My colleague and receptionist, with a background in Art History, recommend the film 'Cloud Atlas'. I bought it for Margaret this Christmas
The story is composed of 6 linked plots, using characters from different races and genders, in multiple roles and settings spanning 500 years, from mid 1850 to 2300.
Plot 1.- (1850's) A lawyer is sent to witness a contract to purchase slaves for a plantation. While at the plantation he observes the brutal beating of a slave. His eyes meet those of the slave and he faints. On the journey home he discovers the slave has stowed away in his room. He befriends him. The slave has to proves his worth by setting the ship's sail. It's touch and go, but he wins them over the captain. He latter saves the lawyer from being poisoned by a wicked quack. The lawyer and his wife become abolitionists.
Plot 2. - (1931) A young gay musician links up with a famous but creatively blocked composer, and helps him to write great music. He is compromised by the composer who realises he has a hold over the young genius. This leads to the young musician accidentally shooting the composer, but not fatally, and running off to live in oblivion. He then chooses to kill himself.
Plot 3. - A publisher gets in with the wrong crowd and is threatened for money. He goes to his brother, who being fed up with him, has him consigned to an old peoples home, which is actually a prison. With others, they eventually escape and enlist the help of enraged Scotland rugby fans to act as their army of protection.
Plot 4. - (1970's) An American journalist follows in the footsteps of her father to uncover an attempted nuclear reactor disaster, deliberately aiming to end the threat posed by the nuclear industry over that of oil. She escapes with the help of a friend of her fathers, who switches sides. He fought in Vietnam with the reporters father.
Plot 5. - (2060?) A Korean 'clone' developed to serve food in a restaurant, realises that
she can 'resist' by observing the example of a colleague. She is befriended by a soldier who is also a member of the resistance. They escape through hair-raising endeavours. She goes on to become an icon, and a goddess of the future.
Plot 6. - (2300?) A voyage arrives at an inhabited tropical island. The local people are terrorised by marauding cannibals. The voyagers want help to climb a high mountain that the locals fear. A risk filled endeavour discovers a mountain top. A inter galactic transporter is requested. Our local hero says he must stay with his family, despite its troubles. However devastation has been visited on the village while they were away, and with one surviving daughter, all depart this world for a better future in some other galaxy.
This film begins with the quack doctor digging up human teeth on a beach in the south pacific. This is an echo to the cannibals in the final film, implying circularity.
Themes
Systematic and established Abuse from a dominant power. In plot 1, slavery is the theme, the ultimate degradation of humanity against itself. The capitalistic commodification and exploitation of people for profit. This is institutional greed. The justification goes 'if we don't do it, others will, and we will loose out (and then might become the victim!)' In order to make this bearable, people are turned into animals. In plot 5 the waitress realises that the 'hope of salvation' the women are given for freedom is actually fake. The one chosen woman, offered nirvana, is actually executed, in the style of mass manufactured chicken carcasses and her body is then used to make the very food served up by the women in their cafe.
Greed
In plot 1. the quack doctor says it all. 'I like money, that's why I do it.' In plot 4, the massive oil interests from around the world attempt to destroy any threat that the nuclear industry may offer by engineering and nuclear catastrophe.
Power
In plot 2, the composer is aware of his hold over the young musician. He enjoys the power he holds over him, and knows that he holds all the cards. But he does not. He is shot by his own gun, kept in his bedside cabinet, symbolising fear. The musician is now even pray to the consiege at his Edinburgh tenement block.
Resistance and hope.
Resistance is futile. The hope that is offered is a lie. What is true love, and how does it liberate? These stories show how week and insignificant resistance to oppression is. First it is seen for what it is, and understood. Second it is resistance, third it is strongly and violently opposed. The resistor runs a fragile root, across a ship's sail, over an escape route between high rise blocks, out of a sinking car, pushed over a bridge, running away for incarceration in an old people's home in a stolen expensive car, climbing a precipitous mountain.
