MC300-MS7 York-Sunbury Historical Society Collection
Description (page 121)

If you are interested in any of these files then please contact the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick.

“The documents in this series were kept by two brothers, William Henry Street and John Ambrose Sherman Street, who were born in Burton, Sunbury County, the sons of Hon. Samuel Deny Street and Abigail Freeman.  They were educated at public schools in Burton and Fredericton.

William Henry Street was born April 11, 1793.  After completing his education, he engaged in the mercantile business in Saint John.  He was twice mayor of Saint John (1835-1836 and 1848-1849) and served in the militia.  In the General Election of 1842, he ran for Saint John City and, after protest, was awarded the seat.  He sat until the dissolution of the House in 1846 when he retired from politics.  W.H. Street was married twice: in 1824 to Mary Bruce, and in 1847 to Sarah Boyd Orr.  He died in Saint John on April 4, 1875.

John Ambrose Sherman Street was born September 22, 1795.  He studied in his father’s law office and was admitted to the New Brunswick Bar on February 22, 1817.  He practiced law at Chatham, Northumberland County, and in 1823 married Jane Isabella Hubbard.  He was elected to the Assembly as a Conservative member for Northumberland County at a by-election in 1833.  He sat in the House almost continuously until his defeat in 1856.  He then moved to Fredericton and unsuccessfully ran for York County in 1861 and 1865.  He was made a member of the Executive Council in 1851, and served as Attorney-General until 1854.  He died in 1865.

The Street Records pertain to the legal and business affairs of the brothers.  The material is catalogued alphabetically according to client’s name.  The types of documents found here include: indentures, deeds, declarations, bonds, assignments, correspondence, and leases.  The material dates from 1812 to 1863.  This series measures 9 centimeters.

1 Bedell, George A.; Woodstock, 1855-1862.

2 Betts, David and Levi; Newcastle, 1831.

3 Bowman, William, and Daniel Campbell; Liverpool England, 1845.

4 Chisholm, Patrick; Northesk, 1828.

5 Clarke, Alexander; Nelson Parish, 1828-1831.

6 Clarke, Richard Samuel, High Sheriff, for land of William Matchett to Oliver Stringer; James Vye to John, Alexander and James Fraser; Charles McDonald and Ronald Davidson to James McDonald and William Ravinscroft.  Dennis Cochran, Samuel Porter to James D. Berton; William and Elizabeth Murray; and Thomas and Alexandra Wilson; Northumberland County, 1825-1832.

7 Crookshank, Robert W.; Saint John, 1826-1852.

8 Cunard, Henry; Newcastle, 1836.

9 Davidson, Allan, William, John and Phineas; Newcastle Parish, 1824-1847.

10 Hooper, Nehemiah Story; St. Mary’s Parish, 1851-1857.

11 Jardine, Alexander, Robert Jardine and Barnabas Tilton; Saint John City, 1849.

12 Johnson, John M, High Sheriff, for lands of Patrick Flannigan, and Alexander Clarke; Northumberland County, 1841.

13 Kerr, George, of Newcastle, for lands of John Kerr, John Mayes, and Jane Matthew to John Walker; Jeremiah Newman; Alexander Fraser Jr., George McGuigor, and Joseph Saunders; Andrew and James Grant; William Henry Moore; Northumberland County, 1828-1843.

14 Kirk, James; Saint John City, 1847.

15 Matthew, George; Saint John City, 1812-1850.

16 Mersereau, Jacob; Blackville Parish, 1831-1837.

17 Miller, Edward, High Sheriff, and William Grigor for lands of George A. Munro; York County, 1843.

18 Mitchell, Peter and Barbara, and William and Isabella Masson; Newcastle, 1828.

19 Moore, William Henry, and Patrick Keho and Alexander Fraser Jr.; Parish of Chatham, 1824-1826.

20 McDermott, John; Blackville Parish, 1842.

21 McKay, Donald and Zilpah; 1825.

22 McLaggan, Alexander; Blackville, 1850-1862.

23 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Land Company for lands of George Barrett; Stanley, 1847.

24 Rankin, Alexander, (William Bedell, W.H. Shore, Francis Ferguson, George and John Monroe); Miramichi, 1833-1855.

25 Spencer, John; Ludlow, 1841.

26 Spahn, Justin; 1856.

27 Small, Otis; Saint John, 1845.

28 Street, Louisa Isabella; William Woodbridge Street; Rev. Charles Frederic Street; John Ambrose Street; and George D. Street; Newcastle, 1845.

29 Sutter, Byron, John Connelly, Allan Lyons, and Alexander Davidson; Miramichi, 1839.

30 Walker, John, James Robertson and Mary Green; Saint John, 1840.

31 Worrall, George William; Saint John, 1847.

32 Young, James, Alexander McLean, Alexander McLaggan, and Neil McLean; Nashwaak, 1852.

33 Miscellaneous items; 1847-1863. 

So the past couple of days I’ve had a bit of time on my hands.  Waiting to hear back from clients and rendering times have been hitting a bit hard.  Because it’s still a work day, I can’t just skip off and take pictures.  So I decided to set up a cafepress shop (called The Emporium Of Purchased Gratification) to play around in.  It’s one part joke one part learning the wonders of adobe illustrator.  I’ve created a couple of designs so far and it’s pretty fun!

Link: http://www.cafepress.com/TEOPG

And here is my latest design, available in black t-shirts:

Spock and Kirk – Star Trek: The Original Series

Havia muita incerteza sobre o novo filme devido ao fraco desempenho que a última série apresentou e, principalmente, ao fracasso de Star Trek Nêmesis, mas a Paramont não ignorou as grandes quantias que ganhou com a marca e resolveu investir numa nova produção! A atitude da empresa foi entregar o projeto ao nome do momento J. J. Abrams gerando desconfiança por parte dos fãs devido Abrams ser fanático por Star Wars e ter pouco conhecimento da franquia, mas o resultado não podia ser melhor! Foi o melhor “filme pipoca” do ano com bom desempenho na bilheteria e se o maior desafio era trazer Star Trek para o grande público além do universo nerd, Abrams conseguiu usando a fórmula da série clássica que muitos achavam estar desgastado.

