Clive Palmer has decided to rebuild the Titanic. And to challenge Wayne Swan in his seat at the next federal election.
Now, I'm all for the concept of politics being about ideas. It would be good to hear more ideas (as opposed to various talking points) raised and discussed in parliament. But at the same time, parliament isn't the Melbourne Club or an academic common room. At the end of the day, parliament exists to do stuff that has a bearing on how society works.
Clive Palmer thinks nothing of the irony that he proposes to build a big ship in China. The original was built in Belfast, now one of the residual wastelands of Irish manufacturing. The thing that really amazes me is that Palmer supposes that the Chinese navy is at his beck and call to escort the bogus vessel to make its first crossing of the Atlantic some time in 2016. Oh, and in the space that held the coal boilers in the original ship, Palmer will have a little display piece about the wonders of his homeland, Queensland.
Does federal parliament really need another Queenslander trying to run the show?
30 April 2012
29 April 2012
A quick book review
A Concise History of Western Music -- Paul Griffiths (Cambridge University Press, 2006)
I have to admit that I picked this book up on an impulse. I was fascinated to discover that the author was using time as a way to frame a discussion of music history, a conceit that struck me as innovative and interesting.
While Paul Griffiths has had a distinguished career as a music critic, I have to admit that my impression of this book was that he breezes over a lot of issues very swiftly. Many names of core significance to the story of music across the ages flit past, often with little account of why they matter, and almost no information for a curious reader to pursue later on. I think this is a very serious weakness, and it makes understanding the text difficult, even for a reader with knowledge of the subject.
A further limitation of this history is the exclusion of any material other than music of the western canon and its periphery. I think Richard Taruskin has made a stronger argument for how and why to limit the subject matter, but Griffiths seems to assume that the reader is aware of the limitations he has adopted.
My biggest disappointment was the total lack of engagement with time as a means to unfold the story of music in western Europe and beyond. I was disappointed to discover that the only substantive mentions of time were in relation to telling the hours -- music history is periodized according to whether we used a sundial, a clock, or a personal timepiece to know where we are in the day. And -- even more problematically -- why no discussion of the choices behind looking at time as a device for talking about music: why not discuss the relationship between music and space(s), music and architecture, music and fashion, music and particle physics? Having slogged through to the end, I was none the wiser as to how telling time has influenced the development of music. Instead, Griffiths has given us a history of music that follows the time-hallowed periodization adopted in almost any other history book, minus the rigorous (if outdated) theorizing of Parry, attention to context of Grout and Palisca, the analytical ear of Taruskin or the sheer readibility of Tovey.
So, who might get the most out of this book? I think it would be useful to someone wanting a good overview without too much detail. It might suit an undergraduate who wants to have some signposts to navigate the grand sweep of history lectures without having to deal with a larger textbook. A general reader would probably find it a bit too brief on detail, although the complete absence of notated examples and recommendation of recordings would help to flesh out the very thin discussions of the various 'big name' composers.
Perhaps the best use for this history is as a companion to a more detailed text, or to be read in conjunction with internet research.
I have to admit that I picked this book up on an impulse. I was fascinated to discover that the author was using time as a way to frame a discussion of music history, a conceit that struck me as innovative and interesting.
While Paul Griffiths has had a distinguished career as a music critic, I have to admit that my impression of this book was that he breezes over a lot of issues very swiftly. Many names of core significance to the story of music across the ages flit past, often with little account of why they matter, and almost no information for a curious reader to pursue later on. I think this is a very serious weakness, and it makes understanding the text difficult, even for a reader with knowledge of the subject.
A further limitation of this history is the exclusion of any material other than music of the western canon and its periphery. I think Richard Taruskin has made a stronger argument for how and why to limit the subject matter, but Griffiths seems to assume that the reader is aware of the limitations he has adopted.
My biggest disappointment was the total lack of engagement with time as a means to unfold the story of music in western Europe and beyond. I was disappointed to discover that the only substantive mentions of time were in relation to telling the hours -- music history is periodized according to whether we used a sundial, a clock, or a personal timepiece to know where we are in the day. And -- even more problematically -- why no discussion of the choices behind looking at time as a device for talking about music: why not discuss the relationship between music and space(s), music and architecture, music and fashion, music and particle physics? Having slogged through to the end, I was none the wiser as to how telling time has influenced the development of music. Instead, Griffiths has given us a history of music that follows the time-hallowed periodization adopted in almost any other history book, minus the rigorous (if outdated) theorizing of Parry, attention to context of Grout and Palisca, the analytical ear of Taruskin or the sheer readibility of Tovey.
