Eyes are a window on the soul

Here is a story I was once told...

There was once a man who practised Hinduism very devoutly. Every day he would get onto his roof away from the busy streets below and meditate.

Next door to him was a woman who had 2 children. To support her children she was a prostitute.

The man sitting on his roof used to look down on her and complain to himself why he such a righteous person should have to live next to such a sinful person.

The prostitute on the other hand used to look up at the man and wish that she had the chance to be so good, but because of her children she was forced into her sinful life.

When it came to their deaths and judgements the righteous man was suprised to find himself in hell, and angered to discover that the woman had gone to heaven. She was sinful and me good, there must be some mistake.

It was explained that for his whole life he had held her bad ways in his heart, cursing and looking down on her; while she had only held his good ways in her heart.

This illustrates the greatest irony in life that the way we see the outer world is actually only what we let into our inner world and soul.

If we want to see the outer world as good we need only make that effort to see it as good, and if we do that we let a good light into our inner world.

If we chose to focus on the bad things and paint our picture of the world as bad, then we only let a bad light into our world and heart.

In Buddhism they say that the outer world is a reflection of our inner state, our inner imprints and karma. If we have a pure mind without distortions we will always be able to see the world in a positive way. If we have a dark heart with many hindrances we will be caught and dragged into seeing the world as bad.

Rather than see what is outside as a "projection" of what is inside, here it is revealed that it is upto us to makle the effort and chose which light we light our inner world with.

It can also be seen that the "inner" world is actually just "our experience of the outer world", and if we look for an "inner world" of substance "behind" the external world we find that there is no space for such a world. The world "behind us", the world which we imagine is the screen on which eyes project their image is actually just the "outer world as we experience it". In reality there is no "inner world" and there is no "outer world" as is usual to think, since both "inner and outer" refer to the same world.

Our daily life then is a process of working to improve our "view of the world", by looking for positives and turning off the negatives - this way we begin to fill our "inner world" with light rather than darkness.

If we think for a second there are clues that we hold the key to a positive world. When we are in a "bad mood" things look bad abd difficult, when we are in a "good mood" often the same things suddenly don't seem like such a problem. People with a positive view find no difficulty in things which a negative view can see as impossible and fearsome. A famous Chinese story illustrates.

Once there was a man with 2 daughters one sold umbrellas, one sold noodles. (Understand that noodles need to dry in the sun). A monk noticed the man was always unhappy and asked him why. He said that when it rains his noodle daughter has no trade, and when it is sunny his umbrella daughter has no trade. The monk simply pointed out that instead of seeing the negative, see the positive - rain or shine one of his daughters is bringing home money. This is the glass half empty, or half full.

Capitalism is a good example infact of negatives and positives being just a perspective. Whatever happens in the world it is an opportunity for someone, and sometimes a loss for someone else - it just depends who you are. My lab partner always points out when there is disaster that at least it is good trade for undertakers - tasteless joke, but some truth in it.

Risk and Getting it wrong

Its easy to be set back by failure. The best strategy is to shake off failure and not be put off. For some reason this is counter interintuitive though which is why we get confused.

In an article in Moneycontrol.com 20/11/06, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala argues exactly this that taking risks is against human nature.

We tend to minimise loses instead of maximise winnings. That is we try to avoid defeat, rather than try to gain the most. Thus we may miss many risky opportunities as we try to avoid defeat, which had we played them would have on balance of probabilities earned us more through the array of wins and failures than just backing the dead certainties.

George Soros is quoted as saying, being right or wrong is not the issue, it is rather how much you lose when you are wrong and how much you win when you are right that counts.


As a zoologist I am familiar with this type of thinking from analysing animal strategies. If there is one inter-disciplinary subject that should exist it is animal behaviour and economics!

In optimal foraging it ius assumed that the winning strategy (i.e. the one that selected for and therefore evolves) is the one which maximises energy and thereby offspring. What strategies exist to maximise energy in an unpredictable environment? That is the strategy.

