Category Archives: history

Reincarnation

We were talking over dinner tonight, to a background of renaissance Christmas music (mostly Giovanni Gabrieli) and the subject of reincarnation came up – as it does with us not infrequently.

As regular readers will know I don’t believe; I don’t believe in very much of the non-ethereal variety. Except that, to quote Shakespeare, “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet, Act I, scene v). One of the things which I do consider at least likely is some form of reincarnation. No, I know it doesn’t make sense; I just have this inner feeling that it is so, at least in some way, although quite how I have no clue. It’s real gut feeling stuff; and because I have this feeling it makes me reluctant to be very prescriptive about other peoples’ beliefs being completely wrong – who is to say that their beliefs aren’t right (at least for them) – rather than just not something I can feel the need for.

Anyway Noreen and I were remarking on the fact that we still don’t understand how we ever got together and have stayed together – even to the extent of enjoying good sex at 5.30 this morning (and that we calculate is 30 years almost to the day since we first had sex). Noreen also commented that while not understanding how we have got this far, she feels we may well have done it before. Hmmm, yes, maybe so. Although maybe not this way round; who knows we could have been a couple of Tudor gay boys?! And even maybe not as humans.

Noreen went on to comment on the fact that I have the feeling of having been a religious in a previous life. Well yes. It might account for my “irrational” liking for the traditional Latin Catholic liturgy, despite my lack of belief. (Mass is a spell; and it is especially potent in Latin.) I do have the feeling that it is all just too familiar and I could well have been a catholic priest; although not necessarily in England; perhaps Venice or the like around the time of Gabrieli or Monteverdi? I don’t know! Not really much more than that.

I also have the feeling of connection with the Chapel Royal at around the time of William Byrd (so late 16th century). (Byrd is one of my heroes. Why?) Again it just feels all too familiar and comfortable. I doubt that I was Byrd himself and I am doubtful that I was a Tudor recusant (although both are possibilities). More likely I was a singing boy or perhaps another of the Gentlemen of the Chapel Royal, or even a priest associated with the chapel establishment. What I can be fairly sure about is that if I was a priest at this time, it was not the same priesthood as the one I mentioned above – because remember that at the time of William Byrd England was protestant and although considerably more catholic than we traditionally think, it was wholly Prayer Book and not Latin Tridentine. Again I can’t pin this down any better; which leads me to feel there is a good reason why and that I shouldn’t try.

I do also wonder why it is that I find some aspects of other religions comfortable and familiar: some aspects of Buddhism; odd glimmers from Zen; some pieces of Shinto. (Why else am I drawn irrationally towards Japan?) Have I had lives in these environments? Similarly have I lived another life in Norway, to which I also feel drawn? I have no idea. Except that I have no illusions that I would likely have been a peasant wherever I was; maybe a priest or monk or some similar in some places/times (that’s just another gut feeling). We can’t all have been Henry VIII or Cleopatra!

It is interesting too that I feel I’ve likely not always been male. Maybe not always human, but I’m less certain about that. Why should I always have been male in any previous life? If I have been a woman at some time(s) then it might explain why I have this curiosity about what it is like to be a woman (a curiosity which my late father also professed). No, I have no illusion that I would have enjoyed/preferred being female, or it would have been better – I’m sure I wouldn’t; different, yes, but unlikely to be better or worse; but I would like to have that understanding.

Yet there are some eras for which I have no feeling and little interest: the Age of Enlightenment; the Victorians; the Romans; Egypt and Arabia; Africa. Maybe I was never there; or I was too abused? Who knows? Who will ever know about these things?

My only other feeling is that reincarnation – if it indeed exists – isn’t simple. It isn’t “my soul from this life is passed entire to someone in a future life”. (Let’s leave aside the Hindu possibility that we can become other animate beings — cows, flies, fish, whatever. In passing I once had a Hindu colleague who was strict vegetarian; he wouldn’t even eat an egg because it might be his grandmother reincarnated!) No, I have this feeling that our souls may well subdivide, and possibly combine with bits of other souls, before being “re-implanted” for the next life. However a quick search has not led me to any religious system which expresses reincarnation in this way.

