This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
com (Cursai Coireolaiochta Na h-Eireann) Created By Seamus Breathnach
2. History/Anthropology: Book 2.a. Emile Durkheim On Crime And Punishment Book 2.b. A Criminological History of Ireland Book 2.c. Myth and Meaning in the persecution of Alyce, ( an Irish Witch), and Adam Dubh O’Tuathaill (a Gaelic Chieftain) Book 2.d. A Criminal Anthropology of The Christian ! Conquest in Ireland
But all the clocks in the city Began to whirr and chime; “O let not time deceive you, You cannot conquer time’ W. H. Auden (1907-73): As I Walked Out One Evening
Sile: You say, we are about to squeeze History/Athropology into WebPage 2. It can’t be done Seamus: Yes , it can. Sean: What;’s it about? Sean: It’s about the leap from chronology ’to ‘history’. It’s a large project, and it is difficult to know where precisely one should begin with such a large project?.
Seamus: Now that’s the hard part. Let us try talking about time, how the word is ordinarily used -and, in that way, get an idea of how it enters our everyday discourse . We can then look at how it has become adapted conceptually by our perceptions and beliefs, personal and institutional. Sean: You mean what kinds of time there are? Seamus: Yes, just to enumerate some types of time or to categories the uses we make of the word is helpful. At least this will do to begin with. Sile: How does a personal belief differ from an institutional one? Seamus: Later. Let’s stay with ‘time ordinary.’ Sile: Well, there is Past, Present and Future Time. Sean: Are these the same as Chronology? Sile: Only if you want them to be chronological. Sean: How did you mean them to be understood? Sile: I meant them to mean the existence of tenses. Remember there are several other tenses, perfect, pluperfect, as well as moods etc.. But , at the risk of showing my Latinate education, I do not want to get into either a grammatical or a philological or a Wittgensteinian argument about these highly significant grammatical things or a Heidigarian argument as to the origins of words. I am merely saying that the existence of a Past, a Present and a Future tense is no more and no less than their existence as conceived by me. Indeed, if ordinary people cannot grasp these tenses as chronology, then I suspect they are in deep mental trouble. Chronology is for me the temporal construction of past events . Chronology is my construction of past events, so that those events conform objectively to when (rather than how or why) they occurred in the past. Indeed, chronology has the added advantage of being capable of being tested and verified by others. Seamus: But you will admit that these days common parlance hones in on the present tense, the immediate past and the immediate future? Sile: As used in everyday speech, I am inclined to agree. We speak simply of ‘I will’; ‘no; I won’t’, see you tomorrow’ , ‘would you like a curry this evening?’, etc.. We have a consumption-oriented language that works in a clockwork present. We have no need any more for all those convoluted sentences and moods, such as, “ I should have had some Gateau this morning’ but ‘Had you brought your son to dinner, I might have had the opportunity of making Indian curry.’ The’mighthave-had’ or ‘could-have-been’ - constructions are hard to come by. In the present climate, there is a predilection to avoid such constructions. Sean: Why do you think that is? Sile: Because, as I said, these days we are drawn to a simpler consumer-oriented mood in which life is more than ever comfortable while living in a ‘constant present’. 3
Seamus: Would you mind if we call what you conceive as the ‘constant present’ ‘the continuous present’? Sile: Not at all, so long as we are agreed about what we mean. I mean by ‘constant present’, the habit of continually thinking of everything in terms of ‘the here, the now, the I-related’. It’s a kind of discourse one has with self all the time – a kind of Joycean stream of consciousness, a Molly Bloom monologue, or, simply, a Freudian Ego session of navel-gazing. Seamus: Okay. But how, then, does chronology, so described, differ from memory , do you think? Sile: Chronology and memory? That’s a more difficult question. Sean: Does memory not have the same capacity to recall as chronology does? Sile: ‘Chronology’ doesn’t recall anything. Neither does ‘memory’. That’s an abuse of language. Only persons recall chronologically or reflectively. But because memory is -- or can be -- a different type of recall, it implies -- or can imply -- a more complicated and a more normative exercise. Sean: How so? Sile: When I remember things, I hold them in a certain light, in a moral and playful and reflective light, which differs fundamentally to what happens when I recount things chronologically. Whereas chronology is an arrangement that I make of past events and things – an arrangement that springs out of the things themselves , when they happened, etc.. -- memory involves me, my personality and the normative judgements I make about these happenings. The construction of a chronology is a mere exercise in a very common-sense reasoning-process about time. Time is not memory, no more than chronology is history. Time is merely space recorded.
Time Is Space:
Sean: O now, you’ve lost me. ‘Time is merely space recorded’? How can that be? You make such simple things so complex sometimes that I am flabbergasted. Sile: Surely we don’t have to go into Einsteinian spacetime to understand that space is time? Sean: Well, if you want me to understand it, you must. You can leave the deep stuff. Just explain in ordinary language , how space is time? That’ll do for the present. Sile: All right. What time is it? Sean : It’s 4.30, if you must know. But what’s that got to do with anything? Sile: Is it 4.30 a.m. or 4.30 p.m.; is it antemeridian or post meridian. Sean: What on earth has that to do with anything? Sile: Which is it? 4
Sean: It’s 4.30 p.m.. Sile:How do you know? Sean: I looked at my watch. Sile: A.m. and p.m. are not on your watch. All you see on your watch is 4.30. Sean: True, but I know it is afternoon. Sile: How? Sean: I suppose, I got up in the morning, then…. I see what you mean… The time on my watch is a spacial relationship… all temporal relationships are spacial… very clever! But where does that get us? Sile: You admit that memory has a necessary experiential aspect to it ? It is what affects – or has affected -- me about past experiences , whereas ‘chronology’ is the mere logic of the times in which objective things have happened. Chronology goes to establishing when things happened in the past. Surely ,you see this! It is as if chronology is non-participative, whereas with the exercise of memory, I participate in the business of remembering things in a way that chronology , as I conceive of it, never contemplates. I am somehow called upon to assess those past experiences as to their present significance. It is the difference between the empirical and psychological phenomena. And while chronology has correlatives in the natural sciences, -- e.g. astronomy, astrology, thermodynamics, etc., it never calls upon me in the same moral way as reflection does. Does that answer your question? Sean : If time is merely space socialised, what does that have to do with chronology and history.
Chronology Is Not History
It must become clear that the watch on your wrist is a device which socialises the events of the day, the day being any day, whether in March, April or December, and the time being the relative position of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the other heavenly bodies with respect to that daytime. Sean: So? Sile: So, chronology is like putting things in order of spacetime vis-à-vis each other. Sean: So? Sile: Well, just as the construction of space in terms of organised labour is a social construct called ''a watch' and stuck on your wrist, so, too, it seems to me, is history the human construction of past chronological events in terms of contemporary consciousness.
