B a r r i e  S i n g l e t o n

Don Quixote - Home Page
Home page


P o n d e r i n g s

Poetry    Ponderings    Visionary Stuff    Stories    And another thing...
Aid to Enlightenment

Albuquerque

Animal Crackers

Beyond Demockracy

Burning Passion

Can We Fix It?

Certificate of Voting Competence

Charisma is a Dirty Word (leaders)

Creation Myth (Gestation Remembered)

Conqueror Syndrome 

The Culture Nature Split

Embryos and Humanity

Gibbon's Five Attributes

God Entropy and Life
Half Made Up?

It's Really Killing

Make Corruption Infamy

Morphism

One Billion to Kill Sadam

Please Shoot the Messenger

Political Britishness

Prejudice

The Sin of Language

Trying to Make Sense

Under the Vision

Work Ethic
Don Quixote - Email Barrie
email


Use the links above to jump to your selected works,

then click the back button on your browser to return to the menu.



Political Britishness    July 2007

State of the parties at 26 June 2007
 
Labour     351           
Conservative     195           
Liberal Democrat     63           
Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru     9    (SNP 6/PC 3)       
Democratic Unionist    9            
Sinn Fein    5    (Have not taken their seats and cannot vote)      
Social Democratic & Labour Party    3           
Independent     2           
Independent Labour    1           
Ulster Unionist    1           
Respect    1            
Speaker & 3 Deputies     4    (Do not normally vote)       
Vacant    2           
                 
                 
Total no of seats    646 (includes 2 vacant seats)           
Current working majority     67           
(351 Labour MPs less 285 of all other parties excluding Speaker & Deputies and Sinn Fein)               


The primary groups in UK politics – Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem - comprise, effectively, the UK Parliament. Although split into three allegiances, the individual MPs, across all three parties, share in common their desire and intent to “sign up” to the British parliamentary procedure. Further, they all submit to a pre-selection process by their party-of-choice (and “branding”) rather than offering themselves for direct approval and election, by the voters of their constituency.
I suggest the above defines the British MP, regardless of party, throwing light on character, integrity and ambition. I further suggest it shows that Parliament comprises a
self-perpetuating group of “Game Players” (in the sense that Eric Berne* defined) who run Britons’ and British affairs, with the voters as low-value pawns. Members of the group are termed “parliamentarians” cementing their difference from “the rest”. Parliamentarians connive at “parliamentary democracy” (a non-sequitur) gaining, and holding, party-power by vast monetary expenditure (and any other means to that end**) while supporting their constituents where this does not endanger reselection, or party-standing.
From the pool of parliamentarians will emerge the “Speaker” of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, both of whom play major internal Games, aided and abetted by the lower members of the club, while ostensibly governing a country.
At General Election time, MPs become “rosette stands” for their party, not political identities. Few, if any, would stand a chance of re-election were they not a party proxy. They stick firmly to a set of “manifesto” promises, suppressing their own views, the latter being of no importance under the “whipping” system in Parliament, where “rosettes” do as they are told. (Thereafter, manifesto promises, paradoxically, only get aired when MET; they are often sidelined.)
Any local hero, with the temerity to stand as an “independent”, gathers very few votes, as the cash-rich election machines frighten or excite the primitive voter-mind, blinding them to real issues – even reality itself! Also, in Parliament, the club has no time for mavericks, giving the perception of a wasted vote.

Democracy is defined as: “Government ULTIMATELY by the people.” We have government indisputably by an elite club, whose members are not elevated by ability but by affinity. Those who join with high hopes and ideals, soon leave, thus maintaining the “purity” of the membership. As with turkeys and Christmas, the faithful and well-suited, will not do anything to change this structure, though other systems exist around the world, and much might be done from first principles.*** 

In Britain today, voters increasingly choose to be non-voters and the Parliamentarians seem unconcerned. Is this because there are fewer minds requiring manipulation at election time? Although it takes many more votes to elect a Lib Dem than a Labour MP, still the Parliamentarians are unmoved. Our system of government threw up a bizarrely motivated performance artist as our recent Prime Minister; he ignored our cries of “foul”, performed very bad conjuring tricks, took us into a crazy war, and – with the exception of 1½  “principled ones”, the parliamentarians let him get away with it. Now the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has moved a lot of deckchairs – to the sound of bagpipes – and British parliamentary democracy stands poised to continue just as before.

What I have described, above, is not democracy; it does not even attempt to imitate democracy; it just shouts “democracy” a lot. .  If those who sign up to it KNOW this then they are knaves; if they don’t know it, they are fools. As for “the rest” who allow themselves to be run by fools or knaves – of whom I am one – I suppose we must accept: we are fools.

*  Eric Berne  “Games People Play”  http://www.ericberne.com/Games_People_Play.htm

**  Politics: The art of self deception wrapped in the craft of deceiving others
                     for their own good.  

*** CERTIFICATE OF VOTING COMPETENCE.
Children cannot vote for MPs. Presumably they are deemed insufficiently knowledgeable. But it is abundantly clear that many of voting age are not really very bright; why else would political parties use such crass, simplistic inducements to entice their vote? Surely age, as a voting qualifier, is a nonsense? Voting COMPETENCE should be the criterion. You can’t drive a car or fix a gas cooker without a license/certificate; what are you doing being let loose choosing the management of a whole country? A CERTIFICATE OF VOTING COMPETENCE is long overdue. Such a certificate would be open to all to aspire to, (and if we pretend for the moment it will not be subverted by crafty vested interests) should mean that a COMPETENT electorate emerges who cannot be outwitted by devious politicians. It does not take a genius to define the necessary skills to gain a certificate; however, I personally would propose a psychological awareness component. The immediate consequence of a competent electorate is a whole new breed of REPRESENTATIVE MPs and an effective parliament thereby. Out go all the lawyers who are amoral by definition and out, also, ambition-led brown-nosers. In come LOCALLY CHOSEN candidates (not party-selected “rosette stands”) actually motivated by selfless desire to solve problems and help country and citizen. See where we have got to?  This new brand of MP would apply themselves to WIDENING the pool of Voter Certification (on merit) as this is the decent thing to do; a growing democracy. (Tony Blair’s “education X 3” by default, produces dummies – a magnificent success!)  Strange to contemplate: voting competence might bring “media competence” in its wake, as the newly-aware reject media chicanery along with the political variety, bringing an answer to Tony Blair’s parting shot at his loved and hated scrutineers.

