The Santiago Theory of Cognition - Fritjof Capra

When I read Varela and Maturana, I confess I didn't pick up one of the following implications. I got and affirm the idea of understanding cognition whole-organismally. I think that the Christian-Hebraic understanding of humans in a holistic way is not going to be upset by that but rather affirmed. What I missed was the thing about language:

In this new view, cognition involves the entire process of life - including perception, emotion, and behaviour - and does not necessarily require a brain and a nervous system. At the human level, however, cognition includes language, conceptual thought, and all the other attributes of human consciousness. The Santiago theory of cognition, in my view, is the first scientific theory that really overcomes the Cartesian division of mind and matter, and will thus have the most far-reaching implications. Mind and matter no longer appear to belong to two separate categories but are seen as representing two complementary aspects of the phenomenon of life - the process aspect and the structure aspect.

I think that seeing language in conjunction with conceptual thought etc as characteristics of human cognition is particularly interesting in the light of the way that my thinking on the basis of Adam's naming the animals passage in Genesis 2. Understanding the latter in terms of the former (to put it crudely, but I'll refine that at another point); it would put the naming of the animals as part of the creation of humanity by cuing humanity's cognitive dimension which flows into and out of the creation of humanity's social nature in the same passage (so I would also want to add that human cognition is social and not simply about a body with its emotion and behaviour.

The Santiago Theory of Cognition - Fritjof Capra:

Culture is key to eco-housing

I've been working on things to do with cultural studies lately and so been reminding myself and reflecting afresh on how culture is one humongous trialogue between 'stuff', 'happenings' and thinking-and-feeling. The trialogue is unstable though, like any complex dynamical system, it can have areas and times of relative equilibrium when things don't seem to change much.

What is stopping us building more eco-houses?:

It is not technology, or even politics, which is holding us back in building more eco-houses, it is deep rooted cultural and social conventions in how we live and what we expect houses to do for us

So we should note the importance of the way that we think and feel about housing in relation to the things in houses that we tend to use or not and all of that in relation to events like fossil fuel price hikes. It's not just the 'tech'; it's changes in expectations and imagination alongside 'buy-in' to the need and importance of living this way.

proselytisation

I've been considering the words proselytism and proselytisation. It seems to me they're a bit like 'fundamentalist'  or 'racist': it's always a term applied to someone else and it is always derogatory; a way to dispose of someone else; to put them beneath consideration. Our own university in its memoranda of understanding by which chaplains and the like are incorporated into working within the university has a 'no proselytism' clause and this can be interpreted to rule out any shairing of faith at all. But that interpretation, it has to be said, would be ridiculous. We need a more nuanced understanding and this is why.

It is important to acknowledge that most world faiths are explicitly or implicitly 'converting' faiths and that most are not at all unhappy for conversions to them to happen and make provision for the formation of converts in appropriate spiritual perspectives, disciplines and practices. They understand themselves to me making truth claims or at least claims to be able to help people to discover the best for themselves in life and/or beyond it and as such they each would be less than generous by their own lights if they were to collude in deliberately turning people away from this or helping others to find a fuller truth. 

To ask them via their followers and representatives to refrain from explaining and propagating their perspectives and dearest convictions would be to attempt to impose on them yet another ideology which would not be compatible at all points with particular beliefs or practices. In effect it is to ask them to agree to the proposition that some other 'truth' trumps their own. 

We should, by the way, in this respect, note that humanisms and secular ideologies function as belief-and-value systems and so are not neutral entities in the public arena and so should neither expect their tenets or practices to be accepted without challenge, discussion or the gaining of mutual consent. It should be noted that many secularists are clearly set to gain assent and 'converts' to their beliefs as well as the more well-known religious faiths.

In a university context it is acknowledged also that the freedom to debate, disagree and to express opinion is part of the fundamental value set implied in the search for knowledge and intellectual advance. Thus a university should be a place where different ideas, perspectives and beliefs can be expressed. Held. debated and scrutinised and where the skills of differing respectfully can be honed.

Thus we must distinguish between on the one hand expressing a belief and commending it to others and on the other hand doing so in a way that amounts to harassment, bullying and/or undue inducement. It is, in practice, this latter cluster of abuses that is really in the frame when someone is worrying about 'proselytisation' or 'proselytism'. I propose than that we should understand proselytism as pressing ones beliefs upon others in ways that harass, bully, and/or which use extrinsic inducements.

