About nothing in particular

Posted on by

In a way, humans are materialists. I’m not talking about the conventional criticism that humans, especially in a capitalist society, think only about consumption, about the endless quest to amass more and more goods. That’s spot on but not relevant here.

I am concerned about the way western cultures (I know too little about other belief systems to include them in this speculation) ‘naturally’ seem to think much more easily about the tangible world than the ‘hidden’ world. We easily think about things in front of our eyes but not the unobservable; about what people do but not what they don’t do; about the now/present but not about the past or the future; about the body but not about the mind and the feelings, about our successes but not about our failures; about what we win but not about what we lose – and the list could go on an on.

Let’s look closer at one little thing. In fact, let’s look at ‘doing’. We assess or judge ourselves and others by what they have done or are doing – more often than not in terms of its consequences, good or bad or mixed. Then we leave it there. We rarely do further and consider what we or they did ‘not’ do. If they did not do something then, we unwisely assume, they did ‘nothing’. End of discussion.

But that is looking only at half the picture. We don’t think – and our language usage makes it more difficult to think – that ‘doing nothing is actually doing something’ – it has consequences just as much if we had done something quite tangible. It is obviously so when you think of examples. If you always say ‘goodnight’ to your partner before going to sleep, but not say it on one occasion, that absence can produce significant results. If you don’t reply to a legal correspondence that can produce serious consequences.

If a mining company fails to take certain structural precautions, it can pollute an area destroying the livelihood of the indigenous people. If a government does nothing over a period of time pertaining to mental health, the consequences for the community can be dangerous. If a state does nothing or little to fully evaluate a situation, it may go to war which is needlessly destructive of another country, which cannot be won, which disables the government spending more on critical domestic issues because of (military) expenses elsewhere, which distracts the state’s attention from another global issue of far greater importance, and we could continue.

Doing nothing is certainty doing something and it can at times be lethal.
So it could be a good idea to keep an eye, a new eye, on yourself and on others, from this new perspective.

Share

Uncertainty

Posted on by

If deniers are not accusing the Reds or Greens of attempting to topple capitalism, or pointing the finger at the U.N. for planning to surreptitiously bring about ‘world government’, they are reminding us that even scientists admit there is some ‘uncertainty’ in their findings that the earth is in fact warming and that human behaviour is significantly responsible for this process. Therefore, they conclude, we must not get sucked into extravagant, needless and dangerous schemes to reduce such ‘warming’.

The first two accusations are so fanciful we should treat them with ridicule. The third, the apparently rational attack, is a different matter. In a way it is true – there is uncertainty. In a more rigorous way, it is untrue because the users of this argument don’t appreciate what they are saying when they are wording such an accusation; they do not understand the nature of science. All science exists permanently with uncertainty.

I suspect ninety percent of the world doesn’t realize this because education fails to explain to each generation the nature of natural and social reality, and the notion of knowledge with its inevitable limitations. They also ignore, albeit unwittingly, how all human beings live every moment of their lives with uncertainty, and that every time they make decisions, small or large, they act on gross uncertainty, and even were  people aware of that restriction, they can do nothing about it.

Certain scientists unfortunately do themselves a disservice by misrepresenting what science in practice is. A pity. Scientific practice is not entirely radically different from non-scientific practice.

The sooner we eradicate the dominant influence of two thousand old myths about what reality, life and knowledge are, with all their limitations and imperfections and changeability necessarily entailed, the sooner we can understand and help curb the more foolish and dangerous statements and policies individuals, corporations and governments regularly propose.

As far as I can see, the only certainty is uncertainty. It is structural and pervasive; it is not simply the occasional product of deceit or incompetence. The deniers’ use of the argument has no serious value; it can however mislead many sincere people who are consciously ‘uncertain’ about this critical issue.

Share

News and Views

Posted on by

News and Views Note: When News and Views was published in the August issue of MCI enewsletter, the first 24 lines were missing for some unknown reason. I am reposting it here for those who would like to read it in full.

