Category Archives: thoughts

thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2 #1

So as promised let’s get this show on the road and try to answer the first of the questions in Series 2.

Question 1. What happened at the beginning of the universe?

Oh good God, that’s an impossible question. And I’m not sure my brain’s up to it today. But let’s try.

The first question we have to ask in trying to answer this is: was there a beginning?

Well logically of course there was a beginning. But for there to be a beginning there had to be something before it. Even if one assumes that a universe could pop up out of nowhere — and physics does allow matter to be created from “the vacuum”, at least in terms of sub-atomic particles — then one has to ask (a) is the generation of an entire (embryonic?) universe allowed and (b) where did the vacuum come from?

In our understanding stuff cannot magically appear out of nothing. As I understand it Quantum Physics even says that the vacuum of space isn’t actually a vacuum but is at least pervaded by some form of energy field and it is that which occasionally spawns particles. And presumably the quantum fluctuations inherent therein could, incredibly rarely, spawn something particulate which could become a universe. Now that energy field has to come from somewhere. But where? And how? Basically we have no real clue other than it is a property of the universe.

So for the energy field to exist there has to be a universe, and probably vice versa.

Hence it is at this point that many people get stuck and find that in some form or another they have to invoke a God to do the dirty work. But … where does God come from? Because according to our logic he cannot create himself from nothing, because if he did, the it wouldn’t be nothing (and hence all we do is push the question further back into the distance) … or he wouldn’t be there to do it.

Duh! <bangs head on wall>

So at this point our logic systems break down. It matters not what sort of logic system we’re using: theological logic, drug induced logic, scientific logic all break down.

Yes, even our most advanced and sophisticated cosmological theories all break down at this boundary. What’s even harder is that in my opinion they always will. Now that may be a failing in my logic or my understanding, but I don’t think it is.

Basically it means that we not only don’t know what happened “before” the universe, or what caused it to spring into being, or how this happened … but that we can never know.

We can never know simply because it is a question that is just not amenable to an answer.

Either that or we have to postulate that there just was no “before”. And that opens up all sorts of other even harder questions about things like time.

I think I need cake!

thoughts

Follow My Leader

Here are a few more thoughts on the ways of people …

Basically there are two types of people: leaders and followers.

In this world most people are followers. And that’s fine because there are only so many “L for Leader” t-shirts to go round.

But what is it that differentiates leaders and followers? There is some fundamental difference between them; a difference in the way they think or how they look at the world. What is it?

Reading a recent article by Emily over at The Dirty Normal, she proposes, and I think she is right, that the difference is vision.

Look at the people around you. Lots of those people are angry, annoyed, upset, pissed off with something; generally moaning, or worse. They are in this state pretty much permanently. And they never move beyond it. They meander around grumbling but never really doing a lot about it.

But leaders are different. So now look at the real leaders you know, or have come across. Whether you like(d) them or not, or agree(d) with them or not, think about people like Winston Churchill, Richard Branson, Freddie Laker, the Dalai Lama, Field-Marshal Montgomery. They have/had a vision of how things should be. They can move through their anger to think through what the vision means and are then pulled towards it, taking people with them.

Sure they may sometimes get annoyed by something, but they move through and beyond it. They can do this because they have that vision of how things should be different and they’re going to try to get there. They don’t get stuck in the anger.

As Emily says being angry means you’re paying attention. That’s good and necessary. But too many people let it burn them out and are never able to move on.

[C]onsider letting your fires burn quietly […] and rather than pushing against the pressures that want to constrain you … figure out what you want to move toward, and pull the world toward that vision. Imagine the world you want, and move toward it […] leaders are motivated by a vision, not by rage.

That vision is something beyond a self-interest and personal gain. It is a bigger and more holistic thing. Something which affects a wider audience.

Leaders don’t always succeed in achieving their vision. And different leaders have different ways of getting there — some quietly, others much more blatantly. But without that vision they aren’t leaders and they never start on the journey. Without visions there are no leaders.

