Why Fundamentalism holds people back.

Any individual, group, society or culture that claims to be the sole protector of the “truth”, be that truth Scientific, Statistical, Christian, Muslim, Communist or whatever – holds a fundamentalist view. In fact anyone with a fixed belief, is Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism constrains human innovation; fundamentalists want to revert to what the purveyors of the ideology consider a “cleaner’ more “pure” past. Or in the case of science (and my pet aversion, statistics) if it can’t be “proved” it doesn’t exist, it can’t work or else it is a figment of someone’s overactive imagination.

Fundamentalist either forget or ignore the human spirit, which cannot be constrained. The human spirit (however defined) needs to be free to seek, to strive and to find, in its own way - and not everyone is the same or wants the same things. Anyone who tries to hold back the human spirit, or attempts to direct it into one particular path is doomed to ultimate failure. To prove this point just take a look at what is happening in the Middle East and the hundreds of thousands demonstrating against the practices of financial institutions in American cities and it other cities around the world.

The possible exception here, to returning to the past, is the Scientific Fundamentalist who believes totally in the power and purity of scientific exposition and innovation – and there have been some wonderful inventions and discoveries. But the Scientific True Believer, in whatever field of science, has an absolute conviction that scientific “knowledge” is the basis for everything including Life itself. This scientific evidence, it is often claimed, can be proved statistically; that Statistical “facts” trump all else; that scientific concepts which are supported by statistical “proof” must therefore be true, and anyone who does not see this or who voices any opposition, is worthy of nothing but contempt.

Just recall the years of ridicule and isolation suffered by two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall who in 1982 discovered that the main cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria Heliobacter pylori. In their original paper, Warren and Marshall contended that most stomach ulcers and gastritis were caused by colonization with this bacterium, not by stress or spicy food as had been assumed before. They did not conform to current scientific thinking and were pilloried for their stand. Had they been scientific fundamentalist they would never have made this discovery and those suffering from stomach ulcers and medicine would have been the poorer. Stomach ulcers are now cured with a short course of antibiotics.

When the subject turns to Religious (or Political) Fundamentalism we delve into murky waters indeed. To my way of thinking religious or political fundamentalism (often considered one and the same when there is no division between “Church” and State) also holds back innovation by demanding (often on pain of death) that all people believe that they (the Leaders) alone know what is best for them – the populace – and that they (the fundamentalist leaders) are following God’s will. And generally fundamentalists of this ilk try to reduce the role of women to virtual slavery and to being totally dependent on the males in the family. Again, look at the Christian fundamentalists in America, the Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists in many Muslim countries, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia and then of course there is the basket case of North Korea.

I may be wrong (the favoured expression always used by someone who believes they are right!!), but by restricting education to learning the Koran and Sharia Law, or applying a strict interpretation of the Torah or the Bible, and by not educating women, these fundamentalists are holding back their citizens.

One needs to ask how fundamentalism, in any form, adds to the material or spiritual well-being of Mankind?

I did it!

This post is to inform my one loyal reader that I have just received the glad tidings that I satisfied the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology at Edith Cowan University (Perth, Western Australia). I will admit to some pride in this achievement. It has taken me a while, with many days of labour and nights devoid of ease. But I did it. If I may say so myself this is not a bad achievement for someone who is 71 years old!

More on refugees, asylum seekers - whatever.

Much of the discussion in Australia, and I presume other countries with similar problems, has been on how to “stop the boats” from arriving. Short of the drastic step of blowing them out of the water there is no short term solution. People have migrated, gone to what they perceive are “greener pastures”, for thousands of years; in fact we are all, in effect, “migrants” out of Africa!

I am sure that many intelligent people have spent a great deal of time thinking about various solutions to this perceived problem but I have not seen much in the media about the actual causes – why these people take the tremendous risk of a precarious land and sea journey to Australia. For instance just reflect for a moment on where these “boat people” originate – generally Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq – not particularly pleasant places to live at the present time. In none of these countries is anyone “free” as we here in Australia would perceive it; all have corrupt or repressive governments; all are consumed by violence of one sort or another; all have a low standard of living for the general populace; all, with the possible exception of Iraq are culturally bound by a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Quite reasonably many people in these countries want to leave for a “better” future and prospects in Australia. If I was in their shoes, I would too – in fact I did. I left Zimbabwe for Australia, with my family, over 30 years ago. But I arrived in an aircraft.

The solution – long term – is to improve conditions in the countries concerned to the extent that their citizens are not tempted to leave. If this is not possible, and being realistic it is probably not possible, then we have to expect people to move - move to what they believe is a better place. Trying to stop them coming is like putting a finger in the leak in a dike – it may work for a while but long term the pressure will build up to a point when it will be impossible to stop.

A few points to consider:-

• After the necessary health and security checks - welcome them as new migrants and put them to work.
• These are generally industrious, intelligent and resourceful people who have suffered as we have not. There is a shortage of labour in the resource States of Western Australia and Queensland. And some, if not most, have skills we need.
• Give them a welcome; give them succour; allow them to work for a better life than the one they have known – give them a future.
• Be charitable and give them an Australian “fair go”.

Refugees are people too.

First up I would like to state, as boldly as I can, that refugees – however they are portrayed – are actually PEOPLE. Never forget they are people, as I am a person; as are you, the reader. As people, individuals, we all suffer – physical and emotional pain, stress, anguish and anxiety and we all have a desire to be treated justly and without prejudice. This is as it should be and this has been recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a noble document and Australia (rightly so) is a signatory to this Declaration.

When some people, citizens of Australia, denigrate and demonise refugees as “boat people”, as “illegal immigrants” or as “queue jumpers” I wonder just how many of them have actually put themselves in the position of these “refugees” and have reflected on what they, the Australians, would do had they experienced a similar background of poverty, injustice and discrimination. And I wonder, also, how many Australians have actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Some Australians (the Federal Government included) in violation of the Declaration actually do nothing to prevent prejudice and discrimination, not to say violence against these individuals, ignoring the fact that, for instance:-

Article 7 states that,
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

And Article 9 seeks to ensure that,
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And then Article 14 which rightfully proclaims,
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

By keeping the refugees/boat people/illegals – whatever – in detention for years Australia is, I believe, in breach of the very Declaration they signed and are hypocritical when they castigate others for not upholding the same Declaration.

