Reference Text Extracts

Rights
The Constitution has no Bill of Rights, such as that found in the United States Constitution, which prevents a legislature from passing laws that infringe basic human rights, such as freedom of speech. Some express protections, however, are given by the Constitution against legislative or executive action by the Commonwealth, but not by the States. Examples are section 51(xxxi) (acquisition of property must be ‘on just terms’), section 80 (trial by jury is required in relation to some criminal offences), and section 116 (a right exists to exercise any religion).

Section 116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Burke, John: Extract from chapter '1' of The Dawn of Ra: internal alchemy, Sydney 1978.

I.B. Note: In this extract, John Burke discusses what the practice of 'magic' is — nothing like the demon-worshiping Christian projection that we have all been brought up to understand.

I WILL GENERATE THE ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT SO THAT I ATTAIN SUCCESS FOR MYSELF AND ALL OTHERS

Everything in nature is in some way linked to everything else. There are physical links of time, space, colour, shape, size etc. and there are “different” links; that bind a tool to a craft, the cause to the effect (and vice versa) and even more abstract links of similarity and/or purpose. Nature, just as people, categorises and systematises its actions, via these links. They are all ways for each thing to make its presence felt by the things around it, or if you prefer, the links are the way each thing includes itself in the flow of time or change on any given “level” of nature.

Magic goes searching for those links and then gradually develops, first an awareness, then through practical application, an understanding of their purpose.

Everything is reaching for some form of development; not just people, or for that matter, not just what is normally called living; and in the course of that development, each thing adds to the picture of the whole. Each part, of each part of nature, adds its contribution to the definition of what we call reality. The extent of the definition that each thing has (of itself and reality) depends upon the limits of the “languages” that each thing uses. The definition a rock has must be very different to the “real” (?) world that people see. Even among people, what’s called true by one is obviously false to another, or is it?

What we see as REAL is only ONE of MANY definitions of reality. To have a totally real image we would have to understand nature from as many different angles as nature itself has developed. We see the definition that has been agreed upon by the society we live in. This isn’t a wrong definition, simply incomplete. We don’t see its incompletion until we experience something that is outside the usual stream of conditioned perception, and even then the personality of the individual will try to “get around” what it’s experienced by many varied and sometimes quite elaborate rationalisations. So how can you tell which is the right way to see the universe? The answer must be by looking at as many different truths as we can and then trying to find a basic “system of relationships” between them all. This system must be flexible enough to be applicable to any situation, yet it has to be simple enough to use easily. People have used many such systems ranging from faith to logic.

There has always been rivalry and competition between these different schools of thought, especially in the Western world where LOGIC dictates that if something is TRUE then it can’t possibly be FALSE. There has always been this rivalry, but only in the minds of the people concerned. Nature agrees with them all, because nature is them all. When the human mind started to explore the purpose of its existence, it not only uncovered reasons (i.e. found the definition other things gave to humanity) but it created new perspectives (i.e. the mind RE-DEFINED what it saw creating MORE links). Because of the different situations we found ourselves in (different climates, physical attributes, food, sex etc) the definitions (links) we gave back to nature have in them what look like contradictions, due to the different degrees of importance various things have under different conditions. For instance, if you stop three different people who have just come out of a beautiful park on a lovely sunny day and ask what they saw, the first, who might be a young man, may only have seen the girls in the park and in the background he may have been only vaguely aware of the trees. But if the next person is a botanist, he may see only the trees and not notice the girls at all. If you stop a third person who is an artist, she might have seen the park in terms of form and colour, a play of light. All three may have walked along the same path, have the same eyesight, may even be the same age and yet the reality of the park is very different to each.

This is what has happened to our various philosophies and religions, only on a much larger scale and over a very long period of time. Up to now we have not had sufficient means of communication to be able to readily see that the apparent contradictions in our major philosophies are products of different cultures. The difference lies in the expression not the basic truth. In the course of your work as a magician you will find that the reality we see as solid, is in fact only that way while our collective (and individual) minds keep it that way. You will see that there is only one God, there are many Gods, and there are NO Gods, all at the same time and without any contradiction; just a shift of perspective or a “change of levels”. Often this “change of levels” can be simply a change of, or a development of our definition, or the manner in which we express it. On one hand we might say one God, many manifestations, on the other, many Gods, each with one function (but still working together as a whole). Or you could say there is YIN and YANG in states of constant fluctuation. All are saying the same thing; there is an observable order in the universe (not always logical or what we call positive) that can be understood by some part of ourselves and even to a certain degree worked with.

Let’s say for example, you take a tribe of primitive people and convince them (one way or another) of the existence of a God of some sort. You give this God certain “attributions”. You “describe your” God in as many ways as you can, so that the tribe gets a clear picture of this force/person (making the God a person makes it capable of hearing you and you capable of hearing it). After a while you will find that prayers offered to this artificial God will sometimes be answered. You may even find that at times the God acts upon its own behalf. What’s happening?

At first when you “make up” your God the only link it has into our reality is through you. Its sole power lies in your imagination. When you convince the tribe of this God’s existence it begins to gain an existence independent of you and your imagination. More and more events that happen are attributed to the actions of this God. In other words, the tribe creates more and more links to the “real” world from the imaginary God until, for all practical purposes, the God does in fact become a working, moving, change-causing, reality. Later in this book, we will see how thoughts not only have form and continuity (the “ideas” and the “stream” of thought) but they have ENERGY and MASS as well and this is both changed by the environment and causes change in the environment (which is one way of defining something that’s real).

Magic is learning to use this ability to pool the forces of our minds, to change our environment to one that suits us better. This is not “new”, it’s the way mankind has always developed. First, someone develops a concept (puts together things/experiences from outside himself and then expresses them in a different form) then this concept gains energy from constant use, then this energy is “focused” (anything can be used to focus this energy, but some things have been used before and are therefore already REALISED and easier to use) to form a new “God”. These gods don’t have to be metaphysical, or even religious; we all know the power of the great god REASON, or the even greater god MONEY! These gods then exert a certain pressure on us and often through us. Gradually we learn more and more about where we want to develop and how to “fit” that development in with the already existing stream of events. Our concept and use of god forms is developed not only by us, but by the development of the whole universe. As our description of reality comes closer to the description nature gives herself, we say we are becoming enlightened. This is just another way of stating what magicians have known for centuries; that if you take an active, positive interest in your development, nature responds by allowing you greater freedom from her own ways of forcing development (which are sometimes rather rough). It is easy to see nature as “already developed” and life gradually being moulded into a pre-determined pattern, but this is in fact a two-way exchange. The microcosm (us) is developed by the macrocosm (everything else), but the macrocosm is just as really developed by the microcosm.

The god forms we create, out of political parties, social ideals and the absolute faith most people have in material sciences, are extremely powerful thought forms. They can and do affect the whole balance of energy, not only for this planet, but the entire solar system, and more. Here again, these systems/ideas are not really wrong, they are incomplete. Their one-sided truth, coupled with the force of the millions of minds that give them energy have led all of us to the brink of yet another disaster in our long history of disasters. We are destroying the delicate balance of life on this planet through the technology that we created and now can no longer control. Obviously, we can no longer afford to devote our life energies to such dangerously destructive gods. Equally as obvious is the fact that you can’t change the world overnight, so the magician does neither.

The solution is much simpler. All we have to do is BALANCE the more destructive side of our social gods. They are destructive because they give a false and frustrating picture of what you need to make you happy. Modern man (in customary fashion) recognises half of his needs; physical survival and sexual/social contact. The half we don’t work with, we “hand over” to the system. The next two drives/energies, that we give/sacrifice to our technological gods are

(III) self esteem: in this drive is held the power to CREATE; it is necessary for the artist to believe she is capable of creating a “special” part of her environment. In our society it is almost a sin to enjoy your own creativity. Many artists have been lost to the world because their artistic drive is suppressed and channeled to give still more energy to religious and political systems.

(IV) self knowledge: our learning at schools, socially and in work situations is directed towards satisfying the first two drives or towards fitting in more and more with social values (material successes, careers etc). The niches or roles people find themselves in, gives less and less opportunity for self expression and therefore self knowledge, yet this is perhaps the strongest drive of all. It is the object, the reason for all three of the other drives (physical survival, sexual/social contact and self esteem).

In people, nature is trying to develop part of herself so that she can fully realise her own beauty and unless we try to recognise and work with the whole of our internal and external environment, she will allow us to destroy ourselves. But we have got the choice. Mankind knows lots of ways to bring about the sort of harmony I’ve been talking about. We’re going to use a few of them in our work on MAGIC. You will learn to become more sensitive to the patterns and flow of the energies that surround you and make up your own body and mind. Once you become aware of your own “inner strength” you must be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. You make your own moral code — in magic there is no supreme father that dictates right and wrong, you have to be continually developing your own values. Which means you must practice the art of being honest with yourself. This is harder than you’d think. It is very difficult and takes some time to undo society’s conditioning and you must be very careful of what you throw away. You also have to remember that you do need other people and they need you.

Dictionary entries (Shorter Oxford English reprinted 1950) for 'pagan' and 'heathen'.

Pagan sb. and a.
late ME. [ad. L. paganus, orig. 'civilian', opp. to miles 'soldier'; in Christian L. 'heathen' as opposed to Christian or Jewish; the Christians called themselves milites 'enrolled soldiers' of Christ.]
A. sb. 1. One of a nation or community which does not worship the true God; a heathen.
(†In earlier use practically = non-Christian.)
2. transf. and fig. A person of heathenish character or habits, or one who holds a position analogous to that of a heathen 1841.
†b. spec. A paramour, prostitute -1632.
1. Adue,.. most beautiful P., most sweete Jew SHAKS. 2. b. 2. Hen. IV, II. ii. 168.

B. adj. 1. Not belonging to a nation or a community that acknowledges the true God; heathen 1586. 2. fig. Heathenish 1550.
1. The ideal, cheerful, sensuous, p. life M. ARNOLD.

Heathen [OE. cf. Goth. Gentile or heathen woman. Orig. 'dweller on the heath', a loose rendering of L. paganus.]
A. adj. 1. Applied to persons or races whose religion is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Mohammadan; pagan; Gentile. In earlier times applied also to Mohammadan; now mostly restricted to those holding polytheistic beliefs.
2. Pertaining to such persons or races, or to their religion and customs OE. Also transf. transf.

1. The h. priests SWIFT, Soldan SCOTT. 2. In al places crysten and hethen CAXTON. transf. Bishops of Durham and naked h. colliers Emerson.

B. sb. (or adj. used subst. 1. One who holds a religious belief which is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Mohammaedan; a pagan OE. (The adj. pl.' the heathen, is now collective; in O.T. = the Gentiles; the sb. pl. heathens is mostly individual.)
2. transf. one who is no better than a heathen 1818.

1. I was sorry to find more mercy in an h. than in a brother Christian SWIFT. 2. Puir frightened heathens that they are SCOTT

philosophy, The Macquarie Dictionary 1st edition, Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia 1981

philosophy, n., pl. -phies.
1. the study or science of the truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being (or reality).

