permission to fail

It's good to see Maggi running with a theme that I've been mulling over in the last year and longer. permission to fail – Maggi Dawn: "To do our best we need to have permission to take huge risks. But you can only do that if you also have permission to fail."

Kindle -a bit of a review

I've had a Kindle for about 3 months now and having heard that it is now outselling physical books on Amazon, it seems that reflecting a bit on my own use and thoughts might be timely.

I bought the thing for a handful of reasons. One was that when I hold books -especially thick ones- for any length of time to read them (you know, holding the pages open and keeping the weight of it at the right height etc) I am starting to get into various RSI issues: wrists, fingers, neck. So having something light without pages has definite advantages. Secondly, the e-ink thing is a bonus: luminous screen reading is tiring in comparison with reflected-light reading, so again e-readers with e-ink score well for me (it's me age). Then is the scholarly application: you can underline passages and these are synced with your account and you can then go to the appropriate page on the web and grab the quotes you might want to use. Similarly, the note-making facility, backs up your thoughts, observations and critiques on the way through the book also to be grabbable from your machine's account. In addition the ability in most cases to change the format and size of the type-face means that I can allow for different lighting conditions and even my own tiredness by increasing the font size and shape. The smaller sizes are fine for bright environments when I'm not tired -it means less battery used because I change page less often. Though given that the battery can last for several weeks that may not be a huge consideration. (E-ink only uses power to change the display).

'But I love the paper, the smell ... [the romance ... the fetishisation ....]'. Yes, yes, I know: I like the book as an artefact myself and imagine that I will continue to enjoy owning them. However, I do like the fact that I can carry a whole load of stuff with me and put it in my coat pocket -even with a protective cover on my Kindle fits in the inside pocket of my coats and the outside pockets too. So easy and it means that I can easily have a read while on the bus or even standing in a queue. Also the aforementioned advantages of reading with less tiring and physical fatigue has become quite significant to me.

So, I don't imagine I'll give up my Kindle and I hope that it will continue to expand the amount of books available. Also the Kindle will read pdf's and various other word-processed formats and there are 'papers and magazines being published in the format.

That last remark points to one of the downsides: not every book is available as an e-book. Now, I suspect that this will change over the next few years, especially as publishers begin to realise just how much potential market there is out there.

The other downside, though far more minor, is that there are two competing e-book standards and they won't read each other. However, it is really easy for a book to be published in both formats and I suspect that they will be increasingly in the coming handful of years. This won't be quite as bad as VHS vs Betamax. The other interesting thing is that it is so easy to publish, a fact that will in time, I think, begin to reshape the way that publishing works for authors and the relationship between authors, editors and audiences.

The other thing that will need developing is the ability to lend your copy to someone for longer than two weeks and eventually the ability to sell your copy on as a second hand copy -if the DRM system they use is meant to make the e-book rather like a physical book in terms of singularity and un-copyability, then we should have the right and mechanism to dispose of the book for a sum -or even give it away to a charity. I can't see why this shouldn't happen, I imagine it's about no-one having really given it much thought yet -but maybe there's some reason beyond the obvious?

The other thing is about cost. Actually this is a couple of things: one is VAT in the UK; paper-books are exempt, e-books aren't. They really ought to tidy that up, preferably to remove VAT from e-books. The other is the way that publishers are ripping us off. Really, not all of them all of the time. And I'm quite content that they should make money to pay wages and salaries and to offset costs. But hang on; the costs of an e-book must surely be significantly less. I can't really see why some academic books are being sold at £50 plus as ordinary books, but even worse to have e-books not significantly different in price ... that's 'you're avin a giraffe' territory. Especially when some publishers are clearly not doing the bits of extra formatting work that is needed to make e-books really zing.

So what do publishers and writers need to ensure for a good e-book experience? Well, in a word, hyperlinking (and Kindle books are actually DRM-souped up HTML documents). In particular, contents pages (placed literally at the beginning so that they are easy to navigate back to) to chapters and preferably subheadings to aid rapid navigation. Also making sure that footnotes really do work so you can click back and forth: it is tiresome to have to remember the location numbers and manually put them in to go back and forth.

