.jpg)
So, to make up for my appalling lack of blogging (hey, I'm a busy guy. I'm running my own subversion here, as well as trying to do a Master's thesis) I have several links for those of you surfing the net instead of going out tonight.
Firstly, my favourite new site of the moment, Demon Tales. Admittedly, you could probably find these via YouTube, but why worry when the Demontales.com webmaster is putting them all in one easy to find place?
Secondly, is a lovely little story I came across when browsing 4chan's paranormal forum. Kimberley's story is a rather odd tale told by a Texan teacher, one that would be considered a very well done horror tale, if not for the seeming facts behind it. Also posted was an audio file, of rather poor quality, of the teacher in question telling the tale. I cleaned it up as much as possible with my basic programs, and the resulting hour long story can be found here.
Finally, a plug for the latest G-Spot podcast, this Samhain special is being presented by Milford Connolly of the Garden of Truth, who will be telling a bloodcurdling tale befitting the day. Well, half of it, at least.
Well, thats all I've got folks. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a party to attend. I think I carry off the Baron Samedi look quite well, personally...
Oct 31, 2007
Oct 29, 2007
Channeling a Daily Mail Editorial
I THINK ABOUT NU-LABOUR 19 HOURS A DAY.
I SIT IN MY BASEMENT AND ROCK BACK AND FORTH, AND FOAM COMES OUT OF MY MOUTH
PC-LEFTY LIBERALS CAN FLY
SOCIALISTS RUN EVERYTHING AND OWN EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE
MY DOG IS SECRETLY A POLICE SPY. I SHAKE HIM FOR ANSWERS BUT HE WAS TAUGHT TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. DAMN NU-LABOUR SECRET AGENT HOUSEPETS, SHOULD BE OUT CATCHING REAL CRIMINALS.
UNIONISTS CAN TELEPORT
TONY BLAIR IS A SPACE ALIEN WHO CAME FROM THE SOCIALIST MOTHERSHIP
NU-LABOUR OWN AND CONTROL EVERYTHING BUT THEY ARE NOT SMART, NO SIR, THEY ARE REALLY DUMP
I LIKE TO ACCUSE FASCI-LIBERALS OF MANY THINGS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF WHINING WHEN THEY RESPOND TO MY ATTACK
YOU ARE SECRETLY A GUARDIAN READER
EVERYONE IS A PC COWARD
TEHRE ARE NO LIBERALS
HELP ME, THE VOICES IN MY HEAD FRIGHTEN ME
HOW COME NU-LABOUR WHO HAVE SEVERAL HALF DECENT POLICIES AND A BROAD BASE OF ESTABLISHED SUPPORT GET MORE VOTES THAN UKIP, THEY ARE A TINPOT SINGLE ISSUE PARTY, WHY DONT THEY RUN THE COUNTRY? WE MUST LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP
OHHH MY HEAD HOW IT HURTS
LEFTIES ARE AFRAID OF LITTLEJOHN
WHERE IS MY MEDICATION?
I SIT IN MY BASEMENT AND ROCK BACK AND FORTH, AND FOAM COMES OUT OF MY MOUTH
PC-LEFTY LIBERALS CAN FLY
SOCIALISTS RUN EVERYTHING AND OWN EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE
MY DOG IS SECRETLY A POLICE SPY. I SHAKE HIM FOR ANSWERS BUT HE WAS TAUGHT TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. DAMN NU-LABOUR SECRET AGENT HOUSEPETS, SHOULD BE OUT CATCHING REAL CRIMINALS.
UNIONISTS CAN TELEPORT
TONY BLAIR IS A SPACE ALIEN WHO CAME FROM THE SOCIALIST MOTHERSHIP
NU-LABOUR OWN AND CONTROL EVERYTHING BUT THEY ARE NOT SMART, NO SIR, THEY ARE REALLY DUMP
I LIKE TO ACCUSE FASCI-LIBERALS OF MANY THINGS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF WHINING WHEN THEY RESPOND TO MY ATTACK
YOU ARE SECRETLY A GUARDIAN READER
EVERYONE IS A PC COWARD
TEHRE ARE NO LIBERALS
HELP ME, THE VOICES IN MY HEAD FRIGHTEN ME
HOW COME NU-LABOUR WHO HAVE SEVERAL HALF DECENT POLICIES AND A BROAD BASE OF ESTABLISHED SUPPORT GET MORE VOTES THAN UKIP, THEY ARE A TINPOT SINGLE ISSUE PARTY, WHY DONT THEY RUN THE COUNTRY? WE MUST LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP
OHHH MY HEAD HOW IT HURTS
LEFTIES ARE AFRAID OF LITTLEJOHN
WHERE IS MY MEDICATION?