That is about as much as I know; if indeed I know that much. And it is all based on absolutely nothing apart from some (some will say, delusional) inner gut feelings and wonderment at why some of these things are so comfortable and familiar. Nothing at all concrete to go on – but then which of us has? Deeply unsatisfactory for a scientist, a heretic and an unbeliever!

(I’ve put a fair few links in this item in the hope it may help others to understand some of the background.)

Advent Calendar Meme


Advent Calendar Meme, originally uploaded by kcm76.

This week’s Flickr PhotoMeme

Make a classic Advent Calendar. Chose 25 pictures that will put you in the Christmas spirit!

1. Christmas Tree Fruit, 2. Christmas Gold Organza Felt Star 1, 3. Christmas Lights in London: South Bank Centre, 4. Christmas Light Box #2, 5. Dartmouth Christmas, 6. Holly, 7. Georgia Orthodox Christmas, 8. Cracker Jack, 9. Christmas Rose, 10. Christmas 2004: Theotokos of the Passion, 11. Mistletoe / Ökseotu, 12. Yule log fire, 13. WHAT? No Santa Claus?, 14. Christmas Candle, 15. Christmas mince pies, 16. Glowing in the Snow, 17. Christmas Market, 18. Christmas wreath, 19. Christmas Bauble, 20. Mulled Wine, 21. Winter colors, 22. three kings, 23. robin, 24. Brest – Chestnuts Roasting on an open fire – December 24th – 25th 2006, 25. Simply Merry Christmas Cards 2

As always these are not my photos but please follow the links to enjoy the work of the photographers who did take them!

Created with fd’s Flickr Toys.

First English Lottery, 1569

My previous posting referred to the first English lottery being held on 11 January 1569, and Jilly asks in a comment if it was sold out, because the tickets, at 10 shillings each, were horrendously expensive.

Well I don’t know if it was sold out, a quick Google hasn’t provided an answer, but having researched a bit more I’m not sure if I would actually call this 1569 effort it a lottery at all! Here’s what Wikipedia says:

Although it is more than likely that the English first experimented with raffles and similar games of chance, the first recorded official lottery was chartered by Queen Elizabeth I, in the year 1566, and was drawn in 1569. This lottery was designed to raise money for the “reparation of the havens and strength of the Realme, and towardes such other publique good workes.” Each ticket holder won a prize, and the total value of the prizes equaled the money raised. Prizes were in the form of silver plate and other valuable commodities. The lottery was promoted by scrolls posted throughout the country showing sketches of the prizes.

Thus, the lottery money received was a loan to the government during the three years that the tickets (‘without any Blankes’) were sold. In later years, the government sold the lottery ticket rights to brokers, who in turn hired agents and runners to sell them. These brokers eventually became the modern day stockbrokers for various commercial ventures.

Most people could not afford the entire cost of a lottery ticket, so the brokers would sell shares in a ticket; this resulted in tickets being issued with a notation such as “Sixteenth” or “Third Class.”

According to measuringworth.com 10 shillings in 1569 would now be worth around £105 if you pro rata using RPI or £1210 if based on average earnings.

Interestingly lottery-results-info.com claims that the first ever lottery with prize money was held in Florence, Italy, in 1530. But as there are (apparently) references to lottery-type activity in The Bible, we’ll probably never know.

But don’t things like this make history fun! Much better than all those Corn Laws, Poor Laws, treasons and bloody battles that were inflicted on us at school!