I'm confident that these are all things that will become the norm, but I'm putting them down here as a kind of plea to publishers and writers to make sure it's done. I'm thinking that I may be in touch with some publishers to tell them one or two of these things and suggest that they have sold inferior goods where these features are not in place.

Kindle Wireless Reading Device, Wi-Fi, Graphite, 6" Display with New E Ink Pearl Technology: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom?

http://www.newway.org.uk/datasheets/pastoral_cycle.phphttp://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htmWhen I looked at this I had TS Eliot's lines running through my head:

Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

-- from T.S. Eliot, "Choruses from 'The Rock'"
. That's a bit of a caveat. Nevertheless this diagramme does seem to capture something, though there are some salient critiques and further suggestions in the comments. If you've admired, as I have, the contents of the book 'Knowledge is Beautiful', then this will seem familiar in style -for good reason.

It's quite interesting to note that this kind of progression is not unusual see this (and more here):

What I'm finding myself intrigued by is the way that the elements in these models seem to correlate to the elements in the Kolb Cycle and the Pastoral Cycle ... don't you think?
If my intuition is right, then it lends further support to my contention that those models 'work' in as far as they do because they are naming important and real elements or stages in learning.
Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom?

God’s Mission is the Eucharist

I found this quite helpful, though it may be a little more allusive than some would like.The Living Church Foundation | God’s Mission is the Eucharist
Here's the final paragraph: "The Eucharist is realized in, and not imposed on, a place. It happens through mutual offering and not through coercion. Hence, eucharistic missioners look for inviting ways for the people to gather in expectant praise of God, to listen to Scripture, to confess sins, receive forgiveness, share the peace of Christ, offer resources for a common life, feed the hungry, give the homeless and lonely a place to belong, to bring their concerns to God in prayer, and to realize the bonds of communion lying beyond the boundaries of old loyalties, tribes, families, and nations. The Father sent the Son so that we might become the body of Christ. The Eucharist is how this body behaves. God’s mission is the Eucharist."
I think that this fits well with a vision of the Eucharist as enacting an eschatalogical drama in the sense of a gathering of the things of this world so that they may be transfigured; that is, carrying the presence of God-in-Christ-by-the-Spirit whilst remaining truly themselves; being relocated into an new economy of mutuality and glory...

Can we change the way the brain deals with stress?

The answer is yes: "New research suggests we may be able to change the structure of our brains by taking up meditation."
This article shows the brain scans. It's no surprise: we already know that cabbies learning the Knowledge change their brain shape because of the neuronal connection being built in particular areas. So it might be expected that regular meditators similarly change their brains' structures and habits of association. BBC News - Can we change the way the brain deals with stress?
This reminded me of my time offering basic meditation techniques as staff development at a University under their 'Stress Busters' programme. On the programme in question the claim is made that this is without religion or hippy-ness. And that is believable in the sense that a lot of this stuff is common to all sorts of religions and cultures. The real issue is what you might do with it. The interesting thing, of course, is that it seems to be that the basic 'brain training' underlying much of it is good for your emotional well-being.

How a Marxist might see the creed

This is such an intriguing piece. A positive appraisal of the Apostles' Creed from a broadly Marxist point of view.

How about this: "it seems to me that Christianity is materialist in something like the same way. After all, its central doctrine is the incarnation, and Saint Paul taught the resurrection of the body."How a Marxist might see the creed | Mark Vernon | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:

No Ideas but in Things

If you're interested in Cultural Studies or political theory it's likely you're going to come across Marxian/Marxist thinkers using the terms 'structure' and particularly 'superstructure'. This article has a helpful couple of paragraphs to introduce what they mean, basically. This is done in order to show how Walter Benjamin manages to assimilate and move beyond that analysis. The article is here: notes for the coming community: No Ideas but in Things
Now here's where analytical rubber starts to hit the ground:

The distinction between structure and superstructure, Agamben claims, cannot be based on a simplistic causal relationship. The need to figure out the entire material structure before one can go up to the immaterial superstructure is a false need. If anything, Benjamin shows that there is a direct correspondence between the two, which abolishes the metaphysical or dialectical distinction between animality and rationality, nature and culture, matter and form, economy and politics, reality and poetry. By making immediate or unmediated connections between elements of the structure and the superstructure, Benjamin does not practice vulgar materialism, but a courageous one.

