Pretence

I have long been a collector of books from the second-hand shops ; and for nearly as long, I  lacked the leisure to settle down to read them.  It is some twenty years since I bought, and dipped into, a happy little book by the physicist AN Whitehead.  It is called Adventures of Ideas, published in 1932 or thereabouts.  It deals with the adventures of a physicist who at last (in retirement) can let his ideas go walkabouts.  But, of course, most of the ideas are not his own but those of thinkers who went before ; what he adds to those ideas is his own deep meditations on them.

“Hypocrisy,” he says,” is necessary to civilised living.”  Quite so.  Where would our peaceful co-existence be without the little fibs we tell each other – and which we also tell ourselves.  We habitually say things that are untrue, usually with the unspoken wish that they were true.  Thus we might say to Mr Jones, “What a fine job you made of your latest book,” while wishing that in fact he had.

But there are different levels of hypocrisy.  St Augustine of Hippo once said, “To become the person you want to be, you must begin by pretending to be that person.”  We can all see the truth of this ; we have all put it into practice.  How would we have learned to drive a car without first convincing ourselves (however tentatively) that we could do it.  And haven’t we all heard a teacher, of whatever stripe, urging us to think like a competent practitioner?  and behave like one?  In other words, we must begin by pretending.

So, if I wish to be a better person than I am, I pretend to be that better person ; in thought, word and deed.  But here’s the risk.  For a person is a big thing ; and to become a better person takes a longish time.  So the pretence must be maintained for a long time – until I have reached the better level I have aimed at.

And all the while I am talking myself up I am also making a learner’s mistakes.  I am always talking as if I were a better person, but also betraying the fact that I haven’t got there yet.  This is a more profound example of that hypocrisy which Whitehead says is so necessary to civilised life.  Are all people who seek to better themselves hypocrites?  Is hypocrisy really a simple case of professing one thing while practising another?

Surely it is the motivation of the person that matters.  If the person really seeks to be better, does he escape the charge of hypocrisy?  Perhaps.  But is mere motivation sufficient reason to escape the charge?  Surely there must be evidence of sincerity ; there must be evidence of progress.

The word hypocrite is a handy weapon with which to put an opponent down.  But, because it is also so powerful,  it must be used with care.  For, if it is used every time a person lapses in his behaviour, then his motivation will be quenched and he might well give up trying to better himself.

And, if the charge of hypocrisy is used merely to silence an opponent, are we not obliged to ask, “Who really is the hypocrite?  The accused?  or the accuser?”

Read Full Post »

Time to make sense

We do not seem to have a developed sense of time that reveals itself in consciousness.  True, we often become aware that time has passed ; but that awareness is much more vague than our sense of, say, the distance between two objects that we have in view ; or of the direction and intensity of a sound.

Perhaps that is why we have a tendency to be less conscious of history than we are, say, of territory ; and why we are less conscious of our ancestors than we are of the people around us.  We almost all think of ‘society’ as those people who happen to be walking about at this moment.  The dead and the yet-to-be-born are ignored.

I’m reminded of words by that great Liberal, Chesterton, “I m a true democrat.  I believe that the dead should have a vote.”  Yes, and why not?  Was it not they who worked and often suffered to make the world which we enjoy?  Were their labours in vain?

So, while welcoming the chance to make the world a better place, I also welcome the chance to preserve and adapt the fruits of past centuries.  Change for the sake of change, or even change for the sake of a ‘good idea’, is simply vandalism and no democracy should countenance it.  Likewise, any change that does reckonable damage to our concept of the past is deplorable.

Just as people are not mere machines, so neither is a society or a nation.  Living things grow and adapt organically, from within ; and not mechanically by forces from without.

Read Full Post »

Material and immaterial

I know that many people were introduced to the writing of CS Lewis when they were children.  Usually this introduction was by way of reading the tales of Narnia.  Not so for me.  One of the earliest sayings from Lewis still sticks in my memory ; and I have no idea which book it came from.  It is this : “Once we have met a new acquaintance, that acquaintanceship endures for all eternity.”

I quote from a near-forgotten memory, but its substance has ever remained ; for his words refer to an insight he had which, although seemingly casual, is quite momentous.

We live in a world where physicality is taken for granted.  It is a world of science and technology.  It is a world where comparatively few people reflect on their essential natures.  Out of sheer habit, when a person thinks of ‘himself’, it is his body that comes first to mind.  It is such an ingrained habit that many people think that there is no more to a person than his body.

But it was not always so.  When the scientific revolution got under way in about the sixteenth century, people had to break a long-standing habit ; they had to stop thinking of themselves as being spirits ; they had to get out of the habit of thinking of themselves as souls.  To think of oneself as a ‘body’ required a conscious effort.

It is Renee Descartes who is most often credited (or blamed) for this shift in thought.  But really, he was only the writer who first formulated at length the notion that body and soul were two distinct entities.  Not everyone was convinced, of course ; but for nigh on four-hundred years our education system has ensured that, not only are body and soul seen as  distinct, but that the soul has no value in what is generally taught.  Or at any rate it is taught that the soul is essentially a powerless, ethereal thing.

But are body and soul two distinct entities?  Or is it the case that the body is simply a manifestation of the soul?  Is the body the soul incarnated?  Is the soul really powerless in this very physical world?

It is a modern paradox that so many people believe in the idea that the world is composed of atoms – those utterly invisible, silent, untouchable entities that will never, ever, be sensed by human bodies.  And atoms are essentially immortal and may only be rearranged in certain ways.  They believe all this and yet they baulk at the idea of a soul, which is also not detectable by our senses and may never be destroyed.

But both atoms and souls are inferable by the experience of introspection and of reason.  Why do people believe in the results of some introspections but not in others?  Why do they trust reason to tell them one thing but not another?

I suspect the answer lies simply in habits of thinking.

