Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
“I think so, therefore it is so”
Love them or hate them but the Kummissjoni Ambjent (KA) of the Archdiocese of Malta have proved that they are not afraid to comment on the most controversial matters. Their most recent comment about the “to build or not to build, to dig or not to dig” St John’s controversy is just another example of their interventions.
I particularly liked their conclusion which I reproduce here:
“In conclusion, the KA feels that the whole controversial issue needs to be reviewed from a genuinely sustainable perspective by all quarters, without any fundamentalist stances on any sides … unlike what has transpired in the media. The KA feels that the next logical step is to wait for the publishing of a truly objective EIA (their emphasis) and for the open debatefollowing it. While we appreciate what St John’s Co-Cathedral represents to most of us, we should do our best not to let our emotions cloud up our reasoning, to the detriment of making the right and most sustainable choices in the long-term. Let us not rush into any uninformed decision.”
The KA appeals to all sides not to take “fundamentalist stances”. Such a statement is a non-controversial appeal. It said more. In the opinion of KA “what has transpired in the media” shows that some have taken fundamentalist stances. The KA does not tell us which side took these stances. Going through media reports one would find it rather difficult to accuse the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation of taking a fundamentalist stance. There position was “let’s wait for the studies before we decide”. It seems that the swipe is addressed towards some of the environmentalists.
And not without good reason, I hasten to add.
Uninformed decisions
The KA hit the nail on its head. One of the characteristics of contemporary debate in our country is uninformed andun-researched opinions. People phone on radio programmes, write in newspapers and post on blogs about all sorts of subjects without bothering to inform themselves reasonably well before expressing an opinion. People pronounce themselves about the macro workings of global economy without knowing the ABC of its dynamics. Theological subjects of great substance are tackled with the preparation one has had for Confirmation. And so on and so forth.
Some journalists write one sourced stories not bothering to check their facts and not giving all sides to their readers, viewers or listeners. The number of journalists who believe that they are greater than their stories or who believe that they are the story is on the increase.
I have the feeling that we have entered a milieu where the motto is: If you know little about a subject speak authoritatively. If you know nothing about it then speak dogmatically.
Perhaps another slogan is equally applicable. I apologise for the great Descartes for spinning his famous dictum. “I think so, therefore it is so”. This seems to be the new dogma. Many believe that they do not have to substantiate their positions; the only thing that they should do is to announce them.
Today many believe that all opinions are equally valid. This is manifestly not so. An informed opinion is clearly more valid than an uninformed one. I put this challenge to those who think that all opinions are equally valid.
What do you do when your heart aches?
If you feel a heart ache – not one of the emotional kind – and ten of your friends tell you that it is nothing serious but a cardiologist who is close by tell you to get some one to rush you to hospital what would you do? Would you say that since all opinions are equally valid the opinion of ten friends is more valid than the opinion of one cardiologist? Hardly.
The belief that all opinions are equally valid or the attitude that “I think so, therefore it is so” leads us on the slippery path of total subjectivism. This frame of mind makes us loose our bearings. Where subjectivism reigns supreme one’s “truth” that ethnic cleansing is a correct ethical behaviour is logically equally valid as the truth that ethnic cleansing is ethically abominable. Only moral disasters can ensure if moral decisions are based on the assumption that something becomes morally good because someone thinks or feels it to be morally good.
Does the above mean that only the few should express an opinion in public? Manifestly not so, I say. Everyone has some form or other of expertise. The different life experiences we acquire make us competent to express opinions on all sorts of topics. We can also read and educate ourselves on topics outside our direct experience. These two elements are the basic of informed discussions. But there are topics which require more study and reflection. In such cases let the studies be made and then we comment later in the light of our experiences and other knowledge we possess.
This does not apply only to whether or not we should build or dig or do neither close to St John’s Co-Cathedral.
Postscript 1
This country is so famous for inadequate after sales service that when I experience the contrary I feel in duty bound to praise it publicly.
A relative of mine had problems with her iron. Quite a problem when there are so many clothes to iron. She went to Homemate of Imriehel to get the thing fixed. Before leaving their premises one of the employees politely asked: Do who have an iron which you can use while we are fixing this one? My relative answered in the negative. The employee than supplied her with a brand new iron which she could use while her iron was being repaired.
Well done Homemate.
RSS
Comments
So to everyone please be balanced and fair in your comments.
Twelve hours later and the silence is thunderous. We have been accused of misinforming the public, yet we have not been presented with a single fact that we misrepresented. Fr. Joe, you applauded the swipe that the environmentalists were hasty and uniformed, and yet we have received no specific answers to our specific details.