'Extrinsic inducements' are things such as power, conditional affection, money, other material considerations which are not inherent to the faith or belief-system concerned. By these things I have in mind power over someone which effectively means that not going along with them puts one in an unfavourable position whether that is explicit or unstated what is communicated is 'agree with me or things will be awkward'. The other way this can be expressed, of course, is the offer of power; that 'converting' will give access to power and its correlates. Similarly and usually relatedly, money or other material advantages could be offered openly or by implication. In effect: "Change your mind and you will be paid more /have food /gain sexual favours .... etc". What I have in mind in naming 'conditional affection' is the 'love bombing' some groups were accused of using in the 80's and still today in some cases: "join us and you will be loved, accepted and cared for (leave us and you will rediscover what a cold, hard world it is)".

One of the important words in that phrase is 'extrinsic': Most belief and value systems have some element of highlighting the advantages of agreeing with and joining them. However, in legitimate, non-exploitative and ethical faith-sharing these are intrinsic to the 'offer'; they are part of the package and can't be separated from it. When they are extrinsic they are simply bribes or threats or some combination of those. Thus Sikh's might offer food, but that is intrinsic to their faith practice, langar -and in any case is not an inducement as it is offered to all regardless of response to Sikh faith (or so I understand). Christians might offer (however imperfectly) 'love'  but that is part and parcel of living out a faith in God who is Love and indeed are not permitted to offer conditional love without departing from the faith. 

I think that this forms a workable perspective on proselytism that doesn't rule out respectful faith sharing or sensitive raising of faith-related issues in the public sphere.

Life co-op

It's important to note this kind of thing; not all evolution is about competition: some is about co-operation. See here.

Life began with a planetary mega-organism - life - 25 November 2011 - New Scientist:

LUCA was the result of early life's fight to survive, attempts at which turned the ocean into a global genetic swap shop for hundreds of millions of years. Cells struggling to survive on their own exchanged useful parts with each other without competition - effectively creating a global mega-organism

.

This is important because there is a tendency for some to use the competitive view as justification for a eugenic ideology or cut-throat capitalism. This kind of discovery/hypothesis tends to undercut that piece of lazy political ethics.

Political poppies and not letting the Dogs of war silp

Following some intriguing discussions at University in the staff discussion group, it was interesting to find Ray Gaston reposting this article on FB.

Poppy chatter is a distraction from remembrance of the living | Libby Brooks | Comment is free | The Guardian:

One of the bits that got my attention did so because I had felt surprisingly outraged by the suggestion in some of the debate in the media that poppy-wearing is not political:

To deny that the poppy exists in a political context, as well as a historical and cultural one, is to exhibit quite baffling levels of wilful ignorance. It's also insulting to the armed services themselves, given how eager politicians of various stripes are to co-opt them to their particular agendas

Quite so, and furthermore: try wearing a white poppy or even ostentatiously not wearing a poppy and you'll find out what kind of political assumptions are carried.

I'm particularly keen that we keep this original motivation near the heart of our thinking about the matter, at the risk of commiting the cultural equivalent of the etymological fallacy. (I think I can avoid committing it because this is actually a negotiation about meaning in the contempory):

Remembrance commemorations have of course been controversial as early as 1919, when many returning soldiers were appalled by what they saw as the glorification of a squalid and meaningless loss of life

A thought echoed by one correspondan:

One former serviceman explained: "I don't wear a poppy with pride but as a duty to remember all those who died in so many stupid and wasteful wars where young men had to pay for the mistakes of politicians."

The point of the article seems to be to note the need to have a proper care for those our society asks, encourages or sometimes effectively forces into brutal and traumatic mental and physical situations.

veterans continue to be over-represented among rough sleepers; the suicide rate among younger ex-servicemen is four times the national average; the effects of deployment on mental health, often compounded by alcohol misuse, can take years to surface, long after the limited Ministry of Defence support has ended

War is bloody hell; if 'we' justify it then we should jolly well accept to do something about these kinds of consequences.

It makes me wonder whether we should pass legislation to make sure that decisions on the part of governments to deploy troops should be reflexivised: that somehow the consequences of that decisions should be capable of being visited on the decision-makers in order to help them not to make them lightly (of course they will claim they don't anyway, but in the light of Iraq, you've got to wonder whether the stakes for them personally are high enough).

