thinking about the ways that people interpret the torah after reading about the possibility that the conservative movement in the us might actually start to accept g/b/l/t rabbis, i then came across the following bbc world service broadcast written by my dear father:
"More than thirty years ago, I shared a bed with a Catholic priest and a Methodist minister. It was a small bed-and a long night. Just the same, I would not have forgone that experience for all the tea in China. And we didn't even have tea in that small cottage in Selma, Alabama. We had spent the night in the black ghetto of that town in order to join in the Civil Rights March from Selma to Montgomery. The next morning, I would walk alongside Martin Luther King, the Nobel Prize Laureate Ralph Bunche, and my own teacher and friend Professor Abraham Heschel. It was all part of a statement of support for the persecuted black community in the United States which would be heard and seen throughout the world. But, the night before, we discovered solidarity and religious faith in the family bed of our hosts who insisted that they would sleep on the floor. It meant so much to them to have us as their guests. And it was important to us as well.
What can a rabbi, priest, and minister discuss together on a night like that, when sleep is almost impossible? We should have talked about the shared dream, the hopes to achieve full civil rights for dispossessed and persecuted minorities. Or we could have talked about dangers: during the afternoon, some rifle shots had been sent in my direction. The rednecks roaring by in their car had only intended to scare me; and I could have assured them that they had succeeded in this. But what DID the three of us talk about that night? We talked shop, of course-about the Bible, and how to interpret the sacred texts.
Oddly enough, one text we did discuss was read in our synagogues this week: Leviticus 19. The first words in it define all of that text: kiddoshim t'h'yu 'You shall be holy, because I the Lord your God am holy'. The three of us, clergymen in different traditions, strive after holiness. As a rabbi, I had less problems than the others. Rabbis are not really holy. When I am not in town, any lay-person in my congregation can take the service, read from the Torah, give the sermon and pronounce the blessings. Rabbi means 'teacher', not a holy man. In any event, the three of us, interpreters of that shared sacred text, knew that we could find a definition of holiness in these lines. The text is very clear here. It turns to the Ten Commandments, and lists them with new interpretations which make us aware that to be 'holy as God is holy' means to be compassionate and merciful and to spend our lives in ethical actions. That is the only way to acquire holiness, although my colleagues on that night could disagree with me to a certain extent. 'A hermit in the desert, a monk or a nun in an enclosed order can be very holy', was their argument. In the end I suggested that this training might make them holy-but only if they then served the community and the world.
But there were subtleties in the Biblical text which all of us enjoyed. 'You shall not curse the deaf, or put a stumbling block before the blind' is an absolutely marvellous text. We could argue that a deaf person is not damaged by a curse he or she will never hear; and that a blind person will stumble over an obstacle on an unfamiliar road without realising that it was not bad luck but malice which caused a fall. But the key to the passage is the final sentence: "v'ahavta rea-cha kamocha, ani adonai", 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself; I am the Lord.' God reaches out to every human being; and we are taught to see others as ourself, to recognise each human being as an aspect of God. Then, ethical actions unite us, and we become like God: HOLY.
In the morning we went out to march with Martin Luther King towards freedom."
why, she cried in a fit of naivety, why is it so hard not to do to each other what is hateful to us? gut shabbes
Saturday, September 09, 2006
conservative judaism to lift ban on gay rabbis?
a report i just read on yahoo. a snippet to whet your interest:
"Rabbi Joel Roth, a leading religious scholar and a member of the Conservative Law Committee, questioned whether people with traditional Jewish views on sexuality will stay, even if the panel allows synagogues leeway to accept or reject gay relationships. Roth said he has been "demonized" for saying that he interprets religious law as barring same-gender sex.
"I know the law as it stands causes pain," he said. "But pain is not to be equated with immorality."
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, vice chairman of the Law Committee and also a respected scholar, supports ordaining gays, saying "it is simply not natural" to demand that they remain celibate.
"We have to interpret God's will in our time," Dorff said."
"Rabbi Joel Roth, a leading religious scholar and a member of the Conservative Law Committee, questioned whether people with traditional Jewish views on sexuality will stay, even if the panel allows synagogues leeway to accept or reject gay relationships. Roth said he has been "demonized" for saying that he interprets religious law as barring same-gender sex.
"I know the law as it stands causes pain," he said. "But pain is not to be equated with immorality."
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, vice chairman of the Law Committee and also a respected scholar, supports ordaining gays, saying "it is simply not natural" to demand that they remain celibate.
"We have to interpret God's will in our time," Dorff said."
english from arabic
sorting through mounds of paper in the masses of boxes that travel with me from job to job, i came upon an informational handout from the council on islamic education. some arabic words that are the origin of familiar english ones:
al-jabr
amir al-rahl
zirafah
naranj
sifr
trafiq
&
banana.
o, of course, excuse me:
algebra
admiral
giraffe
orange
zero
traffic
&
banana.
al-jabr
amir al-rahl
zirafah
naranj
sifr
trafiq
&
banana.
o, of course, excuse me:
algebra
admiral
giraffe
orange
zero
traffic
&
banana.
who was grace hopper?
