So this is Christmas...
Wim Nusselder
… the day of the year on which the rest of Christianity is supposed to join Quakers in their awareness of Christ having come to teach us…
They assume that He only did so historically and await his return anxiously, so they can then be part of His Kingdom.
We supposedly know -because we experience- that He is available now.
We remind each other regularly that we should heed the promptings of love and truth in our hearts, because they are God’s leadings.
We are supposed to be bringing the whole of our lives under the ordering of His spirit, knowing the presence of His Kingdom.
Or do we usually forget, so we could just as well reconcile with the rest of Christianity and forget about having a Religious Society of Friends of Jesus of our own?
Or have we lost our awareness of the constant accessibility of His spirit, so we could just as well skip “Religious” and be a mere society of friends?
Dear Abigail and Pam,
For me too the world was full of pregnant women when my wife was pregnant.
Which made it obvious to me that women are meant to be pregnant and that I had chosen rightly by taking a role in it, in order to see the good grow in ‘our’ children.
Of course commitment moves providence!
Let’s please not explain that away after (I assume) already having explained away a personal, comforting God.
There’s nothing mysterious about cosmic forces.
We need them to give Meaning to our lives.
We have science to understand reality.
We have democracy and (even better) collective seeking for Guidance to tell good from evil.
We need religion to comfort us in the choices and mistakes we make and to make sense of what befalls us.
If science tells us that God doesn’t exist, let us invent Her, or better: incarnate Her.
God is the cosmic force that creates through evolution.
God is the cosmic force that makes 1 + 1 equal 3 at times; adding His presence when two or three gather in His name.
God is the cosmic force that inhabits human beings, all of them, since Pentecost.
God explains serendipity and helps us find integrity and wholeness in our lives and in our world.
Trust, faith and commitment move providence, move God in us, in us collectively, reconciling (re-ligare) us with all and everything.
If we use the language of science (‘cosmic force’), because we deny ourselves the use of traditional religious language, that shouldn’t confuse us into believing that religion and science somehow clash.
They inhabit wholly different realms.
To be or not to be, that is mere science.
To be meant to be or to be a chance result of senseless natural processes, that is religion.
We will never be able to spot Meaning under a microscope.
Yet it is ultimate Truth for us, which defines us as human and distinguishes us from the rest of creation.
Forgetting that, reduces us to mere friends.
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pam Lunn
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:16 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Quaker-B] Providence moves too
Such an interesting question, Abigail. I don’t, personally, believe that some mysterious cosmic force suddenly aligns itself to my current concerns. But I think it’s a bit more than just noticing that something has occurred. I think, probably, we start to notice, subliminally, that what we need is around in our environment, and start to seek it out – probably below the threshold of awareness.
I think it’s a bit like the situation when women friends of mine (in our younger days) have told me that, as soon as they became pregnant, the world was suddenly full of pregnant women . . . we notice what we’re interested in. It’s an evolved survival mechanism, I suspect, which is why it’s most strong when we’re *really* concerned about (committed to) something.
Appleton Cox
There’s nothing mysterious about cosmic forces.
We need them to give Meaning to our lives.
No we don't. It is perfectly possible, see J.P. Sartre et alia, to give meaning to one's life without recourse to anything other than oneself and other human beings.
We have science to understand reality.
We have democracy and (even better) collective seeking for Guidance to tell good from evil.
We need religion to comfort us in the choices and mistakes we make and to make sense of what befalls us.
No we don't "need" religion. Many people seem to live quite merrily without religion or spirituality. Funnily enough, for some attacking religion is what gives meaning to their lives.
For me religion, especially Christianity, is a rich tableaux of resources upon which I can draw and which sometimes enriches my life. The bible is a book I cherish and value and try to read reasonably regularly. Christian faith does not make me a better person but it does invite me to look at the world in ways which are very different from those common in our society (and, I have to say, Quaker-B too). Christian faith challenges me to live without superstition whether of the Old Age or New Age variety. It challenges me to approach life adventurously, experimentally and in love with my neighbour. The fact that my friends think I am a boring, stuck in the mud, misanthrope does not detract from the value or worth of the challenge of Christian faith.
As to the metaphysics of religion (e.g. God as a separate conscious being, life after death etc.) I am content for the present to look through the glass darkly and to wait ....
Appleton Cox
Petra
On 26 Dez., 14:37, Appleton Cox <appleton...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wim Nusselder
Dear Petra and "Appleton",
(“Appleton Cox” also refer to the name of a firm.
Is it your real name?)
Sure, that speaks my mind too.
I do not assume cosmic forces beyond myself, fellow human beings and evolution either, more precisely: beyond what humanity can collectively hope to grasp by scientific means.
Even the immense complexity of human brains being limited, I do not exclude the possibility that there is more than we can understand, however.
Of course individual people can do without what they understand as religion, primarily those who are smart and educated enough to understand Sartre & co.
But can we collectively do without even socialism, Buddhism, Confucianism etc. and hold humanity together?