When the previous government was talking about raising the period of detention without trial to 90 days, I suggested that we should tell the politicians that they could do that only if they were willing to to be bound to serve any of the time equivalent to that endured wrongfully by any and all those who might be held under those laws. I suggest a similar reflexivity be found in the case of deploying troops. Not sure what a proper reflex should be; perhaps something like, they would personally have to break the news of the death or do service in a veterans' hospital .... or, well, what would your suggestion be?

Aboriginal Art: Jesus and Adam

Matt Stone discovered this rather nice aboriginal Icon:

Jesus and Adam under the Trinity. Those who live under Adam are in disharmony and darkness, facing different directions. Those who live under Jesus, the second Adam, are in harmonyand light. This harmony is entered through the waters of baptism. I hope you find it interesting.

Aboriginal Art: Jesus and Adam - Glocal Christianity

What to do with your name after marriage? Why, blend.

Going through the usual options (choose one, keep both, hyphenise) this article sets out the conversation highlights on this matter so far: What to do with your name after marriage – a great post-wedding game | Frances Ryan | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk. It does miss one: some friends of ours chose a new hyphenated surname based on their family histories rather than their birth-certificate surnames. However, the real aim of the article is to set the scene for ....

the newest marital name trend has ensured the long search for a solution is over. Couples are now "meshing": blending the key syllables of both of their surnames to form a brand new sparkling one.

I like it. In our case, that could make us Reynbows. Yep; that sits well with me.

The 1% are not value for money

I mentioned a few posts back that I couldn't see how the majority of the capitalist elite were worth their pay differential relative to, say, a nurse. I mentioned how I thought that for the most part they commanded their wealth by virtue of luck and positioning. Well it looks like George Monbiot has come to the same conclusion: The 1% are the very best destroyers of�wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian And it's full of great quotes, for example:

Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes

Reading it, I realised that for the last 30 years we've been in thrall to, or at least silenced by, the myth that we need to reward the talented entrepreneurs, risk takers and financiers in order to create wealth. Well, George has some interesting research to bring to our attention which pretty much busts that mythology. This piece of research takes down the notion that financial success is down to skill.

the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years. He found that the consistency of their performance was zero. "The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill."

And then there is the issue of transferability of the findings; cue a nice sight-bite from Mr Monbiot:

So much for the financial sector and its super-educated analysts. As for other kinds of business, you tell me. Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?

In fact, the evidence would suggest that not only does this 'class' not really manage to beat the better than chance threshold, but in fact it seems that the wealth they have 'created' is more properly seen to have been expropriated.

Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%

Then there's a study that disturbingly personalises one of the findings shown in the film The Corporation.

They compared the results to the same tests on patients at Broadmoor special hospital, where people who have been convicted of serious crimes are incarcerated. On certain indicators of psychopathy, the bosses's scores either matched or exceeded those of the patients. In fact, on these criteria, they beat even the subset of patients who had been diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorders.

In fact the way that corporate structures and 'rules' are put together actually creates a self-reinforcing situation:

Those who have these traits often possess great skill in flattering and manipulating powerful people. Egocentricity, a strong sense of entitlement, a readiness to exploit others and a lack of empathy and conscience are also unlikely to damage their prospects in many corporations.

And worst of all we have allowed them to get away with it; there was an ideology propping it all up with an infrastructure to keep it in place in the collective imagination:

acolytes, in academia, the media, thinktanks and government, created an extensive infrastructure of junk economics and flattery to justify their seizure of other people's wealth. So immersed in this nonsense did we become that we seldom challenged its veracity.

Quite so: time to pull the curtain from this Oz wizardry.

Is this the future of books?

Have a look at this. Moonbot Studios: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, v 3.0 It seems to me that it's what e-readers will be enabling. There's a sense in which this is probably inspired or at least envisionabled by the Daily Prophet in Harry Potter.

Using rich CG animation, innovative interactivity, original composed music, and unique games sprinkled throughout the book

I'm starting to think about some of my writing projects and wondering whether this is the way to go...

