Assorted Notes

WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2005

12:46

An important piece of information about me as writer: I am not really a storyteller; I’m a maker of points, an observer, a critic and one who offers suggestions.

[19/06/15: Not that it’s necessarily important, but storytellers are usually popular guests and are generally regarded as good people to spend time with. Makers of points, on the other hand, annoy many people; observers are often regarded with suspicion (“What does that guy see when he looks at me?”); critics are often ignored or swatted away like the proverbial gadfly; and makers of suggestions are often dismissed as unwelcome and their suggestions as unsolicited.]

15:44

Two types of people:

Type one: “I am 25 (or 35) years old. I have built up a life for myself with which I am happy, and in a place that I like. I want to maintain this life, in this place. I certainly don’t want to go backwards, but if things don’t change very much or even improve at all, that is okay. I am in a good place.”

Type two: “I am 25 (or 35) years old. I have so far built up a life for myself that is good, but I am convinced that it is within my grasp to pursue a better life – one that is sustainable and does not reek of greed or extravagance. I am aware that there are people on this planet who dream of the kind of life that I now call my own. But I also believe that if it is within the reach of these people to attain a life that is better than my present life, they too would not stop where I am now. I believe in sustainability. I hate greed. And I think if something better is within your reach, you have to work as hard as you can to realise it for yourself.”

21:14

I reckon human beings … or before I get stuck in definitions of what is meant by “human being”, let me be concrete: I consist of two parts. One part is mortal and in turn consists of body, consciousness, personality and identity (given and/or self-defined). The other part is immortal. Because I have command of a very limited range of vocabulary, I will call this latter part “soul”. These two parts are interwoven for the duration of my earthly existence.

What the purpose of this combination is, I do not know. How this combination came into existence, I also do not know (except for the biological part).

I am both parts and yet, if my body stops functioning and my consciousness is destroyed, I cease to exist – even if the other part of me continues to exist.

My earthly existence, the choices I make and the results I achieve in my life, have a dramatic impact on my immortal part – another illustration of how closely the two parts are connected.

The connection of the two parts is indeed something to be discovered – this discovery may even be considered a goal in itself.

What is the difference between this belief and the Christian version (influenced by the pre-Christian philosopher Plato)? The Christian believes that the body is mortal and that the spirit (or soul, self, consciousness, personality, or “inner being”) is immortal. I split the “spirit” or “inner part” in two – mortal and immortal.

I will henceforth refer to the above as the 25 May 2005 Declaration of Faith.

THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2005

What I am therefore saying is that the “inner” consists of two parts: mortal consciousness and time and place specific identity, and immortal X (sometimes called “spirit” or “soul”).

In my opinion this is a radical departure from Christian dogma.

A Christian, who has some dogmatic knowledge and understanding, may inform me: “This is not what we as Christians believe.”

To which I will reply: “Jesus was not a philosopher. If it were important to him that people got this philosophical foundation right, he would have given his disciples proper lectures on the subject. In such a case he would have preached less about love and compassion and spent more time making sure everyone has the correct understanding of all the philosophical concepts. If Jesus did not preach philosophy, who did? Why are Christians so convinced of the mortal body and the immortal soul? Has it perhaps to do with the Church Fathers, who were fortunate enough to be schooled in Greek philosophy?”

Shall my companion retort: “Maybe it was so intended. Maybe it was the predestined role of the Church Fathers with their strong philosophical background to explain what Christ – a carpenter with fisherman disciples – did not explain.”

Answer: “Perhaps. Or perhaps it has to do with the First Council of Nicaea in the fourth century during which Constantine became impatient and pressed delegates to come to a conclusion regarding doctrine that had been tabled? Maybe that was also part of the predestined plan. Or perhaps my understanding is closer to the truth? What is the real value of the difference?”

___________

In each of Western and Eastern Christianity, four Fathers are called the Great Church Fathers, generally influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and important church leaders.

