Category Archives: beliefs

May Quiz Answers

OK, so here are the answers to this month’s quiz questions. All should be able to be easily verified online.

May Quiz Questions: Mythology & Religion

  1. In Greek mythology who or what guards the gates of the Underworld? Cerberus, a three-headed dog
  2. Theravada and Mahayana are branches of which major world religion? Buddhism
  3. Which group of traditionalist Christians of Swiss German Anabaptist origins was founded by Jakob Ammann? The Amish
  4. According to Norse legend, what animals pulled Thor’s chariot across the sky? Two goats
  5. What three words begin the Book of Genesis? In the beginning

Answers were correct when questions were compiled in late 2021.

May Quiz Questions

This year we’re beginning each month with five pub quiz style questions, with a different subject each month. They’re not difficult, but it is unlikely everyone will know all the answers, so hopefully you’ll learn something new, as well as have a bit of fun.

May Quiz Questions: Mythology & Religion

  1. In Greek mythology who or what guards the gates of the Underworld?
  2. Theravada and Mahayana are branches of which major world religion?
  3. Which group of traditionalist Christians of Swiss German Anabaptist origins was founded by Jakob Ammann?
  4. According to Norse legend, what animals pulled Thor’s chariot across the sky?
  5. What three words begin the Book of Genesis?

Answers will be posted in 3 weeks time.

Book Review: The Little Book of Humanism

Andrew Copson & Alice Roberts
The Little Book of Humanism: Universal Lessons on Finding Purpose, Meaning and Joy

Piatkus; 2020

It’s a long time since I’ve written a book review here. That doesn’t mean I’m not reading, but it does mean I’ve not managed to finish enough books to make a review worthwhile: like always there are many books on the go, and most are cast aside at the arrival of something new.

I would never claim to be a humanist. I probably am one, but I don’t profess to know enough about humanism to feel that’s what I am. Besides I try to avoid anything which wants me to believe in some creed, however loose it may be.

So I was motivated to read the recently published The Little Book of Humanism.

Let me say straight away that this book does what it says on the tin: it is a very basic guide to many of the ideas and beliefs behind humanism. Sadly though I found it tediously wanting. It came across to me as a series of would-be-inspirational quotes strung together with some pieces of text made up of platitudes and the obvious. I don’t know Andrew Copson, but I expect more of Alice Roberts – this may not be an academic work, but Roberts can do better than this.

I expected the book to make me stop and think; to present me with deep ideas about humanism. It didn’t. All I seemed to get was a feeling I was being told things which are patently obvious. I expected something with more “bite”, and something rather more formally construed.

As so often though, that is probably very unfair of me as the book likely isn’t intended for someone like me who has spent many years thinking about what they really do believe and their personal morality. It is, I suspect, much more aimed at those who’ve maybe heard of humanism, but don’t know anything about it and who feel disillusioned with mainstream religion. For those people it is probably quite a good route into humanism, without being a dogmatic text full of formal beliefs (which humanism really shouldn’t be anyway).

What also disappointed me was the quality of the production. The copy I have, while hard-bound, looks as if it is glued rather than stitched with the cover also too lightly attached. The content is printed on very rough, off-white paper which resembles thin blotting paper – that’s commendable if the paper is recycled, but the lack of finish to the paper, and the lack of brightness, does make the book a less enjoyable read. The actual text uses a mix of serif and sans serif typefaces, in a variety of point sizes: again something which irritates. I’m also not sure “little” is the right adjective; yes the book is the size of a small paperback but it’s quite thick and chunky; I wouldn’t call it pocketable. This is partly down to the modern fetish for extraneous white space; to quote Ambrose Bierce “the covers of this book are too far apart”. Overall the production looks cheap and as such is possibly not a good advertisement for the humanist movement.

Overall I was disappointed, but maybe unfairly so.

Overall Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Saturday Nudes

What are you doing on Saturday?

Me? I’m planning to spend as much of the day as possible without clothes because this Saturday is BN’s (British Naturism) Great British Take-off.

The idea is just to experience naturism and home nudity, so all are encouraged to spend as much of the day as possible without clothes to enjoy the liberated and exhilarating feeling that comes from being naked whether indoors or out in the fresh air and sunshine. The event is also part of BN’s efforts to raise money for their charity of the year: British Heart Foundation.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that during lockdown people are dressing less (and maybe not at all) and are keen to throw out the rule book and try something new. At any time, even in lockdown, you can be nude at home: indoors or in your garden – and it is perfectly legal.