Ballet Shoes and Ballerinas as Technology

In considering culture we need to contemplate the dynamic interrelationship between material things, human apprehension and ideas. It's with that in mind that this article looks really interesting:

Ballet Shoes and Ballerinas as Technology: A History En Pointe - Suzanne Fischer - Technology - The Atlantic:

Here's how it plays out with ballet dancing:

The bodies of dancers reshaped by pointe shoes are also technological. Laemmli's paper, "A Case in Pointe: Making Streamlined Bodies and Interchangeable Ballerinas at the New York City Ballet," looks at the way George Balanchine used pointe shoes to remake the bodies of his dancers into interchangeable machines

The point here is the reflexivity of the technology/artefact produced for the art which in turn reshapes the aesthetic possibilities and further developments (including the flat-footedness of dancers consequent on the reshaping of their bone-structure).

I saw this on a billboard at a bus stop today. 
As I reflected on it, I felt that this seemed to be heading down a rather more militaristic direction. You see, it seems to me that this way of advertising takes the emphasis away from supporting those bereaved by warfare, which was what I was told from childhood it was about, more towards 'supporting our troops': we are not being asked to remember the bereaved and bereft. And that message is problematic at a time when British troops are being used as adjuncts to US military adventurism. You see, it seems to me (as an antiwar sort of person) that this is moving away from what the original purpose was. As Robert Fisk  reflects about his dad's difficulty with 'poppy day':
I remember that they wanted to remember their dead comrades. But above all, they wanted an end to war.
This poster, it seems to me, is not enunciating a hope for an end to war.  It seems to be colluding with continuing warfare.
Unfortunately a red poppy no longer seems to be a way of articulating solidarity with that first generation of world-war-widows and orphans and veterans in their knowing-from-bitter-experience determination that war should be done away with.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-do-those-who-flaunt-the-poppy-on-their-lapels-know-that-they-mock-the-war-dead-6257416.html

Watching The Way

Just watching this film. Like it a lot. it has humanity, pathos, humour and keeps reminding me of life in northern Spain and especially Euskadi; nostalgia also for the companionship of travellers and pilgrims. Buen Mirar; buen camino!

The Way (2010) - IMDb

Autumn in Nunsmoor

the eye of a very big needle

 Also at Dawlish Warren.

in the wider eye of the beholder

... in the eye of the beholder

I too this with my phone camera in Dawlish Warren the other week. So glad the onboard camera seemed to be up to what it was that I saw iwth the naked eye. Thinking that this might make a nice picture to put on a wall. What do you think?

There are 3 “J’s” in the Gospel Debate

According to Scot McKnight. Justice, justification and ... well read it here:

The Three “J’s” in the Gospel Debate | Jesus Creed:

If you preach Jesus as the gospel you will get both justification and justice.
If you preach justification you may get Jesus (but I see only some of Jesus and not the whole of Jesus) and you may get some justice (I’m skeptical on this one).
If you preach justice you may get some justification (but I’m skeptical on enough justice gospelers ever getting to justification) and you get Jesus, but again only some of Jesus (often only his teachings, his life, and his life as an example).
If you preach the Jesus of Paul’s gospel (1 Cor 15) or the apostolic sermons in Acts or the gospel of the Gospels, you get all of Jesus and all of Jesus creates both justice and justification.

I think I may agree, though I fear that this may be a bit simple and those who tend towards the two first varieties of belief probably wouldn't recognise the distinction because they think that they are the third category, in fact. But Scot is certainly right, imho, that Jesus is the centre of it all and that if we put justice or justification first we loose the plot.