Na história, o vilão Nero e sua tripulação voltam ao passado alterando o futuro em busca pelo embaixador Spock e promover um genocídio intergalático. Por força do destino o cadete Kirk e os membros originais da nave Enterprise acabam se cruzando e cabe ao Spock do futuro orientar o futuro capitão da nave estrelar, a partir deste ponto o enredo foca o relacionamento de James T. Kirk com Spock do passado.

Todos os personagens foram bem desenvolvidos no enredo garantindo bons momentos, Karl Urban como Dr. McCoy (sua atuação lembra muito o original de DeForest Kelley) e em especial Chris Pine que faz um James Kirk encrenqueiro, cara-de-pau e mulherengo permitindo uma sutil homenagem ao intérprete original William Shatner com pequenas canastrices. Não houve mudanças significativas com Sulo (John Cho) e Chekov (Anton Yelchin, a não ser pelo fato de sua descendência russa) já o engenheiro-chefe Scotty de Simon Pegg não é diferente de outros personagens do ator britânico, as alterações foram feitas em Uhura (Zoë Saldana), pois teve que ser modernizada, mas é na figura de Spock que a mudança foi maior, de todos Zachary Quinto é o mais parecido fisicamente, porém a sua personalidade foi mudada devido aos eventos do filme, curiosamente a sugestão de Quinto para o papel foi dos fãs e graças ao sucesso da série Heros o papel foi conquistado.

A grata surpresa está na presença de Leonard Nimoy, o ator vive mais uma vez Spock que veio do futuro garantido a felicidade dos fãs e enfatizando as mudanças na cronologia sem desprezá-la. O Spock original no enredo serve como uma espécie de mestre Yoda ao guiar o jovem Kirk ao seu destino e garantiu os melhores momentos de toda a franquia tendo o direito de encerrar o filme com o clássico “o espaço a fronteira final…”. Apesar de equilibrar ação com muito bom humor, além dos diálogos emotivos comum nas produções anteriores de Star Trek o filme tem um fraco vilão não sendo levado a sério pelos heróis.

Abrams fez um filme família, nunca em toda história da franquia o tema “pais-e-filhos” foi explorado com tanta intensidade. Pode não ser o melhor de Star Trek, mas é uma volta triunfante agradando a todo o público prometendo uma continuação superior.

Curiosidades

- O filme foi promovido na recente série Fringe de J.J. Abrams, dentro da história um paranóico chamado Michael Carlin diz ser o Spock esse personagem é interpretado por Clint Howard que já havia trabalhado em um episódio da série clássico ainda criança.

- Zoë Saldana (Uhura) fez uma fã de Star Trek em “O Terminal” (The Terminal, 2004) de Steven Spielberg.

- A voz do computador é de Majel Barrett Roddenberry esposa de Gene Roddenberry (1921 – 1991), o criador da série. A atriz participou desde o primeiro episódio-piloto até a última série para TV. Morreu de leucemia em dezembro de 2008.

- Não só  J.J. Abrams veio de Lost, os produtores Damon Lindelof e Bryan Burk são os responsáveis do atual sucesso da série.

- A frase final do filme “… onde ninguém jamais esteve” é uma referência a “Jornada nas Estrelas: A Nova Geração” na série clássica a frase era “…onde nenhum homem jamais esteve”.

Por: Rodger Kenzo, colaborador do Barril de Porva

After the transporter malfunction, Captain Kirk had a terrible  time adjusting to his new body.

Just a quickie.

I had planned to write about Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian because I just saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good…. AND then I watched STAR TREK again.

J.J. Abrams has taken over my TV.  My girlfriend is obsessed with LOST, and quite frankly I’m obsessed with this movie.  I’m going to wear out the little bits of data on this DVD before I send it back to Netflix.  Let me also describe my pre-J.J. Abrams Star Trek relationship:  hate.  I am and will always be loyal to the greatest trilogy of all time: Star Wars. I am NOT a Trekkie; I do not approve of  Trekkie behavior; and yes, Han Solo could beat the shit out of Capt. Kirk.  Onward.

Zachary Quinto- a.k.a Sylar. Yes, I was hoping that at some point during the movie he would cut off someone’s head using his finger, but unfortunately, Abrams kept Sylar at bay.  Quinto plays a perfect Spock to Chris Pine’s Kirk.  His deadpan delivery makes everything he says sound perfectly logical, while also getting the most out of the script’s humor.

Chris Pine- Captain Kirk. Pine channels the cockiness of Shatner into the newest incarnation of the legendary captain of the Enterprise. (The character as a whole was just awesome in this movie- even the younger Kirk who steals that car was cocky and awesome.)  But Pine does the brunt of the work, and oh boy is he good.  He plays the hero perfectly and deserves every bit of credit that he can get for his portrayal.

The entire ensemble cast needs to be back for the sequel.  While Quinto and Kirk are the main characters, John Cho (Harold and Kumar, American Pie), Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), and Karl Urban (Lord of the Rings) are just a few of the supporting actors who helped make this movie great.  They provided much of the movie’s humor and kept the Spock and Kirk characters fresh.

A+   This movie was the BEST of the summer.  It bettered a number of strong contenders coming into the summer, including the powerhouse Harry Potter.  It made almost $385 million and Paramount can’t wait for the release of the sequel.  I can’t wait to see where Abrams takes the sequel, hopefully to where no one has gone before.

