COLLEGE
ARTS
JOURNAL
1
VOL XXVII
BULPADOK
TRINITY
EDITORS
Annabelle Stevens
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Nick Bartlett Asha Gatland Bridget Lieberman Clare Cameron Jonathan Ta Maggie Blanden Maxwell Fisher
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The editorial committee wishes to thank our gifted contributors who made this publication possible. Their works speaks for themselves. Adrian Sarstedt Asha Gatland Bridget Lieberman Chloe Page Daipayan Mukhopadhyay Ian Coyukiat Izzy Hollingdale Jonathan Glenning Jonathan Ta Jonathon Liu Kayvan Gharbi Leo Li Maggie Blanden Marley Blancpain Millicent Hockey Pheobe Clementine Ruby Smith Sara Court Sara Watson Sophia Gawan-Taylor Will Clarke Furthermore, this edition of the Bulpadok was facilitated by the dedicated staff of the College. The editorial committee is grateful to Dr Gayle Allan and Leonie Jongenelis for their continued support of the artistic and literary communities of Trinity.
3
4
Letter from the Editor When I began working on this year’s edition of the Bulpadok, I was frustrated to no end. I spent hours fussing over the minutiae; from the perfect colour scheme and layout, to the right front size. I brainstormed different themes and concepts, all in search of a common idea or aesthetic that could tie these unique pieces together. However, as my email became increasingly inundated with poems, essays, paintings and photographs, I realised that what I appreciated most about the work being sent to me was its diversity. I think of this edition of the Bulpadok as a time capsule for the Trinity cohort of 2019. It is a reflection of this bizarre community, filled with so many brilliant and creative minds all lumped in together for a short few years. Each piece reveals a curiosity towards the world around us, and an eagerness to capture and make sense of it. It is this curiosity that colours the pages of our journal. With that in mind, treasure this keepsake. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed curating it. I urge you to take the time to read it. Each page offers something new and unique from the one that came before it.
5
CONTENTS Art Adrian Sarstedt, Untitled...........................................................................................72 Sara Court, Negative Space.......................................................................................98 Sara Watson, Flowers................................................................................................16 Sara Watson, Self Portrait...........................................................................................8 Sophia Gawan Taylor, Abstract No. 7......................................................................79 Sophia Gawan Taylor, Homo Ex Machina (Herschell Art Prize Winner).................57
Non Fiction Daipayan Mukhopadhyay, What makes the world go round?...................................32 Jonathan Glenning, Islamaphobia Kills....................................................................76 Kayvan Gharbi, A Meritocratic Equality: The Great Australian Fairy Tale (Franc Carse Essay Prize Winner)........................................................................................12 Kayvan Gharbi, Forbidden Fruit .............................................................................66 Leo Li, Religion: A Modern Interpretation...............................................................94 Leo Li, Truth (Wigram Allen Oration Prizewinner)..................................................40 Marley Blancpain, A Reflection on God and Certainty.............................................60 Will Clarke, Strength.................................................................................................92
Photography Bridget Lieberman, Film...........................................................................................42 Maggie Blanden, The Apple Isle...............................................................................20 Sara Watson, Untitled................................................................................................80
6
Poetry Asha Gatland, Sestina................................................................................................88 Asha Gatland, Gardens are Immortal.......................................................................10 Jonathan Ta, A Faintail’s Elegy (Phillip Sargeant Poetry Prize Winner...................64 Jonathon Liu, Farewell...........................................................................................100 Leo Li, Swan.............................................................................................................55 Millicent Hockey, All Through the Night..................................................................38 Phoebe Clementine, Memory Lane...........................................................................37 Pheobe Clementine, One Two...................................................................................36 Ruby Smith, Prodigal................................................................................................17 Ruby Smith, Royal Park...........................................................................................63 Ruby Smith, the mouths of all the others..................................................................68 Sophia Gawan Taylor, A collection of poems............................................................70
Music Izzy Hollingdale, Change your Mind.......................................................................18 Ian Coyukiat, At Sea.................................................................................................30
Design Bridget Lieberman, Architectural Drawings.............................................................90 Chloe Page, Heart of The Reef..................................................................................74 Chloe Page, Our Ocean.............................................................................................31
7
Self Portrait
by Sara Watson Trinity College Arts Representative
8
9
Gardens Are Immortal By Asha Gatland
I left you in your garden so you could find your way back. Gardens are immortal, you said, and when first death came for you It seemed to me only temporary. I watched calmly as your hair, once soft with nurture, turned brittle as an autumn leaf. I watched it fall. Once while you were sleeping, I placed a vase of roses at your beside, let their sweetness evade the sour scents of medicine, debility and hospital sheets. And while you slept, and breath passed through you in an uneasy whisper, I saw on your face lines in bark, traces to places, a thousand stories you had left to tell me – But each hour it seemed, they would water your silence with medicines white and pink through the mouth of a thick yellow tube.
10
You wanted none of this artificial life. Yet I did not see, even then, how a body so whole could turn to embers scattered to ambivalent winds. So I did not think to hold onto you, nor try to possess any part of you, but sought instead the solace of a honeyed lie whose liquid shelter would never hold. I let your body fall, inessential, between my fingers and into the earth, fancied I was planting the seeds of you anew in your garden. That when summer came again you would return, a seasonal entity, the scent of gardenias ripe in your hair. Gardens are immortal, you said, and I thought the same of you. When spring came and went with no sign of you, I was not concerned. It takes time, you told me, for something to grow. Through all of autumn and winter, I waited for you. Then, one day the house was sold. The new owners paved over the garden with concrete and I knew you would not come back.
11
A MERITOCRATIC EQUALITY
THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN FAIRTYALE by Kayvan Gharbi
U
Franc Carse Essay Prize Winner
pon initial consideration of Aristotle’s posit that ‘the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal,’ it would be the foreseeable response of the unwitting Australian reader to instinctively repudiate such as elitist dribble. As a nation that considers itself founded upon ideals of egalitarianism and ‘equality’, the casual reader could certainly misconstrue such a philosophy as at odds with our national values. However, the most amusing irony in this knee-jerk reaction is that it is rooted in a fundamental misunder-
standing of our nation’s identity and desires. Australian citizens are not and have never been ‘equal’ in any sense of the word - one should consider the essential question of not only what state of equality we truly desire, but of how such can be achieved. Vonnegut’s ‘Harrison Bergeron’ grossly hyperbolises the concept of a world in which equality reigns supreme, and depicts an oppressive dystopia where abilities are stifled, and talent is strictly regulated. The novel is the perfect illus-
12
tration of how equality itself is by no means a state that humanity craves, as equality itself is of no intrinsic redeeming value. For example, a society in which all individuals languish in egregious poverty is ‘equal’ yet is in no manner a state that is to be desired. On the other hand, in a world in which all maintain an equally salubrious lifestyle, it is not the parity that is of value, but the intrinsic fact that all are maintaining a pleasurable existence. Despite such a clear illustration of the fallacy in the lustre of equality, I am forced to observe that its ideal still irrationally entices me, giving cause to question if such an attraction is perhaps due to some form of embedded natural inclination. Psychologists Alex Shawn and Kristina Olson experimented with children to examine precisely this quandary, discovering that if asked to distribute five rewards between two people, the child would generally dispose of the fifth reward rather than award it an create imbalance. Such initially seems to promote the idea that humanity naturally converges to a state of egalitarianism, yet when the child was informed that one of the recipients had completed a greater amount of work, they had no issue in providing the extra reward to such a being deemed as ‘more deserving.’ This action uncovers the true paradigm of our specious attraction for equality, being that we in fact do not harbour a desire for equivalence, but a desire for fairness. Indeed, we possess no intrinsic misgivings about inequality, on the condition that a disparity is generated in an impartial manner, and that its existence does not bring about a significant or prolonged suffering for an engaged party.
