Two new SAINTS were added today. Wow! Big day for so many people in this crazy world!
The news covering the event sparked a surprising comment from my sweet wife who grew up Catholic but has been essentially irreligious most of her life. She was openly critical of the goings-on in Rome, asking me, "What gives the Pope the right to judge some former popes of deserving the rank of 'Saint'?" Naturally my retort had to do with exactly that term - RANK!
I had to explain again how foolish the whole system of the Catholic church has always been, but that within that foolish belief system, the sitting Pope, with his team of cardinals (and whatever extended church governmental advisors he taps) has the perfect right to make that delineation. And can do it for anyone he chooses. After all, the whole business is simply that - a business set in the mental concrete of a madness accepted and solidified through the ages. If I thought millions of people were going to see my words here and if I cared what they thought of me personally, I would need to avoid saying how abjectly foolish the whole concept is. Not too many years back, I would also be putting myself in danger of some vindictive action on the part of fanatical believers of any ilk. And please understand again, they are ALL THE SAME, in my estimation. "They" meaning all believers in any supreme being of any name or slant. None of it makes sense or has proven to be good for humanity.
My wife's point was that if someone actually dies and deserves to be called a "saint" then it should be "God" who makes the call. Trying not to laugh, I had to point out the obvious - that none of the whole concept of belief in a supreme being has anything to do really with what a supreme being directs. It is ALL simply what human beings, fearful of the unknown, conceived and foisted upon other ignorant humans.
The same power of the Pope over sainthood even extends to millennia gone by! At some point around forty years ago, the sitting Pope apparently decided that old St Chris really wasn't all he had been cracked up to be. He got demoted, even after all the centuries of "hearing the prayers" of travelers. I Googled St Christopher to check my minimal knowledge of the matter and got into reading some of the website that is proudly educating the public about all things Catholic. Their sub-head is "Inform - Inspire - Ignite." Well, a brief reading of that home page did ignite some laughter for me. Those very pompous folks who made the decision to demote old Chris, along with Ursula and apparently many other traditional saints, made the call because the basis of the early proclamations of sainthood had been in "legend" and in "Pagan mythology!" Hey, you there, with the power of almost infinite information available here on the Web, read ANY of the information relating to the foundations of religious belief itself. It is ALL based in legend and "Pagan mythology." That's all there is, folks!!
So good luck, Catholics. Now you have a couple more saints who apparently are ready and waiting to hear your prayers. In my view, if a human wants to get on his or her knees and suffer the degradation of actually praying, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what name of god or saint is called upon. Why not try Tinkerbell!
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Misplaced Modifiers
A morning television reporter told us that Prince William "almost accidentally beaned Kate" when throwing (bowling?) during their cricket fun in New Zealand.
What was actually told to us by this sentence construction? Well, the real meaning of the wording, taken literally, was that Kate got hit on the head (bean) by the ball William threw and it was questionable as to whether he meant to hit her. We could hope it was an accident, but the report was that it was "almost" an accident. So subliminally, William must have wanted to hit Kate on the head. It would have been so simple to say it correctly by merely placing the "almost" just after the word "accidentally" rather than before it.
Misplaced modifiers are rife within the English language. In fact, in one case - the use of the word "only" - the norm is to place it in a sentence completely incorrectly and to confuse the meaning of what is being communicated. Oddly enough, the traditional misplacement of the word "only" is so ingrained in our daily conversation that any attempt to correct the malady would probably cause more confusion than would the continuation of the abuse! (James Thurber advised to leave it alone!)
Consider this construction of the lyric of an old favorite song: "I only have eyes for you." What that wants to say is that "my eyes won't wander to the ogling of others" (or something similar), but what is actually being said is that "my lips are not for you; my nose is not for you; my thoughts even, are not for you. No, it's only my eyes that are for you!" We would hate to see the lyric line changed to properly express that "I have eyes for only you" because that would require a total adjustment of the musical phrasing. But wouldn't it be nicer if our intended communications were literally saying what we feel?
Here's another popular one. A more recent musical offering, this one from Fleetwood Mac, features this "hook" line in two phrases: "Thunder only happens when it's rainin'; players only love you when they're playin'." Of course, poetic license allows the completely erroneous statement that thunder has to have rain along with it. That's patently false, but we allow it easily as a musical notion. And in that sense, no music that becomes popular can be terribly criticized; it did, in the face of terrible odds, become popular! Now, that first phrase, while having the "only" modifier misplaced, doesn't cause a notable change in the meaning (which is still the totally false statement anyway!) But the second phrase, with the "only" placed where it is, purposely mirroring its placement in the first phrase, totally destroys the meaning the writer wished to convey.