Star Trek Fans aufgepasst! Nach dem gigantischen Erfolg des 11. Teils der Star Trek Saga – eigentlich des 1. Wiederbelebungsteils – wird bereits an einer Fortsetzung gearbeitet. Star Trek 2 soll 2012 in die Kinos kommen und wird wohl auch diesen Namen tragen, denn die Zählweise wird korrigiert, nach den Ereignissen des ersten Teils befinden wir uns ja auch quasi kurz vor der Fernsehserie…

Egal wie der Film auch heißen mag, J. J. Abrams soll angeblich wieder die Regie führen. Die Drehbücher, die eigentlich bereits Weihnachten im Kasten sein sollten, verzögern sich leider – so dass erst Mitte 2010 mit einem Drehstart gerechnet werden kann. Die nun neu eingeführte Crew soll komplett wieder mitspielen und hat bereits die Vorverträge unterzeichnet. Noch offen ist, er dementiert nicht, ist der originale Spock noch einmal mitspielen wird – Leonard Nimoy zumindest meint, die Rolle sei ausgespielt und der Übergang zur neuen Serie geschafft. Laut einem US-Interview mit Abrams jedoch, kann er sich weitere Zeitreisen und damit Begegnungen auf alten Enterprise-Folgen (Kirk, Spock, Khan) durchaus vorstellen… Für Khan ist übrigens Lost-Star Nestor Carbonell im Gespräch.

Letztlich glaub ich: Viel Spekulation! Der jetzt auf DVD erschienene Star Trek (Teil 11) ist schließlich auch ganz anders geworden, als man ursprünglich gedacht hat. Witzig, ursprünglich und näher am Original. Hoffentlich schafft das Abrams mit Teil 2 (12) ebenfalls!

I haven’t read much fan fiction or slash fiction, but this Kirk/Spock video is downright mind-boggling. It’s fascinating how the scene selection, edits and connection to the music and lyrics all manage to tell a remarkably consistent and (fairly) complete story.

The video portrays Spock as a haunted and obsessed, near-demonic creature, while Kirk appears as an almost purely sensual object. Spock struggles with his lust (and possibly self-hatred), until he attacks Kirk. The implied rape leaves both men tormented and alone.

There’s also the addition of sepia tone and visual scratchiness, which makes it look like an old 8mm film. It could be a futuristic-horror-soft-core movie from the 1920s…with a soundtrack from the 1990s.

This brought three questions to mind:

1. Is this funny?
2. Is it offensive?
3. Is it art?

Not that these questions really matter that much, ultimately. They’re just interesting to me from a storytelling perspective (I know: “Suuuuure they are”). I can imagine arguments on the yes and no sides of each question, but right now I would answer: “Yes, as a subversion of pop culture icons”; “Possibly, but not badly enough to question the motives for making the video”; and, “Hell yeah.”

[Via Coilhouse]

Coincidentally, there’s an interesting interview with Michael Chabon on io9.com today, where he talks about fan fiction:

“This kind of process, by which one generation of fan/critics (because anyone who doesn’t understand that a fan is a critic doesn’t know what a fan is, and there is nothing sadder to contemplate than the idea of a critic who is not also a fan) becomes the creators whose work inspires and obsesses and is critiqued by the next generation of fans, who in turn become critic-creators, has occurred in every popular art form across the board going back fifty or five thousand years. The apostles wrote fan fiction on Torah.”

Also, Spock’s Nosferatu pose: awesome.

[Update/Note to self: Posting Kirk/Spock slash seems to be a good way to generate website traffic.]

Kirk and Spock in a tub

Special thanks to a certain “CowbertDH”

Image courtesy of an unknown, deeply disturbed, artist

from September 2, 2008

It’s amazing how much having your laptop break can throw off your regular schedule.  I had a few system files get corrupted during a power failure, but was too busy to turn my computer in to get fixed since most of the programs I needed for schoolwork were still operational.  This past week, I finally didn’t have anything due, so I managed to get it into the computer repair center and now have it back and fully functional again!  I could probably turn this into a discussion of our growing reliance on computers and technology, but since that doesn’t really have too much to do with this fourth Star Trek episode, I’ll decline for now.  Perhaps sometime in the future when it fits in better with the themes of the show.

I also realized that perhaps I should give an overview of the plot of each episode before I analyze it, for people who haven’t seen it or who don’t remember exactly what happens.  In this episode, the Enterprise stops to check on a research outpost only to find all the scientists inexplicably dead.  While analyzing the situation, one of the crew members takes off his gloves and winds up touching a contaminated liquid that amplifies emotions to dangerous levels.  He then spreads the infection to other crew members including Spock and Kirk, who find it increasingly difficult to control the situation aboard the ship.  Lt. Kevin Riley attempts to take control of the ship, locking himself in the engineering room and endangering the crew by turning off the Enterprise’s engines and allowing the ship to drift out of orbit toward the planet surface.  When Scotty and Kirk finally manage to break into the engineering room and regain control, they are forced to perform a dangerous, cold re-start of the engines, which has never been tried before.  The restart, which involves combining matter and anti-matter in a “controlled implosion”, works as planned, but with the unusual side effect of sending the Enterprise back in time approximately three days.

This episode actually had very little reliance on technology at all, at least until the very end.  Its main focus was instead on the idea of emotion and control, a common theme throughout the show.  In fact, all of the episodes so far have played on the idea that emotion and intelligence (logic) need to be balanced.  In “The Man Trap”, excessive emotion for Nancy prevents earlier discovery of her as a monster and allows her to continue preying on crewmen.  Charlie’s inability to control his emotions in “Charlie X” is a key factor in his danger.  Because he uses power when upset, rather than logically, he needs to be stopped.  Lastly, in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” an imbalance between logic and emotion results in the need for Gary Mitchell’s destruction as well, because his intelligence has surpassed the human connections that would have balanced it.

In “The Naked Time”, almost all the major characters suffered from an excess of emotion.  Kirk demonstrates both his love for and resentment of the Enterprise, both enjoying and hating how closely tied his life is to the ship.  He also succumbs to paranoia at the thought of losing control.  In many ways, these are merely exaggerations of the factors that make him a good captain– love for his ship and job, as well as a desire and ability to maintain control.  The fact that exaggerating them makes him less effective plays well into the idea that emotion and logic need to be balanced– increasing his emotions correspondingly decreases his logic.  In terms of other characters, Sulu displays his passion for fencing and his active desire to be a heroic “swashbuckler”, challenging other crew members to fights and declaring his intent to “protect” Uhura as a classic damsel in distress.  Riley warbles Irish ballads repeatedly, much to the annoyance of the rest of the crew.  Nurse Chapel, who is first introduced in this episode, confesses her feelings for Spock.

