Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, quotes, thoughts

Welcome Yule!

1 Comment


Today, 21 December, is Yule, the Germanic peoples’ mid-winter festival held on the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year – and doesn’t it feel like it this year with snow falling, as I type, across much of the UK. Wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the origins of Yule – there are others here and here – so I won’t repeat them except to say that like most pre-Christian festivals it was a time of feasting – indeed in many traditions it was the major feast of the year. And like many such events it was also a health and fertility rite which has descended to us in the form of Wassail, only on this occasion it is predicated around rebirth – the rebirth of the sun from it’s winter retreat and thus hope for the year to come.

Most religions have their mid-winter festival of rebirth and or light. Light to lighten the darkness of winter and celebrate the rebirth of the sun, the giver of life. Hence the bonfire traditions, the burning of the Yule log (yes, originally a big log, not a chocolate cake!), the Scandinavian feast of St Lucia, etc. So the old pre-Christian Yule has become assimilated by the Christian church, along with the Roman Saturnalia, St Lucia and New Year to make their feast of Christmas.

So in concelebration with our wise, pagan forebears I wish you all

God Jul and wæs hæil
beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, personal, science, sexuality, thoughts

Taboo!

2 Comments

I’ve been thinking recently about our taboos. What I find curious is where we individually draw the boundary lines between what’s acceptable, what’s unacceptable and what falls in the grey area between. This is partly because some of my views are diametrically opposed to the norms of our society, but also because as a society, and as a collection of individuals, we seem to be sleep-walking into far too many important decisions.

We can probably all agree on a common set of things we think should be outlawed: child abuse, female circumcision, rape, gratuitous animal cruelty. And a set of things which are (generally) OK: sweets, alcohol, blood transfusions, prison for offenders. Although I know there are people who will abhor even these.

Most people would not discuss – and are not comfortable with – pornography, nudity, sex, bodily functions, incest or death. And then of course there are things which are for many on the borderline: animal cruelty for food (aka. abattoirs), abortion, stem cell research.

But this is not where I, personally, would draw the line. For me there is no problem with pornography, sex, nudity, bodily functions and I think even death (it is after all an inevitable consequence of life, at least as we know it). Incest I would say is borderline at worst and under some circumstances OK – why should a brother and sister not have a loving sexual relationship if they wish, as long as they remain aware of the possible dangers.

For me – and I stress this is just my personal opinion – there are far more important things to worry about and which I find at best questionable and at worst objectionable; some I would probably class as obscene – not a word I use lightly or often. The above list of common taboos is a good start to this list with most of them, at least some of the time, being in the obscene category.

However my questionable or unacceptable list contains other things most people find OK: IVF, male circumcision, genetic modification, airport expansion, a federal Europe, positive discrimination, religion, capital punishment, cosmetic surgery (for the sake of personal vanity rather than as a real medical necessity). And my jury is still out on stem cell research.

What I find interesting about this is not that I have different opinions (I’m an eccentric; I expect to have my own, different opinions) but that so few people appear to do likewise.

Society’s taboos, taken as a whole, are essentially the aggregate set of beliefs the majority of individuals find abhorrent – at least as enacted by the great and the good we elect to speak on our behalf and make law (politicians, religious leaders, etc.). It is only by people with differing opinions questioning and challenging this status quo which eventually results in the shift of the agreed set of taboos. Such is how we make progress.

All of this has so far left aside the more personal things. Do you have to be totally private, behind a locked door, in the bathroom or bedroom? Why is sex with the light on such a no-no? Are you OK with sleeping in the nude? As many will realise by now I am pretty open. We’re comfortable with social nudity – indeed any nudity. We both sleep au naturel and prefer it that way. Doors are never shut (except possibly to exclude the cats, and even that is rare). We actively dislike net curtains. We share the bathroom. In fact I think the only thing I have any possible hang-ups about is someone watching me wipe my arse – and even that isn’t a discomforting as it used to be. I was also wary of seeing my late father’s ileostomy – I felt this was intruding too far onto something private to him, although it didn’t seem to worry him; and let’s be fair it is not the most tasteful of things. Why I felt like this I don’t know; it surprised me. Indeed having been brought up to be slightly bohemian, think for myself and have my own opinions, I find it rather odd that I have any taboos at all.

