Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In tangentially related news, this would have cheered me up at 17. Heck, it would cheer me up today.
Jolisa, my son's high school swing-shifts so kids can attend from 10 - 4 if that suits them better.
The comments thread accompanying that article was of course the usual work of comic genius.
-
Subjective of course, but I'm still compelled to disagree.
Oh, I don't agree with a lot of what Ruskin says, but I find him really interesting anyway. The Stones of Venice contains some weep-makingly beautiful prose, especially if you've just read some of the Utilitarians - JS Mill, Jeremy Betham. And that's what Ruskin is responding to, a doctrine that beauty comes out of utility, and that only. And so you get a wild swing away from that - Romanticism, the Arts and Crafts movement, Wilde's 'art for art's sake'. I think it's much easier now to realise that the "truth" (if truth there is) is somewhere in the middle. But gosh there were some interesting ideas.
Good art is done with enjoyment. The artist must feel that, within certain reasonable limits, he is free, that he is wanted by society, and that the ideas he is asked to express are true and important.
-
Even so, why some feelings and not others? Lust, because it makes blood rush places I guess, is generally considered a 'biological' feeling (hence pejoratively an urge) whereas the contemplation of beauty, or friendship, or human solidarity and altruism, would be spiritual hence higher, better.
And, what really fascinates me, why this neurochemical reaction to this particular thing, and not that one? Why is this thing beautiful, but not that?
Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, peacocks and lilies for instance.
Yes, this thread is reminding me of Ruskin and the counter-reaction to Utilitarianism.
-
Okay, wow, a lot went by here while I was watching cricket and playing Carcassone, and obviously I can't do justice to all of it.
Mark, your criticism of the Buddhism quote is justified. I said right after that that it was 'harsh', and I actually was going to write more, but I felt uncomfortable because I'm not a Buddhist, and I didn't want to be speaking for them. The basic 'you go your way I'll go mine' attitude of Buddhism has a lot in common with Wicca, and I find it appealing. But it has a very 'fluffy bunny' reputation in the West that isn't really representative of the whole story. The John Saffron vs God episode on Buddhism - 'get the koan or we hit you with the big stick' - was an eye-opener.
All religions are cultural. Eastern Buddhism is different from Western Buddhism like Christianity in Africa is different from Christianity in Europe.
And now that I've pretty much offended everyone...
-
I hit this dilemma when I did the Holland Diaries column. Several people have asked for more, but the older my daughter is in the columns, the more uncomfortable I am about them. It's a weird little line that, which I can't quite nail down. I've considered asking her to guest-blog one, torn between 'your perspective is valuable and people would really enjoy hearing it' and 'jump up here and be the hearing-impaired performing dog again, would you love?'.
It's hard to disentangle your own stories from the other people involved in them, to get across stories that matter without damaging the people you have a duty of care to. We try. Julie Myerson, not so much.
-
You have prompted me to put Plato's The Republic on my iPhone. That'll impress the ladies ...
My partner and I were disagreeing over whether having an orrery is a good way to pick up chicks. I say yes. That Republic thing would also work on me.
-
Reading back over that, I've probably come across a little harsh on Buddhism. Those are precepts to live by, not to make other people live by. But it is one thing that more than the Abrahamic religions seem to have in common, this fascination with right sex and wrong sex.
-
Jesus didn't have all that much to say about The Gays, perhaps that makes a difference to him.
Your point being? I dont remember much about gays in Taoist or Buddhist philosophy either.
Or are you just stroking your beard?That was a response to a supposed incompatibility between homosexuality and Catholicism, which is why Jesus' total lack of pronouncements on homosexuality might possibly be relevant.
Buddhism, however, has plenty to say:
Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual sexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand. Buddhist proscriptions also forbid sex at certain times - such as during full and half moon days, the daytime, and during a wife's menstrual period or pregnancy - or near shrines or temples. Adultery is considered sexual misconduct, but the hiring of a female prostitute for penile-vaginal sex is not, unless one pays a third party to procure the person.
-
but if the hat fits...
...I can leave it on?
-
If my use of that word has offended anybody I sincerely apologise. That was never my intent.
Sorry Stuart, I was explaining the reasoning for my own choice rather than trying to imply the reasoning behind yours. I've worked with administering web communities for scarily close to a decade now, and so I tend to think in those sorts of terms. When you're guiding a community or laying out guidelines for it, it pays to be very careful with language.
Likewise, I guess I'd avoid the word 'spirituality' because it means such different things to different people. I once tried to use it to distinguish between religion (external, imposed from without) and beliefs or feelings that come from within, and ended up just offending everyone. When I say that something 'lifts my spirits' I don't mean it as in any way religious or mystical. But when people say 'oh, but you MUST be spiritual, everyone is', that's getting perilously close to religion IMO - imposing from without.
"A friend of mine put it like this: atheism is not a religious belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby." means that my spiritualism is not connecting to a god. I think I know what I mean???
That's not what I mean by it, or what the originator means by it. It's a statement about religion not spirituality. But I have no objection to it meaning that for you.