Saturday 25 February 2023

Pistis ponders narratives (weekending February 25th 2023)

 

‽istis ponders: narratives (weekending February 25th 2023)

This week

·        as a speech is broadcast coinciding with the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine[i] and a resolution is passed in the United Nations[ii],

·        as a potential new leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party expresses their views[iii]

·        as a pattern for the week beds in and short-term procrastinatory ‘notes to self’ about what to do next subside a little and long-term planning narratives influence more how minutes and hours are spent

‽istis has pondered the way that narratives perhaps, possibly, maybe allow us to do something or not to do something; the stories that we tell ourselves and that we tell others - that perhaps explain or excuse or justify – that lead us to consider something as ‘wrong’ or ‘right’, ‘false’ or ‘true’.

‽istis wonders what are the narratives that represent or underpin ‽istis’ own views… and Vladimir Putin’s views… and Kate Forbes’ views…  and your views?  Where have they perhaps come from? How have they been formed and shaped, inherited or forged? Where are they possibly located – at what may be conscious, subconscious or unconscious levels? How often and how rigorously are they perhaps examined or ‘tested’ for any sort of validity, reliability[iv], veracity, authority or impact? And how could that sort of test be made anyway?[v] How is the potential link between views/ideas/thoughts/cognition, feelings/affect and behaviour/action to be understood?

If there are different internal narrative voices (see above re: procrastinatory v ‘just get on with it, stop faffing[vi] about’), then why and how does one win out over another or another or another when it comes to what one actually does or say?

This week, ‽istis has wondered particularly why:

·        'Thou shalt not kill' has apparently meant nothing to so many, for so long‽

This week, ‽istis has wondered particularly how:

·        ‘3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…’[vii] – apparently can be flouted so flagrantly yet membership continued, including a seat within the select body that ‘has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security’[viii]‽

And perhaps an interesting question is: what narrative might we develop to explain what may happen when we come across new ideas, or ‘evidence’ or experience or information, or others’ views? Might it be that our existing ideas or views and narratives are confirmed and reinforced; are challenged yet upheld; are complexified[ix]; or are even - perhaps, possibly, maybe - changed, renewed or replaced…?

So ‽istis is left wondering and pondering what would it take for ‽istis, or anyone else for that matter (including those mentioned above), to hold a different view… and then to act differently, accordingly‽  

© ‽istis                                                                                                                    

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  


at

Friday 17 February 2023

Pistis ponders: just because you could... (weekending February 18th 2023)

 

‽istis ponders: just because you could… (weekending February 18th 2023)

This weekending, ‽istis has pondered, among other things, the similarities and differences in definitions of a cliché and an idiom.  Perhaps there’s something to do with whether one is viewed negatively or is a source of annoyance, or viewed positively and not so overused. Possibly there’s something to do with the respective level of figurative-ness and literal-ness (?). Maybe there’s something to do with whether the phrase is more or less spoken, or written? ‽istis wonders whether ‘peak cliché’ status might be reserved for expressions where only the first part of a phrase often needs saying: ‘the rest, as they say…’; ‘the proof of the pudding…’; ‘not waving but…’ although there may always be ‘the exception that…’[i]  

However, the phrase that seems to capture a bit about this week’s ponderings and wonderings (whether idiom or cliché or something else altogether) goes along the lines of: ‘just because you could, doesn’t mean you should.’

Issues and news where this may be relevant have included – just because you could:

·        assist dying (and thanks to Prue Leith and Danny Kruger for a heavily ponder-provoking programme[ii]) - doesn’t mean you should

·        use prayers of blessing for same-sex marriages (with doesn’t mean you should being the conclusion of some - including, it appears, the Archbishop of Canterbury[iii])

·        triple profits in the same period that energy costs for many households have also apparently tripled[iv] - doesn’t mean you should

·        maybe move from hopeful ‘rescue’ to regretfully and tragically resigned ‘recovery’ in a disaster zone[v] - doesn’t mean you should

·        stay on as leader of a political party and holder of the top job[vi] - doesn’t mean you should (thank you Nicola Sturgeon for service and what ‽istis thought were clear and  helpful near-daily Covid briefings, with or without Janey Godley’s commentary![vii])

·        panic at the use of the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) - doesn’t mean you should; it just may mean that there’s something in the sky and we don’t know what it is yet…[viii]

·        release information about someone’s so-called ‘vulnerabilities’ in a missing person investigation[ix], or speculate for part of what just may one day be a 'true crime' podcast- doesn’t mean you should.

