'In the Courts of Three Popes' - Mary Ann Glendon

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Courts-Three-Popes-American-Diplomat-ebook/dp/B0C5VBNX12/

Here is an edited version of this review, expressing my take on this interesting book.

'"In my years of service to the Holy See, I was a stranger in a rather strange land - a layperson in a culture dominated by clergy, an American woman in an environment that was largely male and Italian, and a citizen of a constitutional republic in one of the world's last absolute monarchies." 

So declares Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon as she addresses some of the most vexing issues in the Catholic Church today, from the work to protect women's rights internationally, to responding to clergy sexual abuse, to address hypocrisy regarding sexuality within the clerisy, to the corruption of the Vatican Bank and Roman Curia. 

In Pope John Paul II's words, the Church enters the third millennium on its knees in penance for failures such as clerical sex abuse, or in failing to lead the way for lay women to hold positions of power in the Church. If John Paul II neglected administration, allowing the Vatican bureaucracy full sway, his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, simply buckled under the pernicious pressures of the Vatican establishment. Glendon is not an unrestrained admirer of the current Pope Francis, seeing him as arbitrary, capricious and needlessly losing too many battles with corrupt and self-serving institutions.

Glendon illuminates the issues vexing the Church today: the place of faith in secular politics, relating the Church to other religions, clericalism and the power of laypeople, and corruption at the Vatican Bank and within the Roman Curia. 

Despite its many failings, she argues that the Catholic Church is yet a living, breathing global community. Behind doctrines and policies and institutions lie people, personalities, aspirations, and relationships that still promise to transform lives.'

---

The book is not as interesting as it could have been. In style one may infer that Mary Ann Glendon is a hostess type: gregarious, of firm principles, humane, practical, orthodox.

A Myers-Briggs ESFJ. 

A hard-hitting, forensic analysis of institutional failure this is not: (see, by contrast, "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy" by Frederic Martel).

Journalists are of course in the business of exposing crime, weakness and hypocrisy. But in the round the Catholic Church is much more than the Vatican bureaucracy. When it is operating with its mission statement and founder in mind, it is a unique force, generally for the good, on our planet. If only the centre could be sorted out!

The Notebooks of Lazarus Long - Robert A. Heinlein

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Enough-Love-Lazarus-Science/dp/0593437241/

I'm back into Heinlein mode.

A human being should be able to: 

1. change a diaper
2. plan an invasion
3. butcher a hog
4. conn a ship
5. design a building
6. write a sonnet
7. balance accounts
8. build a wall
9. set a bone
10. comfort the dying
11. take orders
12. give orders
13. cooperate
14. act alone
15. solve equations
16. analyze a new problem
17. pitch manure
18. program a computer
19. cook a tasty meal
20. fight efficiently
21. die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.

---

I set in italics those obligations which I am either plainly unable to do, or have no idea whether I could (I would like to not italicise numbers 20 and 21).

Where did Heinlein get this list? 

It's implicitly gendered: it says 'human being' but reads as 'man': surely his list for women would be different - indeed we know so from elsewhere. It's a combination of artisanal (hogs; wall-building) and intellectual (invasion; programming). It reflects the culture of the western frontiersman transferred in time to the mid-twentieth century. But it also speaks to deep truths in human nature: the masculine virtues of good men with useful skills courageously banding together to defend against threats to their communities.

The fact that Heinlein's list stirs the emotions witnesses to its elemental truth.

Currently disparaged and despised, the need for Heinlein's ethos will be with us again soon enough.

---

Here are some more Heinlein aphorisms from (the intermissions within) the novel above.

---

Note: I abandoned "Time Enough For Love" after the first of the embedded stories (David Lamb, the Laziest Man in the World which by itself is quite a good story). Heinlein's work has not aged well. His characters are simplistic, implausible and often irritating. His attitudes - particularly on sexual matters - are self-indulgent and stupid, and his endless didacticism is wearying. 

