Peter, years ago I took issue with you on several occasions, without useful outcome. But I must agree that Descartes was misguided. He observed thinking, from which he concluded “I think, therefore I am,” rather than noting that he was observing a process, the process of thinking, of things arising and passing in the mind.

But I agree with little else you say, apart from on how we relate to others. Rather than draft afresh, I’ll first copy a couple of recent posts on the blog of Bill Hooke, a committed Christian and meteorologist whom I regard highly. Bill’s topic was “Climate Change in the American Christian Mind.” http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=1269

1.“Is caring for the natural environment a religious responsibility?” No, the responsibility of each of us is to develop wisdom and understanding, which naturally leads to a peaceful, harmonious life, good for ourselves and good for others. Inherent in that is a modest lifestyle and caring for all life. With wisdom, we will make harmonious decisions without needing the notion of responsibility for the environment. So religious leaders concerned for the environment should concentrate on what should be their core task, helping people with their spiritual development – although the latter is, of course, the responsibility of each individual, you have to do the work rather than leave it to external forces.

2. If we are looking at moral imperatives, I don’t think that costly measures which might slightly reduce warming if it resumes are a high priority. What will happen to the climate in 100 years’ time or so is speculation, and the future always surprises us. What is fact is that through fossil fuel energy, freeish markets, freeish trade and capitalist enterprise, billions of people have gone from lives which were “nasty, brutish and short” to lives of comparative plenty, where they have clean water, sanitation, health and education services and don’t have to focus entirely on getting enough food for themselves and their dependents. Another fact is that billions are yet to make this transition, and that fossil fuel use is critical to their future well-being. (more)

(cont) When peoples’ lives are no longer dominated by daily survival, they have the time and resources both for spiritual development and for caring for their environment. To ignore that is not being “morally responsible.”

As an economist, I think that the best way that we can prepare for whatever future emerges is by increasing our capacity to deal with an ever-changing world. This involves policies promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, flexibility, individual initiative and self-reliance. This is in stark contrast to the central direction and regulation favoured by those proposing GHG emissions reductions as an over-arching priority. (end quote)

So the question is how do we develop the wisdom and understanding to live peaceful, harmonious lives, good for ourselves and good for others. Whether or not there is a God or gods, we need to do the work ourselves. If God exists, He will bless our well-directed efforts. But he would surely support the effort, rather than worship of Himself, I can’t see that He’d value that at all. Nor do I see value in belief. Belief is not knowledge, it is not our own wisdom, it is too often a substitute for the search of wisdom which we all need to pursue. Jesus said that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” Saints and sages have for millennia have advised “Know thyself.” Some such as the Buddha have shown how we can do this, with great benefits. When we understand the reality of the Universe, through our own direct experience rather than intellectually from external sources or at then purely rational, say Descarteian, level, then we will live as you and any God would wish.

It's all that thinking that's the problem Peter!

If you would just learn to still the conscious mind/learn to meditate as part of your daily ritual; you'll find, like everyone else who's mastered it; [like most esoteric Christians,] you'll know who you are and what's real!?

Not for nothing is it writ large, seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within!

Meditation is not walking about reading from this or that gospel or even a quiet reverie; even though a pleasant enough way to waste your limited time; but rather, completely stilling the endless monkey chatter that is the common human condition.

Take the time to just stop and listen to your own conscious mind and some of the endless rubbish it produces, if only to discover what Descartes meant by duality!?

I could instruct you but I'm adverse to wasting my time or casting my pearls?

Besides there are plenty of books describing how to, minus all the usual dogma that all too often accompanies the lesson!

In any event, you yourself need to be the one who breaks out of that all too comfortable cocoon you've created for yourself; but only if you would know the truth that finally sets you free!?

Alternatively you could remain where you are; after all if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise?
Rhrosty.

Congratulations, Peter - this is a deep and great article. I fully agree.

Hi Peter, Nice try, but you are digging into very soft sand that leads to wishful thinking. The organ in my head that lets me "think" is my brain. If it is damaged or dead I cannot think. When I do think I am living. How I choose to think is best determined by the patterns inculcated in my brain during its development (whether exogenous or endogenous) and by rational thought especially if supplemented by evidence. You may choose to enjoy religious experiences but I do not. Unlike for most of the past 5000 or so years acceptance of religion is now not required for a peaceful and progressive life in the modern era. Religion is still around but is now very much a personal matter and that is how it should be in my view. Every day I marvel at the wonder (and enjoyment) of my life and regret that some humans are still denied the opportunities I have. If the world is headed for catastrophe it will be rational thought by hard headed scholars and philosophers including real scientists that will confront the problem. If we and they collectively succeed humans will continue to survive on planet earth. If not humans will become extinct like the dinosaurs. Of course any one of several cosmic calamities such as a massive meteor might take away any choice we humans have at any time. Cheers.

‘morning Peter,

I have to agree with Rhrosty on this one. Too much thinking.

In corporate we used to have an expression “death by creeping excellence”, this was synonymous with a similar description in the research and development field, at some point one has to “freeze the design and get into production”.

It seems that in “thinking” you have blasted through the issues at close to the speed of light?

“Cartesian dualism”?

Am I right in thinking that you are alluding to the dichotomy between thinking you were, but finding you were not when you tried to translate what you thought you knew into what you believed to be some form of meaningful actions. Which turned out in the end, to be a manifestation of pseudo theological conjunctive analysis, that ended up translating into a failure to connect with reality?

When Peter, are you going to step down from your lofty theological mountain and put together some stone tablets that we can load onto a Ute to take home for the missus?

I admire your intellect enormously, but in the end, it’s value is directly proportional to what can be translated into meaningful action. Instead, you go for the “inverse square” formula which if I remember correctly, never arrives anywhere.