And what about charity? This is a quality which is woven into the fabric of every culture and society. In terms of Christianity (and Australia is nominally a Christian country) charity implies love of one’s fellow men (from the Oxford English Dictionary – OED). It means love; kindness; natural affection; spontaneous goodness; a disposition to think favourably of others and to make allowances for their shortcomings; beneficence; liberality to or the provision for those in need or distress.

Is this how we are treating these people who are desperate and in need of succour?

Then there is the adverb charitable which, again in Christian terms, means charity or the love of God and man; tender hearted; loving; benevolent; generous in giving to the poor.

Again I ask are we, as Australians, displaying these virtues and giving assistance to those who ask for our help?

There should be no need for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we treat people as we would like to be treated we are applying the universal principles so powerfully declared. We don’t do this because politicians – for political reasons and a few mischievous individuals – for personal reasons, use terms which try to portray these refugees as “different” – they are illegal immigrants; they are queue jumpers; they are disparaged as ‘boat people’ as if this is something to be despised. Once these terms enter the public consciousness it is easy to assume that because they are considered “different” it doesn’t matter if they are treated differently. This is a dangerous step which leads inevitably to the slippery slope of persecution – and history has provided many unfortunate examples of what this means.

To avoid the accusation of breaching the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all applications for refugee status should be processed IN AUSTRALIA; not “off shore” in Malaysia or anywhere else but here within the safety of this great country.

Nearly there!!

I should feel guilty about not keeping my one loyal reader informed regarding my academic progress. My excuse is that I have already written about this in the past, and as I know that the one reader who follows my posts is no fool he/she will know that I am approaching the end of my university studies.

In fact I trust that I have written my last exam – ever! The month of November has been distinctly stressful. Three exams in 10 days to, hopefully, complete my degree. It will be so good. But, and it is a big but, I have learned over the many years that I have been studying never to count my chickens before they have hatched. So I now wait – wait for the examining powers that be to mark all the papers and post the results.

Patience is the order of the day.

QANTAS – where is the humanity?

Many people forget that a company – in fact any organisation is only as good as the people in it and in fact would not exist without people. A company is a human construct without a life of its own.

Now I last wrote about QANTAS with a bit of ‘tongue in cheek’ as it were. But the overall sentiment expressed is quite valid. Wreck a company’s name and it may be gone forever. What CEO Alan Joyce has to remember is that while the QANTAS Board may have agreed with him and with the views of various financial and legal advisors, the World has looked on in amazement. This action cannot be compared to the Waterside dispute decades ago – who in the world cared about Patricks? Only Australia! QANTAS is an entirely different situation. It is a company with a worldwide reputation for safety and reliability. It is an Australian brand.

Because of the action taken by the CEO a few thousand shareholders may applaud the improved value of their share portfolio but who else does? The passengers stranded in airports around the world and Australia? People forget – wrong – EVERYBODY forgets that a company is a service organisation. No matter what the company does it serves someone. A mining company serves the purchaser of the ore; a shipping company serves whoever entrusts them to transport their goods and an airline company serves the travelling public. These are PEOPLE.

The service aspect MUST come first. Provide the best possible service and people will pay. Therefore money follows service. It always has and it always will – not the other way around. Service does not and cannot follow money. Service means serving people. A machine, an aircraft, cannot provide a service, only a person can. This is where humanity comes in. Money serves no one – it is a medium of exchange – made of plastic, paper, or whatever. The number one priority is (or should be) people not money.

I am not going to buy into the dispute QANTAS has with the various unions – all I know is that every problem has a solution. Holding a gun to anyone’s head is not negotiating; grounding 108 planes is not negotiating; withholding maintenance labour is not negotiating. Sitting around a table and TALKING – expressing views – listening – compromising is negotiating. Not an all or nothing approach. Everyone will have to change their position.

I await the outcome of the Fair Work Australia process with great interest. I just hope that wise heads will prevail and that a way forward is delineated not a path back. Nothing stays still and only a forwards thinking and progressive resolution will survive into the future and benefit the service QANTAS is trying to provide – in spite of Alan Joyce. I still believe he was wrong to do what he did.

QANTAS – conspiracy theory?

Is Alan Joyce a “sleeper”? I wonder if the CEO of QANTAS is a spy? Has he been planted by rivals to reduce the famous airline (slowly) to nothing? Otherwise why should he take the unprecedented step of shutting down the airline – basically until further notice? No businessman worth his salt would consider such an action without some sort of plan and without a time line. Without this timeline the crisis could (and most probably will) reduce the airline and the name QANTAS to a shell – something of no substance. Why?

Sure QANTAS has problems – all airlines have problems but why wreck it? Unions have their own agenda (I am not defending unions) and they have a right to attend to the needs and wishes of their members. This will almost certainly clash with the QANTAS management’s ideas of how the airline should be run. But isn’t that how democracy works? And aren't we members of the species Homo Sapiens (reasoning man)? Talk it over; reason with people; this is not a war to be won or lost! Remember history tells us that no one wins a war. In a war everybody suffers to a greater or lesser degree. Joyce is not suffering – not with a 70% increase in salary! And if he feels he is suffering - well it is entirely self inflicted.

For God’s sake TALK (I think it was Churchill who said that we need, "more jaw, jaw, and less war, war").

Pharma-psychology – is it faith based medicine?

I know this is an inflammatory question – but it still needs an answer, is pharma-psychology, the treatment of mental problems by drugs alone - based on faith – pharmaceutical faith? The medicines, the pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed for use in situations when a person’s mind is deemed to be unhinged or they are behaving in a manner considered to be “abnormal”, work up to a point. But no one (psychiatrists, psychologists, neuro-scientists, pharmacologists et al) knows WHY or HOW they work or what the long-term effects of continuous use are. They are adopting a “suck it and see” approach with people’s brains (and minds) – they are in effect using the affected people as guinea-pigs - which I think is both appalling and unethical.

While I have no faith (that word again) in statistics they are useful up to a point, in generalisations. So, generally, if one considers the commonly used Prozac - the results, compared to a placebo (a “sugar pill”), show that only about 50% of people who take the drug appear to benefit. Up to 33% suffer side effects – ranging from insomnia to reduced libido – that is 33 people out of every 100 who take Prozac. This is an astonishing result – so why use them?

In spite of what the pharmaceutical companies would like us to believe, while antidepressants such as Prozac do increase serotonin levels in the brain, this doesn’t mean that depression is caused by a shortage of serotonin. After all, paracetamol may reduce the unpleasant effects of a headache, but this doesn’t mean that a headache is caused by a deficiency of paracetamol!