"Starship Troopers" excepted, I think Heinlein is an author to miss.

Our 'Pre-War' Situation Today

From OpenArt

British military commentators and some politicians state that we are in a ‘pre-war’ situation today, referencing Russia and China.

We need to revitalise our military, which is undermanned and underequipped (true). We need deeper roots for military culture within our society, to be facilitated by a trained civilian reserve force.

But what is really motivating our presumed adversaries? 

Let me quote from Jack Watling’s book, “The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century” chapter 13.

---

“For Vladimir Putin – prior to the invasion of 24 February – Ukraine was understood to be a recalcitrant Russian province. He believed there was widespread sympathy for Russia in the country. He also believed that a fait accompli seizing a limited number of key objectives in a matter of days would bring about the collapse of wider resistance, and the unwillingness of the West to intervene or oppose the seizure. The Russians intervened without mobilising, and assessed – incorrectly – that the localised correlation of forces was favourable. In short, Russia did not conduct the operation based on an assessment of Ukraine’s aggregate combat power augmented with Western support, but rather based on its belief that it could achieve a rapid and localised victory.

"China similarly views Taiwan as a province of China and its military activities, from the setting up of bastions in the South China Sea on reclaimed atolls to its long-range strike capabilities, are clearly intended to enable the isolation of Taiwan to achieve a rapid limited seizure. It anticipates a ‘local war under informatised conditions’ using long-range precision strike and nuclear threats to deter broader escalation.”

---

The set of countries the Russian leadership takes to be “recalcitrant provinces” (the Baltic states? Poland?) seems unlikely to include Western Europe, however. And all the more so for China.

So we are talking more about preserving the boundaries of the Western sphere of influence (and of course the congenial freedoms of people within this space) rather than an existential threat to our own way of life in the UK.

This surely explains the reluctance of the British state (even more so the western states of the EU) to spend real money and expend political capital on defence.

For what it's worth I am not fond of a future dominated by the arrogant and domineering states of Russia and China. Nor do I approve of incorporating people by force into unpleasant regimes. I would thoroughly support an enhanced British military with broad civil society roots.

You might say: who is really interested in the destruction and human suffering of war? But of course, Leon Trotsky was right.

"The Arms of the Future" - Jack Watling (review)

 

I asked Gemini to summarise this review from Frank Hoffman, which is quite long, into something more succinct:

"Jack Watling's book, "The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century," tackles a critical question: how should armies adapt to the changing face of war?  Warfare is becoming more lethal, with new drone technologies and a renewed focus on urban combat.  Watling argues that armies are not keeping pace, clinging to outdated structures and simply adding new tech on top.

The book proposes a complete overhaul of force design.  Part 1 dives into the future battlefield, analyzing  increased transparency due to sensor technology, the limitations of armor in the face of rising lethality, and the enduring challenges of urban warfare.

Part 2 gets practical, outlining a new force structure with four key subsystems: maneuver, fires, assault, and support.  This new design emphasizes dispersed formations for better survivability, increased lethality to counter enemy firepower, and the ability to adapt to the unique demands of urban combat.  It also integrates drones more seamlessly and calls for lighter, more agile armored vehicles.

Importantly, Watling doesn't advocate abandoning traditional maneuver tactics.  He acknowledges the role of armor but emphasizes overcoming its limitations through clever tactics that create ambiguity and deception.

"The Arms of the Future" is a well-researched book that draws on real-world conflicts and the insights of military experts.  While it doesn't delve into unconventional warfare or address the specific needs of special operations forces, it offers a wealth of practical solutions and raises important questions about how armies should be structured for the future battlefield.  This book is a must-read for policymakers and military personnel serious about adapting to the ever-changing nature of war. It provides a strong foundation for further discussion and experimentation on how to build a military that can thrive in the coming decades."

