Thank you, Craig, for a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. The analogy with the spirit is interesting – maybe more John’s version (spirit of truth) than Luke’s Pentecostal fireworks.

I have yet to make up my mind on the Voice referendum – heart says yes, head says no.

I agree that “our identity rests upon recollection of what we have done and what has been done to us”. Our society – the good and the bad – is a product of its history and the evolution of its culture. And while we may not be individually or collectively responsible for the sins or achievements of the past, we must live with and take responsibility for their consequences. The “year zero” inclination to erase uncomfortable history is a totalitarian impulse.

So, I’d strongly support acknowledging Indigenous peoples in the constitution, and the truth-telling component of the Uluru statement. Whether the Voice to parliament will achieve what is hoped for, though, I have my doubts. Similar institutions in the past such as ATSIC have been at best partial successes, and embedding the Voice in the constitution will make it much harder to put right if it also proves a failure.

When I was reading the article, I noticed, amongst the phrasing, instances of uncertainty, of ambivalence.
It occurred to me that the writer might be seeking answers, direction.
My advice to him would be:
The reality we see around us is one we have created.
We have built it on top of natural reality.
Natural reality is harsh and unforgiving.
We have worked to make it more to our liking.
But we should never forget natural reality is still there.
Call it 'mother nature' if you will, but do not neglect it.
The life we live here is all about survival and reproduction.
Start with those things, and use your imagination and reasoning power.
If you can.

Quote: 'And while we may not be individually or collectively responsible for the sins or achievements of the past, we must live with and take responsibility for their consequences.'

Live with yes.
Deal with yes.
That is unavoidable.
But be responsible for?
Feel responsible for?
No.
Not for things which are foist upon us, whether they be good or bad.
Yet another example of when 'NO' is a very good word.

IF

We are not responsible for the actions of people in the past in the sense that we deserve blame or credit for them. But we inherit a society which is shaped by those actions, for better or worse, and we are responsible for managing the consequences. We are not responsible for the introduction of rabbits and other invasive pests to the Australian environment; but we have a responsibility to try to minimise the consequent damage, and to try to prevent it from happening again. We are not responsible for the fact that Australia has one of the most prosperous and free societies on earth; but we have a responsibility to protect and sustain the institutions and values that have made it so.

For organisations and governments, the line gets blurrier, because the individuals who made particular decisions may be long gone, but the consequences of their decisions may last a very long time, and their institutions have an ongoing existence. Germany is still paying compensation to Holocaust survivors. Modern day Germans are not responsible for what Hitler did; but they have accepted responsibility for it consequences.

«the centrality of memory to identity drives countless 'amnesia' plots in films, with the pressing 'Who am I?' question pounding inside the head of the protagonist. Our identity rests upon recollection of what we have done and what has been done to us.»

Memory has nothing to do with identity - I am who I am regardless whether I remember anything or not.

People are born with no memory, then gain memories then lose them over time and especially towards the end of life, yet they never become someone else, but always remain the same one, with or without memories.

True Identity cannot be manufactured, either we are X or we aren't X. Specifically also, nothing we have done (if any) and nothing that has been done to us (if any) can change who we are.

Thus I oppose any such attempt to create and impose a false "identity" and so I will also oppose the coming referendum.

«The purpose of the giving of the Spirit, according to St John, is that the Spirit will 'remind' disciples of the things of Jesus: what he did and what was done to him»

I understand the purpose of the Holy Spirit to remind the devotees of God, thus Christian devotees of Jesus. So far so good, but the addition of "what he (Jesus) did and what was done to him" could at best be some memory-aid which the author uses to remember Jesus: With the gift of the Holy Spirit one doesn't require any such aids, but remembers Jesus Himself at all times, even while sleeping, not through his actions and events, but directly, Jesus Himself!

«Jesus' promised gift of the Spirit to his disciples is a promised gift of memory.»

Yes, the memory of God!
(not of mundane events)

«What is remembered through this Spirit is the human experience of Jesus as a presentation of the rich possibilities of human life, whatever the circumstances.»

That is backward: Remembering the richness of the human experience of Jesus can be used as a tool to remember God whatever the circumstances - not vice-versa.

Albo has been accused of not supplying full information on the form
that the voice will take.
Whether he has or not is totally overridden by the absence of one
crucial piece of information.

The definition of "What is an Aborigine ?"

Because anyone's claim to protection of or help from the Voice will
ultimately be resolved by the courts then it must be crystal clear
in the constitution.
Trying to put it in the legislation is a formulae for disaster