Directed by Marcelino Martin Valiente from France and conducted by Honna Tetsuji from Japan, the musical will be performed by musicians from the Vietnam National Symphony Orchestra and actors from the ATH Drama and Arts Space at the French Cultural Institute in Hanoi – L’Espace, 24 Trang Tien Street, Hoan Kiem District.

This information was announced at a press conference held in Hanoi on April 7.

According to Director Valiente, the musical was a complicated and challenging project for him as he could not join other artists in the production in Vietnam; his directing had to be done virtually due to the impacts of COVID-19. The premiere in Vietnam has also been postponed from October last year because of the pandemic, he said in a virtual remark at the event.

Launched 1918, the theatre work was composed for seven musicians and three reciters. It tells the story of a soldiers who chances upon the devil on the way home from war. The devil offers to buy his violin and in return give him a future-telling book which can make him the richest man in the world. But as the story goes on, the soldier only finds himself to be the most miserable as he lost the violin, his most valuable asset.

The musical features a sophisticated combination of multiple arts, from classical music, jazz, DJ, and theatre to visual arts, the director said.

Council for the RM of Lumsden met for their regular meeting on Mar 18th.

Clay Capping Tender

After reviewing submissions for the Pense Grid clay capping tender, Council awarded the contract to Denny Forbes Construction Inc.

Planning and Development

Planning and Development Director Aimee Bryck recommended that a miscellaneous interest be placed on the Dakine Home Builders subdivision title. Bryck said it would serve as a notice to a future owner who may want to subdivide further. Letting them know they could be required to relocate access if additional properties are developed in the area. Council made a motion based on Bryck’s recommendation.

Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) Committee Meeting

Councillor Cody Jordison provided an update on the EMO committee meetings, which occurred on Feb 23rd and Mar 2nd. Representatives at the Feb 23rd meetings were; EMO Coordinator: Gerry Kerr Reeve: Kent Farago RM Councillors: Cody Jordison, John Langford, Glenda Schlosser Chief Administrative Officer: Monica M. Merkosky Public Works Manager: Leighton Watts Assistant Administrator: Krystal Strong Lumsden RCMP: Sgt. Chad Clark Lumsden Fire Chief: Jeff Carey South Shore First Responders: Stacey McPeek

On Feb 23rd, The committee completed their annual review of the plan and the criteria to activate the emergency operations centre. At the March 2nd meeting, the committee went over emergency scenarios.

Little Church Bridge Replacement

The bridge committee met with the RM of 219 about the bridge replacement. The bridge was damaged beyond repair in a vehicle accident in November 2020. The committee members came to a consensus as to their choice from the options the engineer had presented. The Public Works Manager sent the information to the engineers to complete a construction estimate for both a single and double lane bridge. It is currently unknown if the RM will incur any costs or if insurance will cover the expense.

Internet trouble by Councillor John Langford

Not shocking to anyone who lives in rural Saskatchewan, there are problems with the internet in rural areas. For his personal use, Councillor Langford uses very basic internet services. To complete his work on committees that require a better level of access, he has asked the Council for help with the costs to upgrade his services. There was significant discussion on the topic of financial support for Councillors for expenses incurred due to their work on the Council. The administration will consider policy recommendations to bring forward.

Beaver Control Program

Councillor Cody Garbutt made a motion that the RM participate in the SARM Beaver Control Program.

There was another application for the Beaver Hunter Application. Council approved the application provided the applicant provides proof of a valid PAL.

Reeve and Councillor Forum

Jeremy Andrew – suggested looking at lifting road bans early as there isn’t any moisture in the roads.

Glenda Schlosser – Asked if the RM should complete a review on services with the RM’s engineers as concerns are being raised from work done at Deer Valley. The residents are unhappy and feel they didn’t get their money’s worth for the work performed.

