What I've Learned From George

At the Labour party conference this afternoon it was shown that New Labour have learned more than one trick from their Rethuglican counterparts. Following their mastery of 'how to invade other countries if you don't like their government', Tony and Co. demonstrated their understanding of 'how to organise rallies and conferences so that nobody can make you look less than perfect'.
The treatment of two labour party members who had the temerity to mildly heckle Jack Straw was one of the most shameful events in recent British politics. Hopefully this will wake up the electorate to the fact that Blair and his cronies are control freaks with no respect for personal liberty. Magnus Linklater's article in today's Times was prescient.

Bliss

On offer at the local supermarket, 2001 Myrtle Grove Aussie Shiraz - guess what I am drinking now? This stuff is nectar. My chess games are going reasonably and the little grey boofy is calling - ohhh is she calling; ..... but c'est bon, n'est ce pas, parce que quand elle crie encore une fois elle renconteras son amour!

Pseudo-philosophy in the Grauniad

Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney and a lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. It is apparent that this particular philosopher also fancies himself an expert on the novel and its social import. More of an expert, indeed, than Salman Rushdie. Clearly Giles Fraser does not specialise in that branch of philosophy known as logic, unless there is now a school of post-modern logic.

“But this won't do either. Certainly Enlightenment thought offers a challenge to the moral poison that often oozes from superstition. Even so, secular rationality is no fail-safe prophylactic against murderous ideology. The 20th century offered up enough genocidal "isms" to make that point. Hatred has the capacity to nestle within the most enlightened breast. So far, so obvious. But what's apparently not so obvious to Rushdie is that the most effective answer to bad religion is under his very nose: the novel itself.”

Let us examine that argument more closely:

1. Enlightenment thought offers a challenge to moral poison that often oozes from superstition.
2. Secular rationality is no fail-safe prophylactic against murderous ideology.
3. There is a more effective challenge to bad religion (the novel itself)

Whilst to me the premises seem fairly safe, the conclusion is not entailed.

“The novel is a sacred space where all voices need to be heard. Which is why he (Rushdie) proposed that even "the most secular of authors ought to be capable of presenting a sympathetic portrait of a devout believer". This is something Rushdie now seems increasingly incapable of achieving. He has become a true believer himself.”

The above amounts to no more than unsupported assertion. Why should the novel be a ‘sacred space’? What a monster it would be if it were to encompass ‘all voices’. Particularly irritating is the rhetorical fog of the final pair of sentences in that paragraph. No evidence is given that the insight of Salman Rushdie’s novels is in any way impaired by his polemics, and there is a sinuous inference that to be a true believer in enlightenment principles is equivalent to being a devout believer in religion. Giles Fraser seems to be espousing relativism of a most obfuscatory stripe.

Back From Holiday

Fantastic holiday. Thanks to PG and Uncle Philth and H and the Malcoholic and Kazzer and Carol and, of course, Max, for making life so much fun. A full... well almost full... record of our activities will appear on our website as soon as I can persuade Philippa to help me post it. Suffice it to say herein that we did perform a Molly dance. wHOOT!