When certain factors like "thinking time" or "handling time" (where the time it takes to determine the type of prey and therefore the way to attack it and eat it) are introduced into models, a remarkable accurate prediction of many behaviours arises based upon the hypothesis that animals maximise energy consumption, rather than minimise loss. So the dominant strategy in many environments is to go "all out", taking risks and suffering the losses because overall the wins are greater.

Why have humans not learned this? Maybe it is to do with aspects of social status and psychology. Being a "loser" has a special meaning in humans, far beyond the practical aspect of having little resources. We try to look like "winners" and so we don't take risks to avoid looking like losers. Reputation means a lot. Traders want to look like winners so they attract interest, even though that strategy may mean overall they win less than their competitors who have a lots of losses as well.

Are riches inside or outside?

I still battle with this every day. The temptation is still to view people with big cars, houses and families etc as being rich.

I was thinking this walking home last night. Someone drove past in their big car and I wondered wouldn't it be luxury to own a car and drive like that. At that moment I turned to corner into our road, which is at the top of a big hill with views for 40 miles. The thought of the car was obliterated by the view which I always enjoy, and I was reminded that walking has every bit of pleasure that driving has.

Last summer I wanted to take a cycle and I wanted to go bird watching. I decide to do both. It was strange because while I was cycling slowly along the country paths I saw no birds at all. I stopped to walk and instantly noticed birds in the trees. I stopped to sit by the canal and there saw even more birds. The scale of view is altered by each mode. In a car we see almost nothing, we are orientated toward arriving, but not the journey. If we want to arrive, then take motorised transport, but if we want to travel then walk.

The same goes for life. If we want to arrive then motorise, plan a streamline your life for purpose. If you want to live then walk.

Unfortunately people share their lives in the form of places they have been. The names count for a great deal, when in reality I suspect they are the same experience underneath. We may "do" a very great deal in life, but if we didn't travel then its a pointless journey I suspect.

Of course we could go to the other extreme and do nothing, watching TV or dreaming. I suspect this is just as vacuous as doing lots but not travelling.

Riches? Is the poor man who is content richer than the rich man who still wants more? As I child I learned that you only miss that which you have known. If you never knew about it you are free from it. That means we can treat the knowledge of new things with pleasure of displeasure, because new things give us new wishes and new loss of contentment.

If we could master our wishes, so that we wished what we wanted to wish then we would be able to free ourself from those wishes we cannot fulfill. That way contentment would be truely ours, rather than the fake contentment of temporarily having "achieved" what we wanted.

And "achieved", why is that so important. Many people will argue that the greatest pleasure is not the having, but the achieving of the something - the satisfaction that "we" proved potent, rather than impotent. Often people fight for things they don't want, because the object is the winning not the having.

This is ego. We are bound then to the eternal requirement to prove ourselves, to prove our existence through our ability to create change. Obviously change requires many people for starters, although some people like architects get to continue the delusion by having their names on buildings. If we look further however this is not our existence is it! Did we chose to define ourselves like this! or are we victim to an external measure imposed upon us. And, if there is a standard by which we measure ourselves - what is is measuring if not our already existence!

So we can discount "achievement" as important to riches, and we can discount the wishes that we achieve. So what then is richness? that I am still living on...

Buddhism and Christianity is Anarchism

Don't know whether that statement does more damage to Buddhism or Anarchism!

I'm an Anarchism, but not trivially in the sense that I believe in the destruction of all state apparatus and the sending of the world into chaos - ridiculous.

Rather it is the belief that at the end of the day the world is made of people. Whatever their beliefs and the systems of coersion and force that exist, we are all people. I am an arachist to the existent that people come first and state apparatus comes second. Put nothing before being a friend to your fellow man - whoever they are.

Ideally dismantalling the state apparatus seems right, but really it is not. If we do that, then there is a power vacuum, and because 2 people are usually stronger than one, the world will build itself up into groups again, each fighting for power. Best infact to have a hugely powerful overlord dictator who can fill the power vacuum, but who is otherwise incompetent and not authoritarian so that we can ignore him - ridiculous also.

