Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, current affairs, thoughts

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.

beliefs, freedom of speech, medical, sexuality, thoughts

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.

beliefs, nudism, people

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!

beliefs, medical, thoughts

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.

beliefs, current affairs, personal, thoughts

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.

beliefs, nudism

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.

beliefs, nudism, personal

Nudity (again)

I came across an interesting post on the Naked Wanderings blog. It is overtly about the influences nudism has on our (intimate) relationships, but I found it interesting because it also throws some light on why many people find nudity (and thus nudism/naturism) so scary and taboo. Here’s the cut down version:

[N]udism has a positive influence on both our physical and mental health.
. . .
But how does nudism effect relationships?
. . .
[Apparently] the divorce rate among nudist couples is a lot lower than among textiles . . . are nudist couples sharing different values than textiles which are more likely to keep them together?
. . .
The level of trust in our relationship is high enough that we wouldn’t be threatened knowing that our partner was spending time naked among other nudies.
. . .
[But] in many relationships, trust is often linked with an inevitable idea of not letting the fox into the hen house . . . We want our partner to be sexy as hell when we go out together but we wonder why they have to look so fancy when they will spend a night with friends. We know that a couple of her well placed hip movements in that dress can make a guy go crazy or that with his three day beard in combination with that certain shirt he’ll have girls hanging on his lips. Imagine what it would be like if everyone was naked.
. . .
If we allow our partner to be seen naked and to see others in their purest form, have we conquered jealousy? [Maybe.] It’s all about the intention.
. . .
For us, it seems unimaginable not to see our partner nude at least a couple of times a day, but we would probably be surprised if we knew for how many people it has been weeks, months, sometimes even years since they last saw their partner’s naked body.
. . .
According to [one] poll . . . 40% of the interviewees preferred to only have sex when the lights are out . . . because then you avoid getting caught up in thoughts about your physical appearance . . . If you have any intention to spend at least some part of your life with this person, you still feel that you have to hide your own body?
. . .
[T]here is no hiding, we see each other naked so often that . . . we became aware of our bodies and we accept how we and our partner looks . . . nudity still gets us excited, but it depends on the situation. 
. . .
We get the question about how to convince your partner into nudism . . . Propose that they give it a try. Only once, in a secure and not very crowded place.
. . .
[W]e are completely okay with others who prefer to wear clothes. We are not saying that our lifestyle is the only right one.

If even half of this is true, then I find it a very sad reflection on the state of our minds, and the prudish control which has been exerted on us for generations – this is nothing new. A lot of it can certainly be laid at the door of Western religions and the patriarchy; although there are doubtless other influences too.

Isn’t it time we accepted that we’re basically all the same. We all know what’s under your t-shirt and jeans; my t-shirt and jeans.

So where is the problem? Yes, like so many things the problem really is only in your mind, if you allow it to be.

beliefs, thoughts

Devil Worship

It is well known hereabouts that I am non-croyant, so when the God Botherers rang the doorbell the other day my thought processes were stimulated.

It occurred to me that believers in God(s) are fundamentally not just that. It is deeper. They are actually Devil worshippers.

“How so?” you ask. Well to me it is perfectly simple. If they didn’t believe in the Devil and revere his powers, they wouldn’t need God to save them from him.

This isn’t just Christians. It applies to all (major) religions as, in one form or another, all have a God(s) and all have a Devil figure – although they may not state it so explicitly. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism (I think) and some schools of Buddhism (eg. Tibetan Buddhism) are all the same – all have God(s) and all have a Devil in some form – as do ancient “sun worshipping” religions and mythologies

[I don’t claim to know enough about either Taoism or Shinto to know if they are also included. The “purer” forms of Buddhism (eg. Zen) are excluded as they don’t have God(s) and are more of a philosophical way of life and personal development than a belief system.]

What I don’t understand is why people need to believe in either God(s) or the Devil. It is much easier without both.

So if you want a way to really piss off the next set of God Botherers who come calling, just remind them they’re Devil Worshippers and to “get thee hence”.

beliefs, personal, quotes

Quote: Ethics

Quote

Don’t lie, don’t kill, don’t steal. Don’t use love as a game or weapon. Respect the earth, and don’t abuse its gifts. All are familiar ethics that we somehow forget, or manage to sidestep, when we just don’t feel like thinking about consequences.
[Stephanie JT Russell]

beliefs, books

Book Review: A Monk’s Guide to a Clean House and Mind

Shoukei Matsumoto
A Monk’s Guide to a Clean House and Mind
Penguin; 2018

This is a curious little book which does very much what it says in the title. It is about cleaning, as zen monks do it in the monastery, as well as meditation. The life of the zen monk is hard – much harder than we realise; for another perspective see Gesshin Greenwood – and very strictly regulated. It is clear that many things are done the way they have always been done: because it works, is sustainable in a moneyless society, and is as light as possible on the environment.

By having to do everything precisely the right way, all the time, every time, it is possible to not have to think about what you’re doing but concentrate on doing it. So everything from preparing food and polishing floors, to tidying the garden and having a shit, become part of the meditative practice.

When it comes to cleaning a temple, polishing the floor is as basic a chore as it gets. For many monks, a day does not go by that they don’t clean the floors of the temple corridors.

Since the floors are thoroughly polished day in and day out, every inch of them is beautiful, with their surface, blackened through hundreds of years of use, taking on an almost translucent, fossilized look. You can walk through a carefully maintained temple all day long in white socks without worrying about discolouring them. There is no dust or grime to speak of.

It is the job of the monks to perform the upkeep on these beautifully preserved floors. They are polished every day whether they appear to need it or not.

When you are polishing the floor, you are polishing your heart and your mind.

The point of housework is to clean up dirt and grime, isn’t it? So you might be wondering what is the point of cleaning something that is already spotless. But for monks the physical act of polishing the floor is analogous to cleaning the earthly dirt from your soul.

This book is a collection of very short pieces about the various cleaning and maintenance jobs the monks do, and the way in which they are also a method of meditation. Although translated from the Japanese, the sense of strangeness, quirkiness and totally other has been retained; and that made it for me an interesting, even inspiring, read.

My criticism? There were places where I felt I wanted a bit more detail about how things were done and the rhythm of daily life.

Nevertheless, if you are interested in zen, the way zen monks practice, or just curious about other ways of life, then this is a delightful, short read.

Overall Rating: ★★★★☆