Monday, February 27, 2006

Free Will

I had considered posting about Dylan Evans' egregious article in Today's Guardian, but then a more immediate concern took precedence. Yep, our old friend Mytle Grove, the Merlot this time. £2.99 a bottle in Morrisson's, reduced from £4.99, and a stunning mouthful of plummy purple juice with a stonking 14.5 percent ethanol. This is a truly rumbustious wine. Not subtle, but no rough edges and no nasty aftertaste. Rush out and get some if you can.
Now, on to something altogether less palatable...

"If I were to tell you that there are a bunch of people who want to turn you into a machine, you'd probably think I was crazy. But if you don't believe me, read the report published this month by Demos and the Wellcome Trust, ominously titled Better Humans?. The authors of this collection of essays wax lyrical about the imminent arrival of a range of technologies that they claim will change human nature itself, and for the better. Memory-enhancing drugs, genetic selection of children, neural implants and dramatic increases in life expectancy are not only genuine possibilities, they argue, but possibilities we should pursue and embrace."

Dylan my boy, you are crazy. I'll lay you a pound to a lick o' cane toad that not one of those articles say 'We want to turn you into a machine.' They may well advocate something along the lines of Ian.M.Banks Culture novels, but well read readers will know that Mr.Banks' enhanced beings are all too organic when compared to the minds of the sentient machine communities they inhabit.

"So how can we preserve freedom of choice? Bioconservatives and technophiles are united in their distaste for the future society imagined by Aldous Huxley in Brace New World, but they both ignore the one redeeming feature of that nightmare vision - the savage reservations. Here, in the remote wilderness, an ancient society has been allowed to live according to its own rules. Freed from the oppressive technologies that regulate life in the World State, the inhabitants develop individuality, independent thinking and initiative."

Where to begin? Do you suppose for one moment that Demos and the Wellcome trust are actually advocating Huxley's 'Brave New World'? And freed from oppressive technologies? Like those that provide us with antibiotics and anaesthetics? Oh my missing appendix! Dylan Evans, ano perfectus est.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Depravity

Depravity - well, what would that be? I have been a participant in a weekend that some might think thoroughly depraved. Middle aged boozaholics getting thoroughly spliffy in Stalybridge. Leaving our teenage babe in the clutches of a self-advertised Lothario. Planning a multi-partner weekend in a commune in Wales - no, not Nevern. Am I apologetic about any of this? Not a jot of it. We are all thoroughly decent, well, reasonably decent, people pulling the PC chain for all it's worth. Not one of us would do the nekkid walk from Land's End to John O'Groats. I am very nearly ashamed to admit that we are all so tedious. Our livers may not appreciate this, but we are actors in the predetermined drama that is Homo sapiens. Anyway, tug your dictionarial bellrope, let some logical interlocks tumble and turn, when all is said and done (which it never is) we get on with each other -or not.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Religious Relativism

I find the idea of a particular religion explaining the ideas of a different religion in an objective fashion quite bizarre. 'I'm a muslim and Gabriel spoke to Mohammed, and Mohammed said that Jesus was a man who was a prophet, but Southern Baptists think that Jesus was an incarnation of God, but he wasn't, but anyway, my cousin Mary was down the Rec with Willy Finn doing her dirty business behind the greenkeeper's hut, and anyway...' It is all so Vicky Pollard.
Listen to me, Beloved, the story of the Elephant's child is just that, a story. The Bible is a bit more than that, it is a legend. There was probably some very dark skinned chap called Jesus, or someone similar, who went around spouting prophecies and claimimg to be descended from King David of the Jews, and he probably set quite a good example - although that might have been embroidered a bit - and he certainly inspired a group of people who didn't fancy heavy work to set themselves up as authorities on the supernatural. (For anybody with a brain who might be reading this, stop now and consider the implications of 'supernatural')
One of my colleagues quoted his vicar today. A very profound thought - 'We are all climbing the same mountain, but we get to the summit by different routes'. I take it he/she/it (strike out as appropriate) meant that 'we' are all deists and that our creeds are all just textual interpretations. Well, I for one am not a deist; but that is not really interesting. What is interesting is that not all religious people are so postmodern. Lots of them think that the text is literally true. The Earth was created in six days. Homosexuals must be stoned to death. Women must be modest -but men need not bother. Faith is necessary to salvation, good works are incidental. I could go on, but, to be frank, I am bored. If you don't see the incongruity by now you are either mentally defective or a paid up member of the Richard Rorty fan club.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Boofy Aesthetics

As a relatively recent ailurophile I probably should be (narrowly avoided split infinitive there) reticent about commenting on the relative attraction of the various cat breeds. Some barbarians have even suggested that our boofykatz, pictured here, are not the epitome of feline pulchritude.
Well, I'm still more or less with A.J.Ayer on aesthetics and ethics, but these, with all due respect to their devotees, seem to me downright perverse. If there is an argument against genetic engineering, it is this.