I think that this means that it is possible to do useful analysis of cultural artefacts/texts without necessarily having a fully developed analysis of the whole material base. I rather suspect that the fundamental insight underlying Godel's incompleteness theorem would question that approach anyhow. Be that as it may; it does seem to me that the micrological approach is fruitful (whatever Adorno said). This is possible because, Benjamin asserts, there is a third factor 'infrastructure'.

The paradigmatic example of an infrastructure is the arcades ... covered passageways that were very popular in nineteenth century Paris ... An arcade is not an expression of ideas, whether they are economic or political, material or formal. Those ideas are expressed in this thing that we call an arcade. Whatever may be the structure or the superstructure of the arcades ... it must come to manifest itself through the infrastructure, and not vice versa. The infrastructure thus becomes the secret key that unlocks the mysteries of the city.

Is other words you have to pay attention to the actual 'stuff' and the trialogue between 'stuff', processes and ideas. Which is much more like, I would argue, the way that human beings 'access' things anyway: we encounter the things in themselves, in the midst of the forces that shape and shaped us and the ways that make meaning in relation to these things (noting too the reflexivity of processing all of this through a social nexus).
I think. Though it may be that I'm reading this through the lens of the approach to cultural analysis that I have come to (and which I put out there towards the start of 'Engaging Culture') which is an attempt to synthesise the insights of several culturally analytical approaches (including Marxian) on the basis that they can't have the credibility and traction they have had without being able to do things that resonate and produce insight. However, as a Christian with a belief in human fall/ibility, and taking on board the insights of post-modern thinking, I also think that their totalising is a problem. So I like in Benjamin's insight the way that it enables us to see the relationships between 'things' in the human world as reflexive and dialogical rather than simply causal in one direction or another. I think that this is to recognise that complexity (arising from chaos) is the name of the game.

And yet, is that a further totalising? Maybe not: the point of chaos/complexity in that respect is to engender a certain humility and constrainedness about our analysing while allowing us a model of why that should be, and so remain useful. As a Christian, I also warm to the materiality and particularity of Benjamin's approach. It echoes the incarnation and the way that this gave the early church a purchase for critique of neo-platonism and thus gnosticism (which wasn't nearly as benign as the Dan Browns of the world might lead you to believe).

Why You're an A*****le (and Why That's Just Fine)

We have to get that other people think -normally- that they are doing things roughly right and for good motives. If we don't we're setting up conflict or perpetuating it.
"when our brains are working properly they take measures to assure that, in the end, we believe we're making the best choices, doing the right things, and—in our specific life—nobody else could do it better. ... We can take our faults and find a silver lining. Sometimes we delude ourselves a little along the way, but our properly-functioning brains are exceptional at making the best out of bad situations and our own bad behavior. ... Chances are that when you're in the car, you do stupid things that you hate as a pedestrian and the same goes for the reverse. Ultimately, you're wired to be a hypocrite and fully able to criticize others for shortcomings that are just as much a part of you. ... Although negative emotions weigh far more heavily on us than positive ones, this is only temporary. "

The conclusion of this piece is "the best thing we can do is accept our limitations—and the same limitations in others—to make living together a much more pleasant experience." and in remembering that we have a hypocritical tendency to cut others slack (in this article called 'forgiveness' but I think the meaning here is a pale shadow of the full thing).

Funny, I seem to recall a Galilean preacher saying things that chime with this though perhaps with a bit more robustness and urgency.

Why You're an Asshole (and Why That's Just Fine):

I'm sorry for any inconvenience

That's what the lady said over the station loudspeaker. Or perhaps I would better say 'voice' rather than lady. It seems odd because it was clearly a computer piecing together an announcement from segments of recorded speech for the occasion. The seg for the train time, the seg for the destination, the seg for the train operator and the seg with words of apology.