2. any one of the three branches (natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy) accepted as composing this science.

5. the study or science of the principles of a particular branch or subject of knowledge: the philosophy of history.

7. philosophical spirit or attitude; wise composure throughtout the vicissitudes of life.

Philosophy ME.a.OF. file-philosophie, ad. L. philosophia, a. Gr., f. φιλω-σοφια

1. (In the original and widest sense. ) The love, study, or pursuit of wisdom, or of knowledge of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical.

2. That more advanced study, to which, in the mediaeval universities, the seven liberal arts were introductory; it included the three branches of natural, moral, and metaphysical philosophy, commonly called the three philosophies. Hence the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, late ME

3. ( = natural p. ( The knowledge or study of natural objects and phenomena; now usu. called ‘science’.

4. ( = moral p. ( The department of knowledge or study of the principles of human action or conduct; ethics. late ME.

5. ( = metaphysical p. ( That department of knowledge or study which deals with the ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things. (Now the most usual sense. ) 1794

6. Occas. used esp. of knowledge obtained by natural reason, in contrast with revealed knowledge. late ME.

7. With of: the study of the general principles of some particular branch of knowledge, experience, or activity; also, less properly, of any subject or phenomenon 1713

9. a. The system which a person forms for the conduct of life.
b. The mental attitude or habit of a philosopher; serenity. resignation; calmness of temper 1771.

philosophy Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & C Merriman Company, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.

Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.
philosophy, n. fr. Greek. philosophia.
1. Literally, the love of wisdom; in actual usage, the science which investigates the most general facts and principles of reality and of human nature and conduct; specif., and now usually, the science which comprises logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge.

The original designation is due to Socrates, who chose to call himself a “lover of wisdom” in contrast to the pretensions of the Sophists (Sophos wise man or sage). Since there existed at that time no clear divisions of the field of knowledge, philosophy originally comprised all learning, in distinction only from technical precepts and practical arts.

In the medieval universities, philosophy still included the whole body of sciences and “liberal arts, ” only medicine, law, and theology being recognized as co-ordinate. This meaning is still retained in the academic degree, Doctor of Philosophy.

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, philosophy was commonly divided into two main branches, natural philosophy, or what is now called physical science, and mental and moral philosophy which included the present content of philosophy together with psychology and such social sciences as then existed.

Thus the distinction of philosophy from the natural and humanistic sciences is relatively recent. Philosophers themselves differ concerning the ground of this distinction, some finding it in the greater generality of philosophy, others in philosophy’s concern with evaluation rather than description and still others in the combination of the two.

2. A body of philosophical principles. Specif.:
a A system of principles of philosophy (sense 1) identified with some thinker, tendency, or school; as, the Platonic or Transcendental philosophy.
b The body of principles or general conceptions underlying a given branch of learning, or major discipline, a religious system, a human activity, or the like, and the application of it; as, the philosophy of history, Christianity, or of business.
c An integrated and consistent personal attitude toward life or reality, or toward certain phases of it, especially, if this attitude is expressed in beliefs or principles of conduct; as to seek Shakespeare's philosophy in his works.
d A hypothesis, interpretation, or the like, of a philosophical character.

4. Calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher; mental serenity or equanimity; as to meet misfortunes with philosophy.

6. In, Roman Catholic seminaries an extended course in logic, metaphysics, etc., in preparation for Theology.

religion The Macquarie Dictionary 1st edition, Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia 1981

religion, n.
1. the quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe.

2. a particular system in which the quest for the ideal life has been embodied: the Christian religion

3. recognition on the part of man of a controlling superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship..

4. the feeling or the spiritual attitude of those recognising such a controlling power.

6. a point or matter of conscience, esp., when zealously or obsessively observed: to make a religion of doing something.

[ME, frim L religio fear of the gods, religious awe, sacredness, scrupulousness]

Religion ME. [a. AF. religiun, F. religion, or ad. L. religionum; etym. obsc.]

1. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order; the religious life.

2. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; †a religious house. Now rare ME.

3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Also Pl., religious rites. Now rare, exc. as implied in 5. ME

4. A particular system of faith and worship ME. †b. The R. [after F.]: the Reformed Religion, Protestantism -1674.

5. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with ref. to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life 1535.

†6. transf. Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affectation or attachment -1691.

religion Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.

religion, n. [OF., fr. L. religio, prop., taboo, restraint; akin to L. religare to hold back, bind fast, ligare to bind, See RE-; LIGATURE.Cf. RELY.]

1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship, in obedience to divine commands, esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or as declared by recognized teachers and in the pursuit of a way of life regarded as incumbent on true believers; as, ministers of religion.

You shall inflict your sould by a perpetual religion.
Leviticus xvi 31 (D.V.)

2. The state of life of a religious; as, to enter or retire into religion; also, Now Rare, a religious, or monastic, order or mode of life..

3. One of the systems of faith and worship; a formof theism; a religious faith; as, Christian or monotheistic religions; tolerant of all religions.

4. Professions or practices of religious beliefs; religions observances collectively; pl., rites.

The kernel of his practical religion was that it was respectable, and beneficial to one;s business, to be seen going to services.
Sinclair Lewis

Those [legal practices] ... are still continued with much religion.
Sir M Hale.

6. An apprehension, awareness, or conviction of the existence of a supreme being, or more widely, of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own humanity's, or nature's destiny; also, such an apprehension, etc., accompanied by or arousing reverence, love, gratitude, the will to obe and serve, and the like; religious experience or insight; often, specif., the awakening of religious belief, convictions., as in conversion; as, one without religion; man only is capable of religion; to get religion.

8. a A pursuit,an object of pursuit, a principle, or the like, arousing in one religious convictions and feelings such as great faith, devotion, or fervor, or followed with religious zeal, consciousness of fidelity; as, patriotism was to him a Browning.
b Acceptance of and devotion to such an ideal as a standard for one's life.

An artist whose religion is his art. Browning
Men of science do well enough with no other religion than the love of truth. John Burrows

9. Obs. a A religious. b Religious obligation. c Awe. d [Cap. with the]. Protestantism.

Australian Law Reform Commission — interim report dealing with encroachment by Commonwealth laws on traditional rights and freedoms 2015. (link)

Definition of 'religion' for the purposes of Australian law
4.7 The High Court of Australia has enumerated various definitions of ‘religion’. In the Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Case, Latham CJ explained that ‘it would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise a definition of religion which would satisfy the adherents of all the many and various religions which exist, or have existed, in the world’.[5]

4.8 In the Scientology case—a case concerned with whether the Church of the New Faith qualified as a religion for the purposes of charitable tax exemptions—Mason ACJ and Brennan J expressed differing views from Wilson and Deane JJ about how religion may be defined.

4.9 Mason ACJ and Brennan J proposed the following definition of religion:
[T]he criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion. Those criteria may vary in comparative importance, and there may be a different intensity of belief or of acceptance of canons of conduct among religions or among the adherents to a religion.[6]

4.10 Wilson and Deane JJ proposed the following definition:
One of the most important indicia of ‘a religion’ is that the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, that is to say, belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses. If that be absent, it is unlikely that one has ‘a religion’. Another is that the ideas relate to man’s nature and place in the universe and his relation to things supernatural. A third is that the ideas are accepted by adherents as requiring or encouraging them to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance. A fourth is that, however loosely knit and varying in beliefs and practices adherents may be, they constitute an identifiable group or identifiable groups. A fifth, and perhaps more controversial, indicium … is that the adherents themselves see the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.[7]

spirit The Macquarie Dictionary 1st edition, Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia 1981

1. the principle of conscious life, originally identified with the breath; the vital principle in man, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

5. supernatural, incorporeal being esp. one inhabiting a place or thing or having a particular character:evil spirits.

Spirit sb. ME. [a AF. spirit, or ad. L spiritus breathying, breath, air, related to spirare to breathe.]

I. I. The animating or vital principle in men (or animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material element; the breath of life.
b. In contexts relating to temporary separation of the immaterial from the material part of man's being, or to perception of a purely intellectual character. Chiefly in phr. in s. late ME
c. incorporeal or immaterial being, as opp. to body or matter; being or intelligence conceived as distinct from, or independent of, anything physical or material. late ME.

2. The soul of a person, as commended to God, or passing out of the body, in the moment of death. late ME.
b. = SOUL III a. late ME.

I. I. The S. of God (or the Lord), the active essence or essential power of the Deity, conceived as a creative, animating, or inspiring influence ME.

spirit Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.

spirit, n. [OF. or L.; OF. espirit, esperit (F. esprit), fr. L. spiritus; akin to L. spirare to breathe, to blow, and prob. to OSlav. piskati to pipe cf. also E. fizz. Cf. ASPIRE, CONSPIRE, ESPRIT, EXPIRE, INSPIRE, PERSPIRE, RESPIRATION, SPIRANT, SPRITE, SUSPIRE.]

1. The breath of life; life, or the life principle, conceived as a kind of breath or vapor animating the body, or, in man, mediating between body and soul. To Plato it was the second division of the tripartite soul of man, intermediate between the soul of the belly which rules the merely vital function and the rational soul seated in the head. The Galenic notion, accepted in the physiology of the Middle Ages, was that the spirit in the body existed in three kinds of degrees: (1) The natural spirit, a vapor rising from the blood and having its seat in the liver, was considered the principle of the “natural” functions of nutrition, growth, and generation. (2) The vital spirit, transformed from the natural spirit, in the heart, by mixture with air of respiration, had the “vital” functions, conveying heat and life through the arteries to the whole body. (3) The animal spirit, converted in the brain from the animal spirit, included the rational principle, and had the “animal” functions of distributing the power of motion and feeling through the nerves. See ANIMAL, adj., 1.

2. The life principle viewed as the “breath” or gift of deity; hence, the agent of vital and conscious functions in man, the soul. Spirit (Heb. nephesh usually translated “soul” in the Bible, Gr. pneuma, Lat. spiritus) and soul are used sometimes as synonyms, sometimes as naming different elements in man's immaterial nature. In former use, spirit often denoted (as in Def. 1) the vital principle of the body, as something inferior to soul. In current use spirit denotes a disembodies soul or (as in Def. 5) an immaterial being which never had a body. Thus we speak of “spirits of the dead,” “spirit return,” the “land” or “realm of spirits.” See SOUL, n., 1; GHOST, n., 3;

I am thy father's spirit;
Doomed for a certain time to walk the night.     Shak.
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit; shall return unto God who gave it.    Eccl. xii 7.
spirit is a substance wherein thinking, knowing, doubting, and a power of moving, so subsist.     Locke.

3. [often cap.] In the abstract, life or consciousness viewed as an independent type of existence; as, idealists maintain that the essential nature of the universe is spirit, pantheists that spirit pervades the universe. In this sense spirit denotes a quality of being similar to man's psychical or vital nature, conceived as a characteristic of nature or of deity. Thus in Hebrew, ruakh, usually translated “spirit” in the Bible, denotes the divine breath independent of as well as in the body, and nephesh, “soul, spirit,” denotes only the embodied breath. Spirit is is also used to translate such terms (often rendered mind) as the Greek nous (See NOUS, 1), Latin mens, German geist, esp. in connection with idealistic theories. See IDEALISM, 1.

