Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
"One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other." That was my point. The fact that it was Dali just brings it home, because Dali did some "very odd" stuff. We (all of us) seem to miss the point that one can do "very odd" stuff but still be able to benefit family/country/mankind (take your picks). This applies to all walks of life; art is not the exclusive sanctuary of people who do "odd stuff". The problem is one of justification, and in art especially, we go out of our way to justify, based on the fact that we "can't judge". I also do some painting and drawing, and if I want to judge others' works, I'll damn well do it. They (whoever they are) are also entitled to judge my works (if they feel like wasting their time). Mapplethorpe (I also do photography), in my opinion was an excellent photographer. His subject matter? Not to my taste; when you (I) take a picture of a child I get down to the child's level; I don't take a picture in a downward direction... I'm sure you get the point. So he seems to have been somewhat "bent" but if one likes his photography (irrespective of the "Mapplethorpe" label; and often the label is what sells it (would you believe!)) enough to put it on your walls, so be it. Not me. Neither Mapplethorpe nor various forms of corpses. Going on a bit (as usual), but I don't think that art HAS to make a statement. Art (including my own) is just another form of vanity. It's just pigment on paper or canvas, for goodness sake!!! It has as much spirituality in it (despite all the ooohs and aas) as does taking out the garbage... perhaps less... P. - Original Message From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 10:49:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science and faith - Original Message From: PHILIP WINESTONE > Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, "Benefit > of Clergy." It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation. I couldn't find this essay on the web, but in common law - the "benefit of clergy" was a provision by which priests charged with crimes could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts. Later it was an elitist way to get a lighter sentence. I did find a review of the essay which is at the end of this post. It was Orwell's criticism of Salvadore Dali - and reminiscent of the controvery around artists Andres Searrano / Robert Mapplethorpe by the world famous "art expert" Jesse Helms. Curiously, this is one of the only issues where Helms made sense at all, to me - but that was not at all about "art" itself - simply about the funding of art with public money. A more fanciful version of this dicotomy between secular expert-opinion and science expert-opinion will be found in Neal Stephenson's forthcoming novel "Anathem" due out soon. From the reviews - this is about a parallel, role reversed Earth whose inhabitants are locked into conflict between scientific and religious institutions. The planet is like Earth in some ways, but differs in one major respect: the religious and scientific institutions are essentially reversed from the way many would view them. Monks called 'the avout' live ascetic lives studying science, while the so called "saecular" world is populated with wealthy 'Deolators' (god-worshipers) who are obsessed with religion., who apparently succeed against scinece with ESP and other forms of spiritual activity which science canot understand. Below is a non-professional review of "Benefit Of Clergy" - which is the title of a collection of essays that Orwell wrote about Salvador Dali : In this essay Orwell addresses what he perceived as the distinction between moral and artistic judgments, pointing at two distinct schools of thought among critics at the time. The first school of thought saw the subject matter of Dali's work (which at the time was very shocking, particularly to the homophobic Orwell) and instantly dismissed the artistic quality of the work. The other group perceived Dali as a great artist, and therefore (according to Orwell) dismissed claims that his work was immoral - (or possibly had different moral standards to Orwell, a possibility he failed to consider). The crux of his argument comes in the following section: One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
- Original Message From: PHILIP WINESTONE > Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, "Benefit > of Clergy." It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation. I couldn't find this essay on the web, but in common law - the "benefit of clergy" was a provision by which priests charged with crimes could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts. Later it was an elitist way to get a lighter sentence. I did find a review of the essay which is at the end of this post. It was Orwell's criticism of Salvadore Dali - and reminiscent of the controvery around artists Andres Searrano / Robert Mapplethorpe by the world famous "art expert" Jesse Helms. Curiously, this is one of the only issues where Helms made sense at all, to me - but that was not at all about "art" itself - simply about the funding of art with public money. A more fanciful version of this dicotomy between secular expert-opinion and science expert-opinion will be found in Neal Stephenson's forthcoming novel "Anathem" due out soon. From the reviews - this is about a parallel, role reversed Earth whose inhabitants are locked into conflict between scientific and religious institutions. The planet is like Earth in some ways, but differs in one major respect: the religious and scientific institutions are essentially reversed from the way many would view them. Monks called 'the avout' live ascetic lives studying science, while the so called "saecular" world is populated with wealthy 'Deolators' (god-worshipers) who are obsessed with religion., who apparently succeed against scinece with ESP and other forms of spiritual activity which science canot understand. Below is a non-professional review of "Benefit Of Clergy" - which is the title of a collection of essays that Orwell wrote about Salvador Dali : In this essay Orwell addresses what he perceived as the