The people of ancient Athens voted annually for a citizen to be ostracised from the city. Anyone could be voted for, the citizens wrote the name of their choice for ostracism on a piece of broken ceramic (ostraka) in a practice called 'ostrakismos' giving rise to our English word.
The practice was not a punishment for crimes but rather a way to curtail any individual gaining too much power and thus threatening the democracy which Athenians cherished. If a quorum of 6000 votes were reached then the man with the most votes was ostracised. He would have to leave the city for a total of ten years.*
Although we might regard this a breach of an individuals right to run for office or to live within a society something about this appeals to me. It is a method for keeping in check those who would exploit public office but obviously it would suffer from the malaise that blights regular political life, namely, the triumph of popularism over intelligence.
For more information ...
*(Source: Adapted from Language Visible - David Sacks)
Friday, July 29, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
peek and boo discuss existentialism
Somewhere in this land. Mid afternoon. In a field of spelt. Two enter and lie down facing the sun.
Peek: That was a nice drink.
Boo: Yes, but I could use a couple more.
Peek: I like drinking, I like the banter. At the inn we are all one.
Boo: You think so?
Peek: Yes, all us humans are one.
Boo: I think we are not one. I think we are many.
Peek: Do you not think we are all together on this planet?
Boo: No, we are not together. We are alone, we go through life on our own.
Peek: Alone? Do you not think we are united as fellow countrymen?
Boo: What this country means I do not know. When it comes to putting food in my belly and beer in my gut no flag or anthem ever helped.
Peek: But do we not share similarities? Are we not all the same?
Boo: I am not the same, I am unique, I am Boo.
Peek: Yes, you are Boo but are you not part of the greater sameness of mankind?
Boo: There is little kind about men maybe that is how they are the same. Nonetheless I still remain Boo.
Peek: But surely we have the same concerns, we resonate to the same sounds.
Boo: There is no sound, there is only silence.
Peek: Isn't there music to life? Are we not the notes that make up the music of life.
Boo: No, music is the silence between the notes, without the silence there would be just continuous noise. We are the silence between the notes.
Peek: But without the notes there would be continuous silence, that is not music either.
Boo: A bit of silence would be music to my ears! Let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Two get up, brush off their clothes and exit.
For more information ...
existentialism
I ♥ Huckabees
peek and boo discuss writing
peek and boo discuss god
peek and boo discuss power
Peek: That was a nice drink.
Boo: Yes, but I could use a couple more.
Peek: I like drinking, I like the banter. At the inn we are all one.
Boo: You think so?
Peek: Yes, all us humans are one.
Boo: I think we are not one. I think we are many.
Peek: Do you not think we are all together on this planet?
Boo: No, we are not together. We are alone, we go through life on our own.
Peek: Alone? Do you not think we are united as fellow countrymen?
Boo: What this country means I do not know. When it comes to putting food in my belly and beer in my gut no flag or anthem ever helped.
Peek: But do we not share similarities? Are we not all the same?
Boo: I am not the same, I am unique, I am Boo.
Peek: Yes, you are Boo but are you not part of the greater sameness of mankind?
Boo: There is little kind about men maybe that is how they are the same. Nonetheless I still remain Boo.
Peek: But surely we have the same concerns, we resonate to the same sounds.
Boo: There is no sound, there is only silence.
Peek: Isn't there music to life? Are we not the notes that make up the music of life.
Boo: No, music is the silence between the notes, without the silence there would be just continuous noise. We are the silence between the notes.
Peek: But without the notes there would be continuous silence, that is not music either.
Boo: A bit of silence would be music to my ears! Let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Two get up, brush off their clothes and exit.
For more information ...
existentialism
I ♥ Huckabees
peek and boo discuss writing
peek and boo discuss god
peek and boo discuss power
Saturday, July 23, 2005
left and right
The French have given us many great things like good wine and cuisine. Unfortunately they are also responsible for giving us the terms 'left' and 'right' in reference to political affiliations, for this they are to be roundly condemned. The terms arose in the French legislative assembly of the late 18th century. The supporters of the king sat on the right and the radicals sat on the left. We generally use these terms to describe people who support the old order ('right') and people who support a new order ('left') although this defintion is loose at best.
