Interesting theory here about the origin of spoken language. Does a good job of outlining the basic issues that are associated with hypothesising origins of speech. Not sure that this one does the job, though it could be part of the picture: we really need to be thinking in terms of multiple factors coming together, I suspect [like anatomical -the human lowering of the larynx -which is a plank in the argument for the 'aquatic Ape' hypothesis].
Proably needs to be taken with this article on the relative speed of human evolution. Where the issue is that "with humans, the relative size of the brain does not fit the trend - our brains are disproportionately big, much bigger even than the brains of other non-human primates, including our closest relatives, chimpanzees." And investigations seem to indicate "We've proven that there is a big distinction," Prof Lahn said. "Human evolution is, in fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of mutations in a large number of genes." And the suggestion that the biggest driver for this is the greater sociability of humans: "In an increasingly social environment, greater cognitive abilities probably became more of an advantage.
"As humans become more social, differences in intelligence will translate into much greater differences in fitness, because you can manipulate your social structure to your advantage," he said." And it seems to me that language is a crucial ingredient of that mix and it also seems to lend weight to the hypothesis of neoteny advanced in The Eternal Child: How Evolution Has ...">"The Eternal Child" by Clive Broomhall.
Original article:Guardian Unlimited | Life | Baby talk key to evolution
05 January 2005
04 January 2005
Smoking a sin?
I blogged yesterday about the Vatican report on smoking which declares that it is not morally neutral but shies away from outrightly calling it a sin. Now this got me thinking about the issue of when is a sin a sin or not? More precisely: is there a category between sin and righteous action which is nevertheless not simply 'neutral'?
Now I know all that stuff about 'hamartia' and other cognate mataphors for sin but I had tended to operate with the idea that things are, in the last analysis either sin ful or not. Some things probably in themselves [an onotological approach -eg adultery and murder] and many others in terms of context and purpose [a teleological appraoch] but I'm now wondering whether we need another category to cover a smoky room in between?
I see it like this: I think that it is right that smoking regularly is sinful in as far as it harms the body God endows us to care for and imposes emotional, physical and material costs that could be better used elsewhere. It also imposes such costs on other people, especially thsoe closest to us emotionally and physically. Therefore, it seems to me regular smoking is probably sinful. On the other hand addiction is surely some mitigation; in as far as we are not responsible it is not sin, however, we are then responsible for dealing with the addiction ...
But is smoking sinful in and of itself? Iow: is it sinful to even light up one cigarette simply to try it or to form a bond of comradeship for the sake of the gospel? I actually think not: our bodies are able to be tolerant of such insults as occasional exposure to tabacco smoke and the reasons given for maintaining that regular smoking is sinful do not apply. So at what point does it become sinful to smoke? I guess that I would have to say it would be somewhere after trying it or having the occasional smoke and becoming a regular and most properly at the point[s] where one becomes aware that it has become a habit and that it has [self-]harmful consequences.
I think as well, what I am feeling towards is an approach to such matters that is somehow about wisdom. It is unwise to smoke but at one end of the scale it may be an acceptable risk and generally 'okay' to enjoy the occasional after dinner cigar [for example] and at the other it is downrightly bad to light up and continue the habit. How one deals with that is also a matter for wisdom since the delicate art of giving up is not simply a matter of 'just say no'. I am married to someone who no longer smokes but who is often loath to say that they are a non-smoker ...
Another test case for thinking about this is the issue of meat consumption; it seems clear to me that for reasons of world distribution of resources, the impacts on animal welfare and health reasons, the level of meat consumption in the west is sinfully high. However, it is hard to translate that into saying to each and every individual that they should be vegetarian. I think I would say that, other things being equal, some meat consumption is okay. Some, like myself, may feel seriusly enough about it to 'prophetically' give up meat eating. Most should probably cut down; some must be in the region of gluttony in this matter. However, making an outright statement that meat-eating is wrong and sinful is not possible.
More to ponder I'm sure and I am aware that there is a whole lot of ethical thinking that I vaguely know is out there but haven't been able to keep pace with: virtue ethics and narrative ethics being two I can think of straight away. Anyone got some more leads on this stuff?
Nouslife: papal 'curse' on smoking
Now I know all that stuff about 'hamartia' and other cognate mataphors for sin but I had tended to operate with the idea that things are, in the last analysis either sin ful or not. Some things probably in themselves [an onotological approach -eg adultery and murder] and many others in terms of context and purpose [a teleological appraoch] but I'm now wondering whether we need another category to cover a smoky room in between?
I see it like this: I think that it is right that smoking regularly is sinful in as far as it harms the body God endows us to care for and imposes emotional, physical and material costs that could be better used elsewhere. It also imposes such costs on other people, especially thsoe closest to us emotionally and physically. Therefore, it seems to me regular smoking is probably sinful. On the other hand addiction is surely some mitigation; in as far as we are not responsible it is not sin, however, we are then responsible for dealing with the addiction ...
