There was once a small planet in space
Where there lived a most self-centred race
That believed all would end
In a bang last weekend
And some cleared out their diaries in case.
Good Sir Isaac I find less despairing -
He considered the Earth more hard-wearing
And that it would endure
At least forty years more
But by then I'll be far beyond caring.
Now the point at which quack theologians
Depart from the best geologians
Is when God calls their bluff
They go off in a huff
And so rarely make good apologians.
So I think we are wise to conclude
That if Nature's to be well construed
Good empirical science
More deserves our reliance
And zealots are better eschewed.
But likewise, regarding the Soul,
I'd like Science itself to patrol
And have far less to say
In a scholarly way
About things it can't know or control.
All the best arguments end in beers. Argue with me.
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Sunday 15 May 2011
The irrelevance of relevance
I have spent most of my life disliking meringues and taking a dim view of the many people who said that I must have something wrong with me. I always thought that they must have something wrong with them.
My 9 year old daughter doesn’t like mangoes at the moment. To her, they are not good to eat and are lumped with sprouts and drawing pins in that regard. She also thinks that Wagner’s music dramas are “boring”, although I've always been careful only to play her one act at a time on long car journeys and also to supply a most educative running commentary about the significance of plot, character, symbol and psychology, and about the Leitmotiven that weave them into the wonderful musical world which that horrible man gifted us.
At the Cambridge Union last week, Stephen Fry contested a motion proposed by one of Wagner’s musical heirs, Radio 1 DJ Kissy Sell. The motion was that “This house believes that classical music is irrelevant to today’s youth”. Perhaps it should have read, “This house believes that people with made-up, poncey, pretentious names should be careful what they call poncey and pretentious”. But that wouldn’t have said anything about whether DJ Kissy Sell was right or not, although it would have said a lot about his name.
Fry’s side won by 365 votes to 57, which isn’t surprising given his audience, the fact that the motion was what I believe it was - until recently - considered relevant to call “a monga”, and that the proposer didn’t even sound like he believed in it when he sparred with Fry on The Today Programme beforehand.
One of the worst things about those who believe people should “stay as sweet as you are”, and which unites radicals after our souls with marketing executives after our money, isn’t just that the ‘relevance’ of something is determined solely by the person experiencing (or avoiding) it, but that a snapshot of what that person considers ‘relevant’ is thought to be an end on the matter. Indeed, I’d imagine that these days it’s probably quite hard to become a professor of literature or art if you don’t believe such a thing.
Balls.
People who claim anything is “irrelevant” are small-minded and, worse, encourage others to be small-minded. Relevance doesn’t exist until we find it. It is created or discovered, or may be passed to us. It is a matter of social imagination and endeavour, not individual whim. Often, like classical music, it requires effort. Nothing can be ruled out as "irrelevant". Nor does anyone's indifference to or ignorance of something make it so.
That is why good teachers who don’t patronise us or lecture us but care about our development as discriminating beings are so important. They love not only their subjects but their pupils, and enough to try to make it worth our whiles not only to transmit that love, but to stimulate curiosity, discussion - and criticism. They - and we - should be in the business of making things relevant: of putting something where there was previously nothing.
I disliked meringues until a lady I used to work with made some of such delicate taste and exquisite texture that I revised a lifetime’s prejudice after eating one with raspberries and cream and a cup of tea as strong and warming as a good handshake.
I had learned something. She had made meringues relevant to me. I just wish I’d had someone to encourage me to think more about meringues all those years ago, and to take me in hand with a view to expanding my mind instead of pandering to my stupidity and lack of curiosity.
My 9 year old daughter doesn’t like mangoes at the moment. To her, they are not good to eat and are lumped with sprouts and drawing pins in that regard. She also thinks that Wagner’s music dramas are “boring”, although I've always been careful only to play her one act at a time on long car journeys and also to supply a most educative running commentary about the significance of plot, character, symbol and psychology, and about the Leitmotiven that weave them into the wonderful musical world which that horrible man gifted us.
At the Cambridge Union last week, Stephen Fry contested a motion proposed by one of Wagner’s musical heirs, Radio 1 DJ Kissy Sell. The motion was that “This house believes that classical music is irrelevant to today’s youth”. Perhaps it should have read, “This house believes that people with made-up, poncey, pretentious names should be careful what they call poncey and pretentious”. But that wouldn’t have said anything about whether DJ Kissy Sell was right or not, although it would have said a lot about his name.
