http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Carl Sagan reads from his book Pale Blue Dot
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Church to impose 'rule book' of beliefs
This from the Sunday Telegraph (2007JUN03):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/nchurch03.xml
I appreciate that this is probably the Telegraph's journalistic interpretation, but it still left me wondering about the logic of trying to counter disunity by ... enforcing disunity.
And anyway, doesn't the Church of England already have a 'rule book'? (I think King James had something to do with it....)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/nchurch03.xml
The bishops' paper warns that in order to preserve the unity of the Church, those who do not conform to a more prescriptive statement of faith will be "forced out".
I appreciate that this is probably the Telegraph's journalistic interpretation, but it still left me wondering about the logic of trying to counter disunity by ... enforcing disunity.
And anyway, doesn't the Church of England already have a 'rule book'? (I think King James had something to do with it....)
Saturday, 2 June 2007
Apple TV: useful at last? (repost from other blog)
Steve Jobs gave tantalizing glimpses of some Apple related things, and remained tight-lipped about others, in this interview with Walt Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal's D Conference (via Podcasting News).
The stuff about Apple TV is what interests me. To date I've remained unconvinced that Apple TV would be useful to me (see my previous rant here). But now that Apple TV is offering YouTube browsing, I hope that this signals further developments that might make it more useful to me. Apple have announced a fatter version of Apple TV with a 160 GB hard disk, so this does seem likely.
But what I need to know, before even considering buying one of these, either fat or thin, is this: will the Apple TV work with a monitor rather than a widescreen TV? I can't justify the purchase of a widescreen TV, but I do have a 19" widescreen computer monitor with a DVI input. This works with my Panasonic DVR using an adapter cable (HDMI to DVI) and it works with my MacBook using the same cable plus Apple's adapter. It seems reasonable to suppose that this set-up would work with Apple TV, but I don't know.
Anyone?
The stuff about Apple TV is what interests me. To date I've remained unconvinced that Apple TV would be useful to me (see my previous rant here). But now that Apple TV is offering YouTube browsing, I hope that this signals further developments that might make it more useful to me. Apple have announced a fatter version of Apple TV with a 160 GB hard disk, so this does seem likely.
But what I need to know, before even considering buying one of these, either fat or thin, is this: will the Apple TV work with a monitor rather than a widescreen TV? I can't justify the purchase of a widescreen TV, but I do have a 19" widescreen computer monitor with a DVI input. This works with my Panasonic DVR using an adapter cable (HDMI to DVI) and it works with my MacBook using the same cable plus Apple's adapter. It seems reasonable to suppose that this set-up would work with Apple TV, but I don't know.
Anyone?
The Bill O'Reilly Delusion
A few seconds into this clip I couldn't believe my ears. The interview with Richard Dawkins that O'Reilly refers to is the one I linked to here.
Direct link to YouTube video:
http://youtu.be/GY6pKsBR8UQ
No, Bill, you didn't 'beat' Dawkins, and if you honestly think you did then you weren't listening to what he said.
Direct link to YouTube video:
http://youtu.be/GY6pKsBR8UQ
No, Bill, you didn't 'beat' Dawkins, and if you honestly think you did then you weren't listening to what he said.
Scotland on the way to theocracy?
"The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Patrick O'Brien, will today warn Catholic politicians they can't remain full members of the church if they support abortion. We speak to the Bishop of Paisley."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_20070531.ram
Piece starts 18'18" into the clip (duration approx 4'10")
Download RealPlayer here
We don't have separation of Church and State here in Britain, so I suppose this kind of thing is to be expected.
Creation Museum
BBC Radio 4 Today (Thursday, May 31):
"If you want to see a reconstruction of Noah's Ark - complete with boarding dinosaurs - then head to the American state of Kentucky to a newly-opened museum devoted to creationism, the belief in the literal truth of the biblical account of how life came to exist."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today2_20070531.ram
Piece starts 18'52" into the clip (duration approx 4'32")
Download RealPlayer here
It couldn't happen here in Britain . . . could it?
