Courage and ANZAC Day 2012.

It was a beautiful calm day in Perth, Western Australia – a balmy autumn day in fact. While I was outside reading, the thoughts about the importance of this day to Australians came to mind. Not being born in Australia and not have any Australian relatives who were involved in any “Australian” wars I do not have any emotional attachment to ANZAC Day. Not that I decry Australian’s reverence of the Day – just that I have no attachment to it.

 I always wonder at the human trait of honouring those who are brave in war situations. I admire them and I too honour them. But why only war? I know that bravery in war focuses the attention on a brief window of time when witnesses may attest to the actions – above and beyond the call of duty - of a particular person, or group of people. This is as it should be and they should be commended. But people are brave not just in a war situation. And some people are not brave they are fearless – which is a different thing completely.

Someone who is brave has the courage to rise above their fears and, with their adrenaline flowing freely, often with what appears superhuman strength, and in the heat of the moment they perform their act of bravery. This is courage and an act of bravery that is very often a one-off situation. On the other hand someone who is fearless appears to have no feelings, no anticipation, no apparent understanding of any consequences of their actions. In fact they can be quite scary people to be with. More often than not they are young, reckless and one is never quite sure what next scrape they are going to get themselves into.

There are brave, courageous, people everywhere – but they are seldom recognised, certainly never to the same degree as in a war situation. For instance consider the “boat people” so denigrated by politicians. They show a high degree of courage – firstly in abandoning (or escaping from) their home environment, then travelling by uncertain means across land and sea to attempt to get to Australia. This is a journey, often taking many months, only to arrive at an uncertain destination to an uncertain reception and an uncertain future. Then what about children forced out of their homes, for whatever reason, and living on the streets, fending for themselves? They also show a great deal of courage – in situations requiring courage on a continuous basis for months, even years on end. Similarly a person who cares for a disabled family member – this requires courage on a seemingly never ending basis. The emotional and physical drain requires such people to, as it were, pick themselves off the floor, every day with minimal respite. A mother may sacrifice herself to save her child by giving food, or medicine she herself desperately needs. This degree of courage is seldom, if ever recognised but it takes place all the time. These people are not fearless – they are courageous – they are brave.

These are everyday life and death situations requiring courage and bravery of a high order.

Then of course there is the famous Bible quote (John 15:13) “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Anders Behring Breivik - and Mental health.

Can you imagine it – one of the most gruesome mass murders in modern times and psychiatrists cannot determine if the perpetrator is sane or insane! This is bizarre. After over 100 years of research and “experts” still cannot determine, with any degree of accuracy, if someone is sane or insane – it's a matter of a health professional’s judgement regarding the apparent behavioural and thought disorder patterns presented by an individual. This is a kind of “suck it and see” approach. There is no “test” for insanity or in fact for any other mental problem. This is something that the general public is never told.

I have been following Breivik’s trial in Norway quite closely and I have read much of what has been said about him on the internet – newspaper articles and scientific journals. Breivik is intelligent (possibly above average); he is articulate; he is meticulous in his planning (his killing spree was at least three years in the planning – possibly more); he is a conforming conservative in that he conforms to an older idea of what a “white”, Christian, Norway should be and he appears to be quite rational in that he can explain why he did what he did and is apparently satisfied that he achieved a level of success.

Breivik may have delusions of grandeur – just read some of the things he has said and look at photos of some of the uniforms he has worn. But these sorts of delusions are not unknown among the general public – this includes politicians and businessmen.

Breivik may be grossly misguided but he is certainly not insane (and my “assessment” is as good as any experts – just an educated guess). He knew what he was doing and is quite prepared to accept the consequences.

The Psychology of Money

What, actually, is money and why does it appear to be so important to us? These are important questions that need to be answered if we are to understand the almost universal attitude to money and the acquisition and preservation there-of.

Firstly let me establish a basic fact that money, as in paper, even coins has NO intrinsic value. By this I mean that money is not “love”, or “food” or “happiness” or anything of real value to anyone. Money, in whatever form it is presented is in essence a token, a means of exchange – and can be considered as an abstraction – something that represents a “value”. As presented money is basically a piece of paper, or a coin and nothing more. The values that we place on the coins or the paper tokens are entirely a human construct and will vary according to needs and desires.

Most people would think that they would be very “happy” if they won a million dollars in a lottery, or acquired plenty of it by some other (legal) means. But their happiness only arises because, unconsciously, they know that all their immediate desires can be satisfied. This is what makes them “happy” – the (generally unconscious) knowledge that they can have, acquire or buy, whatever they want (of course within reason). Their desires are then satisfied.