These terms are loose and relativistic, let me illustrate with a brief example. Edmund Burke the great Anglo-Irish philosopher was generally in favour of free market capitalism. This was contrary to the old order and thus at the time Burke was regarded for this and his other views (support for the American Revolution) as a 'left of centre' radical. Today however he is generally regarded as 'right of centre' particularly for his economic ideas.
The terms reveal more about how ideas are regarded at a particular time as opposed to relating anything about the ideas themselves. Our simple brains like nice furrows that have been deeply ploughed by others so we don't have to work. That is why we slip into the 'old left-right debate' whether we are discussing the war on terrorism or how much it costs to fill up the car. The 'left-right debate' is the medium within which politicians, talk radio and many others continue to thrash without getting to a deeper understanding of either issues, ideas or people on any side.
How can we begin to talk beyond left and right? Do we need to rediscover/revolutionize our way of debating ideas with people?
I am reminded of the words of the 13th century Sufi poet, Rumi; 'out beyond the ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field, I’ll meet you there.'
Beyond left and right there is field, will you meet me there?
For more information ...
left right politics
rumi
These terms are loose and relativistic, let me illustrate with a brief example. Edmund Burke the great Anglo-Irish philosopher was generally in favour of free market capitalism. This was contrary to the old order and thus at the time Burke was regarded for this and his other views (support for the American Revolution) as a 'left of centre' radical. Today however he is generally regarded as 'right of centre' particularly for his economic ideas.
The terms reveal more about how ideas are regarded at a particular time as opposed to relating anything about the ideas themselves. Our simple brains like nice furrows that have been deeply ploughed by others so we don't have to work. That is why we slip into the 'old left-right debate' whether we are discussing the war on terrorism or how much it costs to fill up the car. The 'left-right debate' is the medium within which politicians, talk radio and many others continue to thrash without getting to a deeper understanding of either issues, ideas or people on any side.
How can we begin to talk beyond left and right? Do we need to rediscover/revolutionize our way of debating ideas with people?
I am reminded of the words of the 13th century Sufi poet, Rumi; 'out beyond the ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field, I’ll meet you there.'
Beyond left and right there is field, will you meet me there?
For more information ...
left right politics
rumi
Thursday, July 21, 2005
the old word
'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' - Genesis, chapter 1 verse 1, King James Version.
Something strange is indeed happening in the bible, let us look closer at the first verse in the bible to see more of this strangeness.
This verse was written in Hebrew like most of the old testament. The Hebrew word translated into 'God' is 'Elohim'. 'Elohim' however is a plural form so it would be more correctly translated as 'Gods'. So the verse could read ... 'In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.'
Now don't get too excited! The broad message of the bible is a monotheistic one, I am not suggesting otherwise. Use of other words for God like 'Yaweh', 'El Shaddai' and 'Adonai' all confirm the general monotheistic thrust of the message.
What does seem to be possible however is that this use of 'Elohim' is a little remnant from early times. Where could it come from?
Certainly a potential source for this is the 'Enuma Elish', the creation myth of the Babylonians. There are numerous concordances between the creation myth of Genesis and the creation myth of the Enuma Elish. In that story Marduk emerges from the pantheon of gods to gain supremacy over the other Gods.
Was Marduk the god that would for Jews, Christians and Muslims become the one true god? Are we all living in the theological shadow of the Babylonians? As always with hermeneutics the reader should be wary, or as the latin phrase goes 'caveat lector.'
For more information ...
the new word
Enûma Elish
hermeneutics
Something strange is indeed happening in the bible, let us look closer at the first verse in the bible to see more of this strangeness.
This verse was written in Hebrew like most of the old testament. The Hebrew word translated into 'God' is 'Elohim'. 'Elohim' however is a plural form so it would be more correctly translated as 'Gods'. So the verse could read ... 'In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.'
