A recent posting brought up a dilemma: does one give up on their political values simply because the trend in society might be moving in a different direction? Or does one stick to one’s principles especially when this is the case?
The idea of political parties as being the be all and end all of our political expression, it is perhaps a fact of life in what we refer as the liberal democracies (or what I refer to as the de-mockeries). This tends to lead low brow individuals to comprehend the voting system as being one of winner takes all. While in the US system this may be the case, under Canada’s political system the winner of an election is not always free to act as they please. In a minority situation, governments must rely on the support of other parties to stay in power. And in Canada, no minority government has lasted a standard term, with most lasting less than two years.
This is why in Canada we have a viable social democratic party, while in the USA they have a solid two party system. In the US, the two main parties inevitably take over 90% of the popular vote, while in Canada the social democratic party of the NDP has more than once taken over 19% of the vote. Canadian institutions such as the CPP and an enlightened egalitarian medical treatment system for all regardless of personal income are the result of NDP influence on the less progressive parties.
This is precisely the reason why one must stick to their political beliefs regardless of the trends in a society. As Canada moves towards being annexed (at least culturally if not in actual practice) by the expanding empire of the US republic, it is important that we continue to feel free to speak our political minds freely.
So yes, for the short-sighted it might seem a waste to support any party other than the usual suspects. For others, supporting the mainstream parties and then complaining that nothing ever changes, this reflects the politically ignorant nature of the average voter. Most voters cannot take the time out of their daily lives to truly investigate what our governments are up to, and so the average voter cannot truly be blamed for what they get in government. And because the average voter is not well educated to understand the nature of propaganda, they tend to fall victim to the whisperings of the two corrupt and entrenched parties; that any party other than the Liberals or Conservatives would spend the nation into oblivion.
One can only be grateful that the ‘give up’ attitude expressed by some individuals who simply cannot comprehend the nature of Canada’s political system has not always been the norm. The last time an informed public effected any real change in a liberal democracy was perhaps during the Vietnam War. It is my belief that someday enlightenment will return to the public again, although some tough times will first have to befall us as punishment for our collective negligence to act now for real change.
I refer to Bob, who perhaps best stated the importance of never giving up on one’s principles:
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
and there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order isRapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
~Bob Dylan
Never give up on expressing independent thought.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Because Manitoba is neat
This should not be difficult to get:
Classical architecture has been a reoccurring fascination of architects for centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries L’ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris was revitalizing classical forms. Architects from this school would build on a grand scale using classical elements in their designs.[1] One example of this type of construction is the Manitoba Legislative Building built between 1913 and 1920. The Manitoba Legislative Building is classical through the combination of Greek architectural elements, a central dome, and the use of decorative sculpture throughout the structure. The building is an example of government using a classical visual vocabulary put in a modern syntax in order to portray civic law and order.
The Manitoba Legislative Building design was the work of British born architect Frank Worthington Simon. Simon studied at L’ecole des Beaux-Arts under the famous architect Jean Louis Pascal.[2] One of the inaugural lectures given by a faculty member at L’ecole des Beaux Arts claimed that the canon of art which would inspire the students of the school would be influenced by works such as, “the Parthenon and the Roman baths and amphitheatres, but it is also Sancta Sophia and Notre-Dame, it is St. Ouen at Rouen as well as St. Peter’s or the Palazzo Farnese in Rome and the Louvre in Paris.”[3] It is clear that students of this school would draw heavily from classical influences of the past in executing their works.
The province of Manitoba commissioned Simon and his assistants to design a building that would fulfill the desire for a more imposing structure to represent the seat of the provincial government’s power.[4] This desire grew out of the dramatic population increase and economic growth that had occurred in Winnipeg during the early 20th century. In 1881 the population of Manitoba had been 62,260 and by 1901 that figure had grown to 255,211.[5] At the time there were many who believed that Winnipeg was destined to become the financial centre of Canada.[6] With this belief in a strong future on the minds of those who governed the province, it was deemed necessary to have a building which reflected Manitoba’s growing power in Canada. The grand scale of the building and the desire for architectural elements which reflected state power made for a perfect fit for Simon and the classical elements his work exhibited.
Simon’s plan for the building called for an entrance portico based on that of a Greek temple, a ground plan based on the shape of an H, and a central dome for the structure. One enters the building through the columned portico on the north facade. The columns are of the Ionic order and are repeated in the tower at the base of the dome above, the repetition of their vertical elements adding to an illusion of greater height for the building. A dentil course runs below the cornice of the building, unifying the portico with the wider portion of the façade. Inside the building, located in the rotunda are four pairs of Corinthian columns. Smaller order Doric columns may be seen in the entranceway leading to the assembly. By choosing to use these visual references to Greek architectural elements the provincial government was making a political statement. Through classical visual references the government of Manitoba was attempting to align itself with powerful civilizations of the past.
This theme of power is continued in the interior rotunda of the dome. The marble flooring, square coffers in the dome, and the use of Corinthian columns to visually frame a mural immediately reminds one of classical influences seen in buildings such as the Pantheon in Rome. The cupola and decoration of the dome also recalls Italian Renaissance influences, although it has been given an agricultural theme in the use of a wheat grain motif appropriate to the young prairie province. The marble of the flooring also has a Grecian key pattern inlay surrounding a balustrade and light well. The emphasis on clarity, order, and rationality throughout the building is indicative of what some have referred to as “Beaux-Arts influenced classical purity.”[7]
The sculptural elements of the building combine Greek, Roman and Egyptian motifs. Above the main portico in the pediment are various carved limestone sculptures. In reference to the meanings of the pedimental sculptures, Simon left quite a detailed account of his conception:
"In the centre is a seated symbolical female figure representing Manitoba. In the left-hand corner the figure of Enterprise beckons the workers to the Land of Promise. Next is a finely modeled bull led by Europa, signifying the immigration from Europe and adjoining the central figure is a group of father, mother, and child, the new family in the land. In the right-hand corner are two figures embracing and clasping a jar, whence issues a stream of water. These represent the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers fertilizing the earth. Next is a plough man with his horse, tilling the soil, whilst the male and female figures bring the fruits of the Soil of Manitoba."[8]
The central allegorical female figure representing Manitoba is a continuation in a tradition going back to ancient Greek times. Sculptors would often use female figural sculptures to personify city states, as in the Tyche of Antioch from the Hellenistic period. The idea of having sculptural figures representing important rivers and agricultural practices is also inspired from classical influences, as is the more obvious reference to Europa, one of the many love interests of the Greek god Zeus. The drapery of Europa in particular, which reveals the structure of the body beneath, seems heavily influenced by Hellenistic works such as the Nike of Samothrace, as does the exaggerated musculature of the plough man which recalls the Laocoon from the same period. The two sphinxes which flank the pediment and represent the wisdom of the legislators located inside the building are based on Egyptian models.[9]
Passing through the portico one enters the staircase hall where two life size bronze statues of North American bison stand at the base of a massive marble staircase. These recall the bronzes of animals from both the ancient Greek and Roman times as well as the Renaissance period, and are an emblem of the province of Manitoba. The artist who cast these bronzes was Georges Gardet, a French sculptor recommended to Simon by his former professor, Jean Louis Pascal from L’ecole des Beaux Arts.[10]
Facing the grand staircase on the third floor are pairs of karyatids. These columnar statues immediately remind one of the karyatids from the south porch of the Erechtheion in Athens. These statues were designed by British sculptor Albert Hodge, the same artist responsible for the design of the limestone sculpture for the main pediment, as well as the two
sphinxes flanking the pediment.[11]
Located in niches in the legislative chamber are two more bronze statues by Gardet, representing important figures from antiquity. Located in the east end of the chamber is the Biblical Moses, holding the Ten Commandments. In the west end of the chamber is a statue representing the famous Greek legislator Solon. By choosing to place these statues of highly regarded ancient lawmakers in the legislative chamber the government was once again attempting to elevate both the legitimacy and the supremacy of their own legislating activities through referencing the classical past.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the Manitoba Legislative Building is the gilded bronze statue which caps the building’s dome. The official name of the statue is Eternal Youth but it is often better known as the Golden Boy. Also a work by Gardet, the subject matter was based on Simon’s desire for a figure similar to the statue of Mercury by the Italian sculptor Giovanni di Bologna circa 1580.[12] The statue has recently undergone a restoration and regilding process completed in 2002 as part of ongoing restorations to the Legislative grounds.[13]
By making references to Mercury the Roman god of commerce, the Golden Boy is intended to represent enterprise and progress in the province.[14] One can see the quotations of Giovanni di Bologna’s Mercury in the open gait of Gardet’s runner with the outstretched right leg balanced by the up-thrust right arm. In one hand the youthful nude male carries a sheaf of wheat, traditionally symbolic of wealth and affluence. In the other hand the running figure holds aloft a torch symbolic of the optimism of the growing province, with one writer claiming that the statue is, “intended to carry to all the newcomers to the province the same message that the Statue of Liberty in New York harbour sends out to strangers on incoming ships – welcome and promise.”[15] The statue faces to the northwest where the vast majority of Manitoba’s wealth in natural resources originates. In 1919 the north was seen as the land of boundless promise and the Golden Boy is shown making bold strides forward towards that promised land.[16]
In the Golden Boy Gardet has taken a classical subject and adapted it to fit Simon’s particular contemporary needs. In this case Simon required a figure representing enterprise in what was a booming young province. Choosing to have a statue representing enterprise as an idealized nude male at the cap of the dome of the Manitoba Legislative Building is also indicative of the classical influences in Simon’s architectural style.
