Category: Uncategorized

Cervantes’ Don Quixote is indeed a “great book” in every sense. I make it almost half a million words, and I’m just a third of the way through its 1100 pages. Clearly at that scale, it’s full of stories within stories, and from the fact that the stories people quote from it – the “giant” windmills and the “army” of sheep – are half a page each in the first 50 or so pages, leads me suspect that not many people stay the course.

Who is really mad, what makes a story true or real, and what makes a good justification or rationalisation for action are the main themes. The device of portraying Quixote as completely barmy and Sancho as a simpleton, simply allows Cervantes to put into their mouths his unpalatable truths. The book-burning curate is the recurring baddie in the plot so far – now there’s a surprise.

(Must research whether the logical inconsistencies in the plot, pointed out by Smollett, were believed to be deliberate or genuine accidents – if this was cinema, continuity would be sacked over Sancho’s re-appearing ass. Talking of ass, the coarse and lewd descriptions of bodily functions put me in mind of Melville’s butchery in Moby Dick – you can almost smell it.)

The story of Anselmo and Lothario (8 sheets of manuscript but over 50 pages of the book ?) is an excellent parable of best-laid plans, road-to-hell, best intentions. Put me in mind of William James (or was it Barrett) – “the most rational plans often bring about the complete opposite of what they intend”. Oh, and the women are cleverer than the men, naturally. ‘Twas ever thus.

Can’t help thinking about those million 21st century Venezuelan’s ploughing through the 17th century Spanish – the 18th century English is tough enough. I wonder what Chavez was (is) hoping to inspire – intriguing.

(I have ten other unread books stacking up behind me – but I may be some weeks before I can get round to them.)

====

[Post Note – my conclusions after finishing the read.]

[Post Note – 2003 review from Harold Bloom.]

I really would like to get off this “anti-theist” track, but it just keeps coming.

The Rev Sam Norton posted this UK Grauniad link on MoQ the other day. It met with mixed responses ranging from cheering on the battle against “immature” atheists to those critical of its mealy mouthed tone eg “I can almost hear the editors commissioning this piece: We need something that looks like a whole lotta critical thinking is going on, and yet comes down firmly on the side of the angels.”

Both sides of the argument make my point. Firstly mainstream opinion must indeed tread amongst the eggshells in being critical of “theism”, and secondly naive scientific argument plays right into the theist trap.

These were my responses to these specific quotes from the article …

“Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science.” I say – Agreed. I keep complaining about the naive use of science in debates everywhere.

“No other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.” I say – you must have heard me say exactly that a hundred times. Catch-22.[Here is the article where I said it most comprehensively.]

“The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is – a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality …” Ian says – absolutely (A placebo, an opitate of the people, he goes on to say in his book). It can no more be false as it could conceivably be true in connection with reality.

I am genuinely A-theist, but am conscious that I take an Anti-theist stance, but that’s because I find theists arguing about “reality”. If they didn’t, I could respectfully ignore the lot of em. (As in fact I will, should anyone so much as suggest a “god” with any causal effect on the real world.)

The self-replicating robot news story.

Don Quixote’s progress.

The Guardian article on theistic arguments.

Setting up my categories and a proposal for extending their behaviour.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

NOTE
This is “p1” since switching to WordPress in May 2005.
Psybertron has been blogging continuously since September 2001.

To start at the beginning go to September 2001.
Earliest post at the bottom.
(Archives also linked in the side-bar).

“Troubleshooter” in the Enlightened Caveman thread provides this link.

Actually it’s funny, but it’s not lighthearted is it ? It’s quite chilling how true it is. It’s even more chlling that the creator (of the cartoon) felt he had to use Norse mythology as his foil, rather than christianity. Now I am being paranoid.

File under “many a true word” and “every picture paints”.

Post Note : Looking beyond the cartoon link, there is quite a bit of thinking here that gels exactly with mine – there is some critique of the creationists quest to get their “theory” on an equal footing with the other one on school curricula. How many times have we referenced that ? Two specific points ..

(1) The Darwinist gets to say something important before he get’s it – Evolution is a theory the elegantly explains the available data AND is supported by empirical …

(2) He says – It?s always both cute and pathetic listening Fundamentalists try to use the language of empiricism to try to defend their wonky myths and superstitions, sort of like seeing chimpanzees wear little human clothes or very young children trying to use polite etiquette. They can approximate the form, but they just don?t get the content. They don?t understand what the word ?theory? means; they confuse correlation with causality; they argue by analogy; they can?t keep a grip on logic. I?m not going to waste any space in this artist?s statement explaining or arguing for the theory of evolution; it?s like having to argue for the theory of gravity or electricity. And anyway, there?s no point in engaging advocates of Creationism or Intelligent Design in debate as though they really accepted enlightenment values or could be convinced by evidence or persuaded by rational discourse. There?s no reason to talk to them at all.

This “lighthearted note” is deadly serious, and correct.

You’re right Robert – Tim Kreider’s Pain Comics site is very good. This is not a space you can work in without humour. When will it all end ? is the desperate message though. Eclectic set of lists too – Beefheart Bacon Zappa Nietsche Kubrick Axis-of-Eve Mongoloidian-Glow rubbing shoulders.

