Judeo-Chistian What?

Hold on to your chocolateTolerance Bar. I've some tough stuff to chew over: discussing the oft repeated claim that we are 'basically' Judeo-Christian.

I have always argued that this never-enacted society finished two-hundred plus years ago with the French Revolution. That's when the Church's alliance with kingships and autocrats was irrevocably broken, and all the contracts- favourable, uneasy and cosy- between Church and State were broken, and like Humpty Dumpty, could never be put together again.


Religious institutions had discredited themselves prior to 1789, by abandoning people during the plagues, punishing millions with inquisitions and starting wars that few wanted.  its authority eroded as they grew fat and indolent at other's expense.

And that's before we talk about the monopoly the religious orders kept over biblical interpretation, and the sterling efforts in sustaining people's ignorance instead of their education. Their monopoly was slowing being broken by the printing press, a diversity of ideas and dangerous new  ideas not found in the Bible - like democracy, freedom of expression, equal opportunity and Science-. The Judeo-Christian ethos was doomed.

In terms of social equity, religious texts sympathised with the poor. But once religion institutions became powerful, it supported the princes, kings and dictators of the period.

For centuries the Christian church opposed and undermined democracy. Less than a century ago, it still gave various tacit and explicit support for the fascisms of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.

The truth is the 'Judeo-Christian' has been (and is) authoritarian, anti-democratic, a long opponent of Science , especially when it disagreed with dogma. It alway busy accumulating wealth and property, opposing and undermining  secular society and its ethos.

The subject is far too big to do justice here. But religion has broadly oppose people's liberty, preferring obedience and duty. It opposed all but a religiously-based education, fought and against  gay rights, in birth control, etc, always preferring conformity.  It has often been a source of zealotry and religious intolerance.

So it is an overwhelmingly good thing that the modern world is no longer Judeo-Christian,  'basic' or otherwise. The myth persists because there are those who want to return to authoritarian ways, who nostalge it, and who know that if it is repeated often enough, some people are silly enough to believe it.

Welcome to the modern world's greatest (and incomplete) project : democratic, liberal, egalitarian, social and creative. Tis a far, far better way.

Christmas Break

What does an author do when he's not making progress on his new novel?

He goes to a Nelson Mandela's mémorial service in Sydney, finds a long lost uncle and shares a yarn, attends every Christmas party available, talks to his daughter about opéra and rides his bicycle throughout the district looking for steep hills.

I wrote this in Facebook:
No progress with 'Knowing Simone', so I'll spend thé next month reading and researching. Toying with another journey to France and Spain in 2015. In the meantime, had a bout of gastric poetry yesterday. Coughed up some satisfying phrasing like 'ice cream dreaming', 'ten-kilometre megaphone in racine French' and 'candied air, sweat happy'. I just love play on words. Can't help myself.'

That's all very well, but I omitted to say that I've started writing 'Arafat, the Opera' (a modern tragedy), plus a depiction of 1942 via a story on things-that-go-wrong-when-dad is-away (Mangrove Mtn) and vivid accounts of two journeys in France.

What happened? You might have thought that all my short story-writing and poetry activities were excuses and reasons for avoiding progress on 'Knowing Simone'. Maybe I did too!

But no; patterns have been broken, minds refreshed and just maybe I've put on a little weight this week. But that's progress!

And that 'study and research' of C19th France? Don't ask.

 •  flag

0 comments

   • like  • 

The Meaning of Life

This won't take long, because this is not a difficult question. I don't know why people worry so much.

As I see it, the question is entirely misunderstood. Despite what a dictionary might tell you, 'What is the meaning of life?' revolves around a simple fact: meaning is a verb, not a noun. Meaning is something you do,  not something you find in the garden or gift-wrapped on your birthday. 

'The' meaning would be a noun, but really, doing some meaning is a common, if reflective, activity. As a verb, meaning is simply figuring-it-out, putting-your-thoughts-together, sorting-it- out whatever. It is a personal activity. 

