Thursday, 31 December 2009
Wassail!
Midwinter festivals are perhaps one of the very oldest human traditions. Over the previous few months the power of the sun has been waning, but now, although there may be long and cold winter months ahead, the decline has been halted and the sun is slowly regaining strength.
In South America, the Incas would symbolically tie the sun to a post to prevent it from escaping completely and plunging the world into perpetual darkness. The Roman festival of Brumalia was a month-long party that ended on 25 December, held in honour of Bacchus, the god of wine and ecstatic ritual. In Japan, the story is that the sun goddess Amaterasu had hidden herself away in cave and the other gods tricked her into emerging by holding a noisy party. In Iran, the popular festival of Shab-e Chelleh has been held for at least 4000 years, with its roots in ancient Persian celebrations of the birth of Mithra, the god of truth and light, born of a virgin mother.
Here in England we have Christmas, the Christian story laid over earlier pagan Yule festivities, giving us a sometimes strange mixture: a child born in a manger and 3 wise men (Persian astrologers), alongside decorated fir trees and Yule logs (now commonly chocolate, but once real logs burned in honour of Thor, the god of thunder). And, in some places, wassailing.
In Saxon times, people commonly greeted each other by saying “Waes hael,” a phrase meaning “be healthy.” This developed into a toast at meals, to which the usual response was “drinc hael” (“drink and be healthy”). Saxon gradually morphed into the English language under the influence of Norman French, and by the 12th century the phrase had come to refer to various activities associated with the midwinter festivities, especially those involving the consumption of copious amounts of spiced ale or mulled cider. So ‘wassailing’ might involve trick-or-treat visits around the village in expectation of food and drink. At parties a wassail bowl or cup would be passed around; you would take a drink, then turn to someone, bid them “wassail!” then with a kiss pass them the cup. The more the cup travelled round, the more passionate and rowdy things became…
In rural areas, the wassailing tradition included offering a libation to the orchards: some of the mulled cider would be poured at the roots of apple trees as a fertility offering. In the 12th century, it must be remembered, the rural English were still fundamentally pagan; it was only during this period that the Normans consolidated their power and made Christianity the predominant religion. If you were Anglo-Saxon and wanted to be part of the establishment, you had to adopt Norman ways. Wassailing ceremonies to celebrate the health of orchards are still held to this day, especially in cider-producing areas such as Somerset and Devon.
What does this time mean for us in our personal lives?
While many of the midwinter festivals celebrate the rebirth of the sun, I feel that perhaps their rollicking nature (typified by the Roman Brumalia) also to some extent was an expression of defiance of the darkness. Nature is a force majeure, a power beyond human control. For all our electricity, if the sun were to fail we would all die. This is as true for us as for our peasant forebears. We need to feel in control of our lives, but by cosmic standards we are powerless. We enjoy our independence, our autonomy as adults, yet we are utterly dependent on so much. Not just nature, but also other people: the engineers who run power plants, the farmers who grow our food, the truckers who transport goods, the staff who run the supermarkets, the binmen who collect our waste… How long would most of us survive if everyone else disappeared?
For many this has been a difficult year; in some respects it has almost been winter every day, a dark time and lacking in cheer. If right now you are full of fear and doubt, then – just for today – eat, drink and be merry. Reach out to others and remember that the sun will return.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Grief, life and meaning
Today I read such a sad news story on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8349764.stm.) The funeral service was held yesterday for nurse Helen Smith who died tragically in 1979. No, that date isn't a typo, and yes, I am writing this in 2009. The funeral was held 30 years after her death.
Her father, Ron Smith, thought the circumstances of her death were suspicious and refused to allow the funeral until he proved his theory that she had been murdered. But now, at the age of 83, Ron finally decided to hold the funeral before he himself dies (he is suffering from kidney disease and requires dialysis 4 times a week).
His desire to discover the truth became an obsession - in his own words he pursued the matter "relentlessly." As a result, he is estranged from his ex-wife and their 3 other children, has lost his friends and leads a solitary existence. And even though he has now permitted the funeral, he has no intention of stopping but intends to continue his campaign until he succeeds or dies.
As a parent myself, I feel that the death of one's child must be the most devastating blow. I hope and pray that I never find out myself what it must feel like. I'm sure that one never truly forgets. And yet Life is for living. Life is for the living. When we are wounded we scream, weep, mourn, berate Fate or God, get angry, depressed... and then we come through the blackness. We reach daylight. And if the sun doesn't seem so bright and the shadows are darker than they once were, so be it.
