So by problem, I also mean danger, because we tend to underestimate this issue, and overestimate our capacity or ability in understanding it. This is about mediums, guides, gurus or generally people who say they’ve received ‘word’ or inspiration from some spiritual source – even those who share your beliefs. Many people seek direction this way, from books written by people who’ve had some dramatic spiritual event to guide their lives and provide some help to other people seeking similar direction. In a general sense though, Spiritism, according to one of its chief proponents ‘Allan Kardec’, is “a philosophical doctrine with religious effects. It has its fundamental basis, like any other religion, God, the soul and a future life. But it is not like most established religions as it does not have dogmas, rituals, or temples, and among its followers, nobody takes or receives the title of priest or high-priest.” Now, if you believe in the spiritual realm (as I do), this can become a tricky topic if you’re not looking to offend anyone because it involves people’s beliefs, but I think people should allow their beliefs to be shaken a bit from time to time, to see how deep their roots really are, and to test the strength of their particular belief system. So without complicating things too much, here’s the problem: Trust. If you’ve read a book or heard someone speak about spiritual guidance, whether from a psychic medium, an Imam, a pastor, or simply a friend offering some help via (deeper) self-help books, then the issue will come up; how do you trust the source of the guidance offered. Recently a friend offered/suggested a book written by a woman who wrote because she claimed she was inspired by “a voice”, saying it was like she wasn’t writing the book at all, but rather simply writing whatever the voice told her to write. Later, she claimed (believed) that the voice belonged to Jesus. The problem is that some of what she wrote (the voice said) was simply not Biblical. This is a problem, not just for me (a Christian) but for anyone interested. This brand of Spiritism I find to be common among New Age Religions, along the lines of Eckhart Tolle and even those behind the fairly recent book ‘The Secret’. Another perspective is the all roads lead to Rome idea, ie. the all-encompassing route of embracing all religions and beliefs as being essentially the same thing – all religions lead to God, they’re just different strokes for different folks (via-a-vis pluralism). But that’s an overlapping issue. Spiritism is a bit more specified and direct. Getting back to the book in question; How do we know that the author of the book (A course in Miracles by Helen Schucman, 1948-2013) is on the right path? For a Christian this is simpler because whatever disagrees with the Bible, is false, since the Bible is Truth, the Word of God being the Way, the Truth and the Life… so anything inconsistent with it, is therefore NOT the truth. I'm aware that to some this seems a bit narrow-minded, but you wouldn't call a passenger narrow-minded for insisting that only a qualified pilot should fly the plane. And that's essentially what this is about, qualifying forms of Spiritism. But what about non-Christians? Specifically Non-Christians who also happen to believe in some form of Spirituality and seek guidance through similar books, or a spiritual realm, the afterlife, ancestors, spirit-guides, a higher consciousness, self-help meditation etc.? How would you trust the word of a psychic? [Side note - This by the way is also one of the reasons why I am not a Muslim. I believe Muhammad had a profound spiritual experience in that cave, but how do I trust one man’s word, a man who himself according to tradition, was unsure about the source of the revelation upon receiving it?] People like to compare the Quran to the Bible, but that’s not accurate. It would be more apt to compare the Quran (1 book comprising the teachings/insights of 1 man, Muhammad) to other books/writings other men, like the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the Epistles of Apostle Paul (his writings contained within the Bible). This comparison would be more reasonable. This leads to why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles etc, are joined and included into a singular collection: the Bible. Viewed individually, they can all be bracketed as spiritual books and a form of ‘Spiritism’, the 66 books in the Bible, after generations of deep scrutiny (written over a period of 1500 yrs) are found to be consistent with one another in thought, content and purpose. It simply means it carries divine credentials like no other book - hence it being the most attacked book in human history. But for Non-Christians, I’m curios to learn; what are your criteria for discerning spiritual integrity? If we all believe that there is a spiritual realm, and if that spiritual realm resembles in some small way, the essential