1.7.07
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Animal Crackers

Today (December 2006) it is fashionable to invoke “the elephant in the room” meaning something we are all aware of, but do not refer to. But what of the animal we all are but seem totally in denial of? We are all animal – men perhaps more demonstrably than women – yet everyone is sure they are human; whatever that is. The error lies in the belief that a “higher brain” with complex functions, such as language and abstract thought, elevates the whole mass of pure animal which, out of evolutionary imperative, carries the higher brain. In reality the carrier-body, remains stubbornly animal. Bodies sweat pheromones, they are aroused by visual “releaser” (attributes of other bodies). Tall men accrue advantage from their tallness alone, and the beautiful can literally get away with murder more easily than the ugly.
In all hierarchical situations, the animal is busy finding its place in the pecking order, and far from the higher brain running the animal, as suggested above, the animal of us often hijacks the greater facility for, deception, seduction, coercion and domination that the complex mind offers. Post puberty, men are sexually driven, and to date, I have seen no sign that this can be diminished by a cultural mind-set. I will not speak for women in this respect, although it is clear that they have “cultural control” over their expression of any maternal urge. With this one exception, I suggest the animal in us is running the show.

The higher brain likes to pretend we are “human”. “Quality folk” are presented as cerebral and refined. Then we come across the sexual chicanery that seems to go with many men of high office – dominant in their animal selves – and the myth is dispelled.
Courtrooms put on a grand show of rationality. But many a judge has been exposed – in more ways than one – as a frequenter of the fleshpots; the urban “water hole”.
The police are found watching seized pornographic movies and the vicar is served more than tea by his housekeeper. Suburban estates swing and STDs, in the respectable over-fifties, soar. President Kennedy? Prime Minister Major? We have declared men and women “the same” for all useful purposes, yet visit any pet shop and you will find the guinea pig sexes in separate enclosures; and the rabbits. What luck our “mix-manned” warships are not “manned” by guinea pigs! They would sink under the weight of progeny.

The problem is, that the higher brain is pretending to run the show and giving no credence to the ghost in the machine – the animal in the basement. We routinely feed alcohol to the combination, whereupon the higher brain – a bit of a delicate softie – quickly loses its marbles and an unmodified animal emerges. This animal, if male, having lost its cerebral default-mode – i.e. lack of self belief - becomes sex on legs, god’s gift to women and without discrimination; being prepared to mate with almost anything remotely female. Being male, I am unclear quite what happens to women when intoxicated. It would seem that they simply lose compass, gyro-stabilises and the ability to discriminate between vertical and horizontal. If within the staggering range of male, in the condition described above, some sort of coupling – don’t ask me to guess the details – is inevitable. But courts address the whole matter as if our animal does not exist! Our media are currently in the fruitless throes of trying to decide the rights and wrongs of drunken union. “High minded ladies, with no inkling of the phallocentric male imperative (having limited testosterone with which to address the matter) are tirading at the assumed evil of the “bloke who decides she wants what he has got for her! As if he is in any condition to decide anything; let alone anything with a sexual content! How do you ask a bull not to serve a heifer who he thinks is “bulling”?
Not only do we stupidly address the behaviour of our animal in high minded terms but we equally stupidly refuse – in the name of “equality” – to recognise how different the two sexes are as animals and, by extension (down blokes) how limited we are in our ability to understand the workings of each other. If you want to get an inkling of this, listen to discussion of how the respective members of mixed juries perform (and their explanations why) in rape trials. This is one of the few areas where reality makes itself felt.
So: somehow, even in today’s opportunistic, bullying atmosphere of politically correct feminism and New-Man-ism, we have to resolve to bang our heads together in the interest of progressing to a greater state of wisdom regarding the animal nature of so-called humans. There is an urgent need to focus on the truth of that difference in all walks of life. We are animals, most of what we do is animal-natured; the animal deserves respect and appropriate management. We could start by reducing our intake of alcohol.

14.5.07

Creation Myth 


Mythology, round the world speaks of various stages of mankind, often starting with a “dreamtime” when we were non-corporeal. There is talk of strange shapes – composite animal and human – and a time without language etc. In consequence, various conclusions are drawn by different commentators about “souls” and their attempts to enter evolving pre-humans, plus a range of other constructs. 

But what if we take another look simply in terms of the fertilised egg and developing foetus? It is postulated that, very early in foetal development, once a rudimentary nervous system exists, input in terms of vibration of the whole entity might be “registered” even before hearing commences (14 weeks?) and such recorded by a proto-brain.

I have mooted before, that the up-welling of religious certainty: belief in a “higher power” (all–knowing, nurturing yet unpredictable) might simply be infancy “remembered”. By analogy, I am now extending (backward) into our time of gestation and suggesting this might also influence our most profound constructs regarding our origin and journey to the here-and-now, as these might also have a mystical quasi-religious feel on emerging to consciousness.

It is virtually impossible to construct, with the faculties that, here, read (or write) and understand these words, a description – idea – sense – picture of what might be “going on” in a receptive foetus during gestation. My best guess is that should those impressions surface in some way into our consciousness (perhaps the shaman) they would be like traces of another world; mystical half-images suffering distortion by any attempt to formulate. Does that not sound like world myths of the magical distant past of mankind?

Myriad books have been written wherein sharp minds note the universality of our myths; their writers draw one inference from this. But humanity is global – one race. regardless of colour or physical attributes; we are totally cross-fertile and share the same gestation and birth sequence. Thus, agreement on some “past” reality, should it come from womb rather than cosmic enactment, will present with the same “symptoms” worldwide.

If gestation and birth is a common theme then, quite typically, the creative mind of man will play variations on it. (The theme of Christianity has basic elements, but man has woven many wild patterns with them.) Hence, to try to fit to foetal development all elements of “emergence mythology” (e.g. emerging from water and darkness is tempting) would be foolhardy if not dishonest. I simply re-state my suggestion that we may well sense a truth, in worldwide myths of emergence of Homo Sapiens, because we all DO, individually, emerge in a magical way from “nothingness” into form and function.

13.5.07

Can We Fix It?

From time to time, at some place or other on the planet, people form groups that fight one another. Excluding paid or conscripted armies, tribe, area, belief, colour or some other factor, defines the groups. I suppose one might see this as democracy at work in that joining the group of choice is a vote – but that vote is surely based on prejudice; re-establishment of some norm, rather than rational consideration?

Colonial action, world wars and the transport revolution have moved boundaries and mixed peoples as never before. The ruthlessness of leaders, in war, social interaction and commerce, strains this mixture such that breaking points are routinely reached.

Typical human programming (upbringing) ill prepares many for life; I am moved to wonder whether it is lack of philosophical input into young minds that makes us vulnerable; or is it that a majority of us are inherently unsophisticated?

There can be no doubt that we are animal in much of our daily interaction. “High mindedness” – philosophy, psychology, altruism etc – is added to the animal, in varying degree and intensity, according to culture and nurture. But might there be another variable? Might the animal-that-becomes-human have a range of capacity for enhancement; hard-wired into a brain of variable receptiveness to “civilising” input?

In small tribal groups, living strongly proscribed lives by virtue of limited experience and challenges, I doubt a simplistic, prejudiced, bigoted approach to “reality” is a disadvantage – it might even be a plus! But, in the course of a few generations, we have stirred the global pot without any consideration, let alone appreciation, of
the very different skills and attributes, individually needed, to maintain harmony.

