Little has changed since 1524 when a young man began a work which would inflame the authorities in his homeland as he dared to defy the authorities who wished to silence him. Two years later the book that he had published, and which had been smuggled into his homeland, was being burned in the streets. He had to go into hiding, where he revised and improved his earlier work using the profits from the first then having been burnt printing. In 1530 he further enraged the chief executive who then sought his extradition. The extradition attempt failed for the lack of production of formal evidence. A price was however now on his head, and it would only be a matter of time before he would be betrayed by a ‘friend’, illegally held and then transported to a trial in which the charges were so designed that he could not be but convicted.
What was his crime? He had spoken out for freedom of speech. He had spoken out for the freedom of the people that they might not be in thrall to espouse the ideology of the elite but be free to question it and to form their own opinions based upon their own examination and understanding of the truth.
William Tyndale translated for the people of England the New Testament into English that ‘the boy that driveth the plow [should] know more of the Scriptures than [the bishop did]. The young ploughman would then be able to judge whether what the governor said was right and just. The authorities were afraid of this. They must keep the people in ignorance that they may control them.
Freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to question were not things that they would permit for their people. Let them remain in ignorance and fear, then we shall be able to control them.
Little has changed, a price has been placed on the heads of certain young people who asked for freedom but in doing so they have been driven into exile by those who should have defended them. The king of England lost his head not much more than one hundred years after Tyndale lost his* because he made war upon his own people. It is an illegitimate government that makes war upon its own people.
The apostle asked us that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We are encouraged to know of those in China who have come to a knowledge of the truth, may their leaders, and ours also, come to that same knowledge, that we and their people may live quiet and peaceable lives.
Debate is valuable. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science. Debate is dangerous.
Three statements and it may surprise you, or else it may not, that these statements are not incontrovertible; indeed, they provoke as much controversy as these:
Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.
Why should this, that debate is dangerous, be?
Often it may arise because reputations or careers are at stake. If the foundation of your life is that science which says A is true and another comes along and asks the question: How do you know A is true? Have you considered this set of data? Does it not suggest that A may not be true in all circumstances? then from your perspective the very asking of the question is a personal challenge not a scientific one.
So in a very simple case, you may notice that if you pump 1 kilocalorie of energy into 1 kilogram of water its temperature rises by 1°C (A is true). If therefore you conclude that when you pump 110 kilocalories in its temperature will rise by 110°C, you may be disappointed unless you also increased the pressure under which you heated the water to at least one and half atmospheres. Change of state effects would disrupt the thermal elevation – you may even lose enough water in trying to do so for the espresso that you would have had in order to recover from the falsification of your paradigm had you not the change of state occurred. A is not always true, or if it is true it is true only in specific well-defined circumstances, and so your understanding must be improved. You may want to hold onto your idea that A is true, but the data is against you, or is it? Look again. You may think that you must now say A is not true, but the actual position may be that A is not true only under certain, perhaps clearly defined but perhaps not, conditions.
We should note here, though it is not our main point that it is folly to base our paradigm of life upon our own transient scientific understanding of the way the world works. We are here speaking of derived paradigms, not underlying paradigms which we shall address shortly.
Scientific methods and historical analysis
Now our understanding of the relationships between heat, temperature, pressure and water is quite well understood. We are dealing with a simple (but it is a three body problem) molecule with well (is that really so?) understood properties. Experiments may be easily defined and conducted in well controlled ways, and repeated indefinitely by unrelated individuals who will, within the limits of observable experimental measurement, always obtain the same results, but our understandings elsewhere are not quite so clear. Experiments may not be possible or, if they are, controls may be difficult to impose. We may not know or even understand all of the factors which may influence the outcome. When Rutherford fired his artillery at a sheet of little more than tissue paper he expected nothing other than to punch holes in it. The data obtained however required a rethink. Some of the artillery shells, alpha particles, bounced back off the thin film of gold leaf. Whilst Rutherford was able to describe what was happening, a proper theoretical understanding of what was taking place would not be available until several years later.
We not only require then data, which Rutherford had, but we need a robust framework within which that data may be interpreted. The old ideas of phlogiston and æther were abandoned when it was found that they could no longer explain the data that became available. Now however in the presence of the hypotheses concerning the warping of space one may wonder: how can something which is the lack of existence of anything, ie emptiness, be warped. Does not this suggest the presence of a substance, an æther, which is presently yet undetected, in that emptiness which is the thing that is being warped? That however is not a discussion for this article.
When we being to look at things rather more complex than water, though they are structures in which water is a major component, and indeed the symptom if not the cause of the problem, such as a biological machine, driven itself by smaller complex biological components, with its own messaging, delivery and disposal systems some of whose functions overlap and which are mutually dependent upon each other as well as upon the other components of the machine whose efficient function is also required for the maintenance of the systems of communication, we may have to acknowledge that our understanding of the behaviours of this system is somewhat less than our understanding of the behaviour of water. We are also faced with the fact that we cannot design experiments to perform on these machines, for that would be unethical, which would allow only one part to function whilst holding the others in stasis. We are therefore left with only the possibility of RCT (randomised controll(ed) trials) and clinical observation. These may result in significant quantities of data, from which tentative conclusions may be drawn until we have a robust theoretical framework from which explanations may be drawn and predictions may be made.
