title: Exclusivism and exclusivity: a contemporary theological challenge

authors: Pratt, Douglas

subjects: religion

abstract: The phenomenon of religious exclusivism increasingly confronts peoples of faith and goodwill who wish only for peaceful co-existence in equality and freedom with their religious neighbour. But there is more than one variety of religious exclusivism. This study will show that there are at least three variants of religious exclusivism, namely open, closed and extreme. Further, inasmuch as exclusivism indicates a positing of religious identity over against any “other”, then it will be argued that the variant exclusivisms themselves reflect a continuum of ideological and theological stance that is taken toward the concept of variety as represented by the religious “other” per se. This ranges through antithetical acknowledge-ment, enactive ignorance, and the intentional invalidation of variety. It is the issue of the invalidation of otherness which, I contend, constitutes the severe theological problem of religious exclusivism in extremis. It is here, in the modality of religious fundamentalism and extremism that theological ideology impinges most dramatically upon the public domain. Might it be possible to speak of a proper religious exclusivity without falling necessarily into the pit of exclusivist extremism? In addressing this question I shall briefly examine the views of Alvin Plantinga, Gavin D’Costa, and the declaration Nostra Aetate of Vatican II.

text: Exclusivism and exclusivity: a contemporary theological challenge The phenomenon of religious exclusivism increasingly confronts peoples of faith and goodwill who wish only for peaceful co-existence in equality and freedom with their religious neighbour. But there is more than one variety of religious exclusivism. This study will show that there are at least three variants of religious exclusivism, namely open, closed and extreme. Further, inasmuch as exclusivism indicates a positing of religious identity over against any “other”, then it will be argued that the variant exclusivisms themselves reflect a continuum of ideological and theological stance that is taken toward the concept of variety as represented by the religious “other” per se. This ranges through antithetical acknowledge-ment, enactive ignorance, and the intentional invalidation of variety. It is the issue of the invalidation of otherness which, I contend, constitutes the severe theological problem of religious exclusivism in extremis. It is here, in the modality of religious fundamentalism and extremism that theological ideology impinges most dramatically upon the public domain. Might it be possible to speak of a proper religious exclusivity without falling necessarily into the pit of exclusivist extremism? In addressing this question I shall briefly examine the views of Alvin Plantinga, Gavin D’Costa, and the declaration Nostra Aetate of Vatican II.

year: 2007-10

title: An evaluation of the NuroChek system for concussion assessment and management

authors: Treacy, Jennifer

abstract: Current methods of concussion assessment are subjective and vulnerable to error, and a missed concussion diagnosis could increase an athlete’s risk of further injury. An objective method of concussion assessment could provide valuable physiological data about injury severity and duration. The NuroChek system uses a flashing light stimulus to evoke electrophysiological activity, which is measured from occipital electrode sites and used to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and determine the magnitude of activity at the target location. Reductions in this activity are proposed to be associated with dysfunction or damage after concussion; in a previous study, the SNR was shown to decrease after concussion, and then return to baseline strength upon recovery.  

To examine the utility of the NuroChek system and SNR output in concussion assessment and management, 157 participants were assessed with the NuroChek system as rugby athletes (n = 121), combat athletes (n = 19), or non-athlete controls (n = 17). All athletes were assessed at multiple time points, while the non-athlete control group was only assessed at one time point. All participants completed two trials of the NuroChek headset and at least one cognitive measure.  

The first study (Chapter 4) examines the acute effects of concussion on the SNR, as well as any SNR changes after injury. Rugby athletes who sustained concussions (n = 21) were tested at multiple time points after their injuries with the NuroChek system and either the King-Devick (K-D) or the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5). The post-injury and baseline SNR were compared to identify any changes within 3 days of concussion, as well as changes during the follow-up time points that might correspond with concussion recovery (up to 20 days post-injury and mid-season or end-of-season if available). No statistically significant changes were seen after concussion, W = 11.000, p = 0.612, d = -0.099, n = 8. When compared to the non-concussed male rugby athletes, the concussed athletes had significantly lower SNRs than the athletes who sustained regular repetitive impacts by the end-of-season, H(3) = 10.160, p = 0.017, d = 0.135, n = 76.  

