Buddhism & my terrible mistake

I should have known not to become Buddhist!

I walked into the temple wondering how on Earth can anyone become Buddhist? It is like saying how can anyone become a Human! You just are, you don't decide to become one.

Buddhists spend a lot of time telling you that deep down you are a Buddha you just need to clear away the pollution that makes you angry, greedy and selfish to uncover it. They tell you it is all about practice and hard work, and often that it requires no understanding because thoughts do not make us a Buddha.

They tell you many things about what a Buddha is like. They have a very strong "idea" about what a Buddha is like infact! And they often criticise those traits which are not like a Buddha.

As Buddhists we are expected to be "like" something.

If "Buddha" is what we truly are, then how can we be unlike a Buddha? One incorrect thought is that I need to change, or if I cleanse myself I will change to be like a Buddha. You can't change to be "like" a Buddha, because deep inside you "are" a Buddha.

Indeed the problem that Buddha solved was exactly this that our minds spend their whole lives wanting to be like something. We are obsessed about being like something, and also not being like something. People give us a name we don't like, or they give us a name we do like, or they believe things about us, or they don't see things about us which we do.

We might even philosophise about what we are. Try to answer questions about life and death, wonder what will I become when i die. What am I while I am alive. What am I made from, am I a spirit, or am I matter.

The images that we surround ourselves with are miriad and all encompassing. To become a Buddhist is to add just another image to the others. People will be my friend because I am a Buddhist like them. Or, they will see me in a particular way. Or I will have a distinct Buddhist way of life. And people will expect me to be a certain way because I am Buddhist.

Its just more labels and images. So really no one can become Buddhist, it just makes no sense. No one can become human either, it just makes no sense. We already are, all of us!

So you might image that is the end of Buddhism. No.

Buddha did enlighten, I have no doubt. We can enlighten, I have no doubt. Through enlightenment we can end life's struggles, difficulties and unhappiness forever - I have no doubt. Not just for me; for everyone.

The problem comes in thinking that we can do it by becoming something new, by thinking that we will expect changes from our practice, that we will be different after our practice. That the anger, greed and selfishness will be gone - as if that was our goal at all!

The goal is not to be a better person, to have a better character, to improve oneself, even to find more happiness or success in life, not even to be good instead of evil. Any goal is just a picture we have of our new self.

The goal is to have no pictures of ourself at all! What is that like? Well such a question is seeking a picture, something to aim for; but that question is exactly the process which causes the problems of anger, greed and selfishness. We should stop aiming to be like anything new at all! We already are!

The emphasis is not on the being like something. The enphasis is on the being. We should not aim to be anything new, because it is the being now which we already have! We need only be ourselves, quite naturally with no stick to goad us into a new form, and no suggestion that we are not succeeding in being ourselves. We are always ourselves, you can't "become" yourself. There is no enlightenment to attain, there is nothing new.

The only task then is not to be tricked into following an image, or rejecting an image that we associate with ourselves. All images are illusions, all thoughts are illusions - we are always present automatically.

What causes stress, anger, greed, anxiety, selfishness? It is the belief that an image that I hold is better than my reality and I must arise and struggle toward the new image. But you have already arrived, where is the struggle?

So we imagine: it must be better to own a huge house overlooking the Pacific coast, with enough money to last forever, with a happy family, friends, good personal character, and no illnesses. That must be better than what I have now.

But we only think that because we have an image of what we are now, and we form a new image of what we want to be. The problem is in these images in the first place. What makes us think we are any image in the first place? If we are no image in the first place, how can any amount of effort make us a new image?

The truth is that we are now, yes. We are existing, yes. But we aren't any of these things, no. So why do we care about these things?

We must be careful - its not the world we are having a go at, its the idea that we belong to anything in that world. That we are associated, or related, or affected, or own anything in that world. And by world it means everything! even emotions, thoughts and memories. Everything - Absolute.

Its not non-involvement with the world - which would occur if we succeeded in rejecting external events but not internal events. For example we still own our thoughts, so we may wsh to seclude ourself from the outside world which interfers with our thoughts. Its not interaction with the world either which is the normal viewpoint of inner world interacting with external events - some personal some not. Its non-association with everything. So there is no place to go because every conceivable place both inside and outside is an image of self which we are not going toward and do not personally associate with.

The strange thing is that with such a view suddenly all the things we previously aimed toward as an external image of what we needed to achieve, happen by themselves! For that reason we don't need to know about them at all - they are just the biggest delusion of all.

So the irony is that trying to become a better person, and trying to be a good Buddhist, or even a Buddhist is the worst mistake anyone can ever make.

We need only go back to being ourself, better and better every day, and steadily divorse all those things which are not ourself. If people hold bad views of us, if people criticise us - what has this really to do with us? And on the other hand is people hold good views, or people praise us - what really has that to do with us either? They are all images.

Reading this you might think, is the authour enlightened? Or if like me you would think, if he is, I wish I was like that. Or I might think, I have failed because I have not written anything like that, or understood like that. Or you may see errors in this, or you may disagree completely. In all these cases we are imagining what we just read, making an image of it, either an image we want to be like, or an image we don't want to be like. Making a picture of the author, and making a picture of ourself for comparison. Of course in so doing that is already missing the point, because no images belong to you or me. You already have even are what the text is talking about! so there is nothing to do or gain. Certainly don't think about becoming a Buddhist!

Tourism & Home 2

I have to comment in the interwoven ironies in the last post.

The Tourist is characterised by the journey to distant lands, but essentially with the return home in mind. Why else do we travel with camera if we are not going to come home and show people our pictures.

It is a dialectical venture then - journey away but with home in mind especially when we pick up the camera to record what we see for home.

I think I battled against this. I always wanted to travel without a camera. I wanted to forget everything I saw because I never wanted it to be experienced in relation to home. If I was travelling then travelling was what i was going to do, and that means not being at home. To experience not being at home we need to forget about recording things for home. That means no pictures and no thought "wait till I tell people at home". Then we can really travel, actually take our minds with us.

Walking now I remember was a final underline to this principal. If you are going away from home you are going to have to work for it. Walk every step. In retrospect my Lands End - John o'Groats walk was very dialectically linked to home because I marvelled a lot on the way about at how far from home I had walked.

However if we forget where home is we equally forget that we are far away from home, and so travel becomes impossible. The experience at the end of this length of Britain walk was more akin to this - that i had forgotten i was away from home, walking had become my home and so there was no achievement in completing the walk, each day was just another day.

This links very much with life, purpose and goals. By setting a goal or destination away from "home" and working toward it we provide a position on the map of life. We can then plot journeys using this "home". Our life can take shape, we can tell stories about it, mark our successes and failures. Of interest is that such mapping is created by ourselves and that we could up all references and walk a day at a time, taking in what life offers us and never being in a position to think - I have progressed, I have fallen back, life was a success and life was a failure.

It is unusual to meet people who went nowhere for holidays, or did nothing with their lives. The ability to say that I went away from this place for Summer, or that I have done something and now am home is a great plus, it makes us interesting. But isn't their a superficiality here that even the person who can't tell amazing stories of life has still lived? That maybe they carried their home with them so that they never could return home to tell such stories.

Are both possibilities available and are they equally valid? Is it really meaningful to travel away from home, when the being "away" is only possible from the perspective of being at "home", that there is no real being away from anywhere. The wandering monks of India question Alexander the Great to this effect saying "how odd it is that you conquer so many lands when the only land every man owns is that on which he stands".

Tourism and Home

Watching a TV program at the weekend a situation was shown which reminded me of a big problem. A conservation area in Africa means that the local people are not allowed to hunt. Instead they need to perform for tourists and use that money to buy food.

On the surface of it, it seems like a good compromise where everyone gets something. But I was deeply aware of a problem I have seen before.