The truth is that researchers know very little about how antidepressants work. A test that can measure the amount of serotonin in the living brain has yet to be developed. There is no way to even know what a “normal” level of serotonin is, let alone a low level, and it has yet to be shown if or how medication corrects these levels.

Many studies contradict the chemical imbalance theory of depression. Experiments have shown that lowering people’s serotonin levels doesn’t always lower mood, or worsen symptoms for those already depressed. And, furthermore, while some types of antidepressants may raise serotonin levels within hours, it takes weeks before the medication is able to (apparently) relieve depression. If a deficiency in serotonin actually causes depression, this time lag would not exist.

Also it is essential to be aware that the side effects of these drugs, without exception, are unpleasant – in fact some drugs (i.e. lithium) are positively lethal. It is very important to first read the warnings printed on the document inside every box of any medication.

It may be hard to believe but with some people there is the danger that a total reliance on antidepressant medication may cause an increase, rather than a decrease, in depression and with it, an increased risk of suicide. While this is particularly true of children and young adults on antidepressant medication, anyone taking antidepressants should be closely watched for suicidal thoughts and associated behaviour. The suicide risk is particularly great during the first few months of antidepressant treatment.

So, again, why use the stuff in the first place? It is important to recall the fact that no behaviour or misbehaviour (however aberrant - Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s accepted) can be categorised as a disease – in spite of the fact that many people now use the term “mental illness”. If you’re suffering from depression, antidepressant medication, used under the guidance of a mental health professional, may relieve, temporarily, some of your symptoms. But antidepressants aren’t a silver bullet for depression. Medication doesn’t cure the underlying problem and is rarely a long-term solution. As mentioned above there are real questions about their effectiveness and the many profound and disturbing side effects.

So to get back to my original question – is the exclusive use of medication to treat mental disturbances based on a faith in pharma-psychology? I believe it is. I also believe this faith is based on a flawed interpretation of the causes and the many issues associated with mental health. It is a false faith and is doing incalculable long term harm to many people.

Facing one’s mortality.

Please don’t think that I am ill – terminal or otherwise! I would hate to shock my one loyal reader. No. I am speaking more generally about mortality. In my case I know that I am much closer to the end than the beginning of my life so I suppose that sub-consciously I have mellowed and adopted a more philosophical approach to Life and the various travails encountered on my journey along Life’s road.

What actually suggested this post is a change in attitude noticed in a person known to me. Others too have noticed a substantial mellowing in attitude toward relationships – at least in the work-place – now taken by this person. It is surmised that this mellowing and gentler approach results from being diagnosed with a severe illness and the associated suffering which always accompanies such an illness. It is cancer, which is (assumed) to be of a serious type, that unless treated early is always terminal.

Now, because this person is always reticent and seemingly unable to form appropriate work place relationships – normally seeing the inevitable work place problems in strict black or white terms – no one is certain about the actual illness, except to note the obvious, that this person is ill. Unfortunately no one has ever wanted to be close enough to either ask or to be told what the matter is. This is a rather sad situation don’t you think? Not to be close enough to the people you work with to be able to share your joys or your troubles.

Everyone has their problems and everyone has their joys and one of the comforts of being human is to share these with others. It helps to realise that others have had similar experiences – that one is not alone. Being human means we are all members of Humanity; we are all of one blood; we all share the same range and intensity of emotions; we all accept, to differing degrees, the challengers presented to us on our life’s journey. With help from others – or providing help to others – the challengers met and the burdens we all carry are somehow lightened, because they are now shared.

This should be one of the great comforts of life; to know that whatever happens there will be a welcoming smile and a friendly shoulder to lean on. Better still - show a welcoming smile and offer a friendly shoulder to others. I just hope that the person I have been talking about may now have realised these truths about living. That by helping others one is, in turn, helped. My hope is that whatever the outcome of the illness this person will attain peace of mind.

I cannot imagine anything worse than to leave this life knowing that some people are glad to know that you are no longer a burden to them; that your negativity will no longer blight their lives; that there will be some who are actually glad you are no longer alive. This would be a very sad end to anyone’s life. Everyone likes to believe that they are a worthy human being and that others think the same.

Remember that a person’s worth is not how much they have, or what they have made or done but who they are!

Who are you?

Sell your reputation for a song

People have idols; things they value above all others; even, unfortunately more than they value themselves – their self-worth, their honour and their reputation. There has been a spate of media reports about people who have indulged in, shall we say, less than charitable behaviour – I refer particularly to Mark Standen, the former deputy director of the New South Wales Crime Commission who has been convicted of drugs charges and perverting the course of justice. But there are others – lawyers, doctors and civil servants who have been found guilty of malpractice of one type or another.

I have said before that poets can often say in a few words what it takes others, like me, many words to express. There is a very appropriate verse in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (an 11th Century Persian mathematician, astronomer and poet) - which goes as follows (verse 69):


Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eyes much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

For many people their idols are money (or the “stuff’ that money can buy); or prestige and the power that comes with the position. If you “love” something above all others – an idol - this will soon be apparent to all who know you. You will have removed yourself from the rest of humanity; you will be using people as a means to an end; you will be using people to acquire more of what you “love”. They will sense this and you will have done your “credit in Men’s eyes much wrong”.

To get your idol you will cheat, you will lie, you will become untrustworthy, you will be immoral, you will not be ethical in your activities. You will have drowned your honour in a shallow cup – lost your honour for something of little value – a “shallow cup”.

Your love for, your fixation to, your worship of your idol means that you have lost all sense of proportion or reason and are prepared to sell your self-worth – who you are – for something of no substance, a “song”. You will have diminished yourself as a human being.

No one will ever trust you again – your self-worth, your reputation, your honour will have been damaged almost beyond repair.

The Australian Carbon Tax Debate

I really don’t know what the fuss is about! Doing the same as we have always done may have been the only course of action when the world was younger and the population a great deal less than today, but this is far from the ideal today.

The three imperatives for sustainable life (of any type) are clean air, clean soil and clean water. Without these three – all three at the same time – life as we know it could not exist. It is much cheaper and easier to be proactive and prevent a dire situation rather than be reactive and try to correct an already dire situation.