Nurse Chapel confessing her attraction to Spock

Even Spock himself is affected by the contamination, which is unusual in two aspects.  First, the show often emphasizes how his biological makeup is different from that of humans, making him immune to many things that affect them.  For example, McCoy often refers to Spock as green-blooded, and he was safe from Nancy in “The Man Trap” because of the lack of salt in his body. Second, and obviously, Spock is usually shown as emotionless, at least in many ways.  To see him react strongly to Nurse Chapel’s confession and to cry about not being able to tell his mother he loves her is almost disturbing in a way, because it is so unexpected based on how he is normally represented.  On the other hand, his struggle between human and Vulcan is a recurring theme of the series, and this episode can be seen as just a continuation of that, albeit a much more extreme one than normal.  It is also interesting to note that within four episodes, he has been overtly approached by one woman, Chapel, and covertly pursued by another, Uhura.  I guess pointy ears are supremely attractive in the future?

And speaking of pointy ears, racial representations are particularly interesting in this episode.  Sulu, in particular, is seen in a very interesting light.  Gene Roddenberry intended for Sulu to represent all of Asia, rather than a specific culture like that of Japan or China.  In fact, according to George Takei, the original actor who played Sulu, the name “Sulu” was chosen specifically because it was not Japanese, while Takei was.  But if that’s the case, why in this episode was Sulu presented as European far more than Asian?  When the disease drives him to fence and challenge other crew members, he does so with a foil, a traditionally European sword.  Spock even says that Sulu “is at heart a swashbuckler out of the 18th century”, and Sulu himself makes declarations like “For honor, Queen and France!” and “Richelieu, beware!”  For a character that is meant to represent a general Asian identity, this focus on France seems odd, particularly with the extensive martial history of many Asian cultures.  It would have been simple to portray Sulu in one of these traditions, rather than as a French fencer.

In contrast to this decreased emphasis on Sulu’s identity as Asian, Riley’s ethnic identity as Irish is over emphasized.  When he takes over the engineering room, he subjects the crew of the Enterprise to repeated warblings of “I’ll Take You Home Again, Kathleen”, an Irish-style ballad.  Spock also references Riley’s belief that he is descended from Irish kings as an explanation for his behavior under the influence of the infection.  Therefore, both characters are presented in a European framework, despite their obvious racial differences and the diversity they are supposed to represent on the Enterprise.  It is funny to see the characters represented in this manner, but seems contrary to the goals Roddenberry was trying to accomplish in terms of breaking social conventions of the time period.  Gene said at one point, “[By creating] a new world with new rules, I could make statements about sex, religion, Vietnam, politics, and intercontinental missiles. Indeed, we did make them on Star Trek: we were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network.”  Presenting a Europeanized Asian character tempers or even counters these messages, making it appear that other races are acceptable only in that they also possess a degree of “whiteness”.

In some ways, it seems similar to the problem I’ve seen in how women act on the show– they are put into many situations that were unusual for the time, showing the ways in which the creators of Star Trek used the futuristic setting to break social norms, but were still in some ways limited by social convention.  This even comes up a bit in this episode where Uhura is given a job and Riley, who is developing his infection, starts discussing universal suffrage and letting women work too.  His statements are groundbreaking for the time in their support of equal rights, but also remain slightly patronizing with regards to his tone.  In terms of race, the diversity of the Enterprise’s crew was almost unheard of at the time when the show was produced, but was also not perfect.

If I get a chance to move onto the later Star Trek varieties, it’ll be interesting to see how/if this problem changes.  Or even how it progresses throughout the seasons of TOS.  I suppose I’ll have to hurry onto the next disc of the set!

Two recent events have given me slender encouragement that creedal and confessional Christianity has not been totally overwhelmed by Post-modern relativism. The first is the publishing of  Alister McGrath’s Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: Harper One, 2009). I have not yet had an opportunity to get a copy in my hand and evaluate the book myself, but the publisher’s blurb is very heartening.

In recent years the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy has come under fire by those eager to reject the formal boundaries of sanctioned beliefs about God, Jesus, and the church. In a timely corrective to this trend, renowned church historian Alister McGrath argues that the categories of heresy and orthodoxy must be preserved.

Remaining faithful to Jesus’s mission and message is still the mandate of the church despite increasingly popular cries that traditional dogma is outdated and restricts individual freedom. Overturning misconceptions throughout the book, McGrath exposes…how many of the heretical beliefs and practices rejected by the church were actually more stringent and oppressive than rival orthodox claims.

In Heresy, McGrath explains why no heresy has ever been eradicated—rival beliefs only go underground and resurface in different forms. McGrath presents a powerful, compassionate, and deeply attractive orthodoxy that will equip the church to meet the challenge from renewed forms of heresy today.

Not so long ago the term ‘heresy’ seemed to be the almost exclusive property of a narrow, sectarian, bombastic, fringe of the evangelical world, or if it were used, it was uttered in hushed tones, as if the very word was somehow inimical to Christian vocabulary.  Well, it is to be hoped that McGrath’s book will equip those who know in their heart of hearts that defending the faith and contending for the truth is of the essence of Christian witness, but perhaps lacked the courage to do it.

The second event came from Friday’s Commission of Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Last year’s General Assembly was marked by the revolutionary decision, by a substantial majority, against the clear teaching of Scripture, to sustain the call and induction of Scott Rennie, an openly homosexual minister, to a congregation and to stifle debate by the imposition of a gagging order, balanced by a moratorium on the appointment of homosexual ministers.  In defiance of the spirit of this decision the Presbytery of Hamilton agreed to nominate an openly gay man to begin training as a minister. This was covered by both the Times and the Herald. Then on Friday, the Commission of Assembly, by a slender majority of 43 to 38, interpreted the moratorium of May 2009 as extending to applications to train for ministry, as well to ordinations and inductions. The application of homosexual students will, therefore, be sisted until May 2011.

Whilst I rejoice that this obstacle has been put in the way of homosexuals entering the ministry, to me, this success is mitigated by the very slenderness of the majority. Obviously no sea change of attitudes has taken place in the Kirk in the intervening months since the Assembly. For the Confessional Christians of Scotland, of all Presbyterian denominations, there is, therefore, everything to pray for and much work to be done before the Assembly of 2011.

