Organ matters - Organs matter!

Quote from: revtonynewnham on April 07, 2012, 10:50:16 AM

Quote from: AnOrganCornucopia on April 06, 2012, 08:42:43 PM
Though he'd have been toast without his brother George and his son Vincent, arguably the greatest voicer and inventor in the whole family  ;D

Hi

I think you rather overstate the case here!  Undoubtedly George & Vincent made big contributions to the firm, but would it have succeeded without Henry's skill - and business sense, not to mention his tonal ideas which were somewhat different to the norms of the time.

Every Blessing

Tony

=======================

Of Fr Willis's skill I have not the slightest doubt, but of his business skills I have considerable doubts, considering that he was a profligate spender, had a huge motor-yacht, (with a full-time permanent staff) and left the company almost bankrupt.

Amusingly, I cannot resist quoting Henry IV in "Howard Goodall's Organ Works,"when he said.....(I hope I get this right from memory).....

"My great grandfather was not inhibited by the 1889 briberies and corruption act. (Ed: I'm not sure if such an Act of Parliament was ever passed!) The usual thing was to have two patrons, each unkown to the other; with each patron paying a half and the church paying the other half. This made certain organ-building quite profitable."

Then he went on to reveal, "My great grandfather, thanks to a certain vicar, married his first wife's sister, which was then illegal. To this day, there is a Willis organ in the church, for which they did not pay and which doesn't appear in the books."

He was certainly a character!

MM

Japan is a country of considerable culture, and there is a liberal attitude to "foreign" religions and human rights generally. It's therefore not suprising to find a great love of the best western culture as well as their own; the two being quite complimentary in many ways. (Japanese melodies work especially well with pentatonic and modal harmonies).

Another country with an increasingly strong organ tradition is South Korea, where there are many very promising young organists making a name for themselves; especially in America.

China is another story, for the communist ideal and the party of the people must predominate. Religion is therefore seen as a threat, as the voice of individuality and dissent. Nevertheless, there is a growing appreciation for all things concerned with western art-music, but is more likely to be found in the concert hall and places of education than in churches. For the forseeable future, I wouldn't expect that to change.

I cannot speak for the Phillipines, Malaysia or the other far-eastern regions such as Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam etc., because I know little about them from a cultural point of view. The Phillipnes may be a very catholic country, but with massive over-crowding and considerable poverty in the major cities, I suspect that day-today survival is more important than cultural matters and organs in churches; not forgetting the famous "bamboo organ" in Manilla.

Still, it is interesting to discover a lot happening in and around this part of the world.

MM

Norman & Beard....of course....silly me!

Thanks for the additional details. I've often pondered what stops may have been added at Ambleside, and the information fills in the gap.

MM

Quote from: flared_ophicleide on April 01, 2012, 11:01:15 PM

Quote from: MusingMuso on April 01, 2012, 09:27:34 PM

As a period piece and as a piece of organ heritage, I am very pleased that this organ has been retained and restored; if only to remind us of the tonal defects as well as the tonal possibilities.

MM

The reason I bring this up is that my theory is that the organist wanted an 8' Q, but instead was in favor of the 2 2/3', which he/she could add to the 8' St. Diapason to get the same effect.  Another use for this, is coupling to the Great Diapason chorus.  It is interesting that Hill, Norman & Beard would come up with an anomaly like this.  More than likely an experiment.

skf

==========================


I'm quite sure that the experimental played an important part with H,N & B; not least because they worked with Hope-Jones in the development of the wooden Tibias and the fact that Quintatons are quite common on the larger Wurlitzer organs. (They also supplied pipework to Compton!)
I think, however, if you read the NPOR entry, you'll find reference to "tonal additions" at a later date with the Ambleside organ, so I'm not entirely certain that everything which now is always existed. Hoiwever, most of it is original, including the diaphones.

MM

The Ambleside organ is actually rather lovely tonally, but of course, the choice of repertoire is limited on such an instrument.

When I played it many years ago, it was in fine voice, and what struck me was the superb voicing of the various ranks; though the blend was perhaps typical of an orchestral organ rather than a symnphonic one, and at least as close to a theatre oirgan as it is to a church organ. The organ at Battersea Town Hall enjoys a similar sort of pedigree; being Hope Jones/HN&B of a similar period.

The one curiosity at Ambleside is the Choir Nazard at 2.2/3ft, which seems completely out of place, buit which actually is rather nice.

