Well, I passed the final stage of my hypnotherapy diploma last night. Talked to Roger, who trained me, over the phone and he said he was very happy with the material I'd submitted and didn't have much in the way of critique to offer. Evidently the videotape came out OK, which was my main worry.
So now I can start practicing. This feels like a really important step, especially since it's taken considerable effort and perseverance to achieve.
NZAPH exam is next, on the 22nd of April.
And then I have to decide - shall I use my powers for good... or for evil?
(I just had to pop that in, the post was far too serious.)
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Stravaganza and my City of Masks
Arthur Amon spotted a copy of a YA book called Stravaganza: City of Masks in a sale and got it for me (thanks, Arthur) because of my novel City of Masks. I've just finished reading it. It's by Mary Hoffman and is the first in a series.
In the odd way that these things happen, it has a few coincidental overlaps with mine, which was started well before it was published in 2001 (and I guarantee, Mary, if you're reading this, I only just read it this week, and I finished my novel months ago).
The obvious parallel - that both Cities of Masks are inspired by Venice - is hardly surprising, since Venetian masks are well known. MH's city is directly and quite closely based on Venice, though, while mine has no canals - it's just an Italianate, early-Renaissance-esque city-state on a harbour. It owes at least as much to Shakespeare's Verona as it does to Venice, if not more.
Both books also have a city law requiring the wearing of masks, but in mine, it applies to everyone, not just unmarried woman, and is much more central to the plot.
One of the odd coincidences is that both of us have characters called Juliana (in my case) or Giuliana (in hers), though the characters are very different from each other, and mine is a much more central character. The other main coincidence, involving family relationships, one of the two old scholars and the woman who rules the city, I won't describe in detail since it's a spoiler for both books.
My central character, Gregorius Bass, is a foreigner, like MH's Lucien, but he is an adult (though a very innocent one), and isn't from our world. Nobody, in fact, is from our world; Bonvidaeo, my City of Masks, is without direct connection to our world, it exists in its own cosmos so alternate that even the geography is different. And it's non-magical, unlike Bellezza.
Oh, there's another coincidence; MH's city is called Bellezza, meaning "beauty", and mine is Bonvidaeo, meaning, approximately, "good appearance". The intent of the names is quite different, though; Bonvidaeo is "good appearance" in a sense indicating fakery.
As I hinted above, both books have two old scholars and a woman who rules the city, though MH's Duchessa is the legitimate and acknowledged ruler and my Countess is the covert and unofficial ruler. Both could be described as ruthless, but the Duchessa's ruthlessness is very mild compared to the Countess's. The two pairs of old scholars are also quite different from one another in their position within the city, the origin of their relationship and their studies.
In fact, the two books' differences are considerably greater than their commonalities, which is good, because I'd hate to end up in a plagiarism suit - not because I couldn't prove that I didn't plagiarize, but because I wouldn't want the hassle of having to do so.
It makes you wonder, though, about other plagiarism suits like that one over Harry Potter. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.
In the odd way that these things happen, it has a few coincidental overlaps with mine, which was started well before it was published in 2001 (and I guarantee, Mary, if you're reading this, I only just read it this week, and I finished my novel months ago).
The obvious parallel - that both Cities of Masks are inspired by Venice - is hardly surprising, since Venetian masks are well known. MH's city is directly and quite closely based on Venice, though, while mine has no canals - it's just an Italianate, early-Renaissance-esque city-state on a harbour. It owes at least as much to Shakespeare's Verona as it does to Venice, if not more.
Both books also have a city law requiring the wearing of masks, but in mine, it applies to everyone, not just unmarried woman, and is much more central to the plot.
One of the odd coincidences is that both of us have characters called Juliana (in my case) or Giuliana (in hers), though the characters are very different from each other, and mine is a much more central character. The other main coincidence, involving family relationships, one of the two old scholars and the woman who rules the city, I won't describe in detail since it's a spoiler for both books.
My central character, Gregorius Bass, is a foreigner, like MH's Lucien, but he is an adult (though a very innocent one), and isn't from our world. Nobody, in fact, is from our world; Bonvidaeo, my City of Masks, is without direct connection to our world, it exists in its own cosmos so alternate that even the geography is different. And it's non-magical, unlike Bellezza.