Sean: But as humans we all differ. We all have subjective differences -- differences that cannot sometimes be reconciled past our inexorable prejudices. So, how is history possible? And indeed, why is it so important? Sile: But there you go again, using bigger and bigger words. Before we have one thing sorted, you move into more monstrous questions. Vis -a -vis mere chronology, it seems to me, the difference between history and chronology is the difference between what normatively was -- rather than what actually was. Maybe they answer two different questions: chronology answers the question , When did things happen? Memory answers all kinds of questions, like, How did that happen when it happened? Why did it happen? What are the consequences of such and such as I remember it ? Memory has mood, not just tense; it is a life-participating faculty and not merely a life-recording- one; ;it is a muse, which like music or poetry, is irreplaceable and is essential to our way of being civilised. It isn’t just that 'the harmony of sweet sound' tickles our fancy; it does that , but it announces our civility, cultivates the choral cenre of our social selves. Those who cannot hear it, cannot enter elysium. Sean: You go too far about the notion of history. And now you go over the top about music. What do you think, Seamus? Seamus: I think she is perfectly correct, except for one thing. Sile: Which is? Seamus: The purpose of history, like the purpose of memory, is , among other things, to cultivate health. Towards that and all other ends it is true to say that ALL HISTORY BEGINS NOW! Sile: All history begins now? Seamus: And , like memory, it cannot be otherwise, or begin anywhere else but NOW. If you think about it, I am sure you will agree. When we talk about a sense of history , we are talking about a way of being now. Sean: But what way of being? How are we to know what way to be, what the true nature of man is? Sile: And by way of further complication, why does History have to begin now, rather than in the past? Seamus: Maybe man has no nature, only history. Maybe history is his better nature. As to why history always and ever begins 'now', I think you no sooner asked that question than you realised its answer. The ‘nowness’ of history is the the Ego in action; it is the ‘continuous present’ informed. Sile: I can’t say I understand all this, or that I entirely agree with it. I know what you say has much to commend it, but how do you make out that there are so many histories, or types of history. I would have thought that history was a rather homogeneous perspective just as when I remember things, I remember them homogeneously, that is, without competing memories of the same phenomenon … Seamus: No,, but you derive different inspirations from the same details which proffer several types of stimulation.
Sean: But how can memory, as you talk of it , have to do with health? Seamus: Hegel obviously has a different conception of history to Marx, and yet Marx says that he (Hegel) simply got things upside down, the spiritual driving the temporal/material (a la Hegel) as opposed to the temporal/material driving the spiritual (a la Marx). One should also remember that Marx dedicated Kapital to Darwin, even if Darwin wasn’t too eager about it. Sean: But Marx has been discredited. Seamus: In some respects -- for I don’t think you can discredit either Marx or Hegel, except in some particulars. The flood of history is not to be denied by a word here and a word there. Prophecies built upon such histories, however, are a different matter. Only time will tell those stories anew. You might begin by asking why Bankers and Governments behave like Communists these days? In the meantime, it does not take from either the fact or the consequences of Darwin. It wasn’t the Marxists who killed the Christian God, it was Darwin (and Carotta and Atwill). But to get back to what we were talking about. What was between Marx and Hegel was everything and nothing (until Darwin) : for all and nothing are the same conceptual thing sometimes, the one lives off the possibility -- and gullibility -of the other. But further, if you read Hegel, you will find that he is -- ironically -- ever conscious of the material and economic processes in history, just as if you read Marx, you will find no race of his spiritual commitment to humanism -- and comparable to any Roman saint's. Of course, Marx, like Freud, regarded himself as a scientist rather than as an artist. It is not such a dispute to which one would like to hold one’s breadth awaiting its resolution. It is rather that people have a funny idea of what art is and what science is, as if they are two mutually and hermetically exclusive ways of thinking. Personally, I think Freud every bit as much an artist as James Joyce, and James Joyce, every bit as much a scientist in his approach to matters, as Faraday -- especially w hen you look at his analysis of either Ulysses or Finn-egan's Wake or Ulysses. This takes us somewhat from the notion of history, but I feel we shall return to it anon. For the moment , if we comprehend Freudian Psycho-analysis in its initial formation, the therapy offered to resolve the pathology of the patient is not simply the recall of the offensive experience, but rather that in the light of understanding its true meaning we identify its therapy. Psycho-analysis is at the personal and psychical level a demonstration of how history becomes -- and is -- therapy. It can often happen, can it not, that in times of extremity -- in times of pain perhaps, or times of depression , when one feels desperate -- that the recall of emotional phenomena, the kind of stuff that comes to the surface of one’s mind in reveries or dreams or moments of intense reflective activity – that these apparitions do not follow a chronology, but rather some emotional order germane to the desperation that engenders it? The therapeutic nature of such things operates to restore a psychological balance of sorts. Elsewhere, we shall have occasion to speak of the use of history in the classical sonata. Most writers throughout the classical period use it. Indeed, the efforts of Schoenberg, Webern and Alban Berg (and the twelve tone system) and other chromaticists like Leon White, and Bernhard Ziehen (less so!) , seem to be looking for a prescription for the formation of music by reducing the classical periodisation of emotion historically manifest in the sonata, to a method or a collection of methods for any given array of sounds. However interesting this analysis is -- and one is mindful of Adorno’s pervading dictum concerning the impossibility of 7
music after Auswitcz -- the historical criticism advanced by Adorno , as with the Frankfurt school generally, is , in the long term, to be appreciated. Hence Classical Music is an unforgivable indulgence! Sile: That sounds somewhat harsh! And in Joyce? Seamus: In Joyce we see yesterday in today and we see today in yesterday. Sean: That’s simply impossible. Give me an example of both these events. Give me one example of how I see yesterday (in) today, and how I see today (in) yesterday? Sile: That’s simple. It’s sociological. But in Joyce its literary. He uses Ulysses as a vessel in which he pours today’s wine into the classical bottle of the epic. He pretends that Ireland is classical! Sean: No; give me examples! Sile: Bush, Blair and Pope Benedict go into Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the tenth crusade and all the ballyhoo is the same as it was before the first or second crusade -- which undertakings were preached, just as Benedict XVI preached the present crusade from his Berghof in Regensburg. Sean: That's argumentative! So, from this we are to see the crusades of yesterday? Sile: Well, John Paul 11, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did the same thing in Vietnam and across South America. Jesus! If you look at the colonies between now and the crusades, all you have is a repetition of the same old theme, over and over again, with the same monotony as the celebration of the mass. The Christian (Pope mostly) is still rallying the troops to put down the pagan Irish, the infidel Muslim, the materialist Jew, the Albigensian dissident, the idealistic Fraticelli, the fallen Woman, the heretic Witch, the atheistic Communist… It’s the same old Christian story today as it was yesterday. The Christian knows who’s bad, who is really, really evil, and he mounts his hate-campaign upon this knowledge. How he knows who is evil , of course, is significantly relevant to his own sense of propriety. In other words, if there is one shower who knows implicitly and from experience how low and evil and base mankind can be, it is they who ‘really know’ what and who is evil. Sean: So, that’s supposed to be an example of what happened in history as happening today? Sile: Right in front of your eyes. The Popes stole East Timor in more or less the same way his predecessor stole Ireland. They have progressed, only now with the Americans instead of the Normans, and they are engineering the same heretic fight through Tibet on China and through Georgia on Russia. The communist campaign may have begun in 'Christeros' Mexico, then with Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, but it has continued unabated in Korea and Vietnam and dovetails with the hatred of Islam. Sean: Well, what about an example of what happens today being visible in history. Sile: Obviously , one cannot see history as one observes contemporary phenomena. What we mean, therefore, when we say we see today in history is that we see some patterns that are known to us by their repetition of past circumstances and preconditions -- this is more or less what Joyce does with his version of Ulysses. Within his structured narrative he is ever mindful of history, and not just any history, but history as seen through Homer’s experiences.