Read Full Post »

Stars don’t count

Hardly a day passes without some sign of the profound mystery of the world coming to mind.  Thinking of its origins : the universe, in its early stages of evolution, is completely invisible to us. It is known to us only by essentially geometrical expressions and, because the universe had no objects in at that ‘time’, the geometry is non-metrical. It is all numbers.

But then, isn’t almost the whole of science numbers? science requires measurements and quantities. But where do these numbers reside? If we wanted to know how many stars there are in a particular cluster, we should not expect to find each star sporting a plate with its serial number on it. The numbers exist, not on or in the stars, but in the mind of the person who counts the stars. Likewise, there is no plate bearing the figure for the mass of each star. Neither do the stars present a direct figure to express the distances one from another. If we mentally construct three lines to join three stars, there is no direct apprehension of the angles subtended by the lines – and the lines themselves exist only in the mind that constructs them.

Mathematics is a language and, like all languages, it is a peculiarly human mental construct. In the English language, does the word ‘orange’ have any necessary connection with the orange itself? Words can be seen as signs which refer to things ; but are they the things themselves? Numbers can be seen as signs that refer to things ; but are they the things themselves? A road sign pointing to Birmingham has no necessary connection with Birmingham except that we say so.

Perhaps it is human beings that decide the meanings of numbers – but the universe might be quite indifferent to our opinions and decisions. I wonder what the implications might be?

Read Full Post »

Respect

Civilizations are built upon habits ; and it is has been traditionally agreed that the earlier those habits are taught, the better it is for the general good.  And those habits really do have to be taught, because men and women are not naturally inclined to act for the general good ; they are naturally inclined to be self-serving (observe the behaviour of babies).

So, the question arises, Which are the habits that are to be taught?  And what is the fundamental principle that underpins them?  Observation suggests that one principle which all seem agreed upon is the goodness of life ; or the goodness of living, in itself.  We abhor death.

But, of course, an abhorrence of death might be a purely selfish attitude ; so we must also abhor the deaths of others.  But it would be fruitless to begin the moral education of a child with this fact, for what does a toddler know of death?  Is it a good idea to risk encouraging morbidity of thought?

So, to avoid getting too analytical on this point, we might consider that the starting point of a moral education is to instil a respect for the well-being of other people ; and a respect for their dignity.  But here, the teacher must (sooner or later) face some uncomfortable questions.  Given that there are some pretty obnoxious people around, we might ask, Who is worthy of respect?  Are there some people whose well-being and dignity we ought to ignore?  Are there some civilizations (social habits) which rank lower than our own?  and in what way ought we to respect them, if at all?  Are we morally entitled to show disrespect to certain classes of people?

Where does the teaching of respect begin?  and does it have an end?

Read Full Post »

What’s new then?

I grew up on the chalk downs of Kent. Not that you could see a lot of chalk at first glance ; for we only notice these things after we have had some enlightenment in the matter, and then know what to look for.  But, as Chesterton was to exclaim of our next-door neighbouring county, “What is Sussex but a piece of chalk?”  So Kent also is a piece of chalk ; but it is pocketed all over with hollows of clay ; and it has the huge Weald, broad and long, down its middle, which is more highly fertile and is traditionally the source of its wealth.  Weald? – wealth? – surely there has to be a connection.

But the connection I was interested in, one day long ago, was between what Mr Burrows, our all-knowing teacher, had told us about chalk and flint.  “They always go together,” he had said.  “And they are very ancient, too.  Not the most ancient of things, but old enough to get us wondering…”

So wonder I did, as I wandered through the beech-wood towards the place we knew as The Den.  Here the chalk was right on the surface ; such soil as there was would support only scrubby grasses and hardy flowers such as the poppies and campions – and the sweet broom, of course ; and such trees as had ventured here clung on to life as poor stunted things whose roots must have bled and ached as they struggled, year by year, to reach a little deeper and a little wider in search of the precious food that would keep their leaves and flowers alive, and provide homes for the linnets.

With so many distractions, it was a surpise that I did find my piece of flint – two pieces, in fact.  I needed two pieces because my mission was not going to be an easy one.  For Mr B had informed us that the real treasure of a flint was not to be seen on the outside, but on the inside.  “The bare nodule of flint appears to be a rather boring thing,” he had said, “But the treasure is buried.”

So, I had to break the nodule in order to find the jewel ; that’s why I needed two pieces ; one as the Mine, and the other as the tool to broach it. But cracking a flint is not nearly so easy as cracking a nut ; but I eventually succeeded.  And there, before my very eyes, was the glittering treasure of jewels that the all-wise Mr B had spoken of.  To be sure, the diamonds (as I thought of them) were not of any great size.  But what matter?  The point was that they were there ; it was surely a miracle that they were there at all. They had lain there for millions of years – as if they were just waiting for me to find them.

I don’t recall now whether it was at the moment of discovery that another realization was created in my mind, or whether it came later.  But the enlightenment was this : that at the instant of the breaking of the stone, the light of the sun entered that dark cavity for the very first time.  If ‘diamonds’ could see, they must have been dazzled in their awakening.  Also there was that very Kentish air that flooded in at the moment of the breach ; if ‘diamonds’ could breathe, they must have had their breath taken away by it.  In an instant, the life of the sparkling crystals was changed for ever.  No more dwelling in the darkness, no more silence ; no more would they live in their arid cave.  For, following a very rude awakening, they had been welcomed into the world of light and shade, of form and substance.  It was as if they had now acquired the real gladness of mere existence ; it was as if they had just been born.

But, of course, it was not really the ‘diamonds’ that had been awakened, surprised and gladdened.  It was me.

THERE was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparell’d in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;—
Turn wheresoe’er I may,
By night or day,
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.

Wordsworth.

