In A.N. Wilson's novel "God's Funeral", she writes "the nineteenth century had created a climate for itself -philosophical, politico-sociological, literary, artistic, personal - in which God had become unknowable, His voice inaudible against the din of machines and the atonal banshee of the emerging egomania called 'The Modern' (12) As its titles portray, both
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Introduction
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Darwin: His Legacy
In the late 1850s, Darwin was on the verge of publishing "The Origin of Species", an accumulation of his work during the preceding 25 years. Darwin was aware of the fact that the metaphysical implications of his work were hostile to Christian faith. While his own beliefs had changed slowly, he was sensitive to the strong orthodox beliefs of his wife (Wilson, 184). Wilson points out that Darwin's own views were like many of his age: "The Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of Hindoos' not only because of its 'false history of the world' but because of its 'attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant" (qtd. in Wilson, 184).
In "The Origin of Species" Darwin states:
" I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species."
Darwin espoused that all organic life forms including man have slowly evolved over generations from various different forms: this idea is hard to reconcile with the myth of Adam and Eve, of man in God's image and living out a preordained path. Darwin repeatedly emphasized, both in " The Origin of Species" and later in "The Descent of Man", that man is no different from an other organic life form on earth, survival for him is 'survival of the fittest' just as it is for any other living matter:
"The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse, -- the same number of vertebrae forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant, -- and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications."While it may seem that Darwin reduced all living things to merely variating forms of matter, as A.N. Wilson points out in "God's Funeral" Darwin truly distinctive contribution to the nineteenth century world-view was not actually to promote 'materialism' but to 'remove the necessity for a metaphor of purpose' (188). Wilson shows how plenty of scientists and philosophers had already contributed a materialistic view of the world, essentially what Darwin did is he removed the need to personalize the conception of natural history:
"There was no need to pretend that Natural Selection had a view of things, or loved the world, or the people in it, any more than it had once loved amoebas or brontosauruses. The bleak impersonal chain of being rolled on with the inevitability of the other 'laws of nature': there was absolutely no need, if this was an accurate picture of what happened in nature, to posit the existence of a 'Creator" (Wilson, 188)
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
Darwin killed the Genesis not the Deity
If Darwin utterly destroyed the foundation of orthodox religion in 'proving' that the there was no great destiny for man; that essentially man is no different than his fellow creatures in nature and that the Genesis myth is false, is it therefore inclusive that he disproved God, or for that matter, Satan?
Darwin: Progress as Productivity?
In Chapter 5 of The Descent of Man,
(link to above)
"It is, however, very difficult to form any judgment why one particular tribe and not another has been successful and has risen in the scale of civilisation. Many savages are in the same condition as when first discovered several centuries ago. As Mr. Bagehot has remarked, we are apt to look at the progress as normal in human society; but history refutes this. The ancients did not even entertain the idea, nor do the Oriental nations at the present day. According to another high authority, Sir Henry Maine, "The greatest part of mankind has never shewn a particle of desire that its civil institutions should be improved."* Progress seems to depend on many concurrent favourable conditions, far too complex to be followed out. But it has often been remarked, that a cool climate, from leading to industry and to the various arts, has been highly favourable thereto. The Esquimaux, pressed by hard necessity, have succeeded in many ingenious inventions, but their climate has been too severe for continued progress. Nomadic habits, whether over wide plains, or through the dense forests of the tropics, or along the shores of the sea, have in every case been highly detrimental. Whilst observing the barbarous inhabitants of
What does
If human progression is based on natural selection: if “it is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species”, then why is this natural selection not effective in the colder climate of the ‘Eskimo’? In
It is an interesting question that perhaps can never be answered but Wilson effectively draws a parallel through Darwin's Natural Selection and the interests of Capitalism.
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Are We 'The Children of the Victorians'?
A.N. Wilson makes a very interesting comment on Darwin's legacy in todays world:
"By discovering the molecular structure of D.N.A. (1953), Watson and Crick really wrote the final paragraph of the story begun by Wallace and Darwin a hundred years earlier. We could now see, beyond reasonable argument, how it worked; how Darwin's intuition was right, and that all life is related, and could - or, more than could, does - derive from a common source.
One suspects that the question of origins - with which this whole matter has been concerned since Darwin published his most famous book in 1859, with that word in its title - betrays a mistaken picture of the kind of information science could pass on to us. It has been noticeable that once they stop their fascinating analyses of how and begin to attempt to formulate to why, the scientists seem every bit as clumsy as the most amateurish theologians, either falling back on the imagery of science-fiction, with J.B.S. Haldane vision of life climbing out of 'the primordial soup', or succumbing to Francis Crick's own touching but lame view (he is a non-believer in God, one should hasten to say) that 'the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going'. These days even the most hard-nosed materialists, if they get themselves into conflict with the religious, find themselves wanting to say how awe-struck they are by the complexity and wonders of nature, and end up sounding like Louis Armstrong with his 'wonderful world'.
This is the one area of life where, more than in any other, we seem the children of the Victorians." (179)
What Wilson seems to be saying is that we, like the Victorians, seem to have a desperate need to answer the question of 'why are we here?'. We as human beings are always search for the meaning of our existence. We can try map the path of life to that moment in time when it all began but we will still have no clear answer as to why. Yet what unites science and religion is the search for those answers. Though science may espouse a universe without purpose, a natural history with no First Cause, the random, 'just is' type of mentality still fails to fully answer the question 'why', or at least satisfactorily. In a sense, perhaps it because of the answer is so unsatisfactory: to accept an existence without reason or purpose is, for many of us, like Carlyle said; to accept a future without Hope. It is a dreary, mundane world that we are left with, something that even most scientists do not truly want to accept. Instead they search for that missing ingredient so necessary to a love of life; that 'awe' and wonder of nature that perhaps,was best expressed in the works of Wordsworth:
" For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue. And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things."
(Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey, 1978, stanza 3)
It seems, without this sense of something sublime, entirely possible for the universe to become as Carlyle described "void of all Life, of Purpose, of Volition, even of Hostility: It was one huge, dead, immeasurable Steam-engine, rolling on, in its dead indifference, to grind me limb from limb. O, the vast, gloomy, solitary Golgotha, and Mill of Death! Why was the Living banished thither companionless, conscious? Why, if there is no Devil; nay, unless the Devil is your God?" (The Everlasting No, 88-9).
Carlyle, Thomas Sartar Resartus : The Everlasting No 1838, qtd in
Buckler, William E. Prose of the Victorian Period Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1958.
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
"By discovering the molecular structure of D.N.A. (1953), Watson and Crick really wrote the final paragraph of the story begun by Wallace and Darwin a hundred years earlier. We could now see, beyond reasonable argument, how it worked; how Darwin's intuition was right, and that all life is related, and could - or, more than could, does - derive from a common source.
One suspects that the question of origins - with which this whole matter has been concerned since Darwin published his most famous book in 1859, with that word in its title - betrays a mistaken picture of the kind of information science could pass on to us. It has been noticeable that once they stop their fascinating analyses of how and begin to attempt to formulate to why, the scientists seem every bit as clumsy as the most amateurish theologians, either falling back on the imagery of science-fiction, with J.B.S. Haldane vision of life climbing out of 'the primordial soup', or succumbing to Francis Crick's own touching but lame view (he is a non-believer in God, one should hasten to say) that 'the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going'. These days even the most hard-nosed materialists, if they get themselves into conflict with the religious, find themselves wanting to say how awe-struck they are by the complexity and wonders of nature, and end up sounding like Louis Armstrong with his 'wonderful world'.
This is the one area of life where, more than in any other, we seem the children of the Victorians." (179)
What Wilson seems to be saying is that we, like the Victorians, seem to have a desperate need to answer the question of 'why are we here?'. We as human beings are always search for the meaning of our existence. We can try map the path of life to that moment in time when it all began but we will still have no clear answer as to why. Yet what unites science and religion is the search for those answers. Though science may espouse a universe without purpose, a natural history with no First Cause, the random, 'just is' type of mentality still fails to fully answer the question 'why', or at least satisfactorily. In a sense, perhaps it because of the answer is so unsatisfactory: to accept an existence without reason or purpose is, for many of us, like Carlyle said; to accept a future without Hope. It is a dreary, mundane world that we are left with, something that even most scientists do not truly want to accept. Instead they search for that missing ingredient so necessary to a love of life; that 'awe' and wonder of nature that perhaps,was best expressed in the works of Wordsworth:
" For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue. And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things."
(Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey, 1978, stanza 3)
It seems, without this sense of something sublime, entirely possible for the universe to become as Carlyle described "void of all Life, of Purpose, of Volition, even of Hostility: It was one huge, dead, immeasurable Steam-engine, rolling on, in its dead indifference, to grind me limb from limb. O, the vast, gloomy, solitary Golgotha, and Mill of Death! Why was the Living banished thither companionless, conscious? Why, if there is no Devil; nay, unless the Devil is your God?" (The Everlasting No, 88-9).
Carlyle, Thomas Sartar Resartus : The Everlasting No 1838, qtd in
Buckler, William E. Prose of the Victorian Period Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1958.
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
Darwin and "The Descent of Man" : Thought's on 'Human Nature'
What is 'Human Nature'?
Does such a thing exist? Can we use such a term to generalize the habits and attributes of all human beings? Do all human beings even share the same or similar attributes?
In the Victorian Era, John Stuart Mill "On Nature" explained how the words nature and natural had become so entangled with foreign meaning and association, so foreign from the actual meaning of the words that they became sources of false philosophy and worse, false morality. What are laws of Nature? One could propose that a fairly reliable law could be that all animal life needs air and food to sustain it or perhaps the law of gravity. But can we assign any fixed conditions to human behavior? Mill's view of common use of the term Human Nature is that it often tends to refer to ethical behaviour rather than actual behaviour: the way human beings should act over the way they actually do. Any mode of thinking, feeling, or acting that is considered 'according to nature ' is usually accepted as a strong argument for its goodness.
However, Mill's view of real Nature was not the ideal standard to which human morality should be attributed, but a cruel world without mercy or discrimination in which all animals are tortured, or murdered and are (shudder) dirty. Mill stated "Conformity to nature, has no connection with right and wrong." (Buckler, 340) It is irrational to connect the two for "all human action whatever, consists in altering, and all useful action in improving, the spontaneous course of nature" (Buckler, 342). Moreover it is immoral because anyone who actually acted in accordance to nature would end up acting as the 'wickedest of men'. Nature is instinct, whereas society is man's control over instinct.
This is interesting in how it relates to what Darwin said in the The Descent of Man: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-04.html
"My object in this chapter is to shew that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"...Darwin continues to explain that most of the mental faculties that many men ascribe to only human beings actually also exist in many animals:
"All have the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,- similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they practice deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, though in very different degrees."
He goes on to include the attributes of progressive development, language, a sense of beauty and even a belief in God as something that man shares with his fellow animals. Overall, man is essentially no different from his fellow animals in Nature. In fact, even animals have moral capabilities.
What is interesting is what Darwin prescribes about some of the more persistent human attributes:
"* Enmity or hatred seems also to be a highly persistent feeling, perhaps more so than any
other that can be named. Envy is defined as hatred of another for some excellence or success; and Bacon insists (Essay ix.), "Of all other affections envy is the most importune and continual." Dogs are very apt to hate both strange men and strange dogs, especially if they live near at hand, but do not belong to the same family, tribe, or clan; this feeling would thus seem to be innate, and is certainly a most persistent one. It seems to be the complement and converse of the true social instinct. From what we hear of savages, it would appear that something of the same kind holds good with them. If this be so, it would be a small step in any one to transfer such feelings to any member of the same tribe if he had done him an injury and had become his enemy. Nor is it probable that the primitive conscience would reproach a man for injuring his enemy; rather it would reproach him, if he had not revenged himself. To do good in return for evil, to love your enemy, is a height of morality to which it may be doubted whether the social instincts would, by themselves, have ever led us.
