On Religion
I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they thought maybe people _need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When gods and religion were invented, people needed a way to explain that which there was no possible way for them to understand. While we know much more about the universe around us now, there is still so much unexplained that just thinking about it can be frightening. On the other hand, I think science falls into the same kind of trap. Frex the Big Bang is a very elegant way to explain origins, but instead of trying to disprove it (as discipline would require), scientists seem to go to great lengths to defend it when contradictions are introduced. Why? They want to be able to explain things. They want to have a beginning to point to and a way to construct an end. The idea that the universe might be beyond our ability to explain and understand (presently) is frightening! I don't agree with those that think that religion is evil, I can understand why people need it and on balance I think that it has played a positive role in our civilization. I think that one of the things that it probably did was allow intellectualism to compete with physical prowess in terms of societal control. This may seem contradictory in light of present day religion – especially fundamentalism – that seems to rely on archaic ideas and superior intelligence without substantiation, but I think it’s possible to look upon religion as a precursor to science! It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, the priests, the medicine men were probably the first doctors, the first astronomers, the first botanists and biologists the first that made it their life’s work to explain the world around them. In doing so, however, they must have found that for every question that they answered they uncovered two new, baffling questions. Questions they were only able to explain by inventing deities. I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its usefulness and that it is time for human civilization to move beyond the idea that there is some mystical power controlling the universe. As I mentioned before, established religions have a tendency to cling to anachronisms (creationism, for instance) that are an impediment to intellectual growth. We can’t solve problems by pretending that they don’t exist or by insisting that the words of an ancient text overrule our intellect. By the same token, however, we can’t just dump wholesale the institutions that insulate us from our incomprehension. -- Doug WHEN I have fears that I may cease to be Before my pen has glean’d my teeming brain, Before high piled books, in charact’ry, Hold like rich garners the full-ripen’d grain; When I behold, upon the night’s starr’d face, Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance, And think that I may never live to trace Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance; And when I feel, fair creature of an hour! That I shall never look upon thee more, Never have relish in the faery power Of unreflecting love! - then on the shore Of the wide world I stand alone, and think Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink. John Keats, When I have Fears ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Jim Sharkey wrote: I've always wondered if she didn't create Snape's visuals with Rickman in mind. He's just too perfect a fit. What's fun about the movies is watching these fine English actors hamming it up and having a good time. Emma Thompson in particular cracked me up. I've been very partial to Rickman since GalaxyQuest (I'll admit I'm a dork). Whether or not Rowling wrote the character with Rickman in mind, I'm sure it was probably somewhere between Rickman and McKellan that I saw in the part. Dame Maggie Smith, I thought, was another brilliantly cast actor. It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean performances, and here they are doing kid's movies. Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to read several thousand pages of text. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ Support Open/Free Mythoi: Read the manifesto @ mythoi.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: On Religion
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they thought maybe people _need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When gods and religion were invented, people needed a way to explain that which there was no possible way for them to understand. While we know much more about the universe around us now, there is still so much unexplained that just thinking about it can be frightening. They also needed guidance on how to behave and think. They needed a reason to sacrifice their short-term good for the long-term survival of the group. Custom and taboo used to be the answer. I don't agree with those that think that religion is evil, I can understand why people need it and on balance I think that it has played a positive role in our civilization. I think that one of the things that it probably did was allow intellectualism to compete with physical prowess in terms of societal control. This may seem contradictory in light of present day religion â especially fundamentalism â that seems to rely on archaic ideas and superior intelligence without substantiation, but I think itâs possible to look upon religion as a precursor to science! Agreed, and also, see above. It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, the priests, the medicine men were probably the first doctors, the first astronomers, the first botanists and biologists the first that made it their lifeâs work to explain the world around them. Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain. In doing so, however, they must have found that for every question that they answered they uncovered two new, baffling questions. Questions they were only able to explain by inventing deities. I doubt the professional priesthood invented deities. I think the people did, telling themselves just-so stories in the night. I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its usefulness and that it is time for human civilization to move beyond the idea that there is some mystical power controlling the universe. As I mentioned before, established religions have a tendency to cling to anachronisms (creationism, for instance) that are an impediment to intellectual growth. I notice what they cling to is archaic *science*. On matters of (to paraphrase the Pope's mandate) faith and morals, they can be anything from destructive to the best guidance going. We canât solve problems by pretending that they donât exist or by insisting that the words of an ancient text overrule our intellect. By the same token, however, we canât just dump wholesale the institutions that insulate us from our incomprehension. Exactly. Or that stand between a good many people and their barbarian tendencies. NYT Online had an article by Chuck Colson, now a prison reformer; it's very clear that religion has made him a better person. Stories like this abound and have even, as in the 12-step movement, become an institution. Don't make the mistake Sokrates made - when he deconstructed the Athenian religion (which was overripe for it), he liberated a lot of intellectual energy. He also cut Kritias and Alkabiades loose from whatever moral moorings they once had, since they were ready to follow him through the deconstruction, but not into the higher reaches. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: On Religion
At 07:56 AM Monday 7/25/2005, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they thought maybe people _need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When gods and religion were invented, people needed a way to explain that which there was no possible way for them to understand. While we know much more about the universe around us now, there is still so much unexplained that just thinking about it can be frightening. They also needed guidance on how to behave and think. They needed a reason to sacrifice their short-term good for the long-term survival of the group. Custom and taboo used to be the answer. I don't agree with those that think that religion is evil, I can understand why people need it and on balance I think that it has played a positive role in our civilization. I think that one of the things that it probably did was allow intellectualism to compete with physical prowess in terms of societal control. This may seem contradictory in light of present day religion â especially fundamentalism â that seems to rely on archaic ideas and superior intelligence without substantiation, but I think itâs possible to look upon religion as a precursor to science! Agreed, and also, see above. It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, the priests, the medicine men were probably the first doctors, the first astronomers, the first botanists and biologists the first that made it their lifeâs work to explain the world around them. Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain. Or as I often mentioned in class when we were talking about the ancient origins of astronomy, someone figured out how the positions and motions of the heavenly bodies could be used as a calendar which could tell them when things like planting and harvest season should be vital knowledge in an agrarian society and probably not long after that realized that watching the Sun, Moon, and stars was a heckuva lot easier than digging and planting and harvesting, but that cushy position would only last as long as that knowledge was available to only a select few, so much of the arcana of astrology and such accreted in order to make it look like what they were doing was something only a select few could do and so allowed those select few to keep their cushy jobs rather than having to actually work for a living. (Of course, today's astronomers teach at universities rather than actually working for a living . . . :P ) In doing so, however, they must have found that for every question that they answered they uncovered two new, baffling questions. Questions they were only able to explain by inventing deities. I doubt the professional priesthood invented deities. I think the people did, telling themselves just-so stories in the night. I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its usefulness and that it is time for human civilization to move beyond the idea that there is some mystical power controlling the universe. As I mentioned before, established religions have a tendency to cling to anachronisms (creationism, for instance) that are an impediment to intellectual growth. I notice what they cling to is archaic *science*. On matters of (to paraphrase the Pope's mandate) faith and morals, they can be anything from destructive to the best guidance going. Depending on one's personal POV and circumstances, sometimes the very same piece of advice can be destructive in one person's POV and the best guidance going for another . . . We canât solve problems by pretending that they donât exist or by insisting that the words of an ancient text overrule our intellect. By the same token, however, we canât just dump wholesale the institutions that insulate us from our incomprehension. Exactly. Or that stand between a good many people and their barbarian tendencies. NYT Online had an article by Chuck Colson, now a prison reformer; it's very clear that religion has made him a better person. Stories like this abound and have even, as in the 12-step movement, become an institution. Don't make the mistake Sokrates made - when he deconstructed the Athenian religion (which was overripe for it), he liberated a lot of intellectual energy. He also cut Kritias and Alkabiades loose from whatever moral moorings they once had, since they were ready to follow him through the deconstruction, but not into the higher reaches. And look what it got him . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More interesting articles . . .