Now don't get too excited! The broad message of the bible is a monotheistic one, I am not suggesting otherwise. Use of other words for God like 'Yaweh', 'El Shaddai' and 'Adonai' all confirm the general monotheistic thrust of the message.
What does seem to be possible however is that this use of 'Elohim' is a little remnant from early times. Where could it come from?
Certainly a potential source for this is the 'Enuma Elish', the creation myth of the Babylonians. There are numerous concordances between the creation myth of Genesis and the creation myth of the Enuma Elish. In that story Marduk emerges from the pantheon of gods to gain supremacy over the other Gods.
Was Marduk the god that would for Jews, Christians and Muslims become the one true god? Are we all living in the theological shadow of the Babylonians? As always with hermeneutics the reader should be wary, or as the latin phrase goes 'caveat lector.'
For more information ...
the new word
Enûma Elish
hermeneutics
Monday, July 18, 2005
the new word
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' - Gospel according to John, chapter 1 verse 1, King James Version.
Now don't panic! If you are a Christian I am happy for you and I won't try to convince you otherwise. If you are not a Christian I am also happy for you and I won't try to convince you otherwise either. But it does seem to me that something strange is happening in the bible and this particular verse hints at that strangeness.
Read the verse again. It does not start, 'in the beginning was God', it states clearly that 'the Word' was the first thing in the beginning. It goes onto state that this 'Word' is in fact 'God', it does not say a white man with a beard on a cloud was God, it states 'the Word was God'. Think about that.
So are we getting a view of the earliest times and how perhaps something more abstract is at work and not a grand wizard? So what is this 'Word'?
This Gospel was written in Greek. This verse reads ... 'En arche en Logos, kai Logos en pro Theos, kai Logos en Theos.' The Greek uses the word 'logos' and this gets translated as 'word'. 'Logos' however means more specifically 'reason', if the author had wanted to mean 'word' he would have used the Greek word 'lexis'. So the verse reads ... 'In the beginning was the Reason, and the Reason was with God, and the Reason was God.'
'Reason was God'. Is that not strange? So we should not be praying to some old fool with a beard but rather we should worship at the alter of Reason.
The bible is strange not because it tells us so little about God but because it tells us so much about man.
Now don't panic! If you are a Christian I am happy for you and I won't try to convince you otherwise. If you are not a Christian I am also happy for you and I won't try to convince you otherwise either. But it does seem to me that something strange is happening in the bible and this particular verse hints at that strangeness.
Read the verse again. It does not start, 'in the beginning was God', it states clearly that 'the Word' was the first thing in the beginning. It goes onto state that this 'Word' is in fact 'God', it does not say a white man with a beard on a cloud was God, it states 'the Word was God'. Think about that.
So are we getting a view of the earliest times and how perhaps something more abstract is at work and not a grand wizard? So what is this 'Word'?
This Gospel was written in Greek. This verse reads ... 'En arche en Logos, kai Logos en pro Theos, kai Logos en Theos.' The Greek uses the word 'logos' and this gets translated as 'word'. 'Logos' however means more specifically 'reason', if the author had wanted to mean 'word' he would have used the Greek word 'lexis'. So the verse reads ... 'In the beginning was the Reason, and the Reason was with God, and the Reason was God.'
'Reason was God'. Is that not strange? So we should not be praying to some old fool with a beard but rather we should worship at the alter of Reason.
The bible is strange not because it tells us so little about God but because it tells us so much about man.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
thinking too much
How many thoughts do I have on any given day? Quick research on the web would suggest anywhere from 10,000 to 60,000. Given 16 hours awake this would suggest a thought every one or six seconds approximately. I am not sure about the research behind these numbers but a quick 30 second self-test seems to confirm that they are in the correct range. There are a few interesting points to note regarding this.
These thoughts (or self-talk) are the building blocks that define our identities. The majority of our thoughts don't change from day to day (researchers estimate 90%) so our identities are reasonably static and slow to change.
