Somewhere in this land. Early evening. Peek sits on the edge of a river looking in but then looks skyward.
Peek: Ah! the evening star and the morning star, Venus, a woman to love.
Peek returns to looking into the river but is disturbed by Boo's entrance.
Boo: She's a whore and a bitch! No more, I tell ya!
Peek: Steady on there, easy as she goes!
Boo: Well that's it I tell ya, I'm finished with her.
Peek: The widow's daughter?
Boo: Yes, the very same.
Peek: She does what she wants, when she wants with whom she wants. I thought that was what you liked about her.
Boo: I was a fool if I said that and you said my words would help me cajole her! You were a fool for saying that.
Peek: Now we both know better.
Boo: We are both fools to be sittin' here looking into the muddy river when others are laughing at the inn or lovin' in a barn.
Peek: Yes, we are foolish with our actions if not our thoughts.
Boo: They should be one and the same.
Peek: Exactly, we should only do what we have thought about and think about what we can do.
Boo: You lost me.
Peek: Our actions should be considered, for many people their actions are just reflexive habits. You scratch an itch without thinking about the consequence.
Boo: The widow's daughter could handle an itch I have, I can tell you that.
Peek: And the consequences? Maybe she has stopped itching you scratch because she is clever enough to think about the consequences.
Boo: She might be right but I can't help thinking about her?
Peek: Well you can and that's the second part, don't bother thinking about that which you cannot act upon. It's probably out of your control, think about what is within your control.
Boo: And those things I think about that are within my control, I should do something about those?
Peek: Yes, you're getting the hang of it.
Boo: The widow's daughter is far too smart for me. Why don't we go to the inn?
Peek: You might find a Venus there who thinks your actions and thoughts are just fine, let's go.
Boo: Yes! Let's go!
Two get up and exit.
For more information ...
peek and boo discuss existentialism
peek and boo discuss writing
peek and boo discuss god
peek and boo discuss power
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
so who are we
After writing the first article in this series (so who am I), the second (so who are you) was a natural successor. Those two and another (a balanced life) prompts a third in the series. It seems now that I should extend these thoughts and ask ...
So, who are we?
Implict in the question is that something is or could be shared between us. As per the previous articles, using thought as our cornerstone and matching our thoughts with actions (and vice versa) we are striving to share an understanding. We are striving to share an understanding of our universe, our experience and our self. If we do not do this then there is no 'we'.
So, who are we?
We share something. What is it we share? We share our understanding of the universe. Can there be this kind of 'we' if we are not open to hearing others people's understanding of the universe? No, there can only be a 'we' if all parties of the 'we' get to share their understanding (note, sharing does not imply agreement). This 'we' is often instantiated through our discussions of religion, science or natural philosophy and our practice of those.
So, who are we?
We share an understanding of our experience, we may even share some of the same experiences. This 'we' is often instantiated through our discussions of psychology, myth, or personal and social histories. It may be instantiated through group activity like playing soccer, stealing car stereos or playing the fluglehorn.
So, who are we?
We share an understanding of our self. This 'we' is often instantiated through our close relationships with friends and family, through our gossip, through our biographies and our betrayals.
It can be seen that there is more than one 'we'.
So, who are we?
We share understanding of our universe, experience and our self in multiple connected but possibly distinct instances. Each of these instances is a society in itself. Perhaps it is worth asking what we contribute to each. What do you contribute to a shared understanding of the universe? What do you contribute to a shared understanding of your experience? What do you contribute to a shared understanding of your self? Can there be any society without sharing and contribution?
So, who are we? ..... We share our understanding. ..... We contribute to our societies.
For more information ...
so who am I
so who are you
a balanced life
society
So, who are we?
Implict in the question is that something is or could be shared between us. As per the previous articles, using thought as our cornerstone and matching our thoughts with actions (and vice versa) we are striving to share an understanding. We are striving to share an understanding of our universe, our experience and our self. If we do not do this then there is no 'we'.
So, who are we?
We share something. What is it we share? We share our understanding of the universe. Can there be this kind of 'we' if we are not open to hearing others people's understanding of the universe? No, there can only be a 'we' if all parties of the 'we' get to share their understanding (note, sharing does not imply agreement). This 'we' is often instantiated through our discussions of religion, science or natural philosophy and our practice of those.
So, who are we?
We share an understanding of our experience, we may even share some of the same experiences. This 'we' is often instantiated through our discussions of psychology, myth, or personal and social histories. It may be instantiated through group activity like playing soccer, stealing car stereos or playing the fluglehorn.
So, who are we?