Yet, as practice on an instrument recently purchased continues (said instrument having been hankered after for several decades since a childhood family visit to a place housing and playing several of them – oh, the joyous sound!), ‽istis is also happy to confirm this week that perhaps, possibly, maybe just because you could, might sometimes mean that you indeed should‽

 What and when would you or should you, if you could – and why‽

© ‽istis                                                                                                                    

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  


[i] …history; …is in the eating; …drowning (and thanks this week to Melvyn Bragg and guests for what ‽istis thought was a fascinating ‘In Our Times’ programme on Stevie Smith: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001j45h ); …proves the rule (though ‽istis has never quite really understood that one).  Did you manage to not complete the line, despite yourself? And where would the traditional first question of Matt Chorley’s Times Radio’s ‘hugely popular quiz: Can you get to No. 10?’ be without a stock of well-known phrases and sayings? (see, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6nZevgYWFQ 8’45” in)


at

Monday 13 February 2023

Pistis wonders if we can disagree well (weekending February 11th 2023)

 

‽istis wonders if we can disagree well (weekending February 11th 2023)


This weekending, ‽istis has been pondering conflict and conflict resolution – including matters of life and terrible, tragic death across the world; how we might discern right from wrong; what is sinful and what is holy; how a process of disagreement can be managed; who rules what is in, what is out – what is included and who is excluded.

Three main news items have preoccupied ‽istis this week – leading to much pondering and wondering:

a) The impact of the earthquake spanning an area that it was once decided to divide into parts, into ‘nation states’ called Türkiye and Syria: where these human-made borders, disputes, (un)civil conflict and the related consequences for local government, for infrastructure and for access to aid seems to be hampering the utterly essential help, and is probably contributing to the toll of death, rising every day…

b) Ukraine and Russia: where it has been nearly a year since the start of the Russian Special Military Operation aka: invasion; aka: war; aka: failure to pursue national regional strategic goals through peaceful, co-operative, mutually beneficial means or through international institutions; aka: the murder, slaughter, death of people on both sides who,

o if we look at the colour of blood that has seeped into the soil (whether that is considered home or ‘foreign’), or has seeped through bandages applied in vain, in a bunker, in a tank or beside a ruined building

o if we see the anguish and tears on the faces of their partners, parents, their children

o when we think about their shared extraordinary capacity as people to laugh and love and wish and dream and hope,

would seem to have far more in common than divides them…

c) The Church of England’s General Synod 2023: specifically the debate on Wednesday afternoon (Feb. 8th) regarding the report commissioned by the Bishops (some 6 years+ in the making and waiting)[i]: ‘Living in Love and Faith’[ii] – which ‘sets out to inspire people to think more deeply about what it means to be human and to live in love and faith with one another. It tackles the tough questions and the divisions among Christians about what it means to be holy in a society in which understandings and practices of gender, sexuality and marriage continue to change.’

And these ponderings and wonderings are a little delayed because ‽istis has spent nearly as much time as those in the debating chamber - watching and listening to the proceedings; considering the process, the procedures and the arrangements in place to manage the debate and to lead to a decision:

· Motion to accept report, proposed

· Opposition heard

· Debate of tabled proposed amendments to the motion (which included the potential removal of ‘Q’ in LGBTQ(sometimes I, sometimes A)+; the potential removal of ‘+’; the potential changing of the word ‘welcome’ to ‘note’; the nature of an apology, etc.)

· Three-ish minute speeches by proposers of the amendments; ‘resistance’ or not by the Bishop of London; 25 members standing or indicating that they wish to stand so a further debate can proceed; speeches by someone ‘for’ the amendment, someone ‘against’ the amendment; testing the wish of Synod to proceed to voting on the amendment; 40 members standing, or not; voting (as a whole or in ‘Houses’ of Bishops, Clergy and laity); and plenty of Points of Order…

· Voting on a finally agreed motion

And in all this, along with

· the ice-breaking references to relative strengths of bladders and the need for comfort breaks;

· the perhaps slightly risqué references to what clergy may get up to in bed or on the living room floor;

· the absolute heartfelt points about matters of exclusion/inclusion, one’s very identity, conscience, who someone may love;

· the potential to name as holy ‘what we along with the universal Church down the ages – and is still the predominant view throughout the world - have always before now called sin’;[iii]

· a reminder of the potential implications: persecution and death for some across the world;

· the fundamental issues of authority, the influence of ‘culture’ and the very role of Scripture, and/or the tradition as it has been passed down/inherited, and/or ‘reason evidenced in the vast work done over the last 6 years so bravely by so many’[iv], and the development of doctrine – all up for discussion;

· the prospect schism and the fracturing of unity among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion;  

· etc, etc…

perhaps, possibly, maybe a process was demonstrated whereby people of sincere and utter conviction about the ‘rightness’ of their view (believing that they have God on their side, even), with ‘deep irreconcilable differences that are between us’, could ‘disagree well’?

The (some-might-say-angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins-level-of-elaborateness) carefully-crafted, clear and agreed procedures were applied with rigour (overseen by a generous, skillful and seemingly effective ‘chairperson’ and a bewigged lawyer and advisers); voices were heard; no obvious insults were thrown; no fists were thrown; no violence threatened; no bombs were prepped…

These proceedings of the General Synod, and the extensive work (and no doubt prayer) underpinning them, was presented as a process of ‘discernment’ – humans seeking the will of the Divine: ‘So let us decide as we each conclude the Lord desires’ (Archbishop Justin Welby); an elaborate democratic process perhaps to find a way forward given the apparent direct absence of the unequivocal, universally heard and understood voice of God – or, some might say, just the absence of God or a God/god/Gods/god/Divine/divine (whether ‘He’, ‘She’[v] or ‘They’).