Western Church:

Ambrose (340–397): educated in Rome, studied literature, law, and rhetoric

Jerome (347–420): studied rhetoric, philosophy, Latin and some Greek

Augustine (354–430): developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, employing a variety of methods and perspectives; helped formulate the doctrine of original sin

Gregory the Great (540–604): like most young men of his position in Roman society, Gregory was well educated, learning grammar, rhetoric, the sciences, literature, and law

Eastern Church:

Basil (c. 329–379): an influential theologian who supported the Nicene Creed and opposed the heresies of the early Christian church. His ability to balance his theological convictions with his political connections made Basil a powerful advocate for the Nicene position.

Athanasius (c. 296–373): Athanasius’s earliest work, Against the Heathen – On the Incarnation (written before 319), bears traces of Origenist Alexandrian thought (such as repeatedly quoting Plato and using a definition from Aristotle’s Organon). Athanasius was also familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools, and in particular with the developments of Neo-Platonism.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 389): As a classically trained orator and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church. Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of Trinitarian theology among both Greek- and Latin-speaking theologians.

John Chrysostom (347–407): John began his education under the pagan teacher Libanius, from whom he acquired the skills for a career in rhetoric, and a love of the Greek language and literature. He is known for his moral preaching and his denunciation of abuse of authority.

For more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

FRIDAY, 27 MAY 2005

The Particular I

and

the Universal X

______________________

MONDAY, 23 MAY 2005

15:29

Some people want more than what is given to them; others know of more, but they are satisfied with the good things that are within their immediate reach.

18:24

What is transformation?

I look at myself and I see a functioning adult. When the whistle blows in the morning, I also start jogging along, at my own pace, and at the end of the day when the survivors are counted … well, so far I have been counted every time. If survival is the primary consideration, I make it as a working adult in the time and place where I have chosen to live out my existence.

However, various factors play a role in my conviction that I can do better, that I can live better, function better, show better results at the end of every day’s existence. The steps I decide on after careful consideration … that is transformation.

[19/06/15: To decide on steps is not transformation; actively starting to implement the steps can however be seen as the start of transformation.]

TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2005

Knowing that you have rustled the grass does not mean that the snake is not real.

* * *

When you do not appear, you do not feel embarrassed; you do not need to explain yourself; you do not need to apologise for aspects of your life or the state of your living space.

The benefits of an intimate, honest and serious relationship are well-known. I simply want to mention that there are advantages to not appearing – that is, to be alone.

______________________

TUESDAY, 17 MAY 2005

To be on your own has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages include feeling truly isolated and forsaken at times, as well as feeling bored and frustrated with your own company. In times of intense loneliness, people tend to think of a relationship as heavenly paradise – with perhaps a little argument here and there to make it realistic.

Of course, an intimate relationship also has advantages and disadvantages. The benefits, as might be expected, have a lot to do with the disadvantages of being alone. The disadvantages of an intimate relationship, on the other hand, are related to the benefits of solitude.

At the end you have to decide for yourself whether the benefits of an intimate relationship – love, support, companionship – outweigh the disadvantages, including continual appearance, conflicting habits and preferences, being generous when you don’t really feel like being generous, and higher financial expectations; also whether the disadvantages of being on your own eventually outweigh the benefits.

THURSDAY, 19 MAY 2005

One of two things needs to be considered when it comes to having children: a) We want to have a child, so let’s do our best, and b) pregnancy is already a reality, so what are we going to do?

The above must be taken into account in remarks about what motivates people to have children.

Another thing: I have much to say about parents who have children to fill holes in their lives, to satisfy their own emotional or psychological needs. The point is that in both the above cases the person cannot exactly claim that the child was conceived for the sake of the child – simply because the child does not yet exist! (More correct in the first case.)

It thus follows that adults, when they consider having a child, naturally do so for their own reasons and to satisfy their own needs. What else?

