In the wake of Holy Blood, Holy Grail I am now reading the
confessions of St. Augustine.
What a delight. Wonderful words and more truth and wisdom in a
single paragraph than in the whole of Holy Blood. Read them.
The two little wrens are in my tree again. So cute.
I have (very nearly, only a couple of pages left) finished The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael, Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry
Lincoln.
I did consider reading the Da Vinci Code after all of the fuss that
there has been about it but the opinions of several people that I
trust (my Mother, Front Row, The Guardian) tended to describe it as
interesting idea, low grade literature. So I decided to avoid the
alleged dodgy writing and read the book that Da Vinci Code was based
upon, namely Hold Blood.
My general conclusion: interesting idea, low grade writing and
history.
The premise of the book is well thought through and generally
internally consistent. So was the X-Files. I have little problem
accepting the concept of a shadowy organisation working through
several hundreds of years to achieve certain aims, I would be
surprised if there weren't many such. Unfortunately, evidence and
rigour are decidedly lacking through out. Referencing is variable,
sometimes very good and sometimes appalling. Some grand claims are
made on the basis of evidence and documents which are conveniently
unreferenced. Many suppositions are made, which is fine, this is
history after all, but then treated as fact upon which further
suppositions can be built, many times over. Again in itself this is
fine, but there is so little evidence and so many alternative
interpretations that it is very difficult to accept this as anything
other than vague theory, which may have a basis in truth or even be
mostly true but then again may just be a long fairy story.
There was one other thing that bugged me slightly. There was a bit
of a rant about synthesis of techniques in academic disciplines,
which I largely agree with, and it seemed that the booked showed a
genuine attempt to develop such aims. Except for the slight
omission, explicitly stated, of even the slightest use of theology,
which is something I feel has some bearing on the subject. And then
of course, the authors make several isolated and very strong claims
of a very theological nature with no attempt to support them and no
possibility of accepting that they may be wrong.
On a journalistic integrity scale of 'The Star' to 'The Guardian' I
give this a 'Sun'; worth a giggle, not worth taking too seriously.
Here are a few snippets that I kept from the Guardian for some reason
(probably to turn into a blog post). Enjoy and consider:
"Globalisation doest not apply to the service sector, where 20
million people work. It is a term used to disguise the hard truth
that GDP growth is irrelevant to those who don't share in it. GDP
per capita is a meaningless statistic that pretends all wealth is
equally shared. Class-blind economics conveniently celebrates growth
even when it enriches the well-off at the expense of the low paid."
"I think the idea [a national curriculum for under-fives] is
ridiculous. I would wipe my child's bottom with any official
national curriculum for pre-school children that came through my
door!
For the under-fives, the main responsibility lies with the parents,
the most important people in the child's life. Here is what should
really be on their curriculum:
Talking to them from birth, all time, and taking their dummies out so
they can talk back. Giving them a routine and sense of discipline.
Not being afraid to say no; somebody has to be in charge and it has
to be the adult, children can't cope with being in control even if
they like to push against the boundaries. Feeding them good food
when they're hungry, but not panicking if they miss a meal and not
making mealtimes into a battle. Acknowledging that they get fearful.
Teaching them politeness. Letting them fail and realise that
getting it wrong sometimes is not a disaster. Giving them
responsibility, but not beyond their years. Letting them get used to
their own company and liking themselves. Giving as much love as you
can, because you never spoil them by loving them. Going with your
instincts and not being hidebound by what other people say."
There is something odd going on. I am getting vast numbers of hits
from search engine queries on 'rudolph randolph adolph'. By vast, I
mean relatively speaking, we are still talking under double figures
each day.
This blog archive (May 2005) is the culprit:
If you remember, I had three little bulbs that was I attempting to
grow in my office. I named them after the three twisting single
front somersault moves. They never grew. There is probably no
connection.
I suspect there is some sort of quiz or competition asking people to
find out what they are. If you are such a person, please let me
know.
Oh well, I least I rank highly on google for some obscure things.
I m back from the Christmas break and back in the office.
Two little thoughts to get you thinking (and commenting):
The word invalid, used to describe people who through sickness or
disability may not be able to walk or suffer weakness or such things.
Look at that word.
IN - VALID.
I am not usually one for political correctness, but on reflection
that is one word I am glad to see falling out of common usage.
Is alcoholism, binge drinking and smoking a form of self-harm?
Answers on a postcard please.
Posts
