Halloween Head

It's Halloween, so I feel I should write something, but I don't really have much to write. I have this sense that it would be cathartic to do so though.

I like Halloween and Guy Fawkes. I like the fact that there's a depth of feeling to them, but that you don't have to do anything. There are no days off work, or major interruptions into regular daily life - they just kind of happen. I love Christmas, but it comes with a lot a jazz. There's all the planning, the Christmas shopping. In fact, I'm already slightly stressed about Christmas shopping, and it's still two months away. Whereas here we are on the very day of Halloween and it's no worries at all. Maybe there'll be a few knocks on the door tonight, but even then there's no obligation to open it.

I tend to enjoy Guy Fawkes slightly more, but even with that it's just as a passing spectator. Walking home in the dark, from work or a friends, and seeing the skies filled with fireworks. The vague awareness that it dates back 400 years; that it's uniquely tied to British history, in a way that other holidays aren't. All that coupled with the knowledge that the bonfires simultaneously lit date back thousands of years. Deep into some ancient past.

I remember the first time I ever heard the Stone Roses first album was on Bonfire Night. I had about an hour to listen to it, before heading out to wander the streets with my friends - checking out the local bonfires. One of the good things about living on a council estate back then was that it was still wild enough to have a sense of danger. Bonfires on every local field, higher than houses. The danger that someone would throw a firework at ya. There was always a weird night-at-the-fair type atmosphere. Everything seemed more gypsy and feral. Anyway, hearing that album for the first time, in my darkened bedroom, with fireworks filling the skylight of the window was quite a 'wow' moment. The only track I was familiar with was She Bangs The Drums, so it was almost entirely new to me. I wanted to listen to it again, but I also felt the pull of the bonfires outside.

That seems a long time ago now..

Now it feels like Halloween England is a refuge from the rest of the world, not an autumn fairground. Dwarfed by international politics. The instinctive feeling is to retreat into Britishness. In many ways things like Guy Fawkes feel like a celebration of being left alone. Lighting fireworks to celebrate that we've secured a few more centuries of not being bothered by the rest of the world. Like English archers flipping the V to the French.

In my head I feel (or rather think) that I really need to shake off this Britishness, and have a more worldly attitude. It feels a little selfish and narrow-minded to be so parochial. However, whenever I turn on the media to see what's happening in the rest of the world it just turns me off. The feeling that all these people are just beyond help and reason. Even London feels foreign through the phone lens. If it's not protestors protesting for or against Israel/Palestine, it's wacky people with English flags, dressed up like St. George, calling for mass deportations.

Up here, in the north, where I live, I don't see any of this stuff. In fact, the other day I was on the bus and I sat watching an African immigrant guy helping an old white guy with a walker off the bus. He watched the old guy step off the bus like a parent watching a toddler on the stairs. The difference from what I was seeing on my phone that day couldn't have been starker.

Anyone that's read this blog over the last few years will know that I'm not saying everything is therefore rosy. The immigration levels are ridiculous. In the long run we will end up like Lebanon if it continues like this. In the short term we will have massive homelessness and overcrowding. However, it's not the end of the world, and the solution is pretty obvious: reduce the inward immigration. We don't need anything wacky, like deportations of people born here, or political parties just for Muslim people.

I really feel that if we just get a handle on immigration we'll integrate everyone here (tricky though that might be) and Britain will just be fine. When I look at the rest of the world though, I really don't know what the answer is, and saying we just want to be left alone to enjoy the fireworks won't cut the mustard with them.

(That went from whimsy to seriousness pretty quickly, I'll bring it back with some happy pumpkins..

🎃🎃🎃

New Addition to the Library

Boom.

I had to rely on eBay in the end. My visit to the charity shop was unsuccessful. (Also, I've somehow managed to take a picture that creates the optical illusion that the picture frame itself is wonky.)

Under Grace

The difference between living under Law and living under Grace.

Let's say you don't do something bad. Let's say you don't punch someone, and someone asks why you didn't punch someone.