Ron Smith got lost in trying to find make sense of it all. "I'm not really concerned about people's emotions or about my emotions, I'm concerned about facts," he said.
Refusing to express painful emotions, repressing memories and denying reality are all ways that we hold onto toxic material. These eventually manifest in the body in disease. The main function of the kidneys is to filter the blood and remove toxic substances that would otherwise poison the body, excreting them in urine. In not coming to terms with his emotions, I feel that Ron Smith has just pissed his life away instead.
And this is what is so sad. I'm sure he loved his daughter. But he had living people to love too: family and friends, all of whom were wanting love & support and were willing to offer it too. He chose to turn his back on them, to pursue facts rather than feeling. He thought he could find answers. But there is no point seeking meaning in Death. There is none. It is merely the context in which we exist. There is no life without death, just as there is no light without dark. If we are wise we enjoy the sunshine, knowing that one day night will fall. We should mourn the dead then leave the graveyard, because all too soon it will be our turn to go and not come back.
Her father, Ron Smith, thought the circumstances of her death were suspicious and refused to allow the funeral until he proved his theory that she had been murdered. But now, at the age of 83, Ron finally decided to hold the funeral before he himself dies (he is suffering from kidney disease and requires dialysis 4 times a week).
His desire to discover the truth became an obsession - in his own words he pursued the matter "relentlessly." As a result, he is estranged from his ex-wife and their 3 other children, has lost his friends and leads a solitary existence. And even though he has now permitted the funeral, he has no intention of stopping but intends to continue his campaign until he succeeds or dies.
As a parent myself, I feel that the death of one's child must be the most devastating blow. I hope and pray that I never find out myself what it must feel like. I'm sure that one never truly forgets. And yet Life is for living. Life is for the living. When we are wounded we scream, weep, mourn, berate Fate or God, get angry, depressed... and then we come through the blackness. We reach daylight. And if the sun doesn't seem so bright and the shadows are darker than they once were, so be it.
Ron Smith got lost in trying to find make sense of it all. "I'm not really concerned about people's emotions or about my emotions, I'm concerned about facts," he said.
Refusing to express painful emotions, repressing memories and denying reality are all ways that we hold onto toxic material. These eventually manifest in the body in disease. The main function of the kidneys is to filter the blood and remove toxic substances that would otherwise poison the body, excreting them in urine. In not coming to terms with his emotions, I feel that Ron Smith has just pissed his life away instead.
And this is what is so sad. I'm sure he loved his daughter. But he had living people to love too: family and friends, all of whom were wanting love & support and were willing to offer it too. He chose to turn his back on them, to pursue facts rather than feeling. He thought he could find answers. But there is no point seeking meaning in Death. There is none. It is merely the context in which we exist. There is no life without death, just as there is no light without dark. If we are wise we enjoy the sunshine, knowing that one day night will fall. We should mourn the dead then leave the graveyard, because all too soon it will be our turn to go and not come back.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Eczema, teeth and buttocks
My grandfather had wonderful teeth. He was a handsome man, but the one feature my grandmother adored was his lovely smile. He was also fortunate to be one of the lucky young men who actually survived World War 1. Just under 900,000 UK soldiers met their death in that awful conflict. Bad enough - but spare a thought for what was then the Kingdom of Serbia, where an estimated 16% of the entire population was killed.
But I digress.
My grandfather, then, survived the war, although he was wounded in the buttock. He survived and his beautiful teeth charmed a young lady, and three children resulted (my mother being the first). But life wasn't all sweetness and light. My grandfather developed eczema and stomach troubles. The doctor tried various treatments, but none were successful. So they decided it was all caused by 'bad teeth.' Apparently, that was the thing in those days. Teeth could cause all sorts of ailments, even if they were apparently healthy.
So - terrible day - the doctors insisted that the only cure would be for my grandfather to have all his teeth extracted. And extracted they duly were. Did it cure the eczema and the stomach troubles? I'll give you three guesses - and a hint that the answer begins with the letter 'n'... Of course it ddin't cure anything. My grandfather continued to suffer from eczema and stomach troubles, but now lived without his beautful teeth.