The sheer volume of thoughts seem to suggest to me that we are inherently unfocused and in a state of tension. As we would expect, to become focused requires an effort of the mind. Perhaps unexpectedly and paradoxically to become relaxed requires an effort of the mind also.
Are you thinking too much? How about thinking less so you can think more on any given subject? How about thinking about not thinking so much? How about not thinking?
For more information ...
google answers
These thoughts (or self-talk) are the building blocks that define our identities. The majority of our thoughts don't change from day to day (researchers estimate 90%) so our identities are reasonably static and slow to change.
The sheer volume of thoughts seem to suggest to me that we are inherently unfocused and in a state of tension. As we would expect, to become focused requires an effort of the mind. Perhaps unexpectedly and paradoxically to become relaxed requires an effort of the mind also.
Are you thinking too much? How about thinking less so you can think more on any given subject? How about thinking about not thinking so much? How about not thinking?
For more information ...
google answers
Thursday, July 14, 2005
peek and boo discuss writing
Somewhere in this land. A country inn. Faint smell of smoked pig fat. Off stage sounds of other drinkers. Two enter carrying tankards and sit on small milking stools.
Peek: I thought he wouldn't buy us a drink.
Boo: No, the scrivener is alright, he'll buy you a drink quick enough so you will move on and he can get back to his writing.
Peek: What does he write?
Boo: I have no idea and I don't care, writing is no good to man nor beast.
Peek: What do you mean?
Boo: His words don't feed the belly or quench the thirst.
Peek: But they might help you cajole the widow's daughter.
Boo: She does what she wants, when she wants with whom she wants. That's what I like and what she likes. No words ever made her do something she didn't want to do.
Peek: But surely you must think writing is of some benefit?
Boo: It might be a mildly amusing diversion at best, at worst it misleads and distracts people from living.
Peek: But it helps us communicate with people far away?
Boo: Yes, and is that a good thing? They bring as much bad as good when they come to our hamlet. I'm fine in my corner and I don't need to be writing to anyone else.
Peek: Your a strange fellow Boo, do you know that? I might ask the scrivener to write a story about you.
Boo: Don't you even think about it! I am who I am and I am not some fool on a piece of paper!
Peek: Ahhh! I think I touched a raw nerve there, are you afraid of been captured?
Boo: No, I cannot be captured. The writing is ink on paper and I am me, the two are different.
Peek: Now I get it, like that French bloke said, 'meaning is trapped inside language'. Who you really are would be trapped inside the words used to describe you.
Boo: Not even inside the words, it would be more outside and beyond those words.
Peek: And what about the 'good book' surely that has made its mark on the world
Boo: A book many say they live by but few have read. A book written over the span of a thousand years in three different languages that has been translated and mistranslated, used and abused. People have left their mark on it, that's for sure. If the man himself came back he would say "it wasn't like that at all, that is not what it was all about".
Peek: But it has left its mark on the world.
Boo: No, your slow today Peek! People leave their mark on the world not books and not talk, talk goes unheard and books crumble to dust.
Peek: Just like us. You really get going when you have a drink inside you.
Boo: The belly is the centre of man, let no fool tell you otherwise.
Peek: Will we go and get another, perhaps the scrivener will do right by us again.
Boo: Let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Off stage sounds of other drinkers. Two exit carrying tankards.
For more of peek and boo ...
peek and boo discuss god
peek and boo discuss power
derrida
Peek: I thought he wouldn't buy us a drink.
Boo: No, the scrivener is alright, he'll buy you a drink quick enough so you will move on and he can get back to his writing.
Peek: What does he write?
Boo: I have no idea and I don't care, writing is no good to man nor beast.
Peek: What do you mean?
Boo: His words don't feed the belly or quench the thirst.
Peek: But they might help you cajole the widow's daughter.
Boo: She does what she wants, when she wants with whom she wants. That's what I like and what she likes. No words ever made her do something she didn't want to do.
Peek: But surely you must think writing is of some benefit?
Boo: It might be a mildly amusing diversion at best, at worst it misleads and distracts people from living.