Oct 28, 2007
Book review. Pagan Politics: Why leadership demands a Pagan ethos
This is a relatively short, if quite dense, book written by the American journalist Robert Kaplan, who has worked for several publications, such as the Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post, New York Times and National Interest.
Kaplan starts off the book in probably the best way possible, explaining his own background. As he freely admits, he is not a scholar or academic. He has no think tank or policy background. Instead, he draws on his own experience, of that as an overseas reporter, as well as a wide range of literary and philosophical works, both pre-Christian and more modern.
His main thesis is familiar to that of Realist thinkers from Hans Morgenthau to John Mearsheimer – namely that utopian idealism is terribly dangerous and in fact more responsible for death and destruction on a global level than anything else in the past century. Because of inherent utopian or transcendental morality within the Judeo-Christian system of thinking – a system that has defined western thought for roughly a thousand years – a return to a more classical, or pagan, ethical standard is what would most benefit international politics.
Because there has not been a substantial change in human behaviour since the dawn of civilization, these works, such as those done by Thucydides and Sun Tzu, can aid where conventional morality fails. There is no “modern world” Kaplan insists, all that has changed are the circumstances in which human power plays are set.
After some historical lessons, of Churchill in the Sudan and the Second Punic War, Kaplain starts to actually dig into the classical books themselves. He looks to both the Peloponnesian War and the Warring States Era of China because their similarities in culture, despite their lack of contact and vast distance, bought about very similar ideas concerning human nature, conflict and political philosophy. He brings out the most important axioms of the Art of War for examination, that war is in fact a failure of policy, that spies and dishonourable action may be necessary to avoid or win the war and that leaders should not be swayed by public opinion if the state's existence is risked.
He then concentrates more on Thucydides, explaining his subtle philosophy drawn from the bitter experience of the war between Sparta and Athens. Human behaviour, Thucydides argues, is driven by fear, self-interest and honour. The conditions these place on actors lead to communal instability, when the pure instincts of the above triumph over the laws, then anarchy is the result. Therefore, such instincts should not be repressed, but channelled towards moral outcomes.
Thucydides portrayed Athens as in the grip of a terrible hubris, bought on by their victory over Persia, their empire, and their culture (including democracy). This led them to believe they could act with impunity because they were the righteous actors in a wicked and evil world. This led to atrocities such as those which took place at Melos.
Kaplan abandons the pure Pagan texts for a moment, to look at Machiavelli, a philosopher whose classical instincts are all too obvious. He compares Machiavelli to Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister whose infamous order to “go in and break their [Palestinian protesters] bones” led to a landslide victory for the dovish Labor Party – a victory which allowed Rabin to sue for peace. This is well within the teachings of Machiavelli, that virtue and morality are determined by outcome, not method. The only moral policies are effective ones.
Machiavelli also has another teaching – that values are useless without arms to back them up. Therefore projection of power is a primary interest, the values these promote comes second. Taking into account Machiavelli's comments on human nature (which echo Thucydides), a wise and prudent leader structures his country in such a way as to lessen these instincts for the greater good of the community. This is likely most evident in the founding of America,, where the comments of Hamilton can be seen to have a definite Classical edge to them.
Shortly after follows a discussion on Hobbes and Malthus. Hobbes is personally not that interesting to me, his ideas being quite simple and self-motivated. He argues for an all powerful Sovereign who can impose order, because life without is pure anarchy. Thus despotism is the basic state of affairs in the world, the necessary condition for the state to be effective.
Malthus is more interesting because, despite the flaws in his mathematical calculations, his thesis remains sound. Because of exploding populations and resource scarcity, existing tensions will boil over into civil strife. Therefore, without some way to generate new resources, the condition of war is going to be with us well into the future, despite what political settlements are made.