Will humanity fragment and lose its ability to build and maintain civilization if it doesn’t have moral systems without claims to higher/deeper authority?
I’m not so sure that science can provide that propensity to ‘society’ on a sufficiently large scale to sustain a modern globalised economy.
That refers to the realms of knowledge/science and morality/society, however.
I was referring to the realm of humanity/Meaning, the realm of mankind’s striving beyond itself.
I’m groping for a definition of religion that includes all such striving and Meaningful activity, even science and art and attacking religion in the other two senses, if people devote their lives to it.
It is that sense of devotion to something beyond oneself that could maybe define religion.
Yes, for me Christianity is primarily a treasure box too, a rich collection of stories, metaphors and paradoxes in which to express my religious experience, which indeed challenges me to strive beyond myself.
It’s the one I’m most at home in, which is why I call myself Christian.
To be challenged by it requires some sort of devotion, though, or so it seems to me.
Are Quakers still ‘religious’, and should they remain so, according to you?
Would we still be relevant and serve a Purpose (even if only one deriving from collective human imagination) as a Society of Friends that has forgotten what “Friends” referred to?
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
Abigail Maxwell
For me, the "personal God" makes no sense- but that is not evidence that the personal God does not exist.
|
| -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group. To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en. |
simon gray
> I was referring to the realm of humanity/Meaning, the realm of mankind’s
> striving beyond itself.
>
> I’m groping for a definition of religion that includes all such striving and
> Meaningful activity, even science and art and attacking religion in the
> other two senses, if people devote their lives to it.
>
> It is that sense of devotion to something beyond oneself that could maybe
> define religion.
[...]
in terms of the actual point you're making, i fully & completely (&
repetitively & tautologically) agree.
however, i'm reminded at this point of our long-departed (from
quaker-b, not the current plane of existence) friend, licia kuenning.
the word 'religion', whilst the definition in the complete oxford
english dictionary no doubt runs to many pages going into extreme
detail, in common usage english has a commonly understood meaning[*].
there's not much value in trying to redefine the meaning of commonly
used words just in the context of a recreational discussion on a
mailing list (unless, of course, the purpose of the discussion is
about redefining the meaning of commonly used words) - it's probably
better to say what one is actually meaning from the outset rather than
backpeddling afterwards.
[*] it does of course have its metaphorical meanings as well, but
that's not germane to the point at hand.
--
www.star-one.org.uk ~ www.wearebham.com ~ www.birmingham-alive.com
Alec
attacking religion is what gives meaning to their lives.
atheist was reduced to spluttering invective when it was suggested his
atheism was a form of prayer.
I accept that many people less intelligent than us on Quaker-B muddle
through life without considering stuff like metaphysical and
eschatological issues; and that the various Protestent denominations
of the past 500 years, plus liberation theology and the like from
Roman Catholics, have generally thought they had a direct
understanding of the Almighty's message which had been obscured, Duh
Vinci Code like, by the priests for 1,500 years despite their
predesecors on the route invariably proving themselves to act
scummily.
Yet, I do think some form of societal-level religious belief has
persisted through the post-Enlightenment age.
The Church as an institution to protect and care for us all has been
replaced by the State.
The Creation Myth of Genesis has been replaced by the Creation Myth of
Evolution; to the extent that Darwin is held-up as a moral exemplar,
such as being a perfect father. Current research is pointing to
involvement of a process of inheriting acquired characteristics which
Lamark tried to explain, and some reporting has had this as "shaking
Darwinism to the core" (i.e. attacking this article of faith).
Wizards no longer use spells and potions to control the unseen. They
work with and program computers, which is a marvel to most.
The unassailable virtue of the Decalogue or Sermon on the Mount has
been transferred to the principle of human rights or international
law.
~alec
[1] Which magically captured the thoughts and fears and desires of a
White, middle-aged, upper middle-class man living in Belgravia.
[2] A White, middle-aged, upper middle-class man living in Belgravia.
[3] Who appears to have gone a little bit potty and is allowing
himself to be parodied on Doctor Who.
On Dec 27, 12:02 pm, simon gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
Quakerism, that study also has a part to play and we each draw a
balance somewhere. I just received The Sea of Faith on DVD (yes, 25
years late I know but Don Cupitt is not well known over here). I am
delighted to be out from under the thumb of an all knowing priesthood
but it's wonderful to have Cupitt's hard won knowledge open up my
religious life and give it reference and context. The shame of it is
his rejection by the CofE - shades of Galileo methinks.
Chris
R C Mitchell
This Friend has been thinking little of Spirituality this Christmas
season, nor has she given much thought to material matters. This Friend
woke up on Christmas morning to the certainty of what she had suspected
for the previous twenty-four hours, that she had succumbed to the
influenza and now felt thoroughly rotten, which although she has
noticeably improved she still feels.
This Friend shamelessly requests other Friends to hold her in the Light
(but not too bright as it hurts her eyes) at this trying time. 2010, as
years go, has not been one of her monuments, healthwise.