Once such a distinction is made, it is plain to see that Aristotle’s statement is in fact not of synergy with the Australian ethos. We by no means desire parity - we instead appeal to a ‘goldilocks balance’ of inequality that maintains a widespread capacity for opportunity epitomised by the ‘fair go’ that our body politic loves to reference. The Australian ideal is intertwined with that of a meritocracy, being that if one possesses the faculty, talent, and drive, they should be given the opportunity to rise to the top upon the platform of their ability. While a ‘meritocracy’ is often referenced today in a positive light, irony lies in the fact that the term was born of satire (Young, 1958) due to its intrinsically paradoxical nature. The failure in the ideal is the unsustainability that arises out of its very definition. For the system it describes to be achieved, one must perpetually restrict inequity within the goldilocks constraints, in which overt unfairness and inequality in opportunity is mitigated to paltry levels. However, even if a goldilocks state is achieved temporarily, it cannot naturally maintain a self-sustaining equilibrium, as efflux of the meritorious to the top simply creates a new-generation aristocracy, pushing inequity to undesirable levels, and re-establishing defined social classes. Superficially, one might make the assertion that Australia is in the unique position of occupying this enviable ‘goldilocks state,’ founded upon a flourishing middle class and bolstered by a range of comprehensive public services. In the past I too held such a belief, proudly opining that our emphasis for equality has always been one of Australia’s greatest virtues, intrinsic to our nation’s identity. However, as the natural
13
efflux arising from the paradox of an unre- National Accounts Table 8.8, 2018). One could strained meritocracy begins to take hold, we argue that this in itself is of no consequence, as must tirelessly work to prevent our departure of course those with greater wealth would be in from an acceptable balance of inequality. Over possession of more assets. This counter-claim the past 15 years, the richest Australians have leads us directly to the fact that the true root captured two-thirds of new household wealth, of the issue is not necessarily the gradient in and between 2003 and 2018 the top fifth of housing distribution itself, but the benefits that households increased their income by 130%, arise from holding such. Our socioeconomic whilst the poorest fifth experienced only a governmental policy is currently structured raise of 50% (Gladstone, 2019). This insidious in such a way that it has allowed housing to and deliberate erosion of the boundaries of our become a medium through which the rich can middle class has lurked in the shadows over grossly capitalise upon their wealth in a manthe past decade, obfuscated by the fact that the ner inaccessible to the poor, propagating and net wealth of Australian households steadily increasing the divide. This fact is elucidated increased by $4 trillion by Professor Wendy across the past 8 years. Stone, director of the “Over the past 15 years, However, of this nascent the richest Australians have Australian Housing capital, the richest fifth captured two thirds of new and Urban Research of households hold 61% household wealth, and be- Institute, in her obserwhilst the impecunious tween 2003 and 2018 the top vations that ‘wealth bottom fifth hold a pitiful fifth of households increased breeds wealth where 1% (Australian National their income by 130%, whilst tax settings…enable a Accounts Table 2, 2018). the poorest fifth experienced reduced tax on capital What we are now observgains for homeowners’ only a raise of 50%.” ing is no longer the mythand that the only way ical meritocracy that our property wealth will nation adamantly professes it embodies, but a begin to shift is if we ‘see taxation reforms terrifying slink back towards the socioeconom- around capital gains and negative gearing.’ ic classism that we proudly proclaim to have Australia currently employs a Capital Gains escaped. Tax Discount that provides tax breaks to those undertaking significant long-term investments Given these conspicuous trends, one is forced (chiefly through property), in a manner that is to question the underlying cause of this exodus clearly inaccessible to lower income earners. of the middle class. After short consideration, This policy sees 73% of the benefit flowing to it is evident that the true bedrock of the issue is the top 10% of income earners, and essentially the vast inequality in housing wealth between represents an avenue to avoid tax that is inacessocioeconomic divisions. The top fifth owns sible to lower income earners (The Australian 48% of residential housing and land, while the Greens, 2016). poorest fifth possesses less than 1% (Australian
14
The consequences of a departure from the ‘goldilocks region’ are as egregious as they are varied (Holmes, 2019). The most obvious of such is that as a result of the widespread negative gearing undertaken by the wealthy, there is a shortage of housing in suburban/city areas, inflating housing costs and squeezing low income renters. In addition, it makes it near impossible for first home buyers entering the market to purchase property of their own, barring them from ever accessing the discounted benefits the government currently provides to property owners. In addition, such a system hinders and stagnates our economy as a whole. Dr Wiesel from the University of Melbourne observes that ‘when wealth is accumulated through speculation and rent-seeking on existing assets’ there is much less capital invested in ‘innovation and productivity,’ meaning future growth of our economy is jeopardised. From examination of our current system, it is lucid that not only is it unsustainable, it also promotes the reformation of distinct class divisions reminiscent of the wealthy landowners and scavenging serfs of the Middle Ages. In the same way that the physical universe tends to disorder, I believe a state of inequality and divergence of the lesser from the better is not only a natural condition, but a state in which humans both desire and are destined to assume. Because of this very fact, it is clear that to achieve a perfect state of inequality – in which the innate ‘fairness’ desired by humanity can be exercised – meritocratic divergence must paradoxically be regulated to ensure that it can sustainably propagate. If our nation – the supposed paragon of the ‘fair go’ – is to ever realise the fairy tale we profess, significant reform of public policy must be implemented in a manner that ensures that the meritocratic porridge is not served ‘too hot’ or ‘too cold,’ but at a temperature which allows all to be nourished.
15
Flowers by Sara Watson
16
Prodigal Ruby Smith
at 21, he takes the money his father had planned to save for him and goes to Vegas.
there, he pisses it up against a wall, shamelessly: hookers, cocaine, a minor business venture involving topless waiters and flaming cocktails (that ends badly, needless to say) until, at 22, he works as a croupier on the $2 blackjack table at the Venetian.
finally, he packs it all in and gets a redeye flight back to the Florida Keys his father doesn’t have a fatted calf, but oh boy if he did…
17
change your mind By Izzy Hollingdale
18
19
The Apple Isle By Maggie Blanden
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
At Sea ukiat Ian Coy
With this year’s theme of “Deconstructing the world around us,” I decided to focus on different aspects of nature. Taking my inspiration from Manet’s Ships Deck, At Sea focuses on ships sailing atop the ocean, and aims to transport the listener away on one of them, as if they were on the sea themselves at sea. The piece begins with the waves crashing against a dock, and, just as a ship sets sail, the waves become more agitated, and the ship takes off. As the wind dies down, and the sun sets, a solo bassoon is heard singing its song to the moon. Other voices join in and they sing until sunrise, when the ship sets full mast once more and journeys on. A recording can be found on the QR code below.
30
OurChloeOcPageean
31
What makes the world go round?
32
By Daipayan Mukhopadhyay In my youth, I often had the opportunity to speak about issues to my peers. However, when I found myself writing this speech, I realised that there were many prominent themes that I could write about. I did a quick Google search, typing Prominent World issues into the search bar and I got a list of results which were both expected but also superlatively horrifying. Roughly 24% of world issues right now are due to religious conflicts, 23% about world government instability and a major world issue that has risen with dominance, especially in the last few weeks, 48% has been related to climate change. This propelled me to think of a certain yet unanswerable question. What makes the world go round? So I began dissecting my question with a simple list of dangerous and probable answers. Purpose. Without passion, without commitment, without purpose… humans and animals would be even more similar than our DNA already suggests. We shoot for the stars whether it be playing NBA 2k on PS4 or Xbox or taking it more literally and remembering the day when Neil Armstrong uttered those famous words “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” on the moon. Famous scientists and eloquent writers have revolutionised the way in which our existence is recorded and transcendently passed down to the next generation to continue. We have gone from learning how to make and control fire 1.4 billion years ago to Nobel laureates who create batteries that ultimately power our homes, phones and computers. All because, we have purpose.
