Slightly longer pieces of philosophical, scientific, sociological, political or ideological nature, in a more eye-friendly colour scheme. Experiential writings now have their own page.
A New FlameFrom my lofty vantage point of majority-detachment from humanity's madness, I begin to see how powerful the meme is in shaping people and promoting division. First, let's just refresh ourselves on what a meme actually is:
"A meme, as defined within memetic theory, constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of culture or cultural evolution which spreads through diffusion propagating from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution. Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes)." - Wikipedia.
As we move into the 'Information Age', memetics is a field rapidly gaining in importance: a cursory program of self-familiarisation is mandatory for anyone wishing to re-program themselves and escape the clutches of the Matrix.
How do they work? Essentially, a meme penetrates into the mind of a given individual, or institution, according to pre-existing filters. As an example, I shall take a meme close my own heart, veganism. Selling this to the Establishment was once impossible due to its strong association with 'compassion' (a meme not finding favour with those in power, for some strange reason...). I have already remarked on its re-branding: now, because 'health' is an acceptable meme (healthy robots = more work and less health service burden), veganism suddenly makes the mainstream! A trifle simplistic, perhaps, yet in no essential way flawed as reasoning. Interestingly, because of other associations, there will be a finite probability that the newly established meme may effect further change by strengthening latant memes implied elsewhere by other connections. But only in those whose minds are arranged in a more open fashion. The majority seem to arrange their minds in a strongly compartmentalised manner, thus allowing co-presence of blatant contradictions.
Perhaps you're sceptical? My personal experience: I have reached a stage of self-awareness in which I have actually been able to FEEL a meme working in my mind, attempting (and sometimes succeeding a little) to cause disruption, as though it was actually a volitional entity with evil in mind. It's a strange feeling. Awareness is only the first stage of autonomy: I have yet to devise a definitive 'banishing ritual', although the deliberate introduction of distraction can be effective, something active rather than passive.
The memesphere begins to look a little like APML (Attention Profiling Markup Language). A couple of scenarios (the aspiring meme-meister will recognise immediately the self-referential nature of the example):
The Archbishop of Canterbury makes a public announcement that x should y. Practising Christians will pay great attention to this, whether or not they personally agree with the meme. It will at least command their full attention. Hard-line neo-Darwinists may catch the item on the news, but will pay little, if any, attention.
Richard Dawkins announces on his blog that the latest research suggests that x doing y is fundamentally beneficial for humanity. Tech-savvy acolytes will find the item prioritised in their APML-aware news aggregators (because the tag 'Richard Dawkins' has a high attention ranking). Their Christian counterparts will be unlikely to see the item in this manner, although they may come across a reference in more random surfing.
APML is, therefore, simply a technology for control and formalisation of one's memesphere! But there is a danger - strong information filtration may lead to highly compartmentalised living as people are only able to interact with those whose memespheres intersect to some extent.
Cocktail parties for geeky parents; garden gatherings for single Christians with an interest in tea; shopping trips for fast-food junky Mensa-members. What fun could be had devising a long list of this sort! Evening-games get-togethers for devising new entries for the list?
Step 1 - Realise that you are programmed!
Seems like stating the bleedin' obvious, yet this is an essential foundation for the rest. It's about admitting a rather unpleasant fact, that you were never as 'free' as you might have thought, that so many of the behaviours, reactions, desires, fears and so on which you took for granted as being an essential part of 'you', are in fact the result of conditioning. Conditioning by parents who were, in their turn, conditioned. Conditioned by the 'education system', perhaps the most blatant of all. Conditioned by peer pressure, advertising, media, culture, work, shopping... the spiral descent could go on to its screaming conclusion. But don't despair: this way lies morbid self-indulgence, even madness. Just see and accept.
Step 2 - Desire, belief, knowledge
A theme I've explored before, its application here may vary in form:Step 3 - Decondition
It's difficult to remove the almost-hardwired patterns of a lifetime (imprints), but it's relatively easy to remove current sources of programming:Step 4 - Recondition
Results
If properly executed, reprogramming WILL change your life for the better, in some ways subtly, other dramatically: less depression; improved health; no fear of death; fewer worries; greater meaning; increased synchronicities; greater integration; increased attraction...
The web of control shifts from the limited, rigid structure of external imposition to the infinite possibility of all there is; it is down to the individual as to how much of this infinity is harnessed... As the 'you' of the ego reduces, so the feeling of growth increases and 'you' feel more powerful, yet less located: turn the quantum particle to a wave!
