Assumptions

Settling down into my seat on the underground I took a quick look round and noted, accompanied by that delightful frisson engendered by a fix of cultural pessimism so necessary for a revolutionary, that nearly all my fellow passengers where playing mindlessly with their mobile phones or texting messages of the utmost banality to recipients who were no doubt equally unaware of the crisis faced by global capitalism. Before opening my book which happened to be on the Baader Meinhoff group which I knew would shortly be giving give me frissons of a far more problematic nature I noticed a young lady of Moslem appearance quietly and intently reading her own little book. For a moment in time we were united against the philistines around us but of course this happy state of affairs did not survive my weakness for cultural stereotyping that of course completely subverts my other belief that races and nations do not have essences that are capable of resisting historic and political developments. I thought to myself with an unbecoming smugness grounded it has to be said in enlightenment values that I bet, a secular form of Pascal's wager of course, that she is reading some holy book. Eventually after some considerable effort and a neglect of my own book I was able to confirm this was the case. However I was rather troubled by my finding. Was the proof of my assumption further proof that the young lady was somehow more determined , in a philosophical sense, than I was in her choice of book and if so could it further be the case that she is less free than me and for what it is worth the other passengers on the train whose activities were only really determined by their choice of means of communicating rather than the content of their message. (I sense the ghost of McLuhan hovering over me). Yes I thought it does for I doubted that the young lady, if she had been so minded, would have been able to guess the nature of the book I was reading simply by looking at me as the potential choices I had were almost unlimited including a holy book. I have previous in this area as I have in the past noticed that Africa looking ladies generally when reading on the tube opt for the Bible. So far one might think so prejudiced, though a prejudice based on empirical evidence. Anxious then to entertain an antithesis I considered that the women have just as freely chosen to read the Koran (or commentary which this was in the case of my fellow traveller) or Bible as I have my book. But I have a nagging doubt that their choice involved the consideration of other literary possibilities that were eventually rejected as having merit but less immediate relevance to their lives. But in what way does this matter, if at all? I would have liked to have to talked to the young lady but of course being British I knew I would have to be wait to be introduced and as she got out after a couple of stops that was highly unlikely to happen.

On a practical note.I said I'd try to keep a record of subjects proposed at Cafe. Should anybody remember any from say the last few months pleased let me know.I am only interested in the English speaking though on reflection it would be intriguing to compare them with the French language sessions

the pigeon of ealing spreads his wings after lunch

I came to the conclusion some time ago that I am much less philosophical than many of my fellow cafe goers.By this I mean I prefer to think and talk concretely rather than abstractly or devote too much time to definitions, both worthy exercises of course.However and this is a contradiction when the discussion is more overtly political or sociological I look for the philosophical principles underpinning it.Contradictions are I believe the motor of both history and personal development so I am not too troubled by playing host to them. All this is a slightly nervous prelude to suggesting that there are three main conflicts, dichotomies call them what you will that provide the intellectual base to our discussions. Conscious of Hegel's dialectic as few cannot be after spending their Saturday mornings in that oasis of thought that is the cafe I put forward my ideas in the hope, no expectation let me show some confidence ,that others will take them forward if not actual penetrate them with opposites to a higher plane. The three are free will and determinism, cultural relativism and universal values and the third nature versus nature. Now I was wondering if it is possible to establish a hierarchy in the sense that one of these conflicts shapes the course of the others or are they totally autonomous in terms of their battle grounds or more tantalising is there an ur conflict from which all three have sprung. A pretty strong case could be made for determinism, if its validity could be established, but as I cling to the belief that free will does play its part in human affairs I am reluctant to let it crush all opposition that has the temerity to stand in its way. Of course others may suggest other such conflicts.I thoiught about faith and reason but decided this was not a conflict of interpretation but a difference in approach, similarly with deduction and instinct (not sure that is one?) and so on. I await enlightenment.

On a completely different subject.Would members be interested in keeping a record of topics discussed as well as those which were proposed but not discussed. If so I am happy to use this blog to do so if Sherry can come up with the means.

Crucifixion

I have always had a problem with it.I would welcome an explanation as to this. Did Christ exist in some form before he took an earthly one. Also without in any way defending the practice of crucifying people and bearing in mind his moment of doubt if he knew he was Son of God he must have somehow known he wasn't going to die and certainly God did, given he must have planned it all, so what sort of sacrifice was it. As an atheist I feel millions of humans have suffered much more than Jesus did so I resent the elevation of his above all else but then I would wouldn't I.

It is a pity that it is well nigh impossible for non believers to engage intellectually with believers. I don't mean because one is superior to another but as there can never be an agreed point of departure from which the discussion can develop. However I suppose it would be interesting to have a session devoted to conversions from one state of mind to another as this would be the closest we could come to exploring the differences.

Further to beauty or whatever happened to my third eye

I was remiss in not talking about nature in my first blog, probably the excitement of mastering technology was too much. I agree that there is a difference between listening to music, incidentally when I said non literal I of course ,meant instrumental music not songs or opera, and contemplating nature but not much of one. When we look at mountains, out to sea or at waterfalls or deserts or whatever our thoughts roam free perhaps to settle on themes of life and death precisely because they are not over determined by looking at cultural artefacts.In other words when we look at the works of man we are likely to think of their significance or meaning, historical or otherwise whereas a mountain does not mean anything in the same way, it has no history (other of course than the mountaineers who have climbed it) or the sea (other than those who have sailed on it). I suspect there are contradictions here to be deconstructed by others.I thank Judith for her comment but I fear I only have two eyes and lack an inner one.

I am not conscious of my unconscious

I would like to amplify some of my comments I made last saturday. I think it is unnecessary and confusing to make much of the distinction between inner and outer(?) life. When we listen to music, I use music as it is the least literal of art forms, (David can correct me with a quote from Lessing if I am wrong) When we listen I suggest that it calls forth a response from precisely those feelings and sensations that constitute our everyday life such as love, sex, regret, sadness, anxiety, joy and is not a gateway to an inner life which somehow has an exclusive ownership of these emotions or feelings.  Furthermore, to talk in these terms ignores the human agency that created the music, the technical expertise needed and yes, the rational planning which allows the inspiration felt by the artist to be expressed. To subordinate the everyday to some nebulous inner life is to deny the possibility of beauty in the everyday.  Of course we do not reveal all that we are in all of our everyday experiences but I believe they can only be revealed in them. I am no expert on dreams but for what it is worth for me they represent the prose of the day rendered into poetry not autonomous experiences? events? which have no connection to who we are, have been, fear we might be or want to be. I look forward to polemical retorts and accusations of being imaginatively deficient.
Unimaginatvely,
Gerry