You see African tribes people in body paints, dancing and waving their spears and singing. There are interesting spectacles and make unusual photos and videos - but what does it mean?

To the people doing the dance I cannot begin to imagine what it means, only that this is the dance which they do, their friends do, which their parents did, which their ancestors did. It is the dance maybe they do at a particular time, it is a dance which evokes certain feelings. Most importantly it is a dance which belongs here with these people, with this music, on this land.

The problem is however that if these tribes people are no longer doing it as they would have usually done it, but are doing it for the entertainment of tourists then it ceases to reveal anything about these people other than they want some money and this is how they get it. They may a well put on western clothing and disco dance if it will get money. By contrast the tourist attraction is that this dance is in someway different, represents something unique to this place - especially since the tourist has travelled so far to see it.

The process of breaking into the tribal world, of offering money for what they do, and especially since they are required now to earn a living this way has changed the whole context of the dances. They no longer represent a distinctly different way of life - as they might have done to visitors in the past, but increasingly are the product of tourism itself. The dance has been relocated from the world in which it was evolved into a new world where it is performed to generate cash from viewers - something for which it was never created.

What will happen then is that being divorced from its creative origin, it will be formalised as a memory of the past (even by its own people). It will be paraded as a stuffed version of the original as a piece of archaeology from which viewers may peer into the past and wonder what world it came from. The more formalised it becomes and the better know it becomes, ironically the more it will have been divorced from its original context and meaning.

This is what they call the "crisis of modernity". That the expansion of economics to every part of our lives, and the power of manufacturing and markets has meant that the products of human labour are very quickly removed from the hands and contexts that created them, and are relocated into a market and the world of anyone who will buy them. The consumer has complete mastery over the meaning of an items.

But with great irony because many objects we purchase we wish to associate with the world they seem to come from. We buy a statue "Made in Africa" because we think it carries in some way a memory of its origin. We buy a perfume marketed under a celebrity name because we think it carries some of that celebrity. We buy a Ferrari because of its image likewise.

In a way this illusion works because other people are also fooled by it. But if everyone is fooled by an illusion does that make the fact it is an illusion important still?

That is a big problem with groups approached in previous posts. What is our interest - to be in agreement with people, or to be clear and truthful about things even if it means disagreement. A decision we need to make at some stage in life!

The fact is a statue carved in Africa is the same as a statue carved at the end of the road - if you like the statue keep it - but where it came from is meaningless... unless you happen to be from Africa yourself and still remember something of the art and culture there which may give that statue some added significance - you would know.

However just being from Africa yourself does mean the statue "from Africa" has anything automatically in common with you. Being "from Africa" is entirely lost in an international market. It is entirely lost in people too. It is the languages, memories and customs which make people from Africa - if its not already there you can't make it happen. Like the statue - if its form does not determine its origin to the observer then its origin is lost, and so its "original" meaning and context. A new one will have been created by the presence of this item. Maybe the one which goes "oh so you are well travelled then - you are an adventurous tourist".

Home is the issue for Modernity. Does anything have a home anymore in a world which spends so much time looking at other people, buying their products, trying out their ideas, clothes, food and music. Like mirrors facing each other, humanity is becoming reflected into itself endlessly. Identities which pride themselves in being so distinct are already inwardly folded so many times. Bin Laden is supposed to have an obsession for pop-singer Whitney Houston who has been seeking spiritual refuse in Israel from drugs and sex addiction - how many cultural and ideological contradictions can there be at once!

The question of "Home" was a central issue of interest a few years ago which I strayed from subsequently - it would be good to revisit this. What is "Home"? When are we at "Home"? especially in the mixed up modern world. Is "Home" a physical place, a social place, or a spiritual inward place of self-identity?

War/ Conflict & Purpose/ Meaning

When there is a war there is plenty of work to do and plenty of purpose.

Opportunities abound to define oneself and be a good person. To be valiant, heroic and brave.

Industry and enterprise also have an injection of purpose - be it to develop weapons or medicines.

War is a great thing for humans because it gives us a direction and a purpose. Winning a war is a goal which is unquestionable and provides us with every inspiration for activity and meaning in our lives.

If we are British we can think of all the great achievements of great men during the Second World War from Montgomery to Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bombs. We can get very patriotic and inspired by such heroes. If we are not British we can think of our own home grown heroes.

But before we get too carried away there is an obvious problem. When two countries go to war against each other are not both nations equally motivated toward equally heroic deeds with the vision of victory equally in their sights?

Like two football teams. Both teams are equally striving for victory and both teams have the same opportunities for purpose, meaning and heroism.

Of course the symmetry breaks down eventually because there will be a winner and loser.

That break down of symmetry is critical to the subsequent understanding of the conflict. The moves of the winning team are understood in hindsight as being constructive of that winning, and the moves of the losing team likewise but opposite.

Of course this is a lie! because at the time neither team knew who was going to win and both were struggling into the void of history seeking that same goal, with the same ferver. The actions of the actors in a struggle are never done with the benefit of foresight, they must be understood in the right context as components of a future which is unknown to them.

I say all that because it undermines the complacent after-the-event view we have of events in conflicts - especially wars -, and it more realistically levels the playing field of the antagonists who are far more intimate and related than in the polarised after-the-event analysis where one is the winner and the other cast into the pit as the loser. They are actually quite equal during the event, before the decisive polarisation of the end of conflict.

During a conflict each team represents the obstacle for the other. And, as each team struggles to overwhelm the obstacle posed by its opponent it only increases the obstacle it poses to that opponent. Until some weakness is found both team simply creates meaning and purpose for the other.

Viewed in such a stripped down way however this reveals a certain vacuity to such purpose and meaning.

If my goal is to destroy or overwhelm you, and yours is vice versa and we find purpose and meaning in our lives through this goal aren't we really just creating goals from a mis-understanding?

You are a fearsome opponent, but if I try to see through you I find that the huge challenge you seem to present me is only there because you see me as an opponent. And, if I stand tall to challenge you then I seem like a fearsome opponent, and if you try to see through me you find that I am only such because I see you as such.

The meaning and purpose that seems to arise through conflict is actually only apparent and depends upon how we ourselves behave. An opponent is just like a mirror and the taller we stand the taller our opponent will seem to stand.

All conflicts are based on illusion then, and the try way to diffuse a conflict is actually to stand small in the face of opposition.

Interestingly almost every religious leader teaches exactly this. Jesus most famously stood very small in the face of an horrific opponent - his crucifixion.

If there is real meaning and purpose in life then it must extend beyond the apparent meaning and purpose that we find in having opponents - either in games or in wars. And by extension in winning and being the best in comparison with others.

And in business there is a good deal of competition. If there is real meaning in business that too much extend beyond the competative elements of the market. Afterall if we only define ourselves in terms of our successes over competitors how vapid is that! and what would we do when we are the best!

I feel this discussion turns down either of two paths now... either 1) toward the life which is self defined - i.e. where we live not in relation to others but in the meaning of things as they present themselves directly to us - we are not best in relation to others, but in relation to our own conscience and sense of perfection , or 2) toward the understanding of all goals and purpose as being illusory... to be continued

Tat Tvam Asi

I was reminded of this yesterday . Thou art That.

It's the central Hindu teaching for the attainment of ultimate realisation - when both body, mind and spirit are fully reconciled with all of existence.

In principal its quite simple - and that is very inspiring - while in reality it is profoundly hard to attain.

It states that the world around us and we ourselves are really the 'same'.

That is not to say that I am the universe, or the universe is me. That is ridiculous. I'm clearly a human being and the universe is a vast largely empty space I will never visit, and conversely the universe is not a knowing thing with awareness called Alva.