"Players only love you when they're playin'." - Wrong! Sidestepping any extensive philosophical discussion of the meaning of "love," it is still just a badly worded statement. A "player" (insincere, get-what-you-can-get-at-any-expense kind of person) will not "only" love you; he will also hate you, and hurt you, disrespect you, abuse you, deceive you, etc., etc. What the words actually mean to convey is that a "player" will "love" you only when he's playing. Then he will move on and it won't surprise anyone if both parties know going in that he is a "player."
What I find fascinating about this particular song lyric is that unlike the first song example above, this is one of those that COULD have been written with absolutely proper arrangement of the modifier and still have been very singable. In fact, I enjoy singing it that way in my head, and I think it might have improved the original to have placed the words in the correct alignment for clear meaning. Try it in your own head (if you can recall the tune at all): "Thunder happens only when it's rainin'; players love you only when they're playin." The word "only" in this arrangement actually can become much more of a tilting point in each phrase - a fun word to emphasize twice - not to mention (which I am going a lo - o - ng way to mention) the words now clearly state the idea the song was meant to get across.
I could go on and on, but then, I already have! Check out more if interested.
What was actually told to us by this sentence construction? Well, the real meaning of the wording, taken literally, was that Kate got hit on the head (bean) by the ball William threw and it was questionable as to whether he meant to hit her. We could hope it was an accident, but the report was that it was "almost" an accident. So subliminally, William must have wanted to hit Kate on the head. It would have been so simple to say it correctly by merely placing the "almost" just after the word "accidentally" rather than before it.
Misplaced modifiers are rife within the English language. In fact, in one case - the use of the word "only" - the norm is to place it in a sentence completely incorrectly and to confuse the meaning of what is being communicated. Oddly enough, the traditional misplacement of the word "only" is so ingrained in our daily conversation that any attempt to correct the malady would probably cause more confusion than would the continuation of the abuse! (James Thurber advised to leave it alone!)
Consider this construction of the lyric of an old favorite song: "I only have eyes for you." What that wants to say is that "my eyes won't wander to the ogling of others" (or something similar), but what is actually being said is that "my lips are not for you; my nose is not for you; my thoughts even, are not for you. No, it's only my eyes that are for you!" We would hate to see the lyric line changed to properly express that "I have eyes for only you" because that would require a total adjustment of the musical phrasing. But wouldn't it be nicer if our intended communications were literally saying what we feel?
Here's another popular one. A more recent musical offering, this one from Fleetwood Mac, features this "hook" line in two phrases: "Thunder only happens when it's rainin'; players only love you when they're playin'." Of course, poetic license allows the completely erroneous statement that thunder has to have rain along with it. That's patently false, but we allow it easily as a musical notion. And in that sense, no music that becomes popular can be terribly criticized; it did, in the face of terrible odds, become popular! Now, that first phrase, while having the "only" modifier misplaced, doesn't cause a notable change in the meaning (which is still the totally false statement anyway!) But the second phrase, with the "only" placed where it is, purposely mirroring its placement in the first phrase, totally destroys the meaning the writer wished to convey.
"Players only love you when they're playin'." - Wrong! Sidestepping any extensive philosophical discussion of the meaning of "love," it is still just a badly worded statement. A "player" (insincere, get-what-you-can-get-at-any-expense kind of person) will not "only" love you; he will also hate you, and hurt you, disrespect you, abuse you, deceive you, etc., etc. What the words actually mean to convey is that a "player" will "love" you only when he's playing. Then he will move on and it won't surprise anyone if both parties know going in that he is a "player."
What I find fascinating about this particular song lyric is that unlike the first song example above, this is one of those that COULD have been written with absolutely proper arrangement of the modifier and still have been very singable. In fact, I enjoy singing it that way in my head, and I think it might have improved the original to have placed the words in the correct alignment for clear meaning. Try it in your own head (if you can recall the tune at all): "Thunder happens only when it's rainin'; players love you only when they're playin." The word "only" in this arrangement actually can become much more of a tilting point in each phrase - a fun word to emphasize twice - not to mention (which I am going a lo - o - ng way to mention) the words now clearly state the idea the song was meant to get across.
I could go on and on, but then, I already have! Check out more if interested.
Good Morning Good Sense!
Good Morning America featured a story about "Fight Church" which I found both sickening and amusing. Even satisfying! Those goofy preachers need to be knocked in the head by someone - why not each other?!
As I have long mused about boxers (or fighters of any ilk), if enough of them finally knock each other senseless (and in one sense, they have already attained that status), then the rest of us would be free of their foolishness. How delightful it would be to awake to the realization that massive numbers of religious fools have beaten one another to oblivion! Then there might be Peace on Earth!!!
As I have long mused about boxers (or fighters of any ilk), if enough of them finally knock each other senseless (and in one sense, they have already attained that status), then the rest of us would be free of their foolishness. How delightful it would be to awake to the realization that massive numbers of religious fools have beaten one another to oblivion! Then there might be Peace on Earth!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)