We share an understanding of our self. This 'we' is often instantiated through our close relationships with friends and family, through our gossip, through our biographies and our betrayals.
It can be seen that there is more than one 'we'.
So, who are we?
We share understanding of our universe, experience and our self in multiple connected but possibly distinct instances. Each of these instances is a society in itself. Perhaps it is worth asking what we contribute to each. What do you contribute to a shared understanding of the universe? What do you contribute to a shared understanding of your experience? What do you contribute to a shared understanding of your self? Can there be any society without sharing and contribution?
So, who are we? ..... We share our understanding. ..... We contribute to our societies.
For more information ...
so who am I
so who are you
a balanced life
society
Monday, August 22, 2005
summer picks
Summer is hard and thirsty work! Here are my top picks for summer starting with the best.
1. Calona Vineyards, Artist Series, Pinot Gris, 2004 - Okanagan Valley, B.C., Canada (17/20)
"dry, crisp, fruit with vegetal notes"
2. Montes Alpha, Cabernet Sauvignon, 2002 - Colchagua Valley, Apalta Vineyard, Chile (17/20)
"fruity, berries, firm tannin, leathery, long finish"
3. Pierre Boniface, Apremont, 2004 - St. Andre, Les Marches, Savoie, France (17/20)
"grassy nose, citrus, apple notes, very drinkable"
4. La Vieille Ferme, White Grenache, 2004 - Luberon, Rhone Valley, France (16/20)
"dry, light, citrus, bitter, crisp, a little short but very nice"
5. Les Charmes, Touraine, Sauvignon Blanc, 2004 - Touraine, Loire, France (15/20)
"quite fruity, grassy nose, apple notes, a little bubbly"
6. Cedar Creek, Pinot Noir, 2001 - Cedar Creek & Greta Ranch Vineyards, Okanagan, B.C., Canada (15/20)
"berries, earthy, wood, and leather notes"
The summer saw my 'Tour de France' continue so the 13 bottles we drank were dominated by 7 from France, then 4 from Canada and one each from Germany and Chile. To quench the summer thirst we had 10 white, 2 red and a rose.
I am not surprised to see the French whites take centre stage in the list, the Apremont in particular is worth trying although wines from the Savoie may be hard to find. The Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon was a real nice bottle, a gift from friends it cost around $CAN24/EUR16/UKP11/$AUS26. The La Vielle Ferme should be readily available in most places and is very quaffable, we knocked back 3 of these over the summer.
I am now ending my 'Tour de France' and think I will take up a 'Giro D'Italia'. The wines from 'down under' also deserve more attention, so I expect I will sample some of those.
For more information ...
late spring, early summer picks
calona vineyards
montes alpha
apremont (review)
la vieille ferme
cedar creek
1. Calona Vineyards, Artist Series, Pinot Gris, 2004 - Okanagan Valley, B.C., Canada (17/20)
"dry, crisp, fruit with vegetal notes"
2. Montes Alpha, Cabernet Sauvignon, 2002 - Colchagua Valley, Apalta Vineyard, Chile (17/20)
"fruity, berries, firm tannin, leathery, long finish"
3. Pierre Boniface, Apremont, 2004 - St. Andre, Les Marches, Savoie, France (17/20)
"grassy nose, citrus, apple notes, very drinkable"
4. La Vieille Ferme, White Grenache, 2004 - Luberon, Rhone Valley, France (16/20)
"dry, light, citrus, bitter, crisp, a little short but very nice"
5. Les Charmes, Touraine, Sauvignon Blanc, 2004 - Touraine, Loire, France (15/20)
"quite fruity, grassy nose, apple notes, a little bubbly"
6. Cedar Creek, Pinot Noir, 2001 - Cedar Creek & Greta Ranch Vineyards, Okanagan, B.C., Canada (15/20)
"berries, earthy, wood, and leather notes"
The summer saw my 'Tour de France' continue so the 13 bottles we drank were dominated by 7 from France, then 4 from Canada and one each from Germany and Chile. To quench the summer thirst we had 10 white, 2 red and a rose.
I am not surprised to see the French whites take centre stage in the list, the Apremont in particular is worth trying although wines from the Savoie may be hard to find. The Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon was a real nice bottle, a gift from friends it cost around $CAN24/EUR16/UKP11/$AUS26. The La Vielle Ferme should be readily available in most places and is very quaffable, we knocked back 3 of these over the summer.
I am now ending my 'Tour de France' and think I will take up a 'Giro D'Italia'. The wines from 'down under' also deserve more attention, so I expect I will sample some of those.
