Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Wot no harmonicas?
Slayer have a new album out, "Christ Illusion". On it they still "Hail Satan" and "choose 666", which is reassuring after all these years. But a closer inspection reveals that, rather worryingly, there is something serious going on here. War, religion, religious wars... that's about it as far as lyrics go, and there's no ambiguity about their position. These are hardly new concepts for metal in general and Slayer in particular, but I'd usually expect a few numbers about, I don't know, zombies in there too. There seems little doubt that this focus derives from 9/11 and all that's happened since. So not only could this be described as a concept album, this is surely... a protest album. That shreds like a bastard!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Yeurch...
While wittering about right-wing historians, I forgot to mention the loathsome Niall Ferguson, but now I have remembered!
Saturday, August 26, 2006
A Classical Education
I've finally finished Robin Lane Fox's "The Classical World", which I'd been wanting to read since the hardback came out. It was well worth the wait; a fantastic way of putting what I can only describe as "all that stuff" into context without having to go through a pre-1940's public school education. His occasional, somewhat bizarre, emphasis on the significance of gardens is only explicable when one reads the author's biog and discovers that he has been the Financial Times' gardening correspondent since 1970.
It's clear that Fox has a great deal of admiration for many of the military exploits and feels sympathetic towards some individuals whose behaviour was at times, well, ruthless, to say the least. This is probably fair; neither the idea that the classical civilisations were hideously cruel and alien, nor that their inhabitants were demigods compared to us can be adequate. We must judge in context. Nevertheless, I was reminded of David Starkey, another historian; during an edition of "Any Questions" he claimed that anyone who actually understood history would be right-wing politically. I'm not at all sure; I think that, inevitably, people like Starkey and Fox view history from the top-down, as it were. It's no wonder that this happens, because that is the stuff that our traditional sources of History talk about, and that is where all the action seems to be - wars are led by kings, not serfs. Life, though, is lived from the bottom up. There have been vastly more serfs than kings, and the history of kings and queens is really only context for the true meat and gristle of human experience.
It's clear that Fox has a great deal of admiration for many of the military exploits and feels sympathetic towards some individuals whose behaviour was at times, well, ruthless, to say the least. This is probably fair; neither the idea that the classical civilisations were hideously cruel and alien, nor that their inhabitants were demigods compared to us can be adequate. We must judge in context. Nevertheless, I was reminded of David Starkey, another historian; during an edition of "Any Questions" he claimed that anyone who actually understood history would be right-wing politically. I'm not at all sure; I think that, inevitably, people like Starkey and Fox view history from the top-down, as it were. It's no wonder that this happens, because that is the stuff that our traditional sources of History talk about, and that is where all the action seems to be - wars are led by kings, not serfs. Life, though, is lived from the bottom up. There have been vastly more serfs than kings, and the history of kings and queens is really only context for the true meat and gristle of human experience.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Theists and their Straw Men, Life and its Beauty.
So, back to the Hitchens critique of Darwinism. (1) (2) By the way, I acknowledge that the piece I have picked up on is not his own words, but someone else's attempt to sum up his views. However, the "Hitchens critique" seems reasonable shorthand, given that the piece is explicitly associated with him, even if it does not necessarily derive from him. You can find some comment about this in words that are explicitly his under "What are Archbishops for?"; scroll down the page to find it. He says there:
"Darwin's theory - and that of his followers - is a heroic and impressive attempt to describe events that no human could ever have witnessed, on the basis of very thin evidence which cannot easily be tested."
But I shall go back to the original piece first, because there's even more foolishness in it. Like this: "the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past." See that Big Bang? Apparently, that's not a scientific theory. To be fair, this is where poor wording may be making Hitchens look more ignorant of science than he actually is. Or maybe he really does believe that the theory of evolution is unique in this regard.