The world is now in the grip of a “madness of doing”, absorbing time and effort on a prodigious scale and exacerbating pre-existing tension and imbalance. Another madness, is “Political Correctness” which denies even the slimmest possibility of all I have written above; in so doing, making a critical assessment of our fragile state unlikely, or even impossible.

Human strife is widespread. It is acceptably exploited by the arms (defence) industry – one of the world’s biggest earners. Future conflicts are predictable. The current belief  that “Commerce Cures All” is manifestly as false as “Arbeit Macht Frei”.

Perhaps somebody might do a study to establish a baseline for human potential beyond the basic. If it is shown that a majority are incapable of rising much above a simplistic approach to life – we must settle for mayhem. However, should it be shown that most have the capacity to become competently human, we only have ourselves to blame if change for the better is not achieved.

Since I wrote the above, Bruce Lahn, a geneticist of Chicago University is reported to have said, regarding recent discoveries in brain genetics: “It could be advantageous to be dumber”.  There you go Bruce.

Written 31.5.06


The Culture Nature Split

It is my belief that we live in a time of disengaged nature and culture. The dominant culture on the planet is, without doubt: Production for profitable sale with subsequent purchasing; money being an intermediary. Let's call this the Western Way.

Those few areas of the planet, where the inhabitants still acquire and consume all they need from their environment and require neither foreign currency nor foreign products, will soon succumb.

But the Western Way is at odds with the Ways of Mother Earth. Man the animal lives in harmony with the rhythms and cycles of the planet. Western man delights in overcoming and bending to his will all things natural.

The Western Way exploits artificial light; heat and energy from fossil fuels (in which term I include fissile materials); manufacture of plastics and other materials which defy decay; chemical fertilizer; GM seeds; birth and pregnancy interventions, and an aberrant approach to all things sexual.

On the other hand, “Primitive Man” lived, perforce, in tune with the seasons, and the cycle of night and day, used biodegradable materials and reproduced as natural fertility dictated.

Most importantly, he had cultures which reinforced Nature's Male - Female division.

Positive Stereotyping.

Today stereotyping is a dirty word. All grades, shades and nuances of sexuality are trumpeted as equal (that ultimate “today” word) and much pressure on society accrues.

It is my assertion that Mankind, having a complex mind which is capable of thinking strange thoughts and building counter-productive culture, MUST apply stereotyping if he is to enjoy stability - both individually and as a group. For every “wayward” individual who is served by a culture of “all welcome” (well, up to a point) there are, I suspect, many more than one who suffer from the confusion such culture engenders. (This is without even addressing the “rights” of  those who would couple with animals, corpses etc.)



Written 23.01.05

Posted mid may 2006





Charisma is a Dirty Word


No one can be in any doubt today that the world, in its totality, is troubled. Climate change, whatever the reason, is staring us collectively in the face. The planet is awash with arms, nuclear technology is spreading, corrupt leaders and organisations are everywhere (so commonplace that we no longer notice). Misunderstanding and anger, rooted in the past, ensure continued world terrorism.

Against this background, apparent giants stride the land, rushing about doing good. Tony Blair, not noted for his integrity, and Bob Geldof, not noted for his maturity, lead the charge.

Are these really the leaders the world needs? What makes a leader? What makes a good leader? What sort of person wants to be leader?

Surely, before all else, the world needs wisdom and integrity. And bowing to the fact that many will never acquire these attributes, we need somehow to ensure that those who have them, rise to leadership. Manifestly this does not happen. It seems that, in the business of choosing a leader, the animal in us is far more powerful than the human. It would appear that that charisma, in its broadest sense, is the key factor in our choice of leaders. Here I am doing a sort of reverse definition of charisma. I am using it to define the X factor in those we choose as leaders when they are in fact, overtly questionable in human terms. I surmise that in the animal kingdom, sheer bloody gall confers greater survival on the group, through the leader, than wisdom and integrity. Intuitively, that has a sort of right feel about it.

So can anything be done, short of brainwashing the entire population of the planet, to change the situation whereby the wrong leaders get to the top and inexorably herald in Armageddon?

We currently have the slogan "make poverty history" - I am tempted to coin "make charisma a dirty word"! More practically, we need to ask if it is possible to throw light on this phenomenon such that the ordinary voter stops voting for charisma and chooses wisdom and integrity instead.


I have long felt that we humans do not mature. This may well be because our animal substrate matures at a rate that curtails our cerebral childhood, and dominates us with animal sexuality, thus inhibiting further right-thinking.

Whatever the cause, what we end up with, and term democratic government, is now akin to a wolf pack, with a charismatic unchallengeable leader, surrounded by acolytes and wannabes (sometimes both in one skin) controlling our lives.

In a society where supposedly mature adults, routinely damage their health and competence with a range of substances taken into the bloodstream, the question must arise: if they cannot see that error, how will they ever confront the leadership question? The only group I see as clever enough to influence the required majority of ordinary folk in the right direction, is the advertisers. These, after all, are the clever devils who have kept the tobacco atrocity going against all rationality! I firmly believe that, given enough money, and a clear brief, they can herald in Utopia, including phasing themselves out upon success!

But there is a problem. Money and instruction come from leaders, and turkeys do not vote for Christmas. This change will have to come from grassroots. Fortunately, there do arise from time to time, incredibly rich individuals open to Damascene conversion. One can only hope that this idea of choosing leaders for their human and humane leadership qualities can be "bought" in  the minds of the general population, and that the scheme will appeal to some mega-rich individual, above owning a football club. A magnificent act of corruption!







Make Corruption Infamy


Corruption comes in all guises. Often, when pointed out, as in the British voting system, many people will say: "Oh come on, that's not corruption!"
Such people have become used to a background hum of corruption in political speeches, advertising, pricing of petrol, labelling of food, accountancy practices, court procedures etc. They need a visible wad of money in a brown envelope, or its equivalent, to acknowledge a corrupt act has occurred. Otherwise terms such as "sharp practice" are used to fudge the truth.

In the current environment of "Make Poverty History" the First World finger has been pointed at African leaders as purloining up to 80% of incoming aid. Whatever the truth of this accusation, two things arise. Apparently these "terrible people" store their stolen cash in First World banks, or they buy trinkets like jet planes, from First World vultures.

In the days when every pound note was backed by a little bit of gold, stored in a vault somewhere, banks built for themselves an air of honour and integrity. In modern times, banking and its wayward cousin, accountancy, seems to have gone completely astray. And as these two institutions are never far from the seat of power, government is also tainted. To point this up, the EU seems to have had corruption built in from day one!

We know that Britain's men  of power (and women, but are they less afflicted?) constantly fall into corrupt ways. Hardly surprising as it is axiomatic that "power corrupts". So is it not time we addressed corruption as urgently and vehemently as all the other causes celebres?
Is it not time for a little "Mote and Beam Diplomacy"? Were we to admit our own corrupt practices and put in place barriers and traps for the corrupt, surely we would gain the high ground, and be in a better position to take on world corruption?