I-now have a life of my own. There is still an emotional umbilical cord between me and my parents, but I have to a large extent abandoned my parents’ ideas of an adult life and even their convictions, and have become my own man (so to speak). I too was conceived 34 years ago by two adults who had wanted to satisfy their own needs in the process of conception (I mean emotional needs rather than physical – yet it’s also true that a child is conceived in the first place because two adults want to and have to satisfy their physical needs.)

One cannot escape the reality that children are conceived because adults have their own needs to satisfy – whether physical, psychological or emotional needs, and of course often a combination of these needs.

______________________

THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2005

For the past … say, twenty years or so I have been in the habit of believing I must constantly prove that I, Brand Smit, am worthy of existence, that my birth was not an error of judgement, that I have to prove – constantly – that I am indeed worthy of the blood flowing in my veins. Whatever the reason for this, it is going to drive me into an early grave.

FRIDAY, 13 MAY 2005

Born from incredible self-loathing, a conviction that you should prove the validity of your life.

SATURDAY, 14 MAY 2005

10:06

If an adult (a parent or teacher) is not strict with a child, his or her encouragement and praise will have no credibility.

* * *

I have to let go. I have to accept that my life will end sooner or later, that the world will continue without me, almost … almost as if I had never been here.

See the true relationship between things, and your own place in the Greater Reality.

I must recognise that my life is not nearly as valuable as I would like to think. (Can a suicide-of-sorts be incorporated into this concept?)

10:51

A case therefore of recognising that your greatest fear is to a large extent true? There is certainly a pleasant element to this kind of acceptance …

SUNDAY, 15 MAY 2005

11:05

All the understanding that I can muster at this moment about human beings and our existence is the end result of observation and data processing – about three decades’ worth, or more than that if it is counted from day one.

Thus I thought this morning at the tea stall: Consider the results of 15,000 plus years of observation and processing the data of billions of people. Could that be God? Can we ever comprehend such a “god”? Can we ever give expression to such an existence with our limited vocabulary?

20:18

“Aristotle came more and more to think of the universe as a vast complex of organisms each striving to attain the end assigned by Nature to it. […] The Aristotelian system is often described as ‘teleological’.” ~ From the introduction to Aristotle’s Ethics

17/06/15:

“A teleology is an account of a given thing’s purpose. For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.

A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic. Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.

Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during the modern era (1600-1900).

In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment. Teleology was also fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still actively discussing whether teleological talk is useful or accurate in doing modern philosophy and science. For instance, in 2012, Thomas Nagel proposed a neo-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal, natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

MONDAY, 16 MAY 2005

13:51

The Greek philosophers, or then specifically Aristotle, did not claim authority from the outset on theological grounds which they had assumed everyone, or the majority of the population, accepted. Their foundation was one of reason, of a group of people sitting around a proverbial table saying, “Let us agree that we are intelligent beings, that we are aware of our existence and that we are capable of good actions, and also capable of the opposite of good actions. Let us continue to define what ‘good’ means, in practice, and what ‘bad’ means, how we can pursue the former, and the reason why it is better.”

In this regard my own modest efforts of the past few years can be considered closer to the Greek philosophers of more than 23 centuries ago than to modern preachers and theologians.

18:24

Am I simply another random fusion of sperm and egg that has so far survived for 33 years and a few months, and who struggle every day with billions of others on this planet, or millions on this island, or thousands in this city for food, shelter, a little comfort and some entertainment every now and then – in short, who struggle for a place in the sun, OR … can I make a contribution to other people’s lives, something that will transcend the value of my own life beyond this time and place?

[31/12/2015: The answer to the first part of the question is, yes. The answer to the second part: it would be good if you can.]

* * *

“[William of Normandy’s] aim was simply to overcome insecurity and construct a strong basis of power and wealth; to achieve this end he pragmatically used any form or institution which he encountered and which he felt capable of molding to his will.”