We have probably bored you with details, but the devil is in the details, that's why what seems like a good idea at first, collapses on closer scrutiny. Maybe, just maybe, you might be a bit more convinced that shooting from the hip is not our style.
@ Fr. Joe Borg: I am sure that "The members of the Foundation are not capricious speculators that look at money first.They are wholly committed that nothing be done that will harm St John in any way." However remember that Foundation members are not technical people,and all of them very busy,certainly the Chairman,MonsPhilipCalleja has his hands more than full with Malta's emigrants problem.
This might be the reason that certain equivocal decisions are being taken.Foremost is the question that the Foundation had objected to very small-scale excavations around the Cathedral, because of damage to StJohn's.Please note that these were small scale works in Sta Lucia Street,and yet they still caused damage to the frescoes in the crypt.How do you reconcile that to their readiness to dig a hole the size of a quarry in St. John's Street?
In the course of research we also saw a recent Foundation tender for works on the Cathedral roof which includes power-water washing.This is potentially very damaging to old stone and deffun;experts found it very worrying as it is absolutely contrary to all conservation practice.
I appreciate your answers but you reply with generalities.Some specifics re the above points please.
I cannot understand why you only quote the Kummissjoni Ambjent,which is not a consultant in this matter,and not the Church Cultural Heritage Commission,which has legal consultancy status with MEPA. When consulted, they did not suggest an responded with a flat refusal on this project. Why do you never quote that?
Also, can you justify an EIA, when the project is unlawful to start off with, according to Malta's laws on scheduling “Grade 1 Buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest shall be preserved IN THEIR ENTIRETY.Demolition or alterations WILL NOT BE ALLOWED."
I can't understand, are you suggesting that Malta's code of laws should be violated? Surely you agree that the law must be upheld by everyone,otherwise we will have mayhem,so even an objective EIA would be a waste of thousands of euros.
People like Astrid Vella should be appreciated and thanked for their zeal and hard work in favour of the environment and our heritage. But Astrid Vella like the rest of us can reach a wrong conclusion.
A truly objective EIA is possible and is the only way forward.
@ Fr.JoeBorg:It is incorrect that there have been no objections to the project to dig up the square in from of the Palace.The heritage authorities have objected vehemently,not only because of the remains beneath the square,but also on principle that excavating there and St. John's Street would open Valletta to a free-for-all in excavations.
Already people are jumping on the bandwagon;the Monti di Pieta building which has just been restored at great taxpayer expense has suffered huge damage due to unauthorised excavations at Camilleri tal-helu beneath.The St. John's Foundation has also objected to very small-scale excavations around it, because of damage to StJohn's.Please note that these were small scale works in Sta Lucia Street,and yet they still caused damage to the frescoes in the crypt,so I can't share your confidence that digging a hole the size of a quarry in St. John's Street will not cause damage to St. John's.
As for objective EIAs,sadly such a thing is not known to exist in Malta.EIAs are paid by the project directors, not MEPA. Who pays the piper calls the tune. Not one completed EIA is known to have called for cancellation of project or opted for an alternative site.
@ Fr. JoeBorg: I can't understand how everyone thinks that there is going to be absolutely no excavation under St. John's.How will the underground galleries be accessed if not from corridors which the plans shown running under St. John's and through to the galleries. There are also two lift shafts which have to be dug under St. John's in order to give access and access to the Knights' water reservoirs.
Fr. Joe, you have talked about people giving opinions without knowing what they are talking about, but with all due respect, it seems you did not see the plans before stating "The excavations will not be under St John's but under the square in front of St John's."
The difference with Hagar Qim is that no works are actually being carried out within the temple.The objections to the Visitors' Centre are on aesthetic grounds,nothing is being disturbed. With St. John's, even the excavations in the street and square will greatly risk damage to the Knights' passages and according to MEPA even carry an element of risk for the stability of St. John's Cathedral.
Hagar Qim works are ultimately reversible, damage at St. John's is not.
If you are honestly trying to locate the "platitudes, tirades, invective and insults" mentioned by me you should not put on blinkers and restrict yourself only to the first three comments in this blog. Any intelligent reader of my contributions would easily understand that I was speaking in general terms about the standard of some comments scattered widely in all local blogs.
Neither you nor any reader of these "timesofmalta" blogs would find it difficult to locate many instances of poor standards, invective and ad hominem insults but first of all you must spread out your search to other blogs and even to comments which appeared subsequently on this particular blog.