Fry’s side won by 365 votes to 57, which isn’t surprising given his audience, the fact that the motion was what I believe it was - until recently - considered relevant to call “a monga”, and that the proposer didn’t even sound like he believed in it when he sparred with Fry on The Today Programme beforehand.
One of the worst things about those who believe people should “stay as sweet as you are”, and which unites radicals after our souls with marketing executives after our money, isn’t just that the ‘relevance’ of something is determined solely by the person experiencing (or avoiding) it, but that a snapshot of what that person considers ‘relevant’ is thought to be an end on the matter. Indeed, I’d imagine that these days it’s probably quite hard to become a professor of literature or art if you don’t believe such a thing.
Balls.
People who claim anything is “irrelevant” are small-minded and, worse, encourage others to be small-minded. Relevance doesn’t exist until we find it. It is created or discovered, or may be passed to us. It is a matter of social imagination and endeavour, not individual whim. Often, like classical music, it requires effort. Nothing can be ruled out as "irrelevant". Nor does anyone's indifference to or ignorance of something make it so.
That is why good teachers who don’t patronise us or lecture us but care about our development as discriminating beings are so important. They love not only their subjects but their pupils, and enough to try to make it worth our whiles not only to transmit that love, but to stimulate curiosity, discussion - and criticism. They - and we - should be in the business of making things relevant: of putting something where there was previously nothing.
I disliked meringues until a lady I used to work with made some of such delicate taste and exquisite texture that I revised a lifetime’s prejudice after eating one with raspberries and cream and a cup of tea as strong and warming as a good handshake.
I had learned something. She had made meringues relevant to me. I just wish I’d had someone to encourage me to think more about meringues all those years ago, and to take me in hand with a view to expanding my mind instead of pandering to my stupidity and lack of curiosity.
Sunday 8 May 2011
On the AV referendum
I'm sad that Britain voted to reject electoral reform last week, and by such a big and politically incontestable margin. But there we are.
One thing though: those who fought, were imprisoned and even died for our right to vote didn't do it for the paper entitlement, but so that it could be used. Universal suffrage was resisted for so long because of the practical effects it would have at and beyond the voting booth.
I live in a massively safe Conservative seat in south-east England. You, perhaps, live in a nailed-on Labour seat in South Wales or Yorkshire. Under 'first past the post', if either of us doesn't want to vote for the dominant party, ours is a wasted vote - we might as well not do it. Moreover, the system we have just voted to keep encourages us not to do it. Far from it being incumbent upon us to vote out of respect for those who fought for our right to do so, we should be asking whether this is really what they intended.
It's ironic, too, that in a nation where there is widespread cynicism about politicians and about the point of voting, and that has falling electoral turnouts, so many should vote to continue to silence their and others' voices in this way.
I hope that very few of those who are so cynical voted 'No' to reform, as I'm not sure that they can hold both opinions at the same time. Or perhaps they didn't vote at all, in which case maybe they should have. For once.
One thing though: those who fought, were imprisoned and even died for our right to vote didn't do it for the paper entitlement, but so that it could be used. Universal suffrage was resisted for so long because of the practical effects it would have at and beyond the voting booth.
I live in a massively safe Conservative seat in south-east England. You, perhaps, live in a nailed-on Labour seat in South Wales or Yorkshire. Under 'first past the post', if either of us doesn't want to vote for the dominant party, ours is a wasted vote - we might as well not do it. Moreover, the system we have just voted to keep encourages us not to do it. Far from it being incumbent upon us to vote out of respect for those who fought for our right to do so, we should be asking whether this is really what they intended.
It's ironic, too, that in a nation where there is widespread cynicism about politicians and about the point of voting, and that has falling electoral turnouts, so many should vote to continue to silence their and others' voices in this way.
I hope that very few of those who are so cynical voted 'No' to reform, as I'm not sure that they can hold both opinions at the same time. Or perhaps they didn't vote at all, in which case maybe they should have. For once.
It's only my opinion, but ...