Interestingly enough, Kaplan actually balances out the book somewhat via his introduction of Kant, as a distinction between how politicians are forced to act and should act. Actions based purely on consequence would lead to a world drowning in cynicism and deceit. As he illustrates with the Cold War, the Western nations had an inherent moral advantage, but to be able to keep that, they had to build nuclear weapons, engage in espionage (incidentally, as a personal aside, I have never seen the immorality in this, per se) and support unpleasant regimes. However, this is better than a policy guided by zealotry, extremism and intolerance. This is the danger of religion, as Machiavelli once explained, not that it is inherently dangerous, but that its extremism brings and otherwordly dimension into politics, one incapable of compromise or backing down. The Pagan ethos brings with it a level of tolerance that otherwise cannot exist within moral foreign policies.
The final three chapters can be seen as a commentary on the rest of the book. Kaplan looks into the resurgence of warriorship in the third world – that is, 'warriors' as we would recognize from the ancient Greek epics. The danger is not so much other states any more, but warriors with no stake in civil society or order. Like Troy, the most advanced and civilized nation in the world, the danger will come more from piratical chieftans, driven by the irrationality of human nature and intrigue, rather than in the rational pursuit of obtaining strategic goals. However, there is a flipside to this. Ancient war was about the capture, humilation and execution of the opposing political leader. In the past this meant physically cutting down everyone around him to do so. But with technology advances, assassination and kidnap missions, special forces orientated military missions, will become more common. The unfortunate downside of this will of course be the lack of democratic control over such actions.
Kaplan again turns his attention to the Warring States of China, to look for an upside or positive aspect of recently international movements. As he notes, the common culture of China allowed for the evolution of a system which eventually was subsumed by the Han Empire. The system, he explains, came first, the Han Empire was the one state who managed to unify that system. Thus, he suspects, the evolution of an internationally monocultural upper-middle class could help the evolution of an international system of governance with far greater power. The Han Empire, instead of being run from the Imperial capital, was a grouping of fiefdoms, feudal kingdoms and baronies. Nonetheless, it was an empire still, a singular international entity in its politics.
He ends with a talk on Tiberius, and how his example is one that modern leaders should follow. Tiberius, despite his reputation, removed many of the elements of Roman Imperial rule that made it a leader-based dictatorship. He refused many of the honours his office held and instead chose to strengthen the institutions of the state. He founded few cities, annexed little in the way of territory, left the Imperial treasury with 20 times more gold in it than it held at the start of his rule, and internally strengthened the empire with his military reforms. Of course, as Kaplan points out, one can hardly take the second part of his rule, cruel in the extreme as it was, as a model of expert leadership, but his early policies were one a leader should look to emulate in their prudence and strength of character.
I personally found the book a somewhat confused read at times. This could be because of my own studies, but at times it seemed divided between a Realist foreign policy paper and an actual investigation into what a Pagan ethos was. Realism is something I have spent 3 years studying, in one way or another, and it is something I need no real further introduction to.
That he chose philosophers who were purely concerned with foreign policy is something of a shame, as well. I was hoping that perhaps an examination of Aristotle or Nietzsche would have illuminated conceptions of the ancient virtue ethics system, which is after all what he is advocating. Instead, he looked far more towards the practicalities, or rather history, of people who followed such teachings, instead of what those teachings really were.
In short, while there is no doubt a claim to be made that historically an ethos existed that does not today, and that such an ethos can be linked to the Classical Realism tradition of international thought, this book is not the best one to make such a claim. For someone new to Realism, or indeed historical philosophy, this is an excellent starting point for drawing out comparisons between the two. However, for anyone who has studied those topics in depth, you will find little here that you haven't already heard.
Overall, I rate this 7/10. Many people are not acquainted with Realist thought at all, and Kaplan is not only an easy read, he is an interesting and educational one too. However, for the serious scholar of philosophy, you are far better off looking towards more academic texts for your information and discussions.
Kaplan starts off the book in probably the best way possible, explaining his own background. As he freely admits, he is not a scholar or academic. He has no think tank or policy background. Instead, he draws on his own experience, of that as an overseas reporter, as well as a wide range of literary and philosophical works, both pre-Christian and more modern.
His main thesis is familiar to that of Realist thinkers from Hans Morgenthau to John Mearsheimer – namely that utopian idealism is terribly dangerous and in fact more responsible for death and destruction on a global level than anything else in the past century. Because of inherent utopian or transcendental morality within the Judeo-Christian system of thinking – a system that has defined western thought for roughly a thousand years – a return to a more classical, or pagan, ethical standard is what would most benefit international politics.