But is smoking sinful in and of itself? Iow: is it sinful to even light up one cigarette simply to try it or to form a bond of comradeship for the sake of the gospel? I actually think not: our bodies are able to be tolerant of such insults as occasional exposure to tabacco smoke and the reasons given for maintaining that regular smoking is sinful do not apply. So at what point does it become sinful to smoke? I guess that I would have to say it would be somewhere after trying it or having the occasional smoke and becoming a regular and most properly at the point[s] where one becomes aware that it has become a habit and that it has [self-]harmful consequences.
I think as well, what I am feeling towards is an approach to such matters that is somehow about wisdom. It is unwise to smoke but at one end of the scale it may be an acceptable risk and generally 'okay' to enjoy the occasional after dinner cigar [for example] and at the other it is downrightly bad to light up and continue the habit. How one deals with that is also a matter for wisdom since the delicate art of giving up is not simply a matter of 'just say no'. I am married to someone who no longer smokes but who is often loath to say that they are a non-smoker ...
Another test case for thinking about this is the issue of meat consumption; it seems clear to me that for reasons of world distribution of resources, the impacts on animal welfare and health reasons, the level of meat consumption in the west is sinfully high. However, it is hard to translate that into saying to each and every individual that they should be vegetarian. I think I would say that, other things being equal, some meat consumption is okay. Some, like myself, may feel seriusly enough about it to 'prophetically' give up meat eating. Most should probably cut down; some must be in the region of gluttony in this matter. However, making an outright statement that meat-eating is wrong and sinful is not possible.
More to ponder I'm sure and I am aware that there is a whole lot of ethical thinking that I vaguely know is out there but haven't been able to keep pace with: virtue ethics and narrative ethics being two I can think of straight away. Anyone got some more leads on this stuff?
Nouslife: papal 'curse' on smoking
03 January 2005
Dec. 25 the date to celebrate Christmas?
I'd always assumed that there was no really good reason save political to have the nativity on Dec 25. Well it turns out that there may be more to it:
Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore:
Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife, Elizabeth, she would bear John the Baptist.
During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth “with haste.”
The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.
I don't have the info to assess this, so I'm hoping that someone can give me a further pointer ...
Christianity :: Why is Dec. 25 the date to celebrate Christmas?
Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore:
Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife, Elizabeth, she would bear John the Baptist.
During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth “with haste.”
The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.
I don't have the info to assess this, so I'm hoping that someone can give me a further pointer ...
Christianity :: Why is Dec. 25 the date to celebrate Christmas?
My most interesting Christmas gift
I was given ten chickens this Christmas, I have the picture but a family in the two-thirds world is looking after them and benefit from them. I'm going to call them things like 'Supreme', 'Korma', 'Chasseur' 'The Colonel' and so on. What I found good though was the fact that I have been talking about this gift when people have asked me about what I got fro Christmas. SO thanks to my benefactors who knew me well enough to know that this would be a good gift.
"The Oxfam initiaitive provides novel ways to solve the usual Christmas present dilemma. As well as goats (�25 each) and chickens (�10 for a brood of 10), more than 641,950 tree seedlings have also been purchased.
The purchaser's friend, relative or colleague receives a card and voucher describing the item, "
"The Oxfam initiaitive provides novel ways to solve the usual Christmas present dilemma. As well as goats (�25 each) and chickens (�10 for a brood of 10), more than 641,950 tree seedlings have also been purchased.
The purchaser's friend, relative or colleague receives a card and voucher describing the item, "
papal 'curse' on smoking
I wonder how this will go down: I have a friend who is a RC priest who smokes, I must ask him about it. Anyway the juicy bits of this are:
"The article in an authoritative Roman Catholic publication, prepared with the knowledge and endorsement of the Pope's most senior aides, declares that smokers cannot damage their own health and that of others 'without moral responsibility'.
The article stops short of branding smoking a sin. But its author says that lighting up is 'not neutral either in social or indeed moral terms'.
So will we see RC's picketting tobacco producers and cigarette factories? Maybe, but I think that smoming seems to have a big bond with RC's in my observation the Christians most likely to are RC ....
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Attack on smoking gets papal blessing
"
"The article in an authoritative Roman Catholic publication, prepared with the knowledge and endorsement of the Pope's most senior aides, declares that smokers cannot damage their own health and that of others 'without moral responsibility'.
The article stops short of branding smoking a sin. But its author says that lighting up is 'not neutral either in social or indeed moral terms'.
So will we see RC's picketting tobacco producers and cigarette factories? Maybe, but I think that smoming seems to have a big bond with RC's in my observation the Christians most likely to are RC ....
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Attack on smoking gets papal blessing
"
inspiration for Middle Earth?
I grew up within sight of the Wrekin [though usually saw it from a different angle than this
and went to sixth-form college at the foot of the hill and developed a love for the saga of Middle Earth in my teens so imagine my surprise that I'd never heard that the Wrekin is "cited by some as an inspiration for Tolkien's Middle Earth". I knew Tolkien was a midlander but thought he was further east and south than my native Shropshire -south of -ahem- Birmingham. Apparently he was stationed within sight of the Wrekin during WW1. ...