In some circumstances we have to resort to forensic analysis of the data which has many useful, indeed valuable, techniques associated with it, where there is no possibility of repetition of a single one time event, in order to understand it. Now I need say no more here than that forensic examination is simply another word for guess work in which the actual solution after all the possible explanations have been considered and shown to be wanting is the ‘impossible’ explanation. Darwin left this teasingly in his hypothesis concerning origins laying down clearly the grounds on which his hypothesis must be tested and leaving later generations to show the wantonness of his hypothesis. Mendel began this work and it has continued in many guises to the present day with perhaps greater and greater skill being shown than of which Darwin ever dreamed in the elaboration of the hypothesis in the vain hope that somehow it may be possible to avoid the consequences of a failure at the quite simple test that he proposed. The resultant edifice is not even built on sand, it is built upon the impossibility of two mutually exclusive requirements existing at the same time, not to mention the uncountable (though not in the mathematical sense of the word) number of violations of the principle that change must only take place in simple single steps.
The possibility then must be left open that whatever conclusions we draw may be falsified by another set of data drawn from a different RCT or set of observations in other circumstances.
Contemporary events
In recent days we have heard many say that you must follow the science, but the science has been inconclusive and contradictory. At times the message drawn from this has been inappropriate and non sequitur. For example to say that acquiring immunity from a particular disease will protect others is patently untrue . If I have immunity from say TB then I am more likely to carry the disease unknowingly and therefore become a greater danger to those whom I meet who have no immunity. We only need to think of the case of Mary Mallon to understand this. I am being more socially responsible by not acquiring immunity, for then I would know when I were ill and could take appropriate steps to protect others. There are many other things that could be said both about the messages drawn in respect of the recent global infection and the quality of the data on which they are based, again however this article is not the place for that discussion.
Underlying paradigm
A second reason perhaps for debate being seen as dangerous is that it not only challenges the conclusions drawn from the data but undermines the paradigm which lies behind the specific interpretations of the data. The paradigm is held dearly by those who hold it, for they have an abhorrence, which some are not afraid to display, towards alternative paradigms within which alternative understandings of the data may be held, and which each can yield contrastingly different conclusions than the opinions generally held.
The hostility to any alternative view, even if it can be supported by rigorous mathematical calculations using the same data and mathematics that the majority view use, leads to a stifling of debate and ultimately to a stagnation of science. The silencing of those whom you see as your opponents in science is detrimental to progress.
It is exceedingly important in science that you recognise those who disagree with you as being honest scientists. None of us are infallible, and none of us have a perfect understanding. Archimedes was wrong. Pythagoras was wrong. Galileo and Copernicus were wrong. Einstein and Bohr were wrong. Only two of us were right, and I cannot remember who the other one is. Of course I jest, but you, dear reader, know what I mean.
It is not, at least from a scientific perspective, wrong to hold different underlying paradigms for to hold a paradigm is necessary in order to offer interpretations of data, but we cross the line when we say that our interpretation is the only valid one.
The correct position – to encourage debate
Every true scientist lays down a challenge for every other scientist: This is my hypothesis A is true, disprove it if you will, please. His delight is, and if not is, it should be, that you take up that challenge. If every other scientist does not rise to the challenge then no progress will be made and we shall do nothing more than promulgate the same false ideas with which Galileo agonised. It is not until we have demonstrated that A cannot be false that we have any real certainty that A might be true. The scientist must live dangerously, expecting that every one else will wish to prove him wrong and in failing to do so demonstrate that he might be right.
Conclusion
Debate is valuable for it is the life blood of progress. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science for we do not have a complete and perfect understanding. Debate is dangerous for it challenges our well beloved but imperfect understandings of how things are and may require us to change.
The corollary ‘Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.’ has also been demonstrated in this short article. It is left as an exercise to the reader to deconstruct and reconstruct the article appropriately.
I have just returned from the International Lymphoedema Conference 2023#ILF which was held in Nottingham. It was a wonderful scientific, medical and therapeutic conference for any who would have any interest at all in lymphoedema in its many and varied forms. Much of the science went over my head, especially when presented by the Dutch, but it was still possible to detect some conflicting hypotheses and the robust debate among and between the participants. Such debate demonstrates a very healthy environment for the development of sound science based upon real-world evidence. Among the participants were the #theila the International Lipoedema Association whose stall was well worth the visit. What has lipoedema to do with lymphoedema? You may well ask, but I shall offer no explanation here for fear of misleading you, save to say that those who know know. Do visit their websites: International Lymphoedema Framework International Lipoedema Association
More pictures from the conference – password required – here
More may be read about the involvement of ILA in the conference here. Note especially the engaging discussions: Thought-provoking discussions led to a deeper awareness of the challenges faced by the lipoedema community. It is a well thought out understatement indeed.
There was a recent article in the Grauniad⁰⁰ in which it was suggested by one of the correspondents that it is a dangerous thing to expose a spy, even if you are able to do so. Whether it is or no, I leave to your judgement. For my part the question, if it becomes a question, is to remain unanswered.
There are other dangerous things to do. In some places the very mention of what actually happened if it does not accord with the official description in every detail may be considered to be fake news, the disclosure of state secrets or even as slight as a stirring up of arguments or discontent – beware then if in the civil service canteen when the cook has put too much salt in the soup that you do not complain. The penalty may be greater than you expect. So, to make reference to words which had been posted in a public place, which often concerning similar posters Coco does complain when driving for they are also dangerous things, which can be clearly seen by drivers, who then become distracted and wish to read them. Of course it can be even worse than a simple static poster. The LED screen catches your eye and then changes before you have interpreted the one you saw at the first. How distracting this is. We are not permitted to have our own distracting LED screen, but anyone else can place an A00000 road sign which flickers and flashes its images and words demanding the attention of every passing driver, insisting that they take their snoopy eyes off the road ahead.