I know that there have been hotter and colder periods of the Earth’s geological history and that these episodes may be cyclical. But I also know that at no time in our geological history have there been so many humans on earth pumping out so much pollution whilst simultaneously plundering the very means whereby the Earth regenerates itself. The chemicals, the toxic waste – air borne, water borne and lodged in the soil - that we human’s generate reduces the earth’s capacity to absorb the pollutants. These pollutants also have a deleterious effect on the life of us humans – the very people who are causing the problem in the first place by affecting our own health (lung cancer for one) the food we eat (the animals and plants) in ways yet to be determined. I suppose there is some poetic justice in this, unpleasant though idea may be.

This plundering of the Earth’s resources (in the name of economic necessity) and this continual generating pollution (also in the name of economic necessity) must be reduced. It cannot continue unabated. People will never do this voluntarily (there is too much money involved) so they have to be forced to change their ways, and taxation is the most effective way of doing this.

I for one have no objection in paying this tax. For those that may be interested I also support the so called “Mining Tax” as a means of providing a fund to keep Australia going when we have no more iron ore, or oil, or rare earth minerals to sustain our, expected, standard of living (and to pay for filling in the huge holes left in the ground by the miners).

The status quo is not a viable option. The Earth will still be around for millions of years – I am not sure about us, at least not in the form we are familiar with.

Reflections

When I look in a mirror I see a white haired man with a somewhat time-worn face. But I am not old, at least I do not feel old. I know – rather, let me say, I have knowledge of the fact that, on my Life’s journey I am nearer the end than the beginning. Sometimes I almost feel as if I am taking a pleasant gentle stroll towards a still to be determined sunset.

Even though my muscles may not have the strength they once had, my step is still firm; my eyesight is ok but needs some optical assistance; my hearing is somewhat impaired (a bad right ear as a result of military gunfire – a .303 Lee-Enfield makes one helluva noise); my heart, lungs and other internal organs are sound (I take no prescription medications); I am just within my correct Body Mass Index (BMI) at 24.5 (even if this is at the upper end of normal); I don’t smoke (never have); I don’t drink alcohol; so, generally, I think I am good for a few more years yet.

This got me reflecting on my heart and hearts in general. What incredible organs they are. Mine has been pumping blood tirelessly for over 70 years – I have a slow pulse rate, at about 60 per minute:-

Now at 60 beats per minute this
= 3 600 beats per hour
= 86 400 beats per day
= 604 800 beats per week
= 31 449 600 beats per year

And in my case, so far in my life = 2 201 472 000 beats - over 2 thousand million times without faltering or complaining!! What makes this figure even more astonishing is that, so I understand, while every other cell in our bodies is replaced many times over, the cells comprising the “pumping muscles” of the heart are never replaced (or replaced very slowly - according to new research). They actually start beating 3 weeks after conception and just keep on going. They can never rest. So these same cells in the same muscles in my heart have been expanding and contracting in a seemingly tireless rhythm – squeeze-release, squeeze-release - since before I was born!! This is a prodigious feat worthy of some high order of wonder.

Just think about it – my “heart” started beating before my brain was formed – as did yours! This means – which is quite true – that heart muscles have been found to be independent from the brain and, in some manner, seem to communicate between themselves to synchronise their movements. This is an astonishing finding which, I might add, applies to anything – reptile, fish, animal, human or whatever, that has a heart. If these cells communicate between themselves (however “communication” is determined) this would indicate that they have some degree of intelligence. Without a measure of intelligence how can anything “communicate” and understand what is being communicated? This must be why the heart has always been considered the central organ and the centre of the emotions – “she has a heart of gold”; “he is a big hearted man” and so on.

If cells are intelligent where or how does this intelligence arise? Something cannot come from nothing. To me this reinforces my belief that that there is a “collective unconscious” (as proposed by C.G. Jung) which I equate with the essence of “Life” that animates all cellular life. Something “out there” that is greater than any of us; something that is the reason why we are born at all; something that, we may assume, had a plan which may be a work in progress that commenced with the “Big Bang”, some billions of years ago. All life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter; there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. I cannot prove this of course – but then no one can disprove it either!

Regardless of one’s viewpoint on this matter – a heart is still a wondrous organ and worthy of a great deal more care and attention than we normally give it.

Mental health, surveillance, controls and us.

Amended September 21, 2018.
This is another post from some years ago that is, I feel, particularly relevant today with the news that China is using millions of CCTV cameras (with face recognition software) to keep tabs of all citizens. Those who are seen to follow the "Party Line" earn "Social Credits" and are allowed to travel both within and outside China, for example. There are many more social activities that you or I would consider normal that are denied those with a low "Social Credit" score.


Today, when we are deluged with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product, to follow this or that cause, to do this or that because “you deserve it”, how many of us actually know what we like or even who we are? Certainly advertising is useful – in its place. But when we reach a stage of believing everything we are told – by someone who certainly does not have our best interests in mind – I think we are in trouble. How can anyone know what I need, or want, or should do? They (whoever “they” may be) may generalise and say that statistically most people do this or that or the other thing. But when “they” try to apply their generalisations to me (or you) it becomes an opinion, because they don’t know my (or your) specific attributes and needs.

The thing is that it is so easy to follow what others do. There is comfort in knowing that we conform to what the group or society is doing (whether this is right or wrong). I suppose it is that same sort of comfort afforded to a herd of gazelles about to be attacked by a lion. There is comfort in numbers – an individual gazelle’s chance of being eaten by the lion is in inverse proportion to the size of the herd – a relatively small chance. Many of us may unconsciously try to comply with the same herd instinct. I am not sure that this is, generally, in our best interests. To revert to the example of the gazelles, each gazelle conforms to the characteristics of their kind – all are of a similar colour and size. Human beings, on the other hand, are not all of one colour or one size, and what are are the characteristics of our kind? We have attributes and characteristics derived from ALL animals – we live, survive and seem to thrive in every climatic and environmental condition.

So where does this leave us human beings? We have a propensity to conform – it is so easy to do so. There is no need for us to think for ourselves. Someone (who we presume must know better than us) tells us what to do because it is deemed to be best for us (as individuals). On the other hand it is a human requirement that we each grow and develop in our own individual way for our own individual purposes. We each learn from and react to experiences and circumstances in our own unique way. We are not clones. We each, in our own way on our journey through life, add to the sum of human knowledge. This is as it should be because in this way humanity benefits. There will certainly be ups and downs, positives and negatives in this journey and with the knowledge we gain in this process. But again this is as it should be. How else can we learn?

