For the love of God

Neda agha Soltan, 1982-2009.

عِلْم

The other day I was discussing the qur’an with a Tunisian guy who had read one of my posts on the subject: the one on various textual versions, termed ‘recitations’ by Muslims. The canonical text of the qur’an exists in no less than 10 qira’at (’recitations’) which are each preserved in versions by 2 transmitters, called riwayat, giving a total of 20 versions.

It’s a touchy subject for Muslims because the term ‘versions’ suggests there being different texts of the qur’an. This is a gross overstatement of the facts and flies in the face of what most Muslims believe: that there is one, unadulterated text of the qur’an. Most differences between riwayat are indeed oral in nature, and are exclusively transmitted orally. They have no representation in the written or printed copies of the qur’an, not even in the colour-coded ones, where different colours help the reciter remember which rules of recitation apply where.

The Muslim term ‘recitations’ however, also doesn’t quite cover it. Because not all differences between various riwayat are that oral. Some differences do reflect visually in the ink spots, so to say, amounting to different vowel-markings and different consonants, sometimes they even result in different words with different meanings. The latter occur not often and reflect differences that no Muslim needs to loose even one night sleep over. But still, the various riwayat seem to reflect some kind of textual history and show some traces of three centuries of transmission.

My Tunisian spokesman happened to have studied riwayat Qalun, so there were a few very useful things he could tell me. But mostly he was adamant that I should understand very well that all these riwayat reflected only one text of the holy qur’an. God forbid that I should think these the result of textual emendations of whatever kind!

He explained the two ways in which the ‘r’ could be pronounced in riwayat Warsh. And indeed, there is no way you can learn that without someone teaching you face-to-face. He told me about the rules he had had to learn and about his switch from riwayat Qalun to the more current riwayat Hafs. He also told me it was possible to recite one riwaya from the printed copy of another, provided you knew all the rules. These rules were established by the third (Islamic) century, classified, organised, systematised and written down in easy-to-learn poems.

Recitation of the qur’an is a science.

…he concluded. And it’s that phrase that stuck with me, because it isn’t. Sure, reciting the qur’an requires a lot of study, it’s a vast body of knowledge, it has acquired a structured way to be transmitted, one that’s so solid it has even found its applications on the internet, but it’s not science.

It doesn’t formulate hypotheses and it doesn’t test them. There are no theories in the study of recitation, nor are they ever dismissed and replaced by better ones. It’s just a structured way to transmit a large body of knowledge, very impressive, definitely, but not science. Why had my Tunisian counterpart never realised this? He had studied at university in France, where he’s lived half his life. This guy was educated to the teeth.

Only yesterday I realised that the cause is indeed very simple but subtle: there’s an Arabic word that had influenced the vocabulary of our conversation: عِلْم ‘ilm, usually translated ’science’. But this is not a very good rendering. A better translation is ‘knowledge’ or ’scholarship’.

The Arab world in its heyday did develop the idea that you could formulate hypotheses and test them. They just never invented a word to distinguish it from ‘knowledge’ and ’scholarship’. In the west we did, and ever since then, we’ve been discussing the merits of fields taught at university (e.g. history, theology and law) as a science.

Observation on management (2)

When problems arise in companies there are roughly two paradigms that are used to explain what went wrong: you could call them the structuralist and the individualist one.

Structuralists consider the company structure as the main cause of anything that may go wrong, regardless of the personal abilities and capabilities of those who inhabit the structure. If too many problems arise, it’s time to adjust the company structure.

Individualists see personal actions as the main cause: if something has gone wrong, someone took the wrong decision. That implies the right decision was a possibility.

Naturally, individualists assign greater weight to personal responsibility, whereas structuralists tend to view employees -at least partly- as the ‘victims’ of company structure.

The individualist stance seems to attract more supporters than the structuralist one. This has two obvious reasons. Personal abilities and capabilities do have an effect on company performance, regardless of structure. The structuralist viewpoint only starts to be really ‘true’ at extremes like: ‘a single boss cannot possibly handle two hundred employees on his own’. In any less extreme case it is a very useful fallacy at best, but that nuance escapes most people.

