In Canada, we do not have “separation of Church and State”, but rather a mention in the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights that states “Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the supremacy of God.” Is it the timidity of our Canadian culture that allows this? Can anyone say with a straight face that the God in this statement is not a Christian God?
Is anyone else affronted by mandatory prayer before public meetings? This is accepted in this country (see http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii13978/2004canlii13978.html). Is anyone else insulted by statements by public officials broadcasting their versions of religiosity onto others?
What if you were a Buddhist? Agnostic. Atheist, or even a card carrying member of any of the other traditional religions, that wasn't part of the 'Christian Nation”? You certainly wouldn't hope to win an election.
I've searched high and low to find some understanding. There really is none. At least none that define a secular humanist approach on a national level, never mind regional. But on this score, there are many counts of sabotage from the Christian right. Yes, we can certainly hear from that end of the spectrum. For the Christian right it is time “to stake out a clear Christian position, and to use this Christian position to take back confidently and relentlessly the ground stolen by Secular Humanists in their campaign to become the driving force and establishment voice in Canada” (see http://www.christiangovernment.ca/book_intro.php for a good laugh; people will have to assess whether this, and comments like this are only from an extremest view, or more closer to the norm that we could possibly admit).
For myself I am ashamed of my ignorance and timidity. I am sincerely despondent of the void beyond my simple ramblings, though for certain I know I am not alone. It is our collective acceptance and complacency without mature, healthy dialogue that worries me even more.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Passion for Collecting. Some thoughts.
I can not say I have much in common with Charles Darwin (1809-1882). The weight of his research has not only lasted 150 years (one of the two celebrated anniversaries this year with the publication of On the Origin of Species), but it has spawned all manners of research, far beyond his imagination. However, unbeknownst to me (at least I never put the two occurrences together before, until recently), we do share a passion at least in methodology.
In his Autobiography, he writes about this passion for collecting. “I will give proof” he writes “of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! It ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one” (p. 21).
The use of the mouth as temporary storage containers likely has been 're-invented' many times. Since my earliest days collecting fossils, the sites that contain hundreds if not thousands of little bone and teeth fragments (called microsites) has always been exhilarating. Little pieces of the past just sitting there, each one likely representing a different taxonomic beast from the other bone fragment just inches away. Collecting these sites means literally crawling the surface on your stomach, watching out for cacti and other intrusions, your face just inches away from the ground. For me, because of strained sight, retaining as much focus as possible without the distraction of putting each little fragment into a plastic vial, I just pick up the fossil fragment, retaining focus on the ground for the next bit, and put it in my mouth. I do this until the site is fully scoured, or I need to finally regurgitate cheek-fulls of saliva coated fossils into a vial. Unlike Darwin, however, I have never put anything poisonous into my mouth, but that is not to say that over the years a few relatively modern gopher bones did get wedged between cheek and gum.
I reminisce about this because this year marks both the birth of Charles Darwin (the second of the anniversaries), and of his publication. I ponder the breadth of his idea, and how it has influenced all manners of life, from medicine, art, philosophy, literature, and of course all the various avenues of science. But a recent article in the New York Times has clearly stated, we have to separate Darwin from evolution. That Darwin created the modern idea [for in fact evolution is much older than Darwin], pulling together a mass of information (his zeal for collecting was knowledge base, not just life's trophies), and since then, since the publication in 1859, evolution has evolved. It has answered, through the endeavors of the scientific community all over the world, many of the questions that Darwin could not answer. Genetics, DNA, ecology, further fossil discoveries, have all enhanced the theory of evolution. Science has moved beyond Darwin. Thus “Darwinism” is a misnomer. As the New York Times article states “”Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates ... And “isms” [like Marxism, Fascism] are not sciences.” What Darwin did was solely science.
So the question is, do we “kill” Darwin for the sake of evolution? Can evolution overcome the social connotations of Darwinism if we leave the old man behind? Or do we take the effort to educate ourselves, appreciating the distinction between the historical aspects of Charles Darwin [despite my hagiographical tendencies], and the current understanding of evolutionary theory? Do we make the effort?
