If I only had a heart

see here for more

Gear trompe l'oeil

How many different objects can you see?
Put Your Gears on Display with These Mechanical Wallpapers

Gear pile

Put Your Gears on Display with These Mechanical Wallpapers

Spokesbeing for the beast: Ayn Rand

Over the last year or so, I've become aware that Ayn Rand is an influential figure for many on the USAmerican right. This is well-worrying. It seems to me that her world-view is obnoxious and antichrist. I rarely go as far as that but this woman's ideas fill me with loathing. So I feel it is important to amass helpful evaluations of her ideas, for, as the author of the referred article, Alan Wolfe, says: "Should the Republicans actually win in 2012, we might need to study her in the academic world. It would be for the same reason we sometimes need to study creationism."

 and this blog may well collect some as I find them. So here's our starter for ten:
The Ridiculous Rise of Ayn Rand - The Conversation - The Chronicle of Higher Education:

The writer sets out his stall:

I will be teaching a course next semester called “Liberalism and Conservatism.” John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke will be on the reading list. So will libertarians such as Friedrich von Hayek and the founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley Jr. Contemporary liberals such as E.J. Dionne will be there. But not Rand. My reasons for excluding her may be the same reasons that other academics ignore her.

We will need to understand why she can be so un-rated academically and yet so popular and influential among the new right.
If you're not familiar with her, here's the brief summary of her core themes:

Rand’s “thought,” such as it is, boils down to two propositions. One is that selfishness is the highest of moral virtues. The other is that the masses, above all resentful of success, are parasites living off the hard work of capitalists far superior to them in every way.

So immediately, I guess, part of the appeal becomes apparent: it emboldens and offers undeserved succour to the 1% and their stooges. The irony being that Rand reverses the truth of the matter by making out that "self-made" capitalists are the hosts and the rest the parasites. (I'm not actually saying all capitalists are parasites, incidentally, just that believing the myth of 'self-made' wo/wan puts one in 'creedal' terms in the position of failing to recognise their interconnectedness and debts to 'society' which could actually turn them parasitical).

Professor Wolfe puts his finger on an important critique of Rand's thesis:

while we continue to discuss mass media and mass culture, we have also learned, as Mills tried to teach us, that elites have flaws of their own. A theory of society that attributes virtues to one group and vices to another cannot pass the realism test: Rand’s “inverted” Marxism, as Chait calls it, is as myopic as its opposite.

In other words, her basic idea is not nuanced, and is observationally inadequate to the data. In discussions (can there be such?) with her fans, this is probably a major point to keep in mind.

Pseudo-education & linguistic prescriptivism

It's really nice to find someone not only making points that I have every so often made in this blog, but doing so with the kind of passion I also feel about it: See here Pseudo-education as a weapon: Beyond the ridiculous in linguistic prescriptivism | Metaphor Hacker: here are some bits I particularly liked.

“educated” people go about spouting nonsense when it comes to language. This nonsense seems to have its origins in half-remembered injunctions of their grade school teacher. And because the prime complainers are likely to either have been “good at language” or envied the teacher’s approbation of those who were described as being “good at language”, what we end up with in the typical language maven is a mishmash of linguistic prejudice and unjustified feeling smug superiority. Every little linguistic label that a person can remember, is then trotted out as a badge of honor regardless of how good that person is at deploying it.

It's that linguistic prejudice and smug superior feeling that gets me. I find galling the misplaced self-assurance of being 'right' about for example, so-called split infinitives. Misplaced becasuse it doesn't stand up to more than about 30 seconds of more careful thought about the nature of culture, language and the construction of 'authority'. So it's right that ...

those who spout the loudest, get a reputation of being the “grammar experts” and everybody else who preemptively admits that they are “not good at grammar” defers to them and lets themselves be bullied by them.

Quite so; I have people in mind who fit the loud spouting description ... So kudos to Dominik for calling out one of these spouters, here's a relevant excerpt:

People who spell they’re, there and their interchangeably know the grammar of their use. They just don’t differentiate their spelling. It’s called homophony ... all languages have some high profile homophones that cause trouble for spelling Nazis but almost never for actual understanding. Why? Because when you speak, there is no spelling.