33
Photography: Daipayan Mukhopadhyay
Our curiosity and tenacity to make life easier for ourselves has led us to build instruments of our salvation. However, salvation has become our damnation when we lose sight of our purpose. Take alcohol for an example. A few pints of your favourite beverage and laughter and joy flow like there’s no tomorrow. However, one too many pints and regret and the deep yearning for the beautiful and irreplaceable gift that is H2O and Berrocca or Hydralyte soon follow. Yet we make this mistake repetitively. A classic phrase heard across many college parties
and events. “I’m never drinking that much again”. V-day ends. Buckets full of vomit. Beds full of people. Windows with shades pulled down so not a single ray of sunlight can reach us. Eduroam failing us yet again due to the amount of Netflix being watched. V-dinner comes around. Morgan tells us that the bar tab will close in 30 minutes. Suddenly, a beverage appears in our hand. We are powerless to stop ourselves simply because our purpose in life, is to be ourselves. We are confident, we are proud and at the end of the day we are human.
34
We are human because the choices we make are our own and we can justify them. Our beliefs and opinions in deciphering the question that is us, leads us to making mistakes and errors. Some errors are never made twice, and some continue to emerge periodically like a sine curve oscillating between -1 and 1. Which leads me to my second answer. Chaos. Humanity thrives on chaos. Since time in memoriam, we have been driven to achieve the darkest depths of pain, anguish and chaos. We have devised wars, weapons, conflicts and thrived on the desecration of each other to ultimately find some form of purpose. The earliest examples can be seen in rock paintings where cavemen made axes and tools but ultimately resorted to violence to settle their disputes. The most recent can be seen in the form of ISIS using radicalised propaganda to drive innocents from the safety and security of their homes into the wide arms of bullets and shrapnel. Yet this instrumental torture of the Middle East and its inhabitants seems to be one of the most discussed issues in the last decade. We decide to talk about it in our classrooms, lectures, in the news, in the government. Our economies, health care systems and societal structures continue to thrive on the fact that there exist people in our society who struggle. If we think about it in the realm of climate change, we’ve singlehandedly created a situation in which success right here, right now, ensures our survival for many years and failure ensures death for us and for our children. Chaos, therefore, seems to be one of the methods that humans need to justify our behaviour and one of the ways that the world keeps changing,
35
evolving and ultimately keeps spinning. Love. In this dichotomy that we establish between humanity’s desire to find purpose and its quintessential character trait of descending into chaos to find it, only one element helps us establish any sense of normal and navigate either. Love. We spend our days falling in love with people, places, books, food and music or even insignificant, indescribable feelings. We derive meaning and purpose out of who and what we choose to fall in love with. We traverse through life tossing and turning between emotion and objectivity, light and darkness, sun and moon. We express our affection by our gifts, by our touch and by our expression. We read books and magazines to gain knowledge with our purpose being, to learn something. We love what we read and hope that when the time comes, the knowledge that we’ve acquired will serve us in casual conversation, in the desks in the Royal Exhibition Building or as we demonstrate our willingness to write about our ideas and beliefs to further the knowledge we’ve acquired. When we fail, we descend into chaos. So we establish a cycle. What makes the world go round? This same cycle. An endless loop. Purpose. Chaos. Love. The order need not be solidified into the mould that I’ve made it seem to be, it can be any permutation of these three words. One thing is certain, however, the world only goes round because we choose to keep living and I think that’s the most human thing of all. True beauty through humanity making choices.
One Two
by Pheobe Clementine To wonder how two become one Is to wonder at one who wanders For the wanderer knows not their path Nor even that they wander Two know not that they are one Until well after both are won And when one is won One prays two are won Because won alone Leaves one To wander So how does one become one within oneself After being one-sidedly won If wanderers know not that they wander Perhaps the lone wanderer feels at one with wondering Whether one or two Too won Or to be won Wanderers will wander And wonderers will wonder At a question to which There is no won answer
36
Memory Lane by Pheobe Clementine
37
All through the night by Millicent Hockey
38
39
TRUTH By Leo Li
Wigram Allen Oration Prize Winner
I
n our world, where science, technology,
engineering and mathematics dominate industry, we have often felt a societal push away from the Arts and towards these fields collectively known by their acronym, STEM. This socio-educational repulsion has resulted in a dichotomy being formed amongst our universities: the well-read though unemployable Arts student with a broad understanding of the world, and the STEM major with the social competence of a potato, looking at a guaranteed six-figure grad salary. As with all constructed dichotomies, we are at fault in our assumption that the two groups are mutually exclusive and hence that they should be individually pursued. In fact, we are misguided in our assumption that the two are different at all, given their rich and deeply entwined history.
It is often said that there are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. I believe the first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. Rather, they co-exist as classifications of truth, the greater whole whose pursuit gives meaning to life. Together, they address the rational and irrational aspects of our humanity, allowing us to inch closer towards human apotheosis. They cannot stand alone, despite our unquenchable drive to pull them apart for isolated endeavour. Looking at the past millennia alone shows that the division of art and science is very much a modern phenomenon and perception. The idea of the Western polymath reached its climax in the 16th century when Renaissance Men such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Galileo
40
produced timeless paintings, sculptures and even music, alongside breakthroughs in engineering, physics and medicine that still underpin academia today. This was a society where there was an understanding of general ability being ingrained within the human condition, rather than the myth of prodigious talent of incredible specificity that we see perpetuated today. If someone was well-versed in algebraic theory, it was expected that they, too, would be a competent musician, orator or artist. Today, this still holds true, but has deviated away from public thought, replaced by the common narrative of artistic creativity and academic rigour somehow being at odds. Einstein was a concert violinist worthy of the Juilliard School and an illustrious conversationalist, but all we remember him by is e=mc2 and a false image of nerdy social ineptitude. Taylor Swift probably does other things aside from cry about her exes to win Grammys, but rather than show this, she chooses to box herself into a category we all-too-comfortably accept. The same goes for Elon Musk, Katy Perry, David Attenborough, and all accomplished celebrities doing us the disservice of appearing as one-trick ponies rather than displaying polymathic careers. It is, then, an easy matter of interpolating on these omnipresent data points to conclude that the aesthetic and expressive must come at the expense of the systematic and analytical. However, the fault is also ours in our collectivist need to categorise everything in sight. Whilst this is a useful tool when it comes to searching for inspiration, we play a risky game in the tradeoff between organisation and tunnel-vision. Roger Federer is obviously more than just a tennis player, but all we see is an iconic singlehanded backhand and Nike headband. Compounding on this, we associate him as one-half of his rivalry with Nadal in a bid to claim the status of being the greatest of all time, furthering our cognitive grouping and diminishing any curiosity of what lies on the periphery of his character. As observers, we can’t expect to always be spoon-fed information, and hence must go out of our way to understand the complexities of public characters. If we are to one day see a reunion of art and science,
we need to break all our mental moulds formed by false stereotypes and widely-held preconceptions. We need to reaffirm ourselves with the notion that art and science aren’t absolutes, but rather different methods of pursuing the truth that has been and will always be. One method chooses to be emotional and understanding, whilst the other is analytical and observing. Though we love to prioritise the latter and proclaim its ever-increasing importance, without art, I argue there is no direction, whether that be academically or industrially. As T.S. Eliot put it, we should always “pursue the beautiful thing”, and hence without a conception of beauty, society is akin to a ship with infinite fuel for an infinitely powerful engine, but no destination in sight, allowing meaningless chaos to ensue. It’s an unpopular opinion, but the Melbourne Model addresses this issue through the Breadth subjects we often deem unnecessary or even a money-grab by reputable academic institutions. Rather than being a vehicle to drive you further into HECS debt, Breadths represent a recognition of the need for a new age of Renaissance Men, a new breed of idea-filled, polymathic men and women capable of more than just one university course. I challenge the STEM majors in the room to pick up a course in history, visual art or music, and I challenge the self-proclaimed artists to have a stab at linear algebra, physics or chemistry. This will not only add useful skills to your arsenal and broaden your character through learning, but also contribute to our shot at a 21st Century Renaissance, a much-needed Golden Age in a time where problems such as climate change and political adversity plague society. In the words of American novelist Raymond Chandler: “Without art, science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science, art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.” Let us go forth not as students of the Arts or Science, but rather as students of the Truth.