distinction between moral and artistic judgments, pointing at two distinct schools of thought among critics at the time. The first school of thought saw the subject matter of Dali's work (which at the time was very shocking, particularly to the homophobic Orwell) and instantly dismissed the artistic quality of the work. The other group perceived Dali as a great artist, and therefore (according to Orwell) dismissed claims that his work was immoral - (or possibly had different moral standards to Orwell, a possibility he failed to consider). The crux of his argument comes in the following section: One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, "This is a good book or a good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman". Unless one can say that, at least in imagination, one is shrinking the implications of the fact that an artist is also a citizen and a human being. Of course it should not be imagined that Orwell was arguing in favour of book burning - the next paragraph starts "Not, of course, that Dali's autobiography, or his pictures, ought to be suppressed. Short of the dirty post cards that used to be sold in Mediterranean seaport towns it is doubtful policy to suppress anything, and Dali's fantasies probably cast useful light on the decay of capitalist civilisation". Whether one agrees or disagrees with Orwell (and I agree on the general principle but not on the specific case of Dali, in so far as I know Dali's work at least) the essay makes fascinating reading, and is particularly relevant today in the light of 'BritArt', the Sensation and Ant Noises exhibitions, and most recently the exhibition of plastinated human corpses as artworks in London. Like all Orwell's nonfiction, it remains relevant today because the issues remain relevant, and because Orwell was a master both of the English language and of rhetoric, who knew better than any other essayist of his generation how to construct an argument.
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, "Benefit of Clergy." It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation. I recommend that all Vorticians read it and think about what Orwell was trying to say. P. - Original Message From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:50:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science and faith Stephen Lawrence wrote: > In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race. Well, there is also rampant marital infidelity, not once but twice - support of gay rights, women's right to choice, etc and being an equal opportunity mayor- he was apparently even outed in NYC as "Fruiti Giuliani" -- go figure. "Big Bill" and JFK do not have any lock on being the most-oversexed politician ever. Maybe that comes with the territory, so to speak. Apparently, if J Edgar Hoover is any indication (as well as the members of the Bohemia Club) cross-dressing is not fatal to your ability to serve in the highest offices of the land, so long as you are somewhat discrete :-) If you want to read a tamed-down version of why Giuliani is unfit for public office, maybe even for US citizenship, read the Vanity Fair article (which doesn't even get into the 9/11 scandal which he will be facing - if and only if - McCain loses). http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/giuliani200801 It was clear early on this year - that his candidacy was doomed by the right, not the Dem-wits - but less clear that the only thing which has kept him from a grand jury investigation is that he has plenty of dirt to sling on the higher ups in food-chain in the 9/11 aftermath ... like ... who it was that told him that the first tower (not the second nor WTC7) was about to come down
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Jones and others on this thread have asked the big questions. I certainly do not find fault in the never-ending quest to unravel a clearer picture of who or what was behind the horrific 9/11 events. I freely admit that I'm no expert in what it takes to bring down tall buildings in a covert way. Others, like Jed, OTOH, appear to be more confident in suggesting that the bringing down of huge massive structures like those of the WTC is more straight-forward than some on this list feel comfortable accepting. If my recent 9/11 essay has evoked within certain Vort members the impression that at times I lack a sufficient amount of propensity to use logic, that my recent 9/11 essay was "anti-scientific" they are absolutely right in the sense that I was expression my personal feelings – a gut reaction. Was that scientific of me? Was it a logical response? No, certainly not. My only defense is to repeat a personal gut feeling, a NON-SCIENTIFIC perception. In matters involving the horrific 9/11 case, admittedly, it's a good idea to get a reasonable handle on who was likely responsible. On that point I suspect few here disagree with the premise that Alkeda possessed sufficient motivation to do us great harm. The unanswered question however seems to revolve around the conjecture on whether Alkeda had "help", presumably from a super-secret western-like organization possessing nefarious motivations, where it is alleged that the real truth of the matter is that they allowed Alkeda to do their nefarious bidding for them. Ah! Now, the plot thickens! If so, where do we go from here. Well, that's the beauty of it all: Anywhere we want to take it, and just about to anyone's doorstep we have a personal beef with, it would seem! It seems to me that for many who have expressed dissatisfaction with the official explanations they are now focusing their interest on individuals who claim they are collecting the necessary scientific evidence to prove the conjecture that there had to have been explosives deliberately planted in the WTC. The point being, once one has convinced themselves that explosives had been deliberately planted, presumably so that they can later be detonated... well, one can then spend the rest of their life speculating endlessly on WHO DID IT! Let me repeat that last point from a slightly different angle: Once one buys into the premise that explosives were deliberately and nefariously planted, speculation on who or