Because there has not been a substantial change in human behaviour since the dawn of civilization, these works, such as those done by Thucydides and Sun Tzu, can aid where conventional morality fails. There is no “modern world” Kaplan insists, all that has changed are the circumstances in which human power plays are set.
After some historical lessons, of Churchill in the Sudan and the Second Punic War, Kaplain starts to actually dig into the classical books themselves. He looks to both the Peloponnesian War and the Warring States Era of China because their similarities in culture, despite their lack of contact and vast distance, bought about very similar ideas concerning human nature, conflict and political philosophy. He brings out the most important axioms of the Art of War for examination, that war is in fact a failure of policy, that spies and dishonourable action may be necessary to avoid or win the war and that leaders should not be swayed by public opinion if the state's existence is risked.
He then concentrates more on Thucydides, explaining his subtle philosophy drawn from the bitter experience of the war between Sparta and Athens. Human behaviour, Thucydides argues, is driven by fear, self-interest and honour. The conditions these place on actors lead to communal instability, when the pure instincts of the above triumph over the laws, then anarchy is the result. Therefore, such instincts should not be repressed, but channelled towards moral outcomes.
Thucydides portrayed Athens as in the grip of a terrible hubris, bought on by their victory over Persia, their empire, and their culture (including democracy). This led them to believe they could act with impunity because they were the righteous actors in a wicked and evil world. This led to atrocities such as those which took place at Melos.
Kaplan abandons the pure Pagan texts for a moment, to look at Machiavelli, a philosopher whose classical instincts are all too obvious. He compares Machiavelli to Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister whose infamous order to “go in and break their [Palestinian protesters] bones” led to a landslide victory for the dovish Labor Party – a victory which allowed Rabin to sue for peace. This is well within the teachings of Machiavelli, that virtue and morality are determined by outcome, not method. The only moral policies are effective ones.
Machiavelli also has another teaching – that values are useless without arms to back them up. Therefore projection of power is a primary interest, the values these promote comes second. Taking into account Machiavelli's comments on human nature (which echo Thucydides), a wise and prudent leader structures his country in such a way as to lessen these instincts for the greater good of the community. This is likely most evident in the founding of America,, where the comments of Hamilton can be seen to have a definite Classical edge to them.
Shortly after follows a discussion on Hobbes and Malthus. Hobbes is personally not that interesting to me, his ideas being quite simple and self-motivated. He argues for an all powerful Sovereign who can impose order, because life without is pure anarchy. Thus despotism is the basic state of affairs in the world, the necessary condition for the state to be effective.
Malthus is more interesting because, despite the flaws in his mathematical calculations, his thesis remains sound. Because of exploding populations and resource scarcity, existing tensions will boil over into civil strife. Therefore, without some way to generate new resources, the condition of war is going to be with us well into the future, despite what political settlements are made.
Interestingly enough, Kaplan actually balances out the book somewhat via his introduction of Kant, as a distinction between how politicians are forced to act and should act. Actions based purely on consequence would lead to a world drowning in cynicism and deceit. As he illustrates with the Cold War, the Western nations had an inherent moral advantage, but to be able to keep that, they had to build nuclear weapons, engage in espionage (incidentally, as a personal aside, I have never seen the immorality in this, per se) and support unpleasant regimes. However, this is better than a policy guided by zealotry, extremism and intolerance. This is the danger of religion, as Machiavelli once explained, not that it is inherently dangerous, but that its extremism brings and otherwordly dimension into politics, one incapable of compromise or backing down. The Pagan ethos brings with it a level of tolerance that otherwise cannot exist within moral foreign policies.
The final three chapters can be seen as a commentary on the rest of the book. Kaplan looks into the resurgence of warriorship in the third world – that is, 'warriors' as we would recognize from the ancient Greek epics. The danger is not so much other states any more, but warriors with no stake in civil society or order. Like Troy, the most advanced and civilized nation in the world, the danger will come more from piratical chieftans, driven by the irrationality of human nature and intrigue, rather than in the rational pursuit of obtaining strategic goals. However, there is a flipside to this. Ancient war was about the capture, humilation and execution of the opposing political leader. In the past this meant physically cutting down everyone around him to do so. But with technology advances, assassination and kidnap missions, special forces orientated military missions, will become more common. The unfortunate downside of this will of course be the lack of democratic control over such actions.