It does not mean that I am made out of the same stuff as the universe, and self and universe are just different sides of the same coin. Altho this is a very good step in the right direction. A lot of Buddhism is here. The stuff is called "emptiness" which isn't really a stuff at all but more the experience of phenomena as made from air.

It really does mean that two different things are the same at the same time. In other words knowing oneself is knowing the universe and vice-versa altho they are different.

well actually there is no exact answer because it is something we must realise for ourself and I'm trying.

It makes sense for me of the importants of treating other people like oneself - loving thy friend and enemy - treating all people with compassion that extends beyond how they appear. This is the fundamental training toward seeing the universe as oneself.

The blissful experience of oneness is also to be found down this path.

Is there a purpose to life?

Once we make a decision to do something I notice the planning begins and then the "need to-s" start happening.

I decide to go on holiday. I need somewhere to go. I need to get there, I need accomodation etc etc.

Once we have a goal and are in a situation then there is plenty of purpose and plenty of things to do to achieve that goal.

For another example I decide to do todays Sudoku. Once decided then the "need to-s" start coming as logic reveals where the numbers go.

It always begins with a decision. I guess what I want in life is a starting point a fundamental "need to".

Choice seems to be the key as Sartre would have pointed out, and life is something that we create like artists.

But I always thought that if life is just an arbitrary act of creation then it becomes meaningless. Even art occurs in a culture and tradition which determines what will happen broadly and decisions are made within such a framework.

You could argue that life is a socio-biological process of history, culture and genes within which matrix we make our decisions about life.

But again its just arbitrary knowing that we are being drawn along on a quite meaningless river of time and natural processes.

At least at this point of investigation there seems to be no soild foundation on which to base lifes choices. Life has no obvious theoretical basis and day leads to day and problem leads to problem within a framework which I have no decisive knowledge.

Obvious things to enumerate are the basic needs and processes of biological life, and then social and then spiritual at some later date...

Big Change Ahead?

It occurred to me recently looking at various predictions of economic collapse that those of us who have grown up in the West in the last 30 years have never known anything but continued economic success and progress.

We don't need to look back however to see many complete upheavals to peoples lives. The war must have seemed like madness. The economic depression of the 30s. The War before that and then another opulent period of boom for the fortunate before that.

Now there is the spectre of global warming - something that was inevitable with a moments thought anyway. A limited Earth with exponentially growing human population and on top of that each individual with exponentially growing lifestyle demands - very quickly were gonna ransack the Earth. Obvious.

And there is also the prediction so global economic melt down. The faith is that this time Capitalism has got it right and there are no more boom/bust cycles. But we simply don't know about this animal Capitalism - its a new beast less than 100 years old. In UK there are big problems. House prices were taken out of the inflation measure so while they have been rising in price, inflation has been perceived as low and so the banks have been able to argue for low interest rates... which has encouraged borrowing and spending and so has pushed up prices. So real inflation has been high (try and buy a house in UK now on a normal wage) but it has been conveniently ignored. Since house prices are rising so fast people perceive that they are gaining money and this is remortgaged against loans which fuel spending and inflation more.

The problem is that this inflation has become to creep into the central unignorable economy and that is forcing an increase in interest rates to slow the economy down. If we are lucky the balance will be just right. If we are unlucky the economy will not slow down and interests rates will have to be increased more at the expense of people with existing loans. If those loans become unpayable and people liquidate the rising supply of items especially houses on the market will drop the price, which inturn will invalidate the remortgages as they turn out to be supported by thin air and the economy begins to spiral down. Its classic bust mentality - runs on the bank etc and spiralling bad debt in the economy. (Worst case scenario)

So it occurred to me maybe the future is not going to continue rosy forever. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but one day for some reason I might expect to live in a world which is much harder than it is today. That the little bubble of easiness which I call life is just a period of economic success in a world history which we know has always had its ups and downs.

A sobering thought!

Memes

Dawkins at his worst! This turned up in the last part of UK CH4 series on man and animal yesterday. Which did conclude in the right place that man is different from animal because of the degree to which he has escaped his biological imperatives. But it got there by a very dodgy route trying to involve genetics - which is irrelevant - and then having arrived there never realised that it could have gone there directly because it was man who made the distinction in the first place and then made the TV program and that already says a lot!

And if that is not enough of a self invention - make the plinth of a big deal about the distinction between man/animal and then stand upon that plinth and wonder how it got there - memes is even worse!

In itself its a good idea. That ideas themselves spread much like genes - Meme from the greek mimesis. At college I had a similar idea that ideas can be likened to viruses and the same population modelling used. On the internet this analogy between information and virus is a big money sinner for Symantec and Mcafee. A successful virus (idea by analogy) is easily transmitted, has a high infection rate, reproduces well and is not so virulent that it kills the host before it can pass on. (It's a better analogy infact that Memes) Any idea which for example argues for evangelism and spreading of itself is going to become widespread simply on that merit alone. However such formal explanations for the prevalence of ideas completely divorces ideas from their meaning. And, if we do that we undermine the content of our own ideas and are left in a contradiction.

The same for Dawkins. His utter hatred of religious ideas (because by his own research he has a brain defect which means he can't have any religious experiences - altho he used it to prove that people who have religious experiences have a defect ;-) means that Memes is a very attractive idea. It shows that the prevalence of ideas can be explained simply on the basis of the idea's "fitness" - how well it reproduces and spreads. Its fitness is a bit more complex. Firstly does it "compute" well in the human mind, and then also does it make the human do things which help spread the idea.

Of course just as before, if this is true, then Dawkin's entire life's work in genes and memes is subject to the same forces. The same for the UK CH4 program. If these ideas spread then they have a high "fitness", if they fall into oblivion because they are not cool, or are boring, or too hard to understand then that's selection for you.

But that can't be quite right, because if ideas ARE controlled by fashion then it is also true! and therefore it is valid even if it fails. Thus evangelism while it may spread through formal forces like marketing etc, it may also be true!

Its an unfortunate fact that in a free market the "truth" might not sell. Global Warming is a good example. Quite regardless of whether it becomes fashionable or not, or whether people can be persuaded to accept it, quite apart from its "fitness" - if it is true then we have a problem.

So I argue that memes are a good point. But I don't accept that they are the only force in the mind. I also argue that memes are a disease of the mind, and we should aim to cure ourselves of them so that we can view the reality of the world.

Marketing is a tool to pursuade us to do things we wouldn't do if we knew the truth. If we would do it knowing the truth then marketers would just tell us the truth. They don't, they lie because we need to do things we should not do. Ignore all marketing - it is a disease of the mind.

Fashion is the same.

Group membership is the same. If we only do something because other people are doing it, or because it will give us entry status to a group, or ranking in a group, will make us popular, or lower our profile by blending in we should ignore it. Why be part of a group which compromises ourself? Disagree and fall out of the group for that is the right place to be - alone but with integrity. If we truely belong in the group they will accept us for what we are. Confront all groups as an individual and be prepared to be thrown out (which you are likely to be because most groups can only survive using coersion and manipulation through fear and dishonesty - just look at political groups!). I learned this through Buddhism. Any group which calls itself Buddhist cannot be a true representation of Buddha because it must compromise in order to hold itself together - structural considerations become more significant than the group itself). Apparently groups of 100-150 are the maximum that the human brain can deal with - maybe there is some brain science behind group size.

So I think I am correct in my new established policy of personal integrity. Know oneself at the expense of everything else. Certainly ignore other peoples' ideas, marketing, manipulation and their groups. All these are probably diseases which we must be careful not to become mentally infected by. Instead we need to unpack everything we are given and view it on merit - even if the world disagrees! and especially if the world agrees - we should be suspicious of this event always!!

Appreciate what u got!

If I look at all the things I want or have yet to achieve in life - it is a very great mountain! Places I want to visit, the pay rise I need, the house I need, the success I need.