For more information ...
late spring, early summer picks
calona vineyards
montes alpha
apremont (review)
la vieille ferme
cedar creek
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
so who are you
So, who are you?
Previously I discussed an evolving sense of self (so who am I) and how thought can form a cornerstone on which a rational, examined life could be constructed.
We have an interior self that is constructed primarily from our thoughts. We also have an exterior self that is constructed primarily from our actions, the clothes we wear, our words, our choices in life, etc.
The interior self is private although others may speculate about it they can not experience it. The exterior self is public and is experienced by others. We can have experience based opinions of our own interior and exterior self but we can only have an experience based opinion of someone else's exterior self. We can speculate what others interior self may be like but we can not base that opinion on experience because of course we are not them. This leads me to an assertion that in some regards we can never know each other.
So, who are you?
Are we each to be an isolated island with no interconnectedness or can we come to a deeper understanding of each other? Let's try on an idea and see if it fits!
There is a gap between our interior and exterior self. That gap will always exist to an extent because of the difference between thought and action. That gaps however is unnecessarily enlarged (and misaligned) because we do not think about what we do and we do not do what we think about. If our actions followed from our thoughts we might expect the gap to be smaller and our actions and thoughts to be more aligned. If the gap were smaller people's exterior self would reflect more the interior self and vice-versa.
Aligning our thoughts and actions is part of maturing. The size of the gap between our interior and exterior self may reflect our level of maturity. Those people who seem very purpose driven in life, think about what they do and do what they are thinking about. There seems to be a clarity to their life and this in part derives from the fact that the gap between their thoughts and actions is small. Life is simpler this way.
So, who are you?
Are you a thinking being who works at reducing the gap between your thought and action? Are your thoughts and actions aligned?
So, who are you? ..... You think. ..... You should do what you think. ..... You should think about what you do.
For more information ...
so who am i
Previously I discussed an evolving sense of self (so who am I) and how thought can form a cornerstone on which a rational, examined life could be constructed.
We have an interior self that is constructed primarily from our thoughts. We also have an exterior self that is constructed primarily from our actions, the clothes we wear, our words, our choices in life, etc.
The interior self is private although others may speculate about it they can not experience it. The exterior self is public and is experienced by others. We can have experience based opinions of our own interior and exterior self but we can only have an experience based opinion of someone else's exterior self. We can speculate what others interior self may be like but we can not base that opinion on experience because of course we are not them. This leads me to an assertion that in some regards we can never know each other.
So, who are you?
Are we each to be an isolated island with no interconnectedness or can we come to a deeper understanding of each other? Let's try on an idea and see if it fits!
There is a gap between our interior and exterior self. That gap will always exist to an extent because of the difference between thought and action. That gaps however is unnecessarily enlarged (and misaligned) because we do not think about what we do and we do not do what we think about. If our actions followed from our thoughts we might expect the gap to be smaller and our actions and thoughts to be more aligned. If the gap were smaller people's exterior self would reflect more the interior self and vice-versa.
Aligning our thoughts and actions is part of maturing. The size of the gap between our interior and exterior self may reflect our level of maturity. Those people who seem very purpose driven in life, think about what they do and do what they are thinking about. There seems to be a clarity to their life and this in part derives from the fact that the gap between their thoughts and actions is small. Life is simpler this way.
So, who are you?
Are you a thinking being who works at reducing the gap between your thought and action? Are your thoughts and actions aligned?
So, who are you? ..... You think. ..... You should do what you think. ..... You should think about what you do.
For more information ...
so who am i
Monday, August 15, 2005
everyone should try
In response to requests here are some wines that everyone should try. You all know I am no expert so this is not likely to be complete or representative. The intent is to help you the next time you go to buy a bottle of plonk.
1. Everyone should try a Bordeaux. Red Bordeaux is made from a blend of cabernet sauvignon, merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot and malbec. The five top chateaux are generally too expensive to buy so if you find other Bordeaux just make sure they have the appellation controllee designation on the label. Bordeaux is classically matched with lamb but I think it would hold up well with steak also. Bordeaux classically tastes of blackcurrants, spice, cedar and cassis. Go for bottles that are 10 years or older.
2. Everyone should try a Burgundy. Red Burgundy (Bourgogne) is made from pinot noir, look for labels that say Cote de Nuit or Cote de Beaune. The village names to look for on labels include Geverey-Chambertin, Morey-St.Denis, Nuit-St.Georges, Pommard, Vugeot. Beef Bourguignon is the classic dish of the region and Burgundy would go well with it. Plummy, earthy, spicy, and mocha flavours define a good Burgundy.