The diversity of places, institutions, large and small, that are celebrating the Darwin anniversaries can be found at www.darwinday.org. Take note, however, besides the obligatory biographies of Darwin, many will highlight the current developments in evolutionary theory. Many will illustrate the separation between Darwin, and evolution, utilizing local examples, and the scientists responsible for that particular research. “Darwinism” rarely comes up. When it does, it is often in a social context (depending on which insitution is presenting the respective event), or in fractured light of those who have little sense of what science is. Often in the guise of “creationism”, they lack the "zeal" of collecting - specimens or knowledge - and understanding.
In his Autobiography, he writes about this passion for collecting. “I will give proof” he writes “of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! It ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one” (p. 21).
The use of the mouth as temporary storage containers likely has been 're-invented' many times. Since my earliest days collecting fossils, the sites that contain hundreds if not thousands of little bone and teeth fragments (called microsites) has always been exhilarating. Little pieces of the past just sitting there, each one likely representing a different taxonomic beast from the other bone fragment just inches away. Collecting these sites means literally crawling the surface on your stomach, watching out for cacti and other intrusions, your face just inches away from the ground. For me, because of strained sight, retaining as much focus as possible without the distraction of putting each little fragment into a plastic vial, I just pick up the fossil fragment, retaining focus on the ground for the next bit, and put it in my mouth. I do this until the site is fully scoured, or I need to finally regurgitate cheek-fulls of saliva coated fossils into a vial. Unlike Darwin, however, I have never put anything poisonous into my mouth, but that is not to say that over the years a few relatively modern gopher bones did get wedged between cheek and gum.
I reminisce about this because this year marks both the birth of Charles Darwin (the second of the anniversaries), and of his publication. I ponder the breadth of his idea, and how it has influenced all manners of life, from medicine, art, philosophy, literature, and of course all the various avenues of science. But a recent article in the New York Times has clearly stated, we have to separate Darwin from evolution. That Darwin created the modern idea [for in fact evolution is much older than Darwin], pulling together a mass of information (his zeal for collecting was knowledge base, not just life's trophies), and since then, since the publication in 1859, evolution has evolved. It has answered, through the endeavors of the scientific community all over the world, many of the questions that Darwin could not answer. Genetics, DNA, ecology, further fossil discoveries, have all enhanced the theory of evolution. Science has moved beyond Darwin. Thus “Darwinism” is a misnomer. As the New York Times article states “”Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates ... And “isms” [like Marxism, Fascism] are not sciences.” What Darwin did was solely science.
So the question is, do we “kill” Darwin for the sake of evolution? Can evolution overcome the social connotations of Darwinism if we leave the old man behind? Or do we take the effort to educate ourselves, appreciating the distinction between the historical aspects of Charles Darwin [despite my hagiographical tendencies], and the current understanding of evolutionary theory? Do we make the effort?
The diversity of places, institutions, large and small, that are celebrating the Darwin anniversaries can be found at www.darwinday.org. Take note, however, besides the obligatory biographies of Darwin, many will highlight the current developments in evolutionary theory. Many will illustrate the separation between Darwin, and evolution, utilizing local examples, and the scientists responsible for that particular research. “Darwinism” rarely comes up. When it does, it is often in a social context (depending on which insitution is presenting the respective event), or in fractured light of those who have little sense of what science is. Often in the guise of “creationism”, they lack the "zeal" of collecting - specimens or knowledge - and understanding.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Devil in Dover. An Insider's Story of Dogma V. Darwin in Small-Town America by Lauri Lebo
One can not but be impressed with Lauri Lebo. Small town reporter in Dover, Pennsylvania, in the midst of one of the more impressive trials in state history, weighing not only the merit of a new brand of scientific creationism, intelligent design, as it pertains to public education, but also the merit of her own town. “Dover”, she says “is like every small town. It has stories of startling beauty and secrets of profound ugliness” (p. 88). In The Devil in Dover, the reader witnesses both.