And, I believe no matter how successful I am that mountain will always the same size! Even if I had the billion pound business empire I would still be looking to expand and dominate rivals. That tree in the view from my 10 million pound mansion would be in just the wrong place...

Looking the other way I already have a very great deal! The number of people who can boast a computer to write a blog are already few. What I have is already a huge mountain to most of the world.

And, I believe that no matter what I lose I would still have what is a great mountain to some others.

We are always in the middle, whether we win or lose we can always look up to make us look small, and look down to make us look big.

Properly looking down we find that we are even higher up than we ever imagined. Suppose I look around at my possessions and I look in the mirror and try to measure everything that I have. The list may include my own body, my heart, brain, eyes, nose. Losing any of these would be far more catastrophic than anything else.

Suppose I come to be looking in the mirror at my eyes. I marvel at their intricate blue iris and crystal clear dark pupil. A sudden change of light and the iris adjusts imperceptably. It is a wonderful thing - I never really appreciated it. That I have.

Then I realise that more amazing than the eye itself is that I have vision. That I can stand there in the mirror and look at my eye. More amazing still is that I have thought and judgement and I can discern the shape and nature of my eye and know it. More amzing still are the emotions and feels that I have, of wonder, of happiness at having it. More amazing still is that I am aware of the eye, of the thoughts and judgements, of the emotions, of the whole world and everything that is in it.

Before even using my senses to turn the world into its sights and sound, smells and tastes, its feeling and emotion I have awareness. It is the most subtle thing, something we can't discern directly, only know indirectly because how the world be there otherwise? It is the light in the world around us right now.

I have all this before I even wake up in the morning. It is a mountain on which I stand so great I cannot even see the bottom. Looking down makes the mountain I wanted to climb up seem very small. Even seem like no challenge.

Indeed being so far up already, why go any further? It is simply because I tend to look up toward what is expected of me, toward what I have not got, toward how other people are different from me and what I can get to be like them. I don't need to. Everything is ok just as it is.

Life is ... by Mother Teresa

Life

Life is an opportunity, benefit from it.
Life is beauty, admire it.
Life is bliss, taste it.
Life is a dream, realise it.
Life is a challenge, meet it.
Life is a duty, complete it.
Life is a game, play it.
Life is costly, care for it.
Life is wealth, keep it.
Life is love, enjoy it.
Life is mystery, know it.
Life is a promise, fulfill it.
Life is sorrow, overcome it.
Life is a song, sing it.
Life is a struggle, accept it.
Life is tragedy, confront it.
Life is an adventure, dare it.
Life is luck, make it.
Life is too precious, do not destroy it.
Life is life, fight for it.

- Mother Teresa

Boredom.

I was bored today. Same old job, nothing happening in my life much, I've avoided all my friends of late. But this is exactly where I wanted to be.

When my life is simplified I get bored at first and then my desires get stranded like drift wood on a beach at low tide. It is easy to see what is motivating me, and I can also silence it.

The goal in life has always been to want as little as possible. Then I can get satisfied more completely and more easily.

Ideally if I wanted nothing, I would be completely satisfied automatically.

This has been my life's goal, and I was given a good start because I was a very undemanding baby apparently - lazy mum calls it ;-)

It does seem the opposite of most people however who are always seeking newer and better things. If they don't get them they get a very unpleasant boredom. Was just talking to a work collegue about it. He'd go mad if he didn't have something to do.

Intuitively this does seem the wrong way. Get a desire for something new and we need to go get it and that is just more work.

Its not to say we can't enjoy things. I'd still enjoy things. Its just its not the type of relief enjoyment when we get something we really wanted, mostly because the agony of not having it just ended. Bit boring you might say. Well its peaceful enjoyment.

It might be viewed as laziness. But not really. Its not about doing nothing, its not about doing lots of things. Its contentment that arises quite independent of "doing". For normal thinking the key to the door of contentment is "action". We must do something to get what we want, or to stop being bored, or to get over depression or whatever is afflicting us.

For the lazy person action seems like to much effort, can't be bothered, its a mountain i don't want to climb.

If however we are quite happy with action, we might even be doing something right now, but contentment arises aside from whether we are doing something or not then that's what I mean.

That's also how doing and not doing are really the same because they have no impact on the state of pure contentment and self-knowing that is possible if we can withdraw our mind back to itself.

I am fasting today also which can have a great impact on clarity and the place of desires.

Are there any real threats?

History tells us that there have been some disasterous regimes, and disasterous responses to regimes. Europe had its head in the sand while the Nazis grew. People must have wondered why they were developing such a powerful army, and also questioned the ideiologies. But they did nothing.

In Communist Russia Stalin removed a staggering 30 million (including those lost in the war). Not that there was anything anyone else could do. Mao some 20 million in famines and disasterous policies. Khmer Rouge some 6 million in Pol Pot's well intended but gradually more and more insane dictates. Around the world today there are countries in the grip of absurd dictatorships too. Bhurma the most notable example.

So it would seem that we have every reason to have a huge army and to protect ourselves and our way of life from the evil that has consumed other countries. The "Team America" logic.

Well there is no doubt that being prepared is essential. But prepared for what? How many regimes do we know who have the desire to absorb England by force into their empire? A Roman Empire who we should protect ourselves from. There were the Nazis and some said the USSR. An aware Britain may have noticed the changes in the 30s and sort some agreement from Germany to reduce its military. Much as America is doing with nuclear weapons today. Failure to do so and an overt expression of hostile intent thereby would force the rest of the world to begin military armament in response like the American/USSR arms race. So the suprise and advantage of Nazi Germany would have been thwarted. No war. It didn't happen because the elite of Britain had too many thumbs in Germany's pies to want to upset the economic apple cart. Typical short term thinking. The same logic works again and again.

If it was needed the arms race with the USSR avoided war. However a diplomatic agreement to stop arms development on both sides would have been an obvious choice saving both countries a lot of expense. Ah! except that was it - America's master stroke at bankrupting the USSR. It also seems that America was more the aggressor than USSR. USSR was keeping up the race because it feared attack from USA despite its economic weakness and the Cuban crisis illustrated how ruthless America was prepared to be. It was USSR who backed down!

So arms race is quite sufficient to deter any aggressive nation - but it is only needed in the event that two countries decide to go head to head. No country will attack if it knows it will lose - what gain is there in that?

So what about the modern world? Are there any threats to Britain or America? Only China that I can think of. And why would it seek to attack Britain or America? For what gain? I believe diplomats know perfectly well what their respective countries want and as long as they give each other that then no hostility.

So it then comes to "Muslim Extremism". A shady bunch of mad men with no military capability and vague association with some "official" countries which have limited military capability also. Even if Iran did get a nuclear weapon what use is that? Maybe they would secretly feed it to their extremist friends who could plant it in Britain or America and hold us to ransom. But what ransom what would they gain? what do they want? I'm quite sure they will gain nothing solely by the destruction of an Western city. It has some other interest or purpose. What?

They can't possibly simply want to govern us like Hollywood madman. How would just one bomb achieve that? They seek to gain something for their own countries and homes. What? Maybe a ridiculous request like a trillion pounds from some cheap Hollywood crooks. Maybe a more reasonable political request.

Either way we should not give into them. That is a simple issue. But preventing such a situation ever arising is more important. Diplomatic knowledge of the country's, or groups' interests, and seeking reasonable negotiations. That way everyone can get a fair deal, everyone wins.

The problem however is that some parties don't want to compromise. "We are the most powerful country in the world. We can do what we want." was the justification for the Iraq war from some American spokesman. This man is certainly not going to sit at a table with people he believes he can kill with impunity.