Honest scrap award

I've been ages (and then some) responding to this, but thought I'd give it a go ...Re-vis.e Re-form: Unknowingly memed and awarded: "10 HONEST things about myself and then nominate 7 other blogs that I think deserve to receive the Honest Scrap Award."
So ...
1 I don't drive. I've had about four lessons and have tended to either have too little money to learn when I've had the time or not enough time when I've had the money. Then the cost of car ownership and the fact that the thing loses money as soon as you take it off the forecourt, that cares are a major cause of death and injury (if they were cigarettes, they'd carry health warnings) and contribute majorly to climate change, have not encouraged me more recently to learn, either.
2 I watch TV at weekends and those days when I'm working from home -it's often a background noise for me (childhood thing). I'm amused and sometimes annoyed that heavy reain disables the satellite signal -so I rue that our area is not cabled.
3 I like reading alternative timeline stories: I really like that 'what if' thing and how plausible the author makes it. That goes for sci-fi in general.
4 I'm a top-down thinker rather than bottom up: I really function best when I'm able to situate new ideas in a big picture, otherwise I'm missing things while I'm asking myself how 'this' fits in with 'which' bigger framework.
5 I'm an ordained Anglican: been deacon for 23 years and in presbyteral orders for 22; I was ordained in Sheffield Cathedral by David Lunn and have spent most of my ministry in Yorkshire.
6 I really enjoy helping people connect with important insights (either personal or educational or faith-wise)
7 I've been discovering more and more that I fundamentally think theologically in ways that resonate with Barth and Moltmann. I seem to come to conclusions that they write about; so I read stuff by them with a sense that I recognise what they are saying and that they have articulated it better than I could have done (perhaps unsurprisingly).
8 politically I'm on the 'progressive' end of things but suspicious of a lot of leftist agendas even though I'm not at all convinced by much of the self-serving of much rightist thinking.
9 I have lived all my life in England, except for about nine months when I lived in Spain (San Sebastian /Donostia) In Spain I learnt Basque, to probably, intermediate level.
10 I was brought up in a commuter village so I'm never quite sure whether that makes me rural or urban by background. However, I prefer living in or close in to cities.

And in turn, and this this the hard bit (finding others who I think will be okay with it), I nominate 7 others ...
1 http://pursiful.com
2 The Elves are heading West
3 Staring into the distance ....
4 Paradoxology
5 Pashfish
6 Nonsuch
7 Greenflame

What the *%$k!? Vicar resigns

It is almost enigmatic: Church Times - Brynmawr’s Vicar resigns. Surely there must be more to it than this: "An unnamed cleric told the Western Mail that he had formally complained about Mr Grey. “I was very concerned at the language he used in a conversation he had with me. It is entirely inappropriate for a clergyman to use four-letter words.”"
Can it be that a clergybeing has really been 'encouraged' to resign for swearing; or is that 'cussing'; or even 'profanity'? And there you have it. We can't even agree what to call it because the issue differs according to who is judging and where it's happening. 'Swearing' puts it in the territory of not taking the LORD's name in vain in particular by making some kind of oath or truncated oath (thereby also trespassing onto Jesus' 'Do not swear' from the Sermon on the Mount). 'Cussing' seems to have distinctly dialectal overtones -perhaps even of the wild west and may well be a variant of 'cursing' (certainly would be in Black Country dialect) -which probably means saying nasty things to or about others but possibly God. 'Profanity' seems to be taking the idea that the profane is something that shouldn't be uttered in God's hearing; it's beyond the bounds of decency.

Of course there are all sorts of difficulties here. Taking the LORD's name in vain would, strictly speaking, be nigh on impossible. The Jews of yore did such a good job of protecting the name so that it couldn't be taken in vain, that no-one now knows how to pronounce it. That's why many English Bibles put the word in capitals: to signal that it's "that" name -God's special name -which we don't know how to say.

Quibbles aside, though, we know what is meant here in actual fact. Using 'holy' titles and names to express anger, disgust, surprise and so forth. But this doesn't seem to be the what was being referred to. "Four-letter words" are not generally characteristic of 'swearing' in the sense of using 'holy' words in profane ways: most of those words are not four-letter words. "Four-letter words" geneally refers to a set of allegedly 'Anglo-Saxon' words referring to copulation, excretion or genitalia (mainly female). It is one or more of these which I think we're are supposed to understand to be 'inappropriate for a clergyman to use', or at least to do so as freely as it appears this gentleman is accused of doing. I know clergy who, in moments of extreme frustration (for example) and where they feel safe enough to do so, will use the occasional such word.

What I'm curious about is why such language should be considered 'inappropriate' for clergy. And this may require us to think past our first reactions and our cultural reflexes into places we so take for granted that the mere questioning of them seems almost ridiculous and /or offensive. But there we must go, dear reader.

You see there is a problem with all of this 'swearing' stuff. The stuff to do with invoking God or Christ 'in vain' is one thing: many believers find it jarring to hear words that, for us, have affectionate and devotional connotations being bandied about with aggressive or casual intent. However, the words to do with sexual acts, bodily wastes or genitals are another matter. There isn't a God- or devotion agenda involved with them. It might be understandable that a vicar could be leaned on to reconsider his position if he was in the habit of misusing God-words. But what would be going on with these other words?