Then about 1935, his old war wound flared up and he developed an abcess on the buttock. Eventually it burst - and a piece of shrapnel came out. It must have been embedded there for about 18 years. The abcess healed up - and so did his eczema and stomach troubles. The shrapnel must have been poisoning his entire system. His teeth had been sacrificed for nothing.
Medical science has progressed since then. But it's not perfect. It's hard to imagine a day when there will be nothing more to learn, no further progress to be made. And doctors, however wonderful a job they do, are human and fallible. Me, I like to think that a really good bodyworker (had they existed in his day) would have found the root of the problem and saved my grandfather's beautiful teeth. I think our bodies hold a great deal of wisdom - if we would only listen. So if you have a chronic condition, listen to your body before you take any drastic action.
But I digress.
My grandfather, then, survived the war, although he was wounded in the buttock. He survived and his beautiful teeth charmed a young lady, and three children resulted (my mother being the first). But life wasn't all sweetness and light. My grandfather developed eczema and stomach troubles. The doctor tried various treatments, but none were successful. So they decided it was all caused by 'bad teeth.' Apparently, that was the thing in those days. Teeth could cause all sorts of ailments, even if they were apparently healthy.
So - terrible day - the doctors insisted that the only cure would be for my grandfather to have all his teeth extracted. And extracted they duly were. Did it cure the eczema and the stomach troubles? I'll give you three guesses - and a hint that the answer begins with the letter 'n'... Of course it ddin't cure anything. My grandfather continued to suffer from eczema and stomach troubles, but now lived without his beautful teeth.
Then about 1935, his old war wound flared up and he developed an abcess on the buttock. Eventually it burst - and a piece of shrapnel came out. It must have been embedded there for about 18 years. The abcess healed up - and so did his eczema and stomach troubles. The shrapnel must have been poisoning his entire system. His teeth had been sacrificed for nothing.
Medical science has progressed since then. But it's not perfect. It's hard to imagine a day when there will be nothing more to learn, no further progress to be made. And doctors, however wonderful a job they do, are human and fallible. Me, I like to think that a really good bodyworker (had they existed in his day) would have found the root of the problem and saved my grandfather's beautiful teeth. I think our bodies hold a great deal of wisdom - if we would only listen. So if you have a chronic condition, listen to your body before you take any drastic action.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Samhain
Unless you've been on a retreat in some desolate spot you can't fail to have noticed the shops are full of witchy hats, ghoulish masks and skeleton costumes. Yes, Halloween is here. Halloween has its roots in the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced 'sowin' ) which meant "summer's end". At Samhain people would assess the year's harvest and see what they had and needed to get them through the coming dark days of winter. It was also believed that this was the time when the veil between the living world and the spirit world was at its thinnest. Summer is clearly over, winter has not yet begun: this was very much a time to 'take stock.' And although few of us now live close to the land and the seasons like the ancient inhabitants of this country, this is something we can usefully do in our own way.
You might like to ask yourself:
Such reflections seem more appropriate this year than in previous ones. We live in a society where materialism tends to covers up the cracks: people can ignore their unhappiness as long as they can go shopping. With the economic downturn - and the shocking suddenness of the meltdown - many people are struggling and feeling insecure, and are finding that when the external world gets turned upside-down it calls for a re-evaluation of our lives and priorities. This is a good time to invest in yourself.
If you are wanting support as you examine your life, I can help you. I work on the basis of ability to pay, so offer reduced fees for those on lower incomes and for long-term commitments. Visit my therapy website http://www.richardlawton.net to find out more.
You might like to ask yourself:
- What have I harvested this past year? What plans or goals came to fruition? Which didn't - and why?
- What resources (financial, emotional, psychological) do I have right now? Are they sufficient to get me through the coming months?
- What about the ghosts of your past? Literal or metaphorical - what is your relationship with them? Have you laid them to rest or do they haunt you?
Such reflections seem more appropriate this year than in previous ones. We live in a society where materialism tends to covers up the cracks: people can ignore their unhappiness as long as they can go shopping. With the economic downturn - and the shocking suddenness of the meltdown - many people are struggling and feeling insecure, and are finding that when the external world gets turned upside-down it calls for a re-evaluation of our lives and priorities. This is a good time to invest in yourself.
If you are wanting support as you examine your life, I can help you. I work on the basis of ability to pay, so offer reduced fees for those on lower incomes and for long-term commitments. Visit my therapy website http://www.richardlawton.net to find out more.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Sex in Room 101
Continuing my perusal of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see previous "Reckless Sex" blog), I find this section:
62 Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence
(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he commits any offence with the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence.