In 2004, the Dover School Board District, an elected group, decided to incorporate their version of religious doctrine, their brand of fundamentalist Christianity, into the local public education system. Of contention was the attempt to utilize “Of Panda's and People”, a religious text dressed up as science. Making matters worse was the public exclamation by some of its members (later to be denied despite the recorded evidence) to incorporate scientific creationism into the classroom. A nation defined, in part, by the separation of Church and State, upset the apple cart of small town relations; that casual howdy, passive existence paced by a sun dial rather than the digital clock.
Lebo takes as much personal risk as the local journalist documenting the affairs. Daughter to a myopic born-again Christian radio station owner, her own travails are on the table. “The truth is” she says, despite my religious ambivalence, I envy people of faith. I picture their sleep so different from my own – secure, uninterrupted by fear and doubt, unspoiled by images of our mortality” (p. 32). Her theological/scientific fights with her father only exasberated the situation further. Even as a reporter, pressure mounted, as the case unfolded, the deceit unveiled, that the exploitation of “fair and balanced treatment” also was challenged. “[S]omewhere along the line, we as journalists have gotten confused by a misguided notion of objectivity. It is our job to inform readers of the truth, not just regurgitate lies, even if it means the stories are no longer “balanced.” “(p. 158).
The idea of intelligent design goes back further than these recent legal events. Whereas some books only accumulate dust on the shelves, William Paley (1743-1805) does not have this disservice. My own copy of his Natural Theology is in a four volume collection, leather bound, published in 1819. His central thesis is:
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever...”
“But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given...”
“...the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch much have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer: who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”
In other words....the complexity of life could only be motioned through the hand of designer. The premise, dressed up in 21st century scientific lingo, becomes “intelligent design”, fostered by the Seattle based Discovery Institute, and used as a wedge by all those in favor of a creator, literalists, or not.
Lebo's story, is her personal journey (unlike, I presume, Gordon Slack's The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA). She discovers the sincerity and grounding by those who search in reality, and those who are committed to intelligent design as an “airy confection, ultimately no more substantial or satisfying than cotton candy” (p. 153). She also wonders “What would it be like to go a week without being judged?” (p. 185), a product of living in a small community, enhanced by those who practice judgement as an action of belief. Of the parents who fought, the plaintiffs, she finds them a motley consortium, some more concerned with the private practice of religion, others not so, but together, united by a vast team of legals who see this clearly as not only a case of the intrusion of fundamentalist Christianity on the state, but simply anti-science (intelligent designers, failing their science, try to redefined what science is; if you can't beat them, change the ground rules).
The eventual outcome of the trial was brutal on the school board. “The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident” Judge Jones states in his ruling “...which has now been fully revealed through this trial.” [The Memorandum Opinion can be found in full at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf] Further “The Board brazenly chose not to follow the advice of their only science-education resources as the teachers were not included in the process of drafting the language adopted by the Board Curriculum Committee.” The school board lost on both counts: intelligent design is a theological argument; and as such, it infringes on the guardian of the U. S. Establishment Clause.
For the many months while arguments were laid in court as well as across Dover's picket fences, Lebo understood that “this was about this country”, not just Dover. This is between “The believers and nonbelievers.” Meanwhile “Neighbors turned their backs on each other, pretending not to see each other from across their backyards. Others stopped taking evening walks to avoid the cold stares and unreturned waves. People learned to keep their heads down at the grocer store” (p. 92-93). And then came the hate letters. And who can forget preacher Pat Robertson's proclamation after the ruling was announced: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city" (quoted from P. 180).
The Devil in Dover provides a rare glimpse of a small community, bereft with tension and religious bigotry mixed with the sincerity and kindness of those living in the here and now. Lebo and the others survive, move on. The sun rises and sun sets, for this is certain, just as the scientists over the centuries were able to explain, despite what the Bible says.
No. 0842
In 2004, the Dover School Board District, an elected group, decided to incorporate their version of religious doctrine, their brand of fundamentalist Christianity, into the local public education system. Of contention was the attempt to utilize “Of Panda's and People”, a religious text dressed up as science. Making matters worse was the public exclamation by some of its members (later to be denied despite the recorded evidence) to incorporate scientific creationism into the classroom. A nation defined, in part, by the separation of Church and State, upset the apple cart of small town relations; that casual howdy, passive existence paced by a sun dial rather than the digital clock.