4. [cap., often with the.] One manifestationof the divine nature; one of the persons of the Trinity; The Holy Spirit.

spiritual The Macquarie Dictionary 1st edition, Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia 1981

2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul as distinguished from the physical nature.

3. standing in a relationship of the spirit; non-material; a spiritual attitude, a spiritual father.

4. characterised by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined.

6. of or pertaining to sacred things; pertaining or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical.

Spiritual, a. sb. ME. [a. OF spirituel, or ad. L. spiritualis f. spiritus SPIRIT sb.]

A. adj. I Of, pertaining to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or hight moral qualities, esp. as regarded in a religious aspect. (Freq. dist. from bodily, corporal, or temporal.) late ME.
b. Applied to material things, substances, etc., in a fig. or symbolical sense. late ME.
†c. Of songs etc.: Devotional, sacred -1660.

2. Of, belonging or related to, or concerned with sacred or ecclesiastical persons or things, as dist. from secular; pertaining to the church or the clergy; ecclesiastical ME>

3. Of persons:
a. Standing to another in a relationship based on a sacred or religious obligation. late ME.
b. Ecclesiastical, religious. Freq in s. lords and s. man (or person). late ME.
c. Devout, holy, pious; morally good; having religious tendencies or instincts. late ME.

4. Of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit, regarded either in a religious or intellectual aspect; of the nature of a spirit or incorporeal supernatural essence; immaterial ME.

6. Of or pertaining to, emenating from, the intellect or higher faculties of the mind; intellectual 1725.

spiritual Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.

spiritual, adj. [OF. or L.; OF. spirituel, from L. spiritualis. See SPIRIT.]

1. Of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal; as, a spiritual substance or being.

2. Of or pertaining to the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind; mental; intellectual; also, highly refined in thought or feeling.

3. Of or pertaining to the moral feelings or states of the soul, as distinguished from the external actions; reaching and affecting the spirit.

4. Of or pertaining to the soul and its affections as influenced by the divine Spirit; controlled and inspired by the Spirit; proceeding from the Holy Spirit; pure; holy; divine; heavenly-minded; — opposed to carnal.

That I may impart unto you some spiritual gift. Rom. i. 11.

If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one. Gal. vi. 1.

5. Of or pertaining to sacred things or the church; sacred; as, spiritual songs; not lay or temporal; ecclesiastical; as, lords spiritual and temporal.

1. A spiritual thing, function, office, or affair; a spirituality; specif., pl., sacred matters; holy affairs; esp., church or religious affairs.

2. A spiritual person; as:
a One spiritual-minded.
b One whose office or occupation is spiritual; an ecclesiastic.

spirituality The Macquarie Dictionary 1st edition, Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia 1981

3. predominately spiritual character, as shown in thought, life etc.; spiritual tendency or tone.

4. (oft. pl.) property or revenue of the church or of an ecclesiastic in his official capacity.

Spirituality late ME. [a. OF (e)spiritualite, -allete (mod. F. spiritualité), or ad. late L. spiritualitas, f. spiritualis SPIRITUAL a.; see -ITY.]

1. The body of spiritual or ecclesiastical persons; the clergy. Now Hist. 1441.

2. That which has a spiritual character; ecclesiastical property or revenue held or received in return for spiritual services. Now arch. 1441.
b. pl. Spiritual or ecclesiastical things; ecclesiastical possessions, rights, etc., Of a purely spiritual character. Now Hist. late ME.

spirituality Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.

spirituality, n.; pl. -TIES. [F. or L.; F. spiritualité, fr. LL. spiritualitas.

1. Quality or state of being spiritual; spiritual nature or function; spiritual-mindedness.

3. Quality or state of being incorporeal; incorporeality; existence purely as a spirit.

5. Eccl. Law. That which belongs to the church, or to a person as an ecclesiastic, or to religion; specif.:
a The spiritual jurisdiction of the church.
b pl. The fees or dues or thithes receivable by an ecclesiastic as such; — disting. from the temporalities, the landed possessions of the church.

Carlo Pedretti, ‘Leonardo da Vinci’, TAJ Books, Cobham, Surrey UK 2006.
All of Leonardo's work as painter & theoretician of painting is imbued with the concept that art should be considered a form of creative knowledge, on the same level as science and philosophy.

What is Kosher and Halal slaughter in Australia? Link to RSPCA knowledgebase.

Kosher food laws are based on interpretation of the Bible and the Torah, the Judaic scriptures, and set out a range of beverages and foods (including meat) that are acceptable for people of the Jewish faith. For meat to be Kosher, animals must be slaughtered in accordance with Judaic rites which requires for slaughter to occur without prior stunning.

Halal food laws are based on interpretation of the Quran, the Muslim scripture, and set out the range of beverages and foods (including meat) that are acceptable for Muslims. The procedures for Halal slaughter can vary from country to country due to the differing interpretations of the Quran. In Australia, halal slaughter in most cases allows for animals to be stunned prior to slaughter using reversible stunning methods.

Religious slaughter may mean animals are slaughtered without prior stunning or using reversible stunning methods (for halal slaughter), whereas conventional slaughter may use irreversible stunning methods. Halal slaughter requires that the animal is killed from the throat cut and bleeding out process rather than the stunning method. Kosher slaughter has similar requirements, however in Australia does not currently accept reversible stunning methods.

The time to regain consciousness following a reversible stun will vary depending on the stunning method used. The aim of reversible stunning is that unconsciousness is maintained long enough for the animal to bleed out following the throat cut and die before there is a chance to regain consciousness. Although reversible stunning is far better from an animal welfare perspective than no stunning at all, there is still a risk that animals could regain consciousness during the slaughter process. Irreversible stunning methods are more effective in inducing unconsciousness than reversible stunning methods and are therefore preferred.

A small number of abattoirs and poultry processors in Australia have been granted ongoing permission from their relevant state or territory authority to conduct religious slaughter without prior stunning – to produce either Halal or Kosher meat. This exemption to the requirement for pre-slaughter stunning is permitted under the current Australian standards for the hygienic production and transportation of meat and meat products for human consumption (AS 4696:2007) and Australian standard for construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465:2005).

Our understanding (as of 2020) is that there are 9 abattoirs and poultry processors in Australia with approval to conduct slaughter without prior stunning:

New South Wales – 2 abattoirs
South Australia – 3 abattoirs
Victoria – 4 abattoirs

The requirements for religious slaughter without prior stunning of cattle, sheep and goats are set out in a national guideline. The Meat Standards Committee Guideline MSC 01/2004 Ritual slaughter for ovine (sheep) and bovine (cattle) states:

For cattle, stunning is required but occurs immediately after the throat is cut. This requires two slaughtermen to be present, one to perform the cut and one to perform the stunning. The animal must be restrained (including head restraint) in a manner that ensures it remains standing in an upright position during the slaughter process.

For sheep and goats, stunning is not required unless the animal is distressed or does not rapidly lose consciousness, in which case they must be immediately stunned. The requirements differ because cattle have a different blood supply to the brain meaning they may take longer to lose consciousness than sheep and goats.

What are the animal welfare concerns associated with religious slaughter? Link to RSPCA knowledgebase.

The main animal welfare concern with halal slaughter is whether or not animals are rendered unconscious (stunned) before they are killed. For halal slaughter in Australia, all export and most domestic slaughtering establishments comply with standard slaughter practice where animals are stunned prior to slaughter using reversible stunning methods.

For kosher slaughter there is no requirement for animals to be stunned prior to slaughter.

The RSPCA is concerned that there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without prior stunning than during conventional slaughter.

Slaughter without prior stunning requires additional handling and restraint meaning animals experience increased amounts of fear and stress. The throat cut aims to sever the major blood vessels in the neck as well as the surrounding tissue (including skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, and nerves). When an animal is fully conscious during the throat cut, the extensive tissue damage and blood loss means the animal experiences pain before death. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.

Makarata.
The American anthropologist W. Lloyd Warner, (1898-1970, spent three years, from 1926 to 1929, as a researcher for the Rockefeller Foundation and the Australian National Research Council, studying the Murngin people of Arnhem Land in northern Australia with his base at the Milingimbi Methodist Mission.

In 1937 he published 'A Black Civilization: A Social Study of an Australian Tribe', an extensive collection of factual data about the habits and customs of the Murngin with analyses of many aspects of their culture and social organization, including, totemism, magic and religion, kinship and marriage rules, conflict resolution (including warfare & makarata), etc.

The index entry for 'Makarata' gives the following pages, whose text is given below. Pages 163-165 give the most comprehensive description of the makarata process, but the other mentions add important dimensions. Click the page number to jump to the relevant text.

For the purposes of the blood feud all children, including boys until the time they have a beard, are classed as women; it is felt wrong to kill very young men, who are usually not allowed to accompany the older men on fighting expeditions.

When a man sees the python totem for the first time he must have a moustache and beard. The young men who have not been initiated into the Djungguan by seeing the python totemic emblem are allowed to sit back of the brush hut where the totem is kept. If they are able to look through the wall, they must keep their heads down so that they cannot see what is inside. They are allowed to call out at the end of each song in the chorus with the older men.

When the time comes for them to paint for the last Djungguan ceremony, these young men who have not seen the totem go off to a little depression in the ground or behind some bushes some distance from the old men's camp and put their decorations on by themselves.

Men obtain their wives at almost any age after they have reached maturity, the first usually when the beard begins, and the others at any time after that through the operation of the levirate or because promised by their mother's brothers. For example, several old men over sixty had several female children promised them as wives. The best time for a boy to marry is when his moustache appears, when he "looks like a proper man," and not until then. His father and mother, as well as father-in-law, exert pressure on him to see that he remains single, and they also observe his behavior to make sure that he does not have contact with a girl before that, although usually their efforts are unsuccessful. "Gawel is on the lookout and no business happens with that girl. He says to the father and mother, 'I'll listen for you people too.' " A young man said to me, "We do not sleep with girls before we are married because we are afraid of the old people. Sometimes a girl who belongs to another man says yes and we do. If it is found out the proper husband raises a row, and maybe her father. Sometimes a boy gets killed this way and sometimes they only cut him until the blood comes" (in a makarata).

In the married people's camp the husband and wife "own" the hut because they both participate in the making of it and both live in it. The woman ordinarily keeps it clean and throws away the garbage which collects about the floor. Usually she makes the fire and it is her duty to bring in the wood. It is also her duty to cook the shell

food, yams, and other vegetable food. This is generally done communally by the women in the bush where the food is gathered, but women also cook within the camp. Men cook the larger animals, prepare the stone ovens, place the large chunks of meat in the fire, and tend the food to see that it is being properly treated.—It is considered as within the bounds of propriety for the man to move about the camp at night in the way he pleases, but "all women must stay in the house when the men are at horne."

