wealth, rights. It is the means of expressing, attaining and measuring those goals that will differ far more fundamentally.
This is where I must end before I write a book. It is also where I must pick up that secondary thread I have had trailing through this whole piece. It is not a right or wrong distinction; it is a fundamental difference in our personalities, our up-bringing, our societies, our environment.
For better or worse, I have been blessed by living in a society that is based on difference and acceptance of those differences. I have been blessed by the fact that I have grown to accept differences, perhaps to an even greater degree than my own brother. I do not believe I could live in TF’s utopia. It sounds to me as though it would be too homogeneous, too narrow, for the ol’ probligo to fit. I do not believe for a moment that TF will accept my version for similar reasons; too liberal by half, and it excludes God, specifically his God.
I am not able to codify or to even develop the fundamentals of my personal utopia beyond what I have written here. I have developed these ideas over many years without ever having thought to formally express them prior to this conversation.
I have not cried the support of learned people and religion. This is all my own work.
I stand by it.
So perhaps I can start by echoing his entrance; it is the universal desire of every parent that their family should live in happiness and security. That echo draws the very first contrast. Not only do I wish that for my family and for TF’s, I wish it too for every family on this earth irrespective of breed, and belief. Therein lies the first major challenge as well, for it is true that not every person is born equal on this planet. Not at present that is. Bear witness here that I am taking “equality” here in its broadest and most general sense; I have just eaten lunch. I have just eaten food valued by our system at NZD0.75, USD0.55. In many places on this earth that value would comprise a week’s food for one person, not because their food is cheaper you understand but because that is as much as they are able to buy. At that point I meet the first of the “impossibilities”; I can not increase the “happiness index” (for want of a better term) of those people without decreasing that of others. The ability of this planet to support the increasing demands of our societies is limited. That limitation is distorted to a great degree by the fact that a small fraction (of which I am a member as much as is TF) of our global population are able to obtain, control and consume the greatest part of those resources.
The second truth that TF included with that first was his right “to make a living without governmental bureaucrats mucking up the works or worrying about world affairs and political upheaval.” Again, I must – can only – agree. So too does every other person on this earth have that right. There is a subsidiary thread that starts at this point and which I will return to pick up toward the end. For the moment, there is any number of books that can and have been written on the topic. Which brand of solution you want to select will depend from the type of political outlook you have. It has to be accepted that “government bureaucrats” is one of those simplistic generic terms that are floated by people who really mean to include all who are involved in the process of government from elected representatives to the desk clerk and receptionist and refuse collector. Again that sentiment has to be included as a universal. My response to the line of argument which usually follows is that every society ends up with the government it deserves. The challenge here is to accept that fact and also to have the tolerance to accept those differences. That challenge is also as universal as the sentiment.
I am also in agreement with TF’s quotation from The Federalist. Again, I can not escape “the shades of difference” between us. Where TF sees Federalist as “…if everyone acted to the best of their ability…” I can not dispute that. I must however lay alongside that the thought “…all must be allowed to act to the best of their ability…”. In that subtle distinction lies all manner of challenges for those of us who live in advanced and rich communities. Again, I come to the subsidiary thread I referred to in the earlier para. Now is not yet the time to pick up that thread. Note too that I do not make “money” the problem here any more than does TF.
At this point in his piece TF and I really do part company. I have said many times that I respect his beliefs. That I do in the same way as I respect the beliefs of the Sikh lady in the desk behind me, the Presbyterian boss, the Catholic lady my wife plays tennis with or the Buddhist Chinese family over the road from us. Therein lies a very major difference in point of view, of world view, in the nature of our respective utopias.
Whatever a utopia might be, however a utopia might “work”, its very first fundamental must be of tolerance and acceptance of difference. To do otherwise must create the tensions and the distinctions that TF has striven to avoid. It is not just differences of religion. It is as basic as differences in personality, in ambition, and in capability. All of these barriers to utopia have been well discussed at many levels; from learned papers in universities to science fiction novels.
What those differences do however is to stir the contentious pot of supremacy. TF avoids this potential through the simple mechanisms of exclusion and close focus. His utopia depends (including "hangs from") on the thread of "one-ness" of culture and religion. There are no alternatives. Again we find that thread.
It is easy to argue that my utopia has the defect of the opposite; that variety and inclusion introduces the seeds of destruction. I have to agree. There would need to be agreed means of imposing rules; ensuring common justice; guaranteeing equitable and universal rights. Conflicts between cultures and ideas have always been at the heart of the development of our species. But the greatest barrier to my utopia is that of conversion and change. To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have.
The differences between TF and I might be expressed as –
TF sees his utopia as existing only through the culture and society in which he lives. He excludes difference. I don’t imagine for a moment that it was intentional. I believe though that (in my family at least) the spoken word that reveals underlying and hidden truth is often referred to as a “Freudian slip”. For someone like TF to speak his present reality as the foundation of his utopia is no grounds for criticism. It must be accepted as his expression of his truth.
My reference at the beginning to “evolution” was intentional. It is one of the very many differences that TF and I have. He has certainly not tried to persuade me that his paradigm is “correct”, and I have respected that by not challenging his viewpoint when expressed (perhaps other than an occasional mild poke in the ribs).