Bell Damaged Brain

If I’m not getting serious brain damage I should be — and yes, more than normal, even for me. Not to mention ringing in the ears. I’ve just had my mind completely blown away. I’ve been listening to a CD of handbells; change ringing on handbells. I know not everyone gets change ringing (or even bells) and it is a peculiarly English eccentricity. But if you line bells in general, handbells in particular or change ringing, then hunt out Change Ringing on Handbells issued on CD by Saydisc (CD-SDL310).

I had this on vinyl many years ago and recently discovered that Saydisc had eventually issued it on CD. I’d forgotten how incredible it is. It has seriously done my head in. Although I get the principle I can’t get my (mathematical and logical) brain round change ringing at the best of times but certainly not done on handbells and at the speed with which these guys manage it so faultlessly. Maybe the logic is the problem?

The CD is available from Amazon UK, Amazon.com or direct from Saydisc themselves. It is just incredible!

And there’s an interesting, albeit scientifically slanted, introduction to church bells and bellringing over at Cocktail Party Physics.

Osho on Pornography

A final thought from Osho, this time on pornography …

What is pornography, and why does it have so much appeal?

Pornography is a by-product of religious repression. The whole credit goes to the priests […] pornography is created, managed by the Church, by the religious people.

In a primitive, natural state, man is not pornographic. When human beings are naked, man knows the woman’s body and woman knows the man’s body, and you cannot sell Playboy. It is impossible. Who will purchase Playboy? […]

The whole credit goes to the religious establishment. They have repressed so much that man’s mind is boiling. The man wants to see the woman’s body. Nothing wrong in it, a simple desire, a human desire. And the woman wants to know the man’s body. A simple desire, nothing wrong about it.

Just think of a world where trees are covered with clothes. I have heard about some English ladies who cover their dogs and cats with clothes. Just think, cows and horses and dogs dressed. Then you will find new pornography arising. Somebody will
publish a nude picture of a tree – and you will hide it in a Bible and look at it!

This whole foolishness is out of religious repression.

Make man free, allow people to be nude. I am not saying they should continuously be nude, but nudity should be accepted. On the beach, at the swimming pool, in the home – nudity should be accepted. The children should take a bath with the mother, with the father, in the bathroom. There is no need for the father to lock the bathroom when he goes in. The children can come and have a talk and chitchat and go out. Pornography will disappear.

Each child wants to know, “How does my daddy look?” Each child wants to know, “How does my mother look?” And this is simply intelligence, curiosity. And the child cannot know what the mother looks like, and the child cannot know what the father looks like; now you are creating illness in the child’s mind. It is you who is ill, and the illness will be reflected in the child’s mind.

I am not saying sit nude in the office or in the factory […] there is no need to be naked, it should not be an obsession; however, this continuous obsession of hiding your body is just ugly.

And one thing more: because of the clothes, bodies have become ugly because then you don’t care. You care only about the face. If your belly goes on becoming bigger and bigger, who bothers? You can hide it […] let one hundred people stand nude, and they all will be ashamed […] and they will start hiding themselves. Something is wrong. Why is it so? They know only about their face – the face they take care of; the whole body is neglected.

This is bad. This is not good. It is not in favour of the body, either.

Any country where people are allowed a little freedom to be nude becomes more beautiful; people have more beautiful bodies […]

Nudity should be natural, should be as natural as animals, as trees, as everything else is nude. Then pornography will disappear.

[Osho, Sex Matters, pp 137-8]

Nico's


Nico’s, originally uploaded by kcm76.

This week’s self-portrait: 52 Weeks 33/52 (2008 week 41).
Yet another reflection picture!

This week I’ve been eating out at the best “greasy spoon” in all London: Nico’s, 299 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL. Open Monday thru’ Saturday, 0645 to 1900. It is right outside Bethnal Green tube station on junction of Bethnal Green Road and Cambridge Heath Road.