Alec <praisegd...@aol.com> writes:
> [1] Which magically captured the thoughts and fears and desires of a
> White, middle-aged, upper middle-class man living in Belgravia.
Our Friend surely means Fitzrovia, not Belgravia. Maybe he's been
spending too much time this festive season watching Upstairs, Downstairs.
> [3] Who appears to have gone a little bit potty and is allowing
> himself to be parodied on Doctor Who.
I imagine he might regard that as a modest price to pay for being
married to a former Companion of the Definitive Doctor. I suppose you
could say he gets to do Lalla...
I'll get my coat.
Rosie
simon gray
>> [3] Who appears to have gone a little bit potty and is allowing
>> himself to be parodied on Doctor Who.
>
> I imagine he might regard that as a modest price to pay for being
> married to a former Companion of the Definitive Doctor.
in both senses of the word...
Wim Nusselder
Dear Abigail,
No, ‘existence’ is not the issue indeed.
In what sense does “the” personal God make no sense to you?
Not even in a literary sense, as a way to express some types of religious experience?
How do you as member of BYM deal with the countless references to God in your Faith & Practice book?
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abigail Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 11:24 AM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] So this is Christmas...
For me, the "personal God" makes no sense- but that is not evidence that the personal God does not exist.
simon gray
> In what sense does “the” personal God make no sense to you?
"the" personal god in the sense that many (what i call)
normalchristians describe, of the 'loving' single entity with
human-like (but not human) characteristic who 'knows every single hair
on the back of our heads and will answer our every needs' makes no
sense to me, in the same sense that the idea that the cottingley
fairies might be real makes no sense to me - that kind of god to me is
just as much a fairy story as peter pan is.
> Not even in a literary sense, as a way to express some types of religious
> experience?
to me, the 'literary' sense is the sense in which "the" personal god
makes the *most* sense.
> How do you as member of BYM deal with the countless references to God in
> your Faith & Practice book?
'god' to me is an allegory, a metaphor, a handy shortcut.
'the indefinable indescribable life-essence & life-force which binds &
connects everything & everyone in the universe together' is but a
shorthand for what god is to me; writing just that alone every time
would get quite tedious, so the word 'god' works as a handy shorthand.
of course, the word 'god' is a word which has a commonly
*mis*understood meaning in the english language, which is why whenever
people are attempting to have a meaningful and serious discussion
about what god means to them, they really *should* start the
discussion by agreeing upon what they all take the word to mean...
Wim Nusselder
Dear Simon,
We seem to be on roughly the same page then.
The online version of the Oxford Dictionary (www.oxforddictionaries.com) defines religion as
1. “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”,
2. “a particular system of faith and worship” and
3. “a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion”.
In which of these senses are Quakers still ‘religious’, and should they remain so, according to you?
Do we need to retain the idea that “Friends” refers to ‘Friends of Jesus’ and/or ‘Friends of the Christ that has come to teach his people himself’?
Do we need to retain that idea to allow ourselves to call ourselves “Quakers” (i.e. to claim continuity with the “Quakers” of previous centuries)?
Do we need to retain that idea to still be relevant and serve a Purpose as a Society of Friends?
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of simon gray
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 9:48 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] So this is Christmas...
[…] "the" personal god in the sense that many (what i call) normalchristians describe, of the 'loving' single entity with human-like (but not human) characteristic who 'knows every single hair on the back of our heads and will answer our every needs' makes no sense to me, in the same sense that the idea that the cottingley fairies might be real makes no sense to me - that kind of god to me is just as much a fairy story as peter pan is. […] to me, the 'literary' sense is the sense in which "the" personal god makes the *most* sense. […] 'god' to me is an allegory, a metaphor, a handy shortcut.
'the indefinable indescribable life-essence & life-force which binds & connects everything & everyone in the universe together' is but a shorthand for what god is to me; writing just that alone every time would get quite tedious, so the word 'god' works as a handy shorthand.
of course, the word 'god' is a word which has a commonly *mis*understood meaning in the english language, which is why whenever people are attempting to have a meaningful and serious discussion about what god means to them, they really *should* start the discussion by agreeing upon what they all take the word to mean...
From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of simon gray
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:02 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
[…] the word 'religion' […] in common usage english has a commonly understood meaning […] there's not much value in trying to redefine the meaning of commonly used words just in the context of a recreational discussion […]
Wim Nusselder
Dear Alec,
Your “The Creation Myth of Genesis has been replaced by the Creation Myth of Evolution” in a sense echoes my “We have science to understand reality” (first post under this subject).
Your “The Church as an institution to protect and care for us all has been replaced by the State” in a sense echoes my “We have democracy […] to tell good from evil”.
As I wrote: “That refers to the realms of knowledge/science and morality/society” (my next post).
I was hoping for answers with reference to the realm of humanity/Meaning, the realm of mankind’s striving beyond itself, however, an answer to my question “Are Quakers still ‘religious’, and should they remain so, according to you?”
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
Alec
==> Your "The Creation Myth of Genesis has been replaced by the
Evolution" in a sense echoes my "We have science to understand
reality"
(first post under this subject).
be conclusively proved, Creationism has been conclusively disproved.