Threat to Democracy

Usually posts or articles with this kind of title are reactionary drivel, but I think this shows that there is a bill going through parliament that really demands some public interrogation. The idea of ministers such as Charles Clarke, David (Blunket/Milliband), or - Zeus forfend - Tony Blair being able to change laws with no restraint from our vaunted bicameral system is truly chilling. A few voices in the Times and Guardian are tolling the warning bell. It is time to light some bonfires. It is time to mobilise against tyranny.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Delirious Joy

It would appear that the Small Grey Boofy has fallen in love with Molynmeux Hooray Henry (a bit Chavish?) and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming back to Almondbury. We have missed her and we are so pleased that Janet and John Wilshaw have been so thoughtful in helping us to understand what is going on. Across humanity there is a variety of hellpfullness. In this instance we have found really good people (and beautiful cats) and I have no compunction in recommending you go here if you are looking for a genuine, kind and considerate stud for your Burmese queen.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

A Great Loss

Sir Peter Strawson has died. It seems to me that ordinary language philosophy is now recovering from Ernest Gellner's effective but largely ad hominem attacks in 'Words and Things'. Sir Peter Strawson was in any case too good an all round philosopher to suffer overmuch from fashion. Read the link.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Holism and Reductionism

Susan Blackmore and Mary Midgely talked about memes on the Today programme this morning. Susan Blackmore was putting the memetic view of religion, a reductionist account of why that particular set of ideas is so successful. Mary Midgely, as is her wont, insisted that the very idea of memes is reductionist rubbish, a useless oversimplification of the way that people really live. Susan Blackmore laughed graciously. She was far too polite to say "Of course I recognise that ideas cannot exist without people, neither can human genetic information. The point is that understanding culture as a product of people, environment and memes is better than not understanding culture at all; just as understanding evolution as a product of organisms, environment and genes is better than not understanding evolution at all. The reductive paradigm is explanatory. Holism, where it is not a rigorous synthesis of reductive explanations, is a tautology."

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Little Gorgieboofy

Hopefully our dream begins tomorrow. The little Grey Boofy has resumed her song of lust and Janet Wilshaw has agreed to accomodate her prediliction. I really like this Catlet when she is calling, her affection index increases by several orders. Tomorrow we are off to Staffordshire to introduce our feisty little tribble to her arranged marriage - but enough of Dani, we have also sorted something out for Topaz.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

On the Unpredictability of Small Grey Boofys

On Saturday I was deprived of my planned badminton and table tennis games because Max thought that Topaz was calling. "At last!" thought we, and I rushed from my Saturday morn duties to take Topaz for her FLV test - a sort of "I don't have AIDS certificate" for cats. It cost me £53 .. and the little wotzit promptly became silent. If she doesn't resume her song of love in the next few days you may well see me out and about in a new hat - silky grey and clasped beneath the chin with interlocking claws.

Monday, February 06, 2006

On Islam, Wine and Poetry

Though often has he played the infidel,
And robbed me of my robe of honour, well
I often wonder what the vintner buys
That's half so precious as the stuff he sells.

A bastard offspring of Sir Richard Burton (no, not the actor) and the son of a tent maker. Coincidentally one Omar Khayyam - jolly good mathematician too.

In those days, when Jalal ed Din was struggling against the Mongol horde and Baghdad was the greatest centre of learning in the world, there was an enquiring outward looking strain of Islam. As they said to George Best as he was caught in flagrante with Miss World - where did it all go wrong?

Friday, February 03, 2006

Are Many Muslims This Unreasonable?

I have a problem with my neighbour. She has posted on a nearby lamppost a rather unflattering cartoon of my mother and a very male donkey. I suppose that many of you would not blame me if I found this offensive. What would you say, however, if I suggested that my neighbour should be killed for doing this? What if she were Portuguese, and such was my umbrage that I and my friends went and threw a hand grenade into the Portuguese embassy in London? What if we sent letters to our local press and made statements on radio saying that all Portuguese should be killed unless their prime minister make a full public apology for my neighbour's action? What if her action 'crossed a sacred boundary'?