So the best way is to leave boys to play out their fighting in politics and business, and instead focus on treating our fellow humans as humans - in whatever form of state apparatus they might be. This is the Anarchistic view I believe.

Copraterrorism

I used to dream of sending a letter to the IRA (who were afterall quite respectful terrorists aiming to do damage to the opposed system but not hurt real living people) on copraterrorism.

For some reason this rather amusing subject has never entered the terroist handbook. Rather than go for big high profile targets like financial buildings, and definitely rather than hurt people, why not take out the sewage systems and drains?

I can just see the manhole covers blowing off a shopping street as effluenet is strewn everywhere making the street impassable. The news readers trying to get words out between their wrteches cos of the stench. There is the cost to business - and thereby jobs for the cleaners and decorators. There is the deterrent to shoppers - although it is not dangerous, just unpleasant.

And best of all there are the signs on toilets for miles around, out of order while mains repairs are underway.

A complete nightmare, without any serious damage, and also quite funny! Lots of unforgettable news items and lots of jobs created and overall a quite satisfying political process. If people hell-bent on expressing themselves against the country adopted this form of "terrorism", or rather "yuckism", it would make for much more amusing and watchable politics and social expression, and that would avoid the biggest problem of terrorism, which is the galvanising of opposition to their cause. When the West goes in with bombs, or the Middle East comes here with bombs, it just reinforces the stance against them, which is the opposite of what was wanted - a voice for unrepresented people who people believe rightly/wrongly are suffering.

Rugby Demonstration Strategy

I noticed in demonstrations in UK in past few years that the police have gained the upper hand by encircling demonstrators and breaking groups down.

Officially the police are there to protect property and the safety of people and I have nothing but respect for the UK police, seeing that they handle these difficult events suprisingly well and are good natured and respectfull. I expected them to be utter fascists after the miners fiasco under Thatcher.

However I do think they are a bit onesided as they have a mandate to the establishment only, and if the demonstration is against the establishment we should gain a bit more freedom to express ourselves - especially when the subjects are as important as global capitalism and environment (which are so easily hidden by vain local government pretence). As the slogan goes - "if democracy ever changed anything it would be illegal" because quite correctly the establishment will never lose its position at any cost.

A strategy that would be excellent against the police is rugby mauling. If you watch rugby you can see that the game played by police and protesters is similar to that of opponents in rugby, which is gaining movement into the opposition area. This is primarily enabled by pushing in tightly bound packs which draw the opposition into the maul to return the same force. The image here is a set-piece scrum by the process is the same.

If the police were forced to maul, this would break up their lines and the game would be played in blob like packs which are of no use to the police strategy of containing the demonstrations.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

Amateur psychologists and neurotics must love this one. The thought about the possibility of something happening actually leads us to make it happen.

I was always uneasy about this bit in Marxism and Hegelianism. Hegel has written a book; famously completing it to the sounds of Napolean's advancing armies, bringing what he believed was the new age that he was writing about.

In which case what was the point of the book. A kind of epiphenomalism, a story and narrative which runs over the already happening events?

In which case why does Hegelianism and Marxism inspire people to complete the events written about? If the worker's revolution is really the natural progression for society then it will happen by itself, intrinsically from the existing components, without ideological campaigning by Marxists the "change" the course of history.

If on the other hand the workers revolution requires campaigning and individual effort then to what extent can it be seen as the "correct" or "natural" progression for dialectical materialism.

In other words, if the book is right then it is just epiphenomological and has no part to play in the described process, and if the book is just propaganda to arouse worker's consciousness then it is wrong about dialectical materialism.

What Das Kapital might say to be logically correct is, "now that you have read this book you join a community of other people who have read it and understand it's ideas, what you do now is upto you since pages can't fight."

However the existence of "self-fulfilling prophecies" in psychology does open the door to Marxism working. Some ideas seem to make themselves happen.

This is like Richard Dawkin's idea of memes, where ideas are built in such a way to propagate themselves well. He cites religion, and while firmly convinced of God etc, I am equally skeptical of religion: some Evangelical groups I have visited seem to do nothing but propagate the Word. And what is the Word? that we should propagate the Word.

