A people with a moral vision for themselves and humanity emerged through the birth waters of the Sea of Reeds. This vision was created out of the dark night of slavery, from being crushed in the cruel womb of Egypt. They now march toward Mt. Sinai, to meet the Divine Presence that has called them into history.She writes - at least on this occasion, with a short time limit - by slapping the main ideas down fast, and then tinkering till it is "right".Rabbi Mordecai Finley
So this system will visualise the composition process, as well as any mistakes the author makes in transcribing thought to page...I've now started wondering what this process does to our reading...
I wonder how such a writing "space" might affect the process of composition. For certainly the "word processor" impacts the way we write [do I need to check the reference for that book?]...
Might putting a recording like this on a blog inhibit, or would we all - good exhibitionists that bloggers are - write rubbish at great speed, or indeed learn to think BEFORE we write - now that would be novel ;-)
I started this with no idea where it was going... and I still do not know how to title it! [I must have missed that bit in skimming the instructions!]
This whole experiment was stimulated by reading the post on the IFbook blog at http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2007/06/poetry_in_motion.html
and then looking at some of the poems they link to, and then wondering, how would such a tool (if always available) impact writing - after all writing is as interesting as reading!
It is expensive to produce music and tour. How do you propose Christian musicians do this in a world that is used to paying for the products it consumes?I wish I knew! That is my point. I do not see a future where renewed private morality ensures that we all dutifully avoid "consuming" pirate music, videos etc.. DRM schemes will fail (they represent at best an ineffective sea wall against a storm tide). Advertising may succeed though as I wrote below:
iTunes sales are beginning to flatline, and Peter Gabriel (the musician and Internet angel) and other less famous investors are setting up an ad-supported (un-DRMed) MP3 download service. Whether this will work, whether we like the idea of adverts everywhere, or not, this reinforces the deep roots of free culture in the electronic world.I think Keith's claim that we live in a "world that is used to paying for the products it consumes" is not true any longer for "intellectual products", at least when they are distributable online. And in such a world I begin to wonder if a return to some form of patronage (see "Subscription, advertising and appeals online") is the only answer. To some extent this is already our situation, churches support preachers and increasingly musicians, educational institutions support certain forms of publication (at least through research time, but increasingly through direct payment towards publication), companies sponsor sports teams and symphony orchestras...
I am still in the middle of the first semester marking crisis, and so reading Poythress and further comment will have to wait!
Poythress says he can only speculate on
what might happen if the restrictions on copying were loosened.
Not quite, he can look at what happens in the many countries in the world (mostly towards the East) where such restrictions, even if existing in theory, are in practice not enforced and ignored by almost everyone. I used to live in such a country. But his speculations seem reasonably accurate about what things were like there: life went on, but intellectual work tended to depend on sponsorship.
I also have reservations about the whole Christian Music Industry, if music IS a ministry, then it should be funded and supported like other ministries are. Not through the grasping selfish mechanisms of an "industry".Because, while as currently structured breach of copyright is theft, it is also true that as it currently operates the "intellectual property" ideology combines with the worst features of capitalism to become the means by which "stars" and record companies, make excess profit, young struggling artists are NOT supported and the Christian message becomes a commercial "product" to be packaged and sold - quite literally. To my mind selling the gospel is sin - and that is worse than theft, for theft is merely a crime!
I am deeply saddened when I hear of copyright Bibles, that people cannot copy to disseminate, I am equally sad when I hear of Christian Musicians who make more than a good living out of
"selling" the gospel, just like the worst TV Evangelists. Next thing Pastor X will copyright his sermons, and how long before Disney trademarks the term "Gospel".
So, I agree with what you say, but I wish people would say and do more to help undo this sad
commercialisation of what should be good news for everyone!
Now, assuming such a tool were available online, would people pay?
- A text of the New Testament with apparatus. This means that textual variants would be noted in an online format. To my knowledge, this is not done in a thoroughgoing way on a website, even now.
- Texts from the Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Ancient Near East worlds that have interest on their own and that may shed light on the Bible. These texts should be both in English and in their original tongues.
- Cross-references between texts to note connections (like the "e-Catena" and the Thomas commentary's parallels do in miniature).
