The thinking thread

dot dot dot

I am therefore I think.

I think alot about grace and the consequences that flow from it.

Then I get confused.

John Donne thought a lot about it too, johnfás. Have you read any of his poetry?

johnfás wrote:

I think alot about grace and the consequences that flow from it.

Then I get confused.

Would you explain to me what you mean by grace?

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

I think alot about grace and the consequences that flow from it.

Then I get confused.

Would you explain to me what you mean by grace?

This is what I was listening to, rather ironically, while this thread was being birthed. There might be a shade of what Johnfás is getting at contained somewhere in it...

Grace is a word that fascinates me. I think the concept of it is very interesting, I don't know why really. Many people will 'say grace' prior to a meal. In this context it is a form of offering thanks. On the other hand when you subscribe to the Economist and then forget to renew they might send you a couple of free issues after your subscription has completed to try and entice you back to renewing. These issues are often described as 'grace issues'. In one sense then, we use the word as a form of saying thank you and in the other we use it as a form of giving something for free, or gratuit. It is the latter definition which I find particularly interesting, especially in the context of divine, or Christian grace.

There is a tale told of when C.S Lewis turned up late to an academic conference on comparative religion which had been discussing the difference between Christianity and other religions. The academics had been fighting for hours and when Lewis turned up he asked what all the rumpus was about. They told him the issue and he replied "Oh, that's easy. It's grace".

Grace is the notion of a completely free gift of God's love, for all, without condition. Desmond Tutu, who will be known to many has said "There is nothing you can do that will make God love you more. There is nothing you can do to make God love you less. God's love for you is infinite, perfect and eternal". I think it is a very difficult thing for many to grapple with, despite their belief in it being true. It raises all sorts of implications such as what should one's position be towards one with whom you greatly disagree, one whom you detest, one whose actions you deplore.

Of course, the issue is not one which merely concerns Christians, it is in many ways the essence of humanity and common decency. Yet perhaps the notion of divine grace goes a step further and demands a step more. Perhaps sadly that is so often overlooked by churches.

I will post more later.

"Grace and favour" "amazing grace" "a moment's grace"...

.1175, "God's favor or help," from O.Fr. grace "pleasing quality, favor, good will, thanks," from L. gratia "pleasing quality, good will, gratitude," from gratus "pleasing, agreeable," from PIE base *gwer- "to praise, welcome" (cf. Skt. grnati "sings, praises, announces," Lith. giriu "to praise, celebrate," Avestan gar- "to praise"). Sense of "virtue" is c.1330, that of "beauty of form or movement, pleasing quality" is c.1340. In classical sense, "one of the three sister goddesses (L. Gratiæ, Gk. Kharites), bestowers of beauty and charm," it is first recorded in Eng. 1579 in Spenser. The short prayer that is said before or after a meal (c.1225, until 16c. usually graces) is in the sense of "gratitude." Verb meaning "to show favor" (c.1440) led to that of "to lend or add grace to something" (1586, e.g. grace us with your presence), which is the root of the musical sense in grace notes (1657). Gracious as an exclamation (1713) is short for gracious God, etc.

I'm an atheist, but I find the concept of grace has meaning for me, without believing it comes from a god. To me it comes from the abundance of nature and the virtue or efficacy of living in balance with nature, as part of it.

Absolutely, I think you have hit on several more meanings for the word there cactus. Whilst many words in the English language, if not most words, have multiple meanings, I find the multiplicity of profound meanings of the word grace most interesting.

Amazing Grace is interesting and an excellent example of the grace freely given which I wrote of above. Apart from being oversung, many will know the story: John Newton, a former slave ship captain, also a man of some complexity and difficulty, who realised that the gift given even to him was universal and unconditional. His conversion of course had a profound effect on the abolitionist movement in Britain during the 18th century.

It is interesting how the bible, often the book of the 'moral', uses perhaps the most unlikely characters to spread this message of grace. Presumably this is because such persons are the most likely to truly understand it. Take Christ's first missionary - a woman with many failed marraiges of seriously questionable character.

johnfás wrote:

Absolutely, I think you have hit on several more meanings for the word there cactus. Whilst many words in the English language, if not most words, have multiple meanings, I find the multiplicity of profound meanings of the word grace most interesting.

Amazing Grace is interesting and an excellent example of the grace freely given which I wrote of above. Apart from being oversung, many will know the story: John Newton, a former slave ship captain, also a man of some complexity and difficulty, who realised that the gift given even to him was universal and unconditional. His conversion of course had a profound effect on the abolitionist movement in Britain during the 18th century.