And the real issue therefore is simply about efficiency and clarity in a visual medium which has fewer sensory channels to offer the message (pitch, gesture, facial expression, speed of delivery are all lost in writing). The point is the way that this kind of censure-ship is actually part of a sign-system which is about power and status and therefore has the potential to create feelings of shame or disempowerment and so constitue un-agapaic behaviour and even perpetuate hegemonic situations.

 when pseudo-knowledge about language is used as an instrument of power, I think it is right to call out the perpetrators and try to shame them. Sure, linguists laugh at them, but I think we all need to follow the example of the Language Log and expose all such examples to public ridicule. Countermand the power.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Pine stem fluoresced

 Pine stem cross section, fluorescence microscopy Herbaceous

Tiny melted stuff

 Melt

Chemical melt, polarized light microscopy Herbaceous:

Balsam magnified

: Balsam
Aged candida balsam resin, darkfield microscopy Herbaceous

Herbaceous

Some photographers aim to bring out the visual loveliness of the microscopic world. Art meets science, beautifully. This is an inkjet output under magnification.
Herbaceous

Reenvisaging the CofE? [3] Making decisions differently.

From my earlier posts (Reenvisaging the CofE? [2]) about what it seems to me needs re-thinking about the CofE is a notable absence I realised: governance.

To be sure I mentioned it the previous post that the parish system needed tweaking at the least (and since then there have been some tweaks that have headed in the right direction: bishops' mission orders for example and the establishment of CMS as a religious community, for example. However, these don't touch the bigger picture of national governance.

What we have at the moment is sometimes described as a [quasi-] parliamentary model. General synod is elected from diocesan synods and conducts its business in a way closely modelled on the British parliament at Westminster. There is good reason for this, in a way, since General Synod is, in effect, an devolved assembly from the British Parliament who are still technically the supreme body (operating in the name of the monarch who is, as things stand, supreme governor of the temporal Church of England). General Synod does, thus, have the force of law for its measures. This is the effect of being the Established Church: technically the State does the governance -but it has devolved that for most purposes, though parliament still has to assent.

Of course, one of the things I would like to do is simply to cut that state tie. But I'm not going to argue that point here, rather I will assume that we could refashion the model and still relate to the state pretty much as before. Those better acquainted with the niceties of Establishment may have other things to say, of course, but I'm going to give what I would love for us to have a go at.

Democracy, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, is the worst form of government -except for all of the others. I say that by way of saying that while I am a passionate democrat for the purposes  of secular government, I'm less sure that vox populi really is vox Dei all of the time. Unlike a secular and pluralist state, the church is not in the business of representativeness (nor is the British parliament under the current electoral system!) so much as seeking the mind and will of God and caring for one another. Note that I keep those two things together and see them as devolving from the two great commandments: love God and love neighbour. I think that the latter is important in recalling us to pay attention to making sure that the process of decision making is humane, just and respectful. I tend to think that this puts a question mark against adversarial patterns of decision-making as these 'prime' mindsets and behaviour patterns that tend towards unrighteous anger and posturing, I believe.

In seeking the will of God, I think that the theological underpinnings should include a recognition of what the Reformers tended to call 'the priesthood of all believers' which the CofE recognises in its baptismal theology and thinking about ministerial priesthood. This relates to a democratic principle in that it recognises that discerning the mind of God is not the prerogative of a few but is potentially the privilege of all of the Body of Christ. This means, I believe that we need decision-making structures that maximise the ability to listen to one another and to listen in ways that encourage reflection and mutual recognition as fellow-members of the household of God and as potential carriers of vital and even crucial insights into the Mind of God. Allied with this is the sense that we are looking for discernment together rather than argument. Discernment may involve some argument, but the frame sets a very different tone and primes a different way of responding and acting within the arena of decision-making. Debate and discernment have very different emotional connotations and these impact on the issue of care for ones fellow decision-builders.

That's not to say that these attitudes are not present in synod members. It is to suggest, however, that the current parliamentary model does not express well this dynamic.

