"And I will war, at least in words (and - should
My chance so happen - deeds) with all who war
With Thought;- and of Thought's foes by far most rude
Tyrants and Sycophants have been and are.
I know not who may conquer: if I could
Have such a prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation."
- Byron, Don Juan, Canto 9.24
Further to my last post on here, actually both of my grandfathers were Methodist ministers: & my maternal grandfather, his father was a Methodist minister too. So I've got Protestantism running deep in my blood.
This Protestant heritage in me manifests itself in the following ways, among others:
The primary importance of the text.
The focus is on the text at hand, the attempt to understand as far as I can what the text is saying, including the context of its composition -
& then, if this understanding is something that applies to my own conduct or outlook, applying it.
Text has consequences in real life.
This understanding of the text is reached by reference to authorities on the subject if appropriate, but emphatically NOT in slavish subjection to them.
I am happy to hear what the priest* has to say, but I do not require the priest as an intermediary between me & God, or between me & the truth as I see it after due study & reflection.
If the views I arrive at displease the priest, or contradict the authority he represents, then that is the problem of the priest & the said authority, not mine.
In other words, I have the right, & in fact the duty, to make up my own mind on any questions whatsoever.
The more important the question is, the more this applies
e.g. the existence of otherwise of God, the meaning or the lack of it in human life & the Universe.
This Protestant legacy makes me suspicious of authority & of hierarchy - suspicious that they are based essentially on imposture. In my case this applies especially to academic & cultural orthodoxies.
However, I don't oppose for the sake of opposing, & insist on decrying everything. If I think some element of an orthodoxy is correct, I am happy to admit it.
The point is that there is nothing - NOTHING - which is exempt from my critical scrutiny, neither in me nor in the world.
My search is for the truth as I see it: & I don't rule out any potential sources, & I'm not bothered who else agrees or disagrees with my conclusions; often conclusions which are likely to be temporary & subject to revision, abandonment, inversion.
As my experience increases, my point of view changes: & if it stays the same on the surface, it deepens below that surface.
Having discovered some fragment of the truth by patient & detailed research & reflection, it is part of my Protestant heritage to then feel the requirement to proclaim it: however popular of unpopular it proves to be, however palatable or bitter to the taste. This is the Protestant imperative to preach, & bear personal witness.
The hero-figure of this urge is surely John the Baptist:
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
(- Mark. 1.3)
My urge to preach finds one of its expressions in this blog, in Bulletins.
*The figure of the priest is introduced here in a synecdochical capacity, evidemment.
Saturday 28 January 2012
Wednesday 25 January 2012
Tom Meadley: The Congregation Must Play Its Part Too
The following is a quote from a pamphlet written by my grandfather, Tom Meadley, who was a Methodist minister, called Attending a Service (Epworth Press, 1965). It is taken from a booklet which is a compilation of extracts from his writings called Speaking for Himself (Cliff College Publishing, 1999). [The emphasis in this passage is mine.]
"An essential element in the effectiveness of preaching is in the attitude of the congregation. The folk are not meant to be huddled in pews to absorb passively from a solo performer in the pulpit. Preaching is a corporate business. The preacher is not just imparting a privately received message; he is the appointed mouthpiece of the Church reminding the Christian community of its essential convictions. There is an element in the preacher's effectiveness which only the congregation can supply. No preacher expects to preach perfectly, or to be above criticism, but every Christian preacher has a right to expect considerate & prayerful hearing when he proclaims God's Word to God's People. If someone says that he has got nothing from a service, it is usually a self-condemnation: 'To him that hath shall be given, & from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath !' Our spiritual attitude is reflected & affected by our posture as we settle to listen. Some folk slump in the pew as if to let the preachers know that they do not expect very much from him, & intend to be critical or indifferent towards his mouthings. Others adjust themselves comfortably for a spell of sermon-tasting, sometimes with the help of a sweet - a reprehensible habit, more appropriate to the cinema. Sometimes a preacher can feel a hindrance to effectiveness as he mounts the pulpit steps. Alexander Whyte remarked of a certain congregation: 'It took me two years to get the chill out of my bones'."
The key proposition here is that the congregation as a whole, & its individual members, have a vital part to play in creating the experience of the service. This is surely true also for an audience, be it at a concert, a play, an opera, an exhibition, a film, wherever.