Except, is it really an apology? Quite clearly the person who originally actually enunciated the words was, at that time, presumably, following a scripture and had no real fault to view, merely possible future faults of train operators or infrastructure management. So the 'I' seems problematic. It isn't the person ostensibly saying the words: they are separated in time and space and technology from the occasion: they have no real ongoing connection with it; it is only the acoustic pattern originally taken from their performance in a recording studio and linked to an algorithm for generating composites of announcement material from segments.

Of course, the voice actor probably understood that they were lending their voice to allow the 'station' to speak. But that still leaves us wondering who is the 'I'? The company? Who is offering regret or even accepting responsibility?

What is intriguing me is the possibility that it is indeed the company. The corporation may be becoming an 'I' out of 'we' or even from 'it' or 'they'.

So, can I forgive 'it'? What would that mean?

Well, the person who commissioned the system clearly intended that the announcements should function in customer relations to mediate the station/company's service to passengers and they were doing so as representatives of the company/ies. Perhaps this bears some relationship to the neuronal and muscular systems that our bodies use to convey our intentions through our communicative strategies?

So I guess I could forgive 'them'; but the 'I' is not a human person if I do so but rather a 'corporisation'. 'Forgive' would mean forbearance, refusal to propagate further the wrong; just as with another human being ...

A shorter working week for health and environment?

When I was a kid (like: about 10 -so back in the late 60's and early 70's) teachers were telling us that htey were thinking that htey needed to educate us to know whwt to do with all the leisure we were going to have in the future. I realy wish they'd been right: I've got about 3 books that I'd like to be able to finish not to mention a couple of art projects...

So, you can imagine I'm both keen on this idea and also sadly skeptical. It's form those nice people NEF.

Twenty-one hours is close to the average that people of working age in Britain spend in paid work and just a little more than the average spent in unpaid work. Experiments with shorter working hours suggest that they can be popular where conditions are stable and pay is favourable, and that a new standard of 21 hours could be consistent with the dynamics of a decarbonised economy.

I'm wondering if this would affect vicaring ...
The report (pdf) here.
It's interesting to see the summary of experiments in reducing working hours in developed nations as is the brief history of the invention of the working week -it's worth remembering that it was invented; it's not entirely natural or inevitable. Pay too does not necessarily reflect profitability or other measures of value but rather power (think bank exec bonuses) and power is potentially a democratic vector and in that connection we should recall the messageof the researc indicating that more equal societies have better outcomes in welfare and happiness. Some of this may chime with the ideas that Tom Sine and others have been propounding. In many ways, too, this is pointing towards a way of life much closer to what the Green Party manifesto desires to produce.

Interesting facts mentioned: In the UK the value of housework and childcare carried out without pay would be 21% of GDP if it had all been paid at minimum wage in 2005; informal carers are said to be saving the UK economt £87bn pa.

Recognize the Road to Burnout -spiritually

It's important to catch it sooner rather than later: for your own good and the good of your nearest and dearest -they're the ones who suffer the most from it in the early stages; believe me. So do check this article out and file it away for future use if necessary.
Running on Empty? How to Recognize When You're on the Road to Burnout | Psychology Today
Among the things that it points up as potential signs are these:

"Psychological signs, such as loss of enjoyment for activities once enjoyed; sadness; excessive anxiety or worry; panic attacks; feeling trapped without options for relief or escape; loss of motivation; loss of concentration; emotional hypersensitivity at seemingly inconsequential things; feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, or pessimism; and/or increasing feelings of irritability, frustration, or anger"

For Christian (and from experience) I would say that some of these impact your prayer life especially loss of enjoyment of activities once enjoyed, loss of motivation. Some of the other things are the kinds of things that show up in self-examination and the danger is to misdiagnose them by simply telling yourself (and God) that you've done and thought wrong. Thing is it may not be the wrong you think. The real sin may be lack of self care so that you don't have the energy to give properly to others and to other-care. That's not ot say that you have an excuse to be irritable (or whatever); just that the response should be to take appropriate care of yourself (and keep the spirit of the law on Sabbath) rather than simply confessing and moving on ... to repeat again because you're still tired and worn down. The sin then is to continue in the burnout patterns rather than seeking to sabbath.

test yourself. Leave work on a Friday and commit to treating yourself to a relaxing, stress-free weekend. Don't bring any work home, sleep in on Saturday and Sunday morning, eat right, and occupy your time with activities that you rarely allow yourself to enjoy (yes, I know you're busy, but trust me--make the time).