Peek: But it helps us communicate with people far away?
Boo: Yes, and is that a good thing? They bring as much bad as good when they come to our hamlet. I'm fine in my corner and I don't need to be writing to anyone else.
Peek: Your a strange fellow Boo, do you know that? I might ask the scrivener to write a story about you.
Boo: Don't you even think about it! I am who I am and I am not some fool on a piece of paper!
Peek: Ahhh! I think I touched a raw nerve there, are you afraid of been captured?
Boo: No, I cannot be captured. The writing is ink on paper and I am me, the two are different.
Peek: Now I get it, like that French bloke said, 'meaning is trapped inside language'. Who you really are would be trapped inside the words used to describe you.
Boo: Not even inside the words, it would be more outside and beyond those words.
Peek: And what about the 'good book' surely that has made its mark on the world
Boo: A book many say they live by but few have read. A book written over the span of a thousand years in three different languages that has been translated and mistranslated, used and abused. People have left their mark on it, that's for sure. If the man himself came back he would say "it wasn't like that at all, that is not what it was all about".
Peek: But it has left its mark on the world.
Boo: No, your slow today Peek! People leave their mark on the world not books and not talk, talk goes unheard and books crumble to dust.
Peek: Just like us. You really get going when you have a drink inside you.
Boo: The belly is the centre of man, let no fool tell you otherwise.
Peek: Will we go and get another, perhaps the scrivener will do right by us again.
Boo: Let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Off stage sounds of other drinkers. Two exit carrying tankards.
For more of peek and boo ...
peek and boo discuss god
peek and boo discuss power
derrida
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
bordeaux
Bordeaux along with Burgundy and the Loire Valley is one of the three great wine growing regions of France. When people talk about Bordeaux wine they are usually referring to red wines but there are also some great whites from this region. Bordeaux reds are made from a blend of cabernet sauvignon, merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot and malbec. Bordeaux whites are typically made from sauvignon blanc, semillon and muscadelle.
Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast naturally divides into two regions, on the south-west of the Gironde river lies the left bank, on the north-east side lies the right bank.
The left bank further divides into two districts, Medoc and Graves. Most of Bordeaux classic reds comes from Medoc (and it sub-district Haut-Medoc), many of Bordeaux's great whites come from Graves (and some of its great white dessert wines come from Sauternes a sub-district of Graves). Names of chateaus in Medoc you may have heard include Lafite-Rothschild, Latour, Haut-Brion and Mouton-Rothschild.
The right bank has not as historic a reputation but still has some great wines, the two main districts are St-Emilion and Pomerol. The geography and associated wines of the region are much more complicated than this brief introduction, but I don't want to bore you.
The left bank reds are in general much more dominated by cabernet sauvignon so they may be a little tannic for some people. The right bank reds tend to be dominated by the flavours of merlot so in many respects they are more approachable for the average person like me or you!
For more information ...
burgundy
meritage
http://www.bordeaux.com/home.html
Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast naturally divides into two regions, on the south-west of the Gironde river lies the left bank, on the north-east side lies the right bank.
The left bank further divides into two districts, Medoc and Graves. Most of Bordeaux classic reds comes from Medoc (and it sub-district Haut-Medoc), many of Bordeaux's great whites come from Graves (and some of its great white dessert wines come from Sauternes a sub-district of Graves). Names of chateaus in Medoc you may have heard include Lafite-Rothschild, Latour, Haut-Brion and Mouton-Rothschild.
The right bank has not as historic a reputation but still has some great wines, the two main districts are St-Emilion and Pomerol. The geography and associated wines of the region are much more complicated than this brief introduction, but I don't want to bore you.
The left bank reds are in general much more dominated by cabernet sauvignon so they may be a little tannic for some people. The right bank reds tend to be dominated by the flavours of merlot so in many respects they are more approachable for the average person like me or you!