41
FILM “A collection of Film photos taken on my Ricoh RZ-3000 130mm film camera from my trip to India. I was inpired by the vast amount of colour and diversity of architecture and culture within each city.”
By Bridget Lieberman
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Swan
by Leo Li
She raised me like a mother would her son The backdrop of my every story told Along her bosomed banks, we’d laugh and run And now, with time, together we grow old. How once she shone her God-giv’n blessed blue A turquoise tapestry beneath the sky That gaveth life to everything we knew Our humble deity that could never die. Ten thousand generations called her home Their Dreamtime wisdom written in the sand A culture cleansed by water’s ebbs and flows Her rhythmic heartbeat in this Ancient Land. But now her concrete graveyard belches smoke And no one hears her stifled, sobbing choke.
55
56
Homo Ex Machina ne) (Human From the Machi Herschell Art Prize Winner by Sophia Gawan Taylor A bioartificial heart split into two, both human and machine, yet neither one. Human inertia will continue challenging Mother Nature; the challenge is finding a balance in which we can coexist with our planet. The contrasts of natural vs man-made (metal against wood, electronics atop of organ tissue) convey the integration of manmade technology into our bodies and our environment. This contrast also holds personal significance; representing the internal conflict between the two seemingly opposable fields of art and science. Stretching further to the ‘neither here or neither there’ sentiment toward my ethnic, gender and sexual identity. Both art and science are ways in which to interpret the world around us, others, and ourselves. The arbitrary dichotomy between the two fields were famously interlaced by Da Vinci (a mathematician, inventor and artist), but are often overlooked today. However, with all the crippling issues that exist in our world that need to be addressed; pursuing scientific questions in tandem with artists is integral.
57
58
Oil, gold leaf and mixed media on wood board
59
A REFLECTION ON GOD AND CERTAINTY by Marley Blancpain Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens. Four names that evoke anger in the devout and dread in religious leaders tasked with defending the beliefs to which billions around the world adhere. Dubbed the four horsemen of New Atheism, these men have helped solidify and popularise a new brand of scientific atheism that many consider to be the final shudder of religiosity in the West. Armed with eloquence and the mass-dissemination facilitated by modern media, they have coordinated a campaign of interviews, videos podcasts, debates, publications and lectures proclaiming with evangelical certitude the proposition that God does not exist. For many, this is a highly rational and realistic approach. After all, the world is full of horrors. Millions suffer every day and the physical sciences continue to prove fruitful in providing more convincing explanations for phenomena long confined to religious accounts. A key contributor to the success of the new atheists has been their subscription to materialist prin-
ciples. As a philosophy, Materialism holds that the universe comprises of nothing but matter and its processes and interactions. It is true that scientific inquiry gives no indication that the universe and consciousness consist of anything but ordinary matter and its more enigmatic forms (take dark matter or space-time). Neuroscience has shown us that the human capacity for love does not require a divinely imbued soul, but only the electro-chemical transmissions which promote reciprocal behaviour between mates and kin. Evolutionary biology firmly demonstrates that humankind was not created on the sixth day, but is the resultant product of approximately 3.9 billion years of evolution; a process that requires not divine providence, but merely natural selection, genetic variation, and a heathy dose of time. Materialism and the physical sciences are fundamentally complementary to Atheism by providing an overarching framework that explains how the world works without diverting to any form of Theism. Indeed Dawkins, a seminal evolutionary biologist, recalls his understand-
60
ing of evolution by natural selection as the catalyst leading to his atheistic philosophy. One often hears evolution thrown down as a ‘trump card’ in discussions concerning the validity of God or religion. Evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as the heliocentric model of the solar system. While rationality demands accepting its role in birthing the incomprehensible complexity of biological life, must we necessarily unite with the new atheists in the conclusion that God does not exist?
gers and willing us into being. It appears plausible and elegant to at least consider the potential for the physical laws as a symphony of coordinated interaction, calibrated perfectly so as to give rise to and maintain the magnum opus that is our universe.
A material conception of reality and a firm belief in evolution is not incompatible with God, and it is both contrary to rationality and intellectually arrogant to sneer at even the very possibility of her existence. We must remain vigilant in the face of any metaphysical A natural leap committed by New Atheism certainty. Out of certainty is born dogma, and seems to occur from the proposition that hu- out of dogma, fertile ground for ignorance is mans are wholly material and arose through laid bare. The Great British philosopher Berevolution, to the assertion trand Russel remarked that “She once came to him that there is no God. While “the demand for certainty their stance is highly tenable, as a child and exclaimed is natural to man, but it their approach is problematic boldly: I know God doesn’t is nevertheless an intelin its unwavering commit- exist! to which he retorted lectual vice.” This quote ment to the certainty of its “do you know, or do you echoes a story my grandfaown assertions. Knowledge ther recounted to me about think?” taken to be certain – even my mother. She once when founded on a bedrock of objectivism, came to him as a child and exclaimed boldly rationality and science – remains perilous in “I know God doesn’t exist!”, to which he reits tendency to promote intellectual deafness. torted “do you know, or do you think?”. Her Accept for a moment the well-evidenced eyes widened, she stopped, looked at him, proposition that your consciousness is phys- nodded understandingly and walked away. ical and arose autonomously via evolution. It seems even a child had grasped something Accept fully the premise that you are solely so fundamentally intuitive that it did not nean agglomeration of atoms, chemical secre- cessitate reiteration or confirmation. Nothing tion and sensory input. Does it now natural- can be proven or disproven. Perhaps God ly follow that there is no God? Perhaps one exists, perhaps she doesn’t. Perhaps the laws could partake in the view that evolution and of our universe were finely tweaked to give the physical laws comprise an intricate and rise to sandy beaches, chocolate and music, self-contained system used by God to bring maybe it was simply chance. about each and every one of our unique existential experiences. If God does exist, Whether you choose to believe or not believe I would admire more greatly her genius in in God, take no heed of anyone who claims creating a universe that gave rise to life and to proclaim only the truth, for there are far consciousness by the properties of that very too many uncertainties in this world to be system, rather than by simply snapping fin- certain of that which lies beyond it.
61
62
Royal Park
A poem by Ruby Smith My mother calls to tell me that a woman has been not far from where I live,
found dead (found dead)
in the grass, by a dog on his morning walk.
She says, get an Uber won’t you? Next time you’re out,
FOUND DEAD don’t walk, for God’s sake, because that poor girl – FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD she was just walking home. And at work it sticks in my head FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD I can’t think through it FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD it could have been FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD me or FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD you FOUND DEAD or FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD any of us FOUND DEAD it could have been FOUND DEAD you FOUND DEAD dying alone FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD naked in the morning light FOUND DEAD and her mother FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD probably called her too FOUND DEAD to FOUND DEAD warn her FOUND DEAD and got FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND DEAD FOUND her message bank instead.