Physicists Create a 'Perfect' Way to Study the Big Bang http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Content/PressReleases/PhysicistsCreateAPerfectWayToStudyTheBigBang.htm Ice ages linked to galactic position Study finds Earth may be cooled by movement through Milky Way's stellar clouds http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/25/MNGCIDSL4R1.DTL Cats' Sweet Tooth Long Gone http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401107.html --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Corporate Transparency and Citizenship
Perhaps this will be a precursor toward Corporate IAAMOAC Awards for groups working toward transparency? GE releases first citizenship report [Sunday, May 29, 2005 8:47:00 am] GE released its first citizenship report highlighting its performance, progress and challenges in a variety of citizenship areas, including compliance and governance; globalization; community investment; the environment, health, and safety; products and research and development; and its commitment to employees and other stakeholders. The report, Our Actions, tells an integrated story of how GE conducts business, its impacts on communities, and its efforts to be a good and trusted world citizen. In an increasingly global and transparent world, we measure our performance in a context broader than financial results and stock price, GE Senior Vice President of Law and Public Affairs Ben Heineman said. Everyday, we strive to be a responsible citizen, to perform with integrity and to serve our customers, investors and other stakeholders responsibly. Strong corporate citizenship is about constant improvement and we continue to set high expectations for ourselves on how we address the challenges facing our businesses and our communities, Heineman said. GE's Vice President of Corporate Citizenship Bob Corcoran said, Our new citizenship web site provides an in-depth view of the policies, procedures and practices we employ to make our Citizenship commitments a reality. Links in the report allow readers to pursue topics in greater depth, and the web format allows the report to be a living document which can be supplemented and updated as developments occur. GE used the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines to inform the development of the report. The report features a GRI content index to help readers match GE programs and results with the recommended GRI guidelines. The report also covers other topics such as product-use issues, outsourcing and supplier requirements, policies in emerging economies and privacy issues. One section of the report is dedicated to GE's environmental performance and provides an update on the status of several PCB cleanup projects. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 24, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Max Battcher wrote: It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean performances, and here they are doing kid's movies. Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to read several thousand pages of text. I suspect it's the fact of the latter graf that's influenced the events you described in the former. The books have done a lot for youth literacy and have raised the bar regarding what's acceptable children's lit; I'd bet that had a real influence in which actors/actresses were willing to be recruited for the movies. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On 7/25/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean performances, and here they are doing kid's movies. Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to read several thousand pages of text. I suspect it's the fact of the latter graf that's influenced the events you described in the former. The books have done a lot for youth literacy and have raised the bar regarding what's acceptable children's lit. They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Data Cuts, Normalization, and Analysis for Politics L3
It's been a while since I wrote parts 1 2 of my promised three part analysis: 1) How hard can one push prisoners who are probably associated with terrorism or terrorist groups? Where is the boundary of unacceptable treatment? Is this boundary dependant on the circumstances? 2) How does one handle the status of prisoners taken in ongoing hostilities if they are POWs? if they are unlawful combatants, but there is not enough evidence to convict them of a specific war crime? Even the most casual observer might have noticed that I have yet to address #3: 3) How does one determine the most likely possibility and the range of possibilities from conflicting reports from conflicting sources?) Listening to a number of different people from a number of different places in the political spectrum argue for radically different sets of facts from the same observation I've noticed that people often have a cut criterion that appears to be based on their beliefs. For example, conservatives talk about the liberal bias. In the '60s and '70s, Marxists I knew talked about the inherent pro-capitalistic bias of the US and European papers. Conservatives I know use to tell me that Rush is more accurate than the mainstream media. Many were convinced that the news media was covering up the strong evidence that Bill