The point I have reached is this. My comment, the one picked up by TF, was born from the feeling that the existence of any person’s utopia is very dependent upon the evolution of that person’s society, even their family. The other extreme from TF might be the utopia of a member of Taliban, or Ibo, or Inuit. The fundamentals might even be similar; peace, wealth, rights. It is the means of expressing, attaining and measuring those goals that will differ far more fundamentally.
This is where I must end before I write a book. It is also where I must pick up that secondary thread I have had trailing through this whole piece. It is not a right or wrong distinction; it is a fundamental difference in our personalities, our up-bringing, our societies, our environment.
For better or worse, I have been blessed by living in a society that is based on difference and acceptance of those differences. I have been blessed by the fact that I have grown to accept differences, perhaps to an even greater degree than my own brother. I do not believe I could live in TF’s utopia. It sounds to me as though it would be too homogeneous, too narrow, for the ol’ probligo to fit. I do not believe for a moment that TF will accept my version for similar reasons; too liberal by half, and it excludes God, specifically his God.
I am not able to codify or to even develop the fundamentals of my personal utopia beyond what I have written here. I have developed these ideas over many years without ever having thought to formally express them prior to this conversation.
I have not cried the support of learned people and religion. This is all my own work.
I stand by it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
On entitlement mentality...
I started writing last Saturday in response to a recent post by TF, in which he used (in the usual derogatory context) the tag-term “entitlement mentality”. I got myself horrendously bogged down with the balance between my line of thought and the kind of connotations the term has and to which I was objecting.
Then, last night was one of those few tv programmes that I really enjoy. A child psychologist, Nigel Latta, is in the middle of a series of programmes on the subject of “child-rearing” or parenting.
OK, ok I can hearing the scoffing already. No, the probligo has not lost his tree. It is a very interesting take on children, parenting and how best to achieve kids with the right attitudes. It is also, at the very least in terms of the debate at hand very a propos.
A brief wander through the chatboards and “reviews” that google brings to the surface in response to “latta parenting” will show everything from the “liberal” pain and outrage (at topics like poo in the bath or breastpumps) to the outright and unreserved approval of mums of real kids.
The tv series is based on a “stage” presentation that Latta started back in 2007 and it has been doing the rounds since then.
The clue to all of this has to be in the name – “The Politically Incorrect Parenting Show”.
This taken from a Listener interview back in 2007 –
Yes, his language is as direct as that :).
It goes further. He promotes concepts which, while I did not appreciate their importance as a child, I certainly agree with now. Concepts such as “risk”, “consequence”, “self reliance”, independence”, “respect”, “authority” and “effort” come to the fore.
But, how does this tie with TF’s “entitlement mentality”? Well that comes out of the programme last night. Latta was running through the idea of “self”, “self-image” and such-like concepts from the modern school of parenting.
He made the point using birthday parties as a f’rinstance. “When we were kids…”; the person having the birthday got the presents, got the first piece of cake. These days, everyone else gets the presents, everyone has their own personal cake that they can have the first piece of… Parents compete for “the bestest birthday party in the neighbourhood”, aided in their endeavours by advertising usually aimed at the kids if not actively promoted by them. You know the kind of thing, “But muumm, Daisy down the road had…”. The current one on tv promotes the “popularity steaks” with everyone wanting to be your friend because your parents are taking you and all of those “friends” to the local burger house (think here of arches).
The point Latta made was that Generation Y is being – has been – raised with that entitlement mentality to the fore. “I am GOOD. I WANT. I GET!” is the mantra for the selfish moderns. I work with a young fella who has this attitude in spades, and who has a passion for technology. In the past year he has owned, tried, displayed with pride, probably three different and increasingly expensive cellphones; sorry – what would be the generic term for a “Blackberry” or “iPod”? There is total pride in his purchase. There is pride in how much it cost!! On the other hand I have a basic cellphone, solely for communication, and only because SWMBO gave it me as a birthday present five years ago. It cost perhaps $100. It has no camera. It has no internet connection. It is a telephone. I have to use it every six months or so or the service provider will cancel the connection and I will lose the prepaid value on the phone.
The entitlement mentality is reinforced by the advertising industry. “THIS is what you want!! GO GET IT!!” It gets worse. You don’t even need the money. “Hey! Something you want? HERE is the money!” Don’t worry about paying it back. That is not the point. The point is “You want; you get!”
So, when people like TF start to complain (I resist the temptation to use “right whinge”) about “entitlement mentality” I start to get hot. I know what they mean, and I understand all of the connotations that their political beliefs impose on the term.
However, so many people completely miss the truth. What he is complaining of is not something that is restricted to the poor, or to those on welfare, alone. It is endemic in our society. It is the basis, the fundamental, the foundation of the consumer economy. It is a state of mind that requires a person have not this or that, but this and that. It totally pervades our society. It is the attitude that makes us see four wheels with motive power and safety equipment not as a simple mode of transport but as a symbol of our personality. How many people go out and buy a “replacement” for a perfectly good, still serviceable appliance simply because there is a new one advertised on the tv which has a different colour, a new motor, or which is merely more in keeping with the current fashion?
