Fuck it, might as well make it a nice, round "30," mightn't I? I've still got a bit of thing for Sinead O'Connor, I must say. It's those eyes, I think...
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXIX
And the "I Don't Give a Shit What I Look Like: I'm Not Going To Pander To Popularism" Award goes to...
So long...
I'm going on holiday, shortly, so no Book of the Week. I may post, again, or I may not. To be honest, I think this blog has served it's therapeutic purpose.
Matt
Matt
Friday, 25 July 2008
Book of the Week - The Politics of the Judiciary
This was on my "Required Reading" list, given me prior to the first year of my Law degree. Good old John Griffiths!
In a remarkable passage Lord Denning MR seemed to accept that the courts had no part to play [in the balancing of interests between state and individual] because the government never erred. He said:
There is a conflict between the interests of national security on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The balance between these two is not for a court of law. It is for the Home Secretary. He is the person entrusted by Parliament with the task. In some parts of the world national security has on occasion been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England [LOL]. Both during the wars and after them successive ministers have discharged their duties to the complete satisfaction of the people at large. They have set up advisory committees to help them, usually with a chairman who has done everything he can to ensure that justice is done. They have never interfered with the liberty or the freedom of movement of any individual except where it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the state.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the state is a collegiate entity. I'm not sure that one person (the Home Secretary), has the right to say where the interest of the other 60 million people (in the case of GB), lies.
In a remarkable passage Lord Denning MR seemed to accept that the courts had no part to play [in the balancing of interests between state and individual] because the government never erred. He said:
There is a conflict between the interests of national security on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The balance between these two is not for a court of law. It is for the Home Secretary. He is the person entrusted by Parliament with the task. In some parts of the world national security has on occasion been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England [LOL]. Both during the wars and after them successive ministers have discharged their duties to the complete satisfaction of the people at large. They have set up advisory committees to help them, usually with a chairman who has done everything he can to ensure that justice is done. They have never interfered with the liberty or the freedom of movement of any individual except where it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the state.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the state is a collegiate entity. I'm not sure that one person (the Home Secretary), has the right to say where the interest of the other 60 million people (in the case of GB), lies.
Friday, 18 July 2008
Book of the Week - The Spanish Civil War
Hugh Thomas's history (Penguin, 1986), is, I think, regarded as the most complete account of the War available in a single volume. I wonder why it's remembered in almost poetic terms. It was a war fought along ideological, political lines. Ostensibly, at least. People thought that they were fighting for something important, I suppose. And to the extent that it must have contributed towards what Spain is, today, I guess they were right.Guernica was a small town of the Basque province of Vizcaya, lying in a valley six miles from the sea and twenty from Bilbao. With a population of 7,000, Guernica seemed at first sight to fit undramatically into a hilly countryside of friendly villages and isolated farmhouses. It had been badly damaged by the French in the Peninsular War. It had nevertheless been celebrated, since before records began, as the home of Basque liberties. For the "parliament of Basque senators" used to be held before Guernica's famous oak tree while in the church of Santa Maria the Spanish monarchs, or their representatives, used to swear to observe Basque local rights. (The oak was also a sanctuary for Basque debtors in the old days.) On 26 April 1937, Guernica lay ten miles from the front, and was crowded with refugees and retreating soldiers.
At half-past four in the afternoon, a single peal of church bells announced an air raid.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXVIII
There's a nice version of this, sung in Spanish, but I couldn't find a video I liked...
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXVII
He'd fugue on this for hours, apparently. It never sounded like that, when Julie Andrews did it!
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXVI
Aside from Aretha, Linda Rondstadt, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, and one or two others, female vocalists don't feature heavily amongst my favourite artists. Having said that...
Addendum:
I like this one, too - and check out that crazy Swiss audience.
Addendum:
I like this one, too - and check out that crazy Swiss audience.
Friday, 11 July 2008
Book of the Week - The Picture of Dorian Gray
Most people don't have the luxury of a picture. Perhaps they should think about it...