Definite taboos are removed from a man's diet when he becomes a father (see pages 57 and 58), as from a woman's when she becomes a mother or too old to have children. After the birth of the child, the parents paint themselves. He takes the bones of his first kills from the basket which had been made by his mother and carries them some distance from the camp. Here a hollow log is cut in the same shape as that for the bones of a dead man, and the bones are put inside it. The "coffin" is put up in the camp in the same manner as a dead man's carved hollow-log coffin. The people who have had meat from the boy while he could not eat put presents of food in his clan's symbolic well, made while he was painting himself.—lf a man had eaten of the tabooed foods while in the lower age grades, it is supposed he would become weak and unable to throw a spear in a spear fight; in a makarata it is likely that a spear will go into his leg, it will swell up and his flesh grow rotten while the spear is in his leg. This will also happen if the bones of the animals killed are not put in a hollow log and treated properly. If a young childless man ate porcupine, he would not grow up because "porcupine is a short one."

The reason given for the release from the taboos (see also page 58) is that the young man "becomes more quiet then and does not run about everywhere after other women. He stays in one place and looks out for his own galle and children." In reality, his social personality has grown so that his actual relatives include descending relatives as well as ascending. The birth of a child heightens his emotional ties with his relatives who have children who will marry his children and, in all, puts him in a different status, which is expressed by the release of the food taboos. All this underlying thought agrees with the Murngin idea that marriage does not become complete and permanent until a child is born.

open to human occupation by the drying of the land, the burning of the spear grass, and the disappearance of the swarms of vicious insects, these smaller groups coalesce into larger units which may contain as many as thirty or forty people and will contain many more if a large ritual is being celebrated. Every member of this group is related closely to at least one or more other individuals in the group, but to the rest he is only tribally related. Where the sea-turtle eggs on the sand beaches are most plentiful, the oyster beds most prolific and accessible, sea-bird eggs most abundant, lily and yam swamps most productive, and the cycad palm nuts ripened and ready for picking, there will be found the horde groups.

All of the people in the horde will be of friendly clans which are usually closely intermarried; if there are antagonisms they are suppressed or given expression in a peace-making makarata, which allows those involved to remain in harmony. As soon as food is plentiful the better areas usually become locations for the great rituals which take place at this time; the ceremonial life definitely enlarges the size of the horde groups. The camp of the horde is organized spatially in the same way as the clan lands are spatially related to each other.

Ritual sanctions at this time help prevent open strife, which is always a possibility whenever the clans come together. The belief that the totem will be offended if clashes occur between opposing clansmen usually keeps the peace. Ritual sanction, then, is the most powerful force in regulating the peaceful behavior of these larger food-gathering hordes. If it were not for these extreme sanctions the larger hordes could not be formed. Peoples with a background of feud and warfare who might not otherwise risk meeting one another can be fairly certain of peace in a horde gathered for a ritual. Since the local clans which start the ceremony have it well under way and the totemic emblems have been made and are in the camp by the time the first guests arrive, hesitant visitors can feel comparatively safe in coming to the ceremony. The bitterly antagonistic clans, however, who have a continuous blood feud tradition and a record of killing back of them would never be present unless under extreme circumstances, for religious sanctions or peace-making duels would not prevent open strife and possible secret killings between them.

The horde, then, is governed by the seasonal fluctuation of plenty or scarcity, and its extreme in size is effected by the attractive stimuli of important ceremonies.

WARFARE is one of me most important social activities of the Murngin and surrounding tribes. Without it, Murngin society as it is now constituted could not exist. Any social change consequent upon the loss of the trait would demand a decided alteration in the fundamental structures of the civilization. Warfare prevents modifications in the society that would possibly destroy it.

The tribe is not the war-making group in this society, nor is the moiety. Warfare is as likely to occur within these groups as outside them. The clan, the largest social unit without internal armed conflict, is usually the war-making group. The causes leading to warfare are the killing of a clansman by a member of another clan, and interclan rivalry for women. The latter is the usual cause of a killing. Blood vengeance forces further killings. Clans within a moiety are more likely to be fighting, since clans of the opposite exogamic moieties are not in competition for women. An analysis of battles and killings shows this to be true in most cases, but there are a number of instances in which groups belonging to opposite moieties have been in conflict.

Feuds between clans of opposite moieties are more likely to die out for lack of the stimulus provided by competition for women. Such clans are likely to allow a makarata to be held, where blood is ceremonially shed as repayment for the death of a clansman, in order that the feud may be definitely ended.

It seems a probable hypothesis that one of the fundamental reasons for the creation of a phratry is a drive within the civilization to create social structures intermediate in size between moiety and clan, where open conflict would be taboo, as it is now within clan limits. This feeling is not strong enough to counterbalance the open antagonisms resulting from the struggle for women. The clan structure is too solid and too powerful to yield any of its influence to a larger social institution.

only because of warfare, and, conversely, is a decided factor in stimulating open conflict because of the resultant scarcity of women.

The kinship system of the Murngin, with its attendant set of obligations, duties, rights and privileges stated sufficiently often before, tends to enlarge the scope of a two-clan feud to four or possibly all of the clans of the several tribes. The waku-gawel relationship, and also the dué-galle, mari-kutara, and marelker-gurrong relationships express a very strong solidarity; and a man can depend upon any one of these relatives, distributed in eight or more clans besides his own, to come to his assistance. An isolated killing, owing to the strength of the kinship structure, usually results in the whole of northeastern Arnhem Land becoming a battle ground at fairly frequent intervals.

Kinship solidarity extends warfare but also has the opposite tendency: that of limiting its scope when it has reached very large proportions. All the clans are interrelated, and generally many will find their loyalties divided, for the kinship through marriage of certain members of a clan will dictate their helping one faction, while other members will be compelled by the laws of kinship to aid the other side. Since the solidarity of the clan prevents members fighting among themselves, those clans whose loyalties are divided usually try to pacify the warring ones. In a makarata, frequently arranged by them, they will usually be found doing all they can to have this peace-making ceremony end successfully.

People who gather to celebrate the great totemic ceremonies, such as the Gunabibi, Djungguan, or Narra rites, come from clan territories sometimes hundreds of miles apart. The leaders for the Gunabibi ceremony, for instance, frequently come up through the interior from the headwaters of the Roper River in the south to the mouth of the Goyder. Members from all the tribes in the northern Arnhem Land district attend yearly. A ceremony assumes greater importance the larger the number of people present and the greater the distance they have come. A man always brags about how far he traveled, how many clans he visited on his pilgrimage to invite the various peoples to his circumcision, and how many people attended.

Warfare is in direct opposition to ceremony. It tends to destroy the larger group solidarity and ultimately to reduce the people who are at peace with each other to the clan unit, since only here is there absolute assurance that fighting cannot take place.

There are six distinct varieties of warfare among the Murngin. Each has a separate pattern of behavior and an individual name. ln addition to these there is another form in which only the women partricipate. The names are nirimaoi yolno, a fight within the camp; narrup or djawarlt, a secret method of killing; maringo (death adder), a night attack in which the entire camp is surrounded; milwerangel, a general open fight between at least two groups; gaingar (ghost spear), a pitched battle; and makarata, a ceremonial peace-making fight which is partly an ordeal. Each of the six forms will be described in detail.

In the seventy-two recorded engagements involving killings, twenty-nine men were slain by a gaingar fight, thirty-five by maringo, twenty-

Makarata
The makarata is a ceremonial peacemaking fight. It is a kind of general duel and partial ordeal which allows the aggrieved parties to vent their feelings by throwing spears at their enemies or by seeing the latter's blood run in expiation.

Frequently the makarata does not follow the ideal pattern; instead of providing a peacemaking mechanism, it produces only another battle in the interminable blood feud of the clans.

When sufficient time has elapsed after an injury or death of a member for the clan's emotions to calm, the men send a message to their enemies saying they are ready for a makarata. The other side usually agrees to enter into this peacemaking ceremony, although there is always suspicion of treachery. The injured group always sends the invitation, and the other must wait for them to decide when they wish to have it.

Frequently makarata are held after some of the totemic ceremonies have taken place, since it is at this time that most of the clans will be present. When the warriors of the injured clan or clans arrive on the dueling ground they are covered with white clay. They dance in, singing a song which is descriptive of the water of their totemic well. The other side has also painted itself. The two sides stand a little

more than spear-throwing distance apart, and each is so situated that it has a mangrove jungle back of it for protection in case the makarata becomes a real fight and it is necessary to take cover. The clan which considers itself injured performs the dance connected with its chief totem. It is of the garma or non-sacred variety. The Warumeri clan, for instance, would dance the garawark (mythological fish) totemic dance; the Djirin clan would perform its shark dance. The challenging group dances over to its antagonists, stops, and without further ceremony walks back to its own side. After the men have reformed their ranks, their opponents dance toward them, using the latter's totemic dance for this military ritual. They return to their own side and reform their line to make ready for the actual duel.

The men who are supposed to have "pushed" the killers then start running in a zigzag in the middle of the field, facing their opponents. They are accompanied by two close relatives who are also near kin of the other side. The function of the latter runners is to deter the aggrieved clan from throwing spears with too deadly an intent for fear of hitting their kin, and to help knock down spears which might hit the "pushers." The "pushers" are made a target for spears whose stone heads have been removed. Every member of the clan or clans which feels itself injured throws at least once at the runners. When an individual's turn to throw arrives he advances from the group and moves toward the runners. If he feels very strongly he continues throwing spears until he has chased the runners into the jungle. This action is repeated by the more indignant members of the offended clan three or four times. The injured clan curses the members of the other group; the offending group cannot reply, for this is supposed to add additional insult; they must run and say nothing. Finally, when their emotions have subsided to a considerable extent, one of the older men of the offended group says that they have had enough and the spear throwing stops.

After the "pushers," the actual killers run. The spear head is not removed from the shaft; the throwers continue hurling their spears, at first as a group and finally as individuals, until they have exhausted their emotions. While all this is taking place, the old men of both sides walk back and forth from one group to the other, telling the throwers to be careful and not kill or hurt anyone. The offending clan's old men ask the younger men to be quiet and not to become angry, and when they hear insults thrown at them not to reply or throw spears since

they are in the wrong. When the old men of the injured clan feel that they have sated their anger as a group they call out to the young men to stop, and each man then throws singly at the killers. He may throw as long as he pleases.

When this part of the ceremony has been completed, the whole offending group dances up to the other, and one of the latter jabs a spear through the thighs of the killers. If this happens it means that no further retaliatory action will be taken. The killers can feel free to go into the country of their enemies without fear of injury. If only a slight wound is made the offenders know they are not forgiven and the truce is only temporary. Sometimes no wound is made at all. This acts as a direct statement of the offended clan's intention to wreak vengeance on the other side.

After the wound has been made the two sides dance together as one group to prove their feeling of solidarity and to express ritually that they are not openly warring groups, but one people. They also perform the usual water dance.