I declare "Mote and Beam Year" when Tony Blair will admit all, George Bush will tell us how he got to be President, the banks will own up to all their fiddles and the Gnomes of Zurich will choose death by cook-coo clock for their sins. It won't make a jot of difference but it will be cathartic.

Posted mid May 2006



Work Ethic


Primary work, is work related to survival. The harsher the times, the more work is required just to stay alive. However, success achieved by work brings self-esteem and approval of others; vital to individual and group viability.

When the planet is less harsh, farming is possible. Farming, an unnatural activity, delivers increasing free time to which, it seems, we are not adapted. Free time invites expansion of abstract thought; the development of “culture”.  But culture is like the iceberg - one tenth shining in the sunlight, but nine tenths submerged in the dark currents of the unconscious.

The shadow aspect of culture, brings dark practises, sexual aberration, political manipulation and religious oppression of the many by the few. 

Farming anchors the group. It concentrates people and their waste in one area while promoting expansion of population. It is the forerunner of town and industry; disease and pollution. It engenders secondary work - specialisation. With specialisation comes money (to buy specialist products) and the tertiary business of money manipulation: banking, money-lending, gambling and debt. The fewer the number primarily employed, the less healthy the community (farming being quasi-primary).

Free time and excess money leads to travel, with an inexorable improvement in means to that end. The highly developed transport associated with travel, now allows the mixing of ethnic groups who have lived unmixed for millennia. The incomers congregate in the least agreeable parts of towns, receiving less money and suffering more disease.
A disproportionate number of their young are unemployed - beset by excess spare time and thereby prey to excess.

Another aspect of travel - colonisation - the bringing of oppression, religion, farming, industry, money lending; in fact all the “ills of home”, to other lands, has left much of the “Developing (third) World” in a mess. But it is all part of the same mess.

The current “diversionary activity” of “Make Poverty History” (make Africa a conscience-saving “salve-goat“) will not cure the underlying malaise that Homo Sapiens is unsuited to the prevailing global situation.

If it is possible (and as yet, we cannot know) for 6.5 billion to live, contentedly, on this planet,  intermixing, and with freedom from the constraints of primary work, stability will not come through industry (farm and factory) and trade, but from a complete shift of our aspirations and values. Small pockets of visionary ethos exist (though virtually all are, to some degree, reliant on the current structure) but for change to take hold, as with immunisation to control other “dis-ease“, a critical percentage must be reached with the “vaccine of change”.

With such a “need vacuum” in the world today, a solution is urgent. By far the greatest danger is a new religion. Should such arrive, its spread, via the internet, will exceed anything ever seen. But will it be benign? And will it have the answers?

Written 4.06.05
Posted mid May 2006



One Billion to Kill Sadam


I have long pondered the official line about Iraq, that without the war “Sadam and sons would still be there“. 
Suddenly I remembered that they “found” his sons by offering several million dollars.
What might have been the effect of offering a sizeable part of the cost of the war - one billion dollars say - to kill Sadam and his sons? I have a feeling a lot of gung-ho blokes would have come out of the woodwork. We have at least one parallel, in the field of space-flight, where a big prize has energised daring men. 
I wonder if a western “democracy” would feel too embarrassed to hire hit-men, as this is what “unprincipled” people do; whereas honourable countries fight “just wars”.

Written 30 05 05
Posted mid May 2006



Gibbon's Five Attributes


This letter to unknown newspaper by Tom Benyon of Adstock Buckingham.

Sir - Theodore Dalrymple, claims that family breakdown is responsible for anti-social behaviour. There is another cause.
The silent majority is divided into a shrinking minority who are either Christian with a real basis for morality, or at least remember the days when such values were valid. The vast majority are not bothered with such ideals, for increasingly most people are ignorant of the values of liberty and truth; all they want is personal comfort and affluence, and they will remain silent as long as politicians deliver these things.
Gibbon wrote that the following five attributes characterised Rome at its end.
First, a mounting love of show and luxury; second, a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor; third, an obsession with sex; fourth, freakishness in the arts masquerading as originality, and enthusiasm pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to live off the state.
We are back in Rome.

Posted mid May 2006



Embryos and Humanity

                             
The heated debate continues regarding when what we call “life” becomes Human.
There seems to be no concern for the sperm or egg, even though a lot of evolution and construction has gone into each. The rightness of this position is debateable, like every other, but I shall not go down that road.
When sperm enters egg, division begins. Without a sperm, as in cloning, an electric current is required, so perhaps we might give the sperm more respect? (Has anyone searched for genuine Virgin Birth? I would expect it to occur from time to time.) Division and differentiation proceeds until a sentient organism forms; having increasing awareness as time passes and faculties emerge.
Were this a bird, forming in an egg, we would accept that on emerging, without instruction from a parent or, indeed, a school teacher, it would grow to a flying, nest-building, song-singing, young rearing, competent adult. Not so Human young - it seems.
A human baby is born and named. (Let’s call him Fred.) That is to say, its body and mentality are labelled. After being addressed many times by “its” name, the baby and its name become linked in its mind. I say “linked” rather than accepted because it is apparent, in those who declare a dislike for their name, or who choose to be known by a name other than their first, that free-will operates to some extent. Although a baby uses its mouth a great deal to characterise shape, texture and probably taste, it is also aware of limb movements, such that a sense of ownership, in keeping with increasing hand-eye coordination ,must accrue.
Ultimately the toddler reaches a sophistication in perception which allows its mirror image to be seen as “self”. Fred now has the full set: a mind, a body and a name, which will normally remain associated throughout life both for him and for those who may know him.
Oddly, if Fred loses his mind to disease or accident, he will still be know as Fred. When we say: “Fred has lost his mind” it is a euphemism for: “Fred is lost - only his body is left.”  When the body dies, we treat it with respect and write: “Here Lies Fred”, but the truth is that Fred resides in our memories and his kids; our connection to his body is a trick of mind and, perhaps, culture.
But everything we know about Human development seems to show we are not like birds. Being born with no “social skills” part of our brain unformed, and much of the rest unwired, we rely heavily on experiences among humankind to become humanised; most poignantly in the matter of language which is so vital. If our early experience is among animals, we are “animalised”.
So what actually is born. What exactly  was Fred when we named him?
Fred, it seems, was born a vehicle for his consciousness. Using whatever impinges on that consciousness will make Fred what he is to be. If we contrive to rear him in some sort of isolating pen, with no human input, he will not have a human mind or personality; he will not “be” human in his own mind and though we might name him, he will not identify with that name.
So that pre-Fred bunch of cells, a specialised arrangement of elements selected from ninety-odd found in the Universe, though capable of making a human shaped body (vehicle): It is not human! Fred has not, in this case, lost his mind, he has simply not found one!

Written 12 02 04
Posted mid May 2006



Certificate of Voting Competence


>From a purely logical standpoint, who should take a decision? When a mother sees that her child is sick, to whom does she turn for an opinion or a cure? When your car makes noises, who do you ask? Boiled right down, the answer is always “someone with appropriate knowledge and expertise”.

In the light of the above, giving each of us a vote is unwise - even dangerous..