He threw himself into a chair, and began to think. Suddenly there flashed across his mind what he had said in Basil Hallward's studio the day the picture had been finished. Yes, he remembered it perfectly. He had uttered a mad wish that he himself might remain young, and the face on the canvas bear the burden of his passion and his sins; that the painted image might be seared with the lines of suffering and thought, and that he might keep all the delicate bloom and loveliness of his then just conscious boyhood. Surely his wish had not been fulfilled. Such things were impossible. It seemed monstrous even to think of them. And, yet, there was the picture before him, with the touch of cruelty in the mouth.
He threw himself into a chair, and began to think. Suddenly there flashed across his mind what he had said in Basil Hallward's studio the day the picture had been finished. Yes, he remembered it perfectly. He had uttered a mad wish that he himself might remain young, and the face on the canvas bear the burden of his passion and his sins; that the painted image might be seared with the lines of suffering and thought, and that he might keep all the delicate bloom and loveliness of his then just conscious boyhood. Surely his wish had not been fulfilled. Such things were impossible. It seemed monstrous even to think of them. And, yet, there was the picture before him, with the touch of cruelty in the mouth.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXV
Oh, it's retro' night! Voted the sexiest voice in pop music by somebody or other, here's Ferry doing an old Roxy number, from the dear, dead and sadly unlamented days of the 70s!
And it's difficult for me to not to think of Kim Basinger, with this one (but you can search the 9 1/2 Weeks version of this, yourself!)...
Addendum:
The storm is breaking, or so it seems, We're too young to reason, too grown up to dream, The spring is turning, your face to mine, I can hear your laughter, I can see your smile. Am I overegging it to say that that's Shakespearian? Well, I don't care, one way or the other - I think it is.
And it's difficult for me to not to think of Kim Basinger, with this one (but you can search the 9 1/2 Weeks version of this, yourself!)...
Addendum:
The storm is breaking, or so it seems, We're too young to reason, too grown up to dream, The spring is turning, your face to mine, I can hear your laughter, I can see your smile. Am I overegging it to say that that's Shakespearian? Well, I don't care, one way or the other - I think it is.
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXIV
Speaking of Bowie, here's a couple from the master himself:
This is ridiculously 70s, from Hunky Dory, 1971!
This is from Let's Dance, 1983, but this version was recorded quite recently, I think. He makes me sick, he's aged so well!
This is ridiculously 70s, from Hunky Dory, 1971!
This is from Let's Dance, 1983, but this version was recorded quite recently, I think. He makes me sick, he's aged so well!
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXIII
Ryuichi Sakamoto's just outstanding. I love this, and I don't care what anybody says about David Bowie's acting, it was a great movie, too.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
Here's one to think about in your sleep...
Yesterday, at 7.04 pm, I had a visit from Cambridge Associates, LLC's Boston office. Naturally, it's massively confusing for me to have a company such as this visit my little blog. Why on earth would they want to access? To check out my taste in music or books? Perhaps they thought they were going somewhere interesting, and were cruelly disappointed? Who knows? Anyway, if you have any original ideas, please feel free to put them forward, but if you do so anonymously, then I'll plagiarize them.
Matt
Matt
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Brutus is an honourable man...
I wonder if anybody truly had a power of oration, such as this. Shakespeare could obviously devise an impressive argument, given the time to write it. But could anybody think quickly enough to win over a hostile audience to his own point of view? Anyway, it's brilliant delivery by Brando.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Scientific Misconduct Blog: Dean Edward J Wing and integrity at Brown Medical School
I've a certain interest in this story - I posted about it, when I was writing about the Great Genius Who Is Professor Marty Keller. Aubrey seems to have decided to press the issue - and good for him. Brown never did bother to respond, when I sent them an advance copy of Ghost in the Machine. I imagine that they were busy with other things. Sweeping. And rugs, I should think.
Scientific Misconduct Blog: Dean Edward J Wing and integrity at Brown Medical School
Scientific Misconduct Blog: Dean Edward J Wing and integrity at Brown Medical School
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXII
Quality work, deserving of two entries from the great man.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Book of the Week - Republic
Translation by Robin Waterfield, in Oxford paperback.
Chinese proverb: I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand.