Read Full Post »

The age of the machine

What is a one-year-old grandchild but an elaborate little machine for turning damson porridge into smiles?  I suspect this to be true, because once or twice I have enjoyed a Royal Visit from the young lady and gentleman in question.  I have the damson stains on my shirt ; I have the memory of the little sticky kisses… I know it to be true.

But it was not always like this.  For when a child’s age is to be reckoned in mere weeks, instead of months, we are dealing with a very different creature.  The newborn child is so deficient of the experience of living in the world that it really is like a little machine ; a machine that is governed entirely by selfish desires ; a machine that that is almost entirely emotional ; indeed, a machine that displays only four states of existence :  unconsciousness : indifference : bliss : and rage.  It is unconscious when asleep ; it is indifferent when awake but not aware of any discomfort ; in bliss when recently fed and comforted ; and in a rage when its discomfort is ignored.

It is the rage that we tend to notice, for it becomes extreme in a remarkably short time.  The hungry infant is a terror to behold, with its red-to-purple face, its bawling mouth, its nearly-closed hard eyes, its clenching fists.  As the very observant Freud remarked, if an adult were to behave in this way then, unless you could outrun it, you would have no choice but to shoot it.  For otherwise it would certainly kill you. Small wonder that Freud shocked our Victorian forebears, with their idealized notions of childhood.

And yet, Freud did no more than remind us of an ancient truth ; that man is born steeped in sin.  He didn’t put it quite like that, of course, but  that is what he meant.  We are selfish, pleasure-seeking and aggressive in our very natures.  And it is that selfishness, that pleasure-seeking, and that aggressiveness which good parenting seeks to control and sublimate to more noble ends.

But, when you’re just a little Granddaughter or Grandson, who can’t even say, “I’m twelve munce old,”  ( let alone spell it) you don’t know any of this.  But you are very, very  busy putting your infantilism behind you – and fast learning how to be a lil machine for turning porridge into smiles.

Read Full Post »

Magna Carta – God’s authority over kings

For those of our people who remain fully conscious (and have not fallen into the trap set by modern ‘thinkers’), I reproduce the modern English translation of the Magna Carta. It is supplied by the website of the British Library.

This is the seminal document that defines the principles that authorise and underpin all our freedoms, even today.  King John had to be coerced to sign it ; but once this document had been written and signed, and once copies had been made, it could never be undone.  Tyrants may come and go, but Magna Carta endures ; it might be disregarded, effaced, or even repudiated, but as long as hearts beat true its spirit will never, ever die.

The Magna Carta

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church’s elections – a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it – and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a ‘relief’, the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of ‘relief’. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay 100 for the entire earl’s barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight’s ‘fee’, and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of ‘fees’

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without ‘relief’ or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same ‘fee’, who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same ‘fee’, who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be’ made known to the heir’s next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband’s death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband’s house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor’s sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor’s lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an ‘aid’ – except in the three cases specified above – or a ‘scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an ‘aid’ from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight’s ‘fee’, or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay ‘fee’ of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay ‘fee’ of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the ‘fees’ concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord’s court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by ‘fee-farm’, ‘socage’, or ‘burgage’, and also holds land of someone else for knight’s service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person’s ‘fee’, by virtue of the ‘fee-farm’, ‘socage’, or ‘burgage’, unless the ‘fee-farm’ owes knight’s service. We will not have the guardianship of a man’s heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants – who shall be dealt with as stated above – are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any ‘escheat’ such as the ‘honour’ of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other ‘escheats’ in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the ‘relief’ and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron’s hand. We will hold the ‘escheat’ in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

* (48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athe, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogn’, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogn, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace ( 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person’s ‘fee’, when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a ‘fee’ held of us for knight’s service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person’s ‘fee’, in which the lord of the ‘fee’ claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace ( 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

Read Full Post »

Heroes

We all of us have our heroes.   But, more than that, each of us has certain personal favourites ; men and women who really live in our memories, and not as abstractions under a category somewhere.  From my own disordered childhood I can name several.  I have already written a bit about Mr & Mrs Adams and Uncle Jack ; both towering figures whose heads stand above the mists of time.  I have many heroes I knew personally, some old, some young ; and heroes I knew only from the pages of books but who are lively nevertheless.

If education is to be seen properly, it must be understood as the passing-on of the culture from which the child derives its intellectual life.  And this means, to cut a long story short, the passing-on of the lives of heroes ; for culture is not a thing that ‘happens’ ; rather it is a thing that has sprung from the minds of men and women down the ages.  And, out of the multitude of ideas that spring from human minds, what make culture is the enduring ideas ; the ideas of value.  Ideas that can be put to practical use so as to make the world a better place.

Thus it is that our list of heroes contains not just Perseus and Theseus, not just Moses and David, not just Alexander and Caesar, not just Alfred and Victoria.  Our list must also include Socrates and Aquinas, Pythagoras and Newton, Chaucer and Shakespeare, and Bach and Beethoven.

Heroes make manifest the seeds of greatness.  Whether it was only Time and Chance which made the manifestation possible, or whether it was a rare genius, is not a matter which need concern us here.  What matters is that those seeds of greatness are within each of us.  Or so Thomas Gray thought.  And I think he was right :

Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear :
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

Now I know that modern educationalists, teachers and politicians find the idea of heroism abhorrent (unless such heroism is of a purely utilitarian value or unless it serves a particular political purpose) ; but, if we value our freedoms, we must resist the blandishments of the ‘social engineers’ who desire the destruction of our culture.  If we value our freedoms we must pass on to our children the culture of real heroism and heroes – and not omitting Gray’s ploughmen.

Read Full Post »

The survivors

In round figures our medical people abort around two-hundred thousand unborn babies each year.   And the great majority of those babies would become children and then adults – if only they were left where they were.

I have spent much time thinking about those poor children, and their unhappy mothers.  If only there was a way of avoiding such loss and such unhappiness.