As has been stated, governments have long been fond of aligning themselves with powerful civilizations of the past by using classical elements in state commissioned art and architecture. By choosing to build Frank Worthington Simon’s conception of the Manitoba Legislative Building which included Greek, Roman and Egyptian motifs in its design and decoration, the government of Manitoba was attempting to portray a strong sense of civic law and order. This was achieved through the use of a Greek temple inspired main portico, columns of Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders throughout the building, a Roman inspired central dome over the structure, and the use of classically inspired sculptural decorations throughout the building.
[1] Robin Middleton. The Beaux-Arts and Nineteenth-Century French Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 1982. pg. 10.
[2] Marilyn Baker. Symbol in Stone : The Art and Politics of a Public Building : Manitoba's Third Legislative Building. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1986. pg. 43.
[3] Middleton, pg. 10.
[4] Baker, pg. 20.
[5] Baker, pg. 20.
[6] Baker, pg. 21.
[7] Baker, pg. 44.
[8] Baker, pg. 82.
[9] Baker, pg. 82.
[10] Baker, pg. 80.
[11] Baker, pg. 82
[12] Hubert G. Mayes. “The story of a symbol: Golden Boy.” The Beaver. Vol. 73, Iss. 4, 1993. pg. 28
[13] Government of Manitoba. “Manitoba Golden Boy Restoration Project Update.” Manitoba Government News Release. 2001. Government of Manitoba. 25 July 2001..
[14] Baker, pg. 126.
[15] Baker, pg. 127.
[16] Mayes, pg. 28.
Classical architecture has been a reoccurring fascination of architects for centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries L’ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris was revitalizing classical forms. Architects from this school would build on a grand scale using classical elements in their designs.[1] One example of this type of construction is the Manitoba Legislative Building built between 1913 and 1920. The Manitoba Legislative Building is classical through the combination of Greek architectural elements, a central dome, and the use of decorative sculpture throughout the structure. The building is an example of government using a classical visual vocabulary put in a modern syntax in order to portray civic law and order.
The Manitoba Legislative Building design was the work of British born architect Frank Worthington Simon. Simon studied at L’ecole des Beaux-Arts under the famous architect Jean Louis Pascal.[2] One of the inaugural lectures given by a faculty member at L’ecole des Beaux Arts claimed that the canon of art which would inspire the students of the school would be influenced by works such as, “the Parthenon and the Roman baths and amphitheatres, but it is also Sancta Sophia and Notre-Dame, it is St. Ouen at Rouen as well as St. Peter’s or the Palazzo Farnese in Rome and the Louvre in Paris.”[3] It is clear that students of this school would draw heavily from classical influences of the past in executing their works.
The province of Manitoba commissioned Simon and his assistants to design a building that would fulfill the desire for a more imposing structure to represent the seat of the provincial government’s power.[4] This desire grew out of the dramatic population increase and economic growth that had occurred in Winnipeg during the early 20th century. In 1881 the population of Manitoba had been 62,260 and by 1901 that figure had grown to 255,211.[5] At the time there were many who believed that Winnipeg was destined to become the financial centre of Canada.[6] With this belief in a strong future on the minds of those who governed the province, it was deemed necessary to have a building which reflected Manitoba’s growing power in Canada. The grand scale of the building and the desire for architectural elements which reflected state power made for a perfect fit for Simon and the classical elements his work exhibited.
Simon’s plan for the building called for an entrance portico based on that of a Greek temple, a ground plan based on the shape of an H, and a central dome for the structure. One enters the building through the columned portico on the north facade. The columns are of the Ionic order and are repeated in the tower at the base of the dome above, the repetition of their vertical elements adding to an illusion of greater height for the building. A dentil course runs below the cornice of the building, unifying the portico with the wider portion of the façade. Inside the building, located in the rotunda are four pairs of Corinthian columns. Smaller order Doric columns may be seen in the entranceway leading to the assembly. By choosing to use these visual references to Greek architectural elements the provincial government was making a political statement. Through classical visual references the government of Manitoba was attempting to align itself with powerful civilizations of the past.
This theme of power is continued in the interior rotunda of the dome. The marble flooring, square coffers in the dome, and the use of Corinthian columns to visually frame a mural immediately reminds one of classical influences seen in buildings such as the Pantheon in Rome. The cupola and decoration of the dome also recalls Italian Renaissance influences, although it has been given an agricultural theme in the use of a wheat grain motif appropriate to the young prairie province. The marble of the flooring also has a Grecian key pattern inlay surrounding a balustrade and light well. The emphasis on clarity, order, and rationality throughout the building is indicative of what some have referred to as “Beaux-Arts influenced classical purity.”[7]
The sculptural elements of the building combine Greek, Roman and Egyptian motifs. Above the main portico in the pediment are various carved limestone sculptures. In reference to the meanings of the pedimental sculptures, Simon left quite a detailed account of his conception:
"In the centre is a seated symbolical female figure representing Manitoba. In the left-hand corner the figure of Enterprise beckons the workers to the Land of Promise. Next is a finely modeled bull led by Europa, signifying the immigration from Europe and adjoining the central figure is a group of father, mother, and child, the new family in the land. In the right-hand corner are two figures embracing and clasping a jar, whence issues a stream of water. These represent the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers fertilizing the earth. Next is a plough man with his horse, tilling the soil, whilst the male and female figures bring the fruits of the Soil of Manitoba."[8]
The central allegorical female figure representing Manitoba is a continuation in a tradition going back to ancient Greek times. Sculptors would often use female figural sculptures to personify city states, as in the Tyche of Antioch from the Hellenistic period. The idea of having sculptural figures representing important rivers and agricultural practices is also inspired from classical influences, as is the more obvious reference to Europa, one of the many love interests of the Greek god Zeus. The drapery of Europa in particular, which reveals the structure of the body beneath, seems heavily influenced by Hellenistic works such as the Nike of Samothrace, as does the exaggerated musculature of the plough man which recalls the Laocoon from the same period. The two sphinxes which flank the pediment and represent the wisdom of the legislators located inside the building are based on Egyptian models.[9]
Passing through the portico one enters the staircase hall where two life size bronze statues of North American bison stand at the base of a massive marble staircase. These recall the bronzes of animals from both the ancient Greek and Roman times as well as the Renaissance period, and are an emblem of the province of Manitoba. The artist who cast these bronzes was Georges Gardet, a French sculptor recommended to Simon by his former professor, Jean Louis Pascal from L’ecole des Beaux Arts.[10]
Facing the grand staircase on the third floor are pairs of karyatids. These columnar statues immediately remind one of the karyatids from the south porch of the Erechtheion in Athens. These statues were designed by British sculptor Albert Hodge, the same artist responsible for the design of the limestone sculpture for the main pediment, as well as the two
sphinxes flanking the pediment.[11]
Located in niches in the legislative chamber are two more bronze statues by Gardet, representing important figures from antiquity. Located in the east end of the chamber is the Biblical Moses, holding the Ten Commandments. In the west end of the chamber is a statue representing the famous Greek legislator Solon. By choosing to place these statues of highly regarded ancient lawmakers in the legislative chamber the government was once again attempting to elevate both the legitimacy and the supremacy of their own legislating activities through referencing the classical past.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the Manitoba Legislative Building is the gilded bronze statue which caps the building’s dome. The official name of the statue is Eternal Youth but it is often better known as the Golden Boy. Also a work by Gardet, the subject matter was based on Simon’s desire for a figure similar to the statue of Mercury by the Italian sculptor Giovanni di Bologna circa 1580.[12] The statue has recently undergone a restoration and regilding process completed in 2002 as part of ongoing restorations to the Legislative grounds.[13]
By making references to Mercury the Roman god of commerce, the Golden Boy is intended to represent enterprise and progress in the province.[14] One can see the quotations of Giovanni di Bologna’s Mercury in the open gait of Gardet’s runner with the outstretched right leg balanced by the up-thrust right arm. In one hand the youthful nude male carries a sheaf of wheat, traditionally symbolic of wealth and affluence. In the other hand the running figure holds aloft a torch symbolic of the optimism of the growing province, with one writer claiming that the statue is, “intended to carry to all the newcomers to the province the same message that the Statue of Liberty in New York harbour sends out to strangers on incoming ships – welcome and promise.”[15] The statue faces to the northwest where the vast majority of Manitoba’s wealth in natural resources originates. In 1919 the north was seen as the land of boundless promise and the Golden Boy is shown making bold strides forward towards that promised land.[16]
In the Golden Boy Gardet has taken a classical subject and adapted it to fit Simon’s particular contemporary needs. In this case Simon required a figure representing enterprise in what was a booming young province. Choosing to have a statue representing enterprise as an idealized nude male at the cap of the dome of the Manitoba Legislative Building is also indicative of the classical influences in Simon’s architectural style.