I detest religion yet I consider myself a spiritual person. Does this seem like a contradiction, or at least a paradox? Let me explain.
The spiritual path is essentially a commitment to a sincere attempt at understanding the big questions, such as: is the Universe all there is?; what is the nature of consciousness?; is time a necessary precondition for a physical universe? It must arise from within, and indeed its very shape and vector must be self-determined - there are as many paths as people taking them.
Religion, on the other hand, is a relatively rigid system externally imposed upon the subject. Certain fundamental questions are actively discouraged or answered with some empty pseudo-riposte (Q: "how do you reconcile a 'benevolent, omnipotent' creator with all the suffering in the world?" A: "it is not our place to know God's methods"). I believe the major world religions began in good faith (sic!), in a genuine quest to help Mankind, but have become corrupted by centuries of human folly as their chief advocates tried to make names for themselves, adding a doctrine here, neglecting an idea there, until the whole mess resembled the original premise about as much as the current western legal system is based on sound ethics.
So essentially, religions have degenerated into just another means of control and subjugation of the masses, another power-base for paranoid autocrats to exercise their neuroses. Perhaps it's all that most deserve, as there seems to be an impulse towards herd behaviour, a tendency to avoid personal responsibility: religion provides for this amply. But the quest for true spiritual enlightenment involves the whole being, must become a fundamental element of lifestyle and aspiration. And it shouldn't feel like work, rather a necessity, born of the deepest desire.
So I would say to the all-too-many: I don't ram my ideas down your throat, please don't force yours on me (compare a passive web presence to house-calls and street-accosting); I don't tell you that you mustn't follow your path, please don't repress mine with your petty laws (it's deemed quite acceptable to demand monetary commitment to some 'Christian' groups, yet one could be imprisoned for growing certain species of plants and fungi); you want to follow your well-trodden path around the periphery, fine, go ahead, but don't complain because I want to forge a new one straight towards the centre. The shortcut is most in time with the beat of today's drum.
Post-Neo-Marxism and The New Religion: “Football is the Opium of the Masses”
After having endured the cultural nightmare that was Euro 2004, I felt it incumbent upon me to pen (!) a suitably derisive exposition on the experience. But let’s not get into some misunderstanding here: there’s nothing wrong with the game of football, or the concept of sport in general. What I seek to denounce here is the effect it has, and all the hype and bullshit and hypocrisy that surround the game.
We may as well start with the flags: the whole thing has a feel of nationalistic fervour, presumably the reason why it is tolerated in the first place. Oh, and money too. As it all began to take off, I might have been forgiven for thinking that the tournament had begun. No, the beginning was a whole month away, and here were cars, and houses, and people (and pets?) emblazoned with the flag. Time-travelling Moors would have been dismayed indeed! One feels the thing is a fraction of a turn away from out-and-out racism (well, in those parts of the country where such behaviour is still rife).
Other kinds of mass gatherings are heavily curtailed by our diligent forces of law and order (or, state repression): these are openly encouraged by pubs advertising coverage and special promotions. The only role of the police here is during the inevitable mopping-up exercise, when the excitement just gets too much and those fine stalwart supporters have to vent a little of their excess high spirits – usually in high-impact mutual body-contact or the attempted insertion of glass drinking vessels into each others’ already empurpled faces, sometimes in the razing of the establishment that so kindly provided them with this opportunity for this social occasion.
Would we see this kind of behaviour at a free dance party? No, the worst would be the odd self-inflicted casualty, usually caused by ignorance or dodgy drugs. Yet these events are treated with zero tolerance. Fear of the unknown by the Establishment! And remember, don’t gather in public (in groups above 1 member!) if you’re wearing anarchist ‘uniforms’ such as old combat gear or anything vaguely hippy-ish – you’ll be whisked away with an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) slapped on you before you can say ‘I’m just meeting a friend’. (HINT: do all your plotting wearing football shirts!).
What if all the energy exhibited by the masses during their sports-fests were channelled into something worthwhile, like politically motivated action? Like questioning the causes of continued poverty in a supposedly civilised country; like asking why the politicians who keep lying to us are never actually held publicly accountable; like wondering why we don’t replace the word ‘democracy’ with ‘hypocrisy’. Yikes, scary! Give them their football and keep them away from the issues that really matter!
Modern Living I: Bullshit Culture
I've touched on this before in Form over Content, but this is a slightly different angle on the thing and goes hand-in-glove with the sister article. Bullshit (meaning, in this context, the accomplished assurances and blandishments delivered as promises by those who have either no intention or no chance of keeping them) has been with us since, no doubt, the dawn of language. Yet never has it seemed so ingrained into the general culture as it is today. I remember a time when there existed a small core of Society that maintained standards, that gave bullshit the short shrift it deserves.