3. Everyone should try an Australian Shiraz. There are many good Australian wines, their red shiraz with its peppery, fruit flavours is good and none more so that Penfolds Grange or the more affordable Peter Lehmans Barossa Valley Shiraz'. Eat with game or red meat or drink just on its own. Yummy!
4. Everyone should try a Chianti. This Italian red comes from the Tuscany (Toscana) region on Italy's west coast. Made primarily from the sangiovese grape, try to look for wines that have the DOC (denominazione di origine controllata) on the label. This is a dry, cherry flavoured red. Names to look for include Monsanto, Villa Cafaggio, Castellare, Frescobaldi, Ruffino, and Castello Di Ama. It may be a cliche but I like this with spaghetti bolognese.
5. Everyone should try a Barolo or a Baraberesco. Both are reds made from the nebbiolo grape, this a dry, full-bodied wine with hints of tar, violets and strawberries. Look for one that is nearly 10 years old or more and also look for the DOC or the higher DOCG on the label. I have not had much Barolo or Barbaresco but from reading (see footnote) I know to recommend those from the following Piedmont villages, Monforte d'Alba, La Morra and Castiglione Falletto. Drink with a rich meat, steak or some BBQ'd burgers.
6. Everyone should try a Rioja. This Spanish red is predominantly made from the tempranillo grape. Try ones from Rioja Alta and Rioja Alavesa areas. Tempranillo can give rise to fruity and earthy flavours that pair well with wild mushrooms fried in garlic. Names to look for include Marques de Murrieta, Cune, Rioja Alta and Marques de Caceres. All Rioja should have a 'Denominacion de Origien Calificada' on the label, also look out for a reserva or gran reserva that indicates the time aged in oak.
7. Everyone should try Sancerre. A sauvignon blanc white from the Loire Valley, these wines are crisp, acid, dry, and work with a wide range of food from Chinese to grilled salmon. I have not had a bad Sancerre, Domaine Henri Bourgeois is a good one that comes to mind.
8. Everyone should try a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. This white is very different than French sauvignon blancs, their intense bouquet won't be to everyone's liking but they are certainly worth trying. Oyster Bay and Cloudy Bay are two good makes. I have no idea what food to pair this wine with, it probably would hold up to some of the challenging tastes of fusion style cuisine.
9. Everyone should try a Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon. This red is full bodied and tastes of blackcurrant and cassis. They are quite robust and I recommend Montes Alpha or Santa Rita's cabs. Anything from the Maipo or Casablanca valleys might be good. This will work with steak or burgers.
10. Everyone should try Chablis. A light white chardonnay from the Burgundy region its flavours are more 'flinty, honeyed and acidic' than new world chardonnays. No oak here! Look for Grenouille, Bougros, Louise Michel, Guy Robin. Try this with seafood, it goes well with oysters.
11. Everyone should try a Canadian Riesling. This sweet white wine is famous in the Alsace region of France and southern Germany but the Canadian versions are good too. Try them with a salad. Hillside Estate create good Canadian Rieslings.
Other wines that everyone should probably try but I did not detail above include; a German gewurztraminer, a Californian zinfandel, a Californian pinot noir, a Washington State red, a Spanish Priorat, a white Alsace, a Portuguese red, an Austrian red, a German riesling, Beaujolais Nouveau, Chateauneuf du Pape, a Hungarian Tokaj, a French Sauterne, an Australian merlot, an Australian chardonnay and an Argentinean cabernet sauvignon. I also mentioned no pinot gris', pinot grigio, viognier or barbera based wines. Phew! There is just so much to try and only one mouth!
The information here is mostly based on my drinking experience but one invaluable resource has been Karen MacNeil's 'The Wine Bible'. A good gift for any wino in your life, I would highly recommend it.
It is the drinking and not the talking that is the fun part when learning more about wine. So now that you have a few pointers get boozing! After the hangover let me know how you got on!
For more information ...
the wine bible
1. Everyone should try a Bordeaux. Red Bordeaux is made from a blend of cabernet sauvignon, merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot and malbec. The five top chateaux are generally too expensive to buy so if you find other Bordeaux just make sure they have the appellation controllee designation on the label. Bordeaux is classically matched with lamb but I think it would hold up well with steak also. Bordeaux classically tastes of blackcurrants, spice, cedar and cassis. Go for bottles that are 10 years or older.
2. Everyone should try a Burgundy. Red Burgundy (Bourgogne) is made from pinot noir, look for labels that say Cote de Nuit or Cote de Beaune. The village names to look for on labels include Geverey-Chambertin, Morey-St.Denis, Nuit-St.Georges, Pommard, Vugeot. Beef Bourguignon is the classic dish of the region and Burgundy would go well with it. Plummy, earthy, spicy, and mocha flavours define a good Burgundy.
