Neo na shuidhe air beulaibh Mhorpheuis Mhòir mu dheireadh thall. Morpheus a' labhairt ris:
I imagine, right now, you must be feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole? ...Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. ("The Matrix", film le Larry and Andy Wachowski)
Tha taghadh cruaidh cunnartach aig Neo. Eadar pile ghorm is pile dhearg:
You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Tha fhios gur ann bhon leabhar fhìor-ainmeil "Alice in Wonderland" le Lewis Carroll a tha na bràithrean Wachowski air iasad a ghabhail an seo. Mar a thachras e, tha mi leughadh aig a' cheart àm sàr eadar-theangachadh dhen dearbh leabhar seo dhan Ghaeilge. "Eachtraí Eilíse i dTír na nIontas" an t-ainm a tha air (Evertype, 2007). Tùs-dhealbhan John Tenniel na bhroinn:
Is e Nicholas Williams a rinn an t-eadar-theangachadh:
Nuair a bhain an Coinín uaireadóir as póca a veiste gur fhéach air, agus gur dheifrigh ar aghaidh, léim Eilís ar a cosa, mar taibhsíodh de láithreach nach bhfaca sí riamh coinín a raibh póca veiste aige nó uaireadóir le baint amach as. Bhí an fhiosracht á loscadh fad is a bhí sí ag rith trasna na páirce ina dhiadh. Ar ámharaí an tsaoil bhí sí díreach in am chun é a fheiceáil ag deifriú isteach i bpoll mór coinín faoin gclaí.
Lean Eilís síos an poll é ar a bpointe, gan smaoineamh ar chor ar bith conas a thiocfadh sí amach as.
Bhí an poll coinín ag dul ar aghaidh díreach go ceann tamaill; ansin bhí log tobann ann, chomh tobann sin nach raibh deis aici smaoineamh ar í féin a chosc sular thosaigh sí ag titim síos tobar fíordhomhain. ("Eachtraí Eilíse i dTír na nIontas", le Lewis Carroll, Eadar-th. le Nicholas Williams. Evertype, 2007)
Is ann an cois phuist-d bhom charaid Dòmhnall ann an Dùn Blàthain a thàinig na co-cheangalan shuas dham chuimhne. Sgrìobh Dòmhnall:
I've also read the Karen Armstrong/Richard Dawkins interviews. I must say I like Karen Armstrong and find her mythos/logos distinction persuasive. I was a bit surprised by your objection to her, remembering that you were antipathetic to logical positivism.
Nise, feumaidh mi aideachadh gun tog seo ceist nam inntinn, oir gu dearbh cha robh mi mothachail gu robh beachd agam idir air Karen Armstrong. Gun luaidh air a' bheachd ud a thoirt seachad do dhuine sam bith. Ach leis an aois a tha mi, 's mi a tha fàs cleachdte ri dearmad inntinne. Air trac-fuaime Frangais a' film "乱 RAN" ("Mi-Rian") le Akira Kurosawa, is e freagairt os ìosal a' mhic san èideadh gorm mu cho-dhùnadh cas athar: "La vieillesse est un naufrage"!
Uime sin ghabh mi sgrìob air ais tro sheann phuist-dealain. Siod e. Air a' cheann thall bhuail mi air fear a chuir mi bhuam (o chionn trì mìosan) air a' chuspair seo. A-rèir coltais bha beachd dha-rìribh agam air Karen Armstrong. Agus seo dhuts e, ma-tà (cha mhòr a' cheart cho ùr dhòmhsa 's a tha e dhutsa!):
Karen Armstrong seems to me to be simply reiterating Kant's "phenomenal/ noumenal", "fact/value" distinction, transmitted via the late Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" ("NOMA"). She says "Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason". Thanks, Karen. And since by definition your claim (rather neatly) cannot be rationally challenged, I guess that's an end to any argument. And those of us who dwell beyond the Pale of reason should take your advice and "direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the 'God beyond God.'". Of course your own certainty could never be characterized as an "idol", because your certainty, unlike ours, is based on reason. As is of course Professor Dawkins "physics-reductionist" certainty which, it must be said, seems even more certain than your own certainty. And therefore more rational and less idolatrous. Am I getting the hang of this?