As a general rule, nudity is not illegal in UK. You are entitled to go nude in your garden even if the garden is overlooked – unless you do so with intent to cause alarm and distress. You do not need to tell your neighbours, although you may wish to.

Public nudity is also not illegal, unless (again) it is done with intent to cause offence, alarm and distress, or it is likely to result in public disorder. Going about one’s normal activities in the nude is unlikely to fall foul of such laws; the Police and CPS have clear guidelines on this. However do note that some local authorities may have bye-laws prohibiting nudity (and even toplessness), for example in parks or on beaches; the law may also be different outside England & Wales – so it is wise to check first.

I’ve blogged before about the benefits of nudity and it isn’t just that feeling of liberation that makes nudism so worthwhile. Nudity is actually good for you, both mentally and physically. There is scientific evidence (see for example here) that nudist experience has a positive effect on body image and self-esteem. Moreover nudity helps children rather than harming them; if safely exposed to nudity they seem to grow up to become more aware and better adjusted adults.

So, temperature permitting, I shall doubtless be spending as much of Saturday as possible without raiment – as I often do – around the house. Do I go nude in the garden? Yes, but discretely! I generally don’t stray more than 12 feet or so from the backdoor; although we are overlooked the neighbours would have to peer hard to see down into this space. Most times (like 99%) if I’m going beyond the ha-ha I do at least put on a pair of shorts – there’s a fine line between being free and frightening the horses.

Here I am at a nudist club, aged 8 or 9, trying to drown my mother

Notwithstanding the above, I still hear you say “How can you do this?”. Well, I don’t have a problem with nudity – anyone’s nudity. I was introduced to naturism by my parents at the age of 8 or 9 and regularly saw my parents in the nude at home. In consequence I have never had a problem with nudity: whether seeing others or being seen. I’m comfortable in my skin, even if I maybe don’t like the amount of flesh it contains. So why do people have a problem? We all know what’s under your t-shirt and jeans, my t-shirt and jeans. I wear clothes to cover other people’s embarrassment (or if I’m cold).

So why not join in and spend Saturday tous déshabillés. You never know, you might enjoy it. And if not you don’t have to do it again.

Horrible Times 2

OK, so were some days into … well what? … variable amounts of everything and nothing; huge amounts of existential worry and threat.

We’re effectively being told to stay at home permanently (almost under house arrest) although the supermarkets are open – with special hours for geriatrics and the invalid, which are reportedly more crowded than normal and seem a good way to kill off the unwanted. But if we do stay at home we could starve as supermarket deliveries are booked up weeks in advance.

Everything is feeling very fragile, demoralising and really frightening. It’s very much how the Black Death must have been back in 1349: one never knows where it’s going to hit next, if I’m going to succumb, or where one’s next meal is coming from. And, yes, we could get there! If we go into full lockdown, then there could well be issues with the food supply chain and access to supermarkets – on top of what we’re seeing now. Remember, with schools closed from tomorrow, there could well be people who can’t go to work because they can’t find alternative childcare, and that could hit all sorts of hands-on businesses which includes the whole of the food supply chain.

Am I being extraordinarily pessimistic? Well maybe, or then again maybe not. I know I always say “don’t worry about things you can’t control”, and we can’t control a lot of this. But when it comes to having food and drink one is threatening the very substance of existence, and reactions become especially visceral. Recall Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:

At least in western society we’re all used to working near the apex of the pyramid; certainly in the top two layers. But what’s happening now is sending us rapidly down a helter-skelter. The middle “love and belonging” layer is currently coming into it’s own. But some are already going to be down in the “safety & security” layer and any disruption to the food supply chain could leave people with a great deal of uncertainty about their very ability to survive. And once one gets down nearer to the bottom two levels people feel increasingly threatened and start to get nasty as they try to protect their existence – just as any animal will.

I have no idea what is going to happen, but I fear the worst; I’m pretty sure it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it looks like being a long haul: if we get away with anything much under two years I’ll be highly delighted.

Two years! Yes, because although we have protective restrictions now, once the infection rate drops and the restrictions are lifted it is highly likely the virus will rebound and we could go through a (say) six-monthly cycle several times before things settle out fully.

[Incidentally there is some good modelling of a number of possible interventions from the highly-regarded team at Imperial College, London; and it is this which appears to be influencing the UK’s current thinking. The paper is actually quite readable.]

None of this is at all good for those of us who already suffer with depression, or any other mental health issue. I, like I suspect many other people, feel totally disconnected from everything; completely isolated, both socially and physically; and scared about my ability to come out the other side of this.