If your response is, "..Because it's against the law" - then that's not an ideal answer.

Sure, it's good that we have laws that stop people from punching each other, and it's good you're obeying that law. However, ideally your answer should be something more like:

"..Because I have no desire to punch someone."

If you have a good heart, and good intentions towards others, then you don't really need that law. As you'll not go around punching people, whether there's a law or not.

This is what Christians mean when they state that living 'under grace' is higher than living under law.

Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself

In the New Testament, when Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in law, he replies:

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Essentially stating that having truly good intent precedes all law. That is, if you have a good heart, and you care for others as you care for yourself - and you live your life always in that mode (i.e. in that state of grace) - then your way of living will be good regardless of specific laws.

(If you're an atheist and you don't like the idea of having to "Love God," try replacing that first line with, 'Approach life with love in your heart, mind and soul.' Or, 'Love the whole world with your heart, mind and soul.')

The idea that the heart is higher than written law also acknowledges the fact that laws can be bad as well as good. Or can be put to bad use if followed to the letter rather than to the spirit. Again, the argument that you were 'just following orders' isn't really good enough from a moral point of view, if you just followed those orders coldly and without true care for others. Even if technically they were lawful.

So, ultimately, it doesn't matter if you go to synagogue on a Saturday, or church on a Sunday. What truly matters is that you live in goodness, ..on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The Illusion of Time

A quick one, and a bit of an unusual one for this blog. Time - is it an illusion?

Personally, it's my view that 'time' isn't real in a scientific sense. I believe it only really exists conceptually. (This topic popped up on Twitter, thanks to Elon Musk, so that's why I'm now posting about it here.)

Time is just general movement (all the things that are generally happening), measured against a regular, repeating movement.

People have this idea that time is a thing that exists, that we're all moving through, but I don't think that's the case. There's just movement, and the concept of time arises from things moving. Things don't move in, or through time. Time springs out as a concept from the movement. So essentially there is no time, just things moving.

You could say there is no time, only change. Things change (move), and time is just a name for change when it's measured against something that changes predictably or uniformly.

Example

Often we'll have time represented, as a real thing, in an equation. For example, if we were measuring how fast a car was travelling we'd use the equation:

Speed = Distance/Time

Where we measure the distance travelled in a given time by the car to get the speed.

However, though it's handy to think in terms of time, the reality is we're not measuring the distance relative to time - we're measuring it relative to a clock.

Let's say it's a watch with a ticking second hand, and the car travels 600 meters in 60 seconds.

The ticking second hand is moving.

So though we think in terms of time ..and measure the speed as 600/60 (distance/time), giving us 10 meters per second. The reality is we're actually measuring the movement of the car, against the movement of the second hand.

We're saying: As the second hand moved sixty times the car moved 600 meters.

..But!

Now you might be saying "..But the second hand is measuring a second of time with each tick!"

However, what is a second?

It's a division of a minute, which is a division of an hour, which is a division of a day.

And what is a day?

It's the Earth moving around the Sun.

So the original clock - the heavenly motion of the Sun - is again just a repeating movement. We're measuring the things on Earth against the regular, repeating motion of the Sun.

If you travel 100 miles in 5 days you might think in terms of time, but again, in reality, it's a case that as the Sun travelled around 5 times you travelled 100 miles. It's movement measured against movement. Not against some imagined corridor of time we're all travelling through.

And all clocks are the same. They all provide a regular motion against which we can measure all other motion. Whether it's the ticking hand of a watch, the Sun or Moon, or an atomic clock.

So ultimately we're always measuring things relative to movement.

1984: 1984: 1984: 1984

Today when I woke I headed to the BBC News website to see what was going on. Amidst the blood and carnage I came across this article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67218454

It's about a modern artist who has pulped copies of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and turned them into copies of George Orwell's 1984. The story going that charity shops were overwhelmed with unwanted copies of the former.