Greek Cypriot, now run by the second generation. You can have anything from a bacon roll, through Egg & Chips to Dolmades or Kleftico. The food is cheap and the portions are large; do not order the mixed grill unless you are a real glutton or starving: it comes on two(!!) oval plates, one of meat the other piled with chips. A steak sandwich comes with (free) chips on the side — a full portion of chips that is! And they’re real chips too. Everything is cooked to order and the kitchen is openly visible from the counter. Needless to say it does a steady trade! Eat in or take-away.

It is very close to the V&A Museum of Childhood, where Noreen works; I was there too earlier this week and was taken out to lunch at Nico’s: I had: 2 (large) Sausages, Mushrooms and (a pile of) Chips; can Diet Coke. Noreen had: Double Egg, Beans and (a pile of) Chips; can Diet Coke. Total cost £8.50.

Highly recommended for restoring the soul but not for either the cholesterol levels or the waistline. Pure food pornography. 🙂


Nico’s, originally uploaded by kcm76.

More on Banking Bailouts

Just a couple of snippets of thought following on from my post of yesterday

BBC Breakfast this morning was reporting on the £400bn pledged by the government for yesterday’s bailout. First of all they insist it is £400bn, not £500bn, as was reported yesterday. How? Why? Well it seems the missing £100bn had already been pledged, so was not new money. More government prestidigitation.

But no matter, Breakfast had calculated that £400bn amounts to £13,ooo for every UK taxpayer. Now how do the government think the “average” taxpayer is going to find £13,000? I am lucky in that I earn around twice the national average wage, which means I pay £7,500-ish in income tax every year (or £600 a month). And whilst I would love to pay much less tax, I see the equity in what I do pay, given that we have to pay at all. (That doesn’t mean I agree with where it is all squandered, sorry spent wisely.) But another £13,000!! Even over two years that means my income tax would double. Now translate that into the effect on someone earning say £20,000 a year and who pays maybe £3000 in income tax. Where do they find all that additional money?

Oh sorry, that;’s OK because they now become poor; below the bread-line. So they can claim benefits. But wait! Where do those benefits come from? Our tax take. So those of us left paying tax get shafted for even more. Ad infinitum. You see what I mean about spirals of debt and destruction?!?!?

Jilly in response to my post of yesterday makes an good point — well several actually. Banking was always smoke and mirrors. Which explains why the medieval Jews so despised; they were operating in an environment where people could still see through the smoke and they didn’t like the (distorting) mirrors that were left? The Emperor’s new suit was seen for what it was. It is just that in recent years, well at least during my lifetime, the smoke has gotten increasingly dense to hide the ever more distorting mirrors.

It’s tempting to blame Mrs Thatcher for all this, with her philosophy that everyone must own their own house, thereby needing a mortgage and generating increasing debt — not to mention the increasing wealth of those years with the instant gratification made possible by having more readily available money. While Mrs Thatcher undoubtedly didn’t help, I think the root cause goes further back: to the spendthrift Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, both of whom spent more than we could afford.

Jilly also makes the point that credit controls should never have been abolished. Well up to a point, Lord Copper. While ideally borrowing only what one can immediately afford to repay is an excellent philosophy, it does mean there is only ever a very constrained money supply. Hence there would be no growth. The controls had to be loosened somewhat to fund growth and an entrepreneurial spirit, otherwise we would still be living in a grim post-war environment. But arguable we have taken progress too far, too fast; maybe a change from a money supply ratio of 1:1 to the current 1:27-ish was a step too far; perhaps a ratio of 1:5 or 1:10 would have been more realistic?

But then 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. We are where we are and somehow we have to get out of it. I just have grave misgivings that the current spiral of debt to pay off debt is a good way. But then from where we are there probably isn’t a pretty solution. But then, again as Jilly points out, we don’t appear to have learnt any of the lessons of history. Plus ça change!

Banking by Mirrors

Yet again the British taxpayer is being fleeced to prop up the banking system; the UK government has today announced a package of measures which could cost the taxpayers £500bn … or around £10,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. BBC News story.