3. Everyone should try an Australian Shiraz. There are many good Australian wines, their red shiraz with its peppery, fruit flavours is good and none more so that Penfolds Grange or the more affordable Peter Lehmans Barossa Valley Shiraz'. Eat with game or red meat or drink just on its own. Yummy!
4. Everyone should try a Chianti. This Italian red comes from the Tuscany (Toscana) region on Italy's west coast. Made primarily from the sangiovese grape, try to look for wines that have the DOC (denominazione di origine controllata) on the label. This is a dry, cherry flavoured red. Names to look for include Monsanto, Villa Cafaggio, Castellare, Frescobaldi, Ruffino, and Castello Di Ama. It may be a cliche but I like this with spaghetti bolognese.
5. Everyone should try a Barolo or a Baraberesco. Both are reds made from the nebbiolo grape, this a dry, full-bodied wine with hints of tar, violets and strawberries. Look for one that is nearly 10 years old or more and also look for the DOC or the higher DOCG on the label. I have not had much Barolo or Barbaresco but from reading (see footnote) I know to recommend those from the following Piedmont villages, Monforte d'Alba, La Morra and Castiglione Falletto. Drink with a rich meat, steak or some BBQ'd burgers.
6. Everyone should try a Rioja. This Spanish red is predominantly made from the tempranillo grape. Try ones from Rioja Alta and Rioja Alavesa areas. Tempranillo can give rise to fruity and earthy flavours that pair well with wild mushrooms fried in garlic. Names to look for include Marques de Murrieta, Cune, Rioja Alta and Marques de Caceres. All Rioja should have a 'Denominacion de Origien Calificada' on the label, also look out for a reserva or gran reserva that indicates the time aged in oak.
7. Everyone should try Sancerre. A sauvignon blanc white from the Loire Valley, these wines are crisp, acid, dry, and work with a wide range of food from Chinese to grilled salmon. I have not had a bad Sancerre, Domaine Henri Bourgeois is a good one that comes to mind.
8. Everyone should try a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. This white is very different than French sauvignon blancs, their intense bouquet won't be to everyone's liking but they are certainly worth trying. Oyster Bay and Cloudy Bay are two good makes. I have no idea what food to pair this wine with, it probably would hold up to some of the challenging tastes of fusion style cuisine.
9. Everyone should try a Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon. This red is full bodied and tastes of blackcurrant and cassis. They are quite robust and I recommend Montes Alpha or Santa Rita's cabs. Anything from the Maipo or Casablanca valleys might be good. This will work with steak or burgers.
10. Everyone should try Chablis. A light white chardonnay from the Burgundy region its flavours are more 'flinty, honeyed and acidic' than new world chardonnays. No oak here! Look for Grenouille, Bougros, Louise Michel, Guy Robin. Try this with seafood, it goes well with oysters.
11. Everyone should try a Canadian Riesling. This sweet white wine is famous in the Alsace region of France and southern Germany but the Canadian versions are good too. Try them with a salad. Hillside Estate create good Canadian Rieslings.
Other wines that everyone should probably try but I did not detail above include; a German gewurztraminer, a Californian zinfandel, a Californian pinot noir, a Washington State red, a Spanish Priorat, a white Alsace, a Portuguese red, an Austrian red, a German riesling, Beaujolais Nouveau, Chateauneuf du Pape, a Hungarian Tokaj, a French Sauterne, an Australian merlot, an Australian chardonnay and an Argentinean cabernet sauvignon. I also mentioned no pinot gris', pinot grigio, viognier or barbera based wines. Phew! There is just so much to try and only one mouth!
The information here is mostly based on my drinking experience but one invaluable resource has been Karen MacNeil's 'The Wine Bible'. A good gift for any wino in your life, I would highly recommend it.
It is the drinking and not the talking that is the fun part when learning more about wine. So now that you have a few pointers get boozing! After the hangover let me know how you got on!
For more information ...
the wine bible
Friday, August 12, 2005
this week I am drinking
My tour of French wine continues. Our local wine shop have a few bottles open on the weekend and one of those I tried recently I decided to purchase.
Pierre Boniface Apremont Vin de Savoie 2003 is a nice crisp, dry, citrus white wine, herbaceous and grassy nose. Enjoy with salad or some other refreshing light dish or simply quaff.