I'm left wondering just what they thought the Wrekin inspired? Mount Doom?
Guardian Unlimited Books | News | Battle over inspiration for Middle Earth
and went to sixth-form college at the foot of the hill and developed a love for the saga of Middle Earth in my teens so imagine my surprise that I'd never heard that the Wrekin is "cited by some as an inspiration for Tolkien's Middle Earth". I knew Tolkien was a midlander but thought he was further east and south than my native Shropshire -south of -ahem- Birmingham. Apparently he was stationed within sight of the Wrekin during WW1. ...
I'm left wondering just what they thought the Wrekin inspired? Mount Doom?
Guardian Unlimited Books | News | Battle over inspiration for Middle Earth
I'm back and things have been ....
I don't normally advertise when I'm going to be away -security and all that- but I'm sure more regular readers may not be surprised to discover I've been away. Now I could have blogged while away; there was internet access possible at various relatives' houses, but well, I just didn't get round to it for varying reasons. At least it demonstrates that my fear that I might be internet/blogging addicted may not be true; I just don't have anything better to do! -Or not!
Anyway what a time to be away: missing a major natural disaster and all sorts of interesting stuff on my regular haunts too. That's not to trivialise the tsunami stuff: it's actually pretty hard to respond blogwise to something like that without being trite or simply adding to the chorus of other voices expressing a range of reactions. What I think I most want to do with it is to reflect on the response and what it sys about how we humans organise our world. I have seen a few things that I will blog in due course on that.
Meantime how do I react?
On the issue of why; well I tend to agree with Rabbi Daniel Isaak of Oregon: ""The world has certain imperfections built into the natural order, and we have to live with them. The issue isn't 'Why did God do this to us?' but 'How do we human beings care for one another?" And also Orthodox Theologian Costas Kyriakides in Cyprus expressed a similar view.
"I personally don't attach any theological significance to this -- I listen to what the scientists say," he said. "God is always the fall guy. We incriminate Him completely unjustly."
I've just been reading Rowan Williams' Writing in the Dust which is reflecting on the twin towers atrocity. In it Bp. Rowan says something that I have long thought myself about such things; if God is to be dragged in to stop or mitigate directly every human evil, where would it end? It could only end with constant interfereance and the loss of any sense of order in the world and indeed of responsibility thereafter ... life as we know it would be impossible. In fact that's rather more than Rowan says but the basic point is shared. Though in another publication he says: "If we are to exist in an environment where we can live lives of productive work and consistent understanding – human lives as we know them – the world has to have a regular order and pattern of its own. Effects follow causes in a way that we can chart, and so can make some attempt at coping with. So there is something odd about expecting that God will constantly step in if things are getting dangerous. How dangerous do they have to be? How many deaths would be acceptable?" However, he goes on to say: "Sometimes a secular moralist may say in contemporary debates: "Nature is wasteful of life; we can't hold to absolute views of the value of every human organism." That is not an option for the believer. That is why for the believer the uniqueness of every sufferer in a disaster such as the present one is so especially harrowing. There are no "spare" lives." and I think that is an important rider to theodical perspectives.
Anyway what a time to be away: missing a major natural disaster and all sorts of interesting stuff on my regular haunts too. That's not to trivialise the tsunami stuff: it's actually pretty hard to respond blogwise to something like that without being trite or simply adding to the chorus of other voices expressing a range of reactions. What I think I most want to do with it is to reflect on the response and what it sys about how we humans organise our world. I have seen a few things that I will blog in due course on that.
Meantime how do I react?
On the issue of why; well I tend to agree with Rabbi Daniel Isaak of Oregon: ""The world has certain imperfections built into the natural order, and we have to live with them. The issue isn't 'Why did God do this to us?' but 'How do we human beings care for one another?" And also Orthodox Theologian Costas Kyriakides in Cyprus expressed a similar view.
"I personally don't attach any theological significance to this -- I listen to what the scientists say," he said. "God is always the fall guy. We incriminate Him completely unjustly."
I've just been reading Rowan Williams' Writing in the Dust which is reflecting on the twin towers atrocity. In it Bp. Rowan says something that I have long thought myself about such things; if God is to be dragged in to stop or mitigate directly every human evil, where would it end? It could only end with constant interfereance and the loss of any sense of order in the world and indeed of responsibility thereafter ... life as we know it would be impossible. In fact that's rather more than Rowan says but the basic point is shared. Though in another publication he says: "If we are to exist in an environment where we can live lives of productive work and consistent understanding – human lives as we know them – the world has to have a regular order and pattern of its own. Effects follow causes in a way that we can chart, and so can make some attempt at coping with. So there is something odd about expecting that God will constantly step in if things are getting dangerous. How dangerous do they have to be? How many deaths would be acceptable?" However, he goes on to say: "Sometimes a secular moralist may say in contemporary debates: "Nature is wasteful of life; we can't hold to absolute views of the value of every human organism." That is not an option for the believer. That is why for the believer the uniqueness of every sufferer in a disaster such as the present one is so especially harrowing. There are no "spare" lives." and I think that is an important rider to theodical perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)