Clinton murdered both Vince Carter and Ron Brown. When, at the request of friends, I went to talk with Dennis Kopinski (sp) supporters at their house, I was amazed that many of them laid most of the worlds ills, including the Balkans, on people the US put in power. For example, at that meeting,I was told that Milosovitch was really a CIA tool that we decided was bad only after he stopped obeying orders. One consistent pattern I've seen was a data cut that was consistent with pre-set beliefs. Information that confirms those beliefs is considered reliable, while information that contradicts those beliefs are suspect. It's a natural tendency of humans to do this, and one could go into a long analysis of why. But, this post will probably be L3 without this analysis, so we'll postpone that discussion to another time. I hope we can take this human tendency as a given, and then look at techniques that might help us overcome it. I will start the analysis by using a very old technique: looking at how this question has been solved in an easier context and then seeing if the lessons learned there can be applied to this problem. The context that I will consider is one that has strongly influenced my thinking, both professional and personal, over the last 15-20 years. It is the solving of reported field problems at my first job, with Dresser Atlas. When I joined Dresser Atlas, I noticed a vicious circle between operations and engineering. To give a bit of background, our group was responsible for the design and support of nuclear tools that were run by operations in customers' oil wells. Operations were directly responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the tools. Since the tools were designed and characterized by engineering, fundamental problems were referred to engineering. This usually happened in the fire drill mode. A customer would express significant dissatisfaction with our service, indicating a possible cut off of Atlas from working for them. The field would report the problem that they saw as responsible for the problem and make an urgent request to engineering to solve the problem. Engineering would stop it's long term work for anywhere from a day to two weeks, investigate the reported problem, and respond. Most of the time, it was an exercise in futility and frustration. Engineering could not find the reported problem. Indeed, many times, the work gave strong indications that the reported problem was very unlikely to exist. Engineering would report this back to the field, frustrated at losing time in the development of new tools, which were also demanded by the field. The field became frustrated and angry at what they considered the culture of denial in engineering. At first, I simply fell in with the engineering party line. I saw how we wasted time on fire drills chasing close to impossible claims from the field. But, after a while, I talked with enough people in technical services (a field interface group), and talked with enough customers to determine that the field problems were not just a fantasy, or the result of bad operations practice. Something was going on, and the reports were good faith efforts to describe what that something was. One particular instance stands out for me. A district engineer reported a problem. I looked at the reported problem, and saw that it's existence was inconsistent with a wealth of data that I had analyzed. Since these data were carefully taken, and were taken with a number of different tools of the exact same design, I was pretty sure that the reported problem did not exist. I called the engineer back to report my findings. He
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 25, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? Have you read them? The arc of storytelling isn't the only thing that develops; the depth of writing and of issues tackled by Rowling has also increased from novel to novel. I don't know of any other children's series that matures along with its readers. There's a huge crossover into adult readership at least partly because of that. And, of course, the books are simply, strictly *better* than most of what passes for kids' titles out there. I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every other children's title out there. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Head-butts
Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sam has gotten into the act, as well. He's butting a lot higher than he was 2 years ago. :) Which is a real problem if the receiver of said head-butt is a male. Ouchie. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Data Cuts, Normalization, and Analysis for Politics L3
