Month: January 2010

The Half-Moon lives to rock another day.

Joining up the dots has been a mantra of mine for 3 years or so (and a project under germination for most of that time) so interesting to hear this language from Obama.

“Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.”

The important semantics (and values) are in the connections. And by the way, I agree with Mardell here too.

Just a quickie. I’m reading Hitchens “God is not Great”. I admitted earlier, when I heard him talking, that I had understimated Hitchens in all the God vs Science hysteria. Will the intelligent world ever live down guilt by association with Dawkins !? Thank god for Dennett, Harris and Hitchens (and the Archbishop). Only a couple of chapters in … excellent read so far.

This struck me. After a litany of religiously compromised and politicised diabolical health-care decisions, he says … in passing … before continuing with his litany.

It happened to be election year in New York for the mayor, which often explains a lot.

My recurring point. You bet it explains most of the problem. It’s the decision-making meme at work (not theistic religion particularly – though how anyone could defend the organized religion examples in Hitchens health-care chapter is nevertheless beyond me). And it’s the decision-making meme at work in situations of governance and management. Reducing ethical decisions to binary choice has to be the dumbest solution to a complex problem – come in Mary Parker-Follett.

Bl**dy reductionist scientism again (see previous post).

Typical George Monbiot piece in the Guardian. A rant against consumerism leading to a call for a movement against consumerism. Well yeah, but for what ? He is right when he says …

“Our challenge is now to fight a system we have internalised.”

But I think you need to broaden your search for the cuplrit system, beyond consumerism itself. Most people really are more intelligent than to ignore the detrimental aspects of comsuming whilst ignoring the collateral damage.

The internalised system – the meme – we are suffering from, is one that leads us to expect simple logical considerations like this to be reflected in collective action. We have come to rely, through their immense success, on the processes of science and technology to lead us to “the right decisions and actions” as if by faith in their empirical, objective and reductionist magic.

We have internalized the “scientism” meme, at the expense of values and wisdom, in all aspects of living on the planet.

What we need is a movement for wisdom, values, quality … you name it … to counterbalance the idol of objectivity in numbers and logic.

Not expecting a quick return to Reading – Hmmm ?

…. to the list of theologians talking sense. Thanks to David Morey for the link.

Relatively few scientists are working constructively to build conceptual bridges between science and religion. (Of course, this makes the few who are all the more important.) Most bench scientists are suspicious of those who call for an integration of science and religion, a new unitary perspective that draws from and learns from both. New Age, Eastern, and some liberal theologians, for example, make such calls, and upon them are heaped the greatest amounts of scorn.

Must also read Clayton’s response to Dan Dennett. (Excellent, no truly brilliant, thoroughly recommended. Although billed as a response to Dennett, in fact there is no particular criticism of Dennett, but plenty for Dawkins – a man after mine own. 

 … I am less disturbed by Dawkins’ tin ear for all things theological. (After all, he writes so beautifully.)

Finely honed stuff. Direct hit on the memetic target.

[Post Note – Hans Kung – “The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion”]

Two more great links from Sam.

Nil (very low) cash living … really about co-dependent community, if you get to the conclusion.

Big leap in power storage battery from Panasonic, brings smart-grid closer.