Sean: Give us an example. Sile: I’ve just given you an example. The manner in which the Popes stole East Timor (and are currently stealing Vietnam and the rest of the non-Christianised world) happened in Ireland a thousand years ago. Why don’t you read A Criminological History of Ireland (Book 2.b.) or , indeed, either of the other two books Myth and Meaning… (Book 2.c.) or A Criminal Anthropology of the Christian Conquest in Ireland (2.d.). They actually demonstrate how the Christians hold Ireland in thrall and , through the Irish model, how they hold the rest of the world in thrall. Seamus: You mean with the Mediterranean Myth? Sile: That’s exactly what I mean. And A Criminal Anthropology of The Christian Conquest in Ireland (Book 2.d.) tries to show up the unfortunate folly of those cultures that are beguiled by the theatre of Christianity. It’s a pretty powerful potion, you know. Sean: There is little point in asking people to read books when you have not written them yet!
TIME, VALUE AND HISTORY
Sean: Anyway , what has all this to do with TIME and HISTORY? Seamus: Well , if we infuse our notion of time with certain constructed values, we may well create a history. Sile: How do you mean? Seamus: In Hegel we ﬁnd time-cum-history as values about a universal spirit; in Marx we ﬁnd time-cum-history as values about the progressive modes of production; in Freud we ﬁnd time-cumhistory as the thereaupic value of remembering and re-evaluating traumatic experiences; in James Joyce we ﬁnd time-cum-history as today’s values constructed from perceived past events and vice versa ; in the classical composers we ﬁnd time-cum-history as the value of modulating a thesisantithetical statement from tonic to dominant and synthesising it in a return to the tonic; Sean: I see what you mean. But , at the same time, if , as you say, time is space socialised , how is it possible that we all grow old? One supposes that whereas the watch was made to pin down the productivity of the workers, it does not interfere with their destiny. Sile : That's ridiculous. Because space is time, it doesn't mean that you should not grow old. Seamus: That’s a good observation. But let us not mistake the ‘concept of a thing’ for the thing itself. We only talk because it is our way of communicating, but it is only communicating that we are doing by means of words and concepts. Our communication lies in the sphere of knowing, not equivalent in the first instance with the spheres of doing or being. So, let’s try and remember that. Sean: Well, what does that mean? I repeat , if space is time, then how is it that we grow old? 9
Seamus: It’s just a matter of phrasing our respective concepts of what happens when we -- as you say --’grow old.’ To my mind, we don’t grow old; we become outworn within as well as without, as if the Big Bang that gave us birth ,withdraws its radium. The Big Bang between the sheets is the Big Bang throughout the universe --- their common energy tending toward expiration. That’s what happens, I feel, the radium -- or whatever imprint that decides our genes and DNA, buoyed by the energy of the Big Bang , enters, grows, climaxes and recedes out of our bodies. In our bodies we are at once blessed with youth, colour and vigour, the things Ossian yearned for in Tir Na n-Og; and now, as the light recedes, we are attacked by our own body-parts, our feet, our eyes, our ears -- even our hair turns grey, etc.etc.. We say in common parlance that we ‘grow old’, but within the common cocoon of space-and-time we expire. Maybe ‘expire’ is a better word. From the time we are born of the Big Bang (orgasmic -- sex to you), we begin to expire. Our lives are like a great symphony, uniquely individual, but destined to arrive at our own special and final cadence. Sean: So, you think it is just how we cloak our concepts with words that accounts for the difference and that space is really time and vice versa, just a movement of the planetary bodies? Seamus : Yes. You grow old in space as well as in time. . . ; Are other differences? Sile: Like? Seamus: You say memory is reflective. Is it not also analytic in a way that defies chronology ? Sile: How do you mean? Sile: You’re saying that there is an emotional logic that sometimes supersedes any chronological order we desire to put on our experiential past? Of course such an event cannot happen with things chronological; but that they happen in the psychological domain is of some interest. In such a case, the order of phenomena obtaining would no doubt be determined by their felt need and not as chronology. But that does not undermine our sense of chronology; it just means that in the interests of therapy, the individual may occasionally sift and prioritise its needs vis-à-vis significant others. Seamus: Of course! Sile: But it suffers from two infirmities. Seamus: What infirmities? Sile: One is that such happenings are apt to be comprised of dream-material, rather than that which is considered ordinarily in an act of memory – in which case, they are not so much the product of a deliberate act of memory as an involuntary obtrusion of sorts. A prompt of the mind when it is unengaged. Secondly, if we are talking about psycho-analysis, we are talking about the aid of the expert in finding the significance of the ‘historical data’. Sean: Very good observations. So, is it your case that historians do require expert advice as to the significance of their historical data? And, are you talking about history as the product of the conscious or the unconscious mind? 10
Seamus: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. Sean: Oh, Ye Rocks! Sile: Oh, Ye Rocks! Sean: How can historians need the advice of an expert and not need the advice of an expert to elucidate the meaning of the phenomena they reveal? And how, in heaven’s name , can history be the product of the ‘unconscious’ mind? Seamus: Freud’s idea of psycho-analysis is essentially centred on ‘history as therapy’. Indeed, the whole therapeutic exercise is to recall in the patient the realisation and meaning of things past, of events foregone and possibly repressed and not understood. Moreover, the manner of revelation is towards the ideal , which means that the patient comes upon his own past , unearths it, examines it, evaluates it, and recognises in it the source of his present anxiety. Implicit in such a methodology is the belief that the patient , if he gets this far, peculiarly possesses within his own personality the wherewithal to make the ameliorating move from analysis to resolution, from evaluation to therapeutic application. However probable or improbable this may be, it is futile to suggest that in this highly discriminating exercise the therapist does not assist the patient, or that the patient would discover the source of his own neurosis without the therapist's expertise. Sean: I see where you are going. In the same or a similar way, you are saying that historians have need for advice every bit as much as people who are suffering from some neurotic condition. I don’t think historians will thank you for that. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will agree that just as there are psycho-analysts and psycho-analysts, there are also historians and historians. Seamus: But there is a difference. Technique or method, once known and demonstrated, can become the property of all. I think Freud acknowledged that the informed middle classes would be the ones who would most benefit from psycho-analysis; for, once demonstrated, they had the wherewithal to internalise its properties and examine critically their own experiences. With the historian it is not all that different; but the problem with the historian in this respect is that he is apt to write history without ever examining or changing the values which first prompted him into the discipline. And there is no compulsion akin to ‘personal health’ that might make him change his propensity for propaganda rather than history. When we come to examine the Gospels according to Francesco Carotta, Joseph Atwill and the Piso-Family-Historians we shall more clearly see how historians down the ages have accepted the story of Christianity as fact, when it is now known that it is in its entirety as fictional as Joyce’s Ulysses. Sile: You’re saying that there is an emotional logic that sometimes supersedes any chronological order we desire to put on our experiential past? And now that you mention the New Testament as a work of fiction, one can appreciate what you mean. And of course, the Christian story does not constitute a series of chronological events that happened in fact; but , yet, because of their sociopsychological impact on succeeding generations, they have passed into the minds of historians as chronological fact. In such cases, the order of the phenomena described is determined by their felt need rather than their chronology. But this does not undermine our idea of chronology; it just means that in the interests of therapy, the individual may occasionally sift and prioritise his needs vis-à-vis significant others.