I also spend time thinking about all our other children ; the children who were not killed in their mothers’ wombs.  I think of the survivors.  What do they think of the situation we are in?  Or, more to the point, what do they think of the situation they are in?

What can it be like to be ten years old, say, and knowing that about one-third of all babies are killed unborn?  Knowing that there is a fair chance that your own mother has had a previous abortion?  Or that she is likely to have one any day?  What can it be like to reflect on the fact that you might have had a brother or a sister, but for the other fact – that he or she has been killed.

Of course, the child cannot be sure that his mother had an abortion ; but does that make it any easier to have these thoughts?  We know, by talking to ex-servicemen who have survived battles in which their colleagues died, that they can be deeply troubled by lifelong feelings of sadness, depression and guilt.  “Why me?” they ask, “Why did I survive when my friends died?”

I know it is unpleasant for the rest of us to think of these things but, if we are to make a society that can be at ease with itself, we really must do so.  And we must do something to put matters right.

Read Full Post »

Units of production

The modern tendency to regard people as machines has had many benefits.  For example, we have much better medical procedures now than in former times.  Also we have a much better-regulated workforce ; by considering the worker as being an extension of the machine he/she operates, more efficient machines and operating procedures have been made.  This makes it possible to predict accurately how much a factory or office can produce ; it makes it possible to work to production targets.

Another gain can be seen.  Because men and women are physically (mechanically) similar, it is now possible to design factories, offices, classrooms, etc., in such a way that men and women are interchangeable ; as machines, men and women are equal.  This greatly increases productivity because it is no longer necessary to make special provisions for men and women respectively.  So both men and women are now simply units of production, just like the machines, computers, educational aids, vehicles, etc., they operate.

But is there a downside to all these benefits?  Perhaps there is.   Just looking at it from the humanistic point of view, what is happening is that employers do not have to consider their workforce as complex human beings with complex needs and desires.  They are all simply units of production.

However, it is thoroughly scientific and efficient.  So, from all the rich and complex qualities of a human being, only the mechanistic things are abstracted for calculating the worth of each person.  Human beings have been reduced to abstractions.  All those complex qualities which make this person different from that person have been ignored ; only the ability to work as a machine is abstracted for its value.  And all those complex qualities which make a woman different from a man have been ignored ; only the ability to work as a machine is abstracted for its value.

Read Full Post »

The future of technology

The way people think about the world has changed since the scientific/technological revolution began.  And the change has not only altered our perception of the material world, but also of ourselves.

The modern perception of the material world has brought considerable benefits in the form of technology, and that is because we tend overwhelmingly to see Nature as a machine ;  the galaxies, the stars and planets, the Earth and all the things in it are seen as mechanical.  That is to say, nature ‘works’ by objects acting upon other objects.  The essence of this working is that a change in the state of anything is brought about by external means.  And our technology is modelled on this ; our invented machines mimic natural machines.

As one eighteenth century scientist observed, “What is a cow but a machine for turning grass into milk?”.  His idea was to make this machine, the cow, as efficient as possible.  Now there is no doubt that living creatures can be perceived as machines.  To settle any doubts, one has only to consider surgery and dentistry ; and medicine, too, is largely the application of external influences to the body/machine.

But has our fixation on science and technology led us to believe that people themselves are nothing but machines?  Certainly medical science makes that assertion.  It is not overstating things to say that going to the doctor’s nowadays is like going to the garage to have one’s car fixed.  The entirely physical diagnosis is made, and the treatment (the fix) is decided on solely on that basis.  And that treatment is physical.  From the beginning to the end, the patient is treated as a machine.

Very well.  But the question still remains ; is a person nothing but a machine?  The answer to that question has some notable consequences.  For example, if governments were to perceive people as mere machines, then what objection can be raised to their implementing far-reaching social engineering programmes?  Such programmes would, of course, be devized by the best experts on the human machine – politicians, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, police officers, social workers and so forth.

Does this sound far fetched?  Well, just look at what is happening around you now.

Read Full Post »

Disinheritance

Christianity began with its founder suffering a bloody crucifixion ; continued to where its followers were persecuted even unto death ; and then progressed to develop the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen.  Christians have produced the best paintings, the best sculptures, the best music, the best literature ever ; even now there is no equal to them.  They also produced the scientists who established the best methods for examining the physical world – methods  which are used to this day.

Why do so many people now wish to get rid of such a productive system of beliefs?  I fear that one reason is  because they do not have a developed concept of progress.  They desire perfection, and think they can merely dream up a blueprint for it, forgetting that many such blueprints have been drawn before ; and then, so they think, they can merely legislate for it – forgetting that such has been tried in ages past.

They look back to their notions of what the Middle Ages were like, and feel repelled – forgetting that their medieval ancestors were repelled by what went before them ; and forgetting also that their own descendants will look back on this politically correct, amoral, sink-state age and feel an even greater repulsion, not simply because it is awful but because it is actually a regression from the heights once tentatively trodden.

So, why do they want to rid themselves of their religion and all that goes with it, including the best that goes with it?

Read Full Post »

Freedom of association

People will always tend to gather themselves together in clubs of different sorts.  That is because, when we have a particular interest, we like to associate once in a while with those of similar interests.  If you’re an angler or a fisherman, it’s a comfort to know that there are other anglers around ; and it’s good to meet up now and then – over a cup of tea or a pint – for a natter about fishing.

Now, if you’re an angler, the last thing you want is someone coming along to insist that you should let dog-lovers join your club.  Your hobby is fishing, not perming poodles and not adoring dobermans.  So, while a dog-lover might be welcome to your club if he is also a fisherman, discussing dogs at your meetings is off the menu.  And, if the dog-lover insists not only on discussing dogs but also on airing his opinion that angling is the sport of the devil and ought to be banned, then he is definitely persona non grata.