"An essential element in the effectiveness of preaching is in the attitude of the congregation. The folk are not meant to be huddled in pews to absorb passively from a solo performer in the pulpit. Preaching is a corporate business. The preacher is not just imparting a privately received message; he is the appointed mouthpiece of the Church reminding the Christian community of its essential convictions. There is an element in the preacher's effectiveness which only the congregation can supply. No preacher expects to preach perfectly, or to be above criticism, but every Christian preacher has a right to expect considerate & prayerful hearing when he proclaims God's Word to God's People. If someone says that he has got nothing from a service, it is usually a self-condemnation: 'To him that hath shall be given, & from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath !' Our spiritual attitude is reflected & affected by our posture as we settle to listen. Some folk slump in the pew as if to let the preachers know that they do not expect very much from him, & intend to be critical or indifferent towards his mouthings. Others adjust themselves comfortably for a spell of sermon-tasting, sometimes with the help of a sweet - a reprehensible habit, more appropriate to the cinema. Sometimes a preacher can feel a hindrance to effectiveness as he mounts the pulpit steps. Alexander Whyte remarked of a certain congregation: 'It took me two years to get the chill out of my bones'."
The key proposition here is that the congregation as a whole, & its individual members, have a vital part to play in creating the experience of the service. This is surely true also for an audience, be it at a concert, a play, an opera, an exhibition, a film, wherever.
Tuesday 24 January 2012
The Dawn of Sherlock Holmes
The following is an extract from the beginning of A Study in Scarlet, which is both the first Sherlock Holmes novel & also the first story; it is in fact the debut both of Dr John Watson, who is the narrator of the parts of the novel which involve Holmes directly, & of Sherlock Holmes himself. Watson has returned to England to recuperate after his involvement as a military doctor in the 2nd Afghan War - 1878-80 - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War), where he was wounded at the Battle of Maiwand - 1880 - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maiwand), & subsequently suffered a very severe attack of what Conan Doyle calls enteric fever, which nowadays we call typhoid fever.
This exchange takes place during the very first conversation between Watson & Holmes, when they meet for the first time in the chemical laboratory at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London. They have been introduced by a mutual acquaintance called Stamford, because Stamford knows that Holmes is looking for someone to share the rent of lodgings he has his eye on in Baker St., which he cannot afford to live in alone, & Watson has just told Stamford that he too is looking for somewhere cheap to live, or cheaper than a hotel at any rate.
The first speaker here is Holmes, the second Watson. Holmes is extremely excited because he has just discovered something he had been seeking, a reliable test for the presence of blood on an object:
" 'Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is suspected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood stains, or mud stains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they ? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert, and why ? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the Sherlock Holmes test, and there will no longer be any difficulty.'
His eyes fairly glittered as he spoke, and he put his hand over his heart and bowed as if to some applauding crowd conjured up by his imagination.
'You are to be congratulated', I remarked, considerably surprised at his enthusiasm."
This exchange takes place during the very first conversation between Watson & Holmes, when they meet for the first time in the chemical laboratory at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London. They have been introduced by a mutual acquaintance called Stamford, because Stamford knows that Holmes is looking for someone to share the rent of lodgings he has his eye on in Baker St., which he cannot afford to live in alone, & Watson has just told Stamford that he too is looking for somewhere cheap to live, or cheaper than a hotel at any rate.
The first speaker here is Holmes, the second Watson. Holmes is extremely excited because he has just discovered something he had been seeking, a reliable test for the presence of blood on an object:
" 'Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is suspected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood stains, or mud stains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they ? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert, and why ? Because there was no reliable test. Now we have the Sherlock Holmes test, and there will no longer be any difficulty.'
His eyes fairly glittered as he spoke, and he put his hand over his heart and bowed as if to some applauding crowd conjured up by his imagination.
'You are to be congratulated', I remarked, considerably surprised at his enthusiasm."
Friday 20 January 2012
Is Conceptual Art Exhausted ?
These reflections were prompted by going to see the exhibition Glamourie in Leeds, where my cousin Harry Meadley is among artists showing their work: http://www.glamourie.co.uk/
I would like to preface these remarks with a piece of rhyme written by me some time ago, which may be borne in mind through everything that follows. It's called Aesthetics Solved.
There are only two rules in aesthetics -
The rest are just imposture & prosthetics.
The first concerns the spectator
Which is, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The second concerns the doer -
Which is (there was never one truer)
There's more than one way to skin a cat -
And that, my dear Doctor, is that.
Many people are suspicious and dismissive of conceptual art. "Why can't they paint proper paintings ?" is a line often taken. "Proper landscapes like Hockney is doing at the moment or proper portraits like Lucian Freud. They do this stuff because they can't draw !" Many people think conceptual art is a con, & at best they are just having their leg pulled by someone they would refuse the title 'Artist' to. Others think that although conceptual art had something going for it in its early days in the hands of its pioneers, Duchamp especially, it's now played out, its practitioners just repeating the same old formulas.