The second study (Chapter 5) examines the different effects that concussion history, age, and sex have on the SNR and its trajectory over time in those experiencing repetitive impacts. While the SNR was not affected by concussion history or age, there was a main effect for sex: male athletes demonstrated significantly higher average SNRs than female athletes at all three time points. Additionally, the SNRs from female participants demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of a harmonic artefact (51.8%, compared to 15.1% of data from male participants) that decreased the quality of the female data. Sex and repetitive impacts were examined for any interaction, but the sample sizes were too small in some subgroups for statistical analysis. A main effect of repetitive impacts on the SNR was also seen in rugby and combat athletes.  This could indicate that repetitive impacts lead to higher SNR in athletes over time.  

Overall, the SNR in this study was not sensitive to changes after concussion or during recovery. No evidence was found to support NuroChek’s use in the assessment or management of concussion in rugby athletes. Additionally, the potential effect of repetitive impacts on the SNR confounds the relationship between the SNR and concussion. Future development of electrophysiological assessment methods for concussion should consider the effects of repetitive impacts and sex.

text: An evaluation of the NuroChek system for concussion assessment and management Current methods of concussion assessment are subjective and vulnerable to error, and a missed concussion diagnosis could increase an athlete’s risk of further injury. An objective method of concussion assessment could provide valuable physiological data about injury severity and duration. The NuroChek system uses a flashing light stimulus to evoke electrophysiological activity, which is measured from occipital electrode sites and used to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and determine the magnitude of activity at the target location. Reductions in this activity are proposed to be associated with dysfunction or damage after concussion; in a previous study, the SNR was shown to decrease after concussion, and then return to baseline strength upon recovery.  

To examine the utility of the NuroChek system and SNR output in concussion assessment and management, 157 participants were assessed with the NuroChek system as rugby athletes (n = 121), combat athletes (n = 19), or non-athlete controls (n = 17). All athletes were assessed at multiple time points, while the non-athlete control group was only assessed at one time point. All participants completed two trials of the NuroChek headset and at least one cognitive measure.  

The first study (Chapter 4) examines the acute effects of concussion on the SNR, as well as any SNR changes after injury. Rugby athletes who sustained concussions (n = 21) were tested at multiple time points after their injuries with the NuroChek system and either the King-Devick (K-D) or the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5). The post-injury and baseline SNR were compared to identify any changes within 3 days of concussion, as well as changes during the follow-up time points that might correspond with concussion recovery (up to 20 days post-injury and mid-season or end-of-season if available). No statistically significant changes were seen after concussion, W = 11.000, p = 0.612, d = -0.099, n = 8. When compared to the non-concussed male rugby athletes, the concussed athletes had significantly lower SNRs than the athletes who sustained regular repetitive impacts by the end-of-season, H(3) = 10.160, p = 0.017, d = 0.135, n = 76.  

The second study (Chapter 5) examines the different effects that concussion history, age, and sex have on the SNR and its trajectory over time in those experiencing repetitive impacts. While the SNR was not affected by concussion history or age, there was a main effect for sex: male athletes demonstrated significantly higher average SNRs than female athletes at all three time points. Additionally, the SNRs from female participants demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of a harmonic artefact (51.8%, compared to 15.1% of data from male participants) that decreased the quality of the female data. Sex and repetitive impacts were examined for any interaction, but the sample sizes were too small in some subgroups for statistical analysis. A main effect of repetitive impacts on the SNR was also seen in rugby and combat athletes.  This could indicate that repetitive impacts lead to higher SNR in athletes over time.  

Overall, the SNR in this study was not sensitive to changes after concussion or during recovery. No evidence was found to support NuroChek’s use in the assessment or management of concussion in rugby athletes. Additionally, the potential effect of repetitive impacts on the SNR confounds the relationship between the SNR and concussion. Future development of electrophysiological assessment methods for concussion should consider the effects of repetitive impacts and sex.

year: 2024

title: He tangi mai i te puehu: He whakatewhatewha i te mahi whakamāori me te reo ā-tuhi a ngā tūpuna

authors: Apiata, Hāwea

subjects: Māori spirituality

abstract: Kei te pūtahi o tēnei tuhinga whakapae ko te whakatewhatewha i te whakapapa o te whakaaro Māori (Māori intellectual history) mā ēnei pātai e rua: He aha ā te Māori i tuhituhi ai i te tōmuatanga o te rautau rua tekau? Ā, he pēhea tāna wetewete i ngā huatau whakawairua nō waho i te ao Māori? 