At 03:50 PM Monday 7/25/2005, Dan Minette wrote: A couple of similar observations (if for no other purpose than to show that Dan's experience is not the single available data point . . . ) [snip] I will start the analysis by using a very old technique: looking at how this question has been solved in an easier context and then seeing if the lessons learned there can be applied to this problem. The context that I will consider is one that has strongly influenced my thinking, both professional and personal, over the last 15-20 years. It is the solving of reported field problems at my first job, with Dresser Atlas. When I joined Dresser Atlas, I noticed a vicious circle between operations and engineering. To give a bit of background, our group was responsible for the design and support of nuclear tools that were run by operations in customers' oil wells. Operations were directly responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the tools. Since the tools were designed and characterized by engineering, fundamental problems were referred to engineering. This usually happened in the fire drill mode. A customer would express significant dissatisfaction with our service, indicating a possible cut off of Atlas from working for them. The field would report the problem that they saw as responsible for the problem and make an urgent request to engineering to solve the problem. Engineering would stop it's long term work for anywhere from a day to two weeks, investigate the reported problem, and respond. Most of the time, it was an exercise in futility and frustration. Engineering could not find the reported problem. Indeed, many times, the work gave strong indications that the reported problem was very unlikely to exist. Engineering would report this back to the field, frustrated at losing time in the development of new tools, which were also demanded by the field. The field became frustrated and angry at what they considered the culture of denial in engineering. In most operational units in the Air Force (i.e., units which actually had planes and flew them rather than providing a support function only), there are usually two divisions in the unit: operations, which flies the planes, and maintenance, which keeps the planes in flying condition. As in Dan's example, when something goes wrong, the pilot from ops blames maintenance for not maintaining the aircraft or at least the malfunctioning part properly, and maintenance turns right around and blames the pilot for breaking it. The unit I was in, which was a part of the Flight Test Center, had a third branch called engineering, which in that unit was responsible for planning the test missions in order to test whatever capability of the aircraft or other system needed testing and then to collect whatever data was sent back via telemetry or recorded by on-board instruments or instruments on the ground (e.g., a radar site or other instrument which recorded the flight path of the aircraft being tested). Thus, instead of ops blaming maintenance and maintenance blaming ops for whatever went wrong, both blamed engineering . . . (Yes, I was in engineering). [snip] 3) It is impossible to be totally open to every possibility; while getting locked in a particular mindset will blind you to obvious solutions. This seems like a contradiction, but it really isn't. It is a balance point. One cannot be totally open minded to every possibility, because the possibilities are virtually endless. One joke I use to make about this when we were stumped concerning the source of a problem was Well, I don't think we need to look at the effect of the barometric pressure in Cleveland on our data. In other words, we needed to be open minded, but not too open minded. At the university where I did my undergraduate work, the freshman physics course for majors was taught by the department head. During one of the first labs, where the purpose was to collect some data from an experiment and fit it to an equation to show that verily the equation derived from theory did describe the results, Dr. Morton would start things off by suggesting an alternative equation which had as additional variables things like the phase of the Moon or the day of the week . . . [snip] --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every other children's title out there. I'll certainly agree that the Harry Potter is far above the common crowd in youth/children's books. I think though, that a fair criterion for setting the bar higher is superiority over those books that have already set the bar: i.e. award winning books for youth and children. There are, actually, some very good books for children that have been written in the past 50 years. Off the top of my head, I think there are two ways that Rowling's work is superior. 1) It has reached many more people than other children's books. While commercial success is not a measure of quality, a book series that manages to be very good while being immensely popular should get bonus points for reaching an expanded audience. A popular formula book doesn't become a good book though popularity, but I think it takes extra skill to write good fiction that becomes a phenomenon vs. just writing good fiction. 2) Rowling has written for kids that have grown up seven years with the book. Every book appears appropriate for readers about Harry's age. I cannot think of a book series that grows with the subject in that manner. As you know, I think the book is well written, teaches important lessons (as Guatam says) about growing up as the right type of person, etc. But, I do not consider this to be unique in all of children's literature. IMHO, the two points I raised are Rowlings unique contributions. The rest is consistent with her just being an excellent author. :-) Dan M. 2) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Head-butts