The lack of respect for The Da Vinci Code is a real bugbear of mine. It was a genuinely great book, that brought a lot of real joy and adventure to people ..lots of people. Even at the time there was a lot of snobbery from the intelligentsia class towards it though. Largely in regard the writing style, but also in regard the content in general. In fact, showing how much of a bugbear it is for me, I actually covered this topic on another blog way back in 2011 😄

See Here: Recently Read - Angels and Demons

Another bugbear for me is modern art in general, so this one doubly gets me (apparently the newly made copies of 1984 are going for £495 !).

When I first read The Da Vinci Code I absolutely zipped through it. At the time I was in a guitar band, (this must have been 2004/5 ish), and I remember we had a gig. I was that engrossed in the book that I was reading it at the venue before we played. It sticks in my mind because I remember someone pointing at me and saying, "Look, he's reading a book!", as if I had a plant pot on my head or something. But that was how engaging the book was, and not just for me - for millions of people. I gave my copy to my mam, who read it, who passed it on to someone she worked with, who read it. At the time she worked as a school dinner lady. So all sorts of people read it. People who wouldn't normally be avid readers.

Imagine that. A book people actually want to read.

I'm not saying you have to like the book, or that it's beyond criticism, but people should be able to recognise the success and cultural importance of it. Only intellectuals that can't see the wood for the trees can't.

George Orwell

I can't really imagine that Orwell would appreciate the pulping of the book too. There's something strangely dystopic about destroying books to make copies of 1984. It doesn't quite sit right.

Also, though I wouldn't like to say whether Orwell would've liked The Da Vinci Code or not, I'm pretty confident he wouldn't have criticised its simple, pacey writing style.

I'm reminded of this essay from Orwell whenever I think of intellectual word salads.

Politics and the English Language [a must read]

A Hopeless Testament

Finally, while I'm on the topic of 1984, I want to comment upon why it's so depressing (aside from the general observation that it seems to be becoming reality).

At the end of the book the main character Winston Smith [..I'm giving away the ending here, so if you'd rather not know, stop here].

//////////////////////////---

 ..the main character Winston Smith gets tortured and beaten by the state. So badly that he wants to die, but he can't die, as the state keeps him alive. So he's horrendously tortured to the point that he gets completely broken. At the end of the book he's just a shell of man, with no will at all to resist the state. He's resigned to the fact that it's futile.

So the book leaves you with the message that Big Brother always wins. You cannot beat the state. So it's very depressing - at least I found it depressing anyway. It's very grim and despairing.

Personally, I think this is because it's an inversion of the story of Christ. In the Christian crucifixion Christ is likewise beaten and tortured, but he overcomes this ..through death. The message is ultimately a positive and hopeful one. That the spirit can overcome the flesh. However, as Winston can't die he cannot transcend and overcome the state.

I don't think Orwell intended this, but as genius as he was I think you're still better off with the New Testament at your side than 1984. (With the caveat that it's my opinion that religious stories should be taken figuratively, not literally.)

In fact, as a final aside, with this Israel/Palestine conflict raging we're hearing a lot of talk about the Amalekites - a tribe of people that are symbolic of evil in Biblical texts. I think if you take these stories metaphorically they can be useful: that there is evil in the world; that people can be evil; that we all potentially have a little Amalekite in ourselves. However, if you take it literally. If you believe there are literal Amalekites, or descendants of Amalekites, that are inherently evil, and that need wiping out. Then that is a very dangerous way of thinking.

[Oh for the days of the exciting treasure hunt that was The Da Vinci Code. Much less depressing all round.

Anyway, I'm now going to head into town to check the charity shops, to see if I can find a copy to replace the one I gave away all those years ago.]

Mirrors and Curtains

It's been two weeks since that last post, and in that time I've continued to think quite a lot about the Israel/Palestine situation. I've reached the point where I think it's probably best that I just stay out of it and watch on from afar. I can't get a handle on things, and it's impossible to take any sort of side from such a point of ignorance. The media (on all sides and in all countries) have cried wolf far too many times over recent years and decades. To the point that words mean nothing. So I find myself in a situation where I feel sad for deaths I haven't seen, yet also guilt for doubting such deaths. It's not good, but I think it's at least a step up from supporting actions that may lead to death, based on nothing concrete.