But what, exactly, is meant by "cannot be tested"? This seems to assume that unless you can reproduce all of what you're talking about in a laboratory experiment, then you can't be doing science. Because there are plenty of ways to test a theory. For example, you could dig up thousands upon thousands of fossils which demonstrate different species living on the earth at different times. Or you could look for "transitional stages". Good one this, because for some reason, anti-darwinists of various stripes often point to it:
"If all that's true, then we should see lots of inbetween stages, shouldn't we." Yes, is the reply, and the thing is, that we do. For example, every animal that has ever lived anywhere ever. And all the plants, too. "Species" only appear to be discrete entities because what we actually see are individual creatures at one moment in time. But if that's too abstract to grasp, then take the eye. (Squelch.) Go for a more complex one, such as that of a human, or octopus. Now, the fantastic thing is that just about every stage that could be easily imagined in between "no eye at all" and the organ in your hand exists in animals, many of them alive now. (This eye bit is entirely derived from The Blind Watchmaker, by the way.) So that's transitional stages thoroughly sorted out, then.
Or there's the burgeoning science of genetics, and all that we have learned about molecular clocks. The test, not to labour the point, is whether the information that we keep on turning up is compatible with the theory, or not. And it is, in all its vast quantity.
So, and lastly for today, about this "has not been observed bit". I hope I've already indicated that a theory can be highly robust without needing for all its implications to be seen in process. But go back to the bit about natural selection. The two observations, I would contend, being observations, have been observed. Stop me if I've missed something, here. The rest simply follows. The really interesting part, though, is speciation, the process itself. Even if species, as such, only exist in snapshots of time, the process of speciation is absolutely vital; it does not (necessarily) happen in quantum leaps, but even if we cannot draw a boundary, it is still possible to say "this species is not that species, yet they are both descended from that species." If you can identify that, then you have identified a speciation.
Shame we can't see that happening, isn't it? Oh. Have a look here. And here. I'll not deny that this evidence has its detractors. Some of those detractors may actually be better at it than that one, who nicely attempts to refute the evidence by ignoring most of it (compare the examples listed by the proponent above and the opponent), and by setting up straw men: "Darwinists say all dogs are different species!". Only thick ones. "Speciation...In the sense of one species changing into another" is not what we're looking for; speciation, where descendents of a common ancestor diverge into separate species is another matter entirely.
Well, I'm off for now. If this has become gibberish, I may well come back to tighten it up; in the meantime, I just wish we Darwinists had more than just the flimsiest of evidence to draw upon. More about why Intelligent Design is just a misprint of Nonrational Craving for a big old Daddy in the sky later.
"Darwin's theory - and that of his followers - is a heroic and impressive attempt to describe events that no human could ever have witnessed, on the basis of very thin evidence which cannot easily be tested."
But I shall go back to the original piece first, because there's even more foolishness in it. Like this: "the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past." See that Big Bang? Apparently, that's not a scientific theory. To be fair, this is where poor wording may be making Hitchens look more ignorant of science than he actually is. Or maybe he really does believe that the theory of evolution is unique in this regard.
But what, exactly, is meant by "cannot be tested"? This seems to assume that unless you can reproduce all of what you're talking about in a laboratory experiment, then you can't be doing science. Because there are plenty of ways to test a theory. For example, you could dig up thousands upon thousands of fossils which demonstrate different species living on the earth at different times. Or you could look for "transitional stages". Good one this, because for some reason, anti-darwinists of various stripes often point to it:
"If all that's true, then we should see lots of inbetween stages, shouldn't we." Yes, is the reply, and the thing is, that we do. For example, every animal that has ever lived anywhere ever. And all the plants, too. "Species" only appear to be discrete entities because what we actually see are individual creatures at one moment in time. But if that's too abstract to grasp, then take the eye. (Squelch.) Go for a more complex one, such as that of a human, or octopus. Now, the fantastic thing is that just about every stage that could be easily imagined in between "no eye at all" and the organ in your hand exists in animals, many of them alive now. (This eye bit is entirely derived from The Blind Watchmaker, by the way.) So that's transitional stages thoroughly sorted out, then.
Or there's the burgeoning science of genetics, and all that we have learned about molecular clocks. The test, not to labour the point, is whether the information that we keep on turning up is compatible with the theory, or not. And it is, in all its vast quantity.
So, and lastly for today, about this "has not been observed bit". I hope I've already indicated that a theory can be highly robust without needing for all its implications to be seen in process. But go back to the bit about natural selection. The two observations, I would contend, being observations, have been observed. Stop me if I've missed something, here. The rest simply follows. The really interesting part, though, is speciation, the process itself. Even if species, as such, only exist in snapshots of time, the process of speciation is absolutely vital; it does not (necessarily) happen in quantum leaps, but even if we cannot draw a boundary, it is still possible to say "this species is not that species, yet they are both descended from that species." If you can identify that, then you have identified a speciation.