i cannot for the life of me remember how i ended up on an internet page about grace hopper, but i did. what's the big deal about her? well, first of all, she's an unsung woman who achieved a lot in her field. secondly, she's the person who invented the term computer "bug". in 1951 she was working on the UNIVAC computer, and found a moth in its workings that was causing a problem. she removed it and placed it in the logbook! if you are interested, here are some links to learn a little more about her:
the wit and wisdom of grace hopper
pioneer computer scientist
brief biography
the wit and wisdom of grace hopper
pioneer computer scientist
brief biography
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
modern english
the telegraph reports on some of the new words that are entering the chambers dictionary.
these include "bingo wings" (flaps of skin that hang down from the upper arm) and "muffin top" (the roll of fat that spills over a pair of low-cut trousers). also in there are "sudoku", "i-pod" & "islamophobe".
my pet peeves these days include "to impact", rather than to have an impact on something; "to resonate" as an alternative to empathy and "to piggyback" on something someone else has said. yccccccccchhhhhhhhh!
one of my favourite words at the moment is 'palaver'. mind you, 'muffin top' is a good one!
these include "bingo wings" (flaps of skin that hang down from the upper arm) and "muffin top" (the roll of fat that spills over a pair of low-cut trousers). also in there are "sudoku", "i-pod" & "islamophobe".
my pet peeves these days include "to impact", rather than to have an impact on something; "to resonate" as an alternative to empathy and "to piggyback" on something someone else has said. yccccccccchhhhhhhhh!
one of my favourite words at the moment is 'palaver'. mind you, 'muffin top' is a good one!
the eyes don't have it
one of the things that i find really hard to accept about the work of lawyers is that it has less to do with right/wrong and more to do with how to argue one's way around the legal system. an interesting example today - here is an excerpt from the telegraph regarding a man who was arrested for dangerous driving while blind:
"Pc Austin's colleague, Pc Stuart Edge, told the court that he asked Aziz whether he could see him. He said: "He removed the dark-coloured sunglasses he was wearing and I could clearly see he was blind as he had no eyes."
Timothy Gascoyne, defending, said Aziz, who did not give evidence, should be cleared because "the question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous".
He said: "If my client hadn't been blind he wouldn't have been arrested for dangerous driving, so it doesn't fall far below what is expected from a careful and competent driver.""
mr. gascoyne, i salute your chutzpah. meanwhile, mr. aziz was convicted.
"Pc Austin's colleague, Pc Stuart Edge, told the court that he asked Aziz whether he could see him. He said: "He removed the dark-coloured sunglasses he was wearing and I could clearly see he was blind as he had no eyes."
Timothy Gascoyne, defending, said Aziz, who did not give evidence, should be cleared because "the question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous".
He said: "If my client hadn't been blind he wouldn't have been arrested for dangerous driving, so it doesn't fall far below what is expected from a careful and competent driver.""
mr. gascoyne, i salute your chutzpah. meanwhile, mr. aziz was convicted.
steve irwin r.i.p.
the crocodile hunter is dead, speared in the heart by a stingray barb. i'm not particularly fond of any kind of reality show, including going mano a mano with lions and tigers and bears (o my). thus, of all the obituaries i have so far read, i'd like you to see these comments in the telegraph by virginia mckenna:
"The Crocodile Hunter who got too close
One of television's most charismatic characters has gone. Whether you agreed with Steve Irwin's approach to wildlife or not, his undeniable passion for his subject will be missed by millions.
At yesterday morning's meeting at the offices of my charity, Born Free, we contemplated the loss that his family is now coming to terms with. But the question remains; did Steve Irwin, "The Crocodile Hunter", pay the ultimate price for getting up close and personal with wild animals?
The natural world is under increasing pressure and urban populations are now largely divorced from nature. Yet somehow that dissociation sparks a desire to get back in touch with wild places and wildlife. More people now travel the world in search of wilderness than ever before.
Steve Irwin took "up close and personal" to the limit and, with all due respect to him, I think it was a mistake. In America, there are now thousands of people who keep dangerous wild animals – alligators, snakes, lions and more than 5,000 tigers – as pets. Thousands more people regularly drop off the side of a boat to swim with sharks. Yet others pay handsomely to ride African elephants through the bush. It's not how it was meant to be.
The fundamental truth of the relationship between wild animals and people is one based on mutual respect and, to an extent, fear.
In my experience, the stand-off between a wild animal such as a lion and a human being logically ends with both in retreat. Humans, lions and many other animals are risk-averse. The last thing they want to do is to suffer an injury that will reduce their survival chances. As a result, wild animals rarely attack unless they are threatened or intimidated, or unless they perceive that there is more to gain than there is to be lost.
I have had my own intimate experiences with dangerous wild animals. For nearly a year, my husband, Bill Travers, and I worked with a number of lions in making the film Born Free. But the fundamental message of that film was not about getting close; it was about letting go.
Steve's television performances, without doubt, set the adrenaline rushing. He put himself where few others would dare to tread and I can understand how that kind of television had global mass appeal. Yet I fear that there will be some out there seeking to emulate Steve Irwin's bravura who will not survive such close encounters.
I suspect that it's a little like participating in extreme sports of one kind or another. Each successful high-speed race, each free-fall leap from a plane, each mountain scaled or remote cave explored begins to convince the participant of their invincibility. He is, at least for the moment, immortal.