Returning to the thoughts TF proposes on entitlement mentality, there is a question that has to be asked.
How many of those who by the implications he puts on the term, those on welfare, the dodgers, the bludgers, the lazy and the unproductive are in fact responsible for the credit squeeze and the bad loans and all of the other ills of the financial and banking systems? I would suggest very few indeed.
The far greatest part of the bad debt is probably owed by teenage children who are entitled to credit cards paid by their forty-something parents; by twenty-somethings who are entitled to add a new car, an expensive home theatre system and their OE to their student loan; by thirty somethings who marry and are entitled to spend far more than necessary on their wedding because they must make the social statement “I am rich!”; by forty-somethings who are entitled to the expensive house, the two cars, the RV, the sports car, and the boat…
Not just the people who fall into the right wing paradigm…
Then, last night was one of those few tv programmes that I really enjoy. A child psychologist, Nigel Latta, is in the middle of a series of programmes on the subject of “child-rearing” or parenting.
OK, ok I can hearing the scoffing already. No, the probligo has not lost his tree. It is a very interesting take on children, parenting and how best to achieve kids with the right attitudes. It is also, at the very least in terms of the debate at hand very a propos.
A brief wander through the chatboards and “reviews” that google brings to the surface in response to “latta parenting” will show everything from the “liberal” pain and outrage (at topics like poo in the bath or breastpumps) to the outright and unreserved approval of mums of real kids.
The tv series is based on a “stage” presentation that Latta started back in 2007 and it has been doing the rounds since then.
The clue to all of this has to be in the name – “The Politically Incorrect Parenting Show”.
This taken from a Listener interview back in 2007 –
It’s time to poke a stick at our child-centred world, says Dunedin-based clinical psychologist, author and father of two boys Nigel Latta. And he does so, unashamedly, in a performance he calls the Politically Incorrect Parenting Show.
What is politically incorrect parenting? It came about because I think we’ve got incredibly precious about children and we stress and worry more than any other generation of parents. We worry about them walking to school, climbing trees, if we read them enough bedtime stories, if we read out all the plaques at the museum … none of it makes a difference.
Isn’t that just the natural order of things for a parent – to worry? If you’re constantly stressed and worried about whether you are doing a good job, you’re not going to do a good job. You’re far better off enjoying your kids, and then when you stop enjoying them, tell them to go away and play. Like our parents did. Our parents raised us on some pretty straightforward guidelines: we’re adults; you’re children. We play with adults; you play with children. Self-esteem hadn’t been invented when we were children. Our parents could just get on with being parents.
Are parents these days too busy trying to be their kid’s best pal? It’s okay to not be their little mate and it’s okay if they hate you. We got a letter last night posted under our door from our seven-year-old, saying how much he hated us.
How creative of him. Did you give him a prize? Why did he hate you? He was sent to bed early for being rude. He’s still learning that sometimes in life it’s best to zip one’s mouth rather than keep arguing for a position that’s already lost.
Are you New Zealand’s answer to Supernanny? If anyone described me as Supernanny, I’d shoot myself in the head. She’s possibly the most annoying woman in the world. I really like the British series Little Angels because it shows parents fixing things.
On one hand you say there’s this enormous anxiety about positive parenting and that we are very child-centred. But on the other, New Zealand has one of the worst records for child abuse in the OECD. The people who get anxious about positive parenting generally are concerned, and the people who beat their kids don’t engage in things like the debate around Section 59 and they often come from generations of crap parenting. They actually don’t care about hurting their children. So, this idea that we can appeal to them is ridiculous.
Not even through television ad campaigns – “Violence is not okay”? It’s just absolute bollocks. It’s lunacy. There are lots of things we could do in this country to reduce the number of kids who die or are hurt, but the problem is that the country is run by politicians and people who are good at advocating to politicians. The good clinicians, the people who can solve the problem, are crap at working the system and they never have very much money.
People say parenting’s the hardest job in the world, even for those least marginalised. Absolutely. I’ve been incredibly lucky, I had fantastic parents and grew up in a stable home and yet there are still times when I feel like chucking my boys out the window. I’d walk into the fire for them, but some days my fingers itch for the want to throw them out the nearest window.
Have you ever hit your kids? Hit, smack – absolutely. In fact, I’m the only person in New Zealand who started smacking because of Sue Bradford.
But aren’t the big people supposed to be in control and not hit or bellow? It’s not the fact that you bellow at your kids, it’s your lifetime average. Everybody bellows when they lose the plot and the reason you yell is that it makes you feel better. But as a long-term strategy, it’s not the best. I think that a lot of people, if they give their kid a smack on the bum, or yell, think, “Oh, I’m a terrible person.” Well, not necessarily.
If you give a shit about your kids and you love them, they know that.
Yes, his language is as direct as that :).
It goes further. He promotes concepts which, while I did not appreciate their importance as a child, I certainly agree with now. Concepts such as “risk”, “consequence”, “self reliance”, independence”, “respect”, “authority” and “effort” come to the fore.
But, how does this tie with TF’s “entitlement mentality”? Well that comes out of the programme last night. Latta was running through the idea of “self”, “self-image” and such-like concepts from the modern school of parenting.