My thoughts
Though apparently 'godless', this film challenges the Faustian deal with the devil, and celebrates Resistance, for Resistance sake. A firework of light and power in an oppressive darkness. In a parallel with Christ, the waitress become an figure of worship for future generations. As a Christian, this is a simplistic veneration, but is touching. It does alert me to the questions raised in the reformation about naivety of 'veneration'. The waitress' words are not new but are gentle and refreshing. More Aung San Suu Kyi than Christ.
The religion depicted in the film is eastern in origin. There is an idea that the people are reincarnated from each other. There is an idea that death is a door into a different world, but this world is the worlds of this film.
I appreciate this eagle eye take on humanity. It speaks of hope staying alive, through these tenuous living moments. The film indicates this by revealing the mark of a shooting star on their body. This is like the sign of the cross. To me this is the mark of those who choose to live differently, to run against for mainstream towards the light. For me, this light is the 'light of life'.
I having been trying to think from the perspective of the whole of time, inspired by 'Sapiens' (Yuval Harari). This film projects into the future, with the similarly brief that all organised religion is no more.
It is a worthy film, raising some interesting philosophical issues, in the context of hope. I liked the use of 'spark' between people- of unforeseen connections linking people, and creating changes, some being significant.
Saturday 30 December 2017
Saturday 23 December 2017
The Medes and the Persians
Caroline Taggart's book
A Classical Education: The Stuff You Wish You'd Been Taught At School
Says a number of things that made me think twice. She says the phrase 'a parting shot' actually comes from the skill demonstrated by Parthian warriors who can swivel in the saddle and shoot an arrow backwards. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot
What about the origin of the Persian Empire? Anything to go with the Greek Pericles? I don't think so. Our friends Ali and Neda called their daughter Diana, which they say is a Persian name.
Another interesting bit of trivia the book points out is that the statue of Eros, on the top of the Shaftesbury memorial in the centre of Piccadilly Circus, is in fact Anteros, his brother, and god of avenging unrequited love. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_Memorial_Fountain
Another interesting bit of trivia the book points out is that the statue of Eros, on the top of the Shaftesbury memorial in the centre of Piccadilly Circus, is in fact Anteros, his brother, and god of avenging unrequited love. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_Memorial_Fountain
 |
| Anteros- not Eros. |
Monday 18 December 2017
Where was I when land was being handed out?
Is Britain overcrowded?
The gypsy lent over and retorted "You didn't inform me when land was being handed out. I wouldn't have agreed anyway. I don't acknowledge your laws which say no one can enter this land." And a lot of these rules go back to the day the land was forcibly taken by Norman invaders. We, the subject people, learned over time to kowtow to the power of the sword. Soon the idea that you own that land, and I respect your right to privacy, is reinforced by me also acquiring my little bit of land, and wanting the same rules to apply, even if on a much smaller scale.
We then agree together who can collectively share this space, knowing that our prosperity is affected by the value of what we hold in common. My prosperity is dependent on my ability to concentrate wealth, not share it.
I understand that until the turn of the 19th century, anyone could come and settle in Britain. There were no restrictions on immigration. Now it is virtually illegal to marry someone who is not British, and expect them to be allowed to live here. An exception is always made for the 'very wealthy'. They have the key that unlocks all doors.
My favourite economics quote: 'No one can earn a million dollars honestly.' - William Jennings Bryon -American Lawyer 1860-1925
For money to be accumulated, a degree of exploitation is necessary. The rubix cube craze must have made a millionaire somewhere. We all had to believe we needed a piece of the action. But how much does it cost to make a rubix cube? Others have to be poor in order for me to be rich. If we were all paid £30 an hour- we might think we had found the end to all poverty. But no, pretty soon inflation would cancel any sense of at I was at last rich. Being rich is directly related to others being poor, just as heat is extracted from a ground pump and concentrated in modern heating systems.
So is Britain over crowded? People come to Britain because it has a massive accumulation of wealth. That is the key. The answer is to share resources in a way that affects the direction of flow. Stable societies actually shrink in population, enabling safe and stable immigration. Shared resources also act as a balance, stemming the flow. Enforcing border controls brings grief to each family in the Uk as we are all affected by the 'prisons we chose to live behind'.