In the wider context I get the feeling Cold War II is very much still in full swing. The curtain that cut across Ukraine now sweeping through the Middle East, before finally swishing round to close off Tartary and China. I just hope it's more theatre than bloodshed.

I'm currently reading a book about the Kennedy family. Earlier today I read a chapter that noted how JFK didn't sleep for two days with worry during the Bay of Pigs incident. You wonder what it must be like for people making the real decisions. You also wonder if all the people making them fret so much about human life. Just visiting social media you can see how easy it is for people to become blasé about deaths they only witness through a screen. You push a button or give an order and someone dies a thousand miles away. It takes effort and imagination to conjure the empathy. It's not hard to imagine that often it'll be missing in people.

At the same time though the phone or TV screen can whip people up into emotion about people they've never met, as they step over the homeless person on their own street with equal thoughtlessness.

The temptation is to say that people should focus on problems closer to home, in their own reality. That would mean turning yourself off to dying children in far away places though. So that can't be right either.

Plus, everything is interconnected, so eventually the far away will find your own shores.

I'm wandering now.

Anyway, I've been listening to Kula Shaker as I've been writing this, and this song's just popped up in the playlist, and it feels strangely fitting. So I'll leave you with it.

Gimme Some Truth

Troubled by the lack of honour..

I've tended to stay away from international politics on this blog, but this Israel/Palestine conflict has really troubled me, so I'll share my thoughts.

Firstly, it's always difficult to tell what's true and what's false when you're viewing everything through a media lens, so removed from the location. What's real and what's unreal. What's outright propaganda, semi-propaganda and bona fide fact. As ever I tend to step with trepidation, fearing I might be building my own opinions on faulty foundations. It's exhausting questioning everything you see and hear, and demoralising admitting you just don't know, but I don't think that justifies giving in and turning a blind eye to everything. You have to make the effort.

Anyhow, with that weary caveat aside, I'll now give my view on the wider conflict - under the assumption that I at least have the overall picture broadly correct.

In general I'm naturally more pro-Israel, and I have a lot of sympathy for them. They live with the constant threat of terrorism, and not dealing with it isn't an option. It reminds me of Britain and the IRA. You have a situation that is the product of history. One side is the perceived underdog. The grievances lead to terrorism - often supported or funded by outside forces, some of whom may be enemies that view it as a weak spot to be leveraged. If you use force in retaliation to this terrorism it's perceived as further oppression. Which, in turn, generates more sympathy and support for the underdog. It's a cruel bind. So I'm quite sympathetic. I also very much believe that you can't let terrorists win, and that retaliation is not only justified, but necessary.

However, though in principle I'm much more inclined to support Israel, I just cannot support the bombing of civilians. It's just not the right way to fight a war. Of course, it's easy to say this on a blog post, from behind a laptop screen. People will quite rightly respond that life isn't that simple. That you can either go after the terrorists and risk innocent life, or let the terrorists win. You can't have it both ways. Still, I really don't believe in fighting wars in this way. I'd rather do things methodically and risk the lives of my own soldiers - risk defeat even - than kill children. Again though, it's easy to say this as an armchair general, sat so far away from danger.

Would I be saying this if the war was on my own doorstep? I'd like to think I would, but I can't know for sure.

In the old days men would find a field to fight their battles. Bloody and barbarous as it was at least it spared the women and children. This is a romanticised view no doubt, but at least the principle of an honourable war existed. Now, in the modern world, largely thanks to modern technology, it's quite different. I think one of the great tragedies of World War II was that it normalised the idea that good guys could bomb civilians. Normalised that it was somehow acceptable for men to behave this way.

In many ways the entire 20th century was a century of sacrifice. Civilians bombed, civilians put in concentration camps, women and children targeted by terrorists. Not to mention the innumerable aborted children - aborted for mankind's wider benefit. An entire era where instead of shielding the weak and innocent we put them front and centre. The 21st century so far has continued the ethos.