==> Your "The Church as an institution to protect and care for us all
has been
replaced by the State" in a sense echoes my "We have democracy [.] to
good from evil".
necessarily being offered as a desirous blueprint.
Before anyone cites my attested Cromwellian tendencies, I mean the
image of the State which emerged from Marxist writings in the 19th
Century. One which offered easy certainties and where the existential
fear of Evil Doers and Forces of Satan has been replaced by
Capitalists, Americans, Neo-Cons, Tories and so on.
==> my
according to you?"
life, there is a rich corpus in Quaker and wider Christian tradition.
What I question is the Karen Armstrong approach in which the multi-
faithist picks at all the pretty bits in disparate religions to come
out with a chop suey which makes *them* feel good; just as the multi-
culturist [1] believes that religious confessionals should be indulged
simply 'cos they're a religious confessional (including RSoF).
Garrison Keillor was the subject of a fatwa from the Unitarians when
he - rightly, imo - mocked them for playing about with the text of
Silent Night.
He called it a cultural piracy, and I agree. As much as anything,
there often is an underlying disdain for the followers of said
religion who aint assumed to have such an all-encompasing, urbane
understanding of the pirate.
In a sense, I have more respect for Baptist churches which refuse to
allow yoga classes or Terry Jones (Florida pastor of "Burn a Quran")
who make no bones about considering some religions to be inherently
flawed.
==> ("Appleton Cox" also refer to the name of a firm. Is it your real
name?)
I doubt it, and his recent use of the untruncated "et alia" makes me
more certain as to who he is.
~alec
On Dec 27 2010, 1:23 pm, "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nussel...@antenna.nl>
wrote:
>
> Your "The Creation Myth of Genesis has been replaced by the Creation Myth of
> Evolution" in a sense echoes my "We have science to understand reality"
> (first post under this subject).
>
> Your "The Church as an institution to protect and care for us all has been
>
> As I wrote: "That refers to the realms of knowledge/science and
>
> morality/society" (my next post).
>
> I was hoping for answers with reference to the realm of humanity/Meaning,
> the realm of mankind's striving beyond itself, however, an answer to my
> question "Are Quakers still 'religious', and should they remain so,
> according to you?"
>
> With f&Friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
> _____
>
Alec
confessional (including RSoF).
"multi-culturalism" which I consider to have been a grievous and self-
inflicted wound.
~alec
Wim Nusselder
Dear Alec,
You: "I noticed this only now".
Talking a lot CAN hinder listening...
You: "the State ... was not necessarily being offered as a desirous blueprint."
The democratic state IS, now, by my employer www.nimd.org among others.
You: “What I question is … pick[ing] … the pretty bits in disparate religions … which [make] *them* feel good”
Nothing wrong with feeling good, I’d say.
It is better to make others feel good too, by realising that they may need consistency and coherence and discipline, also in us.
It is best to see progress in religious forms and to find for ourselves and others the forms that constitute the best next step on the road towards the perfect religion that needs no outward forms any more to express the connectedness of all and everything.
”In a sense, I have more respect for Baptist churches which refuse to allow yoga classes or Terry Jones (Florida pastor of "Burn a Quran") who make no bones about considering some religions to be inherently flawed.”
So do I, in a limited sense.
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
Alec
It's similar to varying takes on hedonism. It is the Epicurian belief
that we should take just the right amount of resources to satisfy our
immediate needs, or is it the Spinal Tap pursuit of having a good time
all the time?
==> It is better to make others feel good too, by realising that they
about multi-culturalism, which I consider to be inherently un-liberal
'cos of its implicit insistence that we all fit into neat ethnic/
cultural boxes by dint of our birth.
And, yes, I do think there's an element of thinking being bound to
such religious traditions in their entirity is good enough for non-
Europeans, whilst their cultural pirates consider themselves to be
above that sort of thing.
==> So do I, in a limited sense.
I have no problems with the hypothetical Baptist church blocking yoga
on their premises as long as they don't seek to frustrate it on
compliant premises.
Terry Jones is a bit of a prat, but at least he aint a hypocritical
prat.
~alec
On Jan 15, 5:59 am, "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nussel...@antenna.nl> wrote:
> Dear Alec,
>
> You: "I noticed this only now".
>
> Talking a lot CAN hinder listening...
>
> You: "the State ... was not necessarily being offered as a desirous
> blueprint."
>
>
> You: "What I question is . pick[ing] . the pretty bits in disparate
> religions . which [make] *them* feel good"
Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
malfunctioning. So with that caveat and notwithstanding the Oxford
Dictionary, I think Cupitt is encouraging me to regard "belief" as a
path to follow rather than an acceptance about the veracity of
things. This is a lot more comfortable to me. I have long been wary
of magic shows transforming water into wine etc.
Chris
On Dec 27 2010, 4:05 pm, "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nussel...@antenna.nl>
wrote:
>
> We seem to be on roughly the same page then.