Oh, there's another coincidence; MH's city is called Bellezza, meaning "beauty", and mine is Bonvidaeo, meaning, approximately, "good appearance". The intent of the names is quite different, though; Bonvidaeo is "good appearance" in a sense indicating fakery.
As I hinted above, both books have two old scholars and a woman who rules the city, though MH's Duchessa is the legitimate and acknowledged ruler and my Countess is the covert and unofficial ruler. Both could be described as ruthless, but the Duchessa's ruthlessness is very mild compared to the Countess's. The two pairs of old scholars are also quite different from one another in their position within the city, the origin of their relationship and their studies.
In fact, the two books' differences are considerably greater than their commonalities, which is good, because I'd hate to end up in a plagiarism suit - not because I couldn't prove that I didn't plagiarize, but because I wouldn't want the hassle of having to do so.
It makes you wonder, though, about other plagiarism suits like that one over Harry Potter. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.
Theological Liberalism vs Modernism: Can't We Just Get Along? Hey, Are You Listening?
So, last post I was talking about how Evangelical Christianity (EC) and Modernism interact and how there's a flaw at the heart of Evangelicalism. In case any Liberal Christians are feeling smug,* it's your turn next.
Liberal Christianity also arose in the context of modernism, and also takes on the modernist assumption that "real" truth is rational, verifiable and preferably scientific. However, where Evangelicalism asserts that religious truth is real truth (and hence rational and verifiable), Liberalism seems - I'm going here on inadequate knowledge because I've never been a classic Liberal Christian or moved in those circles, so correct me if I'm wrong - seems to say that religious truth is basically metaphorical truth, and tacitly accepts modernism's assumption that this means that it rates lower on the "real truth" hierarchy. So where extreme Evangelicals are sometimes motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is a rational, verifiable fact, even if its plain sense is metaphorical, extreme Liberals seem motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is actually a metaphor, or at least definitely not a fact, even if its plain sense is factual.
I have this mental image of a Liberal Christian who lives in a wooden house calling out to a couple of secular modernists who live in a concrete house. "Hey, look! Look over here! Wooden houses really are inferior to concrete ones, you're right! In fact, look, I'm setting my wooden house on fire right now. Do you respect me now? Huh? Huh?"
On the other side, meanwhile, an Evangelical in another wooden house says, "No, really, wooden houses are just as good, in fact, better. Look, totally fire-retardant," and he, too, sets his house on fire.
Upon which one of the secular modernists turns to the other and says, "These wooden-house guys really do suck, don't they? You'll never catch me living in one of them."
*I have no proof that anyone at all reads this apart from me, so these smug Liberal Christians are purely hypothetical.
Liberal Christianity also arose in the context of modernism, and also takes on the modernist assumption that "real" truth is rational, verifiable and preferably scientific. However, where Evangelicalism asserts that religious truth is real truth (and hence rational and verifiable), Liberalism seems - I'm going here on inadequate knowledge because I've never been a classic Liberal Christian or moved in those circles, so correct me if I'm wrong - seems to say that religious truth is basically metaphorical truth, and tacitly accepts modernism's assumption that this means that it rates lower on the "real truth" hierarchy. So where extreme Evangelicals are sometimes motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is a rational, verifiable fact, even if its plain sense is metaphorical, extreme Liberals seem motivated to show that anything in the Bible that sounds like an assertion is actually a metaphor, or at least definitely not a fact, even if its plain sense is factual.
I have this mental image of a Liberal Christian who lives in a wooden house calling out to a couple of secular modernists who live in a concrete house. "Hey, look! Look over here! Wooden houses really are inferior to concrete ones, you're right! In fact, look, I'm setting my wooden house on fire right now. Do you respect me now? Huh? Huh?"
On the other side, meanwhile, an Evangelical in another wooden house says, "No, really, wooden houses are just as good, in fact, better. Look, totally fire-retardant," and he, too, sets his house on fire.
Upon which one of the secular modernists turns to the other and says, "These wooden-house guys really do suck, don't they? You'll never catch me living in one of them."
*I have no proof that anyone at all reads this apart from me, so these smug Liberal Christians are purely hypothetical.