As a period piece and as a piece of organ heritage, I am very pleased that this organ has been retained and restored; if only to remind us of the tonal defects as well as the tonal possibilities.

MM

A friend of mine used to go, (as a senior toy-buyer for Woolworths), to Japan and China. Fairly fluent in far-eastern languages,he thoroughly enjoyed going there; describing the Chinese as "rather giggly people with a great sense of fun, who love to play games."

Obviously, the "far east" is a rather big area, and although dominated by the sheer scale of China, it would seem that the organ, (in various guises), has quite a following in various countries.

Although we naturally link Japan to Yamaha, (and the electronic and acoustic instruments they produce when they're not making motor-bikes), it would seem that the electronic-organ still has quite a following in various places in the far east; especially the entertainment organ/synthesiser type of instrument.

Browsing around on YouTube, I came across some very interesting videos, which range for the funny to the awesome to the world-class, and crossing several genres in the process.


Without much of an organ and church culture, except in the former colonial centres such as Hong-Kong, China could be forgiven for neglecting the organ, but not a bit of it, as the first video demonstrates. Here we hear a documentary about the newish concert organ in Shanghai, which is the largest in China. Clearly, this is the start of something interesting for the Chinese people, who seem to gravitate towards all that is best in western music.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBFtgzmxunY  Shanghai organ (Rieger)

The Chinese sense of fun seems to bubble up in the following two videos.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa171qbC1TE&feature=relmfu  Super Mario Theme

Why not organ and percussion? Mr.Lemmens wouldn't have minded, surely?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwOQT3ASuNo  Lemmens Fanfare


Of course, Japan is the home of the synthesiser style of organ, and although the British market seems to have nose-dived, there is no doubt that in other parts of the world, these instruments not only have a following, they have some remarkable exponents associated with them.

Take a small Malaysian boy, feed him, wash him, send him to the best teacher in town, buy him a keyboard or two, then sit back and wait a short while.

Irrespective of genre, has anyone ever seen or heard of a more confident, (arrogant?) 8 year-old boy than this, who not only gets to grips with a very complex instrument, but also succeeds in winning a major competition. The stage-presence of this little boy is just astounding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS4LnsFDtQQ&feature=related

As someone who enjoys many genres of music, I recall a very special concert, when I went to hear the legendary Max Takano in London, playing Yamaha Electone. The following is his version of the classic Latin American number, "Tico Tico," but it is the percussion-riff in the middle which is just eye-wateringly brilliant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsaW82u4U-8&feature=related    Tico Tico   


Still with Max Takano, who now teaches in a Japanese University, he is here joined by Chiho Sunamoto in a truly beautiful performance of "The way we were."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u9hAhE4fxQ&feature=related


Still in Japan, would you expect to hear a magnificent organ and orchestra together, in a performance of Guilmant's 1st Sonata?

Here is Olivier Vernet doing just that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ejBEbZE80&feature=channel Olivier Vernet in Japan - Guilmant


And finally, not only the superb Mascioni organ in St Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo, but possibly one of the finest performances of Bach I've ever come across, played by Lorenzo Ghielmi:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVgNMpKQ5O4  Mascioni organ Tokyo

MM

Dear MM

In all but the above you have stumped me utterly, driving me into total humility. I had had the arrogance to think that the interpretation of God as the Force that creates Order from the scale of the universe to the femtoverse and all the derivative ideas explored above was the final answer. And all, apparently, to naught. Oh dear.  :'(

On your original question, however, the writings of Alice Bailey, who was a descendant of Benjamin Henry Latrobe who went as a Christian missionary to India suggest that one can . . .

Perhaps one might look in terms of all religions having rules for those who can only understand rules and seek a good life by trying to obey them, modes of thought for people who can think, ideas for people who can process and act upon "the idea", the spirit, and universality for people who lean towards it.

Best wishes,

David P
[/quote]

====================

Dear David,

You've also stumped me. What on earth is a femtoverse?  (I shall google this).