On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sam has gotten into the act, as well. He's butting a lot higher than he was 2 years ago. :) Which is a real problem if the receiver of said head-butt is a male. Some of _those_ head-butts are entirely unintentional, and some of them are really just an awkward expression of love (kid comes running at you at full speed, doesn't know enough about physics, kid wonders why dad is writhing on the ground, instead of reciprocating the intended hug). When Ryan was about waist-high, we were out at a park and I bent over at the waist to put my hands under his arms and pick him up. So my face was coming down pretty fast towards the top of his head. At that same moment, he received a message from his home planet that right now would be a really great time to help dad by jumping up into his arms. I was pretty sure he broke my nose. Then I was pretty sure that he had knocked out a couple of my teeth or at least split my lip. He was pretty sure that I had bitten through the top of his head. As it turned out, none of those things had happened, but the two of us were not in a particularly cuddly mood right then. As for the origin of Ryan's literal head-butting, I'm pretty sure that we have Finding Nemo's Crush the turtle to thank for that. I hadn't really thought about it 'til I watched the film at a friend's house this weekend. There's a point where Crush is introducing Squirt, his offspring, to Marlin and he says NOGGIN! and the two bump heads. It was not long after that that Ryan started head-butting Peggy and me (Or, as he calls it, giving us a coconut). So there. We know who to sue. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 That's true, but I think it understates the power of the scenes where Harry is at the Dursley's. There he's clearly the oppressed one, and Rowling (significantly, until this book) is careful to give us a good long taste of what it's like for Harry to live there. Sure, but after his first year at Hogswarts, he is acually more powerful than his opressors. He does, of course, lose control in Prisoner and inflate his uncle's sister, IIRC. But, the ministry of magic dismisses this as minor. After that, he's bright enough to see that he can do a lot to them in small ways to make their life as miserable as they make his. But, he doesn't. He behaves ethically from the beginning. Yes, he has teenage angst in Phoenix, and does some dumb things, but he really doesn't do wrong.I think it is somewhat amazing that Rowling can make the arch from doing the right thing because one wishes to please a father figure (Dumbledore), to still doing the right thing after finding out that he can get very mad at Dumbledore, and that Dumbledore does make mistakes. It's amazing because she also has him as inherently good from the start, perhaps due to the magic of his parent's love supporting him after their deaths (blood will tell is certainly not the reason). Similarly, it may be true that only Snape is against him - but the other teachers really do little to help him, while Snape does a great deal to harm him. So I think it's true that Harry stuck by ordinary people from the beginning - but it's different to do so when your primary identification is as one of the downtrodden, and another when you're the elite. Hmm, doesn't his house patron get him on the Quiddich team after he is found flying when he really isn't suppose to? And, he has Dumbledore in his corner from day one. Even though Snapes can give him a really hard time, having the headmaster on one's side is akin to holding trumps. I think that it's true that he was only an outcast at Hogwarts for some periods. But he was an outcast for _the first 11 years of his life_. And Rowling is careful to make that status clear in all of the earlier books. Sure she does, but she let kids know that things would get better for Harry very early in even the first book. In a sense, the books ask this question: you've been taken out of a very opressive situation and now have chances and potential that are truely magical. What are you going to do with this chance? Once he gets to Hogswort he doesn't deal with real opression any more; just conflict. One very good example of this is how, at the beginning of Phoenix everyone expects him to be the proctor. Instead, it is Ron. Even Ron's mom is shocked. The moral challange for Harry was to be happy for his friend, even though everyone kinda expected the honor to naturally belong to Harry. I agree that, after setting up a classic prince in hiding scenario, Rowling changes it into what you saidwhich is well done. I think that our disagreement on Snape is tied into the nuances of the moral message we think Rowling is teaching. If Snape turns out to be a hero in the end, I think that it will tied up with a key lesson that Harry has to learn. Dan M. I'm not really sure what the lesson would be, though. Things aren't always what they appear? Didn't Harry learn that from the Sirius Black affair? Whether or not Snape turns out to be a good guy, he's an awful person who, at best, is seeking to redeem himself for unforgiveable acts. He shows himself to be a tremendously flawed person, who is doing a dreadful job of overcoming the problems of his early years. He lets his feelings/attitudes