The above is the idealized form of the makarata. If all goes well, this procedure is followed through until the end, and the makarata's purpose is fulfilled. The following things can happen to turn the makarata into a real fight: (1) the old men may not have enough power to keep their young men in control; (2) the offending side may start swearing or throwing spears, which immediately turns the whole performance into a fight; (3) one of the runners may be badly wounded, which is likely to stimulate his clan members to attack the other side; (4) treachery may be resorted to; (5) the accidental wounding of an outsider may sometimes result; and (6) a member of either side may deliberately throw a spear into the other group because he is anxious to start a general fight.

Brawls in which only women are engaged are fairly frequent. The fights usually take place between two women, almost always because a young woman has seduced another's husband. Occasionally more than two women are involved, sisters taking sides with their kin; or several wives of one man may attack his sweetheart, in which case the latter usually calls upon her own relatives for help. The women's ironwood digging sticks are the usual weapons, although if a man's club is within reach the women often use it. They strike each other on the head. The fights are of such intensity that bloodshed always results.

"Well," said he, "it can't be helped. I can do nothing, for my son started it first." He collected his wives and belongings and said, "We will go now. I think this wound will kill me before I get home."

"When I die," he said, "you wives put me in my grave and go straight to Warlumbopo [his younger brother] and tell him what has happened to his elder brother."

Shortly after he had spoken, Warlumbopo walked into the dying man's camp. He cried and cried. Then the old man raised himself to a sitting position. He danced the dance of the black duck totem flying home, for be remembered his totemic water hole and he wanted his soul to go straight to it when it left his body, and then he fell back dead. ⁵.

Warlumbopo said, "I won't show my sorrow now. I will go buy you back first, my brother." He did not bury his brother, and he told the wives of the deceased not to bury him. He picked up his spears and basket and went away. He went down to the Blue Mud Bay country where the Marderpa people bad gone after his brother had left them. He went over to Woodah Island. It was daytime.

The Marderpa people saw him. They conferred together. "We must kill him too," they said. They got ready. Groote Eyelandt and Barlamomo people were also there. Warlumbopo walked straight into the camp as though nothing had happened. All the men of the camp hooked up their spears. "Why have you people got your spears hooked up? What is the matter?" He pretended he knew nothing.

The old Marderpa man who had killed his brother sang the water of the Ritarngo well and the water of the Marderpa clan's well, then he said the dead man's name. "We killed him and his son," he said.

"Oh," said Warlumbopo, "and a good thing it was, too. He was a wakinu [without relatives and asocial]. I have a spear mark from him too." He showed a scar upon his leg (from an engagement with an enemy, not from his brother).

Warlumbopo painted himself for a makarata peacemaking ceremony, and so did the old men of the Marderpa group. They went out to the dueling ground. Two old men and two boys ran for Warlumbopo to throw his spears at them. He took the stone heads out of his spears and threw two shafts at them.

⁵ All clansmen perform this death ceremony. A Wangurri would dance and call out his Garawark, the son of Bartimundi; a.nd a Liaalaomir man would dance the great python and imitate the thunder of his totem.

"All right," he said, "I am satisfied. My brother was no good, and I can not be angry."

The four men came up for him to spear the man who had done the killing. "No," said Warlumbopo, "I don't want to spear your leg. I am through." (He did not want to take this action which is symbolical of finishing a feud, so that he could kill the man at a later date.)

Warlumbopo took his spear head and just broke the skin of his enemy. He wanted the latter to think that it did not mean very much to him, but inwardly it signified that he intended to kill him later.

They all went back to camp. He slept there with them that night. The Marderpa men watched him, for they believed he might be pretending and they were too wise not to know that all the people in the north resort to trickery whenever it is possible. Warlumbopo remained quiet. He stayed there for over a week and did nothing. He carried only one spear to keep suspicion down. It was a big red stone spear. He put a longer shaft to it. The fact that he carried only one spear served partially to quiet the suspicions of his enemies, for ordinarily when there is trouble a man carries a large bundle of them.

One night when it was dark he slept nearer the main camp. The camp dogs came in from their places in the surrounding bush. They were nosing about the refuse while they hunted for turtle bones. Two dogs became engaged in a noisy fight over a bone. One of them was Warlumbopo's. While they were howling he picked up his spear and started calling the dog's name, "Latera!" (also the name of the stones around his clan well), and running toward the dogs, which brought him to the side of the old man who had killed his brother. The old Marderpa was awakened by the noise and raised up on his elbow. As he did this, Warlumbopo shoved his spear downward into the man's gullet. He started running again, calling for his dog as he went across to the mainland on the sand bank that connects the island with it during low tide. When he was out of the firelight's glow in the darkness of the surrounding bush he stopped and called back to the Marderpa, "You people do not know what is at the bottom of new spring water.'⁶.

Warlumbopo went back into the bush to the camp of his dead brother. The body had swollen. It was very large. The wives of the dead man were still there. He dug a hole and rolled the body into it, covered it, and went back to his Ritarngo country with the wives. When he arrived home he

⁶ This cryptic, rather epigrammatic remark, with a touch of sardonic humor about it, very typical of Murngin thought, refers to the fact that every year, after the long wet season is past and the flood waters have gone, new fresh-water springs are found and it is always a matter of speculation from where they come. Warlumbopo had likened himself to a spring and the cause of his arrival in the Marderpa camp to the underground source of a spring's water supply.

sang the water song of their clan well to another older brother, Daurlung, and thereby told him of their elder brother's death, since the name of the dead is taboo. Daurlung cried. After he had finished he said, "We will get all our Rirarngo people and go fight the Marderpa."

"No," said Warlumbopo. He had not told his brother of what he had done to avenge their older brother's death, because he believed Daurlung was a good friend to the man he had killed, and he wanted first to tell the whole story. When Daurlung heard that his friend (a distant tribal younger brother) had not tried to save the lives of his own brother and son, he was very angry. He said, "We will go kill that one first."

"My own brother!" said Daurlung. "Good! I shall give you two of my wives." He then gave Warlumbopo two of his wives to show his appreciation.

Meanwhile rivalry for women among certain clans had caused another feud to continue between the Djirin and the Naladaer on one side and the Gwiyula on the other. The Daiuror clan, which is closely related to the former two by marriage, always sided with them in a dispute, but the Gwiyula usually had much the best of the fighting for their clan had two of the most feared and deadly fighters, known throughout the tribes of the eastern Arafura Sea. They are Parpar and Drona (the kangaroo-legged one), who has a deformed leg.

Parpar, about fifteen years ago, killed Djingaran, a Djirin clansman, the father of Maiangula, for revenge in a narrup fight. Maritja, a son of Djingaran's brother and a member of the Djirin clan, a few years later killed a Gwiyula in a maringo fight. Parpar and Drona then killed several Naladaer people, including Ginda, the brother of Berundais, who will be mentioned with Maoangula a little later in this story. They also wounded Wahjimi, a member of the Daiuror clan.

They put the corpse of Berundais' brother in a tree. Djowa and a number of his people some few months later cleaned the bones and took them away. Djowa found the spear head with the skeleton. He wrapped it with paper bark and fiber string, as is always done with such relics, and put it in his basket. All the members of the party that gathered the bones received one or more small bones as relics.

Djowa and Berundais kept the spear in their baskets. A short time after this they conferred and decided to transfer it to someone else. They gave it to Watia (Liagaomir clan). Watia kept the relic for a considerable period

of time and finally, tired of having it in his possession, presented it to Bengaliwe (Djirin clan). He said, "This comes from Drona and Parpar. You can do something about this, for I am tired." Time passed and Bengaliwe also lost interest in the relic. The killing had occurred so long before the time of his possession that it did not have great emotional interest for him. He even considered throwing it away, but it still remained in his personal basket. One day Balliman (Djirin clan) looked into his relative's basket. He saw the relic wrapped in the fiber string and, since he was still a very young man, his curiosity was aroused to the point of his asking Bengaliwe what it meant. Bengaliwe said, "That belongs to you people. It comes from Parpar's brother." Since the Naladaer and Djirin clansmen are considered more or less one people, for the Naladaer has a very undifferentiated existence from the Djirin, the statement of Bengaliwe was true.

Balliman's interest was aroused. He was a natural fighter, and always keen on organizing an expedition to fight someone, no matter what the cause. He went to his near brother, a member of the Djirin clan, Maiangula, and said, "I have something here for you. It is an old gatu [son]. It belongs to us. The spear that killed him is in Bengaliwe's basket." Maiangula, a large man of a more or less even temperament, said, "What do you think we had better do? Do you think we ought to steal it away from Bengaliwe? He can't go fight them for that. His people are too near relatives to them for him to fight Parpar and Drona. They are like one people."

Maiangula had been a small boy when his father was killed, so he had done nothing at the time to avenge his father's death. About three years before he received the relic from Bengaliwe and about two years after the killing of Ginda, the Naladaer, Waltjimi, the war leader of the Daiuror group, who was Maiangula's father-in-law, said to the young man, "You have a spear head, Maiangula, that was found in the body of Ginda when we painted his body with red ocher and took it from the tree. He was my waku [son-in-law]. You go kill Parpar and Drona and I will give you one of my daughters for a present to become your wife."

After a conference, Maritja, the leader of the Djirin, agreed to head the party. He agreed to go on the expedition only after he had stipulated that Parpar and Drona be the only two men killed, since they were such notorious killers that there was a general feeling among the older men throughout north Arnhem Land that the clan to which the two belonged should not he held responsible for their behavior. This feeling, however, became uppermost in the minds of the old men only at those times when they were most philosophical and there had been no recent slaying, for during their more emotional states they felt that the whole clan should be destroyed. Maiangula and the younger men, although agreeing to this

consideration of Maritja, were out to kill for blood vengeance and did not concern themselves with whether to kill Parpar and Drona or other members of their clan. In the war party which left in search of Parpar and Drona were Maritja (Djirin), Balliman (Djirin), Maiangula (Djirin), Djowa (Daiuror), Berundais (Naladaer), as well as many other members of the three clans. The first two were actual brothers, and the third a classificatory brother of the first two, since his father was a brother of their father. Djowa was a son of Waltjimi's older brother.

Narnarngo, a Liagaomir clansman who had reared Parpar when the latter's father's father died, heard of the expedition and dispatched Kamata⁷ and Gurnboko, the first a Bringel and tbe second a Gwiyula, to warn Parpar of his danger. They joined the camp where the others were staying. The information spread among the war party that these new people were going to warn Parpar. The younger men immediately decided among themselves to give up the expedition and kill Kamata and Gurnboko. The leader, Maritja, a much older man than the others, anempted to prevent this but failed.

Maiangula, the leader of the younger men, said, "Narnarngo, who knows all the news, talks too much; he has found out we are going to kill Parpar and Drona. Parpar is a 'son' of Narnamgo. These two men here we can kill now. They are close enough relatives to those others for us to kill them even though they are a little bit 'far off' in their relationship. Because they are a little far, we will not tell Maritja. He is an old man and understands too much, and he will know that we are doing something a little bit wrong. I cannot think that way in my head; I think too much about my father. This young man is a brother that belongs to Parpar; he is close enough."

