peek and boo discuss thought & action

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

ostracism

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)

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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/

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

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