The other day I came across a bizarre news item. Some woman, in America, had apparently become so upset that a dog had chewed her Bible that she hanged the dog and then burned it! She apparently said that God had told her to!
Now I know that God can and does do many wonderful things but I cannot believe that He instructed this woman to torture and kill one of His creatures because it chewed a book! - even a sacred book, such as a Bible.
A fine Christian attitude this woman has! In her heart there does not seem to be much compassion or the ‘milk of human kindness’ does there? If found guilty of animal cruelty she faces about four years in prison. What she needs is treatment and also, even if she has never read it, she needs to understand the sentiment expressed in the lines from the poem, “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -
“He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wikileaks, Injustice and Peace
I have said this before and I will keep saying it till the day I die – injustice is the cause of most of the human induced misery on this planet we call Earth. Injustice is the most important factor in most of the troubles we have in the world at this time.
This is true of those who are trying to prevent details of their questionable activities being disclosed by Wikileaks; it is true of the Chinese authorities imprisoning a man (a Nobel Peace award winner) for daring to expose corruption and human rights abuse in China; it is true of any corrupt and dictatorial government or regime anywhere in the world; it is true of any organisation or company that has a “money at all costs and damn the consequences” culture; it is true of any family suffering from the ministrations of an abusive adult; it is true of any gang or group that consider themselves “different” or “better” or “exclusive”; it is true of any individual who harbours the notion that others owe him (or her) a living and that they are somehow privileged above all others.
There is no way of avoiding it – injustice in THE problem. There is also no avoiding the fact that we – collectively – have created the social and economic conditions we – collectively - find ourselves in. We have done it – there is no one else!
It is evident, everywhere, that despite the centuries of moral and ethical teachings, people have only imperfectly learned that it is in their own interests to consider the needs of their ‘neighbour’ and to treat others as they, themselves, would like to be treated. To fail to do so and to fail to recognise the needs of the society to which they belong, is to invite disaster – both individually and collectively.
I am going to quote from an old book by Carl Gustav Jung, the great Swiss Psychologist, the 1916 publication “Psychology of the Unconscious”. It is a bit long winded and the language used may be unfamiliar to modern ears, but what he says is true none-the-less. I quote from the introduction to the work:
“Life itself has needs and imperiously demands expression through the forms created. All nature answers to this freely and simply, except man. His failure to recognise himself as an instrument through which the life energy is coursing and the demands of which must be obeyed, is the cause of his misery. Despite his possession of intellect and self consciousness, he cannot without disaster to himself refuse the tasks of life and the fulfilment of his own needs. Man’s great task is the adaption of himself to reality and the recognition of himself as an instrument for the expression of life according to his individual possibilities.”
This is so true. While we are part of Humanity and share many common characteristics, none-the-less, we need to express our selves each in our own unique way. While we are about it why not aim for the highest form of contribution we can make – the highest ‘common denominator’ not the lowest?
By helping others reach their full potential we help ourselves to reach our own potential. This is just the way it is. Imprisoning, torturing and generally being less than generous to others not only diminishes the perpetrators but also diminishes us as human beings – because we are all members of the human race. By trying to diminish others and trying to ‘prove’ that we are better than those ‘others’ we are contributing to the unhappiness in the world and reducing the likelihood of peace.
This is true of those who are trying to prevent details of their questionable activities being disclosed by Wikileaks; it is true of the Chinese authorities imprisoning a man (a Nobel Peace award winner) for daring to expose corruption and human rights abuse in China; it is true of any corrupt and dictatorial government or regime anywhere in the world; it is true of any organisation or company that has a “money at all costs and damn the consequences” culture; it is true of any family suffering from the ministrations of an abusive adult; it is true of any gang or group that consider themselves “different” or “better” or “exclusive”; it is true of any individual who harbours the notion that others owe him (or her) a living and that they are somehow privileged above all others.
There is no way of avoiding it – injustice in THE problem. There is also no avoiding the fact that we – collectively – have created the social and economic conditions we – collectively - find ourselves in. We have done it – there is no one else!
It is evident, everywhere, that despite the centuries of moral and ethical teachings, people have only imperfectly learned that it is in their own interests to consider the needs of their ‘neighbour’ and to treat others as they, themselves, would like to be treated. To fail to do so and to fail to recognise the needs of the society to which they belong, is to invite disaster – both individually and collectively.
I am going to quote from an old book by Carl Gustav Jung, the great Swiss Psychologist, the 1916 publication “Psychology of the Unconscious”. It is a bit long winded and the language used may be unfamiliar to modern ears, but what he says is true none-the-less. I quote from the introduction to the work:
“Life itself has needs and imperiously demands expression through the forms created. All nature answers to this freely and simply, except man. His failure to recognise himself as an instrument through which the life energy is coursing and the demands of which must be obeyed, is the cause of his misery. Despite his possession of intellect and self consciousness, he cannot without disaster to himself refuse the tasks of life and the fulfilment of his own needs. Man’s great task is the adaption of himself to reality and the recognition of himself as an instrument for the expression of life according to his individual possibilities.”
This is so true. While we are part of Humanity and share many common characteristics, none-the-less, we need to express our selves each in our own unique way. While we are about it why not aim for the highest form of contribution we can make – the highest ‘common denominator’ not the lowest?
By helping others reach their full potential we help ourselves to reach our own potential. This is just the way it is. Imprisoning, torturing and generally being less than generous to others not only diminishes the perpetrators but also diminishes us as human beings – because we are all members of the human race. By trying to diminish others and trying to ‘prove’ that we are better than those ‘others’ we are contributing to the unhappiness in the world and reducing the likelihood of peace.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Chinese Characters
There was a local news item the other day regarding Chinese authorities concern about the “purity” of the Chinese language. They are apparently contemplating means to prevent the popularization of non-Chinese words (mainly English) together with the use of non-Chinese letters and characters.
Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language (it is tonal), in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!
Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-
a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.
b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.
The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.
English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.
Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.
Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language (it is tonal), in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!
Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-
a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.
b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.
The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.
English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.
Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)