No doubt most conceptual art isn't very good, but in this it only resembles everything else, most of everything isn't very good: most thrillers, most television programmes, most pop music, most poetry, most plays, most figurative art, most self-help books and so on.
I would investigate this question of is conceptual art exhausted by means of analogies. If someone painted a near-perfect Impressionist landscape (that style is about 150 years old), or a picture in the pure cubist style (100 years old), my reaction for one would be "Very nice -but what's the point ?" Similarly if a jazz musician insisted on composing in the Be Bop style (70 years old). Is conceptual art like this ?
There is another analogy though. Let us say that conceptual art starts with Duchamp's Fountain in 1917. It is thus about 100 years old. Figurative art in its modern sense began in the first half of the Fifteenth century in Italy & the Netherlands. For convenience, we could pinpoint Masaccio's The Holy Trinity (c. 1427) in Santa Maria Novella in Florence & van Eyck's The Arnolfini Wedding (1434) in the National gallery in London as prime examples of the new style. 100 years later takes us to Cranach, Hans Holbein, Durer, Breugel the Elder, Michelangelo, Titian, Giorgione to name but a few of the titans of that time. Can I seriously say that figurative art as a style was exhausted by then ? Rembrandt, Velazquez, David, Goya to name only four Masters lie as yet unknown & hidden in the future, beyond this 100 year deadline.
To take another analogy, is Blues exhausted as a form ? One starting point for Blues as a recorded form we can say Bessie Smith in 1923, or for Delta Blues, Charlie Patton in 1929. Some would argue that Blues is played out. I however think that it has life left in it.
Similarly, is Philosophy exhausted ? It started, according to tradition, in 585 BCE with the work of Thales of Miletus. That's a long time ago. Despite this, as far as I am concerned, it is most definitely not exhausted, it is still going strong.
I can see no reason that a style or method of approach is limited definitely to 100 years or thereabouts of life. If conceptual art as a style has the vigour that figurative art has already demonstrated, then it is by no means exhausted.
I would like to preface these remarks with a piece of rhyme written by me some time ago, which may be borne in mind through everything that follows. It's called Aesthetics Solved.
There are only two rules in aesthetics -
The rest are just imposture & prosthetics.
The first concerns the spectator
Which is, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The second concerns the doer -
Which is (there was never one truer)
There's more than one way to skin a cat -
And that, my dear Doctor, is that.
Many people are suspicious and dismissive of conceptual art. "Why can't they paint proper paintings ?" is a line often taken. "Proper landscapes like Hockney is doing at the moment or proper portraits like Lucian Freud. They do this stuff because they can't draw !" Many people think conceptual art is a con, & at best they are just having their leg pulled by someone they would refuse the title 'Artist' to. Others think that although conceptual art had something going for it in its early days in the hands of its pioneers, Duchamp especially, it's now played out, its practitioners just repeating the same old formulas.
No doubt most conceptual art isn't very good, but in this it only resembles everything else, most of everything isn't very good: most thrillers, most television programmes, most pop music, most poetry, most plays, most figurative art, most self-help books and so on.
I would investigate this question of is conceptual art exhausted by means of analogies. If someone painted a near-perfect Impressionist landscape (that style is about 150 years old), or a picture in the pure cubist style (100 years old), my reaction for one would be "Very nice -but what's the point ?" Similarly if a jazz musician insisted on composing in the Be Bop style (70 years old). Is conceptual art like this ?
There is another analogy though. Let us say that conceptual art starts with Duchamp's Fountain in 1917. It is thus about 100 years old. Figurative art in its modern sense began in the first half of the Fifteenth century in Italy & the Netherlands. For convenience, we could pinpoint Masaccio's The Holy Trinity (c. 1427) in Santa Maria Novella in Florence & van Eyck's The Arnolfini Wedding (1434) in the National gallery in London as prime examples of the new style. 100 years later takes us to Cranach, Hans Holbein, Durer, Breugel the Elder, Michelangelo, Titian, Giorgione to name but a few of the titans of that time. Can I seriously say that figurative art as a style was exhausted by then ? Rembrandt, Velazquez, David, Goya to name only four Masters lie as yet unknown & hidden in the future, beyond this 100 year deadline.
To take another analogy, is Blues exhausted as a form ? One starting point for Blues as a recorded form we can say Bessie Smith in 1923, or for Delta Blues, Charlie Patton in 1929. Some would argue that Blues is played out. I however think that it has life left in it.
Similarly, is Philosophy exhausted ? It started, according to tradition, in 585 BCE with the work of Thales of Miletus. That's a long time ago. Despite this, as far as I am concerned, it is most definitely not exhausted, it is still going strong.