Ach saoil an robh mi fhathast ag aontachadh rim bheachdsa? Lorg mi agus leugh mi an t-aiste air loidhne a-rìst:
Man vs. God: Karen Armstrong says we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence
An-uairsin sgrìobh mi air ais gu Dòmhnaill còir:
I confess I had no recollection of having an opinion about Karen Armstrong. But in the light of your comment I searched back through my mail and found the link to the article which had triggered my comment (subsequently forgotten!). I have just now read the article again and find I am of the same opinion as I expressed then. More so if anything. Contra Karen, it is Darwinism which is the mythos, the unscientific belief-system. That's the point. Darwinism is not history. It is not science. It is philosophy. It is dogma. It is the prevailing paradigm which most scientific academia have internalized. A kind of corporate delusion. An intellectual, or rather, a visceral, spell. Commitment to it precedes, rather than arises from, research. Research which questions it will not receive funding, and should a paper be written it will not be published. Because of the bullying and hysteria and professional pressures incurred. [Leugh "Peer Review, Publication In Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, And So Forth"le Robert Higgs. Leugh "Creationism, Science and Peer Review"le Andrew Kulikovsky] Logic and rationality, requiring as they do the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity, are utterly dependent on the Trinity [Leugh Cornelius Van Til]. Christ is the Logos, the Truth, Actuality, Factuality, Reality. How else can I say it? How else can I honour my Lord? Christ is not a projected "mythos" but the Definer. The Meaning-Giver. Physicality belongs to Him. Science belongs to Him. There is no Science without Him. Whatever scientific truth Karen Armstong or Dawkins discovers comes by common grace from Christ. There is no other source. Logic has no other source. How else can I say it? Karen Armstrong is Kantian (whether she realizes it or not - and I am sure she does). Kant, in an attempt to save humanistic science, came up with a division between on the one hand external scientific rational historical fact (ie phenomena), and on the other hand internal subjective religion, values, morality (ie noumena). This was more recently reformulated by Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA framework (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Karen Armstrong's article amounts in the end to a self-serving historical revisionism to escape the claims of the Biblical God, the Living God, on her life. She, Dawkins, Kant, Gould, and all the rest of us will stand one day before the Creator and Judge of the Heavens and the Earth to give account for every careless word we have uttered. Every knee will bow to Him. Every tongue confess Him as Lord.
Dè bu chiall dhomh nuair a sgrìobh mi "Commitment to it [Darwinism] precedes, rather than arises from, research."? Is ann a-mach air ro-bharailean a tha mi. Bun-sheasamh a tha aig a h-uile mac màthar dhinn mar bhunait ar cuid loidsig. A rèir coltais, ge-tà, chan ann tric a bhios luchd-saidheans fiosrach gu bheil buaidh dhomhainn aig an leithid air an smaoin. Ach bha an t-Ollamh Richard Lewontin, an gin-eòlaiche agus bith-eòlaiche èabhlaideach ainmeil, fèin-mhothachail gu leòr gus a fheallsanachd fhèin aithneachadh, agus onorach gu leòr gus a ro-bharail fhèin fhoillseachadh:
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.’ (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.)
(Bithidh an Crìosdaidh a' faighneachd sa bhad: Cò as a tha cunbhalachd na cruitheachd ag èiridh ach bhon Chruithear?) Seo againn cnag na cùise, ma-tà. Tha loidsig a' leantainn air ro-sheasamh ar cridhe, is e sin, air ar "prior commitment". Tha Lewontin ri mholadh airson ionracais inntleachdail sa chùis seo. Chan eil a' mhòr-chuid de dhaonnairean (humanists) a' toirt seo fa-near. Tha iadsan a' dèanamh a-mach gu bheil an cuid bheachdan stèite air loidsig mar nì a tha oibseagach, neodrach, neo-eisimeileach. Nì fìor-ghlan teòiriceil ris an canar "Reusan". B'e sin seasamh Immanuel Kant. Ach is e argamaid Herman Dooyeweerd gu bheil seo a' sealltainn fìor easbhaidh fhèin-sgrùdaidh san fheallsanachd dhaonnaireach. Loidsig sam bith a bhios daonnairean a' cleachdadh, tha iad air a ghoid bho Chrìosd sa chiad dol a-mach. B'ann an aghaidh miotas an "Reusain Neo-eisimeilich", agus an aghaidh cur an cèill a' bheachd seo le Kant gu h-àraid, a sgrìobh Dooyeweerd a mhagnum opus "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought". A-rèir Dooyeweerd cha ghabh an cosmas a lùghdachadh gu loidsig. Oir chan e rud teòiriceil a th'anns a' chosmas. Tha àite ann do loidsig gun teagamh sam bith. Ach air cùl loidsig tha dubh-cheist. Agus air cùl na dubh-ceiste tha cùisean nìtheil. Agus air cùl chùisean nìtheil tha an Ἀρχῇ (Archē), an "Tùs", is e sin an Dia beò, bho na bhios ciall gach nì a' sruthadh:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
(Anns an toiseach chruthaich Dia na nèamhan agus an talamh. Gen 1:1)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος; οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν; πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν
(Anns an toiseach bha am Facal, agus bha am Facal maille ri Dia, agus b'e am Facal Dia. Bha e seo air tùs maille ri Dia. Rinneadh na h-uile nithean leis; agus as eugmhais cha do rinneadh aon nì a rinneadh. Eòin 1:1)
Bha Dooyeweerd leagte nach eil ciall aig càil sam bith ann fhèin. Tha ciall a h-uile càil, ciall loidsig fhèin, gu tur an eisimeil air an "Tùs". Is e sin, air an Dia a tha os cionn a h-uile càil. Ro a h-uile càil. Ceann-uidhe a h-uile càil. Ann an aiste a tha càineadh Dooyeweerd, tha e ùidheil gu bheil an t-ùghdar, Herman J Pietersen, fhathast gu math geurchùiseach mun dubh-cheist ud a tha ceilte air cùlaibh loidsig, air cho diongmhalta 's tha a choltas àrdanach uaireannan:
However, it is to be doubted whether humankind can ever escape the dialectic of the one and the many. Neither Plato and Aristotle and the whole of Western philosophy thereafter, could — hence the ongoing battle between rationalists and relativists; Platonists against Sophists; Materialists/Empiricists against Idealists, particularists against universalists, and so on. At root all our thinking is locked in an eternal struggle between the One and the Many... To escape the one (for the many) would mean mental anarchy (the tyranny of the many, ex-plosion and disintegration, thus: insanity); to escape the many (for the one) would mean mental atrophy (the tyranny of the one, im-plosion and everlasting silence, thus: insanity). ("The Philosophy of Robert M Pirsig" by Herman J Pietersen, Department of Industrial Psychology, Vista University, South Africa.)http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_118.html
Tha fhios gur e e eabhlaidiche daingean dha-rìribh a th'ann an David Attenborough ainmeil. Agus abair buaidh a tha air a bhith aige tron teleifis. A chuid bheachdan gan cur an cèill le cobhar na h-obair-camara as fheàrr a ghabhas san t-saoghail (agus càit am biodh am miotas Darwineach mura b'e sgil agus mac-meanmna an luchd-ealain ud a bha riamh deònach riochd drùidhteach draoidheil a chur air ann an dealbhan-iris, taighean-tasgaidh, telebhisean 7c?). Mar fhreagairt orrasan a tha spàrradh air ùmhlachd a thoirt do Dhia, tha David Attenborough dèidheil air cnuimh nimheil ainmeachadh:
I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator." (Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God)
Nise, tha mi'n dòchas nach leig mi leas a ràdh gu bheil mi gu tur an aghaidh "hate mail" sam bith. Agus cha leig mi leas a ràdh cuideachd gu bheil puing aig Attenborough. Tha eucailean agus doilgheasan an t-saoghail a' toirt dùlain do chreidimh ann an Dia a tha uile-chumhachdach agus math. Ach tha mìneachadh reusanta aig a' Chrìosdaidh. An Leagadh. An Crann-ceusaidh. An t-Aiseirigh. An Talamh Ùr sa bhios fìreantachd a' gabhail còmhnaidh. An leòghann a' laighe sìos leis an uan. Tha co-dhùnaidhean ar loidsig-ne diofraichte bho cho-dhùnaidhean Attenborough. Tha sinn a' faicinn cùisean ann an dòigh dhiofraichte. Oir tha ro-sheasamh ar cridhe diofraichte. Dh'fhaodadh sinn is dòcha ball-sampaill Attenborough a thionndadh na mheatafor. Dogma garg, bagrach, an eabhlaideis mar chnuimh nimheil am broinn sùil an t-Saidheins. Is lèir a bhuil. Doille.
MORPHEUS: The Matrix is everywhere, it's all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window, or on your television. You feel it when you go to work, or go to church or pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
NEO: What truth?
MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. That you, like everyone else, was born into bondage... kept inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.
...I promised you the truth, Neo, and the truth is that the world you were living in was a lie.
("The Matrix", film le Larry and Andy Wachowski)
"Cad atá tú a rá?" a dúirt an Speig Neant go dian. "Mínigh thú féin!"
"Tá faitíos orm, a dhuine uasail, nach féidir liom mé féin a mhíniú," a dúirt Eilís, "mar ní mise mé féin, an bhfeiceann tú?"
"Ní fheicim,"a dúirt an Speig Neanta.
"Tá faitíos orm nach féidir liom an scéal a léiriú níos fearr ná é sin," a d'fhreagair Eilís go han-mhúinte, "mar ní thuigim féin ar tús é; agus is cúis mearbhaill do dhuine a lán méideanna éagsula a bheith aige in aon lá amháin."
"Ní fíor sin," a dúirt an Speig Neanta.
"Bhuel, b'fhéidir nach cúis mearbhaill duitse an scéal fós," a dúirt Eilís, "ach fan go n-athróidh tú go crislilid - beidh ort sin a dhéanamh lá éigin, tá a fhios agad - agus go féileacán ina dhiaidh sin, braithfidh tú beagán aisteach é, nach dóigh leat?"
"Ní dóigh liom é ar chor ar bith," a dúirt an Speig Neanta.
"Bhuel, b'fhéidir go bhfuil tusa éagsúil liomsa i do chroí istigh," a dúirt Eilís, "ach deirimse leat go mbraithfinnse fíoraisteach é."
"Tusa!" a dúirt an Speig Neanta le teann dímheasa. "Cé thusa?"
("Eachtraí Eilíse i dTír na nIontas", le Lewis Carroll, Eadar-th. le Nicholas Williams. Evertype, 2007)
"Pour trouver la réalité, chacun doit regarder intensément son propre univers, chercher ces détailes qui contribuent à cette réalité que l'on sent sous la surface des choses...Ètre un artiste signifie chercher, trouver et regarder ces réalités-là; être artiste, cela signifie ne jamais détourner les yeux." (Akira Kurosawa, 1963)
