PHiLOSOPHY: Truth vs Utility, re Religion

Watching By The Sword Divided, and observing the role of religion, mostly in the form of prayers, but also in the schism ‘twixt Royalist Popery vs Parliamentarian Puritanism, got me thinking about the function of religious belief.

This isn’t an essay on the subject, merely a ‘note to self’. And it’s on a theme my mind often returns to. How do I, a free-thinking rationalist, deal with religion, personally? I can’t believe in it. Yet I can see it’s utility.

The act of vocalising one’s desires, as in prayer, seems obviously beneficial, in that it focuses the mind. And an appeal to forces greater than (and external to) one’s self is (or at least can be) – ironically, perhaps? – both quite humble (an acceptance of one’s own smallness; a good thing), and even ‘realistic’. The mast in the sense of acknowledging one’s own ‘smallness’ in the grand scheme of things.

There’s an irony in that the monomaniac quest for truth (at any expense) can lead to a position that’s overly ego-istic. The idea that our own rather limited minds and bodies can contend with the powers or scale of the universe is apt to be rudely dispelled by real life.

Religious practices, prayer in particular is on my mind here, help bring calm where there was panic, peace where there was internal strife, and solace. If God/the Powers That Be (whatever they are!?) can be addressed directly, and thought of as sympathetic, one’s outlook on life can be buttressed by faith.

Since abandoning religion in my teens, I’ve been highly anti-faith/belief. Despite this, I’ve always remained aware, however, that the the needs religion addresses – and I’m talking about religion here as a personal thing, as opposed to ‘the church’ as a power in society – might be part of our suite of ‘necessary illusions’. Certainly historically, it appears that myth/poetry, call it what you will, have been part of our survival kit.

Telling ourselves stories to give meaning and purpose to our lives is normal human behaviour, and as far as I can tell, always has been. How and where can I partake of this ancient tradition, in a way I can ‘believe’ in?

I’m stumped, to be honest. Non religious modern culture seems to me to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. But older traditions remain too parochial and hide-bound. It’s a proper conundrum, no mistake!

Going back to the TV series, and something that struck me about it: the way the Puritans are about ‘Popery’, and the Cavaliers being High Anglican Tories, in essence, all in the wake of Henry VIII splitting with Rome so he could diddle whomsoever he pleased…

Well, frankly speaking, it’s Benny Hill, or French Boudoir Farce, right? And yet it ossifies into these ‘venerable’ traditions. Mad!

And what about the words venerate and venereal? They both derive from Venus, one assumes. So buried deep in what has become pompously and self-righteously anti-sexual is a very pro-sexual set of ideas. I find the evolution of language, and our culture of associated concepts, endlessly fascinating.

Multiple Gods evolve into monotheism, and where we once were supplicants to the caprices of pagan pantheons, we’re now friends with a singular deity who ‘is love’, and cares for all. Nothing should demonstrate the man-made evolution of religion, as opposed to its self-proclaimed God-given immutability, more blatantly.

This evolution seems to me the most obvious proof of religion’s status as a human artefact. But it’s more than just an artefact, it’s a quality, or dimension. It makes that saying ‘if God didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him’ a literal truth. God doesn’t exist, so we’re continually inventing and re-inventing him/her/it.

One final observation, on the evolution of language and the concomitant evolution of religion. The Israelites’, founders (of sorts; you have to give Constantine due credit n’ all) of one of the most virulent of modern monotheisms, their very name is a compression (and expression) of three deities: Ish, Ra, and El!

So a people whose very name means ‘the people of three Gods’ has become one of the standard bearers of contemporary monotheism. As folk like Count Arthur Strong and Alan Partridge are fond of saying… you couldn’t make it up!

ART: 17th C. Dutch Genre Painting – Baburen, The Procuress

These go back to 2014! Nine years ago.

When I found these two art works recently, whilst putting yet more stuff into our attic, I brought them down, to have a fresh look at ‘em. And I’m pleased with how they look.

The pencil drawing was my first look at reproducing Dirck van Baburen’s The Procuress. I actually chose to leave the Procuress herself out of the picture, which also changed the overall format of the piece (from off square to a portrait type rectangle). Instead we have just the young dandy and his lute-plucking lady.

A terrific book! And the source of this project.

I found van Baburen’s The Procuress in this rather lovely book. It’s an old’un, but a good’un! My mum had a copy back when’s he did her degree. I think I’ve posted about this book here before? But I’ve not found that post, so can’t link to it yet!

16-18th, April, 2014.

Here they are individually, for a bit of a closer look. The pencil drawing is finished. But the oil stalled before completion. So I need to finish that off.

These two pieces are both for sale, should anyone want either. The pencil drawing for £89, and the oil painting for £239. That’s unframed. I can frame them as well, if required. Or a buyer could do it themselves.

Woman Holding Scales, Vermeer, 1664.

I’m planning to do more in this line, as I enjoy it, and it teaches me a lot. I have a few favourite paintings I’ve long wanted to reproduce, such as Vermeer’s Woman Holding Balance, and Caravaggio’s very theatrical St Paul.

Caravaggio’s dramatic vision of St Paul.
Together again. Indoors this time.

The first three pics of my efforts, further up this post, were taken outside in the sunshine. These last were shot indoors. But all the pics in this (and almost all my blog posts) are taken on my iPhone. So, hardly pro/ideal! But hopefully they get the idea across?

ART: Josep Palau i Fabre & Picasso

I love this photo of the younger Josep.

I posted about this dude and his passion for Picasso quite a while ago (read that here if interested). And I find myself wanting to post about this pairing again.

Here they are together.

As per my previous post, I have three of the four ‘whoppers’ i Fabre published. And I really want to get hold of any more there might be. I’m aware of just one more, as things stand. Which, alas, seems both rarer, and consequently more expensive.

This is one version of the book I don’t yet have.

I’ve learned, thanks to my search for the cheapest way to buy this book, that it can be bought brand new, for €150! From Poligrafa, the Spanish publishers responsible for all these fabulous books. And in English (or Catalan!), as well as Spanish.

Here’s another.

Second-hand editions of this title are all more expensive. But sadly anything at all, let alone say £20-30 (roughly what I paid for the third volume in this series), is way too expensive for me right now.

I exchanged some emails with a chap called Carlos at Poligrafa today, thereby learning of the newer/cheaper buying option. But thanks to me not speaking Spanish, or quite following all his English, I’m none the wiser as to whether any more posthumous (to i Fabre’s passing, that is) volumes are in the pipeline.

Looking exceedingly cool!
Nice wheels, Josep! What a dude.