Now, even the 'good guys' are resorting to advanced bullshit techniques simply to retain a level playing field. By advanced techniques, I mean, of course, the more subtle tactics employed by PR, Spin Doctors, Marketeers ..., a rapid-growth sector of specialist employment for those reared and groomed in the culture against which I now inveigh. Examples of advanced techniques include de-contextualisation, re-contextualisation, suggestive association, use of inappropriate arguments and statistics, smokescreening ... I'm sure there are many more if I cared to think (the names are my own, by the way!).
Traditionally, as universally satirised, bullshit was prevalent with politicians and tradesmen, particularly the building trade and related disciplines, and it still reaches its apogee here. The politician, confronted unilaterally with the reality of his own promise-failure, exhorts us to "move on" or "look forwards, not back"; the builder who quarter-completes the agreed job then fails to return for a month, never answering calls.
But things are so ingrained now that we almost seem to expect this aspect of our lives, would perhaps be almost disappointed by its non-occurrence. Contracts are won on the basis of the most finely-crafted bullshit, friends exchange it as part of their daily currency of social intercourse, more people fail to notice when they've been had. Well, it's not good enough! I, for one, will stand and fight. Bullshitters, beware!
Modern Living II: Chameleonic Existence and the Problem of Non-Identity
Although I see the ego as an essentially false and illusory centre, I still believe in the concept of 'self-identity', of knowing who you are. Paradoxically, this aspect seems to be lacking in people today, when ego is at its historical height. This, then, highlights the gulf between the two concepts, shows just how false the ego really is when it comes to self-identity.
I'll provide a general example of what I mean: someone speaks to a person who wants to bring back hanging and agrees with the points raised; next week, that same person speaks to an anti-capital punishment believer and, once again, agrees with all that is said. Just what is the 'real' opinion of this first person?* There are probably two types here: the bland person who hasn't got an opinion and never will; and the weak character who daren't speak out. Both are equally contemptible.
Your opinions are part of your definition, that is an aspect of who you really are. Of course, few people have opinions on every subject, but why not say something like "well, I can see both sides of the case but for me, the jury's still out" instead of blandly agreeing with everything. By not expressing yourself, by becoming a plain mirror rather than a finished painting, by living this chameleonic existence, you may blend in well, but you will, in the words of the Human League, "stay part of the crowd, and never find the source". Who are you?
*This type of person was wonderfully portrayed by Paul Whitehouse in 'The Fast Show' as the bloke in the bar who agreed with everything everybody said!
Why Libertarianism fails to deliver
I’ve always considered myself open-minded and liberal in my thinking. Coming upon the Libertarian movement initially seemed like a good thing – freedom of choice rather than state-imposed rules. Then I realised that the whole thing had been hijacked by the right-wing as a rather meagre smokescreen for state sponsorship of their ideals and hobbies – the gun-lobbyists (evil scum that get their kicks from blasting the life out of wildlife and paramilitary nutters whose wet dream would be some kind of complete civil collapse so they could shoot ‘dissenters’), the self-satisfied (gits who won’t consider anything but themselves in their life-choices) and the free-traders (bastards who seek to make a mint through exploitative commerce, especially in other countries where it doesn’t ‘show’ as much – these include all from ‘exotic’ (illegal) pet-traders to huge multi-nationals).
Because when these types of ‘freedom’ are analysed, they show the common flaw they all possess – their limited remit. For the principles of Libertarianism to work, the only way is to apply them to the entire Universe (at present, realistically, this means our planet). Only then will the basic rules governing freedom to act sort out what is free-for-all versus what is free-for-some-and- repressive-for-others. OK, there is another way: selective ethical trading, but that will never happen while the WTO and similar bodies are permitted to continue their existence in their current form.
One man’s freedom to kill is another creature’s repression of the right to live; a purchase made without broader consideration may support a repressive trading regime (where were those trainers made?); and the freedom to privatise developing countries’ water supplies in the name of ‘quality control’ will almost certainly price out those who most desperately needed it anyway.
Compare these with freedom to take drugs, to express sexuality, to register dissent publicly, to take one’s own life… if the distinction isn’t glaringly obvious, crawl back to your pond!