>
> The online version of the Oxford Dictionary (
>
> 1. "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
> especially a personal God or gods",
>
> 2. "a particular system of faith and worship" and
>
> 3. "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion".
>
> In which of these senses are Quakers still 'religious', and should they
> remain so, according to you?
>
> Do we need to retain the idea that "Friends" refers to 'Friends of Jesus'
> and/or 'Friends of the Christ that has come to teach his people himself'?
>
> Do we need to retain that idea to allow ourselves to call ourselves
> "Quakers" (i.e. to claim continuity with the "Quakers" of previous
> centuries)?
>
> Do we need to retain that idea to still be relevant and serve a Purpose as a
> Society of Friends?
>
> With f&Friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
> _____
>
> Of simon gray
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 9:48 PM
> To: quak...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] So this is Christmas...
>
> characteristic who 'knows every single hair on the back of our heads and
> will answer our every needs' makes no sense to me, in the same sense that
> the idea that the cottingley fairies might be real makes no sense to me -
> 'the indefinable indescribable life-essence & life-force which binds &
> connects everything & everyone in the universe together' is but a shorthand
> for what god is to me; writing just that alone every time would get quite
> tedious, so the word 'god' works as a handy shorthand.
>
> of course, the word 'god' is a word which has a commonly *mis*understood
> meaning in the english language, which is why whenever people are attempting
> to have a meaningful and serious discussion about what god means to them,
> they really *should* start the discussion by agreeing upon what they all
> take the word to mean...
>
> _____
>
> Of simon gray
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: quak...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
>
> understood meaning [.] there's not much value in trying to redefine the
Alec
etc.
I suspect that, tomorrow, I am going to have rathered that I'd imbibed
the former tonight.
~alec
On Jan 15, 3:00 pm, "Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA"
Wim Nusselder
Dear Chris,
To me regarding faith as a path rather than a system of beliefs seems to square with the 3rd meaning of religion according to the Oxford Dictionary ("a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion").
With f&Friendly greetings,
Wim
From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:00 AM
To: Quaker-B
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
[…] notwithstanding the Oxford Dictionary, I think Cupitt is encouraging me to regard "belief" as a path to follow rather than an acceptance about the veracity of things. […]
Bill Chadkirk
That is not to say that the mechanism of evolution is fully understood. There is much to learn.
Bill Chadkirk
~alec
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.
Quakers say: There is something sacred in all people.
Alec
Outside of mathematics, there is very little which can be conclusively
proved. Stuff like a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in the case of right-angled
triangles.
Everything which is known about evolutionary theory points to it being
so, but - in the case of cow milk gene - much of it is supposition.
Very well founded supposition, but how can we go back 12,000 years to
find out?
Being disproved should be the kiss of death.
~alec
Rosalind Mitchell
> ==> I have long been wary of magic shows transforming water into wine
> etc.
>
> I suspect that, tomorrow, I am going to have rathered that I'd imbibed
> the former tonight.
Wine, Alec? Are you off the Old Pulteney?
(I have a bottle of Highland Park here, but it's strictly rationed)
Rosie
Rosalind Mitchell
> Yes, although this also goes towards my aforementioned misgivings
> about multi-culturalism, which I consider to be inherently un-liberal
> 'cos of its implicit insistence that we all fit into neat ethnic/
> cultural boxes by dint of our birth.
Would you say it was more liberal to coerce others to assimilate into
one's own culture? I'm thinking of The Wind That Shakes The Barley,
which still haunts me even though I've watched another, more
light-hearted, film (/Diner/) since. Britain, which as a national
concept isn't very old, has never been a single cultural entity, which
you, Alec, will be very familiar with given your own provenance.
The Cork teenager beaten to death by the Black and Tans for insisting
speaking his own language may be a construct of polemical fiction but he
wasn't without precedent either in that Ireland or in the Highlands or
in Wales. (Same applied to Occitan and Breton in France, Catalan and
Basque in Franco's Spain, Spanish in some parts of the United States -
Friends may like to furnish other examples they are familiar with).
Rosie
Josie O'Neill
"Are you a Sinn Feiner?" he asked the man.
"From the backbone out" was the reply.
Bowen Colthurst shot him through the lung and he died next day.
Rosie
Rosalind Mitchell
> ==> How has evolution not been proved?
>
> Outside of mathematics, there is very little which can be conclusively
> proved. Stuff like a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in the case of right-angled
> triangles.
Alec is quite right. 'Proof' is the province of the mathematician, who
seeks to demonstrate the irrefutable rightness of a proposition[1].
Scientists, on the other hand, are necessarily sceptical[2]. Any
statement of science comes with the rider, explicit or implicit, "so far
as we know". A theory like evolution may become established because it
fits the known facts better than any other theory. It will never be
proved, although of course it may have to be revised when we learn
something in the future that we don't know now.