Well, I think we need, first, to ask what is offensive, to whom and when? The first is partly answered above, Ttough some more things should be said: we should note that what constitutes offensive language differes from language to language and culture to culture. Broadly speaking it seemss that sex, excreta and the sacred normally provide the referents but which of these is considered most offensive varies. In Quebec French, for example certain catholic symbols are the most offensive, similarly in Spanish (where 'milk' is an offensive thing to say, because it's short for 'milk of the Virgin'). And of course it isn't the word itself; there's nothing mystical about the sounds. Indeed there is amusement to be had in finding innocent words in one language which sound like 'rude' or offensive words in another\ (even if on a visual pun like Thailand's Phuket). We should also note that it isn't the referent either, or at least not on it's own: most of the referents of 'four-letter words' can be expressed with more polite or acceptable words or phrases: "sex" or "poo", for example.So I'm not entirely convinced by Stephen Pinker's neurological explanation regarding the disgust factor. It's not the concepts that are taboo (though I will admit that in some company and circumstances the subject matter may be considered 'indelicate', but that's not really the same though it may be linked to the extent that the Stephen Pinker view works).

The second (offensive to whom) is something of a sociolinguistic issue as is the third (when) which also takes in pragmatics. Asking 'who is offended?' can yield some interesting observations: class differences are often involved: working class swearing hooking middle class offence, for example. This can then act as a group marker expressing solidarity and enacting differentiation: 'we' are the ones who dare to say what 'they' can't bring themselves to say (and the concomitant possibilities for image-building as, say, 'tough'). So was the vicar actually committing social class 'sins' by swearing. I'd guess there is likely to be a big chunk of this aspect in the matter: (I'm guessing on the basis of precedent) a middle class congregation for whom these words are taboo find a vicar using what they associate as 'common' and even 'offensive' terms which are certainly not acceptable in their normal speech. His choice of such language marks him as someone who is not 'one of us' and so suspect of moral deficiency or of allying himself with the 'wrong' sort of people.

And then there's the 'when?' question. There are social circumstances in which it might be considered relatively 'okay' to swear/cuss: sports occasions (see picture above !?) are often such. And some occasions where a word might be shocking (a royal banquet, perhaps). Sometimes the pragmatics of cussing is about enacting a solidary relationship: by greeting someone with an insult, one can be saying, in effect "We're the same, we are (potentially) friends ...". That's why the N-bomb can be used among black people but not in a mixed race conversation, for example. And of course, the words can be used as distancing even repudiative: when we want to express our disgust with or violent  objection to someone or something, the 'profane' words can be very helpful (hence the apostle Paul's use of a word supposed to be such, in one of the epistles).

This latter usage, though also shows up the problem over time. The power of such words tends to lead to their overuse which lessens their impact over time. In my lifetime and experience words like 'bloody' and 'shit' have become so common that their impact is now like 'damn' was when I was a kid (ie no-one thought it heavy duty except for a few older people). This leads to a search for new sufficiently 'offensive' terms to use for the more extreme ranges of emotion and circumstance, hence "motherf****r" seems to be coming into range.


See my previous posts on 'profanity'

Buddhism in the west -let's be mindful of what we learn from it

It was interesting to see here Beyond me - Philosophy and Life Mark Vernon's own comments on why he wrote a recent article in Third Way. Buddhism, he says:

... addresses modern everyday concerns – the desire for happiness, the anxieties of stress. Indeed, policy makers are growing increasingly interested in the ability of mindfulness meditation to achieve everything from reducing aggression to warding off aging.

It is a genius piece of spiritual positioning in a secular culture, like ours, that associates belief with half-forgotten myths, at best. Psychology, not theology, is trusted as a source of truth. The individual, not the divine, is what really draws our attention. And I have to admit, as someone who entirely understands what it is to be metaphysically agnostic, Buddhism drew me too, for a while.

But I’ve changed my mind. I’m inclined to think that Buddhism’s easy ride into western consciousness should be challenged. A moment for critique has arrived – a moment that, I suspect, serious Buddhists will, in fact, welcome. Conversely, Buddhism’s undoubted appeal raises questions that Christians would do well to reflect on too

On this very blog I have at various points mentioned that we can probably learn a lot about how contemporary Western people are linking spirituality and culture at the level of plausibility structures by paying attention to the popularity of Buddhism in some circles. So this article is welcome.