He made the point using birthday parties as a f’rinstance. “When we were kids…”; the person having the birthday got the presents, got the first piece of cake. These days, everyone else gets the presents, everyone has their own personal cake that they can have the first piece of… Parents compete for “the bestest birthday party in the neighbourhood”, aided in their endeavours by advertising usually aimed at the kids if not actively promoted by them. You know the kind of thing, “But muumm, Daisy down the road had…”. The current one on tv promotes the “popularity steaks” with everyone wanting to be your friend because your parents are taking you and all of those “friends” to the local burger house (think here of arches).
The point Latta made was that Generation Y is being – has been – raised with that entitlement mentality to the fore. “I am GOOD. I WANT. I GET!” is the mantra for the selfish moderns. I work with a young fella who has this attitude in spades, and who has a passion for technology. In the past year he has owned, tried, displayed with pride, probably three different and increasingly expensive cellphones; sorry – what would be the generic term for a “Blackberry” or “iPod”? There is total pride in his purchase. There is pride in how much it cost!! On the other hand I have a basic cellphone, solely for communication, and only because SWMBO gave it me as a birthday present five years ago. It cost perhaps $100. It has no camera. It has no internet connection. It is a telephone. I have to use it every six months or so or the service provider will cancel the connection and I will lose the prepaid value on the phone.
The entitlement mentality is reinforced by the advertising industry. “THIS is what you want!! GO GET IT!!” It gets worse. You don’t even need the money. “Hey! Something you want? HERE is the money!” Don’t worry about paying it back. That is not the point. The point is “You want; you get!”
So, when people like TF start to complain (I resist the temptation to use “right whinge”) about “entitlement mentality” I start to get hot. I know what they mean, and I understand all of the connotations that their political beliefs impose on the term.
However, so many people completely miss the truth. What he is complaining of is not something that is restricted to the poor, or to those on welfare, alone. It is endemic in our society. It is the basis, the fundamental, the foundation of the consumer economy. It is a state of mind that requires a person have not this or that, but this and that. It totally pervades our society. It is the attitude that makes us see four wheels with motive power and safety equipment not as a simple mode of transport but as a symbol of our personality. How many people go out and buy a “replacement” for a perfectly good, still serviceable appliance simply because there is a new one advertised on the tv which has a different colour, a new motor, or which is merely more in keeping with the current fashion?
Returning to the thoughts TF proposes on entitlement mentality, there is a question that has to be asked.
How many of those who by the implications he puts on the term, those on welfare, the dodgers, the bludgers, the lazy and the unproductive are in fact responsible for the credit squeeze and the bad loans and all of the other ills of the financial and banking systems? I would suggest very few indeed.
The far greatest part of the bad debt is probably owed by teenage children who are entitled to credit cards paid by their forty-something parents; by twenty-somethings who are entitled to add a new car, an expensive home theatre system and their OE to their student loan; by thirty somethings who marry and are entitled to spend far more than necessary on their wedding because they must make the social statement “I am rich!”; by forty-somethings who are entitled to the expensive house, the two cars, the RV, the sports car, and the boat…
Not just the people who fall into the right wing paradigm…
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Atamira
This year was the second Atamira - the first was two years ago, the next will be 2011 to coincide with the Rugby World Cup. It is a "cultural presentation" of urban Maori and is funded by Auckland City and Manukau City. Confused yet?
Admission is free - how "collective" is that!! But then, I refuse, point blank, to pay to attend similar "shows" where 90% of the content is commercial and advertorial.
Anyhoos, it was most enjoyable. There was plenty of people, but not the crammed-in-shoulder-to-shoulder crowds of the Easter Show of past years (the commercial and advertorial referred to, and which cost $25 per head last time we went 30 years back).
I enjoy faces - and I hate formal and posed photography. So, what is set out below are all hand-held, natural light, shutterspeed as slow as 1/4s.
This lady is stripping flax to remove the "plant" from the fibres. Traditionally a pipi (like a cockle) shell is used. The strips she is working on will end up as "lilys" like those in the foreground.
It is a long time since last saw this being done. The panel is tukutuku, thin wood laths bound over raupo (you can see that in the gaps as light fawn vertical bits). The panels were used as lining in important houses and there are many traditional patterns used as decoration. This panel was about 4m long and 1.5m high - large! The binding is done in pairs, one each side of the panel, and when there are three or four "teams" singing as they work it is great to sit and watch (if you are allowed).
Also performing (two 20 minute stints) was Whirimako Black.
The "theatre" is no more than 8m across, and about 3m from stage front to back. Truly, "intimate" theatre!
It was good to hear her sing, in person, and with no "backing" other than Kevin Kereama doing the percussion and bone flute bits reasonably well.
Oh, one last thing. The woman pictured above, peeking out from behind the white and blue needs explanation. The white and blue is the back and head (hoodie and balaclava) of her son(?) who is a quadraplegic and is a mouth-painter. I thought her face was quite dramatic and wore the cares of looking after her (30ish) son.