Seriously, the quest for an understanding of the nature of God,creation and the universe, is as natural as turning over a stone to see what lies beneath. Even the absolute atheist must utlimately arrive at the same conclusion as the believer, that the creation of all things is beyond comprehension. The agnsotic arrives at the same conclusion, but admits early on that the question is possibly more significant than the answer. I wouldn't presume to believe or disbelieve that creation has an intelligent life-force behind it, and neither would I presume to believe or disbelieve in the chaos theory. The only thing I know, is that we simply do not have the capacity to even count the distances, the number of galaxies, stars and planets or comprehend the time scale involved. So vast is the universe, it is perhaps entirely possible that the numbers game created the support for life and life itself in a quite random way; everything that we are being constructed of the cosmic dust created at the moment of the big-bang, and situated at the corner of a tiny galaxy in a life supporting planetary-orbit around a tiny speck of a star.

It's funny, but when we look at creation, in all its vastness, one of our shortest words sums it all up.....wow!

So while the agnostic may suspend belief, they also suspend disbelief, and it is therefore an ongoing creative process rather than one which is neither one thing nor the other.

Alice Bailey sounds interesting. I deliberately asked the question about Christian agnostics, Hindus and the rest for a simple reason, because it is very easy to overlook the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a practising Jew, as were many of his followers, and therefore the concept of a Christian Jew carries with it a certain authority.

You last point I entirely agree with, and for me personally, any act of worship is, (or should be), a celebration of "an idea," a spirit and a universal truth; supported by what we might agree as "good" and worthwhile things.

Faith, for me, is a very down to earth thing, and has the beauty of absolute simplicity. I am nothing if not a simple soul at heart.

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on March 26, 2012, 07:46:36 PM


I have been pondering the consequences of the line of logic.......

QuoteThe spirit lives materially in the body of the church, and is passed on.

Yes - and after this how can anyone be atheist . . . or merely agnostic? Does it not makes sense and capable of doing so to everybody?

=================



The fence on which I sit is sturdy enough, in spite of comprising no more than atomic particles and molecules.

I still cannot make a meaningful link between creation and the acceptance of Jesus as a holy entity. A creator God must be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-present: Jesus rather more approachable. Hence my preference for the Christological 'quest' for lack of a better word, which means that I don't have to get bogged down by soothsaying, pseudo-science and outrageous speculation.

The problem we all face is one of analogy and simile. As a musician, I would be searching for a God of harmony perhaps, or "the music of the spheres." Were I a farmer, I might be searching for the holy wheatgerm. As a driver, perhaps the holy sat-nav.

Let's not delude ourselves,because whatever the "creative force" of the universe is, it is utterly beyond our comprehension. Worse still, such is the vastness of the universe, it is not inconceivable that life on Earth is a question of mathemtaical probability and a game of chance; the order out of chaos merely the way things panned out, without need of past, present or future.

We can argue about it until we are blue in the face, or express faith in this or that, but no-one knows and possibly never will.

So it comes back to my original question.

Is it possible to be a Christian agnostic, Buddhist or Hindu?

If not, why not?

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on March 25, 2012, 10:33:47 PM
:-) But one can argue that the Genesis 1 Deity is "The Force that creates order out of Disorder", and "The Idea" with it and cannot die and "The Son of The Idea", as an idea, cannot die and in the Garden of Gethsemane when the stone is rolled away, Jesus, "The Son of The Idea", asks us to arise with him, for the spirit (communication of The Idea) cannot die and for us to arise with him that cannot die.If one sticks to the material, to the world of the concrete, one gets weighed down by the massiveness of the intractible problems. When one arises to the spiritual interpretation, all the problems evaporate away.[/color

]I have half a feeling that the Book is for all to read, the followers of the material to argue about, and the spiritual to understand

Postscript

Indeed, from the moment of birth of all matter it is the force that ordered the disordered energy arising from the Big Bang into the order of matter.

===================

This is theology at work, as it relates to the 21st century, and I think demonstrates that the spiritual is far more powerful than the material. Indeed, if we invert the perspective of the crucifixion and the ressurection, the fact that the spirit could not die, means that the spirit had no reason to return as a physical manifestation. That would be far too material and a bit too exhibitionist for my liking, and of course, slightly pointless.

The spirit lives materially in the body of the church, and is passed on.

I think we are as one in so many ways, but with one exception....

Just the one big bang?

Let's not go there!  :)

Quote from: revtonynewnham on March 24, 2012, 06:53:16 PM

Although I see and understand, and to some extent like the arguments about the Virgin Birth, etc, I would want to emphasise that the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus are hard facts - historical events.  Without them, the whole basis of the Christian faith disappears.  Paul talks about that in one of the epistles "if Christ has not been raised from the dead, we are of all men the most miserable ... our faith is in vain".