But all we can do is to try to keep going as best we can.

Sex is Binary

About three weeks ago there was an article in Wall Street Journal [paywall] under the headline:

The Dangerous Denial of Sex

The first half of the article crystallised what I’ve been thinking for a while: that although there are rare instances of intersex individuals, to insist that biological sex is a spectrum is erroneous. Supplanting biological sex with a subjective and fluid “gender identity” arrived at “by the whim of the owner” (my deliberately slightly irreverent words) is unrealistic and impractical. To quote just one paragraph of the article:

There is a difference … between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct”. Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary.

From here on I dislike the tone of the article which to me sounds very right-wing, misogynistic and derogatory. Added to which I’m far from convinced the authors’ arguments follow logically.

That is not to deny (a) that some individuals’ biological sex is ambiguous, nor (b) that some individuals may self-identify to a different gender than their biological sex. While I will admit to not fully understanding this (cis-hetero male privilege and all that), it seems to me that the disconnect between an individual’s biological sex and their gender identity begins in some way as a psychological process. My gut feeling is that the medicalisation of this to sex reassignment is not sufficiently controlled or counselled (especially in adolescents), and is thus somewhat dangerous – as the quoted article goes on to imply.

This is also not to deny the psychological stresses that those affected go through in coming to terms with their situation, leading up to gender-reassignment, and that they encounter during transition – this latter is something I’ve witnessed in a work context and which was quite disconcerting even to a completely uninvolved bystander.

So basically I’d say: by all means gender identify however you please, but in the vast majority (not all) of cases biological (anatomical) sex is binary, not a social construct. Yes, gender reassignment surgery is possible, and some require it. However it is not something I’m personally comfortable with – just as I’m not comfortable with IVF etc.

As with so many other things, while I may not agree with you or be comfortable with your views, I would defend and support anyone’s right to gender identify however they wish. It’s your life, not mine.

Of course, YMMV.

Lewd in Utah

The headline in Thursday’s (23 January 2020) Guardian was

Forget ‘lewd behaviour’ – is being naked around your own kids good for them?

The writer, Poppy Noor, takes issue with a recent Utah court ruling that children seeing their mother’s (presumably any female’s) naked breasts is “lewd behaviour” and damages the kids.

Noor is right. This ruling is completely off-its-tits bonkers, and flies in the face of the available evidence – as I’ve written about many times before.

But then this is Utah, home of Salt Lake City and the Mormons, so what does one really expect?

Do grow up guys!

On Social Anaesthesia

I’ve long been worried about the trend towards mindfulness and similar “talking therapies”, so it was interesting to see many of my doubts echoed in an article, The Mindfulness Conspiracy by Ronald Purser, published in the Guardian back in June.

It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful meditation may be the enemy of activism.

Although the article is a long read (and American), for once I’ll refrain from providing edited snippets. However it did help me to crystallise why it is I find such therapies worrying. I’ll confine myself to my thoughts.

I’ve not only been concerned about mindfulness – and I come from having had some recent exposure to “mindfulness therapy”. I’m also concerned at the efficaciousness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and indeed the new NHS trend for “social prescribing”.

Social prescribing CBT and mindfulness seem to me to be palliatives aimed at enabling people to cope internally and continue to fully participate in the greed economy. They are essentially “social anaesthesia”, to use Purser’s term. They do not help society as a whole sort out its fundamental ethical problems which give rise to the inability to cope in the first place. And that is the thrust of Purser’s article.

But I see the problem as deeper rooted, and emanating from the very causes which create the problems, the greed economy. Because these (mindfulness, CBT, social prescribing) are seen as “essential curses” they are peddled by the medical profession, and others, to consumers (aka. patients) in varying degrees of coercion and bullying. It’s the “we know what’s good for you; your views, desires and wishes don’t matter” attitude. Indeed the same is true of many medical interventions: eat well, exercise more, have bariatric surgery, etc. “Don’t think about it, just do it.”

That’s not to say that all of these aren’t useful interventions for some people, but if they are going to be truly effective they have to be done with the willing cooperation of the patient who understands what the “remedy” is doing and can make a truly informed decision. Only the patient can make that decision, based on the information they have, which includes their mental state and consideration of their quality of life – something the medical profession all too often lose sight of. The patient has to make the best decision they can, with the information they have, at the time; none of us deliberately sets out to make the wrong decision.