Lebo takes as much personal risk as the local journalist documenting the affairs. Daughter to a myopic born-again Christian radio station owner, her own travails are on the table. “The truth is” she says, despite my religious ambivalence, I envy people of faith. I picture their sleep so different from my own – secure, uninterrupted by fear and doubt, unspoiled by images of our mortality” (p. 32). Her theological/scientific fights with her father only exasberated the situation further. Even as a reporter, pressure mounted, as the case unfolded, the deceit unveiled, that the exploitation of “fair and balanced treatment” also was challenged. “[S]omewhere along the line, we as journalists have gotten confused by a misguided notion of objectivity. It is our job to inform readers of the truth, not just regurgitate lies, even if it means the stories are no longer “balanced.” “(p. 158).
The idea of intelligent design goes back further than these recent legal events. Whereas some books only accumulate dust on the shelves, William Paley (1743-1805) does not have this disservice. My own copy of his Natural Theology is in a four volume collection, leather bound, published in 1819. His central thesis is:
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever...”
“But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given...”
“...the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch much have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer: who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”
In other words....the complexity of life could only be motioned through the hand of designer. The premise, dressed up in 21st century scientific lingo, becomes “intelligent design”, fostered by the Seattle based Discovery Institute, and used as a wedge by all those in favor of a creator, literalists, or not.
Lebo's story, is her personal journey (unlike, I presume, Gordon Slack's The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA). She discovers the sincerity and grounding by those who search in reality, and those who are committed to intelligent design as an “airy confection, ultimately no more substantial or satisfying than cotton candy” (p. 153). She also wonders “What would it be like to go a week without being judged?” (p. 185), a product of living in a small community, enhanced by those who practice judgement as an action of belief. Of the parents who fought, the plaintiffs, she finds them a motley consortium, some more concerned with the private practice of religion, others not so, but together, united by a vast team of legals who see this clearly as not only a case of the intrusion of fundamentalist Christianity on the state, but simply anti-science (intelligent designers, failing their science, try to redefined what science is; if you can't beat them, change the ground rules).
The eventual outcome of the trial was brutal on the school board. “The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident” Judge Jones states in his ruling “...which has now been fully revealed through this trial.” [The Memorandum Opinion can be found in full at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf] Further “The Board brazenly chose not to follow the advice of their only science-education resources as the teachers were not included in the process of drafting the language adopted by the Board Curriculum Committee.” The school board lost on both counts: intelligent design is a theological argument; and as such, it infringes on the guardian of the U. S. Establishment Clause.
For the many months while arguments were laid in court as well as across Dover's picket fences, Lebo understood that “this was about this country”, not just Dover. This is between “The believers and nonbelievers.” Meanwhile “Neighbors turned their backs on each other, pretending not to see each other from across their backyards. Others stopped taking evening walks to avoid the cold stares and unreturned waves. People learned to keep their heads down at the grocer store” (p. 92-93). And then came the hate letters. And who can forget preacher Pat Robertson's proclamation after the ruling was announced: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city" (quoted from P. 180).
The Devil in Dover provides a rare glimpse of a small community, bereft with tension and religious bigotry mixed with the sincerity and kindness of those living in the here and now. Lebo and the others survive, move on. The sun rises and sun sets, for this is certain, just as the scientists over the centuries were able to explain, despite what the Bible says.
No. 0842
Friday, February 6, 2009
"The Cypress Hills, An Island By Itself" by W. Hildebrandt and B. Hubner
The Cypress Hills is a beautiful spot for certain. You can feel that it is special as you rise in elevation, ever getting closer. It should, for it sits about 600 metres above the prairies. It is withing these 600 metres that everything changes. What was once prairie is now an ancient forest, a left over from the last glaciation. It is a place that was occupied at least 10-12,000 years ago, and has ever since drawn the attention of all who have travelled in its shadow.
This new volume, The Cypress Hills, is a dry documentary of primarily the last 200 years or so of life on the Cypress Hills. Repeatedly, the voices echo, the documents show systemic greed, racism, and inhumanity by the intruders. Of people, in some cases the Nakoda people who suffered the 'Cypress Hills Massacre' in 1873, were falsely guaranteed rights and resources. The forced turn from nomadic hunters to agricultural based living, allocated in reserves far away from their traditional lands provided only humiliating and deadly results.