For more information ...
burgundy
meritage
http://www.bordeaux.com/home.html
Monday, July 11, 2005
this week I am drinking
This week I am drinking a white Meritage (rhymes with heritage). Meritage is a word invented by the American wine industry to identify wines blended from the traditional "noble" varietals of Bordeaux. For white wines these varietals include Sauvignon Blanc, Semillon and Muscadelle.
This 2003 Sumac Ridge Meritage is 80% Sauvignon Blanc and 20% Semillon. Unfortunately the overall experience is dominated by an oaky flavour which also gives the wine a deeper yellow color.
The preponderance of oak in Californian wines has led to great success for many vineyards in terms of sales but I say "enough already". Some wines are oaked using barrels but since a French oak barrel costs around $US1000 (€835/$CAN1200/$AUS1350) this is often prohibitive. Instead oak chips are mixed within the wine and the resulting liquid is subsequently filtered.
Sumac Ridge can usually be relied on for interesting taste experiences but on this occasion they have fallen short.
For more information ...
http://www.meritagewine.org/
http://www.sumacridge.com/
This 2003 Sumac Ridge Meritage is 80% Sauvignon Blanc and 20% Semillon. Unfortunately the overall experience is dominated by an oaky flavour which also gives the wine a deeper yellow color.
The preponderance of oak in Californian wines has led to great success for many vineyards in terms of sales but I say "enough already". Some wines are oaked using barrels but since a French oak barrel costs around $US1000 (€835/$CAN1200/$AUS1350) this is often prohibitive. Instead oak chips are mixed within the wine and the resulting liquid is subsequently filtered.
Sumac Ridge can usually be relied on for interesting taste experiences but on this occasion they have fallen short.
For more information ...
http://www.meritagewine.org/
http://www.sumacridge.com/
Saturday, July 09, 2005
peek and boo discuss god
Somewhere in this land. Mid morning. Off stage sounds of field workers. Two enter.
Peek: Her food is good and she has a kind heart but her house is full of icons.
Boo: The widow is an honest God fearing woman.
Peek: Which God does she fear?
Boo: Well, the man up stairs, who else.
Peek: So you see God as a man?
Boo: Yes, an all powerful, all seeing man.
Peek: So could this man create a rock?
Boo: Well, yes, a rock should be no problem for him.
Peek: And could this God of yours lift any rock?
Boo: God is all powerful so lifting a rock should be no problem.
Peek: So could your God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
Boo: God can do anything, so I guess so.
Peek: But if God could create a rock too heavy for him to lift then there is something he cannot do, namely lift that rock.
Boo: Hold on there, your fancy talk has confused me.
Peek: It wouldn't be the first time. I will go slower. Your God can't be both powerful enough to lift any rock and powerful enough to create a rock he can't lift. Even he can't have it both ways.
Boo: Well, I guess I see that, to be honest I had been thinking that God was more of a spirit or a presence. Kind of like the air, required for life, in all things and everywhere.
Peek: Oh, I see not so much omnipotent as omnipresent.
Boo: You and your big words but, yes, God is the spark in all things.
Peek: The spark in the birth of a child or in a pleasant summer's morning?
Boo: Yes, something like that.
Peek: But is he the spark in things that are evil, the death of a hero in battle, the murder of a child?
Boo: Well no, I don't think he is present there, if he was he surely would stop it.
Peek: You would like to think so but you don't think he is present for the bad stuff anyhow, so he is not omnipresent.
Boo: That big word was yours not mine but I see what your getting at, maybe he is not all powerful and maybe he is not everywhere. Maybe God is just love.
Peek: So God is just love now. So why don't we pray to love, or worship love, why do we have a different word?
Boo: Peek, my head is beginning to hurt, my stomach was nice and full but now it feels tense. You and your questions, you're a pain in the arse.
Peek: You're right but I still wonder why we have a different word, if God is just love?
Boo: Listen Peek, we can go to the inn and talk politics, religion, the old "in and out", we can even talk of God. But no one would ever talk of love. That is why we have a different word. We don't even know what that word means though many a fool has lived and died for it.
Peek: Many a fool has died for God and many a fool has died for love. That is true.