It is interesting how the bible, often the book of the 'moral', uses perhaps the most unlikely characters to spread this message of grace. Presumably this is because such persons are the most likely to truly understand it. Take Christ's first missionary - a woman with many failed marraiges of seriously questionable character.

I didn't know the story, but the song is great, hard to oversing it, providing its sung with sincerity.

My thinking on matters economical would be quite conservative. I want taxes to be low, public spending as a share of the national economic pie to be small, as many companies as possible privatised, regulations to be stream-lined, enterprise to be rewarded and for free and open trade with the rest of the world.

My thinking on social issues would be quite liberal in that I feel that it is up to people themselves in many situations to legislate. I don't think the government should be setting rules and regulations for many parts of people's lives since it can be quite intrusive. I feel that people should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves in many cases.

On issues like defence, I do think Ireland should continue to play its part on the world stage. We are great peace-keepers, we're seen as honest brokers and we get a good job done. We should preserve and sustain that sort of thing and not be afraid to expand this concept in a European context. We have a lot to give to the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the EU.

My thinking on the area of the constitutional settlement which was the Good Friday Agreement is that it was satisfactory since it put in place the constitutional framework with which we can create unity on this island. When we acheive a majority in both the Republic and the Six Counties, it will be a proud day since our nation will be rejoined and our country made whole.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

My thinking on matters economical would be quite conservative. I want taxes to be low, public spending as a share of the national economic pie to be small, as many companies as possible privatised, regulations to be stream-lined, enterprise to be rewarded and for free and open trade with the rest of the world.

My thinking on social issues would be quite liberal in that I feel that it is up to people themselves in many situations to legislate. I don't think the government should be setting rules and regulations for many parts of people's lives since it can be quite intrusive. I feel that people should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves in many cases.

On issues like defence, I do think Ireland should continue to play its part on the world stage. We are great peace-keepers, we're seen as honest brokers and we get a good job done. We should preserve and sustain that sort of thing and not be afraid to expand this concept in a European context. We have a lot to give to the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the EU.

My thinking on the area of the constitutional settlement which was the Good Friday Agreement is that it was satisfactory since it put in place the constitutional framework with which we can create unity on this island. When we acheive a majority in both the Republic and the Six Counties, it will be a proud day since our nation will be rejoined and our country made whole.

Well, Ard, I agree with you on social issues, defence and broadly on Northern Ireland/Good Friday Agreement. I am probably not going to surprise you with my view on your economic thinking. I find it too friedmanist, too neo-liberal and I believe passionately that the implementation of this economic model, particularly where it was not possible to organise resistance to it (Chile and Russia), has been a catastrophic failure.

In the 1990s, New Zealand had 15 years of this and changed the electoral system in order to get rid of the government. The neo-liberal policies pursued by Ruth Richardson resulted in 80% of government assets being sold yet the country's foreign debt more than doubled. The standard of living was stagnant for 15 years. In the area of R & D, the theoretically free market model led to a reduction in private R&D. And, as ever with neo-liberal Friedmanism, there was a growing divide between rich and poor and a shrinking of the middle class.
This resulted in more emigration of the brigfhtest and the best, a lower level of savings and two full business cycles of boom and bust. 1n 1999, the new government under Helen Clark had to do something. They started dismantling the "modernised" structures put in place by the neo-liberals. They re-regulated where deregulation had produced a free-for-all. They reintroduced apprenticeship programs, they established Air New Zealand again and the rail track, they renationalised workers compensation and got rid of an Employment Relations Act that was a core pillar of the neo-liberal project.
The result? Emigration of graduates has stopped, unemployment has been halved, the middle class is being re-established and there is a net growth in population. This isn't "communism" or "socialism" but simply, as Helen Clark put it "the reassertion of traditional New Zealand values of fairness, security and opportunity in public policy"

I agree with lower taxes but a greater statutory role for the C &AG's office to hold ministers to account for public spending. I would reform the tax system to enable a system similar to the cantonal system here take effect. But that requires a radical reform of local government which wont happen because it is almost like literally asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I believe in adequate funding for public services but I also believe in far stronger accountability within public services for the budgets they receive. I think a lot of the problems within bodies like the HSE is down to a failure to draft contracts properly and to enforce those contracts. And here I mean contracts of employment through to contracts for the supply of goods and services.

Fundamentally our biggest problem is the failure of our political institutions and parties to understand what needs to be done to enable Ireland progress economically and the extent to which they themselves are an impediment to positive change.