We like to think that if people only knew the ‘truth’ (or a more accurate depiction) of something, then things would be different, better. Unfortunately it is an innocent idea,  a wish not a prediction. If people don’t want to know other than what they already believe, they can easily avoid learning the ‘truth’, denying its veracity, or simply being unfazed when confronted with ‘awkward’ facts. Test that: provide your own examples – such as beliefs about global warming, Israeli assaults on Gaza, appropriate treatment of drug addiction, the moral superiority of the West. None of us budge easily.

Not that we can afford to allow one view to dominate public opinion. Making a new knowledge or viewpoint available to others is a valuable step in itself, whether people pay attention to it or not.

So the current news about al Jazeera is good news: as of August 22 their news program is available in Australia: five weekly half-hour news on SBS 1 mid-afternoon, and a one-hour Sunday afternoon special. This is significant given its history.

Al Jazeera began about twelve years ago, conceived and lavishly sponsored and financed by the Qatar royal family. Its comprehensive, critical approach to Middle East affairs, identifying with and speaking to and for the masses made it immediately unique and notable – unpopular in ruling circles, welcome in the street and initially fulsomely praised by the American government.

However, when it began reporting civilian deaths after the American invasion of Afghanistan it immediately became the enemy. Its office in Kabul was accidentally destroyed by American bombing. Its office in Baghdad, one room in a multi-storey hotel, was accidentally hit by an American rocket killing the journalist staff inside in the first week of the invasion of Iraq. It was described and dismissed regularly by Donald Rumsfeld et.al. as the “mouthpiece of Al Queda”.

Several years ago, when it established a global English-language television news service, its official reception in America was sufficiently antagonistic that few networks were willing to touch it. Up until last month the service was available only in the corner of four small states and in Washington. A few weeks ago it was made

available in New York City. And two weeks ago throughout Australia on SBS. (I am not detailing its global presence)

It is commonly recognised that its comprehensive presence throughout the Middle East was a significant factor in preparing and promoting the current Arab Spring.  America suddenly broke with its tradition. President Obama acknowledged its value at the time of the end of fighting in Egypt – an intriguing change of tune.

A logic can be traced here: during the critical 10 days or so in Egypt, the American Administration’s  stance on the issue changed daily, as the political situation on the ground changed. Vice-President Biden kicked off by declaring President Mubarak “a great friend of America”, but the immediate and negative response made America realise it could no longer intervene to shape the outcome; at best it could identify itself with the eventual ‘winners’ of the confrontation – whoever that may be. As each day the situation changed, the official word from Washington changed appropriately, with language carefully phrased to leave all options open as much as possible – provided it wasn’t militant Islamic.

A few weeks ago, Hilary Clinton addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced the new official ‘realism’ when she admitted that Al Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news services were ‘winning the information war’ against the American news sources because they are presenting ‘real news’ which is changing the minds and attitudes of people – whether ‘you like it or hate it – you may not agree with it’. It is said that Obama now has Al Jazeera in the Oval Office. The most accurate and up-to-date news is now seen as critical to America in the changing global scene.

Al Jazeera  is consolidating its role and its increasing presence. It is certainly a highly professional and comprehensive service. And it gives a detailed, unprecedented picture of the Middle Eastern masses.

For those interested it will provide a new setting and voice, in and of which neither London or Washington is the sole heart and mind. The sun now rises and sets in multiple quarters of the world. A monopoly mind-set is beginning to become history.

Share

“Heroes, Villains, and Fools”

Posted on by

Bruce Wolpe, an American Democrat, writes in today’s Age (24-8-2011) about similarities between current American and Australian politics. At one stage he quotes Peggy Noonan, one of Ronald Reagan’s speech writers and now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. It is worth quoting in full.

“The secret of Mr Obama is that he isn’t really very good at politics, and he isn’t very good at politics because he doesn’t really get people. —–He was good at summoning hope, but he’s not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire. —- He is not a devil, an alien, a Socialist. He is a loser. And this in America, where nobody love a loser.”