Ina koa, ko tā te tuhinga whakapae nei he whakaaranga, he whakaatu hoki i ētahi huarahi e toru hei rangahau i ngā whakapapa o te whakaaro taketake: ko te ketuketu rua mahara (archival research); ko te tātari ariā (conceptual analysis); me te reo e whakamahia ana kia wetewete i te kaupapa. Mā te mahi ketuketu rua mahara e āhei ai ki te wānanga i ngā whakaputanga a Wiremu Takana, he kaituhi, he kaiwhakamāori nō Ngāti Kahungunu. Ka whakaputaina tāna tuhinga tuatahi i te tau 1915. Ā, e rua anō i whakaputaina e ia i te tau whai muri mai i 1916. Ko ēnei tuhinga āna e whakatewhatewha ana i te whakamāoritanga o te rongopai me te āheinga o ngā pūrākau Māori kia whakamārama i ngā whakaakoranga Moromona. Kāore anō kia āta tātaritia, kia āta rangahaua āna pukapuka e tētahi atu o mua. Ko te huarahi rangahau tuarua ko te tātari i te whakamāoritanga o ētahi ariā whakawairua e kitea ana i roto i ngā karaipiture o te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti o te Hunga Tapu o ngā Rā o Muri nei. E toru ngā ariā kua tīpakongia hei tirotiro, arā, ko heaven, hell me baptism. Ā, hei whakawhānui atu i te titiro ki tēnei kaupapa, ka huritaongia ngā hua o te tuhinga reo Māori, arā, ka matapakina ngā take kia tuhituhi i te mahi rangahau i roto i te reo Māori.

I te mutunga iho, mā te āta wānanga i ngā whakaputanga reo Māori a te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti (LDS) e whakawhānuitia ai tō tātou māramatanga ki te hītori o te mahi whakaputa pukapuka i roto i te Hāhi, te mahi punenga a te Māori, te whakareretanga o ngā tuhituhinga reo Māori, me te hītori o te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti i Aotearoa nei.

text: He tangi mai i te puehu: He whakatewhatewha i te mahi whakamāori me te reo ā-tuhi a ngā tūpuna Kei te pūtahi o tēnei tuhinga whakapae ko te whakatewhatewha i te whakapapa o te whakaaro Māori (Māori intellectual history) mā ēnei pātai e rua: He aha ā te Māori i tuhituhi ai i te tōmuatanga o te rautau rua tekau? Ā, he pēhea tāna wetewete i ngā huatau whakawairua nō waho i te ao Māori? 

Ina koa, ko tā te tuhinga whakapae nei he whakaaranga, he whakaatu hoki i ētahi huarahi e toru hei rangahau i ngā whakapapa o te whakaaro taketake: ko te ketuketu rua mahara (archival research); ko te tātari ariā (conceptual analysis); me te reo e whakamahia ana kia wetewete i te kaupapa. Mā te mahi ketuketu rua mahara e āhei ai ki te wānanga i ngā whakaputanga a Wiremu Takana, he kaituhi, he kaiwhakamāori nō Ngāti Kahungunu. Ka whakaputaina tāna tuhinga tuatahi i te tau 1915. Ā, e rua anō i whakaputaina e ia i te tau whai muri mai i 1916. Ko ēnei tuhinga āna e whakatewhatewha ana i te whakamāoritanga o te rongopai me te āheinga o ngā pūrākau Māori kia whakamārama i ngā whakaakoranga Moromona. Kāore anō kia āta tātaritia, kia āta rangahaua āna pukapuka e tētahi atu o mua. Ko te huarahi rangahau tuarua ko te tātari i te whakamāoritanga o ētahi ariā whakawairua e kitea ana i roto i ngā karaipiture o te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti o te Hunga Tapu o ngā Rā o Muri nei. E toru ngā ariā kua tīpakongia hei tirotiro, arā, ko heaven, hell me baptism. Ā, hei whakawhānui atu i te titiro ki tēnei kaupapa, ka huritaongia ngā hua o te tuhinga reo Māori, arā, ka matapakina ngā take kia tuhituhi i te mahi rangahau i roto i te reo Māori.

I te mutunga iho, mā te āta wānanga i ngā whakaputanga reo Māori a te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti (LDS) e whakawhānuitia ai tō tātou māramatanga ki te hītori o te mahi whakaputa pukapuka i roto i te Hāhi, te mahi punenga a te Māori, te whakareretanga o ngā tuhituhinga reo Māori, me te hītori o te Hāhi o Ihu Karaiti i Aotearoa nei.

year: 2021