A good "boil-up" for lunch, $10 per head. Mutton, kumera, potato, watercress boiled (hence the name) for quite some time. The hangi was $15, but I haven't had a decent boil-up since I was a kid so there was no contest. We were there for a good 5 hours.
Time well spent on a wet and cold winter Saturday.
Admission is free - how "collective" is that!! But then, I refuse, point blank, to pay to attend similar "shows" where 90% of the content is commercial and advertorial.
Anyhoos, it was most enjoyable. There was plenty of people, but not the crammed-in-shoulder-to-shoulder crowds of the Easter Show of past years (the commercial and advertorial referred to, and which cost $25 per head last time we went 30 years back).
I enjoy faces - and I hate formal and posed photography. So, what is set out below are all hand-held, natural light, shutterspeed as slow as 1/4s.
This lady is stripping flax to remove the "plant" from the fibres. Traditionally a pipi (like a cockle) shell is used. The strips she is working on will end up as "lilys" like those in the foreground.
It is a long time since last saw this being done. The panel is tukutuku, thin wood laths bound over raupo (you can see that in the gaps as light fawn vertical bits). The panels were used as lining in important houses and there are many traditional patterns used as decoration. This panel was about 4m long and 1.5m high - large! The binding is done in pairs, one each side of the panel, and when there are three or four "teams" singing as they work it is great to sit and watch (if you are allowed).
Also performing (two 20 minute stints) was Whirimako Black.
The "theatre" is no more than 8m across, and about 3m from stage front to back. Truly, "intimate" theatre!
It was good to hear her sing, in person, and with no "backing" other than Kevin Kereama doing the percussion and bone flute bits reasonably well.
Oh, one last thing. The woman pictured above, peeking out from behind the white and blue needs explanation. The white and blue is the back and head (hoodie and balaclava) of her son(?) who is a quadraplegic and is a mouth-painter. I thought her face was quite dramatic and wore the cares of looking after her (30ish) son.
A good "boil-up" for lunch, $10 per head. Mutton, kumera, potato, watercress boiled (hence the name) for quite some time. The hangi was $15, but I haven't had a decent boil-up since I was a kid so there was no contest. We were there for a good 5 hours.
Time well spent on a wet and cold winter Saturday.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wonder 2
TF has written quite a treatise in response to my thoughts on “Wonder”. I appreciate the effort he has put into it. This response is not intended as a criticism of him, or his beliefs, but as an expansion of my own (comparatively half-baked) ideas. The other thing to understand, TF and any others reading here, is that I use “god” (small ‘g’) to indicate any venerated supernatural (including the anti-heros), and if I intend the Christian “god” then out of respect alone I must use “God”. Clear? No disrespect intended.
His opening paragraph really has the conundrum in a nutshell –
I have just received an email (serendipity at work here) from a co-worker. It contains a .ppt of artworks by Otavio Ocampo; of whom I have never before heard. It is a propos because the pictures (and I have to admit they are very well done) illustrate (pun intended) the difference that I see between “understanding” and “belief”. It is difficult to explain, but one (chosen because it is the least controversial in this context) is a painting of a partial profile of a young lady’s face. As the picture is enlarged, it becomes obvious that the features are in fact small (swallow-like) birds, similar in appearance to the Disney “Bluebird” theme. So, one bird becomes eyebrow and eye, others become the septum and nostrils, lips and so on. As I said, well done and very clever.
But it is the illusion created that is the connection. What appears to be one thing at a distance, on a small scale, becomes another as you get closer. The connection between belief and understanding is like that.
The difference between what you have said, TF, and my view is really quite simple.
In order to “understand” your world, you have to “believe”.
My world requires no “understanding”. It “is”. Nothing more, nothing less.
I “understand” my world to the extent that there is nothing that I have observed (in 62 years) that requires anything more than an (known and proven) objective explanation. That is to say that I do not follow anything like the “deus ex machina” explanations of natural phenomena, including “the creation” of this universe. I put “the creation” in quotes there because in part it is the heart of the debate. Is this a “great glorious coincidence”, or was it “created” for totally unfathomable reasons by some unfathomable super-being. Perhaps it is no more than the plaything of a bored child. One of our local tv funding agencies Te Mangai Paho ( the valve at the end of the funding pipe from government to maori tv programme makers) has a very clever avatar. It starts with a “picture” of the earth and zooms out to the galaxy and ends with a small girl holding that galaxy between her hands. You may correctly deduce that I have never seen UFOs, ghosts, spirits (other than the bottled kind), Leprechauns, demons, angels, or any of the other supernatural beings some people seem to have infesting their universes.
The Bhuddists have it differently; “All is illusion”. Sort that idea out, they tell us, and you will get closer to “enlightenment”; whatever that might entail. As I see it, enlightenment is (somewhat cynically) no more than another “illusion”. That does not imply any form of nihilism. Far from it. It is the tat tvam asi (that art thou, thou art that) of the Upanishad. My meager understanding is that the illusion is of “separateness”, “non-unity”, rather than the non-existence of reality. Expressed more definitely, we are part of reality and that reality is part of us. To try and separate the two creates the illusion. (That is behind my statement that I was “close” to Bhuddism).