And there probably aren’t any working thinkers either. Leaders and working thinkers are not identical, but it seems to me they do tend to feed off each other.

personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2

Following up on my earlier thread where I posed five quite difficult questions, I’ve found some more in a similar vein.

As before they are five apparently simple looking questions but which turn out to be quite hard when you actually have to answer them. That’s because they aren’t designed just so you get to know a bit more about me. They’re intended to make us think — yes that’s you and me — about who we are and what we believe. So I’m hoping some of you will join in and answer them too. Either in the comments here or on your own blog — in the latter case just leave a link in the comments so I can read yours too.

OK so here are the Five Questions, Series 2:

  1. What happened at the beginning of the universe?
  2. If you had to diagnosis yourself with any mental illness which would it be?
  3. If you could offer a newborn child only one piece of advice, what would it be?
  4. What are your top 5 personal values?
  5. What places would you have pierced on your body and which parts would you never have pierced?

Again, like series one, I think they’re going to be deceptively tricky. I certainly don’t know in advance how I’m going to answer them all, though I have a few clues.

Anyway I’ll answer them one at a time over the coming weeks. The first in a couple of days.

Oh, and if anyone has any more good questions, then please send them to me, I’d like to do this two or three times a year. Just to keep us all on our mental toes.

Watch this space!

ramblings, science, thoughts

On Atheism and Science

Yesterday I came across two blog posts about atheism, both of which deal with science in different ways. And they got me thinking — or at least starting to think — about the relationship between religion (or lack of it) and science.

Before I go into my thoughts let’s have a look at what, for me, were some of the salient points from the two articles, both of which are worth reading in their entirety.

The first is a post is Atheism Evolves by Maggie Mayhem (yes, the sex positive activist and sex educator):

[I]t’s ridiculous to believe that all life on earth exists to serve humans. I am appalled when I hear this by both the religious and the irreligious.
[…]
The bible does not teach me how my hand works. It doesn’t teach me about how the human hand came to be. It doesn’t teach me why a human hand is physically advantageous for certain tasks nor does it tell me anything about how a human hand was selected for over time.
[…]
Many preachers have been great philosophers, social revolutionaries, and leaders. However … activism and education does not have to include a literal belief in the supernatural to be effective and empowering.
[…]
There is no one to save us from ourselves but ourselves … No one has the divine right to exploit their fellow humans.
[…]
However, atheism and skepticism are movements that have been primarily driven by people with immense privilege because it has taken that much privilege not to be destroyed by others for saying something so counter to what we’ve been taught for as long as we’ve been humans.
[…]
A silly belief does not displace my own. Laws, exclusionary practices, and violent retaliation does displace people.
[…]
Tokenism only serves the privileged, it does not broaden the viewpoints and perspectives. It does not help us better understand ourselves and our world when white men get to decide which marginalized people get to speak. Nothing is accomplished with tokenism.
[…]
Ideas are not physical spaces: you cannot run out of room. One of the greatest things about them is the way they intermingle and breed and create unimaginable combinations.

(Emphasis in the original)

Before we go on, just think for a moment about those comments on privilege and on ideas.

… … …

Powerful aren’t they?!

OK, so now for the second article, Why Science Can’t Replace Religion by Keith Kloor on the scientific Discover Blogs.

[O]ur brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring … you can’t simply dismiss the psychological and cultural importance of religion. For much of our history, religion has deeply influenced all aspects of life, from how we cope with death and random disaster to what moral codes we abide by. That science should (or could) eliminate all this with a rationalist cleansing of civilization, as a vocal group of orthodox atheists have suggested, is highly improbable.
[…]
[S]ome people, no matter their background, are prone to experience a more spiritual, as opposed to rational, connection to the universe … certain needs unique to the human condition cannot be satisfied by science alone. Scientists who prefer a strictly rationalist lens have a hard time accepting this.
[…]
Absolutism is one of the uglier traits of religion that still pervades too many corners of the Earth today, breeding intolerance and normalizing abhorrent actions. But a response that indicts all religion as a stain on humanity is equally absolutist.

More rather powerful arguments, which strident atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would do well to heed.