What's the connection between Pieta kiosk and St John's cathedral and NGO's? is it patrimony?
"To-day one can do such excavations using laser not jackhammers. Foundations will not be rocked. "
Father, if you could supply a link to a manufacturer, or supplier, of a machine which does the actual excavating using laser(s) instead of buckets or blades, it would be greatly appreciated.
To my knowledge, there are many laser-guided excavators, but no such machine as you are suggesting. We sure could use one in my neck of the Canadian woods.
Serve the Local Council of Pieta right! It had been on the cards for donkey's years to do something about that kiosk.
What is the Local Council of Pieta' doing, anyway? As a resident, I don't think that anything is going on. Lethargy galore!
Why did the Church’s own Commission for Cultural Patrimony (the real experts) immediately declare themselves against the proposal? They obviously thought that they did not have to wait for an EIA before taking position so, what is the KA talking about?
Not the case. Your "sublime cretinism" comment was the third made on this blog. There were no platitudes, tirades, invective or insults made prior to your posting. Anyone can scroll down, have a look and decide for themselves. Try again :-)
One simple question: The Palace and the Main Guard are two Grade One monuments. They are going to excavate the square in front of them. No one made any objection.
Can someone explain to me why is it that digging up the square in front of one Grade 1 building (St John) is not ok but digging up the square in front of two Grade 1 buildings (Palace and Main Guard) is OK?
Quite subjective. That is why we need an objective EIA.
The tent is to protect the temples, the aim of the annexe is to protect the the treasures of the temples.
You seem to think that one is justified the other is not. Quite subjective. That is one we need an objective EIA.
Yes I am aware of the tent approved by UNESCO - it is to PROTECT Imnajdra from fast weathering and erosion. The tent will not shake the foundations of the temple.
Re your other comment:
Good blogs are enjoyable and help to bring ideas to people's attention. However, there are also silly blogs where all sorts of rubbish is published, the right to express views is a fundamental right, but the right to sensible, intelligent, uplifting and thoughtful observations is not yet listed in the Charter for human rights.
Also, our culture has a lot of Archie Bunkers. I think so therefore it is so.
I mentioned KA and St John as an introduction to the discussion.
I would not dream to fault any appeal for moderation and the avoidance of extreme positions but I do not think that that is the subject matter of this blog. The blog is about contributors who show by their comments that they are evidently underqualified to comment constructively and instead adopt a most dogmatic tone that is inversely proportional to their competence in the subject under discussion. Some of them give the impression of belonging to a small mutual admiration society whose main purpose in life is to bolster up each other's self esteem and a high opinion of themselves.
If they are challenged in any way they resort to inappropriate platitudes and quotations, tirades, invective and personal insults instead of civil and logical arguments. Quite often they become absolutely incomprehensible. That is how my reference to "sublime cretinism" crept in.
Thats better!! Well done indeed :) I must say I do enjoy our exchanges. I am also sure that anyone who reads this blog will quickly identify the hyperinflated egosand those doing the pricking! I would also be interested to hear your views on subjectivism, which is after all the subject of this blog.
My original question was about the middle ground between total subjectivism and absolute dogmatism, a perfectly valid and relevant question in my opinion, to which you replied with a sarcastic comment which diverted the course of this discussion, and unfortunately led to you being misunderstood again! Shall we get back on track?
I personally think that both extremes are dangerous but the middle ground is hard to define.
What is the role of blogs in literate societies such as ours? The same people keep writing in them and the same thoughts keep going round. They've become like chat rooms. What can we do to elevate the level a bit?
And by the way, not a lot of people read blogs, the people at Home Mate haven't yet.
Well sarcasm is, psychologically speaking, a manifestation of passive aggressive traits generally indulged in by those who are unaware, and wish to remain so, of their own hostile tendencies. It is also very strongly connected to sense of feeling superior and serves to bolster a fragile ego. In other words people who use it like to put others down in order to feel better. It is in fact more closely related to aggression than intelligence.
Che centro io? I haven't addressed anything to you. You're welcome to your definitions any time.
No, my dear, I am just a well brought up person. But I think you are a remake of King Kong ontop the Empire State Building taking swipes at us poor helicopters.
I am not angered by your comments - only saddened.
Cretinism was not used by me in any medical sense but only in the meaning it has in ordinary parlance.