Ah, again Coco, having been distracted, which is not quite so dangerous to happen when writing as when driving, but can still result in serious, though grammatical rather than spatial, mistakes, has left a dangling subject in the paragraph before, so to complete it therefore, as Coco was saying, to make reference – really such advertising hoardings should be banned. It is inadequate for the advertiser to say that it is the drivers’ responsibilities to keep their eyes on the road ahead when the only purpose of these – no, actually often in court it will be argued that the tax advantage derived from a particular series of transaction was merely a collateral advantage to the actual purpose of the wholly commercial transactions – so the main purpose of these hoardings is to advertise a product or a service not to distract the driver. The distraction is merely collateral damage. So, it is ok, the commercial benefits outweighs the potential damage. Try saying that the next time you are asked to justify mobile phone usage in a car.
Coco suspects that Lord Denning could have argued most comprehensively, eloquently, exhaustively, pedantically and persuasively on the point in your support well enough to convince the House of Lords (as the Supreme Court was then) that you should be justified in your actions, all the while, as the learned Lords’ heads were nodding in agreement, knowing that his words were nothing but gilded and polished verbosity artfully woven into a garment which would provide no more covering than the emperor’s new suit of clothing, until in his final sentence he disclosed, for those who had ears to hear it, that there was no substance in the argument and no valid defence was available. Whether they heard or not, Coco leaves it to you, but the advertising hoardings are still one of the greatest avoidable hazards, after the idiots behind the wheels, on our roads. They are indeed dangerous things.
The words, in translation, that were found in what is presumed to be the original language to be offensive were as follows. First let Coco say that whether there is offence or not often must be judged by the context in which the words are found. To say that ‘her presence is like the silver morning mist’ may be regarded as a most sweet and pleasing compliment, but perhaps not if you are to apply it in Germany and choose the incorrect word for that early morning mist of which you appear to be so fond. So context matters, and with that in mind let us take these words out of context and consider them there before thinking about the context, if we ever to get to that point.
No! to Covid test; yes! to food. No! to lockdown; yes! to freedom. No! to lies; yes! to dignity. No! to cultural revolution; yes! to reform. No! to great leader; yes! to vote. Don’t be a slave; be a citizen.
It is a series of negatives and affirmatives. Some of them are quite straightforward and who would find them incontrovertible?
No! to lies. Yes! to dignity.
We expect our leaders to tell the truth. If they do not, then are they fit to lead? When Elizabeth was asked to answer a particular question she excused herself: To reply with the affirmative may be to tell thee what thou shouldst not know, but to deny thy words and a lie may be found upon my lips, therefore thy question, it shall answerless be.⁰ It is a wise monarch, who would not lie, and of course they should always act with dignity, and respect the dignity of their people, just as we should respect them and each other.
Others are not quite so clear, especially if we take them in pairs which are intended to contrast with each other. If we take each yes and no independently our task is somewhat simpler, but we cannot, as the original presentation places them in pairs, so Coco shall not, as perhaps one would have done in the consideration of the tax consequences of a commercial transaction would wish to take each step on the way to the ultimate goal on its own merits rather than looking at the series of transactions as a whole. Nevertheless, we must attempt to understand them. Some cannot be understood outside at least some understanding of their context for at least some of the words here should be understood as proper nouns rather than common ones. The English text does not make this clear as for the greater part there is no capitalisation in its original form as can be seen above.
Having said that Coco would take them in pairs however, it should be pointed out that the positive statements Yes! are all likely to receive commendation even from those whom some might regard disrespect the principle suggested, as perhaps for the Yes! To vote. This need not mean what those who espouse a Western idea of what democracy means; it could be a reference to a different measure of the franchise such as in the Greek republic, or even to the voting of a one-party state in which the vote is not to choose but to confirm what has already been chosen. There are even areas of Western life where such a system is used, though if the vote is inadequate to approve the matter the alternative course is not entirely clear. Coco supposes it is a matter of retaining the status quo in such situations, so it behoves those who propose such elections to ensure they have sufficient support before the step forward, which, on the face of it is, is always the situation in those nations where such elections take place.
Of the others little need be said, but of the pairings, which provide a contrast we need to consider that there is a contrast, perhaps even a contradiction here. Let us return to that and first of all reflect upon what the negatives actually mean.
The suggestion that we should not take a Covid test, seems to be ill-founded. If it had been said not to take a cancer test or indeed any other kind of medical test, would there such opposition to the taking of the test be? It could though be understood that in any particular case such a test may be refused, perhaps because the individual would prefer not to be put through the gruelling treatment that would be required should the test be, is it positive or negative? Well, that would depend upon your point of view. Or it may be that you know you are ill anyway, so what is the point of the test? So something else must be going on to provoke this statement. Perhaps it is the contrast here between the positive and the negative statements that provides a clue: is it an economic question? Is it a matter of choice, either buy a test or buy food? The food will sustain life; the test will neither prolong nor shorten it, but the lack of food may shorten it.
The second indicates a dissatisfaction with the response to an illness which is passing through the community. The lockdown is designed to prevent person to person contact and thus hinder the passage of the disease. A lockdown will protect the majority of the people from the effects of the illness. So, why would we say we did not want one? In this case the contrast with freedom does not help us. It is clear that a lockdown takes away freedom, but the removal of the lockdown does not guarantee freedom but exposes people to a greater risk than they would otherwise have of losing every freedom that they presently enjoy. It may be that consideration must be given to the next pair in order to understand what this really is about. We do not have a duplet here but a tetruplet, the second part of which suggests that in some way the lockdown is an deliberate over-reaction by the authorities, who ever they may be, to the illness, and that the authorities are using lies in order to support the requirement for it. If you are on the outside you might not see the lie, but if you are in a group of say 100 people who have been in close contact with each other and in which one becomes ill, as a result of which all are placed in quarantine then thereafter no-one else become ill, you may ask: What was the point? The one who was ill must have infected at least one of the others, but no-one else became ill, not even I. The lockdown was an overreaction to you who were in the group. You can see the lie that is told to the outside world to justify your exclusion, and therefore their exclusions also.