Kaplan again turns his attention to the Warring States of China, to look for an upside or positive aspect of recently international movements. As he notes, the common culture of China allowed for the evolution of a system which eventually was subsumed by the Han Empire. The system, he explains, came first, the Han Empire was the one state who managed to unify that system. Thus, he suspects, the evolution of an internationally monocultural upper-middle class could help the evolution of an international system of governance with far greater power. The Han Empire, instead of being run from the Imperial capital, was a grouping of fiefdoms, feudal kingdoms and baronies. Nonetheless, it was an empire still, a singular international entity in its politics.
He ends with a talk on Tiberius, and how his example is one that modern leaders should follow. Tiberius, despite his reputation, removed many of the elements of Roman Imperial rule that made it a leader-based dictatorship. He refused many of the honours his office held and instead chose to strengthen the institutions of the state. He founded few cities, annexed little in the way of territory, left the Imperial treasury with 20 times more gold in it than it held at the start of his rule, and internally strengthened the empire with his military reforms. Of course, as Kaplan points out, one can hardly take the second part of his rule, cruel in the extreme as it was, as a model of expert leadership, but his early policies were one a leader should look to emulate in their prudence and strength of character.
I personally found the book a somewhat confused read at times. This could be because of my own studies, but at times it seemed divided between a Realist foreign policy paper and an actual investigation into what a Pagan ethos was. Realism is something I have spent 3 years studying, in one way or another, and it is something I need no real further introduction to.
That he chose philosophers who were purely concerned with foreign policy is something of a shame, as well. I was hoping that perhaps an examination of Aristotle or Nietzsche would have illuminated conceptions of the ancient virtue ethics system, which is after all what he is advocating. Instead, he looked far more towards the practicalities, or rather history, of people who followed such teachings, instead of what those teachings really were.
In short, while there is no doubt a claim to be made that historically an ethos existed that does not today, and that such an ethos can be linked to the Classical Realism tradition of international thought, this book is not the best one to make such a claim. For someone new to Realism, or indeed historical philosophy, this is an excellent starting point for drawing out comparisons between the two. However, for anyone who has studied those topics in depth, you will find little here that you haven't already heard.
Overall, I rate this 7/10. Many people are not acquainted with Realist thought at all, and Kaplan is not only an easy read, he is an interesting and educational one too. However, for the serious scholar of philosophy, you are far better off looking towards more academic texts for your information and discussions.
Oct 17, 2007
Online shizzle I keep forgetting to do...
I may as well add them now, while I still have them up in my head.
First off, Discordian IRC Chat. I know there are a few channels out there, but if you want to find me or any of the other Principia Discordia posters, we're in irc.maddshark.com with the channel #discord. Pop in some time and say hi
Secondly, for the conspiratorial minded, pranksters and O:MF experts, there is a new game for you to enjoy. The Adam Weisphaut Society could use your particular skills, so sign up and see what it's about.
Finally, I am about a week behind on my expected podcast timetable, but I probably will record it sometime tomorrow. Illness, including a blocked nose which made my voice sound ridiculous, is the main reason I fell behind on this. I do have some good material lined up though, and hopefully at least some will appeal.
First off, Discordian IRC Chat. I know there are a few channels out there, but if you want to find me or any of the other Principia Discordia posters, we're in irc.maddshark.com with the channel #discord. Pop in some time and say hi
Secondly, for the conspiratorial minded, pranksters and O:MF experts, there is a new game for you to enjoy. The Adam Weisphaut Society could use your particular skills, so sign up and see what it's about.
Finally, I am about a week behind on my expected podcast timetable, but I probably will record it sometime tomorrow. Illness, including a blocked nose which made my voice sound ridiculous, is the main reason I fell behind on this. I do have some good material lined up though, and hopefully at least some will appeal.
Oct 15, 2007
Man would not have left money to Tories if he had been "of sound mind".
Oh now they're just making it too easy. The satirists don't even need to think about this story...
Oct 13, 2007
Strong evidence of Eris worship in 6th century Attica
HA HA! I am a genius!
Anyway, that aside, I was searching through some very old and dull copies of the American Journal of Archaeology, when I found a very interesting article in Volume 30, Issue 3 of the publication (July - September 1930).
David M Robinson, the writer of the piece, was given an Attic pinax depicting both of the Erites, dating from the sixth century BC (see the pictures at the end of this post).
That it and of itself is very rare. Most pottery of this period is Corinthian or Rhodian, Attican regional pottery is quite unusual. But pieces of art depicting either aspect of Eris (the Strifebringer or Eris of Competition) are not normally seen until the late Classical or early Hellenistic Period, being made more popular as she was via the work of Euripides.