=====================

If someone dies, everything that they were still exists, and if someone is born, then everything that they are already existed prior to their birth. In a way, birth and death are mutually interchangable, but fo course, the deciding factor is the presence of the genetic code and the nature of life itself.

Therefore, it would be fair to say that even IF a deity decides to take on humnan form, then that human form must eventually die. The actual machanism is largely irrelevant.

So we MUST accept that Jesus was born by whatever means, and we know how he died. That doesn't take much belief,and it can rightly be considered a statement of fact.

The burning question is the nature of ressurection, because even if it happened absolutely according to the Biblical accounts, it would have been a very brief phenomenon. (Obviously a rather unusual one, unless Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion and was merely unconcious).

Considering that Jesus didn't indulge much in magic tricks, even when people asked for a "sign," I have my doubts about the nature of the ressurection, for I have to ask myself what the purpose might have been. The far more significant truth is that a man was executed on the basis of his beliefs and perfect example, which sent all but his mum and Mary Magdalene running off like frightened chickens at a barbecue.

Surely, the REAL miracle of physical "resurrection" is the fact that the disciples and followers found a new confidence and direction, AS THE BODY OF CHRIST. ("On this rock I found my church"......"You will perform greater miracles than I") So my undertsanding of the ressurection is infinitely more powerful and meaningful than a man jumping up from the grave, which certain people apparently claim happens all the time in Jamacaian voodoo.

Of course, I'm just a fence-dwelling Christian agnostic, and until the church gets its act together and starts to believe in the very believable rather than a lot of slightly pointless miracles, I shall probably have to remain there.


MM

Why couldn't we make a wine powered hydraulus?

We'd have a never-ending source lucrative employment, like ice-cream vendors in their vans. A quick burst of BWV565 and a thousand alcoholics would rush out to greet us.

More seriously, wasn't a hydraulus recreated in Pecs, (Hungary), where the remains of a Roman hydralus were discovered in the foundations of  what had been the  Roman city of Aquincum?

MM

Dear MM


......How many other areas of the bible can make more sense lifted into the spiritual world than merely left set in concrete of the material?

Best wishes

David P
[/quote]

======================


I respond very quickly, because we finally come to the heart of the subject.

What if God is but a term for spiritual creation and re-creation?

What if the virgin birth is seen as a baby born into the perfect family; unsullied by sin and selfishness?

What if the crucifixion is repeated a thousand times; the slaughter of innocent children in Syria, for example?

What if the ressurection happens time and time again, whenever the spiritual overcomes death and there is the realisation that you can't destroy an idea, a spiritual and human truth or keep a good man down?

What if the ascension is both the constant re-affirmation of Christ's godly status, as well as the elevation of Christ's spiritual body, (his church), to the role of the ascended and divine authority?

What if the spiritual world is altogther more meaningful and infintely  less problematical; to the point that it is entirely compatible with science.

What if, indeed!


MM

Oh dear! We're in danger of getting bogged down in detail here.

However, I don't think Tony and myself will get to blows or exchange letter bombs. We are perhaps approaching the same things from a different perspective As for being cynical in my view of the Bible, I hope not. I was trying to be realistic, because quite a lot of the bible is incomprehensible to all but biblical scholars to-day, (of which I am not), simply because western culture has shifted dramatically away from the middle-eastern culture which spawned the Jewish and Christian faiths. (Indeed, the Greeks were a special problem even to St Paul, so it is not a uniquely modern problem).

I'm not an expert, but my simple understanding is that knowledge was disseminated more by word of mouth than by written documents. It isn't a question of literacy so much as practicality, because books and scripts were hand-written, and the most important books and scriptures would have been both valuable and rare. Has anyone seen the size of hand-written Jewish scriptures in the synagogues or considered the sheer bulk of hand-written, illuminated Bibles?

It is possibly for this reason that dissent and regional variations started to occcur very quickly in the early days of the early church, because the process of "passing things on verbally" is fraught with difficulty. Ask the same question of a dozen eye-witnesses at a criminal trial, and you get twelve different versions of the truth. Hearsay, for good reason, is not allowed, unless you are conducting "witch trials" or work for Mr Murdoch.

As David points out, the bible was probably an attempt at religious/political unification; not unliike Charlamagne requiring people to be baptised or else!  (The catholics in Spain did something similar with the Moors, and the Islamic Turks did the same thing to Christianity in Hungary). It's what great institutions and movements do, and in political terms, called "marching in step."

