This quotation has recently become popular in the blogosphere, or that portion of it intrerested in religious/areligious argumentation.
It has been posted recently by the blogger poor taste for example, and by the estimable Epicurean Dealmaker, and by Aaron Kinney of Kill the Afterlife!.
Why should I buck a trend? Especially a wholesome one?
The passage going the rounds comes from A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce, in which he grapples with the notion of forever.
"For ever! For all eternity! Not for a year or for an age but for ever. Try to imagine the awful meaning of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore. How fine are its tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains go to make up the small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad, extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness; and imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried away even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of ages before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense stretch of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have ended. At the end of all those billions and trillions of years eternity would have scarcely begun. And if that mountain rose again after it had been all carried away, and if the bird came again and carried it all away again grain by grain, and if it so rose and sank as many times as there are stars in the sky, atoms in the air, drops of water in the sea, leaves on the trees, feathers upon birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon animals, at the end of all those innumerable risings and sinkings of that immeasurably vast mountain not one single instant of eternity could be said to have ended; even then, at the end of such a period, after that eon of time the mere thought of which makes our very brain reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have begun."
12 July 2009
11 July 2009
Is Charles Hood Still Alive?
The last time I wrote in this blog about Charles Hood, a convicted murderer on death row in Texas, he has just received a reprieve. This was a little more than a year ago, in June 2008, and controversy swirled over whether the district attorney who had prosecuted his case had been having an affair with the judge who presided over that trial.
I confessed that the controversy was rather playing with my head.
Hood survived his June 2008 execution date, which ended up being re-set to September amid a flurry of legal manuveuring.
He seems to have survived the September execution date, as well, because an appellate court decided the jury instructions at his trial had been flawed. At about the same time, the judge who had delivered those instructions and the prosecutor admitted that, yes, they had been lovers.
That was the last I've heard of the case. I have to imagine that he is still alive, because I think my google search would have turned up news of his execution if it had happened. Is he still on death row? Awaiting what? a new trial? hearings on a new trial?
Googling, by the way, is somewhat complicated by the face that there is a literary character named Charles Hood (a James Bond clone is a series of spy novels by Stephen Coulter), and there was a lyricist of some repute named Basil Charles Hood in the early years of the 20th century writing for the London stage. Indeed, Arthur Sullivan composed music for Hood's words after Sullivan decided he was through with Gilbert.
If you can filter past those other Charles Hoods, you might find out something about the Texas convict and his appeals.
I confessed that the controversy was rather playing with my head.
Hood survived his June 2008 execution date, which ended up being re-set to September amid a flurry of legal manuveuring.
He seems to have survived the September execution date, as well, because an appellate court decided the jury instructions at his trial had been flawed. At about the same time, the judge who had delivered those instructions and the prosecutor admitted that, yes, they had been lovers.
That was the last I've heard of the case. I have to imagine that he is still alive, because I think my google search would have turned up news of his execution if it had happened. Is he still on death row? Awaiting what? a new trial? hearings on a new trial?
Googling, by the way, is somewhat complicated by the face that there is a literary character named Charles Hood (a James Bond clone is a series of spy novels by Stephen Coulter), and there was a lyricist of some repute named Basil Charles Hood in the early years of the 20th century writing for the London stage. Indeed, Arthur Sullivan composed music for Hood's words after Sullivan decided he was through with Gilbert.
If you can filter past those other Charles Hoods, you might find out something about the Texas convict and his appeals.
10 July 2009
Chuck Berry
Today is the anniversary of a memorable day in the history both of pop culture and of law enforcement.
It was thirty years ago, on July 10, 1979, that legendary guitarist Chuck Berry was sentenced to four months in prison for tax evasion.
Berry was travelling the oldies circuit at the time, and it was customary for promoters on that circuit to pay the performers in cash, a custom that for obvious reasons irked the IRS. He may have been simply a collateral victim of their crackdown on that practice.
Not long before that, though, in the middle of the 1970s, astronomer Carl Sagan had composed an anthology of the planet's music to be set into space with the Voyager I and II probes. If some outer space DJ ever figures out how to play it, this collection of our planet's greatest hits will provide the aliens with bits of the western orchestral canon -- Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,and Stravinsky are all there. So are Peruvian pipes and Navajo chants, and a Pygmy girls' initiation song from Zaire.
Jazz is represented by Louis Armstrong and his "Melancholy Blues."
Rock and Roll is represented by ... Chuck Berry, "Johnny B. Goode."
This situation gave rise to a great Saturday Night Live skit. A panel of psychics were announcing the following week's headlines, concluding with the coming Time magazine cover. That cover was going to herald the first human contact with extraterrestrials. And those first words to us were going to be: "Send More Chuck Berry."