Marxism is designed to grow because it offers the poor, riches. Any idea which poses that dream will propagate as long as there are poor.

Islam seems similar, and the radical arms of Islam seem especially bound into self fulfilling prophecy. We hate certain people. So we will bomb them in the most appauling way. They will then hate us and treat us like animals, which gives us the justification for hating them and so it spirals.

Of course the Christian West is equally embroilled in the process. We'll treat them like second class global citizens, and exploit them for political and material gain. When they get angry that is the justification for treating them like animals. Israel is the worst offender by far here.

The Americans have their own special brand of self-fulfilling prophect with End Timers, or people who follow Revelations rather than Christ. (Really they are no longer Christians.)

By believing that the salvation will accompany the end of the world they are looking for the end of the world. Of course with such an interest in the end of the world, they are actually bringing about the end of the world.

The Mirror

When someone is angry with us then we get angry with them.
Of course they then find an angry person, and they get even more angry, and so it snowballs.
In the face of anger, we can only be peaceful.

If someone steals from me, then I want to steal back.
Of course they then think they have had something stolen and they steal more.
In the face of theft, we must give.

If someone is dishonest with me, then I want to be dishonest with them.
The find people untrust worthy and they become more dishonest.
In the face of dishonesty we must be forgiving.

It seems that I am programmed to respond in exactly the wrong way to situations. I look at everything in a mirror, not seeing that the right way to respond is the opposite of what I think.

Action?

I have a few activist friends. I thought of activism my self at one point - "I want to help the world and make it a better place" I used to think as a child. But before that a much more important question - "Does the world need any help?".

We are taught to think of the standard images of poverty, hunger, disease, war: so much for the fortunate in the West to do. So much to add to our lives to make them more worthwhile. But isn't that a little onesides - as opponents to the war in Iraq point out, wouldn't that money be better spent at home - as if we don't have our own problems.

"Problematising" is the problem here I am beginning to think! People in need of a life's purpose, in need of something to do in a Western world so swamped with wealth that there are almost no more jobs to do.

Are there any real problems? Is there anything really to do?

We know there is difficulty in life and in a sense there are things to do to attend to that difficulty, but such things are quite normal and natural. They do not need a task force or any great revolution to attend to.

Sometimes there are disasters, sudden changes of equilibrium, which require a sudden change in peoples attitudes. Here would be an example of difficulties that require some organised mobilisation.

What I am questioning is not these sudden changes. I am challenging the idea that within the established organic world there are "hidden" illnesses that suddenly today need to be solved.

The news that 80% of the world lives on less than a dollar amongst a host of "moral panic" statistics regarding a world that we otherwise live in without comment.

People are always trying to distinguish the world between acceptable and problematic, and then allign themselves against the problematic, when actually they only need to align because they decided that something was problematic.

The War in Iraq the cause celebre of such people, and the chaos that has followed an illustration of the non-existence of problems until you engineer them, and then make them worse by responding to them as problems.

There are simple things that make us human: care and love being the most important. That people need to engineer organisations who professionally "care and love" is rather overlooking the already existing nature of the human world. That humans can hate and neglect is also part of the human outlook. The belief that organisations will contain qualities other than these is rather overlooking the commonality which humans have, and just propagating the greatest feature of humans: the ability to segregate and divide one another.

Borat is a masterpiece!

Just saw that and far beyond the laughs what a brilliant dissection of the worlds issues.

The blindness prejudice against "The Poor" versus the juggernaut of narrow mindedness regarding the "American Dream".

Actually Borat shows brilliantly abd hilariously what a ridiculous lie the American Dream is, and shows what a ridiculous lie the fear of poverty is.

The people from the "poor world" are led astray by the American Dream of a "Better" life.
The American's are led astray by the American Dream thinking they have a "Better" life.

Selectively edited, planned and staged it might be, but the message of poverty in both Kazakstan and American is rather poignant I thought.