Seamus: Exactly. And because historians are no different than the rest of us, some of them may not have the whole picture, or their value-system may be out of focus – serving the exigencies of some interest group , like the state, the political party, the state religion, their own career prospects etc.. What occasionally happens is that some historians have a blind spot for the insights available to them from the other sciences. Sean: But surely sociologists, philosophers, and anthropologists cannot be doing the same thing. How does one know these things? Can we have an example? Seamus: If you look at RTE with a most uncritical eye, you will see the success of Opus Dei’s agenda to promote the Angelus and the Missions of the Catholic church abroad. There is hardly a night when the national airwaves are not harnessed toward these ends. Of course all professionals are caught up in the politics of their disciplines as well as that of the country in which they find themselves in at any given time. I’m not denying that – and I certainly won’t go into examples here of its universal occurrence, nor of its prominence in the Republic of Ireland. But that was not my point. Beyond testifying to the possibilities of skewing the record, it is a summons to all of us to realise that the war for truth is the war against prejudice , quite often fought with the weapons of an alternative prejudice. Sean: So , how do we know which set of historians are less prejudiced than the others? Seamus: By the scope of their concepts, the tightness of their arguments, and the probity of their account. Sean: At last we have an answer: ‘ the scope of their concepts, the tightness of their arguments, and the probity of their account.’ By probity , I expect you mean consistency, uprightness, and logic? Sile: The final question must be , then, ‘Who decides which argument is scopeful, convincing and consistent’? Answer me that! Seamus: With pleasure. You decide it! You ,who have it available to you, decide these matters. You must remember, these are but the idealised conditions for truth. If Darwin’s work, like James Joyce’s , was hidden from the public or made inaccessible through Censorship and the like – how can you decide upon its contents. You will recall that a recent document concerning the appalling treatment of the young boys in Artane by the religious, was drawn up by a Father Moore in 1962. As the only Criminologist in the State and employed for twenty years in The College of Commerce, Rathmines, I had heard of such a report from a policeman back in early eighties. No one could get their hands on it. Then, thanks to journalists like Bruce Arnold (the English always get their way in Ireland; the Church spits on the Betaghs) it was revealed. After all those lies, public penal enquiries, concerned bishops, priests, nuns, ministers of Education, Justice, etc.,etc.. Surely you get the picture. The honest work of Father Moore was totally undone by the very people who can’t stop talking about ‘ evil’ ‘truth’ , ‘transparency’, etc. People abroad imagine that Opus Dei is an invention of Dan Brown; they cannot imagine what it is like to be a criminologist in a Catholic country. By the way – 12
Sile: What? Seamus: They did exactly the same thing with another document. In 1155 , when Adrian IV gave Ireland away to Henry 11 ( reserving and saving to Saint Peter, and to the church of Rome, the yearly pension of one penny out of every house) -- and scuppered the gallant efforts amongst the Gaels to raise their own High Kingship, they denied the document existed and got the people of Ireland to wage war upon the English, who had the Church’s lawful gift in their hands. Sean: What has the recent disclosure to do with the disclosure of things in the middle ages? What connection have they? Sile: As I have already said: You amaze me sometimes. But you can take it that the one is called recent history and the other borders on anthropology. Seamus: And you can also take it that the one reflects the other as the latter repeats the former. Here you have yet another example of the‘ then-and-now-history’ of James Joyce.
MUSICAL TIME AND HISTORY
Sean: It’s so confusing. There is Global time, Darwinian time, Genetic Time, Planetary Time. Musical Time and Religious Time. We need a start, a place to begin our inquiry. Surely we need to move beyond the knowledge that time-is-space. And maybe someone might explain the difference between history and anthropology? And then there’s the Big Bang - theory of time. Seamus: Which is? Sean: That we all came from the radiation of the sun. But that’s a bit far fetched. Sile: Why is that far-fetched? It seems to me that we are as dogs following their tail unless we assume some fundamental rules about our enquiry. Seamus: Do continue. Sile: It seems to me that we must have some starting point for all these phenomena concerning time, and memory and history. Our obvious goal is to understand history, but whether we call it an expert or an adviser, we really need to know where to start our enquiry. Otherwise we are as a people without the initial advantage of discovering the wheel. Seamus : I know just what you mean. Sile: You have already said that historians need advice – but you did not fully develop that idea. You also said that we know the good from the bad historians by ‘ the scope of their concepts, the 13
tightness of their arguments, and the probity of their account’. Can we not formalise these notions into some more memorable principles? If we had a beginning -- a place to start -- so that we could manage these otherwise unmanageable concepts? Seamus: You are obviously right. And if we use History to unlock the other sciences, we see that the real irony in history itself is that it has no beginning. Let me rephrase that. If history has a beginning, it resides somewhere within ourselves, in some preliminary principles or conventions of enquiry. We began by saying that historians need advice, but never developed that argument. What was being said there was that the advice needed by historians – as with the rest of us – comes , not so much from experts in the field as much as from other fields of enquiry. In other words, one discipline informs another as to where it ought to be going at several difficult conjunctions. Such a conjunction exists between Irish history and Irish anthropology . It is unfortunate that not enough people argue sufficiently as to where modern Irish history begins. With respect to the Christian Conquest – if we see the Christian Conquest, rather than the Norse, Norman or English conquest – we are apt to see more. Some might hold that the decline in the Irish language began in the seventeenth century or that the plantations began at such and such a point in time. It is more to the point to consider that they all began with the Christian conquest, that they are functions of that conquest, and that most of our social secrets are to be found in the anthropological rather than the historical pot. Obviously, the broadest concept envelopes the less broad (whereas the opposite does not apply) and the emergence of the disciplines is in actual fact the history of any society’s consciousness. It is in this sense of the history of our emerging division of intellectual labour (our sciences) that makes iit incumbent upon historians to learn from the philosophers of history as it is for the philosophers of history to learn from sociologists and anthropologists. In the absence of any history in the secular sciences – or, what is virtually the same thing, the universal prevalence of a religious dogma that is quite inimical to the social sciences – any borrowing of such disciplines does not automatically establish either a proper sense of history, or an adequate social science. One must be careful, therefore, of borrowings. And in a very undeveloped country like Ireland, as in a very conquered country like Ireland, where the sciences -- such as they are! -- are held captive in the same religious dungeon as truth, the borrowed ‘technologies’ are exaggerated as ‘sciences’ and are nevertheless skewed towards the pre-existing requirements of the status quo. The expectation, therefore , of original disciplines as arising out of the Irish experience so defined., must be very slight. By definition, most are imposed, borrowed, and where borrowed, are prefigured by the religious exigencies of the first conquest. Ignoring these insurmountable difficulties, however, we might nevertheless put forward some heretical secular notions. One principle that is paramount to all others is this –
i. ! ! ! !