Give us a break Peter, we are just low life’s scrambling to understand Monty Python!

Peter, In an effort to twist Descartes maxim to conform to your religious views, you've tied yourself in a knot. "I think, therefore I am" is a very simple truism. Humans are animals that have evolved with all the traits of every other animal that share this planet. Survival has always required many of the behaviours you dislike - selfishness, aggression, accumulation of valuables. About ten thousand years ago when the climate stabilised sufficiently for humans to farm and live in permanent settlements, it became clear that survival also required deliberate control of instinctive behaviours. This change/modification requires us to think about our behaviour. We can be more or less civilised animals only if we think about our situation. I am what I am because I think.
I like the Bedouin saying - "Nature is god, thought is prayer."

Dear Ybgirp,

"Cogito Ergo Sum" is in error:

"I dance, therefore those legs which I call 'mine' exist".
"I sing, therefore that voice-chord which I call 'mine' exists".
"I weave, therefore those hands which I call 'mine' exist".
...
Similarly,
"I think, therefore that mind/brain which I call 'mine' exists".

That I AM requires no proof, nor can it be derived, nor does it require thinking, dancing, singing, weaving or even breathing - either you know it, or you don't.

If ever there was an activity that could be called rationalisation it would have to be ‘theological thinking’.

All theological thinking is rationalisation without exception. Theological dogmas and dictates are all rationalisations of religious behaviour. Religious people try to justify their behaviour by dreaming up rationalisations for it. They know that their behaviour is totally irrational but sometimes they try to explain their behaviour as if it is like other behaviours and attempt to make it sound reasonable.

A person who spends five hours down the pub every night drinking himself in to a stupor will, when challenged, claim that he is not an alcoholic but that rather that he is a sociable fellow who likes company. He will try and convince himself by rationalising his behaviour and making it sound like a good thing. He is avoiding the reality that he has serious emotional problems.

Workaholics, fitness fanatics, compulsive shoppers, problem gamblers all try and deal with their problems by behaviours which cannot help them. They try every rationalisation they can think of to deny the reality of their emotional pain. Drinking, work, exercise, shopping and gambling can all be enjoyable when done appropriately. As activities they have redeeming qualities but religious behaviour has none.

People who indulge in religious behaviour do so because they have emotional problems and they try to rationalise this behaviour. Over the millennia such rationalisations can become so ingrained into the culture that they are mistaken for valid reasons. These rationalisations become written down and collected into books like bibles and Korans. You can even go to some of the most prestigious Universities in the world and obtain a degree based on your knowledge of these rationalisations. No matter how complex and ‘sophisticated’ these rationalisations appear on the surface they remain simply rationalisations. No amount of thinking about these rationalisations or ‘theological thinking’ will make you a better person. It is like trying to deny you are drunk by drinking even more.

phanto, you say that "All theological thinking is rationalisation." Not only theological. The rational, thinking part of the mind is a very small part of the whole, and we are constantly driven by reactions and past conditionings of the deeper part of the mind, the so-called subconscious. We can use the rational thinking to resolve problems, e.g.in engineering, maths etc, but our ideas and behaviour are driven mainly by the non-rational part of the mind. We can only see clearly when we free ourselves of past conditionings and observe the reality of the present moment as it is, in its true nature. This requires self-disciplne and properly-directed effort, not dependence on or obeisance to any external entity, whether real or imagined.

Dear Peter,

You wrote: "We imagine that religion can be reduced to whether or not we believe in God or whether we have been saved or accepted Jesus into our lives."

You have use the unfortunate habit using the word, religion, to refer to your particular religious belief. You are the one who would reduce religion to your cult. Religion is a concept much broader than Christianity.

Religion may have nothing to do with a belief in God. Buddhists have a religious tradition that goes back seven centuries before Christianity. One can follow that tradition without acknowledging any deity at all.

One can be a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i or other monotheist and not worry about Jesus at all. Concern with Jesus is not essential to monotheism.

Confusion of doing and thinking is the hallmark of tyranny. In a free society we may think anything we like. We may not do anything we like.

You wrote: "If we are having an adulterous affair, we know we are doing wrong."

However, if we think of having an adulterous affair but don't have one, we have done nothing wrong. If we confuse thinking of doing something wrong with actually doing something wrong we are afflicting ourselves with unreasonable, neurotic guilt.

Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity to keep people in subjection.

"In the absence of theological thinking we give ourselves permission to do what we desire and we rationalise our behaviour."

So the existence of an estimated 30,000 varieties of Christianity worldwide, and a similar number of non-Christian cults and beliefs, has nothing to do with people shopping for a faith which gives them 'permission to do what you desire' and 'rationalises' their behaviour? Really, Peter?

As other commenters have already pointed out, theological thinking is the ne plus ultra of rationalisation.

Dear Yuyutsu,
You are correct, of course. However, Latin lends itself to clever sayings, at times seeming almost like shorthand, which is one reason for its use in succinct school mottoes. Cogito ergo sum can be interpreted as I think therefore I am what I am.
"Pergo et Perago", for example, is generally accepted as "I undertake and I achieve" but it is probably an over simplistic attempt. Each of these two words can have several slightly different meanings and the essence may get lost in translation. One educational institution has translated it as "Strive to Achieve". The different meanings for pergo include to continue, proceed, go on with, pursue, press on, make haste etc. Perago could mean accomplish, complete, carry through the end, finish, thrust through, pierce through and so on.