At: The University of Auckland, LawSmall Law Building, 9-17 Eden Crescent, AucklandJesus and Judaism: Why the connection matters
On: Monday , 18th June, 2007
At: 6.00am - 7.30pm
Cost: Koha (Donation)
Amy-Jill's recent publications include:
Another cool thing about Unicode is that when you copy and paste text into your word processor from a program like Logos Bible Software the fonts just...work. This painlessness is what persuaded Logos to adopt the Unicode Way back in 2001...Thanks, Daniel, yes it has been a good feature that Logos adopted early, Bibleworks is still playing catch up in cutting and pasting.
Post Scriptum II
Daniel (below) also points to Windows Keyboards for Ancient Languages as well as Greek and Hebrew (and transliteration) include also Syriac and one tailored for the entry of Coptic. If you have Logos installed these are probably both the easiest and best Unicode keyboards to use. If you use BibleWorks or another (non-Unicode) program then the Tyndale Font Kit is probably the easiest way to go. Either way your text will be readable by more people! (Everyone using WinXP+ or MacOSX+ if you use no accents... for accents they will require a suitable scholarly Unicode font but it does not matter which one they have :)
Post Scriptum III
Bible Texts in Unicode (for cut and paste if you do not have Logos and can't make BibleWorks export in Unicode):
Now those who do not enjoy paying for a copy of Microsoft Office to do basic office tasks (or indeed most complex tasks) do not have to write without any computerised grammar checking.
LangaugeTool is free it works in Java, and so anywhere OpenOffice does and checks your grammar and some word usage. This does not replace a sensible fluent friend, but does help you avoid many common errors. [Students and blog authors take note - this can considerably improve your credibility!]
LifeHacker's instructions read:
In OpenOffice.org: Do not unzip the archive, just call Tools -> Extension Manager -> Add... to install LanguageTool-0.9.zip (note that the menu item is called Package Manager in OpenOffice.org 2.0.x). Open a new window of OpenOffice.org (Ctrl-N) and you'll see a new menu entry "LanguageTool" that will check the current text.
One less excuse for many of the simple errors in the essays I read. One happy (well at least happier) marker! One more reason not to "upgrade" to MS Office 2007, and make all your documents unreadable by others (unless you use the tip in the comments to this post ;-)
A writing is canonical if and only if passages from it can be appealed to for the purpose of establishing a point of doctrine.Duane asks:
...why would anyone or any group want to do that?and like all good teachers, he answers his own question
A written authority, often, but not always, of obscure origin replaces a human authority. And it does it precisely in those areas of human thought where no human can be authoritative: religious doctrine.Sociologically it is a good answer, but I think there is a little more to tease out here. A canon is a closed list of varied works - I realise that a canon need not be varied, though the Christian and Jewish ones John is discussing are, and need not be closed as indeed, at least for many centuries the Jewish canon was not (though I suspect that at any time it "felt" closed). As such a list a canon, as authority, allows an interesting mix of stability and flexibility.
I must admit I like the canon I think I have. And I am not sure I could define it. I have my favorites - Psalms, Leviticus, bits of Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy, Job, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, the Song, Jonah, large chunks of Isaiah, bits of Jeremiah, and in the NT - Romans, John, Hebrews. I am grateful that the forest is large and for a late starter, too large, but I am also grateful that it has a border. I am grateful that the trees are varied.In his "Second Update" John also explores some of this, with a particular focus on Christian praxis in its relation with canon and doctrine (personally doctrine is a good word, but I am not so happy with "dogma", John) in this he is responding to a post by Doug (which I have not managed to mention above, but should have).
In a tribe, purely utilitarian relationships are forbidden! The economic is a subset of the social...By contrast most of us exist in a web of economic relationships, many of which are almost purely economic. So:
We love people we don't depend on, and we depend on people we don't love, or even know.So the original post concludes:
...you can build a global hell-world out of nice people with just one trick: the purely utilitarian relationship. It's the basic chemical bond of Empire. And we can dissolve Empire, one cell at a time, by befriending the people we exchange money with, and building gift economies with our friends and families.Matt then comments:
I'm still absorbing it, and struggling to fully understand it, but I think there's something there. I know I'd often far prefer to just hand over the money to a robot, and I've recently begun to make an effort to at least smile and make eye contact over the shop counter. The biggest problem, I think, is that it's hard to be friendly and human when neither of you wants to be there in the first place.I think though, that subverting the empire is even simpler than this, at least in its beginnings. Part of the problem is Matt's last phrase. Now, we can't do anything about the shop assistant "wanting to be there" (except perhaps by treating them as people?) but perhaps we can about us not wanting to be there, if we don't really want to buy the thing, why are we there?
SEARCH Tim's sites