Shame we can't see that happening, isn't it? Oh. Have a look here. And here. I'll not deny that this evidence has its detractors. Some of those detractors may actually be better at it than that one, who nicely attempts to refute the evidence by ignoring most of it (compare the examples listed by the proponent above and the opponent), and by setting up straw men: "Darwinists say all dogs are different species!". Only thick ones. "Speciation...In the sense of one species changing into another" is not what we're looking for; speciation, where descendents of a common ancestor diverge into separate species is another matter entirely.
Well, I'm off for now. If this has become gibberish, I may well come back to tighten it up; in the meantime, I just wish we Darwinists had more than just the flimsiest of evidence to draw upon. More about why Intelligent Design is just a misprint of Nonrational Craving for a big old Daddy in the sky later.
My fun spoilt.
Woe! Jesse Norman has disappointed me. He was introduced on "Any Questions" with reference to the Telegraph's having described him as "one of the brightest young Tory minds". Nick Clarke then mentioned his recent book "Compassionate Conservatism, what is it, and why we need it". I was delighted by this apparent evidence that this bright young Tory mind couldn't even string a coherent title together (hint - where does the question mark go?). Unfortunately, it seems the real title has it "what it is, and why we need it".
I like the idea of a "Tory mind", though, somehow defined by its quintessential connection to a political party. Bit Stalinist, somehow.
I like the idea of a "Tory mind", though, somehow defined by its quintessential connection to a political party. Bit Stalinist, somehow.
I'm tough, me
Yikes; supposedly a shortish "tempo run" tonight; in fact a miserable washout. Makes me realise what a dry summer it's been, since I've encountered the rain only once before since starting this insane mission. It's not being able to see that I object to the most. Moan, moan; now I really feel like Ranulph Fiennes.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Right, then, about that Evolution thing.
See entries below; time to see if I can nail this. For starters, let's just check what Natural Selection actually means, because I think that there are a lot of people who have never understood this. It's actually blindingly simple. It depends on only two observations. The rest barely constitutes an argument; it's really just a statement of a necessary truth.
Observation One: Changes in the form of an animal (including people) can occur between generations.
Observation Two: These changes can often be inherited.
Yup, that's it, and I'd just like to see anyone try to say that either of those points has not enough evidence to support it. We'd be a lot colder if it wasn't true, because we wouldn't have such marvelously woolly sheep.
Now here's the logic bit.
If such a change confers an advantage upon its possessor, then those who possess it will do better than those who don't. (As you see, this is basically a definition of "advantage". It's an important step, though, because it sets up the next one.)
This means that, over time, the proportion of creatures (in the particular context) with the trait in question will increase.
And. That's. It. That's what it means, for a particular trait to be naturally selected. Everything else we know is just icing on the cake, really.
This is survival of the fittest, and for those amongst you who have never gotten over the misinformation which was promulgated in (particularly) America post-Darwin, please note the complete absence of it being all about getting one over on the other guy, or of any feature which could allow it to be mistaken for any sort of moral imperative.
I'm not saying that this is enough to account robustly for all that is attributed to the process of evolution. But this is what is meant by Natural Selection, and this is what is meant by the Survival of the Fittest; please, show me how the existence of these forces is just a matter of opinion, do.
Observation One: Changes in the form of an animal (including people) can occur between generations.
Observation Two: These changes can often be inherited.
Yup, that's it, and I'd just like to see anyone try to say that either of those points has not enough evidence to support it. We'd be a lot colder if it wasn't true, because we wouldn't have such marvelously woolly sheep.
Now here's the logic bit.
If such a change confers an advantage upon its possessor, then those who possess it will do better than those who don't. (As you see, this is basically a definition of "advantage". It's an important step, though, because it sets up the next one.)
This means that, over time, the proportion of creatures (in the particular context) with the trait in question will increase.
And. That's. It. That's what it means, for a particular trait to be naturally selected. Everything else we know is just icing on the cake, really.