Maritja knew from the behavior of the younger men that they were plotting the death of the two young men. He said, "I have lived a long time. I saw the old men and the way they acted before you young men were born. I have seen them grow very quiet and their bodies look like they were dead when they were filled inside with a desire to fight. I have seen myself that way. It is better that we go back to our camp. If we stay here you will kill somebody who is not a close enough relative to Parpar and Drona, who killed our relatives."

He warned the prospective victims of their danger and asked them to leave immediately, but they were too young fully to believe him. When it was dusk, the three young men, Maiangula, Balliman and Berundais, formed a camp by themselves against the old men's protests. It was behind a large pandanus palm tree, about eight or ten feet away from the others. Maritja, to make sure that no harm would fall upon the young Gwiyula

⁷ This younger Kamata must not be confused with the first one who was killed in the earlier part of the history here related.

and his companion, had them sleep beside him. After a time they all went to sleep. Maritja felt something in his hair. He raised up, sat down by rhe fire; he said to his young charges, "Don't you go to sleep now. Something was walking about in my hair. I think it was sent to warn me. Maybe it was a spirit to tell me that somebody would get speared tonight." He talked very loudly for everyone to hear, in the hope that it might frighten the younger men and prevent them from carrying out their plot. Everyone remained quiet.

A little bird (willy wagtail) lost its footing in a nearby tree and fluttered about in the branches. Maritja. knew then that something was going to happen. "That bird," he said to the young men, "is telling us a story. He has always come and told us black men when trouble and spearmen were around. Then that one walked in my hair; that meant something. I think you boys had better go. I think something is going to happen."

Kamata, one of the young men, said, "No, we will stay here. I am going to lie down. I want to go to sleep."

The young men lay down and Maritja put his legs over the body of the smaller one. Presently Maritja and the two boys were in a deep sleep. By this time it was late. The moon was high in the sky. When the moon had gone down and it was very dark, Balliman and Maiangula awakened. Maiangula said, "You, Balliman, you go kill Gurlbaiili. You, Djowa, you go kill Kamata. I am going to kill Gurnboko." Balliman and Maiangula arose, but Djowa remained quiet. Balliman with Berundais sneaked up to Gurlbaiili's camp. Djowa, meanwhile, had placed his spear in the fire to make it hot so that he could straighten it, and because it would cut better when be tried to kill the sleeping man. While this was occurring, Maiangula removed the steel blade from his spear and sharpened it. He sneaked up on Kamata himself with the spear head in his hand and sank it into the latter's jugular vein. Maiangula then turned his attention to the second man, but he was nervous and attempted to dispatch him too quickly. Instead of hitting him in the gullet, he struck his side. The young man who was wounded started crying, "Mother, Mother, Mother." Balliman, meanwhile, in attempting to approach near enough to Gurlbaiili to sink his spear into him, had run into a pandanus patch, which was around the sleeping man's camp, and because of its thickness and the sharpness of the thorns, he was unable to get through it. He walked around the edge of the pandanus trying to find a path, but just before he was near enough to stab him he heard the thud of the spear entering the small boy's body; he was afraid, and he and Berundais ran away.

In the morning the news of the killing was carried to the nearby camps. Raiola, a brother of the slain man, arrived with some of his kinsmen. Raiola cursed Maiangula and started fighting with him, but when he saw Berundais he thought that this man was probably to blame for the killing,

since he believed that it was Berundais who had given Maiangula the relic. He struck Berundais on the head with a club. Maritja, although a very near relative of Berundais, commanded his people not to fight Raiola because he had a right to attack them, since one of his relatives had been slain. Dimala was then attacked by Raiola because he was a brother-in-law of Maiangula's. They fought with knives, but because of the intervention of their mutual friends and relatives, neither of them was hurt. Maiangula and the killers meanwhile had hidden in rhe bush.

After things had quieted and the general camp brawl which had resulted from the slaying had ceased, the inevitable series of discussions commenced among the various old men who had gathered from the clans to determine just what was back of the killing and to attempt to find out if anyone had "pushed" the younger men. The opinions were very divergent upon the actual motivation, but it was felt by all that Maiangula had killed a man who was too far removed from his real enemies, Parpar and Drona. There was also a secondary sentiment that Maiangula's father had been too long dead for Maiangula to retaliate. It was also believed by most of the men that some older man, probably Waltjimi, had directed him to kill the boy, for Waltjimi was a bitter enemy of the Bringel clan. The wounding of the younger man was not so severely criticized, for he was near enough in relationship to Parpar. The chief fault found with his wounding was that he was too young, so that even this attempt to avenge his father's death was held against Maiangula.

After a week or more, when Raiola with his relatives had gone back into the interior to their clan's territory and the general excitement had died down considerably, it was decided to send a messenger from the camp of the Djorin and Naladaer peoples to the Gwiyula to discover what their feelings were about the matter and to attempt to arrange a makarata to settle matters. Birindjaoi was chosen to go because it was thought he would not be hurt by the other side, since he had near relatives among them.⁸ Baerwit, the recognized leader of the Ritarngo clans, was the unofficial head of the group of clansmen who had gathered by a small lake in the interior country. Birindjaoi met Raiola, who was his friend. All of the men's bodies were painted with white clay to show that they were on the warpath. He and Raiola went over to the part of the camp where the Ritarngo were situated. They took tobacco and food to Baerwit. He invited them to sit down. Birindjaoi, who distrusted Baerwit, said that he preferred to stand. Three of the young Ritarngo were standing with their spears ready to throw them. They were all blood sons of Baerwit.

The older leader picked up a paper-bark water basin and invited the messenger to have a drink of fresh water. The latter realized it was

trickery, and that he was attempting to get him to bend his face down so that his sons could spear him, so he said he was not thirsty and that he had decided to leave. Baerwit said, "Before you go I want to make my people one in a makarata. They are three groups now." Birindjaoi said, "Yes, you do that so that we won't have a lot of spear troubles." The Djinba and Ritarngo peoples who were under Baerwit's leadership stood up and looked meaningly at each other; but the other group, the Gunalbingi, stood up and looked at the ground, which indicated they were not at one with the others in their plot to kill Birindjaoi. While they stood there a white light seemed to play all over his body like the reflection of the sun's light in a pool. Raiola noticed that Birindjaoi's body seemed to change. The light came and went several times. The first time that it came it was a spirit to warn him and Raiola that trouble was there for them. The former did not see it, but Raiola did. Raiola saw it like the flash of lightning in a dark night, and it made him shut his eyes.

Raiola and he walked together. Raiola talked to him in a distant language which the others could not understand. He said, "They don't understand me in this language. I saw three lights shine on you. I know now those men want to hurt you." The group of men meanwhile had been walking toward a wooded plain. When they were very near it Baerwit srarted walking rapidly toward the two. He cried out to his chief fighter, "Tjari, you run and catch Raiola. We cannot hurt him; he belongs to our own people, but he will fight if we try to spear Birindjaoi." The group of clansmen formed around them. An old man, who was a near relative to Birindjaoi, quietly stood up beside him and put his abdomen against his back so that no one could spear him when be was not looking. Raiola, before this had happened, had given him a spear, and Blumberi, also a relative by marriage to Birindjaoi, had presented him with a spear thrower. Raiola then turned to Baerwit. He said, "You think you are going to kill him? You kill him and I will kill one of your men. No, I won't kill one; I shall kill two. Birindjaoi is a messenger man and you have no right to kill him. You are doing wrong. All right; I will do wrong and kill people who are near to me."

Tjari ran at Birindjaoi with his spear pointed at him. Raiola turned upon him with his spear, as did Birindjaoi. Tjari moved back into his group. One of the Djinba warriors threw a spear at Birindjaoi when he was not looking. The old man called out in time for him to grab the spear before it hit him. Raiola threw a spear at his attacker and caught the latter in the thigh. The man fell on his knee and from this position

threw at Raiob and missed him. The two men, while the attack was being made against them, had hurried toward the river which flowed in the middle of the wooded plain. They ran; spears were thrown at them, but they were not hit. Their enemies in an attempt to stop their running and prevent their escape, held in their mouths bones of men, for it is believed that the spirits of the dead do all in their power to help those who are supposed to be avenging their deaths. The men ran faster. They jumped in the river and swam for the other side. It was dusk by this time and difficult to see them. They swam until they came to a mangrove jungle. They lay within it until morning.

After the two left, the Ritarngo, Djinba and Gunalbingu people heard that the Rainbarogo, Wulaki, and Yandjinung tribes were coming to fight them. This latter group of tribes live along the western border of the others.

The report was true, and when the westerners were within some distance of the eastern group the latter hid in the paper-bark swamp until their enemies were dose to them. They arose and chased them but hit no one. One of the enemy was captured. They turned him loose, and as he ran away they threw spears at him. Two of them mortally wounded him. The emotions of all the people were deeply affected, and the general lust to kill was felt by all of them. Baerwit and his group turned upon their allies, the Djinba, who, being in the minority, ran away. Baerwit then turned upon the Gunalbingu to slake his desire for killing, but they too were afraid and retreated to their own country. It is unlikely that anyone would have been killed, since the three groups were too closely related.

A few weeks later, when interest in the blood feud had quieted and emotions were no longer at fever heat, a great makarata was held. Raiola and other Ritarngo, Djinba, Warumeri and one Wangurri were against Maiangula and his clan. Just before the rainy season had arrived and a few months after Maiangula had killed the young Kamata, his gawel [mother's brother], Minyipiriwi, came to the grave, opened it with the aid of several others, cleaned the bones, painted them, placed them in a paperbark container, and took them back to the Bringel clan's country. He gave one of the smaller bones to Natjimbui, a Djirin, as he did to all the Ritarngo. Natjimbui was a clansman of Maiangula, which made it irregular for him to receive this relic, but the Djirin clan had always been friendly with the Bringel.

Natjimbui, because he belonged to the same clan, could not kill one of his own clansmen, and had no desire to inflict an injury on his own group, but he did feel compulsion to do something for the Bringel, since they were friends of his. He took the bone and started for the Marderpa country to kill the slayer of Kamata's brother. On his way he went through the

Darlwongo country and found the Marderpa man who, many years ago, had cut Danginbir's head off (sec page 167).

Two Darlwongo men approached Natjimbui and told him that this Marderpa man chased them with spears while they were preparing to make their honeybee totem. This is a great crime among the Murngin and a deliberare insult to the totem of the clan. Because of this they were forced to take the string from off the emblem and put it back in their baskets, since the emblem would have lost its efficacy had they continued making it after this occurrence.

Narjimbui the next morning went to look for food. He was followed again by the two Darlwongo old men. When they had penetrated into a nearby jungle for some distance they came upon Natjimbui digging yams. Once more they said to him, "That Marderpa man chased us with spears while we were making our totem. Don't you feel sorry for your mother?" (Their totemic emblem was called mother by Natjimbui because his mother was the nearest relative through whom he could trace his relationship to it.)