More interesting, the pottery itself. Firstly, there is no doubt the figure is that of Eris. If the black skin and wings were not enough, the artist himself inscribed Eris on the front of the pinax. The back is harder to read, but it could say 'Epiov, "for the shrine of the Strifes." Equally, it could read Strife against Strife, or the Strife of Competition, but one must consider another fact.
Pinax's were hung in temples, as votive offerings. Especially pinax's with two suspension holes. It is also believed the same artist has done other works, found in Delos and the Acropolis (fragments). These do not depict either of the Erites, but the style of drawing, as well as colouration and themes, would suggest a common source. These works also had the same suspension holes and were found in Temples
The only other depictions of Eris we know of are on a chest in Corinth (Chest of Cypselus) and in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus. There is also the sanctuary of Ares at Athens, where there is an image of Enyo, made by the sons of Praxiteles. But none of these are pinax's, and most depict Eris as a ghastly figure, which this artwork does not do. It would seem then that Eris was considered somewhat acceptable in Attica, in stark contrast to Corinth and the Ionian cities.
Other things to note about this is the animal symbols used to depict Eris. We have the hare, for the Eris of Competition, and the snake for the Eris of strife. Throw in Robert Graves' thinking on Blackthorn being another symbol of Eris and perhaps we have the start of some interesting symbology here, not normally assosciated with unworshipped Goddesses.
Finally, I will end with a free verse adaption of the tale of the two Erites told in Hesiod, transformed by the article writer into modern English.
Anyway, that aside, I was searching through some very old and dull copies of the American Journal of Archaeology, when I found a very interesting article in Volume 30, Issue 3 of the publication (July - September 1930).
David M Robinson, the writer of the piece, was given an Attic pinax depicting both of the Erites, dating from the sixth century BC (see the pictures at the end of this post).
That it and of itself is very rare. Most pottery of this period is Corinthian or Rhodian, Attican regional pottery is quite unusual. But pieces of art depicting either aspect of Eris (the Strifebringer or Eris of Competition) are not normally seen until the late Classical or early Hellenistic Period, being made more popular as she was via the work of Euripides.
More interesting, the pottery itself. Firstly, there is no doubt the figure is that of Eris. If the black skin and wings were not enough, the artist himself inscribed Eris on the front of the pinax. The back is harder to read, but it could say 'Epiov, "for the shrine of the Strifes." Equally, it could read Strife against Strife, or the Strife of Competition, but one must consider another fact.
Pinax's were hung in temples, as votive offerings. Especially pinax's with two suspension holes. It is also believed the same artist has done other works, found in Delos and the Acropolis (fragments). These do not depict either of the Erites, but the style of drawing, as well as colouration and themes, would suggest a common source. These works also had the same suspension holes and were found in Temples
The only other depictions of Eris we know of are on a chest in Corinth (Chest of Cypselus) and in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus. There is also the sanctuary of Ares at Athens, where there is an image of Enyo, made by the sons of Praxiteles. But none of these are pinax's, and most depict Eris as a ghastly figure, which this artwork does not do. It would seem then that Eris was considered somewhat acceptable in Attica, in stark contrast to Corinth and the Ionian cities.
Other things to note about this is the animal symbols used to depict Eris. We have the hare, for the Eris of Competition, and the snake for the Eris of strife. Throw in Robert Graves' thinking on Blackthorn being another symbol of Eris and perhaps we have the start of some interesting symbology here, not normally assosciated with unworshipped Goddesses.
Finally, I will end with a free verse adaption of the tale of the two Erites told in Hesiod, transformed by the article writer into modern English.
Beneath the age-long, far-flung strife of man
With man over the whole wide earth lurk two
Strife sisters. They are not twin, yet must be kin.
Blameless and beautiful the first and great,
Not to the crass and heavy mind that stands
Far off: but, closely known and understood,
Fair as a daughter of the gods to whom
Men make their songs of worship and of praise.
But not like-minded is the other one.
In human hearts she is the power behind
The throne and shapes its whispers, urging on
The ugly crash of battle axes sharp,
With clash of splintering spears in evil war.
O dark and strange her sway. Men love her not,
Yet some dark mystic spell from deathless gods
Her hateful name a noisy honor lends.