This gets me back to where I started from – other people telling me (or us) what to do. Rather than being told what to do, there is I believe a (possibly unconscious) covert move to influence us in other ways. Why are there so many surveillance cameras in most major cities? I believe it is because the authorities (whoever they are) want us to believe that we are under constant surveillance by some unseen authority. In this way it is hoped that we “internalise” this sense of being observed and alter our behaviour. This is a form of power whereby physical control is switched from the old concept of chains, to self control through the fear of not knowing for certain whether or not we are being observed. This uncertainty will change the way we think of ourselves as citizens by introducing the element of fear which leads us to “conform” to some vague, undefined, pattern of behaviour.

Ostensibly the surveillance is to identify criminals, and one has to admit it is useful in this regard. However are we to submit to some Government ill defined “greater good”, which limits individual freedoms? By freedoms I do not in any way suggest that we can or should do what we like. Not at all. Paradoxically, because we, as individuals, always hold to the core belief that we are good, any attempt to expose activity to the contrary (i.e. by surveillance cameras) is met with an element of anxiety – no one wants to be shown up to be less than their own idea of who they are. This aside, any constraint on our ability as individuals to express ourselves as we see fit has, I am sure, unforeseen consequences. The fundamental law of life – the law of cause and effect, may be forgotten but can never be avoided. Ethics, morality and values (both personal and cultural) must be adhered to.

Stress and anxiety are known to be precursors of a variety of mental problems as defined by the Psychologists “Bible” – the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual  – DSM5. It is possible, even probable, that the elements of stress and anxiety brought about by this background of constant surveillance is instrumental in the, verified, higher incidence of schizophrenia in cities as compared to rural areas.

In high density urban environments we are constantly pulled and pushed by conflicting demands – we need to maintain certain standards of behaviour (on the surface at least) to keep peace with neighbours; we have a desire to maintain living standards and to have certain material goods to satisfy our children and to “keep up with the Jones’”; we are aware that we are constantly being observed by our neighbours for any transgressions. Thus we are forced to conform to standards that are not of our making and which may conflict with our individual values and moral standards. To have added to this the knowledge that we are under constant CCTV surveillance is an additional level of stress.

This does bode well for our peace of mind.

Maybe the Chinese Authorities should recall that some twenty-seven centuries ago the Chinese philosopher Confucius stated that:

"If you govern people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard."

Gentle people

My one reader will know that I have a great liking for poetry (I like to think that I do actually have one reader who follows my mental perambulations through my writing, even though I have no idea who this long suffering person might be). I find solace and inspiration in poetry. The gentle rhythm of the metre and words I find peaceful and have a calming effect on me.

The particular poem I am writing about is just part of “Twilight” by John Masefield. Thinking of friends who have died the words of the last line of the poem are:

“Beautiful souls who were gentle when I was a child.”

It was the words “who were gentle when I was a child” that struck home to me. Now I had a wonderful childhood – with gentle people – so I have no direct experience of a childhood without gentle people but there seems to be a great deal of press coverage about people who would seem to have souls that are neither beautiful nor gentle and I wonder about the effect this has on the general public. This constant bombardment of negativity about paedophilia, child abduction, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by people who should know better must give rise to emotions of resignation and helplessness – “there is not much I can do about it” and “if everyone is doing it why can’t I” sort of thing. Individuals who think like this have lost their moral compass and need some help and guidance

I fully appreciate that (fortunately) there is still a majority of “beautiful souls” who, in their roles as parents, as teachers, carers and mentors are doing a wonderful job with children. However, when one reads that about 1 in 4 or 5 women have suffered some sort of abuse by the time they are adults I am appalled and I am left wondering why this should be.

Alcohol and drug abuse are often raised as reasons for physical and sexual abuse but are no excuse – even when drunk one should still have a semblance of self control. I have been drunk in the past so I know - but I have no experience with drugs, never having taken any non-medicinal drugs in my life.

It is not the drugs or the alcohol that are the problem it is what caused the user (or abuser) of these substances to start using them in the first place; what emotional pain are they trying to dull; what anguish are they trying to hide; what memories are they trying to extinguish; what unbearable stress are they experiencing?

Answer these questions and half the problem will be solved.

Sharia Law in Australia

I know very little about the finer points of sharia law. I am certain about one thing however and that is, like oil and water, Religion and the Law don’t mix. Sharia Law is not codified, in fact, as I understand it Muslim clergy are the ones who interpret Sharia Law from their understanding of the Koran.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.

To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!

Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?

Stupid question!!

What is Schizophrenia?

What is schizophrenia? The short answer is that no one knows. The effects are well documented even though they are not necessarily unique to schizophrenia. Since the term was first used by Eugen Bleuler in 1911, intense research has so far failed to identify the condition’s causes though it is thought to be a combination, in varying degrees, of genetic, environmental and neurological factors. This debilitating mental disorder is believed to affect about 1% of the World’s population and is generally first diagnosed in late teenage and early adulthood. For reasons not yet established more males than females are affected.

Not only is schizophrenia difficult to define but is without any confirmed pathological, molecular or genetic origin – it has no confirmed biological basis. Diagnosis is made from observed behaviours meeting the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV Axis 1) criteria. These criteria relate principally to the determination of an afflicted individual’s mental state, from their speech patterns and perceptions which may indicate possible hallucinations and/or delusions. This is supported by observed unusual behaviour which may affect the afflicted person’s ability to function effectively in the broader community. Therefore any diagnosis cannot be objectively “scientifically” proven, it is subjective - someone’s opinion and interpretation of behaviour. Furthermore it is not an illness which prescription medication can cure. It is certainly an unfortunate and debilitating condition but it is not an illness – and to call it such is misleading and wrong.

There appear to be many factors involved in the causes of schizophrenia. Obstetric complications, such as foetal hypoxia (foetus deprived of oxygen); viral infections the mother may have experienced during pregnancy; even the season of the year when giving birth, (winter being statistically the least favourable); the patient’s social status; even where the patient resides - in an urban or rural locality (urban being the least favourable), all appear to have a bearing on the incidence of this condition.