This section seems to me rather worrying in terms of civil liberties. Note the words "any offence". It appears to mean that someone can be found guilty of an offence they have actually not committed. Granted that many offences covered by this law are despicable (rape, child abuse), I am nonetheless profoundly uncomfortable when the law regards 'intent' as precisely equivalent to 'action'. How can this be? I am not sure what scenarios this section was intended to cover, but it opens the door to Kafkaesque possibilities. It's not all that difficult to imagine a combination of circumstances whereby a trivial offence becomes an accusation of intent to commit a sexual offence. For example:
Mr X simply cannot get tickets to a gig by his favourite band. In a moment of desperation, he goes to the venue and climbs in through a small window. Unfortunately, it's the window to the ladies toilets. Someone reports it to Security and they call the police. The police arrest him on a charge of voyeurism. Even if there is no evidence at all that he has committed an act of voyeurism, the police could argue that he entered the premises not to see the band but to commit an act of voyeurism. If he had a camera or mobile phone in his possession (quite likely with fans at gigs), that would be even more damning.
Under this law, an offence committed with intent to commit a sexual offence is regarded as the same as the act itself. In this case, his 'unlawful entry' into the venue could result in a prison sentence of 2 years for voyeurism. Unlikely? Yes, I agree. But I can easily envisage abuse of this provision - and the nightmare of having to defend oneself against a charge of intent.
I have no legal training, and am just reading this through layman's eyes. I do not know if I have totally misunderstood - I hope so. Nor do I know what proof is required of 'intent.' I would be pleased if a any legal expert reading this could clarify matters.
I have no wish to make life easy for those who commit serious sexual offences. However, once 'intent' is enshrined in law as equivalent to 'action' I feel we are on a very slippery slope. Am I the only one who worries about how a hard-line government might use this? We have already seen the Prevention of Terrorism Act misued to arrest people (for example, a protestor at a Labour Party conference).
If you haven't read George Orwell's '1984' go and read it at once. We might all end up in Room 101.
62 Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence
(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he commits any offence with the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence.
This section seems to me rather worrying in terms of civil liberties. Note the words "any offence". It appears to mean that someone can be found guilty of an offence they have actually not committed. Granted that many offences covered by this law are despicable (rape, child abuse), I am nonetheless profoundly uncomfortable when the law regards 'intent' as precisely equivalent to 'action'. How can this be? I am not sure what scenarios this section was intended to cover, but it opens the door to Kafkaesque possibilities. It's not all that difficult to imagine a combination of circumstances whereby a trivial offence becomes an accusation of intent to commit a sexual offence. For example:
Mr X simply cannot get tickets to a gig by his favourite band. In a moment of desperation, he goes to the venue and climbs in through a small window. Unfortunately, it's the window to the ladies toilets. Someone reports it to Security and they call the police. The police arrest him on a charge of voyeurism. Even if there is no evidence at all that he has committed an act of voyeurism, the police could argue that he entered the premises not to see the band but to commit an act of voyeurism. If he had a camera or mobile phone in his possession (quite likely with fans at gigs), that would be even more damning.
Under this law, an offence committed with intent to commit a sexual offence is regarded as the same as the act itself. In this case, his 'unlawful entry' into the venue could result in a prison sentence of 2 years for voyeurism. Unlikely? Yes, I agree. But I can easily envisage abuse of this provision - and the nightmare of having to defend oneself against a charge of intent.
I have no legal training, and am just reading this through layman's eyes. I do not know if I have totally misunderstood - I hope so. Nor do I know what proof is required of 'intent.' I would be pleased if a any legal expert reading this could clarify matters.
I have no wish to make life easy for those who commit serious sexual offences. However, once 'intent' is enshrined in law as equivalent to 'action' I feel we are on a very slippery slope. Am I the only one who worries about how a hard-line government might use this? We have already seen the Prevention of Terrorism Act misued to arrest people (for example, a protestor at a Labour Party conference).
If you haven't read George Orwell's '1984' go and read it at once. We might all end up in Room 101.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Reckless sex
Ignorance of the law is no defence in court. It doesn't matter if you were not aware that something was illegal, if you did it, you're going down. So my question is, how well do you know the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was the most comprehensive legislative reform in the area of sexuality for over 100 years. Existing legislation was updated or in some cases revoked, new offences were added. For example: bestiality and necrophilia become specific offences for the first time; some homosexual offences have been repealed, so that there is now no legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual acts. (Note: lesbianism has never been illegal in England; the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 aimed to criminalise homosexual and lesbian conduct, but Queen Victoria crossed out all references to lesbianism, stating "Female homosexuality does not exist.")