ALL HISTORY BEGINS NOW.
I1.! WE USE THE BROADEST CONCEPTS TO EXPLAIN THE NARROWER ONES : The History of Christianity in Ireland incorporates the History of the Norman Conquest, not visa versa.
111. THE ‘DERMOT MACMURROUGH SYNDROME’ PECULIARLY DESCRIBES THE CULTURAL PRE-CONDITION OF THE CONQUEST FROM WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF IRISH HISTORY
Sean: I have much to say about these principles. Seamus: Sorry! We simply don’t have the time right now to prod and pry as we might like. So, let me continue for a moment. Sile: But how do you bring these things into contact with this WebPage and with the four aboveentitled works. Seamus: The only way, it seems to me, is to try and create a sense of history, or rather to try and develop such a sense in people who are not used to it; for having acquired some appreciation of history and the value of history, people can then discover things for themselves in a more discerning way that hitherto they had done. In that way , also , people can develop a critical sense of taste as well as history, one that is truly informed and secular. Sean: When you talk about a ‘sense of history’ , you are not just talking about methodology simpliciter in the social sciences? You mean something else, something perhaps empirical that distinguishes the sciences from religion. I understand that while religion proceeds from an abstract notion to an abstract notion, the sciences , especially the social sciences need something more than that to sustain their enquiry. Sile: You do amaze me sometimes! Seamus: It will be observed that we proceeded from outside inwards , from the most general concepts to the less general. Deduction and Induction are a two way critical process, but to see the fullest picture, we must locate the most general concepts. When we say that Deduction and Induction are a two way process, that is, two processes that are sturdiest when they dovetail with each other, what we are really saying is that science is best served when these concepts of deduction are isometrically isometrically related to facts. Religion knows no such isometry and relies totally on deduction. The role of experience, which improves, informs and confirms scientific theory, is obviousi. In other words, when a new theory explains more of the as-yet unexplained phenomena , then it is to be embraced as more proficient, and the process thus described, whether called art or science, is the rational way in which to proceed. Vulgarly, we can say that we are looking for what best fits and benefits our knowledge and our critical experience Obviously, The Big Bang Theory of time is the broadest concept of time and approximates in some ways with Darwinian and Genetic Time. On the other hand, the religious notion embraces Time and Eternity, but does so in an unquestionably abstract way, and is nowhere dependent upon experience. Being aware of the claims of religion to explaining eternity ,for the moment , we might ignore them. If we stay with The Big Bang, Theory we come into contact with such marvellous other-items, such as the Genome, the works of Darwin, and recent world developments. .
But all these things we have to leave aside to concentrate first and foremost on the essential matter of acquiring a ‘sense of history.’ Sile: But how? It takes too long to analyse Gibbons ‘Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire’ or study wall-to-wall Hegel, or contemplate the origin either of species or the origin of the sciences….
History and Musical Time?
Seamus: Yes. And that is why we are gambling on a short-cut. We are going to talk exclusively about Musical Time and Appendix A, which you have both read. This topic was deliberately chosen in order to by-pass the more exhausting philosophies of history. It’s a gamble, but it is worth the effort. And , in any event, we simply do not have 'the space' or 'the time' to pursue the more traditional route of imparting an appreciation of history. Moreover, by musical time, we mean simply the wherewithal-construction of Sonata or First Movement Form. We could analyse some of the classical sonatas, but this -- with another end in view -- has already been done by every musical book that deals with Form, so they can be scrutinised by anyone with an interest. There are, of course, hundreds of such books and encyclopaedias. Personally, I recommend Ebenezer Prout, an old Trinity College professor, whose existence -- I am quite sure -- everyone in Ireland chose to forget. Ebenezer Prout was a wonderful teacher. His books could not be had for love nor money in Dublin., least of all in those mediocre technological colleges, no matter how narcissistic they have become. For our purposes, suffice it to say that all these works concur in describing Sonata Form. This description of the three stages through which the sonata reveals itself, reads like a Hegelian Thesis , Antithesis and Synthesis, that is, an exposition (sometimes repeated), a development and ,then, a recapitulation. In general the exposition , while establishing the tonic key, presents the principal thematic material. It then modulates to the dominant (with separate though not invariant protocols for minor and major keys) . Apart from ‘ bridge-passages’ or periods, the development is reserved for some kind of play on the exposition, what Schoenberg calls a ‘ durchfuhrung’ of outstanding motifs (usually a play on the first phrase or phrases of the exposition) and then, the recapitulation, or the return of the first theme in the tonic as well as the rest of the exposition ‘recapitulated’ in the tonic. Musical memory is, therefore, of the utmost importance to sonata form, the composers playing quite instructively to the aural musical memory. Sonata Form is an aide to musical memory. These days the repetition might sound somewhat hackneyed – all one has to do is listen to Eine Kleine Nachtkusik for the millionth time --; its resonances are based on the whole amusing gesture of repetition remodelled. As a matter of fact the whole construction appears as an organic phrase schematically extended, repeated, contracted, rushed to the dominant, connected, newly-thematified iin the dominant, repeated, reconnected, repeated, extended, contracted, re:directed to the tonic , iinverted and cadenced. Without Sonata Form as an exercise of Musical Memory or , if you like , Musical History, we would all be obliged to get drunk on repetitions of Danny Boy, or the fugal delights of The 16
Conaughtman’s Rambles or the Rocks of Bawn, a prospect far too penitential for the newlydeveloping bourgeois Irish mind.