As for scripture itself, there is no doubt but that Genesis is impressive; I quite agree with David on this. It is either stupendously lucky guesswork, or an inspired piece of writing. Quite how they got the order of things so right, when they knew nothing of the principal sciences associated with the formation of the planet and life on earth, I cannot even imagine.

One of the great turning points in human history, the rennaissance, was probably as much to do with the printing-press as it was to do with enlightenment.,,,,the accurate and relatively quick replication of perceived knowledge and wisdom.....the start of intellectual "schools of thought" and accesible libraries  The computer is, of course, the next great revolution.

(There is a wonderful bit of medieval satire in the carol "Adam lay y bounden," where reference is made to the rows and rows of monks hand-writing illuminated scripts, with the words, "As clerkes fynden, written in their books.")

However, an awful lot of the old testament is concerned with lineage, tribal history. morality tales, custom, law and things specifically Jewish. This was put in to establish the true Jewish lineage of Jesus as being of the house of David, and thus a direct descendent of the royal house of David. Part of that Jewish heritage would have to adhere to the old prophecies, if Jesus was to be considered a deity. Hence the virgin birth myth, (for which there is little evidence), which plays a prominent part in Luke's gospel; Luke being specifically and very respectably Jewish.

If I recall correctly, the first and most reliable gospel is that written by Mark, which says very little about an awful lot, and which is possibly the most reliable as a consequence.

But does any of this mean anything to-day?

Believe it or not, I do actually believe something. I believe that the truths rather than the colourful story-telling are important enough to be treasured, but what I cannot and do not necessarily believe are the allegorical, mythological and theological accounts, which by their very nature, are inseperable from a particular set of tribal cultures in a particular region of the world at a particular time.

Could it be that the bible actually clouds the issues and obscures the truth behind the myths,legends and prophecies?

I could ramble on forever, but rather than do that, perhaps I could break off at this point, and instead make what may appear to be an outrageous set of propositions.

Is it possible that the "Christian way" is relevant to all religions and none?

Is it possible to be a Christian humanist, a Christian agnostic and, dare I suggest, a Christian Atheist, Buddhist or Hindu?

Discuss!

MM

I haven't time to respond immediately, but just a sub-note about the early church "not reading books."

I think it would be a mistake to think that people were not aware of religious tradition, even if the written word was much less important than the spoken word and the middle-eastern tradition of passing-on things verbally. (Why else would so many biblical stories be so imagninative and colourful?)

The disciples and early faithful would have been VERY well versed in all aspects of religion and tradition as a consequence.

So I cannot go along with the idea of an ignorant early church. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the complete Bible was not at the heart of the early church, but much of the old testament would have been for those of Jewish origin.

More later,

Best,

MM

Hi Tony,

I think that I now come up against and even greater problem than that concerned with the nature of God, which is belief in the Bible and a Bible-bound church which appears frozen in time and incapable of moving on.

There are so many holes in the Bible, it is now looking more like a sponge than a Swiss cheese, and as time goes on, more and more of it will be revealed as bad science, poor sociology, dubious history and vain-glorious supposition.

Now please don't misunderstand me, because there is so much to love and cherish in the Bible, but are we not expecting too much of this increasingly discredited "holy" book?  After all, none of the disciples ever read it, and neither did the early church. In reality, it was cobbled together and  derives from many disparate sources.

MM

It's sometime4s a very small world.  Not only did I have a rather nice pair of Wharfedale "Dovedale" speakers, with which I was quite satisfied for the better part of twenty years, I still go to the factory quite regrlarly; situated in Idle, to the east of Bradford.

The quite substantial Wharfedale factory is now given over to the manufacture of display fridges for the big supermarkets, and I was last there on Saturday.

One puzzle remains however, because I had always associated another name with the Wharfedale speakers; that of a certain Dr Bailey.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

MM

Dear David,

I think we have actually reached a point of concorde. It is the "supra-being" which is my problem, rather than the omnipotent power of creation which brings, however briefly in the life of a universe, order out of chaos. I just prefer not to call that God, because that would be a pretention too far. I do not know the answer, and I do not expect to ever know the answer, but whatever the creative process, it is mighty impressive.

This demonstrates that even those of a doubting, agnostic disposition are quite capable of dropping to their knees in awe.