So, outsiders have no right to invade a club and tell the clubbers what to do.

Why then does our government intrude on our clubs?  For example, why does it insist that women’s clubs must admit men – and vice versa?  One of the finest moments in English history was the signing of Magna Carta in 1215 ; for this began a process which allowed us the right to free association ; the right to gather in clubs and do what we want to do without official interference.  Surely we must do all we can to prevent this government trying to tell us what we may and may not do.

Read Full Post »

Who leads wins

Another report is being reported on, this time about a government advisor’s opinion on how to make children happier – or at least, less depressed. Apparently two to five per cent of British children are clinically depressed, and they will only get better if they have therapy at school.

I’d be the very last person to denigrate the benefits of psychotherapy, but I do question whether mass therapy carried out by teachers will do the trick ; for the problem that schools have given our children is not that they have deprived them of the ability to be cheerful, but that educationalists have robbed them of the sure opportunities to find (or make) true happiness – that happiness which is best found in working rather hard for something that is rather difficult to get – and succeeding.

What the experts offer them instead is a somewhat easy ride where there are prizes for everyone and top prizes for most. For most children there is not the great challenge in schoolwork and, importantly, there is little risk. The most able children have exams too easy, and so gain little satisfaction from passing them brilliantly ; while the least able find the exams too difficult, and do not even enter for them. It is common knowledge now that this state of affairs has arisen because the educationalists have progressively lowered standards so as to maximize pass rates and – guess what? the children know that! So the root causes of children’s unhappiness lie in a lack of leadership from the generality of teachers – and also from many parents.

It is not the children who need therapy, but the teachers who must be shown how to lead effectively. A useful starting point for this project is to impress on them that leadership is not about being ‘nice’ to people but about achieving worthwhile objectives ; for it the attainment of objectives that give rise to real happiness. A leader can be pretty harsh, but as long as the team win their aims, that leader will be respected and obeyed, and a virtuous cycle is established.

And, of course, a good leader tends to generate other good leaders – almost without trying.

Read Full Post »

Forgiving?

Any number of people I have spoken to have complaints about other people in their lives.  And so often they also mention that they have forgiven  a particular offender (or offenders).  And yet it is they who first mention the fact that they have these complaints ; and they who first mention that they have forgiven.

But this is strange, because the act of true forgiveness involves a profound renunciation of the complaint.  The one who forgives puts the clock back right to the point where it is as if the offence had never been committed.  So, therefore, no need arises for it ever to be mentioned again.

So, are we able to forgive truly?  Isn’t there always a residue of resentment?

It seems to me that often a person whom we have ‘forgiven’ we actually put on probation ; and we watch for best behaviour, ready to call past offences to mind.

Often, too, one person will ‘forgive’ another while actually declaring that the offender ‘didn’t really do wrong ; it’s just that I was sensitive at the time’.  And often, too, this is just a cop-out ; the offender really did wrong, but the ‘forgiver’ simply does not want the hassle of confronting him.  Better the quiet life ; best pretend that no wrong was done.  But this is not true forgiveness ; for, if offence was felt, then a wrong was really done.

And then there those occasions when we make excuses for an offender, “He didn’t intend to hurt me as much as he did, so there’s nothing to forgive.”  Ah, yes, but a wrong was done, so there is something to forgive.

The truth is that true forgiveness is a difficult thing to do.  Between friends, it makes demands on both the one who offended and on the offender.  And yet, we must forgive ; for do we not pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”?  In other words, we shall be forgiven in proportion as we ourselves forgive.

Forgiveness

Most merciful and loving Father,
We beseech Thee most humbly, even with all our hearts,
To pour out upon our enemies with bountiful hands
whatsoever things Thou knowest may do them good.

And chiefly a sound and uncorrupt mind,
Where-through they may know Thee and love Thee
in true charity and with their whole heart,
And love us, Thy children, for Thy sake.

Let not their first hating of us turn to their harm,
Seeing that we cannot do them good for want of ability.

Lord, we desire their amendment and our own.
Separate them not from us by punishing them,
But join and knot them to us by Thy favourable dealings with them.

And, seeing we be all ordained to be citizens of the one everlasting city,
Let us begin to enter into that way here already by mutual love,
Which may bring us right forth thither.

Read Full Post »

Faith or therapy?

Although I am not an enthusiast for psychoanalysis, I do admire Freud’s general theory of psychology.  It has ‘the ring of truth’ about it.

One of Freud’s major arguments is that people will avoid doing difficult things, if they can, and do something easier instead.  We always tend towards what he calls the ‘pleasure principle’ and avoid ‘unpleasure’.  So, for example, if one knows that one has to do something unpleasant, like telling the boss some home-truths, one tends to put it off for as long as possible ‘because one is too busy’ ; in other words one finds other things to do instead.

Well, we all know this ‘putting-off’ from our own experience.  But Freud’s insight was to observe that people also do this putting-off quite unconsciously.  In other words, there are things we ought to do but are not aware that we ought to do them ; and we fill our time doing quite unnecessary things instead.  Freud called these unnecessary activities ‘displacement activities’.  The necessary activity has been displaced by an unnecessary one.  By this means, we achieve peace of mind, by not being bothered by unpleasant thoughts about something that we really must do one day.

It’s interesting to see ‘displacement activities’ being used apart from the close and sometimes rather dreary context of Freudian psycho-dynamic theory.  The neurosis of everyday life, as it were.

Christopher Howse seems to suggest that all people are seeking some kind of religious faith, but that they find it difficult to find the psychological courage to maintain their quest. Therefore they do something else as an easier substitute.  As Freud might say, they displace the aim of their search for faith away from religion and on to other aims which, they hope, will give them the same satisfaction. And, of course, all this is performed unconsciously.