APPROPRIATE KNOWLEDGE
Ordinary citizens get their information from the national media and politicians. It is now well established that both are fallible, biased, and dishonest. Hence none of what we think we know can be relied on.

EXPERTISE
How many ordinary citizens can process data objectively?  How many without being influenced by outside pressures?

Those to whom we turn for help are (we hope) in possession of some certification, obtained after study in the relevant sphere of expertise. To mend a car you should be a car expert - lives depend on it. To heal a child you should be a sickness expert - lives depend on it.
To vote for a government, and thereby a Prime Minister, should you not be a voting expert? After all - lives depend on it; sometimes millions of lives.
It is an offence to drive a car unless we have passed a test showing that we understand how to drive. Why then are we allowed to “drive” a country, with not a day’s training, and no examination?

The current spectacle, at election time, is one of coercion, duping, bribery, lies etc, applied to a gullible electorate by politicians, their hired hands and funding cronies, to swing power to one or other group. If an examination had to be passed, after serious study of the ways of these terrible people, and a demonstration of understanding and competence, only those with voting qualifications would do the voting, for which the precedent is well established above! The advantages are obvious.

Quite where this voting elite goes to obtain unadulterated information is another matter. It is not unreasonable to assume they would have the savvy to do something about that!

Written July 2005
Posted mid May 2006



Burning Passion


Now that the West is fully entrenched in the “War on Terror”, demonisation of Muslims - in reaction to the minority prepared to use extreme action - is proceeding apace.

But as the rhetoric becomes, daily, more righteous, should we not allow for the fact that Islaam is 600 years younger than Christianity?

600 years ago, Spanish Christians enjoyed a long established Inquisition and were busy burning “heretics”.
300 years ago, we were burning witches across the world - from Moravia to Massachusetts - in the name of God.
Only 50-odd years ago, we were fire-bombing women and children (although, to our credit, we did manage to repeal the “Witchcraft Act!”).

Today, the fire has, I hope, gone out of Christianity but Islaam (perhaps predictably in view of its youth) still burns with a passion.

In this time of intractable confrontation, humility, a good Christian tenet, is certainly called for. But more poignantly, who is most in need of that other Christian value - forgiveness?

Written 22.4.04
Posted mid May 2006



Beyond Demockracy


Government “by the people” is an impossible dream. It can be aspired to, but not achieved. So is the next best thing “mock democracy”, well named in that it mocks the people, or could something better be devised? Let’s just look at what we have now under mock democracy - I’ll call it demockracy.
1) The prime imperative of the party in power is to stay in power. As the maximum term of any Parliament is 5 years, this dominates most, if not all, of every Parliament.
2) As independent candidates rarely get elected, it is evident that any viable candidate you vote for has been pre-selected by a political party. The party machine favours dogmatic allegiance to party and leader before representation of local or individual constituency concerns. This is hardly representation of you!
3) The party manifesto is compiled, primarily, with winning the election in mind. Any or all of its promises are there to be shelved, dumped or bent as circumstances change downstream. A manifesto of, say, one hundred policies, can never match any individual’s aspirations. Thus every voter votes for some policies they actually don’t want!
4) As you are voting for a party and its manifesto, the person under the rosette is a poor third. There must be others who you would much rather have as your representative on important matters, but you have no choice. Is it any wonder that these ambitious rosette-stands accept the whip system in The House?
5) Much of the effort of political exchange goes into crafty presentation to hide weakness and failure with crafty denigration of any other party. After that, the party funders must be looked after and what’s left is applied policy.
In summary, it is entirely possible that you vote for a character you don’t want, who will support policies you don’t want funded by people you don’t like for reasons that have nothing to do with you.

So: democracy is a myth and demockracy is a sham; communism is a dirty word so whither?
What do you want in a representative and or leader? I suggest: Wisdom, integrity, self-knowledge, humility, absence of personal ambition and ability to compromise amicably. Is it likely that anyone with these qualities will sign up to the system we currently suffer under? Yet there are a few among us who have such qualities (perhaps not the full set) so how do we get to be governed by them?
What follows is fanciful as the current system protects its own continuation. (Note the fact that proportional representation is only favoured by those who have no chance of power yet better represents the wishes of the people.  It will be interesting, indeed, to see how quickly the Lib Dems install PR, should they gain power. )

Modern technology could enfranchise us all to vote on everything, but many would not be interested and worse, factions would soon develop as most of us lack sufficient integrity to remain un-subverted.
It would seem we need a group of “elders” who, first and foremost, must be integrity personified. The slightest slip from purity should have them kneeling in Parliament Square, disembowelling themselves - at least metaphorically.
No parties, no power grouping etc, just worthies, beyond reproach, for whom we can vote with no whiff of 
manifesto nonsense  or mud slinging. It cannot be rocket science to uncover who these people are, going quietly about their daily lives uninterested in dominating anyone - almost unnoticed.
Every now and then, some organ or authority invites us to name unsung heroes in our midst. I am not a devotee of such activities but it demonstrates the principle for finding our “elders”. 

Re-election of these individuals would be entirely on their performance during the last term of office. The more measured their utterances the less costly their lifestyle and the more impressive their demeanour,
the more likely they would be to be returned.  We would have government by fine minds with fine principles and no time wasted in banal activities such as Prime Minister’s Questions.

Oh well, I can dream.

Written Oct 2004
Posted mid May 2006



Conqueror  Syndrome

 (Basic Blokes Behave Badly) 

Having lived my life as an “Intellectual Artisan” (part bloke part academic) I think I may have understanding beyond that of the blinkered swots who crave high office and start wars in my name.
>From my position, with a foot in each camp, the fact that some soldiers will behave badly is no surprise as “basic bloke” is well represented in their ranks. To sign up is to become just a number with all that that implies. You need to be seriously short of options to accept such ignominy - or to be fooled by the rhetoric of uniform, flag and glory.
I happen to have had the opportunity to study juggernaut drivers (another group of basic blokes) for twenty-odd years. Some of them do some pretty unbelievable stuff when no-one is watching.
The paradox of a leader who wants us all to be educated yet needs basic blokes for his personal army is, of course, lost on Mr Blair.
Fortunately for him, his premise is faulty and will produce an endless supply of “failed academics”, never suited to education, never offered what did suit, and ideally suited for armed service.

What every aspiring Hannibal should understand, is that basic blokes make nasty conquerors. The testosterone surge of battle plus the “winners bonus” can shift basic bloke right into the animal. Rape is then obligatory and humiliation of the enemy a close second. The problem is that the rules of engagement are written by high minded fellows with respectable testosterone levels and no mud, blood and guts on their slacks. It is no accident that Geneva is a clean city in an almost sterile country. Rules of war should be written by murderers on Death Row or rapists and paedophiles in the isolation wing. They would be relevant and not routinely broken.

Written may 2004
Posted mid May 2006



Albuquerque


Do you believe in the Big Bang which is supposed to have started the Universe?  It won't be in favour too long; nothing ever is. But perhaps I can persuade you to believe just while I get started?