Like you, I have a problem with churches presenting this as the work of a kindly, bearded gentleman sitting on a throne, hovering somewhere above America's 'Bible belt.' I have an even bigger problem with those who cannot live without the comfortable certainties of self-deception.

Best,

MM

For those who like to collect useless information........

The Fair Organ, working on punchcard mechanisms, owes it origins to the Jaquard Loom (patented in 1801, but actually dating from 1799), which was possibly the first example of logic control and programming. Apart from looms and fair organs, a similar idea was used in the later numeric control systems which could be used to programme such things as metal-working lathes.

However, unlike in the Netherlands, is is very rare to hear a fair organ being played on the streets, due to the 1887 (?) street performer's act, which was designed to curtail the playing of barrel organs on the streets of the capital.

Who were those responsible for this miserable piece of legislation?

None other than Charles Babbage, (of difference engine fame....the forerunner to the computer), and a certain Mr Bass, the brewer who often paid for church organs.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the fair organ mechanism leads directly to logic control and ultimately to computing, yet Charles Babbage was driven to distraction by the sound of automata outside his London residence.

I'm sure you all wanted to know this.   8)

MM

Dear David,

I couldn't possibly take on board your scientific approach, which means that in this particular area, I am nothing if not stupid.

What I do know is that there are equally enormous threats posed by excessive procreation and consumption, as well as the destruction of the natural environment.

As a teenager back in the 1960's, I recall a conversation with Prof.Sir Fred Hoyle, when a few of us gathered at his feet (metophirically), to listen to his words of wisdom.

In many ways, Fred was the imaginative cosmologist, who constantly sought new ways of joined-up thinking; becoming something of a Maverik in his own lifetime and rather despised by those at Cambridge University. (They nevertheless erected a statue after his death).

Fred said something rather interesting at the time, which had never occured to any of us, or to anyone we had ever heard of. I'll try and recall his words:-

"Our planet is self-regulating, and if there are growing imbalances in nature, it (presumably meaning the eco-system) will respond accordingly, because it is only the correct balance of things which can sustain life."

This may seem like a simple statement, but it is actually a terrifying propsect, because if it is true, then life could be wiped out by the very planet which gave birth to it. Thus far, the evidence suggest that the statement is true.

So in a way, I can go along with the concept of upsetting natural balances and natural laws, but I hesitate to use the all embracing terminology of God or Creator, as a supra-being responsible for it all. Indeed, so remote, cold and empty is the universe, it is difficult to imagine why anyone should want to create it in the first place. I mean, it's not the sort of place where you would want to take an extended touring hoiliday is it?

The City of York is far more interesting!

If scientists in their arrogance, think that they can discover the ultimate power of the universe, let them get on with it. However, if they don't understand magnetism and electrical fields, I am not optimistic. Even if it all goes well, and we survive, it is really only a matter of time before the sun exapnds to become a red giant, by which time life on earth will have long vanished. That's the sheer indifference and brutality of the universe. It's just the way it is; perhaps devoid of design and devoid of conscience.

Fred Hoyle didn't believe in God, but he wasn't an aggressive atheist or anything, and when I asked him God existed when I was all of five or six  years of age, he merely said that he couldn't believe in God because he couldn't observe him through a telescope.

Clearly sensing my profound disappointment, he then added, "There is something I believe in. I believe in Dan Dare and the Mekon."

What a meeting of minds THAT was.

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on March 17, 2012, 07:14:35 PM
Hi!

Since writing above, there have been very few posts. I apologise if the above offends sensibilities and therefore, if that be the reason, will not post on such matters again.

However, whether I express it openly or not, in a world where education is increasingly subjectised, compartmentalised and reduced to tick-box processes, I hold a fundamental conviction that joined up thinking is necessary, should be encouraged, and can lead to greater happiness now and in the future.

Our view of subatomic particles and their energy is little more shifted beyond that of the Rutherford model of the atom and our approach to the world's energy needs has not advanced accordingly. It is a very strange reason why matter is energy but is prevented by its own forces from escaping as energy at the speed of light. This is unexplained in conventional physics.

As we stand on the sidelines, observing merely as the agnostic, chaos reigns, with infinite demand and greed for oil fuelling wars and technology that poisons the atmosphere.