I know that my son, who has helped move adult African elephants from areas in Kenya where they are under threat to relative safety, will attest to the fact that when a five-ton male is down, matters of personal safety – and common sense – seem insignificant and risks are taken that would otherwise seem foolhardy.
Wild animals are exactly that. Their nature cannot be changed by a few generations in captivity, or because the human being confronting them is a "friend". Natural instincts that have evolved over millions of years are, at best, just below the surface.
Witness the almost lethal attack on Roy Horn, part of the Siegfried & Roy Las Vegas tiger show a couple of years ago, or the continuing, regular and tragic demise of keepers and handlers in circuses and zoos across the world.
My heart goes out to Steve Irwin's family. They will be inconsolable. I just wish that Steve's talent, passion and commitment had been directed more towards the conservation and protection of wild animals in the wild.
In a way, I wish he had been able to keep his distance; if he had, he might still be here."
"The Crocodile Hunter who got too close
One of television's most charismatic characters has gone. Whether you agreed with Steve Irwin's approach to wildlife or not, his undeniable passion for his subject will be missed by millions.
At yesterday morning's meeting at the offices of my charity, Born Free, we contemplated the loss that his family is now coming to terms with. But the question remains; did Steve Irwin, "The Crocodile Hunter", pay the ultimate price for getting up close and personal with wild animals?
The natural world is under increasing pressure and urban populations are now largely divorced from nature. Yet somehow that dissociation sparks a desire to get back in touch with wild places and wildlife. More people now travel the world in search of wilderness than ever before.
Steve Irwin took "up close and personal" to the limit and, with all due respect to him, I think it was a mistake. In America, there are now thousands of people who keep dangerous wild animals – alligators, snakes, lions and more than 5,000 tigers – as pets. Thousands more people regularly drop off the side of a boat to swim with sharks. Yet others pay handsomely to ride African elephants through the bush. It's not how it was meant to be.
The fundamental truth of the relationship between wild animals and people is one based on mutual respect and, to an extent, fear.
In my experience, the stand-off between a wild animal such as a lion and a human being logically ends with both in retreat. Humans, lions and many other animals are risk-averse. The last thing they want to do is to suffer an injury that will reduce their survival chances. As a result, wild animals rarely attack unless they are threatened or intimidated, or unless they perceive that there is more to gain than there is to be lost.
I have had my own intimate experiences with dangerous wild animals. For nearly a year, my husband, Bill Travers, and I worked with a number of lions in making the film Born Free. But the fundamental message of that film was not about getting close; it was about letting go.
Steve's television performances, without doubt, set the adrenaline rushing. He put himself where few others would dare to tread and I can understand how that kind of television had global mass appeal. Yet I fear that there will be some out there seeking to emulate Steve Irwin's bravura who will not survive such close encounters.
I suspect that it's a little like participating in extreme sports of one kind or another. Each successful high-speed race, each free-fall leap from a plane, each mountain scaled or remote cave explored begins to convince the participant of their invincibility. He is, at least for the moment, immortal.
I know that my son, who has helped move adult African elephants from areas in Kenya where they are under threat to relative safety, will attest to the fact that when a five-ton male is down, matters of personal safety – and common sense – seem insignificant and risks are taken that would otherwise seem foolhardy.
Wild animals are exactly that. Their nature cannot be changed by a few generations in captivity, or because the human being confronting them is a "friend". Natural instincts that have evolved over millions of years are, at best, just below the surface.
Witness the almost lethal attack on Roy Horn, part of the Siegfried & Roy Las Vegas tiger show a couple of years ago, or the continuing, regular and tragic demise of keepers and handlers in circuses and zoos across the world.
My heart goes out to Steve Irwin's family. They will be inconsolable. I just wish that Steve's talent, passion and commitment had been directed more towards the conservation and protection of wild animals in the wild.
In a way, I wish he had been able to keep his distance; if he had, he might still be here."
Monday, September 04, 2006
pussycat funnies
poor d. i showed her youtube and we could not stop watching amusing cat videos. the one that left her with tears pouring down her face was this:
and i was also quite taken with this:
all that bravado and then just BAM.
o gosh but laughter can be so healing.
and i was also quite taken with this:
all that bravado and then just BAM.
o gosh but laughter can be so healing.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
happy b-day part deux
the good news was that the rain held off for the outdoor wedding i performed on thursday afternoon.
the bad news was that the rain arrived about twenty minutes after i did.
i sat under my brolly in the arthur ashe stadium, my best british bravado on display; and was rewarded with the brief sight of the players knocking up. lindsey davenport's outfit was scarlet on the jumbo screen above me, and rather more orange waaaaay down below. but the rain returned, and the women went back indoors. d. arrived a few minutes later, and we sat for a few minutes at the top of the bleachers before coming to our senses and, with one last look back (seen here), going back to the car and off for some dinner.
the bad news was that the rain arrived about twenty minutes after i did.
i sat under my brolly in the arthur ashe stadium, my best british bravado on display; and was rewarded with the brief sight of the players knocking up. lindsey davenport's outfit was scarlet on the jumbo screen above me, and rather more orange waaaaay down below. but the rain returned, and the women went back indoors. d. arrived a few minutes later, and we sat for a few minutes at the top of the bleachers before coming to our senses and, with one last look back (seen here), going back to the car and off for some dinner.