While not one single factor has been identified as common to all patients with the condition researchers are working on some evidence that schizophrenia may be a polygenic disorder (influenced by many genes) which is further influenced by environmental factors and a person’s emotional vulnerability while developing in teenage years. Stress appears also to be a factor in the development of schizophrenia as it is recognised in playing a significant role in many medical conditions. It is now thought, with some individuals, that certain levels of stress experienced may exceed their adaptive capacity and thus compound the vulnerabilities of the person concerned. Comments critical of the patient’s demeanour and behaviour together with the alternative of an over-protective relationship have a significant bearing on the course of schizophrenia – this is called a high level of Expressed Emotion. Some patient’s may suffer a relapse from a relatively stable condition which allowed for their discharge from a treatment centre. There is, however, no agreement on the meaning of relapse.

It is now known that people suffering schizophrenia are more likely to recover and less likely to suffer a relapse if they live in a calm, non-critical, non-overprotective environment – a low level of Expressed Emotion. It is well documented that early intervention programmes are of vital importance in determining a favourable outcome for schizophrenia patients but there appears to be no agreement on what recovery actually means. Recovery varies considerably in effect from individual to individual – is it a “clinical” objective recovery (decided by using DSM IV criteria) or an individual’s subjective assessment of their quality of life? It was believed that, once diagnosed with schizophrenia, there was no chance of recovery. There is now, however, a body of evidence suggesting that the situation, for many sufferers, may not be quite so dire, particularly with those individuals not using street drugs and not drinking to excess. With a correct balance between antipsychotic drug treatments and other psychosocial and psychological interventions it is now known that between 20% to 30% recover sufficiently to lead relatively normal lives, with a further 20% to 30% manifesting continuing moderate symptoms. Other reports show that the recovery rate is actually quite high though generally under-reported and is actually somewhere between 50% and 60%. All this shows that the “experts” still don’t really know.

Given the astonishing lack of knowledge about what causes schizophrenia, expressed emotion, relapse and recovery together with the limited understanding of how they relate to one another, how scientists can claim statistical “evidence” and validity proves anything is really surprising. Research is consistent in reporting that high levels of expressed emotion are likely lead to a relapse by patients with schizophrenia. Why this should be, however, is not fully understood. The many factors involved may possibly be partly genetic but certainly involve subjective elements which are difficult to define and measure. No one knows what it really means to recover or relapse nor is it understood from “what” a recovery or relapse is occurring! Also no one knows why high levels of expressed emotion (an “un-calm” environment) may be a predictor of a patient’s relapse.

A mental condition as complex as schizophrenia cannot be artificially restricted to fit the requirements of the DSM-IV. Nature will not be governed by man-made conditions which attempt to force it to answer questions required for statistical analysis to satisfy the ideals of “scientific research”. Statistics are unable to adequately assess the nuances and subtleties of words, gestures, feelings, imaginings, desires and beliefs that, in varying degrees, are so tied to and characteristic of each individual and which are known to have an effect on the outcome of schizophrenia and any relapse or recovery.

To force a patient suffering from schizophrenia to take medication – without knowing what the medication actually does or how it works (and with significant side effects) – is ethically questionable and quite wrong in my opinion. The better way is to look at the physical and emotional environment and conditions which spawned the patient’s affliction. It is necessary to find out what all this means to the patient – their interpretation of the events and how it has affected his or her thinking.

Schizophrenia is as much a mysterious condition as it was 100 years ago, certainly the "experts" have no idea what it really is or how to "cure" the condition.

Mental health issues - again!

What is it with this (mental “health”) subject, this “condition” that so confuses people? First off, let’s be clear on this, it is NOT an illness, as in measles, or diabetes which have well defined pathological markers and have well documented developmental stages and certain, scientifically proven medical cures or control measures. Mental health, on the other hand, has been closely examined for over 100 years and yet the questions relating to the various “conditions” described in the psychological and psychiatric “Bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM IV) produced by the American Psychological Association (APA) are no nearer being answered. Why or how some people suffer from “mental health problems” is unknown.

To me an illness is something defined, medically, by the affect it has on the human body – high temperature, skin eruptions and possible damage to organs leading to their possible failure and such like. This scientific knowledge allows physicians to specifically treat the condition presented and to either prevent it occurring in the first place (preventative medicine) or to either cure it (measles) or control it (diabetes). Thus an illness is something people HAVE – a medical, pathological condition. There is no known pathological test for mental health that will determine whether a person is depressed, schizophrenic or bi-polar (some mental health issues may be the result of the after affects of excessive drug or alcohol intake). There is no proven genetic component. Furthermore no one knows exactly how or why certain pharmaceutical drugs seem to have a beneficial effect.

Anything affecting a person’s mind, on the other hand, may result in behaviour not generally considered as normal. Again, referring to the DSM IV this altered behaviour, observed by others, checked against certain criteria listed in the DSM IV determines if a person is “diagnosed” as depressed, schizophrenic, bi-polar or whatever. Thus there is nothing objectively “scientific” about any “diagnosis”. Any “diagnosis” is subjective and based on the opinion of the observer (however well trained they may be). Then there is the claim that some “mental illnesses” may be genetic in origin (ie schizophrenia) but this is a long way from being proven. Anyway even if genes are involved genes are not “self emergent” – they are “switches” that need to be turned “on” or “off”. In other words they do not operate on their own accord. They need a “trigger” to operate – always something in the environment.

If the environment is the culprit this would mean that something witnessed or experienced by the sufferer has affected them to such an extent that they now view the world from a different perspective. Does this make them “sick”? It has been admirably stated by others that, “If you talk to God you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.” A “mental illness” may affect a person’s behaviour - something that they DO. How can anyone, except the person concerned, determine if such behaviour is “wrong” or “abnormal”? Anyway there is no known, universally accepted, definition of “normal” – what is “normal” for me may not necessarily be “normal for you. Is it not conceivable that certain behaviour be just considered as eccentric?

Consider Moses (Exodus 3.2) - he heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush but no one thinks that is odd. Now if I presented myself to a hospital and said that I heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush I know that I would be considered mentally ill and most probably medicated to calm me down!! Surely there are enough “odd-ball” and eccentric people in the broader community to allow for the odd extremes without hospitalising and forcing pharmaceutical drugs on them against their will?

Why must we (and I include myself in this “we’ as I am part of the Australian society) force our views on what “we” consider to be right or wrong on to others who may hold quite valid but different views?