There are some passages in the Act that caught my eye, made me chuckle, caused me to think... For example:
69 Intercourse with an animal
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally performs an act of penetration with his penis,
(b) what is penetrated is the vagina or anus of a living animal, and
(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A's vagina or anus to be penetrated,
(b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
(c) A knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what A is being penetrated by.
Now, I am not a legal expert, but generally that seems quite clear. An offence is committed if a man penetrates an animal or a man or woman allows himself or herself to be penetrated by an animal. What puzzles me is the phrase "or is reckless as to whether". Huh??? What situation is that supposed to cover?
"Well, Officer, my friends had set me up with a date who they said was a stallion in bed, and because I'd had a few too many Bacardi Breezers I didn't notice he had four hooves and a tail..."
"It was like this, Officer. I was at a barbecue party. She came over to me wearing a fleece, and asked if I'd got any grass and started making sheeps-eyes at me and one thing led to another..."
Or perhaps it is a warning not to run naked around the chicken-yard sporting an erection, in case you stumble and a chicken breaks your fall? I don't know if there have been any prosecutions under this particular section of the law.
It appears that only anal or vaginal penetration is illegal - which is why celebrity Rebecca Loos could not be prosecuted when she masturbated a boar on reality TV show The Farm in October 2004 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/06/realitytv.broadcasting).
Oh, by the way, in the above extract from the Act "69" honestly is the section number.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was the most comprehensive legislative reform in the area of sexuality for over 100 years. Existing legislation was updated or in some cases revoked, new offences were added. For example: bestiality and necrophilia become specific offences for the first time; some homosexual offences have been repealed, so that there is now no legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual acts. (Note: lesbianism has never been illegal in England; the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 aimed to criminalise homosexual and lesbian conduct, but Queen Victoria crossed out all references to lesbianism, stating "Female homosexuality does not exist.")
There are some passages in the Act that caught my eye, made me chuckle, caused me to think... For example:
69 Intercourse with an animal
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally performs an act of penetration with his penis,
(b) what is penetrated is the vagina or anus of a living animal, and
(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A's vagina or anus to be penetrated,
(b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
(c) A knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what A is being penetrated by.
Now, I am not a legal expert, but generally that seems quite clear. An offence is committed if a man penetrates an animal or a man or woman allows himself or herself to be penetrated by an animal. What puzzles me is the phrase "or is reckless as to whether". Huh??? What situation is that supposed to cover?
"Well, Officer, my friends had set me up with a date who they said was a stallion in bed, and because I'd had a few too many Bacardi Breezers I didn't notice he had four hooves and a tail..."
"It was like this, Officer. I was at a barbecue party. She came over to me wearing a fleece, and asked if I'd got any grass and started making sheeps-eyes at me and one thing led to another..."
Or perhaps it is a warning not to run naked around the chicken-yard sporting an erection, in case you stumble and a chicken breaks your fall? I don't know if there have been any prosecutions under this particular section of the law.
It appears that only anal or vaginal penetration is illegal - which is why celebrity Rebecca Loos could not be prosecuted when she masturbated a boar on reality TV show The Farm in October 2004 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/06/realitytv.broadcasting).
Oh, by the way, in the above extract from the Act "69" honestly is the section number.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Pluto, God and Traffic Jams
A friend is mine is deeply into astrology. I don't mean the simplistic newspaper horoscopes, which rarely seem to sing from the same hymn-sheet - or do I mean star-chart? Today, for example, I am being told that I am "well-equipped to handle other people's deep emotions." As a body psychotherapist I'm very relieved to hear this. Elsewhere I am told that I am feeling tired and that I need to indulge myself with rest. Strangely, immediately below this advice I am invited to click on a link labelled 'Should I take breast enlargement pills?' Now I am very comfortable with bodies - in my work I see all shapes and sizes - but as I'm happy in my skin I think I shall decline this offer. Even more strangely, yet another horoscope warns that colleagues may try to convince me to take up a silly cause. Ermm, like taking moob pills?