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
Evangelicalism vs Modernism: fight!
So, the first of possibly several posts on this.
I've been thinking a bit more about how different counterphilosophies interact with modernism, which is still the dominant philosophy of the time and place I find myself in. I'll start with Evangelical Christianity (EC) because the interactions seem reasonably clear to me and I know it fairly well.
I was an Evangelical Christian for over 10 years, from the age of 18 into my early 30s (I'd find it hard to put a date on when I stopped; it was a gradual thing, and the process isn't over yet.) This represents more than half my Christian experience and well over a quarter of my life. In this time I read widely, wrote stuff myself, heard many sermons and speakers - I think I know how Evangelical Christians think. (Outliers, exceptions, disclaimer, blah.)
EC inevitably defined itself in relation to modernism; it arose in the late 19th century but really flourished in the 20th. Modernism was the thing it had to define itself against. At the same time, any time there is as pervasive a philosophy as modernism, there are likely to be aspects of that philosophy that any critique of it will tacitly accept, without entering into discussion or debate; it's just "obvious to everyone".
(There's change over time and place and person, disclaimer, blah.)
Seems to me, what EC tacitly accepts is modernism's concept of truth: Truth is rational, propositional, literal, demonstrable, manifest and preferably scientific. It is firmly decideable. You won't see debate about this in the central regions of EC, because debating it pretty much automatically places you on the margins, if not beyond them. It's just a given.
However, EC explicitly denies modernism's contention that only what is material is true and real. Indeed, EC would contend that what is material, being temporary and temporal, is less true and less real than what is immaterial, some of which is eternal.
Herein we have a potential contradiction sitting at the heart of EC (and indeed at the heart of modernism, in a slightly different sense which I will probably talk about some other time). The contradiction is not acknowledged because, remember, the concept of truth isn't up for debate.
So we have this chain of logic:
A: "Real" truth is propositional, rational and provable (implicit, not up for debate).
B: Religious truth is real truth (explicit, not up for debate).
C: Therefore, religious truth is propositional, rational and provable.
And from this stem many of EC's problems, in my opinion. At the extreme, this leads to "creation science" and its desperate attempts to show that statements which were never, could never be, intended as scientific statements, which were made before there was such a thing as a scientific statement, are nevertheless scientific statements - because only if they are scientific statements are they "real truth".
If you put proposition A up for debate, however, instantly many of the problems go away.
As it happens, this is exactly the proposition which postmodernism directly challenges. However, postmodernism doesn't accept proposition B either; it is in tacit agreement with modernism that only what is material is "real" (a contradiction at the heart of postmodernism).
Which explains all kinds of things about why Evangelicals are uncomfortable with "postmodern Christianity".
I've been thinking a bit more about how different counterphilosophies interact with modernism, which is still the dominant philosophy of the time and place I find myself in. I'll start with Evangelical Christianity (EC) because the interactions seem reasonably clear to me and I know it fairly well.
I was an Evangelical Christian for over 10 years, from the age of 18 into my early 30s (I'd find it hard to put a date on when I stopped; it was a gradual thing, and the process isn't over yet.) This represents more than half my Christian experience and well over a quarter of my life. In this time I read widely, wrote stuff myself, heard many sermons and speakers - I think I know how Evangelical Christians think. (Outliers, exceptions, disclaimer, blah.)
EC inevitably defined itself in relation to modernism; it arose in the late 19th century but really flourished in the 20th. Modernism was the thing it had to define itself against. At the same time, any time there is as pervasive a philosophy as modernism, there are likely to be aspects of that philosophy that any critique of it will tacitly accept, without entering into discussion or debate; it's just "obvious to everyone".
(There's change over time and place and person, disclaimer, blah.)
Seems to me, what EC tacitly accepts is modernism's concept of truth: Truth is rational, propositional, literal, demonstrable, manifest and preferably scientific. It is firmly decideable. You won't see debate about this in the central regions of EC, because debating it pretty much automatically places you on the margins, if not beyond them. It's just a given.
However, EC explicitly denies modernism's contention that only what is material is true and real. Indeed, EC would contend that what is material, being temporary and temporal, is less true and less real than what is immaterial, some of which is eternal.