This happened with gravitational theory. Newton's theory of gravitation
was fine until technology advanced sufficiently for scientists to make
detailed observations at the extremes of what was observable, when
Einstein had to extend (though not replace) the theory to fit the new
facts. Similarly with quantum theory, first introduced to explain
anomalies in electromagnetic radiation and subsequently found to fit
nicely with a whole load of other things if scientists were prepared to
bend their minds around the impediment of "common sense". Of course,
neither gravitation nor quantum theory are yet fully understood and
indeed as they stand they are mutually incompatible. That is what much
of the work of CERN and the Large Hadron Collider is attempting to resolve.
Rosie
[1] Often to the scorn of the "common sense" layperson. For example
"given two numbers, x and y, then x is either less than y, equal to y,
or greater than y" might seem a statement of the bleedin' obvious but
while it can be rigorously proved for real numbers, it is not true for
complex numbers.
[2] Which is why I get irritated by climate change deniers or those who
believe that wogs begin at Calais calling themselves 'sceptics'. Such
people are invariably convinced of their own omniscience.
Rosalind Mitchell
> Not just a construct of polemical fiction, this did happen.
Oh, I don't doubt that such things (and worse) happened. The fictional
construct is that it happened to a particular young man called [checks
spelling] Micheál Ó Súilleabháin.
Rosie
Abigail Maxwell
Indeed. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Sheehy-Skeffington on Josie's example is quite shocking.
I cannot remember where this thread started, but I wonder why people are raising these matters? Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a pacifist, was murdered about 95 years ago. This shows barbarous behaviour, and an Us-and-Them British mentality in which Them meant most of the population of Dublin, even those with no sympathy for the rebels. I am aware of the mockery of Welsh-speakers, even recently, though the only experience I have of something similar is children speaking English in a swimming pool in Cardiff, and their teacher growling at them, "'Gymraeg!" to make them speak as they were supposed to.
Why bring it up?
|
|
|
Abigail Maxwell
> Alec <praisegd...@aol.com> writes: > Yes, although this also goes towards my aforementioned misgivings > about multi-culturalism, which I consider to be inherently un-liberal > 'cos of its implicit insistence that we all fit into neat ethnic/ > cultural boxes by dint of our birth. |
Rosie: Would you say it was more liberal to coerce others to assimilate into
one's own culture? Oh, yes, sorry, that was why it was brought up. Er, no, it was not more liberal to coerce others to assimilate into ones own culture, but that is not the only other alternative. The golden mean is to give such support as necessary to assert their individuality within whatever cultures they wish. So supporting women in forced marriages is a good thing. And cherry-picking good stuff from other cultures: all English people should be allowed to eat Haggis and do Scottish Country Dancing.
By the way, Rosie, thank you for the work you have done here, and I hope you will not merely lurk. |
|
Abigail.
|
|
simon gray
> And cherry-picking good stuff from other cultures: all English people
> should be allowed to eat Haggis and do Scottish Country Dancing.
before the 1979 revolution, right since ancient times it was a
particular feature of persian culture that whenever they invaded
anywhere, rather than obliterating the indigenous culture as most
invaders do, they instead cherrypicked what they saw as the best of
where they'd come to & took it back home to integrate into their own
culture; similarly, whenever they themselves were invaded they managed
to keep their own cultural identity & incorporate the best of the
invaders' culture.
http://www.star-one.org.uk/iran-a-rich-history-and-culture/
Josie O'Neill
Abigail Maxwell
No, it is not that.
I have no objection to being shocked or made uncomfortable here. However, if shocked, I want to know why. Is there any conclusion someone wishes me to draw from this example?
I have compassion fatigue, and I allow my compassion a freer rein when I can actually do something useful.
|
|
|
|
|
Alec
Money concerns. That bottle of wine was an extravagance.
==> Would you say it was more liberal to coerce others to assimilate
culturalism always tends to. A useful marker for how knobbish someone
is on the subject is any tendency to try and shut-down the argument by
insistence that Britain "has been multi-cultural since the Iron Age".
As if there were no Highland Clearances (eagerly supported by
Lowlanders), no need for the Emancipation of the RCers, no assault by
Cromwell on Ireland (with Quakers fighting with him), no Norman
settlement on Ireland pushing the purely Celtic culture towards the
Atlantic coast, no Viking devastation large coastal areas and
elimination of the male genetic line (at the very least).
In my experience, 'multi-culturalists' are crap linguists who see all
those cute ethnics as something to see on their terms before they
return to their homogeneous middle-class streets.
==> I'm thinking of The Wind That Shakes The Barley [...]
Yeah, but the worth in that fillum was squandered by the director's
awful attempt to connect it to later events, not to mention his
disgusting politics which pervade his personality.
==> The Cork teenager beaten to death by the Black and Tans for
insisting speaking his own language [...]
Have I mentioned an acquaintance of mine who comes from working-class
Dundonian/Belfast RC Catholic stock? His father served in the RAF for
years, and two brothers were in the Army and did tours in NI.
A distant uncle was a RC member of the Black and Tans. Family
reunions must be interesting.
I'd say the Black and Tans hardly needed a reason to kill someone.