I have never protested that I was "misunderstood". I protested that I was being deliberately misquoted or willfully misinterpreted - just as you are doing now. I never felt any need "to explain what I had previously written" but I did draw attention to the fact that my comment was being maliciously distorted. You must appreciate the difference!
This time I do not see the need "to furnish an explanation" for a non-existent "gaffe".
Thanks for calling me a "crusading moralist" but I honestly believe that I do not deserve the praise.
My comment was addressed to the majority of readers who would have grasped the sarcasm of this blog's title and who do not need to open Wikipedia to learn the meaning of "cretinism".
Franco Farrugia - why bother to attack Joe Borg? Because you attacked lil'me for saying virtually the same thing, and Joe is as valid (actually, more so) a target as I am. Or are you afraid for your eternal soul?
I think you do or else you wouldn't have posted...
And why do you think that the crusading moralist, usually so prompt to explain what he has previously written - with claims to have been misunderstood - did not this time attempt to furnish an explanation, no matter how puerile, for his gaffe?
"Honi soit qui mal y pense!"
Why bother?
Would the armour of a knight involved in the building of Valletta and thus ruining the pristine garigue that there was qualify for this purpose?
In my piece I wrote that I think that the KA comment was addressed towards some of the environmeltalists. From this Astrid Vella concluded that I tarred FAA. Do you equate the environmentalists with FAA? Were there no other environmentalists who wrote in newspapers, posted blogs etc? I think you exposed yourself to a possible swipe based on the Maltese idiom that say that "min jigih il-kappell, jilbsu."
Sublime cretinism? What's that?
The KA is very cautious when the Church is involved in any type of controversy. Would they say that farmers opposing the Nadur cemetery are taking a fundamentalist stance? I am also still waiting to hear their reaction to the proposed mega-structures at Ta' Pinu.
Incidentally, the Commission for Catholic Cultural Patrimony has already expressed itself against the proposed development in St John's, without waiting for the EIA. I wouldn't be surprised if KA's statement was a thinly disguised barb aimed at their colleagues of the other commission rather than at environmental NGOs.
Oh and I forgot: Although you say that people should not be deprived of the right to express their opinion, what you advocate: "commenting later in the light of our experiences and other knowledge we possess" would effectively deprive the public of being legal objectors to the St. John's Cathedral case as MEPA's period of submissions would be over, a fact which would suit the Foundation just fine.
What you suggest about having access to studies is exactly what the Foundation should have done, opening a public debate before applying for these projects, as is the norm in such cases of public monuments. Instead it submitted these applications under cover of the elections, and to this day has not disclosed some of the most important details of the case.
Good luck.
In your self-avowed haste to brand us fundamentalists, you have overlooked the fact that the Foundation is sticking to its plans in spite of the fact that the law on Grading of monuments states “Grade 1 Buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest shall be preserved IN THEIR ENTIRETY.Demolition or alterations WILL NOT BE ALLOWED." In spite of the fact that MEPA has declared that the plans jeopardise the stability of the Cathedral's foundations.
This is proven by the damage caused to the Cathedral Crypt by minor excavations for a tiny shop basement, which the Foundation rightly objected to, and yet now it advocates the excavation of a quarry in St. John's Square.
The Foundation won't even consider the option of a nearby Palazzo even though this is the solution in Cologne, Vienna,Florence, Milan, Siena and Mdina. Is this not intransigence?
it is extremely strange and worrying that you have read the media reports and yet have not reproduced these facts, but chose to echo a very partial view.
I find it very strange that although well-informed people like you and the KA have strangely omitted to say that in our stand we have echoed MEPA's Planning Directorate, its Heritage Advisory Committee, the Valletta Local Council and the Valletta and Floriana Rehabilitation Commitee.Moreover, it is not the Kummissjoni Ambjent, but the Church Commission on Cultural Patrimony that is directly involved in this case; why have you not reported that they also gave a negative verdict to the projects? Fundamentalists one and all?
On our part we have repeatedly stated that we support the Foundation's efforts to provide an extension for the museum, only in a more sustainable, less extravagant and disruptive manner.We have provided alternative proposals. Is that fundamentalist?
The 'original' written by Descartes was NOT in Latin but in French, "Je pense, donc, je suis" (from his Discourse on Method, 1637).
The hackneyed cliché in Latin, "Cogito ergo sum" appeared in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644), It is what people find easier to quote, rather than the full assertion, "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."
In any case, the concept is not a Descartes original by any stretch of the imagination; Plato (noésis noéseós) and Aristotle predate him by a span of several centuries! ;-)
sublime cretinism