The gatecrashers are the spruikers at our doors, sellers of wonder-elixirs, and purveyors of instant meanings whispering g in our ears, presenting themselves as labor-saving devices, offering instant wisdom and dogmatic answers to any number of questions, fast food for the mind. 

The meaning of life?' they say. 'No problem,' presenting us with any number of fixed ideas and values by which you MUST live - Christian, Muslim, Calathumpians, Buddhists etc, it really does not matter. All the snake oil merchants are out there distributing meaning and collecting souls like accountants.

Happily, people are complex and devious about their religion. The Catholic Church says all sorts of nasty things about sex and sexual practises (the Protestants and Muslims are rarely better). So much is forbidden! 

But of course, Catholics find ways and means of getting around these rigidities. That is what makes humans so fascinating. They like to belong to a culture or group or religion, but many won't let dogma get in their way. I like that.

But meaning, the verb, is something of a job, it is time consuming, challenging and often difficult. Many of us understandably prefer to sub-contract it! Few are foolhardy enough to do it ourselves, to take the time, perhaps to enjoy it, agonise over it, and give it a good-shake. Is that what makes a good writer? Does he or she have this cantankerous, obsessive streak that drives them deeper into meaning, with all it's flights of fancy, it dark alleyways and busy intersections?

Perhaps. 

Even then, if you are comfortable with the notion of meaning as an activity, rather than a fixed menu that finishes as constipation, I might have saved you reading long books on Wisdom. We all have other things to do, and better books to read. Your meaning starts from - now.

Big Worlds, Little Worlds

There must be billions of websites, blogs and videos opened everyday, so what can we make of this anarchic new world? Some want to blame the world's crimes upon it, some think it is lowering moral tone and tempting people to the unspeakable. Others think it is candy on a stick, an new democracy that will free us from corporate tyranny. Quite a few think it is the final breach of privacy that threaten liberty, and that it is all a government plot!

What a whimp I am. None of these propositions seem convincing, and might say more about their proponents than their propositions. Everyone is so 'educated' today. So many people know 'the game' of promoting themselves through 'outrageous' or 'controversial' statements. Few can resist the temptation to joining in the rush, with new theories of evil, the coming doom, how everything tried will fail, and most of all,  that no-one can be trusted.

Can anyone say 'I trust him or her' without sounding naive or dumb?

And yet, there are more and more people who feel compelled to offer their opinions, or guide the world in some better direction. I applaud them.

So here's where I slip into my own little world, only to find it is the same world that I just left.

I belong to a 'closed' website, one where you pay to belong. Sounds juicy Lucy, right? Sorry to disappoint- it's a writers and artists website,a place where you submit you work, and it is criticised or critiqued by other members. And you do the same. I'll spare you details of how it works. But here's what I've found:

-As a site with many US members, the ethos is 'positive'. No, don't get me wrong; I admire and prefer a positive appreciation of the artistic crafts, but there are differing interpretations. In the US 'positive' often amounts to sentiment, a positive sentiment. So when a work is submitted, a positive sentiment says, oh what a nice story, I have to give it 5 (out of 5/6). No critical faculties are allowed to interfere with the purity of sentiment. It's five!

The result?

- a complete destruction of the marking system. It is all so meaningless when sentiment rules. Lack of judgement comes to mind.

-The opportunists, the fast ones, see this as an opportunity to rort. If they can give good marks too (practising writers only can give 6 stars), they receive others sympathy and votes. As well, the opportunists go into production-line answers, prepacked 4 or 5 ready-made assessments that can be pasted in seconds. With the resulting fast 'money' they receive, all their posts to made prominent, so they harvest the sentimental assessments, twenty 'fives' instead of two. Suddenly, they are listed as the 'best'.

The point? All told, in any world, large or small, there will be a range of players: opportunists, rorters, the sentimental, the passive, the critical, the well-meaning, the learners and the teachers. Which one are you? And is it where you want to be?