As one of your “working thinkers” (to quote Douglas Adams) what I find distressing is that the majority of people don’t think about such things. There was a research finding a few years ago, which I now cannot place, that found 5% of people are unable to think; 5% of people can think and do so; the remaining 90% of people can think but just don’t. Even sadder is that many of this 90% are content to be told what they think by others, and that means mostly the tabloid press, politicians (who usually seem to have a vested interest) and religious bigots – plus a few cranky academics and do-gooders who manage to get “air time”. But then, despite the fuss some of this “silent majority” make, they probably don’t actually much care as long as someone keeps them in the credit card debt they’ve become attuned to.

Come on guys, wake up at the back! If you want things to get better you need to engage your brains and think through the consequences of your (our) actions. Think about the long term consequences of IVF, air travel, stem cell research. Use what brain cells you have; engage in dialogue with other people. Nobody asks that you are high-powered philosophical thinkers, just that you think as best you can about what is right and make up your own mind. If you then decide you’re happy with the consequences of these things, that’s fine. If you’re not, then you need to be heard. Doing nothing leaves those who do think to fight it out with those with vested interests – and the outcome may well not be the right one – or the one you actually want, whatever that is.

beliefs, current affairs, medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Harrah! More Please!

1 Comment

There’s a wonderful article over on the BBC News site. Well the article isn’t actually wonderful, it’s pretty hack, formulaic BBC journalism about a TV show. It is the idea, intelligence, thoughtfulness and guts behind the programme which is wonderful.

The programme was on BBC3 last evening and follows a couple of teenage girls and their mums as they visit various people in UK and Netherlands so the girls can discover for themselves about whether they’re ready to lose their virginity. Clearly this had to involve a lot of very open discussion between the girls and the people they met (including a group of teenage boys who were asked some pointed questions by the girls) and between the girls and their mums. From reading the item (sadly I missed the programme) clearly the mums were struggling to cope – but cope they did and I get the impression everyone came out of it much stronger and better balanced.

But why does it need a TV programme to get people to do this? OK so not everyone will take on for themselves a 2000 mile journey. But everyone has a surprising number of local resources to draw on: parents, teachers, doctors, health workers, not to mention their friends, peers and relations. Why can’t people talk about these things? Openly? I just don’t get it. Everyone (almost) has sex in some form or another at some time. Sex is an important part of life so why not admit it and be open about it? Reading and writing are important in life and we get taught those at a very tender age, and hone our skills over many years – some more than others, but everyone improves and learns. So why not sexuality?

Hopefully this programme will be repeated, and repeated, and repeated. And used by schools. And parents everywhere. Maybe, just maybe, it will start the revolution in (most people’s) thinking about sexuality and their bodies that our society so desperately needs.

Incidentally one interesting fact which is often overlooked: Holland has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate and the lowest rates of sexually transmitted infections in western Europe. Britain has almost the highest. Despite a very open attitude to sex, teenagers in Holland start having sex on average one year later than in the UK. Why? Because the Dutch are pragmatic and willing to discussing sexuality etc. openly; they don’t treat it as dirty and hide it in the coal-shed like we do. I lived through the sexual revolution in order to do away with coal-sheds!

Parents and teenagers (even sub-teens) everywhere please note!

arts, beliefs, current affairs, nudism, thoughts

Nudity Does Us All Good

1 Comment

Picture: BBC

I’ve written before about my attitudes to nudity and our bodies (see for instance here, here and here) and I return to the subject quite unashamedly especially as Channel 4 TV’s “Life Class” (which I admit I have not been watching) has created a bit of a backlash in certain circles. So it was good to see a couple of articles last week coming out in favour of nudity and trying, quietly and sanely, to redress the balance.