This is survival of the fittest, and for those amongst you who have never gotten over the misinformation which was promulgated in (particularly) America post-Darwin, please note the complete absence of it being all about getting one over on the other guy, or of any feature which could allow it to be mistaken for any sort of moral imperative.
I'm not saying that this is enough to account robustly for all that is attributed to the process of evolution. But this is what is meant by Natural Selection, and this is what is meant by the Survival of the Fittest; please, show me how the existence of these forces is just a matter of opinion, do.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
So Arch, You Could Build a Cathedral On 'Em.
So, we know all about how Queen Muse are. The backing vocals, the imperviousness to ridicule, the painstaking layering. This refers of course to the time when Queen really did build Sonic Cathedrals of Sound, rather than spending months evidently getting a synthesizer to go "parp".
But how Metal are they? On the day of the Loincloth Revolution, when Death comes at last to False Metal, will they be lined up against the wall next to Jon BJ, or will they be knighted (order of Olympus Mons) next to Lemmy? Lemmy, like Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, says his band isn't Heavy Metal; they are all wrong, and they have missed a key point: it isn't up to them. I digress - although the Zeppelin connection is apposite; it doesn't matter how many reggae songs you do nor how much folk, if you put Stonehenge on your stage you are Metal. So it's not all about the riff quotient; "In Through the Out Door" is part of the Metal Canon, even if "In the Evening" is the only song on it which is Metal in and of itself.
So, let's look at the evidence. A first album that sounds like watered-down Radiohead? Ah, not helpful, or indeed good in any sense whatsoever. Still, let's carry on. Song called "Assassin"? Better. Song called "Assassin" with a galloping riff and which contains the lyric "destroy demonocracy"? Much better. Songs about celestial phenomena? Positively Rush! Having your guitars custom built with all sorts of gimmicks, and calling them "Mattocasters", you yourself being called Matt? Sterling work. Duffel coats? Oh dear. Video where the band ride spaceships away from exploding planets? Now that should be good, but Linkin Park have been up to that sort of thing too, and they are False, False, False, and knobshiners to boot.
Hmm. But what about a song called "Knights of Cydonia"? That's promising. What about a song called "Knights of Cydonia" which actually features the sound of galloping horses? My hands desperately want to do the horn thing, but I think we need a clincher. So, go and listen to "Supermassive Black Hole". Listen to the way he delivers the title. Why does he pronounce "Hole" like that? Well, I wonder if you could write that down phonetically, somehow. Some way of showing precisely how he does that vowel sound. Ah, yes, of course. "Supermassive Black Höle". QED.
But how Metal are they? On the day of the Loincloth Revolution, when Death comes at last to False Metal, will they be lined up against the wall next to Jon BJ, or will they be knighted (order of Olympus Mons) next to Lemmy? Lemmy, like Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, says his band isn't Heavy Metal; they are all wrong, and they have missed a key point: it isn't up to them. I digress - although the Zeppelin connection is apposite; it doesn't matter how many reggae songs you do nor how much folk, if you put Stonehenge on your stage you are Metal. So it's not all about the riff quotient; "In Through the Out Door" is part of the Metal Canon, even if "In the Evening" is the only song on it which is Metal in and of itself.
So, let's look at the evidence. A first album that sounds like watered-down Radiohead? Ah, not helpful, or indeed good in any sense whatsoever. Still, let's carry on. Song called "Assassin"? Better. Song called "Assassin" with a galloping riff and which contains the lyric "destroy demonocracy"? Much better. Songs about celestial phenomena? Positively Rush! Having your guitars custom built with all sorts of gimmicks, and calling them "Mattocasters", you yourself being called Matt? Sterling work. Duffel coats? Oh dear. Video where the band ride spaceships away from exploding planets? Now that should be good, but Linkin Park have been up to that sort of thing too, and they are False, False, False, and knobshiners to boot.
Hmm. But what about a song called "Knights of Cydonia"? That's promising. What about a song called "Knights of Cydonia" which actually features the sound of galloping horses? My hands desperately want to do the horn thing, but I think we need a clincher. So, go and listen to "Supermassive Black Hole". Listen to the way he delivers the title. Why does he pronounce "Hole" like that? Well, I wonder if you could write that down phonetically, somehow. Some way of showing precisely how he does that vowel sound. Ah, yes, of course. "Supermassive Black Höle". QED.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
String 'Em Up!