If (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) one in four people in Australia either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer from a mental “illness” (as defined by DSM IV) then surely there is something dramatically wrong with the way we currently live our lives? Just read any daily news paper, or tune in to any radio or TV news programme and all you read or hear about is Man’s inhumanity to Man – the cruelty, the injustice, the manifest unkindness, general lack of consideration and want of compassion is quite extraordinary. All this is bound to affect people in one way or another. Is it not possible that people who are diagnosed as “mentally ill” are just trying to adjust to a way of life that appals them, that may be too much for them to accept and they are just trying to escape to a “safe” place? Medicating such people to the point of stupefaction is no answer and certainly not the correct solution. Nor is incarcerating them in mental institutions.

To conclude maybe I should, once again, repeat the words of the Indian sage Krishnamurti who once said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Howling Dog

Most people will know this story – or at least some variation of it. It is a simple tale of a man who visits a friend who he finds on the back porch sitting on a chair, idling away the time by whittling on a piece of wood. He strikes up a conversation with his friend but is constantly interrupted by a dog lying next to the chair, who, every now and again whines then emits a howl. Somewhat alarmed he asks his friend if the dog shouldn’t be taken to a vet and treated for an obviously painful ailment.

The friend says, “No. He is lying on a nail but it is not hurting enough for him to get up and move. So he just lies there whining and howling.”

Now how many of us are in a situation, domestically or at work, which gives us grief in that it is emotionally draining, stressful and generally unpleasant? If this is your situation (and I believe that many people find themselves in this situation) which, to put it plainly, is not conducive to peace of mind, what are you doing about it? Are you just accepting the emotional pain without getting up and moving and just like the dog in the tale above, complaining about your situation but remaining where you are? Why? In the name of all that is wonderful, why?

In our society it is a criminal offence to physically restrain someone against their will - unless of course you are already in prison, which is a different story entirely. I am talking about voluntary situations where you made a choice which turned out to have been not very good. We all make bad decisions at times. If you made a bad choice, take a deep breath, choose again and move on with your life.

Remember, without chains, you are only held against your will if you have, (even subconsciously), given someone permission to hold you. Move on – withdraw that “permission” and live the life you choose to live. Live your life, not the life someone else want you to live.

Now choose and move on! Do something! Doing nothing isn't an option!

Why is suicide considered a bad thing?

Amended September 11, 2018:

I know this is quite an old post but I strongly believe it is as relevant as ever. Some people do commit suicide and this has surely happened since humans first walked the earth.

This is not a treatise on the causes or possible reasons for suicide but the complexities behind the act have puzzled me for many years. In particularly our seeming abhorrence and our obvious dismay, regret and great sadness that anyone should even contemplate the need to end their life, by whatever means has taxed my understanding and the meaning of my life.

What follows below is my considered opinion:-

I ask the question – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Now I am not advocating that anyone should commit suicide. I am just trying to pick apart the emotional clutter that accompanies this very personal and private act. The only answers I get are that it is a waste of a (usually) young person’s life; that they were loved; that they had unlimited potential, now never to be realised; that they had a future to live for – etc., etc.

This is partially correct but is not a real answer. The person concerned – the person now deceased – obviously had a different view of life. Their view, which I am not discussing (I have no idea what that was); I am discussing our view; that of the outsider; the ones left behind.

Why do we “outsiders” (I deliberately use this word because we are “outside’ that person’s inner world) consider suicide to be such a bad thing? Are we affronted because someone considers living – in their current situation – to be so bad, so threatening, so limiting as to be not worthwhile continuing? Are we discomforted because this rejection, this dismissal of all we has striven for (in “our” world), may reflect poorly on us, those left behind, regarding the way we have organised the world? Are we disturbed by the confronting prospect of having to admit that we make mistakes and that the way in which the economy, our legal, welfare and education systems are set up may actually cause distress, that we are not always fair or just in our dealings? Do we feel guilty that we have developed a financial system that promotes the massive imbalance between the very wealthy and the very poor and the disadvantaged?

We have to recognise that we are all, all, party to the ills of the world. We created them. If we look with even a modicum of insight we should see in ourselves the cause of these short comings and see ourselves reflected in the eyes of the distressed. And we should be dismayed.

Is this why we consider suicide a “bad thing” and are so shocked when it occurs?

It is needful to remember that we, each one of us, have our own experiences of life. These are our own. No one can see the world through our eyes with the same imagery and emotional response. No one can see the world through our eyes with our life experiences and our interpretations of those experiences – these are our own.

So I ask the question again – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Obviously for the person concerned the prospect of death is more alluring than continuing living as currently experienced. What is “wrong” with that? It is their choice.

Then for some to say that only God can decide when or where a person dies is surely a gross over assumption - how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?

Furthermore to declare (as some authority figures do) that most people who commit suicide suffer from a mental "illness" or disorder is surely wrong. It is also highly presumptuous on the part of the person making such a declaration – how do they ACTUALLY know! This is categorising a person, who now has no recourse or ability to refute the presumption. This is putting a label on someone. And then what about those “outsiders” left behind to live with the event – the family and friends? Are they to be made to suffer further pain with the stigma provided by so called experts who provide the “knowledge” that their son, daughter, friend, brother, sister “must have been mentally deranged” to have committed such an act. This implies that no “normal” person would ever do such a thing! What about self-sacrifice when there is loss of life? Isn’t this an act of suicide? But if it saves the life of others it is considered “noble”!! ("There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends" - English King James Bible: John 15:13).

Research on completed suicides is notoriously difficult. It is always referring to an historic act – something that has already happened. Police, coronial, autopsy, psychiatric and psychological and counselling reports are analysed and carefully combed to try and establish some reason or motive for the suicide. This is fraught as it is impossible to know what was actually going through the person’s mind at the precise moment in time when they took their own life. At that moment they made a choice. Why? We can never know.

Shall we now look at what suicide actually is? Someone taking their own life – right? It seems that the “act” is only considered suicide if it results in the quick death of the person concerned. But what about those who commit suicide in the “long term”? Those who drink or drug themselves to death over a number of years, what about them? They may suffer from abuse, or from unbearable pressures associated with their domestic arrangements or at work. They may determine that the easiest and most “socially acceptable” way of easing this pressure or pain, is to get drunk or to get “stoned” on a regular basis. It may take some time but in possibly five or ten years they will be dead.   The emotional (and economic) “cost” of this (“long term suicide”) far exceeds that of any number of “quick” suicides.

To get back to the “mental illness or disorder” accusation. Disordered from what? What are these people supposed to be disordered from? From “normal”? As far as I can discover there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they wrong? Or are we “outsiders” just being intolerant and lacking in understanding or compassion? Maybe these people are just eccentric – God knows there are enough odd ball people in the community!! Some behaviour may be considered mal-adaptive or possibly anti-social by “outsiders” but not by the people concerned – otherwise they wouldn’t act the way they do!