There was neither time nor space. Then, out of nowhere, out of nothing, came all the something we have now. It came in an instant. It started as energy which transformed into matter and anti-matter; mutually incompatible. By some quirk there was more matter than anti matter so some matter was  still left after the slaughter (in the form of hydrogen and helium) and this went through a long process of evolution. It first fuelled stars which made all the other elements. Then, after the stars had exploded, at the end of their life, blowing an entire periodic table to the Four Corners of space-time, some of the debris formed into planets.
If a planet with a suitable mix of elements found itself bathed in conducive radiation from the right kind of sun, throw in a thunder storm and: hey presto LIFE.

Let’s be clear about life. Anything living steals from its surroundings to maintain its own existence and strives to make more of its own kind regardless of any consequences. Look around you. See what I mean?

The bottom end of the scale of life is very basic. It doesn’t KNOW it’s alive. It gets no buzz out of messing up the function of some higher form by invasion and multiplication; not like a mediaeval army. However and perhaps more in keeping with armies it does change its tactics when it gets a bashing by adversity. This is called evolution. It is also called survival of the fittest but fittest is not the same as best. Consider the plight of the last two men left on the planet trapped in a concrete bunker beside which stands a beautiful, healthy woman panting to do some repopulating. One of our incarcerants is a strapping athlete cum chess champion, linguist (little help now I fancy) and member of Mensa while the other is a wimpy nerd with a BO quotient greater than his IQ. The latter is just over five-foot tall with a thirty-inch chest and no bum.

The only way out of the bunker (damaged in the war) is a long narrow gap between two slabs of concrete of great thickness. . . . . . It will take the planet a long time to get over that bit of survival of the fittest and when the race so engendered does finally ask the question: “Why are we all so nerdy and wimpy?” who will come forth with the answer? Bugs Bunny never explains WHY he turned the wrong way at Albuquerque, perhaps it was hard earth or rock the other way, but turn he did, and the rest is history - or evolution. Bugs is not the only evidence we have for this effect. The fossil record of the earth is littered with evidence of total extinctions of ENTIRE species which were, at the time of catastrophe, fully adapted to their environment and doing very nicely. You are just as likely to be wiped out by being in the wrong place at the wrong time as by not being really up to the job.

So, Earth, being an unexceptional product of the above processes (for there are unimaginable billions of planets with life in the universe) reached the point where down in the primeval slime something stirred. With the passage of aeons, this proto-life was beset by heat, cold, impact, flood, drought, radiation etc. On the occasions that a small remnant survived it was “adapt or die” and if adaptation amounted to a “wrong” turn: So what? You were alive weren’t you? And here we are. Oversize head, tendency to back trouble, hernia, and fallen arches, too many teeth for our jaw, 98% of us brain damaged and a many of us very unlovely. But let’s go back a bit.


Ignoring genetic engineering by aliens, we can assume that mankind, with all his quirks and foibles is a product of evolution on this planet from early mammal forms via ape-like creatures to Homo Sapiens.
Modern man is inherently unstable (trust me, I am one) and whilst, in aeronautics, it has been found advantageous to design an unstable plane which only a gung-ho computer can fly, I am doubtful that instability is to be prized in man’s makeup. There again, it has been said that genius is close to madness and this would seem to counter the point were it not for the fact that genius always seems to lead further away from stability and towards a mad world in which these geniuses presumably feel happy and at home. Mark my words; the non-stick frying pan will, one day, be co-opted as a terrifying weapon of war.

Written c 2003
Posted mid May 2006





Aid to Enlightenment


My observation of myself and my fellow humans, leads me to the conclusion that we are fundamentally animal, with human attributes grafted on.

Modern research shows that the baby given no human input does not become a human. Foundling babies, nurtured in early life by animals, take on some of the characteristics of the "mother" and cannot thereafter acquire human characteristics such as a full speech.

>From the above it would seem that the brain of the newborn baby has two tasks. It must come to terms with the many animal imperatives arising from below, as it were, but also acquire human characteristics from those beings around it.
But what, in terms of behaviour - behaviour to be absorbed by the newborn - defines a human being? There's the rub!

Human behaviour, whether observed within one family group living in a suburb of the "civilised world" or in some "barbaric" part of the third or developing world, runs the gamut from sensitive selfless altruism to "inhuman" degrading viciousness.


In his book: "Brave New World" Huxley addressed the "programming" of new individuals in a mechanistic way. His approach was not without some foundation even in today's Science, but it seems to me (if we ignore Hitler's Germany) that we are very long way from a society where Huxley's approach might be applied.

Two things seem very relevant in the nurture a young baby: the minimisation of what one might call anti-social programming and the maximising of a sense of security and self-esteem (Secure attachment).
None of this is new, but little of this is applied as things stand today.

I cannot resist an aside here. In the area of human Surgery, we are beginning to recognise the fallibility of the human surgeon! Robots have, now been designed and deployed, in the interests of doing a better job!
Huxley must be spinning with mirth in his grave. There is no doubt that the average parent, particularly in the "civilised world", is not that good at the job.
Is it time for artificial nurture?

It seems that somehow, we need to supply the newborn with a sense that mother is near, even when she's not - e.g.when she's working, down the gym, or just living her own life. This is going to take some pretty classy technology which few will be able to afford. It is not the answer. And I fear we are too far down the road away from simple mothering by mothers to embrace that solution.

What is not in doubt, is that the behaviour of future generations, not just as citizens of the world but as parents, depends heavily on the "world view" absorbed by each and every new baby. It seems pretty clear that concepts and attitudes, absorbed young, are paramount. Later input can never be quite as potent as it will be "scrutinised" by the developing (prejudiced) intellect. Prevention is better than cure.

We are currently preoccupied with financial aid for the developing world. In truth the whole world is in need of psychological aid, comprising a solution to the problem set above. A world slowly filling with humans ill-prepared for being human, hence ill-disposed to one another, does not bode well for the future.

Personally, I believe we have the knowledge and the technology to at least apply "damage limitation" to the minds of children worldwide. If Coca Cola and Macdonalds can reach round the world, (the product of money and intent) surely it is possible to do the same with enlightenment?

Written 7.6.05
Posted mid May 2006



Under the Vision

As a subscriber to “the child makes the adult” who further believes “the damage” is done very early in life, my efforts are addressed to mass dissemination of “infant wisdom”.
I have no way of knowing if this can achieve justice and peace, particularly as most people have little stomach for reality.

This analysis of the “human condition” is male and un-PC. Those who approach from a female “mind set” may think me deluded; those who embrace the PC ethos, might denigrate my stance. This is a major obstacle to moving to a “just and peaceful world”.
The world is rapidly losing respect for the Female Principle and is hardening in its maleness. War solves problems. Apathy is rife. Money is king. WAM!