The third surely says something with which all must agree. Why would anyone not? Lies are an abomination and engender mistrust between people. Dignity, as already said, is a quality we expect to find in, and be attributed to, all people. If we all treat all others with dignity and respect then surely we shall live in a better place. We cannot take exception to these words, unless we – it had better be left here unsaid, it would be yet another dangerous thing.
In the fourth we have the first instance where capitalisation is required to understand what is meant. There is a reference here to the Cultural Revolution¹. To have used the formal name of that period would have broken the formal poetic style of the words, which cannot be seen in translation except by using clever kerning, in which seven characters are used in each line. It has been clearly acknowledged that ‘the Cultural Revolution was wrong and was responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the people‘. That the government responsible for the reigning in that revolution should now find words which condemn it to be offensive is therefore a strange thing, unless, and perhaps the second part of the tuplet suggests this, that the changes currently taking place are similar to those which precipitated that revolution almost sixty years ago. Revolution always produces change, but is never guaranteed to produce improvement contrary to the views of many, even enlightened, governors. That there is always room for improvement in this world is surely a given, but care must be taken that improvement, reform, in one direction does not lead to disimprovement or impairment in another².
The fifth we have already passed comment on, but more needs to be said. It also requires capitalisation for this is a reference to the Great Leader³. It is a term that has been used for many who were great leaders, many who acquired the title or appropriated it for themselves. Again for poetic reasons the title has been reduced to two characters, which is recognised as a nickname-like form of the proper title. This understandably may cause offence to one who is a governor who has forgotten that he has been placed in that position to serve his people not to be served by them – of course there will be people who do not agree with him – but to remove the poster? Would it not simply confirm that that is what has happened?
The sixth line of this stanza aligns perfectly with the ethos of the nation in which this poster was posted. The negative statement corresponds almost exactly with the people to whom the first call of their national anthem⁴ is addressed. The second statement is simply a statement of what that nation requires of its people to be good citizens.
So you see then there are only two characters in this stanza which could possibly cause offence, and would only cause offence to one who has forgotten why he is in the position in which he finds himself.
We find at the end, though it is not at all clear that the poster placed on the bridge included these additional words, perhaps they were a later additions to justify their removal. They violate both the poetic principle used – a stanza of six seven syllable lines which is complete in itself – and the content of the stanza by making explicit only what may, but may not necessarily, have been implicit in the stanza. So in the way of a good English sonnet but with a modified structure we have a sestet, each of seven syllables, followed by a volta of three three character lines, which is represented by a line of nine characters. Three character lines are typically used in works for children, as they are necessarily easier to read and understand⁵. These lines are an offence to the style of the poem. It is possible that it is only the third of these three character lines that is the extraneous addition, for without it the stanza retains its sense of being in the silver morning mist and its feeling of imprecision. We cannot quite pin down what it is saying.
When we consider the context in which the poster were displayed however, it is as if the bridegroom has come out of his tabernacle like a strongman to run his race rising from one end of heaven and following its circle to the other before which the mists are driven away by its heat⁶. That context was a cool, cloudy day on the Sitong bridge in Peking⁷.
It is perhaps of little surprise therefore that despite the beautiful craftsmanship demonstrated in this quite elegant poem, it was removed by the authorities. One hopes that the pleas of the literary academics of that nation will have been heard, and as they have preserved that of the first emperor, Qin Shi Huang, the Book Burning Pit, a four line seven character poem by Zhang Jie, of which you may read here⁸.
The original text is shown in the photograph taken from Twitter by the BBC. The six-line seven character poetry can be clearly seen in the poster hanging from the bridge. Another poster may be seen further along the bridge which is not so clear but appears to contain more than the nine characters which appear in the volta.
No! to covid test; yes! to food. No! to lockdown; yes! to freedom. No! to lies; yes! to dignity. No! to cultural revolution; yes! to reform. No! to great leader; yes! to vote. Don’t be a slave, be a citizen. [Remove the dictator and national traitor [Xi Jinping]]
The words in brackets ([]) appear to be extraneous, perhaps with malicious intent toward the poet, additions to an otherwise complete seven-line poem as may be seen in the modified version in the first BBC article⁹ below. You may listen to Google read the words, with apologies for inclusion of the additional nine characters in this clip:
⁰⁰ It was 15 September 2015 actually so not recent if you are of a young age. The title of the article may be extravagant in its claims, but it is the title chosen: Who killed the 20th century’s greatest spy?
⁰ The quotation is not exact, Coco has paraphrased it.
¹ Cultural revolution 文化大革命 Formal name: 无产阶级文化大革命 / 無產階級文化大革命 zh.wikipedia.org 始于1966年5月16日出台的《五一六通知》，因其时间长达十年之久，且对中国社会造成了巨大破坏，故也被后世称为十年内乱、十年动乱、十年浩劫。 Beginning with the ‘May 16 Notice’ issued on May 16, 1966, it lasted ten years, and caused great damage to Chinese society, therefore, it is also called Ten Years of Civil Unrest, Ten Years of Turmoil, Ten Years of Catastrophe by later generations. en.wikipedia.org: In 1981, the CCP declared in paragraph 19 of Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China acknowledging that the Cultural Revolution was wrong, and that it was ‘responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the people, the country, and the party since the founding of the People’s Republic’.
