The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio : Introduction

I love how classic literature prepares the reader, either with in-depth descriptions of the setting or clearly explaining the purpose before embarking upon the work; as if it's a scholarly approach, not leaving any detail of context to question. In this particular case Boccaccio spent most of the introduction describing the face of the plague. The details are grim and more graphic than what I was expecting. For some reason I assumed a writer from this era was going to present the ravaging sickness with a sort of distant optimistic view, but Boccaccio cut right through to the nerve, first illustrating the gory symptoms of the plague then going into depth on the response. He describes for instance the beginning of the sickness when two priests would knock on the door of those afflicted and carry the dead out one by one, to several priests and servants being dispatched to not only go to the houses reported but be prepared for any other dead they happened upon, to the ultimate depravity of mass death, mass graves, covered with a thin layer of soil; entire towns wiped out, all worldly possessions abandoned.

Then Boccaccio describes the survivors, the few who watched society crumble around them. He introduces a small group of them individually, ten in all, and it becomes obvious that these are the people that are going to act as the driving force of the work. After doling out responsibilities to sustain them for the next ten days, Boccaccio constructs a machine of storytelling. Each evening all characters are to narrate a story based on a certain theme, except for the first night, which is open to each narrators discretion.

The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio

I stumbled upon this while searching for inspiration to write some music. I was specifically looking for literature from the plague era about the plague era and quickly realized there isn't a whole lot to be found except for a handful of iconic works, this being the supposed most influential work of that time. From what I've read about the Decameron, it's influence might extend far beyond the European Renaissance. The work is presented as a series of 100 Novellas grouped into 10 days, each having a particular theme. It's going to take me a while to get through considering my inexperience with Renaissance literature but I'll be posting updates along the way with some commentary, and possible thoughts for how the story could fit into a musical context.

Oil Spill

When asked to describe the massive mile long underwater oil plumes now lurking in the Gulf, Samantha Joye, an expedition leader from the University of Georgia responded with this:

It's an infusion of oil and gas unlike anything else that has ever been seen anywhere, certainly in human history.

Bacteria are breaking down the oil's hydrocarbons in a massive, microorganism feeding frenzy that has sent oxygen levels plunging close to what is considered "dead zone" conditions, at which most marine life are smothered for a lack of dissolved oxygen.

I generally don't post about current events, but that description struck me as important, also horrifying.

Here's a link to make a donation:

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Threats-to-Wildlife/Oil-Spill.aspx

Also Here: http://www.healthygulf.org/

Debate: Is God Great? Christopher Hitchens v. John Lennox

I've seen a few other debates on whether or not a god exists and whether or not it's good for society to believe in something beyond themselves. And the more I watch and the more I read about this subject the more it seems like a useless effort.

It is my understanding that once a person decides to believe in a god wholeheartedly, no statement can be made to disprove their belief. When someone chooses to accept anything upon faith, they are assuming the existence of something without any physical evidence. And that assumption leads to the conclusion that it is possible for anything to exist. They effectively open their arms to the supernatural. To combat this ideology the only avenue for the faithless is to disprove, individually, the things that the believer has taken to be true based on faith.

Now the faithless may make an honest effort toward this end, but human imagination is infinite. If you prove a fact based on evidence that was previously explained with faith, you haven't disproved God. All you've done is shed light on a small corner of reality that was previously shrouded in darkness. To expand on this image, to disprove God the faithless would have to shed light on the universe, the infinite universe, every aspect of it. We would need to see everything that exists and be able to explain why it exists. The very definition of the infinite universe makes this impossible.

So... What are we fighting for? Hitchens is under the impression that the believers are dangerous because they use their faith to justify evil and gives myriad examples to support his opinion. He thinks that abolishing religion world-wide would cause people to be more enlightened and generally less-violent, less deceitful.

I disagree with this opinion by equating faith to ignorance. (as an atheist i can do that :p) In a society you inevitably have varying degrees of enlightenment. When one person understands something clearly that another person does not, that information can be used as a weapon. Information can be distorted and presented in such ways as to reinforce the intentions of the enlightened, whether they be good or evil. An atheist is no more honest than a believer. The terrible aspects of humanity will always be present, greed, selfishness, bigotry, the lot of it. There has never been a society in the history of the world that was devoid of these problems and I doubt there ever will be. Therefore religion is no more dangerous than the existence of privileged information. Evil men will do evil things with whatever tools they have at their disposal.

You also have the nasty problem of death. Any atheist who is appreciating their life is not going to want to die. He is going to be terrified of the thought. It is very likely that during their final breath surrounded by loved ones, his eyes will go wide with frightful anticipation, with horror as the darkness comes into sight, as the light around him grows dim and even though biologically we're engineered to feel euphoria in the moment, as long as his mind is operating normally he is going to be fully aware of what is about to happen.

To contrast this, the religious have no fear of death, or at least they shouldn't, because the after life exists and death is just the beginning to an eternity of existence. Any religious person who fears death needs to reevaluate their faith immediately. I see this as a distinct advantage because death then takes on the identity of "the next step." I would argue that a society who believes this is going to be more prepared to die, is going to be less desperate when faced with it, less willing to commit atrocities out of blind fear and aggression when death is imminent.

But again you can immediately say that because of this, the religious might place less value in our life on this planet and may be more willing to commit atrocities even when death is not imminent. On and on.

It's easy to say which side of the argument is more enlightened. It's difficult to say which side of the argument is better.

So the conclusion I always arrive at is, why are we wasting our time trying to convince the other side? The thinkers should be busy thinking, finding new ways to uncover the universe and the believers should be busy imagining what could be waiting for them beyond the universe. Whichever side gives you more peace in your personal existence is the side you should be on, but there's no reason why it has to be a competition.