Herein we have a potential contradiction sitting at the heart of EC (and indeed at the heart of modernism, in a slightly different sense which I will probably talk about some other time). The contradiction is not acknowledged because, remember, the concept of truth isn't up for debate.
So we have this chain of logic:
A: "Real" truth is propositional, rational and provable (implicit, not up for debate).
B: Religious truth is real truth (explicit, not up for debate).
C: Therefore, religious truth is propositional, rational and provable.
And from this stem many of EC's problems, in my opinion. At the extreme, this leads to "creation science" and its desperate attempts to show that statements which were never, could never be, intended as scientific statements, which were made before there was such a thing as a scientific statement, are nevertheless scientific statements - because only if they are scientific statements are they "real truth".
If you put proposition A up for debate, however, instantly many of the problems go away.
As it happens, this is exactly the proposition which postmodernism directly challenges. However, postmodernism doesn't accept proposition B either; it is in tacit agreement with modernism that only what is material is "real" (a contradiction at the heart of postmodernism).
Which explains all kinds of things about why Evangelicals are uncomfortable with "postmodern Christianity".
Friday, 23 March 2007
Orthodox, open-minded, skeptical and happy
This comes out of this discussion (originally on proselytism) over at “I would knife fight a man”.
I said:
I'm (more-or-less) orthodox, open-minded, skeptical and happy - not necessarily all at once, but certainly in rapid alternation... you know that optical illusion where you can see either the vase or the two faces, but not both at once? But you can switch between them by a bit of a mental adjustment? Like that.
So what does that look like, then?
Well, when I'm saying my Trinitarian rosary in the mornings while commuting to work, I'm in an orthodox mindset. I am sincere in that orthodoxy; I approach God as Trinity, Creator, Redeemer and Holy Spirit of Wisdom.
And yet at the same time - and by a small mental shift I can engage this mode instead - I'm aware that this is a finger pointing at the moon, "that art thou, and yet that also is not thou", that the Trinity is a cultural construction quite possibly rooted in paganism (which, being of Celtic ancestry and very slightly Christopagan leanings, I'm perfectly comfortable with). I'm also happy to consider other people's religious formulations which differ from mine as being, in this sense, equally valid - that is, equally lenses through which they look for God. (Think of it this way: We all have imperfect vision, so we all need glasses, but perhaps your glasses don't help me and mine don't help you. Doesn't mean that mine don't help me and yours don't help you.)
Hence openmindedness. While affirming orthodoxy, I feel no need to assert it as an exclusive truth in the modernist sense (I've given up describing myself as "postmodern" even with disclaimers, now; I'm going for "transmodern").
It's very important to me that I affirm the Incarnation and Resurrection, for example, but I'm not going to try to "prove" them in some propositional sense, as I would have once as a modernist Evangelical. (Much less do I feel the need to "disprove" them, as modernist Liberals often do.) They are meaningful for me and in affirming them I gain more ability to make sense of the universe.
Skeptical? I'm definitely skeptical. I went to a hypnotherapy seminar recently at which the presenter spouted pure New Age hogwash for about 60% of the time. We got Atlantis, we got the Indigo Children, we got the 2012 prophecies, the lot. At lunchtime I had to hold myself back from saying loudly, "I'm not really hungry now, after all that FRUITCAKE."
Any time anyone tries marketingbabble, businessbabble or bureaucracybabble on me, skeptical is definitely what I am. Being openminded doesn't preclude skepticism for me. My openmindedness (at its best) takes the form of, "While I don't actively affirm what you are affirming there, I'm not going to set out to deny it either; that's not necessary for me in order to hold another viewpoint. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. I don't think so, obviously, or we'd think the same." My skepticism takes the form of holding things which haven't been convincingly presented to me, or about which I have causes for suspicion, in suspicion. They're innocent until proven guilty, but they're definitely under suspicion. I'm not going to believe them to be polite.
And happy? I'm happy. That has a lot to do with having a positive self-image, good external life conditions, and personal flexibility (which is part of good mental health). Skepticism and open-mindedness don't render me unhappy because I'm happy to keep things in Schroedinger's catbox for extended periods. Orthodoxy doesn't render me unhappy because I use it, it doesn't abuse me.