Life is simple and harsh, it aint a Hollywood movie and it was never gonna be - unless you like eating plastic celluloid food and talking to images on a wall.

The image we all want is so unrealistic like Pamela Anderson, but we are all so fooled and blind to see the poverty of that image.

In the end don't we want to return to quirky Kazakstan than live in the soup of blatant illusion in America.

Sun does go around the Earth

Well if you saw the sun this morning it was over there on the horizon and this evening it is over on the other side of the sky. That is what I call moving!

There is no way that any physicist can reject the fact that the sun moves.

I know about the solar system theory and I understand that it explains the motion of planets perfectly (including all those curly recessions) and I also know that if I was to get into a space craft and travel into space I would see the Earth going around the sun.

But I also know that one Earth the sun moves!

The fact is that motion is relative! It depends where you stand. If you stand on the Earth then the Sun seems to move. If you stand on the Sun then the Earth seems to move. If you stand on the Galactic Centre then the Sun and the Earth seem to move.

The reason why we say that the Earth goes around the Sun is that we adopt a theoretical standard these days to describe the motion of the Sun and earth, and a theoretic notion of fixed space. That is fine.

But don't forget that in reality our perspective is on the Earth, and the Sun starts in the East and sets in the West and gradually travels across the sky! No physics can blind us to that daily fact?

Right and Wrong

I once saw and argument between a Christian African and a Rastafari Carribean.

The Carribean was arguing that Haile Selassie was God and the Christian was rejecting this.

It suddenly occured to me there was a much more obvious thing to note that the value of their arguments - it was that one was an African and the other Carribean.

It would follow that a child brought up in the Carribean was much more likely to be a Rastafarii than an African, and vice versa an African much more likely to be Christian or Muslim.

The reason these two men were arguing was not so much the value of their arguments, but because of their background.

If there were indeed universal arguments then everyone would believe the same thing. These encounters between people would naturally lead to universal agreement over the centuries. But it hasn't!

The very fact that people have to use force to supress some people and some beliefs only goes to prove further what poor arguments the world has.

If we want to understand what people believe it is best to look at their background, their parents and their identities. We tend to follow the beliefs of the groups to which we feel we belong.

If all our beliefs are indeed caused by our location, if the power behind our arguments simply our own ignorance of the caused nature of what we believe then what are we to make of beliefs?

Looking into my own past... its obvious that Eastern spiritual people become Buddhist monks, it obvious that Western spiritual people become Catholic monks. Its not that Catholic is better then Buddhist, but that peoples backgrounds cause different things.

So how to we make sense of a life built upon only local causes and conditions. What am I to make of myself as a momentary and locally nurtured event and entity?

A note on moderation and the Law...

Before continuing the threads here a note on moderation!

On one extreme of truth is the Universalist, who believes in universal truths which apply in all times and places. Our job is to identify these unquestionable universal truths.

One might naively counter the idea of universal laws by suggesting that there are no universal laws, that we are each free to interpret the world as we like, and to live as we like. This might be the Particularist. There job would be to break with laws and demonstrate the individuality and freedom of things.

A note on Law. Law is the notion that there are principles which are obeyed. In Natural Laws we see the regular motion of objects which seem to obey fixed rules which have been investigated in depth in science. In Social Laws there are the customs which we obey usually quite naturally and the legal rules that sometimes require administering by authorities. In all cases that idea that there are fixed patterns to life is that of Law.

A moderate path between the Universality and Particularist is the Relativist. They might state that all truth is only relevant in its context and so there are no context independent truths with universal relevance. Their job then is to understand the relationship between contexts and the beliefs relevant to those contexts.

The relativist walks on shakey soil however because if they adopt such a stance as a Law then they are becoming Universalist, suggesting that All Truth Must be viewed in terms of its context.

Obviously one might ask what context makes such a relativistic attitude relevant?

I don't wish to determine a Law here restricting people to Universal, Particularist or Relativistic attitudes. Only to warn that I do not intend to eliminate any of them with future arguments.