Noonan is simply joining the army of American assessments, from all political persuasions, attempting to explain what went wrong with the Obama Administration. It’s not even particularly relevant here to remember she writes in yet another Murdoch paper. I am interested solely in her final comment “He is a loser. And this in America, where nobody loves a loser.”

This to me has been an increasingly fatal flaw for any American politician let alone a President because it taps into one of the most pervasive and pernicious middle class mores in that country. I learned this first over fifty years ago when I read, with increasing distaste, a book “Heroes,Villains and Fools” by Orrin Klapp. It said so much about three sets of internalised moral judgments of Americans about their fellow Americans. Each evoking powerful, deep emotions. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the book so I can only hint at what the author argues about the pervasive and dominating presence of these three classifications of people.

A hero can be found in so many ways and moods and actions: and in its diversity, each has one basis quality: being a winner, a success. And no further qualification is allowed. A hero can have no fault, no blemish. Hero-worship is the critical public quality.

The villain again comes in a wide range of dress and, again, seen unqualified beyond a strong sense of repulsion.

It was the classification of fool which was the book’s greatest surprise. I wonder now as I did then, is this stereotype particular to America? I sense it could well be. The fool is the loser; the person shallowly seen as ‘good’ or ‘decent’ but who in fact is a failure. Once again the judgment is powerfully driven; the villain is to be condemned, despised and dismissed as a complete nobody, a fool deluding himself and others by some superficial quality. A veneer which may have fooled for a moment, but which is now seen through, and the judgment is made even stronger for the momentary delusion.
No longer worth concern; nor his downfall to be pitied.

Just as the poor, the wretched, the weak disappears from all public view, so will an emperor without clothes be brushed aside.

The dominant American culture is a nasty one in this regard. It is fundamentalist in its judgments. There are no grades, attenuating circumstances. You are a hero, sitting in glory about the gods, and never to be seen wanting. Or you are a villain, deserving nothing less than destruction. Or you are a fool to be ignored, cast into the sea of the unseen.

Obama, momentarily before his presidency became political was a hero. If he had succeeded in any one of his big challenges he would have become, to many, a villain, and possibly to be assassinated. He was never strong enough to win any of the critical battles and to many who either hated him or loved him turned slowly but surely re-classing him a fool, a loser who, for the length of his presidency will be but a shadow to be dismissed.

Share

Paradox and puzzlement

Posted on by

“We weep not because we are sad; we are sad because we weep”, wrote William James, American psychologist and philosopher, a hundred years ago. A paradox many people since have accepted as wise. It is also often wise to realise that the wisest interpretations of reality are never entirely comprehensive. Invariably more can be added, or a different perspective can illuminate yet another little corner of our lives.

Speaking personally, I weep more often than not when moved by something of beauty or wonder. More a moistening of the eyes than a flood of tears. For a long moment I feel transfixed, elevated. A happiness of a kind. On such an occasion I think I sense no sadness.

And happiness? All emotions it seems are composed of multiple facets. One is as much the therapeutic process as the end achievement. An Indian doctor two or three decades ago created the ‘laughing club’ – they are now scattered throughout the sub-continent. Small numbers of people, in some public space, are instructed to laugh and to continue laughing. The artificial laugher gradually turns to genuine laughter (whatever those words may mean in that context). The laughers eventually stop, refreshed and joyful. I would not be surprised to learn that the origins of this practice can be found in traditional Ayurvedic teachings.

Lately I have become aware of two western ‘experiments’ with using artificial laughter as therapy, each time with a control group for comparison. The researchers, in discussing their firm conclusions, interestingly make no reference to prior Indian experience. The results are the same. Laughter on instruction produces a sense of happiness, and medical/ physical confirmation of enhanced well-being.

Are you puzzled? Smiling? Happy?

16-08-2011

Share

Anders Breivik: sane or insane?