I've rambled. I need to sharpen up my thinking on this. But, hey - this is a blog. This is why you don't pay me money for this stuff.
Oh, afterthought/edit: Back to the image of the faces and the vase. You can look at it and, by a small act of will, see faces. With another small act of will, you can see a vase. But with a third small act of will, you can see an abstract image that isn't actually a vase or faces, just some marks that suggest vaseness and faceness to your mind, which is primed to recognise patterns like that. That's important too.
Sunday, 18 March 2007
Painting your wall with a hairbrush
Probably because I've recently mentioned my ill-fated experience with Campus Crusade on I-would-knife-fight-a-man, I dreamed last night that I was discussing the flaws of their "one approach for all situations" philosophy with Roger Osbaldiston, who trained with me and is now the NZ national director, and (for some reason) my friend Shane Gaughan from Swanson Primary School. After I woke up I thought of the phrase "painting your wall with a hairbrush".
By the way, Shane, if you come across this by some oddity, I'd like to know how you're getting on - leave a comment or sign up on OldFriends or something.
By the way, Shane, if you come across this by some oddity, I'd like to know how you're getting on - leave a comment or sign up on OldFriends or something.
Friday, 16 March 2007
Current Status
I think I'll do this from time to time, as much to give myself a record as anything. What's taking up mind-space or life-space or just in progress for me at the moment?
Writing:
Writing:
- City of Masks is with Macmillans for consideration.
- The Journey in Four Directions I've just signed up with an agent who will represent it at some book fairs in Europe.
- I'm thinking about sending 'Gu' to a magazine, maybe today.
- Restarting the Alphabet is drafted up to the first third ('Maiden'), and sitting at the Glyphpress forum.
- Topia has been stalled for a while. I've finally realized what one of the main themes is: Letting, or not letting, your disabilities define you. I need to rewrite pretty much from scratch, I think, which doesn't sound like fun.
- City of Masks has had one playtest and I've included it in the MS I sent to Macmillans. It needs more playtesting.
- Errantry needs playtesting too.
- The unnamed third game is stuck while I try to figure out the mechanics.
- I'm signed up for Fred's Amber play-by-wiki game, starting at the beginning of April.
- I'm doing my Transforming Practice every morning, usually in the shower. Erin used it yesterday (when she got to work but before she left the car) and said it helped with her crappy day.
- I'm doing the rosary on my commute. It's good.
- Centering prayer about 5 days out of 7 (in the evenings). Mostly I get the kind of good where you call yourself back to attending, more than the kind of good where you are attending.
- Tai Chi with a bit of Qi Gong - I count this as spiritual practice, partly in order to defy Descartes. I'm probably doing that 4 or 5 nights out of 7.
- I've given up buying books for Lent, which I've been on the verge of regretting a few times but have managed to stick to.
- I'm working on getting my online booking system set up on hypno.co.nz. I'm now at the boring testing and perfecting bit, so progress has slowed.
- After that I'll turn my attention to finishing Unfolding Forms.
- I'm waiting for Roger to come back to me with a date for my interview. I strongly suspect, from what others have said, that I'll end up getting the diploma because I pass the Association exam.
- The Association exam is at the end of April.
- I'm reading Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-Cybernetics.
- On the business side, I've set up a bank account and got business cards and my room is pretty much set up. I'd like to get a better chair for myself, and a rug for the winter, and I want to get a standalone drive case so I can use the CD writer with the laptop to give people CDs of the suggestions to take with them at the end of the session. After the start of the financial year on 1 April I'll start spending money again on this stuff. Also a wireless network setup.
- I find I'm tired in the evenings, so I'm mostly reading light stuff (and finding good light stuff hard to come by - I read too fast and the best authors write too slowly).
- Psycho-Cybernetics is interesting; "Man is not a machine, but he has a machine", namely the subconscious, which is a goal-seeking mechanism according to Maltz. It's programmed by the various messages we receive but we can take conscious control of the process and reprogram it. I'm not sure I totally buy it, but it's interesting.
- The Tribe of Tiger is the other non-fiction I'm reading at the moment.
- I'm chiming in a bit on both "I would knife-fight a man" and Story-Games. Racism is one of the current hot topics at both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