Their inheritors in one group of Red Hand loonies had a gag of
identifying victims through their enunciation of H with "haich" being
closer to the Hiberno-British form.
The various Provo thugs were no angels, but they were quite so
primitively sectarian.
~alec
On Jan 17, 5:06 am, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
Alec
so primitively sectarian.
*Not* quite so primitively sectarian.
ROSALIND MITCHELL ==> A theory like evolution may become established
==> Which is why I get irritated by climate change deniers [...]
Only a numbskull would deny climate change. Only a numbskull would
want to oppose climate change. Don't get me started on the difference
between Green and environmentalism, preservationists and and
conservationism, commercial organic farming and basic bloody common
sense agriculture!
The former are as bad as multi-culturalists.
==> or those who believe that wogs begin at Calais calling themselves
'sceptics'.
Frogs are found in Calais. In the South of France - and definitely
Italy or Spain - you get wops. Maybe North Africans could be
described as wogs, but that generally refers to Indians.
ABIGAIL MAXWELL ==> And cherry-picking good stuff from other cultures:
all English people should be allowed to eat Haggis [...]
The first printed reference to haggis was in an English cookbook. The
word derives from OE "hageur", which gives us the verb "to hack".
==> [...] and do Scottish Country Dancing.
'Tis fine. But no morris dancing. Although, I'd sympathize with any
who'd met my family if they want to try morris dancing.
~alec
On Jan 17, 6:06 am, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
simon gray
What's the difference between yoghourt and morris dancing ? You get living culture in yoghourt.
Rosalind Mitchell
> What's the difference between yoghourt and morris dancing ? You get living
> culture in yoghourt.
Watch it, chuck! I know quite a few morris dancers and they are all
cultivated people. (Other members of this list know some of them too).
I don't have a problem with morris dancing actually. As culture It beats
sitting for hours playing computer games by a distance.
Rosie
--
COLEOPTERA DIMISSENDA EST
Currently reading: The Uses of Literacy by Richard Hoggart
Alec
~alec
On Jan 17, 1:02 pm, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
Mint Thyme
From: Alec <praisegd...@aol.com>
To: Quaker-B <quak...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 21:08:47
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
Rosalind Mitchell
> I like morris dancing, and if I was
> a) fitter and
> b) had more time I would love to join a 'ladies' morris group.
You really mean to write 'side' there, didn't you Caddi? It only came out as
'group' because your fingers slipped... ;)
Abigail Maxwell
Really? Ladies' Morris dancing?
I had heard of Molly dancing, in which one male grew his hair for a year and dressed female for displays. I am really not sure about that. I had a look on the internet for local SCD, and found none, which is disappointing. Ladies' Morris might be a substitute. Though I could get into Zumba.
Abigail. |
|
Bill Chadkirk
Yet a conjecture can become a theory which can become a law which is as close as anyone can get to 'proof' as test after test is applied and found supportive. Even if 'laws' can be circumscribed; Newton's 'Laws' of motion only hold in Euclidean space at relatively low velocities.
So the conjecture that evolution gave rise to the variety of animal and plant species (and yes, virus's which are neither) has by test and examination become a law and achieved as close as we can get to 'proof'. That doesn't mean it is fully understood - perhaps it never will be. Last week's New Scientist contained an interesting article about a conjecture that may explain certain sudden jumps in evolution.
simon gray
> I had heard of Molly dancing, in which one male grew his hair for a year
> and dressed female for displays.
mollies:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/star-one/2628147424/in/set-72157605913862834/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/star-one/2628147412/in/set-72157605913862834/
Bill Chadkirk
Bill Chadkirk
-----Original Message-----
From: simon gray [mailto:si...@star-one.org.uk]
Sent: 18 January 2011 09:30
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
mollies:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/star-one/2628147424/in/set-72157605913862834/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/star-one/2628147412/in/set-72157605913862834/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.
Josie O'Neill
One is that they were thugs let loose on a population to keep it within the colonising empire it desired to leave.
The other - which isn't divorced from the first, by the way - is that they were ex-soldiers half-crazy (or wholly crazy) after years of horror in the Great War, on the Somme, Ypres, Passchendale, La Chapelle.
By the way, ever wondered what happened to them afterwards? Many went to Palestine to fight against the Jewish settlement.
Rosalind Mitchell
> Yet a conjecture can become a theory which can become a law which is as
> close as anyone can get to 'proof' as test after test is applied and found
> supportive. Even if 'laws' can be circumscribed; Newton's 'Laws' of motion
> only hold in Euclidean space at relatively low velocities.
The Victorians had a supreme confidence bordering on hubris that everything
was knowable and indeed was very close to being known once a couple of
annoying little anomalies, like the behaviour of black-body spectra, had been
nailed down. And then along came quantum theory to tear down the whole
house of cards.
I can't think of any scientific "Laws" that have been so established since that
calamity, can you?. Scientists don't dare to be so complacent any more.
Rosie
(noting that suddenly, having decided to back away from Quaker-B, there;s
suddenly a rare outbreak of really interesting discussion!)