The so called "theological" thinking based on a creator-God idealism is not any different than thinking based on a secular-realist model.
They both have the same foundational base, as described in this essay:
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html

The various essays featured in this book provide all the necessary conceptual and PERCEPTUAL tools for understanding the humanly created world-mummery in this time and place:
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/tableofcontents.html

This one essays addresses the one-dimensional nature of the now common Christian mind, especially as dramatized by Protestants:
http://beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/psychosisdoubt.html
Indeed much/most/all of right-wing or so called conservative religiosity is a a form of individual and collective psychosis.

This essays points out that the much vaunted death-haunted Western mind in both its secular/realist and its "creator"-God/idealist forms share the same basic uninspected presumptions about the nature of Reality: http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html

Among other things the various essays in the book featured here describe how exoteric Christian religiosity was a principal causative agent for the secularization of Western consciousness
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself

Hey Spinner, Monty had it "nailed" and as simple as; always look on the bright side of life!

I mean, if he was given several ship loads of horse manure he'd start digging for the herd of horses who have had to cause it!

And supported by science or the immutable cause and effect principle!

Or the other one which says energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed!

And doesn't that nicely dovetail in with what a horse can do to perfectly good hay; transform it all into horse Shiite!

Sort of sums up Peter's essay on duality doesn't it?

Tablets of stone? Maybe? (Everything passes with time even tablets of stone/what's wrong with normal aspirin?)

Levity aside, just as long as they're not written in a language that only Peter and one of two of his confidants alone can read/understand!?

Or so heavy as to need a crane and consequently, lift the front wheels of the ute completely off the ground!?

And cause (cause and effect) the missus to give you a piece of her mind, always providing after all these years, she can afford to donate any more of it?
Rhrosty.

Peter,

>>Descartes attempted to ground all knowing on the thinking subject <<

Not only Descartes thinks that there cannot be any knowing without a thinking subject who is its carrier. He “let loose” many ideas that led to Enlightenment and modern science (see e.g. Cartesian coordinate systems).

>> In this new formulation we are what we think, our Being is defined exclusively by our thinking.<<

This is not what his “cogito ergo sum” is all about. It is his candidate for a “first item of knowledge” from which he claimed to be able to derive the rest of what we know. “So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes as quoted in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4 ).

As far as I understand him, Descartes does not claim that “we are what we think” only the IMPLICATION that because I think I am, I exist, is set as a basic certainty (on which he “grounded all knowing” if you like).

Also Cartesian dualism (about the mind being a substance dwelling in the brain/body) is directly unrelated to the certainty of this implication. In other words,
“the success of the cogito does not presuppose Descartes’ mind-body dualism” (ditto).

The rest of the article is essentially a sermon on, among other things, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Mt 7:21) extended to “Not everybody who thinks about the Lord (in theological writings) but those who do what God wants them to do, will be saved”. I failed to see its relevance to Descartes.

As you can see, and could have foreseen, this was not the right “congregation” to address your sermon to.

Hi George,
I was a little apprehensive about this article and you have put your finger on its deficiencies. You obviously have a greater appreciation of Descartes that I and I bow to your opinion. My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email.
I was originally put up to writing this by a friends who pointed out our obsession with what we think and how this leads to duplicity in the absence of the integration of thought with life lived. I may have used Descartes as an inappropriate scapegoat but my point, I think, is valid, as the bible quotation you gave illustrates.

We have become a cerebral culture, thinking is what counts, and is rewarded. I have spent time with scientists who seem to be minds without bodies with dreadful consequences for them and those who are attached to them. I am also frustrated by the silly question about the existence of God,as if theological discussion begins and ends there.

But above all, thanks for your comments.

.

Dear Peter,

.

I agree with George. I’m afraid you have, perhaps unwittingly, denatured the sense of Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum”.

You wrote:

« In this new formulation we are what we think, our Being is defined exclusively by our thinking. »

That is not so, Peter. Descartes does not declare that “we are what we think”. Nor does he “define” our existence “exclusively” by our thinking. He has nothing to say about “what we are” nor does he seek to “define” our existence. He simply seeks to “prove” that he (Descartes) exists.

As George points out: “It is his candidate for a (the) “first item of knowledge” from which he claimed to be able to derive the rest of what we know.”

For Descartes, “knowledge” is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason. (1640 letter to Regius, AT 3:65).

Quite frankly I fail to see how Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” “drives a wedge between thought and action” but it is evident that the two are different. The “cogito” is determined by the subject’s “awareness or consciousness” and the “action” by his “conscience”.

The remarks of david f on this subject appear to me to be pertinent :

[ Confusion of doing and thinking is the hallmark of tyranny. In a free society we may think anything we like. We may not do anything we like.

If we think of having an adulterous affair but don't have one, we have done nothing wrong. If we confuse thinking of doing something wrong with actually doing something wrong we are afflicting ourselves with unreasonable, neurotic guilt.

Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity (religion) to keep people in subjection.]

To cap it all off, I regret to have to say that I also agree with many of the largely critical comments posted by the other participants on this forum to date.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I wrote: ”Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity to keep people in subjection.”

You modified what I wrote by writing: “Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity (religion) to keep people in subjection.”

I meant Christianity not religion. Christianity has a multiplicity of creedal statements such as the Nicene Creed, the Apostle’s Creed and an injunction in the New Testament. In many Christian sects communicants are required to state that they accept these creedal statements.

King James Version Matthew 5:29 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The above explicitly equates a lustful feeling with committing adultery.

Islam has one statement of belief: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

Judaism has one statement of belief: Here, O, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Neither religion has any additional creedal statements.

Islam and Judaism have many laws which one is required to observe. However, both religions are more concerned with orthopraxy (correct practice) than orthodoxy (correct belief). Christianity is more concerned with orthodoxy than orthopraxy. This is reflected in the multiplicity of sects in all three religions. The splits in Christianity are primarily caused by doctrinal differences - those in Islam and Judaism by differences in observance, practice, and law.

