I was surfing the blogosphere when I came across this post on Will’s site.
In the post, Will argues that the idea of selecting an arbitrary period of time – in this case the year – is a somwehat pointless exercise and in fact, in the case of moving from one year to another, actually does harm in certain circumstances. The example he gives is that of expecting a different outcome to an event based on the changing of an arbitrary number – ie the year 2008 to 2009.
Now whilst I agree in part to this sentiment – I am often drawn to the idea that the definition of a fool is someone that repeats the same action over and over and expects a different outcome – I find the rejection of the need to quantify time in arbitrary units a step too far.
It is true that there is almost no difference between 2008 and 2009 as the terrestrial year is based on an orbit – so the cosmos looks virtually the same in any two corresponding months (ie March 2004 and March 2008). This is not the whole story though. The cosmos is different. It is a year different. The universe will be bigger, the background radiation ever so slightly cooler, the sun ever so slightly depleted in material for nuclear fusion, the universe is different. This suggests that the definition of being a fool is not so easily applied here. March 2004 may have seen an outcome of one event that changes when repeated in March 2009 due to one of those variables (and the countless others) being important. The cosmological differences may seem a little abstract, so a few variables from the practical world down here on earth – the financial and economic differences will mean that the result of a monetary action last year will not be the same result as the same monetary action this year, the change in administration in the US may mean that the results of two politcal actions may differ from last year to next.
The 1st January is not significant, it is no more the start of one year than any other day, or midnight being any more significant that any other hour for that matter. The day and time do not matter, we could decide that Octber 23rd is the start of the new year and it would make no difference in terms of the universe, but the universe does get older second by second. So, whilst we may scoff at the idea of picking a day to celebrate new beginnings it does not take away from the fact that things can turn out differently if we try again.
I’ve just finished reading a blog post on moderation and anti-fundamentalism and it got me thinking about a number of things. Firstly, is the age old question of fundamentalism. Is it wrong to believe something so strongly that you pursue it with all your might, literally in some cases? I still cannot make up my mind, my fellow A-Soc member Chris Worfolk says that moderation in religion is wrong, a cop out even in his article “The problem With Religious Moderates”. I am not entirely convinced by his arguments, I like to think that there is room even within the most deep set of principles for self censorship and the need to balance your convictions against the freedom of those around you. It is important as a religious commentator that balance is given to all arguments. It is fine blasting non-fundamentalists for failing at their religion as long as you continue that crusade against all non-fundamentalists in every walk of life. Every conviction out there can be followed fundamentally. If fundamentalism was to be applauded then shouldn’t we all be members of the BNP or the Communist Party? Extremism is not the same as fundamentalism, I think it is important that is clarified, but all fundamentalists are extremists in the modern sense.
I like the idea of fundamentalism, I think it allows an easy life. The rules and thought processes are simple. you just follow the guidelines set down by your conviction be it religion, racism, anti-semetism or just that all meals must be eaten at the dinner table! However, there is no flexibility in it, which is the crux of the issue for me. We need flexibility. We need to be able to say “wait a minute?”. There must be room for criticism, for question, for reason.
As an atheist I am often barraged with the question, “But, isn’t Atheism a religion?”. I am often forced to concede that certain aspects of the atheists beliefs can be construed as religious. Especially with idealogies such as Buddhism and Humanism. I, however, an neither of the above. I am an atheist. I have no reason to believe ina god or gods, so I don’t. Is it, therefore, possible for me to be a fundamentalist atheist? I am sure that there are many out there who would say that some of my actions within A-Soc and in public could be cinstrued as fundamental. I am not known for my lack of convictions. However, as a rational thinker I require flexibility. None of my convictions are set in stone. This would pique the author of the initial article as he suggests that weak convictions are a curse on society. it would also cause some concern for my esteemed colleague, Chris, as he maintains his convisitons as the bedrock of his motivation to pursue his goals for A-Soc World Domination!
Anyway, I hope some of you enjoyed this little discussion and I welcome your comments on the issue!
Just a quick post to highlight Michelle’s new Dream Journal. Well worth a read, especially if you like reading, discussing and analysing dreams. Also, not a bad way to see what goes on in peoples psyches.