And it was reading this second article hot on the heels of the first which got me thinking. Actually thinking about this muddled interface between science and religion and the way the two so often seem to be unable to coexist.

What I realised was that there seem to be two strands to all religious belief, and these do seem to be to encompass all religions, not just Christianity. The two strands of belief are:
(a) how and why the world (universe) came into being, and
(b) the importance and imposition of a moral code.
Some believers seem to me to need to embrace one or other strand; some, although I surmise down at the deepest level a minority, clearly need both.

And it is in these two strands that the conflict with science arises because in fact these two strands have different roots, viz.
(a) has a root in science (of some form), whereas
(b) has its root in thought and intellect (philosophy, if you prefer).

Now I need religion for neither strand: science does indeed satisfy (to the extent satisfaction is possible by any means) the first and I have the intellect to be able to handle the latter myself.

The problem is that many people conflate and muddle the two strands and hence become completely, though unknowingly, confused. For science — whatever it’s underlying belief: creationist or evolutionist — cannot ipso facto produce morals; it is merely explanatory. And equally philosophy alone cannot produce technical explanations; observation and experiment (ie. science) are also required.

Consequently it is not unreasonable that some scientists need a spiritual dimension/belief to give them a moral/cultural grounding. Equally it is reasonable that (some) theologians and philosophers need science to help them make sense of the universe.

Lucky is the man who can derive both strands from a single belief system, whether that is a religion or science. OK, I happen to believe that the religious viewpoint is erroneous, but then I am lucky enough to be able to derive both strands without religion. Not everyone is so lucky, and perhaps we should be more sympathetic to that. Is it moral of us to deny a “crippled man” a crutch, whether physical or mental?

Now I’m conscious that this is likely not a fully enough developed train of thought, being as it was scribbled down in five minutes at 11pm last night. But the fact that there are these two, seemingly unrecognised, strands does (at least for me) explain some of the confusion about how some scientists can need religion (spirituality if you prefer) and how the religious/spiritual may need science.

Anyone want to expand on this?

current affairs, thoughts

Reforming the NHS

1 Comment

Now that’s better! These are the sort of initiatives that the NHS needs to become efficient and save money.

I maintain that the NHS already has shed-loads of money to do everything it needs to, and which we, the patients, need it to. But it also has shed-loads of waste — and in that I include a superfluity of managers and bean-counters — plus far too much political interference.

Initiatives like those in the linked article are sorely needed, and are in my opinion (one part of) the way forward. But they should not have to be coming from above or from the National Audit Office. They should be coming from the “workers” (for want of a better word to cover clinicians, nurses, admin staff, cleaners, etc.) at the grass-roots level, who need to be empowered to do things; to make decisions; and make changes like this without fear.

However empowerment like this needs some radical paradigm shifts, and it is a two way process. The managers have to allow the workers to be empowered; inded the managers have to encourage it by trusting people! Equally the workers need to embrace that empowerment and make it work while also trusting the management. And the barriers around all the vested interests and private hegemonies (in which I include the trade unions) have to be broken down.

There also has to be a paradigm shift in attitudes. I see too many NHS staff (mostly on the admin side) who appear not to give a toss about either their jobs or the people they serve: they are inefficient, unhelpful, rude and lackadaisical; too many appear, frankly, not to be up to the job but there because the Job Centre has told them to be. Others are interested in doing the bare minimum to survive the week and draw their pay, and bugger anyone else.

Certainly not all NHS staff are like this — it would be hugely unfair of me to suggest they are. Very many are excellent, dedicated and caring, but so often hamstrung by the rest.

These poor attitudes have to change or they will sink the organisation even further. And the waste is something we now cannot afford, if we ever could. This change can be done; I’ve seen it done in a multi-national company where the company’s very survival was on the line; we changed or we got out. It wasn’t easy, or comfortable, and it will take a bit of time. But a determined CEO with a vision and some balls can do it.

It has to start at the top with a vision clearly explained and ruthlessly chased down. But it has to be embraced by everyone from the top to the bottom. And those who don’t want (or can’t) change have to be moved aside and if necessary replaced by people who can and will change: either by retraining those whose jobs are no longer needed or by some very selective hiring. (This is not an exercise in job/people cutting unless absolutely necessary.)