The first was written for BBC News’s online magazine by life model Sarah Snee (who is herself also an artist). The piece went under a banner Starkers for Art; here are some snippets of what she has to say:

As a student strapped for cash the allure of making money modelling for art was too much to resist. But there was another motivation – self exploration.

“I was intrigued by the idea of being naked in front of strangers,” says Sarah. “Especially at the age of 20 when you’re still getting to know your own body and developing your own sexuality. It was a very romantic idea, a bohemian idea […] My first time was daunting. I was wondering what people thought of my body. Was I attractive enough? Did my bum look big? The things most people would be concerned with.”

Despite being under the intense scrutiny of a room full of pupils, male and female, Sarah found she quickly became used to being under the artist’s gaze. “It made me feel more confident about my body. I felt liberated. I feel more self-conscious wearing a bikini on holiday with friends than I did when I was naked in front of strangers.”

“People say to me isn’t life modelling really weird? Isn’t it a bit sexual? Of course there are men who have this idea they’re all going to draw these naked women and it’s going to be thrilling […] But the artists don’t view you sexually. They see the body as a series of lines and shadows, a piece of art.”

The second piece, titled Nudity does us all good, was by Jemima Lewis in last Saturday’s Daily Telegraph. Again Jemima Lewis has a refreshingly down to earth view of nudity, and echos my view that nudity is not only normal but we would all be better adjusted if we grew up with nudity and understanding our bodies. This is (part of) what she has to say:

[…] who are these children who have never seen a naked body before? And more importantly, why not?

Going naked in front of your offspring is one of the duties of parenthood. Studies show – and common sense suggests – that children from households where nudity is commonplace grow up to feel more comfortable in their own skin. We need the background scenery of other people’s bodies – dumpy, scrawny, dimpled or lean – in order to be reassured that our own peculiarities are normal.

Especially now, when most public images of the human form are airbrushed into a preposterous lie, children ought to know what actual people look like under their clothes.

Some of my favourite memories of school feature middle-aged men and women disporting themselves in the buff. Our A-level teacher, like many artists, preferred her life models on the well-fed side, their rolls of fat allowing for plentiful chiaroscuro.

Although it is a long time since I picked up a sketchpad, those life classes, combined with the tireless domestic nudity of my parents, are proving more useful to me now than ever.

As my wife’s uncle used to say: “If you see anything God didn’t make, heave a brick at it.”

beliefs, personal, sexuality, thoughts

On Morality

1 Comment

An online contact, who I won’t name, has asked in a posting if it is OK to have a relationship with someone with a diametrically opposed morality; to what extent is it acceptable to compromise to support one’s partner and make the relationship work; and whether this is cowardly. What follows is an edited (and slightly extended) version of my response.

Standing up for your principles (what your morality tells you is right) is not cowardly. This is generally called “sticking to your principles” and is normally seen as “a good thing”. However we all have to make compromises in life and we each have to be comfortable with where we draw the line. Love will distort that line, and where it is in the sand, just as it does everything else. But love is not all powerful and (at least in my view) is not an excuse for casting all morality aside. Each situation has to be assessed anew and on its individual merits. If you are in “this situation” again you may find your compromise is different. You can only make what seems the best decision for you based on the available information at the time; no-one can do better than this.

Morality is a personal thing. Even if you are a strong adherent of a moral code (eg. Christianity) your morality will differ, albeit maybe only subtly, from the code as laid down. If you are like me and make things up for yourself then your morality may well be totally askew to any other morality. That does not mean either (any) is wrong. An individual’s morality is what works for them; and they may have the challenge of moral beliefs which are self-contradictory. (For instance a person could be a pacifist and yet believe that dictators should be overthrown by any possible means.) If one is going to think through ones own morality one has to grapple with such problems – as indeed do more collective moral codes. In addition your morality may change over time as you have new experiences, find new knowledge, etc.