The way all modern countries now value their own soldiers more than the lives of foreign children. I remember during the war in Iraq being shocked at how the media reported the deaths of British soldiers in comparison to civilian deaths. Of course, it's natural that a reluctant war would be measured by the British public in British deaths, but still, I remember being surprised that the deaths of children weren't mourned more greatly. They went uncounted. In fact, as tragic and horrendous as the death of a single British soldier would be, I think nearly all British people would view the death of an innocent child, of any race or nationality, as even worse. I think it's natural to view the life of a child as more precious than that of an adult. I think most soldiers would view things similarly. This natural sense has completely went out the window though.

Watching the entire response to the situation in Israel on Twitter and elsewhere has really sickened me - and I include myself in that. Here we are, adults, sat on smartphones, commenting away, as children are being killed and maimed. There's no honour in this modern life we lead.

Glorified Day Care

Whenever I check into Twitter these days all I seem to find is evidence of the slow creep of the state straightjacket, and video footage of people fighting. Today the topic is Labour's plans to have children brushing their teeth in school. Yesterday it was Conservative plans to create a generation of 'smoke-free' people, by ending cigarette sales to people born after 1st January 2009. Again, all interspersed with footage of fighting, stabbings and other street drama.

It's a wild dichotomy. States so powerful they can regulate every aspect of our lives. Yet so weak the streets are like a jungle.

As an individual it's hard to make plans in this world. Especially if you have grander dreams beyond your own immediate life. Caught between the lions and tigers, and Skynet.

I have a few projects, one of which is to create a better vision for education. However, though I broadly know what I want to say, I'm not quite feeling it at the moment. And when I see talk of children brushing their teeth in school I realise it's an uphill task, with plenty of pitfalls.

One aspect of it is that I believe parents should be able to choose the hours their child spends at school. If you want your child to go to school for only a few hours a day, or a few days a week, that should be your call.

Of course, the cries will instantly come:

"How will that even work!? 😠"

The current norms of the world are so ingrained in people that anything different to what they already know is instantly met with an angry brick wall. So I'm thinking I'll literally have to start with an illustration of a day or a week in the life of a child in my imagined better system. A little story, to paint a picture for all the people too lazy or unwilling to try to imagine what it could look like themselves.

Another aspect is that modern education is pretty much just glorified day care in real practical terms. Many parents find the idea of reducing the school day (or home-schooling in general) appealing, but the reality is they have to go to work, so need to send their child to school. However, even here, education fails - because as a form of day care, it's terribly inflexible. It doesn't work around the parent's work hours, the parent must work around the school hours. You have to leave work early, or enlist a friend or family member to pick the child up at 3pm, as you don't finish work 'til 5pm, or whatever the case is.

This partly helps me reply to the cries of:

"How can you have children starting and finishing school at different times?

How would that even work? 😠"

My reply would be, "Well, how does it work with day care?"

If you needed day care to cover 12pm until 5pm, and every day care centre said, "Sorry, you must bring your child at 9am and then pick them up at 3pm - this is all we can offer." People wouldn't be too impressed.

[And stop, I know what you're thinking, "..but the lessons?!! How can you teach children if they're all turning up at differing times?"

The future education will be tailored to the individual. In this age of the internet and online lessons you won't need classroom lessons with a teacher trying to impart their knowledge to thirty kids at once. Children will open their laptop and pickup where they last left off on their maths or English. (Don't worry, I've got it all sorted.)]

The Real Danger

This returns me to the real pitfall though, and those plans for teeth brushing. The left (and the right, and most of society) are so anti-freedom these days that if I start pointing out that school should operate more like day care, they'll just say, "Great, let's just put the kids under state supervision 24/7."

It won't be, "Let's give parents more freedom and optionality." It'll be even longer school days, and they'll have the kids sleeping in the classroom, like in China.

(bless these little ones)