It will also need some very long, hard and critical looks at expenditure, waste and job requirements. Everyone has to take responsibility for reducing waste and being flexible; “we’ve always done it that way” is no good any more. Management have to set clear, workable, cross-organisation policies and enforce them.

There will have to be properly specified and managed IT efficiency projects. They will be big projects, needing a range of top class IT industry professionals who have to be listened to and trusted. They have to be properly funded, and the money will have to be released by the efficiency savings they generate along the way.

Do all this and it can be made to work. It will take time: probably at least 5 years and maybe 10. But you will end up with an efficient and effective organisation which fulfils all it needs to, at a reduced cost.

Yes, it will be uncomfortable and difficult for many, if not most. I know; I’ve been through it; I didn’t think I could change, but I did. So yes, it does work and people will change. If you want proof, ask anyone who worked for IBM throughout the 1990s. Ask Lou Gerstner, the CEO who made it happen and saved the IBM Corporation from self-immolation.

Yes, that means the NHS needs a top flight CEO. One with a vision and a lot of balls. One who will not be bullied or cowed by the politicians, the unions or the vested interests within. One who will run the organisation as a company; a company where every employee is a shareholder whose job and whose end-of-year dividend is on the line. And a company where every patient is treated as a valued customer who can (and will) take their business elsewhere.

Can it happen? Yes, it can, but it will need something else too: politicians with the vision to allow it to happen and who can invest in some long-term thinking, rather than short-term expediency. But isn’t that what we pay our politicians for?

medical, science, thoughts

Sleeping with Your Partner

Just a quick follow up to my post of the other day about the keys to a robust relationship and especially the one about sharing a bed.

Quite serendipitously the same day I happened across a reference to an article in The Wall Street Journal reporting on research which shows that there really are benefits to sharing a bed. For instance:

While the science is in the early stages, one hypothesis suggests that by promoting feelings of safety and security, shared sleep in healthy relationships may lower levels of cortisol, a stress hormone. Sharing a bed may also reduce cytokines, involved in inflammation, and boost oxytocin, the so-called love hormone that is known to ease anxiety and is produced in the same part of the brain responsible for the sleep-wake cycle. So even though sharing a bed may make people move more, “the psychological benefits we get having closeness at night trump the objective costs of sleeping with a partner”.

It’s nice to have some scientific support for my thoughts. ☺

personal, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

Keys to a Robust Relationship

I’ve been thinking, idly, as one does, for some time about what it is that makes any relationship really robust. Not just one that will last, but one that will last through almost everything and get stronger.

First of all we need to be clear about what I mean by “relationship”. In this instance I am talking of the long-term, bonded, probably sexual, live together partnership between two (or more) people — and regardless of the mix of genders of the partners.

So I’ve come up with …

5 Keys to a Robust Relationship

1. Multi-level
It seems to me, as outlined on my website, that the best relationships operate at multiple levels with the partners dropping in and out of different roles at different times. Sometimes it will be lover-lover, sometimes parent-child (for instance when one partner is ill, or in fun), sometimes there will be child-child playtime. And so on.

Many things seem to spring from this. The more levels there are present the stronger the relationship is likely to be, although not all levels may be there all the time. Occasionally a level will go missing, and that may be when things feel out of kilter. That’s fine as long as it returns after a while. And where a relationship is in trouble it is often because too many of the levels are absent for too long. Having a relationship which works only as lover-lover may be good for short-term lust but is unlikely to work long-term.

2. On-going Intimate Communication
There’s an old adage I came across in business: Communicate, communicate, communicate. I wish more people would take it to heart, in business and in personal life.

Ongoing intimate communication between partners is essential for a healthy relationship. And by intimate I don’t mean just about sex (though that is a highly important element) but communication about anything which is given in an open, honest, frank, straightforward and non-judgemental way — and is properly listened to, and considered, by the receiving partner. This builds respect and trust between the partners. Trust that the important things are being shared; trust that each partner can accept the other as they are; trust that any problem, great or small, can be discussed and worked through. Respect for the other person’s opinion and values, even if you don’t agree with them.