63
A Fantails Elegy Jonathan Ta
ner Phillip Sargeant Poetry Prizewin
Where Pacific waves and Tasman’s meet, Where to Cook sailed with his first fleet, A speck of green, a sea of blue, There stands a shelter, true as true. An archipelago so green Its rolling hills of greenstone gleam, Through which pīwakawaka1 fly And tōtara2 stretch to the sky. And here, where Māui 3slowed the sun, And roped it back to pace its run, These argent shores and sable sand Bear witness to this story grand: Where these remote Bermudas lie, A haven, not from churches’ spy, But from hostilities still raw, From ‘caliphates’ suffused with war. At Māngere4, with all their lives In suitcases, they safe arrive, Young Ismael stares with wide eyes Not at the trees, but at the blocks That row on row at him all mock. No fantails here, just sudden shock. Damascus is a far way out. And all he sees Are taniwha5 of uncertainty. 1 pīwakawaka: Māori name for the New Zealand Fantail. In Māori mythology, the fantail is a messenger of death. 2 tōtara: A native tree, known for its thin, spiny leaves. 3 Māui: A demi-god in Māori mythology. Among his many great feats, Māui and his brothers slowed the sun by restraining it with magic ropes, allowing for a longer day. 4 Māngere: The Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre in Auckland. 5 taniwha: A great sea monster in Māori mythology.
64
Six weeks go by, and Ismael Is warming up to life’s new start. The centre cannot fetter his mind. He dreams of all he’s heard and seen, Of playing rugby on fields of green, Of Sunday roasts, both fat and lean. The fantails fan and sing. His father, Ibrahim, selects Pensive Christchurch as the best. They glide across that mighty plain Where Taranaki6 claimed his shame. As they descend, those Southern Alps Guide their landing with snow-topped caps. The Red Cross help them settle in, And neighbours greet them with great grins. They gift boxes on boxes of food and toys, Ismael brims with joy, But fantails see this Troy. For when Ibrahim takes the family to pray, One innocent and calm Friday, To praise Allah for His kind ways, To praise Allah for New Zealand’s peace, That peace was interrupted. We do not know why hatred struck this clan, But fantails cackled, Their mourning rang.
6 Taranaki: A mountain on the West Coast of New Zealand. According to Māori legend, Taranaki fought a great battle with Tongariro for the hand of Pihanga. He lost, and fled, weeping, across the island.
65
In second grade, I had a forbidden love. My draconian parents decreed my ardour to be ‘detrimental,’ and denied me any contact with my dearest. Yet, my callow mind was spellbound, enchanted by emotions I had never before confronted. I would spend hours dreaming of the sweet taste of her upon my lips. by You see, my love affair was with the starburst party mix, and most candy for that matter. My persecuted passions burned brighter and brighter throughout my youth, stoked by the starvation of her soothing, sugared embrace. When I finally reached the climax of puberty, I possessed the freedom and financial facilities to regularly consummate our love in the confectionery aisle of the local Coles. However, as time passed, the sweetness of the jelly snakes began to sour, and the glamour of the gummies began to lessen – it has reached a point today where I prefer an abstinent affair with an apple to any kind of candy. In retrospect, it wasn’t even the gustatory rush that I was inherently allured by. What I truly relished was that sense of transgression, of autonomy, of exercising my free will in the face of oppression.
Forbidden Fruit Kayvan Gharbi
This desire to pursue the prohibited is something that transcends the obscene sugar obsession of my childhood. It is something rather universally human - underlying our histories, literature and religions. Our chronicles are scarred by the implications of forbidden love, from Antony and Cleopatra plunging Ancient Rome into civil war, to Gossip Girl’s Jenny and Nate setting the Upper East Side ablaze with scandal. It is fascinating that we consider the tale of Romeo and Juliet to be the paragon of romance, in which the brightest of passions burn in the face of oppression. There is something about the forbidden, the taboo, that stokes our passions and excites our psyche in a manner that can transform the everyday into the electrifying. The reasoning behind such behaviour eluded me – it seemed nonsensical to have evolved such an ostensibly destructive trait. If evolution optimises the dissemination of one’s genes, is it not more efficient to pursue relationships of ‘less resistance,’ minimising the amount of work required to achieve the same outcome (children)? It seemed a glitch in our operating system, a stray blot of ink as Aphrodite scrawled upon the manuscript of our libido. However, such is indeed no fault of a goddess, but a side effect of the byzantine and intertwined motivations that define our human condition.
66
The theory of effort justification (Pepitone and Festinger, 1959) conjectures that exerting greater efforts to achieve a goal will lead to valuing the achievement more than if meagre effort were required. Thus, the reason we relish ‘the chase’ is because the thornier the trail, the more we prize the person we are pursuing. Brehm’s theory of psychological reactance posits that we have a tendency to react against threats to our freedom by asserting ourselves (Brehm, 1981). For example, a recent study found that when a picture of a man described to be single was presented to a sample of women, 59% rated him as attractive, yet when described as married this rose to 90% (Parker and Burkley, 2009). Any kind of stipulation regarding who you are permitted to pursue can be subconsciously interpreted as a threat to your autonomy, encouraging participation in the behaviour out of a primal desire to protect and exercise your freedoms.
vantageous for the development of offspring. The critical assumption in this case, and one that underpins many religious conceptions of relationships, is that for a strong partnership to exist, one must be monogamous. However, after challenging the prejudice of my own beliefs, I discovered multiple studies indicating that people in non-monogamous relationships are forced to communicate more - paradoxically generating greater trust, commitment, and passion whilst reducing jealousy (Conley et al., 2017). Additionally, they were found to undertake amorous congress with their partner more frequently, reporting greater satisfaction and undertaking safer sexual practices (Fleckenstein and Cox, 2014). These findings are unsurprising in the context of our ‘forbidden fruit fixation,’ as such an arrangement allows one to maintain their relationship while relegating any beguiling ‘forbidden fruit’ to the banal status of ‘vapid vegetable,’ that may be sampled and cast aside.
I found that I remained dissatisfied. On one hand, a fixation for the forbidden is a virtue critical to humanity’s inexorable and obdurate progress. It is a source of relentless inquisition that holds us accountable to our convictions, probing for fragilities in the status quo. Only by transgressing what is disallowed can the seeds of progress be sewn, and new ideologies take root. Thus, it seemed a great shame that the same facet of our psyche that safeguards our liberties is the cornerstone of affairs, sexual dissatisfaction and divorce. This is when I came to a realisation. It is not our ‘forbidden fruit fixation’ that is generating this unhappiness and dissatisfaction within relationships, but our socially conditioned definition of what constitutes a ‘relationship’ in the first place. The source of tension here, is monogamy.
I am not seeking to disparage monogamy – it would be foolish to characterise the entirety of humanity as libido-driven succubi incapable of restraint. However, in the same manner that my fiery passions for the starburst party mix faded once I had the freedom to swing past a Coles whenever I wanted, from a scientific standing, it appears that non-monogamous relationships represent a solution for those more inclined to assert their liberties. However, perhaps my myopic analysis has failed to appreciate the point of it all. Perhaps (to take a leaf out of Nietzsche), anything of genuine value does indeed demand a degree of suffering, and to acquiesce to our shrieking id is not necessarily the cheeriest course. Perhaps, the marvellous beauty of monogamy stems from our stalwart loyalty in the face of the temptations that the serpents of our psyche subjects us to. Perhaps, if Eve had valued restraint in the manner we do today, humanity would still blissfully reside with the
Many promote the fallacious argument that monogamy is the unparalleled course for child-rearing as an inviolable partnership is ad-
paradise of Eden.