² Consulus Romanus Caius Petronius dici: Diligenter exercere consuescebamus. Quandocumque tamen in factiones nos formare incipiebamus, quidem nos in alias factiones reformaret. Sic quidem nobis videbatur. Multis postea annis, disci homines se reformare solere in rebus novis difficilibusque, se deludentes hanc reformationem ‘progressionem’ esse et non causam discordiæ, inertiæ et miseriæ. Quoted from here and elsewhere. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799) hat «Es ist nicht gesagt, dass es besser wird, wenn es anders wird. Wenn es aber besser werden muss, muss es anders werden.» gesagt. Quoted by Andersen.de in 2001 here and elsewhere.
³ Great Leader 最高领导人的别称 (Baidu) “伟大领袖毛泽东”。 See baike.baidu.com 领袖 Emphasizing his ability to steer China’s future, Mao was referred to as “the great leader Chairman Mao” (伟大领袖毛主席) in public and he was entitled “the great leader, the great supreme commander, the great teacher and the great helmsman” (伟大的领袖、伟大的统帅、伟大的导师、伟大的舵手) during the Cultural Revolution. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong: The_Great_Four_titles
⁵ Wikipedia: A three-character line is known from the Three Character Classic, a book for children written in three-character eight-line verse in rhymed couplets. Five, Seven, and eight (or doubled four) character lines are standard for serious, fixed-length poetry. Classical Chinese poetry forms
⁷ Sitong Bridge According to a report in the AsiaNews on the May 18th 2023 by Julian count became an anonymous bridge, much like the many Low Bridges in the UK in readiness for May 22nd, the auspicious day when nothing happened. As you shall see however in the picture above the bridge clearly has a name.
Coco was thinking about Cio-cio-san the other day and noticed a striking similarity between Madama Butterfly and the young Shulamitess in the stage play by Solomon. Madama Butterfly will be no stranger to you, and perhaps the story familiar. Some would say that Puccini spent forty years trying to write this opera and the last twenty years of his life trying to write it again, it containing the epitome of operatic drama outside Bayreuth however could not be reproduced.
If you compare photographs of the two gentlemen you may see a striking similarity between the differences between their music and that which is between their temples.
Leaving that aside, as it is not a discussion into which we would wish to enter today, both the stage play (the Song) and the stage opera (Butterfly) contain all of the necessary elements for the success of what is known today as a soap. It is a strange use of the word, derived from the long form usage in soap opera which acknowledges the frivolous largesse of the manufacturers of epidermal cleansing products. The infatuation of a young lady with the promise of elevation in social status occasioned by the presence of an older eligible man, intrigue, infidelity, adultery, bigamy and dare I mention child abuse are all to be found by those who look even only on the surface. Puccini’s music goes some way towards sanitising the outstandingly flawed characters of the individuals employed in the action of the legend of Butterfly, but one cannot escape that the captain is no better, perhaps even worse, than that which is reputed to be true of every mariner. The sanitisation perhaps even earns the opera the grand accolade of soap opera extraordinaire even though it does not contain the multiple story lines and cliff-hanger ending of the later soaps. It remains nothing more than a tragedy, but nevertheless when you listen to it, in a language you do not understand, you can understand why it took Puccini forty years of practice before he wrote it and spent the rest of his life trying to imitate it.
You know the story, in brief it is of a young geiko, or perhaps even only a maiko, who catches the eye of a sailor and in it sees a way out of her poverty. A weak superior to the sailor permits him to marry her, knowing full well that he intends to abandon her, which he does when he returns to his homeland, where he bigamously marries a local lass. Returning to Japan a few years later he discovers that she has waited for him and that he has a son. He cannot face the consequences of his actions. She commits suicide. The only redeeming feature in the story being that the lass whom he deceived and married is willing to bring up the young child as her own.
In the story of the Shulamite, we have a young country girl, who though she is not exactly living in poverty as we discover towards the end of the play for her father is quite a wealthy man, also sees an opportunity for elevation in her social status when the king is caught by her eye on a royal visitation to the area in which she lived. It is not stated so clearly, but it would not be out of place to think that it was her father who hosted the king during that visitation. The prospective rise in status from country lady to queen somewhat outstrips that of a poor maiko to foreign ship’s captain’s wife. Her age however is similar to that of the maiko. The encounter leads to marriage, but not quite in the same way as the maiko’s, for the king makes her entrance into the royal household a very public matter as she is taken up to Jerusalem in a royal palanquin, a carriage festooned with all of the comforts that befit a future queen, in a grand parade that would shame even those military parades of our contemporary world’s most despotic of leaders. All seems to be idyllic.
We then find that she is not the first. There are already sixty other queens and to add trouble to trouble there are eighty concubines as well. She was number sixty-one or one hundred and forty-one however you may wish to count it. We know, but not from the play, that another eight hundred and fifty-nine would follow her. This king seems to be lower even than the captain of Puccini’s Butterfly, and it is true: his wives did turn away the heart of the king. There is a tragedy here, but it is not the tragedy about which Puccini sang.
The Song of Songs which Solomon wrote is a story of a love far greater than the love of a captain for a maiko, though it is written in such terms. The presence of the other queens and concubines in the play is not to demean or shame the new queen, but rather to exalt her, and in exalting her to exalt the others also. It is impossible for us to devote ourselves in marriage to more than one individual in the way that marriage requires, but this little play points us to the one who does so love each one of his people in such a way that each one of them can hear him say: ‘O my love, you are as beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem, awesome as an army with banners! Turn your eyes away from me, for they have overcome me. My dove, my perfect one, Is the only one, the only one of her mother, the favourite of the one who bore her. The daughters saw her and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. ‘
John records for us that ‘before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’. John was speaking about the death of the Lord on the Roman cross, where he by paying, in a very public event, the price for our sins, so clearly shown in both Puccini and the Song as they reflect the world in which we live, became able to welcome us into the royal household.