At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men."
Here, Darwin states that hatred is only natural, for why would you love someone who does you wrong? The edicts of Christianity such as 'love thy neighbor' and 'turn the other cheek' hardly seem in keeping with Darwin's dog eat dog kind of world.
Darwin does go on to say that it is likely that man will feel remorse after committing an act against a neighbor, because he wishes the good opinion of his other fellow men. However, one wonders if that is necessarily remorse or simply the appearance of it in order to secure one's place in society.
In addition, there is also the more troubling question of whether the society itself is unchanging in its moral structure. For example, what happens when you have a society, not unlike today, where self-serving, individualistic attitudes are embraced and even celebrated? Many modern day celebrities or businessmen could be viewed in this light. Today, a person that goes after what they want, is aggressive and domineering (sometimes even to the point of injuring others) is often celebrated as successful and a go-getter.
It seems as though Mill and Darwin were saying very different things. Mill was saying that we are better for going against nature, every action that is sane and progressive in human beings is so because it deviates from a 'natural' path. Darwin seemed to say that all animals show some degree of human attributes, including morality. Human beings are no different than other animals in nature, other than perhaps being slightly more complex due to the evolution of our race as a whole (our society).
Today's world could be seen as everything Mill celebrated, or at least the western world with its extreme cleanliness, its advances in medical care, technology and industry. Yet in our efforts to increase technology and industry, we have had almost completely disregard for the preservation of Nature, the results of which are the loss of species, destruction of natural resources and a looming environmental collapse. One wonders what Darwin, or for that matter Mill, would say about progress and Human Nature now.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Religious or Irreligious: The Devil In Thomas Carlyle's "Everlasting No"
A question that can be brought forward after reading Thomas Carlyle’s “Everlasting No” is, if the narrator has renounced his belief in God, and embraced free will or defiance and indignation then why does he feel the need to profess his hatred of the Devil, who presumably does not exist? In other words, if one does not believe in God, does it then follow that they do not believe in the devil, or vice versa?
This is a very open question, and must be narrowed down in order to shed light on the subject. Carlyle writes, “Full of religion, or at least of religiosity as our Friend has since exhibited himself, he hides not that, in those days, he was wholly irreligious: “Doubt had darkened into Unbelief,” says he; “shade after shade goes grimly over your soul, till you have the fixed, starless, Tartarean black” (Carlyle 86). It seems that he has lost all hope; he states that he is wholly irreligious; however, it seems that he has not renounced the negative aspects of religion, but the positive components (ie. God, his light, and all the positive aspects that he represents). This is a point of view that is common in today’s society also. People constantly ask questions like “if God truly exists, then why are there so many terrible events that take place everyday?” In this shade of understanding, NE is not irreligious; rather, he has simply given up all hope in the world.
In addition, perhaps the narrator is utilizing the devil as a metaphor for misery, and as a result, he may in fact be irreligious. He has denounced God and all that is positive in the world, and if he is “wholly irreligious” as the reading illustrated, then it would follow that his only remaining belief or ‘truth’ is all that is miserable in the world, which is not necessarily the product of the devil. Carlyle explains later that people’s belief or need of religion is more a means to justify their actions or the actions of others: “Faith is properly the one thing needful; how, with it, Martyrs, otherwise weak, can cheerfully endure the shame and the cross; and without it, Worldlings puke-up their sick existence, by suicide, in the midst of luxery” (86). This corroborates the statement that he is wholly irreligious.
On the other hand, the reader could also come to the conclusion that NE is not traditionally devout or irreligious, rather worships the devil as his ‘idol’. Though on first appearance this may lead one to believe that he is not religious, but in fact he is just not religious in the traditional sense (ie. If you believe in any form of God, then you are considered religious). Nevertheless, by blaming the devil the NE is unequivocally religious as belief in the devil or whatever God you may believe in, is the essence of religion.
There are valid points to be made confirming NE as both religious and irreligious. My opinion is that NE is not religious and the devil references do not make him so. The devil is a metaphor for misery only, and in the narrator’s depressed state, he believes in nothing more than the constant misery of the world.
This is a very open question, and must be narrowed down in order to shed light on the subject. Carlyle writes, “Full of religion, or at least of religiosity as our Friend has since exhibited himself, he hides not that, in those days, he was wholly irreligious: “Doubt had darkened into Unbelief,” says he; “shade after shade goes grimly over your soul, till you have the fixed, starless, Tartarean black” (Carlyle 86). It seems that he has lost all hope; he states that he is wholly irreligious; however, it seems that he has not renounced the negative aspects of religion, but the positive components (ie. God, his light, and all the positive aspects that he represents). This is a point of view that is common in today’s society also. People constantly ask questions like “if God truly exists, then why are there so many terrible events that take place everyday?” In this shade of understanding, NE is not irreligious; rather, he has simply given up all hope in the world.
In addition, perhaps the narrator is utilizing the devil as a metaphor for misery, and as a result, he may in fact be irreligious. He has denounced God and all that is positive in the world, and if he is “wholly irreligious” as the reading illustrated, then it would follow that his only remaining belief or ‘truth’ is all that is miserable in the world, which is not necessarily the product of the devil. Carlyle explains later that people’s belief or need of religion is more a means to justify their actions or the actions of others: “Faith is properly the one thing needful; how, with it, Martyrs, otherwise weak, can cheerfully endure the shame and the cross; and without it, Worldlings puke-up their sick existence, by suicide, in the midst of luxery” (86). This corroborates the statement that he is wholly irreligious.
On the other hand, the reader could also come to the conclusion that NE is not traditionally devout or irreligious, rather worships the devil as his ‘idol’. Though on first appearance this may lead one to believe that he is not religious, but in fact he is just not religious in the traditional sense (ie. If you believe in any form of God, then you are considered religious). Nevertheless, by blaming the devil the NE is unequivocally religious as belief in the devil or whatever God you may believe in, is the essence of religion.
There are valid points to be made confirming NE as both religious and irreligious. My opinion is that NE is not religious and the devil references do not make him so. The devil is a metaphor for misery only, and in the narrator’s depressed state, he believes in nothing more than the constant misery of the world.
Carlyle's Devil in "The Everlasting No" versus Corell's in "Sorrows of Satan"
In "God's Funeral", A.N. Wilson writes "For the Victorians, it was Carlyle's ordinariness and not his extraordinariness which appealed. We, perhaps, approach him as a journalist of genius, peculiarly in touch with the Zeitgeist which he so abominated and deplored. He was indeed an embodiment of the Victorian dilemma about God. He wished to believe - in a Supreme Lawgiver, in Duty and Morality, in a personal Guide to life. But he had looked into Christianity and found it to be false. His heart could not subscribe to it. The God and the religion of Revelation being incredible to him, Carlyle could not rest in mere unbelief. Such a thing was horrifying to him" (56, italics chosen by me for emphasis).
We see this clearly in Carlyle's s spiritual autobiography "Sartor Resartus" and most explicitly The Everlasting No": Carlyle in a self-described 'state of crisis, of transition' (qtd. in Buckler 85). For Carlyle, without religion the world had become derelict of Hope or Duty:
"Doubt had darkened into Unbelief,' says he; 'shade after shade goes grimly over your soul, till you have the fixed, starless, Tartartean* black'. To such readers as have reflected, what can be called reflection, on man's life, and happily discovered, in contradiction to much Profit-and Loss Philosophy, speculative and practical, that Soul is not synonymous with Stomach; who understand therefore, in our Friend's words, "that, for man's well-being, Faith is properly the one thing needful; how with it, Martyrs, otherwise weak, can cheerfully endure the shame and the cross; and without it, Worldlings puke up their sick existence, by suicide, in the midst of luxury": to such it will be clear that, for a pure moral nature, the loss of religious Belief was the loss of everything." (86)
Carlyle paints a bleak picture for the future of a mankind without God, one that Marie Corelli cleverly elaborated on in "The Sorrows of Satan". Corelli's book follows the memoir of Geoffrey Tempest, a struggling writer who inherits millions from a unknown rich uncle he has never heard of. The next day, Lucio Rimanez (a.k.a.: the Devil) shows up in his doorstep and becomes his mentor as Tempest 'descends' into a frivolous and self-serving lifestyle. Corelli's view of the connection between moral depravity and wealth often echoes Carlyle's 'sick existence in the midst of luxury', in fact Corelli cleverly uses the words of Lucio Rimanez to warn Tempest of his fate:
"It often happens, nevertheless that when bags of money fall to the lot of aspiring genius, God departs and the devil walks in. Have you never heard of that?"
"Never" I answered smilingly.
"Well, of course the saying is foolish, and sounds doubly ridiculous in this age when people believe in neither God nor devil. It implies however that one must choose as up or a down - genius the up, money is the Down. You cannot fly and grovel at the same time" (35)
However, Marie Corelli doesn't stop here but skillfully ties explains this 'scale of money to genius for the doubting Tempest in 'rational, scientific terms':
"The possession of money is not likely to cause a man to grovel" -I said- "It is the one thing necessary to strengthen his soaring powers and lift him to the greatest heights."
"You think so?" and my host lit his cigar with a grave and pre-occupied air--"Then I'm afraid you don't know much about what I shall call natural physics. What belongs to the earth tends earthwards, -surely you realize that? Gold belongs most strictly to the earth,- you dig it out of the ground, - you handle and dispose of it in solid wedges or bars - it is a substantial metal enough. Genius belongs to nobody knows where,- you cannot dig it up or pass it on, or do anything with it except stand and marvel - it is a rare visitant and capricious as the wind, and generally makes sad havoc among the conventionalities of men." (35-6)
Corelli cleverly gives a scientific rationalization for the 'physics' of wealth. Money, being Gold, has material form and belongs to the earth. As such, the pursuit of it will pull you down. Forgoing wealth and pursuing works of Genius, however, although hard to achieve, is obviously a more heavenly pursuit.
Similarly, Carlyle saw the rise of materialism and profit as reducing 'Genius' or imagination:
"But what, in these dull unimaginative days, are the terrors of Conscience to the disease of the Liver! Not on Morality, but on Cookery, let us build our stronghold: There brandishing our frying-pan, as censer, let us offer sweet incense to the Devil, and live at ease on the fat things he has provided for his Elect!" Carlyle saw luxury and greed as a sign of the Devil's will manifesting itself.
In contrast, Corelli's Satan is not thrilled with man's greed and egoism; in her retelling of the 'fall of Lucifer' God proclaims "Fall proud Spirit from thy high estate! Thou and thy companions with thee! Each human soul that yields unto thy tempting shell be a new barrier set between thee and heaven; each one that of it's own choice doth repel and overcome thee, shall lift thee nearer thy lost home! When the world reject thee I will pardon and receive thee,- but not till then." Lucio is trying to re-enter heaven and is made miserable by the world around him: he sees the the rise of commerce and industry as replacing God with 'The Almighty Dollar'.
*of or relating to Tartarus: infernal, hellish
Carlyle, Thomas Sartar Resartus : The Everlasting No 1838, qtd in
Buckler, William E. Prose of the Victorian Period Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1958.
Corelli, Marie Sorrows of Satan J.B. Lippincott Co., Philedelphia, 1896.