Certainly there are times when a state may be forced to show its willingness to fight as a deterent for war. In the worst case war may occur. But this is extremely unlikely. War never gains people much, it is destructuve for all sides concerned. Discussion and negotiation of respective wants - that gains much more. Cooperation if possible gains the most.

The problems only arise when one side won't listen. It is either ideologically fixed or is greedy and wants to steal from the other side - as is the case in empires.

The West claims that terrorists are ideologically fixed on destroying the West. It is hard to see the argument. Hitler produced his arguments for persecuting the Jews - it is something we can read and decide for ourselves. What argument for destroying the West? That we are decadent and stand for Satan and against Allah. In fact that is in part true and even the vast majority of Muslims can see that it is only part true. The few extremists are very odd indeed if they wish to battle against the views of their own people. There are many other countries in the world who come under the same description however and they are not singled out. There is part truth is this point of view.

Looking at the other point of view the particular relationship between America and Islam is more clear. America is greedy and uncompromising. For half a century it has manipulated world affairs for its own gain. Firstly against the Russians and now directly for itself through willing advocates like Britain and Israel. The "war on terror" has been a bad filter on this old ambitions. Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism, that is American greed at its most blatant. And it is this America will to dominate and be one sided that has gained so many enemies.

A little humility and diplomacy would have averted all the current problems. Analogies to Nazis and dictators and defence and threats are pale. America does not want peace it wants all or nothing at any cost. And as the American bull dozer blunders along, it is piling up more and more of the human tragedies and arguments from the other side ahead of it for the future.

War America!

Because of where I am born - England - I am expected therefore to believe what my government and the US government says.

I suppose the same follows the whole way around the world. Suprise it does! That is why soldiers on both sides are so convinced that their side is right.

That's it! simple proof that there is never justification for war - that is unless you only listen to one side of the argment. Indeed if you ever think that war is justified you are only listening to one side.

America has got itself in a pickle. Modern America was fashioned in the cold war when there was a clear and present threat from the communists. (Quite what that threat was we were never told - just a vague threat - sound familar?)

During the cold war the military were given increasing powers - no wonder with this ominous threat. By the end of the 80's the Pentagon had an enormous influence on the White House and most other departments as well.

Unfortunately the USSR underwent a catastrophic and unexpected collapse. So no more threat.

This may have been seen as a good thing by most people... except not for those who had jobs and influence in the Pentagon and the US War machine.

Rather than reorganise the US establishment toward the new world situation where there was only one world power and no real threat, quite the opposite happened. The Pentagon was too powerful to be restructured by the US establishment. In 1999 despite there being no threat - Pentagon chiefs drew up a plan for "full spectrum dominance" by 2020, with Joint Vision 2010 being a initial project. Money, a lot, was directed toward the military. It was the Project for the New American Century think tank, amongst others, who saw the chance for America to do what no other Empire has ever done before - master the whole world, with complete military dominance. It's the latter bit was the mistake. Empires are politicals not fighting.

In all fairness UK Government has little option but the follow the old colony. With benefit of doubt Blair may have decided its better to have a tiny say and a few crumbs from under the US table, than to have no influence on US policy and nothing. It's a pathetic spineless stance however, but pragmatic.

I don't believe an American future sounds particularly appealing - if only because I am not American! Why would I want to live in a world governed in the name of another people? I would expect the vote at least! Clearly its absurd but that's what the "think" tanks have thought. It's certainly quite different from the other future where states attempt some kind of equal footing in a United Nations. With an international court and protection for the unfortunate - what you would expect in a progressive (rather than regressive) forecast.

Suprise, suprise (or just luckily) America found its new threat and also a planted government after a ridiculous voting farce, and after Pakistan - a nuclear nation - had a military coup which the international community were very cool over - busy year that after 1999! Infact the new threat was almost completely created - accidentally or deliberately - by America. Bin Laden was trained in Afghanistan by the US. 40 years of injustice in the Middle East against Arabs while Jews are supported in every way - that's guarenteed to annoy anyone! And a million other reasons I'm sure. But America got its new threat and the Pentagon its new budget. Forget the figures but US spends more on killing machines than the rest of the world many times over.

In such a difficult situation one thing is for sure however - America needs something a bit smarter than the latest high tech killing machines. Unless America plans to kill everyone who won't accept them as the new world top dogs, I can't see what their point is. But they are dug themselves into military pit now and the more money they throw at the Pentagon to blow their way out the more stuck they are going to become.

Returning to the opening lines there is this thing that America is going to have to learn the very hard way by the sounds of it, that everyone thinks they are right not just America. If America came under a massive attack would they just roll over and accept defeat? I think they believe they would fight till the last man to protect their country and way of life. So why not other people? Why won't Arabs fight till the last man for their countries and their way of life?

The point for America to ponder is that war never solves anything . At best it just kills the people who hold the other side of the argument - which isn't solving the problem, its just ignoring it. People don't like dying and when America kills them, or supports the people who kill them, they are going to be even less impressed by America and what it is supposed to stand for and will want to fight it more. Every dollar spend on the Pentagon is a dollar bringing more problems to America - and unfortunately UK by association. Of course if you are employed in the Pentagon that is great, and more and more people are as the problems escalate!

Best to pull out now Blair before US ends up fighting the whole world!

(China comes onto the horizon soon - that is going to be fun)

Nature Log

14th Aug

Found nest of the local sparrow hawk
Large beetle - still unidentifed!
40mm! I though stag beetle was big! Like maybug/cockchaffer, but with character of a ground beetle. Not a water beetle, although body shape similar. Long discretely segmented antennae. All black. V stong in hand. Body round in tranverse cut. Underside abdomen noticable smooth end.

=== Update 20/6/2010

This beetle undoubtedly Calosoma coriaceus

http://www.kerbtier.de/Pages/Fotos/FotoLarge/Carabidae/Carabus%20coriaceus.jpg

==

Added to Nature Diary 05/11/2024

How I quit smoking

Rather than give up in one go which offers no light at the end of the tunnel, I used to have a cigarette fast on Mondays. It was inspired by a Hindu work collegue who used to food fast on Mondays, and I thought he can go without food surely I can go without cigarettes.

12am Monday to 12amTuesday that is the rule. There is no breaking it for any circumstances.

The secret is to learn all the little twists and turns we make in order to persuade ourself that we are allowed a cigarette. There are many, we need to learn them if we are ever able to progress.

After a few months - and it is difficult at first - we will have mastered it. The reward always is that first cigarette on Tuesday, which we have well earned if we suceeded in having none on Monday.

When we are confident we can introduce extra days. If we fail just go back to the begining and start again.

It worked for me! Last cigarette September 1999 !

Pointless Loops - PLs

Building a house in the clouds is impossible because where would we place the foundations. However, if we assumed that we had the foundations then the rest of the house would be ok. So an architect might get to thinking, well if the rest of the house is ok what if we could find a way to build the foundations out from the ok bit, then we would have ok foundations too. Thus they would be stuck in a pointless loop, because they forgot that the building of the house depended upon the foundations originally. M.C.Esher is famous for creating such illusions in drawings. In science the people building the walls are always trying to then go on to build the foundations, not realising that to be building the walls already involves having done the foundations! If scientists can't remember or see themsleves doing the foundations they need to look a little more carefully.

While such loops look simple the number of people who get caught in them is bewildering. I point to Daniel Dennett as the worst example because he should know better, but Richard Dawkins and many others are equally foul. Stephen Hawkins and the physicists are rather more aware.

The best hunting ground for PLs is in whooly sciences (rather than rigorous mathematical/logical) where they seek the foundations of the world.

The scientist sits there and begins investigation of the world. They are involved in detailed and lengthy processes involving their senses and their brains, they work within a framework of language and culture, they have personal intentions and objectives, they have careers and their own lives. Their whole being is inextricably wrapped up in the process. Separate a dancer from the dance, as Kierkegaard once challenged. Separate a scientist from the science.