One can look to a similar dichotomy in the idea of “the principle of revelation” – all will be revealed as and when god determines the time is right. In the absence of “proof”, inspiration becomes similar to “the creation”. Is there a god leading the mind? Or is inspiration the result of taking a different viewpoint and the ability to recognise what and how the picture has been changed? I return at that point to the illusions portrayed by Ocampo, or Escher. There is no proof that revelation or inspiration is the intervention of God, any more than there is proof that it is not. That Newton “realised” the effects of gravity is undisputed. Was the idea his or God’s? Unprovable.
As an aside, in none of the biographies I have read of Ernest, Lord Rutherford has there been any mention made of his religion. Rather than try to argue he was an atheist – an assumption both facile and unwarranted – let us just assume that he was just too busy to be bothered with formal “worship”. Why would God chose a humble son of a farmer in NZ to reveal the secrets of atomic structure (specifically the relationship between nucleus and electrons) when there were far more “deserving” candidates such as Cavendish.
And that leads to another aspect.
If “inspiration” is the consequence of supernatural intervention, then an incorrect inspiration – let’s use the geocentric universe as an example seeing that it was referred to by TF – is the consequence of what? An intentional diversion of mankind from the truth? Human error? Or the intervention of another (anti-hero) supernatural? The downfall of Adam and Eve is the same moot path if you want.
I would not attribute either to the deus ex machina of divine intervention. To argue divine intervention (either and both ways) is to effectively remove the entire universe of voluntary action, choice, and self.
At least the ancient Greek gods and the Norse were up front – they bribed, peddled, persuaded, cajoled, threatened and even thunderbolted, people into following a particular course of action. For the most part they were content in their own carousing, and enjoyment of all of the pleasures of a normal life and left mankind to their own devices.
If I have the total free will that I imagine, then that is also an attribute that I must recognise in all others. That is why I have never (could nor would) presented my beliefs in a form that is intended to influence the beliefs of others. Hence the explanation at the beginning of this – “This response is not intended as a criticism of him [TF], or his beliefs, but as an expansion of my own (comparatively half-baked) ideas.”
That is why TF is wasting his time in proselytising (to the ol' probligo) his “physical beings” who are in some way more substantial than the “vaporous cloud” of my imagination. Actually, TF, that ties quite nicely back to the point that Botton was making and where I probably differ quite markedly from the religio-political atheists that make his point. It is that belief which has given so much of what I admire in man’s legacy. Not just Christianity, every religion has left its mark on our species. Who is to say that the Blue Mosque in Constantinople, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Ratana Church in Te Kao, or the great Bhuddist temples of Thailand are any less than The Vatican, Notre Dame, or St Pauls as statements of the power of man’s beliefs. Who is to say that the St Matthew Passion is any greater than the prayer chants of Bhuddists, or the readings from the Torah or Koran. Nothing diminishes the beauty of those works. Nothing makes one supreme over any other. They are all expressions of the power of faith held by humans whatever their religion. I have no doubt that the prayer chants of the Druids or the even more ancients were as powerful in their own way as the modern works and no less beautiful. It is sad that they are lost.
They are all works of man. I do not believe that any are the result of divine guidance. I revere them as artifacts of who and what we are as a species.
So, if I labour under the delusion of free will, of choice, of freedom from the intervention of a supreme being whoever or whatever alien that might happen to be, you must forgive me.
At least that delusion or illusion is making me happy; as a human, as a sentient being, and as an animal.
His opening paragraph really has the conundrum in a nutshell –
My understanding of God… I base my belief in God…For my part there are two very different thoughts there.
I have just received an email (serendipity at work here) from a co-worker. It contains a .ppt of artworks by Otavio Ocampo; of whom I have never before heard. It is a propos because the pictures (and I have to admit they are very well done) illustrate (pun intended) the difference that I see between “understanding” and “belief”. It is difficult to explain, but one (chosen because it is the least controversial in this context) is a painting of a partial profile of a young lady’s face. As the picture is enlarged, it becomes obvious that the features are in fact small (swallow-like) birds, similar in appearance to the Disney “Bluebird” theme. So, one bird becomes eyebrow and eye, others become the septum and nostrils, lips and so on. As I said, well done and very clever.
But it is the illusion created that is the connection. What appears to be one thing at a distance, on a small scale, becomes another as you get closer. The connection between belief and understanding is like that.
The difference between what you have said, TF, and my view is really quite simple.
In order to “understand” your world, you have to “believe”.
My world requires no “understanding”. It “is”. Nothing more, nothing less.
I “understand” my world to the extent that there is nothing that I have observed (in 62 years) that requires anything more than an (known and proven) objective explanation. That is to say that I do not follow anything like the “deus ex machina” explanations of natural phenomena, including “the creation” of this universe. I put “the creation” in quotes there because in part it is the heart of the debate. Is this a “great glorious coincidence”, or was it “created” for totally unfathomable reasons by some unfathomable super-being. Perhaps it is no more than the plaything of a bored child. One of our local tv funding agencies Te Mangai Paho ( the valve at the end of the funding pipe from government to maori tv programme makers) has a very clever avatar. It starts with a “picture” of the earth and zooms out to the galaxy and ends with a small girl holding that galaxy between her hands. You may correctly deduce that I have never seen UFOs, ghosts, spirits (other than the bottled kind), Leprechauns, demons, angels, or any of the other supernatural beings some people seem to have infesting their universes.