The Battle For Rusalka
As you are aware from Appendix A, The Battle For Rusalka was recommended for obvious reasons, namely, it is an excellent example of what we have been saying about musical time. Rusalka is a fictitious/fairy/religious figure -- a Czech leprechaun, if you like -- pining in a lake so that God -- a pagan God -- might send her a princely lover? Sean: But why do you call it a fictitious/fairy/religious figure, when she prayed to God... Sile: She prayed to the Moon, you oaf, not God! It’s a pagan hymn? Sean: I didn’t know that pagans had hymns. Sile: The moon was (is) a God-like thing to the pagan? And there are those who say that all other religions are really about the movement of the Planetary Bodies as well, the Sun, the Earth, the Moon -all genderised and assimilated as ‘God-the-this’ and ‘God-the-that’. Might I remind you that in Christianity, Mary , the Mother of God, has a moon beneath her feet, not unlike Diana, the Godess of the hunt. Might I also mention the fact that some people think that this personalisation of the Heavenly Bodies (the Gods) was first humanised by the ancient Pagan Irish, the ones who were done down by the Holy Romans. And if you don’t believe me , see reference to Michael Tsarion at ‘C’ below. Sile: Whatever…. Whatever… Can I hear about the LEPRECHAUN? Sean: She is not a Leprechaun; she is a Water-nymph… Sile: -- Which is a Leprechaun…. Seamus: Now that you have read Appendix A and listened to the two renderings of the aria: one by the fabulous Russian Diva, Ms Anna Netrebko and the other by the fabulous American Diva, Ms Renee Fleming, the question I have for each of you is : which do you prefer? which version of Rusalka do you prefer? Sile: I refuse to choose! They are both excellent! Sean: And I also refuse to answer, but I have to concede they are not the same... Seamus : How are they different? Sean: They seem to me to be two distinct interpretations. One Rusalka -- that sung by Ms Fleming -is much more angry -- almost rebellious -- than the other. Seamus: Why is she angry, do you think? What is her protest about? That is, if you think , she is -or should be -- protesting. And what does Ms Netrebko’s short high Bflat before the final cadence and Ms Fleming’s long Bflat signify anthropologically? 17
Sean: I simply don’t know. Seamus: Well, I’m afraid it is as much as we have time for on this WebPage. We’re already overstretched... Sile: Not so fast, I have something to say about Appendix A. I think I understand why one Rusalka is in protest, whereas the other does not appear to be. But the issue touches several fronts. Seamus: Good. Continue. Sile: You are saying that the theme of Rusalka as embedded in the aria, is historically constructed, just as -- externally speaking -- the meaning of the Water-nymph is anthropologically significant to its social origins. Leprechauns or Water-nymphs, you are talking about the divine feminine of Dochia, of Sile na Gig, and possibly the BeanSi of Rusalka, and the manner in which the ‘divine feminine’ interpretation of the world has been destroyed by the testronal male, especially by the uni-gender celibate cleric, predominantly male, Catholic, Caesarean, allegedly apostolic, universally messianic and bent on mono-Christian-monarchy in the world. This is the source of Rusalka's anger, the Christian male celibate that has not only plundered the multi-coloured pagan world that preceded it, whether that pagan world was in Rome, Czechoslovakia, or Ireland, and has raised a loveless world of chalk idols controlled by barren old Roman farts. You could have taken the theme from Cuirt An Mheain Oiche (The Midnight Court by Brien Merriman). Happily , there are several translations of the eighteenth century poem on the internet. For English translation , see , for example, http://www.uhb.fr/Langues/Cei/midcrt.htm http://www.abitoblarney.com/themidnightcourt.htm We are talking here of the oppression and control of fertility, of womanhood, motherhood, Joyce’s wombingtomb.. Sean: That’s ridiculous. Where has the church suppressed ‘womanhood’? Seamus: We have no time for long asides. Do you want to answer briefly? Sile: Yes. The anthropological suppression of women by the Roman Church is universally known. I refer you to Books on this WebPage concerning Capital Punishment, especially : ! ! ! ! 10.a. Bk. 8 Last of the Betagii 10.c. Bk.11: A Short History of Capital Punishment in Ireland: Vol. 2: The Nineteenth Century Female Calendar 10. d. Bk. 12: A Short History of Capital Punishment in Ireland: Vol. 3: Petty Traitors 10.e. Bk. 13: A Short History of Capital Punishment in Ireland: Vol. 4: Infanticide Or The Mercy Miracle
Indeed, all these works exhibit the phenomenon of women’s religious suppression to one degree or another. Only yesterday in the newspapers we had cases like that of the late Ms Eileen Flynn to remind us of it. Eileen Flynn was sacked from her job as a teacher in Wexford in 1982. Why? She 18
had a baby out of wedlock. Is that not part of Ms Fleming’s primal scream. For Socrates an ‘unexamined life’ is not worth living; for women a life without love is not worth living. Seamus: Well, Sinn Fein doesn't have much to say to the Church about it. So, please continue. Sile: On Rusalka? Seamus: Yes; that is all we now have time to consider. Sile: The end, for example, informs in recapitulation the beginning and the middle; and if the final cadence encapsulates what precedes it, so , too, does it encapsulate what precedes the abandonment of life for the safety of the lake in historical as well as in anthropological time. Someone needs to be angry at what has happened to womanhood : and if the Diva (Renee Fleming) does not roar and shout and bawl , then who will? As a woman, you can’t believe what that last Bflat means to me. What would you expect from a man? Dvorak milks the goddamn aria and then expects the ‘little woman’ to swim away to nothingness in a dumb lake. No! No! No! Just like Nora Barnacle on the Hill of Howth, among the rhotodendrums, I am a woman, not a goddamn mermaid. I want love in my life , or I want no life. I want others around me to have love in their lives , or I don’t want life. And to the religious war-lords, I say this; The Muslim is my Sister; the Pagan is my Brother; the Communist is my Neighbour. We are women; we make babies. We are not barren priests or barren and protective Popes. The world we conquer is a world of willing and loving people, not those taken hostage, simply because we have a bigger gang, a better bomb, an angrier master, a more narcissistic god, or because we who live in corporate time can at any time make mince-meat of mere individuals who live in personal time . That is what we qua women are about. And it is the business of Water-nymphs ,who have never opted for one God over another, to protect what is most important to us and the world: the divine yielding, loving, unagressive , feminine, caring, all-embracing, carnal, sensuous and inclusive mothers of the world. That one note should act the part of an entire recapitulation, a primal scream for all-inclusive feminine love, if you like -- is not only an appropriate primal scream but the essentially diametric opposition to the male celibate religionists who promote endless war and mayhem, who talk about love and poverty, as if it was a commodity to further their agenda, and to use people as if they were combatants in a religious war-game. I also think it should be listened to in the Vatican and by all the other world-wide male dominated religious communities that are Bible-and-Jerusalem-andKoran- bent on ignoring the ‘divine feminine’ and raping the world with yet another war. If you really want to know where the opposite of the organised religious machine is to be found, look to the primal anarchist --- baby-bearing woman! Sean: Are you finished? Sile: No; I am not finished. It appears to me that before we can proceed to speculate about Rusalka, we first need to distinguish what question it is we are asking. There is One, the context of both the aria and the Opera and the manner of their construction; Two, the meaning of the difference between either interpretation; and Three, the truth ( anthropological meaning) of the operatic theme, a pagan female-yearning which is common to all races. 19