We haven't actually received that message.
Yet.
It was thirty years ago, on July 10, 1979, that legendary guitarist Chuck Berry was sentenced to four months in prison for tax evasion.
Berry was travelling the oldies circuit at the time, and it was customary for promoters on that circuit to pay the performers in cash, a custom that for obvious reasons irked the IRS. He may have been simply a collateral victim of their crackdown on that practice.
Not long before that, though, in the middle of the 1970s, astronomer Carl Sagan had composed an anthology of the planet's music to be set into space with the Voyager I and II probes. If some outer space DJ ever figures out how to play it, this collection of our planet's greatest hits will provide the aliens with bits of the western orchestral canon -- Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,and Stravinsky are all there. So are Peruvian pipes and Navajo chants, and a Pygmy girls' initiation song from Zaire.
Jazz is represented by Louis Armstrong and his "Melancholy Blues."
Rock and Roll is represented by ... Chuck Berry, "Johnny B. Goode."
This situation gave rise to a great Saturday Night Live skit. A panel of psychics were announcing the following week's headlines, concluding with the coming Time magazine cover. That cover was going to herald the first human contact with extraterrestrials. And those first words to us were going to be: "Send More Chuck Berry."
We haven't actually received that message.
Yet.
09 July 2009
Wikipedia news
I came across a fascinating "conflict of interest" tidbit in some recent browsing in wikipedia.
I wanted a quick background briefing on Lord Myners, who is the City Minister in Her Majesty's Treasury. That makes him a central figure on financial-system regulatory issues.
Anyway, I found a brief bio article on Lord Myners, only to also find a box at the top informing me, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject." The box, whichs seems to be two months old, directs a reader to the article's Talk page for more.
Curious, I followed that direction. On the Talk Page one discovers only a brief notice to the effect that Lord Myners himself may have edited the article. Editing an article about one's self is a wiki no-no.
The content guideline titled "Autobiography" puts it this way: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.
The guideline would seem to express the ancient principle that "no one can be a judge in his own case," -- or in this case a "neutral editor" about himself.
I personally find it hard to believe that any net-savvy individual who becomes aware of an article about himself on wikipedia would not be tempted to edit it. Nor do I think that should necessarily be frowned upon, since one is usually better informed about one's own life than the average wiki editor!, although thoroughly re-writing one's biography, or creating an autobiography in the social media context, should be frowned upon.
The proper lines are still quite hazy.
I wanted a quick background briefing on Lord Myners, who is the City Minister in Her Majesty's Treasury. That makes him a central figure on financial-system regulatory issues.
Anyway, I found a brief bio article on Lord Myners, only to also find a box at the top informing me, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject." The box, whichs seems to be two months old, directs a reader to the article's Talk page for more.
Curious, I followed that direction. On the Talk Page one discovers only a brief notice to the effect that Lord Myners himself may have edited the article. Editing an article about one's self is a wiki no-no.
The content guideline titled "Autobiography" puts it this way: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.
The guideline would seem to express the ancient principle that "no one can be a judge in his own case," -- or in this case a "neutral editor" about himself.
I personally find it hard to believe that any net-savvy individual who becomes aware of an article about himself on wikipedia would not be tempted to edit it. Nor do I think that should necessarily be frowned upon, since one is usually better informed about one's own life than the average wiki editor!, although thoroughly re-writing one's biography, or creating an autobiography in the social media context, should be frowned upon.
The proper lines are still quite hazy.
05 July 2009
First Sunday after Independence Day
This year, as it happens, the day after America's Independence Day is also the first Sunday after Independence day, and a good time, if I judge rightly, to contemplate the grave danger in confusing religious piety with political/patriotic feelings. I'm not making a constitutional point -- let's not argue about what the phrase "establishment of religion" meant to Madison, Mason, and that old powdered-wig-wearing crowd. (If I die a martyr to the US, will I be greeted in paradise by a crowd of Virginians?)
My point, rather, is theological. I believe whole-heartedly that the universe isn't just a bunch of material/mechanical coming and going. Life is more than matter and mind is more than life and the whole of the cosmos is more than its parts -- that More is what we revere as God. Precisely because I believe this, I find it baffling and disheartening when people try to hijack spirituality for nationalism.
On this first Sunday after Independence Day, let us recall the first book of Samuel, chapter 8, with its stern warning against any earthly claims to sovereignty.
--------------
So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
My point, rather, is theological. I believe whole-heartedly that the universe isn't just a bunch of material/mechanical coming and going. Life is more than matter and mind is more than life and the whole of the cosmos is more than its parts -- that More is what we revere as God. Precisely because I believe this, I find it baffling and disheartening when people try to hijack spirituality for nationalism.
