An elastic spirit, and the fruit thereof

Tolkien said that the character of Tom Bombadil is representative of the spirit of the countryside around Oxford. As such, every bit of countryside seems to have an aura, an atmosphere, a presence. Not only the extreme landscapes such as deserts, jungles and mountains, but all landscapes. I’ve experienced the desert landscape. The emptiness is, well, palatable for lack of a better word. But if I consider central Saskatchewan, I would describe it as a stretched landscape. There are little views reminiscent of the English or German countryside (ignoring the big red barns one still sees). But for the most, it has been stretched out, to the point of being porous. This creates the feeling of always being able to breathe, the very opposite of being stifled.

Yet when you turn your eye away from the horizon, you realise that every small pocket of this stretched-out landscape has been filled. Yet somehow, you never get the feeling of being overcrowded, although life is so abundant in these short summer months.

Now to the next thing: I wanted to share some of my impressions of the bounteous earth, as it presents itself to me:

The first is a young Brussel sprout plant in our garden.



Next, some winter onions. These are left in the ground, and in spite of the -50°C temperatures we get, the bounce back in ever increasing numbers every year. Use as green onions.



Then, our young asparagus patch. You can only harvest asparagus in the second, or third year after planting. So next year will be the first harvest from these plants.



Apple trees typically have two year cycles, it seems. One medium harvest, one excellent harvest. Judging by the great abundance of very young fruit, this year has the potential to be a whopper.



I’ve written about my cheese making. Here is a shot of cheese ripening in my cheese fridge. These are all Gouda wheels, ranging from 1.1kg to 1.4kg each.



My dandelion wine, near the end of its fermentation. Soon I will have to rack and bottle it. Anybody have a spare corker?



My wife’s ginger beer. For seven days you add ginger to this “plant”, and let it ferment. Then you make the beer and bottle it, leaving it for another week or so in the fridge. Excellent.

The date is 476 AD ?

Caution: Mood pessimistic

In some recent discussions that I’ve had, the following concept came to the fore:

To be civilized is to be able to reign in instinct.

Thus the glorification of giving in to whim and desire is the antithesis of the civilizing process – it is de-civilizing, or barbarisation. In many ways, Hollywood is the prophet of the new Dark Age. And one sees it already – recently, on a CBC broadcast, a psychologist was bemoaning the deleterious affects of the cult of me, myself and I. A psychologist I know has been commenting on the same.

Much as I dislike doomsday scenarios, and self-righteous disdain of the younger generations by the older, I sometimes do get the feeling that we are dancing on the edge of a precipice. Question is, have we already replaced Romulus Augustus with Odoacer, to follow Gibbon’s analysis?

Creationism and all that

For the benefit of those that did not see it at first, here is a slightly edited version of a comment I left over at the Internet Monk. This was in answer to a request from him to scientists who come from a conservative evangelical background. Now I've written on some of this before, but since there is a round of discussions on various blogs regarding these matters, I thought to repost this in this format.

I am a geologist with more than a decade of experience, prior to which I was exposed to AIG and all that. I would also have to say that at the stage where I am now, I do not experience tensions about science and faith all that much. It wasn’t always the case. Being a "Ken Ham" creationist, studying at a secular university, at a highly rated geology department in particular, I was often wracked with tension. When I started out, I thought I’d only have to think and study carefully till I destroy the evolutionary arguments. Early on in my working life, to that end, I even got involved in a geochronology (age dating) laboratory for that very reason. But let’s back-track…

My other major in my undergraduate career was Mathematics. In my third year, we got a new, young, enthusiastic lecturer in the department, a Bulgarian. He got a weekly colloquium series started for the students, covering interesting topics. The very first lecture was by him, on paradoxes. In the discussion we were arguing with him. In particular, I challenged a statement (which I can’t remember the details of) by pointing out that our regular practice was to discover the basic axioms, define the theorems, and built on that, for any given mathematical system. Later on I came to realise this philosophy if you will is the Hilbert approach. But then he pulled the carpet from underneath me (and it has never been replaced ), by telling how that very approach was invalidated by one of the most brilliant mathematicians ever to trod this earth, Kurt Gödel, a Hungarian and contemporary of Einstein. He formulated two theorems, called the Incompleteness theorems, which showed that that very basic approach to Maths (as used by Hilbert, and me..) is invalid. This shocked me - but I was still the Ken Ham creationist….