Both Islam and Judaism condemn adultery. Neither gets excited about a person thinking of committing adultery. Thought-crimes are a Christian not a religious concept.

I think Buddhism may also be concerned with thought-crimes.

Thank you david f... this is most interesting! I'd never realised it before.

.

Dear Graham Young (the editor),

.

I am very surprised that this article escaped the vigilance of your editorial staff.

It is largely flawed in its interpretation of Descartes’ renowned “cogito ergo sum”.

Even the author, himself, had the honesty to recognize it. He writes :

« Hi George,
I was a little apprehensive about this article and you have put your finger on its deficiencies. »

I concur entirely with George’s final judgement :

« As you can see, and could have foreseen, this was not the right “congregation” to address your sermon to. »

However, what I find more disturbing is the admission the author of the article judged suitable to publish openly on this forum (for all to see) of his disdain for his fellow participants. He states, with no apparent qualms :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

I have difficulty imagining that either you as editor of OLO or the members of your Editorial Advisory Board find this attitude acceptable.

But that, naturally, is for you to decide.

As a matter of decency and loyalty, I post this here, under the signature of my pseudonym, in addition to sending it to you under my real name to your professional e-mail address.

.

Dear Graham Young,

Following Banjo's comment, I like to say that I enjoy Peter's articles very much, I find his ideas refreshing and will be missing them if they cease to be published here.

Yes, regrettably Peter is addressing his articles specifically for a Christian audience and that detracts a bit, because as I am not as proficient in Christian theology there are bits and pieces which I sometimes fail to understand, but that's similar to, say, articles on economy in which I'm not proficient either.

Please keep it going.

---

Dear David,

Re "thought crimes":

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

[Exodus 20:17]

"Crime" is a civil concept (even when it appears in the bible): "sin" on the other hand is a religious concept, that of being off the mark. Covetousness is not a crime, nor should it be considered as such by any authority, but it is still a sin.

---

Dear George,

I am sure that Descartes tried his best to consider everything very thoroughly, still his argument is sloppy.

It's OK to make mistakes and I don't think that Peter blames Descartes, but rather the movement created by his followers which emphasises the importance of thinking, something which Descartes himself probably never said.

Dear Peter,

I do understand those faiths who promote an afterlife have a vested interest in painting the world, particularly its human inhabitants, in a negative light. It helps the sales pitch immeasurably.

I happen to believe the vast bulk of humanity are quite decent and moral individuals striving to lead good lives and have their children be better than themselves. I'm not sure about the circles you mix with but by the sound of this; “Outwardly, we pretend to be good citizens, but that is not where our hearts are, they are on the main goal, power, influence, money.” they can't be all that edifying. It certainly isn't my experience of those around me.

I don't think you should be hauling poor old Descartes over the coals when the great twisters and poisoners of moral behaviour are the ideologues, whether religious, political, or of any other stripe.

Somehow corporations have managed to convince those working in the sector that their greatest moral duty is to the shareholder. Somehow the highest echelons of the Christian faith convinced the victims of child abuse and their family members that not reporting offending clergy members to the police was 'the right thing to do'.

The users and abusers of the propensity of the general populace to do the right thing are the ones who deserve our condemnation, not poor old Descartes.

As an aside I'm wondering why you waited until later in the piece before 'nagging' us. Everyone knows Descartes doesn't go before the horse.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are quite right. Covetousness is a sin, and it is a sin of thought. Possibly all religions are concerned with both thought and action. However, I think Christianity emphasises thought and belief over practice more than the other theistic religions.

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury: "In a civilized all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes.

Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."

Dear SteeleRedux,

Everyone may know that Descartes doesn't go before the horse, but Sellick's unease is a horse of another choler.

Dear david f,

>> Thought-crimes are a Christian not a religious concept. <<

We have been through this before, but as you now admit yourself, there is a difference between sin and crime. For instance, intentionally missing a Sunday mass is a sin for a Catholic - I never heard it called a crime. The same about “committing adultery in one’s heart” - Jesus was speaking about sins, not about crimes punishable by (human) law.

The term “thought crime” is usually preserved for situations arising in modern totalitarian, utopian or not, societies, and have nothing to do with a mental state of “sinning against God”.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that one should not request ban on articles dealing with topics that one is not proficient or interested in. My concern was only if they are presented in the form of a sermon - and not all articles by Peter are - incomprehensible to an outsider.

I would not be so eager to call Descartes’ - or any other philosopher’s whose writings have become a compulsory reading for students of philosophy, like his Meditations - arguments sloppy. Whatever Western philosophy school you approve of, it was probably influenced, in this or that sense, by Descartes.

I am also not sure what you mean by “the movement created by Descartes’ followers which emphasizes the importance of thinking” since I do not know of anybody - influenced or not by Descartes - who would claim thinking (e.g. before, rather than after, acting) was not important

Dear George,

The difference between sin and crime is blurred when a sin is treated as a crime. Some religious bodies have within them structures which penalise their communicants who violate religious law. They do not leave the punishment for sin to God as Geoffrey Fisher recommends.

Catholic Canon law, Muslim Sharia of which there are many schools and Jewish law all support bodies which penalise violations of the various codes.

Dear david f,

I do not know much of the other two but Canon law is exactly that - a law. It is not concerned with sins (they belong to the realm of Christian ethics) or crime (that belongs to the “Caesar” i.e. state to deal with) but with violations of some explicitly stated Code.

Wikipedia: Canon law (Catholic Church) The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

For instance, “committing adultery in one’s heart” is a sin but it is not dealt with by Cannon law; acting against the interests of the “working class” (i.e. the Party) was a crime in a Communist country but neither regarded by anybody as “sinning against God” nor as violating the Code of Cannon law.