Posted on by

 

Talk soon turns to a discussion of the probable state of mind of a murderer whenever the crime is extreme in form or size. It was inevitable that the tragic mass slaughter of Norwegian youth would be no exception. Within a week, before we know much at all about the young man, debate had started. ‘He has to be mad or insane to perpetrate such a heinous act’ was likely to be the initial stance – and the evidence seems obvious. To be quickly followed by a seemingly wiser observation. ‘The man had to be sane – think of the months of detailed preparation Breivik undertook to become perfectly prepared to execute his plan – that can only the work of a sane person’.

As material grows over coming months, with written extracts from his voluminous ‘manifesto’, and verbal assertions and defences from his court appearances, people around the world will consolidate their position, or make a dramatic conversion from one to another camp. And whichever position one is in, everyone will be armed with more and more ‘conclusive’ evidence that the man was sane, or insane, as the case may be. Dictionaries are likely to be consulted to buttress a case; experts in the area will be seized upon or ignored

according to their supportive usefulness. Nothing is likely to be settled before public interest in the issue will begin to fail or until it is usurped by another horrendous, violent tragedy.

Some people will eventually question the debate. They will begin to challenge the framing of the issue and the silent assumptions behind the two opinions. ‘Perhaps an otherwise ‘sane’ person can carry some ‘insane’ qualities as well? Perhaps we should not assume mental states or qualities as ‘pure’ entities (like billiard balls for example) – here, of something labelled ‘insanity’ and ‘sanity’ which by definition are mutually exclusive, any co-existence being inconceivable, inexpressible’. Perhaps we have been tricked by our language: we have two opposing words which make us think they represent two opposing ‘realities’. But are there two things? Could we be composed of different complex mixtures; after all, many writers stress the complexity, disharmony, inconsistency, contrariness of any human psyche – such as the observation of Peter Steele when he says: “Show me a person and I will show you a labyrinth”. And if so, why only two names/ two words? Why do we so easily talk as if everything comes in two’s? And then we could change the imagery of concrete billiard balls bouncing off each other to something more like varieties of clouds moving in and out and between each other. We may need to enrich our vocabulary; to search for different complexities and avoid the temptation to simplify everything. Why do we always descend into crude pairs of opposing things, about which we assume we must make a clean choice: is it right or wrong, yes or no, black or white, good or bad, with us or against us?’

Why do we feel obliged to make judgments? To defend a position and attack another? Why do we get satisfaction from reaching a conclusion, better still, of winning some battle. Are we capable of appreciating another default game – of leaving open-ended an exploration of human behaviour about which we are happy to admit we know and will continue to know little, and that an exhibition of certainty is not a sign of strength but a weakness. And to agree that the discussion was enjoyable and valuable to all parties.

NOTE to readers. You may be interested to read my blog titled  “Going Sane” on the website, and also an article on ‘lessons’ from the Norwegian massacre in the current, July, issue on MCI enewsletter.

Don Miller, 28 July 2011

 

Share

Timing

Posted on by

If you were cooking a dish having three component parts (say meat, potato and green veg), you would need to carefully attend to one particular issue: the three elements have to be ready to eat at the same time – which means you have to start cooking each dish at different times.  You knew that, of course.

Yet so many home-chefs seem quite unaware of this basic rule: you need to time cooking. Not a race in time  (a misleading emphasis in Master Chef  T.V. shows), nor a simple awareness that a chook takes longer to cook than green beans. It means a careful coordination of starting/ending times of everything to be eaten at the one time. Imagine the timing complexity in restaurant cooking.

But do you realize the critical importance of timing, in all its manifestations, in almost all aspects of life and society?

The elaboration of this blog appears in the upcoming monthly issue of MCI enewsletter for July. If you would like to subscribe to MCI’s free newsletter please send an email to info@melbournecentreforideas.com with the subject “subscribe”.