This theory is probably true. How else to explain why so many modern people do a lot of “time-filling – television, shopping, driving, passive music-listening, browsing on food, surfing the internet, leafing over magazine pages, following soaps, living vicariously through celebrities” – much of which is apparently pointless?

But, if many non-religious people may be said to seek a faith in what are essentially material comforts – or rather in the comfort that material things can bring – then the same may be said of many modern people who vaguely think of themselves as being religious.

It seems to me that people today are shifting the definition of religion away from a set of definite and difficult doctrines and towards a flexible set of vague humanistic values which are designed to bring emotional comfort to the believer. Religion is becoming a kind of therapy in much the same way as ‘retail’ is a kind of therapy.

But I’m doubtful whether merely learning to feel good about oneself can provide a firm footing for faith. If faith brings peace of mind, and if peace of mind brings an essentially serene temperament then, judging by the levels of unrest in our self-indulgent society, perhaps my doubts are justified

Read Full Post »

One tragedy among many

To D.A.1999 –

Why should I be moved by verse you send to me?
For aren’t you just another soul, my friend,
Another soul among so many here?
So many tragic tales compete to rend
The fabric hearts are made of, and to sear
Emotions, rack compassion, and unmend
Calm minds that only calmness wish to hear.
I’ll tell you what your lines have let me see.
I see in you a heart that’s suffered grief ;
I see in you a void in which hope weeps,
While yet believing that she’ll find relief.
I see the fount of love that good faith keeps.
I also see a kinder world which lies
(Beyond your tears and hopes) where nothing dies.

And what is it to me if your heart aches?
Must I become involved in your unrest?
The icy blast of winter often takes
The lives of fairest flowers, yet is blessed
Because it’s best for nature as a whole.
And don’t the gods (who from their lofty plane,
Cast eyes devoid of pity on us all)
Disdain to interfere with human pain?
But I can never be so much as cool
Towards your suffering soul ; and never could
Ignore your tears or from Olympus rule.
I can but speak my sentiment for good :
Your love, sweet love, incurs a hurt for thee –
Give me your hurt if that your heart would free.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Just a thought

I know a nice lady, Mrs Bradshaw, who once had a real-life adventure. So my short account of her adventure begins like this : “Mrs Bradshaw pulled on her favourite green sweater, ran a comb through her hair, and stepped out of the house to go to her sister’s rather forbidding place in Reading”. This is exactly how it happened ; I was there and saw it. Indeed, I was there throughout her adventure, and recorded all of it.

But, in my desire to protect her privacy, I decide to change some details. My account now begins : “Mrs Mason pulled on her favourite black sweater, ran a comb through her hair, and stepped out of the house to go to her sister’s rather forbidding place in Bracknell“. The question now arises, Have I told lies? Will my account of Mrs Bradshaw’s adventure be accurate? Is it believable any more? Can I be regarded as a reliable reporter?

Most people would argue that no lie has been told, provided the purpose of the story is merely to relate the substance of the adventure. In this case, the names and other details do not matter. For Mrs Bradshaw, we may read Mrs Everywoman. Or even Mr Everyman. So, now I have produced a work of fiction which is also a work of truth.

But, suppose the adventure which I am relating does not have a satisfying ‘ring’ to it? Suppose it does not quite capture the spirit of Mrs Bradshaw? Suppose that, on the day of the actual adventure, she is feeling a little below par, and is not quite herself ; and, as a result, she is not acting as the mighty heroine I know her to be? Would I be justified in recalling an earlier event (which I witnessed) that showed her in her true colours – and working that event into my story? Now I have deepened the fiction ; but am I still being truthful?

What I seem to be constructing here is not lies, but an account of the nature of Mrs Bradshaw ; the focus is now on her personality as well as her adventure – but much more on her personality. And, since my memories and my reason lead me to suppose that most women could handle the adventure with the skill and heroism of Mrs Bradshaw, I am narrating not a mere lie, not a mere fiction, not a mere fantasy ; I am constructing a myth. For a myth is a narrative that is founded on disciplined observation and disciplined imagination ; it is also somewhat idealized. A myth does not necessarily tell the truth, but it reveals a truth within the mind of the reader. It opens the reader’s mind, if not to the facts, then to the possibilities.

We all love myths, so let there be more of them.

So to the anthropologist who discovers a small number of stones lying a little below the surface of the ground. By exercising a disciplined observation, he surmises that these stones somewhat resemble real bones that he has seen in a modern skeleton ; he therefore exercises a disciplined imagination to conclude that these stones were moulded to the shapes of the bones of a human-like being. Further disciplined observations and imaginings lead him to conclude that the imagined bones are one hundred thousand years old. Yet more laborious observations and imaginings lead to the proposition that the long-dead creature walked upright, had a dark skin and black hair ; also brown eyes seem appropriate to his personality. And, why not give him a name? Phillip will do.

But, surely, isn’t this mere fiction? No such person ever existed. What modern anthropologist was present to record these details one hundred thousand years ago? The anthropologist’s narrative is almost all an imaginative disciplined construction. Lies? Deceit?

No. It is much more interesting than that. What we have is a myth. And a very good one it is, too ; for it holds our imaginations captive and enlightens us, if not to the facts, then to certain principles and to certain possibilities.

Read Full Post »

Genesis 2

What is it that drives us to seek answers to ultimate questions?  If ever we were to discover the answer to a question such as, What is the origin of life?  –  what difference would it make to our lives?  In our everyday lives of work and love, fishing and gardening, what would we be doing that is different from what we’re doing now?  I wonder why we have such big thoughts at all.

The origin of the universe is interesting.  The popular notion now is that it all began with a Big Bang.  But nobody has ever seen what it was that went bang and nobody knows why it went bang ; or how.  It is like a penny banger without a blue touch-paper.  In fact it is even more interesting than that.  For that original entity apparently contained all that was needed to create the entire universe, and yet it could have had no mass ; for mass requires at least two entities.  It contained nothing, and yet it contained everything.  It had no dimensions in either space or time. It was invisible in both the literal and figurative senses.