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
We see this clearly in Carlyle's s spiritual autobiography "Sartor Resartus" and most explicitly The Everlasting No": Carlyle in a self-described 'state of crisis, of transition' (qtd. in Buckler 85). For Carlyle, without religion the world had become derelict of Hope or Duty:
"Doubt had darkened into Unbelief,' says he; 'shade after shade goes grimly over your soul, till you have the fixed, starless, Tartartean* black'. To such readers as have reflected, what can be called reflection, on man's life, and happily discovered, in contradiction to much Profit-and Loss Philosophy, speculative and practical, that Soul is not synonymous with Stomach; who understand therefore, in our Friend's words, "that, for man's well-being, Faith is properly the one thing needful; how with it, Martyrs, otherwise weak, can cheerfully endure the shame and the cross; and without it, Worldlings puke up their sick existence, by suicide, in the midst of luxury": to such it will be clear that, for a pure moral nature, the loss of religious Belief was the loss of everything." (86)
Carlyle paints a bleak picture for the future of a mankind without God, one that Marie Corelli cleverly elaborated on in "The Sorrows of Satan". Corelli's book follows the memoir of Geoffrey Tempest, a struggling writer who inherits millions from a unknown rich uncle he has never heard of. The next day, Lucio Rimanez (a.k.a.: the Devil) shows up in his doorstep and becomes his mentor as Tempest 'descends' into a frivolous and self-serving lifestyle. Corelli's view of the connection between moral depravity and wealth often echoes Carlyle's 'sick existence in the midst of luxury', in fact Corelli cleverly uses the words of Lucio Rimanez to warn Tempest of his fate:
"It often happens, nevertheless that when bags of money fall to the lot of aspiring genius, God departs and the devil walks in. Have you never heard of that?"
"Never" I answered smilingly.
"Well, of course the saying is foolish, and sounds doubly ridiculous in this age when people believe in neither God nor devil. It implies however that one must choose as up or a down - genius the up, money is the Down. You cannot fly and grovel at the same time" (35)
However, Marie Corelli doesn't stop here but skillfully ties explains this 'scale of money to genius for the doubting Tempest in 'rational, scientific terms':
"The possession of money is not likely to cause a man to grovel" -I said- "It is the one thing necessary to strengthen his soaring powers and lift him to the greatest heights."
"You think so?" and my host lit his cigar with a grave and pre-occupied air--"Then I'm afraid you don't know much about what I shall call natural physics. What belongs to the earth tends earthwards, -surely you realize that? Gold belongs most strictly to the earth,- you dig it out of the ground, - you handle and dispose of it in solid wedges or bars - it is a substantial metal enough. Genius belongs to nobody knows where,- you cannot dig it up or pass it on, or do anything with it except stand and marvel - it is a rare visitant and capricious as the wind, and generally makes sad havoc among the conventionalities of men." (35-6)
Corelli cleverly gives a scientific rationalization for the 'physics' of wealth. Money, being Gold, has material form and belongs to the earth. As such, the pursuit of it will pull you down. Forgoing wealth and pursuing works of Genius, however, although hard to achieve, is obviously a more heavenly pursuit.
Similarly, Carlyle saw the rise of materialism and profit as reducing 'Genius' or imagination:
"But what, in these dull unimaginative days, are the terrors of Conscience to the disease of the Liver! Not on Morality, but on Cookery, let us build our stronghold: There brandishing our frying-pan, as censer, let us offer sweet incense to the Devil, and live at ease on the fat things he has provided for his Elect!" Carlyle saw luxury and greed as a sign of the Devil's will manifesting itself.
In contrast, Corelli's Satan is not thrilled with man's greed and egoism; in her retelling of the 'fall of Lucifer' God proclaims "Fall proud Spirit from thy high estate! Thou and thy companions with thee! Each human soul that yields unto thy tempting shell be a new barrier set between thee and heaven; each one that of it's own choice doth repel and overcome thee, shall lift thee nearer thy lost home! When the world reject thee I will pardon and receive thee,- but not till then." Lucio is trying to re-enter heaven and is made miserable by the world around him: he sees the the rise of commerce and industry as replacing God with 'The Almighty Dollar'.
*of or relating to Tartarus: infernal, hellish
Carlyle, Thomas Sartar Resartus : The Everlasting No 1838, qtd in
Buckler, William E. Prose of the Victorian Period Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1958.
Corelli, Marie Sorrows of Satan J.B. Lippincott Co., Philedelphia, 1896.
Wilson, A.N. God's Funeral: A Biography of Faith and Doubt in Western Civilization Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thomas Hobbes' State of Nature and the Death of God
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes claimed that human beings constantly live in a ‘state of nature’ in which life is ‘short, nasty, and brutish’. According to Hobbes, the only right a person held was the right to ‘self-preservation’; preserve oneself by any means necessary. If this were the case, everyone would be at war with one another. This is what life would be like without morality, and without rules and regulations. Hobbes claimed that in order for people to avoid living in a state of nature, everyone must hand over all of their rights to an absolute power; he called this power a Sovereign. Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 and died in 1679 (http://www.egs.edu/resources/hobbes.html). A short biography of Hobbes can be found at this link. Already, at this very early time, one can see that the “death of God” ideology existed. If God created the ten deadly sins, then why would human beings live in a ‘state of nature’ if as a result of their actions, they would be sentenced to eternity in hell?
The truth is, many people believe that you only get one life to live, and as a result, self-preservation is something that would be very important. In Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", Corelli writes "Live your life to yourself, -if you do anything for others they will only treat you with the blackest ingratitude,-so take my advice, and don't sacrifice your own personal interests for any consideration whatever" (Corelli 38). This sentence shows the ideals many people have in this world and in order to ensure that people are not constantly at war with one another, instilling morals and values in people is something that is very important. Morality is something that has continued to develop over time. It is instilled in people through parental guidance, as well as the societies people grow up in. Someone born and raised in Canada would have an entirely different set of morals and principles than that of someone born and raised in Iran for example. This is a direct result of the society people grow up in and the lifestyle people are used to.
Rules and Regulations (i.e. Laws) are a necessary means to prevent Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ ideology. This is a direct result of the materialistic society in which we live in today. Corelli writes "It often happens, nevertheless that when bags of money fall to the lot of aspiring genius, God departs and the devil walks in" (35). People are constantly looking to improve their lifestyle, and unfortunately, the media has glamorized this material lifestyle and many people do whatever it takes to achieve this standard of living; lie, cheat, steal, etc. In many cases, a jail sentence is not enough of a deterrent to stop people from performing such acts. However, fortunately, many people have strong morals that would stop them from doing these acts, despite the potential for money, and these prevent them from performing immoral acts like the ones I have illustrated above. Hobbes’ state of nature is something that does in fact exist in many areas of the world. Human beings fighting other human beings in order to survive. This is an unfortunate reality that makes me quite grateful to have been born and brought up in Canada.
The truth is, many people believe that you only get one life to live, and as a result, self-preservation is something that would be very important. In Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", Corelli writes "Live your life to yourself, -if you do anything for others they will only treat you with the blackest ingratitude,-so take my advice, and don't sacrifice your own personal interests for any consideration whatever" (Corelli 38). This sentence shows the ideals many people have in this world and in order to ensure that people are not constantly at war with one another, instilling morals and values in people is something that is very important. Morality is something that has continued to develop over time. It is instilled in people through parental guidance, as well as the societies people grow up in. Someone born and raised in Canada would have an entirely different set of morals and principles than that of someone born and raised in Iran for example. This is a direct result of the society people grow up in and the lifestyle people are used to.
Rules and Regulations (i.e. Laws) are a necessary means to prevent Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ ideology. This is a direct result of the materialistic society in which we live in today. Corelli writes "It often happens, nevertheless that when bags of money fall to the lot of aspiring genius, God departs and the devil walks in" (35). People are constantly looking to improve their lifestyle, and unfortunately, the media has glamorized this material lifestyle and many people do whatever it takes to achieve this standard of living; lie, cheat, steal, etc. In many cases, a jail sentence is not enough of a deterrent to stop people from performing such acts. However, fortunately, many people have strong morals that would stop them from doing these acts, despite the potential for money, and these prevent them from performing immoral acts like the ones I have illustrated above. Hobbes’ state of nature is something that does in fact exist in many areas of the world. Human beings fighting other human beings in order to survive. This is an unfortunate reality that makes me quite grateful to have been born and brought up in Canada.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A song called "God's Funeral"
Some song lyrics by a band called Younique (Link)
A rainy day
A silent procession
Dismayed faces
And empty stares
Beside the cross
A hole in the ground
The preacher tries to speak
But not a word comes out
And now down there he goes
He goes
No sense in praying
The bible - worthless
The one who led you dropped your strings
Now that he saw there's no day without sorrow
Your father threw his life away
You'll have to pray to a new god tomorrow
Think twice about your choice
Because there's no life to borrow
You will pay
The churches raped
The bibles burned
The sup_songs died away
A new one came
And you adore him
Just like before
You give him all you've got but still he calls for more
You see his powers grow
They grow
New holy houses
New sacred books
A new religion built of fear
Now that he saw he can live without sorrow
Your new father made you live to pay
You never know what he'll want from you tomorrow
And nobody cares for the tears that you swallow every day
Come to me my brother
I wash your conscience clean
I am the solution, the fulfilling of your dreams
Soak away your power
Eliminate your brain
All that will be left: A nameless servant for my game
Listen to my sermon
Your mind is where I dwell
Out there on the streets there are a million souls to sell
Fall into dependence
Too late now for distress
Pay for all your sins and make me rich while you confess
I promise you'll live in the sunshine
I promise your dreams will come true
It's all up to you
Wow, I wonder who the speaker could be...
A rainy day
A silent procession
Dismayed faces
And empty stares
Beside the cross
A hole in the ground
The preacher tries to speak
But not a word comes out
And now down there he goes
He goes
No sense in praying
The bible - worthless
The one who led you dropped your strings
Now that he saw there's no day without sorrow
Your father threw his life away
You'll have to pray to a new god tomorrow
Think twice about your choice
Because there's no life to borrow
You will pay
The churches raped
The bibles burned
The sup_songs died away
A new one came
And you adore him
Just like before
You give him all you've got but still he calls for more
You see his powers grow
They grow
New holy houses
New sacred books
A new religion built of fear
Now that he saw he can live without sorrow
Your new father made you live to pay
You never know what he'll want from you tomorrow
And nobody cares for the tears that you swallow every day
Come to me my brother
I wash your conscience clean
I am the solution, the fulfilling of your dreams
Soak away your power
Eliminate your brain
All that will be left: A nameless servant for my game
Listen to my sermon
Your mind is where I dwell
Out there on the streets there are a million souls to sell
Fall into dependence
Too late now for distress
Pay for all your sins and make me rich while you confess
I promise you'll live in the sunshine
I promise your dreams will come true
It's all up to you
Wow, I wonder who the speaker could be...
The War Still Wages: Science vs. Religion
If there is a war, then its opposing parties still curse each other from their opposing sides. This battle could be seen as starting some 500 years ago but for the purposes of this blog, we could view these 'sides' as based on the idea that the underlying concept of Darwin's work, that we are all evolving possibly from one or few forms and that there is no 'First Cause' (see Darwin post), is irreconcilable to a literal translation of the Bible.
For an article dealing specifically with the ideas Darwin presented and the ongoing war between science and religion, please see this interesting article by David Van Biema in Time's online magazine that asks:
"Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.
But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)
For a more 'opinionated' representation of the side of science check out this link
"Even today religious fundamentalists still insist the Bible is the literal infallible Word of God, inerrant, without contradiction, correct in all matters of Faith and all matters of science. They force the Bible to fit in with today's knowledge of science, like forcing a square peg into a round hole, or they attack any science they can not yet force the Bible to conform to."
For an article dealing specifically with the ideas Darwin presented and the ongoing war between science and religion, please see this interesting article by David Van Biema in Time's online magazine that asks:
"Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.
But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)
For a more 'opinionated' representation of the side of science check out this link
"Even today religious fundamentalists still insist the Bible is the literal infallible Word of God, inerrant, without contradiction, correct in all matters of Faith and all matters of science. They force the Bible to fit in with today's knowledge of science, like forcing a square peg into a round hole, or they attack any science they can not yet force the Bible to conform to."