As has been stated, governments have long been fond of aligning themselves with powerful civilizations of the past by using classical elements in state commissioned art and architecture. By choosing to build Frank Worthington Simon’s conception of the Manitoba Legislative Building which included Greek, Roman and Egyptian motifs in its design and decoration, the government of Manitoba was attempting to portray a strong sense of civic law and order. This was achieved through the use of a Greek temple inspired main portico, columns of Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders throughout the building, a Roman inspired central dome over the structure, and the use of classically inspired sculptural decorations throughout the building.
[1] Robin Middleton. The Beaux-Arts and Nineteenth-Century French Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 1982. pg. 10.
[2] Marilyn Baker. Symbol in Stone : The Art and Politics of a Public Building : Manitoba's Third Legislative Building. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1986. pg. 43.
[3] Middleton, pg. 10.
[4] Baker, pg. 20.
[5] Baker, pg. 20.
[6] Baker, pg. 21.
[7] Baker, pg. 44.
[8] Baker, pg. 82.
[9] Baker, pg. 82.
[10] Baker, pg. 80.
[11] Baker, pg. 82
[12] Hubert G. Mayes. “The story of a symbol: Golden Boy.” The Beaver. Vol. 73, Iss. 4, 1993. pg. 28
[13] Government of Manitoba. “Manitoba Golden Boy Restoration Project Update.” Manitoba Government News Release. 2001. Government of Manitoba. 25 July 2001.
[14] Baker, pg. 126.
[15] Baker, pg. 127.
[16] Mayes, pg. 28.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Art 101
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Sending my love down the well
I hope you understand why the NDP fails so miserabley, election after election, to gain the confidence of the people. It is because you JUST DON'T GET THE BIG PICTURE. That is what is perhaps so ironic about it all - that you so think you do.
Good luck my commie friend. Should you succeed in convincing Canada of your ideals, please reach down your hand (ignoring the voice) and help me out of the pit of dubiousness you will have created and planted all yer minions in.
Good luck my commie friend. Should you succeed in convincing Canada of your ideals, please reach down your hand (ignoring the voice) and help me out of the pit of dubiousness you will have created and planted all yer minions in.
A rose by any other name
The quiet and barely discussed decision by the current Conservative government to include Canadian pension plan assets in their purported debt reduction scheme should be sounding bells not only in the households of progressive families but also in the neo-fascist families of Canada as well.
One need only recall the efforts of the former extremist Reform party to privatize the pension plan and its links to the current Conservative party in order to see a not-so-secretive trend developing. Ever since Mr. Harper’s days with the poorly named Canadian Taxpayers Association (for I am a taxpayer and not once did the views of this special interest group ever coincide with my own), the Prime Minister has had an eye for privatizing the CPP and thereby forcing all Canadians to live the neo-fascist ideal of economic winners and losers based on social Darwinism. Many soft hearted individuals will complain of my reference to fascism here, but this would be due to the lack of comprehension of what fascism is. It has become a social faux pas to refer to the word, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
By including the CPP’s assets in the government accounts, Mr. Harper has quietly begun the ball rolling towards weakening the CPP. This after the Liberals in the mid-nineties resolved the financial difficulties of the pension plan and restored its funding to ensure that all Canadians who need it will be able to benefit from it in the future. In Finance minister Jim Flaherty’s budget update last week the door was opened for future government attempts to borrow money from the CPP in order to use for paying down the national debt.
All levels of a society have a vested interest in seeing the funds of the Canadian pension plan go to the pensioners who contribute to it. If the government moves forward with its sinister plans for a society based on everyone fighting for themselves, then the most upper classes had better be prepared for a lower class revolt. This is what occurs when a government neglects the lower classes and caters to the interests of the wealthy elite, it has happened repeatedly in the past and there would be nothing stopping it from happening in the future.
When this government was elected many people were worried about a possible secret agenda of the Conservative party. In fact the true agenda of this government is not so secret; it is there for the public to observe. The problem is that the public has lost interest in keeping tabs on its political elites, and an informed public is the best protection against government corruption.
Should this party continue to be able to act in its role as government and continue to fulfill its own desires at the expense of all segments of society, no intelligent Canadian should be surprised if one day in the future we find our society has become embroiled in social upheaval.
One need only recall the efforts of the former extremist Reform party to privatize the pension plan and its links to the current Conservative party in order to see a not-so-secretive trend developing. Ever since Mr. Harper’s days with the poorly named Canadian Taxpayers Association (for I am a taxpayer and not once did the views of this special interest group ever coincide with my own), the Prime Minister has had an eye for privatizing the CPP and thereby forcing all Canadians to live the neo-fascist ideal of economic winners and losers based on social Darwinism. Many soft hearted individuals will complain of my reference to fascism here, but this would be due to the lack of comprehension of what fascism is. It has become a social faux pas to refer to the word, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
By including the CPP’s assets in the government accounts, Mr. Harper has quietly begun the ball rolling towards weakening the CPP. This after the Liberals in the mid-nineties resolved the financial difficulties of the pension plan and restored its funding to ensure that all Canadians who need it will be able to benefit from it in the future. In Finance minister Jim Flaherty’s budget update last week the door was opened for future government attempts to borrow money from the CPP in order to use for paying down the national debt.
All levels of a society have a vested interest in seeing the funds of the Canadian pension plan go to the pensioners who contribute to it. If the government moves forward with its sinister plans for a society based on everyone fighting for themselves, then the most upper classes had better be prepared for a lower class revolt. This is what occurs when a government neglects the lower classes and caters to the interests of the wealthy elite, it has happened repeatedly in the past and there would be nothing stopping it from happening in the future.
When this government was elected many people were worried about a possible secret agenda of the Conservative party. In fact the true agenda of this government is not so secret; it is there for the public to observe. The problem is that the public has lost interest in keeping tabs on its political elites, and an informed public is the best protection against government corruption.
Should this party continue to be able to act in its role as government and continue to fulfill its own desires at the expense of all segments of society, no intelligent Canadian should be surprised if one day in the future we find our society has become embroiled in social upheaval.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
On the Discrepancy of Taste
The discrepancy of taste is a topic which has interested thinkers for a long time. Can there be found an objective evaluation of one person's taste over that of anothers? Perhaps this question can best be dealt with by suggesting a hypothetical situation.
Imagine a situation of having to choose between destroying a difficult painting which gives great pleasure to a small elite (X), or a more accessible painting that gives moderate pleasure to a great number (Y). It is my belief that it would be preferable to destroy Y. The reasoning behind this decision to retain X and destroy Y is twofold; the small elite may be better trained to appreciate fine art than the general public is, and the small elite could later educate the public as to why one gains great pleasure from such art. The writings of David Hume supports this logic, for Hume believed that the merits of a work of art are best discerned by an ideal critic.[1]
History has many examples of works of art which are now considered to be important and influential and yet were not appreciated by the larger public at the time. Marcel Duchamp is one example of an artist who is now considered to be one of the most influential artistic figures of the twentieth century, although many of his works were not immediately understood and accepted by the general public. In the early twentieth century Pablo Picasso created Les Demoiselles d’Avignon during the same period that Henri Matisse had painted Le Bonheur de Vivre. At the time Picasso’s painting was viewed as ugly and profane while Matisse’s work was seen as more aesthetically pleasing. In modern art historical and critical circles however, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon is considered to be one of the most influential paintings of the twentieth century.[2] How does one account for this discrepancy of taste? At the time the Salon painters were more accustomed to art with themes of sensuality or pleasure, as seen in Le Bonheur de Vivre. Picasso’s work is monumental specifically because it makes a break with traditional Western illusionistic art. Because Picasso’s break with the Western tradition was so revolutionary the general public at the time simply did not know how to appreciate what he had done, although a few critics did realize the significance of Les Demoiselles. It is therefore important that the tastes of properly trained individuals should be valued over that of the general public in the appreciation of fine art, for the eye of the informed critic is more likely to recognize significant works of art.
David Hume believed that it was possible to provide an objective standard of taste. He wrote that, “It is natural for us to seek a Standard of Taste; a rule by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled; at least a decision afforded confirming one sentiment, and condemning another.”[3] Hume believed that the general public did not possess the refined taste required in order to appreciate art. In his view one needed to be endowed with certain qualities in order to properly assess the merit of a work of art. This is where his conception of the ideal critic becomes relevant. For Hume, an ideal critic must possess good perception in order to appreciate the delicacies of art, they must have experience of the kind of artworks they are dealing with, they must be knowledgeable about art, and they must be unbiased.[4]
In everyday practice humans do discern between good and poor taste. The fact that the Da Vinci Code is a best seller does not mean that Brown will replace Shakespeare’s preeminence in the world of literature in the foreseeable future. Fine dining is more highly valued than the cuisine of fast food restaurants, and similarly while sales may be higher for lower quality champagnes this does not translate into such wine being of higher quality than a bottle of Dom Pérignon. Why is a premium placed on certain works of literature, cuisine or certain wines? It is because the taste of the refined palate is highly valued and respected. In fact the current view in modern society equates the qualities that make a good wine connoisseur in a fashion similar to what Hume proposed for the qualities of an ideal critic. A wine taster must have a sensitive nose and taste buds in order to properly appreciate the delicate flavours of a vintage, they must be experienced and knowledgeable about wine, and they must remain as unbiased as possible.