It ought to be borne in mind that the etymological root of the word "republic," res publica, is Latin, not Greek (I don't know what the original title, if it had one, translates as), and translates as "matters concerning the people." The concept of a republic, as we know it, today, was not born, when Plato wrote this. Anyway, I like Plato: he was a bright guy. People wank on about Republic being important, because it's a microscopic discussion, in the Socratic style (Plato was a pupil of Socrates), of the question of morality, and how one achieves this through a balance of wisdom, courage and restraint. Well, it may be, but the clarity of the guy's thought is what strikes me, irrespective of what he is discussing, here.
First, Plato's argument, in Republic, is presented in the form of an imaginary dialogue, which is some feat in itself (you try it, and see). He imagines Socrates having this discussion. In modern psychotherapy, this is known as perspective positioning. To even think to do that impresses me. And second, Plato is an exponent of the dialectic method of argumentation. Dialectic is also used in psychotherapy, although, while it's an extraordinarily straight forward principle, it's very difficult to retain one's discipline, and not introduce one's own beliefs into the argument, such that one ends up defending one's position as though it were the truth, at the expense of the objective, which was to establish the Truth - one has to be prepared to abandon one's own beliefs, if they are demonstrated to be insupportable.
Quite extraordinary: a brilliant mind, without doubt, and perhaps it's not surprising that Plato's academy numbered such great minds as Aristotle. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - they probably had more extraordinary ideas in a single day than most do in a lifetime; and they probably abandoned them, as not perfect enough.
"However, we must look into the postponed issue of whether moral people have a better or more fulfilled life than immoral people. I must say that at the moment it does look to me as though they do, on the basis of what we've been saying [note: he avoids being dogmatic and doesn't state this is as fact, merely a tendency]. All the same, we must look more closely at the matter, since what is at stake is far from insignificant: it is how one should live one's life."
"Go ahead with your investigation, then," he said.
"All right," I said. "Tell me please: "do you think that a horse has a function?"
"Yes."
"And would you say that a horse's function, or anything else's function, is what can be done only with that thing, or can be done best only with that thing?" [Note: this discussion, although not necessarily this question, appears to assume that a horse exists to serve man, which is not a given, but we should allow Plato a little latitude!]
"I don't understand." [Note: again, this simple acknowledgement is used in psychotherapy, in order to secure clarification, and understanding - it's called Clean Language, and the response to such clarifying questions (because this is a question, even though it's not phrased as such), is usually massively beneficial to both client and practitioner. If one doesn't understand, one asks, because it's easy enough to misunderstand, at the best of times, but if one pretends to understand, in order to avoid looking foolish, then one is almost sure to completely lose the thread, and then everything that is said, from that point on, simply serves to further confuse. What usually happens, and happens in this case, is that the client starts to use metaphor, in order to explain their position.]
"Look at it this way: can you see with anything except eyes?"
"Of course not."
"And can you hear with anything except ears?"
"No."
"Would it be right, then, for us to say that these are their functions?"
"Yes."
"Now, you could cut a vine-twig with a shortsword or a cobbler's knife or plenty of other things, couldn't you?"
"Of course."
"But I should think that the best tool for the job would be a pruning-knife, the kind made especially for this purpose."
"True."
"Shall we say that this is its function, then?" [Note: seeking agreement, checking that both parties still understand one another, as they proceed. It's fucking genius.]
"Yes."
Anyway, you can buy a copy for yourself, if you want to find out where he was going with that line of argument, but perhaps it's not surprising that Socrates was executed on the trumped up charge of "corrupting the young," or whatever it was - it must have been absolutely terrifying for the political "elite" to consider the possibility that people would start to deconstruct human society, having been taught to think for themselves, which, in the Christian tradition, at least, is what we're supposed to be able to do. Who's playing God, these days, I wonder?
Chinese proverb: I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand.
It ought to be borne in mind that the etymological root of the word "republic," res publica, is Latin, not Greek (I don't know what the original title, if it had one, translates as), and translates as "matters concerning the people." The concept of a republic, as we know it, today, was not born, when Plato wrote this. Anyway, I like Plato: he was a bright guy. People wank on about Republic being important, because it's a microscopic discussion, in the Socratic style (Plato was a pupil of Socrates), of the question of morality, and how one achieves this through a balance of wisdom, courage and restraint. Well, it may be, but the clarity of the guy's thought is what strikes me, irrespective of what he is discussing, here.