show with Harry from the beginninghe cannot/will not separate Harry from the torment Harry's very popular father inflicted on him. In many little ways, his has often done the wrong thing. But, until this book, when the chips were down, he did the right thing. He is the only deatheater that we know of to have repented (assuming my read of the end of the story is correct). I see the potential for a significant moral lesson in the finale. Let me offer one potential scenario...Rawling will probably be better at this than I am. ;-) Harry rightfully considers Snape a jerk, who has not treated Harry very well, who has done horrible things in the past, and who has killed Dumbledore...who's man Harry still is. Somewhere Harry will have to trust Snape's and accept his explanation. He will struggle with it, because of his feelings, but will see that the only real chance for success. And, Snape acts in a manner that allows Harry to win, even though he still hates Harry. I think the moral lesson will involve wisdom, and the complicated nature of people. Without excusing Snape's
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 25, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Yes, he has teenage angst in Phoenix, and does some dumb things, but he really doesn't do wrong. Is teenage angst in Phoenix anything like fear and loathing in Las Vegas? :D -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: On Religion (and politics)
sigh In peforming the unusual task of typing quotes from a book, I *erased* the nearly-done missive, and can't get those paragraghs back!!! I HATE it when that happens - so just imagine that my thoughts were much more brilliant than what I've tried to reconstruct below... Having long ago enjoyed CS Lewis' _The Screwtape Letters_ , I checked out _God In The Dock_; while I found much of it thick-headed, some was quite relevent to current events. snippage denoted by PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they thought maybe people _need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When gods and religion were invented, people needed a way to explain that which there was no possible way for them to understand. They weren't so much 'invented' as 'grew out of' the terror and awe at raw Nature's power. The numinous surely existed before a human's command of fire. While we know much more about the universe around us now, there is still so much unexplained that just thinking about it can be frightening. They also needed guidance on how to behave and think. They needed a reason to sacrifice their short-term good for the long-term survival of the group. Custom and taboo used to be the answer. As the size of human groups increased, the tight interpersonal network of the band diminished, and more compelling reasons for self-denial were required. Because God sad thusly is more forceful than well, because we've always done it so. Custom became codified into law. I don't agree with those that think that religion is evil, I can understand why people need it and on balance I think that it has played a positive role in our civilization. I think that one of the things that it probably did was allow intellectualism to compete with physical prowess in terms of societal controlI think it's possible to look upon religion as a precursor to science! Agreed, and also, see above. It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, the priests, the medicine men were probably the first doctors, the first astronomers, the first botanists and biologists the first that made it their life's work to explain the world around them. Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain. Agreed. I also think that the chief/shaman/priest evolved into part of the government with its attendant beaurocracy (sp!), and power over others' lives became both less personal and more terrible. Lewis is chewing both ends of the stick here, because while he writes that a Christian society is more desirable than a non-Christian one, and that he personally would like to see more Christians involved in public life, he also notes: I do not like the pretensions of Government - the grounds on which it demands my obedience - to be pitched too high. I don't like the medicine-man's magical pretensions not the Bourbon's Divine Right. This is not soley because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet's _Politique_. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord,' it lies, and lies dangerously. from 'Is Progress Possible/Willing Slaves of the Welfare State' - @ 1958 In doing so, however, they must have found that for every question that they answered they uncovered two new, baffling questions. Questions they were only able to explain by inventing deities. I doubt the professional priesthood invented deities. I think the people did, telling themselves just-so stories in the night. Synchronicity and coincidence played a role in those stories, and the perceptions thereby gleaned. While largely fanciful, they did hide a kernal of at least one level of reality: Kronk paints a picture of himself killing a bison, and lo! his next hunt is indeed successful. It seems understandable to move from propitiating one animal, to the Herd Leader, to the One Who Leads All Prey, and so