The typical modern holiday: DINKY couple/family unit blow huge sums of dosh on 2 weeks in latest-trendy-slightly-off-the-beaten-track/safe-and-something-for-everyone-established-sunshine destination. Why? What is the motivation? When you’ve waded through all the possibles, the final answer is that it makes you feel good. But if this feeling is so good, why constrain it to a 2-week (OK, more people these days can afford 2 or 3 holidays per year, but it’s the same principle) period?
My suspicion here is that it is social conditioning and an acquisition of bad habits that have brought about this sad state of affairs. To expand, social conditioning decrees that in order to appear ‘normal’, to keep up with the Joneses, we must be seen to do the same as everyone else, preferably more so. And the bad habits? Well, why is it necessary to ‘get away from it all’? Because of negative associations. We generate so many ties during normal home life that the whole thing can become an endless glum-go-round of household chores, reluctant DIY tasks, unscheduled visits from neighbours, friends, family… , errands to run, arguments over who gets first choice at the TV/computer and similar other stuff that just clogs up daily life and makes it almost unbearable.
But just imagine for a moment the absence of all the above. Obviously, this occurs naturally when we ‘go away’, but it could be achieved at home if only we planned our lives better, learned to say ‘no’ more often and tried to be more flexible with routine. Every weekend, even every evening could be a ‘holiday’. Treat yourself on a daily basis to some quality time, either relaxing or doing exactly what you want to do. Remove those negative associations from the home environment. It is possible: I’ve done it!
Does ‘Good Taste’ actually exist?
I’ve never seen any discussion on this subject, but I’ve found an unusual angle. We’re all familiar with self-styled arbiters of ‘taste’, those individuals who make a living from telling us which restaurants are best, what interior design style is chic, what designer label to sport upon our vestments. Much of this is just fashion-nonsense, but what about stuff that is considered ‘classic’? Does this category possess some intrinsic ‘other’ quality not held by the rest? I’m going to argue in favour of a definite ‘yes’.
Let’s begin with something that can really polarise the population – art, pictures. Take an established ‘great’ such as Monet’s ‘Waterlillies’: this has a relatively universal appeal, but I will argue that there are two kinds of appreciation. Move onto something more modern like Pollock, and the polarisation reveals the different kinds of appreciation. Those (1) who truly love the work feel an almost electric tingle through the whole body, a lightness in the head and a feeling of connection. Others (2) may just see a mess, and feel nothing. A further category (3) may ‘appreciate’ that it’s good art without actually liking it.
I believe 1 and 3 belong in the same category – they are capable of ‘feeling something’, it’s just that they have different preferences. 2s are the Philistines, the ones without any sense of good taste, the ones who cannot respond to anything in other than a merely surface-based manner. Another example here would be those God-awful planting schemes seen on selected roundabouts (certainly in this part of the world), of low-growing garishly-coloured flowers; category 2s would see them and think “oh, that’s nice”, yet take them round a truly great garden like Great Dixter, and they’d be the kind of people who’d grumble because things weren’t quite neat enough, because there were some weeds here and there.
So, good taste is real and it’s about an engagement with the world, about the ability to enter into a dialogue with an object and extract levels of meaning not immediately obvious. It’s about sensitivity and discernment, but not uniformity or bland acceptance of received opinions. And I truly pity those without the faculty.
Inspired by reading David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’, this is my (brief) analysis on a duality that reaches into many corners of life.
I’ll begin specifically with science: historically, one of the major reasons for the success of science is its ability to break things down into their constituent (and simpler) parts and explain the functioning of these parts individually; it’s then simply a matter of considering the whole as a conglomeration of parts. Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but I state it thus merely to illustrate.
Consciousness has always defied simple explanation, though some have come closer than others in offering an entirely material explanation. However, it doesn’t quite ‘feel right’ – and that’s where the ‘wholeness’ or holistic approach comes in: the concept of emergence has been extensively discussed and may be summarised in the phrase ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’ In other words, reassemble the collection of fragmented parts of a person (genes, cells, organs, systems etc.) and properties other than those manifested at sub-levels may appear – this is emergence. Yet still we continue down the road to further compartmentalisation. What science requires is a complementary methodology that looks specifically at emergence and emergence-like properties of macroscopic entities/structures.
Psychology is another important area where fragmentation has been almost inbuilt via evolutionary factors and is perpetuated via cultural and lingual mores. The ability to distinguish is fundamental to survival: friend/foe, food/poison etc. Perhaps this is the basis of racism, xenophobia and their ilk – the primitive mind perceives anything different as threat.
