Encountering God in the midst of our physicality

Well, over the summer, I wrote a wee little article which has been published -well, is about to be:
"Encountering God in the midst of our physicality Andii Bowsher challenges the popular view that spirituality is an escape from the physical world"
I'll put it online in due course, once Retreats Journal have had it for a few months.

Green Gas

The fact is that that no matter how green our boilers and cookers etc, they still use hydrocarbon that was naturally sequestered from the rest of the ecosystem mostly in the carboniferous period (and there's a reason it's called that, folks; the clue is in the title). If, like me, you are somewhat vexed by this, then I share with you glad tidings that are for, hopefully, all the UK people. Our Green Gas - About Ecotricity - Ecotricity: "The idea of Green Gas. Actual gas, made from green sources, delivered into the gas grid and from there on to your home or business. This hasn’t really been possible until recently – but it is now." I think this means that by buying this when it becomes available, we'd be investing in building further capacity. I seem to recall Ecotricity have a good track record in reinvesting into green projects. I've just signed up for further information when it becomes available. Join me.

Clergymen more likely to marry for keeps

This article, Clergymen and dentists marry for keeps | Life and style | The Observer, is tantalising. It tells us that clergy and some other professions tend to produce fewer divorces. It tells us about the main way the figures were collected and worked. So we can be reasonably confident that this: "Those looking for a life of fidelity and loyalty, however, should marry agricultural engineers, optometrists, dentists, members of the clergy and podiatrists." is correct. What we don't get is clues to explain both the lower frequency /statistical likelihood in the aforementioned professions, or the higher incidence in chefs, mathematicians, urban planners etc. I guess that would be the next phase of study -or someone else's research project. What would be fascinating is to see the potential interplay of work-life balance, commitment, attitudes, workplace and home and perhaps things like general contentment. Watch this space ... or tell me if you find the follow-up studies.

To be theft, there has to be property

This
"It is not only because there can be potentially infinite owners of property that the internet redefines our notion of it. It is also that people who participate in the exchange of immaterial works do not treat them as property. When they exchange music, books or movies, they are not merely transferring ownership from themselves to others; they simply do not recognise themselves as owners in the first place."
is the crux of the argument that Alexandros Stavrakos makes in this article<=/a>, having disposed of the other contenders for discussion. I'm really quite excited about the prospect: I really like the idea. However, I pause; there's a little voice inside asking whether this is really the case. That's not to say it isn't, but this is where some research would come in handy. It may be that in these circumstances we tend to think of ourselves as 'users' rather than 'owners'.

It may be analogous to listening to a radio where I don't own the music I hear, but I do consume it but at negligible cost to myself at the point of usage. Or is it like water from the tap: I use it and it runs away; I could put it in a container and own it or even a bottle and maybe sell it, but in practice because (in the UK) it is abundant 'ownership' seems redundant, so I use it.

Perhaps this highlight that the real issue is to find an appropriate model or metaphor by which to understand digital rights particularly in the light of the comment in the next paragraph about the costliness of sharing, in some cases and the f'act that with replicating stuff like digital stuff (rather like love) one is not deprived by someone else's having it (which is where the water analogy could break down).

in reference to:

"It is not only because there can be potentially infinite owners of property that the internet redefines our notion of it. It is also that people who participate in the exchange of immaterial works do not treat them as property. When they exchange music, books or movies, they are not merely transferring ownership from themselves to others; they simply do not recognise themselves as owners in the first place."
- When piracy isn't theft | Alexandros Stavrakas | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (view on Google Sidewiki)

What a difference a TV makes

For a long time now, we've known that birthrate drops with development. I've tended to go along with the usual explanation that a higher birthrate makes sense with higher infant mortality and low economic security in old age; if those are addressed, then the birthrate falls, releasing wealth for other things than bringing children through early childhood until you can send them up chimneys (a reference to the UK's past history relating to this matter!). But perhaps there is another factor coming into view (literally): The source article is this:
What a difference a TV makes | Culture Making. The salient point relates to research in India and Brasil: "soaps in Brazil and India provided images of women who were empowered to make decisions affecting not only childbirth, but a range of household activities." This is significant when the possibility of seeing such images is extended through relatively cheap TV sets and the spread of satellite signal with the effect: "Within two years of getting cable or satellite, between 45 and 70 percent of the difference between urban and rural areas on these measures disappears. In Brazil, it wasn't just birthrates that changed as Globo's signal spread -- divorce rates went up, too."
The important thing to notice here is the way that a technology combined with a particular set of cultural products enables a new-to-them suite of options and way of seeing to be opened up and probably to be shared communally, discussed, assessed and imitated. There is a degree of hegemony being exercised; urban values overtaking 'traditional' rural ones. However, let's also note that they can be liberating. The lesson of the kinds of studies by Hebdige regarding subcultures is that people are adept, in appropriate circumstances, at bending cultural products to serve (some of) their interests often subverting them and re-purposing them in the process.

Of course the divorce dimension may seem alarming, and in many ways it may be. However, it may also reflect the possibility of women breaking from abusive relationships. And while I'm not saying I like divorce, it does seem to me that part of the concern in the background of the Bible's varied attitudes is probably concern for the economic and social security of women being ameliorated in a very patriarchal society. Jesus' words seem to take a pot shot at the disposable attitude to women's lives that 'liberal' interpretations of Mosaic law allowed to thrive. And while that's not the whole story, it seems to me to be an important dimension we neglect at our peril.

The real challenge to biblical literalism is in the Bible itself

Nice one: Face to faith: The real challenge to the biblical literalism held dear by creationists is in the Bible itself, says Judith Maltby | Comment is free | The Guardian:

the real challenge to biblical literalism and fundamentalism is to be found in the Bible itself. The first two chapters of Genesis contain two creation stories, not one. In Genesis 1-2:3, the earth, the plants, the animals and the first two human beings ('male and female he created them in his own image and likeness') are created in that order. In the rest of Genesis 2, Adam is made first, then all plants and animals, and then Eve. Awkward. ... Genesis chapters 1-2 can be seen as an inspired elephant trap – or should I say an inspired dinosaur trap? – for biblical literalism.

I think that's where I'd got to on this text ... if it's divinely inspired then we pay attention to the obvious 'mismatches' like this as being a message about the kind of literature and hermeneutics we're dealing with. You see: certain kinds of 'liberalism' are, in fact, 'evangelical'.

God wants you to use more initial conjunctions !

A bit of fun here: Language Log � Does God want you to use more initial conjunctions?:

evidence came from a sample consisting of the first 80 verses of Genesis in the original Hebrew and in the King James translation.

The serious point here is the precariousness of prescriptive linguistics. Remember folks, the most you can say is that particular locutions do or don't find acceptability within particular linguistic communities and may have certain connotations un/favourable to the user. They aren't incorrect if they are spoken by a native speaker who regards them as well-formed. -Oh and I don't mean a native speaker whose ability to assess hasn't been compromised by the acceptance of the oppressive prognostications of the grammar police.