Rosalind Mitchell
> There's two ways I'd look at the Black and Tans.
>
> One is that they were thugs let loose on a population to keep it within the
> colonising empire it desired to leave.
>
> The other - which isn't divorced from the first, by the way - is that they
> were ex-soldiers half-crazy (or wholly crazy) after years of horror in the
> Great War, on the Somme, Ypres, Passchendale, La Chapelle.
It's always worth remembering, as Quakers, that a certain Cpl A Hitler served
in the trenches for almost the whole duration of that conflict.
Rosalind Mitchell
> Really? Ladies' Morris dancing?
May I draw your attention to http://www.belfagan.org.uk/ ?
Rosalind Mitchell
> hasten to add 'lady') trying to lift a leg up in time to the music.
If that's a description of Caddi then I wonder who the pretty and well-
upholstered (though by no means fat) imposter with the amazing hair was that
visited me in Preston Hospital! :)
simon gray
>> What's the difference between yoghourt and morris dancing ? You get living
>> culture in yoghourt.
>
> Watch it, chuck! I know quite a few morris dancers and they are all
> cultivated people. (Other members of this list know some of them too).
bah ! my dad actually hails from the home of the c'nutters -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_dance#North_West
> I don't have a problem with morris dancing actually. As culture It beats
> sitting for hours playing computer games by a distance.
troo.
i don't have a *problem* with morris dancing, more of having a problem
with the wider cecil-sharperalisation of english folk culture, in
sanitising and fossilising what was always a vibrant, changing, and
often downright lewd folk tradition in to something rather tame and
twee. it's grand an all that he did something about recording the
english folk culture before it died out entirely, but it's a shame he
did such a botched job of it.
Bill Chadkirk
Yes, it's true that outside of mathematics (and mostly even within maths) nothing can be conclusively proved and any scientist just waits for the next piece of data that overturns everything. It's what makes science exciting."
Bill Chadkirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosalind Mitchell [mailto:enith...@golgonooza.co.uk]
Sent: 18 January 2011 11:14
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
--
simon gray
> Yes, it's true that outside of mathematics (and mostly even within maths)
> nothing can be conclusively proved and any scientist just waits for the
> next piece of data that overturns everything. It's what makes science
> exciting."
it's like what one of the scientists involved with the lhc said in an
interview when they were starting the experiment:
interviewer: 'so, if you prove the higgs-boson will that be an
exciting moment for science '?
him: 'no, it'll actually be quite a dull moment for science - what
will be *really* exciting will be if we disprove it, because that
means everything we think we know will be wrong, and we'll have to
start again from scratch'.
or words to that effect.
Rosalind Mitchell
In my experience, most Morris dancers would wholeheartedly agree with that
POV.
Alec
Hitler [...]
And, if only someone had put a .303 in his noggin. Then a couple
dozen more, just to be sure.
==> [...] served in the trenches for almost the whole duration of that
conflict.
So did Pvt. George Ellison, his sojourn being cut short by a well-
aimed bullet at 0930hrs on 11/11/18.
~alec
On Jan 18, 11:17 am, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
Janette
Mint Thyme
From: Rosalind Mitchell <enith...@golgonooza.co.uk>
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 18 January, 2011 11:27:11
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: So this is Christmas...
Josie O'Neill
As the American song has it:
"Warm in the winter,
Shady in the summertime
That's what I love about that fat gal of mine".
Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
seeing is believing and yet, when we turn on a TV or radio we percieve
lots of inivisible stuff all around us.
Chris
On Jan 17, 9:06 am, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.
>
> >> Quakers say: There is something sacred in all people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
activity on this thread. Anyway, the line from The Wind That Shakes
The Barley I recall was a very pragmatic English officer pointing out
that one side may be right but the other side had the guns. First
time I'd seen shinty since I was in elementary school. Why we played
shinty in Kent I have no idea. The other thing I have no idea is why
I encountered a bunch of Morris dancers at 17th and Market one
lunchtime in Philadelphia. Folk probably thought it was a summertime
visitation of Mummers.
Chris
Josie O'Neill
Here's some more for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k38XD4dYMY
Rosalind Mitchell
> Sorry for the miss-spellings but I was overwhelmed by the rush of
> activity on this thread. Anyway, the line from The Wind That Shakes
> The Barley I recall was a very pragmatic English officer pointing out
> that one side may be right but the other side had the guns.
That makes me think of Clint Eastwood in The Good The Bad and the Ugly.
"There are two kinds of people my friend. Those who have loaded guns and
those who dig. You dig".
'Twere ever thus I'm afraid.
Alec
~alec
On Jan 18, 10:52 am, Rosalind Mitchell <enithar...@golgonooza.co.uk>
wrote:
Abigail Maxwell
Bit far for me.
Er, what is the beetle, exactly?
Abigail. |
|
|
Rosalind Mitchell
> Bit far for me.
>
> Er, what is the beetle, exactly?
You aren't an Archers listener then? Actually neither am I, not since I
hurled the paper at the wall in disgust on 2 January.