dynamics of this world, in terms of the ‘invisible’ qualities like intellect, morality, consciousness etc. – and if we assume that passed souls (ancestors) are now a part of this metaphysical/spiritual realm… then its logical to assume that since good and evil are evident in this natural world, then it's wihtin the spiritual world as well. In fact, it would be quite presumptuous, or even naive to think good and evil are not prevalent in the spiritual realm. This is especially true if you acknowledge that these elements, the natural world and the spiritual, interact with one another. Then from there, that people in this life will pass on to the next life in some form or other. Are we willing to gamble and assume that good and evil do not exist in the spiritual realm? And with that knowledge, when one attempts to interact with the spiritual, how do you then discern if whatever you’re interacting with, is good or evil? The truth is divisive, simply because it is exclusive – there is one narrow way, the right way… and many people find themselves on the wrong side or outside of it, this is why doing the good or the right thing, is often so difficult. For this reason it can be said that truth is sometimes offensive because, by its nature, it says that certain positions are wrong/false. Hence, (capital T) Truth excludes some people, and can be offensive. So, taking up the position of Truth may also at times come across as arrogant, with further potential for division. Having faced my own crisis of faith and been in a position of deep doubt, I can at least attest to it not being a very good place to be; but still, I had to go even deeper to a place where I was willing to accept and deal with the consequences if I found there to be an error in my beliefs. It was a commitment to put the truth to the test, or whatever test I could come up with, and then to be willing to deal with those consequences, whatever it was, whether I liked the answers I found or not. [This is also why New Age pluralism is so popular, because then there is no wrong answer, so it fits many people's desires - to each is his own, or simply another branch of relativism]. All this is naturally related to the quandary: 'Is there a God? and if there is, then who is he and how do we get to know him/it... and did this creator reveal himself to the human race in some way?' So often in this world, which we’ve made so very complicated, we seek guidance and sometimes that ‘guidance’ comes in forms that seem welcoming at first. However, scratch at the surface and it may reveal some inconveniences that many are simply not willing to confront. To use a common saying which also happens to be from the Bible, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13) I understand the desire for spiritual guidance, but what are our criteria for deciphering this thing (spirituality) which by its very nature is alien to us? It is something we are unqualified to deal with, hence our methods for interacting with it cannot come from us. So, do we not need some sort of barometer to judge all spiritual matters… if not, then what? We are quick though to create our own way when wading into spiritual waters, all to fit our own spiritual desires and perspectives. How do you discern or judge Spiritism? My advice is to earnestly seek the Truth . . . As to "what is truth?" as a friend asked me recently, well that's firmly entering epistemology. But since it is such a tricky subject to define, perhaps the best starting point is to clarify what it is NOT. And its at this foundation where we find the issue of relativism and absolutism. Is Truth Absolute/fixed/objective, or is it relative? "What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are..." But, if "truths are illusions" then nothing is absolute, then it means that that claim is self-defeating... because then nothing is certain/the truth/to be trusted, including that very sentence "truths are illusions". You see if Nietzsche's claim is true (which by the way, would make it absolute) then by his own claim everything he said is an illusion, and why bother listening to/reading it in the first place. The following quote though explains it better IMO: "The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do, is follow his advice." Some handy links:
"What is Truth? | Explain Truth | Define Truth" - carm.org "What is Truth?" - Paul Pardi article on philosophynews.com
0 Comments
