Year: 2009

Priceless.

A 1980 film that passed me by, of a genre that I wouldn’t normally be looking out for anyway … but I discover includes footage of Stevie Lange performing The Stripper with Night, as well as performances from UB40, Pretty Things and B A Robertson. (A track not published in any other recording, except the inevitable YouTube. The clip – including a strip – has been removed, but the sound track is ripped here.) What a voice.

In her current line of voice-coaching and music-production business Stevie is promoting her work with heavy rock band from Virginia  Sekshun 8.

Another great Einstein quote, provided by Steve Peterson in the Hildebrand / Dewey / Rorty thread mentioned earlier on MoQ.Discuss.

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”

This is my “there is always a hole in any metaphysics” point. And, let’s not forget that ingenious is the root of “engineering”, Dennett’s preferred intentional metaphor for evolutionary processes … cue blind watchmaker … etc.

I linked earlier to the BBC resources aimed at celebrating the 200 and 150 year annivesaries of Darwin and the Origin.

When I saw the “In Our Time” schedule for Darwin last week I had to yawn however. So I also had to smile also when Melvyn in his own newsletter decided not to mention the subject of the series at all, or only in passing in the newsletter about the subsequent week’s subject – Thoreau.

I didn’t think that I needed to write newsletters about Darwin, … there seemed not a lot else to say.

Why oh why did the BBC miss a chance to contribute to the value of Darwin in the evolving world of here and now by going back to the history of his life and times – again ?

OK so it is amazing how much Victorian gentlemen really were working on the right stuff (despite the conservative image of their day) and how the rise in the dominance of science and technology through 20th century wars and economics almost totally obscured that view. Evolution as the most important natural process in human progress was true then, as before and even more so now. The resources of education must be focussed on explaining that point. Contributing to the fluff that takes our eye off that ball was a major gaff by the Beeb.

Still at least Melvyn noticed the real topic, when linking the contemporay rise of US Pragmatism from Darwin, through Thoreau …

I’m always astonished by the range of these great Victorian men.

So come on Melvyn and the Beeb, join up the dots, and stop falling down into the tried and tested silos of subject matter.

Debating the legal niceties never helped anyone but lawyers.

Glad to see the Israel Gaza conflict back in proper focus after the inordinate coverage of the feel-good Hudson Hero story over two days.

Of course phosphorus weapons are legal battlefield weapons, but that gives Israel absolutely no moral right to use them in the densely populated Gaza. Criminal. And they’ve been doing it continuously since December. Criminally cynical too for Israel to launch this offensive over Christmas and New Year and whilst the US administration is in limbo. The UN effectiveness must be strengthened to balance these Christian / US weaknesses.

How does Israel expect any case it has for Levantine lands to be taken seriously when it acts like this ?

Sign this petition at No.10 Downing Street if you want live music to continue at venues in the UK.

Direct intervention by fitting technology based control is rarely the best solution to any human problem.

[Post note – and as Tom pointed out something like a non-amplified brass-band concert can be as loud as an amplified gig, so having the technology-based limiter simply discriminates against musical genres.]

Two excellent articles by Danny Postel, one the last interview with Rorty before his death in 2007, and one shortly after on his brand of atheism.

Links from Steve Peterson commenting on a great thread on Dewey and Hildebrand on MoQ-Discuss, posted by Dave Buchannan and debated again with Matt Kundert.

{Post Note :

Hildebrand’s “The Neopragmatist Turn” on Hildebrand’s web site.

The original post thread has links to Hildebrand’s books on Amazon as of course does his own web site above. Some specific quotes from Hildebrand on Dewey, from the JohnDewey.org web-site that he edits.

Dewey’s entreaties—that philosophy start from lived experience (practically), motivated by moral ends (meliorism)—are prescriptive but necessarily vague. They pose a challenge to professionalized philosophers, who tend to respond by demanding specifics

… [but, rather than to look for absolute value or reality per se, should instead] …

… have the courage and emotional intelligence to trade certain answers for questions which aim to make life better.

Can’t argue with that – “trading answers for questions”. 

So,
so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field
from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
a walk on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?

How I wish
how I wish you were here.
We’re just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found ?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

(Waters / Gilmour)

Well, did they get you to trade ?
Ever wish you were here ?
Did Wittgenstein, Dewey, Pirsig or Rorty show you the way out of that fly-bottle, or are you a lost soul still running over that same old ground ?}

Interesting reporting on this campaign, on the use of the word “probably”.

Some implying Dawkins was against it in his quip “about as likely as the tooth fairy” and suggesting the word was enforced by advertising regulations against Dawkins wishes, whereas others indicate that the campaign organiser (not Dawkins) had no intention of being dogmatic. I guess the dogmatic Dawkins invites this kind of trouble, even though quip and dogma are miles apart.

This is back to the agnostic / atheist definitional – cup half-full / half-empty – problem. To a theist a non-theist seems to have to be either agnostic or atheist so they can choose the right argument. But to a non-theist the distinction only matters if they are also being dogmatic. “Probably no god” (in the sense the public would understand a theist believes in a god, as a opposed to a sophisticated theologian) is exactly right to any pragmatist who sees no reason to invoke a god – a non-theist. It’s not agnostic; the pragmatist cares about the question, and has decided the answer on balance of evidence, probabilities, etc, like any rational (scientific) pragmatist. A non-theist is a non-dogmatic atheist, a concept that is tough for a dogmatically “faithful” theist to comprehend. Dawkins speaks to people he wants to pick a fight with.