Your morality is not my morality. Accepting those differences is part of being able to get along together and a part of freedom of speech. I may not agree with your morality or views, but I will defend to the death your right to hold and express them – that is part of my personal morality.
The morality which society as a whole has is only the aggregate of all our individual moralities, usually as expressed and enacted by those we “elect” to have these opinions for us – politicians, clerics, etc. Collective morality also changes over time by thinking people like me and you kicking against it where it disagrees with our personal morality; pointing out where we see it as in error; trying to convince others of our view – and often being badmouthed by the likes of the tabloid press in the process.

Noreen (my wife of almost 30 years! Eeeek!) has a Christian belief although not of the “regular church-going” or “happy clappy” sort. I used to share this belief; but my viewpoint as changed. I am now an atheist; I have no belief in God(s) although I do still hold many of the same underlying “do as you would be done by” morals, but expressed differently. Noreen and I respect each others’ opinions, and we discuss them openly even though we don’t agree about them. This works for us; it might not work for either of us with a different partner; or for any other couple.

You have to uphold your morals in your own way, and that at times may mean compromise. That’s fine as long as you don’t bury it all and then feel resentful later – that way lies bitterness and trauma like divorce or mental illness. That means you have to be open about your beliefs, be prepared to discuss them and respect alternative views. A partnership, any partnership – sexual, work, friendship, marriage etc. – is a continual exercise in compromise if it is to work. Where there is insufficient compromise for both (all) parties the partnership will fail. And there are no absolute right or wrong answers in life, only the answers that work best for you at the time – which is not the same as outright expediency or situation ethics.

Keep banging those rocks together.

beliefs, history, personal, topographical

Ghost Stories

4 Comments
Antonia over at Whoopee has asked us to post our real-life ghost stories. So here are my two, not-quite-ghost stories.

Theobald’s; Early ’60s
I was brought halfway between Cheshunt and Waltham Cross, about 13 miles north of London and just in Hertfordshire. And I actually lived about 5-10 minutes walk from the site of the long vanished Tudor Theobald’s Palace – built by Lord Burghley and later exchanged by Robert Cecil for James I’s Hatfield House.

Part of the grounds of the old palace were a local park which I visited regularly so we got to know the park keeper. Behind the park was the early-Victorian Old Palace House, built on the actual site of the old palace.


This is of the back of Old Palace House in the 1930s; it wasn’t a lot different when I knew it. Notice the two Tudor windows salvaged from Theobald’s Palace.
By the time I got to know the house it was uninhabited and had passed into the ownership of the local council, so on a Sunday it was under the stewardship of the aforementioned park keeper. Thus it was that we got to help ourselves to apples (gorgeous old varieties) from the wonderful old orchard and also on one occasion to go round the inside of the house.

The house was interesting, but of course slowly becoming derelict having been unoccupied for some years. So it was cold and dank, even on a hot summer’s day. Walking round the house (I guess I would have been 12, maybe 14) we had our small Cairn Terrier sized dog with us. We went up the main staircase to the first floor. But the dog would not, absolutely would not, go up to those stairs. I had to carry her up; she was shaking like a leaf. What it was I don’t know but there was something up there that terrified her. And it did strike me as especially chill.

We never did find out any more, although I have found this on the Paranormal Database:

Location: Cheshunt – Old Palace House, Theobald’s Park
Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown
Further Comments: It was claimed that this building was haunted by a number of ghosts, though details are sketchy

A few years later the old house burnt down; as far as I know it was never concluded whether this was “suspicious” or an accident. Except for a large specimen walnut tree the orchard was grubbed out and became an extension of the park.

Follow the links to find lot’s more about the interesting history of the Cheshunt and Waltham Cross area at British History Online.

Norwich; Summer 1973
My only other experience of ghostly presence was when I was a post-graduate student in Norwich. I was friends with a couple (let’s call them B and J) who, at the time, were devout Catholics and lived in a flat (part of a Victorian house) halfway between the city centre and the university.