Even more fascinating is that there was no other being to observe it, either on the inside or the outside.  It was all alone.

Even now, there is no shred of scientific evidence that this singular object existed except in the mind of Man. Why ought we believe it ever existed?  Does it matter?

JM

Read Full Post »

High as a kite

I was born in 1942. The longest part of my formative years was spent on a (then) recently disused Army camp ; an anti-aircraft battery to be exact. Barely more than one-hundred yards from the house in which I lived there were the concrete emplacements from which real guns had fired real ammunition at the real aircraft that really were trying to kill and maim real people ; people that I knew. It was an exciting place for a lad to be.

There was lots of open space. On good days, an old man might be seen shuffling his way from a wooden hut, just like ours, across a rough ‘meadow’. he was labouring with a burden under his arm ; but you couldn’t yet see what his burden was. He assembled a camp stool. Then he fiddled with his ’something’ ; and, before long you would see a kite taking to the fresh breeze, fitfully but surely. yes, it was a kite. And in a matter of minutes it would be flying and soaring above the green of the grass. Under expert control.

Mr Adams – yes, that is his real name, and I give it because he deserves to be remembered – had been a prisoner of the Japanese. And flying a kite was the only skill of hand that he could recall.

If you could dare to come close to him, you would be impressed by his appearance. His face was a deep brown, as were his eyes. Hair jet black. He had high cheek-bones ; his lips were thin ; his teeth were surprisingly even. He spoke a strange language, made mostly of mumbled syllables and gutterals, with much gesticulation. You might make out what he was saying – if you listened carefully and followed his eyes and hands. You might imagine that he had been born a cretin.  That’s what a PoW camp can do to a man.   But he sure was an expert at flying a kite. And you would have realized that he was friendly, too, once you had overcome your fear.

Mr Adams was a married man. His wife was blonde and seemed to be about a hundred years younger than he. She was pretty ; good-looking, even, as a real man might have judged. She was, I suppose, in her mid-twenties. A lad would be surprised to reckon that Mr Adams himself could have been not more that thirty. Thirty! And he was a living wreck. And she a beauty.

I would watch as ‘the missus’ would bring him a cup of tea and a sandwich on those kite-flying days. And maybe a coat, too, if the wind got fresh. She was dependable. Always there for her man – whose only surviving skill was flying a kite.

I was invited into their home more than once. He was mostly silent, paying as much attention to the fire-coals as he would pay to his swooping kite ; in what seemed to be a permanent contemplation ; a contemplation of what? an adult might ask. But I was not an adult. ‘The missus’, that young beauty, was in constant attendance ; watchful for every sign of need in the hundred-year-old man of maybe thirty.

One day I must tell you about Fred, an RAF man with a battered face, who might well have played a part in seeing that Mr Adams was able to be a kite-pilot ; who might have been a deciding factor in conferring (imposing?) the holy destiny on the lovely, loving, devoted Mrs Adams. They all and each deserve our consideration.

I often asked myself why that sweet lady stayed with her husband. She needn’t have. Why did she care so much for that old, broken man who had once been her dashing groom, full of vitality? Why did she spend her precious days of youth escorting him out to the fields, bringing him tea, bringing him his coat in the freshening breezes? Why did she spend her days sitting with him beside the winter’s fire ; watching and waiting for his hundred-and-one special needs? Knowing that she would never have children. Why? Well, if you need to ask a question like that …

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Adventures with the occult

I expect there are any number of ways of thinking about ourselves and the universe in which we live.  All of them contain surprises.  Here’s something to ponder.

There are at least two universes ; the first is the one that we know ; and the second is the one we believe in.

The one that we know exists in human consciousness. It is here that we find all the stars and starfish, moons and microbes, numbers, constants and cats. It is what we ordinarily think of as the physical universe ; the universe that is fundamentally the product of our senses but also of our reason.

The other universe, that we all believe in, exists beyond our sense data and therefore beyond true sensory, empirical knowledge ; though we may speculate about it within reason, we cannot say anything definite about it. It is this universe that (we believe) ultimately gives rise to what we think of as the physical universe.  This is the universe of atoms, electrons, protons, etc. – invisible, occult, known only by mathematical equations which have no definite interpretation.

These considerations have interesting consequences for us. For example, the numerical universal constants, since they exist only in human consciousness, simply have to be as they are in order for us to know the universe. Any other opinion is speculation. If we change the constants, for example, we are literally changing our minds about the fabric of the universe in which we exist ; with the consequence that the universe either dissolves, or becomes unimaginable.

Now, here are some sketchy ideas that can be developed.  But, if these ideas won’t do, there are others ….  😉

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Democracy right or wrong

It’s always risky to question the form of government that happens to be in place at a particular time. For example, if anybody had been rash enough to propose a liberal democracy at any time up to the eighteenth century, then a short stay in the Tower would have been the law’s reply. But are we any wiser today?

If an intelligent and humane person from any century prior to our own were to review the events of the past hundred years or so, they would very likely conclude that democracy seems to be a resounding failure in the West. “Wherever you look,” they would say, “You see dissolution and decay.”

The West is, by almost any measure, in the process of becoming stultified by self-indulgence, and is being taken over by more vigorous cultures which seek a greater wealth on behalf of their peoples – rather than at the behest of their peoples.

Our intelligent and humane ancestors would argue that, while people in general desire the betterment of their lives, they are hopelessly divided as to the means of securing it.  On the other hand, an absolute ruler, or a small aristocracy, can reach agreement on both aims and means, and can therefore deliver the goods.

Plato famously argued that democracy was merely the prelude to tyranny. Was he right? Where do we see signs of tyranny emerging in our own times?