First, Plato's argument, in Republic, is presented in the form of an imaginary dialogue, which is some feat in itself (you try it, and see). He imagines Socrates having this discussion. In modern psychotherapy, this is known as perspective positioning. To even think to do that impresses me. And second, Plato is an exponent of the dialectic method of argumentation. Dialectic is also used in psychotherapy, although, while it's an extraordinarily straight forward principle, it's very difficult to retain one's discipline, and not introduce one's own beliefs into the argument, such that one ends up defending one's position as though it were the truth, at the expense of the objective, which was to establish the Truth - one has to be prepared to abandon one's own beliefs, if they are demonstrated to be insupportable.
Quite extraordinary: a brilliant mind, without doubt, and perhaps it's not surprising that Plato's academy numbered such great minds as Aristotle. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - they probably had more extraordinary ideas in a single day than most do in a lifetime; and they probably abandoned them, as not perfect enough.
"However, we must look into the postponed issue of whether moral people have a better or more fulfilled life than immoral people. I must say that at the moment it does look to me as though they do, on the basis of what we've been saying [note: he avoids being dogmatic and doesn't state this is as fact, merely a tendency]. All the same, we must look more closely at the matter, since what is at stake is far from insignificant: it is how one should live one's life."
"Go ahead with your investigation, then," he said.
"All right," I said. "Tell me please: "do you think that a horse has a function?"
"Yes."
"And would you say that a horse's function, or anything else's function, is what can be done only with that thing, or can be done best only with that thing?" [Note: this discussion, although not necessarily this question, appears to assume that a horse exists to serve man, which is not a given, but we should allow Plato a little latitude!]
"I don't understand." [Note: again, this simple acknowledgement is used in psychotherapy, in order to secure clarification, and understanding - it's called Clean Language, and the response to such clarifying questions (because this is a question, even though it's not phrased as such), is usually massively beneficial to both client and practitioner. If one doesn't understand, one asks, because it's easy enough to misunderstand, at the best of times, but if one pretends to understand, in order to avoid looking foolish, then one is almost sure to completely lose the thread, and then everything that is said, from that point on, simply serves to further confuse. What usually happens, and happens in this case, is that the client starts to use metaphor, in order to explain their position.]
"Look at it this way: can you see with anything except eyes?"
"Of course not."
"And can you hear with anything except ears?"
"No."
"Would it be right, then, for us to say that these are their functions?"
"Yes."
"Now, you could cut a vine-twig with a shortsword or a cobbler's knife or plenty of other things, couldn't you?"
"Of course."
"But I should think that the best tool for the job would be a pruning-knife, the kind made especially for this purpose."
"True."
"Shall we say that this is its function, then?" [Note: seeking agreement, checking that both parties still understand one another, as they proceed. It's fucking genius.]
"Yes."
Anyway, you can buy a copy for yourself, if you want to find out where he was going with that line of argument, but perhaps it's not surprising that Socrates was executed on the trumped up charge of "corrupting the young," or whatever it was - it must have been absolutely terrifying for the political "elite" to consider the possibility that people would start to deconstruct human society, having been taught to think for themselves, which, in the Christian tradition, at least, is what we're supposed to be able to do. Who's playing God, these days, I wonder?
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXI
Ian Curtis was a profoundly gifted chap (although the other members of Joy Division, who became New Order, after his death, are no mugs, either), and the beauty of this song is evidence of that, I think.
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XX
I challenge you to stop yourself from pogoing 'round the room, when you listen to this. I recommend that you turn the volume up, especially if you're at work...
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part IXX
I reminded myself of the quality of Chris Difford's lyrics, when I made the comment, below, about Joe Jackson, and you know that any band with Jools Holland on the keyboards is going to be more than accomplished as musicians. I was going to use "Up the Junction," which both Lily Allen and Travis have covered, just recently, or "Goodbye Girl," but I like this.
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XVIII
Great musician, and very sharp observational commentary in the lyrics, too. I tried to find a decent version of I'm the Man, to no avail, but I like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