A closer look at the works of Irish painter Anne Magill - The power of story – its a topic that’s permanently on my mind so I’m drawn to it, or naturally seek it out in any medium. Recently I was listening to some instrumental music that was made even more compelling because the artist, a guitarist, told a story with his musical pieces, without the use of words. In this case though, its paintings. Anne Magill’s work is in focus as she tells visual stories with her canvasses. She’s been described as the “female Jack Vetrianno”, but in my opinion she’s better than him, simply because – rather than forming re-imaginings – she employs fewer colours, adopting a subtler approach, making her work seem more like old photographs … or just someone else’s half-recalled memories. Maybe it’s my fascination with history, nostalgia and sentiment that makes her work appeal to me all the more, or appeal to anyone interested in pockets of time, or glimpses into lost moments or just the overall ideas she communicates… whatever the case, here is some of her work. Enjoy. "I'm more interested in atmosphere rather than the specific idea of a person in the landscape. And I am fascinated by the essence of old photos. When I was young we had few photos in the house but I loved the glow of those that were fading, like memories. Sometimes I add the soil of a certain place to the paint and use it in the background." - Anne Magill {Interview - Belfast Telegraph, 2010. "I’ve always been drawn to creating a picture that tells a story “When I first encountered Anne Magill’s paintings it took me a while for my eyes to find their focus. As if the characters were emerging from memory, or fading into it. They put me in mind of those late-Victorian photographs, like Whitlingham Vale by G. Christopher Davies, in which a ghostly boat eases its way along a winding river, or P.H. Emerson’s At the Ferry – A Misty Morning, in which a milk cart stands at the water’s edge. Anne’s paintings seem to occupy a similar, half-dreamed territory. A hazy place, both powerfully present and weighed-down with the past.” --- Mick Jackson For more of Anne Magill's work, as well as her background information, visit her official website: www.annemagill.com [Image Credits: www.annemagill.com] Poem: * "My bones in the road" by Steven Benjamin 'Thousands of years of rolling and crashing, smoothed the stones', I heard him say. Buildings still abound, much older than I will ever be. When did I gain this voice When did it fade Young we are to the elements, and will always be Blooming flowers to nature we are, and will always be, and then gone What is this effort? To catch my voice in a jar? I hum, clear my throat, and when my lips part, sounds come out, a head inclines and then I turn the page and see some figures on that paper, lines that came from me. I held a pen and moved it. Rearranged some letters, with fingers and breath, whispers and tones. My heart beats; I know. My red blood I’ve seen, and my veins. Shared some space I did, and thought some thoughts, and then quietened my mind. Beating is my heart, and not much more is happening. . . Hushed Until another hour, when again the voice quakes, and a sound, as inspiration steers. the blood pumps on, ink shall be laid, lips to be parted Bones shall move and a faint echo will let loose in this, our dying maze of time. Let the bones of my ribs rise and fall a cage, the jar for my voice holding it like a gloved claw, keeping some air in, until it slips out, and is no more. Just long enough for that breath that it holds, that small voice within that cage, to nudge the blood, to itch the muscle, to crinkle the flesh, to move the fingers. Just long enough for the echo to spill and dent the page and fill the dents with ink. Just long enough it holds, until it is no more. Good intentions are all I am, and all we are, then let the road be paved with me, that narrow path Home to us all that road will be, in the maze of time. And that road - where shall it lead? until time closes, lost, to the red place but for the tether a pinch from that place without time to make the way straight to make the bones move, and that which placed within those bones that air, that breath, that voice it speaks, it moves, it saves and makes the bones live again without time, this time * [Image credit: photo by Frank Robert --- Video credit: Music by Max Richter ( From the Art of Mirrors) Filmed, directed and produced by Montserrat Rubio Sound effects by Romain Olivieri] Dragons don’t exist, this we know. They definitely never existed at any time… this we assume to know or have greatly accepted as fact, relegating their status to myth and legend. But why? Why don’t they exist, or why haven't they "ever existed" in the ancient past? How do we know this for sure, and how was this ‘fact’ established? And so, let’s calmly question what we’ve been told, and what we’ve assumed, to prod the foundations of our knowledge, kick the tires of history, let out some of the puffed up contemporary fantastical air, and see if the vehicle of our Dragon lore is roadworthy, testing to see how far we can take it. A good practice is to be willing to entertain an idea to test its integrity. So lets entertain away. How we phrase the question is important though: Was there a time when Dragon’s existed? Or more precisely, could a Dragon-like creature have existed? I think to the latter question, the answer is a resounding YES. One need only