The Bhuddists have it differently; “All is illusion”. Sort that idea out, they tell us, and you will get closer to “enlightenment”; whatever that might entail. As I see it, enlightenment is (somewhat cynically) no more than another “illusion”. That does not imply any form of nihilism. Far from it. It is the tat tvam asi (that art thou, thou art that) of the Upanishad. My meager understanding is that the illusion is of “separateness”, “non-unity”, rather than the non-existence of reality. Expressed more definitely, we are part of reality and that reality is part of us. To try and separate the two creates the illusion. (That is behind my statement that I was “close” to Bhuddism).
One can look to a similar dichotomy in the idea of “the principle of revelation” – all will be revealed as and when god determines the time is right. In the absence of “proof”, inspiration becomes similar to “the creation”. Is there a god leading the mind? Or is inspiration the result of taking a different viewpoint and the ability to recognise what and how the picture has been changed? I return at that point to the illusions portrayed by Ocampo, or Escher. There is no proof that revelation or inspiration is the intervention of God, any more than there is proof that it is not. That Newton “realised” the effects of gravity is undisputed. Was the idea his or God’s? Unprovable.
As an aside, in none of the biographies I have read of Ernest, Lord Rutherford has there been any mention made of his religion. Rather than try to argue he was an atheist – an assumption both facile and unwarranted – let us just assume that he was just too busy to be bothered with formal “worship”. Why would God chose a humble son of a farmer in NZ to reveal the secrets of atomic structure (specifically the relationship between nucleus and electrons) when there were far more “deserving” candidates such as Cavendish.
And that leads to another aspect.
If “inspiration” is the consequence of supernatural intervention, then an incorrect inspiration – let’s use the geocentric universe as an example seeing that it was referred to by TF – is the consequence of what? An intentional diversion of mankind from the truth? Human error? Or the intervention of another (anti-hero) supernatural? The downfall of Adam and Eve is the same moot path if you want.
I would not attribute either to the deus ex machina of divine intervention. To argue divine intervention (either and both ways) is to effectively remove the entire universe of voluntary action, choice, and self.
At least the ancient Greek gods and the Norse were up front – they bribed, peddled, persuaded, cajoled, threatened and even thunderbolted, people into following a particular course of action. For the most part they were content in their own carousing, and enjoyment of all of the pleasures of a normal life and left mankind to their own devices.
If I have the total free will that I imagine, then that is also an attribute that I must recognise in all others. That is why I have never (could nor would) presented my beliefs in a form that is intended to influence the beliefs of others. Hence the explanation at the beginning of this – “This response is not intended as a criticism of him [TF], or his beliefs, but as an expansion of my own (comparatively half-baked) ideas.”
That is why TF is wasting his time in proselytising (to the ol' probligo) his “physical beings” who are in some way more substantial than the “vaporous cloud” of my imagination. Actually, TF, that ties quite nicely back to the point that Botton was making and where I probably differ quite markedly from the religio-political atheists that make his point. It is that belief which has given so much of what I admire in man’s legacy. Not just Christianity, every religion has left its mark on our species. Who is to say that the Blue Mosque in Constantinople, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Ratana Church in Te Kao, or the great Bhuddist temples of Thailand are any less than The Vatican, Notre Dame, or St Pauls as statements of the power of man’s beliefs. Who is to say that the St Matthew Passion is any greater than the prayer chants of Bhuddists, or the readings from the Torah or Koran. Nothing diminishes the beauty of those works. Nothing makes one supreme over any other. They are all expressions of the power of faith held by humans whatever their religion. I have no doubt that the prayer chants of the Druids or the even more ancients were as powerful in their own way as the modern works and no less beautiful. It is sad that they are lost.
They are all works of man. I do not believe that any are the result of divine guidance. I revere them as artifacts of who and what we are as a species.
So, if I labour under the delusion of free will, of choice, of freedom from the intervention of a supreme being whoever or whatever alien that might happen to be, you must forgive me.
At least that delusion or illusion is making me happy; as a human, as a sentient being, and as an animal.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Idle thoughts for a winter's day...
This starts with one of Liberty Bob’s articles about the Swine Flu. Not the PC of H1N1 around these parts. Officials and the probligo have decreed that the name is Swine flu; in just the same way as the Geographic Board has decreed that “North Island” and “South Island” are just not good enough, nor do they reflect the “traditional" Maori names, but most importantly of all they have never been Gazetted.
Be that as it may, and back to Liberty Bob. He had a (non-probligo) comment bewailing the millions who had died in the avian flu epidemic. The probligo, intentionally and because he was in a bit of a mood, took it seriously and was quite rightly mildly castigated by L-B for not recognizing the sarcasm of the first comment.
Be that as it may as well, and moving on from Liberty Bob to the wider world… Well, America in fact.