When night came the married men of the camp gave food to the single men. Everyone sat down at dusk and sang and talked. The Marderpa man was suspicious and did not trust the Darlwongo clansmen. He said out loud, for all the camp to hear, "I am all the same as a kangaroo. I sit up all night and watch."

Natjimbui sat down in the main camp. He did not sleep; he too watched. Hours went by. He grew tired of waiting and reached in his basket and took out the bone of the dead man. He unwrapped the paper bark from the relic and cut the bone in half. He wrapped one half and placed it once more in his basket. He held the other in his hand. He was far enough away from the Marderpa and other members of the camp so that no one could see what be was doing.

Natjimbui arose and walked over and sat down at the fire beside the Marderpa man. He started talking to him. While they talked he threw small stones into the fire, then he pretended to pick up a stone to throw, but instead of the stone he threw the bone into the fire. He was sure then that the Marderpa would soon be sleeping, since this was done to make the spirit come out of the bone and act upon the Marderpa in such a way that he would be easy to kill. By and by the Marderpa boy said, "I am very sleepy. I think I will go to sleep." They both lay down. Natjimbui continued talking. He asked questions, after some little time, to see if anyone would answer him. No one did. They were all asleep. He stealthily rubbed his spear with the other part of the relic to make it go straight and kill quickly, for be knew that the spirit would guide his spear. He tooked up his spear and pointed at the Marderpa, but too many small boys were sleeping around the man. He took his leg and pushed

the young boys to one side. He held his spear in his hand and shoved it into the other man's abdomen.

"Danginbir! You remember him, don't you? He was the one whose head and body you threw in the water."

"This one [the man be had just killed], a long time ago, killed that little boy's [Kamata's] brother. He [Kamata] had no older brother to look out for him and he was killed. This bone I have in my hand brought him back. It was just as if that little brother [Kamata] had opened my mind when he died, for I forgot that big brother. I thought about him now."

After the excitement had died, everyone said, "That is too long ago for a young man like Natjimbui to think about it. It is much too long. He did not think for that far back."

Several of the older men turned to the two old Darlwongo and said, "We think that you told that young man something." They emphatically denied it, as old men always do when they have "pushed" young men into a killing. While everyone was talking and shouting and the relatives of the man who had been speared were wailing, the Marderpa men of the camp tried to make a ring of spearmen around Natjimbui. Natjinibui edged out of the group so that no one was at his back. "You people stand back there," he said. "If you come close I will kill another one of you." They stood back. "You people sleep over there," continued Natjimbui, "I will sleep over here away from you. Tomorrow morning I will come out for you." (This meant that he would run before them in a makarata.) The two old men went with him so that he could sleep. ln the morning he painted himself, as did the Marderpa; he ran before the Marderpa, with the two old men accompanying him. They chased him inside a mangrove jungle. This was done a number of times. Finally they grew tired and the old men of the Marderpa clan said that they had had enough. Narjimbui danced the net dance, whjch symbolized his catching the soul of the man who bad been killed. After that he put his leg out to have it stabbed, but the Marderpa refused.

They buried the body, left the Darlwongo country, and after one night's camp arrived in the Gwiyula territory. Natjimbui accompanied them. When they had buried the Marderpa man a Kalpu man had cut the armlets off the Marderpa. When Natjimbui arrived here he said that he was going to leave them and go to the Crocodile Islands. The father of Gurn boko (the young man wounded by Maiangula) said, "No. Let us wait and sleep here tonight. We will all go tomorrow."

That afternoon omens of ill luck appeared to Natjimbui. His spear fell down and the stone bead broke. Probably a mokoi (evil ghost) tried

to break this spear. If a man's feather headdress or parrot-feather arm streamers fall off during the war period, it is a mokoi's doing.

The Kalpu man knocked off little pieces from the edge of his stone spear head. He chipped it only on one side to make it very sharp. Night had come. Natjimbui's wives slept on each side of him. He lay on his side near a small fire. The Kalpu man, when everyone was deep to sleep, sneaked up to Natjimbui's side and shoved his spear into his body at the base of the ribs. Natjtmbui rose on his elbow but did not cry out. Gurnboko's father began shouting. Everyone started crying, and once more general confusion reigned throughout the camp. They cried, "Maringo! maringo!" They thought that an enemy group had surrounded the camp. Someone called, "Djawarlt!" Natjimbui arose to his feet with the spear in his side and gathered up his own spear and spear-thrower. He walked back from the camp and its firelight until he was in the darkness. A Marango clansman called out his name, but he did not answer. He hooked up his spear and threw it at him. He missed. Another Marango came close to him and called his name. Natjimbui speared him in the abdomen. He then turned and walked away from the camp carrying his spear-thrower. His spears were depleted. He walked away and then came back to the fire. He pulled the handle of the spear out of his own body, but the stone head of the spear remained inside. He burned the handle of his spear thrower until it was red hot, and put it against his wound. This was to make it smaller and so that it would close up properly. He walked slowly away from the fire until he came to the mangrove jungle. He retraced his steps, leaving his tracks in the mud pointing toward the river. He came back from the river walking on the low limbs of the mangrove trees, attempting to make it impossible for his enemies to trace him. He came to a dry place in the rocks and walked along the stones and grass to a mangrove creek. He went into the water and then back to a dry place and then crossed another small creek.

Blood was dripping from his wound. He put grass inside the hole. He dropped his spear-thrower for he was growing weak. The tracks went a little farther and were lost. He had not been found at the time the author left the Murngin country. The searching party which had followed the trail decided he must have crawled on his hands and knees so as not to make tracks, and that he had successfully stopped the flow of blood.

A makarata was held, in which Natjimbui's relatives chased the Kalpu. This is the last episode in the Murngin feud that I followed while in the north. When I left, plots were being formed to continue its eternal flow through the lives of the clans participating in the blood feud. The history of this feud shows clearly that although clan solidarity is of considerable importance, and at times it is even possible that two or more clans may ally themselves for a short period, the kinship system tends to break down these solidarities and make a feud almost the activity of one individual.

The ritual sanction of offending the ancestors and totems by starting a fight prevetems many feuds from breaking into open conflict. This sanction or a similar one is absolutely necessary to allow the ritual to remain an interclan and tribal affair. If the sanction and its attendant action were not fully established, the disintegraring effect of the clan solidarities and their associated antagonism to outside groups, organized by the blood feuds, would destroy the participation of a large number of groups and reduce the people who would participate in any one ritual to a residue composed only of clans and peoples closely connected by marriage. At times the blood-feud feeling is so intense that a ceremony is broken up, or the ceremony is not attended by the warring groups.

The rituals provide the only effective mechanisms which enlarge the social horizon of any individual or clan beyond his or its immedtate neighbors. The kinship system with its asymmetrical marriage arrangements constantly pushes out into the larger culture and tends to increase the clan's participation in wider groupings; but in the face of the blood feud, organized on the basic unity of the clan and its intermarrying groups, this larger integration of the society on the basis of the kinship alone is impossible. Old rivalries for women are remembered and several generations of killings are not forgotten, which means that even though a man calls a somewhat distant tribesman "older brother" and is termed "younger brother" by him, the concepts of cooperation and solidarity that lie within these terms have no effect in restraining killings or the blood feud, since the feelings of loyalty to the local group and the near kin, as expressed in antagonism to outsiders, prevent an extension of the kinship system to others.

It is the larger rituals, then, with their most powerful religious totemic sanctions which do operate to restrain the local loyalties and seasonally allow a larger participation in the group. In certain instances they further tend to lessen the intensity of the dislikes of the conflicting groups following the dispersion of the larger groups. It must be remembered, however, that the mere bringing together of very large groups, as for example in the Gunabibi (to which people come from great distances), tends to create situations which may lead to battles after the ceremonies are over; but ordinarily a peacemaking duel follows the ceremony which is supposed to settle old fights and lead to a general friendliness.

(18) Caterpillar.
(The honeybee, wasp, lizard and caterpillar are totemic: objects in the Dua moiety.)

(24) Boomerang.
This is sung because the boomerang is associated with people in the farther interior.

(29) Pulling up water from a totem well, washing himself.
As in the other garma cycles, the various relatives ceremonially wash themselves in the symbolic totemic well.

(31) Making a stick with human hair on top of it "which is just the same as the stringy-bark flower, and that flower is all the same as a man's hair." (32) Putting the stick in the ground with other sticks like it and dancing. This offers an opportunity for the Bamumbir morning star cerernony.

(34) Making a fire to cook food.
(At this part of the singing the men are brushed with smoking leaves and sometimes dance with firebrands stuck in their armpits so that the smoke pours over them.)

(36) A hollow tree lying on the beach.
Reference is to the hollow log in which the bones are placed.

(37) Pelican.
The pelican's bill is supposed to be a net which catches the soul (see makarata dances).

(4l) Dua fish.
Fish are supposed to be the souls of dead men caught in the nets.

(8) Grass used for armlets.
"The grass is growing up now because: of that water."

(9) Barrimundi. "Barrimundi is in the liiy place; Barrimundi has come out from the salt water to meet the schools of fresh-water fish coming down from the bush."

(10) A small red bird w1th a white breast.
"That bird is looking for fish, he eats minnows and he likes lice."

"The water is running slower now. It stops quiet and is not running the way it did."

(13) Nierk cockatoo.
"He is up in the tree and he is looking at that man and he is calling out at him"—again a reference to the mokoi soul (cockatoo) and the man walking around below who is the warro.

(15) The warnba's nest.
we also sing yea for that bird when we sing that. When thar small bird grows up his mother will teach him how ro sing and say our language. We people talk, that bird answers back. He talks like a man."

(16) A variety of ibis.
"He is standing up looking for the fish and he sees them jumping about. He tries to catch them but he can't." The ibis is also associated with the mokois, and the fish with the true soul, and this again is an indirect reference to the attempts of the mokois to steal the true soul and prevent it from entering into the totem well.

(18) Spear fight.
"Everybody is running back and forth fighting"; a fight takes place between the ancestors and the living, a ritualistic spear fight.

(19) Crocodiles.
When a makarata is going to be fought or the time when a near fight is on, some of the fighters paint themselves with white lines to symbolize crocodiles.

Heidegger, Martin (1889-1976) German philosopher, famous for his theories of being and human nature and for his unique interpretations of traditional metaphysics. His work has influenced such varied fields as theology (Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Rahner), existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre), contemporary hermeneutics (Hans-Georg Gadamer), and literary theory and deconstruction (Jacques Derrida).

All his major works have been translated into English. Among them are: Being and Time 1927, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics 1929, Introduction to Metaphysics 1953, What is Called Thinking? 1954, On the Way to Language 1959, Nietzsche 1961, and What is a Thing 1962. Some of his shorter works are translated in Basic Writings; Poetry, Language, Thought; The Question of Technology, and elsewhere.