happy birthday to me
so i gave up a second night in a great room in quoge to come back for the u.s. open. we'd bought the tickets at the temple auction months ago, and it just happened that they ended up being on my b-day.
d. has never seen a live tennis match before (a profi one that is) and we were rather excited to be there. ms. sharapova, however, seemes even more excited to be in the presence of our friend piglet.
d. has never seen a live tennis match before (a profi one that is) and we were rather excited to be there. ms. sharapova, however, seemes even more excited to be in the presence of our friend piglet.
a new meaning for footprints
had a delicious and almost healthy dinner at the cheesecake factory - d. got me with a slice of cake with a candle in it and the waitress singing. fresh banana cream cheesecake. it may shorten my life by a day or two, but it tasted worth it. afterwards we went shoe shopping. in the shoe shop i learned two things. first of all, there is a make of shoe, licenced by birkenstock, called betula. strangely enough, this is also a biblical hebrew word for virgin. interesting choice ...
secondly, i began to look at the patterns on the soles of the women's shoes on sale. i noticed that the clarks shoes had their trademark daisy on the bottom of some pairs. the thing that got me going, however, was a pair of naturalizer shoes. on the soles were two circles the diameter of a large pill box lid. it took a while to figure out the pattern within - turns out it was the word 'naturalizer' backwards. mmmmmwohaha! (evil laugh) so you hand over your money for these lovely shoes and not only does the company make a profit but every time you leave a footprint somewhere you also leave a little ad printed on the ground. i cannot decide whether to be furious at this kind of manipulation, or in utter awe of the genius who came up with the idea.
secondly, i began to look at the patterns on the soles of the women's shoes on sale. i noticed that the clarks shoes had their trademark daisy on the bottom of some pairs. the thing that got me going, however, was a pair of naturalizer shoes. on the soles were two circles the diameter of a large pill box lid. it took a while to figure out the pattern within - turns out it was the word 'naturalizer' backwards. mmmmmwohaha! (evil laugh) so you hand over your money for these lovely shoes and not only does the company make a profit but every time you leave a footprint somewhere you also leave a little ad printed on the ground. i cannot decide whether to be furious at this kind of manipulation, or in utter awe of the genius who came up with the idea.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
selichot
one of my favourite parts of the torah is in the book of numbers, at the beginning of chapter 14. the children of israel are complaining again, wishing they were dead, or back in egypt; and contemplating returning to egypt. a few chapters earlier i love the bit where they remember the melons and cucumbers and leeks they used to eat in the good old days! anyway, despite the pleas of moses and his guys, the congregation threatens to get nasty and are about to stone them when god shows up in the tabernacle. god is utterly fed up, and suggests that god will destroy them all and start all over again with moses. this could be a big opportunity for moses - to be the founder of a whole new, and hopefully better, people! so what does moses say? listen god - i think this is really bad p.r. for you. if you kill the children of israel now, the egyptians and the others won't be saying o well they were really whiny and totally deserved all they got. no, god, these guys will be saying that you are all mouth and no trousers. you made big promises, but you just couldn't follow through. don't you think it would be a better move to forgive the children of israel and give them another chance? and god responds: good point, moses. i shall do as you say.
WHAT WAS THAT?!
the holy sacred torah has a passage in it where moses argues with god, and not only is not struck down, but also changes god's mind?
indeed it is so. and it is not the only place in the torah where god's mind is changed after a discussion with a human.
this is such an important moment - i don't understand why it is not one of the most famous parts of all the torah. moses' words requesting pardon are part of our atonement services. the previous verses, however, where he dares to argue with god, are not highlighted.
i have so much to say about this, and no idea where to start.
first of all i'll go with brit, which i choose to translate as covenant. by this i mean a relationship, that i often describe on the one hand as a deal, i.e., god gets this and we get that; and on the other hand as a partnership, where we agree to work together towards a particular goal.
try and forget about all the power stuff with superman god smiting us according to his will and punishing us with his absence.
try and think about being in a relationship with someone that you think you could like if you got to know them better.
what kind of things might you do to develop this relationship in a positive way?
perhaps most organised religions started out as a way of gathering together the things they thought would help to develop this relationship.
the problem for me is that over time many people forgot that their records, their sacred scriptures, and the rituals that they had developed over the years, that these things were supposed to help them, rather than oppress them. by this i do not mean to say that if something is too difficult then it is ok to just bin it. i am trying to talk more about how the forms themselves become sacred over time, and the content within them, the thoughts and feelings that engendered them, start to melt into the faraway corners of memory.
trying to get back to the point here ... why am i so excited about the above passage of torah? because god listens. and god is flexible. and god is flexible enough to hear something difficult, and not let pride stop god from changing god's response. even the greatest power that the human mind can posit is able to turn and say hmmmmm maybe there is another way to do things. not only that, but god also is the one to begin the conversation.
whether you believe in god or not, is not the question. whether you believe in relationship, or not - that is the question! if so, what follows logically for me is how do i figure out how to be in relationship with anyone and anything? and that's where selichot comes in! selichot is a time put aside every year as we start to prepare for the new year. the summer is ending (unless you are in the southern hemisphere of course. apologies for my northerncentric perspective). it is a time when we can check in on our relationships, when we can turn to each other and ask, "are you ok?" and then, i hope, i can listen to the answer.