Why is it that Americans (and it seems to be a fairly general trait and not something that is in just the small circles of Americans that I have met) have this propensity for mindless bravado, for totally disregarding risk, for being the villagers who ignored the little boy who cried wolf once too often? I have to admit that it is a trait that has given impetus to their country’s place in the world. Without that bravado, a lot of very valuable things would never have happened, and the world would be the poorer (and in some cases, the better) for it.
Just a second, the cat is trying to crawl into my lap…
Now, WWI? Oh, yeah, the bravado.
To take examples other than Bob writing on the Swine Flu we could look at the overall reaction to the warnings of Katrina as a Cat 5 storm; or the warnings back in 2005 and 2006 that national and international financial systems were getting “overheated”; the scepticism that “global warming” is something we should worry about. “We’ve heard them before and nothing happened!” “Cry wolf again…”
Perhaps there is a converse here. If we look at the national reaction to 9/11; a mixture of justified outrage at one end and a paranoic fear at the other. When America “worries” it is an all-consuming fear. The current “fear”, now that Osama has not been found in Afghanistan, is that Obama will ruin America. Will he? I believe no more than it has already been “ruined” by successive administrations each following their individual political mantras into oblivion. And there is still that chance that he might do good…
So, it looks like Americans at least consider the Swine Flu – sorry H1N1 Mexico – to be little more than a beat-up by the left wing media. Once again. Tail wags the dog – again.
Be that as it may, and back to Liberty Bob. He had a (non-probligo) comment bewailing the millions who had died in the avian flu epidemic. The probligo, intentionally and because he was in a bit of a mood, took it seriously and was quite rightly mildly castigated by L-B for not recognizing the sarcasm of the first comment.
Be that as it may as well, and moving on from Liberty Bob to the wider world… Well, America in fact.
Why is it that Americans (and it seems to be a fairly general trait and not something that is in just the small circles of Americans that I have met) have this propensity for mindless bravado, for totally disregarding risk, for being the villagers who ignored the little boy who cried wolf once too often? I have to admit that it is a trait that has given impetus to their country’s place in the world. Without that bravado, a lot of very valuable things would never have happened, and the world would be the poorer (and in some cases, the better) for it.
Just a second, the cat is trying to crawl into my lap…
Now, WWI? Oh, yeah, the bravado.
To take examples other than Bob writing on the Swine Flu we could look at the overall reaction to the warnings of Katrina as a Cat 5 storm; or the warnings back in 2005 and 2006 that national and international financial systems were getting “overheated”; the scepticism that “global warming” is something we should worry about. “We’ve heard them before and nothing happened!” “Cry wolf again…”
Perhaps there is a converse here. If we look at the national reaction to 9/11; a mixture of justified outrage at one end and a paranoic fear at the other. When America “worries” it is an all-consuming fear. The current “fear”, now that Osama has not been found in Afghanistan, is that Obama will ruin America. Will he? I believe no more than it has already been “ruined” by successive administrations each following their individual political mantras into oblivion. And there is still that chance that he might do good…
So, it looks like Americans at least consider the Swine Flu – sorry H1N1 Mexico – to be little more than a beat-up by the left wing media. Once again. Tail wags the dog – again.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Good Grief!!!
Just how sensitive can you be -
Perhaps Patrolman T.E. Parsons might like to come share lunch with the factory workers here. A good feed of taro the night before does wonders for the digestive tract, but can make one somewhat unpopular. A few days might be enough to get him sufficiently desensitised...
It sounds more to me like Patrolman T.E. Parsons had gotten himself up on the wrong side of the bed, or perhaps his liver was acting up again... Whatever the cause, there would be a simple solution - shut the guy in an unventilated cell for a few hours then give him a cigarette and a lighter and shut the door... :)
It strikes me too, how the good old Anglo Saxon word "fart" has been euphemised to "passing gas" and similar. Come on, a fart is a fart, always has been, always will.
SOUTH CHARLESTON - A West Virginia man who police said passed gas and fanned it toward a patrolman has been charged with battery on a police officer.
Jose A. Cruz, 34, of Clarksburg, was pulled over for driving without headlights, police said. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyser test.
As Patrolman T.E. Parsons prepared the machine, Cruz scooted his chair toward Parsons, lifted his leg and "passed gas loudly," the complaint said.
Cruz, according to complaint, then fanned the gas toward the officer.
"The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Patrolman Parsons," the complaint alleged.
He was also charged with driving under the influence, driving without headlights and two counts of obstruction.
Cruz acknowledged passing gas, but said he didn't move his chair toward the officer nor aim gas at the patrolman. He said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he first arrived at the station.
Perhaps Patrolman T.E. Parsons might like to come share lunch with the factory workers here. A good feed of taro the night before does wonders for the digestive tract, but can make one somewhat unpopular. A few days might be enough to get him sufficiently desensitised...
It sounds more to me like Patrolman T.E. Parsons had gotten himself up on the wrong side of the bed, or perhaps his liver was acting up again... Whatever the cause, there would be a simple solution - shut the guy in an unventilated cell for a few hours then give him a cigarette and a lighter and shut the door... :)
It strikes me too, how the good old Anglo Saxon word "fart" has been euphemised to "passing gas" and similar. Come on, a fart is a fart, always has been, always will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