I had missed this post which is well worth thinking about. I think so drunk are the "political thinkers" of Ireland on the FDI induced inflationary boom that they will be like limpets on a rock in terms of moving on. A radical reassessment of what the opportunities and threats for Ireland is needed.

cactus flower wrote:

I had missed this post which is well worth thinking about. I think so drunk are the "political thinkers" of Ireland on the FDI induced inflationary boom that they will be like limpets on a rock in terms of moving on. A radical reassessment of what the opportunities and threats for Ireland is needed.

I know. When things were going well, I often felt like going out to a field near Dublin Airport and erecting a large wooden sign for the benefit of the recently-arrived foreigners "Welcome to Ireland. First-class economy. Third-world government".

Irish politics is so, so depressing.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

My thinking on matters economical would be quite conservative. I want taxes to be low, public spending as a share of the national economic pie to be small, as many companies as possible privatised, regulations to be stream-lined, enterprise to be rewarded and for free and open trade with the rest of the world.

My thinking on social issues would be quite liberal in that I feel that it is up to people themselves in many situations to legislate. I don't think the government should be setting rules and regulations for many parts of people's lives since it can be quite intrusive. I feel that people should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves in many cases.

On issues like defence, I do think Ireland should continue to play its part on the world stage. We are great peace-keepers, we're seen as honest brokers and we get a good job done. We should preserve and sustain that sort of thing and not be afraid to expand this concept in a European context. We have a lot to give to the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the EU.

My thinking on the area of the constitutional settlement which was the Good Friday Agreement is that it was satisfactory since it put in place the constitutional framework with which we can create unity on this island. When we acheive a majority in both the Republic and the Six Counties, it will be a proud day since our nation will be rejoined and our country made whole.

Well, Ard, I agree with you on social issues, defence and broadly on Northern Ireland/Good Friday Agreement. I am probably not going to surprise you with my view on your economic thinking. I find it too friedmanist, too neo-liberal and I believe passionately that the implementation of this economic model, particularly where it was not possible to organise resistance to it (Chile and Russia), has been a catastrophic failure.

In the 1990s, New Zealand had 15 years of this and changed the electoral system in order to get rid of the government. The neo-liberal policies pursued by Ruth Richardson resulted in 80% of government assets being sold yet the country's foreign debt more than doubled. The standard of living was stagnant for 15 years. In the area of R & D, the theoretically free market model led to a reduction in private R&D. And, as ever with neo-liberal Friedmanism, there was a growing divide between rich and poor and a shrinking of the middle class.
This resulted in more emigration of the brigfhtest and the best, a lower level of savings and two full business cycles of boom and bust. 1n 1999, the new government under Helen Clark had to do something. They started dismantling the "modernised" structures put in place by the neo-liberals. They re-regulated where deregulation had produced a free-for-all. They reintroduced apprenticeship programs, they established Air New Zealand again and the rail track, they renationalised workers compensation and got rid of an Employment Relations Act that was a core pillar of the neo-liberal project.
The result? Emigration of graduates has stopped, unemployment has been halved, the middle class is being re-established and there is a net growth in population. This isn't "communism" or "socialism" but simply, as Helen Clark put it "the reassertion of traditional New Zealand values of fairness, security and opportunity in public policy"

I agree with lower taxes but a greater statutory role for the C &AG's office to hold ministers to account for public spending. I would reform the tax system to enable a system similar to the cantonal system here take effect. But that requires a radical reform of local government which wont happen because it is almost like literally asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I believe in adequate funding for public services but I also believe in far stronger accountability within public services for the budgets they receive. I think a lot of the problems within bodies like the HSE is down to a failure to draft contracts properly and to enforce those contracts. And here I mean contracts of employment through to contracts for the supply of goods and services.

Fundamentally our biggest problem is the failure of our political institutions and parties to understand what needs to be done to enable Ireland progress economically and the extent to which they themselves are an impediment to positive change.

Slim Buddha that's good stuff alright.

Ard-Taoiseach's view is textbook economics and politically neutral, in theory so it's the kind of thing I lean towards in my own mind. However, I have the feeling that democracy should be moving towards a much more participative structure and am bent on exploring this idea here and elsewhere. You might find me quizzing you on the Swiss system on p.ie for example if you look back through your posts. I think the thread had something to do with 'Republicanism' about which I'm cynical given it's meaning - Res Publica - elected Kings. What the feck were all the beheadings for if we're going to install the devils institutionally ?! True democracy is public opinion in my view and despite all the hullaballoo about the masses not being able to make a decent decision (they elected Dustin) I believe it's necessary to try out some form of participation so that there may be better control over our stuff and that our society might be more inclusive by making political decisions more representative.