---

I would add: the book is undeniably important. Its focus on military architecture and logistics shows a deep comprehension for the realities of sustainable warfighting. However, it is written for military strategy professionals: jargon-rich and abstract in tone. It requires sustained attention.

My concern is that it captures a moment in time, where robotic/autonomous sensor/effector systems and AI synthesis/analysis systems have capabilities impossible to ignore, but not at capability to replace trained soldiers in any current department of warfare. 

But progress is exceptionally rapid: what will the situation look like in five or ten years time?

The problem is that re-engineering a major power's military is a generational process, measured in decades. It seems clear that the journey Watling has charted must be followed, but substantial course corrections seem likely within successive five year windows. 

Will military bureaucracies be up for the challenge, not just of change but of changing change?

"I don't like confronting people"

 

From OpenArt

A great deal of my life is explicable based on the premise of the title above. I suppose I am scarcely alone in this psychological style - few people are actively belligerent, doubling down on aggression - but I think I may be more consistent than most.

To be clear: I do confront people. Often. If it has to be done I will do it. But I don't like it, I'm not good at it. The unrestrained use of emotion, which is what confrontation is, does not fit well with my self-contained nature.

Instead I seek work-arounds. I’m transactional. I try to transform conflict scenarios. I look for novel outcomes that work for everyone.

One of the reasons I've a fondness for martial arts. In the Chinese and Japanese traditions, conflict decouples from emotion; becomes a technical matter (I can do technical).

So how do I handle that difficult meeting, that stressful phone call? The situation where I need something done... but the other person hasn't done it, or shows little inclination?

Some bosses or project managers would just holler at them. But we already established that I'm not good at yelling at people. I have no idea how to handle the aftermath.

Instead I present myself as helpful and friendly. It's a problem for both of us, isn't it? Do you have an issue I'm not aware of? Can we reframe the difficulty into something we can both work through?

I'm typically imaginative here.

Reluctantly, sorrowfully, if all this has failed, I might finish by wondering if you are really the right person to be assigned these kinds of tasks. Go figure.

It's worked so far, and often well:  INTP as I am.

QM at the OU: (SM358)

The OU quantum mechanics course I studied back in 2009 was excellent. I spent the first six months (Schrödinger equation, complex vector spaces) as if I were Alice in Wonderland, bemused as to how any of this detailed and comprehensive theory had any connection or purchase on reality.

I spent the final three months realising that I would never know. Because no-one else knew either.

Another QM anecdote. At QM summer school in 2009 (this was a year after the Large Hadron Collider first started up - it was still in testing mode) I asked one of the professors, "Will mastering this course help me understand the physics of the search for the Higgs particle at the LHC?" (it was discovered in 2012).

He scratched his chin thoughtfully for a moment, then gave me his considered answer.

"No.”

I later learned that the prediction of the Higgs comes out of special symmetry considerations of the Lagrangian in Quantum Field Theory. All of this was advanced postgraduate stuff, utterly invisible from the OU course…

And here's Gemini correcting me: https://g.co/gemini/share/983f5af4510e!

Fusion and Fission

Note that 'negative' on the y-axis: this chart is more insightful upside-down

And finally: the difference between fusion and fission. Basically the whole universe - all of the matter in it - wants to be iron. Lighter element nuclei want to quantum-tunnel past the coulomb resistance to aggregate into an iron nucleus; heavier elements (all of which are unstable - mostly with half-lives comparable to the age of the universe) want to fission-decay back to iron, again by quantum-tunnelling through the nuclear force potential.

Hallucination

From OpenArt

In a quaint terraced house in the north of England, Gwen and Charles lived out their retirement years in harmony. As Gwen's hearing began to fade, Charles stood by her, determined to find a solution. Together, they navigated the challenges of Gwen's diminishing senses, finding solace in their unwavering love for each other.

With the help of cutting-edge technology, Gwen's new hearing aids became her lifeline, allowing her to hear the world with clarity once again. The predictive AI in her devices not only amplified sound but also anticipated Charles' words before they even left his lips, creating a seamless connection between the couple.