I would suggest too that the principle of priesthood of all believers should push us towards not a vote-based system so much as an assent-based system. I won't say 'consensus' because that could lead to a different dynamic again: I'm trying to suggest that working towards decisions that all can assent to in the sense of reckoning that it is a right way forward, even if they have reservations. It may be that votes would be indicators of the emerging mind of the decision-builders.

This is not to say, either, that the current system doesn't have an element of consensus-building and desire not to dis-fellowship others. But I am suggesting that a vote-and-majority system is not conducive to the listening and careful articulation and understanding that discernment would require.

I am wondering whether the indaba system that the Anglican communion has been trying to work with, might actually be an appropriate model.

The other matter of governance that I reckon we should look again at is elections to General Synod: currently the diocesan synod forms a kind of electoral college for it. I wonder whether a direct electoral system might be considered? It would help ordinary electoral roll members of churches to have a sense of a stake in General Synod and may even help the quality of debate.

Hidden exodus: Catholics leaving

I used to hear people say "once a Catholic always a Catholic", and I could see what they meant -what was often in focus was that even backsliding RC's would still identify as RC and if they developed a spiritual interest they would reaffiliate with Holy Mother Church. People like me were rare at that point in my experience; people like me who had been RC, brought up to think of ourselves as 'Catholic', who had decided not to pursue that path when owning Christian faith for ourselves. In my case, it was because I had rather off-putting associations with Catholicism; my memories and connotations were forbidding. I'm not hinting at abuse or anything like that; simply that what I associated with RC practice and buildings somehow didn't gel with the spiritual awakening I was experiencing -it seemed like my burgeoning faith would not sit well with the RC church as I had experienced it.

However, nowadays, I seem to run into quite a lot of ex-RC's in Anglican and other post-Reformational church polities. And it seems that in the USA there is quite a tranche of the population in this position: the report is here -The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants | National Catholic Reporter and the summary might be this:

One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Of course, we want to know what's going on, why this should be so, and in my case I wonder whether there are similarities likely to the GB scene. Well,

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

That I can understand. It's a reason that many 'traditional' churches -including Anglican, Methodist and Baptists are not retaining people. I think we can assume that on the whole the leavers are going to churches where the worship is heavy on contemporary soft rock music in platform-led settings. Anglican and other churches that are retaining and gaining attenders tend to have worship where this style is in evidence. It's a style that I have drawn from and defended, even if I now find it often a bit wearying and unnourishing.

The place of belief in this is not large. "While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. "
And factoring in that many RC's actually believe similarly to many non-RCs and may actually, candidly, admit that they find papal infallibility, hierarchical exclusivity, transsubstantiation, things that they dissent from, this is something that they are often willing to live with. For me the reason I wouldn't go back comes down to papal infallibility (and the consequences in  terms of the Marian dogmas which I think to be possible pious opinion but should never be inflated to doctrinal necessity) and hierarchical control. However, for many exRCs this is not really the stuff of leaving; it mostly comes down to the experiential. So, I reckon that the doctrinal stuff, as with me, comes later and may serve as a post-hoc rationalisation, if I read the situation rightly.

And it's clearly, from these figures, not wanting an easier faith: "as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic" I think that this is often similar for ex-Anglicans in this country: they go to more challenging and committed environments. Because these nurture and build their faith.
"While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions."
That is kind of ironic. For those who are text-liturgically comfortable, it is interesting to note the resonance of 'Celtic' liturgies. One of the hallmarks of such liturgies is a greater affective content. And one of the big things in the song-liturgies of many 'new' churches is, again, an affectivity both of words and of the music. 

I think that there are things here that cross the Atlantic, and also the denominational borders. I may have grown away from rating the song-liturgies that once nourished me, but I think I still understand why they work for many and I think that the solution is to do them better in terms of their formational and integrational dimensions so that they can connect with the concerns and dynamics that are captured by more traditional text-liturgies.

Cultural priming by the Gun: Aurora's unheeded lesson?