One hot summer Saturday afternoon I was working in my lab and B was also working 3 labs along from me. We had agreed that I would eat with them that evening and then we’d go out for a few beers. I finished my experiments in mid-afternoon and B said to go on to theirs and he would follow. I duly did so.

When I arrived J open the door and said “Thank God you’ve arrived I been struggling with this presence all day and can’t banish it”. On a baking hot summer’s day I walked in the door and was hit by this wall of freezing cold – real freezing cold, not just a cool house. It tuned out that J had been beset by this “demon” all day and could not banish it from the house – we were great believers in the power of the mind to control these things. She and I set about working on it together and eventually managed to banish it as far as the bathroom.

B arrived an hour or two later and before anyone said anything his comment was along the lines of “What on earth is wrong; what’s happening?” J explained. As I recall we spent the rest of the evening finally removing the presence from the house. We didn’t resort to bell, book and candle, but we were pretty close to doing so. Luckily the presence never returned.

I would have to say, in all honesty, that I’m fairly agnostic about ghosts and presences although these two events were real enough (horribly real in the case of the latter). As Hamlet observes (Act I, scene i):

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

beliefs, books, freedom of speech, thoughts

More Philosophical Thoughts

Another selection of powerful thoughts from philosopher AC Grayling’s The Form of Things. (See here for the previous post.)

Sympathy
[…] without opportunities for reflection, information in any quantity is valueless. A synoptic view is needed, a larger picture, a review of what has been acquired and learned – and concomitantly, of the extent and nature of our ignorance. The Greeks thought of the gods as having such a perspective, looking at the affairs of men from the peak of Olympus. ‘Olympian detachment’ might be possible for gods if there were such beings, but from the human perspective in the midst of the fray, such a view is a lot – and perhaps too much – to ask; the best we can do is to pause and take stock.

The History of Knowledge and Ignorance
An example is provided by the complex of sixteenth-century events which, for brevity, is called ‘the Reformation’. A large part of what drove these events was impatience with restraints on enquiry imposed by the Church. The Church taught that human reason is fallen and finite, and therefore that attempts to penetrate nature’s secrets are impious. But the Reformed sensibility saw reason as a divine gift, and believed that mankind had been set a challenge by God to read the ‘Great Book of the World’. There was also a school of thought in Christendom which believed that the world was given to man to expropriate at will – which meant that it was as open to the curiosity of the scientist as to the craft of the hunter or husbandman.

[…]

From the earliest times man has invented cosmogonies (theories of how the universe began) and cosmologies (theories of the ultimate nature of the universe). They are grand theories designed to make sense of the world, its past and the laws (or powers) that govern it; and they suggest ways of influencing or even controlling it (in those earlier times, by sacrifice and prayer). In this sense religions are primitive versions of science and technology. They aspire to offer explanations: to tell us who we are, why we are here, what we must do and where we are going. The growth of contemporary science conflicts with religion thus conceived, because it offers explanations of the same phenomena in wholly different ways.

[…]

Politically, human beings have advanced little from their long evolutionary history of conflict. They are still tribal, territorial and ready to kill one another for beliefs, and for control of goods and resources. Indeed, much of the world’s wealth and energy is poured into arms and armies for these very reasons. But the growth of knowledge has replaced the spear with the computer-guided nuclear missile. This mixture of stone-age politics and contemporary science is […] extraordinarily perilous.

Answering Critics
Two classes of my own critics cause me amusement rather than otherwise, for which I owe them gratitude. One consists in folk of a religious turn of mind, who are annoyed by my dislike of religion and my attacks upon it, on the grounds of its falsehood, its moralising oppressiveness and the terrible conflicts it has caused throughout history, and causes still. These critics call me dogmatic, narrow-minded, intolerant and unfair in what I say about their superstitions and the systems of moral tyranny erected upon them. Well: as experts in dogma and narrow-mindedness, they are doubtless in a good position to recognise it when they find it.