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A Quick Summary of Geoffrey Tempest
The main character in Marie Corelli's "Sorrow of Satan," Geoffrey Tempest, is able to gain riches and leave his "graceless, sordid and miserable" (page 1) poverty and still finds himself miserable once he is a millionaire. It is the works of Satan Incarnate, Lucio Rimanez, that he is miserable as a rich man. It is also the discovery of Rimanez that leads Tempest to become a poor man who is happy. It is seemingly that Tempest's flaw was that he did not believe in God, as a resul he did not believe in the devil either--which made Rimanez's task much easier.
One of Geoffrey Tempest's greatest wishes is to be famous: especially for his writing which he holds in high regard. He believes that his money will make him known for it and states: "You see, with money I can force my name into notice whether the public likes it or not. No newspaper refuses advertisements" (Page 35). It is this belief that leads him to great frustration later with regards to Mavis Clare. Rimanez warns him about this persuit by saying "you cannot grovel and fly at the same time" (page 35). Rimanez is stating that because he is rich his work will not be the same because he has lost his inspiration--being poor.
Tempest's work is also not considered seriously because he is so heavily advertised. He wanted to be famous but he was famous for his money not his work. This was the work of Rimanez: he placed Tempest in all of the newspapers and gossip collumns so people would know who he is. He even heavily advertizes and buys off the editors and still little success. This is how Lucio Rimanez works; he provides you with what you want at the moment but it never works out the way one wants it to. The same thing happend to Viscount Lynton. Lynton's love of gambling led to debt and he sacrificed his soul to try and win back some of the money he lost. Geoffrey Tempest was so ready to embrace this world of the wealthy that he allowed Rimanez to control his finances and his public relations. Not realizing Rimanez was the devil it allowed Rimanez to do what he wanted.
There are many parts of the book where Rimanez acts as a bad influence. When Rimanez is discovered he chastizes Tempest for not realizing who he was.
"you thought me a friend" he said. "You should have known me foe!Foreveryone who flatters a man for his virtues, or humors him in his vices, is that man's worst enemy, whether demon or angel!" (page 450)
By not acknowledging his instincts Tempest was easily manipulated and became very bitter and miserable. If he paid attention to his instinct and followed the morals that he wrote in his book he would not be in such a miserable state.
Tempest's transformation back to poverty--and to God--is quite interesting.
"My feelings for Rimanez too began at this time to undergo a curious change. The fascination I had with him, the power he exercised over me remained as great as ever, but I found myself often absorbed in a close study of him, strangely against my own will...there was an uneasy sensation of doubt and fear growing up in my mind regarding him...on the rare occasions I experienced a sudden shock of inexplicable repulsion" (page 423).
It was on the open sea that Tempest began to really feel this way about Rimanez; his instinct was about to set in but he still was not able to decifer what was going on. It was when Rimanez turned himself into an angel to show Geoffrey Tempest who he was. It was this exciting feat that changed his mind about God and Satan. This is particularly interesting--I think--because he needed to see it before he could believe it. It was not faith that changed him but an event.
Imagine if Tempest were a religious man. Would he be able to see through Rimanez? Would he chose differently? Would he go along with the gambling etc? Would he be so easily corrupt?
He ends up finding happiness but it is not because of faith. If he had faith he may have had a moral standards...but this is all speculation.
These of course are questions we all have to ask ourselves.
What do you guys think?
One of Geoffrey Tempest's greatest wishes is to be famous: especially for his writing which he holds in high regard. He believes that his money will make him known for it and states: "You see, with money I can force my name into notice whether the public likes it or not. No newspaper refuses advertisements" (Page 35). It is this belief that leads him to great frustration later with regards to Mavis Clare. Rimanez warns him about this persuit by saying "you cannot grovel and fly at the same time" (page 35). Rimanez is stating that because he is rich his work will not be the same because he has lost his inspiration--being poor.
Tempest's work is also not considered seriously because he is so heavily advertised. He wanted to be famous but he was famous for his money not his work. This was the work of Rimanez: he placed Tempest in all of the newspapers and gossip collumns so people would know who he is. He even heavily advertizes and buys off the editors and still little success. This is how Lucio Rimanez works; he provides you with what you want at the moment but it never works out the way one wants it to. The same thing happend to Viscount Lynton. Lynton's love of gambling led to debt and he sacrificed his soul to try and win back some of the money he lost. Geoffrey Tempest was so ready to embrace this world of the wealthy that he allowed Rimanez to control his finances and his public relations. Not realizing Rimanez was the devil it allowed Rimanez to do what he wanted.
There are many parts of the book where Rimanez acts as a bad influence. When Rimanez is discovered he chastizes Tempest for not realizing who he was.
"you thought me a friend" he said. "You should have known me foe!Foreveryone who flatters a man for his virtues, or humors him in his vices, is that man's worst enemy, whether demon or angel!" (page 450)
By not acknowledging his instincts Tempest was easily manipulated and became very bitter and miserable. If he paid attention to his instinct and followed the morals that he wrote in his book he would not be in such a miserable state.
Tempest's transformation back to poverty--and to God--is quite interesting.
"My feelings for Rimanez too began at this time to undergo a curious change. The fascination I had with him, the power he exercised over me remained as great as ever, but I found myself often absorbed in a close study of him, strangely against my own will...there was an uneasy sensation of doubt and fear growing up in my mind regarding him...on the rare occasions I experienced a sudden shock of inexplicable repulsion" (page 423).
It was on the open sea that Tempest began to really feel this way about Rimanez; his instinct was about to set in but he still was not able to decifer what was going on. It was when Rimanez turned himself into an angel to show Geoffrey Tempest who he was. It was this exciting feat that changed his mind about God and Satan. This is particularly interesting--I think--because he needed to see it before he could believe it. It was not faith that changed him but an event.
Imagine if Tempest were a religious man. Would he be able to see through Rimanez? Would he chose differently? Would he go along with the gambling etc? Would he be so easily corrupt?
He ends up finding happiness but it is not because of faith. If he had faith he may have had a moral standards...but this is all speculation.
These of course are questions we all have to ask ourselves.
What do you guys think?
The Representation of the Devil in The Sorrows of Satan
In Marie Corelli's Sorrows of Satan she presents a brand new version of the Devil is created. Here we see not the vengeful and hateful Satan seen in previous works such as Paradise Lost but rather a character with whom we can sympathize. Rimanez evokes an image of a man who made a bad decision and who cannot fix it. When he describes himself as, "the power of Evil, made evil and kept evil by the disobedience and wickedness of Man alone" (445) it evokes shamefulness on the reader as it is because of our misdeeds that this man suffers. At the same time the reader is thankful for his evil abilities for if it were not for this Satan, "thus do i become their constant companion, humoring them in such vices as they best love!- thus do I take on the shape that pleases them, and fit myself to their humors! They make me what I am..." (445) then many of the pleasures which the reader enjoys would not be available to him. Of course, these pleasures are usually evil but it is not Rimanez fault that "the Devil in Man" is actually the "worse monster." This representation of the Devil is a post Victorian creation, born of the Edwardian age after the death of God has already occurred, "the God-in-Man was rejected and slain, - I, the Devil in Man live on, forever accepted and adored!" (446). Although God is dead the Devil lives on in the sin which God's death has created. The best example of his sadness in his predicament is in his appeal to Mavis Clare when he states, "Pray for me then, as one who has fallen from his higher and better self,-who strives, but who may not attain,-who labors under heavy punishment,-who would fain reach Heaven, but who by the cursed will of man, and man alone, is kept in Hell" (339). He states, "I may tempt, but I do not pursue" (340), ultimately, Rimanez does not live a life of sin, he just creates one which Man must decide whether or not to embrace, his final goal is a sinless world so that he may return to Heaven and hear the Angels singing.
Poor Geoffrey
Geoffrey Tempest, in Mary Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan," is the depiction of the 'fallen' man. His choices lead him, ultimately, to redemption, though he must resist tempation and pride to achieve a sense of peace. But what makes the character of Geoffrey so believeable, is that he represents the reality of the Victorian age. Many people during that time, and even now, look for solutions from desolation and sorrow- Solutions to make life 'bareable' or at least liveable. The 21st century, though filled with technology, is a plethora of wealth and gluttony. Much of the comfort that is experienced is done so by the plight of others. Geoffrey is the character most middle-class, working people are able to relate to- However, as Corelli demonstrates, Geoffrey soon inherits a fortune that will bring him out of his misfortune but bring with it tests of faith and consciousness.
The story of "Sorrows of Satan" encourages those readers who have very little to accept what they have and be grateful to God that they have it. It may seem as though gratefulness is not part of the sceama. However, there is a lot to be said about faith in God and the reassurrance that good will always triumph over evil.
Geoffrey is the character that is the most realistic as he shares parrelles with most of the readers. He is down on his luck, a man searching for meaning of his existance. Although he is warned several times to be mindful of Lucio, his disregard leads to his reincarnation. Geoffery is made better from his experience with Satan.
I saw myself in the character of Geoffrey, mainly because he represents those who struggle, and suffer from lifes trials and tribulations. Life should not be easy, nor should it not be filled with meaning. However, as I read the novel, I kept wishing that Geoffrey would understand sooner, and would not be tempted by Lucio's charm and wishes of wealth.
However, as with most stories, there is a lesson that needs to be learned, and an opportunity for the character and the reader to learn from mistakes and recify their behaviour or actions before its too late. Moreover, it can be said that tehre is a little of Geoffrey in all of us. Someone who struggles for meaning, and understanding and who longs to have everything that he went without.
The story of "Sorrows of Satan" encourages those readers who have very little to accept what they have and be grateful to God that they have it. It may seem as though gratefulness is not part of the sceama. However, there is a lot to be said about faith in God and the reassurrance that good will always triumph over evil.
Geoffrey is the character that is the most realistic as he shares parrelles with most of the readers. He is down on his luck, a man searching for meaning of his existance. Although he is warned several times to be mindful of Lucio, his disregard leads to his reincarnation. Geoffery is made better from his experience with Satan.
I saw myself in the character of Geoffrey, mainly because he represents those who struggle, and suffer from lifes trials and tribulations. Life should not be easy, nor should it not be filled with meaning. However, as I read the novel, I kept wishing that Geoffrey would understand sooner, and would not be tempted by Lucio's charm and wishes of wealth.
However, as with most stories, there is a lesson that needs to be learned, and an opportunity for the character and the reader to learn from mistakes and recify their behaviour or actions before its too late. Moreover, it can be said that tehre is a little of Geoffrey in all of us. Someone who struggles for meaning, and understanding and who longs to have everything that he went without.
Mavis Clare - Perfection
Mavis Clare is perfection.
I almost feel like I've said enough with just that however I doubt that would stentence would stand upon literary criticism. I say Mavis Clare is prefection because she is Corelli's ideal woman.
How can the woman which all these quotations describe be anything but perfection? Not only that but she is perfect in everyway possible; beautiful, intelligent, kind, and moral. She is the perfect foil to Lady Sibyl who is only beautiful in a very strange exotic fashion, she has violet eyes, all though his will not hold up under criticism I believe I read somewhere that the colour violet means "to have a purpose." Not only that but Lady Sibyl "repulses the frank and sensitive soul" (86) with just her look, very different from that of Mavis.
Now what is funny is Marie Corelli's vanity which shines through with the character of Mavis Clare. Anyone else notice the duplicity? both M.C., both writters "best-sellers" even, both shunned from their society because of their genuis. Is Corelli trying to tell people that she is perfect just like Clare? Well, it probably is there a little bit but more likely what Corelli is doing is a matter of "practice what you preach." If Corelli is going to create a perfect character in attempt to convert the world then she better believe and practice what she teaching.
I almost feel like I've said enough with just that however I doubt that would stentence would stand upon literary criticism. I say Mavis Clare is prefection because she is Corelli's ideal woman.