WHAT WAS THAT?!
the holy sacred torah has a passage in it where moses argues with god, and not only is not struck down, but also changes god's mind?
indeed it is so. and it is not the only place in the torah where god's mind is changed after a discussion with a human.
this is such an important moment - i don't understand why it is not one of the most famous parts of all the torah. moses' words requesting pardon are part of our atonement services. the previous verses, however, where he dares to argue with god, are not highlighted.
i have so much to say about this, and no idea where to start.
first of all i'll go with brit, which i choose to translate as covenant. by this i mean a relationship, that i often describe on the one hand as a deal, i.e., god gets this and we get that; and on the other hand as a partnership, where we agree to work together towards a particular goal.
try and forget about all the power stuff with superman god smiting us according to his will and punishing us with his absence.
try and think about being in a relationship with someone that you think you could like if you got to know them better.
what kind of things might you do to develop this relationship in a positive way?
perhaps most organised religions started out as a way of gathering together the things they thought would help to develop this relationship.
the problem for me is that over time many people forgot that their records, their sacred scriptures, and the rituals that they had developed over the years, that these things were supposed to help them, rather than oppress them. by this i do not mean to say that if something is too difficult then it is ok to just bin it. i am trying to talk more about how the forms themselves become sacred over time, and the content within them, the thoughts and feelings that engendered them, start to melt into the faraway corners of memory.
trying to get back to the point here ... why am i so excited about the above passage of torah? because god listens. and god is flexible. and god is flexible enough to hear something difficult, and not let pride stop god from changing god's response. even the greatest power that the human mind can posit is able to turn and say hmmmmm maybe there is another way to do things. not only that, but god also is the one to begin the conversation.
whether you believe in god or not, is not the question. whether you believe in relationship, or not - that is the question! if so, what follows logically for me is how do i figure out how to be in relationship with anyone and anything? and that's where selichot comes in! selichot is a time put aside every year as we start to prepare for the new year. the summer is ending (unless you are in the southern hemisphere of course. apologies for my northerncentric perspective). it is a time when we can check in on our relationships, when we can turn to each other and ask, "are you ok?" and then, i hope, i can listen to the answer.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
you tube pandas
i tubed you tube pandas
am now replaying these with great joy:
and the sneezing panda
an english version!
tai shan at the national zoo in dc a few months ago
and finally, panda preschool in china
my favourite piece of information - that while previously thinking that pandas were solitary creatures without many interests, scientists observing them now see that they like to be touched and played with and have friends with whom to play!
am now replaying these with great joy:
and the sneezing panda
an english version!
tai shan at the national zoo in dc a few months ago
and finally, panda preschool in china
my favourite piece of information - that while previously thinking that pandas were solitary creatures without many interests, scientists observing them now see that they like to be touched and played with and have friends with whom to play!
Monday, August 28, 2006
stuffed animal rights
not that i know any adults who sleep with teddy bears *ahem* but was interested to see in the telegraph today in an article about how betjeman had fibbed about failing an exam for artistic licence the following reference to his bear:
"The record of Betjeman’s pass in divinity is now displayed at the Bodleian Library alongside Archibald Ormsby-Gore, the poet’s teddy bear, which went on public display for the first time for the exhibition.
The bear was the inspiration for Evelyn Waugh’s creation Aloysius, the bear carried around by Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited. Betjeman died holding the bear in one hand and his elephant, Jumbo, in the other when he died in 1984."
"The record of Betjeman’s pass in divinity is now displayed at the Bodleian Library alongside Archibald Ormsby-Gore, the poet’s teddy bear, which went on public display for the first time for the exhibition.
The bear was the inspiration for Evelyn Waugh’s creation Aloysius, the bear carried around by Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited. Betjeman died holding the bear in one hand and his elephant, Jumbo, in the other when he died in 1984."
Sunday, August 27, 2006
joy comes in the morning
just finished reading this book by jonathan rosen. auntie d. left it for me at pesach, and i just opened it yesterday. inside was a post-it note written in her handwriting: "a folk saying based on a saying in the talmud. a rabbi whose congregation does not (want) to drive him/her out of town, isn't a rabbi; and a rabbi they drive out of town isn't a man(woman)!"
well, i'm still here.
meanwhile, on p. 142, i read the following:
"... he realized how rudimentary his religious thoughts and feelings were; he had ignored them for so long. He had once written an article about art therapy for the elderly and one of the therapists had explained that you only draw as well as the last time you drew. For most people, this was in childhood, so most adults draw like ten-year-olds. Perhaps his religious life was like that, undeveloped and childish."
is it so for many people? that the last time they really believed in god it was the god they were shown as children: a white old man with a beard on a big throne up in the sky who knows if you've been bad or good and responds accordingly?
then you grow up and realise there is no santa, no tooth fairy and your parents screwed you and the whole world up so there is nothing left in which to believe except what you can hold in your own two hands.
has my religious life grown and matured since i was ten years old? at first i think that i had more faith then, because i believed in happy endings. on the other hand, having some small knowledge of how the world is, and all the evil and horror in it today, perhaps it is a greater sign of faith to remain within it, rather than to run screaming into the dark cloud. my father believed in the thread of gold that is the harbinger of the dawn to come. and he experienced the dawn, surviving the nazi peril and continuing to become a husband, parent and teacher. i'm still waiting.