Redefining meaning?
There's an argument that says that without God, life has no meaning. Some of us actually embrace this as a great liberation. If life has no meaning we are free to imbue it with any meaning we wish. This, however, doesn't satisfy those whose faith demands meaning imposed from above. If you deny that life has intrinsic meaning, they say, and maintain that meaning imposed by God is a myth, inventing meaning in its place is surely equally mythical.
For me, this misunderstands the kind of thing that 'meaning' -- in this context -- is. Meaning in life is not, as some would have it, a kind of goal, or purpose, or ideal end target. To say that life has meaning does not necessarily imbue it with externally imposed direction or intention, and neither does inventing your own meaning. Life just is. What you do with it is your affair.
Meaning in life is not so much a property that it possesses, more a declaration of those who live it.
In a hypothetical conversation between three umpires about strikes in baseball, Umpire 1 says, "I call 'em as they are." Umpire 2 says, "I call 'em as I see 'em." Umpire 3 says "They ain't nothin' till I call 'em." This illustrates the difference between attempting to perceive something that's already there, and acknowledging that some properties don't actually exist at all. Umpire 3 is not claiming flawless perception of objective reality as Umpire 1 is, nor is he admitting imperfect perception of reality, as Umpire 2 is. Umpire 3 is saying that this particular reality doesn't exist until he says it does. That, after all, is his job.
(Incidentally I put some of this worldview speculation into my very first published short story, "The Journey of Jonathan Cave" -- initially published on line at Alien Q, subsequently read on my podcast The Rev Up Review, then re-recorded for publication in Mur Lafferty's audio anthology Voices: New Media Fiction, available for free at Podiobooks.com.)
The concept of 'meaning' in life is a bit like the concept of evolution. Saying 'survival of the fittest' is not to say that the overall grand purpose of evolution is to weed out those less fit. Evolution doesn't have a grand purpose. It just is. If it does tend to weed out those less fit to survive and reproduce in prevailing environmental conditions, this says nothing about whether it's a good or bad thing. Morality doesn't come into it. It's simply the way the mechanism of evolution works.
Your life has no meaning until you say it does. That's your job.
For me, this misunderstands the kind of thing that 'meaning' -- in this context -- is. Meaning in life is not, as some would have it, a kind of goal, or purpose, or ideal end target. To say that life has meaning does not necessarily imbue it with externally imposed direction or intention, and neither does inventing your own meaning. Life just is. What you do with it is your affair.
Meaning in life is not so much a property that it possesses, more a declaration of those who live it.
In a hypothetical conversation between three umpires about strikes in baseball, Umpire 1 says, "I call 'em as they are." Umpire 2 says, "I call 'em as I see 'em." Umpire 3 says "They ain't nothin' till I call 'em." This illustrates the difference between attempting to perceive something that's already there, and acknowledging that some properties don't actually exist at all. Umpire 3 is not claiming flawless perception of objective reality as Umpire 1 is, nor is he admitting imperfect perception of reality, as Umpire 2 is. Umpire 3 is saying that this particular reality doesn't exist until he says it does. That, after all, is his job.
(Incidentally I put some of this worldview speculation into my very first published short story, "The Journey of Jonathan Cave" -- initially published on line at Alien Q, subsequently read on my podcast The Rev Up Review, then re-recorded for publication in Mur Lafferty's audio anthology Voices: New Media Fiction, available for free at Podiobooks.com.)
The concept of 'meaning' in life is a bit like the concept of evolution. Saying 'survival of the fittest' is not to say that the overall grand purpose of evolution is to weed out those less fit. Evolution doesn't have a grand purpose. It just is. If it does tend to weed out those less fit to survive and reproduce in prevailing environmental conditions, this says nothing about whether it's a good or bad thing. Morality doesn't come into it. It's simply the way the mechanism of evolution works.
Your life has no meaning until you say it does. That's your job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