Share

Thinking about Thinking Part 1

Posted on by

We have never been taught to think. When you think about it, it is a strange neglectof education  (or ‘schooling’) everywhere. In fact I wonder whether educationalists even think about that lack. Furthermore, of course, we have never been encouraged to think about thinking – apart from some possible rarefied tuition at senior secondary level in logic, contradiction and deductive and inductive thinking – language which the younger generations probably have never heard of.

Nor have we ever been told that there are different ways of thinking practiced by the different peoples of the world. If this were ever to be ‘taught’ we would be amazed to discover that thinking has had a very complex, rich and varied history. It would make a fascinating study, albeit difficult to compose.  Indeed, it seems no exaggeration to suggest that this theme could alone be a sound basis for an entire twelve-year education. And then, perhaps, the basis for the first tertiary degree before specialisation steps in.

But in the absence of such a heady education we probably assume – if the issue were ever raised – that thinking is the same thing anywhere in the world, which in all likelihood we just ‘get better at’ with further education, as we proceed to become more ‘rational’ with maturing age. Language is also likely to be assumed to be pretty homogeneous, and so translatable across cultures by the simple process of transliterating words from one ‘language’ to another.

In other words (pardon the pun), we are all saying the same sorts of things because we all think the same sorts of things – but in our own local languages.

What a pity we have been taught to be so ignorant.

NB This blog also appears at http://melbournecentreforideas.posterous.com

Share

American ‘Law’

Posted on by

If Julian Assange is classed as a journalist – that is someone who distributes information obtained from someone else – he apparently could be rescued from death or imprisonment in America, once they have him on their soil, by the Supreme Court ruling on freedom of the press under the First Amendment. So those out to get him are going out of their way to classify him under the alleged alternative, espionage.

Philip Crowley, State Department representative, asserts their position. Firstly, WikiLeaks “isn’t a media organisation” then secondly, “Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities and that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist”.

So we are presented with a remarkable classification: the ‘apolitical journalist’. Amazing. Have you met such an animal. Rupert Murdoch’s journos for Sky News. Certain Sydney radio talk-back innocents.

With integrity like that of the Philip Crowleys of the American Administration scene we may better understand why Washington classifies so much of its work as ‘secret’.

“According to The Washington Post, the number of documents classified as secret in the US has rocketed since 1966 (5.6 million), reaching 54.6million by 2009.” [Le Monde Diplomatique, January 2011].

The question of ‘secrecy’ is closely related to the issue of lies, deceits, fabrications – and their cover-up.

 

Share

Likeable women

Posted on by

I have just read about a recent ‘study’ which showed that women who are ‘likeable’ have both more chance of ‘success’ and  more ‘influence’ over others. I started to smile: we all like likeable more than unlikeable people – so it’s good that certain women get deserved recognition and reward.

But I pulled up abruptly. Perhaps this research is little more than a masculine construction. Women have to be (seen) to be different from the male – so why not its opposite: men are ‘naturally’ assertive, focused on the task at hand, frank and forthright even if that calls for occasional sternness. They are concerned with satisfactorily completing a job, this line of thought would continue, not with winning a popularity contest. Besides (men may quietly admit to themselves) ‘we don’t want women asserting themselves all the time and taking over our jobs. Sweet, kindly and harmless, that’s what we want’.

I then thought, maybe playing at being likeable could be a deliberate strategy, rather than an ‘ingrained’ feminine quality, because (most) women don’t want to encourage masculine animosity more than is ‘necessary’. Is it a matter of the two sexes accommodating themselves to each other – but, it seems inevitable, according to masculine rather than feminine or some other mores.

So, I finally wondered, by which type of ‘talent’ do successful women actually earn advancement. And, once again I realized how little we still know about genetic make-up of the two genders – even before we venture into the area of different national cultural dispositions.

The next day an article by a well known feminist in the daily press argued that women must become more ‘pushy’.

I really don’t  know; but I think we could all benefit by spending more time thinking deeply than by writing more prolifically. Is there to be just one strategy for all women to follow. Or all men.

 

Share