The complex brain that defines humanity, climbed on top of the underlying ape quite recently, like a tiny jockey on a primitive beast. It has little every-day understanding or control of the forces below.
This extra brain power, probably a survival stratagem (or even by-product) is of no great value to Nature, whose main thrust is genetic continuation of the ape. Thus we find that a promising development of higher intellect and skills is halted - at best attenuated - by the onset of puberty and the arrival of sexual appetite. In truth: mind doesn't matter.
History records pockets of tranquillity against a background of unending mayhem. These are never groups of alien soldiers or labourers, meeting to do what soldiers or labourers do; they would just end up fighting. Such cooperative gatherings are of intellectuals, so intent on stuff of the mind, that the animal below is stilled. They exchange knowledge - even wisdom. Their outpourings are written in books - hymn books full of the flowering of human potential. They fill libraries.
But before long, “in another part of the wood” the beast below hi-jacks the mind above and hoards of “mindless beasts” go on the rampage, scattering the intellectuals (or putting them to work in the fields) and burning the library. Nature is back on track.

Posted 3.5.06

Prejudice

The World runs on prejudice.

We are here (according to current belief) as a consequence of Natural SELECTION and the Survival of the Fittest - in a word: PREJUDICE. You cannot expect to eradicate such a fundamental factor in humanity. Indeed, even to suppress it is to run a serous risk of unpleasant consequences.

So, if I am right, we have a planet - now shrunk to a “global village” - with a range of colours, languages, cultures, religions and even faces, all falling over one-another; the whole seething mass underpinned by DNA-deep prejudice. This is not an easy situation; the evidence is all around, but in trying to “stamp out” prejudice, are we “sowing the wind” with the inevitable whirlwind to follow? Indeed, could it be that we already have the makings of the Whirlwind in the “War on Terror”?

If it is not too late, I would like to promote a new atmosphere of honesty in which we ALL acknowledge our prejudices. Those already too steeped in the PC fashion to “come out” in one go,  could start with small admissions like hating cats or even - say - Tony Blair’s grin. Perhaps the way forward is through the foundation of “Prejudiced Anonymous” groups, where you let it all hang out and no-one is censured for being human.

If we can rid ourselves of the two shibboleths of the (nonexistent) unprejudiced person and the (impossible) goal of eradicating prejudice itself, we can then focus fully on the business of living with it. By this I mean living with its underlying inevitability, not with the painful, but avoidable, consequences. There is no doubt that we CAN live with it, but it requires a level of honesty and philosophy not current in our society; possibly in none, today.

Success could well prove that prejudice, far from being the great divider that the PC movement wishes to stamp out, is one of the very few aspects of global man that we all have in common! What better foundation on which to start a, truly viable, initiative toward World Peace?

Posted 3.5.06

The Sin of Language

I gather that one of the great truths of philosophy is that he who controls language, controls the people - that is, their thinking.
Some time ago I began to ponder the business of how we think, and came to the conclusion that, like animals, pre-verbal babies, must do their reasoning without words. This evening, it suddenly occurred to me, that thinking in words might be "the problem"!
I have, elsewhere, suggested that many of our ills, have their roots in farming. I see a sort of parallel, in the suggestion that language might be a curse.
Some languages apparently began their written form as pictures or pictograms, and I can't help wondering if these are differently processed in the brain. This might be a red herring but I am suggesting they fall part-way between non-verbal and left brain language.
Anyway, I have read that only three people in the world can envisage five dimensional systems, and I am wondering how difficult it is, once language is acquired, to envisage thinking without it. But I feel absolutely sure it must be possible! The whole concept is fascinating. I find myself suddenly wondering: when dreaming, do we think in words?
Much has been written of chimpanzees and other primates, solving problems. When the chimpanzee moves the box, picks up the stick and knocks down the Banana, we know it has thought no words. If we move the box, pick up the stick, knock down the Banana, do we use words? Or do we only use words for more complex strategy?
Whatever the truth of the matter, it is certainly worth a thought, that thinking in words might rank with farming - and what else? - as bad news for contentment among humanity.
I wonder if it is possible to train ones-self to think without words? Could this in fact be one of the Eastern disciplines? Perhaps sculptors, painters and the like, go for some time without thinking any words when engrossed in their work?
I have written elsewhere of the damage done by the spoken and written word, but perhaps the “original sin” is language acquisition itself.
I heard recently that Chimps read body language, in terms of intent by humans, almost as soon as the intent is formed. This might suggest that absence of language develops this skill; as well it might.

Posted 3.5.06

 Trying to Make Sense

In the light of recent events, which show Bush as a pathetic child and Blair not the great visionary he believes, I am trying to understand the mind of the general “educated” voter who puts such men into power.
I have to conclude that the ability to think, about issues and people, is severely limited in the general public. Would this be “emotional intelligence”?
In terms of Berne’s “Transactional Analysis”, discriminatory thought resides in the “Adult“. The Adult, emerges in the growing child from a zero beginning.
Can it be that the greater mass of people - regarded as educated and intelligent - are in fact not that much above zero in Adult functionality?  This would account for the power of religious belief, advertising, fashion, power of newspaper opinion and acceptance of political clap-trap.
I am beginning to envisage a pyramid of humanity with the mass at the bottom having weak Adult function; rising to a rare few sages at the top point, who can see the true state of things.

Returning to Berne: It seems that those who aspire to power have plenty of “Parent” belief and also a “Child”- based drive to “be someone”. Sages do not seem to become politicians, nor are they found among their advisors. Politicians seem not to have much more Adult capacity for philosophy and compromise than their flock. They apply Parent rules for behaviour, e.g. race laws, but fail to realise the forces they are dealing with and the limited ability of the sheep to stay on message when under pressure. 

We are born little animals. If no one introduced us to language, we would grow to be big animals. Language allows us to modify our animal selves - this is culture; perhaps “civilisation”. But, paradoxically,  language is hi-jacked by those who want (need) power, to tell us what to think. Directly and indirectly we are told most of the things we are to think. We are taught very little of HOW to think and how to analyse what others think (or profess to think).

Now that life is all about commerce, education is simply preparation for profitable work. We are battery hens, laying “eggs of work“. It would seem that when it comes to awareness of “what is going on”, we are certainly about as bright as battery hens. Our leaders manipulate the light, heat, feed and water in the battery house to keep us settled and then give us extra feed just before an election.

Posted 3.5.06

Half Made Up?

The more I pondered our inability to make a job of being human, the more puzzled I got. Suddenly it occurred to me that it might be the lack of time available for the human bit of us (“us” being the “ape confused by language“) to become mature and wise.
Just suppose we could delay puberty  for ten - or whatever - years. The “reasonable child” of 11-or-so, whose development, they say, is by then complete (less puberty) could continue to be reasonable, progressively, and arrive at puberty much more able to handle it, and the rest of life. The tenuous human veneer, would gain “dominion over the animal”.
To put it another way, as things stand, we become sexually driven animals long before we achieve true adulthood; maturation stops. Sex is inimical to wisdom - there is nothing of wisdom about copulating bodies. A sex-orientated being is no vehicle for a rational, constrained, constructive sage. This means that, in human terms, we live our  lives as overgrown children; unable to resist the modern excesses of shopping (with associated debt) eating (obesity) drinking (intoxication) copulation (with associated deviations) status (the “good job”) novelty (unending invention)  consumption and manufacture ( exhaustion of resources) and argument (war).
It is ironic that many now opt for late pregnancy - delayed by up to twenty years from puberty - but they fill those “years of delay” with frantic pursuit of the unsophisticated goals and diversions  above; rather than in an increasingly competent search for wisdom and serenity.