I once heard it said that Yehudi Menuhin said "National borders provide the prisons we choose to live behind." I have not been able to corroborate that quote since I first heard it quoted on the radio.
The gypsy lent over and retorted "You didn't inform me when land was being handed out. I wouldn't have agreed anyway. I don't acknowledge your laws which say no one can enter this land." And a lot of these rules go back to the day the land was forcibly taken by Norman invaders. We, the subject people, learned over time to kowtow to the power of the sword. Soon the idea that you own that land, and I respect your right to privacy, is reinforced by me also acquiring my little bit of land, and wanting the same rules to apply, even if on a much smaller scale.
We then agree together who can collectively share this space, knowing that our prosperity is affected by the value of what we hold in common. My prosperity is dependent on my ability to concentrate wealth, not share it.
I understand that until the turn of the 19th century, anyone could come and settle in Britain. There were no restrictions on immigration. Now it is virtually illegal to marry someone who is not British, and expect them to be allowed to live here. An exception is always made for the 'very wealthy'. They have the key that unlocks all doors.
My favourite economics quote: 'No one can earn a million dollars honestly.' - William Jennings Bryon -American Lawyer 1860-1925
For money to be accumulated, a degree of exploitation is necessary. The rubix cube craze must have made a millionaire somewhere. We all had to believe we needed a piece of the action. But how much does it cost to make a rubix cube? Others have to be poor in order for me to be rich. If we were all paid £30 an hour- we might think we had found the end to all poverty. But no, pretty soon inflation would cancel any sense of at I was at last rich. Being rich is directly related to others being poor, just as heat is extracted from a ground pump and concentrated in modern heating systems.
So is Britain over crowded? People come to Britain because it has a massive accumulation of wealth. That is the key. The answer is to share resources in a way that affects the direction of flow. Stable societies actually shrink in population, enabling safe and stable immigration. Shared resources also act as a balance, stemming the flow. Enforcing border controls brings grief to each family in the Uk as we are all affected by the 'prisons we chose to live behind'.
I once heard it said that Yehudi Menuhin said "National borders provide the prisons we choose to live behind." I have not been able to corroborate that quote since I first heard it quoted on the radio.
Wednesday 13 December 2017
Freekanomics
I knew this book would be for me. Two things- playing with statistics, and coming at things from opposite directions. It's brilliant.
First is the dilemma that what might have caused the sudden and decline in violent crime and drug addiction in New York city might be the knock-on effects of changes in the abortion laws across the USA twenty years earlier. the moral status of abortion moves from the personal to the macro.
The idea is that babies born into love starved and unsafe households were being exterminated before birth, avoiding the propensity for children to grow into criminals. Ironically the right wing position which focuses on individual morality is caught in a paradox. 'To be, or not to be.' A left wing position would focus on changing a society that allows children to grow up to be violent criminals in the first place. "Tough on crime and the causes of crime" as was Blair's catchphrase.
What about the story of Stetson Kennedy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy
This is an amazing 'All American' story of how an organisation with over 3 million signed up members was brought low by a simple, but brave man, Stetson Kennedy. The organisation was the Ku Klux Klan, that has been legitimised by the State of Georgia. Kennedy joined and infiltrated the organisation. He must have been a good actor, because he succeeded in convincing his chapter that he was genuine. He noted that most of the members were sad lonely pathetic men. The level of violence had greatly decreased over the years, because the aims of the KKK could be achieved though the threat of violence, rather than the risk inherent 'real thing'. This is a similar process used by the subjugation of most victimised groups, and still a staple with all bullies.
Kennedy's trick was to team up with the writers of the superman comic, and to encourage them to move on from the battle against the Nazi's (post WWII) to the KKK. He revealed all the hidden secrets about the group so that they could be reproduced in graphic detail. Soon young boys were racing around living rooms dressed in bed sheets, uttering ridiculous oaths. The membership of the KKK dropped like a stone. What a wonderful story- worth of a Hollywood film? Yes- Stetson Kennedy died in 2011. The film about his life was released this year called 'Klandestine Man'. Is it any good? What about 'How Superman defeated the KKK' (2015)? I can't find any reviews. I bet the actual comics are now collectors items.