So to make it absolutely clear – it is NOT money that makes people “happy” it is the removal of desire that brings on the feeling of happiness. To put it another way happiness is having no desires and possessing money may (repeat may) give the illusion of happiness. But anyone can still be happy without money. Certainly there is no need to win millions to be happy. In fact a great deal of money brings its own legion of problems – for instance personal safety, security for the possessions acquired with the money, lack of privacy because of fame (or notoriety) and such like that comes with a great deal of money.

Also, the trouble with desires is that they are never satisfied for long. Desires seem to regenerate very quickly and may often change their form. Desire (for money) often changes into greed – enough is never considered enough – the desire for money seems never to be satisfied. More (or greed) is considered good. The real problem with this, with greed, is that those so affected seem to lose all sense of proportion, lose all sense of propriety and all sense of compassion and empathy; people, individuals are considered as means to an end (more money) and are to be used for this purpose and are thus expendable; when people, individuals are no longer useful (for making money) they are discarded. The personal cost of such actions; the emotional pain caused does not enter into the calculations of any one driven by greed. This may be symptomatic of an underlying psychological problem.

Basically therefore there can be no such thing as a “psychology” of money. It is more about the psychology of the people who earn or somehow acquire the money and what the money is needed for – and today money is almost an essential part of our lives. Instead of the idea of barter, or swapping one item for another of similar “value”, we bring in a “middle” element; something that is easy to understand and quantify – a token – money. But it is still a poor substitute for the real thing - happiness, health and fulfillment in life.

Are material gains really worth the effort?

Why is it that we (modern human beings that is) only give recognition and prizes for achievement – success in the physical world, but we never (or very seldom) acknowledge personal development (or changes to personality)? We seem to have our priorities wrong.

What many people seem never to think about or have forgotten is that achievements – gaining wealth (evidenced by material possessions) or positions of power and influence are all external; the results of this form of success, the achievements are there, displayed, for the world to see and (hopefully) marvel at. The mansions, motor vehicles, jewellery, boats, aircraft, the political influence, being a mover and shaker in the realms of high finance, being on the Forbes “rich” list are all very well and (I am quite sure) very nice to have. But, and this is a big but, these are all transient. By this I mean that they can be lost, destroyed or otherwise disappear in one way or another. Just ask any politician or those Wall Street financial wizards about what happened to their fortunes after 2008/9 when they reaped the whirlwind of the Global Financial Crisis which they had fomented years earlier!! Regardless, the advantages of having great wealth or power and influence are often outweighed by the accompanying shadows – the burden of responsibility, concerns about personal safety and security and, very often, fractured family relationships.

On the other hand your personality, who you are, is yours for life and cannot be stolen or lost. You are who you are come rain or shine – you are stuck with it. Unless, of course, you are prepared to undertake change by developing and “amending” or “improving” your personality for better or worse. Those who are unkind can learn the advantages of kindness; those who lack compassion can learn to be compassionate; those of a covetous disposition can learn to be generous; those with a devious nature can learn to be trustworthy and habitual liars can learn the benefits of truthfulness and honesty.

Changes of this nature will never be a simple task. Any such changes are often brought about by personal turmoil, emotional or psychological trauma or, it must be said, by falling in love (this in itself is an often tumultuous experience) or by the death of someone close. More often than not any change is a forced change brought about by some upheaval in a person’s life which may be painful, in that there is an emotional or psychological wrench. There needs to be an awakening; a realisation that change is necessary; a personal recognition that their current approach to life is counterproductive and is hurtful, not only to themselves, but to others. This needs to be so if it is to have any impact or lasting effect. Otherwise why would anyone change? Most are quite comfortable the way they are, thank you very much! For those who know the story, the character of Scrooge in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” provides a perfect example, though possibly an extreme one, of what can and sometimes does happen. Not everyone is successful in making the necessary changes to adapt to changing circumstances, stubbornness and an inflated ego will be the culprits, but changes can be adapted and personalities “improved”.

All changes to one’s character, changes to personality, are internal and not on “display” for all to see. How these changes affect one’s activities and behaviour are of course another matter entirely but are generally evidence of a person’s innate values. It is, however, necessary to recognise that living in a complex society requires individuals to develop cognitive skills enabling them to rationalise and cope with other people’s actions, by recognizing them, understanding them, and reacting in an appropriate manner (not with anger, nor with gushing or effusive bonhomie but with some measure or balance between these two extremes). But, above all, being prepared to adapt and change. Only in this way can we, as human beings, lead a life in harmony with our neighbours.

Human beings need to LIVE. We need to express life as best we can in our own way – it is our life. Never try to live a life dictated by others – this can only lead to emotional and psychological disaster.

Now we each need to ask ourselves the following three questions:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
How then shall I live?

Well? Only by honestly answering these questions will a person live the best life they can.