With a siren cry for peace coming from the senior court of the Kirk, many may be intimidated from keeping up the struggle. To those who are, we say, that whilst it is undoubtedly true that the apostolic injunction of James 3:17 calls on us to exercise wisdom that is “peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere,”  it retains and affirms a clear moral and spiritual integrity, it is “first pure, then peaceable.”

crowbar is the perfect name for this band. well, “Doom-laden NOLA-brand grave-digging dirgeing metal” would be the most accurate name, but not quite as punchy.

on this album, their first full length, issued way back when, the band is arguably at their finest. the music is unpolished and left raw and crackly by Philip Anselmo’s amazing production job. the album is slow, assertive, and honest from head to toe.

there are only ten tracks, which is a bit of a disappointment. or at least it was for me when i walked back from that small record shop about 2 miles from my house back in my freshman year of high school. i remember walking on the side of the road looking at the album and being let down that i spent 13 (it may have only been 12, i dont remember all that clearly) dollars on a 10  track cd. but then i got home and i played it on my dad’s stereo system. the album was unlike anything i had ever heard before. it was Black Sabbath meets Corrosion of Conformity meets Sunn 0))) meets Motorhead meets Pantera meets a whole lot of bourbon meets one serious singer. it is funny that i reacted like that. i had heard ‘Existence is Punishment’ and ‘All I Had I Gave’ before. but i hadnt liked them. they sounded ‘goofy’. but when i sat down and played this album i was quickly persuaded otherwise. the one song that stuck out to me as the absolute perfect crowbar song was actually a cover. track five, ‘No Quarter’.

the song is slow, building, and most of all painful. the singer’s voice on this album had a Keith Caputo circa ‘River Runs Red’ quality to it. there is such amazing honesty in the words and voice that it is almost off putting. when he sings ‘I Have Failed’ or ‘Existence is Punishment’ he actually believes it. and it hurts.

the album is beautiful though. like a perfect car-wreck, it just has this true beauty and serene destruction that must be seen to understand.

http://www.amazon.com/Crowbar/dp/B00004YX2V/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_lnk

do yourself a favor, pick up a copy.

Minister faces the sack for refusal to live in his manse

Published Date: 12 November 2009 By Ian Swanson

A CHURCH minister is facing the threat of the sack for refusing to live in his Edinburgh manse.
The Rev John Munro, minister at Fairmilehead Parish Church, is accused of breaking Church of Scotland regulations by opting to live in his own house instead and will face a “trial” in front of Kirk officials tomorrow.

If the case goes against him, he could face censure, suspension or even end up being fired.

Read the rest in the Edinburgh Evening News here

I came across this tonight in the Edinburgh Evening News.  Whilst I do understand that there would be tax issues and related matters for the Kirk to have to untangle with the Inland Revenue were it to ‘allow’ ministers to live outwith their manses, I have to say that on the face of it, to place a minister before the Commission of Assembly over the occupancy of a manse, or not, seems plain daft and inconsistent to me, especially when I cannot remember a single occasion in recent memory when Kirk ministers with theological views at wide variance from catholic, credal Christianity were ever asked to appear and give account before a Presbytery or to the Commission.

We all know that some ministers, perhaps many, have long wanted to live in their own homes, and the Kirk’s efforts to prevent it from eventually happening look increasingly like the boy with his finger in the dyke.  On human rights grounds alone, it surely cannot be reasonable or fair that the Kirk ‘employs’ its ministers only on condition that the said ministers give up all rights whatsoever to live in a home of their own choosing and live, instead, in a property of the Church’s choice.  What other employer in the modern world would ever ask or be allowed to ask such a thing of its employees?  I can think of none.

There are tax implications for ministers who wish to live in their own house and who choose not to ‘occupy’ the manse. Agreed.  But can these financial rather than theological reasons be allowed to override the wishes of a minister and his/her family to live in a home that suits and which is liked by all of the family members?  Doubtless there are theological issues about the importance of living in the parish in which one ministers, and there is also the matter of the congregation owning and financially managing a property in the parish in which a minister can live if he or she wishes to, but these are not in anyone’s reckoning issues that are ‘of the substance of the faith.’  To what extent then should they be the basis of disciplinary proceedings in this day and age?

Furthermore, a minister may live in a manse from which he or she writes, preaches and teaches anything and everything but historic, orthodox and credal Christianity, all without censure or investigation by a Presbytery or by the Commission whatsoever, whilst a refusal to live in the manse seems to be an issue thought deserving of the considerable expense of gathering together the members of the Commission of Assembly in order to put a minister and his family members thoroughly and completely through the emotional wringer, and I can tell you, being at the Commission of Assembly is an emotional wringer.

It is a strange and sad place for the Church to be in when some ministers are openly and unashamedly theologically heretical, with impunity, sometimes with admiration and a measure of popular notoriety, whilst a minister who will not live in a manse is to face the Commission of Assembly.

I predict that the Kirk’s insistence that ministers always and almost without exception live in manses will come to an end.  It may not open a floodgate of ministers taking advantage of the new situation, but the shortage of ministers, and lengthy vacancies, as well as changes in the future shape of congregations and churches, not to mention the continuing question of the viability of the parish system itself – all of these things mean that the Kirk cannot stand like Canute, holding back the tide of ministers and their loved ones wishing to live where they will.

It will be fascinating to see what the Commission decides, but spare a thought and prayer for the minister and his wife and family, for whom a day at the Commission will not likely be a day with friends, interspersed with a light and congenial lunch.

Soli Deo Gloria

Zerstörte dieses Musikvideo die Weltkarriere der “finnischen ABBA” (hust!) Ilkka Lipsanen und Armi Aavikko? Jeder Musikinspektor müsste dies zumindest an Nummer 1 seiner Beweisaufnahme stellen. Meine Damen und Herren Geschworenen, beurteilen Sie selbst:

Wie viele Liebespaare in Finnland werden sich tief in die Augen schauen, wenn sie das Lied “I Wanna Love You Tender” unvermittelt hören, und sagen: “Das ist unser Lied.”?