Language structure (and this is emphasized in Bohm’s book) is itself partly responsible for fragmented thought, via the usual subject/object sentence structure, separating ‘me’ from the rest of the world, with nouns having primacy and verbs a secondary function. Bohm argues (as an exercise) for a structure based on verbal primacy, to emphasize ‘becoming’ over ‘being’.
Historically, religions have noted the phenomenon: in Christianity, the fall of Man is symbolic of his separation from the rest of the world, the world of Nature. And so this leads to what is possibly the crux of the matter, ego. The sense of ‘self’ that strongly characterises humans has had an important part to play in their development, but it’s time to consider whether it has any future benefit in its present form. To see the self within other contexts is the key to amelioration of the problem, to celebrate individuality whilst acting for the good of all. Without a major cultural shift, somebody’s ego is one day going to grow so large that it wants to have the world, or nothing. And with an excess of mad and vicious megalomaniacs already in power throughout the world, the future feels uncertain. So, try leaving your ego behind once in a while – and realise that you’re part of something bigger too.
Yes, it's overdue for my emergence from the locked cabinet bearing the legend 'Controlled substances', in other words time to come out of the closet on my pro-legalisation stance - of recreational drugs, that is. Of course, the astute and thorough visitor will already have seen the signs, but a more in-depth discussion is due.
Firstly, we should consider what is meant by the term 'drugs', so often used carelessly by pro- and anti-legalisation supporters alike. A useful definition of my own is 'any substance or activity that can bring about physiological or psychological changes in a subject.' It will be seen that this broad definition will include medicines as well as doing sport and watching television. The type of 'drug' referred to as a 'controlled substance' should be more carefully defined as 'a substance that is used recreationally to bring about desirable physiological/psychological changes within the user.'
There seems to be a profound fear of such substances within a fairly large section of the population, due no doubt to media hype. But this is a feedback process - the hype only gets to exist because the media moguls know what the population wants/expects to hear, and this is what sells their media. Yet this was not always the case: mankind has a long history of recreational drug use, with strongly psychoactive substances being revered for achieving closer links to whichever were the current deities (contemporarily, we recognise these states as merely altered consciousness).
One of the key issues, in my opinion, is the perception of change. All major changes carry with them a payload of positives and negatives - it is necessary to weigh these against each other objectively before deciding whether to implement the change. When the subject, like this, is emotive, the population tends to be polarised into either strongly pro- or strongly anti-; this situation is not conducive to the kind of discussion that can help to resolve differences. As usual, more sense is spoken by professionals from different sectors (e.g. healthcare, Police) - these people have closely observed the effects of the current regime on the drug-using population and are in a better position than most to arrive at an impersonal judgment. Increasingly, this is in favour of complete legalisation, though obviously with many kinds of proviso.
Of course there would be casualties - just different ones from the current crop. Society as a whole needs to accept this and see that periods of extreme flux can settle into a different and more stable equilibrium with greater long-term benefits for all. But it seems that the majority of people are conservative at heart, viewing all change with deep suspicion, almost paranoia.
At a time when that universal drug of choice, television, is failing to subdue the vox populi regarding the 'rightness' of the inevitable war (in fact, it's drumming up more opposition!), it's surprising that the government don't rush through a quick legalisation bill - after all, a load of potheads, speedfreaks and junkies would never offer any opposition to anything other than the removal of their favourite substance….. would they?
It might appear that I advocate widespread use of mind-altering substances, whereas all I actually desire is the right to choose. There are many people for whom these substances are anathema, producing unpleasant effects ranging from mild sickness to full-blown paranoia; these people may avoid them. If they produce long-term harmful effects in users, they still have a right to choose - after all, we can still drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. We live in a society which licences us to kill most other species indiscriminately, yet the only life we can be legitimately said to own - our own - is not, it appears, ours to control.
The greatest danger is the use of drugs to fill holes in lives - this is the surest route to psychological dependence (physical addiction is quite a different thing). When used as adjuncts to an already full and happy life, then little real harm should result. Only when they are used as substitutes for a life is there danger, hence more so in young people whose lives often plumb the depths of adolescent despair. But this is not a reason to prohibit all use; after all, if this rule was applied with equality, then virtually all human activity would be outlawed (or at least wildly restricted) as everything carries with it an element of danger. So, consistency and common-sense are the principles we should look to in order to make the informed decision. It's high time the law was changed.
If Good and Evil are human constructs, what place ethics?
The realisation that there are no actual ‘entities’ or ‘forces’ to label as ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ is common to many, yet those same people (myself included) pursue a course or personal philosophy that seeks to attain one (or, indeed, the other) of these constructs, as though they actually existed. How to rationalise this?