Thus Fisher’s maxim could also be rephrased as “all violations of Canon Law are likely to be caused by a sin, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as violations of Canon Law (that could ultimately lead to excommunication)”.

The realms of what are sins, what crimes in this or that country, what violations of Canon law overlap but no two of them are identical.

However, here I am treading on insecure ground since I am certainly not a lawyer, canon or else.

.

Dear david f,

.

« You modified what I wrote by writing: “Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity (religion) to keep people in subjection. … I meant Christianity not religion” »
.

Of course you did, david. But I did not replace the word “Christianity” with the word “religion”. I did not “modify” what you wrote but simply “inserted” in brackets what I (perhaps, mistakenly) thought was true. In anticipation of the 350 word-count limit, I took a short-cut. I apologise for the confusion.
.

You later replied to Yuyutsu :

« Possibly all religions are concerned with both thought and action. However, I think Christianity emphasises thought and belief over practice more than the other theistic religions. »
.

As we say in French: “dont acte” (“duly acknowledged”).
.

Wikipedia on Halakha (Jewish religious law) :

« Heretics do not have a portion in the world to come. Their souls are cut off and they are judged for their sins. »
.

Wikipedia on “thought-crimes” under Islamic Sharia law :

« Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate.

« If a person has never been a Muslim, and is not a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi, or under a special permission called aman. He or she will suffer certain limitations of rights as a subject of an Islamic state, and will not enjoy complete legal equality with Muslims. »

« If a person has never been a Muslim, and is a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), sharia demands that he or she should be offered the choice to convert to Islam and become a Muslim; if they reject the offer, he or she may become a dhimmi. failure to pay the tax may lead the non-muslim to either be enslaved, killed or ransomed if captured. »

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« Following Banjo's comment, I like to say that I enjoy Peter's articles very much, I find his ideas refreshing and will be missing them if they cease to be published here. … Please keep it going. »
.

Obviously, I cannot anticipate what action, if any, Graham Young and his colleagues may decide appropriate in response to my comment.

If it’s of any reassurance to you, I added the following message to the e-mail I sent to Graham’s professional address, as a preamble to the text I posted on the forum :

« Please be assured that I mean no harm to the brave Peter Sellick but I find his attitude to the participants on OLO unacceptable and requires some response from you as editor and, perhaps, your board if you judge it pertinent. »

In any event, Yuyutsu, you may recall that Peter indicated in his post to George :

« I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

You may find Peter’s e-mail address on his home page on OLO. It is accessible to anybody who is interested :

http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/contact.php

I am sure he would be delighted to add you to his mailing list.

There you go. I am even helping Peter to proselytise. Or, perhaps in your particular case, perhaps I should say to syncretise.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I was writing about practice not what it says in religious texts.

The Bible contains:

Exodus 22:17 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” That is a holy text to both Christian and Jews. Communicants of neither religion have killed witches in the history of Australia. That sentence would not be a reliable guide to the current practices of Christians and Jews.

The Bible also forbids eating pig. Jesus, as a Jew, probably never ate it. However, Christians in Australia will buy Christmas and Easter hams. Some Christians get quite excited about homosexuality citing the Jewish Bible as justification even though the New Testament says nothing about it. Yet they eat pig which is no more acceptable than homosexuality in the Jewish Bible.

The same thing goes for Islam and Judaism. Text in sacred works is not a reliable guide to what is actually practiced.

You wrote: “Wikipedia on “thought-crimes” under Islamic Sharia law”
There is not one Sharia law. There are many different Sharia laws. The one Wikipedia quoted was Hanafi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#/media/File:Madhhab_Map3.png
As you can see from the map of different Sharia laws Turkey is mostly Hanafi and is also 99% Muslim. Yet Turkey has separation of religion and state, and the state does not enforce Sharia.

Turkey has a Muslim majority as Australia has a Christian majority, but both countries do not live under religious law. Apostates are not subject to penalties under Turkish law.

Halakha is mainly derived from the Talmud which is a commentary on the Bible. The Talmud is complete. It reports discussions on various religious question both the the minority and the majority view. If there is not unanimity Jews are free to follow either the minority or majority view. However, the many different sects of Judaism may follow Halakha rigorously or completely dispense with it. Halakha is still subject to modification even though the Talmud is complete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_responsa_in_Judaism tells about the past and current modifications of Jewish religious law.
Most modern Jews even most of the orthodox do not believe in either an afterlife or heaven.

Dear George,

<<Whatever Western philosophy school you approve of, it was probably influenced, in this or that sense, by Descartes.>>

True, but I do not follow Western philosophy and the two Western philosophers that I appreciate lived long before Descartes - Ecclesiastes and Diogenes.

<<I would not be so eager to call Descartes’... arguments sloppy>>

Assuming that "Cogito" is translated correctly as "I think", how would Descartes know that HE is the thinker? He was understandably aware that thinking was going on, but who, if any, is the thinker?

When we are deeply absorbed in a book or a computer game, we temporarily identify with the hero and believe that his/her thoughts and actions are ours. If in that state we see a thought-cloud above the hero, we could believe at the time that WE are thinking that. It often takes a power-cut to realise that it was never us who thought those thoughts or did those deeds.

All that Descartes could really conclude is that there exists some mind or brain which produces those thoughts, one that he considered (without proper justification) "his", but nothing about himself.

<<since I do not know of anybody - influenced or not by Descartes - who would claim thinking (e.g. before, rather than after, acting) was not important>>

Thinking is just something we happen to do, not something so important that our "AM"ness depends on.