Despite the tragedy of Solomon’s life, the play speaks, as it speaks of a love far greater than we could ever know, of the love of Jesus for his people. Do you know his love for you? He does not keep it hidden. Speak to him: Remember me Lord, when you come into your kingdom.
Coco does not suppose the second part of the slogan carries the same meaning(s) in Chinese as it does in English, but if it does then for a comedian to suggest that that is what dogs do is not true, is it? Dogs do not forge anything, whether it is for the positive or the negative meaning. Dogs behave as dogs behave without any pretence, except perhaps if they feign in their hunting (ask any caninologist) in the manner of a boxer, whereas people may forge in both senses of the word.
As much a bad choice of slogan as the naming of the Roller Silver Mist when for sale in Prussia.
Coco had wondered whether given the reference to the forge in the smithy perhaps ‘Fight to win, smite exemplary conduct’ may have been a better choice of translation, given that ‘to smite’ does not carry the same negative connotation. On second thoughts…
Li Haoshi, a stand-up comedian, was both fined and arrested after saying ‘Other dogs you see would make you think they are adorable. These two dogs only reminded me of… ‘ alluding both to the chasing of a squirrel by his dogs and to the aforementioned slogan.
When I saw the headline I thought this might be a political comment, for if typically you tried to make a political statement at a sporting event you would quickly find that sport is apolitical. Whilst the joining together of the indefinite article and the adjectival noun is intended to express that politics is not permitted to enter sport, that is patently untrue. It is a mere pretence to cover up some other motive. Politics does have a part to play. So, the strap line of the BBC article which gave the impression that a particular performer was not only permitted to make a political statement but that that statement was an integral part of the performance aroused some interest. Even where apolitical is abused in sport, to go that far is hardly permitted.
A careful reading of the article however suggests that superficially at least there is no political statement at all in what is said or done. It is a matter of interpretation in a particular context. In a different ages and places different interpretations may be placed upon the words expressed in a particular language, as it is for the words ‘Lead kindly light’. However, there was something of greater interest and concern, but as one who has used similar techniques I have to be careful how I criticise.
Imagine what it would be like if you turn up at the cup final and on the field you do not see twenty three men, but one man and twenty-two androids. Would you not feel somewhat cheated? ‘Oh no, the reply would come. Don’t worry each android would behave exactly as you would expect the individual upon whom it has been modelled to behave. It will be just like watching the real thing. Each android has been programmed with AI to imitate its model. It will do even better. It will avoid all of the mistakes that the star performer would make or could make. The game will be far better’. Is the placement of artificial turf a preparation for such a change? Imagine being able to watch Pele, Hurst and Beckenbauer again even if only in avatar.
Or, if having spent months writing the dissertation for your finals, you find that everyone else wrote theirs just the day before using ChatGPT; and that the examiners were quite happy about that. Or again, you hear that Menuhin shall perform the Beethoven in the RAH, but when you arrive there is an empty dais and the compiled sounds of a Deutsche Grammophon recording* booming out of the speakers.
It was the words ‘The technical complexity of Eurovision means that all songs are sung to a backing track’ that caught my attention. I had always thought that the performances were live, though of course very well rehearsed and flawlessly performed, just as in every other music competition throughout the country. What would you think if the Black Dyke Band turned up and simply mimed to their own playing, which was a compilation of several different ‘performances’ from which all of the faults had been ironed out. In Leeds the whole orchestra turns out to play live for the pianists. So why, in the light of so called technical complexity, is a band not permitted to play its own music in front of the audience. Do they think that in some way a wholly live performance will devalue the ‘competition’? Do they fear that the quality of the acts may not be as good as the organisers want you to think they are. It becomes a sham of a competition when you are permitted to iron out the defects in the backing track. Might as well project holographs of the group as mime.
In any event, what is this reference to a backing track? Has someone lost sight of what the music is. Is not the backing track an intrinsic part of the musical presentation? Erlkönig would not be as fearful as it is without its ‘backing track’. Or do they actually not care about the music at all, it is really simply about physical gyration? Nothing else matters.
How disappointing! But then that is what this world loves. It loves the appearance, but not the reality. The splendid buildings which rise up contrary to the building regulations, but collapse at a shifting of the ground beneath them. The war games fascinate and captivate many in their games’ rooms and virtual reality worlds, but place the same in the reality of Bakhmut, Dresden or Saigon; what then?
It is the same with godliness, men love the appearance of it, but ask them to change their way of life to live godly lives and they turn away. They are very happy with a religion which says: ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ all of which concern things which do not endure. These are but the commandments and doctrines of men. They are regulations. ‘If we keep them we shall live’ is what they think. Well, these things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed religion, but it is a false humility and are of no value against the indulgence of the body. (Colossians 2:20-23) Ask them however to become lovers of God rather than pleasure, and they turn away. They want the benefits of religion, but do not want its power to change the way in which they live. We love ourselves, we love money, we love pleasure. This will all pass away, and then what? ‘What good will it do for a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?’ the Lord Jesus Christ asked us.