Semitism and Anti-Semitism

Alot has been said about the people called Jews. They seem to be the archetypal people, distinct and so strongly identified in Western history.

When we have this strong distinction between Jew and non-Jew we can write a history of these people and see all the things that have happened "to" them.

It's a mixed history of great ups and downs.

The Jews are so strongly identifed there are even words for the like and dislike of them. Prosemitism and Antisemitism. There are few people who can boast that!

Prowelsh, Anti-welsh; Protibetans, Antitibetan. Don't work so well.

There are special laws surrounding all this also. Its a very well defined thing this Jewish.

Of major concern is the negative attitude that is recorded regarding the "Jew". I did a little reading on the theories about why such negativity exists. One Rabbi argued that it was because the Jews gave us the Western notions of morality and justice and people resent being told what is right and wrong.

No doubt the place the Jews hold in history for the Abrahamic religions - Judeism, Christianity and Islam!

Are these Jewish people really so different. They seem to relish this differentiation from other peoples, this individuality. One Jew I met seemed to wallow in the weight of this identity. Being Jewish must be hard when it is such an enormous weighty inheritance you gain.

What makes a Jew different from a gentile (the Jewish name for non-Jew)? And why do the Jewish make such a distinction between themselves and others?

In the West with the birth of Humanitarianism the Jewish attitude seems a little old fashioned. Jesus you might argue began it when he fought his own prejudices to help the gentiles. He realised that God was not just for the Jews but for the gentiles also. God was God of all peoples and nations. A big problem for the Jews who had held onto the idea that God was theirs and for that they were different and privileged. For that one wonders whether they aided the demise of Christ? We know any other nation of rulers would have done the same - treason they call it, denouncing the primacy of the ruler and the ruling.

The Jews suffer from just one thing, the same thing that all nations suffer from - self importance. They may believe they are unique and special, but so does everyone else! Maybe there is a uniquely indulgent way they do it, I don't know. A lot of nations believe that God is on their side - its not just the Jews. Some like the Russians and Nazis states didn't believe in God, but no-one believes that God is not on their side.

Unless the primacy of Jews is objectively shown to the nations of the world, unfortunately its in their interests to let go of this distinction I believe and join the human race. The same goes for all other peoples, but the Jews seem the historical archetypes so I discuss them for everyone.

Illusion & Narrative

Its a strange thing to find Conservatives or Labour party members.

These parties were set up around policies and attitudes to government. But as time changes it may well become the case that opposition politicians hold better policies. So we vote for them instead of our own party.

So if we vote blindly for our party then we may well vote in leaders who damage the country and we end up having the opposite impact we intended by joining the party.

This is the danger in being dogmatic, of fixating on the image and packaging rather than the substance and contents.

Another thing I have learned is that people joing groups for its own sake, they like being in a group and membership is more important than what the group was formed for. Be it the social experience, the power, status or wealth - groups are fascinating to many people and often the group can seem to be individually good while overall being bad.

In animal behaviour herding is a good example. One argument for animals herding is that it affords individual protection cos your mates might get eaten instead of you. It also increases the chance of seeing predators also. On the down side however it increases the overall predation on the species cos groups are easier to find and once found predators can go on a feeding binge. Individually advantages, overall disadvantages. Members of rich states enjoy the economic benefits and are unwilling to change their group membership, even while environmental damage is overall making this unprofitable.

In general we fixate on the image of things, the definitions, what we think we know, the packaging of things rather than the things themselves.

Take a picture. We think it is of the boat, we think we know. But we also know that we can't sail in this boat because it is not a real boat. Its an illusion of a boat. It makes us think of a boat, but is just a picture, some ink on a page which gives us the illusion of a real boat.

There are so many illusion. These words on a page are a spectacular illusion - talking of the world in such confidence when really they are just marks on a computer screen or page.

Most of our life is illusion. People talking about the images of things, which when you try and find the real things they don't match.