It was through these white pre-21st century eyes that we learned the half-truths and lies about a culture quite alien to westerners. Overlooked was the unique relationship with the land and the pivotal role women played in their cultures and lives. The Cypress Hills remedies some of this by examining the records of American and Canadian trappers, explorers, the Hudson Bay Company and early settlers, and later the North West Mounted Police, but also the scant voices of the First Nations and Metis peoples, and boldly records history as it is, and was.
We have stretched our dignity as a species far too much to have history repeat itself. The injustices served should not be relinquished to past memories. These stories, of a place,...of a island once called "The Thunder Breeding Hills" should be clearly in front of us as paths mistakenly chosen.
This new volume, The Cypress Hills, is a dry documentary of primarily the last 200 years or so of life on the Cypress Hills. Repeatedly, the voices echo, the documents show systemic greed, racism, and inhumanity by the intruders. Of people, in some cases the Nakoda people who suffered the 'Cypress Hills Massacre' in 1873, were falsely guaranteed rights and resources. The forced turn from nomadic hunters to agricultural based living, allocated in reserves far away from their traditional lands provided only humiliating and deadly results.
It was through these white pre-21st century eyes that we learned the half-truths and lies about a culture quite alien to westerners. Overlooked was the unique relationship with the land and the pivotal role women played in their cultures and lives. The Cypress Hills remedies some of this by examining the records of American and Canadian trappers, explorers, the Hudson Bay Company and early settlers, and later the North West Mounted Police, but also the scant voices of the First Nations and Metis peoples, and boldly records history as it is, and was.
We have stretched our dignity as a species far too much to have history repeat itself. The injustices served should not be relinquished to past memories. These stories, of a place,...of a island once called "The Thunder Breeding Hills" should be clearly in front of us as paths mistakenly chosen.
"Hitler's Private Library, The Books That Shaped His Life" by Timothy Ryback
I am a sucker for anything "library". I detest war and anything involving it, or its historical glorification. So puzzle me this. A book of Hitler and his library. Do I buy it, and let it rest in a pile of other unread volumes? Do I not buy it and save my resources for another day of bibliophile fishing? Or do I do the former and actually read it? With some trepidations I do the last.
Ryback has to bring history into the library setting. This is Hitler's library, albeit what remains of it after it was dismantled, dispersed, and in some cases destroyed. Ryback is thorough, however, recreating the missing volumes, or at least some of them by searching relevant documents across the globe of what remains of Hitler's correspondence, as a private citizen, and the leader of the Nazi party and military machine; the man we've come to love to hate was also a bibliophile. Now long gone is the passive, retired pop image of a book person.
Witnessed by few, the self-proclaimed literary consumer searched through the classics for a self determination of what he professed. Emerging out of the First World War, the solitary Hitler soldier could do no other but read, for the alternative his personality could not digest.
I have to stop there...for it is difficult to walk the rope that the author of Hitler's Library did. The author's question is; this is not a glorification of the man, or either of the works in his library. But if we judge people by their library, what literary fuels they require to sustain themselves, we are ultimately left with questions of how and why; of some of the severest acts of human conduct and ...evil every enacted on the human soul. Is there one book that changed Hitler? Ryback answers no. Racism and self-aggrandizement was Hitler and the times and place that he was in. Yes, "I regard [Henry] Ford as my inspiration (p. 71), he once espoused, the automobile Ford being among other things anti-Semitic, but there were many, many others including Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. In addition...his Catholic upbringing also added to his soup of political, racial angst, though this would morph into his own personal cherry-picked religious creation - a "creative force".
Unlike most books I read, I thoroughly pencil underlines for significant thoughts, fill margins with quips and suggestions...but not this one. Hitler's Library allowed me to learn about German philosophy and thinking during the early 20th century, some of the German political events leading up to and during the Second World War and of a person I only visualized as a card board cut-out of evil. Ultimately, I learned that anything can be used as a weapon...even a book.