What stuff? I believe we could have participatory budgets to some degree - locally or regionally at least. The country would need a new party to be able to sell these ideas though but they could be worked out in fair amount of detail first using models already in existence such as the swiss system and the participatory budgets in Brazil and I believe Argentina.

The stuff I'm referring to largely is infrastructure and that means everything from roads to schools to the rain falling from the sky to the wind blowing. My own picture of society is based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and at this stage I think we should be struggling to establish some of the higher rungs such as equating education with employment but we seem to be stuck providing our people with the very basics like proper water in Galway and Ennis, nutritous and reasonably-priced food, home comfort.

We're not doing this and it's a disgrace and it galls me to see that the likes of the C&AG office is treated in a token fashion as it institutionalises the mafia ad hoc nature of public spending which seems to be bounded and defined by five year terms rather by the needs of a society over a generation.

Missed this post too. Just was reading "How the West Has Won" - the bit about the Greek army, that used to elect its officers and debate strategy and logistics and so on, all on an equal basis. That made me think about the Anarchism debate again. The only time they didn't work that way was during the battle itself.

cactus flower wrote:

Missed this post too. Just was reading "How the West Has Won" - the bit about the Greek army, that used to elect its officers and debate strategy and logistics and so on, all on an equal basis. That made me think about the Anarchism debate again. The only time they didn't work that way was during the battle itself.

That has its limits. In times of war you sometimes need a strong, brilliant general to make a decision and punish anyone who goes against it.

It's good to get input on decision-making by a large body of people, but that can make the actual process very slow. Sometimes a speedy judgement by one person is what is required.

If Xenophon is one of your foot soldiers you might as well give him his say.

What's on my mind right now?

Fecking hell, I was driving home from the girlfriend's house just there and a pedestrian (on his ipod) literally walked out straight in front of my bonnet. Had to swerve onto the other side of the road. Had he been a metre nearer I'd have hit him. Stupid pedestrian ipod listeners.

johnfás wrote:

What's on my mind right now?

Fecking hell, I was driving home from the girlfriend's house just there and a pedestrian (on his ipod) literally walked out straight in front of my bonnet. Had to swerve onto the other side of the road. Had he been a metre nearer I'd have hit him. Stupid pedestrian ipod listeners.

I hate that. Happened to me nearly twice today - some child on footpath with parents and suddenly he does a half of a ballet movement onto the road, thankfully a fair bit in front of me. And later a girl with a buggy and a second (or first) child toddling ahead onto the road and this happening as I round a corner ... Luckily I'm not Fast but I was Furious. (Jaywalking fcukers)

New Zealand is an interesting model upon which to focus. Actually, a very interesting country, full stop. If I was younger, I would definitely liked to have spent time working there rather than having chosen NY.

It is a small island in a remote corner of Asia. It's had to live by its wits and native intelligence. The Ayn Rand style of government just didn't work but their "newer" model, albeit not perfect, requires a fundamental change in mindset and I daresay a broad national concensus. Given their relative economic isolation, it is probably easier to implement a broad policy and try to make it work. I don't think it would be easily exported to Ireland. Our society is too fragmented and getting more so by the day. There is also the embedded gombeenism that infects every level of Irish society. We are deeply embedded in the EU and the amount of flexibility to adopt wholesale policy changes may be limited to some extent by our obligations. Maybe not.

Having said that, there is no reason not to try and make significant changes in Ireland and Europe. If we don't come up with some "new" solutions soon, we'll be re-visiting another bubble of some type soon.

I'm off for a visit before Christmas as so many members of my family seem to have drifted there. As they are a society with sheep I'll look out for the wolves.

I've always wanted to go to New Zealand. It seems too far away though and there are too many places closer to home which I would rather see so I doubt I will make it there. I have absolutely no interest in visiting Australia whatsoever.

johnfás wrote:

I've always wanted to go to New Zealand. It seems too far away though and there are too many places closer to home which I would rather see so I doubt I will make it there. I have absolutely no interest in visiting Australia whatsoever.

Either do I. I fail to see the attraction Australia has for young Irish people. It's so uncultured ovr there. I'd much prefer to Interrail around Europe than track through the Outback.

New Zealand sounds and looks good. I love the LOTR Trilogy, so the dramatic scenery really do hold an attraction. It's supposed to be miles better than Oz.

If I go to xe.com and I get the rate of sterling to euro, what rate will I actually get on my Mastercard, I wonder I wonder...