The war they talk of is not glorious, it is ugly and destructive. The evil people we fought against were kids like us ourself. The evil political machine a power house for the German elite, like the Imperial machine which housed the British elite. The horror of Nazi genocide an extreme expression of hatred for unwanted people we see the world over from Rwanda, to old Yugoslavia, to Darfur and America today (I speak of the elimination of Amerindians). (I'll write on Semitism next)

Where is this power and there is suppression, oneday the tables will turn. One only needs to see the sporting circuits of clubs and countries rising and falling in skill and dominance (again Englands sad rugby demise) to see that what is up and what is down, will soon be what is down and what is up.

Today you lose Kundun, tomorrow you win.

Not that we should take stock of this and wait for our time of triumph, but rather realise that tiumph is just a moment in time between losses, and losses moments in time between triumphs.

Why play life like a leaf on ocean waves?

Like is football for most of us. We change teams, be bank on teams, we watch the rise and fall always focusing on the tops, or the bottoms depending upon how positive or negative our minds.

Is this all it is? What if we let go of the ups and downs and stop comparing moment to moment? What if we stop worrying about the political climate, the economy, our life? What if we just do what is obviously needed, as it is needed. Listen and learn and keep and open mind and heart? If things go down, so be it. If things go up, so be it? We do what we do, we accept the way it turns.

The problem with all these stories we furnish our minds and life with is that we think they are books with a beginning middle and end. No history has a beginning and end. We are just on a page somewhere between endless pages and maybe this part of the story is down, and the next is up. Maybe our chapter is a good one, maybe the next is bad.

Fixation on a notion of time, an attachment to a place in history, a particular page in the book and time is the worst illusion. That was "my" chapter we think.

But we look again and see how many billions of chapters there have been and how many more to come. Is "my" chapter so important, is the good or the bad of my chapter so important in a book where the story has been going up and down forever?

The Illusion of Remembrance Day

I appreciate what a massive event the war was and how it has shaped the world in which we live today, but I see some problem with being absolute about it.

They played brass band music at the ceremony in London. I thought this is great for the people of the old wars, a remembrance of Great Britain, its empire and the grandeur of dreams in those days. The world has changed for the people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. England is no longer a super-power, like its rugby it has to accept a status along side second rate countries. It is a nation which has to accomodate many histories and peoples under one roof, in which politics in no longer unanimous and one sided. In a world where power is shared by many nations and people. The music has changed also, I wondered what the military music of the future might be? Some electronic beat music (an evolution from the fixed strong military beats anyway), but a music that has been absorbed into a world of decadence and party going, quite a different tune. Imagine guitar/techno/world music at the remembrance days of the future, a slightly odd mix I feel.

Of course in reality they should be having identical services in Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan even in Al-Qaida for their fallen - who regardless of our own position on the conflicts are never-the-less in memory of people who have died for the causes they believe in. It seems odd that the Glorious dead of the British nations and allies are just lucky to have been fightin on the side of Good, and all those Germans were unlucky to have been fighting the side of Evil - amazing coincidence - was there a gene or something in the German water which made all those Germans suddenly blind to what the British soldiers could so obviously see?

It's much clearer to make a distinction between the process of war and national allegience, and then to see the process of history and after the match analysis as different things.

We are expected to fight for Britain and British citizens without regard for whether our country is right or wrong. If we expect the Germans to have laid down their weapons because they realised they were fighting for Evil, am I allowed to do the same? No.

If we expect Al-qaida to stop fighting because they are evil, murderous bastards then we must also give our own soldiers the right to stop fighting when they think it is wrong!

Its a mess. War means death and destruction - whichever side you are on, it matters not. War is Evil, killing is not Good. If all soldiers could see that then we would have peace. It is only because Germans and British soldiers are blind to the evil that they both didn't lay down their weapons (well when they did in the Christmas Truce they were threatened with execution - loyal people those British and German commanders.)

There is only one position when it comes to conflict be it argument, or fighting and that is no position.

Armistice remembrance is a legacy of the way things were, and the future will be the way things are going to be. Our only question is whether we will accept the future, change it, or be indifferent to the endless game all together.