So, pondering whether perhaps Occam might nowadays pare away the very need to posit an omni-present, omniscient Being altogether[vi], and having also listened to the reports of Zelensky’s address to the British Parliament, ‽istis felt compelled to re-‘Tweet’ the following (first posted during the recent Anglican Communion’s ‘Lambeth Conference’ in 2022[vii]):

‘Go on, I dare you, Lord... hi-jack the PA; make a pronouncement; set the record straight (or not straight)...

Oh, and meanwhile might the barrels of the assault weapons turn to liquorice? the bombs party-pop with glitter? https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2019/12/pistis-reclaims-advent-weekending.html’

And ‽istis is left wondering who, if anyone, is perhaps the most deluded:

· the ‘fors’, the ‘againts’, the proposers and rejectors, the amenders and the resisters

· the democrats, the autocrats

· the generals, the presidents, the grieving relatives on every side

· the arms-procurers and traders, the peace-marchers and pacifists

· the nationalists, the globalists

· the ‘ordinary person in the street or on the proverbial Clapham omnibus’, the ‘elite’

· the ‘hes’, the ‘shes’, the ‘theys’

· the believers, the unbelievers

· the sacred ones, the profaners

· the religious, the humanists

· the zero-sum-gainers, the win-winners

· those who comprise one of two types of people in the world: the ones who think that there are two types of people in the world and the ones who… oh...

or, of course, possibly, maybe even ‽istis‽

© ‽istis                                                                                                                    

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  

[i] Full recorded coverage available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_gcI5hYyc4

[ii] https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/living-love-and-faith/living-love-and-faith-book

[iii] Vaughan Roberts, speech starts at c. 26’ in to proceedings… with apologies for any errors in transcription.

[iv] Archbishop of Canterbury – opening remarks (having just come from Westminster Hall having listened to Ukraine’s President Zelensky

[v] See a side/linked debate on the potential gender of God that spilled over in to the media again this week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11722729/God-non-gendered-Church-England-services.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iuSNd6-Jv4

[vi] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

[vii] References include: https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/lambeth-conference-2022-more-news-and-comment/




at

Saturday 4 February 2023

Pistis ponders performance (weekending February 4th 2023)

 

‽istis ponders performance (weekending February 4th 2023)

This week, family staying, there has been much talk of art and theatre.

·        A gallery visited (just what is ‘art’? - ideas, concepts and meaning revealed transcendently; skill and crafting beyond anything one could do oneself - these seemed to be part of our shared defining requirement

·        Reminiscence of plays and musicals seen and played in, plans to see shows this year including a modern one with ‘heavy’ themes[i] and a cast member known to us

·        Religion as theatre - particularly the ‘costume’ of a be-mitred bishop and ‘scripts’ of liturgy)

And ‽istis has also wondered this week about making and playing music, especially the level of the role of the player…

Perhaps there is a scale (pun not actually intended) or taxonomy to be teased out with varying levels of involvement in the sound production:

·        Direct and unassisted/unmediated delivery – you are the source and controller of the sound: singing, humming, whistling, body percussion

·        Through an instrument: with varying degrees of players’ control, instruments’ mechanisation and location of the sound source - from a kazoo to an unfretted string instrument, from a trombone to a flute, from a piano to a keyboard to an organ console to a micro-chip

·        Automated, pre-set music production: a street organ – handcranked or midi-controlled

·        Recorded music that can start or stop at the press of a button, the application of needle to vinyl, the press of a button, the request to a ‘smart’ device (what an extraordinary repertoire ‘Alexa’[ii] has)

And then there’s the sound engineering and delivery: from mics to mixing to amplification to speakers to over-ear/in-ear/bone-conducting headphones…  

Not for the first time ‽istis wondered about process (a piece of music unfolding in real time – however it is produced; the time spent painting or sculpting) and outcome (a finished work exhibited in a gallery or in a location, a recording just waiting for someone to press ‘play’)…

 

But ‽istis also wondered at the power of performance to enhance:

‽ perhaps the inflection and delivery of liturgy spoken, of lines delivered; 

‽ possibly the tone and phrasing of a song or melody;

‽ maybe the expressive movement of a flautist or violinist;

‽ even perhaps, possibly, maybe the sheer joyous grin and cranking flair of a waistcoat-wearing, hat-bedecked organ grinder‽[iii]

© ‽istis                                                                                                                    

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  


[ii] Various ‘smart’ devices are available – this blog is not sponsored by ‘Amazon’!

[iii] For full disclosure – the author has this week acquired a street organ; the grin is firmly in place, the performance is a work in progress!

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

‽istis ponders volunteering, expertise and tapping (weekending April 27th 2024)

  ‽istis ponders volunteering, expertise and knowing where and how to tap (weekending April 27 th  2024) Various themes this weekending; m...