Firstly, we need to examine what characterises, or rather what is generally considered to characterise, Good and Evil. Essentially, I think it would be fair to say that to be ‘good’ is to act in a way that causes no harm to others. The logical limit is the religious concept of the ‘saint’, someone who acts only for and in the interests of others, often to their own detriment. Evil, then, is clearly opposite: acting only for oneself, often to the detriment of others.
Some will argue that from an evolutionary point of view, selfishness (and
therefore ‘Evil’) is positively selected as it maximises survival; others might
argue that it pays to consider others when living in any kind of society as it
can provide a kind of social ‘glue’ that bonds a group and gives greater
long-term benefits to survival probability of member individuals. Both of these
arguments hold water, but only in context – they apply to essentially primitive
beings. Humans (should!) have evolved beyond this stage: we no longer have to
‘obey’ solely the dictates of natural selection, but are free to apply our own
‘unnatural selection’. But what form should this take?
And so we enter, more confidently, the realm of ethics, understanding the
thinking that led us here. Ethics, then, is the set of parameters of ‘unnatural
selection’ that we must apply to humankind to improve our survival chances as a
species. Aleister Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is
not viable – this is the extreme of individualist thinking. Taking a central
theme from Eastern culture, balance is the key (yin/yang). It usually is, and
has often proved to be instrumental in solving disputes between
incompatibilities, especially ‘opposing’ theories. For example, is light best
described as wave or particle? The answer is, of course, neither and both. To
return to the ethical dilemma, neither pure individualism nor pure altruism is
viable as a workable system – the answer lies in both. In a nutshell, we should
celebrate individualism and protect our own interests whilst causing no
suffering to others.
If we could only inculcate such a culture, we might live in a better world with a high survival chance. But whilst religious and political dogmas rule, whilst the exercise of greed is celebrated as a lifestyle-choice against a backdrop of the capability to destroy not only each other but the entire planet, there seem few grounds for any long-term optimism.
Death and the perception of time
Everybody remembers times, usually from childhood, when a week could feel like a year. The summer holidays were a lifetime of the promise of freedom. Yet as we age, time seems to speed up. How is it that our perception of time can vary so much? This is, of course, enshrined in the old saws "doesn't time fly when you're having fun?" and "a watched pot never boils." Oddly enough, the latter has been proved (at a quantum level), but that's another story.
Other common experiences may include feeling that the last week has flown by, as have all those previously, yet it seems an age since a particular event of the previous month. There is documented evidence to show that certain "psychoactive" substances can distort one's perception of time (certainly the hallucinogens), so what exactly determines how our brains track the passage of time? Come to that, what is the passage of time?
To begin with the latter question, without going into really heavy science, one theory about time is that it is simply a special case of spacetime dimension whose direction is tied to and dictated by certain properties of the universe. It has been suggested that there may exist local variations on the speed of time (and indeed light) that are connected with the local average density of matter, that is gravitational effects. These would manifest themselves most strongly near and inside black holes. One interesting effect is that an observer outside the hole would never see anything fall into the hole (that is past its event horizon, the point at which the escape velocity equals light speed), the image would merely fade, whilst the observer falling into the hole would notice nothing unusual in passing the event horizon (assuming the hole was large enough not to cause stretching effects at this point). So, if gravity can affect time, perhaps consciousness can? This ties in with the effects of hallucinogens since these produce altered states of consciousness, and also with the age-related issue; after all, child-consciousness is in a greater state of flux than that of adults.
This leads to my personal theory, that as death approaches (and this is assuming a natural death, when the subject is fully aware of the impending event), the perception of time begins to radically alter. Indeed, I postulate that at the moment of death, the subject's time-perception has slowed down infinitely so that they never believe themselves actually dead, in the sense of no longer existing as a conscious entity - a kind of reversal of the black hole scenario. This also pulls in the near-death experiences of many people in extremis - in their own personal time, they may feel that they've been on a long and complex journey, usually approaching some kind of spiritual light or being (the universality of these images is, I'm sure, due to the pervasiveness of various religious memes), though in an observer's time, the whole process may have only been minutes.
Of course, I haven't really alluded to the mechanism of how this comes about, but I'll leave that to the psychologists, neurophysiologists and others of their ilk - as far as I know, there is no actual science supporting this idea, but if you, the browser, know better…..