So, who might get the most out of this book? I think it would be useful to someone wanting a good overview without too much detail. It might suit an undergraduate who wants to have some signposts to navigate the grand sweep of history lectures without having to deal with a larger textbook. A general reader would probably find it a bit too brief on detail, although the complete absence of notated examples and recommendation of recordings would help to flesh out the very thin discussions of the various 'big name' composers.
Perhaps the best use for this history is as a companion to a more detailed text, or to be read in conjunction with internet research.
28 April 2012
Out and about
Since being released back into the wild, I've been taking on the odd Sunday of locum work.
This week I'll be at Ewing Memorial Uniting Church.
If you happen by, I'll be performing the following organ music:
Tema con Variazioni from Sonata Celtica (Op 153) -- Charles V. Stanford
Jesu hilf siegen -- Sigfrid Karg-Elert
Cantilene -- Joseph Rheinberger
Sketch -- Robert Schumann
This week I'll be at Ewing Memorial Uniting Church.
If you happen by, I'll be performing the following organ music:
Tema con Variazioni from Sonata Celtica (Op 153) -- Charles V. Stanford
Jesu hilf siegen -- Sigfrid Karg-Elert
Cantilene -- Joseph Rheinberger
Sketch -- Robert Schumann
A question
After appearing on Q&A with Cardinal Pell, Richard Dawkins set out for the athiest conference in Melbourne, held in the shed out the back of Crown Casino.
One question has perplexed me over the last few weeks. If Richard Dawkins and his ilk are correct in their assertion that life has no ultimate meaning, then what do they have to say about people with gambling problems?
One question has perplexed me over the last few weeks. If Richard Dawkins and his ilk are correct in their assertion that life has no ultimate meaning, then what do they have to say about people with gambling problems?
11 April 2012
The problem with Q&A
The Cardinal Pell -- Richard Dawkins encounter on the ABC's Q&A program was a dispiriting shambles. I say this having seen the riveting discussion Dawkins had with Rowan Williams at the Sheldonian Theatre last week.
The format of the program was an undeniably confrontational forum for discussing big questions. While some very profound points were raised, it was very clear that the Cardinal had gone in to score points off Dawkins. While Dawkins managed to remain courteous, for example, by referring to and addressing George Pell according to the correct convention, Pell most certainly failed to return the civility. Not once did Dawkins dismiss Pell out of hand (tempted as he must have been); Pell took every opportunity to do so.
The epic fail of the show was a badly misplaced pause. Pell was referring to an experience he had in discussing the existence of hell with a schoolchild. His remark began "When I was working in England, we were preparing some young English boys...," whereupon he paused for breath before continuing, and the catcalls began. Surely his media adviser had a severe convulsion in the backstage area when that bauble dropped.
To me, the whole enterprise was lost at the beginning when Tony Jones's failed to give proper shape to the discussion, and to define some common ground for the two guests. The result was an epistemological fistfight, with Pell failing to engage meaningfully with Dawkins's materialism, and Dawkins left with no room to move. It really made things deeply unfair to both guests, and cannot have advanced any deep understanding in the audience.
Instead, Pell kept coming back to Aristotelian natural philosophy as viewed through Scholasticism. Now, there's nothing wrong with this way of seeing the world so long as you remain clear in your mind that it has limitations, that it cannot process certain types of information, and that it does rely on metaphysics as a starting point. He spent half the time veering off onto irrelevant tangents, bringing in a whole web of issues that had no bearing on the issues in the discussion. He sounded every bit as strange as a Scientology convention, and confirmed all the worst cliches about Catholic bishops. Pell's airing of his views on climate change simply confirmed the basic irrationality of his thinking. It was obscurantism of the most determined variety, and Pell came out looking like he fails to take (philosophical) materialism seriously.
By contrast, Dawkins had so little room to move that he ended up sounding off in the key of materialistic dogmatism. He knows that his views are open to challenge, and he welcomes those challenges when they are presented in a way that he can work them through. If I was as jetlagged as he must surely have been (he arrived in Australia the day before the program went to air), then I would appreciate having a discussion like this framed in a way that allowed questions to be answered in bite-sized chunks. If I were Richard Dawkins, I'm not sure what I would be thinking right now. Perhaps something along the lines of "cross the Equator and turn your intellectual clock back 700 years."