According to Yoga philosophy, thinking is second-best: the ideal is to quiet the mind so that it stops thinking ("Chitta Vritti Nirodha", http://abhyasayogaroom.com/Abhyasa_Yoga_Room/Yoga_Philosophy.html), but as this is not easy at all, meanwhile it is important to think only pure thoughts.

Can I belatedly add my support to Yuyutsu's response to Banjo. Please keep on publishing Peter's articles. I don't always agree with Peter's views, but he is always thought-provoking and interesting.

Having the humility to admit you're wrong is a virtue in my book.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thank you for all that detailed information. Apparently there is much greater diversity and evolution in Judaism and Islam than I had perceived via the media, including the major international media which I scrutinize regularly.
.

« I was writing about practice not what it says in religious texts. »

Thanks for the precision. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were speaking about “thought-crimes” as defined by Halakha (which I understood was Jewish religious law) and Islamic Sharia law, comparing these to Christian Canon law and opposing them to the notion of “sin” in religion in general.
.

It is interesting to see at a glance where the various branches of Islam are located in the world on those maps you posted. It seems the Sunnis have been more active on the international scene than the Shias. Thank you. I shall conserve that for future reference.

As for the other link you provided, I have the impression that delving into the intricacies of Jewish responsa is a lifetime task. I doubt that my curiosity will go that far. It is sufficient for me to know that it exists and what it is basically all about. Thank you at least for that.
.

Allow me to add as a final observation, david, that I have made a mental note to double-up on my efforts to try to understand more precisely what it is you are actually debating about before charging in like an elephant in a china shop.

.

Yuyutsu,

For me and many people - philosophically savvy or not - the statement “since I think (do some thinking, if you like) I exist” is self-explanatory and obvious. What is not nearly that obvious is that all other common beliefs can be derived from this, if I properly understand what Descartes meant.

You say you do not subscribe to any Western philosophy after Ecclesiastes and Diogenes. That, of course, explains our misunderstanding. There is not much to understand about contemporary mathematics if you stop at Pythagoras or Euclid. The same about Western philosophy.

Descartes has to be understood in the context of Western philosophy, the same as e.g. Patanjali that you linked to, and the various schools of Hinduism, have to be understood in the context of Hindu tradition that gave rise to concepts or ideas dealt with by those schools.

I could not subscribe to any version of Hindu philosophy, because I do not satisfactorily understand them. But even if I thought I could, I would not call their arguments, or approaches to thinking about the human experience, sloppy.

Sorry, it should have started "Dear Yuyutsu".

.

Graham’s response (by e-mail) :

.

« Hi Rodney,

I can’t see anything here I need to do anything about. Saying he doesn’t write for people who comment on the threads doesn’t look to me to be a matter for discipline. You can see how much most authors care for them – they generally don’t even comment, unlike Peter who does.

Graham »
.

Thanks, Graham. I have noted and understand your position.

My indignation was based on the indication on the website of the National Forum (which has since changed its name to The Australian Institute for Progress) that the OLO forum is “an area for deliberative democracy” :

http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp

You will recall that Peter wrote :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

He obviously reserves his writing for a selective audience. That is not deliberative democracy. It is elite deliberation.

Wikipedia has this to say about deliberative democracy :

« One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized. » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

I agree that it is not “a matter for discipline”, Graham, but perhaps an appeal to a dash of tolerance might do the trick.

.

Banjo,
What are you looking for from Peter? Are you accusing him of being intolerant?

What a fascinating digression.

I like Peter's pieces, they seem to represent a sincere attempt to express his efforts to understand the world as he sees it and they most assuredly provoke thought.

If he sometimes slips into what are somewhat impenetrable theological ratiocinations, I can forgive him. It is noticeable that over time his pieces have become more accessible in the main, which may reflect his own greater understanding.

More power to his keyboard.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

« Banjo,
What are you looking for from Peter? Are you accusing him of being intolerant? »
.

I always presumed Peter posted his monthly contributions for them to be read by anybody on OLO.

That is what I have been doing now for a number of years though I never succeeded in engaging any conversation with him, my latest attempt being on this thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306358

Graham’s explanation that “most authors don’t even comment, unlike Peter who does” is only partly true, but I put his lack of response down to the fact that he could not reply to everyone and that maybe he did not find my comments very interesting.

Then came his open avowal to George which raised my indignation :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

Perhaps I am wrong, Dan, but, in my view, that is an attitude of disdain - not for all “the people who inhabit the comments section” - but for “some”, if not for “most”.

Though Peter states that he writes for a selective audience, I have no idea what his criteria of selection are, except for those who “rarely comment but give me feedback by email”.

It seems that you, Dan, as an avowed “religious believer”, Craig, George, Yuyutsu and a few others are also among the “happy few” on Peter’s list.

That’s no problem if those are the rules of the game. So I thought I’d check. I thought there might be a charter on the forum but it appears not. All I could find was the forum “Rules” which redirect to the “Full Legal Notice” but neither of these documents shed any light on the question in hand.

The only indication of any relevance is to be found under the “About us” section of the forum which directs to Australia’s National Forum website where it is indicated

.

(continued)

.

(continued)

.

that the OLO forum is “an area for deliberative democracy” :

http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp

The expression “deliberative democracy” (or discursive democracy) was coined to describe a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making.

The basic idea is that everyone should have access to all relevant information on a particular topic in order to form an opinion and confront their views, for or against, on a forum. It is a form of direct democracy. While it is recognized that a general consensus is impossible to achieve, pluralism is not only admitted but willingly accepted. Contestation is considered a necessary and enriching factor to be sought and encouraged rather than excluded. At the end of the process the majority view prevails.