Let them have their backing tracks if they will, but let us, without hypocrisy, love the Lord our God, who gave himself to save our souls, with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! * Coco is not aware of any such recording
Today is an important day for many reasons. We have crowned a man who is king, who in that crowning made certain clear commitments. We do not have to be monarchists to recognise the benefits of those commitments, and I would suggest that of whatever form of government you want if you do not require of the governor those same commitments then you do both yourself and your fellow countrymen a great disservice. There are only two, or perhaps three, on which comment shall be made here.
Firstly, a commitment is made to protect his people both from external troubles and from those within the kingdom who would exploit them. Now we cannot argue against that. A king, or any governor, who exploits his people, leaves them defenceless or makes war against them is a not one any of you would want, but we do see such elsewhere in this world. We are called upon to pray for kings, rulers and all in authority, for why? Two reasons are given, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life (1 Tim 2:1). I shall come to the other later. This is an important commitment.
Secondly, a commitment is made to defend the Christian religion. The Scriptures provide the foundation upon which our treatment of each other rests. If we have any other foundation then we shall conclude that some are second or even third or lower class, or that the death of a man is no more significant that the death of a fly on the wall, it being merely a rearrangement of the chemicals of which he is made. We are told: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Genesis 1)
I am not arguing here that we have been obedient to that instruction, the king whom we have just crowned has long spoken about many of the ways in which we have overstepped the authority that we have, but where else do we such a clear testimony to the value of a human life. We are made in the image of God; what could be a more beautiful image than that? Even more so, what this means is that we cannot relegate one of our kind to a lower position, or consider them to be soulless, for every one of us carried that image with him. It is this, and this alone, that gives us value not any other trappings that we may carry with us. Secondly, God declares: ‘Male and female he created them’. Men and women are not the same, otherwise we would have the same noun to describe us, but we are both made in the image of God, If not the same then, what are we? We are both made in the image of God, but made complementary to each other as we read later: And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’ And Adam declares: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.’ I do not claim that my etymology is correct, but superficially the English words used here do show a similar connection as the Hebrew: she shall be called ishah, because she was taken out of ish. Jigsaw pieces could not all be the same for the jigsaw to fit together (except in certain special cases of which I am sure mathematically minded individuals would be delighted to point out), the pieces must be complementary to each other (the complementarity of the special cases is what makes the same special cases work as jigsaws). And so it is for us, men and women are complementary to each other.
What a great, glorious, enlightening and liberating teaching this is! No-one is second class; no-one is of less worth than any other.
Depart from the Christian faith and we shall descend into the abyss of superstition, idolatry, paganism, false religion and oppression, for it is only the Christian faith that demands that we love one another, even those who show themselves to be our enemies, and treat others, not as they treat us, but as we would want to be treated ourselves. As the king said on his arrival today: In [the name of Jesus Christ] and after his example I come not to be served but to serve. The example of Jesus Christ was to love his enemies, those who would hand him over to be crucified. Many of them later received mercy from the one whom they had, by means of the Roman nails and spear, pierced.
Thirdly, we are reminded of the importance of kingship. There is one true king, the true man, the perfect man Jesus. He is the only one who has fulfilled the law of God and the only one therefore who is fit to be king. The Scripture says of him ‘You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.’ (Psalm 45:7) But each earthly king is to be like him, and to exemplify him before us. Some do it better than others. Many fail in many ways, as we may read in the books of the kings, and in our own history books, but their failings do not invalidate the value of a king. Rather let them learn what a true king is and learn to be like him. Even the wicked king Manasseh towards his end understood how badly he had failed and repented of his wickedness (2 Chr 33:13).
You see, we do not appoint a king, nor do we elect one, we acknowledge the one who is king. This one, some would say, is king by an accident of nature. So let it be. An accident of nature is certainly no less likely to choose the right man as the vicissitudes of an electorate choosing from a group of power hungry men, and probably more likely to do so. But I cannot say it in that way. It is God who raises up rulers among men, and he has appointed one to rule over us: Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion, (Psalm 2:6) and later warns the kings of the earth to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling, to kiss the Son (the king) as our Prince did his father today. That we do not choose our king reminds us of this, pointing both us and our king to the King of kings in whose name he was welcomed to the coronation today.
I mentioned that there were two reasons why we should pray for kings and all in authority. The second points us again to the king of kings, it is that it is good to do so in the sight of God our Saviour who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth through the one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ.
So, only three comments:
The king is our nation’s protector, just as Jesus, the king of kings is our protector.
The king is the defender of the Christian faith, from which we learn that our worth is that we are made in the image of God.
The king is appointed not by us, reminding us that we are to serve the one whom God has appointed, Jesus the king of Kings.
And this Jesus has been anointed by God, not men, so that the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him to preach good tidings to the poor; to heal the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives; and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. (Isaiah 61:1)
We have a king, who lives to serve his people not to be served by us, which points us to the King Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:28)
All remain standing. Samuel Strachan, Child of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal, addresses The King Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God we welcome you in the name of the King of kings. The King replies In his name and after his example I come not to be served but to serve.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. And with thy spirit.
Alleluia. Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed. Alleluia.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
Give the king your judgements, O God, and your righteousness to the son of a king. Then shall he judge your people righteously and your poor with justice.
Alleluia. May he defend the poor among the people, deliver the children of the needy and crush the oppressor.
During the chant the Lord President of the Council exchanges the Sword of State for the Jewelled Sword of Offering, and delivers it to the Archbishop, who says: Hear our prayers, O Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant King Charles, that he may not bear the sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God to resist evil and defend the good, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Jewelled Sword of Offering is placed into the king’s right hand. The archbishop says: Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy. The king rises. The sword is put upon the king, and he sits. The archbishop says: With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God and all people of goodwill, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen. The king stands and offers the sword at the altar, where it is received by the dean. The king returns to the coronation chair. The sword is redeemed and is returned to the Lord President of the Council.