The wine is from the Savoie region which is centered around the city of Chambery, north of Grenoble and south-east of the Burgundy region. Apremont is just one of a number of crus in the Savoie region which lies in the foothills of the Alps. I believe the grape varietal is Jacquerre, which I know nothing about. A good summer's drink.
Pierre Boniface Apremont Vin de Savoie 2003 is a nice crisp, dry, citrus white wine, herbaceous and grassy nose. Enjoy with salad or some other refreshing light dish or simply quaff.
The wine is from the Savoie region which is centered around the city of Chambery, north of Grenoble and south-east of the Burgundy region. Apremont is just one of a number of crus in the Savoie region which lies in the foothills of the Alps. I believe the grape varietal is Jacquerre, which I know nothing about. A good summer's drink.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
so who am I
So, who am I?
When I was eight my sense of self was constructed from a number of elements such as: I was a boy, I was a son, I was a sibling, I was Irish, I was Catholic, etc. At different times, different elements contributed to a greater or lesser extent toward my sense of self. When I made my first communion, the 'Catholic element' would have dominated. When I watched Eamon Couglan running for Ireland at the Olympics the 'Irish element' would have dominated.
Now that I am in my late thirties the elements include: I am a husband, I am a father, I am a man, I am a son, I am a sibling, etc. The relative priorities of the elements has changed and some have dropped off the list altogether.
So, who am I?
It is said that all the atoms in the human body change every seven years. So my physical nature is not constant and we can see from above that my sense of self is subject to change. I am reminded of Heraclitus' idea that everything is in flux. His saying 'no man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same', seems to capture our predicament.
So, who am I?
Heraclitus not withstanding, a river that is frozen in winter, flooding in spring and meandering lazily in summer is still a river. It is a river because it is bounded, it is a river because it is a place where water can flow.
So, who am I?
I am a bounded physical being where thought can take place. It seems like I have ended up at Descartes classic 'cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am' position. What kind of a personal life can I build upon this cornerstone? Certainly I would see a rational, examined life as opposed to an irrational, unexamined life. Thought is the mother of action and Descartes' maxim establishes the primacy of that.
Establishing thought as a prime element of existence makes many nervous. The Nazi's misinterpretation of Nietzsche's concept of 'Übermensch' was perhaps an abuse also of Descartes' maxim. I view 'cogito, ergo sum' in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. The smallest scintilla of thought validates existence rather than existence been validated by higher thought. So perhaps this all helps with the question of who am I?
So, who am I? ..... I think. ..... I should try harder to be who I am.
For more information ...
heraclitus
I think therefore I am
Üœbermensch
When I was eight my sense of self was constructed from a number of elements such as: I was a boy, I was a son, I was a sibling, I was Irish, I was Catholic, etc. At different times, different elements contributed to a greater or lesser extent toward my sense of self. When I made my first communion, the 'Catholic element' would have dominated. When I watched Eamon Couglan running for Ireland at the Olympics the 'Irish element' would have dominated.
Now that I am in my late thirties the elements include: I am a husband, I am a father, I am a man, I am a son, I am a sibling, etc. The relative priorities of the elements has changed and some have dropped off the list altogether.
So, who am I?
It is said that all the atoms in the human body change every seven years. So my physical nature is not constant and we can see from above that my sense of self is subject to change. I am reminded of Heraclitus' idea that everything is in flux. His saying 'no man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same', seems to capture our predicament.
So, who am I?
Heraclitus not withstanding, a river that is frozen in winter, flooding in spring and meandering lazily in summer is still a river. It is a river because it is bounded, it is a river because it is a place where water can flow.
So, who am I?
I am a bounded physical being where thought can take place. It seems like I have ended up at Descartes classic 'cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am' position. What kind of a personal life can I build upon this cornerstone? Certainly I would see a rational, examined life as opposed to an irrational, unexamined life. Thought is the mother of action and Descartes' maxim establishes the primacy of that.
Establishing thought as a prime element of existence makes many nervous. The Nazi's misinterpretation of Nietzsche's concept of 'Übermensch' was perhaps an abuse also of Descartes' maxim. I view 'cogito, ergo sum' in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. The smallest scintilla of thought validates existence rather than existence been validated by higher thought. So perhaps this all helps with the question of who am I?
So, who am I? ..... I think. ..... I should try harder to be who I am.
For more information ...
heraclitus
I think therefore I am
Üœbermensch
Saturday, August 06, 2005
loire
The Loire Valley offers a diverse range of wines. White wines dominate the region with Chenin and Sauvignon Blanc and although reds from this region play second fiddle good Cabernet Franc wines are available.