look to the creatures on earth right now to surmise that history could well have seen something akin to what we’ve conceptualized the archetype dragon to be, and that it was perhaps these kind of creatures that inspired the early tales. And that’s the issue here. The main doubt about this animal is in people’s idea of it as this great fire spewing, scaled and winged monster rising from the depths of hell, perhaps the product of some wild imaginative liberty. From an objective view, it certainly seems to be the collective imaginative galvanization of our greatest fears. Let’s just say off the bat, or firmly assume, that Dragons are a thing of myth and legend - what we understand those two words to mean, and… They DEFINITELY NEVER EXISTED, at least not in the way fantasy and media portray it. – Let this be our starting point. And so, the arguments against its existence follows:
The Greek origin – ‘the one that watches’ Where does our knowledge of Dragons come from and what influenced or inspired the vivid modern day image? What other so-called mythological creatures are there that were also a result of ancient cultures – but that are shared as vividly throughout the ancient world as widely as the dragon? Pegasus, mermaids, centaurs, … unicorns* – (*likely inspired by the rare Indian rhino... uni-single horn). Are these creatures exclusive to one ancient culture, or do they feature in a few? Mostly, one finds they are isolated to specific cultures or myths. But of all these creatures though, the dragon seems the likeliest to have potentially existed, based on what we know. Refuting the claims against the existence of Dragons. No Dragon fossils – Well, let’s remind ourselves that fossils are very rare and assume that if Dragons did exist, there weren’t that many of them around. Due to the media, we’ve taken fossils for granted. They are hard to come by, and the few we have are largely fragmented – that is to say we only have some remains of certain animals, in most cases only a small fraction of the animal’s remains, like a femur bone, some ribs, or the pelvic bones – whichever bones are the largest and usually take the most time to decay. I think it’s fair to say that there are more animals extinct than those we have currently living on earth. Put a different way: there is a large amount of animal species that DID exist, that we know nothing about, I mean, if it weren’t for the fossils, we wouldn’t have known that such creatures ever walked the earth (apart from potential ancient literature and historical accounts attesting to such unfamiliar creatures). Now, consider the fossils we DO have and the ones that resemble the Dragon in appearance; the T-Rex, the Dracorex, Velosiraptor etc… And ask yourself, ‘how accurate are our replicas or fleshed out renderings of these animals?’ With only a skeleton to work with, there is a decent margin of error, call it an 'error factor'. Now, I’m not saying the artists and paleontologists are incorrect, but after the re-imagining of sinew and muscle tissue around the skeleton, the cartilage and skin/fur - it does leave the window ajar as to the amount of estimation that must go into these museum displays. (One display in a museum in America, is based on only 10% of the animal’s remains! In these instances, as well as the Chimera fossils, the error factor is compounded). Added to that is the varying interpretations of data found. Flight – Could a creature, let’s (conservatively) say 10m high, actually fly? Applying physics, is it possible for a scaly serpent with wings to take flight? Let’s also clarify something here; not all Dragon representations have wings. The Biblical description (Job) did NOT include wings, however, later in Revelation when Satan is referenced as a Dragon, that’s a different story, because we know Lucifer was an Archangel, like Michael and Gabriel, and in other descriptions of Lucifer (before he was cast out of heaven), he did have wings… so the concept of the Dragon emerged from the amalgamation of the two images. However, the symbolic imagery from the John's controversial vision in the Book of Revelation (often confusing and difficult to interpret literal from figurative) also states that the woman the Dragon pursues, was given wings of an eagle to evade him, implying that the dragon (Lucifer) could NOT fly. But that aside, for many considering this debate, removing the wings from the equation makes the Dragon's potential existence not so much a debate, as a probability – big dinosaur-type lizard creatures did exist, that much we know is true… it’s the fire and wings that people have always found to be a bridge too far. But let's realistically consider the permutations of wings:
Interesting facts (loosely related) - We must also remind ourselves, as mentioned, serpents’ bodies do expand when they eat (including unhinging their jaws to devour their prey and an expandable spine). Also fully grown Nile Crocodiles can reach a top speed of around 35km/h, which is roughly 2min per kilometer, about on par with Olympic athletes (800m – 1min45sec) and this for an animal weighing in at about 500kg. This is only to lend some context to a would-be Dragon’s agility and maneuverability, Still on the possibility of flight – continuing on from flexible and ‘expanding’ skeletons, we turn to bone density, although now we are stretching our hypothesis a tad… so let’s return to the land of the living and remind ourselves that there are snakes that glide too, much like the Draco Lizard some breeds can leap from tree-to-tree, flattening their bodies, and then there’s the water snake, which (as its name indicates) can glide on the surface of water. So the ergonomics for a dragon to realistically attain flight (or at least gliding), is very much achievable. ‘Breathing’ Fire Why would such an animal have this ‘feature’? Presumably it would be a defense mechanism, but against what exactly? Are there any living animals that display this feature, or features similar to, or shall we say as 'extravagant' as this? In the film ‘Reign of Fire (2002)’ it featured dragons that had two glandular chambers in opposing sides of its mouth, each chamber containing a chemical that when ejected they'd combined to form a combustible mixture. This ‘mechanism’ was inspired by the Bombardier beetle. Furthermore, in the animal kingdom we have electric Eels (another kind of serpent), and then there's Fireflies – the ‘glowing’ feature is for attracting mates or prey. I’ll leave the fire-breathing summation up to you, but the above is a just a logical idea of how the ‘fire-breathing’ element/mechanism can be explained. There are historical sources which claim the dragon's main 'killing' weapon was its tail - as a whip, or coiling around its victim, and that it was without poison. So it must also be added that the fire element was more of a 'deterrent' and intimidating factor... Why would they have died out? If historical accounts surrounding dragons are to be believed (and we have no evidence on why they should not), then human intervention played a huge role. Men striving to tame the fearsome animal and what happens when an animal is hunted; you find that the size of the animal diminishes over time as they’re prevented from growing to maturity - killed before they reach full strength. Look at the early fossils of so-called prehistoric crocodile’s, or the large extinct Dire wolf losing out to the more nimble Grey wolf (although external factors played a role too). Historical accounts are consistent with this ‘shrinking’. The ancient accounts paint a picture of a large fearsome creature, whilst later accounts such as those of Herodotus (the Greek historian, ca. 460 B.C.) and Josephus (the Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD - 2:10:2:245-246), speak of ‘flying serpents’ - the latter's case 'the Ibis bird was used to repel the flying serpents. Another theory claims that the latter two historians were likely referring to surviving Pterosaurs. Either way the biggest influencing factor, as is the trend with rare species of animals, was mankind. Are Dragon's Dinosaurs... but then are we saying man encountered dinosaurs? The first point, about fossils resembling dragon's - meaning great Lizard - seems to backup up the final point, that ancient civilizations were inspired by such finds... But can we make this blanket assertion for all ancient cultures? That they all independently conceptualized this similar terror? In this writer's opinion, we cannot. Especially not in light of bona fide historical accounts... the reason why this fossil theory is so relied upon, is because the prevailing scientific hypothesis states that dinosaurs died out some 70 million years ago, but early human history seems to contradict this. Never mind that they've discovered soft tissue in Dinosaur bones (that scientists have failed to explain adequately - as to how could soft tissue can withstand millions of years of decay), and there are cases of rock art (Peru) that suggest man walked with dinosaurs (in addition to Hebrew literature, which is what the Bible is. Whilst archeologists investigating in Denmark have found that Beowulf, Europe's earliest literature, is based on fact, real clans, places and people... the difficult part to digest is Dragons and giants... or if the tale is real, did Beowulf then perhaps fight one of the last remaining dinosaurs of that region?) This issue is simply about reconciling whether or not dinosaurs lived in the same time as man, and there are big enough cracks in the geologic/prehistoric timetable theory to peer into, throwing ample reasonable doubt into the equation. This though is another exciting rabbit hole. But back on track; dragons are simply a form of ancient lizard/serpent , and there are plenty of those species still in existence. As mentioned, the alligator/crocodile, the monitor