All posts for the month January, 2004

Unversal Church of the Interactive Network. John Ireland, blogger and supplier of “bloggerheads” services to several British MP’s has this whacky sideline – can’t see any catches, and definitely no references to gods, false or otherwise. Magic stuff, couldn’t resist linking when I saw that Saint Douglas of the Whooshing Deadline was regarded as the top saint in this church.

[Quote] The average bible has 2000 pages. The web has over 2 billion. We win.[Unquote]

Think I was already a 100% member in spirit. Possibly my first act may be to campaign to sanctify Saint Robert of Zen, though possibly he may be excluded on the grounds of being alive and well unlike St Douglas and St Alan of the Enigma.

I dropped the inklings line of research a couple of months ago when I noted the JRR Tolkien / CS Lewis / GK Chesterton angle leading off down a strongly theistic / catholic path, despite the interesting connection with Owen Barfield, and the Cambridge connections of Lewis / Barfield and (non-inkling) McLuhan.

In response to a question in the Pickerell last night I checked this out. No doubt Tolkien would have visited CS Lewis in the latter’s time at Cambridge (Magdelene), and conceivably visited the Pickerell haunt of Lewis, but the Tolkien Society’s biography includes not a single mention of Cambridge at all. Oxford all the way.

Teflon Tony Rides Again. How did they do it ? How did they get at Lord Hutton ? Breathtaking in British politics.
Tony Blair grinning like a Cheshire cat, Alastair Campbell straight faced talking to Jeremy Paxman.

More to the point who is they. Not usually a conspiracy theorist, but can Hutton really just be a monumental cock-up ? Could they be Murdoch ? Look out for all sorts of rational reasons to “better control” the BBC. Classical reason is the conspiracy and the BBC could be its victim here.

Mentioned a couple of posts ago that I was re-evaluating blog software going forward – basically I need something to organise my myriad of thoughts – one per index card, in Pirsigian fashion – into potential categories, in order to synthesise something from it. Think I’m going to go with MT TypePad.

At the same time, I happen to be particularly busy with the day job, although one benefit is that the travelling is giving me a great opportunity to read – so I’ve been re-reading stuff.

Since the new year, I’ve re-read all five books of Douglas Adams’ Hitchiker’s Guide to the Universe “trilogy” – found myself annotating it like an academic text. Makes you think (and laugh).

Also re-reading for the umpteenth time Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila”. Still finding that common sense epiphany of “Aha, of course, that’s what the problem really is” – perhaps a little naive with the benefit of more hindsight and wider philosophical reading. Haven’t got there yet, but I can already see that the metaphysics of Lila is going to go one step too far. Also re-read Maggie Hettinger’s summary of MoQ, and discussion of the various static / dynamic tensions. Maggie quotes key pieces from Pirsig ….

[Quote] (Pirsig, 1991, Lila)
This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what’s good in life isn’t defined by society or intellect or biology. What’s good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn’t have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves.

Less threatening than revolutionary “creative destruction”.
Seeing the baby, for the bathwater.
[This chapter I shall mostly be mixing my metaphors – working title ?]
A basis for evolutionary change.

[Quote] (Pirsig, 1997 letter to the Lila Squad)
The material for the MOQ is not something I invented out of thin air. It has been lying dormant within the culture for centuries. I have mined probably less than one per cent of what is there. The best readers will pay minimal attention to what I have found and maximal attention to what I have missed. That’s where the excitement is.

Nothing new under the sun – agreed many times here.
Tip of an iceberg – visible evidence of an underlying reality, not necessarily a metaphysical foundation of that reality.

Now where was I ?