Seamus: Number three we can discuss in A Criminal Anthropology of the Christian Conquest in Ireland (2.d.) . So, what about the other two. Let’s take the construction of the aria first. The Context of the Aria. Sean: Well, even though she has abandoned the ‘rules and conventions’ governing the aria, I find the Fleming interpretation moving as well as angry . But this is not an unqualified acceptance, but rather an informed one. By that I mean that I approve of the license she has taken and her execution of it. Now that I have had some time to think about it, it appears rather obvious to me that why the high BFlat only occurs at all, so to speak, is because we have left the context of the opera and have devoted our attention to the aria as a detached event. If you look at Netrebko’s interpretation, which is standard, the effect is to avoid a dalliance in this world and , as part of the Operatic theme and context, we can understand why Dvorak wrote it specifically in this way. When we take an aria, like that of Rusalka, and perform it as a single event, devoid of both its contextual and emotional embededness in the Opera, a fundamental need to re-shape it, as if it was a stand-alone composition, emerges. And , in my opinion, this is what Renee Fleming has done. She has reshapen the aria as a stand-alone event and in so doing has made a suitable tail-end that is , as befits a stand-alone aria, or her interpretation of it. As I have said: I approve, but that is all that has happened. Seamus: Very good. I don’t think anyone would disagree with what you have said. But, given that what you say explains the need for a re-shaping of the aria, since when it is taken out of its o peratic context, how do you explain that she did it in this manner? And apart from what you have already said, what is it she has done? Sean: Well, I am not a Diva. I do not know the mysterious process by which she makes this new creation by interpretation. I simply cannot imagine why she seized on the last cadence in this way. It is a work of great artistic quality and I confess it is beyond me to comprehend it. Sile: Oh, now, hang on to all this modesty. What, precisely are you asking? The Meaning of Fleming’s Interpretation Seamus: You have read Appendix A. You have read what has been already said about Musical History, so in the context of this stand-alone aria, where does the historical sense operate? Sile: Ah! Now I see what this is all about. It’s almost psycho-analytic in nature. The High BFlat is the tail that wags the whole emotional dog, and it does this because of the presence of a historical reality. Obviously, one note follows another in the aria, but they do not follow randomly as to pitch, length, chordal context and emotional discharge. Indeed, if they did follow randomly, we would not be listening to Rusalka and Dvorak's composition; for they are chosen in a climate that produces an affekt which is identifiable in a pre-given cultural milieu, a temporal, work-in-progress affekt, as well as an overall affekt. No one denies the aria’s power to summon dormant depths and in Fleming’s interpretation these depths are plummeted with enormous assertive affect. There is an anger and a passion that is at once confrontational, challenging, and accusatory. It calls Western Man -- by which I mean Christianity -- to account and even if Rusalka lived presumably before the Christians killed 50 million of her kind in bringing to the world a messianic despotism the like of which has never been seen before, then lucky for her. I, on the other hand, am the recipient of this despotism, so I appreciate Ms Fleming’s very righteous anger. Does that answer your question? 20
Seamus: Not quite. I want you to address the psychological mechanism by which the aria is reshaped by one note , Sean: You are aware that Rusalka is not a paean to to be addressed to Apollo.. It is more of a dirge than a paean…. Sile: Well, Rusalka is a Czech pagan , not a Greek one… Sean: You also know that people differ violently over Fleming’s performance…. Seamus: That may well be, but these matters are of no concern to us. We are concerned to explicate the sense of history the song conveys and , indeed, presupposes. When you are finished talking about the structure, the context, the aria’s strategic climax, the devastating length of the High B, we want to know what has happened historically. Sile: In your You Tube account , you say: ‘By her prolongation of one well-chosen note, Renee Fleming , in her creative interpretation of Dvorak's 'Chanson De La Lune', changed utterly the whole tone, balance, meaning, emotional discharge and general aesthetic of the Water-nymph's entire aria. In her person a terrible beauty is born!’ I am inclined to agree with you in general, it is the bit about a ‘terrible beauty’ with which I take issue. Seamus: Then tell me how? Obviously there is more than a chronology of notes; there must be something else involved for one of the last notes to be able to determine the meaning and impact of all the notes that went before. You say the last note operates as a recapitulation. Sile: Yes, it operates as a recapitulation of all that has gone before. It catches all its antecedents historically -- in a reflective embrace. The harmonies carry the story of the aria forward; the high point is usually the point of greatest emotional discharge, in that it represents the climax. By climax is meant, surely, a kind of boiling point which is arrived at as a result of antecedents directed towards that eventful end. In this sense the High B not only encapsulates all of these antecedents but transforms them, transcends them, if you like, by re-interpreting them in the light of the high B flat. Isn’t that what you meant, when you said All History Begins Now? Seamus: Yes; but how? How can history be changed from behind? Isn’t that what was doubted before. How history is possible is exhibited in all the social sciences as well as -- for convenience -in the manner in which the classical musicians formulated the sonata as an historical construct upon a tonic statement (exposition), a re-statement in the dominant after right of passage thereto (development), and a re-statement in the tonic. This construction is an aid to extend, memorise and inculcate the joys of history in the harmonies, just as psycho-analysis is used with a therapeutic effect, and just as Rusalka qua aria uses history to re-order the primal scream of a woman threatened with a life without love. Where would classical music have been without the development of sonata (which is a contemporary appreciation of a sense of history)? Bear in mind 21
that we are post Schoenberg and, more importantly, post-Adorno, whose view of classical music, as aforesaid after the Holocaust (and now Korean, Vietnam, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Georgia/Ossetia) , can hardly be ever more than an indulgence. But that’s another boreen we do not want to go down at this time. Our primary target here is an appreciation of what we have called a ‘sense of history’.