Christmas: Consumerism as a Competitive Sport
I'll start off by stating that I do really like Christmas - the feeling of winding down with the year into a pleasant miasma of rich food and drink and (hopefully) goodwill before climbing onto the treadmill of another. It's surely true that the people who claim to hate it are those who had lousy childhood Christmases, and I feel pity for them.
However, over the last few years, the whole circus has just gotten so out of hand that we've opted for minimalist Christmases. Those who remember Simon Bates may recall his "Keep Christmas in December" campaign - it's probably the only thing he and I would ever agree on! Come early November, whole towns become grottos, o'er-brimming with 'festive' gear. Kids today seem to expect an entire personal set of electrical goods before they're 12, but the thing that really gets me are the mountains of cheap tat that fall under the banner of 'stocking fillers' - pointless rubbish given with no thought of what the recipient might actually like simply to fulfil the imperative to give that person 'a present'. Nobody really questions why this must be. Of course, the original idea was to emulate the Biblical story, but what function does this possess in the secular world? No doubt some atavistic group bonding ritual; but is this necessary? Of course not, but to speak against the whole charade condemns the brave thinker to festive purgatory.
When I consider the acres of wrapping paper (probably sufficient to cover a medium-sized county!), the stacks of cards exchanged (a pile, perhaps, a quarter of the way to the moon?) and the landfills of unwanted gifts, it seems a long way from the original spirit of the occasion; it wouldn't be so bad if these things actually brought happiness, but they don't. How many people are disappointed on the day? Probably most, yet they continue to mount the same old merry-go-round each year, only to be ejected, freshly bruised, at its abrupt halt on the 25th - a houseful of archetypes: screaming kids already jaded by their roomful of presents, moody teenagers desperate to be elsewhere, grandparents grimly enduring the whole thing and, inevitably, a drunken uncle snoringly hogging the best TV chair.
And, as Columbo would say, just one more thing - the Christmas Houses! Like most popular USA-imports (McDonalds, branded 'sportswear', Coca-Cola), these latest phenomena are an exercise in pure crassness combined with a kind of flag-waving me-too mentality, with everyone trying to outdo their neighbours in the competition to see who can celebrate the season most extravagantly. Sad.
'Nuff said? Yeah, merry Christmas, everyone!
Being on the outside of the inside, as it were, I am in a rare position from which to comment on the spread of this pervasive, Faustian process. It begins innocuously enough, with worldwide standardisation of document fonts, plus liberal deployment of the Company Logo in all internal commerce. Then comes a ludicrous 'branding' of the job performance review scheme - countless £1000s wasted on all kinds of gear: posters, mouse-mats, mugs, stationary, a video presentation by the then 'Top Bloke' in Europe. Only for the whole thing to be re-branded a couple of years down the line in a less faux-dynamic though more cheese-fest way.
And it doesn't stop there. In fact, there's a palpable feel of exponentially-rising megalomania typical of anyone who's been in a position of ultimate power for too long (Thatcher and Blair are obvious examples), with increasingly-defined codes of conduct, psychoanalysis for the management (really, no kidding!) and sweeping statements to the press regarding the Company's position on all from environmental policy (bland greenwash) to its position in communities the world over (will comply with minimum local employment guidelines).
The reality behind the shiny, squeaky-clean image is, naturally, different. The corporate ethos has birthed a culture of bland mutual congratulation on the surface, underlaid with self-aggrandisement and backstabbing. A sign of strength within a large organisation would be its capacity to harness the skills and personalities of a wide range of individuals; what is in fact sought is to reduce people to unquestioning moronic robots who perform to a set script. This idea spawned a mental outburst of (very suspect!) rapping:
Blandification of da nation,
Don' get ideas above ur station.
Got to think
like da corporation
F'you wanna keep your situation.
I have come to view my own corporate tenure more in terms of an extended social experiment: I observe colleagues become fully aligned, like iron filings by a magnet, with whatever new cultural trope is 'cascaded' down to them, whilst I like to be relatively unpredictable in my approach, one day appearing to toe the corporate line, the next inveighing against the whole system - it certainly keeps the morons on their toes!
Those of us who choose to, or by default, live in society must engage to some degree in its commerce - there is no escaping this. But as awareness of connections and consequences grows, we become painfully conscious that we're propping up the very dolmens that we wish to smash. Is there a way round this dilemma?
The answer, of course, is not a simple yes/no. In practice, the best approach is via prioritisation (according to personal choice) and increment - taking, as the other AA would say, one step at a time. Which issues anger us the most? Taking my personal choices as examples, I abhor the exploitation of animals, people and the environment, so I boycott any large supermarkets that choose to purvey the latest obscene 'delicacy' until the line is withdrawn; I buy household products and toiletries that are not animal-tested, and have an acceptable green credential; and I never buy branded clothing.