This certainly wasn't the ABC's finest hour. One questioner was allowed to get away with ascribing the phrase "survival of the fittest" to Darwin. That laurel belongs to Herbert Spencer, who created the notion of Social Darwinism. This lazy slippage demonstrates a sad lack of engagement with evolutionary and Darwinian theory.
Q&A has introduced a new live viewer poll. This week's question was whether religious belief is of any benefit to the world. 76% declared against, although I think they were answering a dud question. The reality is that people have beliefs, and people act on beliefs. The existence of belief in the abstract is completely neutral, totally uncontroversial, and absolutely uninteresting to anyone. To answer a question as loaded as the one put to the Q&A audience is not easy. It is people who have beliefs that act in the world -- whether they make war or care for the vulnerable. Beliefs in themselves are not sufficient to bring about change, but rather preparedness on the part of people to act on them. I think it would have been a mark of higher integrity for Q&A to have asked a less loaded question.
The format of the program was an undeniably confrontational forum for discussing big questions. While some very profound points were raised, it was very clear that the Cardinal had gone in to score points off Dawkins. While Dawkins managed to remain courteous, for example, by referring to and addressing George Pell according to the correct convention, Pell most certainly failed to return the civility. Not once did Dawkins dismiss Pell out of hand (tempted as he must have been); Pell took every opportunity to do so.
The epic fail of the show was a badly misplaced pause. Pell was referring to an experience he had in discussing the existence of hell with a schoolchild. His remark began "When I was working in England, we were preparing some young English boys...," whereupon he paused for breath before continuing, and the catcalls began. Surely his media adviser had a severe convulsion in the backstage area when that bauble dropped.
To me, the whole enterprise was lost at the beginning when Tony Jones's failed to give proper shape to the discussion, and to define some common ground for the two guests. The result was an epistemological fistfight, with Pell failing to engage meaningfully with Dawkins's materialism, and Dawkins left with no room to move. It really made things deeply unfair to both guests, and cannot have advanced any deep understanding in the audience.
Instead, Pell kept coming back to Aristotelian natural philosophy as viewed through Scholasticism. Now, there's nothing wrong with this way of seeing the world so long as you remain clear in your mind that it has limitations, that it cannot process certain types of information, and that it does rely on metaphysics as a starting point. He spent half the time veering off onto irrelevant tangents, bringing in a whole web of issues that had no bearing on the issues in the discussion. He sounded every bit as strange as a Scientology convention, and confirmed all the worst cliches about Catholic bishops. Pell's airing of his views on climate change simply confirmed the basic irrationality of his thinking. It was obscurantism of the most determined variety, and Pell came out looking like he fails to take (philosophical) materialism seriously.
By contrast, Dawkins had so little room to move that he ended up sounding off in the key of materialistic dogmatism. He knows that his views are open to challenge, and he welcomes those challenges when they are presented in a way that he can work them through. If I was as jetlagged as he must surely have been (he arrived in Australia the day before the program went to air), then I would appreciate having a discussion like this framed in a way that allowed questions to be answered in bite-sized chunks. If I were Richard Dawkins, I'm not sure what I would be thinking right now. Perhaps something along the lines of "cross the Equator and turn your intellectual clock back 700 years."
This certainly wasn't the ABC's finest hour. One questioner was allowed to get away with ascribing the phrase "survival of the fittest" to Darwin. That laurel belongs to Herbert Spencer, who created the notion of Social Darwinism. This lazy slippage demonstrates a sad lack of engagement with evolutionary and Darwinian theory.
Q&A has introduced a new live viewer poll. This week's question was whether religious belief is of any benefit to the world. 76% declared against, although I think they were answering a dud question. The reality is that people have beliefs, and people act on beliefs. The existence of belief in the abstract is completely neutral, totally uncontroversial, and absolutely uninteresting to anyone. To answer a question as loaded as the one put to the Q&A audience is not easy. It is people who have beliefs that act in the world -- whether they make war or care for the vulnerable. Beliefs in themselves are not sufficient to bring about change, but rather preparedness on the part of people to act on them. I think it would have been a mark of higher integrity for Q&A to have asked a less loaded question.
10 April 2012
Dawkins 2
And here is Richard Dawkins with the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney. The study in contrasts could hardly be greater.
Dawkins 1
Richard Dawkins has been busy chatting with bishops over the last few days, which provides a study in contrasts.
Here's the full video of Dawkins with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's just under 90 minutes, but absolutely fascinating.
Here's the full video of Dawkins with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's just under 90 minutes, but absolutely fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)