I’m getting into a tight corner on MoQ-Discuss, where it has been impossible to avoid debate between scientific belief and religious faith. At least we’ve got the level down below the history of global politics and war, where there is some chance of debate rather than propagandised gain-saying. As you know I’ve been in many respects anti-science, or at least anti the extreme-logical-positivist or exclusively-scientific-fundamentalist aspects of some applications of “science” in management in particular. (I see even Enlightened Caveman is embroiled in an identical debate – this god stuff is pernicious, gets everywhere.)

However, finding myself practically a universal Darwinist – most real world change processes have some element of “copy, vary, select” – I can’t help but reject any kind of intellient designer creationism, or indeed any purposeful, causal “god” real or metaphorical.

I made the point that what was convincing about science, “quality of explanation”, was not exclusive to science, and lumped just about any of the intellectual spheres of thought into the same pot philosophers, artists, ologists of practically any kind. Except theologians, where either such explanations were not made, or if they were, were constructed with “dishonest intellect” using false logic and premises of mediaeval science. I was not alone, but seem to be carrying the brunt of the demand for explanation. (See David Deutsch posts earlier for post-Popperian scientific explanations.)

Anyway faced with “explain what you mean by science, or at least a high-qualty explanation” I spotted via Sue Blackmore the “Spiked” Guardian survey of 250 scientists asked “What one thing do you think everyone should know about science” as part of the Einstein / e=mc2 centenary year of science. (The full survey is here, along with more analysis.)

Some of it is quite predictable – Dawkins’ plea against intelligent design … some of it is fairly simple, single tangible examples from that scientist’s sphere, targetted for a lay public …. and a good deal of it focusses on uncertainty, and the intent of scientific method, as the distinguishing aspect of science.

In fact the majority are about the easy half of scientific method – the disproving of false hypotheses – very little said about the creativity of formulating good candidate hypotheses, and explaning why before subjecting them to falsification.

Well I’m still reading – only 200 to go, but I’ve reached the D’s – and lo David Deutsch is amongst them. Sadly he was lost for words, or rather refused to be drawn on a single fact – so responded “read my book” (which as recorded earlier is about how not one but four distinct threads support each other as the most fundamental science). I know he’s right, but it’s a pity he missed that chance. He didn’t make the cut to the Guardian summary.

Or in this case, “It was a tongue-in-cheek idea which seemed to catch the imagination.” says Pep Torres, inventor of this Spanish battle-of-the-sexes work-sharing washing machine.

Isn’t it always the way. Technology and intellect are nothing without imagination and humour.

I referred to the Alexander McCall-Smith Von Igelfeld Trilogy described as a farcical germanic Frasier / Clousseau mix. Well its true, but it was thought prvoking in a philosophical kind of way – the farce allows a surreal world to supplant the supposedly real, but who knows which is which kind of thing. Truth stranger than fiction.

Like Don Quixote, which I’ve just started reading, there is an element of the writer writ, the reader read. The Von Igelfeld character is a writer whose only repute is through his written work, that no-one has read. I notice McCall-Smith’s third work is “The Sunday Philosophy Club”.

Very impressed with the Carlos Fuentes introduction to “The Modern Library CLassics” edition of Tobias Smollett’s translation of Cervantes, as well as Smollett’s own description of the life of Cervantes. Fuentes quotes Bachelard “But when science, ethics, politics and philosophy disciver their own limitations, they appeal to literature to go beyond their insufficiencies. Yet they only discover with literature itself, the permanent divorce between words and things.” Summarising Erasmus, who was a major influence on Cervantes, through his tutor Juan Lopez de Hoyos, Fuentes says “The Erasmian folly, set at the crossroads of two cultures [faith and reason], relativises the absolutes of both: this is a madness critically set in the very heart of faith, but also at the very heart of reason. The Madness of Erasmus is a questioning of man by man himself, reason by reason itself, and no longer by god, sin or the devil. Thus revitaised, man is no longer subjugated to fate or faith; but neither is he the absolute master of reason.”

Nothing new under the sun, again. Why are we still stuck in this dualist battle 400 years later ?

I also love all the “first modern novel” allusions, and the cross links to Shakespear’s Hamlet, Lear and Macbeth. I had no idea. I think I’m going to learn something in the next 1100 pages of close-spaced tiny print !.

[Oh yeah, and Reading blew it, losing at home to Wolves after leading – Oh well, all down to hoping for results on the final day of the season next Sunday.]

Been watching a TV documentory about Australian management practices (can’t find a link for now … ) and was struck by a quote from a Harvard guy, that echoed with the one I keep using from John Z DeLorean – “Committees of moral men make immoral decisions.”

The quote yesterday was “So many board members seem to lose their ethics in the car on the drive to the office.” The game in the boardroom is about pushing the envelope of the legally possible, not “what is right”. Quite different from their domestic behaviour with family and friends, most of them go to church (sic). Partly it was seen as a detachment issue – reaching the boardroom as a retirment reward, rather than a job affecting people – but whatever the mechanism, the behaviour is real enough.

Saw the H2G2 film this evening. Remarkably good; story, effects and the point – all pretty true to the first book, as true as any screenplay adaptation. The John Malkovich character the only superfluous addition. The planetary construction scene is indeed impressive. Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast steals the show. The whole presentation seemed quite literal, new audiences should have no trouble following the narrative, powerful stuff.

(And Sunderland are Champions. Whoohoo … More importantly The Royals get the edge over Hammers for that final play-off place. So close this season, even the one extra goal conceded by Hammers drops them behind the Royals. Unlucky Mr Pardew. Enjoy the party Mr McCarthy.)