No, this friend is into the serious stuff. And the other day she informed me that Pluto has gone retrograde, so until September the astrological forces at work will be highlighting "the desires of the soul which are not working anymore." You have been warned.
Now much as I love my friend, we do disagree on astrology. She regards it as an essential tool for managing her life, something that gives her forewarning about the influences and tendencies surrounding her. In that sense it's like traffic information for drivers. There are roadworks on the M4, Reading FC are playing at home today and there are speed traps between Swindon and Chippenham; so if you're driving from London to Bristol, allow extra time for your journey.
The problem for me is that the traffic information is based on a reality that I can understand. Workmen have put cones up on the M4. The police have parked a white van on a motorway bridge in Wiltshire. Reading FC fans are driving towards Madejski Stadium... My paths will cross these things in the near future. That is a reality I can comprehend. It impacts my life, and awareness of these facts gives me options - choices about how and when I travel.
But Pluto going retrograde is a wholly different matter. My friend would say that this too impacts my life, and awareness of the fact gives me choices. But I'm uncomfortable with it. Even more uncomfortably, often the things she mentions turn out to be accurate. I haven't made a scientific study, but I've registered enough 'coincidences' to feel unable to reject it all out of hand. Is it really so very different from traffic information or a weather forecast? I don't know. But I do know that it feels different.
It's like the question about God and free will. God, being omniscient, knows what we're going to do. But if he knows right now - before we've even done it - then our future actions and choices are apparently already made. I can do nothing other than what I am going to do. In which case, do I really have a choice? And if I don't have a choice, how can I be responsible for my actions?
Philosophers and theologians continue to grapple with this debate. Better minds than mine have failed to win the argument one way or another. So what is left?
I feel that if we do not have free will then the lives we lead do not make sense, the society we live in is a collective fantasy - no, a complete sham. If I do not have free will, then who - and what - am I?
For myself I have to assert that we have free will. I'm not sure if that is true - but I choose to believe it. This is not denial - denial is a defence mechanism in which people unconsciously refuse to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or realities. I am fully aware of the both the reality, the possbilities and my own feelings. Knowing the uncertainties I choose to act. And I act knowing that maybe it's all a huge cosmic joke.
But then that's life. We navigate our way between dreams and reality, hopes and fears, joy and pain, on an uncertain road leading... somewhere. Don't worry about Pluto, God and traffic jams; fasten your seatbelt and enjoy the ride.
No, this friend is into the serious stuff. And the other day she informed me that Pluto has gone retrograde, so until September the astrological forces at work will be highlighting "the desires of the soul which are not working anymore." You have been warned.
Now much as I love my friend, we do disagree on astrology. She regards it as an essential tool for managing her life, something that gives her forewarning about the influences and tendencies surrounding her. In that sense it's like traffic information for drivers. There are roadworks on the M4, Reading FC are playing at home today and there are speed traps between Swindon and Chippenham; so if you're driving from London to Bristol, allow extra time for your journey.
The problem for me is that the traffic information is based on a reality that I can understand. Workmen have put cones up on the M4. The police have parked a white van on a motorway bridge in Wiltshire. Reading FC fans are driving towards Madejski Stadium... My paths will cross these things in the near future. That is a reality I can comprehend. It impacts my life, and awareness of these facts gives me options - choices about how and when I travel.
But Pluto going retrograde is a wholly different matter. My friend would say that this too impacts my life, and awareness of the fact gives me choices. But I'm uncomfortable with it. Even more uncomfortably, often the things she mentions turn out to be accurate. I haven't made a scientific study, but I've registered enough 'coincidences' to feel unable to reject it all out of hand. Is it really so very different from traffic information or a weather forecast? I don't know. But I do know that it feels different.
It's like the question about God and free will. God, being omniscient, knows what we're going to do. But if he knows right now - before we've even done it - then our future actions and choices are apparently already made. I can do nothing other than what I am going to do. In which case, do I really have a choice? And if I don't have a choice, how can I be responsible for my actions?
Philosophers and theologians continue to grapple with this debate. Better minds than mine have failed to win the argument one way or another. So what is left?
I feel that if we do not have free will then the lives we lead do not make sense, the society we live in is a collective fantasy - no, a complete sham. If I do not have free will, then who - and what - am I?
For myself I have to assert that we have free will. I'm not sure if that is true - but I choose to believe it. This is not denial - denial is a defence mechanism in which people unconsciously refuse to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or realities. I am fully aware of the both the reality, the possbilities and my own feelings. Knowing the uncertainties I choose to act. And I act knowing that maybe it's all a huge cosmic joke.