Not so that other, elder daughter, true:
Born from the travail of Dark Night, seized by
The Son of Kronos, waiting in the thin
And shadowy ether there and rushed to earth
By him and set beside the secret roots
Of human life on earth, she tends them well
And upward sends her kindly influence
Through all the branching sap of the great tree
Of men in every land and clime and time.
And when Ambition stirs some shiftless churl
To toil, or when a working neighbor shames
Some sluggard from his lazy bed, 'tis she
Who starts the effective thrill that makes him leap.
The rich man ploughs and plants, fully his house
Is filled, all things in order stored. Neighbor
With neighbor vies in hot and wholesome chase,
For all substantial gain. Potter competes
With potter, craft with craft, until we see
Beggar with beggar strive better to beg.
At last the minstrel feels the jealous sting
Some other singer's sweeter song inspires.
0 Better Strife, up from Thy secret seat
Beside the roots of life sending to men
The inspirations for this peaceful war,
Great is thy name, goodly thy fame!
Oct 9, 2007
Stang, bringing the damage
What’s considered “crazy” has drastically changed over the years. “Insane” doesn’t mean running around the mall with your underwear on your head anymore. Nowadays, that’s fashionable, whereas demonstrating any manners at all has become weird. What’s “weird” nowadays used to be considered COMMON HUMAN DECENCY.
- Rev. Ivan Stang
Oct 6, 2007
Intrigue - its what's for dinner
So yeah, I've had a fairly busy week thus far. Busy coughing my guts up, that is. I blame all the new students in town, bringing all their dirty foreign diseases (like the Common Cold) to infect me and my otherwise pristine body.
That aside, I've been having fun, as usual. Lots of fun in fact, as I have been undertaking one of my favourite activities - infiltration. Nothing quite as fun as making your way into the lions den and slowly but surely changing things around you, or failing that, throwing a bloody big Golden Apple into the proceedings.
I am saddened and dismayed to inform you, dear readers, that I have in fact joined the Liberal Democrats. Even with the above purpose in mind, I know this in my heart to be an evil - nay, unforgivable act.
Alright, I'll stop. The Lib Dems, apart from being too broadminded to take their own side in an argument, aren't all that terrible, especially when compared to the Tories. But they do have a monopoly on this town, and we all know monopolies are bad for the Free Market. Plus, this being the constituency it is, I get to hobnob with some of the more important Lib Dem members. The higher up I can cause chaos, the more blessings Eris shall shower on me, after all (this time, she may even take them out of the lead buckets).
Apart from my positively entryist political tactics, I'm also having some fun with the Pastafarians, otherwise known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was quite impressed with how upset they make the Creationist crowd, but they really do lay on the Holier-than-Thou atheism a bit strong. Its kind of like being at a Dawkins fan club meeting, which goes on forever. They suck all the fun out of fundie baiting, which makes me sad.
Oh, I should have something new and interesting coming up soon too for you all. Extending my vast multimedia presence, to be exact. If you haven't already guessed, just wait a few days. You'll find out soon enough.
That aside, I've been having fun, as usual. Lots of fun in fact, as I have been undertaking one of my favourite activities - infiltration. Nothing quite as fun as making your way into the lions den and slowly but surely changing things around you, or failing that, throwing a bloody big Golden Apple into the proceedings.
I am saddened and dismayed to inform you, dear readers, that I have in fact joined the Liberal Democrats. Even with the above purpose in mind, I know this in my heart to be an evil - nay, unforgivable act.
Alright, I'll stop. The Lib Dems, apart from being too broadminded to take their own side in an argument, aren't all that terrible, especially when compared to the Tories. But they do have a monopoly on this town, and we all know monopolies are bad for the Free Market. Plus, this being the constituency it is, I get to hobnob with some of the more important Lib Dem members. The higher up I can cause chaos, the more blessings Eris shall shower on me, after all (this time, she may even take them out of the lead buckets).
Apart from my positively entryist political tactics, I'm also having some fun with the Pastafarians, otherwise known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was quite impressed with how upset they make the Creationist crowd, but they really do lay on the Holier-than-Thou atheism a bit strong. Its kind of like being at a Dawkins fan club meeting, which goes on forever. They suck all the fun out of fundie baiting, which makes me sad.
Oh, I should have something new and interesting coming up soon too for you all. Extending my vast multimedia presence, to be exact. If you haven't already guessed, just wait a few days. You'll find out soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