67
unzip me from collar to cunt until the shiny silver tracks gleam alon listen to me – I want you. pull them out one by one: heart liver creaky flesh-coloured bath by the scented candles
and now the hidden pockets (camouflaged pink in nylon lining) in these I have hidden the mou
and put them in a drawer where I don’t have to see the until I’m empty are we there yet? I can’t breathe anymore but I lack only an apparatus pour a glass of wine for fuck’s sake and call it romance – I’m only angry to stop the other and you’re only laughing to stop the fe Your silence fills my empty throat your distance makes the skin burn and crackle
68
ng the seams of my empty sports-bag body
the mouths of all the others by Ruby Smith
lungs and line them along the edge of my we can dispose of them later.
uths of all the others take these too, if you please, even the secret ones
em
heart beats slow from below the tap what about this do you find attractive?
ear. e will you leave me lying open here forever?
69
A collection of poems By Sophia Gawan Taylor
How to Fall in Love with a Machine This is no fallacy I am alone in this galaxy Unnaturally and suddenly Malfunctioning mechanically With all my brain capacity And my studies academically I do not have the capability To scrape the rust inside of me So I sit in hate silently In the memories and agony
70
A Gothic Revelation This is no delusion I have come to the conclusion I see parallels In the story Shelley tells About Frankenstein’s creation A hellish corpus reanimation On the outside observing Watching and listening Desiring to fit in To be a part of something Created by insanity Then rejected by humanity Abandonment and anger No atonement or answers She is my Victor And I her Monster
71
untitled
Adrian Sar stedt 72
73
The Heart of the Reef by Chloe Page
Save Our Seas
Save Our Seas
The Heart of the Reef
The Heart of the Reef
74
Save Our Seas
The Heart of the Reef
75
Islamaphobia Kills By Jonathan Glenning
Immigration and its accompanying ethnic, religious, and cultural heterogeneity are the building blocks of modern Australian society. Australia’s democratic political system has provided the vital and enduring framework for its development as a prosperous, politically inclusive and socially cohesive society which leads the world on many aspects of social development. For this reason, many choose Australia as their final destination when seeking a better life, one often free from oppression and ostracisation. In the past two decades, the Muslim population has increased significantly due to immigration and natural increase. According to the 2011 census, there were 476,290 Muslims in Australia – of whom about 40% were born here, with the rest coming from 183 different countries, making them one of the most ethically and nationally heterogeneous religious communities. With 2.2% of the Australian population, Islam is now the third largest religion in Australia. However, they face increasing adversity and disadvantage due to the widespread fear and vitriol that has become a large part of the modern discourse on their place in society. This Islamophobia has reached a new high in
the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre, despite the fact that the Massacre was perpetrated by a Caucasian Australian man against unarmed Muslims as they prayed. What has led our society to this point where we increasingly shun an ever-prominent subsection of our community? Since the terror attacks that felled the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City on 11 September 2001, the idea of ‘Islamic terrorists’ has become a mainstream concept in both the media and in national politics. This term has been used to smear the majority of Muslims and associate them and their way of life with murder, suicide bombings and other outrageous atrocities in various parts of the world. Despite the widespread condemnation by Islamic organisations, they are still widely held complicit in these acts that they have no connection with. This extensive coverage has been a large driving factor in the increased activity of far-right, ‘white supremacist’ terrorists committing foul acts of violence against innocent Muslim communities to seed and spread fear and chaos. The atrocity that occurred in Christchurch on 15 March high-
76
lights the danger that these white supremacists present to the Muslim community. Despite the fact that the actions of these individuals meet the very definition of the term ‘terrorist act’ according to Australian law – that is, “an act, or a threat to commit an act, that is done with the intention to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause and the act causes serious harm” – there is a reluctance to label them as terrorists by both those of the political class, but more shockingly, by the Australian authorities. This blind spot is quite apparent when considering two other senseless acts of killing. On 20 January 2017, James Gargasoulas drove up the footpath of the Bourke Street Mall and killed six people, with a further 27 injured. When on trial for these crimes in November 2018, he told the jury he had a premonition from God before driving to Bourke Street. This evidence confirms what was already known, that his rampage was based on a religious intention which falls squarely within the definition of a terrorist act, however, the police were very quick to assure the public that the rampage was not a terrorist act. At the time, the Neos Kosmos, a Greek community newspaper here in Melbourne commented that although the killer was of Greek heritage: “Luckily, we were spared the kind of generalisations that the public sphere inflicts on other communities, the rhetoric that Muslims around the world are used to being the target of every time a deranged extremist goes through with an act of terrorism.” As the Gargasoulas murder trial was continuing, another atrocity occurred in Bourke Street. On 9 November 2018 one man was killed and two others injured after being stabbed by a 30-year- old man of Somali origin. In the case of this attack, the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Graham Ashton said: “We are treating this as a terrorism incident.” This criminal, from a Muslim background, was very quickly identified as a terrorist. In the eyes of the authorities,
the Somali man was a terrorist, but the Greek Orthodox killer was not. This is, however, not only found in Australia. The Anti-Defamation League Centre on Extremism found in a new report that every extremist killing in the United States in 2018 has a link to some variety of right-wing extremism. This finding might come as a surprise to some, but for many Muslims, it is merely a confirmation of reality. For young Muslims live in a world where they do not know of a life where they were not public enemy No. 1; where politicians and the media have constantly targeted the Muslim community, bolstered their campaigns with incensing rhetoric, and made them the subject of front-cover sensationalist headlines. In 2017 alone, the Murdoch press on average published eight articles a day that referenced Muslims in association with words such as “violence, extremism, terrorism or radical”. Appropriately highlighting this blatant bias, the satirical comic strip First Dog on the Moon published a comic portraying a News Corp columnist on the so-called Sky News ‘After Dark’, talking about the Christchurch shooting. Within the comic, one panel had the statement: “Who do they think they are, suggesting that just because Murdoch papers in one year alone published almost 3000 anti-Muslim stories including 180 front-pages, that our organisation bears any responsibility for the febrile atmosphere of hatred and violence?” Another source of often intolerant views, Andrew Bolt, on his show Bolt Report, outlined his ‘natural’ and ‘understandable’ response to the idea that we shouldn’t brand Islam as a ‘warlike religion’: “if our politicians will not speak frankly and protect us from Islam, watch out for a civil war.” It’s no wonder that there is growing Islamophobia in Australia based on the barrage of anti-Muslim statements being published in the mainstream media. Politicians are not much better in this regard. Events like 9/11, and closer to home, the Tampa Crisis, have been used very effectively by politicians to stoke Islamophobia
77
and fear of immigration for political means. In the wake of the Christchurch massacre, however, many, though notably not the most far right leaning politicians, are now backing away from their populist posturing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison threatened defamation proceedings against The Project’s Waleed Aly for his explanation of why he was not shocked by the massacre, given the anti-Muslim rhetoric of many of our politicians, especially the Prime Minister, when alluding to a Shadow Cabinet meeting in 2011 when Scott Morrison tried to place anti-Muslim policies into the upcoming election campaign. This insincerity on the part of the Prime Minister was confirmed for many viewers by the trainwreck interview between the Prime Minister and Waleed Aly on 22 March. But this is only one example. Another was by Tony Abbott, who has now distanced himself from a claim that “Islamophobia hasn’t killed anyone”. It remains, however, that in reality these and the many other comments made by both the media and politicians have served to ostracise and marginalise the Muslim community. This is especially apparent when you consider comments made by Senator Fraser Anning
the day after the Christchurch Massacre on an Australian Senate letterhead: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.” Despite the fact that the attack was perpetrated by a white supremacist, Caucasian Australian against Muslims, the Muslims are still to blame in his mind. And due to the sensationalist nature of his views, the Australian media took his comments and plastered them across every headline in the country. And even though they were rallying against him, the headlines directly quoted his vitriol, allowing more people to see it than would ever have from merely his press release.