well, i'm still here.
meanwhile, on p. 142, i read the following:
"... he realized how rudimentary his religious thoughts and feelings were; he had ignored them for so long. He had once written an article about art therapy for the elderly and one of the therapists had explained that you only draw as well as the last time you drew. For most people, this was in childhood, so most adults draw like ten-year-olds. Perhaps his religious life was like that, undeveloped and childish."
is it so for many people? that the last time they really believed in god it was the god they were shown as children: a white old man with a beard on a big throne up in the sky who knows if you've been bad or good and responds accordingly?
then you grow up and realise there is no santa, no tooth fairy and your parents screwed you and the whole world up so there is nothing left in which to believe except what you can hold in your own two hands.
has my religious life grown and matured since i was ten years old? at first i think that i had more faith then, because i believed in happy endings. on the other hand, having some small knowledge of how the world is, and all the evil and horror in it today, perhaps it is a greater sign of faith to remain within it, rather than to run screaming into the dark cloud. my father believed in the thread of gold that is the harbinger of the dawn to come. and he experienced the dawn, surviving the nazi peril and continuing to become a husband, parent and teacher. i'm still waiting.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
poor pluto
the new york times reports on pluto's loss of status as a planet. does this set a dangerous precedent? for example, might qpr be in danger of losing its status as a football team?
"Editorial - And Now There Are Eight
Published: August 25, 2006
The world’s astronomers came to their senses yesterday and approved a new definition of the word “planet” that would drop tiny Pluto from the club and relegate it instead to a lesser realm of “dwarf planets.” It was a welcome step away from a proposal that would have kept Pluto as a planet but simultaneously opened the door for dozens of small, icy bodies on the fringes of the solar system.
The crucial vote came after tumultuous debate at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union, which had been considering a proposal to define a planet as any object that orbits a star and is large enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
That definition was scientifically precise but led to results that offended common sense. An asteroid, a small moon, and another icy ball like Pluto would suddenly have been catapulted to planet-hood, swelling the number of planets to 12, with hordes more icy rocks likely to qualify as more was learned about them.
Fortunately, the astronomers have now added another requirement to the definition. Planets must not only be large enough to be round, they must also have cleared out the neighborhood around their orbits. Pluto would not qualify — it orbits in a belt of icy debris on the edge of the solar system. Neither would an icy rock nicknamed Xena, which orbits in that same zone, nor Ceres, a big asteroid that marches in the company of other asteroids. Pluto’s moon, Charon, which had qualified under the first proposal, is also out of the running.
Pluto, with its small size and oddball orbit, should never have been deemed a planet in the first place. Henceforth there will be eight planets, at least three dwarf planets, and tens of thousands of “smaller solar system bodies,” like comets and asteroids. Our only regret is that the astronomers chose the name “dwarf planets” for Pluto’s new category instead of abandoning the word entirely when discussing these less-than-planetary bodies."
"Editorial - And Now There Are Eight
Published: August 25, 2006
The world’s astronomers came to their senses yesterday and approved a new definition of the word “planet” that would drop tiny Pluto from the club and relegate it instead to a lesser realm of “dwarf planets.” It was a welcome step away from a proposal that would have kept Pluto as a planet but simultaneously opened the door for dozens of small, icy bodies on the fringes of the solar system.
The crucial vote came after tumultuous debate at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union, which had been considering a proposal to define a planet as any object that orbits a star and is large enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
That definition was scientifically precise but led to results that offended common sense. An asteroid, a small moon, and another icy ball like Pluto would suddenly have been catapulted to planet-hood, swelling the number of planets to 12, with hordes more icy rocks likely to qualify as more was learned about them.
Fortunately, the astronomers have now added another requirement to the definition. Planets must not only be large enough to be round, they must also have cleared out the neighborhood around their orbits. Pluto would not qualify — it orbits in a belt of icy debris on the edge of the solar system. Neither would an icy rock nicknamed Xena, which orbits in that same zone, nor Ceres, a big asteroid that marches in the company of other asteroids. Pluto’s moon, Charon, which had qualified under the first proposal, is also out of the running.
Pluto, with its small size and oddball orbit, should never have been deemed a planet in the first place. Henceforth there will be eight planets, at least three dwarf planets, and tens of thousands of “smaller solar system bodies,” like comets and asteroids. Our only regret is that the astronomers chose the name “dwarf planets” for Pluto’s new category instead of abandoning the word entirely when discussing these less-than-planetary bodies."
Friday, August 25, 2006
a picture is worth ...
"New York Times - Art Review
Walker Evans. Or Is It?
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
Published: August 25, 2006
A PHOTOGRAPHER snaps a picture. If it’s a camera with film, a negative is made; if it’s a digital camera, a file is produced. A printer, in a dark room using chemicals, or at a computer screen, can tinker with the image, crop it, enlarge it, make it lighter or darker, highlight one part or obscure another.
In other words, the image produced by the camera, whether it’s a negative or a digital file, is only the matrix for the work of art. It is not the work itself, although if the photographer is a journalist, any hanky-panky in the printing process comes at the potential cost of the picture’s integrity. Digital technology has not introduced manipulation into this universe; it has only multiplied the opportunities for mischief.