The real challenges of chaplaincy ...

I discovered I'd drafted this a few months back and then forgotten to post it. So....

The bishop of Newcastle, at my interview for the post of co-ordinating chaplain to the University of Northumbria, said, “I reckon this is the hardest job in the diocese, why on earth do you want to do it?”* A good question; why did he think it was hard? I supposed that he meant something like: being a university chaplain in a large and secular university means that you don't have a settled congregation to pastor and your role is widely misunderstood and you are in a very pioneering situation with regard to discerning the mission of God and playing your part. So it's hard because you need to have a good degree of resilience, imagination, ability to cope without the normal encouragements of working in ordained ministry.
The lack of a settled congregation may be a surprise to some -remembering chaplaincies from student days as vibrant nexuses of Christian gathering and growth. Not so now: the demographic concern for falling numbers of young people participating in church life is showing up acutely in university chaplaincies; they rarely attract enough people for a critical mass of consistent and regular activity. young people who do identify as church-actively Christian tend either to go to the RC chaplaincy (by dint of a strong 'brand loyalty' on the part of the catholics and even here the numbers can struggle) or they are attracted by the vibrancy of the Christian Union -and whichever churches are most fashionable among the CU's members.
The role is misunderstood quite often because of this: the assumption is that a university chaplain is concerned mostly with students. And while some of it is, often in a quite expanded role working within teams concerned for student welfare, international students and religious equality and diversity, much is also concerned with staff and with broader institutional matters. I sometimes in the past described my role as being “an industrial chaplain to a knowledge-based industry” to try to get over the idea that it was a more institutional~ and staff-related ministry than many might have realised.
It is a pioneering role in that, with the traditional student role being less to the fore, more scope is given to encouraging wider and different forms of participation and offering different forms of ministry. In Bradford, I organised faith-related art-exhibitions, text-prayers, spiritual direction, meditation training as part of a de-stressing programme, vigils for peace at the time of the Iraq conflict, group facilitation services, life coaching, and fair trade advocacy among other things.
I am aware that this kind of institutional and staff-related ministry is much more like chaplaincy work in other sectors. In common with them I would also say that part of the role is to affirm and to facilitate ministry in Christ's name by 'ordinary' Christians in the workplace. The chaplain by their presence says, I hope, “your workplace is somewhere that God is active, a big part of the wider church's mission takes place there”.

*Interestingly, in the diocesan newspaper version of this, I toned down the actual quote; I was worried that some clergy in the diocese might take it amiss that the implication could be construed that he didn't think their job was. But of course, that would be an unfair implication; I'm sure that he was indulging in conversational hyperbole.

How your friends' friends can affect your mood

One of the aspects of our being inherently social is that, well, look at this: How your friends' friends can affect your mood - life - 30 December 2008 - New Scientist: "Recent research shows that our moods are far more strongly influenced by those around us than we tend to think. Not only that, we are also beholden to the moods of friends of friends, and of friends of friends of friends - people three degrees of separation away from us who we have never met, but whose disposition can pass through our social network like a virus."

Now, cutting a long story short, but something I keep banging on about, the reason is probably empathic mimicry.
"Some researchers think one of the most likely mechanisms is empathetic mimicry. Psychologists have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, manner of speech, posture, body language and other behaviours of those around them, often with remarkable speed and accuracy. This then causes them, through a kind of neural feedback, to actually experience the emotions associated with the particular behaviour they are mimicking."
My interest spiritually is recognising the corporateness of faith living both in terms of 'not giving up meeting together' but also in terms of the effects of living in faith-hostile environments. Also we should note the likelihood of certain kinds of behaviour, notably and most extremely those associated with certain kinds of revivalism, are more about empathic mimicry than about the spirit of God. That's not to say God may not be involved, but we should be wary of making it all-or-nothing. God can indeed be touching people's lives and this may show through psycho-somatic means. These may then be picked up by others. In some cases doing so may enable them to 'tune in' to some degree to the presence of God. In some cases, however, it may only transmit 'odd' mannerisms. Our bodies are sacramental, in a sense, but not ex opere operato: the behaviour does not 'produce' or necessarily connote the presence or move of God; though it may.