Trained in Catholic theology and scholastic philosophy before the First World War, Heidegger emerged after the war as a creative proponent of the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. However, Heidegger's radical reformulation of the method and tasks of phenomenology led to a break with Husserl.

Heidegger explored the question of what it means to be. He held that Western metaphysics since Plato had lost sight of this question as a significant one. He criticised the Cartesian framework, (Descartes), for not going beyond establishing that 'I' exist, and not inquiring into the nature of the existence of that entity which 'I am'.

Heidegger's idea was to start with the kind of being that each of us manifests, in order to open up the more general question, and to adapt Husserl's phenomenology as the method to be used for the inquiry. He also wanted to prevent misunderstandings that would arise from using the terminology of traditional metaphysics — instead, he showed a strong predilection for homely expressions, colloquial phrases, and evocative neologisms. His use of language is one reason why many readers have found him obscure.

Heidegger developed the concept of Dasein, a particular way of existing, different from the ordinary existence of things in the world around us which are determinate and have their distinctive properties. That is their kind of being. But the sort of being that 'I' manifest is not that of a thing-with-properties. It is a range of possible ways to be. I define the individual I become by projecting myself into those possibilities• which I choose, or which I allow to be chosen for me. Who I become is a matter of how I act in the contexts in which I find myself. My existence is always an issue for me, and I determine by my actions what it will be. Human existence is always a projecting of oneself into the future: it is at any moment being essentially 'on the way' from what we were and sought to be, towards what we will be.

Our existence is thus essentially temporal, in the sense that we have a past experienced in guilt, and a future anticipated in dread. Time is not here conceived as stretching towards an unlimited future; on the contrary, it stretches towards an indefinite future limited by death. So our way of being is essentially finite, an ineluctable movement towards ceasing to be. Awareness of mortality is an essential of Dasein.

The ways individuals exist, vary. Some engage with the world in awareness pf their mortality; they live in away that is genuinely self-determining and self-revising. Their existence is more authentic: it is in keeping with their ontological nature. In contrast there are those who lead a life of superficiality and idle chatter, and let their lives be determined by social convention and conformism: their existence is inauthentic.

Another basic feature of the kind of existence we have is that we exist in the world. We experience that we belong to a world: indeed, we find ourselves 'thrown' into it, for no discernible reason. We are immersed in this world and deal with the things in it (not, as required by traditional epistemology, by bridging the gap, in fact unbridgeable, between a self-enclosed consciousness and an external object, but by relating objects to our practical concerns: as tools, as something at hand, or missing). It is only by subsequent abstraction that we develop our theoretical concepts and regard things with their essential and accidental properties as objects of theoretical knowledge, and this in turn makes it possible to think, erroneously, of our existence as if it is of the same kind as that of objects.

It is by revealing the fundamental features of Dasein — of the kind of existence we have — that we can come to understand other kinds of existence, i.e. other senses of 'being', and thus answer what Heidegger calls 'the question of being'.

By finding the right way of dealing with this question, Heidegger hoped to overcome the tradition of Western metaphysics that began with Plato. Its main shortcoming is its 'forgetfulness of being'. Traditional metaphysics tends to single out certain privileged entities (the Forms, God, a transcendental Self, Spirit, etc.), thereby forgetting the fact that our understanding of being is based on the way we are in the world and relate to entities in it. This defect in traditional metaphysics leads to the misguided quest for a definitive theory of every thing: a total account, once and for all, of why things are as they are.

It is not only inner states (the sense of dread, of being 'thrown', of boredom, of guilt, etc.) that philosophy can understand as disclosures of being, but also certain social and cultural conditions. The modem cult of 'technology' — a way of relating to the world that treats things only as objects of domination and consumption, without insight into its own limitations — is itself an expression of nihilism, the only philosophy left for a metaphysical ambition that has come to grief. It is a mentality that can be overcome with a better insight into the true meaning of what it is to be, and with the rejection of what Heidegger called 'humanism', reason's claim to be able to know the world exhaustively and to put it entirely to human use. The calculative thinking of modem science and the resulting technology cannot sensibly be resisted (though some things in Heidegger suggest a yearning for the pre-modem rural life), but it can be transcended by a kind of 'inner emigration' away from the intrusiveness and superficiality of modem life towards Gelassenheit (a word borrowed from Meister Eckhart, which connotes detachment — 'leaving things be' — and serenity), in which one has come to terms with one's own mortality.

There has been heated controversy around Heidegger's thought. Admirers have found in him penetrating insights into the deeper truths about the human condition and the nature of man. Critics have complained of obscure language, weak arguments and dubious etymologies; and there has been much debate as to whether his political stance reveals a deep flaw in his philosophy.

Mautner, Thomas, Ed., article from The Penguin Dictionery of Philosophy Penguin Books, London, 1997.

hermeneutics (Gr. hermeneuein to translate, interpret, make intelligible) n. sing. 1 interpretation. 2 inquiry into, or theory of, the nature or methods of interpretation.

There has been reflection on the art of interpreting texts since ancient times, but the word ‘hermeneutics’ was first used by J. C. Dannhauer in the mid-seventeenth century. He noted that texts for which a theory of interpretation was needed fell into three classes: Holy Scripture, legal texts (statutes, precedents, treaties, etc.), and the literature of classical antiquity.

One important problem for traditional hermeneutics was that it had two radically different aims in its main areas: theology and jurisprudence. One aim was to provide a correct interpretation, the other to establish an authoritative statement of dogma or of law. It can at times be difficult to satisfy both requirements, and this is why it has been said that hermeneutics is the art of finding something in a text that is not there.

The first major thinker to propose a general theory of interpretation was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768—1834). He went beyond the traditional view, in his proposal that interpretation requires not only a proper grasp of the relevant linguistic and historical facts, but also a mental retracing, an imaginative reconstruction, of the way in which a text came into being. An interpreter of a text may be in a position to see the author's life and work as a whole, and to place it in a historical setting. Such knowledge, unattainable to the author, can enable an interpreter to understand the text better than the author.

From Schleiermacher and on, the field of hermeneutics was: extended to include texts generally, and not only those of scripture, law and ancient classics. The historian J. G. Droysen (1808—84) stressed that knowledge gained by interpretation — he had historical knowledge especially in mind — is entirely different from scientific knowledge. This contrast became well established through Wilhelm Dilthey (1833—1911). He explained it as acontrast between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation (Erklären). Our knowledge of historical, social and cultural facts — the realm of the Geisteswissenschaften (the human, or cultural, sciences) — essentially involves interpretation. This is why it is radically different from the knowledge gained by application of scientific method in the Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences). Hermeneutics has since beeu regarded as a theory of interpretation of all bearers of meaning: not only texts but also human action and the various features of human culture and society.

Hermeneutics can be seen as a part of a theory of knowledge, since it is a study of the principles by which certain kinds of knowledge are obtained. But the claim that, interpretation provides knowledge seems incompatible with three fundamental tenets in positivist (POSITIVISM) thought which have enjoyed wide acceptance: (1) that in principle, scientific method can and must be applied in all fields of inquiry in order to gain knowledge; (2) that the method of the physical sciences is the ideal paradigm; (3) that facts are to be explained causally, and that such an explanation consists in subsuming individual cases under general laws.

Paul Ricoeur has distinguished between a hermeneutics of tradition and a hermeneutics of suspicion. The former aim to listen intently to what is communicated in order to gain insight from,or become aware of, a message hidden under the surace. A representative of this tendency is Gadamer. The latter is 'subversive', attempting to show that, properly understood, texts and human action are not as innocuous as they may seem to be, but may be reflections of hidden drives, class interests, etc. Representatives of this tendency are Nietzsche, Freud, Foucault. There are affinities between these and the so-called critical hermeneutics represented by Apel and Habermas, which continue a tradition of critique of ideologies that goes back, via Marx, to the eighteenth century. The aim of this approach is to criticize existing social, political and cultural conditions by interpretations that are at the same time demystifications.

‘Hermeneutics’ has also been used to denote an ontological inquiry, or theory, which explores the kind of existence had by beings who are able to understand meanings, and to whom the world is primarily an object of understanding (rather than, say, of sense-perceptions). Heidegger's philosophy can be described as heumeneutical in this sense.

p.4 ‘In a well designed system, the components are black boxes that perform their functions as if by magic. That is no less true of the mind. The faculty with which we ponder the world has no ability to peer inside itself or our other faculties to see what makes them tick. That makes us the victims of an illusion: that our own psychology comes from some divine force or mysterious essence or almighty principle. In the Jewish legend of the Golem, a clay figure was animated when it was fed an inscription of the name of God. The archetype is echoed in many robot stories. The statue of Galatea was brought to life by Venus' answer to Pygmalion's prayers; Pinocchio was vivified by the Blue Fairy. Modern versions of the Golem archetype appear in some of the less fanciful stories of science. All of human psychology is said to be explained by a single, omnipotent cause: a large brain, culture, language, socialization, learning, complexity, self-organization, neural-network dynamics.

I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder principle.The mind like the Apollo spacecraft, is designed to solve many engineering problems, and thus is packed with high-tech systems each ocontrived to overcome its own obstacles.’

hermeneutics (Gr. hermeneuein to translate, interpret, make intelligible) n. sing. 1 interpretation. 2 inquiry into, or theory of, the nature or methods of interpretation.

Quine, Willard Van Orman, 1953, ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press.
[Bio: Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000); Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University 1956 to 1978.]

pp. 42-43 The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections—the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.

If this view is right, it is misleading to speak of the empirical content of an individual statement—especially if it be a statement at all remote from the experiential periphery of the field. Furthermore it becomes folly to seek a boundary between synthetic statements, which hold contingently on experience, and analytic statements which hold come what may. Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system. Even a statement very close to the periphery can be held true in the face of recalcitrant experience by pleading hallucination or by amending certain statements of the kind called logical laws. Conversely, by the same token, no statement is immune to revision. Revision even of the logical law of the excluded middle has been proposed as a means of simplifying quantum mechanics; and what difference is there in principle between such a shift and the shift whereby Kepler superseded Ptolemy, or Einstein Newton, or Darwin Aristotle?

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, 1818–1865
A Hungarian physician and scientist, know known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures.

Described as the ‘saviour of mothers’, Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as ‘childbed fever’) could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.

Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in ‘Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever‘ in 1861.

Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.

In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating.

Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

Alfred Wegener, 1880–1930
German climatologist, geologist, geophysicist, meteorologist, and polar researcher.

During his lifetime he was primarily known for his achievements in meteorology and as a pioneer of polar research, but today he is most remembered as the originator of continental drift hypothesis by suggesting in 1912 that the continents are slowly drifting around the Earth (German: Kontinentalverschiebung).

His hypothesis was controversial and widely rejected by mainstream geology until the 1950s, when numerous discoveries such as palaeomagnetism provided strong support for continental drift, and thereby a substantial basis for today's model of plate tectonics.

Galileo championed Copernican heliocentrism—that the Earth rotated daily and revolves around the sun. This was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture.

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy’, and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

1. Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition, G & Merriman, Springfield Mass, USA 1953.