P.S.  Yes, I am a democrat at heart.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

The middle way

It was Aristotle, I think, who first wrote about the need to live in a straight way ; as if life were a road or highway.  I imagine that, like most Greeks of his time, he saw that road as being broad ; it was a road on which we could drift to the right or to the left ; a road which permitted varieties (and even excesses) of behaviour and of opinion ; and all was fine as long as we didn’t actually take off into the wilds on either side.  But he also cautioned that one ought properly to live a moderate life, a life along the middle of the highway.  A life of not too much and not too little of the richness that a good life has to offer.

Of course, he would not have felt the need to write that unless it were common for people to stray into excess.  It can be a good thing to indulge in fine foods and drinks ; it can also be a good thing to live in self-imposed frugality ; but it is better to indulge and abstain only occasionally ; and it is better still if we do it for a purpose.  It can be a good thing to express great anger at times, just as it can be good to be utterly tolerant of things we think bad ; but such anger and such tolerance ought to be occasional and purposeful ; better to be even-tempered.

So it is that the Long Season presents us with an opportunity to examine our lives.  But, of course, every day presents a new opportunity to tweak the steering so as to bring ourselves back to the middle of the road ; or even to turn a corner if we happen to be on the wrong road.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Sailing by

The Church moves through Time and takes her people with her.  She moves through ‘good times and bad’.  To some she is the refuge of those who seek comfort in the bad times, while she is also the target of others who are the ones who make the times bad.  At any rate, she cannot help being influenced, for good and ill, by the particular times she happens to be passing through.

It follows that she must be wary of whom she takes on board.  She must not be merely a refuge, but must be pro-active in the world ; she must not be deflected from her purpose by the bad and misguided who also embark with her.

Too often has she been unduly influenced by the moods and fashions of particular times.  This is inevitable, for her passengers come bearing those moods and fashions.  But temporary fashions must not be allowed to take a hold of her ; for her substantial message concerns eternal truths.

It is sad that, in this age of ‘social concern’, the Church (Anglican especially) is utterly taken up by social matters ; it is sad and wrong of her to become so concerned with the prevailing moods of sociology and politics.  It is both sad and wrong for a number of reasons ; but chief among these is that she is now more concerned about herself than about the world at large.  Her thoughts, feelings and actions have become self-centred – thus mirroring the prevailing social philosophy of ‘self and individualism’ which conditions the modern world so heavily.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Precious lives

I am broadly in favour of sex education for older children provided it is taught in a proper and truly responsible way.  What I am against is teaching children to become a part of the growing promiscuous and nihilistic section of society.  In other words, I am against the social engineering being implemented by this thoroughly immoral government led by the ghastly Gordon Brown.

So, no surprise then that I am alarmed and dismayed by what I read on Damian Thompson’s blog on the Daily Telegraph website.

It seems that a body uncannily known as the Catholic Education Service (CES) has endorsed government plans to corrupt the minds of our children ; it has actually endorsed and approved the teaching of blatantly un-Catholic teaching in all Catholic schools.  It even approves of catholic schools teaching children of the government-approved ways of securing abortions ; of officially-approved ways of killing unborn, unwanted and unloved children.

The CES is gutless and unprincipled, yes.  But where is the leadership in the Church as a whole?  Where is the standard-bearer of Christian principles?  Where are his aides?  Why is nobody protesting?  I am tempted to ask, “Who is afraid of whom?”

Did a thousand saints and martyrs die so that we should be reduced to this?

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

That brightsome light

Thy brightsome light, that shines tomorrow’s deeds
Into the mindscape that I view today,
Ne’er fails to fire the hope in all my needs ;
It goads me on when else my will would stray.

What mystery, that lantern of the mind,
That shows to me the things I would have true!
They say the future must be ever blind
To mortal eyes that never heaven knew.

And so, perhaps, the merest touch of thine
Infinity indeed alights on me ;
So opens to my thought the will divine,
Makes sure potential that which I can see.

If human wish is more than just a dream
Then lightened it must be by holy beam.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Intrusion

You came to me as a blade of light
From heaven’s sphere to pierce the night.
You sundered solid darkness at a stroke,
Dissolved the all-enveloping gloom ;
Unwilled the Fates and spread delight.

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

Farewell

Brave heart, go sweetly to your lasting rest.
Before its duty-labour’s finished here,
A soul can do so much, and do its best.
Then ere it leaves this world it feels the fear

And loneliness it must perforce endure
Until the weighing of its hours is done.
Alone it went when straying from the pure,
And now, as soul, its freedom must be won.

Who here can judge thee, noble one and true?
Are friends best referees of friends’ own hearts?
Who here has wish to judge, whose skills are few,
So peculating all the moral arts?

Jamie MacNab

Read Full Post »

The solitary reaper

from Memorials of a Tour in Scotland, 1803 (Wordsworth)

BEHOLD her, single in the field,
Yon solitary Highland Lass!
Reaping and singing by herself;
Stop here, or gently pass!
Alone she cuts and binds the grain,
And sings a melancholy strain;
O listen! for the Vale profound
Is overflowing with the sound.

No Nightingale did ever chaunt
More welcome notes to weary bands
Of travellers in some shady haunt,
Among Arabian sands:
A voice so thrilling ne’er was heard
In spring-time from the Cuckoo-bird,
Breaking the silence of the seas
Among the farthest Hebrides.

Will no one tell me what she sings?–
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago:
Or is it some more humble lay,
Familiar matter of to-day?
Some natural sorrow, loss, or pain,
That has been, and may be again?

Whate’er the theme, the Maiden sang
As if her song could have no ending;
I saw her singing at her work,
And o’er the sickle bending;–
I listened, motionless and still;
And, as I mounted up the hill
The music in my heart I bore,
Long after it was heard no more.

William Wordsworth

Read Full Post »