Boo: And many live for both. Look Peek, I try to fill my stomach when I can. I'll fumble with the widow's daughter in the barn if she'll let me and if she won't I'll drink as much as I can. That and a few other things are life. I need a drink now and the scrivener owes me one, he'll be at the inn as usual scribbling away, let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Mid morning. Off stage sounds of field workers. Two exit.
For more of peek and boo ...
peek and boo discuss power
Peek: Her food is good and she has a kind heart but her house is full of icons.
Boo: The widow is an honest God fearing woman.
Peek: Which God does she fear?
Boo: Well, the man up stairs, who else.
Peek: So you see God as a man?
Boo: Yes, an all powerful, all seeing man.
Peek: So could this man create a rock?
Boo: Well, yes, a rock should be no problem for him.
Peek: And could this God of yours lift any rock?
Boo: God is all powerful so lifting a rock should be no problem.
Peek: So could your God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
Boo: God can do anything, so I guess so.
Peek: But if God could create a rock too heavy for him to lift then there is something he cannot do, namely lift that rock.
Boo: Hold on there, your fancy talk has confused me.
Peek: It wouldn't be the first time. I will go slower. Your God can't be both powerful enough to lift any rock and powerful enough to create a rock he can't lift. Even he can't have it both ways.
Boo: Well, I guess I see that, to be honest I had been thinking that God was more of a spirit or a presence. Kind of like the air, required for life, in all things and everywhere.
Peek: Oh, I see not so much omnipotent as omnipresent.
Boo: You and your big words but, yes, God is the spark in all things.
Peek: The spark in the birth of a child or in a pleasant summer's morning?
Boo: Yes, something like that.
Peek: But is he the spark in things that are evil, the death of a hero in battle, the murder of a child?
Boo: Well no, I don't think he is present there, if he was he surely would stop it.
Peek: You would like to think so but you don't think he is present for the bad stuff anyhow, so he is not omnipresent.
Boo: That big word was yours not mine but I see what your getting at, maybe he is not all powerful and maybe he is not everywhere. Maybe God is just love.
Peek: So God is just love now. So why don't we pray to love, or worship love, why do we have a different word?
Boo: Peek, my head is beginning to hurt, my stomach was nice and full but now it feels tense. You and your questions, you're a pain in the arse.
Peek: You're right but I still wonder why we have a different word, if God is just love?
Boo: Listen Peek, we can go to the inn and talk politics, religion, the old "in and out", we can even talk of God. But no one would ever talk of love. That is why we have a different word. We don't even know what that word means though many a fool has lived and died for it.
Peek: Many a fool has died for God and many a fool has died for love. That is true.
Boo: And many live for both. Look Peek, I try to fill my stomach when I can. I'll fumble with the widow's daughter in the barn if she'll let me and if she won't I'll drink as much as I can. That and a few other things are life. I need a drink now and the scrivener owes me one, he'll be at the inn as usual scribbling away, let's go.
Peek: Yes, let's go.
Mid morning. Off stage sounds of field workers. Two exit.
For more of peek and boo ...
peek and boo discuss power
Thursday, July 07, 2005
there is a war
"There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning."
Excerpt from there is a war off Leonard Cohen's 1974 album new skin for the old ceremony.
For more information ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
and the ones who say there isn't.
Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning."
Excerpt from there is a war off Leonard Cohen's 1974 album new skin for the old ceremony.
For more information ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
painted ladies come again
This evening we have seen the second wave of painted ladies pass through Calgary flying north. There were fewer butterflies today compared with two weeks ago but once again the sight captures your attention.
In the deserts of northern Mexico it must be amazing to see them break free from their chrysalis and begin their long journey. Immigrants crossing borders without passports or visas, explorers that fit in the palm of your hand.
For previous thoughts on the same topic ...
painted ladies fly north
In the deserts of northern Mexico it must be amazing to see them break free from their chrysalis and begin their long journey. Immigrants crossing borders without passports or visas, explorers that fit in the palm of your hand.
For previous thoughts on the same topic ...
painted ladies fly north
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)