3. Mutual Trust and Respect
Trust and respect have to be built, preferably early on in the relationship. As we’ve seen above, communication is one key aspect of this. Openness and honesty are essential. It almost boils down to “do what you say and say what you do”. Certainly keep your commitments (unless there is really good reason you can’t in which case explain, honestly, as soon as possible beforehand why you can’t).

Respect the other person’s opinions and values, even if you yourself are unable to agree with them. We each hold our opinions and values for a reason (which we may not know) so they have an importance to us. So don’t attack them or ridicule them. Discuss them by all means, in a civilised way, but accept that you may not come to mutual agreement, just mutual understanding of each others’ views.

As that builds, early in the relationship, it should become apparent that you could trust your partner with your last shirt or your best mate. If you can’t maybe you shouldn’t be in the relationship?

4. Shared Bed
In my view sharing a bed is an equally key element of a relationship. You are going to spend 30%+ of your time in there so make sure it is a comfortable bed, which is big enough and soft (or hard) enough.

Physical intimacy is important. That doesn’t mean it has to be sexual. A lot of the time it will not be sexual. Just the proximity of your partner should be something you cherish, something comforting. However miserable or depressed you feel, or however much you are out of sorts with each other, it is hard to fall asleep together without making up.

Even after many years together what better than to fall asleep embracing, to wake in the middle of the night to stroke your (sleeping) partner’s body, to wake in the morning and cuddle into consciousness?

And if you can sleep in the nude, well it gets even better. Get a warm(-enough) duvet so you don’t need pyjamas, knickers or socks and enjoy the delight of lying skin-to-skin.

5. Shared Meals
To me shared meals are also an important factor. If you are both working they may be the only time you get to sit and talk together, or as a family. For us evening meal is sacrosanct time. Time when we eat together, at the dining table, without the TV, book or computer game. Time to enjoy food and to talk. When we were both working it was often the only hour of the day when we could guarantee we were together, not pre-occupied and awake enough to be sentient. Thus it becomes important communication time and important decision-making time — we often sit for some while after finishing eating just talking, about whatever the subject at hand is: do we need to take the cat to the vet; shall I go to that conference next month; should we buy a new freezer; shall we have another bottle of wine.

Having said that, it is important to remember that meals are primarily about food, and enjoying food. What better way than to do this together, with a bottle of wine. And we often discuss food while we eat: ideas for recipes, what do we fancy eating at the weekend, does the wine rack need restocking. Most importantly of all, being together and enjoying food.

So there we have it. Five keys to a robust relationship, which boil down to communication, trust & respect and enjoyment.

Every relationship still has to be continually worked at. And each relationship will be different; working in its own peculiar way. Nonetheless I feel these principles will be the essence of any worthwhile, long-term successful relationship.

They certainly seem to be working for us!

thoughts

The Mind of a Fruit-Loop

Yesterday I came across an interestingly odd — even loopy — article on Scientific American Blogs about the psychedelic guru Terence McKenna.

Apparently McKenna came up with the 21 December 2012 apocalypse long before anyone have delved into the intricacies of the Mayan calendar. The article is a report of an interview with him in 1999 not long before his death, and supposedly tries to uncover whether McKenna was serious in proposing the December 2012 apocalypse or whether he was just being outrageous for the fun of it.

Well you won’t find an answer to that but reading the article, which contains more than a few grains of truth, will give you an insight into the mind of a genuine fruit-loop. Or was he loopy? Maybe he was just a far-sighted shaman.

Anyway I’ll leave you to read the article but here are a few other quotes from McKenna. At first sight many seem crazy, but look deeper and they contains some surprisingly perception nuggets of wisdom and deep thought.

We have to create culture, don’t watch TV, don’t read magazines, don’t even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you’re worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or somebody else, then you are disempowered, you’re giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told ‘no’, we’re unimportant, we’re peripheral. ‘Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.’ And then you’re a player, you don’t want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.”

You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding.

Culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviours are acceptable.