As already stated, among the pleasurable pursuits of literature, food and drink it is readily acknowledged that discrepancies between good and poor taste does exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that what gives fine art an elevated status above that of everyday craft is a similar difference between good and poor taste. This discrepancy is precisely the reason why it would be preferable to retain the more difficult painting which gives great pleasure to a small elite; the general public may not have a refined enough taste in order to properly appreciate the work of art. If the modern art critic had to choose between loosing Le Bonheur de Vivre or Les Demoiselles forever, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that most would choose to keep Les Demoiselles. This would be due to the painting’s importance in the development of the Western artistic tradition, and in particular the avant garde movement.
Philosophers, being as strict as they can be about details, will still desire to know exactly what it is that an ideal critic would be judging in a work of art. The problem may be that philosophers are seeking a definitive answer for something that is difficult to quantify in terms of set protocols. When a wine taster comments on a specific vintage they look for particular qualities such as colour, clarity, bouquet, flavour and so forth. When it comes to fine art there are some particulars that one can quantify from immediate observation such as line, shape and colour, but often there are qualities to the appreciation of a work of art which are not immediately apparent in the artifact. These might be features such as the work’s provenance and history, the context in which the work was created, a shift in artistic tradition which the work inspired, as well as many other aspects which are not immediately appreciable to the viewer. Once again this is where the specialized focus of an informed critic becomes important for artistic comprehension and evaluation. A properly trained critic will be experienced with and knowledgeable of past works of art, and they will possess a refined eye for the detection of minute details in such art. Once the critic has evaluated an artwork they may then go on to explain the merits of the artwork to the general public.
There exists a belief in society that for humans to best understand a new phenomenon, individuals should be educated by trained professionals. This is why universities rely on professors to elucidate the intricacies of literature or poetry for the uninitiated. In the same way a trained art critic can also educate someone who is new to the appreciation of art. For example, the cubist movement allowed one to view the representation of three dimensional space on the canvas in a different manner than had ever been accomplished before. To the uninitiated the significance of this would not immediately be apparent, for an early cubist painting like Les Demoiselles is not at all beautiful in any traditional sense. In order to understand and appreciate the merits of Les Demoiselles one needs to comprehend the nature of the intellectual breakthrough Picasso had achieved by breaking with the rigid, canonical past. This understanding on the part of the viewer cannot be reached by observation alone; it must be explained to the novice by an expert.
It is clear that for fine art to retain a level of importance above that of average craft, there must be understood the discrepancy between good and poor taste. When an artist takes a revolutionary step which may contribute to the dynamic evolution of the artistic tradition, it is important to have the informed critic there to recognize such developments. Once an original innovation is understood by such an official in the art world the significance of the artistic development may be transmitted to the general public through education. Hume recognized the importance of ideal critics of art for their refined taste. It is evident from a social acknowledgement of the discrepancy of tastes in literature, cuisine and wines that the truth of Hume’s words rings true today.
[1] David Hume, Of the Standard of Taste, Philosophy 2807 Course Pack, pg. 17
[2] Hugh Honour & John Fleming, The Visual Arts: A History 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005, pg. 771
[3] Hume, pg. 5
[4] Hume, pg. 17
Imagine a situation of having to choose between destroying a difficult painting which gives great pleasure to a small elite (X), or a more accessible painting that gives moderate pleasure to a great number (Y). It is my belief that it would be preferable to destroy Y. The reasoning behind this decision to retain X and destroy Y is twofold; the small elite may be better trained to appreciate fine art than the general public is, and the small elite could later educate the public as to why one gains great pleasure from such art. The writings of David Hume supports this logic, for Hume believed that the merits of a work of art are best discerned by an ideal critic.[1]
History has many examples of works of art which are now considered to be important and influential and yet were not appreciated by the larger public at the time. Marcel Duchamp is one example of an artist who is now considered to be one of the most influential artistic figures of the twentieth century, although many of his works were not immediately understood and accepted by the general public. In the early twentieth century Pablo Picasso created Les Demoiselles d’Avignon during the same period that Henri Matisse had painted Le Bonheur de Vivre. At the time Picasso’s painting was viewed as ugly and profane while Matisse’s work was seen as more aesthetically pleasing. In modern art historical and critical circles however, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon is considered to be one of the most influential paintings of the twentieth century.[2] How does one account for this discrepancy of taste? At the time the Salon painters were more accustomed to art with themes of sensuality or pleasure, as seen in Le Bonheur de Vivre. Picasso’s work is monumental specifically because it makes a break with traditional Western illusionistic art. Because Picasso’s break with the Western tradition was so revolutionary the general public at the time simply did not know how to appreciate what he had done, although a few critics did realize the significance of Les Demoiselles. It is therefore important that the tastes of properly trained individuals should be valued over that of the general public in the appreciation of fine art, for the eye of the informed critic is more likely to recognize significant works of art.
David Hume believed that it was possible to provide an objective standard of taste. He wrote that, “It is natural for us to seek a Standard of Taste; a rule by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled; at least a decision afforded confirming one sentiment, and condemning another.”[3] Hume believed that the general public did not possess the refined taste required in order to appreciate art. In his view one needed to be endowed with certain qualities in order to properly assess the merit of a work of art. This is where his conception of the ideal critic becomes relevant. For Hume, an ideal critic must possess good perception in order to appreciate the delicacies of art, they must have experience of the kind of artworks they are dealing with, they must be knowledgeable about art, and they must be unbiased.[4]
In everyday practice humans do discern between good and poor taste. The fact that the Da Vinci Code is a best seller does not mean that Brown will replace Shakespeare’s preeminence in the world of literature in the foreseeable future. Fine dining is more highly valued than the cuisine of fast food restaurants, and similarly while sales may be higher for lower quality champagnes this does not translate into such wine being of higher quality than a bottle of Dom Pérignon. Why is a premium placed on certain works of literature, cuisine or certain wines? It is because the taste of the refined palate is highly valued and respected. In fact the current view in modern society equates the qualities that make a good wine connoisseur in a fashion similar to what Hume proposed for the qualities of an ideal critic. A wine taster must have a sensitive nose and taste buds in order to properly appreciate the delicate flavours of a vintage, they must be experienced and knowledgeable about wine, and they must remain as unbiased as possible.
As already stated, among the pleasurable pursuits of literature, food and drink it is readily acknowledged that discrepancies between good and poor taste does exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that what gives fine art an elevated status above that of everyday craft is a similar difference between good and poor taste. This discrepancy is precisely the reason why it would be preferable to retain the more difficult painting which gives great pleasure to a small elite; the general public may not have a refined enough taste in order to properly appreciate the work of art. If the modern art critic had to choose between loosing Le Bonheur de Vivre or Les Demoiselles forever, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that most would choose to keep Les Demoiselles. This would be due to the painting’s importance in the development of the Western artistic tradition, and in particular the avant garde movement.
Philosophers, being as strict as they can be about details, will still desire to know exactly what it is that an ideal critic would be judging in a work of art. The problem may be that philosophers are seeking a definitive answer for something that is difficult to quantify in terms of set protocols. When a wine taster comments on a specific vintage they look for particular qualities such as colour, clarity, bouquet, flavour and so forth. When it comes to fine art there are some particulars that one can quantify from immediate observation such as line, shape and colour, but often there are qualities to the appreciation of a work of art which are not immediately apparent in the artifact. These might be features such as the work’s provenance and history, the context in which the work was created, a shift in artistic tradition which the work inspired, as well as many other aspects which are not immediately appreciable to the viewer. Once again this is where the specialized focus of an informed critic becomes important for artistic comprehension and evaluation. A properly trained critic will be experienced with and knowledgeable of past works of art, and they will possess a refined eye for the detection of minute details in such art. Once the critic has evaluated an artwork they may then go on to explain the merits of the artwork to the general public.
There exists a belief in society that for humans to best understand a new phenomenon, individuals should be educated by trained professionals. This is why universities rely on professors to elucidate the intricacies of literature or poetry for the uninitiated. In the same way a trained art critic can also educate someone who is new to the appreciation of art. For example, the cubist movement allowed one to view the representation of three dimensional space on the canvas in a different manner than had ever been accomplished before. To the uninitiated the significance of this would not immediately be apparent, for an early cubist painting like Les Demoiselles is not at all beautiful in any traditional sense. In order to understand and appreciate the merits of Les Demoiselles one needs to comprehend the nature of the intellectual breakthrough Picasso had achieved by breaking with the rigid, canonical past. This understanding on the part of the viewer cannot be reached by observation alone; it must be explained to the novice by an expert.