“As an imam who spoke at Christchurch after the massacre put simply: “Islamophobia kills.” My question to us all now is: What are we going to do about it?”
The danger these white supremacist terrorists, and these unjust, vitriolic comments from both the media and politicians present to both the Muslim community, and indeed the wider community, has been very starkly demonstrated before the world. It is now down to us to somehow mend the rift within the public discourse that caused such malice to take hold. As an imam who spoke at Christchurch after the massacre put simply: “Islamophobia kills.” My question to us all now is: What are we going to do about it?
78
Abstract no. 7
By Sophia Gawan-Taylor
79
Untitled by Sara Watson
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Sestina
by Asha Gatland
I return to my old home Too old now for it to be the same place Of my youth, the house with the lemon tree. There are cold tiles instead of a table Covered in newspaper to stop the paint From dripping. No jam fingers on white walls, No crayon marks. Now the walls Close in on all sides with no sense of home To hide them. Polish masks the trace of paint, Fills it with the scent of another place, One with a linen cloth on its table. There are no lemon blossoms on the tree – A skeleton of a tree – Twistedly naked, bare as white on walls. A husk of its fruit lolls on the table In a glass bowl carved to mirror a home. Dried of juice or seeds it assumes the place Of a still life – frozen – ready to paint. But there’s no space at the table to paint The death of a lemon or undressed tree. Beneath the mantel, a cleaned-out fireplace
88
Echoes the hollow emptiness of walls, The empty hollowness of a blank home With plastic lemons on it clothed table. I sit at the clothed table Imagining what likeness I would paint If somebody asked me about my home, What it became without fruit in its tree Or crayoned drawings to soften its walls. What kind of a home, what kind of a place? I know I could draw this place With its vacant chairs and spotless table Breathing the foul scent of polish on walls Scrubbed free of ink and jam. Though I could paint The wasted bones of a once fruitful tree As the allegory for my old home My mind sees this place: the colour of paint, The papered table, lemons in the tree A place without walls, eternally home.
89
90
Architectural Drawings, Copic Markers Bridget Lieberman
91
As some of you may know, I love playing sport and going to the gym. I am sometimes asked: why do you go to the gym? What is the point of going into a building, three times a week, with a bunch of random sweaty dudes, to lift things up and down for an hour and leave? I usually answer with classics such as: “I want to be stronger for footy, fitter for rowing, or just to make girls recognise that I even exist.” But this isn’t really the real reason why I lift. And I believe that this analysis of
my passion for exercise, will shift us towards a broader understanding of strength and how we should acquire it. I go to the gym because in Year 7 I was the runt of the litter and a frequent subject of bullying. I weighed 29 kg at the time and was naïve as can be. This made me the target for bullying by the much larger Year 8s. Being one of the smaller lads in my year, I was forced to wrestle much larger kids, which usually ended in frequent trips to the nurses’ office. I had my belongings stolen and thrown at me, I was once taped
to my bed, and I dealt with events that are too vulgar for Formal Hall. As you can see, in my first year of high school, I was straight-up not having a good time. Towards the end of the year of torment, a little film was released in cinemas called Captain America. Essentially, Steve Rogers – a stick-thin young man from Brooklyn who is constantly beaten down by the local drunks – gets juiced up with super-serum and takes on the most sinister villains of WWII. After this film, I thought that if I can get big muscles and be stronger, bullies will leave me alone. If I suck at fighting, I need to get better at fighting. Thus a 6-year campaign of
92
gym going began. I was desperate to be strong. I was so afraid of being weak compared to my peers, and I hated being an easy target. I hated always being told that “I’ve got to be tough” and “be a man”. Now, I am not going to go into a rant about the way boys are raised. Rather, I want to ask: why is strength important? From the story I’ve just told, the answer is that strength allows you to stand tall within the social hierarchy and avoid
such tough circumstances. It’s pretty obvious – no revelation there. As a result, we idolise strong mythical and pop-culture icons such as Hercules or Superman. These characters often inspire us to go to pursue meaningful goals of physical value, wherever it be getting fit or standing up to bullies. But if the answer to all of life’s problems was to load them onto a barbell and bench press them, then Shawn Ingle would have already solved world hunger. Human challenges are often both phys-
ical and emotional in nature. The passing away of a loved one not only means that they are physically absent from your life, they are also emotionally absent, and no number of dumbbell bicep curls can consistently help people through those hard times. I have come to learn that a different type of strength is needed. As the world becomes more connected via social media and smart phones, this new type of strength has begun to gain traction: the strength of vulnerability. Originally, when I heard that people should be comfortable with being vulnerable, I thought it was the dumbest idea to ever pass through my ears. Why would I ever let my guard down and expose my
true feelings to others? As someone who was ridiculed for them in the past, it seemed like an inferior strategy of dealing with emotions. Over the course of this year, I have observed the polar opposite. Vulnerability isn’t about appearing weak, but about being honest with who you are. The strongest people are not just those who can punch the hardest, smile the brightest or are the wealthiest. The leaders of our generation will be people who are comfortable expressing their true nature to others. They don’t always hide behind
By Will Clarke
93
a mask, they willingly take theirs off, so that others feel comfortable to do the same. Strength in solidarity is truly what people seek – to be seen in a group; to feel like they are cared for; to have a voice are all strengths that grow fastest when humans are strong enough to show their true selves and lift others up. For most of my life, I exercised to turn pain and humiliation into my weapon, my strength. But the society we live in needs to include more compassionate approaches to dealing with struggles if we are to realise our full potential. Vulnerability is therefore not weakness, it is a gateway to having a more positive relationship with yourself and our community.
Religion: A modern Interpretation by Leo Li ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ - Albert Einstein
In an age of ever-increasing multiculturalism and consequential spiritual diversity, there is no denying that secularisation provides necessary social stability. With growing global religious tensions and catastrophic atrocities sending shockwaves at an alarming frequency, some critics go so far as to condemn religion’s existence in its entirety. However, rather than foolhardily rush into a faithless future, a wiser option would be to stop and reflect on whether this separation of Church and State requires the death of the Church, attempt to recognise its historical role from an unbiased viewpoint, and forge a new 21st Century interpretation of faith distanced from the collectivist ideology it can be (and too often has been) deformed into. I acknowledge that I undoubtedly write from a biased position, having beliefs resultant from a Christian family, school and Australian society with an inherently Judeo-Christian history.
But just as this acknowledgement of context must be made, we require reciprocation from those raised in different backgrounds bearing different views, allowing bipartisan discussion to occur. One common misconception is that the fundamental belief in a deity reduces religion to nothing more than blind extolment and worship. Whilst this was historically true, from a modern-day perspective, such an interpretation is inherently divisive and shuts down dialogue, since different religions must then be fundamentally at odds with each other, whilst atheists feel forced to be devoid of the spiritual altogether. As 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal put it in his Wager, the least important point is whether or not there is an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God. Rather, we should discuss whether acting as if God exists is beneficial to societal function and human flourishing, and use this to determine the validity and role of religion.