I think Latour's idea of noting a certain agency in objects is really useful. It is, of course, an embedded/networked agency, but it allows us to pay attention to the fact that objects in our life-worlds 'call out' to us: they connote things, they imply interactions and these connotations and implications prime us for behaviours and perspectives. The article I've linked to here looks at this in respect of gun possession and in partial response to the Aurora shooting.

philosopher Bruno Latour goes far as to depict the experience of possessing a gun as one that produces a different subject: "You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you." While the idea that a gun-human combination can produce a new subject may seem extreme, it is actually an experience that people (with appropriate background assumptions) typically attest to, when responding to strong architectural configurations. When walking around such prestigious colleges as Harvard and the University of Chicago, it is easy to feel that one has suddenly become smarter. Likewise, museums and sites of religious worship can induce more than a momentary inclination towards reflection; they can allow one to view artistic and spiritual matters as a contemplative being. The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun - Evan Selinger - The Atlantic

I found this helpful in developing my intuition based on my own experience. admittedly not an experience of gun possession (I have never held a real gun and wouldn't have a clue how to set it up for use). My reflection stems from the experience of owning a toy gun: for me as a child, the potetiality of the object and its meaning simply compelled me to find targets and to 'shoot' them. The toy drew me to seeing the world in terms of potential targets and to pull the trigger. Admittedly it is only a toy, but that pulll to act out the play-purpose of the object was very powerful and I cannot see why that same sort of compulsion would not act to varying degrees in unconsciously priming one to respond to the implicit call of the object (as reinforced semiotically daily in entertainment media). Some people would experience that 'call' more fully than others but statistically, over a large population it would be likely that some would respond to the fullest extent. The message of the gun, as with any tool, is 'use me'; it's only a matter of time before some particularly prone or sensitive souls heed that message and give the gun what it 'wants'.

That's not to diminish the agency of the person who pulls the trigger, but it is to recall that all agents are not equal in our agency, and our agency may be stronger or weaker at different times and in various circumstances. However, we cannot hide from the responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable and to make appropriate efforts to diminish temptation for those who are more damaged or undeveloped. I think, personally, that this is an implication of Jesus' words about the responsibility of those who 'cause  ... to sin'. If we do not recognise and act upon what we know about priming and the psychological and cultural effects of objects on our subjectivity, I fear that we are responsible before God to some degree.

I think too, that this adds weight to seeing violence and nonviolence as a cultural matter and thus of the kind of imaginations and subjectivities we prime and 'nudge' into being and expression. One of the Christian objections to pornography is to do with the effect upon someone of filling their hearts and minds with a certain kind of desire. It seems to me that this insight should be applied consistently across to the ownership and hospitality to other kinds of objects too, most especially those that pertain to violence and the myth of redemptive violence.

Pussy Riot and a concerning reaction by Patriarch Kirill

The article I'm referencing here may not be fully viewable for acouple of weeks due to the CT internet policy. As a subscriber I feel it's fair, for the purposes of discussion to make a little piece of Canon Bourdeaux's article a bit more open. I'm assuming that readers know the basics of this but if you don't try this. What struck me was the appearance in the same issue of the Church times of this article by Michael Bourdeaux in which the following quote appears and a column featuring the prayer that I will reproduce following it.

: Patriarch Kirill has reacted by sending a circular letter to all his churches in Moscow, to be read out after the liturgy. It was an "Appeal to the Procurator General", encouraging parishioners to sign in support, requesting the maximum sentence for the women: five years, for blasphemy and aggravated hooliganism, (Is this a return to the Cold War?)

And then there is this prayer from a traditional Eastern Orthodox source which seems to be an indictment of patriarch Kirill's response:

Lord Jesus Christ who didst command us to love our enemies, and those who defame and injure us, and to pray for them and forgive them, Who Thyself didst pray  for Thine enemies, who crucified Thee; grant us, we pray, the spirit of Christian reconciliation and meekness, that we may heartily forgive every injury and be roconciled with our enemies. Grant us to overcome the malevolence and offences of people with Christian meekness and true love of our neighbour ... And help us repay evil with goodness, and to remain safe from the temptations of the devil, and from all the perils which threaten us, in the form of visible and invisible enemies. Amen.

Perhaps we should pray that Kirill might find it in him to try to embody this prayer that speaks so well of his Tradition?