One day Charles was suddenly called away, forced to embark on an urgent journey to visit distant relatives. He trusted that their well-stocked home and Gwen’s conscientious routines would keep her safe and provided for, until he could return. On her part, Gwen's fading vision and lapses of memory were such that, sadly, she failed to notice his absence. Her hearing aids continued to fill the void, predicting Charles' comforting responses to her words, keeping her company in his stead.

Illness soon crept into Gwen's fragile body but she found solace in the familiar sound of Charles' voice, even though he was actually miles away. Lying in her bed, whispering to her husband, his intimate responses were comforting, a warm presence nurturing her as she finally fell into a deep sleep, one from which there would be no awakening.

There was an additional function built into Gwen’s prosthesis: a last ditch routine, executed when all else had failed. When Charles rushed back he was engulfed in grief, leavened only by the sense that nevertheless, something of himself had accompanied his wife on her final journey.

Do you think?

Our garden in 2016 with Clare

 

It's the anti-Versailles!

"Can't work with concepts"

From OpenArt

“Speculative Encounters with Advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Framework for Rigorous Analysis”

Except that it wasn't.

---

In an attempt to avoid the well-known Pollyanna-lobotomization of mainstream LLMs, I asked Gemini to adopt the persona of a Professor of Evolutionary Ecology (with a particular interest in Xenobiology). I said this professor was known for lack of sentiment and a strong aversion to wishful thinking. He specialised in clear assumptions and rigorous, logical deduction.

Gemini agreed to be that person.

---

I then quizzed my ‘professor’ about technological aliens: discuss their motivations; describe their options for interstellar travel (technology vs. self-modification); indicate their likely response to humanity on arrival in our solar system.

Reader, I was hoping for the creative application of evolutionary theory to these scenarios (expansionist top predator goes forth...). I wanted informed scenarios built on plausible assumptions and held together by rigorous logic.

I was hoping to learn something. Instead I got the dialogue summarised below at the end. 

Try to stay awake!

---

For me this says something important about what LLMs actually do. They may well build sophisticated conceptual hierarchies, abstracting and generalising over their vast corpus of training material. But in their current architecture, they are not operating at that conceptual level. It's still rote learning.

It's ‘concrete to abstract to concrete’, not ‘concrete to abstract to abstract to concrete’ - as human experts do. It's like trying to learn maths or physics by reading the textbooks but never doing any of the questions.

I noticed the same with maths prompts: the LLMs have the data, have synthesised abstract concepts, but do not reason coherently at that abstract level. So they make rookie errors all the time.

That's why they're not smarter than us yet, not superhuman in extended disciplines and wider culture. Less reading and more doing, please!

---

This is how Gemini summarised our interaction: Pollyanna is never far away.

## Summary of our Discussion: Encountering Advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence

While encountering advanced extraterrestrial life remains hypothetical, exploring potential scenarios fosters critical analysis. We discussed the limitations of categorizing ET encounters as "biological" or "technological," acknowledging the vast unknown and the need for evidence-based discourse.

Motivations for interstellar travel were explored, ranging from resource acquisition to exploration, while acknowledging the difficulty of applying Earth-centric evolutionary concepts to understand alien motivations. We then examined sending probes and living organisms, recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.

Shifting the focus to potential collaboration, we acknowledged the limitations of attributing "inherent benevolence" to ET behavior. Instead, we explored scenarios where collaboration might be strategically advantageous, primarily when resources are complex, fragile, or costly to acquire unilaterally. However, the discussion emphasized the inherent fragility and uncertainty of such cooperation due to potential shifts in power dynamics, unforeseen circumstances, and internal conflicts.

In conclusion, while collaboration might hold some potential, it's crucial to maintain a critical and balanced perspective, acknowledging the vast unknown and focusing on logical deduction rather than wishful thinking.