Cody Garbutt- Brought forward an item on the Public Works Report, which recommended they review the purchasing policy and road stabilization and maintenance programs. The Public Works committee set a meeting for Apr 7th. At 1 pm.

The next meeting of the RM is on Apr 1st at 1 pm.

Intel has started releasing a series of explainer videos as part of a new series called Architecture All Access, and it’s actually a good way to learn more about your PC. In each video, senior Intel leaders will go deep on a particular facet of how computers work, starting with, unsurprisingly, the CPU. With the competition between AMD and Intel so fierce right now, it’s a great time to learn about the brain of a modern PC.

There’s a lot to take in from these videos, but if you have some time to kill this weekend, you can learn about the history of CPUs, and get to take some deep dives into the more advanced CPU architecture concepts. Part one covers the broad strokes of what CPUs are and what they do, and also has a great story about the first computer bug. (Spoilers: It was an actual bug.) Part two covers the key parts of a CPU in a “microarchitecture deep dive” and goes into the future of computing in the coming years.

Phelps does a great job explaining complex topics like branch prediction and CPU microarchitecture in a digestible way. The series doesn’t require a doctorate in computer engineering to understand, which is always a plus.

Source: Tatiana Gladskikh / 123RF by permission

Investigating the literature on this subject yields a teasingly twofold result. Traditionally, the two personality categories have been examined in a predominately theological light. They’re now, however,  being considered along noticeably more secular lines.

In both instances, self-righteousness emerges as more culpable, or less to be respected, than righteousness. Still, if these two existential stances are viewed through the lens of contemporary moral psychology, independent of scriptural dogma, the ultimate distinctions between them become somewhat blurry.

The Theological Perspective

Let’s explore first how righteousness and self-righteousness have been differentially defined from a doctrinal vantage point. Biblically speaking, righteousness is about being in right standing with God—vs. self-righteousness, recognized as giving final authority for one’s decisions not to God but to one’s self. So self-righteousness becomes, paradoxically, a kind of self-trusting sacrilege: The person isn’t serving God’s will but profaning God by serving, or taking final direction from, themselves.

To one writer, Jesus was 100% righteous and, too, 100% right. And since we’re all sinners, when we deign to see ourselves as righteous, we’re actually being self-righteous. This notion is absolutist, as this author’s repetition of “100%” clearly implies. And, of course, such authoritarian teachings don’t allow for any exceptions or modifications.

Similar to other religious interpreters of canonically accepted tenets, self-righteousness is seen adversely as unrighteous . Consider the words of another sectarian author:

The irony of self-righteousness is that it trust[s] in itself, its feelings, its emotions, its desires, its logic, and its understanding. So it never sees the error in its own ways.

In short, as deemed by many theistic writers, self-righteous individuals have a bad attitude: They’re intolerant, smug and sanctimonious, and—overly confident about their righteousness or moral superiority—they attempt to “lord” it over others, unjustifiably putting them down as weak, dependent, and indiscriminately placing collective faith over individualized, non-religious experience.

Compare this to the often-quoted biblical line: “Judge not that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). Or, if you’re going to judge anyone, you ought to first judge yourself. (Otherwise, because it’s premature to “throw stones” at others, you have no business doing so.)

On the contrary, the righteous are assumed to be humble, devoutly and dutifully revering God as He’s worshipfully depicted in Holy Scriptures. Moreover, it’s not the righteous but the self -righteous who implicitly (and unjustifiably) declare themselves “holier than thou.”

The Secular Perspective

Those perceived as self-righteous don’t really fare any better when seen in a more secular light. But it also needs to be added that the righteous (or so-called “godly”) are themselves typically viewed less positively when placed under this more worldly microscope. In fact, the two types don’t diverge anywhere as much in this context. In some ways, they’re almost as complementary as they are contrasting.

Here, people labeled as self-righteous are negatively identified as characteristically vainglorious and self- deceiving ; gratuitously feeling superior; and being arrogant, elitist, and self-aggrandizing (sometimes falling headlong into the pitiable pit of narcissism ).