I can see no reason that a style or method of approach is limited definitely to 100 years or thereabouts of life. If conceptual art as a style has the vigour that figurative art has already demonstrated, then it is by no means exhausted.
Monday 9 January 2012
God is a Fiction
Faith is just a fancy name for opinion.
If I have faith in an opinion that comes from a source external to myself, it's still my opinion, I'm still responsible for it.
The term faith gives opinion a spurious air of sanctity, of mystery.
When I say I've got faith, I mean I've got opinions for which there is no evidence to evaluate their validity.
To say I have faith so proudly is almost as if I am celebrating having no evidence for my opinion, as if that somehow elevates my opinion out of the dirty world of mundane facts.
There follow some questions for Christians about the nature of their God & their religion. If there are satisfactory Christian answers to these questions, I've never heard them. It's to do with / it's an issue of my faith is not a sufficient answer to any of these.
1. Does God intervene in His Creation or not ?
If He doesn't, what is the point of praying to Him for intervention ?
Is He responsible for unwelcome & destructive interventions like earthquakes & other natural disasters ?
What about prayers which are not answered ? Is that God refusing ?
2. When I die, will I go straight to Heaven or Hell ? or - will I lie in the ground until the Last Judgement, & my destination be decided then ?
As far as I can see, Christians believe both at the same time, & both can't be true at the same time.
Or - Heaven, Hell & the Last Judgement are figurative, in which case - what's the point of them ?
3. If the Devil exists, why does God permit him to continue ?
If God cannot do anything about the Devil, then He is not omnipotent.
If God could could do something about him, but chooses not to - why ?
Looked at from a non-Christian perspective, the Devil - or Satan if you prefer - is necessary & indispensable for 2 reasons.
First, because God is a fiction. & any successful fiction requires an antagonist, its disruptor-figure, its supreme opponent e.g. Loki, Sir Kay, Moriarty. Note that archenemy is a term used familiarly in talking about stories, & is also, when capitalised, - Archenemy - a synonym for the Devil.
Second, because the Devil is a personification of something we know from experience to be true, that evil is a real force in the world & in human affairs. You only need to look around you, keep up with the news, & study history to confirm that e.g. events in the world in the 1930s & '40s.
If I have faith in an opinion that comes from a source external to myself, it's still my opinion, I'm still responsible for it.
The term faith gives opinion a spurious air of sanctity, of mystery.
When I say I've got faith, I mean I've got opinions for which there is no evidence to evaluate their validity.
To say I have faith so proudly is almost as if I am celebrating having no evidence for my opinion, as if that somehow elevates my opinion out of the dirty world of mundane facts.
There follow some questions for Christians about the nature of their God & their religion. If there are satisfactory Christian answers to these questions, I've never heard them. It's to do with / it's an issue of my faith is not a sufficient answer to any of these.
1. Does God intervene in His Creation or not ?
If He doesn't, what is the point of praying to Him for intervention ?
Is He responsible for unwelcome & destructive interventions like earthquakes & other natural disasters ?
What about prayers which are not answered ? Is that God refusing ?
2. When I die, will I go straight to Heaven or Hell ? or - will I lie in the ground until the Last Judgement, & my destination be decided then ?
As far as I can see, Christians believe both at the same time, & both can't be true at the same time.
Or - Heaven, Hell & the Last Judgement are figurative, in which case - what's the point of them ?
3. If the Devil exists, why does God permit him to continue ?
If God cannot do anything about the Devil, then He is not omnipotent.
If God could could do something about him, but chooses not to - why ?
Looked at from a non-Christian perspective, the Devil - or Satan if you prefer - is necessary & indispensable for 2 reasons.
First, because God is a fiction. & any successful fiction requires an antagonist, its disruptor-figure, its supreme opponent e.g. Loki, Sir Kay, Moriarty. Note that archenemy is a term used familiarly in talking about stories, & is also, when capitalised, - Archenemy - a synonym for the Devil.
Second, because the Devil is a personification of something we know from experience to be true, that evil is a real force in the world & in human affairs. You only need to look around you, keep up with the news, & study history to confirm that e.g. events in the world in the 1930s & '40s.
Sunday 8 January 2012
Why Ed Miliband Should Resign Immediately
I write this as a long-term Labour supporter & voter, & as a friend of the Party who wants to see it succeed.