94
Elaborating on this idea, we should first note that the Judeo-Christian value set has forged Western society as we know it, whilst analogues such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism promoted the formation, unity, function and stability of others. Values and teachings such as altruism, community, co-operation and family-centric lifestyles promote cohesive societies at a social, individual and biologically symbiotic level. Whilst these faiths have also led to tensions, wars and countless deaths, to say that peaceful homogeneity could have been achieved without these predetermined doctrines is undoubtedly ignorant. Nevertheless, contemporary philosopher Sam Harris promotes this idea in his controversial book The Moral Landscape, arguing that science alone can dictate and forge values that promote societal flourishing, and hence religion is not only redundant, but nothing more than a malignant source of the aforementioned chaos. Harris fervently quotes Hume’s Law: we cannot derive necessity of religion for societal function from its undeniably known prior role (an ought from an is). Whilst this statement has logical merit, it does not detract from a historical essentiality in building civilisations, regardless of whether religious beliefs have any objective necessity or truth, hence such use of Hume’s Law is irrelevant to the consideration of contemporary religious interpretation. Critics of Harris often point out the naïve hubris in his conclusion, since it supposes that evolutionary analysis by individuals (very much a modern, post-Darwinian idea) can overrule civilisation-sustaining value sets that likely themselves underwent an evolutionary process lasting millennia to become what they are today. Moreover, Harris and his ardently atheistic followers do not provide a sound direction forward given the status quo. To abandon religion, when 83% of the world (and even more in the developing world) identify as following one, would be a callous mistake. For many, not only would resources and social structure be lost, but also a source of hope in dire circumstances and, ultimately, an entire way of life. Moreover, in newly vulnerable societies, a social and ideological void could
potentially allow new ‘religions’ in the form of communism and fascism to fester, bringing deities in the form of tyrannical dictators. It is for this reason that in numerous historical cases, religious artefacts, texts and monuments are destroyed prior to collectivist horror taking over in nations plagued by ideological famine. As Carl Jung put it, “people don’t have ideas, ideas have people”, and thus we need to carefully and regularly examine our beliefs. However, religion, when interpreted differently, can itself become a dangerous collectivist ideology, by nature of it being something that we believe in. There is without a doubt a disastrous correlation between religious groups and violence. From the slaughter of Christians in Ancient Rome to the horrors of the recent Christchurch mosque shootings or Sri Lanka bombings, religion used as a divisive ideology – rather than a set of values promoting cohesion – has reared its ugly head many times. This is one of the main sources for its criticism and is what inspires the need for revised interpretation. Extremism of any kind arises for numerous reasons, with a recurring tenet being a lack of bilateral acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. Without acknowledgement, echo chambers allow extreme thought to breed amongst isolated collectives, whilst without acceptance, the junctions from thought to plan to action can be traversed. A solution often proposed to religious instability was summarised succinctly by Mahatma Ghandi when he stated that “the various religions are like different roads converging on the same point”. Whilst this is a sentiment that promotes peace, it leaves the discussion of religion’s role in rather ambiguous territory, as it doesn’t acknowledge the fundamental differences in religious teachings, but rather simply reduces them to a least common denominator. Musician John Coltrane took a different approach, declaring that his ‘alltheism’, a general spiritual belief in an amalgamation of all religions, saved him from alcohol and heroin addiction. Whilst this approach may seem unfathomably liberal (especially to the
95
devoutly religious) and perhaps opens doors to contradictions if scripture is taken at face value, it demonstrates the existence and power of individual choice. Acknowledging this is central to the way forward, out of the storm clouds of religious tension currently looming worldwide and into a new age of tolerance. Above all, we must understand that despite our exponential growth in knowledge as a species, what there is to know may be infinitesimally infinite, and thus it is wise to suppress our dreams of intellectual apotheosis. As a mathematician, I find this is eerily analogous to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which in short state that not all true statements are provable. In any
is wise to approach the matter of religion with objectivity and suspended judgement, recognising that the burden of faith is, as mentioned earlier, an inherently personal choice outside the realm of being correct or incorrect. One’s status of being religious or degree of devotion need not be measured by the insistence of a Creator, but rather adherence to a prescribed set of teachings aligned with personal values. Perhaps then we can return to an era where the spiritual and scientific not only co-exist, but promote mutual proliferation and human advancement. Religion is currently a polarising topic that has too often been unnecessarily deemed taboo due to wildly radicalised interpretations resulting
“Just as a candle cannot burn without men, men cannot live without a spiritual life.” mathematical education, the fundamental art of deductive reasoning leading to conclusions is vehemently taught from youth, with theorems rarely being presented without some cunningly elegant proof. Therefore, to both his contemporaries in 1931 and modern-day academics, Gödel’s controversial yet logically sound result is not only seemingly absurd, but somewhat harrowing in stating that no number of theorems would allow mankind to solve everything. Whilst we need not foolhardily assert that a mathematical curiosity can be extrapolated to a proof of God, this teaches us not to confuse the ideas of existence and observability, since a seemingly human system may have intrinsically inhuman properties. Whilst pieces of evidence alone (no matter how numerous) cannot prove a statement’s truth, a lack thereof equally cannot be used as a disproof, and thus the prerogative of belief is thrust upon the individual. As such, whether devoutly religious or firmly atheistic, it
in division, tension and violence. Whilst we should condemn all such extreme views and actions, we should not forget the pivotal role of religion in forging and maintaining civilisations since the human mind first conceived faith. As a society, we need to re-evaluate what it means to be religious from a modern, multicultural perspective, and recognise that a defining part of our sub-divine humanity is the choice of belief where answers cannot be found. Let us replace our abrasive stubbornness with open minds and our condemnatory hands with reasonable ears. Let us be proud of our choice, yet allow it to be a flexible set of values moulded by religious teachings, life experiences or simply what we deem to be morally and ethically right. Above all, let our collective secularisation not rid us of the personally spiritual, as we then walk the untrodden path, for in the words of Buddha: ‘Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life.’
96
97
98
Negative Space By Sara Court
99
Farewell by Jonathon Liu
I. In the waning weeks of term,
Grains of sand sifting silent through a sieve.
The college soundlessly dies,
Budding relationships
Once resounding in raucous laughter, Now echoing its last reprise. Its lifeblood inaudibly draining, The faintest heartbeat remaining In rustling leaves and oaken shade,
Now at an end, Farewells shared between parting friends, Amid promises made to meet again. Future plans arranged, Tight hugs exchanged –
In rushing traffic on Royal Parade.
The last time for some time.
Empty tables and empty chairs,
It is too easy, on short contemplation,
Mealtimes such subdued affairs, Only the lonely company Of closed doors and vacant rooms, A yawning void within this place,
To invoke the metaphor of hibernation: To say the college bursts forth – After a brief holiday slumber – Back to vigorous life
The spreading stillness of a tomb.
Undiminished, even stronger.
Beneath a radiant sky,
A cycle of assured renewal,
Cars pull up into the drive To spirit away people and belongings, Whilst your stay is yet prolonging.
A river flowing, continual; As dependable as the tides, Or as the passing of the Ides.
Instead, you watch as people leave,
100
This is not quite right.
Who can say for sure?
The college that awakes,
Nothing over time endures.
Is not that which slept.
None may ever truly know –
Each time, people depart for the last time –
Though I for one only hope so.
Taking with them their quirks, their wit, Their cheerful greetings and oft-told stories,
I am grateful, in retrospect,
Leaving this faithful home of years
That our paths did intersect;
And a small piece of themselves behind.
Danced together for a time, Like lines of poetry in rhyme.
Within these reverberating walls – How much they have grown,
But nothing that lasts, lasts forever,
What moments they have shared,
And the same forces that drew us together
What kinship they have known.
Now pull us apart, Scatter us afar;
II.Well, it’s all over now.
Carry us by fateful winds
A chapter of life closes,
To some place out beyond the stars.
as another begins. So before bygones crumble to dust, Will the bonds we have forged persevere?
Falter with age, as all things must –
Will we remember all that was here?
Cherish this time and live well your life,
Will everything we have done
Know the future brings both love and strife;
Stay true after we have gone,
And, weary traveller, wherever thou art,
Even as months turn to years?
Hold close these memories within your heart.
Or will it all dissolve away, Swift as a dream upon break of day, ‘Til nothing at all is left In this indifferent world, bereft Of the slightest traces of our stay?
101
The end.
102
103
