Meditation

~

Why life is so interesting

It's commonly believed that nothing ceases to exist, but that things change their form.

It's generally believed that, when a thing changes its form, its function also changes.

It's generally believed that, to observe change objectively, the observer must be unchanging.

It's generally believed that there is some function of consciousness that is unchanging ; for, without that condition, all our observations of change are suspect.

An interesting question arises : is that stable function of consciousness a 'thing'? If it is a 'thing', is it in a category of its own? It would seem so ; for, if not, then we are hard put to justify any of what we call our 'knowledge'.

If it is in a category of its own, is there any reason to suppose that it perishes? Opinion has been divided.

Reason alone might yield an answer ; but reason plus experience is better. What recorded experiences do we have for, and against, the proposition that something lives on after the body has died?

~

The naming of parts

~

Just one interesting thing (out of many) to come out of the blog on the origin of the universe was this : that the universe, in its early stages of evolution, is completely invisible to us. It is known to us only by essentially geometrical expressions and, because the universe had no objects in at that 'time', the geometry is non-metrical. It is all numbers.

But then, isn't almost the whole of science numbers? science requires measurements and quantities. But where do these numbers reside? If we wanted to know how many stars there are in a particular cluster, we should not expect to find each star sporting a plate with its serial number on it. The numbers exist, not on or in the stars, but in the mind of the person who counts the stars. Likewise, there is no plate bearing the figure for the mass of each star. Neither do the stars present a direct figure to express the distances one from another. If we mentally construct three lines to join three stars, there is no direct apprehension of the angles subtended by the lines - and the lines themselves exist only in the mind that constructs them.

Mathematics is a language and, like all languages, it is a peculiarly human mental construct. In the English language, does the word 'orange' have any necessary connection with the orange itself? Words can be seen as signs which refer to things ; but are they the things themselves? Numbers can be seen as signs that refer to things ; but are they the things themselves? A road sign pointing to Birmingham has no necessary connection with Birmingham except that we say so.

Perhaps it is human beings that decide the meanings of numbers - but the universe might be quite indifferent to our decisions. I wonder what the implications might be?

~

Where was it?

~

What is it that drives us to seek answers to ultimate questions? If ever we were to discover the answer to a question such as, What is the origin of life - what difference would it make to our lives? In our everyday lives of work and love and fishing, what would we be doing that is different from what we're doing now? I wonder why we have such big thoughts at all.

The origin of the universe is interesting. The popular notion now is that it all began with a Big Bang. But nobody has ever seen what it was that went bang and nobody knows why it went bang ; or how. It is like a penny banger without a blue touch-paper. In fact it is even more interesting than that. For that original entity apparently contained all that was needed to create the entire universe, and yet it could have had no mass. It contained nothing, and yet it contained everything. It had no dimensions in either space or time. It was invisible in both the literal and figurative senses.

Even more fascinating is that there was no other being to observe it. It was all alone.

Even now, there is no shred of scientific evidence that this singular object existed except in the mind of Man. Why ought I to believe it ever existed? Does it matter?

~

The things we believe

~
Just a thought.

I know a nice lady, Mrs Bradshaw, who once had a real-life adventure. So my short account of her adventure begins like this : "Mrs Bradshaw pulled on her favourite green sweater, ran a comb through her hair, and stepped out of the house to go to her sister's rather forbidding place in Reading". This is exactly how it happened ; I was there and saw it. Indeed, I was there throughout her adventure, and recorded all of it.

But, in my desire to protect her privacy, I decide to change some details. My account now begins : "Mrs Mason pulled on her favourite black sweater, ran a comb through her hair, and stepped out of the house to go to her sister's rather forbidding place in Bracknell". The question now arises, Have I told lies? Will my account of Mrs Bradshaw's adventure be accurate? Is it believable any more? Can I be regarded as a reliable reporter?

Most people would argue that no lie has been told, provided the purpose of the story is merely to relate the substance of the adventure. In this case, the names and other details do not matter. For Mrs Bradshaw, we may read Mrs Everywoman. Or even Mr Everyman. So, now I have produced a work of fiction which is also a work of truth.

But, suppose the adventure which I am relating does not have a satisfying 'ring' to it? Suppose it does not quite capture the spirit of Mrs Bradshaw? Suppose that, on the day of the actual adventure, she is feeling a little below par, and is not quite herself ; and, as a result, she is not acting as the mighty heroine I know her to be? Would I be justified in recalling an earlier event (which I witnessed) that showed her in her true colours - and working that event into my story? Now I have deepened the fiction ; but am I still being truthful?

What I seem to be constructing here is not lies, but an account of the nature of Mrs Bradshaw ; the focus is now on her personality as well as her adventure - but much more on her personality. And, since my memories and my reason lead me to suppose that most women could handle the adventure with the skill and heroism of Mrs Bradshaw, I am narrating not a mere lie, not a mere fiction, not a mere fantasy ; I am constructing a myth. For a myth is a narrative that is founded on disciplined observation and disciplined imagination ; it is also somewhat idealized. A myth does not necessarily tell the truth, but it reveals a truth within the mind of the reader. It opens the reader's mind, if not to the facts, then to the possibilities.

We all love myths, so let there be more of them.

So to the anthropolgist who discovers a small number of stones lying a little below the surface of the ground. By exercising a disciplined observation, he surmises that these bones somewhat resemble real bones that he has seen in a modern skeleton ; he therefore exercises a disciplined imagination to conclude that these stones were moulded to the shapes of the bones of a human-like being. Further disciplined observations and imaginings lead him to conclude that the imagined bones are one hundred thousand years old. Yet more laborious observations and imaginings lead to the proposition that the long-dead creature walked upright, had a dark skin and black hair ; also brown eyes seem appropriate to his personality. And, why not give him a name? Phillip will do.