Etwas anderes scheint in diesem Zusammenhang erstaunlich. Warum hat diese Kampfszene, vermutlich die schlechteste Kampfszene der Film- und Fernsehgeschichte zusammengenommen, den Siegeszug von Raumschiff Enterprise nicht aufhalten können?

Und da wir gerade bei Raumschiffen und unzerstörten Karrieren sind, dieses Musikvideo hat das Image von Leonard Nimoy als Außerirdischem vermutlich noch positiv verstärkt.

Star Trek TOS meets Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Historias hostiles en el aire 

Hay pensadores que creyeron ver en la hostilidad, en la guerra, en la perpetua tensión entre contrarios la naturaleza del mundo y también la del hombre. Pensadores de la talla de Heráclito o Nietzsche por ejemplo. Según esta postura, el hombre – y por tanto sus productos – viven, son en una pugna infinita entre opuestos. Historia hostil la del hombre en esta concepción.
Pero también hubo quienes pensaron, por otra parte, que si uno coloca un nombre a una cosa y le adjudica una serie de características inmóviles y concretas, no puede asombrarse después, cuando esas mismas cosas chocan entre sí o cuando adquieren una coherencia prefabricada. Curiosamente (o no tanto), Nietzsche también se cuenta en este grupo, y más tarde Heidegger, y más tarde casi todos los que vinieron después.

Quiero decir: las tensiones entre la filosofía y la literatura (o entre el pensamiento y el arte, o entre la ciencia y la ficción, o como demonios se quiera expresar el dilema) pueden ser vistas como naturales en algún sentido y también como una mera ficción, otra de las tantas que la cultura humana debe confeccionarse a ella misma para subsistir.

Las tensiones entre filosofía y literatura pueden ser el fruto de una naturaleza humana, de la hostilidad que subyace, fundamenta y sobrevuela la vida humana y cada una de sus consecuencias, entre las que se encuentra el terreno del saber y de la expresión. El ser humano tiene creencias, ideologías, gustos; los precisa para vivir, para el mero hecho de despegar el atribulado cráneo de la almohada. Por eso defiende sus creencias, porque en esa defensa le va su propio ser, su constitución como “hombre” o como “sujeto”. ¿Qué otra cosa que aquel manojo de cosas en las que cree es el hombre después de todo?.

El hombre lucha por sus creencias y eso supone, por definición, la existencia de los otros, de las otras creencias. Asimismo, la existencia de las otras creencias supone, también por definición, la pugna, el combate con ellas. Ignoro si esto es cierto; ignoro si en realidad esa hostilidad latente que se da entre los hombres y entre sus productos no es acaso un invento socio-cultural más. Ignoro, en fin, si las disputas omnicomprensivas a las que estamos acostumbrados no podrían trocarse en una convivencia pacífica de accionares sin categorías ni etiquetas. Lo ignoro, pero me acompaña la secreta sospecha de que es mejor así; es decir: no tan así, pero así. La sospecha de que es mejor, siempre mejor, el combate, el intercambio, la polémica. El hombre, antes que un animal racional es un animal apasionado, un animal sintiente al que, por mucho que patalee la ciencia iluminista, no hay acción civilizatoria que logre despojarlo que aquel sentir.

Ahora bien, las tensiones entre filosofía y literatura igualmente pueden ser vistas como un rasgo típico de la estupidez y la vanidad humana, como un mojón entre tantos de su autoritarismo cobarde. ¿Qué significa estrictamente que la filosofía no es “lo mismo” que la literatura? ¿Se hace referencia a diferentes grados del conocimiento en torno a un objeto único y verdadero, verbigracia: la realidad? ¿O simplemente se hace alusión a una diferencia de métodos? ¿O a una divergencia en las recepciones humanas?. Sea como fuera, es viable que la división tajante no responde a otra cosa que al engreimiento humano, a cierta borra del orgullo intelectual de los hombres, que no toleran ver franqueados los límites artificiales que él mismo dispuso (o fraguó) para considerarlos, al minuto siguiente, como naturales.

De un modo u otro, lo concreto es que las tensiones entre literatura y filosofía existen, al menos en las actitudes pendencieras que los representantes de uno y otro bando muestran al respecto y desde siempre. Existe en el aire, en un territorio laxo e indescriptible en el que se cruzan las palabras, los discursos, las mofas y las acusaciones. Las tensiones entre filosofía y literatura existen, aún para disolverse en el examen, aún para perseverar en la tajante parcelación. Las tensiones entre literatura y filosofía existen y subsisten, tal vez para que continuemos pensándolas.

En el principio fue el logos

Para remontar cualquier aspecto de la separación (o de la comunión) entre filosofía y literatura, hay que regresar hasta el principio, en este caso el principio del pensamiento occidental. Me estoy refiriendo al paso del mito al logos, al desplazamiento desde un modo de ver – y por tanto, de narrar, de escribir – el mundo al otro.

Los mitos, pese a la dificultad que ocasiona una definición estricta, eran para los griegos las palabras dichas para explicar el origen de las cosas, historias inmemoriales o atemporales a través de las cuales – recurso a los dioses mediante – los griegos podían explicarse el mundo, es decir, los fenómenos naturales y las angustias psíquicas. Apunta bien Kirk en su La naturaleza de los mitos griegos que es un equívoco hablar del “Mito”; que más bien lo que había eran mitos, historias desperdigadas y disímiles entre sí que explicaban de diferentes modos el desierto de la realidad. Si puede remarcarse algún rasgo y distintivo común, coincido con Kirk en que “Los mitos son alusivos por naturaleza, y su modo de referencia es tangencial. No pretenden ser algo completo, acabado, ni seguir una secuencia lógica y, reducidos a una exposición erudita, pierden gran parte de su encanto”(Kirk:12).