We know this whole thing is a mirage; money is no more than pieces of paper which are worth only the value of the ink printed on them. But would this happen if the government had to do all this in actual gold? I doubt it. For a start there isn’t that much gold. As I understand it the capitalisation ratio is generally somewhere in the region of 1:25 to 1:30 (ie. 25-30 times as much money supply as there is real money, aka. gold). If we all wanted to draw our money from the banks we couldn’t; there physically isn’t even enough paper to do it! It’s all electronic bits somewhere.

Notwithstanding that I do seriously wonder what these people are on! What are they doing? Basically they are making an ever increasing mountain of debt to service the debt mountain which already exists! And they can’t see it! For instance £250bn will be available to the banks as loan guarantees for lending between banks! So Bank A borrows money from Bank B, with a loan guarantee from the government. Bank A fails and defaults on the loan, so the government pays off Bank B. So here now is a government debt, taken on to service a loan which is probably being used to cover Bank A’s debt to Bank C. Is this a sensible way to run a business? Or an economy? Or a country? I don’t think so!

Worse … “Banks will have to increase their capital by at least £25bn and can borrow from the government to do so”. Que? Banks need more money, to service their debt. How do they get more money. They borrow it from the government (ie. you and me the taxpayers). Borrowing money to pay off debt. Isn’t this how loan sharks operate? Isn’t this the whole basis of usury, for which the medieval Jews were so vilified?

Ah good! The FTSE as I write is down around 4%. So the money markets don’t entirely believe this either! And neither it appears do the investors in some banks as their shares are down too.

But it’s all a mirage. A house of cards built out of mirrors. And I feel sure it will come tumbling down. The only trouble is when it does it will be a whole lot worse than it would have been had the markets been left alone now to sort themselves out. I’ve been saying for years it’s all over-hyped. The FTSE is a con; at best it should never have been above 3000. The end of the world is nigh. But fortunately most of us won’t survive to witness it, but it might be an unpleasant end game.

Noreen Marshall, Her Book

After something like 2 years in gestation Noreen’s book, Dictionary of Children’s Clothes, finally appears in early-October. Here’s what the V&A’s blurb for the book says:

Over the last 300 years, children’s clothing has witnessed a gradual shift from dressing children to adult requirements, in multiple layers and formal styles, to the booming designer childrenswear market of today. This accessible and well-illustrated dictionary features over 300 garments, from air-raid suits to zouave jackets, with specially commissioned photographs from the world’s largest and most diverse collection at the V&A Museum of Childhood. A fully illustrated timeline and introduction offer an at-a-glance understanding of the changes in children’s fashions and a rich selection of line drawings and illustrations from sewing and knitting patterns, to catalogues, dolls, fashion plates, photographs, paintings and children’s fiction put the garments in context. Noreen Marshall is Curator of the Dress, Doll and Childcare Collections at the V&A Museum of Childhood. She has worked on a number of V&A exhibitions, including Stile Liberty, Jolly Hockey Sticks, The Pack Age, and a series of Christmas exhibitions.

Despite having been married to Noreen for most of the 30-odd years she’s worked at the Museum of Childhood, I have seen relatively little of this book during its birth traumas; it’s been a closely guarded secret. Until now, that is! I have now seen an early-released copy and, as can be seen from the dust-jacket (above), it’s a sumptuous volume illustrated with specially commissioned colour photographs on every page of the dictionary section. As well as the dictionary there is an extended essay by way of introduction, a 300-year timeline and several appendixes which enhance the main content. The book isn’t cheaply produced, something which is reflected in the cover price of £30, but this is excellent value considering the quality and the work which has gone into the production.

This book is a real treasure for anyone interested in costume or childhood. It may be pre-ordered from Amazon UK or from the V&A Online Shop.

Dictionary of Children’s Clothes, 1700 to the Present, by Noreen Marshall, is published on 06 October by the Victoria & Albert Museum at £30; ISBN 9781851775477.