But now let's look at this another way. If I claim to care so much, why aren't I only buying organic foods from small independent and ethical outlets, why not only goods with Fair Trade guarantees? Because there is always a step further to take any issue, because personal circumstances make certain things difficult... the list could go on.
Just because there are some apparent contradictions doesn't mean that everybody should simply give up what they believe in and consume burgers and cola wearing branded sports gear. What is life without aspiration, something to aim at? Why must everything be black and white? After all, even logic can be fuzzy now (fuzzy logic circuits are employed in common 'white' goods). And then there is the contributory factor - we can choose to contribute to either the problem or the solution; whatever degree of contribution is chosen to the solution, its always a step in the right direction. As for accusations of hypocrisy, it is better to aspire and fail than never to aspire at all (c.f. Wilde's "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"). OK, I'll join anyone condemning the carnivorous Environment Campaigner, the Nike-wearing Human Rights Advocate - these really ARE contradictions which do not allow for any respect of their position (c.f. the family-life-touting politician found having the inevitable affair with their secretary/colleague - choose from many!).
The key point to remember is that, given the complete betrayal of the people by Party Politics in favour of commercial interests (and of course their own gain), the most powerful tool at our disposal is the very fabric of what they now worship with such fervour, the Free Market. We are free to choose what we buy, and what we buy supports whoever markets/makes it; by making an informed decision on every purchase we make, we can begin to support those few commercial enterprises with ethics high on their agendas and consequently provide them with an opportunity to expand. Short of a revolution, this seems to me the only possible solution to the original dilemma.
Footnote: since writing this, I chanced upon an article on a similar theme; for a more erudite discussion, visit http://www.foodrevolution.org/commonground.htm.
Thanks to early '80s electro band The Human League for inspiration for this title, drawn from a lyric from the track 'The path of least resistance':
'The safe method, the only way;
You rationalise your course,
Stay part of the crowd
And never find the source.
Feel wanted, feel known,
Just stay as you are.
The truth is, comfort kills,
And you don't need that car...'
This, ironically, before the lure of commercial success over artistic integrity led to the abandonment of such idealism.
So, in what way does comfort kill? Well, literally for a start. As we seek to eliminate all forms of danger and hardship, our immune systems and psyches become so cosseted and lazy that they begin responding to the slightest perturbation from the norm. Accidental ingestion of bacteria, skin contact with a new substance; these can bring about violent allergic reactions, occasionally death. Witness the rapid increase in allergies in the west - nuts, seeds, dairy products plus all the contact-related varieties. In a London restaurant catering for special diets, about 50% of the clientele consisted of allergy sufferers whilst we observed with bemusement, stuffing ourselves freely and quaffing the excellent organic house wine.
Then there's the psychology of over-comforting: the bowl of tepid soup in the pub-restaurant engendering a fit of apoplectic histrionics; the breakdown of a television bringing about similar within the weekend family unit. Everything that can go wrong in our lives now has its own oxymoronic self-help group. We need to pay dubiously-qualified quasi-professionals huge sums of money to tell us we are basically OK, we just need to detach/centre ourselves/achieve closure/.... or whatever other appalling phrase is trendy.
And let's not forget religion, and television, and possessions: people use these things as psychological comfort-blankets, something to wrap around their lives to shield their fragile minds from the nastier realities in the world. As George Michael succinctly summed up in 'Careless Whisper': "There's no comfort in the truth, pain is all you'll find."
When we look at how survivors of the two World Wars coped, how many people consider the difference to our present times? Those who did witness the bad shit just got on with their lives afterwards; now everyone needs deep counselling just to move house. What went wrong? Culture, that's what. Not as in 'good manners' and/or 'well-versed in the Arts' but as in zeitgeist, or mood of the times - we are inculcated with incorrect expectations of the world, and now cannot cope when they are not met. It is impossible now to 'fail' an academic examination, presumably to reduce the suicide rate.
But living in ultra-clean environments under the illusion that the world owes us a living hasn't only the potential to kill us with a rogue bacterium or reduce us to psychiatric fodder. No, as we leave the centrally-heated house, after a dose of bland morning TV, step into the luxurious folds of the high-spec motor vehicle to drive ourselves (with assisted steering!) to the sickly-overheated office, we not only risk these pitfalls - we already have killed any spirit and spark of individuality we may once have had the potential to develop.