But, surely, isn't this mere fiction? No such person ever existed. What modern anthropologist was present to record these details one hundred thousand years ago? The anthropologist's narrative is almost all an imaginitive disciplined construction. Lies? Deceit?

No. It is much more interesting than that. What we have is a myth. And a very good one it is, too ; for it holds our imaginations captive and enlightens us, if not to the facts, then to the possibilities.

~

Meditation on casualties

~

Something from the past

To D.A.1999 - A heart in Serbia

Why should I be moved by verse you send to me?
For aren't you just another soul, my friend,
Another soul among so many here?
So many tragic tales compete to rend
The fabric hearts are made of, and to sear
Emotions, rack compassion, and unmend
Calm minds that only calmness wish to hear.
I'll tell you what your lines have let me see.
I see in you a heart that's suffered grief ;
I see in you a void in which hope weeps,
While yet believing that she'll find relief.
I see the fount of love that good faith keeps.
I also see a kinder world which lies
(Beyond your tears and hopes) where nothing dies.

And what is it to me if your heart aches?
Must I become involved in your unrest?
The icy blast of winter often takes
The lives of fairest flowers, yet is blessed
Because it's best for nature as a whole.
And don't the gods (who from their lofty plane,
Cast eyes devoid of pity on us all)
Disdain to interfere with human pain?
But I can never be so much as cool
Towards you suffering soul ; and never could
Ignore your tears or from Olympus rule.
I can but speak my sentiment for good :
Your love, sweet love, incurs a hurt for thee -
Give me your hurt if that your heart would free.

~

The evolution of truths

~
Truths evolve and change their form just as species evolve and change their form.

Truths become extinct just as species do.

Some truths of past ages are untrue only in the same sense that some species of past ages have become extinct.

Some truths of long ago bear little resemblance to the related truths of today only in the sense that some creatures of long ago bear little resemblance to their descendants.

Most of the truths we take for granted today will become extinct or transformed beyond immediate recognition.

The success or failure of a truth depends on the mental environment in which it is sown ; it depends on the relevant state of collective consciousness.

Seeing the cosmos in evolutionary terms makes a lot of sense - and may be a cure against adopting extreme opinions.
~

Who leads wins

~

Another report is being reported on, this time about a government advisor's opinion on how to make children happier - or at least, less depressed. Apparently two to five per cent of British children are clinically depressed, and they will only get better if they have therapy at school.

I'd be the very last person to denigrate the benefits of psychotherapy, but I do question whether mass therapy carried out by teachers will do the trick ; for the problem that schools have given our children is not that they have deprived them of the ability to be cheerful, but that educationalists have robbed them of the sure opportunities to find (or make) true happiness - that happiness which is best found in working rather hard for something that is rather difficult to get - and succeeding.

What the experts offer them instead is a somewhat easy ride where there are prizes for everyone and top prizes for most. For most children there is not the great challenge in schoolwork and, importantly, there is little risk. The most able children have exams too easy, and so gain little satisfaction from passing them brilliantly ; while the least able find the exams too difficult, and do not even enter for them. It is common knowledge now that this state of affairs has arisen because the educationalists have progressively lowered standards so as to maximize pass rates and - guess what? the children know that! So the root causes of children's unhappiness lie in a lack of leadership from the generality of teachers - and also from many parents.

It is not the children who need therapy, but the teachers who must be shown how to lead effectively. A useful starting point for this project is to impress on them that leadership is not about being 'nice' to people but about achieving worthwhile objectives ; for it the attainment of objectives that give rise to real happiness. A leader can be pretty harsh, but as long as the team win their aims, that leader will be respected and obeyed, and a virtuous cycle is established.

And, of course, a good leader tends to generate other good leaders - almost without trying.

~

Is our world changing?

~
A controversial opener? Government

It's always risky to question the form of government that happens to be in place at a particular time. For example, if anybody had been rash enough to propose a liberal democracy at any time up to the eighteenth century, then a short stay in the Tower would have been the law's reply. But are we any wiser today?

If an intelligent and humane person from any century prior to our own were to review the events of the past century or so, they would very likely conclude that democracy seems to be a resounding failure in the West. "Wherever you look," they would say, "You see dissolution and decay."

The West is, by almost any measure, in the process of becoming stultified by self-indulgence, and is being challenged over by more vigorous cultures which seek a greater wealth on behalf of their peoples - and sometimes at the behest of their peoples.

Our intelligent and humane ancestors would argue that, while people in general desire the betterment of their lives, they are hopelessly divided as to the means of securing it. On the other hand, an absolute ruler, or a small aristocracy, can reach agreement on both aims and means, and can therefore deliver the goods.

Plato famously argued that democracy was merely the prelude to tyranny. Was he right? Where do we see signs of tyranny emerging in our own times.

Here, maybe?

~

Opening post

My journey through life has in a number of ways been like trudging the rocky road ; a road which has run more or less parallel to the conventional path, rather than completely on it. It has made my life somewhat harder than most, perhaps, but rewarding none the less ; more rewarding than many, maybe. Certainly interesting (to me) in retrospect.

Why should anybody else be interested? I don't know. So I write for myself to straighten my thoughts. Please join in if you feel so inclined. Write a comment now, if you like ; it doesn't have to say much. What I look forward to is answering your questions and comparing experiences.