Secondly, after the deplorable fact it is always possible to find some action that could have prevented things going wrong or that would not have caused the mishap that did occur (lets leave those that could have aside). This is a simple artifact of two things: hindsight and keep thinking until you’re there, i.e. until you’ve found the action that should have been… In companies, this usually means: communication. ‘If I had been told’, ‘If you had informed’, ‘If they had clarified’ are the phrases most often heard during an evaluation.

But the fact that something could have prevented the problem doesn’t mean that its lack is the cause. Headaches aren’t caused by an aspirin-deficiency. The individualist viewpoint has a fundamental flaw: it can only be true when looking backward and given sufficient amounts of rationalisation. Having said that, aspirin could of course have prevented the headache, so here’s my very own Management Law Number 3:

Better communication could always have prevented the problem.

And its corollary:

‘We should have communicated better’ says nothing about the causes, nor about the solutions of the problem.

I said this earlier in other words.

Observation on management

Since about a year I’ve been working at my new job, where the working culture is quite different from the one at my previous job.

But some things remain the same. One of these is my very own Management Law Number 2 (here’s my very own Management Law Number 1):

Bad news always comes at the wrong time.

For some reason the perception of bad news always comes with the notion that some circumstance made it inappropriate to bring the bad news out at the moment it was brought out. Unfortunately this applies to any other moment as well, had it been chosen.

The other day I found out that my very own Management Law Number 2 isn’t always valid, but in these cases there’s a corollary of my very own Management Law Number 2:

Perfectly non-suspect, unrelated and neutral occurrences, and even good news may -in the presence of bad news-be perceived as ‘adding insult to injury’.

Maybe the two are corollaries of some other Law. Isn’t there an English proverb that says bad news never travels alone?

The Turkish Bells

Some Catholic churches still do it: at noon they ring the Angelus. This prayer in honor of Our Lady is accompanied by a specific scheme of ringing the church bells. At first the bells are sounded three times for three rings (three rings – short silence – three rings – short silence – three rings), after which the bells are rung the regular way.

The Angelus is (or was) prayed at 6 am, 6 pm and at noon. The tradition started somewhere in the late Middle Ages. It was originally only prayed in the morning and evening, the evening prayer probably being the oldest. The same prayer at noon is a relatively recent innovation.

Apparently it was pope Calixtus III who’s responsible for this innovation at noon. In 1456 he ordered all Catholics to ring the bells at noon and pray for victory against the Turks, who at that time were very busy conquering south-eastern Europe. The occasion was the siege of Belgrade by the Turks, which -incidentally- failed.

It’s not clear whether the pope instituted the Angelus at noon or simply rededicated the already existing prayer, but in some parts of the world the Angelus at noon is still referred to as ‘the Turkish bells’. Now, 553 years later we’re discussing the entry of Turkey into the EU…

Basil

The closest I’ve ever been to basil is my supply of pesto. I’m not exactly a gardener, so to say.

But recently I’ve managed to grow a whole herd of basil into maturity. Two weeks ago my colleague decided to plant some basil-seed in a tray of peat. Shortly after that, she had to do fieldwork for some time, so she left me at the office with the task of caring for her plants. For weeks now I’ve been monitoring the humidity of the peat, I’ve lovingly watered the budding creatures and turned the tray to prevent the basil growing into just one direction (the sun that is).

From a capitalist point of view it’s my colleague who owns the basil. She paid for the peat, the tray and the seed, so it’s hers. From a Marxist point of view however the basil is mine, since I’m the one using the means of production.

But that’s really an unimportant question. It’ll end up in our bellies as pesto anyway. What’s more important is the wonder about these tiny green shoots growing into adult basils. It’s the wonder that you’d expect to happen, but that doesn’t. Until today, when I watered the plants and suddenly noticed they really smell like basil!

I wonder when they’re going to catch their first flies. Although recently I haven’t noticed any flies at work, so maybe they’re doing their job already?

Did we do it?

Source: misanthropicscott

Among paleontologists it’s apparently a matter for discussion. We, homo sapiens that is, lived together with that other species of man, Neanderthal, during a few ten thousands of years. The big question is: did we mate?