Ryback has to bring history into the library setting. This is Hitler's library, albeit what remains of it after it was dismantled, dispersed, and in some cases destroyed. Ryback is thorough, however, recreating the missing volumes, or at least some of them by searching relevant documents across the globe of what remains of Hitler's correspondence, as a private citizen, and the leader of the Nazi party and military machine; the man we've come to love to hate was also a bibliophile. Now long gone is the passive, retired pop image of a book person.
Witnessed by few, the self-proclaimed literary consumer searched through the classics for a self determination of what he professed. Emerging out of the First World War, the solitary Hitler soldier could do no other but read, for the alternative his personality could not digest.
I have to stop there...for it is difficult to walk the rope that the author of Hitler's Library did. The author's question is; this is not a glorification of the man, or either of the works in his library. But if we judge people by their library, what literary fuels they require to sustain themselves, we are ultimately left with questions of how and why; of some of the severest acts of human conduct and ...evil every enacted on the human soul. Is there one book that changed Hitler? Ryback answers no. Racism and self-aggrandizement was Hitler and the times and place that he was in. Yes, "I regard [Henry] Ford as my inspiration (p. 71), he once espoused, the automobile Ford being among other things anti-Semitic, but there were many, many others including Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. In addition...his Catholic upbringing also added to his soup of political, racial angst, though this would morph into his own personal cherry-picked religious creation - a "creative force".
Unlike most books I read, I thoroughly pencil underlines for significant thoughts, fill margins with quips and suggestions...but not this one. Hitler's Library allowed me to learn about German philosophy and thinking during the early 20th century, some of the German political events leading up to and during the Second World War and of a person I only visualized as a card board cut-out of evil. Ultimately, I learned that anything can be used as a weapon...even a book.
Monday, February 2, 2009
"Why Read? by Mark Edmundson. Bloomsbury, 2004.
This little volume, picked up recently in a bargain bin for two little coins, is a beautifully strong surprise. Author Edmundson is passionate about the punches he pulls: What happens now and in the future if our most intelligent students never learn to strive to overcome what they are? What if aspirations to genius, and to contact with genius . . . become silly, outmoded ideas? What you're likely to get are more and more two-dimensional men and women (p. 139) who will live for the easy road of money and the status quo. This is the projected life without the passion to read and think, and not just gather information that our consumer consumptive culture is creating now thanks in part as this generation is glued to the web. The recipe of this book is heavily sprinkled with poetry, but Why Read? is also history, fiction, and more. As Edmundson poignantly states You can learn history from books, or life will teach it to you more intimately (p. 118).
Edmundson's passion is clear; that a liberal education has much to offer our children. That teachers have to transfer their love of reading to their students, a literary begatting in spirit if not in books (I they don't, their disservice should be noted). To open their minds to discover who they are and not how much money they can earn. A healthy respect for the written word is at least required. Quoting another author whose introduction to literature was tentative for sure: Some of these books at first rejected me; I bored them . But as I grew older and they knew me better, they came to have more sympathy with me and to understand my hidden meanings. Their nature is such that our relationship has been very intimate (p.46, emphasis added). Whereas in today's 'show me now' culture, the usual response to the introduction of literature is boooooring (p. 47).
Big things can be gained from small packages. Big thoughts from small books. Despite it's slim 140 or so pages Why Read? is in fact a very, very big book.
My number 0840.
Edmundson's passion is clear; that a liberal education has much to offer our children. That teachers have to transfer their love of reading to their students, a literary begatting in spirit if not in books (I they don't, their disservice should be noted). To open their minds to discover who they are and not how much money they can earn. A healthy respect for the written word is at least required. Quoting another author whose introduction to literature was tentative for sure: Some of these books at first rejected me; I bored them . But as I grew older and they knew me better, they came to have more sympathy with me and to understand my hidden meanings. Their nature is such that our relationship has been very intimate (p.46, emphasis added). Whereas in today's 'show me now' culture, the usual response to the introduction of literature is boooooring (p. 47).
Big things can be gained from small packages. Big thoughts from small books. Despite it's slim 140 or so pages Why Read? is in fact a very, very big book.
My number 0840.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)