The Loire running from east to west in central France has three areas of note. In the east, the towns of Sancerre and Pouilly-sur-Loire give us two classic wines. Sancerre is a light dry wine suitable for quenching a summers thirst, Pouilly-Fume is a little more robust and has a distinct 'flinty' character. Both are Sauvignon Blanc's and are more drinkable and less pungent than the very distinctive New Zealand 'blancs'.
In the central Loire valley is city of Tours. Chenin Blanc gives us the wines of Vouvray (a town near Tours) which can vary from dry (sec or demi-sec) to sweet (moelleux or doux). Tonight I will be trying a dry Domaine de Vaufuget Vouvray from 2002. The region also produces good Sauvignon Blancs, I recently opened a '2004 Les Charmes Touraine' which showed strong apple notes and the characteristic 'grassy nose'.
In the west of the Loire valley around the city of Nantes near the Atlantic coast we find the Muscadet grape (aka Melon de Bourgogne). This gives us the very light and dry wine of the same name which is typically a cheap but drinkable wine. Muscadet suffers from what I call the 'Blue Nun' effect* but don't let this put you off. Muscadet wine is often left in contact with the fermenting yeast for a number of months which can give the otherwise light wine more structure & character. Muscadet processed in this way usually have 'sur lie' on the label, so keep an eye open for that when choosing a bottle.
I have not had as much wine from the Loire as compared with Burgundy or Bordeaux but it does seem to offer a large diversity that would be worth exploring. Enough talk, I'm off to crack open that Vouvray, let the exploration begin.
* Blue Nun effect - I coined this term to describe the effect one poor, low reputation brand can have on a whole market. Blue Nun introduced many English people to wine in the 70's but the quality was low and its reputation put many people off trying other German wines. This is a pity because there are many good German Rieslings and Gewurtztraminers to be enjoyed.
For more information ...
bordeaux
burgundy
blue nun
The Loire running from east to west in central France has three areas of note. In the east, the towns of Sancerre and Pouilly-sur-Loire give us two classic wines. Sancerre is a light dry wine suitable for quenching a summers thirst, Pouilly-Fume is a little more robust and has a distinct 'flinty' character. Both are Sauvignon Blanc's and are more drinkable and less pungent than the very distinctive New Zealand 'blancs'.
In the central Loire valley is city of Tours. Chenin Blanc gives us the wines of Vouvray (a town near Tours) which can vary from dry (sec or demi-sec) to sweet (moelleux or doux). Tonight I will be trying a dry Domaine de Vaufuget Vouvray from 2002. The region also produces good Sauvignon Blancs, I recently opened a '2004 Les Charmes Touraine' which showed strong apple notes and the characteristic 'grassy nose'.
In the west of the Loire valley around the city of Nantes near the Atlantic coast we find the Muscadet grape (aka Melon de Bourgogne). This gives us the very light and dry wine of the same name which is typically a cheap but drinkable wine. Muscadet suffers from what I call the 'Blue Nun' effect* but don't let this put you off. Muscadet wine is often left in contact with the fermenting yeast for a number of months which can give the otherwise light wine more structure & character. Muscadet processed in this way usually have 'sur lie' on the label, so keep an eye open for that when choosing a bottle.
I have not had as much wine from the Loire as compared with Burgundy or Bordeaux but it does seem to offer a large diversity that would be worth exploring. Enough talk, I'm off to crack open that Vouvray, let the exploration begin.
* Blue Nun effect - I coined this term to describe the effect one poor, low reputation brand can have on a whole market. Blue Nun introduced many English people to wine in the 70's but the quality was low and its reputation put many people off trying other German wines. This is a pity because there are many good German Rieslings and Gewurtztraminers to be enjoyed.
For more information ...
bordeaux
burgundy
blue nun
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
a balanced life
Ethics represents an ongoing attempt to define what is right and what is wrong, politics represents an ongoing attempts to define a method for governance. Both have personal and social aspects, one forms input to the other. These definitions are certainly subject to debate but can be used to frame a proposal which may help us answer the following question.
Can we gain some guidance for our ethical and political lives?
Many people 'subcontract' these issues to their priest, rabbi or imam. Other people answer these questions through adopting a stance on the 'left-right' spectrum, (see previous article - 'left and right'). Both approaches are widely used, abused and problematic.
Is there some mechanism we could adopt that might help us form a coherent ethical and political approach?
When we consider rights should we not also consider the corresponding duties. As a society each time we adopt some new personal or social right we could, by definition, adopt a corresponding duty. If we advocated the removal of a right then that would also mean removal of a corresponding duty. I think a few examples are warranted to illustrate the point.