Also: “… exploitation of the lower orders by their predatory lords was the general rule.”

Source: “William – From Bastard To Conqueror”, by Brent A. Riley and Joe Bageant, Military History, April 2002, Vol. 19 Issue 1

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2005

09:25

“Now we know that animals get bored, and that they try to enrich their environment so that they don’t feel it.” ~ from an Animal Planet documentary

15:38

“Brand” pitched up at his Wednesday class this afternoon, as he does every week. Today he was wearing his black trousers – because he thought it was going to rain and a wet patch on his butt would not have shown so prominently on the black material, and a grey T-shirt – because it doesn’t have buttons, which made it the easiest item with which he could cover his torso.

18:35

[Rick Warren is an “Evangelical Christian” with conservative political and social values. I abandoned that socio-cultural group more than twenty years ago. But does that mean that a person like him could never say anything that can have any value for a person with ignostic* beliefs and progressive political and social values? That will be fairly short-sighted, wouldn’t it?

As the following notes would prove, remove the religious references, and enough is left over from several statements he makes in his book, The Purpose Driven Church, to derive some useful advice from.]

Rick Warren writes in The Purpose Driven Church that people should not ask what they can do to allow their churches to grow, but rather what obstacles inhibit growth. A good point for my own life as well, especially for objectives that have been established a long time ago.

Also: “For the past twenty years, I have been a student of […]. In my travels as […] I have visited hundreds of […] around the world. In each instance I made notes on why some […] and why others […]. I’ve talked to thousands of […] and interviewed hundreds of […] about what they’ve observed […]. Years ago I wrote to the one hundred largest […] and spent a year researching […]. I’ve read nearly every book in print on […].”

[Regardless of whether or not he really talked with thousands of people about X, Y or Z, the above gives you an idea of how research should be done on any matter relating to the human condition.

It also gives me some insight into why people sometimes treat me with contempt when I disagree with them about religion. They might be thinking about a book like Rick Warren’s that they may have read or are currently reading, and then they’d look at me and think: Who the hell do you think you are? Based on what do you think you know better than me?]

“Everything seems new if you are ignorant of history.”

“I started [an institution] in 1980, and spend the next fifteen years testing, applying and refining the principles, processes and practices in this book. Like a research and development center, we’ve experimented with all kinds of approaches […]. [The institution] has served as a laboratory for everything written in this book […]. I’ve waited twenty years to write this book because I did not want to write it prematurely. Instead, I’ve let the concepts percolate and develop and mature. Nothing in this book is theory. […] What is needed are answers to real problems that have been proven effective in actual […] settings.”

“If I didn’t believe pastors have the best chance of making a difference in our world, I’d be doing something else; I have no intention of wasting my life. […] The key is to never stop learning.”

“My bookshelves contain more than a dozen books written by people I’ve trained who have put my ideas in print before I did. That doesn’t matter to me. We’re all on the same team.”

“‘Hasn’t enough been written yet?’ you may ask. ‘Why another book?’ What I hope to offer in this book is an insider’s perspective.”

“You’ve heard that it is ‘wise to learn from experience.’ But it is wiser yet to learn from the experience of others. It is less painful, too! Life is too short to learn everything by personal experience. You can save yourself a lot of time and energy by gleaming from others the lessons they’ve learned the hard way. That’s the purpose of books like this one.”

“I’ve learned that most can’t hear until they’ve first been heard.”

[All quotations are from The Purpose Driven Church, by Rick Warren (1995)]

* [“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts. Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism, whereas others have considered it to be distinct.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism]

[Scott Adams would only write the following in 2014, but it adds to the idea that it is pretty childish to refuse to read a certain book just because you do not consider yourself part of the writer’s group: “In recent years I’ve come to see religion as a valid user interface to reality. The so-called ‘truth’ of the universe is irrelevant because our tiny brains aren’t equipped to understand it anyway.”]

______________________