But with time, and with experience in the workplace and laboratory, I came to realise the full effect of what happened in that class. Essentially, Maths is the language of science. If we cannot prove the very basic assumptions of Mathematics (that is what Gödel implied), then how the heck can we trust anything in science? Furthermore, I realised that the argument also extends to Creationism. And with time, as I read some philosophy, I also realised that the philosophical basis of trusting logic absolutely in either the Hilbert universe, or the Empirical universe, is just not there. I was nearly falling into postmodernism by then…

What saved my was Lewis, especially in the Pilgrim’s Regress, where the feminine character of Reason tells him that she can only reveal to him what is already in his own mind. This brought me to the point where I was OK with saying - I don’t know, it is a paradox, it is a contradiction, AND I’M OK with that.

Therefore I have come to treat science (and I enjoy being a geologist hugely, btw) as a little less than divine (this, btw is the argument of both sides of the evolution/creation debate. In my mind they are both sitting in a boat that is as full of holes as a colander).

In a different world, science deals with fallible theories about a real world. The theories might “contradict” my faith - but so what, they contradict each other quite often too. And each generation has a new theory / new interpretation of an old theory. I’m comfortable working with these fallible theories. Even if they do say things that on a different level might look as if they should be making me uncomfortable.

Of course, the flip side of this change, if you will, is what led me out of the evangelical (and eventually, Calvinistic) world of having to understand, explain and connect everything, and imagine that everything is knowable. It isn’t. This I also had to eventually reject some of the assumptions of that same conservative background. Because its assumptions about Scripture fall into that same (let’s call it by its real name) Modernist Enlightenment camp that both the sides in the above mentioned boat fall into. Call me a pre-enlightenment scientist and Christian then. I’m happy with the title.

Mistake

Occasionally I make the mistake on trying to engage people in discussion or debate (on other blogs) on economic theories/ideas for example. It turns out that this is not a very good idea. And I’m not writing about radicals etc. – I’m talking about people frequenting sites that purport to be conservative Christian in outlook. My oh my. The levels of straw man tactics, ad hominem arguments, and plain old fashioned wilful misreading, smearing and all that is just horrible. But hopefully I can avoid that in future. Of course there are some who can differ sharply in a decent fashion. But they are in the minority. And I don't subscribe to the theory that this type of behaviour is ok in the blogopshere. It is, and always will be, despicable.

There is no use charging yourself up because of people that cannot be decent, and are most likely wilfully ignorant. Civilized my foot.

Martyrs?

I often come across the writings of the “evangelical”, conservative, right wing crowd down south. Some very heated rhetoric often flies this way and that. Especially now, with a dreaded “liberal” as president.

Well, some of their criticism might be valid, a lot isn’t. But I was quite struck with the willingness to indulge in resistance (non-passive) rhetoric. A lot of debate about what Romans 13 really means. And it became quite clear that many Christians are much more comfortable with notions akin to the philosophy of resistance fighters, even of revolutionaries, than with the subject of martyrdom. In that they show themselves to be the heirs of Danton, Robespierre and Marat, much more than of Polycarp, Ignatius, Beckett and Stein. Their role model is Che, not St. James.

Telling, isn’t it?

The bounteous earth

The paucity of posts here has continued because I've been extremely busy of late. But I have most of my plants in - I'm growing two types of vegetables this year which I've never grown before: Parsnips and Kohlrabi. It is said that the latter, sliced thinly, served fresh, make an excellent beer snack. It is virtually unknown in South Africa (or just very rare), but you see it occasionaly on the shelf here in Canada. And parsnips, apart from good eating, can also be turned into one of the best vegetable/fruit wines around.

Our biltong has turned out very well. The dried sausage is also good, except next time round we'll add a little more salt, maybe. Today my wife has also started a batch of real ginger beer (not ginger ale, mind you). And I will start a batch of root beer within the next couple of days, hopefully. And looking at the masses of dandelions everywhere, I been thinking of dandelion wine. And my wife has been talking about dandelion jelly.

All to say that "deep and profound thoughts" will wait for awhile - to busy living to think about living....

Ownership

The desire to have, to own, is a very strong, and basic, urge. On a basic anthropological level, ownership provides security – ownership of land, or a tool, or a weapon. When you live in an environment of more than one, competitive ownership acts as a further enhancement of the security motif – I own more than him, thus I am safer… I am considering ownership as a desire or force in and of itself here.