Not allowing everyone free access to relevant information, addressing oneself to a selective audience, ignoring pluralism of opinion or refusing contestation, as James Fishkin of Stanford University points out: « then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called “elite deliberation”. »

As regards the question you raise on the subject of “tolerance”, Zsuzsanna Chappell, a Fellow in Political Theory at the London School of Economics, has this to say in her book on Deliberative Democracy :

« There may be groups for whom participating in deliberation would seem to be simply wrong. For example a group of Trotskyites may believe that change has to come through revolution rather than through changing the system from the inside and that participating in political institutions rooted in a capitalist system is morally wrong. For them, participating in the deliberative process and especially, its values of mutual respect and tolerance towards other points of view, not to mention other-regarding behaviour towards capitalists, would count as a betrayal of their value system » :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=7yMdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=deliberative+democracy+and+tolerance&source=bl&ots=32GLXeEv5m&sig=7poE-PUxKggBr8j1H-CpXmyQwNk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=saBlVb3TIIX2UvaVgPgK&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=deliberative%20democracy%20and%20tolerance&f=false

I do not “accuse him (Peter) of being intolerant”. I suggested it as the most obvious explanation of his disdain for “the people who inhabit the comments section”.

Peter continues to remain silent but if you have a more plausible explanation to offer I would be delighted to read it.

.

Mope, never contacted Peter by email, although I do occasionally comment on Peter's articles. I would do so more often, but due to the nature of the topic, the discussions are often derailed by those pushing one POV or another. I suspect that this is the reason for Peter's comment vis a vis commentary.

Banjo,
You say you're not accusing Peter of intolerance, you're only suggesting it. Thanks for that clarification. And perhaps you're also suggesting Peters's not being democratic.

I can't see any of this. What I see is a guy giving his opinion, openly sharing his knowledge, and writing from his convictions. Anyone on earth is free to read it and respond. To me, this all seems deeply democratic.

When Peter says he's not writing for the inhabitants of the comment forum (e.g. me and you,) I interpreted him as saying that he wasn't specifically aiming at those of us who regularly comment here. I'm guessing that, like most people who contribute articles here, he is writing for anyone and everyone; that he's happy for the article to be read by whomever it is that is taking the trouble to come here and look at it.

You and I are free to add a comment. The author is free to add a rejoinder, if he wants. I don't see the problem. I still don't see what you're looking for from Peter. Perhaps he thought your comment was fine and was adding to conversation without needing further comment, and so he didn't need to respond. It is unrealistic and maybe unnecessary to expect that he respond to every comment. If it makes you feel any better, Peter has rarely, if ever, given much response to anything I've said either.

But on the subject of tolerance and democracy, I would recommend the recent OLO article (14/5) by Natasha Moore, entitled, 'Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech.' Her words on the matter were very eloquently put.

I am very happy to contribute to the comments on my posting if there is some degree of overlap in understanding. I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. You can imagine what it is like to labor away at these pieces and get superficial and abusive comments that show no engagement with the topic at all. I will engage with you if you engage with me!

.

Dear Dan,

.

« … perhaps you're also suggesting Peter is not being democratic. »

No, Dan, I was not suggesting that, but you are right: tolerance and democracy are two side of the same coin. There cannot be one without the other.
.

We evidently have different interpretations of what Peter meant when he wrote :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. »

I am pleased to see that he finally came out of the shadows and explained :

« I am very happy to contribute to the comments on my posting if there is some degree of overlap in understanding. I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. »

As we say in French: “dont acte” (“duly acknowledged”).

Despite our differences, Dan, I am pleased to see that we are on common ground in our mutual appreciation of Natasha Moore’s article, “Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech”.

It is an excellent advocacy of the values of the forum’s declared objective of “deliberative democracy”, the fundamental, (but all too rare) human values of mutual respect and tolerance.

.

.

Dear Peter,

.

« I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. You can imagine what it is like to labor away at these pieces and get superficial and abusive comments that show no engagement with the topic at all. »

Yes, Peter, I can “imagine what it is like”. As you may know, I have written a few pieces myself that have been published on OLO. I sympathise with you.

I also “labour away” on my comments to other people’s articles such as yours. I do not practise “knee jerking”. If I go to the trouble of commenting on something it is because (rightly or wrongly) I feel that I have something to contribute. I am sure I am not alone in that.

Naturally, in your particular case, being a practicing deacon of the Anglican church, you have set yourself up as a prime target for criticism and abuse on this predominately secular forum, far more so than any other contributor. That is a heavy cross to bear and, no doubt, a constant source of traumatisation.

I have no difficulty understanding that it could push anyone into making errors of judgement and seeking refuge in the company of an audience of devotees. It is a tough mission you have assigned yourself to, and pretty much a thankless task.
.

« I will engage with you if you engage with me! »

I note that you use the future tense in that sentence, Peter. That’s promising. Should I also interpret your choice of “will” rather than “shall” to denote a certain determination, as well ?

I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

.

.

Dear Craig Minns,

.

« What a fascinating digression. »

Sometimes an “obiter dictum” can prove to be of greater significance than the mainstream subject under discussion.

Peter, himself, had the honesty to admit that his article “I think, therefore I am not sure what I am” contained “deficiencies” and that he “was a little apprehensive about” it.

Whereas I believe there is a very real chance that this little “digression”, by clearing the air on a certain number of issues, could help render an understandably difficult author-reader relationship a little more compatible.

.

.