It is clear that for fine art to retain a level of importance above that of average craft, there must be understood the discrepancy between good and poor taste. When an artist takes a revolutionary step which may contribute to the dynamic evolution of the artistic tradition, it is important to have the informed critic there to recognize such developments. Once an original innovation is understood by such an official in the art world the significance of the artistic development may be transmitted to the general public through education. Hume recognized the importance of ideal critics of art for their refined taste. It is evident from a social acknowledgement of the discrepancy of tastes in literature, cuisine and wines that the truth of Hume’s words rings true today.
[1] David Hume, Of the Standard of Taste, Philosophy 2807 Course Pack, pg. 17
[2] Hugh Honour & John Fleming, The Visual Arts: A History 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005, pg. 771
[3] Hume, pg. 5
[4] Hume, pg. 17
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Oil Slick
To Sartre is Smartre:
Oh, if only we could all be like you
To have our cake, and eat it too
To purport so completely and fully
How Harper's intentions were so wolly bully
You cry "It's just a clamour at the vote!
But cudos to you, let me lay down my coat.
Yer intentions are personal; yer meat is dry.
Make Quebec a nation and in me you confide."
But how do you know - how are you so sure?
Could Harper's benevolence not always have been pure?
"No, no, little man. I know it all!
For don't you know I live in the East after all?"
The left of yer slight is alright with me
We so need concern on oil, war and society
But be careful, my friend, to be in the head
Of the likes and the tracks you will undoubtedly tread
Oh, if only we could all be like you
To have our cake, and eat it too
To purport so completely and fully
How Harper's intentions were so wolly bully
You cry "It's just a clamour at the vote!
But cudos to you, let me lay down my coat.
Yer intentions are personal; yer meat is dry.
Make Quebec a nation and in me you confide."
But how do you know - how are you so sure?
Could Harper's benevolence not always have been pure?
"No, no, little man. I know it all!
For don't you know I live in the East after all?"
The left of yer slight is alright with me
We so need concern on oil, war and society
But be careful, my friend, to be in the head
Of the likes and the tracks you will undoubtedly tread
Quebec a Nation
Kudos to Steven Harper for doing the right thing in declaring the Quebecois people a nation within Canada. While it is obvious Mr. Harper's motivations in this matter originate not from altruistic intentions but rather an attempt to bribe Quebec voters, this recognition has been a long time coming.
While much of Ontario and western Canada have accepted the Americanization of of their societies, with a social system based on Darwinism and economic winners and losers replacing the old Canadian values of a more egalitarian society, Quebec has maintained a more progressive, caring outlook towards its society. Alberta in particular has decided to trade in the pre-1980's Canadian ideal of socialism lite for the neo-conservative ideal of fascism lite, and to many Quebecois this decision to hand Canadian resources to the corporate masters leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
So this latest development to accept the Quebecois as a distinct society is a step in the right direction. It will allow Quebec to better protect itself from the wave of unsustainable full blown capitalism sweeping the globe, and I for one am glad that such a place of forward thinking might just be preserved in North America.
While much of Ontario and western Canada have accepted the Americanization of of their societies, with a social system based on Darwinism and economic winners and losers replacing the old Canadian values of a more egalitarian society, Quebec has maintained a more progressive, caring outlook towards its society. Alberta in particular has decided to trade in the pre-1980's Canadian ideal of socialism lite for the neo-conservative ideal of fascism lite, and to many Quebecois this decision to hand Canadian resources to the corporate masters leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
So this latest development to accept the Quebecois as a distinct society is a step in the right direction. It will allow Quebec to better protect itself from the wave of unsustainable full blown capitalism sweeping the globe, and I for one am glad that such a place of forward thinking might just be preserved in North America.
An Aristotlean account of Friendship
It never fails, have a question or idea in your mind and within days somebody will happen to hit upon that topic. Lately I have been pondering the nature of human relationships. What is love? What is friendship? What does it mean to care about another individual? Thankfully today some firends and I had a wonderful discussion on the nature of friendship from Aristotle's point of view. I wish to both reiterate this discussion and clarify for myself as well as the reader Aristotle's conception of the relationships among friends. It is my opinion that while much of the philosophy of the Greeks as been abandoned or expanded upon to the point of no longer being recognizable as ancient Greek thought, some of their ideas still hold merit today.
Aristotle believed that true friendship had three characteristics; 1) it is a voluntary relationship, nobody could force a friendship at gun point for example, 2) friendship involves mutual affection, and 3) affection is based on good will. These seem to be fairly straight forward principles, for I doubt if anyone could argue well the idea that one could ever be friends with someone while under duress, and affection is not a spontaneous outburst, it involves a cultivated good will.
Aristotle proposes three types of friends; the moral friend, the pleasure friend, and the advantage friend. Of these types Aristotle values the moral friend the most, and his reasonings behind this distinction make a very good argument. He noted that among moral friends their aim or object of pursuing that friendship is virtuous; intellectual development and development of one's character. The nature of the moral friendship is valued for the sake of the friend as an individual rather than any other reason. The foundation principle of such a friendship is the moral good; both friends wish to see one another achieve self-actualization in their intellectual affairs and the development of their character. Finally, among moral friends the affection is substantive; in other words the friendship has a kind of permanence despite individual situations.
Among pleasure friends the situation is much different. These are the people you see at your favourite pub and anjoy pleasurable activities with. The object of the friendship is pleasure or the maximization of fun. The nature of the friendship is based solely on achieving pleasure and the friendship is founded upon physical/material good rather than moral good. Finally, unlike the case of the substantive affection of the moral friend the affection of the pleasure friend is incidental. You throw a party and after it is done you wish for your pleasure friends to kindly leave, while with a moral friend you would ask when you might see them again, and you take more than a passing interest in their well being.
Finally we have the case of the advantage friend, perhaps the most morally repugnant form of friendship and yet one of the most popular types. The object of pursuing advantage friends is personal profit or gain, it is solely based on self interest. The nature of the friendship is based upon an advantage provided, and the foundation principle of such a friendship is based on all sorts of personal profit. Like the pleasure friend the affection is incidental; so long as the wealthy friend pays for delightful vacations the affection is there, but once the personal advantage ceases to be the affection also ceases to exist.
In all of the above cases substantive good will is genuine good will, while incidental good will depends on the situation. For Aristotle the virtuous will have high intelligence and a firm determination; they will know what is right or wrong in a given situation and they will have the strength of character to do what is right. In this sense moral friends know what is right and they will act upon it. They value each other for who they are as individuals; their nature, character and habits. Since one's nature and character do not change overnight, the moral friendship which is based on nature and character also does not change quickly, it is more permanent.
It is interesting to note that all of the benefits provided by pleasure friends and advantage friends can also be provided by moral friends. The difference lies within the orientation of that friendship; a moral friendship is based on the sake of the friend whereas the other forms of friendship are based on physical/material goods.
In our little group which was discussing these matters, someone pointed out how sad it is that we tend to gravitate more towards pleasure and advantage friends. If one was seeking a new friend through the classifieds in a newspaper the vast majority would tend to be more interested in those who advertise their interests as being fun, achievement of pleasure, good times etc. rather than an individual who would advertise themselves as being focused on the moral good, what is best for society, social justice and so forth. The individual questioned what this situation has to say about the state of humanity. In my opinion it simply clearly states the natural side of our existence. When we bite into a chocolate bar, or swig a beer, or have an orgasm we have all kinds of chemical reactions within our brains which simply convince us unconciously that we are enjoying ourselves. If humans did not have these natural chemical drives towards gaining pleasure there simply would be no breeding, no progress or economic growth; everybody would simply be living a life of pure reason, which in itself seems an impossible existence for a partly natural being such as a human. Pleasure is our reward for fulfilling our roles as natural beings; we procreate, we consume and we create waste.
In any case it is interesting to note the truth of what Aristotle has placed before us. We all would easily admit that the vast majority of our friendships tend to be pleasure friendships, followed by advantage friendships, and finally we tend to have but a few moral friendships. Of all such friendships it is the moral friendships we value the most. This is because there is an unbreakable bond that we have fostered with the other individual, and being loved in such a manner is more valuable to a being which is both natural but also rational than any other material pleasure could ever provide.
Aristotle believed that true friendship had three characteristics; 1) it is a voluntary relationship, nobody could force a friendship at gun point for example, 2) friendship involves mutual affection, and 3) affection is based on good will. These seem to be fairly straight forward principles, for I doubt if anyone could argue well the idea that one could ever be friends with someone while under duress, and affection is not a spontaneous outburst, it involves a cultivated good will.
Aristotle proposes three types of friends; the moral friend, the pleasure friend, and the advantage friend. Of these types Aristotle values the moral friend the most, and his reasonings behind this distinction make a very good argument. He noted that among moral friends their aim or object of pursuing that friendship is virtuous; intellectual development and development of one's character. The nature of the moral friendship is valued for the sake of the friend as an individual rather than any other reason. The foundation principle of such a friendship is the moral good; both friends wish to see one another achieve self-actualization in their intellectual affairs and the development of their character. Finally, among moral friends the affection is substantive; in other words the friendship has a kind of permanence despite individual situations.