- "an 'old-fashioned' young woman" (216)
- "a woman who shows the power of her intellect is more to be respected than the woman who shows the power of her legs. But men alway prefer the legs, - just as they prefer the devil to the Deity." (216-7)
- "a quite graceful creature" (221)
- "with all her intellectual gifts she was yet a lovable woman" (225)
- "my angel at the gate of a lost Paradise, whose Sword of Genius, turning every way, keeps me back from all approach to my forfeited Tree of Life!) (225)
How can the woman which all these quotations describe be anything but perfection? Not only that but she is perfect in everyway possible; beautiful, intelligent, kind, and moral. She is the perfect foil to Lady Sibyl who is only beautiful in a very strange exotic fashion, she has violet eyes, all though his will not hold up under criticism I believe I read somewhere that the colour violet means "to have a purpose." Not only that but Lady Sibyl "repulses the frank and sensitive soul" (86) with just her look, very different from that of Mavis.
Now what is funny is Marie Corelli's vanity which shines through with the character of Mavis Clare. Anyone else notice the duplicity? both M.C., both writters "best-sellers" even, both shunned from their society because of their genuis. Is Corelli trying to tell people that she is perfect just like Clare? Well, it probably is there a little bit but more likely what Corelli is doing is a matter of "practice what you preach." If Corelli is going to create a perfect character in attempt to convert the world then she better believe and practice what she teaching.
*sigh* to be alive when the great composers wrote their works
I have just received a great gift :tickets to go and see Strauss and Mussorgsky:two of my most favorite composers (who just happened to have lived and write in the 1800's). The concert is Nov 24 at the Orpheum if anyone else is interested.
I sometimes reminisce about how wonderful it would be to live in the time of the "greats". This reminds me awfully of how my grandfather would go on about "the good ol' days".
Listening to the beautiful, sometimes awe inspiring, complicated music of old brings me to question the modern music industry.
This blog is not about bashing Britney Spears, or to bring up the Janet boob scandal but moreover to compare the music business of old to our modern "music" business.
Firstly--Artists being on drugs and being completely eccentric is not something that is new. Mozart was a party animal and Beethoven was socially stunted. So when I hear about the lifestyles of the rich and overly fabulous it appears to me as "business as usual".
Secondly--People in Victorian England and previous times did not walk around and sit in bars listening to a full orchestra. Those seats were reserved for the wealthy and overly fabulous. There was folk and drinking songs and only some (the good ones) are still sung today. The garbage songs were left behind. My point with this being: "Gimme More" isn't going to outlast movie scores (which I believe are our modern day "Classical Genius"). Movies like "Gladiator" or "Lord of The Rings" or even "Star Wars" show the complexity that Mussorgsky exhibits in his work.
Thirdly--We live in a Capitalist society: all is driven by the almighty dollar. The Classics were either sanctioned by the Church, or for the wealthy nobility. The only thing that has changed presently is that in North America we lack the Noble Class. The same principle applies though. What music gets distributed is what the people want to hear. If no one listened to a radio station they would go out of business (unless it was the CBC) and same with music television and Record companies.
It is comparable to the situation that faces Geoffrey Tempest in the Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan". On page 37 it discusses Tempest's book. He wrote the book "with the intention of elevating and purifying the thoughts of [his] readers..." Lucio Rimanez brings Tempest back into reality by stating:
I assure you it won't, it doesn't fit the age...it must simply be indecent. As indecent as you can make it...Put in as much as you can about sexual matters and the bearing of children...There's not a critic living who won't applaud you...there are no noble forms of life left on this planet,--it is all low and commercial... (pages 37-38).
I don't see the music quality or message being an obvious form of degeneracy for these reasons. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Britney Spears is very talented at being in the public spotlight, and I am sure she has made some sacrifices to be there. Me, I am happy to be getting to sit in 14 dollar seat and experiencing the 1800's best. Perhaps I am blessed to live now--I probably could not afford the tickets if I were in the 1800's.
I sometimes reminisce about how wonderful it would be to live in the time of the "greats". This reminds me awfully of how my grandfather would go on about "the good ol' days".
Listening to the beautiful, sometimes awe inspiring, complicated music of old brings me to question the modern music industry.
This blog is not about bashing Britney Spears, or to bring up the Janet boob scandal but moreover to compare the music business of old to our modern "music" business.
Firstly--Artists being on drugs and being completely eccentric is not something that is new. Mozart was a party animal and Beethoven was socially stunted. So when I hear about the lifestyles of the rich and overly fabulous it appears to me as "business as usual".
Secondly--People in Victorian England and previous times did not walk around and sit in bars listening to a full orchestra. Those seats were reserved for the wealthy and overly fabulous. There was folk and drinking songs and only some (the good ones) are still sung today. The garbage songs were left behind. My point with this being: "Gimme More" isn't going to outlast movie scores (which I believe are our modern day "Classical Genius"). Movies like "Gladiator" or "Lord of The Rings" or even "Star Wars" show the complexity that Mussorgsky exhibits in his work.
Thirdly--We live in a Capitalist society: all is driven by the almighty dollar. The Classics were either sanctioned by the Church, or for the wealthy nobility. The only thing that has changed presently is that in North America we lack the Noble Class. The same principle applies though. What music gets distributed is what the people want to hear. If no one listened to a radio station they would go out of business (unless it was the CBC) and same with music television and Record companies.
It is comparable to the situation that faces Geoffrey Tempest in the Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan". On page 37 it discusses Tempest's book. He wrote the book "with the intention of elevating and purifying the thoughts of [his] readers..." Lucio Rimanez brings Tempest back into reality by stating:
I assure you it won't, it doesn't fit the age...it must simply be indecent. As indecent as you can make it...Put in as much as you can about sexual matters and the bearing of children...There's not a critic living who won't applaud you...there are no noble forms of life left on this planet,--it is all low and commercial... (pages 37-38).
I don't see the music quality or message being an obvious form of degeneracy for these reasons. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Britney Spears is very talented at being in the public spotlight, and I am sure she has made some sacrifices to be there. Me, I am happy to be getting to sit in 14 dollar seat and experiencing the 1800's best. Perhaps I am blessed to live now--I probably could not afford the tickets if I were in the 1800's.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
a little off topic but a neat idea...
During our guest lecturer's talk I had one of my brilliant awe-inspiring moments...
What if Giorgione's The Tempest is related to Marie Corelli's "Tempest?"
Try as I might I can't find ANY proof whatsoever of this but just think about it a moment... it's fun to comtemplate!
-As we already know, Marie Corelli plays with initials with her character of Mavis Clare, what if she is playing with the initials of Giorgione and The Tempest and Geoffrey Tempest?
-We also know, as we were informed from the speaker (although I cannot locate it) there is a snake on the bottom right corner. Well, what is the serpent a symbol for in basically all of Western literature? Why the Devil of course! Satan himself! And who is a main character in the Sorrows of Satan, um... Satan!
What if Giorgione's The Tempest is related to Marie Corelli's "Tempest?"
Try as I might I can't find ANY proof whatsoever of this but just think about it a moment... it's fun to comtemplate!
-As we already know, Marie Corelli plays with initials with her character of Mavis Clare, what if she is playing with the initials of Giorgione and The Tempest and Geoffrey Tempest?
-We also know, as we were informed from the speaker (although I cannot locate it) there is a snake on the bottom right corner. Well, what is the serpent a symbol for in basically all of Western literature? Why the Devil of course! Satan himself! And who is a main character in the Sorrows of Satan, um... Satan!
-If the snake is near the woman, who's lack of clothing could represent purity untouched by materialism of appearances, and the snake is tempting her. Corelli's Satan does this very thing to Mavis Clare, who Geoffrey describes as, "...fair face, earnest eyes and sweet smile of Mavis, - that woman-wearer of the laurel-crown,-that keeper of the lilies of purity and peace" (373), if one looks closely it appears that the woman in the painting is wearing a headdress of some kind, perhaps laurel and her cape is white like Easter Lilies, however without actually seeing the orginal it is difficult claim to back up. In the story, Lucio Rimanez approaches Mavis Clare and states, "'I have asked you, Mavis Clare,' said Lucio slowly, 'to let me serve you. you have genius,-a rare quality in a woman, -and I would advance your fortunes'" (335) to which she replies, "'...I have nothing to wish for... It is true I am not rich, -but then I do not want to be rich. I would not be the possessor of wealth for all the world! To be surrounded with sycophants and flatterers,- never to be able to distinguish false friends from true, - to be loved for what you have, and not for what you are!- oh no, it would be misery to me!'" (336).
-This mention of "sycophants and flatterers" could be represented by the dark arrogant looking gentleman to the left of the picture who watches the nude lady. Although, there is something to be said that the man is the precursor of Geoffrey who is jealous of Mavis Clare as well as being unable to help himself from admiring her, "Yes-I had hated her, - an now- now, almost I loved her!" (305) Is it this mixture of emotions which are readable in pompously dressed gentleman?
-The painting also has a stream or river. Well, after Lady Sybil's suicide we know that Geoffrey Tempest and Luico Rimanez take to the yacht. And it is Geoffrey's experiences on this voyage that leads to his eventual acceptance of God and dismissal of material way, "A certain intonation in these words filled me with such frantic horror that I fell on my knees in abject misery and almost prayed to the God I had through all my life disbelieved in and denied" (442) which leads to Rimanez eventually confronting Geoffrey about his real identity and forcing him to make a choice between God and Satan to which Geoffrey replies, "'GOD only!...Annihilation at His hands rather than life without Him! GOD only! I have chosen!'" (458). Could the bridge in the painting be representative of his "crossing over" to the holy side?
-How does Corelli describe this tempest which leads to Geoffrey Tempest's decision? Chapter XL begins, "THUNDER and wild tumult,-the glare of lightning..." (441). Well, what do we see in the centre of Giorgione's painting but a lightning bolt! Now, do something, Google "God" and count the serious depictions of God where he is holding a lightning bolt. Hmmm, interesting.
So, coincidence or not? Could Corelli have taken inspiration Sorrows of Satan from The Tempest? See, it's a neat idea!
Honour vs. Money: Materialism in Today's World
In Marie Corelli’s “Sorrows of Satan” Corelli writes, “The sentiments called honour and virtue by the majority of men are the most shifty things imaginable,- set sufficient cash down, and they become bribery and corruption in the twinkling of an eye” (Corelli 32). It is quite surprising the lengths people will go for money. For the right price, many people will do just about anything. This is largely contributed to the desire people have for living the ‘ideal lifestyle’; the lifestyle that has been created and established by the media in an economy based world.
The majority of people always want more. They yearn to be rich, successful, and powerful and much of the time, they don’t care who they hurt in order to achieve such status. Corelli writes, “if you are poor and dress shabbily you are thrust aside and ignored,-but if you are rich, you may wear shabby clothes as much as you like, you are still courted and flattered and invited everywhere, though you may be the greatest fool alive or the worst blackguard unhung” (34). This sentence, as regrettable as it may be, has much truth to it, particularly in today’s world. People of wealth and power get much more respect and in addition, are able to use their stature to prosper in this world. This was quite clear in the Victorian era also. Under their class system, the upper class people, generally the bourgeoisie (the owner’s of the means of production), had the most respect and lived the best, most coveted lifestyle. For these reasons, it is quite tough to blame people for wanting to live in such a way. Unfortunately, as a result of the society that we live in today, money is a very important and vital part of life.
In addition, an existential question can be brought forward at this point; what’s more important, having materialistic goods, or being authentic? The reason this is an important question is because many existential philosophers argue that authenticity is something that EVERYONE should strive for. Materialistic goods are of very little importance given the big picture. They argue this point because they believe that humans get one life to live and this means that they should strive to be the best person they can be given their circumstances. This does not include being rich as wealth is a materialistic goal that existentialists believe is rather inauthentic. In order to become rich, people rarely do what they really want to. They settle as a result of their income and because we only get one life to live, an existentialist would argue that this is not true ‘happiness’.