what organization was responsible will have a tendency to consume one's sense of outrage. One us likely to feel compelled to spend the rest of their life trying to get to the bottom of the injustice of it all. Jones, I feel compelled to ask the following questions, even though they actually are for anyone who feels more and more convinced that explosives had to have been deliberately planted in the WTC: Do you really think you'll get a satisfactory answer? Do you really think these reports that attempt to prove (scientifically) that explosives had to have been involved will really settle the matter? Will the presumed "scientific proof" clarify everything for you? A lot of innocent people died. It was horrible, we all understand this instinctively. We all continue to suffer from the aftermath of 9/11 in various, and often subconscious ways. For me, I came to the personal conclusion that there are better ways for me to try to transform the world I stand on into hopefully a better place, where something as horrific as another 9/11 event will not likely happen again. I'd rather do that instead of investing what little intellectual and emotional resources I still have left remaining under my command in being consumed in never-ending tantalizing premises of trying to prove the conjecture that explosives had to have been planted in the WTC. No doubt, some will believe I'm behaving naively, if not anti-scientifically. I can live with that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/zazzle.
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Stephen Lawrence wrote: > In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race. Well, there is also rampant marital infidelity, not once but twice - support of gay rights, women's right to choice, etc and being an equal opportunity mayor- he was apparently even outed in NYC as "Fruiti Giuliani" -- go figure. "Big Bill" and JFK do not have any lock on being the most-oversexed politician ever. Maybe that comes with the territory, so to speak. Apparently, if J Edgar Hoover is any indication (as well as the members of the Bohemia Club) cross-dressing is not fatal to your ability to serve in the highest offices of the land, so long as you are somewhat discrete :-) If you want to read a tamed-down version of why Giuliani is unfit for public office, maybe even for US citizenship, read the Vanity Fair article (which doesn't even get into the 9/11 scandal which he will be facing - if and only if - McCain loses). http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/giuliani200801 It was clear early on this year - that his candidacy was doomed by the right, not the Dem-wits - but less clear that the only thing which has kept him from a grand jury investigation is that he has plenty of dirt to sling on the higher ups in food-chain in the 9/11 aftermath ... like ... who it was that told him that the first tower (not the second nor WTC7) was about to come down
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Jones Beene wrote: > Is a desire to find a "higher authority" in our government - even when > government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling > the same psychological "need" as unquestioning faith in any other > "higher authority" ? > > Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, > which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from > otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only > explanation ... > > ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from > science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to > investigating the truth > > http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html > > http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html FWIW the firefighters were not evacuated, and the police were, because the radios carried by the NYFD didn't work well enough and most of them never got the message. The evacuation message was sent out by radio but the firemen didn't evacuate, because they didn't hear the message. For years they'd been fighting to get better radios. The ones they had were NG from the get-go (I don't recall the details -- I think it was the usual sordid story of a company that low-balls a bid and then delivers inadequate merchandise to squeeze out a profit anyway but it's been a year or two since I read anything about it). Giuliani sat on his thumb while the firemen complained about the bad radios, and then 9/11 happened, and an awful lot of them died as a result. The survivors did not keep silent about this, and it was a big deal while it looked like Giuliani might be the republican candidate. In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race.
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Howdy Jones, "The love of order.. which preserves it.. we call justice." There was once a man named Micah ( Micah 2:5) that warned about what happens when there is no justice in the heart.. there will be no justice in the courts. Politicians tread on tricky soil when they allow truth and justice to be thrown to the ground. The NIST report on the World Trade Center Bldg 7 does NOT measure up to scrutiny. There may not be anything a citizen can do about it.. BUT.. it decays the moral fiber of a people and it is more difficult to regain than to create. Richard Is a desire to find a "higher authority" in our government - even when government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling the same psychological "need" as unquestioning faith in any other "higher authority" ? Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only explanation ... ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to investigating the truth http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html
[Vo]:Science and faith
Is a desire to find a "higher authority" in our government - even when government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling the same psychological "need" as unquestioning faith in any other "higher authority" ? Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only explanation ... ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to investigating the truth http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html