In contrast, Christ's two laws, that we love one another and that we love the "all that is" which is responsible for that matter not flying off into uncontrolled chaotic energy, demand that we seek a better world, in our relationships with each other and with the technology that we inflict upon ourselves and everything else.

Best wishes

David P

=======================

I'm not sure how I can begin to respond to this post, and I'll tell you why.

If someone presents me with most things electrical or magnetic, my eyes glaze over. I have absolutely no idea what magnetism is, but I've used it often enough. Whilst I have every faith in revolving magnets and wound coils as a means of either producing electricity or using it to vacuum the carpet, I do not need to believe in magnetism: even less understand it.

As for mention of the right and left handedness of things, it reminded me of the struggle I had trying to understand epicyclic  gearboxes. 
( Remember the song: "Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel; never ending nor beginning; like an ever spinning wheel.....the circles of the mind).

When it comes to nuclear physics, I know absolutely nothing beyond the fact that nuclear fusion is the holy grail of energy production, and one which remains highly experimental. Therefore, your response was a non-starter for me, for it seems to have implied that there must be a path to knowledge which could possibly lead us to an understanding of all things as they relate to some common "natural law."

There is an old saying that belief divides and doubt unites, and I think this, for me, is the appeal of agnosticism.

The agnostic stance is no different to the believer who hints at "greater things," or "the mysteries of God's creation," except that an awful lot of time is saved by not being obliged to contemplate them in the first instance. From my point of view, I can marvel at the vastness of the universe for evermore, and find absolutely no answers to almost anything. I could invert the process and look at ever smaller things in a microscope, and be every bit as stunned by what I discover, but again, to what end?

This is no excuse for laziness or ignorance of course, but it does help to understand the fact that no matter how long we live, we will never really know very much at all individually. The most important fact of agnosticism is the realisation of this, which is really nothing more than intellectual humility, coupled to a certain understanding that there will always be others who know more about almost anything. Hence the importance of passing on all that we know to the next generation, or to quote the words of the playwright Alan Bennett, "Pass it on boys! Pass it on!  That's what I want you to learn: not for me, not for you, but for someone." ("The history boys").

Now compare this to the "certainties" of believers, many of whom may not even be Christian, and we find a bewildering array of claims and counter-claims; some of which are contained in "holy books" (whatever a holy book might be), and others which have merely evolved as part of religious process, pseudo-science and the vanity of human imaginings. Even the activist atheist ferverently believes that God doesn't exist, which is a very odd way of believing. Is it possible to believe in nothing at all and then preach about it?

At this point, permit me to indulge myself, because I was once browsing through a curious book of spells written by a Jamaican follower of witchcraft. My eyes lit up when I read the spell concerned with, "How to cast a spell on difficult adolescents."

I found myself laughing, because the spell was really a bit of reverse psychology, where the believer in the occult was required to be understanding and tolerant; safe in the knowledge that even the most difficult adolescents eventually grow up. It was one of the most brilliant pieces of social psychology I've ever read, and as a spell, absolutely infallible; the wit and good humour almost a benevolent and long-suffering sigh from the heart.

My problem with most religions and belief systems is the way in which belief is often an obstacle to faith. I can't ever recall actually reciting any of the Christian creeds; simply because I regard them as faintly ridiculous and have done since the age of eleven. On the other hand, I have always had considerable faith in almost everything which Jesus of Nazareth said and did. My now deceased aunt, who suffered terribly in many ways, was a widow at 30, struggled to bring up a child as a single mother, re-married and lost a lovely man to cancer, then re-married a second-time only to have to look after someone left physically and mentally handicapped in a serious motor accident a year after the wedding. In spite of that, she could still smile, giggle and love everyone around her, simply because, (to quote her words), "Jesus is my hero."

There were many things she didn't understand, had difficulty contemplating or even believing, but I have never known a woman of greater faith or one who gave such unconditional love to everyone, while suffering great hardship personally.

I would suggest that the biggest obstacle to faith are those of a religious disposition, who expect that truth can never be re-written or re-interpreted, when in fact, theology constantly changes in step with evolving human perceptions and understanding. The moment it didn't would probably mark the death of that which we perceive as God; at least as something worthy of investigation.

MM


PS: I've never known a kindly bank-manager, and borrowing money is not the same as raising money. The bomb approach has its advocates, needless to say.

PPS: If you were in danger of being attacked by a shark, would your first choice of good Samaritan be someone offering a hand or a school of dolphin?