Not the greatest start to the day. Somehow, it's actually more annoying because there doesn't seem even to have been an attempt to steal anything. Just for fun. Now, it's nothing, of course, which couldn't be dealt with with a couple of hours of cleaning, a few 'phone calls and a trip to the local glass replacement firm. In the course of a lifetime, it's not much, really, and not worth wasting time worrying about.
But you know what? I could see their feet hacked off at the ankles without it troubling my conscience. Or do it myself. Which just goes to show what a bloody stupid idea is John Reid's current one of letting victims have a say in the disposal of offenders.
Friday, August 11, 2006
This newfangled technology...
I posted today - it's appeared below, as "Hitchens (Peter) on Darwinism etc." I saved it as a draft a few days ago, but I would still have thought it would post - well - here, as I actually posted it today. Sighs. What I intended to do was split it in two - there was more than the same again, which I seem to have lost. Nuts.
Anyway, have a look at it, if only for a link to an entertaining bit of banter with Hitchens and Fry.
Anyway, have a look at it, if only for a link to an entertaining bit of banter with Hitchens and Fry.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
More time lords
I found this in the Guardian's diary section today. It's utterly beautiful and requires no other comment.
"The office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." HL Mencken, 1920.
"The office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." HL Mencken, 1920.
I run! You give away your cash!
See "Give us your fucking money" below; here's a page for sponsoring my run and giving your money to Amnesty:
http://www.justgiving.com/danhaycock
Thangyewverymudge.
http://www.justgiving.com/danhaycock
Thangyewverymudge.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Blair in your past, present and future! Celebrate!
Armando agrees with me, but the bastard's managed to explain the otherwise inexplicable. I'd been wondering if and when Russell Davies was going to recast the Master...
In fact, I've just read a headline which suggests that even Dubya is going to suggest, soon, that perhaps killing hundreds of civilians and rendering their cities uninhabitable might be a bit unhelpful. Most observers would have to admit that this is potentially quite remarkable, and no bad thing. Maybe it even comes as the result of skilful behind the scenes work. Maybe that would have been undermined by calls for immediate ceasefire. I don't believe it, though.
In fact, I've just read a headline which suggests that even Dubya is going to suggest, soon, that perhaps killing hundreds of civilians and rendering their cities uninhabitable might be a bit unhelpful. Most observers would have to admit that this is potentially quite remarkable, and no bad thing. Maybe it even comes as the result of skilful behind the scenes work. Maybe that would have been undermined by calls for immediate ceasefire. I don't believe it, though.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Hitchens (Peter) on Darwinism. God help us. I mean...
In the entry about Peter Hitchens in Wikipedia, I found the phrase "profound shallowness", which is rather nice. I also found the following text, which I will reproduce as the chances are it won't be there in ten minutes:
On Darwinism
Hitchens' position on the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past. Those who adhere to it are therefore embracing a faith, just as theists (whose beliefs also cannot be tested) are. His use of expressions such as 'fundamentalist' and 'ayatollah' to describe the intolerant, dogmatic advocates of evolution is mockery intended to provoke thought - applying to them the epithets they aim at others. He opposes dogmatism of any kind on this subject, pointing out that neither he nor anyone else has any idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how the universe began. Views on this, theist or atheist, remain a matter of free choice.
As to why I seem to be obsessed by the Hitchens boys at the moment, it's just that I seem to keep running into both of them. Peter was on Radio Four last Saturday explaining why women should stay in the home while being very careful not to actually say that.
Both Hitchens brothers are clearly very articulate, bright, and capable of some excellent insight. I have the sense, though, that they are each equally happy using rhetorical slights of hand to support poor reasoning when it supports their prejudices as they are making truly well-argued cases. While both celebrate their reason, they are both idealogues; if you watch Peter for long enough, he will start talking about "real" conservatives, which is a Platonic ideal too far for me. Similarly, Christopher just loves his newfound neoconservatism nearly as much as he still loves his Trotskyist identity (see - or rather hear - him on this program, if it's still up). He's right about God, though. And this here, which I've mentioned before, is very entertaining and worth your time. However! this is not what I originally intended to talk about, so I will wrap it up and start again.