Los mitos no tenían aún la pretensión de verdad sobre sus espinas dorsales, pero esto tampoco debe confundir respecto al status de la mitología en relación con la (aún no bautizada) “realidad”. Para nosotros los occidentales, es muy difícil entender que los mitos refieran a asuntos maravillosos o divinos y que n o obstante represente la cosmovisión que la época se había dado a sí misma con fines estéticos y pedagógicos. La realidad, fuera lo que fuera (ya que no era interpelada aún como tal, ese será el deporte predilecto de la filosofía, lo sabemos), era efectivamente la que “explicaba” la realidad del mundo, Una realidad muy otra, desde ya, de la que nosotros tarareamos como tal.

El logos por su parte era para los griegos (entre las 14 o 15 acepciones que manejaban del término) el discurso escrito, argumentado, racional. Ya no se trataba de “historias” trágicas y edificantes que se pudiesen liberar fácilmente del tiempo en su transcurrir sino de discursos lógicos, cortados por la preminencia misma del logos, por su violencia, que debían encargarse de describir lo “real”, que ahora sí aparecía como una categoría al menos en ciernes. Un discurso más actual y empírico.

Ahora bien, estos dos modos de constituir y regir una cultura pasaron a la historia como rivales, y sin dudas ese rivalidad es la que lleva, en su génesis, a la distinción entre arte y pensamiento, o más concretamente, entre literatura y filosofía. Dicho con más justeza: es la aparición del logos lo que produce el hiato; los mitos no habían (des)calificado nada del logos simplemente porque no existía, el mito no tenía con quién confrontar en cuanto a la lucha por el saber-poder. Fue el logos, con su irrupción, el que comenzó a calificar, a imponer condiciones de verdad y criterios de demarcación que permitieran legitimar un tratamiento de la realidad como “más real” que el otro, como el verdaderamente verdadero, disculpando el horror gramatical.

Pero el logos ¿representó en verdad una irrupción? Dice Heidegger en Logos (Heráclito, fragmento 50): “Desde la Antigüedad se interpretó el Logos de Heráclito de distintas maneras: como ratio, como verbum, como ley del mundo, como lo lógico y la necesidad de pensar, como el sentido, como la razón. Ahí se oye siempre una llamada a la razón como el módulo que rige el hacer y el dejar de hacer. Sin embargo, ¿qué puede la razón si ella, junto con la no-razón y la contra-razón, sigue estando obstinada en el mismo plano de un olvido, un olvido que descuida reflexionar sobre el provenir esencial de la razón, del mismo modo como descuida prestarse a este advenimiento? ¿Qué puede hacer la Lógica, del tipo que sea, si no empezamos nunca prestando atención al Logos y yendo tras su esencia inicial?” Me interesan las palabras de Heidegger principalmente al efecto de notar cómo la no-razón al fin y al cabo no es tan diferente de la razón, cómo ambas tienen deficiencias que comparten y legan a la tradición.

En efecto, el paso del mito al logos no es un asunto tan simple como aparece en los manuales de pensamiento; a este respecto hay opiniones para todos los gustos: hay quienes insinúan que el tránsito de un modo al otro se dio en forma fulminante, como si en el 650 a.c., con el supuesto pensamiento de Tales de Mileto, el mundo griego hubiese abandonado al mito para siempre en cuanto a la legitimidad de su saber para abrazar a la razón, y también hay quienes creen que en verdad ese tránsito no se dio nunca en forma literal puesto que el logos mismo está preñado de mitos y no puede ser entendido ni darse a entender sin ellos. Tengo a las dos propuestas por exageradas: es absurdo pensar que de un día para el otro una civilización abandona un paradigma para ejecutar uno nuevo, tan absurdo como creer que la continuidad entre el mito y el logos es total. El pasaje del mito al logos representa la asunción de la Razón al trono de la autoridad, una Razón preocupada aparentemente por su afuera (por la naturaleza y la realidad) que en verdad no hace más que enamorarse de la auto-inquisición. Dicho pasaje se dio en forma paulatina, en un mecanismo de contaminación mutua que puede dar el pie para la interrogación acerca de las relaciones entre los dos polos en cuestión. ¿O acaso la filosofía, el logos, no buscó también un plano intemporal para explicar la realidad (la Idea platónica, el Motor Inmóvil aristotélica, el Dios de la filosofía cristiana, la Razón moderna)? ¿O no es cierto que la filosofía también es alusiva, que – como gustaba de insinuar Borges – también puede leerse como historias maravillosas, como un mero fruto de mentes geniales?

Vaya la muestra con el ejemplo más básico de la historia filosófica: los Diálogos platónicos. Platón, el campeón del logos, el mismo que recomendaba el destierro de los poetas (cuestión que será revisada en la próxima entrega de esta serie), el inventor de la filosofía tal como la conocemos, elige como modo de expresión una retórica brillante y ficcional a la vez, elige el diálogo, un verdadero género literario.

El Caso Parménides

Si existiese algún tipo de competencia acerca del caso filosófico que más cabalmente muestra el ambiguo y moroso pasaje del mito al logos, estoy seguro que el ganador sería el Caso Parménides, un verdadero leading case al respecto. Parménides aventajaría a sus predecesores (los llamados presocráticos, de los que Parménides naturalmente forma parte) en la hipotética competencia porque de los anteriores no tenemos más que fragmentos, y los fragmentos son eso: fragmentos, que en el caso de los presocráticos no alcanza para adjudicarle un propósito dialéctico (aunque el caso de Heráclito pueda ser discutible). Pero también dejaría rezagado a Platón en la contienda, justamente porque la forma de expresión parmenídea es nada menos que un poema. Y nada es más literatura que un poema, digan lo que digan.

Se ha parloteado espesamente sobre el asunto, muchos puristas del discurso lógico han argüido que, por cuestiones técnico-culturales, Parménides no tenía alternativas al respecto. Eso es cierto, casi tan cierto como que efectivamente la obra, la única obra conocida de Parménides es un poema, más allá de cualquier contexto. Y resulta que esa única obra, ese poema, plantea en unas pocas líneas dos o tres de los grandes problemas filosóficos de todos los tiempos. En el poema se interroga el status del ser y su sentido; en el poema también se pone en cuestión la esencia misma de la sabiduría o el conocimiento racional. En el mismo y único poema de Parménides, finalmente, se instaura el eterno problema del cambio y el movimiento, la imposibilidad de pasaje entre el ser y el no-ser.