Moral Outrage
A mature society is one that reserves its moral outrage for what really matters: poverty and preventable disease in the third world, arms sales, oppression, injustice. Bad language and sex might offend some, who certainly have a right to complain; but they do not have a right to censor. They do not have to watch or listen if they are offended: they have an ‘off’ button on their television sets and radios. After all, it is morally outrageous that moral outrage should be used as an excuse to perpetrate the outrage of censorship on others.

Science and Modern Times
Everywhere that religion has ever held temporal power, the result has approximated Taliban-style rule. We forget, in the West, how much it took to escape orthodoxy enforced by burnings at the stake, and how recently: indeed, at the beginnings of modern times with the rise of science.

Faith Schools
Just two words state the objection to faith-based schools: ‘Northern Ireland’. The segregation of Catholic and Protestant school-children has been one of the major causes and sustainers of inter-community tensions in that troubled region. Why have the bitter lessons thus taught not been learned?

beliefs, books, freedom of speech, thoughts

Philosophical Thoughts

1 Comment

In the last few days I’ve been reading a philosophy book. “OMG what is this guy on? He reads philosophy – for fun!”

Well in truth it isn’t a very taxing philosophy book, because what I’ve been reading is The Form of Things by AC Grayling. Grayling is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and writes regularly for a number of periodicals including my favoured New Scientist. He is also a literary journalist and a broadcaster. So he’s not just a thinker, but he writes well and in an intelligible style.

The Form of Things is a collection of short (mostly 2-3 pages) essays drawn from his recent journalistic writings. Its subtitle: Essays on Life, Ideas and Liberty in the 21st Century tells you precisely what it’s about. It ranges widely over subjects such as language, beauty, funerals, reflections on people, fox-hunting and ID cards. It is a book to dip into rather than read cover to cover; and that’s how I’ve approached it as each of the essays stands in its own right. Let me give you a few gems (the title of each piece is the essay from which it comes). Whether you agree with them or not, they should at least thought provoking…

Dance
At almost any exhibition of contemporary art the thought that crosses one’s mind is: Is this rubbish, or am I missing the point? One could take the view that most of it is indeed rubbish, but of a useful kind: for it takes a lot of compost to make a flower -and flower lovers live in hope. Cynics say that the problem is the existence of art colleges, where people spend their time gluing cereal boxes to bicycle tyres (conceptual art), or demand that people watch them doing it (performance art) …

Hedonism
Human history has been weighed down with ordinances of denial from those who claim to know what the gods want of us – which seems mainly to be that we should not enjoy ourselves, even though they have given us natures attuned to pleasure.

God and the European Constitution
No one has ever fought a war because of disagreements in geology or botany; but humanity has bled to death over the question of whether a wafer of bread becomes human flesh when a priest whispers incantations over it. This stark contrast needs to be taken seriously; for until it is, we condemn ourselves to repeat the futile quarrels of the past.

Humanism and Religion
Religious folk try to turn the tables on people of a naturalistic and humanistic outlook by charging them with ‘faith’ in science or ‘faith’ in reason. Faith, they seem to have forgotten, is what you have in the face of facts and reason […] No such thing is required to ‘believe in’ science or reason. Science is always open to challenge and refutation, faith is not; reason must be rigorously tested by its own lights, faith rejoices in unreason. Once again, a humanistic outlook is as far from sharing the characteristics of religion as it can be. By definition, in short, humanism is not religion, any more than religion is or can be a form of humanism.

Rochester and the Libertines
The word ‘libertine’ was first applied in the 1550s to a sect of Protestants in northern Europe who, with unimpeachable logic, reasoned that since God had ordained all things, nothing could be sinful. They proceeded to act accordingly. Their views were regarded with horror by both Catholics on one side and Calvinists on the other…

Free Speech
It should by now be a commonplace, though alas it is not, that the right response to attempts by violent enemies to coerce our society is to reassert the very liberties and values that make them attack us in the first place. To restrict ourselves out of fear of what they might do is to give them the victory they seek. If they were able to impose their will on our society, they would deprive us of many of the liberties distinctive of a Western democracy. Why do it to ourselves?

Maybe more later.