Among pleasure friends the situation is much different. These are the people you see at your favourite pub and anjoy pleasurable activities with. The object of the friendship is pleasure or the maximization of fun. The nature of the friendship is based solely on achieving pleasure and the friendship is founded upon physical/material good rather than moral good. Finally, unlike the case of the substantive affection of the moral friend the affection of the pleasure friend is incidental. You throw a party and after it is done you wish for your pleasure friends to kindly leave, while with a moral friend you would ask when you might see them again, and you take more than a passing interest in their well being.
Finally we have the case of the advantage friend, perhaps the most morally repugnant form of friendship and yet one of the most popular types. The object of pursuing advantage friends is personal profit or gain, it is solely based on self interest. The nature of the friendship is based upon an advantage provided, and the foundation principle of such a friendship is based on all sorts of personal profit. Like the pleasure friend the affection is incidental; so long as the wealthy friend pays for delightful vacations the affection is there, but once the personal advantage ceases to be the affection also ceases to exist.
In all of the above cases substantive good will is genuine good will, while incidental good will depends on the situation. For Aristotle the virtuous will have high intelligence and a firm determination; they will know what is right or wrong in a given situation and they will have the strength of character to do what is right. In this sense moral friends know what is right and they will act upon it. They value each other for who they are as individuals; their nature, character and habits. Since one's nature and character do not change overnight, the moral friendship which is based on nature and character also does not change quickly, it is more permanent.
It is interesting to note that all of the benefits provided by pleasure friends and advantage friends can also be provided by moral friends. The difference lies within the orientation of that friendship; a moral friendship is based on the sake of the friend whereas the other forms of friendship are based on physical/material goods.
In our little group which was discussing these matters, someone pointed out how sad it is that we tend to gravitate more towards pleasure and advantage friends. If one was seeking a new friend through the classifieds in a newspaper the vast majority would tend to be more interested in those who advertise their interests as being fun, achievement of pleasure, good times etc. rather than an individual who would advertise themselves as being focused on the moral good, what is best for society, social justice and so forth. The individual questioned what this situation has to say about the state of humanity. In my opinion it simply clearly states the natural side of our existence. When we bite into a chocolate bar, or swig a beer, or have an orgasm we have all kinds of chemical reactions within our brains which simply convince us unconciously that we are enjoying ourselves. If humans did not have these natural chemical drives towards gaining pleasure there simply would be no breeding, no progress or economic growth; everybody would simply be living a life of pure reason, which in itself seems an impossible existence for a partly natural being such as a human. Pleasure is our reward for fulfilling our roles as natural beings; we procreate, we consume and we create waste.
In any case it is interesting to note the truth of what Aristotle has placed before us. We all would easily admit that the vast majority of our friendships tend to be pleasure friendships, followed by advantage friendships, and finally we tend to have but a few moral friendships. Of all such friendships it is the moral friendships we value the most. This is because there is an unbreakable bond that we have fostered with the other individual, and being loved in such a manner is more valuable to a being which is both natural but also rational than any other material pleasure could ever provide.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Smells like Karl Rove Spirit
Recent media leaks that the government may be thinking of extending the income splitting it recently provided to senior couples to all couples is indicative of the desperation emanating from the PMO.
This past week we have been exposed to all kinds of indicators of a Prime Minister who recognizes that things definately are not going his way. With recent polls showing that a leaderless Liberal party has now passed the Conservatives in voter support, it is no wonder that Steven Harper has turned to discriminatory policies as an attempt to win the vote from his hard core supporters; married couples who care more about their own wallets than they do about anything else. The types of couples who move to the suburbs surrounding our cities in order to escape the civic duty of paying the higher property taxes which accompany the benefits provided by living in a city, while still taking in the economic benefits of living and working in the region of a major urban centre. Such couples contribute to the massive problem of urban sprawl and now we are learning that the government wishes to give them tax preferrence over singles.
This development should be of no surprise to anyone, this government from day one has cared little for governing Canada as a whole, rather it caters to the interests of its core supporters in every policy announcement. It is all too evident that the current government is no different than the one which preceded it, all they care about is how to get re-elected, and preferably with a majority so Canada can really see what this party has in store for it.
If one pays close attention to everyday political events it is all too obvious how hypocritical this government has become as it sniffs around for any vote that might be available for purchase. One one hand Mr. Harper claimed that his government would not sell out Canadian principles for the almighty dollar in his dealings with China. Yet when it comes to environmental policy and the laughable Clean Air Act, what has Mr. Harper done if not cave in to the pressures of the large industrial companies? On one hand Mr. Harper wishes to be seen as the defender of human rights against the indefensible and brutal acts of China. Yet Mr. Harper seems oddly silent on the human rights abuses by the United States seen in pictures from Abu Ghraib in Iraq and whisperings of abuses from the modern day ghulag of Guantanamo Bay. The Conservatives claim to defend Canadian values which according to polls do include concerns over the environment and issues like global climate change, and yet the government has removed its climate change website and put forward weak legislation in the Clean Air Act while waffling on Canada's Kyoto responsibilities.
It is sad really, to see how quickly the party which campaigned on a promise of change has reverted to familiar political games of hide and seek. One can only hope that in the next election most Canadians will see the Conservative party for what it truly is. One has to believe that Canadians will vote with the interests of the nation and indeed the health of the planet in mind, rather than voting for divisive and discriminatory tax breaks which are tantamount to nothing less than voter bribary in my estimations.
This past week we have been exposed to all kinds of indicators of a Prime Minister who recognizes that things definately are not going his way. With recent polls showing that a leaderless Liberal party has now passed the Conservatives in voter support, it is no wonder that Steven Harper has turned to discriminatory policies as an attempt to win the vote from his hard core supporters; married couples who care more about their own wallets than they do about anything else. The types of couples who move to the suburbs surrounding our cities in order to escape the civic duty of paying the higher property taxes which accompany the benefits provided by living in a city, while still taking in the economic benefits of living and working in the region of a major urban centre. Such couples contribute to the massive problem of urban sprawl and now we are learning that the government wishes to give them tax preferrence over singles.
This development should be of no surprise to anyone, this government from day one has cared little for governing Canada as a whole, rather it caters to the interests of its core supporters in every policy announcement. It is all too evident that the current government is no different than the one which preceded it, all they care about is how to get re-elected, and preferably with a majority so Canada can really see what this party has in store for it.
If one pays close attention to everyday political events it is all too obvious how hypocritical this government has become as it sniffs around for any vote that might be available for purchase. One one hand Mr. Harper claimed that his government would not sell out Canadian principles for the almighty dollar in his dealings with China. Yet when it comes to environmental policy and the laughable Clean Air Act, what has Mr. Harper done if not cave in to the pressures of the large industrial companies? On one hand Mr. Harper wishes to be seen as the defender of human rights against the indefensible and brutal acts of China. Yet Mr. Harper seems oddly silent on the human rights abuses by the United States seen in pictures from Abu Ghraib in Iraq and whisperings of abuses from the modern day ghulag of Guantanamo Bay. The Conservatives claim to defend Canadian values which according to polls do include concerns over the environment and issues like global climate change, and yet the government has removed its climate change website and put forward weak legislation in the Clean Air Act while waffling on Canada's Kyoto responsibilities.
It is sad really, to see how quickly the party which campaigned on a promise of change has reverted to familiar political games of hide and seek. One can only hope that in the next election most Canadians will see the Conservative party for what it truly is. One has to believe that Canadians will vote with the interests of the nation and indeed the health of the planet in mind, rather than voting for divisive and discriminatory tax breaks which are tantamount to nothing less than voter bribary in my estimations.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Black
Certainly, the threat of nuclear war is blood curdling. After all, it was just that - a threat - that prolonged The Cold War and has now left the two largest nuclear nations, the U.S. and Russia, with nuclear arsenals that could cause global nuclear winter 100s of times over.
What I find more threatening it the U.S.'s stance to continue to proliferate this arsenal, and do so under the guise of a program called the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, now amusingly abbreviated SS & M.
"The (initial) human casualties from blast are almost totally caused indirectly by blast destruction of structures (ie. collapsing sturctures and violently flying debris). " - Mark A. Harwell, Nuclear Winter.
What I find more threatening it the U.S.'s stance to continue to proliferate this arsenal, and do so under the guise of a program called the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, now amusingly abbreviated SS & M.
"The (initial) human casualties from blast are almost totally caused indirectly by blast destruction of structures (ie. collapsing sturctures and violently flying debris). " - Mark A. Harwell, Nuclear Winter.
Shake your windows and rattle your walls
Wilk brings up something that I am sure must always be somewhere in the back of the minds of modern humans, the possibility that our world could end in an instant. 6,000 brilliant flashes and then nothingness. Or would it be nothingness?
I wonder what the true science on the subject is. What I would like to ask military scientists, who I am certain must have studied the matter, is what exactly are the chances of any humans surviving a catastrophic nuclear exchange? Is it that nuclear winter sweeps the globe and destroys all plant and animal life? Or do some things survive; the lucky, or depending on one's view the unlucky.
I often think about the society which would replace us. Would they take history lessons and laugh at our foibles in the same way that we laugh at the Classical civilizations which were victims of their own ignorance? Would they be sickened by the wealth and technology we had at our disposal and our lack of a social conscience to wield it properly? Would they study the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy in the same way that we do the Gracchi brothers?