Similarly, why should anyone "live" according to another's expectations?  

There is an essay, “Suicide”, by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776) wherein he wrote, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.”

What follows below is a warning relating to anti-depressant drugs:-

USA Federal Drug Administration Product Information Warning

Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their

depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.

Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.

From the above it is apparent that psycho-pharmceutical medications are not always the answer!

Finally I will repeat a quote, from the Indian sage Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

There we have it - in a nutshell!

Please talk to me!

What do you do – or what can you do, at work, when your superior cuts you out of the loop of information and limits the control you have over your life? I guess that you would have an argument and then walk out and find another job. But what happens when a country's leader does the equivalent of the same thing?

With all the modern means of communication, why is it that people don’t talk to each other? Governments communicating with their citizens; firms communicating with the workforce, down to an individual level, to let them know what is going on and how they are tracking and the importance of their contribution is vital for harmonious relationships and an individual’s general well being. Yet this is a significant failing with most governments and in many organisations.

To me this is a classic example of any organisations indifference, down-right bad “people management” and very poor communications. It is also an example of the (unfortunately common) attitude that the only thing governments care about is power (and money) and that the only thing firms care about is money – their citizens or staff, their morale, work-life balance, welfare and well-being come a long way second.

I believe that poor communications is at the core of what is happening in the Muslim world at present – the current “popular” uprisings against oppressive regimes. People are getting tired of continually being told what they can and cannot do by an elite class or group who consider themselves better than others and above the law (rule by edict). Part of the problem is that Muslim law and religious practices are so intertwined that the State, religion and the law courts are one and the same.
This leads to massive conflicts of interest. Similar problems were recognised in England over 1000 years ago when the King (John) was forced to step back from actually ruling the country and to agree to the separation of powers – that the State, the Law courts and elected Parliament (the Government) should be independent from each other.

Muslim (Sharia)law does not operate in this way. But I really think that something similar will have to occur in countries where Koranic Law prevails. Currently the Mullahs are both the lawyers and the enforcers of the law – in effect they are the law makers, judges and ‘executioners’ of the law. They are not, however, trained in law – they are trained in the Islamic religion. This is not necessarily the same thing. The Koran, as I understand it, suggests a code of conduct, which if followed should lead to peace and harmony between all peoples. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism – we are all ‘children’ of Abraham after all. The trouble is no one follows the code of conduct – everyone has their own interpretation – just look at the problems between Shia and Sunni Muslims - both followers of the same faith.

I suggest that until there is a separation of powers in the Muslim world these uprising will continue for some time yet. People need some personal control over their lives – an elected parliament gives this element of control. If this separation of powers actually happens then there will be a long overdue renaissance in the Muslim world.

Dog Hanging

The other day I came across a bizarre news item. Some woman, in America, had apparently become so upset that a dog had chewed her Bible that she hanged the dog and then burned it! She apparently said that God had told her to!

Now I know that God can and does do many wonderful things but I cannot believe that He instructed this woman to torture and kill one of His creatures because it chewed a book! - even a sacred book, such as a Bible.

A fine Christian attitude this woman has! In her heart there does not seem to be much compassion or the ‘milk of human kindness’ does there? If found guilty of animal cruelty she faces about four years in prison. What she needs is treatment and also, even if she has never read it, she needs to understand the sentiment expressed in the lines from the  poem, “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

“He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”

Wikileaks, Injustice and Peace

I have said this before and I will keep saying it till the day I die – injustice is the cause of most of the human induced misery on this planet we call Earth. Injustice is the most important factor in most of the troubles we have in the world at this time.

This is true of those who are trying to prevent details of their questionable activities being disclosed by Wikileaks; it is true of the Chinese authorities imprisoning a man (a Nobel Peace award winner) for daring to expose corruption and human rights abuse in China; it is true of any corrupt and dictatorial government or regime anywhere in the world; it is true of any organisation or company that has a “money at all costs and damn the consequences” culture; it is true of any family suffering from the ministrations of an abusive adult; it is true of any gang or group that consider themselves “different” or “better” or “exclusive”; it is true of any individual who harbours the notion that others owe him (or her) a living and that they are somehow privileged above all others.

There is no way of avoiding it – injustice in THE problem. There is also no avoiding the fact that we – collectively – have created the social and economic conditions we – collectively - find ourselves in. We have done it – there is no one else!

It is evident, everywhere, that despite the centuries of moral and ethical teachings, people have only imperfectly learned that it is in their own interests to consider the needs of their ‘neighbour’ and to treat others as they, themselves, would like to be treated. To fail to do so and to fail to recognise the needs of the society to which they belong, is to invite disaster – both individually and collectively.

I am going to quote from an old book by Carl Gustav Jung, the great Swiss Psychologist, the 1916 publication “Psychology of the Unconscious”. It is a bit long winded and the language used may be unfamiliar to modern ears, but what he says is true none-the-less. I quote from the introduction to the work:

“Life itself has needs and imperiously demands expression through the forms created. All nature answers to this freely and simply, except man. His failure to recognise himself as an instrument through which the life energy is coursing and the demands of which must be obeyed, is the cause of his misery. Despite his possession of intellect and self consciousness, he cannot without disaster to himself refuse the tasks of life and the fulfilment of his own needs. Man’s great task is the adaption of himself to reality and the recognition of himself as an instrument for the expression of life according to his individual possibilities.”

This is so true. While we are part of Humanity and share many common characteristics, none-the-less, we need to express our selves each in our own unique way. While we are about it why not aim for the highest form of contribution we can make – the highest ‘common denominator’ not the lowest?

By helping others reach their full potential we help ourselves to reach our own potential. This is just the way it is. Imprisoning, torturing and generally being less than generous to others not only diminishes the perpetrators but also diminishes us as human beings – because we are all members of the human race. By trying to diminish others and trying to ‘prove’ that we are better than those ‘others’ we are contributing to the unhappiness in the world and reducing the likelihood of peace.

Chinese Characters

There was a local news item the other day regarding Chinese authorities concern about the “purity” of the Chinese language. They are apparently contemplating means to prevent the popularization of non-Chinese words (mainly English) together with the use of non-Chinese letters and characters.

Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language (it is tonal), in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!

Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-

a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.

b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.

The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.

English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.

Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.