But then that's life. We navigate our way between dreams and reality, hopes and fears, joy and pain, on an uncertain road leading... somewhere. Don't worry about Pluto, God and traffic jams; fasten your seatbelt and enjoy the ride.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Stop reading! Quota exceeded.
I've just spotted an advert for Sony's new eBook reader. It starts off:
"160 books under one cover
Imagine having your entire book collection whenever, wherever"
Entire book collection? 160 books? I assume that Sony have performed extensive market research and concluded that's how many the typical reader owns. Turning my head, I can see at least that many on the shelves behind me. In fact, 179 - I just got up and counted them. Many, many more are scattered throughout my home. Do I read too much? I don't think so - I'm very aware of how many of those behind me I haven't yet read. 20, maybe 30? From heavyweight therapy tomes to escapist holiday reading, books are an integral part of my space.
A friend asked for some practical advice recently (as she does frequently on all sorts of matters). After I'd given her my thoughts, she said "How do you know all these things?"
Books. And, over the last 10 years or so, increasingly the web. And that's the fundamental difference between me and her. She's had - I forget how many husbands and children. She's explored the world in one way, I in another. My collection of books wouldn't fit on Sony's latest offering. But the fullness of her life can't be captured that way either.
There was a point to all this, but it quite escapes me. Now, where did I put that book on memory tips and techniques..?
"160 books under one cover
Imagine having your entire book collection whenever, wherever"
Entire book collection? 160 books? I assume that Sony have performed extensive market research and concluded that's how many the typical reader owns. Turning my head, I can see at least that many on the shelves behind me. In fact, 179 - I just got up and counted them. Many, many more are scattered throughout my home. Do I read too much? I don't think so - I'm very aware of how many of those behind me I haven't yet read. 20, maybe 30? From heavyweight therapy tomes to escapist holiday reading, books are an integral part of my space.
A friend asked for some practical advice recently (as she does frequently on all sorts of matters). After I'd given her my thoughts, she said "How do you know all these things?"
Books. And, over the last 10 years or so, increasingly the web. And that's the fundamental difference between me and her. She's had - I forget how many husbands and children. She's explored the world in one way, I in another. My collection of books wouldn't fit on Sony's latest offering. But the fullness of her life can't be captured that way either.
There was a point to all this, but it quite escapes me. Now, where did I put that book on memory tips and techniques..?
Space: Clean Water or McDonalds on Mars?
There was an interesting article by Lucy and Stephen Hawking in The Times at the weekend about the future of space exploration. I'm sure you know the background: with so much need on Earth, is it justifiable to spend billions on space research and exploration? Stephen H is - as you would imagine - in favour. His main reason was to ensure that this world - humanity in the collective - has a future. I understand his point, although some of what he said made me squirm slightly. Comparing the world now to the world just before Columbus set sail in 1492, he comments: "The discovery of the new world made a profound difference to the old. Just think, we wouldn't have KFC or the Big Mac."
When the amount spent on space could probably provide clean drinking water for the entire Third World, and when you look at the problems caused by junk food, this is a rather unfortunate comment. Yes, I'm sure he means it as a humorous way of getting people to think about the issue in everyday terms, but still... Forget clean water! We can have a McDonalds on Mars in 50 years! Is that the best you can do, Stephen?
For myself, I feel both sides of the discussion. I instinctively feel it is wrong to spend money on hi-tech projects when so many in the world are suffering. And yet...
I believe that we do need big dreams. We do need new frontiers. At least, men do. Here in Western societies, for the first time ever we have no frontiers. Throughout history, people who didn't wish to be a member of society could simply leave - travel into the wilderness and build a new home where they wanted. Hunt, trap and live off the land. But gradually that possibility has been contracting, and now only exists in fairy tales. People who are cast out or wish to be outsiders have nowhere to go. They gravitate to cities and live in cardboard boxes. There is no small piece of land they can take and call their own. All the land is taken, and they have no wealth to buy some. Nowadays you cannot set out with a piece of bread and cheese to seek your fortune.
But maybe one day it will be possble again. An empty planet, a blank canvas to dream upon, frontiers to explore, room to breathe.
Men need challenge, a space to be, independence, freedom. The most they have now is the sanctum of a garden shed. Alpha Centauri? Bring it on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