Just a little consideration of this piece in today's Times shows what is wrong with religious fanaticism, Islamic, Christian, Jewish or otherwise.

"Even moderate Muslims would regard cartoons as sacrilege, say scholars saddened by the breach of sacred boundary"

Not a problem, they are perfectly entitled to consider anything they wish as sacrilege.

"A LEADING Muslim scholar said that repeated publication of the cartoons would inevitably lead to more terrorist attacks in the West."

And he is perfectly entitled to so opine - time will show if he is correct.

Mufti Abdul Barkatullah, senior imam at North Finchley Mosque in North London, said that editors who published the cartoons were “giving more fuel to al-Qaeda”.

He said that one of Islam’s sacred boundaries had been crossed and even moderate Muslims would regard the cartoons as sacrilege. He cited verses of the Koran that rail against slander and mockery of Islam and prayer.

Chapter 9 verse 12 urges all Muslims to “fight” any who “revile” Islam. Chapter 104 warns those who slander and defame that they will be hurled into “crushing disaster”.

Like al-Qaeda need fuel? I would have thought page 3 of the Sun sufficient. But what does the mufti think is meant by 'fight' here?

Mufti Barkatullah, a member of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “In other religions, the sacred boundaries have been deleted. Not so in Islam. This is a no-go area at any cost. It will spur on suicide bombers.

“However moderate one is, there can be no compromise on the person of the Prophet. The Prophet is held above everything in the Universe, over one’s own person, family, parents, the whole world. It is less offensive to condemn and vilify God.”

Ahhh, 'Not so in Islam'. So we have to 'respect' Islam more than other religions? Well, there's a thing. But what about the proportionality argument? Where is the condemnation of "an eye for a verbal slight, a tooth for daring to suggest that my sky daddy is tougher than your sky daddy"?

A spokesman for the Muslim Council said that it was not necessarily offensive to publish the cartoons per se. It all depended on context. A television programme broadcast them two days ago in Britain to explain why they were controversial. He said that Muslims would not find their use insulting in that context. It was the provocative publication with the intention of stirring controversy that was offensive, he said.

Muslims worldwide obey the Islamic injunction not to display pictures of any animal or human, anything with a “soul”, in their homes and mosques, never mind pictures of the prophet. This element of Sharia, or Islamic law, has become a hallmark of their faith, even though it does not appear in the Koran.

It is in the Hadith — the collection of sayings of the Prophet — that pictures of living creatures are forbidden. The Arab word used for pictures is surah, which can mean anything from a two-dimensional drawing to a three-dimensional figure or statue.

Hadith-Bukhari 5:338 has Abu Talha, a companion of the Prophet, quoting him as saying: “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.” The scripture records that he meant the images of creatures that have souls.

Imam Ibrahim Mogra, a leading Islamic scholar and senior member of the Muslim Council, said: “To depict the Prophet is unacceptable. To depict him as a terrorist is even more painful. It is extremely sad that they have not yet realised this.

More weasel words. Painful? Painful as in being stoned to death or having one's hand amputated? Or intellectually painful? What would be an appropriate response to intellectual pain, and what should be the consequences of 'unacceptable'? A sharp diplomatic exchange or a hand grenade?

“They should have realised from the response to what the Danish paper did that this was not the right thing to do . . . I do not see how the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression gives people the licence to cause this kind of hurt to more than a billion people around the world. "

You don't? You really don't? Has it not occurred to this imbecile that 'this kind of hurt' is no kind of hurt at all? That any opinion worth the time taken for due consideration is immune to hurt?

“Muhammad is a very, very special person. To us he is more than our parents are. We can imagine, if someone was to make a mockery of our parents in this manner, how hurt we would be. Imagine that hurt, multiplied a million times.”

Multiply my mum and the donkey (sorry mum) a million times and you are still far short of any justification for inflicting physical harm on anybody. "Sticks and stones" my Nan used to say - possibly the most profound of our Anglo-saxon aphorisms. There are two more paragraphs but they are non sequiturs. I wonder why we give space to these childish tantrums? Could it be that we need their oil?

On the Speed of Small Grey Boofys

For the second time in as many days my arrival home from work has seen a small grey streak of lightning whizz out through the door as I enter, despite my best blocking tactics. She is due to start calling very soon. I am a worried man. I understand now how mediaeval lords felt about their daughters. I must confess that I am less concerned about the mating habits of daughters than those of cats. The daughters, I think, can be relied upon to be at least moderately discerning.