On Darwinism
Hitchens' position on the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution, unlike other scientific theories cannot be tested because it cannot be and has not been observed, and remains a theory about the distant past. Those who adhere to it are therefore embracing a faith, just as theists (whose beliefs also cannot be tested) are. His use of expressions such as 'fundamentalist' and 'ayatollah' to describe the intolerant, dogmatic advocates of evolution is mockery intended to provoke thought - applying to them the epithets they aim at others. He opposes dogmatism of any kind on this subject, pointing out that neither he nor anyone else has any idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how the universe began. Views on this, theist or atheist, remain a matter of free choice.
As to why I seem to be obsessed by the Hitchens boys at the moment, it's just that I seem to keep running into both of them. Peter was on Radio Four last Saturday explaining why women should stay in the home while being very careful not to actually say that.
Both Hitchens brothers are clearly very articulate, bright, and capable of some excellent insight. I have the sense, though, that they are each equally happy using rhetorical slights of hand to support poor reasoning when it supports their prejudices as they are making truly well-argued cases. While both celebrate their reason, they are both idealogues; if you watch Peter for long enough, he will start talking about "real" conservatives, which is a Platonic ideal too far for me. Similarly, Christopher just loves his newfound neoconservatism nearly as much as he still loves his Trotskyist identity (see - or rather hear - him on this program, if it's still up). He's right about God, though. And this here, which I've mentioned before, is very entertaining and worth your time. However! this is not what I originally intended to talk about, so I will wrap it up and start again.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Name that Fallacy
Here is a review from today's Guardian. In it John Gray sympathises with but disagrees with the thesis presented by Amartya Sen in "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny". Broadly, Gray says that Sen argues that too much thinking categorises people in terms a single identity - muslim, for example - rather than the multiplicity of interrelated roles which is a more proper way of viewing a person. This mistake then fuels conflict. Gray thinks that Sen's solution to this is unrealistic, but also that Sen has misunderstood human nature. I don't want to go too far into the relative merits of Sen's and Gray's understanding; my interest was piqued by one particular thing that Gray says:
"For Sen, as a good liberal rationalist, it is an article of faith that the violence of identity is a result of erroneous beliefs. He cannot accept that its causes are inherent in human beings themselves."
This is surely a false dichotomy, as there is no reason why the causes of those irrational beliefs cannot be inherent in human beings. Humans are not naturally rational; there wouldn't be enough time for all decisions to go through internal processes of deductive reasoning. Most thinking is done in shortcuts, and one type of shortcut is the stereotype. They are useful - actually, they are essential. They are often correct, but sometimes erroneous beliefs whose origins are inherent in human beings. More on this later.
"For Sen, as a good liberal rationalist, it is an article of faith that the violence of identity is a result of erroneous beliefs. He cannot accept that its causes are inherent in human beings themselves."
This is surely a false dichotomy, as there is no reason why the causes of those irrational beliefs cannot be inherent in human beings. Humans are not naturally rational; there wouldn't be enough time for all decisions to go through internal processes of deductive reasoning. Most thinking is done in shortcuts, and one type of shortcut is the stereotype. They are useful - actually, they are essential. They are often correct, but sometimes erroneous beliefs whose origins are inherent in human beings. More on this later.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Keep your smelly shoes to yourself.
There is a general assumption that experience is a good thing. This is reflected in phrases like "walk a mile in my shoes", "university of life".
Plainly, though, experience is not always useful. I am sure that the multitude of Israelis who support their country's recent behaviour do so because their quite genuine experience teaches them that it is appropriate. Similarly, Hizbullah no doubt feel their behaviour is appropriate, because that stems from their own life experiences. Each in turn creates the experience of the other. And thus we are inexorably led to unstoppable cycles of violence and barbarity in which the most bestial behaviour seems reasonable. So, the next time someone says "walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me", you may want to be sympathetic, you may want to express understanding, but if the behaviour can only be justified by "walking in their shoes" then that should be a big glowing red warning to you that there's a problem here.