Television is by nature the dominator drug par excellence. Control of content, uniformity of content, repeatability of content make it inevitably a tool of coersion, brainwashing, and manipulation.

Nature is not our enemy, to be raped and conquered. Nature is ourselves, to be cherished and explored.

Nobody is smarter than you are. And what if they are? What good is their understanding doing you?

My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.

Ideology always paves the way toward atrocity.

Belief is a toxic and dangerous attitude toward reality. After all, if it’s there it doesn’t require your belief — and if it’s not there why should you believe in it?

And last, but not least …

Pay Attention.
And keep breathing.

ramblings, thoughts

On National Service

The rise of the most vociferous union power really only happened from the 1960s in Britain, seemingly from about the time of Prime Ministers Harold Wilson (1964-70 & 1974-76) and Ted Heath (1970-74).

This was at the time when National Service had been abolished, so the younger members of the workforce had neither been through the war nor had to do National Service. Military service would have attuned people to the taking of orders without question. But this generation didn’t have that. And they saw that there could be something they believed to be better.

Hence the rebellions of the unions against the “officer class” of the working world: encouraged by the Socialist Wilson and the fire fuelled by their dislike of the Conservative Heath. At much the same time the students, being thinkers, could see that the officers’ orders were not going to make progress towards the “something better” of their vision.

Are people more subdued and subservient out in society if they have had to do National Service and are acclimatised to taking orders rather than questioning them?

But, I suggest, it is this rise of union power which has been a large factor in getting the country into its current mess. Against the backdrop of the world economy (certainly also a factor) there has since the mid-60s been this continual running skirmish — and sometimes open warfare — between the workers/unions and the “officers of industry”, with the government sometimes taking one side or the other depending on its political ideology.

There is also an argument that the unions have stifled job flexibility. By (rightly in many cases) protecting their skilled members they may have compartmentalised job roles making it less easy for people to transition from one role to another, and thus reducing flexibility and mobility in the workplace.

Would Britain be in a better position if this warfare had not existed? If we still had National Service? And if everyone was much more attuned to take orders than question them?

I don’t know. What constitutes “better”?

We likely wouldn’t have the freedoms, the greater equalities, and the opportunities we currently do. But then again we might still have manufacturing industry and people trained in manual skills prepared to do lower-level jobs and thus have less need for immigration.

Would we? I don’t know. But it is an interesting speculation.

I would have hated National Service just as I would have hated going to public school or Oxbridge. I’m proud to have had some of the last of the good grammar school education and been given the opportunity to go to university; an opportunity I would not have had 10 years earlier. And I’m grateful for that education which has been a foundation stone of making me the awkward thinker I am, as are many of my contemporaries. In that sense where we are is a good thing; it allowed many of us to develop and break away from the grindstones. Which is why I consider it beholden on me to give back to society what I can by using both my brain and my skills to help others develop.

And it is gratifying that most of my friends and (former) colleagues – right across the age range – are doing the same thing, albeit in their own, very different, ways.

medical, quotes, science, thoughts

Gardening the Mind

I came across the following quote from Jill Bolte Taylor’s Stroke of Insight on the interwebs the other day. It seems a good take on personal development and personal responsibility.

I view the garden in my mind as a sacred patch of cosmic real estate that the universe has entrusted me to tend over the years of my lifetime. As an independent agent, I and I alone, in conjunction with the molecular genius of my DNA and the environmental factors I am exposed to, will decorate this space within my cranium. In the early years, I may have minimal input into what circuits grow inside my brain because I am the product of the dirt and seeds I have inherited. But to our good fortune, the genius of our DNA is not a dictator, and thanks to our neurons’ plasticity, the power of thought, and the wonders of modern medicine, very few outcomes are absolute.

Regardless of the garden I have inherited, once I consciously take over the responsibility of tending my mind, I choose to nurture those circuits that I want to grow, and consciously prune back those circuits I prefer to live without.

Although it is easier for me to nip a weed when it is just a sprouting bud, with determination and perseverance even the gnarliest of vines, when deprived of fuel, will eventually lose its strength and fall to the side.