**Recommendations:**

1. **Continued scientific exploration** is essential.

2. **Critical and evidence-based approaches** are necessary.

3. **Acknowledge the limitations of our understanding** to foster honest discussion.

4. **Hypothetical scenarios** can be valuable thought exercises.

---

LLMs have battered my blogging!

In the old days, I would have an idea, develop it, and write it up as a post here. 

Now: I have an idea, I type it into Gemini which writes the blog post... and I don't post it here.

What value do I add when everyone has access to an LLM in 'God-mode'?

In future, what you'll get here will be either some very idiosyncratic posts indeed - thoughts not encompassed by the bland LLM summation of the collective wisdom of the world-wide web - or something very personal indeed, probably involving cats.

---

Here we go.

1. I am being ambushed as I get up by puss-puss. She demands I scratch her head and also rub deep inside her ears. How disgusting is that?! I have to wash my hands before I go downstairs!

2. A slightly edited blog post I asked Gemini to write for me on this topic: 

"Write a blog post of less than 650 words analysing the Vatican's dilemma with scientific research such as physics, evolutionary biology and in particular research into the Historical Jesus.

Make the point that there appear to be limits in modifying or reinterpreting Biblical scripture and theology when faced with the challenge of non-sacralised content from non-Catholic sources. How are these limits determined and are there absolute barriers?"

---

Gemini's blog post

"The Vatican and the Tightrope Walk: Navigating Science and Scripture

The Vatican, as the center of the Catholic Church, faces a unique challenge: reconciling the ever-evolving world of scientific discovery with the timeless truths enshrined in its scriptures and theology. This tightrope walk is particularly evident in fields like physics, evolutionary biology, and even historical research on the figure of Jesus.

The Church's position on science has undergone a gradual shift throughout history. While initial reactions to revolutionary discoveries were often cautious or even hostile, the modern Church acknowledges the validity of scientific progress. Pope John Paul II, for example, famously declared that "faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

However, when scientific findings seem to contradict scripture, the Church faces a dilemma. Take, for example, evolution. While accepting the reality of biological change, the Church insists on its compatibility with the doctrine of creation. This necessitates an intricate interpretation of Genesis, often drawing on allegorical readings or theological frameworks to bridge the gap.

Similarly, historical research on the life and teachings of Jesus can challenge established narratives. The discovery of non-canonical gospels, for instance, raises questions about the "true" Jesus, potentially contradicting the Gospels accepted by the Church. Reconciling these findings requires careful analysis, distinguishing between historical fact and theological interpretation.

The limits of modifying or reinterpreting scripture and theology are determined by a complex interplay of factors. Firstly, the core doctrines of the Church, like the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, are considered immutable. Secondly, the historical and literary context of scripture plays a crucial role in interpreting its meaning. Finally, the interpretations of Church authorities and theologians throughout history contribute to a cumulative understanding of faith.

However, absolute barriers are difficult to define. Science constantly evolves, and new discoveries can necessitate re-evaluations of established interpretations. Additionally, theological understanding itself is a dynamic process, with ongoing dialogue between scholars and believers. This leaves room for adaptation, but within certain boundaries.

The Vatican's approach is often characterized as cautious and deliberate. It seeks to harmonize scientific findings with scripture, finding common ground wherever possible. When contradictions seem insurmountable, it emphasizes the distinct realms of faith and reason, asserting that they ultimately lead to the same truth from different perspectives.

This balancing act is not without its critics. Some argue that the Church is too rigid, clinging to outdated interpretations in the face of scientific evidence. Others believe it compromises its core values by bending theology to accommodate secular knowledge. Ultimately, the Vatican's position reflects its unique role as a steward of both faith and reason. It strives to remain faithful to its tradition while engaging with the ever-changing world." 

---

Comment: it's a bit bland and wordy, and bends over backward not to offend anyone but there's a core of interest. As they say: I didn't have time to make it shorter.