We have a right to vote but currently we have no socially enforced duty to vote. This has led to a low level of engagement in the democratic process in western countries and yet each year we commemorate those who died for this right. Countries like Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg have mandatory voting, they recognize the integrative nature of rights and duties. The suggestion here is that if a person does not perform the duty they lose the right.
Let's take a look at another more controversial example. The right to marry might bring with it the duty to be faithful to your partner. So if you were unfaithful would you lose your right to be married? Yes! But isn't this just fascism? You're telling people what they can and can't do! This approach simply asks people to fulfill their commitments, if they do not then the integrity of the original agreement is breached by their actions.
Exploring this further we can see how this could change marriage and the role and regard it has in our society. People will continue to be unfaithful but the marriage is by definition dissolved, so the consequence for the action is obvious, immediate and possibly expensive. If both parties wanted to continue in their marital relationship then the commitment would need to be renewed (we already have people renewing their vows). By changing the nature of marriage and the consequences of breaching it we may begin to change behaviour; we may have people entering into with more caution and exiting from it more deliberately. A minority of people may want an 'open marriage' and that too could be accommodated by this principle. Duties in this case would not include faithfulness, indeed a duty may be an expectation of plurality from both consenting parties. You can see this is radical (in so far as it requires a new order) and yet it is conservative (in so far as it requires a fulfillment of duty).
So in a nutshell the proposal is this, the granting of rights becomes inextricably linked with the acceptance of duties. You cannot have one without the other. I see this as a seesaw (teeter-totter) which must be kept in balance for an evolved ethical or political life. A Canadian friend of mine suggested that the fulcrum of the seesaw around which the rights and duties pivot perhaps is the decision to make a contribution to society. If you chose to contribute to society then you enter into an acceptance of the rights and duties. This idea cuts across the old 'left-right' debate and will make many people feel uncomfortable, discomfort is good it shows growth.
Might this approach provide some guidance for our ethical and political lives? Try it on with some current political or ethical issues you have and see if it fits.
For more information ...
left and right
Can we gain some guidance for our ethical and political lives?
Many people 'subcontract' these issues to their priest, rabbi or imam. Other people answer these questions through adopting a stance on the 'left-right' spectrum, (see previous article - 'left and right'). Both approaches are widely used, abused and problematic.
Is there some mechanism we could adopt that might help us form a coherent ethical and political approach?
When we consider rights should we not also consider the corresponding duties. As a society each time we adopt some new personal or social right we could, by definition, adopt a corresponding duty. If we advocated the removal of a right then that would also mean removal of a corresponding duty. I think a few examples are warranted to illustrate the point.
We have a right to vote but currently we have no socially enforced duty to vote. This has led to a low level of engagement in the democratic process in western countries and yet each year we commemorate those who died for this right. Countries like Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg have mandatory voting, they recognize the integrative nature of rights and duties. The suggestion here is that if a person does not perform the duty they lose the right.
Let's take a look at another more controversial example. The right to marry might bring with it the duty to be faithful to your partner. So if you were unfaithful would you lose your right to be married? Yes! But isn't this just fascism? You're telling people what they can and can't do! This approach simply asks people to fulfill their commitments, if they do not then the integrity of the original agreement is breached by their actions.
Exploring this further we can see how this could change marriage and the role and regard it has in our society. People will continue to be unfaithful but the marriage is by definition dissolved, so the consequence for the action is obvious, immediate and possibly expensive. If both parties wanted to continue in their marital relationship then the commitment would need to be renewed (we already have people renewing their vows). By changing the nature of marriage and the consequences of breaching it we may begin to change behaviour; we may have people entering into with more caution and exiting from it more deliberately. A minority of people may want an 'open marriage' and that too could be accommodated by this principle. Duties in this case would not include faithfulness, indeed a duty may be an expectation of plurality from both consenting parties. You can see this is radical (in so far as it requires a new order) and yet it is conservative (in so far as it requires a fulfillment of duty).
So in a nutshell the proposal is this, the granting of rights becomes inextricably linked with the acceptance of duties. You cannot have one without the other. I see this as a seesaw (teeter-totter) which must be kept in balance for an evolved ethical or political life. A Canadian friend of mine suggested that the fulcrum of the seesaw around which the rights and duties pivot perhaps is the decision to make a contribution to society. If you chose to contribute to society then you enter into an acceptance of the rights and duties. This idea cuts across the old 'left-right' debate and will make many people feel uncomfortable, discomfort is good it shows growth.
Might this approach provide some guidance for our ethical and political lives? Try it on with some current political or ethical issues you have and see if it fits.
For more information ...
left and right
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)