The majority of people always want more. They yearn to be rich, successful, and powerful and much of the time, they don’t care who they hurt in order to achieve such status. Corelli writes, “if you are poor and dress shabbily you are thrust aside and ignored,-but if you are rich, you may wear shabby clothes as much as you like, you are still courted and flattered and invited everywhere, though you may be the greatest fool alive or the worst blackguard unhung” (34). This sentence, as regrettable as it may be, has much truth to it, particularly in today’s world. People of wealth and power get much more respect and in addition, are able to use their stature to prosper in this world. This was quite clear in the Victorian era also. Under their class system, the upper class people, generally the bourgeoisie (the owner’s of the means of production), had the most respect and lived the best, most coveted lifestyle. For these reasons, it is quite tough to blame people for wanting to live in such a way. Unfortunately, as a result of the society that we live in today, money is a very important and vital part of life.
In addition, an existential question can be brought forward at this point; what’s more important, having materialistic goods, or being authentic? The reason this is an important question is because many existential philosophers argue that authenticity is something that EVERYONE should strive for. Materialistic goods are of very little importance given the big picture. They argue this point because they believe that humans get one life to live and this means that they should strive to be the best person they can be given their circumstances. This does not include being rich as wealth is a materialistic goal that existentialists believe is rather inauthentic. In order to become rich, people rarely do what they really want to. They settle as a result of their income and because we only get one life to live, an existentialist would argue that this is not true ‘happiness’.
The Da Vinici Code
The Da Vinici Code has been extremely controversial since its release in print and the big screen. Dan Brown's novel about the cover-up by the catholic church regarding the death of Jesus, created an uproar with many religious groups. Those individuals who believe in god, felt that Brown's analysis and conclusions were far-fetched and unbelievable- while others who shared an open-minded and non-contextualized viewpoint on religion, felt that Brown brought up very interesting points regarding the catholic church.
The conspiracy was this: A secret society who took an oath to protect the "code" from being uncovered. Brown believes that the "code" that so many were sworn to protect was so damaging to religious patriarchs that it may destroy the church. Moreover, the secret was something that the church, he claims, had been covered up for centuries.
Brown's novel created a scandal in the church- people reviewed Da Vinci's famous mosaic of the last supper, scrutinizing it for evidence that Mary Magdeline was sitting to his left and whispering into his ear while the other disciples plotted Jesus' demise. It is a concept that is not lost upon the hearts and souls of men and women alike.
The controversy lies herein- the thought that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdeline- who was looked upon as a common, fallen woman- changes the anatomy of Jesus. He would no longer be the purifying, all knowing, man who died for the sins of Jews and Christians throughout the world. He would not be placed upon a pedestal or cherished or worshiped in the same way should people recognize that this savour was equal to them. How would anyone be able to appreciate or follow a fallen prophet? A Fallen son of God? The faith that remained in the religions of Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism- the walls of these religions who base their faith and logic so heavily on God and Jesus would be shattered. As we have seen in class, the world has progressed and demonstrated a form of degeneracy. More and more people strive to understand the meaning of life and their existence on the planet.
Brown's novel opened many people's eyes to the possibility that the church did not know everything. The concept that, like most profitable entities, conglomerates and companies, the church lied to retain their power in society. Without determining whether Brown could have been correct or not, the meer mention of a a belief contrary to that of the church, sent religious leaders and followers to the brink.
But what is it about religion that makes people so crazy? Why is it that Brown's novel, a best-seller and foundation for 2 more novels, was chastised by so many? Because it went against the church and all it stood for. Should people even think that Jesus was flawed, like all the rest, that he fathered a child out of wedlock, that he was an ordinary man and had not been the child of God, there would, potentially be no faith in the church. For as long as men and women have existed on the planet, there has been faith. Understanding and faith in a supernatural being that was beyond anything anyone could even conceive about.
Part of the reason that Brown;s novel was so controversial, is that society is in a constant flux- someday, depending which side of the scale you are on, the world looks as though it may be progressing- there are technological advances, increased production of food and shelter and an effort to understand other cultures and to better their way of life. On the same token, our"progression" has lead to degeneracy- Although there are many who still follow the teachings of religions, there are just as many who follow a path by themselves- a path that they wish to remain on without the help of any religious consortium. This is not the say that they are fallen, or decrepit. Merely, their faith lies within themselves, and is not based on a symbol that may or may not have actually existed. Moreover, those who do not believe in a religious principle are not flawed or without morals. Rather, they believe that there are other possibilities to explore beyond religion.
The conspiracy was this: A secret society who took an oath to protect the "code" from being uncovered. Brown believes that the "code" that so many were sworn to protect was so damaging to religious patriarchs that it may destroy the church. Moreover, the secret was something that the church, he claims, had been covered up for centuries.
Brown's novel created a scandal in the church- people reviewed Da Vinci's famous mosaic of the last supper, scrutinizing it for evidence that Mary Magdeline was sitting to his left and whispering into his ear while the other disciples plotted Jesus' demise. It is a concept that is not lost upon the hearts and souls of men and women alike.
The controversy lies herein- the thought that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdeline- who was looked upon as a common, fallen woman- changes the anatomy of Jesus. He would no longer be the purifying, all knowing, man who died for the sins of Jews and Christians throughout the world. He would not be placed upon a pedestal or cherished or worshiped in the same way should people recognize that this savour was equal to them. How would anyone be able to appreciate or follow a fallen prophet? A Fallen son of God? The faith that remained in the religions of Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism- the walls of these religions who base their faith and logic so heavily on God and Jesus would be shattered. As we have seen in class, the world has progressed and demonstrated a form of degeneracy. More and more people strive to understand the meaning of life and their existence on the planet.
Brown's novel opened many people's eyes to the possibility that the church did not know everything. The concept that, like most profitable entities, conglomerates and companies, the church lied to retain their power in society. Without determining whether Brown could have been correct or not, the meer mention of a a belief contrary to that of the church, sent religious leaders and followers to the brink.
But what is it about religion that makes people so crazy? Why is it that Brown's novel, a best-seller and foundation for 2 more novels, was chastised by so many? Because it went against the church and all it stood for. Should people even think that Jesus was flawed, like all the rest, that he fathered a child out of wedlock, that he was an ordinary man and had not been the child of God, there would, potentially be no faith in the church. For as long as men and women have existed on the planet, there has been faith. Understanding and faith in a supernatural being that was beyond anything anyone could even conceive about.
Part of the reason that Brown;s novel was so controversial, is that society is in a constant flux- someday, depending which side of the scale you are on, the world looks as though it may be progressing- there are technological advances, increased production of food and shelter and an effort to understand other cultures and to better their way of life. On the same token, our"progression" has lead to degeneracy- Although there are many who still follow the teachings of religions, there are just as many who follow a path by themselves- a path that they wish to remain on without the help of any religious consortium. This is not the say that they are fallen, or decrepit. Merely, their faith lies within themselves, and is not based on a symbol that may or may not have actually existed. Moreover, those who do not believe in a religious principle are not flawed or without morals. Rather, they believe that there are other possibilities to explore beyond religion.
Existential Philosophy and the Death of God
Many people argue that we should live everyday on earth as if it was our last. This is an ideal that many people hold today; however, if God and Heaven exist, and there was an opportunity for a supposed re-birth, then why do so many people hold this view? Secondly, why do so many people fear death? The truth is, there is, and always has been, so much evil in the world that belief in a perfect being, a so-called protector of life, is quite a difficult belief to adopt.
Existentialists argue that a person is only free when he or she makes the best of their life given the cards that have been dealt to them. They argue that authenticity is something that every person should strive for. In order to be truly authentic, one must obtain their own morals and values, based on their own life experience. In addition, existentialists argue that religion should not exist, and anyone that adopts the values and principles of a certain religion is merely a follower; a member of “the herd” as they would put it. This is because they have failed to create their own values, they have decided to follow and worship something that has been scripted to them. They live based on the rules and regulations of their given religion. Essentially, their life is drawn out for them; how could a person like this possible be ‘free’ and truly happy? The death of God is vastly illustrated throughout existential philosophy.
Personally, I do not believe in this theory. I believe that morals and principles are largely a result of the people one matures around. I do believe that authenticity is something everyone should strive for; however, based on the existential principles, authenticity is almost an impossible goal to achieve. I agree with existentialists that we only get one life to live, and as a result, I believe everyone should make goals for themselves and strive to achieve those goals. I believe that people should live life how they would want to be remembered because the only way one can truly live forever is through the memories of family and loved ones.
Existentialists argue that a person is only free when he or she makes the best of their life given the cards that have been dealt to them. They argue that authenticity is something that every person should strive for. In order to be truly authentic, one must obtain their own morals and values, based on their own life experience. In addition, existentialists argue that religion should not exist, and anyone that adopts the values and principles of a certain religion is merely a follower; a member of “the herd” as they would put it. This is because they have failed to create their own values, they have decided to follow and worship something that has been scripted to them. They live based on the rules and regulations of their given religion. Essentially, their life is drawn out for them; how could a person like this possible be ‘free’ and truly happy? The death of God is vastly illustrated throughout existential philosophy.
Personally, I do not believe in this theory. I believe that morals and principles are largely a result of the people one matures around. I do believe that authenticity is something everyone should strive for; however, based on the existential principles, authenticity is almost an impossible goal to achieve. I agree with existentialists that we only get one life to live, and as a result, I believe everyone should make goals for themselves and strive to achieve those goals. I believe that people should live life how they would want to be remembered because the only way one can truly live forever is through the memories of family and loved ones.
awesomely thought provoking
hey guys, check this out! What do you think!? Obviously fake but what do you think the artist was trying to get across?
http://photoshopcontest.com/images/fullsize/608134690ed4bc7fedfdd37980c8eabbbefaa24b245693.jpg
http://photoshopcontest.com/images/fullsize/608134690ed4bc7fedfdd37980c8eabbbefaa24b245693.jpg
Monday, October 29, 2007
Crystal Meth --A Method of Group Selection
I am about half way through "Sorrows of Satan" and as reading about Countess Elton I was heavily reminded of all those Meth pictures that are mass distributed amongst HighSchool kids.
On page 159 of "Sorrows of Satan" we learn that Countess Elton is paralyzed because she suffers "the worst of all the physical punishment that can befall a 'rapid lady'. AS a 'rapid lady' she "did everything that could be done by a woman at her worst and wildest" (159). Of all her phyiscal ailments her husband descibes The worst as being the disfiguration of her face.
"She's dreadful to look at--positively dreadful!--no longer human, you know. She used to be a lovely woman,--now she is literally frightful. Her eyes especially;--the are as scared and wild as if she had seen the devil(164).
http://www.methmadness.com/facesofmeth.html
Drug use, including meth, often leads to death because of overdose or other a weakened system. Drugs lead to prostitution and other crimes such as car theft. All of this is of course common knowledge but it is to help make my point. Darwin claims that vices of the weaker people is an action of Natural selection itself. Even though the immoral breed more nature balances out because vice leads to death.
On page 159 of "Sorrows of Satan" we learn that Countess Elton is paralyzed because she suffers "the worst of all the physical punishment that can befall a 'rapid lady'. AS a 'rapid lady' she "did everything that could be done by a woman at her worst and wildest" (159). Of all her phyiscal ailments her husband descibes The worst as being the disfiguration of her face.
"She's dreadful to look at--positively dreadful!--no longer human, you know. She used to be a lovely woman,--now she is literally frightful. Her eyes especially;--the are as scared and wild as if she had seen the devil(164).
http://www.methmadness.com/facesofmeth.html
Drug use, including meth, often leads to death because of overdose or other a weakened system. Drugs lead to prostitution and other crimes such as car theft. All of this is of course common knowledge but it is to help make my point. Darwin claims that vices of the weaker people is an action of Natural selection itself. Even though the immoral breed more nature balances out because vice leads to death.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Short Skirts and Bling
hey guys, I found this link the other day and thought it related to descriptions of Mavis and Sybil and the clothes they wear. As we know, Mavis a symbol for traditional values and Sybil is the decadance of the era and there clothes represent this as much as their daily attitudes. I wonder what Corelli would say about todays fashions
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3784510
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3784510
Friday, October 26, 2007
Conspiracy- Part 2
Was Leonard Da Vinci involved in leaving coded messages for a secret religious organization?