Sean: I appreciate what you are trying to do , but I still do not see the significance which you ascribe to it. I mean, so what, if Renee Fleming has reinterpreted Rusalka to give it extraordinary meaning? And what if it is against the effect which Dvorak sought to achieve in his opera? I mean, I still don’t get it. What’s the fuss about? Seamus: But surely you can see now, from this simple example, which you can actually experience for yourself, how important ‘history’ and ‘a sense of history’ are , even on a personal level. Remember, this is just an example of history at the level of memory, the point being not only that you can experience and then unpack the process by which you experience it, but that it demonstrates what you would not initially credit in the political world or the sociological imagination. Sean: Which is? Seamus: That history -- the antecedents of the High B Flat and the antecedents to all our collective lives -- can be changed by our notions of them. And that they can be changed, if changeable at all, then changed NOW! Sean: Again, this is what you mean when you say that History Always Begins Now? Seamus: So does Propaganda! That history has to begin now is merely a way of saying that we are alive -- all else is for most purposes dead and gone. Because we are alive now, we need to know for now what happened in the past that affects us. And it seems that everything in the past affects us if we do not put it into its proper perspective. Look what Darwin gave us with his worms and finches? Look what Hegel gave us with his thesis, antithesis and synthesis. And look what Freud gave us with Psycho-Analysis? In all these endeavours , scientific discovery was prompted and necessarily addressed to where we are now and why we need to know what we do know now. Sile: But you’re point about manipulating our view of the past, presently, is a different point altogether than that which simply declares that All History Begins Now? Seamus: Of course. In many ways, the ‘discoveries’ of which we speak are in themselves a reorientation of what we hitherto regarded as history. If not for Galileo, we might continue to think the world flat, and the whole mercantile era would be inconceivably hampered by an unspeakable ignorance. With Galileo and with the telescope, things improve, knowledge advances while, at the same time becoming a new ignorance in itself. Sile: So ,what are you saying about the manipulation of history from the present, as in the example of Rusalka? Seamus: With Galileo, there are observable and provable and testable facts that apply to his discoveries. The shape of the world, after all, does not change no matter who says what about it. 22
But we must make an important distinction here between what we regard as the ‘natural sciences’ and what we regard as the ‘social sciences’. It is encouraging that the Vatican has for some time now pushed ‘religion’ under the umbrella of the ‘social sciences’. Nothing could , of course, be further from the truth of the perspective of religion, especially the Vatican’s traditional perspective. A moment’s thought will inform you that such dogmatic statements as are occasionally made by the White Pope are nowhere tenable as ‘socially scientific’; neither science nor philosophy could operate under such an intolerably dogmatic set of statements as comprise religious faith. Sile: Are we not wandering from our interest in a sense of history? Seamus: Yes. I think you are right. The point of the distinction between the natural sciences and the social sciences (and religion) , however, is an important one, not solely because the social sciences are not usually ‘testable’ , or because they can be retarded by overzealous disputes and the dialectic, but rather because by its nature, history can be manipulated now more easily and more dangerously. Sean: One can certainly see this difference, but give us an example of what you mean when you talk about the dangers of the current manipulation of history. Seamus: I think I prefer to leave any further statements concerning a ‘sense of history’ until they are applicable elsewhere. Sean: Like what, for example? Seamus: Well, we know or ought to know how Irish history has been rent from its pagan roots and crushed by christianity, and how abstract deduction and no experience underlines religion. Sean: But this hardly constitutes a forgery of history by forces operative today. Does it? Seamus: Well, what if it was NOW demonstrable that no Jesus ever existed, no Apostles ever existed, No St. Paul ever preached, and all those regulating and norm-promoting rituals of the RC Church -- like the Mass, the Stations of the Cross, the story of the Baby in Bethlehem, Jesus of Galilee, the Immaculate Conception, Walking on Water, Changing wine, etc., etc -- what if they were all demonstrably false, that they were the fabricated practices of the Church itself and had no connection whatsoever with the purported character of Jesus. What would you then think? Would the perseverance of such lies not be a manipulation of a historical set of other lies, just to suit the moment? • Sean: I see what you mean. I take it you are referring to the new Gospels according to CAP where C=Francesco Carotta (War Jesus Caesar?) , Joseph Atwill (Caesar’s Messiah and , of course, his latest Das Messias-Rätsel: Die Geheimsache Jesus), as well as the Peso Family Historians various websites? Seamus: Yes, but if you go with these authors (and many more), what does that say to you about ‘Irish history’ and the manner in which ‘we’ -- the pagan Gaels have been consigned to the dustbin of history -- and ‘we’ -- the transplanted black-and-tan papal-norman-brits-come-irish -- have been entirely manipulated by our ‘religious beliefs’?
Sean: But what if I confess that I always felt the native pagans weren’t up to much? That I agree with that Bishop Newman, the gay intellectual that the Irish Catholic Church used to adore? Sile: How agree?
This discussion is ended and I have the following summary of things to say: 1. Without a sense of history, we are all in the dark; 2. The Battle For Rusalka is a personalised and musical way to come to understand how significant history is to our comprehension of the world; 3. Even though history is constantly being manipulated, All history begins now and the wider the concept in its orientation to truth , the better. If we have not had adequate time to deal with these matters, we will come across them again elsewhere. What we need here is a sense of history to appreciate the following works. The introduction to each of them will address their respective content:
Book 2.a. Emile Durkheim On Crime And Punishment Book 2.b. A Criminological History of Ireland Book 2.c. Myth and Meaning in the persecution of Alyce, ( an Irish Witch), and Adam Dubh O’Tuathaill (a Gaelic Chieftain) Book 2.d. A Criminal Anthropology of The Christian Conquest in Ireland
4. Finally, the use to which we put this ‘sense of history’ is never more important than when applied to the following significant concerns, each of which will be found elsewhere throughout the Website:
The Big Bang Theory (Knocking) On Heaven!s Door According to The Irish Independent: Saturday 20 September, 2008
‘..., the Large Hadron Collider experiment has been hailed as the most significant scientific event since man first set foot on the moon. It could answer the question of how the universe was made, what makes it up and what will happen to it. The thousands of scientists, from all over the world, who have been developing the enormous project believe it will answer some of the biggest questions in physics. They hope it will produce the elusive Higgs Boson, also known as the 'God Particle', which could fill in many missing links in the standard model of physics.
Religious fundamentalists, even those in the throes of presidential elections, may not be impressed by talk of 'God Particles' and will probably wonder what all the fuss is about. But then, they already have all the answers.
The New Gospels According to CAP,
Ie., Francesco Carotta, http://www.carotta.de/ Joseph Atwill, http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html , and The Piso Family History http://www.konformist.com/blasphemy/piso.htm The Case for Irish Civilisation By Michael Tsarion See: http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/ http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2007/11nov/RICR-071125.php Eric Jon Phelps
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/ http://www.spirituallysmart.com/assassins.html The Vatican Through Civil Law http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViVnLMyfnc0
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.