To believe that science is objective then to imagine that scientific truth precipitates out of the scientific process and can afterwards be extracted and stood alone as a self explanatory and independent entity. Of course it had its cause and without its cause it has no existence.

So when scientists begin to examine the processes upon which science and humanity is built they must be careful. It is the Reductionist Fallacy (from the previous post) again.

For example a scientist decides to investigate vision. All their work in brains and neurons only makes sense because we can relate it to our experience of vision. The things they study are chosen based upon an already present understanding of vision, and its significance. Imagine how important or meaningful such work would be to blind people.

Imagine further blind people doing such research in their own terms - which would be more objective! Firstly what machines would they use to investigate it since most machines have visual displays? Secondly what would form would their understanding take since most people map an understanding of brain structure to a seeing like space. Most importantly how would they understand the behaviour of sighted people to electromagnetic stimulation in the 400-700 nm range?

Blind people are like sighted people in every respect except the trivial loss of sight. So they would be able to make sense of most of it. But imagine more fundamental changes to the brain and how they would disrupt the meaning and "objective" significance of scientific research.

Thus within its context, upon its right building blocks and foundations, science is a perfectly natural and meaningful process. Remove its foundations by claiming "objectivity" and truth and it's a building in the sky.

Remove its foundations (pretend to be objective) and then try to build an explanation for the processes of human beings and you are in a PL.

As Hegel put it so simply. Why use a telescope to examine itself for faults? We would either be getting a faulty picture of the faults, or a true picture of a good scope. If the faulty picture is good enough the work out the faults then its not a critical fault and we can use the scope safely anyway. If it is a critical fault then we have no choice but to use it anyway too. In the same way we have no choice but to just "be" and "exist" and use the mind and human life as it occurs. That is our only starting point and one which cannot be investigated because all investigations depend upon that starting point or existing and being.

Existence and Being cannot thus be investigated any further than the moment of investigation that we exist in. Being has no identifyable foundation beyond the present moment. That is where absolutely everything begins even our own thoughts about it, and certainly any science that comes from that.

In Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" which I have grown tired with, while holding many interesting ideas, it seems to be deviating more and more into brain functioning and less into consciousness. The idea that consciousness is a self-referential software loop is an old idea (at least I thought of it 17 years ago) as did many friends. It is also an absurd idea because I am left with the thought that this book is just the output of a Von Neumann machine running on a parallel computer - which besides is logically impossible because what data would a Von Neumann machine process to represent it own self (as opposed to just the general idea of a Von Neumann)? i.e. what is Daniel Dennett? A PL extraordinaire.

A Reductionist Fallacy (in genetics)

No matter where you look in genetic science these days you will undoubtably run into this error. A new series on UK CH4 looking at the difference between Man and Animal is the latest in a growing list of genetic science blunders.

Let us examine the difference between a fish and a frog. Certainly we can sequence the DNA and look for differences. With a little knowledge of genetics we know that DNA is used to chemically code for proteins. Proteins are either the building blocks of cells, or the enzymes which direct the cells metabolism and even DNA replication. So differences in DNA will account for differences in the proteins of the cell and therefore differences in its building blocks and functioning. Thus in one sense it is sensible to say that the differences between a frog and a fish are the result of DNA.

However the problem lies in what we mean by Frog and Fish then. How did we know the difference before we did the DNA analysis? When a scientist takes specimens for analysis he carefully selects frogs and fish, puts the DNA in test tubes labelled frog and fish and looks for differences. When the differences are found he understands those differences in the light of the names on the test tubes. This is frog DNA, that is fish DNA. So he never really examines his initial decision that one is a frog and one is a fish. DNA analysis may underline that distinction, but where did it come from originally?

The reductionist fallacy is to think that once we have the building blocks we can ignore the structure they are building. We may have all the bricks that build a house, we may have all the mortar but it is useless unless it is all together in a real house. Indeed a pile of bricks and mortar IS useless until we understand it can make a house. Likewise the genetic differences between a frog and a fish ARE meaningless until we know they refer to a frog and a fish.

The great fears of a eugenics nation where people identify people according to their genes is only really founded on this misunderstanding. If I told you I have gene sequence CAAGTTGCAAAT, that is meaningless unless you are also told that it gives me blue eyes. If you find blue eyes attractive suddenly that sequence is worth something. But you can find out I've blue eyes just by looking at me! Any sequence so hidden you can't tell isn't a problem! (btw that's just 4 random proteins so won't code for anything). So all genetics can do is underline the already existing discrimination that humans express to one another. We already have CVs, interviews, psychometric tests, exams - so why not more? If we don't like it the focus of attention is on already existing society not science. Science it seems just gives society material to condense around, often showing up our weakest sides and its social undertanding and transformation we need. Positively, showing people their potential could help them find the best path through life also.

So where does the distinction between fish and frog come from? If we had never seen an animal before we might be more amazed by the fact that they move than superficial differences. Like when you see people of a particular race for the first time you only notice the general features that make them different from the ordinary, rather than individual differences. To the amateur many species of nematodes, annelids and insect larvae become grouped together as worms despite huge differences. The actual process of producing what we call "difference" depends upon the viewer then, especially the judgements behind "naming" things.

Is there a real world with real differences? How would you "distinguish" between a real world of real distinctions and an imaginary world of man-made distinctions? There is just the process of distinctions which clearly depend upon the judgements of an expert to make them. That people can agree on differences, that we can learn them and write them into books, that they are often unchanging for ages, that experts can emerge who are better than others is all part of the process. Whether that process can be reduced to building blocks (like a real independent world) is the frog and fish problem we were in the process of explaining so we can't go any down this path without a pointless loop.

Terrorists again?

It does amaze me how logical terrorists are in the countries they select to attack. For the insane madmen they are supposed to be there does seem to be a particularly sharp political edge to their actions. I don't see Norway, Canada, Sweden, Holland, Wales, Scotland in fact the majority of countries suffering terrorism and even less suffering the attentions of Al-Qaeda. So why poor old England? What have we possibly done to deserve such barbaric treatment?

Well I'm not going to say that there is any justification for one murder, even less hundreds as we are told was planned by todays list of suspects. But neither they nor anyone is justified in any murder. Is there one nation who can raise its hand and say with hand on heart that they have not murdered one person in the furthurment of its interests.

Well obviously the terrorists kill civilians while the Axis of Good only kill soldiers who have signed on the dotted line to say that they are allowed to be killed. Again is there any country in the world who can say they have not attacked civilians for military gains? Its a successful strategy. Demoralise your enemy. It tends to be only a last resort however, for example Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously no military would begin their campaign against civilians. So the Axis of Good are basically saying that the terrorists should come out of hiding and fight like men. Put their 1000 or so men armed with kalashnikovs in a field and get them to fight the combined NATO forces. Back in the real world, it is no suprise that the poorly armed, poorly funded, minority forces we are fighting have selected a more successful technique to fight. If only by evolution any other forces would have been carpet bombed out of existence before we even heard of them.

It is also worth considering this. In a democratic country who is to blame for the country's policies. Is it the Army? the politicians? or the people who elected the politicians? Personally I believe in a democratic country I am responsible for my government and my government's policies. That is why election time is SO important. If you pick the wrong guy he might just lead you into a war which is fine when it's several thousand miles away, but when the after shocks come home you change your mind. And that is why terrorists attack civilians to make us change our minds. So it does make political sense also.

Of course the real point is that the terrorists are fighting for the wrong goal, while America and its allies are fighting the right goal. If the terrorists were fighting for the right goal, say insurgency in German during the second world war, we would hail them as heros. Indeed in the event of war like the second world war we need terrorists to distrupt enermy lines (REME I think they are called).