Mindfulness and CBT don’t work for me. Nevertheless they can be tremendously useful in allowing some people to calm their mental state and begin to cope with what’s happening around them. But they stop there. They don’t go on to help people understand the underlying problems of broken capitalism and the greed economy, let alone make them able to do something about it by addressing personal morals and understanding, nor society’s ethics. People are made once more into (barely?) functioning consumers, thus perpetuating the underlying problems.

As Purser says, in not quite so many words, mindfulness is a con. Especially compared with true Eastern meditation practices which are a way of life aimed at the individual’s inner self-understanding, realisation and morals; and are not “instant fixes”.

Or to put it another way, in a secular context:
Mindfulness = quickly quieting the mind to cope with society
Meditation = existing in society while deepening the mind over years.

It’s something I have long thought but never before been able to crystallise in my mind.

On Protest

A few days ago one of our favourite Zen masters, Brad Warner, wrote a blog post under the title What You Don’t Speak Out Against You Co-sign? He was responding to a comment that “what you don’t speak out against you co-sign” and taking him to task for not openly campaigning against Donald Trump and all that he stands for. Needless to say Brad disagreed, as I do too.

Let’s start off being clear. “What you don’t speak out against you co-sign” means “If you don’t speak out against something then you are supporting, aiding, facilitating, even encouraging it”.

As Brad says, this is a very common way of thinking. It goes along with the “if good men do nothing …” trope. But it isn’t true and it is (designed to be) divisive and create factions. It is nothing short of moral blackmail.

Many people see their target as some variant of evil. So if you don’t campaign, demonstrate or protest against Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Brexit, pervasive CCTV, fossil fuels, or whatever, then you condone them and you are the work of the Devil. Not so.

In Brad’s words:

If someone characterizes you as evil, do you want to be friends with them? Do you want to support the things they support? Do you want to listen to their reasons for calling you evil? Or are you more likely to say, “Well screw you!” and deliberately support whatever it is they’re against?
… …
The stance that [such people] are taking will only drive more people to support the [cause] they hate.

So their efforts become a self-denying ordinance.

Also implicit in this is (a) that there is one right and one wrong answer, and (b) that there is only one way to protest. Some must choose to refrain from joining in with the noise everyone else is making. Protesting noisily is seldom effective. In general, protests and petitions work only to reinforce the determination to do whatever is being protested against. They may convince those who are already of like mind to join your bandwagon, but to many, like me, they are annoying and pointless – even if I agree with the sentiments.

Don’t get me wrong. I object just as strongly to the same things (see list above) as anyone else. But I choose not be be mouthy about it or jump on bandwagons. Like Brad I am not skilled in political rhetoric, and whatever I might wish to say has already been said a thousand times over by those more skilled (and likely more knowledgeable) than me. So I would largely be wasting my breath.

Everything goes through cycles and fashions; always has, always will. Ultimately “we are where we are” and “what will happen will happen” – although by “right action” we can indeed hope to affect the outcomes. But what is “right action” for you may not be so for me.

Essentially it doesn’t matter what I say. Brexit will happen or it won’t happen. North Korea will blow us all sky high, or it won’t. Rinse and repeat, with your cause du jour.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t speak out about things we fundamentally disagree with, but there won’t be thousands not speaking out because I keep quiet: there is already plenty of discussion and debate. Your mileage may vary.

Like Brad, I believe there is a better way, at least for me. First of all staying silent (or maybe just quieter) helps protect my sanity – something which is precarious enough for most of us at the best of times. The Dalai Lama always talks about compassion, and self-care is only having compassion for oneself. Without self-compassion and self-care you are not able, and not there, to show compassion for others.

Keeping silent has other benefits too. It provides quiet space where other topics, perhaps of more immediate personal importance or urgency, can be discussed. And, when appropriate, it also allows controversialists and facilitators (as I like to think I am) help others see the wood for the trees and take an appropriately thoughtful and nuanced approach, rather than jumping on some blinkered, raucous bandwagon.

There’s more than one way to stop the crocodile running off with the sausages.

For another perspective on this see Silent Protests Are Still Protests.

More on Nudism

I happened on a blog post the other day under the title 10 Things Only Nudists Understand.

While I’m not convinced that only nudists understand these things, they are a quick introduction/FAQ to some of the common misconceptions about nudism.

The ten things are:

  1. Nude is not sexual
  2. Life is better without clothes
  3. Everybody has beautiful imperfections
  4. Nudism gives you a sense of freedom
  5. Nudism is great within the family
  6. Nudists don’t live in nudist colonies
  7. Nudists can be everybody
  8. There are many different kinds of nudism
  9. Nudism brings people together
  10. Nudism is just so much fun

Detailed discussion in the actual blog post.