However, at a certain point, ownership becomes a means of advancement. Not the owned object, mind you, but the very fact of ownership itself. So the ownership of the flashy sports car enables the owner to get a “prettier” girlfriend. Or some other form of status enhancer. Pretty obvious.

But where all this becomes dangerous is when there is an incoming tide of ownership ideals, a state to be aspired to, with steps along the way. Especially that latter phrase, steps along the way. This means that the objects owned are not valued for themselves (a good spade, a good car), but for the door they might eventually open to some higher state of ownership, some higher state of perceived status. This tide is called advertising and/or popular opinion. Many claim to be contra this, and their purchases are an attempt to disprove their subjection to these ideals. However, the very act of making a point by a purchase or non-purchase is an act of acknowledgement to the status quo, the ideals created in plush offices to swell the coffers of the few. Nor is the revolutionary answer, the mad mob an option – history shows that revolutionary ideal can be an attractive commodity by itself.

No, ownership should be for two reasons: Pragmatic need (a reliable car, where applicable), and for unpretentious aesthetic (or emotional) value – a piece of jewellery (say an engagement ring, or a pearl necklace), a beautiful painting. Surprising to some, I would put the ownership of good books, especially fiction, in the former category - it is an essential need for our humanity. Of course, to adequately fulfil both requirements, the best quality affordable and appropriate to the task at hand is obvious. And some items encompass both categories.

Essentially what I am claiming is that a conscious effort to reject the maelstrom of advertising and status, we should remind ourselves why we are buying something. And not to try and fool ourselves. If an object will lose its lustre (in our own eyes) with the sway of fashion, or public opinion, then it is probably a worthless buy. This way of thinking will probably also help us to see that very often the item itself is neutral. This way of thinking will probably also help us to see that very often the item itself is neutral – a First Edition Goethe is instructive (both in a historical as well as a literary sense) and of great aesthetic value – but as a statement of status, completely misplaced.

A footnote – I might have an antiquarian concept of status – in my mind that is (or should be, rather) closer to nobility than anything else. And nobility can be inherited, or be inherent. It cannot be bought. I know/have met great and noble people, and regard most “celebrities” as charlatans and slaves to idiotic fashion.

Spring Fervour

Posting has been a bit slow here of late - its spring in Saskatchewan, thus my time has been taken up with seeds and seedlings and soil. I planted a bigger variety of vegetables than last year. Also, our steer has made the supreme sacrifice, and has been turned into steaks, ground beef, sausages and this. On top of all this fun I've been intensely busy at work as well. Hence the paucity of posts...

I have some ideas ruminating for a post or two, though. Time will tell.

Autenticity or Existential Angst?

It has become common to claim authenticity, or at least claim to be searching for or be enamoured of authenticity. This is seen in cultural as well as theological realms – in short, it is most often connected with lifestyle and belief. However, it strikes me that this phenomenon is more often than not merely an expression of existential angst, of furrow-browed seriousness that is accompanied by biting wit and intellectual pomp. Avant-garde arrogance married to a mistaken belief in a mythical, idealistic past.

Now any regular reader of this blog would know that I like old things, and foods, and customs, and civilised norms, and intensely dislike the mass-produced, kitschy, Wall-Martified pseudo-culture imposed upon us from all angles. But one has to realise that the existential angst described above can most often act as the flip-side of the same coin. It is the same self-centred pomposity steered in a different direction.

A good solution to this double-headed monstrosity is to stand back and laugh at the absurdities of your own mind, at the silliness that gets imbedded into your humanity. Cultivate a sense of your own idiocy, coupled with the paradoxes of the world around you. Then laugh, raise a glass, and go on your merry way. But not merry as in silly, or merry as in sitcom plasticity, but merry as in true mirth, which at times can present itself even as solemnity. What Lewis termed “Joy”. To do what your hand finds to do, and find what is good and true, without obsessing about it, and more important, about yourself, that is a worthy life indeed.

Not Canadian Bacon

After the lively discussion following my previous poast, here is a short note on something entirely uncontroversial: Swine products (grin) - and more specifically, bacon. The best bacon I've ever had was at an airport restaurant (!) in Frankfurt, Germany. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the place. But if you ever find yourself in transit in Frankfurt, do yourself a favour and have the bacon. A simple thing of high quality, perfectly made, is always praiseworthy...