lizard, Komodo Dragon etc. are recognized for being ancient creatures. And then we arrive at the one which bears the most striking resemblance to contemporary dragon renderings: The Smaug Giganteus, aka ‘Sungazer’ – endemic to South Africa. “Sungazers are heavily armoured lizards hence one of their common names, the Girdled Lizard. This is derived from the bony scales along their body. Another name for them ‘Ouvolk’ is from Afrikaans and roughly translates into “Old Folk”, supposedly referring to its tendency of sitting at the entrance of the burrow facing the sun for many hours on end. Universally, the most commonly used name, Sungazer is also derived from this posturing. “These colonial, ovoviviparous lizards reproduce every two to three years, and only produce one or two offspring per breeding cycle.” (Bill Branch. 1998. Field Guide to Snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa, p. 189) I highlighted the line above because it’s consistent with the earliest meanings of the word dragon and also how they're portrayed; Word: Dragon - Middle English < Old French < Latin dracōn- (stem of dracō) < Greek drákōn kind of serpent, probably orig. epithet, the (sharp-) sighted one, akin to dérkesthai to look … and more remotely “to watch” and “to flash.” Name: Drakon (Δράκων)) - Greek name meaning "dragon." In Greek mythology - Drakon Ismenios was a gigantic serpent which guarded the sacred spring of Ismenos near Thebes; the Drakon Kholkikos was the guardian of the golden fleece… “St. Roma’nus delivered the city of Rouen from a dragon, named Gargouille (waterspout), which lived in the river Seine.” (bartleby.com) – gargouille… inspiration for “gargoyle”. “In reality snakes do not shut their eyes because they do not have eyelids, giving the impression they are awake all the time, and watching with a menacing unblinking stare.” – (constellationofwords.com - © Anne Wright 2008.) History On a larger worldwide scale though, in practically all ancient cultures that have some form of recorded history, there are references to dragons, or a dragon-like creatures. As noted sources of dragon's are cited in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Europe (Greek and Hebrew text). Farther east in India (via Alexander the Great and Marco Polo), as well as historian accounts of Geisner, Gould, Aldrovandus, Strabo and Megasthenes... there's Mexico (Acambaro art) then there's the ubiquitous and expansive Chinese Dragon lore, with many more accounts littering the Old world. Yes, in some of the later accounts the Dragons may differ in description, but the explanation that all these cultures and historians simply saw dinosaur fossils and interpreted them as "dragon", doesn't sync. I'm sure there are instances of this occurring, but even Marco Polo wrote of actual terrifying nocturnal serpents with wings and two legs. So, based on the evidence at hand, and knowing for a certainty that I DO NOT know everything... I will say that outside my Biblical background, the case or likelihood for the Dragon's existence, even close to the modern fantasy renditions, is actually quite good. There is of course doubt, but we cannot simply stick dogmatically to the "dragons are simply mythical creatures, of legend and nothing more". The evidence before us strongly suggests that it may be a simple case of personal preference, to look at the data with a positive or negative mindset, for or against. You decide. “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat” (Herodotus, 1850, pp. 75-56) Connecting some not-so-distant dots: It's interesting that the flying serpents were said to originate from Arabia – Buto is an ancient city in the Nile Delta that now lays in ruin… why is this interesting? Well if you travel a bit south on the opposite side of the Red Sea you’ll find Yemen, still advancing south, just off the horn of Africa there’s the Yemeni Island of Socotra, an alien-looking place known for its ‘Dragon Trees’ – which bleed red. "That the Egyptians were building large, sea-going ships as early as 2000 B.C. is well known. In them they traded with Crete and Phoenicia … and with western Mediterranean ports. They sailed up and down the Red Sea, exploring Sinai and Yemen; visited Socotra, where grew the dragon-blood tree; went far south along the African shore; searched the Arabian coast, gathering frankincense (said to be guarded in its growth by small winged serpents); and made voyages back and forth between the Red Sea and the ports of Babylonia and Elam on the Persian Gulf” And then the sober writings of St. John of Damascus... ‘I am not telling you, after all, that there are no dragons; dragons exist but they are serpents [reptiles] borne of other serpents. When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat so that they exceed the other serpents in length and size. It is said they grow up more than thirty cubits [14 metres, 45 feet]; as for their thickness, they become as thick as a huge log.’ There are claims by skeptics that the Roman Regulus was simply making this dragon story up, to lend an alibi for his failure at Carthage (it is said that dragons were not an uncommon scapegoat for Roman generals' who suffered defeats in battle,though I've yet to discover an actual account outside of Regulus), this despite Roman Historian Livy supporting the Cassius Dio account - so whatever doubts there are, the fact is the story became and is a part of official recorded Roman history. If the story was developed as a ruse, then another explanation needs to be sought for what they used as the dragon hide which was sent to the Senate and reportedly displayed in Rome for a hundred years. Alternative explanations theorize the likelihood that Regulus and co. encountered a giant Python. the problem with that theory is that the only snake on the continent fitting that description resides in Sub-Saharan Africa, the African Rock Python, making it improbable. ... Some more thought provoking images: A Final word: Dracorex A fossilized skull of a dinosaur that’s officially called “Dracorex Hogwartsia”. Again, the official word is that the fossil probably does NOT belong to the serpentine genus/family. Here’s what the paleontologists say: “probably a new genus or subfamily of Pachycephalosaurus. Most pachycephalosaurs are known for their dome-shaped skulls; however, our dinosaur had a flat skull covered in small bony warts. It is the first of its kind found in North America.” Since there’s only a skull, its hard to make conclusive summations on the species, already designated by the experts as probably a new genus... and one of a kind. The fossil was donated to a children’s Museum in America. And as Dr. Paul Saulsbury (one of the paleontologists credited with the find) noted at the Dracorex skull’s museum unveiling - ‘One boy who was just beaming came up to Brian, Steve, and me. "I just knew there were dragons!" he said.’ * [Image and extract sources: http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/discovering-new-dinosaur-species-dracorex-hogwartsia, jpm-thnktnk.blogspot.com, flickr.com, http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/ddl/ddl04.htm, earth66.com. Additional sources: http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/, http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/beowulf/character-analysis/beowulf, http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/dragons-animals-%E2%80%A6-not-apparitions/] An article by Steven Benjamin. Here's another article I uploaded onto MyNews24, SPRINGBOK TRANSFORMATION dealing with the current ongoing national Rugby team's transformation issues. It's been a big topic not only in South Africa but further vested interests in other rugby playing nations as well, not least of which being the World Champions, the New Zealand All Blacks. It's been said many times by those outside our shores, that the world needs the Springboks to be strong - more for fan service and the famed Springbok-All Black rivalry, over a hundred years old... it adds to the intrigue and drama, and story of the sporting stage. South Africa has one of the biggest rugby playing populations in the world, and comparing ourselves to Australia and New Zealand, in terms of our rugby talent pool... well, we should be the best in the world. It's a burden we've placed on ourselves, yet time and again have failed to live up to. And of course in 1995 with the Nelson Mandela moment, it was assured, that our place was cemented in Rugby folklore, commemorated at last years Rugby World Cup, that this sport would come to mean more than just a game. Much like our All Black brothers across the ocean, where rugby is a religion, in SA, rugby is more of a symbol (and a passion). Embedded in SA culture since the end of the 18th century, over time it has become a tool for division, and then for unity... and perhaps now again for division as the growing democracy reestablishes its identity. And the Springboks, as the most successful national team, in many ways forms as the face of the nation, a representation of the country as a whole... It is here is where the proverbial nerve is tapped. Transformation has taken the form of Quota's when in reality, real transformation is needed. As one journalist put it "it's not about taking sport X & Y "away from white people", its a lament over all the potential star players (non-white) that haven't been found, all because of the elitist structures in our sporting codes, as well as institutionalized racism. Quotas are not the solution, but they do force us to come to terms with the complacency and passivity with which our sporting institutions have truly reached out to impoverished and disadvantaged areas. This of course is a governmental issue as much as a sporting one... Further reading: The Lost Bafana - an article I wrote about the decline of our national football team Bafana Bafana.