The daily game show called 'The weakest Link' traveled smoothly from the UK to the USA. After thousands of competitions, statisticians and sociologists could ask the question, "Are competitors racist and sexist in the chooses when eliminating players. The game involves voting out the weakest player to start with, but soon becomes tactical, when competitors are able to eliminate players they might consider a threat. The analysis of thousands of result did not show any bias against black players, or female players. However it did show clear bais against older players and Hispanic players. The book notes that even in societies that prise equality greatly, there are discriminatory attitudes that are not noticed, or challenged.
The book ends with an analysis of American names looking at wealth, education and race. That got me thinking. Is there a class/cast difference between Asian names in the UK?
First is the dilemma that what might have caused the sudden and decline in violent crime and drug addiction in New York city might be the knock-on effects of changes in the abortion laws across the USA twenty years earlier. the moral status of abortion moves from the personal to the macro.
The idea is that babies born into love starved and unsafe households were being exterminated before birth, avoiding the propensity for children to grow into criminals. Ironically the right wing position which focuses on individual morality is caught in a paradox. 'To be, or not to be.' A left wing position would focus on changing a society that allows children to grow up to be violent criminals in the first place. "Tough on crime and the causes of crime" as was Blair's catchphrase.
What about the story of Stetson Kennedy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy
This is an amazing 'All American' story of how an organisation with over 3 million signed up members was brought low by a simple, but brave man, Stetson Kennedy. The organisation was the Ku Klux Klan, that has been legitimised by the State of Georgia. Kennedy joined and infiltrated the organisation. He must have been a good actor, because he succeeded in convincing his chapter that he was genuine. He noted that most of the members were sad lonely pathetic men. The level of violence had greatly decreased over the years, because the aims of the KKK could be achieved though the threat of violence, rather than the risk inherent 'real thing'. This is a similar process used by the subjugation of most victimised groups, and still a staple with all bullies.
Kennedy's trick was to team up with the writers of the superman comic, and to encourage them to move on from the battle against the Nazi's (post WWII) to the KKK. He revealed all the hidden secrets about the group so that they could be reproduced in graphic detail. Soon young boys were racing around living rooms dressed in bed sheets, uttering ridiculous oaths. The membership of the KKK dropped like a stone. What a wonderful story- worth of a Hollywood film? Yes- Stetson Kennedy died in 2011. The film about his life was released this year called 'Klandestine Man'. Is it any good? What about 'How Superman defeated the KKK' (2015)? I can't find any reviews. I bet the actual comics are now collectors items.
The daily game show called 'The weakest Link' traveled smoothly from the UK to the USA. After thousands of competitions, statisticians and sociologists could ask the question, "Are competitors racist and sexist in the chooses when eliminating players. The game involves voting out the weakest player to start with, but soon becomes tactical, when competitors are able to eliminate players they might consider a threat. The analysis of thousands of result did not show any bias against black players, or female players. However it did show clear bais against older players and Hispanic players. The book notes that even in societies that prise equality greatly, there are discriminatory attitudes that are not noticed, or challenged.
The book ends with an analysis of American names looking at wealth, education and race. That got me thinking. Is there a class/cast difference between Asian names in the UK?
Monday 11 December 2017
Feuerbach to Marx.
Francis Wheen's book on Karl Marx also introduced me to Ludwig Feuerbach.
What about his book that is regarded to be one of the first modern books on theology to espouse an atheist christian position, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841; The Essence of Christianity)?
This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica sums up the argument thus;
Probably the most famous quote from the book is:-
What I like about this book is the thought provoking challenge to examine the "God in our own image". Also the idea of a God of Love transmuting into 'undesirable religious materialism'.
An eminently understandable explanation of the significance of Feuerbach is made by Stephen West on one of his excellent array of podcasts which are offered free for the world's taking (donations gratefully received.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i69Qxzu2l94 Stephen West http://philosophizethis.org
Without faith in God, it has been often argued that maintaining a moral compass is problematic. It is with these thoughts that I read 'Reasons to stay Alive' by Matt Haig- recommended by my sister Frances.