If you wake up on Monday morning feeling exactly the same as you did before your time off, you're probably going to have to make some pretty significant changes in your lifestyle to turn things around.

Shakespeare being Irish -mythbusting

Before it goes too viral, let's put an alert to the real story out there. The myth is: "William Shakespeare spoke with an Irish accent"
My former prof David Crystal gives the real and fuller story here: DCblog: On Shakespeare being Irish. It's all about linguistic change, silly.

Muslim Human Shields proctec Coptic Christians

Here's a genuine piece of good news. Such a shame it doesn't get the publicity that the original terrorist attack got in the West. Perhaps you could do your bit to change that? (Tweet or re-blog this).
Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields" - Ahram Online: "thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside. From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife."

I think I hear Jesus' words whispering somewhere in the background: "...in as much as you did this to one of these my little ones, you did it to me." ....?

Christian Theology and Other Faiths

I came across one of the key insights in this lecture a few years back when I was in Bradford. It's a really helpful perspective from +Rowan (ABofC) on how to think theologically about 'other' faiths. Actually it's more comprehensive than that and provides a fulcrum to help with ministry in multi-faith situations (and I include secular viewpoints in 'faith'). I've recently been directed to on online source for the whole lecture: The Archbishop of Canterbury - Christian Theology and Other Faiths
I'd like to pick out a few bits for further comment and for highlighting. First off, a reason why it is important to look at this more fully: without a good leverage point, we risk public debate and policy that rests on ...
"... significant misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that affects both popular thinking and public policy in our own country; and I think we need a bit of theology to help us to a more sensible position."

Part of what I tried to do in Bradford University as it began to recognise and try to take constructive hold of religious diversity, was to try to make sure that we didn't fall into the trap of assuming that there was some kind of neutral standpoint in all of this -which happened to coincide with a secular stance. This mistake would mean that secular beliefs (and they are such) would be exempted from consideration. The problem with that would be that part of the problem for some 'religious' viewpoints is precisely the assumptions that made for a secular public space; especially where those viewpoints didn't share a history with western European traditions.

The dangerous assumption ... the world as we see it is pretty clear; we can agree about it – whereas the powers that religion tries to connect with are invisible, so that we can't expect to agree about them.

This essentialises religions as basically the same and secular viewpoints as different. The European legislation sees it, wisely, differently: it mentions religious and other philosophical viewpoints. The playing field really should be level! Using the parable Rowan comments on; no-one can assume they are the seeing person in the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

The point is, "What we have instead is rather a variety of styles of living, each of which has a very different account of the world as a whole, life as a whole. " In other words, even a secularist standpoint is a 'style of living' with a different account of the world as a whole. And it is because we are dealing with 'accounts of the world as a whole' that we cannot assume a neutral standpoint: we can only create together 'spaces' where we can debate, argue, agree, compromise, agree to differ and otherwise find modi vivendi.

I find the way Rowan characterises religious discourse helpful and it is capable of embracing 'non (or anti-) religious' viewpoints too.

The passion in religious disagreement comes not simply from abstract differences as to how the holy is to be talked about, but from differences as to how human life is to be lived so as to be in fullest accord with 'the grain of the universe'.

This is helpful, because a non-religious take on life is also concerned with living in accord with the grain of the universe.

The helpful insight I mentioned earlier was that +Rowan talks about religions as answering fundamentally different questions. There is a degree of incommensurability about religious and non-religious life-stances which means that dealing with everything in simple 'right or wrong' terms is not helpful and even oppressive. The other implication is that it unmasks plaralism:

there is no perspective from which someone can say, 'These are all different ways of looking at the same material'. If I am a person of faith, a person whose life is lived in a comprehensive relationship with what I understand to be the source and context of all life, I cannot appeal to someone out there in the neutral public world to provide me with credentials. So I don't think that religious relativism or pluralism will do, as this seems always to presuppose the detached observer (the one who sees the whole elephant); but neither can we expect to find a tribunal to assess right and wrong answers.