Artist Feature: Saul Leiter (1923-2013) is one of the foremost photographers in the history of the medium, described as an iconoclast, he came to prominence in the early 50's through his use of color, showing that Black and white photography was not a sacred thing. - Usually I include a brief summary of the artist, their biography etc. but in light of Leiter's quote from an interview shortly before he died (in 2013), I'll keep the words to a minimum, and let the photos, his work, speak for itself... from me, it must be said though, it's hard to find a photo that I don't like.
"You’re going to write about my work? Really, and I mean this, the less said the better."
“LEITER WAS PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING OF THE FIFTIES COLOR PHOTOGRAPHERS in his use of form…. The overriding emotion in his work is a stillness, tenderness, and grace that is at odds with the mad rush of New York street life.”
—The New Yorker “I LIKE IT WHEN ONE IS NOT CERTAIN WHAT ONE SEES.”
The TRAILER to the documentary film on Saul Leiter "IN NO GREAT HURRY: 13 lessons in life with Saul Leiter" (2012) :
After his death in November of 2013, the Guardian Newspaper described him as "one of the quiet men of American photography. A pioneer of colour... relatively unsung until he was rediscovered by curators and critics in his early 80s".
"I much prefer to drink coffee, listen to music and to paint when I feel like it."
"A window covered with raindrops interests me more than a photograph of a famous person." Short Story. "Land of False Memory" - Fantasy - by Steven Benjamin * -
We’d been traveling for days, I don’t remember how many, before we found the old man. I only call him old because he was the oldest of us there, but it was mostly in his ways, capped off with his dark brown handlebar moustache. He sometimes wore an old woolen cap to keep away the chill from his greying sparsely-haired head. But he was strong; perhaps the strongest of us, because he’d lived in these lands and climbed these crags and mountains many times. But he needed help, help from us, to get him to a place where he’d remember. A day or two of aimless wondering through the cold wilderness followed, before we finally found a clearing. The old man led us to the far end of the clearing and then squinted up at the steep slope. He rubbed his arms and then grunted. He left us all behind, striding swiftly, hugging himself against the cold, his legs pumping as he climbed. He must’ve given his coat to one of the women in the team… all he had on was a dark trousers and an old pullover, tattered at the edges. We were left looking at each other, and then watching the figure move, without rest, up the slope with his hulking shoulders leaning into the breeze. Eventually we followed up after him. A while later we came up behind him. He was almost lying down on the ground, poking his head up over the jagged rocky ridge every now and then before hunching down again. He was busy. He felt us coming, hearing our footfalls behind him. “I need to draw it,” he said, scanning the landscape peeking over the ridge again. He’d spread a large white paper on the ground, pinned in the corners with rocks, and was sketching a fairly decent image of what he saw, using a piece of charcoal and dirt. Some time later, with the group huddled together for warmth, he got to his knees and squinted up at me, then back over the ridge, nodding. The sun was setting in the far horizon, the rays reaching below the cloud cover, casting his face in a burnt orange glow. “I remember now,” came his raspy voice. “I have to draw it to remember it.” He blew his warm breath onto his dirty fingers, rubbing his hands together and them tucking them under his arms as he got to his feet. I don’t remember much more of that night or the next morning... what I do remember is like a puzzle, the blank parts filling in as I think about it more, winding the clock back, seeing things I didn’t consciously notice when in the moment. I remember we’d descended into the valley, coming down from the dragon’s back-like ridge into the rising mist. By afternoon the mist had cleared and there was only this odd hazy steam. We found ourselves at the river’s edge, though it was scarcely a river as the water wasn’t moving. Maybe it was a river once upon a time, but now it was more like a stagnant toxic culvert. The ground and rocks at the edges of the slope, where the earth fell away to the steamy liquid below, was a scorched pale tan colour. In the fresh sunlight at certain angles the surface of some of the rocks reflected a rainbow colouring. The chemical rich liquid was undoubtedly heated by natural underground geysers. It was a strange place that looked dead, but felt dangerous and alive. A place that sought to claim those who ventured in. |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|