If anyone has any good information on the science of what a post-nuclear world would look like, if the survival of any humans would be at all possible, please post the info or a link to it.
I wonder what the true science on the subject is. What I would like to ask military scientists, who I am certain must have studied the matter, is what exactly are the chances of any humans surviving a catastrophic nuclear exchange? Is it that nuclear winter sweeps the globe and destroys all plant and animal life? Or do some things survive; the lucky, or depending on one's view the unlucky.
I often think about the society which would replace us. Would they take history lessons and laugh at our foibles in the same way that we laugh at the Classical civilizations which were victims of their own ignorance? Would they be sickened by the wealth and technology we had at our disposal and our lack of a social conscience to wield it properly? Would they study the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy in the same way that we do the Gracchi brothers?
If anyone has any good information on the science of what a post-nuclear world would look like, if the survival of any humans would be at all possible, please post the info or a link to it.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Nature of Human Affection Part II
Last posting on this subject we began by examining the possible different natures of being; natural, purely rational, and beings which are part natural and part rational such as human beings. I began to discuss whether our need to create emotional meaning in sexual relationships originates out of the rational side of our nature; our urge to create meaning in a chaotic universe.
Today I wish to examine the nature of love. What is love exactly? What do we mean by “falling in love?” Is it an emotion? A communion? A liberation of emotion? A sickness?
It is important to examine the nature of love fully if one is to enjoy all of its benefits. When one defines love as a feeling for example, it seems it would be easier for that individual to find love than it would be for someone who views love as a communion. Love as a feeling is very prolific, and consequently when love is defined in the supernatural sense of a communion between souls it is much more difficult to come across.
In Plato’s Symposium, Pausanias differentiates between earthly love and heavenly love. For Pausanias, love has both positive and negative effects. Because earthly love is hindered by the temporal nature of the human body it is affected by all of its material defects. Heavenly love is the love of intelligent beings while earthly love is surrounded by material conditions and concerns. For example, if one lusts after a youthful body then love becomes a very temporary thing as the youthful body inevitably ages and dies. A heavenly love emanates from the nobility of one’s character or their ‘goodness’ of being. In a modern analogy it is a knowledge based love of another soul. In this way if love is based on physical attraction then as the body changes so too will the love fluctuate, and if love is based on the love of someone’s soul then it is stable and endures. However from a philosophical standpoint Pausanias’ argument is replete with problems. He has based his view of love entirely on the separation of mind and body, a hotly debated subject. I have already stated my view on this matter; that humans are bound both by our rational side as well as our natural side, so a hardened division of mind and body is not all that useful for the purposes of our current discussion. We currently have no proof that the soul continues after the death of the body, so the prospect of heavenly love has its flaws. How can a love be eternal and enduring when both lovers are already dead?
Socrates viewed love as being a mean between two extremes, the mediator between humans and gods. Love symbolized the eternal human quest for immortality, and the highest sense of creativity – for with no reproduction there would be no creativity. In this sense all human activities are facilitated by love in Socrates view, if love did not exist humans would not reproduce. In this way Socrates views love as being a rational pursuit.
I tend to take a different view on the subject, I view love as being a wholly natural occurrence which has no part in rationality. One need only refer to Nietzsche’s view of the ascetic and the philosopher as a clue to the base nature of love. In his Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche claimed that, “as long as there are philosophers on earth, and wherever there have been philosophers, there unquestionably exists a peculiar philosophers’ irritation at and rancor against sensuality.” The truth of Nietzsche’s claim is self-evident; from Aristotle to Sartre many philosophers have downplayed the importance of sensory titillation. Why does this distaste for the simple pleasures of life occur over and over again? Is it not because the philosopher has seen love as being something which rational thought is impotent to understand?
If love is truly a purely natural experience and rational thought is useless for us to make sense of our relationships, then once again we may see why it is that the casual sexual relationship may be plagued with problems. It may turn out in the end that we are biologically wired to desire what we interpret as meaningful relationships. This may be for no other reason than simply because evolution has deemed that sex with attachments is more likely to produce and raise children successfully to adulthood.
In short, can love truly be meaningful or are we once again applying made up values as we do in most other aspects of our social interactions?
Today I wish to examine the nature of love. What is love exactly? What do we mean by “falling in love?” Is it an emotion? A communion? A liberation of emotion? A sickness?
It is important to examine the nature of love fully if one is to enjoy all of its benefits. When one defines love as a feeling for example, it seems it would be easier for that individual to find love than it would be for someone who views love as a communion. Love as a feeling is very prolific, and consequently when love is defined in the supernatural sense of a communion between souls it is much more difficult to come across.
In Plato’s Symposium, Pausanias differentiates between earthly love and heavenly love. For Pausanias, love has both positive and negative effects. Because earthly love is hindered by the temporal nature of the human body it is affected by all of its material defects. Heavenly love is the love of intelligent beings while earthly love is surrounded by material conditions and concerns. For example, if one lusts after a youthful body then love becomes a very temporary thing as the youthful body inevitably ages and dies. A heavenly love emanates from the nobility of one’s character or their ‘goodness’ of being. In a modern analogy it is a knowledge based love of another soul. In this way if love is based on physical attraction then as the body changes so too will the love fluctuate, and if love is based on the love of someone’s soul then it is stable and endures. However from a philosophical standpoint Pausanias’ argument is replete with problems. He has based his view of love entirely on the separation of mind and body, a hotly debated subject. I have already stated my view on this matter; that humans are bound both by our rational side as well as our natural side, so a hardened division of mind and body is not all that useful for the purposes of our current discussion. We currently have no proof that the soul continues after the death of the body, so the prospect of heavenly love has its flaws. How can a love be eternal and enduring when both lovers are already dead?
Socrates viewed love as being a mean between two extremes, the mediator between humans and gods. Love symbolized the eternal human quest for immortality, and the highest sense of creativity – for with no reproduction there would be no creativity. In this sense all human activities are facilitated by love in Socrates view, if love did not exist humans would not reproduce. In this way Socrates views love as being a rational pursuit.
I tend to take a different view on the subject, I view love as being a wholly natural occurrence which has no part in rationality. One need only refer to Nietzsche’s view of the ascetic and the philosopher as a clue to the base nature of love. In his Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche claimed that, “as long as there are philosophers on earth, and wherever there have been philosophers, there unquestionably exists a peculiar philosophers’ irritation at and rancor against sensuality.” The truth of Nietzsche’s claim is self-evident; from Aristotle to Sartre many philosophers have downplayed the importance of sensory titillation. Why does this distaste for the simple pleasures of life occur over and over again? Is it not because the philosopher has seen love as being something which rational thought is impotent to understand?
If love is truly a purely natural experience and rational thought is useless for us to make sense of our relationships, then once again we may see why it is that the casual sexual relationship may be plagued with problems. It may turn out in the end that we are biologically wired to desire what we interpret as meaningful relationships. This may be for no other reason than simply because evolution has deemed that sex with attachments is more likely to produce and raise children successfully to adulthood.
In short, can love truly be meaningful or are we once again applying made up values as we do in most other aspects of our social interactions?
Friday, November 17, 2006
Kudos to Segolene Royal
Congratulations to Segolene Royal for capturing the Socialist party's nomination for president of France. Ms. Royal, who is a 53 year old single mother of four children, defeated her two male candidates handily in the male dominated world of French politics. In doing so Ms. Royal showed herself to be a truly modern woman, defeating her opponents based on her merits as an individual.
If current national sentiment is any indication, Ms. Royal may be poised to become the first female president of France in next year's elections. Her main opponent will likely be the highly controversial Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy of the centre-right UMP party. National discontent with the current political situation in France is working heavily in Ms. Royal's favour, as it seems the country may be ready for a shift to the left in the Elysee Palace.
Discussing her chances of winning the presidency Ms. Royal had this to say, "I am the only one who can win against the right. I embody the profound change that people are crying out for. For the symbolic father of the nation to be a woman - now that's a revolution."
THE WASHINGTON POST WITH QUOTE FROM OTTAWA CITIZEN
If current national sentiment is any indication, Ms. Royal may be poised to become the first female president of France in next year's elections. Her main opponent will likely be the highly controversial Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy of the centre-right UMP party. National discontent with the current political situation in France is working heavily in Ms. Royal's favour, as it seems the country may be ready for a shift to the left in the Elysee Palace.
Discussing her chances of winning the presidency Ms. Royal had this to say, "I am the only one who can win against the right. I embody the profound change that people are crying out for. For the symbolic father of the nation to be a woman - now that's a revolution."
THE WASHINGTON POST WITH QUOTE FROM OTTAWA CITIZEN
Discussions on the Nature of Human Affection
Rather than start off with my typical tendency towards tedious and inflammatory discussions of politics, I have decided for my first contributions to this discussion site to perhaps begin with a lighter topic as we approach the weekend.
Lately I have been ruminating on the subject of love and lust, the nature of human sexuality. Always an interesting topic for discussion, I decided to put forward some thoughts on the matter.