Although it may seem like a conspiracy, to have so many influencial people involved in an elaborate cover up, there is a possibility that this conspiracy may have occurred.
The church is not free from scandal, and should not be regarded as perfect in any respect. Perhaps its safe to say that the church, like modern society, is degenerate.
There are positive aspects of the church- for a long time, the church provided those unfortunate individuals with a sense of purpose and belonging. The church was place were people could put their trust- their faith as it were- and believe in something that was beyond their own scope. When times were bad, or health, fortune or even faith was whithering, religion provided a foundation of hope for many.
However, it is difficult to believe in an institution that impells to have secrets- An institution that will go by any means necessary to cover up any negative or contradictory evidence that may prove their religion is flawed- No one likes to be flawed
But the truth remains to be seen. Whether reviewing a novel like "The Da Vinici Code" or viewing the film "V for Vendetta," conspiracy is alive and well in the world. Why society has not been made aware, or has chosen to turn a blind eye to the impertinance and impropriatey of the government and the church, is beyond knowledge. The truth is out there. And we, as a society, have not been told everything there is to know. Like all major institutions, the church has secrets, and wishes to retain those secrets to any extreame.
Whatever the result may be, we have been given an opportunity, all of us in the world, to examine those institutions we call sacred and call them to the mat. Demand them to answer the questions of Jesus, Satan and the everlasting unknown that the church skirts around on a continual basis. The truth remains to be found, because we do not have all the facts.
The question bears repeating. Does Dan Brown's novel lend a basis for analysis? Or is he simply attempting to open a can of worms that should be left closed?
Although it may seem like a conspiracy, to have so many influencial people involved in an elaborate cover up, there is a possibility that this conspiracy may have occurred.
The church is not free from scandal, and should not be regarded as perfect in any respect. Perhaps its safe to say that the church, like modern society, is degenerate.
There are positive aspects of the church- for a long time, the church provided those unfortunate individuals with a sense of purpose and belonging. The church was place were people could put their trust- their faith as it were- and believe in something that was beyond their own scope. When times were bad, or health, fortune or even faith was whithering, religion provided a foundation of hope for many.
However, it is difficult to believe in an institution that impells to have secrets- An institution that will go by any means necessary to cover up any negative or contradictory evidence that may prove their religion is flawed- No one likes to be flawed
But the truth remains to be seen. Whether reviewing a novel like "The Da Vinici Code" or viewing the film "V for Vendetta," conspiracy is alive and well in the world. Why society has not been made aware, or has chosen to turn a blind eye to the impertinance and impropriatey of the government and the church, is beyond knowledge. The truth is out there. And we, as a society, have not been told everything there is to know. Like all major institutions, the church has secrets, and wishes to retain those secrets to any extreame.
Whatever the result may be, we have been given an opportunity, all of us in the world, to examine those institutions we call sacred and call them to the mat. Demand them to answer the questions of Jesus, Satan and the everlasting unknown that the church skirts around on a continual basis. The truth remains to be found, because we do not have all the facts.
The question bears repeating. Does Dan Brown's novel lend a basis for analysis? Or is he simply attempting to open a can of worms that should be left closed?
Love? or lusting for it?
The virgin woman is widely viewed in the Victorian era as the purest of all women. Corelli suggests that it is man’s urge to gratify himself that ultimately robs women of their virginity and thus their purity. Man’s moral choices come under question in Corelli’s work. Through Satan’s dialogue Corelli supports this theory. “(Man) will even deify the loss of chastity in woman by the name of purity.” Corelli does not necessarily claim that all mankind suffers from the moral and unethical impertinance suggested above. Rather, the moral concerns relate to Victorian England. Corelli suggests that there is a common trend among men of this time period to pursue the fulfillment of their “brutal lust” rather than relgious obligation as seen in "Sorrows of Satan."
The Da Vinici Code
The concept of the Da Vinci Code, a prophecy and underlying conspiracy theory covered up by religious patriarchs, has planted the seed of difference in the minds of many religious and non-religious individuals. The novel created widespread controversy within the catholic church. Faithful religious individuals believed the novel was an interesting tale- that there was no basis for the conclusions or implications that author Dan Brown illuded to. However, throughout history, philiosophers, journalists, writers and leaders have all reached their own conclusions based on evidence that has been discovered by the church or through other means. This does not change the meaning of the evidence, but mearly the intent.
Politicians and the Environmental Bandwagon... Who are they kidding?
Warning: the following commentary may be considered 'opinionated'...
The environment is changing, most can admit to that even if they don't want to admit to the 'Armageddon' of environment collapse that some conservationists have been warning for years. So our options are fairly straightforward. We can either do something about it, or not.
Lately, it seems that a slew of politicians and celebrities are waking up to the idea that may-be we might want to keep some of that Arctic ice shelf around, and not just for those cute little polar bears. When one picks up the newspaper, one can see the pretty picture of our premier shaking hands with David Suzuki, and hear Al Gore commend him on his revolutionary goals to reduce BC carbon emissions. In Ottawa, Harper has recently been quoted as saying he wants Canada to be
"a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy."
We, an "energy superpower," have been too busy making money on fossil fuels to care much about alternatives....
A McGill Biology professor, Joe Rasmussen, commented on a recent debate over water trade, Kyoto and GMO's:
“You can see the questions on the Kyoto Agreement are not really answered by most parties. Today, most major parties platforms are more centered towards tax cuts than environmental issues. They think that’s what attracts voters the most. Only the Green party’s platforms are more centered towards environmental protection. They know they are not going to get elected. It’s ironic that a hundred years ago, environment protection was an important issue [in North America] during the election. Look at today’s election. The society kind of degenerated,” he observed...
“I’m worried but at the same time optimistic. My first question approaching this election is: “Is it acceptable to accept the principle that the only way to solve environment problems is to get richer? So after we can clean up the mess we made?”
The environment is changing, most can admit to that even if they don't want to admit to the 'Armageddon' of environment collapse that some conservationists have been warning for years. So our options are fairly straightforward. We can either do something about it, or not.
Lately, it seems that a slew of politicians and celebrities are waking up to the idea that may-be we might want to keep some of that Arctic ice shelf around, and not just for those cute little polar bears. When one picks up the newspaper, one can see the pretty picture of our premier shaking hands with David Suzuki, and hear Al Gore commend him on his revolutionary goals to reduce BC carbon emissions. In Ottawa, Harper has recently been quoted as saying he wants Canada to be
"a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy."
Hooray!!! Yippee!!! It seems our politicians are jumping on the 'Environmental Bandwagon'...
Or are they?
A recent article in the Georgia Straight by Charlie Smith suggested we all might want to take a closer look at Campbell's objectives and consider the fact that last year the Liberal parties' policies were considered the most 'brown' of all provinces. (I personally prefer the fact that the Liberal Campaign's number one contributor is the BC Automobile Association, hmmm...)
As to Harpers objectives, as the article states:
"Uh, too late. While our politicians dithered over climate change, other countries went about inventing, marketing and selling green technologies. Most of the giant windmills that increasingly dot our countryside come from Germany....
A majority of the fuel-efficient, or hybrid, cars nosing their way onto Canadian streets are Japanese. California companies are pioneering solar technology, green building codes and sustainable farming methods. And, while we continue to experiment with carbon capture and storage, as Harper mentioned, so do other countries.We, an "energy superpower," have been too busy making money on fossil fuels to care much about alternatives....
Nor are innovation, or the changes required to make our economy sustainable, likely to accelerate on Harper's watch, despite his change in tone. His government's regulations for large emitters have been widely described as timid -- a leisurely stroll toward an unverifiable 60-per-cent reduction in real emissions by 2050, when Harper is long gone. This is the model he recommended to his fellow APEC members, who had the courtesy not to smirk.
Yet for them, for anyone befuddled by a complex topic, Harper may sound plausible. What he is doing, along with retooling Liberal notions, is trying to reframe the climate debate, implying that the Kyoto accord is some wildly impractical, job-crushing monster on one side, while fossilized climate-deniers and corporate polluters occupy the other extreme.
He positions himself in the middle, the champion of "balance" -- of "realistic benchmarks," market-driven solutions, a global gentlemen's voluntary agreement to behave sustainably, rather than crude arbitrary targets."
What's that? Kyoto? Did you say it might actually cost us something to clean up our mess? The future of the world? No way, I'm not paying for that, it's not my problem. I'd much rather you just lower my taxes please...A McGill Biology professor, Joe Rasmussen, commented on a recent debate over water trade, Kyoto and GMO's:
“You can see the questions on the Kyoto Agreement are not really answered by most parties. Today, most major parties platforms are more centered towards tax cuts than environmental issues. They think that’s what attracts voters the most. Only the Green party’s platforms are more centered towards environmental protection. They know they are not going to get elected. It’s ironic that a hundred years ago, environment protection was an important issue [in North America] during the election. Look at today’s election. The society kind of degenerated,” he observed...
“I’m worried but at the same time optimistic. My first question approaching this election is: “Is it acceptable to accept the principle that the only way to solve environment problems is to get richer? So after we can clean up the mess we made?”
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Victorian and the gothic rise of literature in Corelli's stories
Part of Victorian literature was the rise of the gothic novel. After reading a gothic short story, parellels were drawn between telelvison programs such as "Meduim", "Ghost Whisperer" and "Ghostly Encounters" and novels existing during the Victorian age. The similarities are everywhere. Corelli is one author who borrows from the gothic writings that appeared during that time period. One conventions Corelli, like so many other writers of her time uses was that of the unknown. Society as a whole constantly suspects the unknown, the stranger, as the primary target of suspicion. In fact, Lucio, in "The Sorrows of Satan", is the epitome of a foreign stranger. No one (but the author) knows his background, though, as we witness, Lucio says and does things throughout the novel that put attention on himself.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Battle For Christmas
Merry Christmas!
It maybe 37 days away but might just be a controversy this year as it has been in the past. Questions arise(especially in the all-tolerant Canada) that should we just assume that the majority is Christian? If so should we accommodate the masses?Should private companies advertise Christmas sales? Should public areas be Nativity free? Is Christmas offending anyone?
This issue has caused a million billion websites to be formed and many books written about the issue. The Issue even made it into Lord Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior".
The question I am trying to raise is this; Is removing Christmas from the public sector an example of Society's progression or degeneration?
In O'Reilly's book he blatantly points a finger at the ACLU for stirring up problems. He puts out very specific examples about how the ACLU has litigated and intimidated people into doing what they want. One example he refers to is about a Santa Claus visit in Baldwin City, Kansas. One year the Santa who visited the local elementary school was a protestant clergyman--and that is when the ACLU started interfering.
Unfortunately O'Reilly's book does not cite this--but the story was easy enough to find via Google. Apparently the ACLU has been trying to ban Christmas carols in public schools as well.
"Culture Warrior" has many more examples about the public sector being influenced but O'Reilly also dabbles and the private sector. Many companies such as Sears, Future Shop, and Best Buy have made the decision to take Christmas out of Christmas shopping. Christmas Trees--Now are Holiday Trees. Christmas vacation is now winter vacation. Companies are so afraid to offend people that do not celebrate Christmas that they forget that the majority of their business at this time is for people who celebrate Christmas--Many who are not Christian!
The ACLU has gotten a very bad rap about this whole debacle and of course they have a response:
As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious Stat-Holiday. Perhaps the government should put the holiday on another day (perhaps yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.
The question is why are people so easily offended? If someone were to wish me Happy Hanuka I would say thank-you. Why are people so worried about it? I mean it is a we could have another Earth Day) like say--DEC 16 in honour of my birthday--and I am certainly no religious icon (Merry-Kat day! well that's a little to close to "Marry" and that's no good). Should business embrace the Christmas holiday and embrace their demographic or should they continue with the "Happy Holidays" message that is kinda bland.