Haig makes almost no reference to organised religion. He hints that he finds organised religion 'fills him with fear', relating this to problems affecting his mental wellbeing. His book resonates with love, (though initially it is just him being loved by other.) Indeed his life is saved by the love of his girlfriend and future wife. He sees kindness as more important to recovery than pills.
How do we understand Feuerbach's famous quote? If I look at Haig's book and change 'love' for 'God', I see a translation of his thesis that becomes spiritual. I understand the word 'God' originates from Norse mythology. Its use in Germanic Christianity is no different from the use of words from other religious experiences such as 'Allah'. These are words invented by humans used to describe what is greater than us, our originator, creator, sustainer, and terminator.
Exodus 3: 13-15 in the Bible says that when Moses asked God to tell him 'by who's name shall I say I have been sent? God say 'I AM...(blank)' sent you (Nemo?). (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God.)
1 John 4:8 in the Bible states that 'God is love'. Without Love, there is no God, and with Love, there is God.
I wonder that if we made this translation through all we read, we might be able to turn the secular into the spiritual, and visa versa. Is this what Feuerbach is saying when he says 'sacrifice God to love'?
What about his book that is regarded to be one of the first modern books on theology to espouse an atheist christian position, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841; The Essence of Christianity)?
This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica sums up the argument thus;
"Feuerbach posited the notion that man is to himself his own object of thought and that religion is nothing more than a consciousness of the infinite. The result of this view is the notion that God is merely the outward projection of man’s inward nature. In the first part of his book, which strongly influenced Marx, Feuerbach analyzed the “true or anthropological essence of religion.” Discussing God’s aspects “as a being of the understanding,” “as a moral being or law,” “as love,” and others, he argued that they correspond to different needs in human nature.
In the second section he analyzed the “false or theological essence of religion", contending that the view that God has an existence independent of human existence leads to a belief in revelation and sacraments, which are items of an undesirable religious materialism."
“As God has renounced himself out of love, so we, out of love, should renounce God; for if we do not sacrifice God to love, we sacrifice love to God, and in spite of the predicate of love, we have the God – the evil being – of religious fanaticism.”
What I like about this book is the thought provoking challenge to examine the "God in our own image". Also the idea of a God of Love transmuting into 'undesirable religious materialism'.
An eminently understandable explanation of the significance of Feuerbach is made by Stephen West on one of his excellent array of podcasts which are offered free for the world's taking (donations gratefully received.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i69Qxzu2l94 Stephen West http://philosophizethis.org
Without faith in God, it has been often argued that maintaining a moral compass is problematic. It is with these thoughts that I read 'Reasons to stay Alive' by Matt Haig- recommended by my sister Frances.
Haig makes almost no reference to organised religion. He hints that he finds organised religion 'fills him with fear', relating this to problems affecting his mental wellbeing. His book resonates with love, (though initially it is just him being loved by other.) Indeed his life is saved by the love of his girlfriend and future wife. He sees kindness as more important to recovery than pills.
How do we understand Feuerbach's famous quote? If I look at Haig's book and change 'love' for 'God', I see a translation of his thesis that becomes spiritual. I understand the word 'God' originates from Norse mythology. Its use in Germanic Christianity is no different from the use of words from other religious experiences such as 'Allah'. These are words invented by humans used to describe what is greater than us, our originator, creator, sustainer, and terminator.
Exodus 3: 13-15 in the Bible says that when Moses asked God to tell him 'by who's name shall I say I have been sent? God say 'I AM...(blank)' sent you (Nemo?). (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God.)
1 John 4:8 in the Bible states that 'God is love'. Without Love, there is no God, and with Love, there is God.
I wonder that if we made this translation through all we read, we might be able to turn the secular into the spiritual, and visa versa. Is this what Feuerbach is saying when he says 'sacrifice God to love'?
How to try to prevent the perception of organised religion in the UK as being purely a Victorian anachronism, with the interest level of 'heritage' or 'our colonial history': change the name of 'God' to 'Love'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)