I think the answer is very short: of course we did. There’s plenty of evidence around that homo sapiens does it with capra aegagrus hircus, equus ferus caballus, equus africanus asinus, canis lupus familiaris, you name it, we do it. So why on earth would we not do it with Neanderthals?

Surely not because they were another species.

Alleluia

Is a previous post I wrote about my dad, who observed that the Orthodox churches had dared to include an Alleluia in their requiem mass, whereas we Catholics hadn’t.

It pleases me greatly to inform you that he was wrong -well, sort of. Ever since the liturgical reforms started by the Second Vatican Council, no less than four Alleluias have been included in the Latin requiem mass as an alternative to the so-called ‘Tractus’ that is traditionally sung.

One is an Alleluia that takes its text from the requiem mass, but borrows its tune from another, fairly common Alleluia-theme:

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Give him eternal rest Lord, and may perpetual light shine on him.

The other three are genuine Alleluias, taken from other times in the liturgical year. They’re the first verses of:

Psalm 129

De profundis clamavi ad te Domine, Domine exaudi vocem meam.
Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord.  Lord, hear my voice

Psalm 113

In exitu Israel ex Aegypto, domus Jacob de populo barbaro
When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language (Judah was his sanctuary, Israel his dominion)

This text actually stops half-sentence and in itself makes little sense, unless you realise it refers to the Exodus-story.

Psalm 121

Laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi: in domum Domini ibimus.
I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord.

Honesty obliges me to say that none of these are ever sung during a requiem, as they are not traditionally part of the requiem mass, but an innovation. Since it’s up to the people to decide, they’re not chosen. I presume because they’re not what the average believer is used to.

Maundy Thursday

Today’s Maundy Thursday. For those of us who sing in a church choir, it’s the start of a marathon comprising of the celebrations for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the Easter Vigil and Easter itself. In my country the latter takes two days called ‘first’ and ’second’ Easter Day.

Today we commemorate the Last Supper, which is a high feast, but which ends on a sombre note, as the events leading up to what we commemorate tomorrow -Jesus’ crucifixion and death- actually started on Thursday night.

In my church the end of the service is marked by removing all candles, flowers, altar cloths, crucifixes, lectionaries and all other decoration until the whole altar area is stripped completely bare.

While the acolytes do this, two singers -I’ll be one of them- sing Psalm 22 (21 in some bibles) in Latin recto tono, which means we have to sing it using one single tone without any variation (and taking great care we do not lower our pitch, which is damn difficult!).

Psalm 22 is the psalm that Jesus recited while hanging on the cross. This is not mentioned as such in the gospels, but they do refer to it. In Mat 27:46 it says: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

This is the first line of Psalm 22 in Aramaic. But first lines may also be titles, and ‘cry’ in Aramaic  - קרא – also means ‘recite’. Instead of a desperate cry from a dying man, it may very well refer to Jesus reciting Psalm 22, which starts out as the cry of a man tortured and forsaken by all, but ends as a prayer of hope and trust.

Regardless if Jesus was ever at all capable to recite anything while hanging on His cross (which basically suffocates you), singing this psalm gets to me every year. Not just the lament, but the hopeful part as well, because you know that the part you’re singing is that of a dying man, who trusts despite all suffering and hopes against all desperation.