[snip]
Is photography closer to music and theater, or to painting? A painting is what it is, and copies of it are not the same. Music and theater exist through their variety of interpretations."
did you know that i used to be a photographer? i shot sport and theatre, mainly because there was already an agreement that what was taking place was there to be watched (vs papparazzi-style doorstepping) ... and because i loved them. i stopped because i needed to curtail the development of my amoral side. it was not to do with the photographing - i still love to do that. things one had to do, however, to get assignments; and then the kinds of assignments themselves, involved a lot of lying and stomping on other people - and while i found out that i could be quite good at that, i did not want to look back on my life and see nothing but a few bits of yellow newspaper swirling in the mist. also, 15 years or so ago, i figured that technology would pretty soon make me obsolete. why pay to send me to an event, and a biker to pick up the film, and the film guy to develop it; when you could look on a computer screen at the televised version, freeze the moment you want, and photoshop it?
anyway, this piece from the ny times today caught my eye and i lifted a few sentences to share with you.
my simple response is look mate you cannot lump it all together like that. for a start just separate it out into intention - where the intention is to record an event in order to convey to the viewer what is occurring at the moment of the shot. of course this is already edited by the photographer's eye & instinct, even if this is not conscious. nevertheless, if i take a picture of qpr scoring a goal (a rare event she said sadly, especially as they lost tonight on national television. mind you they always lose on national television :-( ), i believe i am recording an historical moment (and such moments are so rare as to be truly historical etc etc ad nauseam). i believe this intention is different to one who uses the camera, and the darkroom, as media of expression of one's view of the world.
another reason that i quit photography was that i was so busy trying to figure out how to frame what i saw through my nikon, that i rarely got round to experiencing life face on. i was so busy trying to save it for the future, that i never lived it in the present. one of the reasons i do not like photos being taken during b'nei mitzvah and other lifecycle ceremonies in the sanctuary is that i believe that if you know there will be some kind of record of the event, you are less likely to focus on being there, on taking it all in. i think that if you know it will be a one-off, you are more likely to be fully present.
on the other hand, if the photo is only a matrix, what am i worrying about?! gut shabbes!
Walker Evans. Or Is It?
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
Published: August 25, 2006
A PHOTOGRAPHER snaps a picture. If it’s a camera with film, a negative is made; if it’s a digital camera, a file is produced. A printer, in a dark room using chemicals, or at a computer screen, can tinker with the image, crop it, enlarge it, make it lighter or darker, highlight one part or obscure another.
In other words, the image produced by the camera, whether it’s a negative or a digital file, is only the matrix for the work of art. It is not the work itself, although if the photographer is a journalist, any hanky-panky in the printing process comes at the potential cost of the picture’s integrity. Digital technology has not introduced manipulation into this universe; it has only multiplied the opportunities for mischief.
[snip]
Is photography closer to music and theater, or to painting? A painting is what it is, and copies of it are not the same. Music and theater exist through their variety of interpretations."
did you know that i used to be a photographer? i shot sport and theatre, mainly because there was already an agreement that what was taking place was there to be watched (vs papparazzi-style doorstepping) ... and because i loved them. i stopped because i needed to curtail the development of my amoral side. it was not to do with the photographing - i still love to do that. things one had to do, however, to get assignments; and then the kinds of assignments themselves, involved a lot of lying and stomping on other people - and while i found out that i could be quite good at that, i did not want to look back on my life and see nothing but a few bits of yellow newspaper swirling in the mist. also, 15 years or so ago, i figured that technology would pretty soon make me obsolete. why pay to send me to an event, and a biker to pick up the film, and the film guy to develop it; when you could look on a computer screen at the televised version, freeze the moment you want, and photoshop it?
anyway, this piece from the ny times today caught my eye and i lifted a few sentences to share with you.
my simple response is look mate you cannot lump it all together like that. for a start just separate it out into intention - where the intention is to record an event in order to convey to the viewer what is occurring at the moment of the shot. of course this is already edited by the photographer's eye & instinct, even if this is not conscious. nevertheless, if i take a picture of qpr scoring a goal (a rare event she said sadly, especially as they lost tonight on national television. mind you they always lose on national television :-( ), i believe i am recording an historical moment (and such moments are so rare as to be truly historical etc etc ad nauseam). i believe this intention is different to one who uses the camera, and the darkroom, as media of expression of one's view of the world.
another reason that i quit photography was that i was so busy trying to figure out how to frame what i saw through my nikon, that i rarely got round to experiencing life face on. i was so busy trying to save it for the future, that i never lived it in the present. one of the reasons i do not like photos being taken during b'nei mitzvah and other lifecycle ceremonies in the sanctuary is that i believe that if you know there will be some kind of record of the event, you are less likely to focus on being there, on taking it all in. i think that if you know it will be a one-off, you are more likely to be fully present.
on the other hand, if the photo is only a matrix, what am i worrying about?! gut shabbes!
the beloit class of 2010
highlights from the beloit college mindset of the class of 2010 include:
Members of the class of 2010, entering college this fall, were mostly born in 1988. For them: Billy Carter, Lucille Ball, Gilda Radner, Billy Martin, Andy Gibb, and Secretariat have always been dead.