On this first Sunday after Independence Day, let us recall the first book of Samuel, chapter 8, with its stern warning against any earthly claims to sovereignty.
--------------
So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
04 July 2009
The 2008-2009 SCOTUS Term
What were the big decisions of the Supreme Court term of 2008-09 just ended?
I would list them as follows, in no particular order:
RICCI v. DeSTEFANO (the New Haven firefighters' affirmative-action case);
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE (upholding state authority vis-a-vis banks against an argument that federal law preempts the field);
ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (limiting the supervisory liability of high government offiials for acts of racial and religious discrimination);
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASS.(securing a defendant's right to cross-examination, or in constitutional terms "confrontation," against the lab techs behind an incriminating forensics report);
FCC v. FOX (reversing a Second Circuit decision in which that circuit had sought to rein in the FCC, re "fleeting expletives.")
From the point of view of this blog, the point of view of anarcho-capitalism, this is a mixed bag of opinions. RICCI and MELENDEZ-DIAZ were both wins for individuals litigating against arbitrary state authority, with the state (or its creature, a municipality) serving in the one case as an employer and in the other as a prosecutor. So those are two "wins."
ASHCROFT and FCC are equally clear "losses." In both cases, an individual or individuals "fought the law and the law won."
CUOMO involves the old federalist dispute between two levels of authoruty. This is the steamship case of John Marshall's day in its latest guise. I don't know how to score it, so I'll call that one a tie.
Accordingly, we can write the whole term down as a deadlock in the ongoing struggle between freedom and sovereignty.
I would list them as follows, in no particular order:
RICCI v. DeSTEFANO (the New Haven firefighters' affirmative-action case);
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE (upholding state authority vis-a-vis banks against an argument that federal law preempts the field);
ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (limiting the supervisory liability of high government offiials for acts of racial and religious discrimination);
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASS.(securing a defendant's right to cross-examination, or in constitutional terms "confrontation," against the lab techs behind an incriminating forensics report);
FCC v. FOX (reversing a Second Circuit decision in which that circuit had sought to rein in the FCC, re "fleeting expletives.")
From the point of view of this blog, the point of view of anarcho-capitalism, this is a mixed bag of opinions. RICCI and MELENDEZ-DIAZ were both wins for individuals litigating against arbitrary state authority, with the state (or its creature, a municipality) serving in the one case as an employer and in the other as a prosecutor. So those are two "wins."
ASHCROFT and FCC are equally clear "losses." In both cases, an individual or individuals "fought the law and the law won."
CUOMO involves the old federalist dispute between two levels of authoruty. This is the steamship case of John Marshall's day in its latest guise. I don't know how to score it, so I'll call that one a tie.
Accordingly, we can write the whole term down as a deadlock in the ongoing struggle between freedom and sovereignty.
03 July 2009
Henry Adams
Today's reading is from Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres, chapter six:
"You must first try to rid your mind of the traditional idea that the Gothic is an intentional expression of religious gloom. The necessity for light was the motive of the Gothic architects. They needed light and always more light, until they sacrificed safety and common sense in trying to get it. They converted their walls into windows, raised their vaults, dimninished their piers, until their churches could no longer stand. You will see the limits at Beauvais; at Chartres we have not got so far, but even here, in places where the Virgin wanted it -- as above the high altar -- the architect has taken all the light there was to take."
My personal experience is only with the great English cathedrals -- I have been privileged to gape at Winchester, Salisbury, and Canterbury. I wonder what kind of illumination (punning slightly there) I might have missed in the books Adams could have written about them.
Light is the material and the obsession not only of architects and physicists but of poets and metaphysicians too, and though my mind is racing in all of those directions now, I think it best to close down here and leave the racing to you.
"You must first try to rid your mind of the traditional idea that the Gothic is an intentional expression of religious gloom. The necessity for light was the motive of the Gothic architects. They needed light and always more light, until they sacrificed safety and common sense in trying to get it. They converted their walls into windows, raised their vaults, dimninished their piers, until their churches could no longer stand. You will see the limits at Beauvais; at Chartres we have not got so far, but even here, in places where the Virgin wanted it -- as above the high altar -- the architect has taken all the light there was to take."
My personal experience is only with the great English cathedrals -- I have been privileged to gape at Winchester, Salisbury, and Canterbury. I wonder what kind of illumination (punning slightly there) I might have missed in the books Adams could have written about them.
Light is the material and the obsession not only of architects and physicists but of poets and metaphysicians too, and though my mind is racing in all of those directions now, I think it best to close down here and leave the racing to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