Of course, it is possible to go to the extreme of saying that such scientific research disproves the God stuff: it's all just a somatic-psycho-spiritual 'infection'. This is, of course, as much nonsense as saying that such things 'prove' God. We need to recall that as embodied beings, if we are to have spiritual experiences they will have to be mediated through our bodily (=neural) experience. Conversely we should note that in evolutionary terms our vocal apparatus is not 'designed' for speech, however, that does not mean that language does not really exist. Similarly, just because certain of our somatic systems can be co-opted for spiritual experience does not mean that something genuinely spiritual does not underlie that co-option.

49% - How much? How can that be justified

This is likely to produce a rant in me ... oh dear, it begins .....

"directors in FTSE 100 companies have received an average pay increase of 49% this year" Why? Because they can, not to put to fine a point on it. Our legislative framework hasn't evolved to produce a more ... what? ... rational? fair? system.

Why would I say 'rational'? Well, several reasons: how can the value of these people's work really be worth so much more than, say, a nurse or a refuse collector? I rather doubt that the talent these people have is any significantly greater than dozens if not hundreds or thousands of others, the difference is that these particular people had the 'right' combination of birth, schooling, networking and chances of openings at the 'right' time to find themselves in a position commanding great wealth. So I say rational because happenstance is massively at work here and that isn't really rational. Rational would be taking a view about the relative values of the work and the costs to society .... see where that would be going? And then if we add to that the consideration from The Spirit Level about the deleterious effects (read therefore 'costs') to society of greater inequalities of income.

So, I contend, it is not fair, rational or acceptable for civilised societies not to address that kind of idiocy in so-called 'rewards'. Too often 'we' are rewarding chance and good-fortune not effort, creativity, intelligence or any of the virtuous things that most of us would say is deserving of reward.

Rant over ... thank you for bearing with me. I feel better now. And who knows, I might even be wrong?

49% - the astounding average pay rise for FTSE 100 bosses | The Equality Trust:

Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition fee rise

I don't think they'll succeed, but it'll be interesting if the case enables the facts to be heard. See here: Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition fee rise | Education | guardian.co.uk:

Two teenagers have begun a case in the high court against the government's decision to let universities almost treble tuition fees next year

It will all hinge on two main challenges:

(1)... the rise in fees is in breach of the right to education protected in the Human Rights Act 1998. That right does not guarantee free higher education, but it does place curbs on steps that limit access to higher education ... and

(2) ... the government failed to give "due regard" to promoting equality of opportunity as required under the Race Relations, Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination Acts.

I don't think either will succeed because I suspect that the conditions under which the finances are actually granted are likely not to be considered a bad deal. In the case of the first objection, the fact that the student finance arrangements are arguably better than the previous arrangements (and I would say, in effect, closer to grants and a graduate tax) and in relation to the second objection; it's not debt as we normally understand it: it is written off if unpaid by a certain point, it is only payable on a PAYE basis once ones income reaches a (higher than present) certain point. It's in effect, a hypothecated graduate tax. The odd thing is that a Conservative administration has swallowed the idea -it's occured because it has been dressed up to look like a safely capitalist loan. But in effect, if the investment doesn't produce a graduate with the kind of lifetime increase in earnings usually predicted, well, the government picks up the bill. That's the real worry: sometime in the future, the books may not balance ...

But perhaps I've misunderstood something.

Of course, that is not to say anything about the rights and wrongs of various approaches to financing HE.

While we're on the topic, however, I think it may be worth considering an article about the future of HE. In this case in the USA, but I think some of the issues are transferable.

http://faithoncampus.com/four-disruptions-that-could-shake-up-college-ministry/ I'm particularly interested in the demographic issue combined with the issue of whether HE will continue to be considered a good investment. And on that issue, it's also worth having a read of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/university-open-days-soar; the consumer approach is finally coming home to roost; the faint beginnings have been with us a little while, but it seems to me that here it arrives in fulness.

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London

This is a somewhat scary expose:

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

In it we learn that democracy is a non-starter in the Square Mile:

"among local authorities the City of London is unique". You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

Indeed:

The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile.

We also learn:

The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government.

Monbiot suggests that one interesting effect of trying to draw up a written British constitution would be to expose some of this jiggery-pokery; after all, how would one possibly defend this in order to put its preservation on a 'proper' footing. It certainly makes one wonder if the Occupy LSX protest should be attempting to bring some of this into the light of day. Indeed, is the stuff with St Paul's cathedral some clever diversion?