Many of the points I make above are, in principle, covered by this really useful paragraph:

The point I am moving to, however, is that the 'contest' over religious truth happens most effectively and authentically when a real sharing of worlds is possible. And that in turn happens only when we do not live in a social order that totally controls the possibilities of experiencing the Other. To this extent, the modern revolt against theocracy, against the religious control of social options, is justified. But I think that the implication is actually the opposite of what is usually thought. ... in fact a non-theocratic society allows real contention about religious truth by the mere fact of giving space for different experiences and constructions of the universe to engage with each other, to be themselves

This is a perspective deeply difficult to a Christendom-style Christianity (and cognates in other religious and philosophical life-stances), but I think that it is actually part of the genius of a Christian faith free of Christendom leanings. It is part of neigbour-love, I believe. In fact ...

... If we start retreating to theocracy, we are by implication admitting that our religious tradition can't sustain itself in a complex environment; states (Christian, Muslim or Hindu) that enact anti-conversion laws or penalise minority faith groups may have an understandable wish to resist unfair pressure or manipulation in proselytising, but they confess a profound and very disturbing lack of confidence in their own religious resourcefulness.

Now, I recognise that for some Christians this is disturbing and may even seem to risk 'selling the family silver'. It may be reassuring to read how +Rowan describes a Christian understanding of Christian faith (and I find I resonate with it very much) which can emerg from the approach he is outlining:

Christian theology says that the world exists because of the utterly free decision of a holy power that is more like personal life than anything else; that we can truthfully speak of as if it had mind and will. It says that the purpose of this creation is that what is brought into being from nothing should come to share as fully as possible in the abundant and joyful life of the maker. For intelligent beings, this involves exercising freedom – so that the possibility is there of frustrating one's own nature by wrong and destructive choices. The purpose of God to share the divine life is so strong, however, that God acts to limit the effects of this destructiveness and to introduce into creation the possibility of an intensified relation with the divine through the events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, above all in his sacrificial death. This new relation, realised by the Spirit of God released in Jesus's rising from the grave, is available in the life of the community that gathers to open itself to God's gift by recalling Jesus and listening to the God-directed texts which witness to this history.

And, of course, there are still disagreements; this is not a perspective that says in anyway that we are all saying the same thing really, just using different languages and cultural expressions:

It must argue against other traditions that the world comes from and as deliberate gift (Buddhists would disagree), that our self-deception is so radical and deep-seated that we cannot be healed by the revelation of divine wisdom and law alone (Jews and Muslims would disagree), that our healing is a 'remaking' effected through a once and for all set of events (Muslims and Hindus would disagree). The Christian must argue that because this picture of the universe makes the fullest allowance possible for human failure and self-deceit and gives the most drastic account possible of divine presence in addressing this failure (God coming to inhabit creation in Jesus), it has a good claim to comprehensiveness as a view of how things are. But it is assailed by those who say that its doctrines of original sin are self-indulgent excuses for the weakness of the will, that its concentration on history limits it to parochial perspectives or ties it to a remote and disputed past, that its view of the common life is weak and fails to make the necessary bid for social transformation in a comprehensive way (a particularly strong Muslim point).

Now, I take a broadly inclusivist view of the atonement and salvation. I find that this approach is consonant with that theological stance, indeed deepens it and enable it to think through the practical ramifications of an open yet committed stance. And I am hopeful that the kind of inter-faith/philosophy encounters being forced upon us by globalisation will prove productive in the fulness of time (sometimes we have to 'play the long game' -as I say in lectures on intefaith encounters and mission). This is because

Our doctrine is still in formation; and the question of how holy lives can exist outside our own tradition has throughout Christian history led to some of the most searching and far-reaching extensions of our language about the significance of Jesus. I trust that this will go on being the fruit of such questioning.

This article is the sort of thing that should be on reading lists dealing with intercommunal faith relations.