Well I'll say it here I don't think there are any heros in war. All soldiers are murders, it matters not which side they come from. All victims be they "innocent" or "guilty" are wrongfully killed. All politicians or terrorists who use war as a means to achieve their ends are sick to the core. Anyone who joins the army or becomes a terrorist or at any time in their life ever considers killing someone, be it personally or for the country or for the "nation" is sick to the core. It is terrible to see Blair or Bush or Bin Laden or the late Zarqawi thinking how right and justified they are to be playing with peoples lives like pieces on a chess board. Each one of them to differing degrees is a terribly deluded man.

It could all have been so different. I am not a student of history or politics and my opinions from here are irrelevant but can any such educated person not tell me it could not have been different.

What if Palestine had been made for the Arabs and Israel made for the Jews at the same time? What if the Americans had silenced their Jewish lobby and treated the Middle East with the same impartiality as is supposed to been extended by the UN. What if, and this is the most important what if, what if democratically elected politicians were limited to decisions over their electorate and all international decisions were passed by the UN? No one would ever stand for it. It is the job of US and UK elected individuals to change the lives of the billions of people around the world who had no say in their election. If US wants to meddle in Middle East affairs, do it properly - let the Middle East share the US vote too! Its ridiculous. But if we are going to interfer with other people and change their lives, it seems only natural that they will come back eventually and try and change ours.

So the lesson is simple. The better you treat people the better they will treat you. Treating the rest of the world like second class citizens unfortunately is only going to make them hate us. They will come here and have no respect for us, sparking crime rates and bringing our countries down from the inside. And outside they will find every means to hurt us to.

Another angle never even touched on by the press is that these battles are between the elite. Bin Laden is the erant son of Saudi Arabias leading family. He's like Bush jr in the Bush household. He's fighting America because he wants his family to lead Saudi but the US is supporting the House of Saud instead. He'll take any platform to have that fight. The same largely in Africa, or in Serbia. Probably in Chechnya too. On the surface battles happen around discernable differences. Behind the scenes the protagonists are out for personal gains. So I wonder what Bush and Blair aim to get from all this?

The Illusion of Sex

May as well add to my blogs starting day my current stage of development on this most troublsome of problems.

It would be easy if my childhood dream had come true. Meet some utterly irresistable girl, fall madly and completely satisfyingly in love, have endless beautiful sex, get married and live happily ever after.

It didn't happen.

Firstly faced with the object of my hearts desire it seemed to lose all confidence in the plan. Secondly as time progressed I became rather hard to please because there are an awful lot of very nice girls and after the first few teenage crushes you realise that crushes don't mean much. So you move up a notch to real love, but there's a lot of that about too. In Susan Vega's words, its a one time thing it just happens alot. And the worst thing is that once I realise I have got the girl the fun seems to go out of it. As Kierkegaard said (and he does get a quote in Waynes World) you never have stories starting with the walking into the sunset part. Yup real love, marriage, is a whole new ball game I never got to yet, and its not as much fun as dating.

At a Chinese Wedding, where the bride and groom visit each table and people give their own personal speeches, an old gentleman gave a very considered message. Looking at his wife he said that he had given up a very great deal to get married, but after all these years in retrospect he can say that in the balance it was worth it. To me that is the truth that marriage is not a wonderland of emotion and happiness, it is - in the balance - worth it. Which means conversely that its not a must have either. Which frees me now to write of the brutal facts behind all this.

If you look at life in general, sex is almost ubiquitous. From single celled organisms, to mosses, to plants, to animals, sex can be found everywhere. Male and Female is the pattern where found, one carrying the large cell (egg) and one carrying the smaller cell which is often mobile (sperm). Ferns for example reproduce using mobile sperms which must swim to the egg although both are produced by the same parent. Marijuana plants have separate sexes in contrast. You only need to look out of the window in spring to see birds mating and then setting about making nests. Sex and reproduction are far from unique to humans, and the drives that we have inherited go back to the dawn of time and over a billion years ago. Feeling sexual impulses then is a piece of deep archaeology linking us to every organism that has reproduced to maintain the line until ourselves.

Humans have long had a problem with the relationship between themselves and their ancient inherited self. It is childishly obvious that we share almost everything with animals. We eat and defaecate, we have eyes and noses and ears, 4 limbs, 5 fingers on each limb, lungs and hearts and brain, we reproduce. What else needs to be the same before we'll accept the similarity. We chose to be different however because we are intelligent and we have freedom of action, choice and morality. And that is where sex becomes a problem. We seem to be able to accept the eating and breathing bit in common with animals. Defaecating is a bit of a problem but we can keep that private. Sex however is shared and so we have to admit that really we're an animal underneath it all.

However I do believe that humans have a higher aspect. Not so much something that separates us from animals as something that separates us from other people. There are those people who can only rise to the instructions of their biological self and there are other people who can be inspired by more subtle things, arts in their purer forms, and above that pure human relationships - what some call spirituality. Spiritual experience is free from the demands of biological existence, it is often therefore in conflict with it.

The struggle that lay within me was trying to work out how important sex was. Popular and youth culture would have us believe it was everything. But really its like eating, biologically important but its not going to change your life. Personally I don't think the world needs more kids and so its not biologically important either. If the urgency of reproduction is simply due to the evolutionary fact that organisms that didn't have that urgency were left behind by more voracious reproducers then again its a legacy thing from millions of years ago and not really relevant to my life.

So while its a damn exciting thing its an illusion that won't do anything very important for you.

The arguments can then get more detailed. Sitting on the tube once this gorgeous girl gets on in a short skirt and sits right opposite. She had fantastic legs and while I looked at them I got to thinking. Maybe she is looking at my legs and having similar thoughts. Great ;-) But then another thought came. I know my legs and I don't think they are that special what would she want with them. But! I wonder if she is thinking the same! She sleeps with her legs, caresses them in the shower, shaves them probably and I bet she has never been turned on by them. She has the 24/7 and she doesn't think they are special - so why should I? Further why am I in such a hurry to get my hands on them? That is the illusion of sex. Being a man my biological impulses (which aren't the smartest things having evolved from protozoans in ancient seas) are forcing me to see her as fantastic material to make babies with. My more inquisitive side - which is more immediate not having been billions of years in the making - and also not driven by the game of evolution has seen the way that game works, which rather gave me the upper hand.

On the social level the illusion had strange effects too. A bloke in the pub says "you look like a bloody mess mate". Its fine. The girl you want to sleep with says the same and you're immediately in front of a mirror checking yourself out. The only real difference between the two people however lies in their groin. The bloke has a penis and the girl has a vagina. On the strength of that we take what they say in completely different ways. Its like when pop singers used to talk politics - how does being a successful muscian possible qualify you for an opinion on politics? How does having a vagina possible qualify you for more opinion than having a penis. But you tell that to your sex drive when you want a shag! That is the illusion.

A further more serious reason why sex is a problem is to do with the nature of desire. When you want something you tend to want to take it. The problem with sex is that the desire is for another person. With sexual desire going back to ancient seas the idea that sometime in the future the objects of desire might not want it was missed out. The illusion of sex can make us misview a human as an object of desire and if that goes too far there is a very big problem!

They say that in loving relationships sex is something that we offer to the partner for their pleasure. However I used to do that and its spiritually enhancing but its not "horney". The other thing is that if two people are at the stage where they are offering sex to one another to make the partner happy then neither are actually taking so they may as well pack up sex and go for the full spiritual relationship (platonic). We tend to want sex so we can take what we want. A balance of give and take probably works out best, but ultimately I believe it fits the desire model of people becoming objects of the others desire - and that is basically ugly. We all become ugly when we give into the illusions of biological function, especially when you have glimpsed how beautiful we could be spiritually. But its easy to get cynical and give up ever wishing for something better.