Some people will use phrases like "I live in the real world" to justify their holding certain opinions. This often seems to mean that they in fact can't justify or explain them other than by making this assertion; it's the sort of crap bigots come out with to justify ill-concieved stereotyping. It is an attempt to make a point inarguable - if you don't agree, that's just because you haven't had enough experience to understand. It is a poor cloak for ignorance. In my experience.
Plainly, though, experience is not always useful. I am sure that the multitude of Israelis who support their country's recent behaviour do so because their quite genuine experience teaches them that it is appropriate. Similarly, Hizbullah no doubt feel their behaviour is appropriate, because that stems from their own life experiences. Each in turn creates the experience of the other. And thus we are inexorably led to unstoppable cycles of violence and barbarity in which the most bestial behaviour seems reasonable. So, the next time someone says "walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me", you may want to be sympathetic, you may want to express understanding, but if the behaviour can only be justified by "walking in their shoes" then that should be a big glowing red warning to you that there's a problem here.
Some people will use phrases like "I live in the real world" to justify their holding certain opinions. This often seems to mean that they in fact can't justify or explain them other than by making this assertion; it's the sort of crap bigots come out with to justify ill-concieved stereotyping. It is an attempt to make a point inarguable - if you don't agree, that's just because you haven't had enough experience to understand. It is a poor cloak for ignorance. In my experience.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Where do you start?
Will Tony Blair, or someone, please explain why asking for an immediate ceasefire will prevent a sustainable ceasefire? No, of course they won't.
Give us your fucking money
I mentioned running below, which may well have surprised anyone who read it and knows me. However, it's so; I decided to enter the Nottingham Half-Marathon this year, entirely for the sake of the challenge and the "buzz" - well, buzzes, meaning the physical buzz from the exercise, and the achievement buzz. Half-Marathon because I didn't think I had time enough to get fit enough for a full one, but that doesn't mean that won't come later.
Since I was going to do it anyway, though, I figured it would be a waste not to do something else with it, so to speak, and so I will be raising money for Amnesty. An address for a justgiving page will be up soon, and I'll be emailing people and stuff.
So, why Amnesty? Put it this way: my raising money for Amnesty will do not a jot to resolve the situation in the Middle East, but it puts a bit of cash in the way of people who are trying to help people cope with the consequences of the worst human behaviour. We're all seeing some pretty dreadful human behaviour on a daily basis at the moment. Can your money, put to some medical charity, maybe save some lives? Indeed. Should we fight nature in that way? Oh yes, not for nothing do I describe myself as a child of the Enlightenment. However, I am not against cancer in the same way as I feel impelled to be against, for example, war, torture, Israel's behaviour, AND Hizbullah's behaviour. So am I going to dedicate my life to fighting injustice? Of course not; I have a life and a family to which I am dedicated; I don't love other people's children more than I love my own. For one reason. But, if 95% of my nature is quite venal, that's no reason to suppress the other 5%; or, to put it another way, I might as well raise some money, and Amnesty seems to me to be a good place to put it. I hope anyone who reads this will agree; I will post the justgiving page as soon as I recieve a couple of bits of info from Amnesty.
Since I was going to do it anyway, though, I figured it would be a waste not to do something else with it, so to speak, and so I will be raising money for Amnesty. An address for a justgiving page will be up soon, and I'll be emailing people and stuff.
So, why Amnesty? Put it this way: my raising money for Amnesty will do not a jot to resolve the situation in the Middle East, but it puts a bit of cash in the way of people who are trying to help people cope with the consequences of the worst human behaviour. We're all seeing some pretty dreadful human behaviour on a daily basis at the moment. Can your money, put to some medical charity, maybe save some lives? Indeed. Should we fight nature in that way? Oh yes, not for nothing do I describe myself as a child of the Enlightenment. However, I am not against cancer in the same way as I feel impelled to be against, for example, war, torture, Israel's behaviour, AND Hizbullah's behaviour. So am I going to dedicate my life to fighting injustice? Of course not; I have a life and a family to which I am dedicated; I don't love other people's children more than I love my own. For one reason. But, if 95% of my nature is quite venal, that's no reason to suppress the other 5%; or, to put it another way, I might as well raise some money, and Amnesty seems to me to be a good place to put it. I hope anyone who reads this will agree; I will post the justgiving page as soon as I recieve a couple of bits of info from Amnesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)