Life is infinite, boundless and indefineable

Last words to a muse of mine, but now I realise that maybe this is the truth. Life encompasses everything, but because we try to own it and put limits on it we limit life. Sometimes limiting it is good because we can account for our life, give a good story of it and compare it with standards and others to feel we have had a successful life, but sometimes it is bad as we feel loss of control over our life, and when we compare we feel we have failed. Death will happen, but it is the boundary of a physical or conscious notion of life. If we can see the boundlessness of life, we can see beyond the limit of death.

Arguments and debate are pointless

I have dedicated a life to seeking truth through debate and argument. Recently I have begun to see that this pursuit is pointless.

All points of view can be countered. There will always people who like one side more than another. There is never a time when everyone can agree.

I used to think there must be some truths which are unquestionable. I now doubt that. Really there will be always people who have something to gain from countering any argument.

A universal truth would have to be uncounterable, it would have to be such that it could not be wrong - and if it cannot be wrong then it also cannot be right. There is no such thing.

Thus we live in a world of many sides, a plurality by necessity, in which no side is better than another in any real way, only locally it may be more appealing.

If today people hate you, tomorrow they will love you. If today you are poor, then tomorrow you will be rich. Whatever opinion we hold can be countered, and what is good today, may be bad tomrrow.

In such a world why hold opinions, and why argue with what people say?

Pleasure at no-ones expense

This is critical as another example from my girlfriend demonstrates.

She is deeply hurt by any affection shown to me by another girl and especially if that girl gets my attention.

It transpires that when she was single she gained pleasure by gaining the attention of married men, especially at the expense of their partners.

Having reinforced the rule that winning attention over the partner was the name of the game, she in turn is now emprisoned by that game now that she is in a relationship.

The illustrates perfectly why we should never draw battle lines and rules that discriminate between people, i.e. between winners and losers and between happy and sad people, because once those battle lines are drawn we will one day be a victim of them.

The moral is that all distinctions we place are temporary, and even while they may suit us today, there is never reason to fix them for one day they won't suit us and we will wish they were not fixed.

This is to be distinguished from those laws that quite properly should apply to everyone.

Is Work Necessary?

(This is a repeat of a previous blog - but it just staggered me again how odd the world is)

Yesterday my girlfriend tells me that she is has competition from another girl who is better qualified and seeking a similar job.

That is a good thing right? because it means that the job can be done even better than she can do it.

After all what needs to be done needs to be done, and it should be done as well as possible by people who are most able to do it. We ask pilots to fly planes and accountants to do accounts, and within those professions we want to be flown by the best pilots and have the accounting done by honest accountants.

So if someone is better able to do your job obviously it is best that they take over.

YET, that is not how we think for some reason.

We think that we MUST do the job, even if we are not the best person for the job.

Worse we believe that we need to do a job, even when there are no jobs to do!

For some reason the rules of the economy are set so that we have to do a job (even when there is nothing to do) in order to get any products of the economy.

Often in a jobs there is nothing to do, holidays and the way things worked out ment that I had virtually nothing to do yesterday, but I still had a job and I still got paid - so its not the work so much as the job which pays. There are jobs, even when there is no work.

The reason is that without work there is no produce to consume, and so it follows (they argue) if we don't work we don't get any produce.

BUT, that argument doesn't work. "Economy of Scale" and machines both operate to vastly increase the economic productivity which far exceeds the abilities of its individuals. It makes no sense to attribute productivity to individuals then.

Capitalism solves the problem by paying investors to encourage investment and economic growth which we need to pay investors (silly circularity that), and then profit which belongs to the company directors.

Marxism was supposed to share the profit between the whole nation.

A problem with both these is that economic expansion is :

good economically,
bad ecologically

What we gain within the system is taken from outside the system. Economics is slowly absorbing the cost of ecological damage. But is all stems from economic growth which is needed to create jobs and increased in return on investments because in reality we are running out of things to do.

The obvious answer is to pay people in time, not money and reduce the amount of work that people need to do. Either maintaining the job=pay equality and paying more, or increasing the social security payments to encourage people out of work.