Is Santa Claus even a religious icon. I certainly have not read about him in the bible. After all, the modern Santa we know is a creation of the all powerful Coca-Cola corporation.
This issue is certainly a hot-bed and is certainly not answered easily. Both sides play on people's emotions. I was raised celebrating Christmas (including the whole Jesus part). It was a magical time of year and just thinking about it brings on the nostalgic goosebumps. So when I hear campaigns like "Help Save Christmas" it does play on my emotions. When I hear the ACLU claim that they are preventing religion from invading public spaces I am also in support of that: both Canadians and Americans pride themselves on separation of Church and State. So this campaign also plays on my emotions.
Personally--I have to side with the religious zealots on this one. Santa Claus is not a representation of Christianity but more of a symbol of Western Values-- the very values that appreciate rights such as free speech. The Christmas "I'll be Home for Christmas" brought hope to troops and their families during World War Two. This is a part of our heritage--can it be excluded. There is also a vast majority of Secular Christmas Carols--should they be banned--they are after all not religious. Schools celebrate other holidays--like St.Patrick's Day (emphasis on the SAINT) should they be banned too? I am sure if you asked the kids at school if they are offended--and the majority of the parents--they will answer no.
Christmas also seems like a great way to teach multi-cultural ism and diversity. How many countries celebrate Christmas in their own unique way? Learning about them also brings out the sentimental quality Christmas has. This sentiment is about uniting people. For example slogans like "Peace on Earth" or "Good Will to ALL Men" are a great traditional -Christian-message.
My Problem with the Christmas season is how commercial it has become. I think the corporate side of Christmas should be exempt from schools.
The question still remains; Is this a sign of social degeneracy or progress? What might the consquences be if we eliminated Christmas from the public sphere? (I hope they still run "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" on the CBC !!!)
http://www.cafepress.com/merrychristmas9
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824http://signal.baldwincity.com/section/archive/story/3252
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html
http://www.savingchristmasinmass.homestead.com/
It maybe 37 days away but might just be a controversy this year as it has been in the past. Questions arise(especially in the all-tolerant Canada) that should we just assume that the majority is Christian? If so should we accommodate the masses?Should private companies advertise Christmas sales? Should public areas be Nativity free? Is Christmas offending anyone?
This issue has caused a million billion websites to be formed and many books written about the issue. The Issue even made it into Lord Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior".
The question I am trying to raise is this; Is removing Christmas from the public sector an example of Society's progression or degeneration?
In O'Reilly's book he blatantly points a finger at the ACLU for stirring up problems. He puts out very specific examples about how the ACLU has litigated and intimidated people into doing what they want. One example he refers to is about a Santa Claus visit in Baldwin City, Kansas. One year the Santa who visited the local elementary school was a protestant clergyman--and that is when the ACLU started interfering.
Unfortunately O'Reilly's book does not cite this--but the story was easy enough to find via Google. Apparently the ACLU has been trying to ban Christmas carols in public schools as well.
"Culture Warrior" has many more examples about the public sector being influenced but O'Reilly also dabbles and the private sector. Many companies such as Sears, Future Shop, and Best Buy have made the decision to take Christmas out of Christmas shopping. Christmas Trees--Now are Holiday Trees. Christmas vacation is now winter vacation. Companies are so afraid to offend people that do not celebrate Christmas that they forget that the majority of their business at this time is for people who celebrate Christmas--Many who are not Christian!
The ACLU has gotten a very bad rap about this whole debacle and of course they have a response:
As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious Stat-Holiday. Perhaps the government should put the holiday on another day (perhaps yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.
The question is why are people so easily offended? If someone were to wish me Happy Hanuka I would say thank-you. Why are people so worried about it? I mean it is a we could have another Earth Day) like say--DEC 16 in honour of my birthday--and I am certainly no religious icon (Merry-Kat day! well that's a little to close to "Marry" and that's no good). Should business embrace the Christmas holiday and embrace their demographic or should they continue with the "Happy Holidays" message that is kinda bland.
Is Santa Claus even a religious icon. I certainly have not read about him in the bible. After all, the modern Santa we know is a creation of the all powerful Coca-Cola corporation.
This issue is certainly a hot-bed and is certainly not answered easily. Both sides play on people's emotions. I was raised celebrating Christmas (including the whole Jesus part). It was a magical time of year and just thinking about it brings on the nostalgic goosebumps. So when I hear campaigns like "Help Save Christmas" it does play on my emotions. When I hear the ACLU claim that they are preventing religion from invading public spaces I am also in support of that: both Canadians and Americans pride themselves on separation of Church and State. So this campaign also plays on my emotions.
Personally--I have to side with the religious zealots on this one. Santa Claus is not a representation of Christianity but more of a symbol of Western Values-- the very values that appreciate rights such as free speech. The Christmas "I'll be Home for Christmas" brought hope to troops and their families during World War Two. This is a part of our heritage--can it be excluded. There is also a vast majority of Secular Christmas Carols--should they be banned--they are after all not religious. Schools celebrate other holidays--like St.Patrick's Day (emphasis on the SAINT) should they be banned too? I am sure if you asked the kids at school if they are offended--and the majority of the parents--they will answer no.
Christmas also seems like a great way to teach multi-cultural ism and diversity. How many countries celebrate Christmas in their own unique way? Learning about them also brings out the sentimental quality Christmas has. This sentiment is about uniting people. For example slogans like "Peace on Earth" or "Good Will to ALL Men" are a great traditional -Christian-message.
My Problem with the Christmas season is how commercial it has become. I think the corporate side of Christmas should be exempt from schools.
The question still remains; Is this a sign of social degeneracy or progress? What might the consquences be if we eliminated Christmas from the public sphere? (I hope they still run "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" on the CBC !!!)
http://www.cafepress.com/merrychristmas9
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824http://signal.baldwincity.com/section/archive/story/3252
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html
http://www.savingchristmasinmass.homestead.com/
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Naked Devils in Langley
I thought I would attempt to get the ball rolling on this project with a little story that remembered sparked by a conversation which Deb and I had during last class about how The Devil is still present in today's society and how decadance is also still very apparent. We can choose to keep or delete this post later...
This is something that happened to me August 2006 during my first week at a new job. I was running slight late so I decided to take the freeway, I turned off the 200th exit in Langley and continued down the street until I had to stop at a red light at what I believe is the intersection of 200th and Willow Dr (or something along those lines), basically if you've been to Langley, it's the intersection on 200th with the KFC. It was a strange atmosphere. People were honking their honks and I could hear shouting. I noticed a group of protesters on the sidewalk in front of the KFC holding signs along the lines of "Stop Animal Cruelty" and "KFC is the Devil." The signs were all held by what I thought at the time to be scantly clad females wearing red. This is when I got a jolt which has kept with me for over a year now. I was in the middle lane of traffic and on my passenger side a figure seemed to appear. It was the Devil! And he appeared to be naked! I am slightly embarassed to admit I screamed from fright all alone in my car. After regaining my composure, I noticed that the ladies were not scantily clad... they were not clad at all! They were wearing nothing more than body paint and black panties, the male devil was also decked out in body paint and boxers. Although attention grabbing, I couldn't really grasp the point of the nudity... where these people protesting against clothing or against animal cruelty? I have a link to the story for anyone interested (it has a picture of one of the body painted ladies ;) ) it's on page three and it is written from the activist point of view.
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/files/images/Fall2006.pdf
So the questions I'm asking is this: was the decadence of nudity really necessary to protest animal cruelty? Can anyone else think of an occasion when they came across The Devil in everyday life? What were your reactions to it?
This is something that happened to me August 2006 during my first week at a new job. I was running slight late so I decided to take the freeway, I turned off the 200th exit in Langley and continued down the street until I had to stop at a red light at what I believe is the intersection of 200th and Willow Dr (or something along those lines), basically if you've been to Langley, it's the intersection on 200th with the KFC. It was a strange atmosphere. People were honking their honks and I could hear shouting. I noticed a group of protesters on the sidewalk in front of the KFC holding signs along the lines of "Stop Animal Cruelty" and "KFC is the Devil." The signs were all held by what I thought at the time to be scantly clad females wearing red. This is when I got a jolt which has kept with me for over a year now. I was in the middle lane of traffic and on my passenger side a figure seemed to appear. It was the Devil! And he appeared to be naked! I am slightly embarassed to admit I screamed from fright all alone in my car. After regaining my composure, I noticed that the ladies were not scantily clad... they were not clad at all! They were wearing nothing more than body paint and black panties, the male devil was also decked out in body paint and boxers. Although attention grabbing, I couldn't really grasp the point of the nudity... where these people protesting against clothing or against animal cruelty? I have a link to the story for anyone interested (it has a picture of one of the body painted ladies ;) ) it's on page three and it is written from the activist point of view.
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/files/images/Fall2006.pdf
So the questions I'm asking is this: was the decadence of nudity really necessary to protest animal cruelty? Can anyone else think of an occasion when they came across The Devil in everyday life? What were your reactions to it?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Divorce Rate
I was recently forwarded a link from one of my staunch Catholic friends about Divorce. http://www.divorcerate.org
It is more interesting to read the web page with the theme to "People's Court" running through your head.
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
These numbers are no longer astounding--I have heard it all of my life time; everyone is getting a divorce. It is apparent that many people who get married don't hold this as a "sacred institution" any more so why are people so keen on limiting who can get married and how.
Some argue that the reason the divorce rate is so high is because society does not keep "traditional values". There is a valid point to this argument. If spouses remained loyal and avoided websites such as http://www.ashleymadison.com people would there be as many divorces? If people were not caught up in Capitalism and the gaining of material goods--would a partner stay home and make sure things run smoothly? As Lady Sibil, from Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", says about love
To love for love's sake only, is becoming really an obsolete virtue(page 204).
ABC News published a story about the benefits of being married in August 2006. This is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049
MARRIED PEOPLE LIVE LONGER A new study finds that people who have never married have the highest risk of death in the United States, contrasting with other studies that have found the highest risk in divorced, separated or widowed populations. There are many reasons married people tend to be healthier, not the least of which is they tend to be wealthier.
In a Darwinian perspective one can see that those who stick by their marriages live longer and are able to have more children--and natural selection does the rest. But the numbers of divorce are staggering--and that is a sign of degeneracy.
It is more interesting to read the web page with the theme to "People's Court" running through your head.
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
These numbers are no longer astounding--I have heard it all of my life time; everyone is getting a divorce. It is apparent that many people who get married don't hold this as a "sacred institution" any more so why are people so keen on limiting who can get married and how.
Some argue that the reason the divorce rate is so high is because society does not keep "traditional values". There is a valid point to this argument. If spouses remained loyal and avoided websites such as http://www.ashleymadison.com people would there be as many divorces? If people were not caught up in Capitalism and the gaining of material goods--would a partner stay home and make sure things run smoothly? As Lady Sibil, from Marie Corelli's "Sorrows of Satan", says about love
To love for love's sake only, is becoming really an obsolete virtue(page 204).
ABC News published a story about the benefits of being married in August 2006. This is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049
MARRIED PEOPLE LIVE LONGER A new study finds that people who have never married have the highest risk of death in the United States, contrasting with other studies that have found the highest risk in divorced, separated or widowed populations. There are many reasons married people tend to be healthier, not the least of which is they tend to be wealthier.
In a Darwinian perspective one can see that those who stick by their marriages live longer and are able to have more children--and natural selection does the rest. But the numbers of divorce are staggering--and that is a sign of degeneracy.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Truth Will Set You Free!!...
If you don't believe that money is the root of all evil, take a look at this movie; this is the 'War on Religion' (and US politics) done Hollywood style... check this out!!! Zeitgeist: The Movie!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