on. I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its usefulness and that it is time for human civilization to move beyond the idea that there is some mystical power controlling the universe. As I mentioned before, established religions have a tendency to cling to anachronisms (creationism, for instance) that are an impediment to intellectual growth. I notice what they cling to is archaic *science*. On matters of (to paraphrase the Pope's mandate) faith and morals, they can be anything from destructive to the best guidance going. In certain (usually extreme fundamentalist) segments of a religion, easy answers and absolute truths are to be had; if one wishes to ask questions and be challenged to one's very core, some sect of that same religion will hone one's humility to a fine edge, yet offer hope as well. We can't solve problems by pretending that they don't exist or by
Re: Head-butts
Dave Land wrote: Some of _those_ head-butts are entirely unintentional, and some of them are really just an awkward expression of love (kid comes running at you at full speed, doesn't know enough about physics, kid wonders why dad is writhing on the ground, instead of reciprocating the intended hug). Dad is writhing on the ground due to an inability to react quickly, or at least anticipate the child's trajectory. A simple hip twist or a quick scooping up of the incoming projectile gets the boys out of the danger zone. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Head-butts
On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Dave Land wrote: Some of _those_ head-butts are entirely unintentional, and some of them are really just an awkward expression of love (kid comes running at you at full speed, doesn't know enough about physics, kid wonders why dad is writhing on the ground, instead of reciprocating the intended hug). Dad is writhing on the ground due to an inability to react quickly, or at least anticipate the child's trajectory. A simple hip twist or a quick scooping up of the incoming projectile gets the boys out of the danger zone. :) Yep. Sometimes, dad is the object of such forceful attention precisely because his attention is directed elsewhere... On the phone, talking to someone at a party, and so forth. And don't start lecturing me on my neglectful parenting, either :-). Dave Swivel Hips Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Head-butts
At 07:33 PM Monday 7/25/2005, Jim Sharkey wrote: Dave Land wrote: Some of _those_ head-butts are entirely unintentional, and some of them are really just an awkward expression of love (kid comes running at you at full speed, doesn't know enough about physics, kid wonders why dad is writhing on the ground, instead of reciprocating the intended hug). Dad is writhing on the ground due to an inability to react quickly, or at least anticipate the child's trajectory. A simple hip twist or a quick scooping up of the incoming projectile gets the boys out of the danger zone. :) How about if Dad is unable to react quickly because Dad is already holding one of the buttar's siblings? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Head-butts
On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:33 PM Monday 7/25/2005, Jim Sharkey wrote: Dave Land wrote: Some of _those_ head-butts are entirely unintentional, and some of them are really just an awkward expression of love (kid comes running at you at full speed, doesn't know enough about physics, kid wonders why dad is writhing on the ground, instead of reciprocating the intended hug). Dad is writhing on the ground due to an inability to react quickly, or at least anticipate the child's trajectory. A simple hip twist or a quick scooping up of the incoming projectile gets the boys out of the danger zone. :) How about if Dad is unable to react quickly because Dad is already holding one of the buttar's siblings? As a father of only one (living) child, I don't qualify to answer, but you see that it doesn't stop me from having an opinion in the matter... Dad is holding a human shield: I don't see the problem. Isn't that why people have other kids? To turn them against one another? Dave Dad always liked you best Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: It's the All-Star break...
Julia wrote: I wrote: Do you really think 5 games (Rangers) or even 7.5 (A's) games behind is too much to overcome in seventy some odd games? For the Rangers, yes. Just off the cuff. The Rangers have a pattern of doing fairly well before the All-Star break, and then blowing it the second half of the season. I'd say the A's have a better chance of it than the Rangers, based on what I read above. (I have no idea what the current standings are -- but I can tell you who won the stage yesterday in the Tour de L^HFrance.) Well, the A's have won 7 straight, have picked up 2 games on the Angels (5 behind) and they've won something like 37 of their last 50 games. They took sole possession of the wild card lead tonight with a 13-4 win over the Indians. I could gush at much greater length, but you're probably bored already 8^). Bottom line - the A's have become the odds on favorite to win the wild card spot even if they can't catch the Angels. Which of course, if you're asking me, they can... -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