It seems that God and Mother Nature lived in harmony for many an eon, until God chose to imprint his mental attributes on some hapless ape so that it might worship Him. (He too, it would appear, lacks maturity!) The resultant brainy ape, having invented agriculture and easy living, now gets to well-fed puberty ever-earlier, hence with no time to complete itself “in the likeness of God”. This mess - “scarce half made up” is us!

15.1.06

Post script:  Today I heard part of a wildlife program on Radio 4. It seems that young bull elephants HAVE PUBERTY DELAYED BY THE PROXIMITY OF OLDER MALES who, effectively, mediate their maturing before they move out; whereupon their sexuality is triggered!  Might such a delay occur in "primitive" human societies where there is the "men's house" into which, one presumes, boys are admitted at some age. Could the maleness of that place (including pheromones) delay puberty?  7.02.06

Posted 3.5.06

God Entropy and Life

Even if we do not accept the big bang as the start of “everything”, it is clear that elements combine to form compounds and, on a good day, we get DNA and life. This is “Self-Organisation” the opposite of “Entropy” which, we are told by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, leads in the direction of disorganisation - to chaos - death.

This duality is not lost on Homo Sapiens. In his life-long quest to understand and control self and environment, he surely becomes aware of underlying duality, and builds it into his various religions. Unfortunately, religious imagery gets taken up as truth. Destructive comets become dragons and the universal property of Self-Organisation, becomes a Creator-God. It is but a small step, to pray to God for protection from the Dragon!

Dead matter is all around us. Life, when present, inhabits (so to speak) dead matter, but the dead matter must be properly organised to be termed “alive”. To kill something alive, we do not “extract the life”; we simply disorganise the matter.
A box of radio components (including a battery) is dead. Organise them correctly and an oscillating energy will arise entirely due to the relationship of the components i.e. organisation!
The radio is “live” and able to perform its function of detecting and processing the signals received from its electro-magnetic environment - just as animals detect and process signals in their environment. If we disrupt the radio with a hammer - it dies. But no life is lost - life has no being. The same is true for animals, of which we are one.

Science is, today, busy seeking to organise dead matter into an arrangement which, by its behaviour, can be termed “alive”. Should they succeed, many will call this “playing God” but the play actually started, long ago, with us playing at Religion!
A vast array of industrial processes require precise arrangement of chemical elements to form complex molecules with amazing properties. This is never called “playing God”. It is termed “invention“.  
We invented God - he is ours to play with, ignore, or even play as we see fit.

After we create God the Creator, it is very tempting to go on to create a Destroyer - Devil.
But the First Law of Thermodynamics will not allow anything to be, ultimately,  destroyed; it conserves all energy, of which matter is a manifestation. Neither can the Devil take life, as it has no being. Perhaps this is why we need to invent a soul? Something for our Devil to vie for!  

6.12.05
Posted 3.5.06

Please Shoot the Messenger

(Religion, cowards and heroes.)

The apes who ape humanity have now all-but lost sight of reality. For a brief moment in time, they saw their reflection in Darwin’s mirror. But ape-children love play, and to play at being human, is more fun than just being an odd ape.
Pretenders soon forget they are acting a part. They begin to take themselves seriously and their beliefs as absolute. Strange to tell, the belief of any one group always declares the other group inferior. 
Harsh technology mediates winners in a fight. We are leaders in harsh technology. Now the whole world believes in it, but other beliefs are at odds. God, heaven’s reward and cowardice, are bones of contention, as the bones of lost "debates" are laid in the ground. Whenever ideologies clash, heroes and cowards become confused in the small minds of “great leaders“.
This is when the limitations of aping are laid bare, as the headless chickens come home to roost.

9.8.05
Posted 3.5.06

It's Really Killing

Their impending arrival, threatened a whole way of life.
So the fight was taken to the invader.

In World War II, had we not killed Germans to avoid invasion?
They were not out to annihilate us, of course, we knew that.
But they would dictate our way of life - nothing would be the same.
The thought was intolerable.
Yes, they were human, but we had to kill them to protect our lifestyle.
You can’t think we should have let them come, and just “see what happened”?
On the killing: our culture and religion were, indeed are, quite unequivocal.
It was just, and necessary.
How many?  Oh - a few million or so.

           *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So she went ahead with the abortion.
The invasion was averted; her lifestyle protected.
Now a new battle is raging about the sanctity of life.
 
                     IT’S REALLY KILLING
                  THAT SHE’S SO WILLING

19.3.05
Posted 3.5.06

Morphism

The error of stereotyping by outer appearance.


“Don’t judge a book by its cover” they say. But they also say: “If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Tell that to Hans Christian Andersen!

Morphism - discrimination and labelling on grounds of appearance - must be stamped out. Tolerance, in this damaging area of social practice must not be tolerated.

Since the PC revolution, took hold in the mind of person (formerly man) we have been subjected to the use of “his or her” and “he or she” ad nauseam. THESE ARE MORPHIST  TERMS; dependent upon the erroneous idea of just two denominations of person, presumed definable and presumed accepting of their defining. This is a vile heresy. It is Morphism in all its presumptuous effrontery.
To designate a person in terms of external fitments and aspect ratios, without paying attention to internal adjuncts, endocrine chemistry, brain wiring and mind programming, is to fall prey to Morphist Madness. The next time you espouse, carelessly, the assumption of “he or she” on encountering an unknown person, draw back from the abyss and remember the Anti-Morphism Code:

              NO CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT SPECIFICATION

To avoid affront to all those poor devils whose outward manifestation is misleading to the general public, we owe them the deference of using the wholly proper terms: “they” in place of he or she and “their” in place of his or her.

We have long accepted the “woman” in a suit and "man" in a dress; now it is time to remove those irritating - nay offensive - signs on toilet doors and to re assess the whole business of “public convenience”. I suggest that just as motorway services have: knife and fork, bed, petrol pump etc on the sign, we need signs for, sit-down, stand up, disposal bin, baby changing etc. on every toilet door. These symbols would simply indicate the facilities within, to be judged in terms of suitability for the task to be addressed by the approaching human. Gender need not be defined.
I leave it to others, more qualified than I, to define and present, through the medium of the symbol, those parts and functions of the body which might reasonably be serviced in a public toilet.

This would only go a small way to the suppression of Morphism, but it is a start. I can only hope to see further progress in the fullness of time.

Jan 03
Posted 3.5.06


Don Quixote - Email Barrie
email

© 2006 Barrie Singleton. All rights reserved.