That is exactly what I'm on this blog to discover and so its a good place to put the pen down for now.

Do we always write with some planned audience?

I went through a phase of being in love with girls in a search for a perfect spiritual connection between us. I believed it for a while. That wherever I was and they were this connection existed beyond time and space. I guess many people develop a similar relationship with God, maybe that is what I really needed! The problem with girls, which God is free from, is that sex is guarenteed to mess up the whole thing. But that is another entry ;-)

Into that private space I wrote poetry, letters and music and they were written for the moment. I wrote some of my best stuff into that space and there was only ever one copy and that was sent and I never know whether it was kept or destroyed.

It is a wonderful experience of pure reckless ecstacy (in the Greek sense of being outside oneself) to write one's heart into a temporary form. Writing I love you on the sand of the beach to have it washed just as quickly away. I would hate to think that published poets ever wanted their work published, it would turn the bright light moments they charm us with into the heavy engravings on tomb stones under ink stained skies. The illusion maybe in writing and film is to make the reader believe that what they experience is momentary when really it is often heavily edited and by definition fixed and copied. (Reminds me that the film The Ring was about that - another blog at some stage). Of course the true moment of a viewers experience is always momentary but then it is also empty of content, but we never notice that because we are too busy taking in what is happeneing!

I regret much of that recklessness now. Not that I will ever be published. But I gave one of my best pieces of music away and I will never remember the subtle twists in the main tune that I slaved over for half a week to get right. It was actually vaguely based upon one of my few musical innovations which I'll never forget - came to me on guitar - inspired by the new room I had moved into. One piece of poetry which was truly ment for the moment I oddly have remembered, it was a thank you for a couple of birthday presents in 1998. A bottle of Eternity fragrance and, I wanted to believe, a heart felt present of a clay ball she had made in her childhood and quickly scratched the world map into to avoid being accused of slacking in class.

In early June I took my place upon a chequed floor,
Black and white
Two world collide
In what I beheld before.

In a cafe beside a busy street
In a city that sings to a cosmopolitan beat
In a room illumined in panels of light
Time flowing on shadows in sundial flight.
Resting gentle on conversations eager swell:
I'll be back in a moment, so the waiter said
And she,
Daughter of the moon to me
Gave her world and Eternity.

I remember that had the feeling of quality when it came to me. I had struggled sitting on a log in Balham common to write that one lunchtime and had just notes to show for my work. But that evening when I picked out the piece of paper and puzzled over it, it suddenly all came together quite magically. That is the experience I always get. You puzzle over something for ages - be it music or poems or anything. Put it down and when you pick it up again, and your mind is in the right moment of energy, it all just falls together somewhere out of sight and the next thing it is there. A gift from above.

So that poem is no longer private in that moment, and it does seem to have lost something now. It has become that engraving on a tomb stone, a memory of a time that had been kept alive by its own bond of silence.

So the expensive experiment is complete! I have broken a very precious personal bond of silence for this blog but it does prove that silence is very valuable and not everything need be written and viewed for it to have meaning. There goes urgent plans for an autobiography!

A counter measure to the encroaching world of reality TV, surveillance cameras and the internet. However let me not get too carried away - who ever looks at CCTV footage or most of the web or most of the junk on TV.

In a moment i will return to that precious silence that I share with myself, which I am pleased ironically through this message to have reminded myself about.

A problem with people!

It seems that whenever I try to do something seriously I end up with a bunch of people who I disagree with. Larking around and having fun no problem cos it doesn't matter. At work - well we rarely agree with the boss and it doesn't matter anyway cos they're boss. But when there's the motivation to have a say - chances are there will be disagreements. I guess that is natural.

Most recently was in a Buddhist organisation. I knew from day 1 that things were wrong, but wanted to learn and maybe I just didn't understand. Buddhism is famously hard to understand. 5 years later I made many friends and had many responsibilities, but it was built on a house of cards because the roots were wrong and I disagreed. I had much faith in one member who inspired me to stay those years. Today he taught me that I should not have done that and should have followed my instinct. I was always frustrated and angry with him, simply because I was allowing myself to be led into a world that made no sense to me. The lesson there: always remain true to oneself!

Is there no relationship in the world I have had that has not been built on a house of cards?

A good friend from college was almost like a brother, but I knew it was temporary because we fundamentally disagreed on life. He said that it was enough to know life, I always maintained we must live what we know as the goal. In the end I just had to live.

A girl I once had an intense written relationship with was doomed to failure cos in truth it was founded on sex. And while I learned poetry, love and writing - the base foundation would never let itself be forgotten.

On meeting an ex I had lived with for 4 years I was amazed to be sharing stories we had never talked about in all those years! I realised I never really knew that girl. Do we ever really know anybody?

My parents are enigmas. My sister is very close, but again is it unbreakable?

The truth I got to here is that maybe we never really find that unbreakable soul mate with whome we can exist in complete sympathy. I imagine couples divorcing after decades and wondering how that person they felt so close to could harbour that seed of treachery.

Humour is the obvious answer. Forget about it, have a laugh, be shallow and just take it as it comes.

That's not me (at the moment). Humour was never my chosen lasting solution to anything. Suspicious of that thing.

Maybe it is something to just accept about life that the desire for complete unconditional communion with other people is a dream. Something for the blissful world of Eden. There will always be difficulties, always disagreements and if like me you don't want to accept a mediocre compromise then like all good rock bands, relationships of all sorts are temporary.

There is of course the other way of looking at it. Maybe my problem with being close to people comes from myself. That really I wish for that independence. That finding unsurmountable obstacles to every relationship is just part of the plan to remain independent.

Which is interesting from the stand-point of this weblog. I am trying to iron out my own sense of dissatisfaction and mystery with life, but doing so in a semi-public space. Do I need people to read this and does that give me a sense of companionship rather than writing into the void as I have done in the past to my harddrive. My honest sense there is that there is more motivation to write into a public space, while writing to the harddrive does seem a bit pointless. Maybe I'll publish the contents of that harddrive one day. Was that the plan years ago when I wrote it? Do we always write with some planned audience? And that makes a new blog entry... finish this first...

But writing to a reader is a comforting thing there is no doubt. We already know I desire communion with other people - that is a universal thing? I am human and I need to be loved so Morrissey sang. So is the problem simply that I wish independence but then find that it is lonely? The trade off between having your own way and having friends? The two are ultimately at odds and require compromise. Ego verses society, self verses other, subject verses object.

Not entirely. The search I return to today is the search for a clear and unified view of life, which I have sort since I was a very young child. The problem is that for such an obsessive search there can be no compromise and unfortunately that is going to make me very difficult for others.

So it is accepted here like Descartes in his Meditations that during this search is follows that I will experience the loneliness and isolation that comes from such uncompromising and personal work. And such experiences should be understood to come naturally for anyone who takes on any personal endeavour. If we wish communion closely with others we need to weaken the sense of self, but the cost of course is that there is no deep self on the other side to commune with! No fun for all the romantic idealists out there.

Well this search began when I was maybe only 8 so I am already far down this road.

Why a blog?

I have just been inspired by a Buddhist friend to abandon Buddhism and return to my inner quest for a meaning and complete resolution to life.

As a child I was amazed by how much stuff people knew but then very perplexed that adults knew nothing about the most important bit - life. It's like a school they fill your mind with everything but what you really need to know.

So what is life? what am I supposed to do with it? Does death matter? Why after thousands of years do we still argue and have problems, haven't they been figured out yet? Is there a single key with which to grasp everything and tie everything together?

After filling email boxes for many years to the huge annoyance of friends and then trying to hold together and organise constantly changing stuff on webpages, far too disorganised to write a journal, now its time for a weblog as the obvious - if I thought about it for a second - way to track what are likely to be shifting attitudes for quite a while to come.

See where this gets us...