1. The Soviet Union has never existed and therefore is about as scary as the student union.
6. There has always been only one Germany.
9. A stained blue dress is as famous to their generation as a third-rate burglary was to their parents'.
18. They grew up with and have outgrown faxing as a means of communication.
19. "Google" has always been a verb.
28. Carbon copies are oddities found in their grandparents' attics.
36. They have rarely mailed anything using a stamp.
52. They never played the game of state license plates in the car.
62. Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti have always been luxury cars of choice.
63. Television stations have never concluded the broadcast day with the national anthem.
66. Dolphin-free canned tuna has always been on sale.
67. Disposable contact lenses have always been available.
68. "Outing" has always been a threat.
70. They have always "dissed" what they don't like.
74. Ringo Starr has always been clean and sober.
75. Professional athletes have always competed in the Olympics.
to see the rest, click here
i also had a look at the mindset of the class that graduated this year:
3. South Africa's official policy of apartheid has not existed during their lifetime.
8. Big Brother is merely a television show.
9. Cyberspace has always existed.
20. China has always been a market-based reforming regime.
22. The U.S. and the Soviets have always been partners in space.
31. Women have always had tattoos.
32. Vanessa Williams and Madonna are aging singers.
47. Hip-hop and rap have always been popular musical forms.
yes, well, i have a birthday coming up next week and therefore need to beat myself over the head about how bloody old i am. maybe i will spend the whole week wittering on about how i remember when mobile telephones were the size and weight of a brick, and complaining that qpr players never had ads on their arses when i was but a lass. time to go listen to the monty python sketch of the four yorkshiremen i think ...
Members of the class of 2010, entering college this fall, were mostly born in 1988. For them: Billy Carter, Lucille Ball, Gilda Radner, Billy Martin, Andy Gibb, and Secretariat have always been dead.
1. The Soviet Union has never existed and therefore is about as scary as the student union.
6. There has always been only one Germany.
9. A stained blue dress is as famous to their generation as a third-rate burglary was to their parents'.
18. They grew up with and have outgrown faxing as a means of communication.
19. "Google" has always been a verb.
28. Carbon copies are oddities found in their grandparents' attics.
36. They have rarely mailed anything using a stamp.
52. They never played the game of state license plates in the car.
62. Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti have always been luxury cars of choice.
63. Television stations have never concluded the broadcast day with the national anthem.
66. Dolphin-free canned tuna has always been on sale.
67. Disposable contact lenses have always been available.
68. "Outing" has always been a threat.
70. They have always "dissed" what they don't like.
74. Ringo Starr has always been clean and sober.
75. Professional athletes have always competed in the Olympics.
to see the rest, click here
i also had a look at the mindset of the class that graduated this year:
3. South Africa's official policy of apartheid has not existed during their lifetime.
8. Big Brother is merely a television show.
9. Cyberspace has always existed.
20. China has always been a market-based reforming regime.
22. The U.S. and the Soviets have always been partners in space.
31. Women have always had tattoos.
32. Vanessa Williams and Madonna are aging singers.
47. Hip-hop and rap have always been popular musical forms.
yes, well, i have a birthday coming up next week and therefore need to beat myself over the head about how bloody old i am. maybe i will spend the whole week wittering on about how i remember when mobile telephones were the size and weight of a brick, and complaining that qpr players never had ads on their arses when i was but a lass. time to go listen to the monty python sketch of the four yorkshiremen i think ...
Thursday, August 24, 2006
a bissele yiddish patriotism
thanks to r. jordan parr in texas for the following ditty:
(1943 translation of the Star Spangled Banner into Yiddish by Dr. Abraham Asen, described as "the foremost Yiddish adapter of English poetry,")
O'zog, kenstu sehn, wen bagin licht dervacht,
Vos mir hoben bagrist in farnachtigen glihen?
Die shtreifen un shtern, durch shreklicher nacht,
Oif festung zich hoiben galant un zich tsein?
Yeder blitz fun rocket, yeder knal fun kanon,
Hot bawizen durch nacht: az mir halten die Fohn!
O, zog, tzi der "Star Spangled Banner" flatert in roim,
Ueber land fun die freie, fun brave die heim!
(1943 translation of the Star Spangled Banner into Yiddish by Dr. Abraham Asen, described as "the foremost Yiddish adapter of English poetry,")
O'zog, kenstu sehn, wen bagin licht dervacht,
Vos mir hoben bagrist in farnachtigen glihen?
Die shtreifen un shtern, durch shreklicher nacht,
Oif festung zich hoiben galant un zich tsein?
Yeder blitz fun rocket, yeder knal fun kanon,
Hot bawizen durch nacht: az mir halten die Fohn!
O, zog, tzi der "Star Spangled Banner" flatert in roim,
Ueber land fun die freie, fun brave die heim!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
a second win ...
... and the first win in a cup match for about two years. qpr managed to scrape past northampton town at home 3-2, with ray jones scoring his first senior goal in the 90th minute. i tell you - i am beyond radio & telephone contact in the mountains over the weekend and the yanks sweep the red sox at fenway ... and i fall asleep listening to qpr live when northants equalise and miss the winning goal. if i were superstitious i might think that my absence is good karma for my teams :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)