Heaven’s Joy Awaits

When We Leave This Low Land
We Will Cross The Jordan
Pass This Chilling Torrent
Heaven's Joy Awaits

Heaven Is Just Beyond The Blue Horizon
Just Above The Starry Sky, Starry Blue Sky
Far Above This Land Of Sorrow
Way Above Each Tear And Sigh, Every Sigh

Just A Few More Miles Before Us
Just A Little While To Wait,
Patiently Wait Soon We'll Sing Redemptions Chorus
Heaven's Joy Awaits,

Heaven Awaits Heaven's Breeze Is Blowing
Gently To Recalling
I Will Soon Be Going
Through The Pearly Gates

Heaven Is Just Beyond The Blue Horizon
Just Above The Starry Sky, Starry Blue Sky
Far Above This Land Of Sorrow
Way Above Each Tear And Sigh, Every Sigh

Just A Few More Miles Before Us
Just A Little While To Wait, Patiently Wait
Soon We'll Sing Redemptions Chorus
Heaven's Joy Awaits, Heaven Awaits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD0vfUcVxVM

.

.

My favourite version of Pergolesi’s “Stabat Mater” - composed in 1736 during the final weeks of his life (Pergolesi died at the age of 26) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERqmDg8zH_w&index=4&list=RDKaCPnMA8R9s

.

And of Fauré’s “Hymn of Jean Racine”, written by the nineteen-year-old composer in 1864–65.

The text dates from 1688 and is in fact a translation of the hymn “Consors paterni luminis” which dates from the Middle Ages (5th to the 15th century) :

« Verb equal to God, the Almighty, our only hope,
Eternal day of the earth and heavens;
We break the silence of the peaceful night,
Divine Saviour, look upon us!
Fan the fire of your powerful grace upon us,
So that all Hell may flee at the sound of your voice;
Shake off the sleep of a languishing soul,
Who has forgotten your laws!
O Christ, be kind to these faithful people
Who have now gathered in thanks.
Listen to the chants they offer to your immortal glory,
And may they come away fulfilled with your gifts! »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEtW0Fdn8-s

.

.

Here are two motets (short pieces of sacred choral music), by Baldassare Galluppi, born in 1706 on the island of Burano in the Venice lagoon, from which his nickname, “Il Buranello”, is derived.

In 18th century Italy, motets were sung either during mass or Vespers.

The text of the motet “Confitebor tibi, Domine”is a psalm of praise expressing respect and gratitude for God's gifts. The manuscript, bearing Galuppi's signature, was recently discovered in the library of the Dijon Conservatory in France. It is dated 1733. Galuppi was then 27 and his brilliant career as an opera composer had only just begun.

The second motet, “Arripe alpestri ad vallem” is a later work. The manuscript is kept in the Levi Foundation in Venice.

It is a metaphor for the remorse felt by the protagonist for her sins :

« Stop you people of the mountain-tops,
do not come down into the valley,
driving savage monsters before me.
Distraught with terror,
my trembling heart
gives way to despair.

Fleeing the barbarous fury,
I scour the hills
in search of a place to hide.
My heart has all but lost hope,
and overcome with fear,
has bereft me of courage.

O whither shall I flee, whither go?
In vain I seek grottoes and caves.
See how wild monsters with terrifying aspect
fall upon me unleashing
their burning rage and fury.

O God, am I to be devoured
by their voracious mouths
and my flesh torn by their insatiable teeth?

O God Be merciful to one who prays to you;
save me from the abyss opening before me, protect
and spare me, grant me forgiveness for my offences.
Even as I am guilty towards you, so great is my
affliction.

May my torments find appeasement
in the praise of Almighty God;
O may hearts ever be moved
and tears flow
when they tell all the peoples
and all the nations
of the glory
of the Most High

Hallelujah. »

Gallupi is considered one of Italy’s few original geniuses. His vocal compositions were not published. His manuscripts are scattered around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8qZmAypUf

.

.

Oops ! My mistake. Try this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8qZmAypUfQ

Sorry about that.

.

.

To think that Baldassare Galluppi (Il Buranello) preceded Mozart by 50 years !

Listen to his Sonata No. 5 in C major interpreted by Vadim Chaimovich ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WlZN3qAQI

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you so much. Galluppi is playing while I am keying this in. Sure I will enjoy listening to the other you listed.

Hi Banjo, I'll second David's comment. When I was a lad I played in the school's baroque band (tenor recorder mostly-the smallest one with a key to reach the fingering for the notes below E, occasionally soprano or alto, wanted to play bass but my fingers weren't long enough) and this piece really took me back. Wish I could still play, but I lost interest after school, sadly.
Thanks.

.

Dear David and Craig,

.

I’m glad you liked it. Closer to home in time and space, here is our dear Mirusia with Schubert’s “Ave Maria” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZoZwdesumY

.

.

Last, but not least, one of the world's greatest violinist virtuosos, Niccolò Paganini (1782-1840), and the rondo (third movement) of his Violin Concerto N° 1 (composed in 1817-1818) interpreted by a contemporary virtuoso, Salvatore Accardo : 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN2f6ANePqk

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Supposedly it was by Paganini, but it appeared on paga 10 not nini.

Having been out of touch for a few weeks, I was unable to contribute to the thread in a timely manner, so please forgive the lateness.

My first reaction to Mr Sellick's latest piece has been thoroughly discussed - viz. his highly questionable interpretation of cogito ergo sum. A rare instance of sloppiness - or simply thoughtlessness - on his part that undermined the intent of the entire article.

My second has also been widely canvassed. Mr Sellick has without fail treated his audience here with scant tolerance. This has always seemed to me to be a sign of some considerable weakness; an inability to engage with any thought processes that do not exhibit the same level of theological scholarship as he has achieved, exposes him to legitimate accusations of self-defined mental elitism.

None of which in any way disqualifies him, in my opinion, from presenting his views in the first instance. I personally derive a better understanding of the blinkered religionist's take on the world from each successive article. His reaction to feedback, however, while (probably) unwittingly unflattering to himself, actually adds definition to the narrow nature of the thought processes of his caste.