I think a good place to begin such a discussion would be to examine at least superficially the different natures of being in terms of the material universe. It would seem that we can conceive of three different types of being; natural, non-rational beings, purely rational beings, and beings who are both natural as well as having some part in rational thought.
Let’s examine the first type of being. Examples of this type would be anything from inanimate rocks to animated non-rational beings such as animals. Such beings have in them no part in rational thought, and in the case of animate non-rational beings only have inclinations and desires. A puppy dog, for example, has inclinations to eat, to be petted and scratched behind the ears and so forth, but does not have the ability to rationally think out the more abstract consequences of any given action.
Moving on to the second conception of being, namely the purely rational being, we see very large distinctions between this type and a non-rational being. Primarily, such a purely rational being would in no part be natural, since being a part of nature requires having natural inclinations and desires. An example of such a purely rational being would be the conception of an all powerful God. Because such a being would have no inclinations or desires, and would always intuitively know the right course of action in any given case, such a being would not be subject to ideas such as morality. A purely rational being would by their very nature constantly behave in a moral manner.
The final state of being in the material universe may be seen as those beings that are both natural and have natural inclinations and desires, as well as having been endowed with the ability for rational thought. Human beings may be seen as being representative of this final type. Humans are both part of the natural world and obligated to adhere to natural laws as well as having the capability for rational, abstract thought. It is because of this dual nature of humanity that I would suggest true casual sex in the common sense of the term may be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
First, it would help to explain what I am referring to when I use the term casual sex. I am referring to the idea of sexual encounters free of commitment, attachments, free of emotional feelings of post-coital guilt and so forth. The question is, can such a situation truly occur for beings who are both rational and natural?
Let’s examine why we engage in sexual acts first of all and perhaps this may give us some clues as to some possible arguments for or against this idea. Why do we engage in sexual acts? Do we do so simply in order to satisfy the physical drive for sexual release? If this was entirely the case then it would seem that masturbation would be as equally satisfying as sexual encounters, and much less messy, but this is often not the case. Perhaps then, it may be the case that there is more to a sexual encounter than physical gratification. In fact it is my claim that there must be, or humans would never go through the immense pressures, trials and tribulations involved in searching out sexual partners, we would all simply satisfy our own needs by ourselves. So it may be said that human sexuality is in part physical but also part of something beyond physicality. It may be the case that this is where our rational side is coming into play. Perhaps we rationalize meaning into sexual encounters much in the same way we attempt to find meaning in other chaotic aspects of existence through our rational faculties.
But, are there not cases of individuals who do live just such lifestyles? Consider for a moment the case of someone who indulges wholly in sensory titillation. A good example would be someone who imbibes large quantities of food, alcohol, drugs and sex with many faceless and nameless partners. On the surface it may seem that such a carefree lifestyle is fun and leads to happiness. There are many arguments that in fact hedonism may be a content way of living life.
Other philosophers might say that such a person is no different than cattle grazing in a field. They are slaves to sensory titillation and go through life living simply from experience to experience, and never fully engage with the joys provided by an intellectual aspect to life. These ideas involve questions into what the excellence of a human being is, is it simply to consume mindlessly? Or is there a higher form of excellence/achievement/contentment and indeed even happiness? Here I am discussing something along the lines of Aristotle’s conception of the ‘final cause’ of humanity being our self actualization, the excellence of being happy; Eudaimonism. Such questions would involve much more exploration than this treatment has intended, and will simply be left open to discussion.
To borrow an idea from Immanuel Kant, perhaps a good way of approaching the idea of satisfactory casual sexual encounters would be to look at it this way: view other people as ends valuable in of themselves and not simply as means to an end.
It would seem to me that perhaps the best way to approach the subject of casual sex would be from the idea of a social contract, similar to the social contract we engage in with civic government. We abide by the laws of our government and in exchange the government provides protection to us. If we approach our lovers as ends in of themselves, and express these ideas to them, perhaps the negative after effects of a casual encounter may be limited. But by using this approach, have we not already invested at least some of our emotional sides? At what point does a casual encounter cease being casual?
Lately I have been ruminating on the subject of love and lust, the nature of human sexuality. Always an interesting topic for discussion, I decided to put forward some thoughts on the matter.
I think a good place to begin such a discussion would be to examine at least superficially the different natures of being in terms of the material universe. It would seem that we can conceive of three different types of being; natural, non-rational beings, purely rational beings, and beings who are both natural as well as having some part in rational thought.
Let’s examine the first type of being. Examples of this type would be anything from inanimate rocks to animated non-rational beings such as animals. Such beings have in them no part in rational thought, and in the case of animate non-rational beings only have inclinations and desires. A puppy dog, for example, has inclinations to eat, to be petted and scratched behind the ears and so forth, but does not have the ability to rationally think out the more abstract consequences of any given action.
Moving on to the second conception of being, namely the purely rational being, we see very large distinctions between this type and a non-rational being. Primarily, such a purely rational being would in no part be natural, since being a part of nature requires having natural inclinations and desires. An example of such a purely rational being would be the conception of an all powerful God. Because such a being would have no inclinations or desires, and would always intuitively know the right course of action in any given case, such a being would not be subject to ideas such as morality. A purely rational being would by their very nature constantly behave in a moral manner.
The final state of being in the material universe may be seen as those beings that are both natural and have natural inclinations and desires, as well as having been endowed with the ability for rational thought. Human beings may be seen as being representative of this final type. Humans are both part of the natural world and obligated to adhere to natural laws as well as having the capability for rational, abstract thought. It is because of this dual nature of humanity that I would suggest true casual sex in the common sense of the term may be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
First, it would help to explain what I am referring to when I use the term casual sex. I am referring to the idea of sexual encounters free of commitment, attachments, free of emotional feelings of post-coital guilt and so forth. The question is, can such a situation truly occur for beings who are both rational and natural?
Let’s examine why we engage in sexual acts first of all and perhaps this may give us some clues as to some possible arguments for or against this idea. Why do we engage in sexual acts? Do we do so simply in order to satisfy the physical drive for sexual release? If this was entirely the case then it would seem that masturbation would be as equally satisfying as sexual encounters, and much less messy, but this is often not the case. Perhaps then, it may be the case that there is more to a sexual encounter than physical gratification. In fact it is my claim that there must be, or humans would never go through the immense pressures, trials and tribulations involved in searching out sexual partners, we would all simply satisfy our own needs by ourselves. So it may be said that human sexuality is in part physical but also part of something beyond physicality. It may be the case that this is where our rational side is coming into play. Perhaps we rationalize meaning into sexual encounters much in the same way we attempt to find meaning in other chaotic aspects of existence through our rational faculties.
But, are there not cases of individuals who do live just such lifestyles? Consider for a moment the case of someone who indulges wholly in sensory titillation. A good example would be someone who imbibes large quantities of food, alcohol, drugs and sex with many faceless and nameless partners. On the surface it may seem that such a carefree lifestyle is fun and leads to happiness. There are many arguments that in fact hedonism may be a content way of living life.
Other philosophers might say that such a person is no different than cattle grazing in a field. They are slaves to sensory titillation and go through life living simply from experience to experience, and never fully engage with the joys provided by an intellectual aspect to life. These ideas involve questions into what the excellence of a human being is, is it simply to consume mindlessly? Or is there a higher form of excellence/achievement/contentment and indeed even happiness? Here I am discussing something along the lines of Aristotle’s conception of the ‘final cause’ of humanity being our self actualization, the excellence of being happy; Eudaimonism. Such questions would involve much more exploration than this treatment has intended, and will simply be left open to discussion.
To borrow an idea from Immanuel Kant, perhaps a good way of approaching the idea of satisfactory casual sexual encounters would be to look at it this way: view other people as ends valuable in of themselves and not simply as means to an end.
It would seem to me that perhaps the best way to approach the subject of casual sex would be from the idea of a social contract, similar to the social contract we engage in with civic government. We abide by the laws of our government and in exchange the government provides protection to us. If we approach our lovers as ends in of themselves, and express these ideas to them, perhaps the negative after effects of a casual encounter may be limited. But by using this approach, have we not already invested at least some of our emotional sides? At what point does a casual encounter cease being casual?
Boom!
A significant majority of experts on the subject agree that "100 hydrogen bombs would suffice to guarentee American deterrence."* As of 2000, the American arsenal stood at 10,000 bombs.
*Dr. Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger
Thursday, November 16, 2006
What's gripping the city ain't hittin' the town
first off - cudos to dave for starting the blog.
secondly - let my pic hold no bearing to my sincerity.
thirdly - i'm concerned. i've often exibited my concern that 'the future is nuclear' - a catch phrase i sing to a song i don't know. but i truly believe it. we sing like clockwork to the largest superpower ever known or ever conceived, and yet we sing along with the british as the only ones in unison. why? is it only trade? is it only historical precident? or is it just the almighty dollar?
My Rant Your Rave
The first posting of this blog is to introduce the contenders. We are from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. All raised in the land of the free and easy, we have developed into young independant minds with true opinon and spirit. Read our thoughts and please add your comments - but be ready to receive and respond to criticism as all are considered game.
DM
DM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)