Beyond that, the self-righteous are also regarded as hypocritical in that they employ a double standard when it comes to “right” behavior. Despite their being just as prone to displaying faulty judgment and acting in a blameworthy manner as those deemed righteous, they nonetheless proclaim that their morality is more enlightened and moral than these more pious individuals (sometimes sarcastically described by them as self-righteous “goody-goodies”).

Applying far more lenient standards for assessing their own personal behaviors, they exhibit a favorable self- bias that itself may be eminently deserving of criticism. And as already suggested, they can be highly judgmental of, and disputatious with, others.

Yet unmitigated righteousness may not, at least viewed secularly, fare much better. Once again, pondering the irony of many of the routine distinctions that writers have come up with to distinguish between the two orientations to reality, here’s how one author endeavors to separate—and maybe not separate—the two:

Merely holding the view that the righteous are superior to the non-righteous, whatever that means, strongly hints that you consider yourself in the former category. If so, you’re self-righteous. [Or, in other words, if you’re not truly humble about your righteousness, then you can’t really be regarded as righteous at all.]

There are definitely times when a person sincerely believes that they have more authority to judge themselves than do others, even if there exists a broad consensus that their behavior is reprehensible. And in this regard, consider the biographical movie Monster , in which the serial killer (played by Charlize Theron) says—and with utter conviction—that she’s “good with the Lord,” absent any remorse for all the men she’s ruthlessly murdered.

Regrettably, it’s all-too-easy for certain individuals to vindicate themselves apart from evidence that would make their “righteous” self-justification seem almost psychotic . For a person’s deeds can betray their “divine” righteousness as a total sham.

Reconciling the Religious With the Secular

If righteousness pinpoints a person’s allegiance to a moral code without their feeling compelled to self-advantageously compare it to another’s, then we can conclude that—whether seen monastically or materialistically—it involves a humility free of self-righteousness. And it may well be that, first and foremost, authentic righteousness is best perceived as portraying a truly humble attitude.

The quotation below, from New Testament theologian Darrell Bock (1994), makes a forceful case for seeing humility as at the core of what’s missing from the self-righteous:

Pride preaches merit; humility pleads for compassion … Pride separates by putting down others; humility identifies with others, recognizing we all have the same [essential] need[s]. Pride destroys through its alienating self-service; humility opens doors with its power to sympathize with the struggle we share. Pride turns up its nose; humility offers an open and lifted-up hand.

Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), attempts to reconcile the enduring dissension about what constitutes righteousness by resorting to contemporary moral psychology. Utilizing this subjective but non-prejudicial approach to better apprehend divergent ethical viewpoints, he believes we can foster an understanding that, potentially, could bridge the gap among people whose biases markedly differ.

With greater comprehension such age-old conflicts might be made more congruent, offering themselves up to a mutually adaptive resolution—which unfortunately has yet to occur. As Michael Hogan (2012) puts it in his essay “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt’s goal “is to drain some of the heat, anger , and divisiveness out of political and religious debate and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity” [what secularists themselves typically view as “ spiritual ”].  Admittedly an idealistic solution, this viewpoint is supported by scientific procedures for appreciating the “deeply emotional, intuitive, selfish, and groupish nature of our moral psychology.”

So, to conclude this discussion, taking God or a higher authority out of the equation permits us to focus on essential matters of justice and fairness as most (though not all) humans recognize them. And looking for values that are universally shared, even by individuals who differ in their religious and political priorities, might at last connect us by centering on what, without betraying our ideals, we can agree upon. Only then can the gulf be bridged between views based on orthodox religious teachings and those grounded in the scientific study of unchangeable human nature.

Doubtless, the sooner we can effect this reconciliation the better, since we’re all in this disjointed, embattled, and chaotic world together. And whether we like it or not, our destinies are inextricably entwined.

© 2021 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.