La violencia significativa del poema, el peso con el que golpea el incipiente edificio especulativo occidental, convirtieron a Parménides en un genio lacónico, una especie muy extraña de profeta ontológico. Y también esa violencia pone una y otra vez al poema – en tanto forma – como potencial (y efectivo) vehículo de conocimiento racional o “científico”. Insisto: fuera cuál fuera el contexto de Parménides, su forma de escribir es poética, su obra es un poema, y no obstante lega al pensamiento occidental algunos de sus primeros problemas serios. El poema, efectivamente, piensa, enseña, desafía. No se queda en el mero artificio estético, como muchos “pensadores” gustan decir de la poesía en general. La forma-poema gozaría de legitimidad para activar el conocimiento de la “realidad”, legitimidad que se le retiró más bien pronto, en cuanto la filosofía inventó el concepto de episteme (conocimiento científico) para oponerlo al de doxa (opinión); es decir, en cuanto Sócrates y Platón – y más tarde Aristóteles y los demás – postularon una realidad y una verdad trascendente a cualquier plano subjetivo, objetivas, idénticas a sí mismas.

Parménides está allí, incólume, en el torbellino genético del pensamiento que nos acuna y nos incendia en este lado del mundo, inquietando con su mera presencia a los rectores del discurso (proto)racionalista, avivando la paradoja que Fränkel remarca en su Poesía y filosofía de la Grecia arcaica: “El núcleo de la filosofía de Parménides es de naturaleza metafísica (…) La estructura y el discurso poéticos se nos dan en la imagen de un viaje glorioso y alado, que se contrapone a la prosa sencilla, correspondiente al discurso pedestre” (Fränkel: 331). La empresa metafísica es abordada y ejecutada a través de la forma poética, en principio porque las palabras del discurso cotidiano o vulgar no servían al efecto de tan elevada tentativa. Fränkel sugiere – y es francamente plausible – que esa depuración de la lengua, esa intención refinadora, es la causa principal de la elección formal de Parménides.

Ahora bien, los formalistas rusos y sus continuadores, obstinados como estaban en encontrar la “literaturidad” de la obra literaria, ¿no dijeron, en resumidas cuentas, lo mismo? ¿El “extrañamiento” de la lengua no es acaso un sinónimo para la postura de Parménides?. Por mi parte, no abrigo dudas al respecto, y entonces la paradoja se enerva: el rasgo principal que los teóricos modernos han encontrado para hacer de la literatura un “objeto científico” (sic) es precisamente el mismo que adoptó Parménides para inaugurar la tradición racionalista y lógica: la rarefacción del lenguaje banal o utilitario. Podrá acusárseme de incurrir en una diacronía abusiva, pero en verdad creo que hay ciertos deslindes o categorizaciones que el hombre ha efectuado “más allá” del tiempo, fuera del mismo. Y también creo que, en efecto, la distancia entre Parménides y Tinianov, no es significativa en el punto que revisamos: la poesía debe extrañar al lenguaje para comunicar su misión, y eso es lo que la define como poesía, se ocupe esta de rabanitos, de la ruina del amor o de la bondad divina.

Un último punto: el poema de Parménides contiene, en el tramo propiamente metafísico de la obra, un discurso puesto en boca de una Diosa. Es decir: los complejísimos retruécanos ontológicos y gnoseológicos que este filósofo transmitió a la posteridad están pronunciados (hablamos del sujeto enunciativo, apelando a otra manipulación de los contextos) por una Diosa, que refiere inmediatamente a la idea de Musa, tan cara a los poetas de cualquier tiempo. Pero aquí se presenta otra paradoja: la Diosa también es la Verdad, o la Sabiduría, o la Filosofía misma, debe serlo. Otra vez Fränkel para clarificar: “Debemos ver en ella a la Musa del poema, o también a la potencia de la verdad, o del conocimiento, o de la intuición. No hay mucha diferencia, puesto que las musas de los poetas representan todo esto: arte y habilidad, saber y verdad” (Fränkel: 332).

Parménides, el primer metafísico de nuestra tradición, escribió un poema, un poema enclavado entre los márgenes de lo que siempre se entendió por poesía. La existencia de su Poema postula ciertamente la posibilidad de fusión (esto es, indeterminación) entre pensamiento especulativo sobre “lo real” y arte. El hombre debió trabajar mucho para deshacer a tajos esa potencial (y a menudo efectiva) fusión. O no tanto. Lo veremos.

Mome

Kirk Bauer estudou Belas-Artes na Universidade do Texas
e fez mestrado em fotografia na Escola de Artes Visuais de Nova York.
Antes de dedicar-se à arte trabalhou em diversas áreas da publicidade,
especializando-se no controle de qualidade da cor nas mais avançadas
tecnologias de impressão para revistas, catálogos de moda e impressos
da Disney Corporation e da ESPN.

LEIA MAIS NOS SITES
:: SORTIMENTOS.COM >> http://www.sortimentos.net/?p=3806
:: GEBBEG >> http://gebbeg.com.br/?p=7043

.

I am once again a little late, but I simply had to join this week’s discussion! I am a long time fan of Star Trek! I used to watch Spock, Kirk, and Bones explore the galaxy with my dad when I was little. I grew into The Next Generation which is still a favorite. I have watched all the movies and am currently making my way through Star Trek the Animated Series. I’ve seen some of Deep Space Nine and Voyager and was an avid watcher of Enterprise. Obviously, I love all things Trek. One of my favorite memories was a Saturday Star Trek-a-thon my dad and I had before going to see Star Trek VI. Yes, we spent an entire day watching 5 movies and then went to the theater the following weekend! It was fun and fabulous! My sweetheart and I saw the newest Star Trek movie in the theater twice and I am excited to hear about it’s coming DVD release. I so loved the new movie that I can’t wait to see it again! As for the question of my favorite Trek goodness, it is without a doubt The Original Series and The Next Generation.