It is very meet, right and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God, through Jesus Christ thine only Son our Lord. Who hast at this time consecrated thy servant Charles to be our King, that by the anointing of thy grace, he may be the Defender of thy Faith and the Protector of thy people; that, with him, we may learn the ways of service, compassion, and love; and that the good work thou hast begun in him this day may be brought to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name; evermore praising thee, and saying:
There are parts with which Coco may disagree! The Church of England is not fully reformed, and elements derived from paganism through romish errors have been retained. Notwithstanding this, though there is error as Paul said of those in Rome who spoke supposing to harm him: Christ is proclaimed. There was a clear proclamation at the start that he had been raised from the dead; the reading from Colossians spoke of his pre-eminence, creative and redemptive power; and the words of the communion the purpose of his death on a Roman cross.
Logic is very important, and if you code or are a mathematician then sometimes you will not be surprised to find that even machines are defiant, recalcitrant and incorrigible, just like human beings. Take this very simple case, you have a two cylinder lock. In order to undo the lock you need a key which has cuts to match both cylinders (not being a locksmith I do not know the technical term for the cut, please enlighten me). So, if we call the cylinders A and B, then then we can say for any key C that if it is TRUE that the A cut matches the A cylinder AND it is TRUE the B cut matches the B cylinder that the key is a TRUE key that will open the lock.
Do you see? Both A and B must be TRUE to give us a TRUE key. If only A or only B matched you would say it is a FALSE key (it doesn’t fit). You would not be happy if only the A or the B cuts matched and it was still true that the key opened the lock. You might just as well have a single cylinder lock and wait for the intruder to walk in.
Well, we have many more cylinders in our locks these days to prevent that sort of picking and for four five, six or seven cylinder locks we expected the key to match every one for it to be a TRUE key. But in another context I found that for the equivalent of a four cylinder lock in Excel using AND() function that it gave me TRUE when only two of the four cylinders were TRUE. The other two were FALSE as you can see here….the correct answer is FALSE. This key should not be able to open the lock.
So whether you excel or not, please do not use Excel for your security system.
Ready and willing to be corrected, for I am sure that someone will spot the flaw (otherwise known as a falseness, which is not a village in Shetland) in this demonstration.
An apology coming so soon after the previous one? One would have thought that cartoonists might have learned a thing or two by now. It is fitting however when two interesting articles are placed side by side they provoke an interesting thought, but given that this morning’s sermon was on Romans 12: Be subject to the authorities, I wondered whether political satire may sometimes be haram rather than kosher. But we do have Rutherford’s teaching also on the matter who promoted Lex rex rather than Rex lex, aptly illustrated by when on the appointment of one of his governors, Trajan handed to him a dagger with the words: ‘to be used for me (As Paul said: they hold the power of the sword) and [if I do wrong] in me’. How different from the lèse-majesté of another nation. On the basis of this, the interesting (or not so interesting depending upon your point of view) thought becomes public at the risk of offending those who by their nature are afflicted with the plague of sensitivity to that which is ill aligned with the contemporary notion of politica rectitude, and given with apologies to those who will recognise that I, being ignorant of such matters, have used the incorrect case.
Now the cartoon which has been hidden from view by the author, but not by many others who are not, is clearly an abomination in the good tradition of political satire from at least the end of the 18th century exemplified by Gillray. To show a former prime minister sitting on a throne hidden behind a pile of whatever you may wish to describe it but would be quite at home in a farmyard, with such a grotesque visage is at the best described as insulting, but perhaps a gentler form of treatment of the gentleman, if a gentleman, could have been found. The other gentleman has a face which AI may easily have produced if it had been asked to cartoonise a photograph of the gentleman whom the cartoon portrays but has actually been produced by the real intelligence of a real man. What a jolly description it is indeed of at least one of the ills of our times.
In the other article we are presented with a protest against laws and regulations by a government by which under the cloak of a ban on fake news, as the nation’s own judges recognise by the way they have been written, it would be possible to silence fair criticism including satire and parody. Now I suggest that that other nation perhaps needs to look at the Western approach (except of course it cannot because that would be to allow itself to be subject to the colonialists) to the banning of satirical literature, ideographs and cartoons. The Western approach is simply to get the PC brigade on your side and never again a word shall be spoken against you ever – even if it would have been spoken in jest – for those very comedians and comediennes will regulate themselves and keep silent being more afraid of the wrath of the liberal elite than that of the government. So, it would seem that as well as exposing as intended one of the ills of our time, it also unintentionally exposed another of the ills. I suspect the putative claim of the ‘offended’ is a cover for the real reason which is closer to that from which the lèse-majesté are designed to protect those who would wish to sit upon a throne but have proven to be unsuitable candidates for it.
As for caricatures, they are necessary and are necessarily built upon actual characteristics of real people. ‘Paint me, warts and all!’ the man said for it was well known that if the warts were painted out it would be said that it was not a true likeness. If we are offended by a caricature of our culture, race, tribe or even locality then remember it is a caricature because it is like that in some way, and we then should ask why? What is it that makes that particular caricature? What is it in the caricature that is offensive? What is it of which we, as members of that class, are ashamed? If it is something bad, we then need to further ask ourselves: is it found in me? If it is then I must expunge it from myself.
So when I hear words spoken about or see a cartoon of a particular class or group of people to whom I may, or may not, have a relationship or a belonging: ‘Though their pockets are deep their arms are short’ remember that this is a caricature. And then ask does it apply to me as much as it does to the miser. O miserable man that I am!