I would say to people who support Ed Miliband, don't confuse loyalty to the Party with loyalty to its current leader, they are not the same thing. Ed M was elected leader on 25th September, 2010, & this is quite long enough to get the measure of him in that role. He is useless. Many Labour supporters I speak to think he is rubbish. He is unable to galvanise his own core support: never mind reach out to trade unionists, disillusioned LibDems, the Occupy people, laid-off public sector workers, & other opponents of the Coalition who don't know where to go [thanks to @fauxpaschick for this thought.] There's a vast reservoir of anti-Coalition sentiment in the UK right now; Ed M is unable to tap it.
I grant you that the state of the Labour Party is not entirely Ed M's fault. The Party is still in shock, paralyzed after Tony Blair took it to places it never thought it would go, especially involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Too close a similarity to Tony Blair is a reason for suspicion of David Miliband within the Party. Another source of its paralysis is the trauma of the long economic boom of the Noughties turning to shit in their hands.
The Labour Party still doesn't know what it is or what it wants to do post-Blair & Brown, & Ed M & his team have so far been unable to help it with either of these questions.
At the moment, the Labour Party is treading the road of failure, led by pygmies. It remains to be seen whether it can pull itself together & get on a better road.
It doesn't matter whether in private life Ed M is a nice guy - a claim that was often advanced for Gordon Brown. It doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place - which, judging by his Conference speech during which he gave benefit claimants a thorough kicking, I doubt [for more on this, see my post of 1st October, 2011]. What matters is - is he an effective politician ? & the answer to that is - no. Ed M is a professional politician to his fingertips, but he is not an effective one.
In a democratic system, it doesn't matter how wonderful your ideas or personality are if you can't win a majority. Only if you get elected into power will you have a chance to implement your policies & maybe make a bit of difference to people's lives.
Ed M will never lead the Labour Party to getting a majority at a General Election. You may disagree with me about this. Time will tell which of us is right.
We should learn from the ruthlessness of the Tories with regard to their leaders & ditch Ed before it is too late & the next Election is lost.
Addendum: I had a text conversation with my friend Stu about this post. I said to him: "Labour I think are sleepwalking to defeat, & letting the Tories run riot in the meantime." To which Stu responded: "I think they can't really be bothered to take on running the country again. It's the only reason I can think of, why they're so lacklustre about it."
I realise that the system for deposing a current Labour leader & electing a new one is complex & difficult. But none of that was a problem when they were crowning Gordon Brown. Where there's a will, there's a way.
I would say to people who support Ed Miliband, don't confuse loyalty to the Party with loyalty to its current leader, they are not the same thing. Ed M was elected leader on 25th September, 2010, & this is quite long enough to get the measure of him in that role. He is useless. Many Labour supporters I speak to think he is rubbish. He is unable to galvanise his own core support: never mind reach out to trade unionists, disillusioned LibDems, the Occupy people, laid-off public sector workers, & other opponents of the Coalition who don't know where to go [thanks to @fauxpaschick for this thought.] There's a vast reservoir of anti-Coalition sentiment in the UK right now; Ed M is unable to tap it.
I grant you that the state of the Labour Party is not entirely Ed M's fault. The Party is still in shock, paralyzed after Tony Blair took it to places it never thought it would go, especially involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Too close a similarity to Tony Blair is a reason for suspicion of David Miliband within the Party. Another source of its paralysis is the trauma of the long economic boom of the Noughties turning to shit in their hands.
The Labour Party still doesn't know what it is or what it wants to do post-Blair & Brown, & Ed M & his team have so far been unable to help it with either of these questions.
At the moment, the Labour Party is treading the road of failure, led by pygmies. It remains to be seen whether it can pull itself together & get on a better road.
It doesn't matter whether in private life Ed M is a nice guy - a claim that was often advanced for Gordon Brown. It doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place - which, judging by his Conference speech during which he gave benefit claimants a thorough kicking, I doubt [for more on this, see my post of 1st October, 2011]. What matters is - is he an effective politician ? & the answer to that is - no. Ed M is a professional politician to his fingertips, but he is not an effective one.
In a democratic system, it doesn't matter how wonderful your ideas or personality are if you can't win a majority. Only if you get elected into power will you have a chance to implement your policies & maybe make a bit of difference to people's lives.
Ed M will never lead the Labour Party to getting a majority at a General Election. You may disagree with me about this. Time will tell which of us is right.
We should learn from the ruthlessness of the Tories with regard to their leaders & ditch Ed before it is too late & the next Election is lost.
Addendum: I had a text conversation with my friend Stu about this post. I said to him: "Labour I think are sleepwalking to defeat, & letting the Tories run riot in the meantime." To which Stu responded: "I think they can't really be bothered to take on running the country again. It's the only reason I can think of, why they're so lacklustre about it."
I realise that the system for deposing a current Labour leader & electing a new one is complex & difficult. But none of that was a problem when they were crowning Gordon Brown. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)