Deus, Deus meus, respice in me: quare me dereliquisti?
longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum.
Deus meus, clamabo per diem, et non exaudies;
et nocte, et non ad insipientiam mihi.
Tu autem in sancto habitas, laus Israël.
In te speraverunt patres nostri;
speraverunt, et liberasti eos.
Ad te clamaverunt, et salvi facti sunt;
in te speraverunt, et non sunt confusi.
Ego autem sum vermis, et non homo;
opprobrium hominum, et abjectio plebis.
Omnes videntes me deriserunt me;
locuti sunt labiis, et moverunt caput.
Speravit in Domino, eripiat eum:
salvum faciat eum, quoniam vult eum.
Quoniam tu es qui extraxisti me de ventre,
spes mea ab uberibus matris meæ.
In te projectus sum ex utero;
de ventre matris meæ Deus meus es tu:
ne discesseris a me,
quoniam tribulatio proxima est,
quoniam non est qui adjuvet.
Circumdederunt me vituli multi;
tauri pingues obsederunt me.
Aperuerunt super me os suum,
sicut leo rapiens et rugiens.
Sicut aqua effusus sum,
et dispersa sunt omnia ossa mea:
factum est cor meum tamquam cera liquescens in medio ventris mei.
Aruit tamquam testa virtus mea,
et lingua mea adhæsit faucibus meis:
et in pulverem mortis deduxisti me.
Quoniam circumdederunt me canes multi;
concilium malignantium obsedit me.
Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos;
dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea.
Ipsi vero consideraverunt et inspexerunt me.
Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea,
et super vestem meam miserunt sortem.
Tu autem, Domine, ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me;
ad defensionem meam conspice.
Erue a framea, Deus, animam meam,
et de manu canis unicam meam.
Salva me ex ore leonis,
et a cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam.
Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis;
in medio ecclesiæ laudabo te.
Qui timetis Dominum, laudate eum;
universum semen Jacob, glorificate eum.
Timeat eum omne semen Israël,
quoniam non sprevit, neque despexit deprecationem pauperis,
nec avertit faciem suam a me:
et cum clamarem ad eum, exaudivit me.
Apud te laus mea in ecclesia magna;
vota mea reddam in conspectu timentium eum.
Edent pauperes, et saturabuntur,
et laudabunt Dominum qui requirunt eum:
vivent corda eorum in sæculum sæculi.
Reminiscentur et convertentur ad Dominum universi fines terræ;
et adorabunt in conspectu ejus universæ familiæ gentium:
quoniam Domini est regnum,
et ipse dominabitur gentium.
Manducaverunt et adoraverunt omnes pingues terræ;
in conspectu ejus cadent omnes qui descendunt in terram.
Et anima mea illi vivet;
et semen meum serviet ipsi.
Annuntiabitur Domino generatio ventura;
et annuntiabunt cæli justitiam ejus
populo qui nascetur, quem fecit Dominus.

Naked

Finance is not my forte, so sometimes I hear things that in my world cannot possibly exist, but out there in the real world they’re happening.

There’s the stock exchange for example. People trade in stocks, make a profit or lose money. I’ve never understood what stocks are, but I can understand the stock market as long as I force myself to think of stocks as a commodity like cars, houses or pets.

Once you think of stocks as a commodity, it’s easy to imagine that rising and falling prices create opportunities for the bungee jumpers among us to speculate. Buying stocks at a low price and selling them once their value has risen obviously delivers a profit, easy. But the other way round can also work: selling stocks at a high price and then buying them back after they value has fallen. There doesn’t seem to be much point in buying them back, why would you? Profit’s already been taken.

Well, this is what short selling is all about. The stocks you sell at a high price and buy back after a while at a low one aren’t yours, they’re borrowed. Hence the need to buy them back, otherwise you have a problem with the owner. Basically, you speculate with someone else’s property, counting on a fall in price. If the price doesn’t fall, you’re in trouble. Risky business.

But not risky enough for some. Those who prefer a real ride on a rollercoaster have invented naked short selling. It’s the same as short selling, but without borrowing the stocks you trade in. The owner simply doesn’t know you’re buying and selling his stocks. Naked short selling is a good tool to influence the stock exchange, because it can be used to drive the price down of a targeted stock.

In my world this is fraud. In the real world governments are trying to put laws in place that regulate the practice and forbid it in specific circumstances. For reasons I cannot fathom, ordinary anti-fraud laws aren’t sufficient and a downright prohibition isn’t feasible. Supposedly naked short selling can also have positive effects on ‘market liquidity’, a phrase that holds no meaning to me.

But this post is not about whether practices like naked short selling are wrong or not, it’s about their other worldliness. That’s what baffles me. If the stock exchange manages to organise buying and selling stock based on mere concepts like ‘price’, ‘rise’ and ‘fall’, then thinks of trading in borrowed items and subsequently invents trade in stuff that’s someone else’s without them knowing, why hasn’t the stock market ever thought of trading in stocks that aren’t there? What’s keeping them from trading in stocks that do not exist?