Barrows full of logic

Dear Reader

I have just returned from a wonderful weekend in Barrow-in-Furness where Jean and Andy were married on Saturday. From start to finish it was quite exquisite. Allow me to explain:

I drove up to Durham on Friday night and watched a fairly shocking film called '10 Things I Hate About You'. Given how atrocious it was I was surprised to notice firstly that I had watched it before and secondly that the whole thing was a rather entertaining experience. However my good memories of this film may have had less to do with the film's quality and more to do with the excellent (second) dinner with which I was provided by Bench, Vic and Rachel whilst I watched it. How nice to be in such interesting company after a grueling day at court in Grimsby (the name really does say it all).

On Saturday I drove Bench, Ben, Vic and Rachel up to Barrow. This was an excellent road-trip, and whilst Cecilia wasn't too taken with the uphill bits, the scenery was spectacular, and we got there on time. Barrow is rather to my liking. It has the same stark, weatherbeaten quality as such towns as Scunthorpe and Scarborough. The wedding itself was a marvel. Such an jolly little church, comprehensive worship, and generally it seemed everyone was filled with that inane joy which one only gets at weddings. This joy was only fettered by Bartlett and I noting the words on the church's font: 'Suffer Little Children'. This disturbed us a little - if anyone can explain the meaning of it I would be grateful to hear.

After the service some confusion ensued. The consequence of this was that I joined a small and happy convoy consisting of Graham, Jo, Vic, Rachel, Bench, Tim and Lara Farewell (who unfortunately drove all the way from Bedford only to miss the service) and Ruth Drain. We went to a rather spectacular headland and ate fruitcake and scone-like food. This was very pleasant. It was lovely to catch up (ableit briefly). I then got a text from York and made a dash to get to the reception, just catching the buffet. (Thanks to those in the rather darkened pub in Barrow who were trying to watch the cricket but willingly passed my map around until someone was found who could explain to me the route to get there). The speeches were a treat (highlight: Scopes: 'I saw Jean and thought 'she's fit....how do I not know her'. Also the proposal: "Lets get married" to which Jean replied: "May as well".)

(I pause here to issue a word of warning: Do not pretend that a tea-towel is infact an oven glove and remove things from a hot oven with it. I have just done so and discovered to my disappointment that I burnt my finger in the process and consequently will experience difficulty writing - if not for the rest of my life - at least for a couple of days. You have been warned).

I then drove Bartlett back to his hotel where I engaged in a cup of tea with him and Alex Harvey Jones, who has just got a job - excellent. Later on we went to the Celdih. Now Celdih are not only hard to spell but also hard to throw oneself into. I mattered away for quite some time before plucking up the courage to dance the last three numbers. And of course the experience was excellent in the end, despite my distinctly gamma leg and ridiculously bad co-ordination.

We piled into the car and drove back to Durham this morning. This drive was marvelous - even though there wasn't all that much banter I felt most relaxed in the company and thoroughly enjoyed it all. To cap it all we spent the afternoon in the White House meadow eating scones and melon and (well done Edwards, you can always be goaded into it) discussing whether there is a difference between reason and emotion. I tried arguing that there was infact no difference - as follows:

Starting point: 'Can we really distinguish between a 'rational' and an 'emotional' response to a problem? IE is there a fundamental difference between reason and emotion?'
1. Reason and emotion are both grounded in experience.
2. Since they are both grounded in experience it is not possible for them to be distinguished - the source is the same.
3. Emotion is just less complex reason.

Obviously the debate was somewhat more complicated than that, but the above summary represents the gist of it. Contributions included:

1. Jo Coghlan: Reactions to problems can be inherited or be simple physical responses. (I think this can be dealt with by including 'inherited experience' in 'experience'. I think you can also argue that physical responses are rooted in inherited experience)

2. Clare Edwards and Naomi Hawkins: Emotional responses involve no thought, or less thought, or, at least: the process can be distinguished. (Can it? Surely its all just a grey mess)

3. John Powell: If a child was separated from parents at birth they would still feel the emotion of love towards them (...)

4. John Powell's (unidentified) guest: Shervington is a Dualist. Everyone else is a Marxist (!)

It is hard to express how fabulous this whole afternoon was! I shan't even try. Well, ok I have, but I could go on for ever... I drove home at the end of it down the empty and beautiful A19 with a burgeoning desire to spend more time with friends.

That was a long post.