I remember listening to an argument on the Today programme one morning a few years ago. A government minister and a woman from a pressure group laid into each other for 10 minutes, culminating in the minister saying, "of course, Mrs X [well actually, he called her Judy] is entitled to her opinion, but ...". At this point I dropped my spoon into my Rice Krispies. He had spent all that time disagreeing with everything she said, and then says she is entitled to her opinion!
I pictured the next day's newspaper headlines: Minister admits that slaughtering the first born in poor nations will solve world overpopulation.
I recalled this while listening to the radio this week. The foreign minister of Pakistan said that the CIA was "entitled to its opinion" when it questioned Pakistan's commitment to unearthing bin Laden. In fact he meant quite the reverse, namely that the CIA is wrong and that Pakistan had played a full and supportive role, including holding the coats of the Navy Seals as they went about their grim business. But that's not what he said. The front page of the next day's Daily Mail reared before me: Top-ranking Pakistani admits his government is either incompetent or dishonest.
What he meant of course, if he meant to mean anything at all, was that the CIA is "entitled to express its opinion", which is quite another matter. I am entitled to express the opinion that Charlton Athletic only failed to reach the Champion's League Final this year because of a world conspiracy between Millwall FC, Mossad and al-Qaeda. But I'm not entitled to hold the opinion, because it's not true. The limits to expressing an opinion are legal and to some extent customary and to do with good taste (although we could argue all night about that); the limits to holding an opinion are to do with whether it's true or not.
Can I recommend Jamie Whyte's excellent book Bad Thoughts, which has much to say about the right to an opinion and how the term is not only used wrongly (as above) but also as a dishonest way of shutting up people who have a contrary opinion, or one that is more valid than theirs, while trying to fool you into thinking they're being tolerant. They aren't.
I pictured the next day's newspaper headlines: Minister admits that slaughtering the first born in poor nations will solve world overpopulation.
I recalled this while listening to the radio this week. The foreign minister of Pakistan said that the CIA was "entitled to its opinion" when it questioned Pakistan's commitment to unearthing bin Laden. In fact he meant quite the reverse, namely that the CIA is wrong and that Pakistan had played a full and supportive role, including holding the coats of the Navy Seals as they went about their grim business. But that's not what he said. The front page of the next day's Daily Mail reared before me: Top-ranking Pakistani admits his government is either incompetent or dishonest.
What he meant of course, if he meant to mean anything at all, was that the CIA is "entitled to express its opinion", which is quite another matter. I am entitled to express the opinion that Charlton Athletic only failed to reach the Champion's League Final this year because of a world conspiracy between Millwall FC, Mossad and al-Qaeda. But I'm not entitled to hold the opinion, because it's not true. The limits to expressing an opinion are legal and to some extent customary and to do with good taste (although we could argue all night about that); the limits to holding an opinion are to do with whether it's true or not.
Can I recommend Jamie Whyte's excellent book Bad Thoughts, which has much to say about the right to an opinion and how the term is not only used wrongly (as above) but also as a dishonest way of shutting up people who have a contrary opinion, or one that is more valid than theirs, while trying to fool you into thinking they're being tolerant. They aren't.
Monday 2 May 2011
Lines composed upon the Death of Western Civilisation
We once used to give it some welly,
You know – Mozart and Rembrandt and Shelley,
Then the classes that chatter
Said none of them matter
And now it’s reality telly
You know – Mozart and Rembrandt and Shelley,
Then the classes that chatter
Said none of them matter
And now it’s reality telly
Lines composed upon the Death of Osama bin Laden
Osama bin Laden is dead*
Despite being impeccably bred,
For though born into riches
The son of a bitch is
Now poorer for want of a head.
Osama bin Laden, you pointed
That finger like one God-anointed
To further His plan
For the saving of Man
But I fear you will be disappointed
For Osama bin Laden, you taught
That to murder for Allah one ought.
Now they've come to getcha
I'm willing to betcha
He's not quite as nice as you thought.
*it is said
Despite being impeccably bred,
For though born into riches
The son of a bitch is
Now poorer for want of a head.
Osama bin Laden, you pointed
That finger like one God-anointed
To further His plan
For the saving of Man
But I fear you will be disappointed
For Osama bin Laden, you taught
That to murder for Allah one ought.
Now they've come to getcha
I'm willing to betcha
He's not quite as nice as you thought.
*it is said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)