Any internal changes made to “amend”, “alter” or somehow vary attitudes or behaviour will involve the way a person thinks and will most certainly be the most difficult task anyone will ever have to accomplish. But such efforts seldom, if ever, receive accolades or acknowledgment – certainly nothing like those given to individuals achieving material gains. I wonder why?

Hoist by one’s own petard!

There must be a perverse streak in me! I can’t say I enjoy it but I will admit to deriving some satisfaction in seeing someone get their “come-uppance”; in the squirming embarrassment not to say humiliation of the high and mighty forced to acknowledge their own failings.  Rather than offending others by telling them how to behave or what they should do, we need to get our own house in order first – to lead by example – from the front. And what an example we have shown to the world!!!! I am sure those involved will duck and weave and deny that it is a widespread practice – but isn’t this what the Indonesians said in 2010 when we complained about some of their abattoirs?

I bet the Indonesians are chortling into their beers or glasses of rice wine, or whatever they drink there, over the revelations that the “do good” Australians have been “hoist by their own petard”. That their own abattoirs are far from “clean” that there are practices in Australia that are in clear breach of any concept of what may be considered the “humane” treatment of animals.

While I have nothing but utter contempt for the abattoir workers, the management and the owners of the Hawkesbury Valley Abattoir, for allowing such cruel practices to take place, we Australians need to be careful and to learn to practice what we preach. We need to be sure that the moral high ground we try to talk from is not actually quicksand.

Note: For those not familiar with the term “Hoist by one’s own petard” it refers to being injured by a device intended to injure others. A petard was an explosive device on the end of a pole used during the Middle Ages for attacking fortified positions. The explosives used at the time were very unstable and unpredictable and tended to detonate unexpectedly – injuring or killing the unfortunate user. Hence the term hoist (blown up) by one’s own petard (device).

In this case there is a pleasing element of poetic justice in the phrase.

Distant Death - effects of UAVs or Drones

Amended: 29 September 2019.
There has been recent research into the "moral dissonance" and "sniper syndrome" experienced by pilots of UAV or drone aircraft.

Amended: 8 Dec 2015:
Both the US military and the UK military are now finding that the stress of piloting a UAV (drone) is such that many pilots are "burning out" and suffering psychological problems.

I originally wrote this in 2012 - so while I may have been slightly "ahead" regarding this matter, to me it is a "no brainer" for the following reasons:-

I wonder what it must be like sitting in a chair in front of a large computer screen handling the controls of a Predator drone unmanned aircraft flying 12000 km away? I wonder especially how I would feel at the moment I saw a “target” individual appear on the screen and was authorised to press the “fire’ button sending a missile to destroy that target person? I wonder how I would feel after I witnessed the resulting explosion, knowing that the target individual was now dead or at least very seriously injured? I wonder how I would feel when I went home that night and spoke to my wife and children knowing that, through my actions, I had denied someone the ability to do the very things that I was doing?

Would I be glad that I had rid the Earth of a bad person? Would I be jubilant I had struck a blow for peace? Would I be aware of the irony in what I had done? Would I be interested in hearing the reasons why the person I have just killed – from my desk 12000 km distant – was deemed by my superiors to be a worthy target? Would I care that he had a family and that he loved his wife and children – and that they loved him? Would I care that some injustice, actual or perceived, suffered by this person was blamed on the “Great Satan” America. Would I be interested in hearing that this injustice (actual or perceived) had so affected him that he tried to redress the affects of the injustice in the only effective way he knew – violence against “The West”?

What would I have done differently if I had actually been on the ground seeking this individual? What would have done if I actually confronted him? What would I have done in the heat of the moment amid the flies and dust and heat and the smell of perspiration and fear – his and my own? What would I have done when I saw the expression in his eyes – the surprise; or the determination to kill or be killed; or the fear or pleading for life? What would I have done if I noticed he was unarmed?

In these circumstances would I be chivalrous and ask him to surrender? In these circumstances would I shoot first and damn the consequences?

Maybe, if I was still at my desk, I would compare notes with those at other controls at other desks flying other drones. Maybe I would be competitive and strive to “shoot and outscore” the others. Maybe, just maybe, I might experience a pang of guilt that someone I never knew, but was instructed to kill, died as a result of my actions; someone I knew only from a foreshortened aerial image taken from an altitude of 10 000 metres some 12 000 km from my computer screen.

Surely everyone has a right to live? Who am I to judge otherwise? Who are those unworthy of life? Am I? I wonder.

I wonder too, if at any stage of my day, the sentiments expressed by the famous lines written by John Donne, (1572 – 1631) would cross my mind:

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

I just wonder at the psychological effects this distant death may have if I had to do this day after day? I wonder.

What is the bottom line to you?

Those who believe that the financial bottom line is the be all and end all of commerce and industry are wrong. As has been repeatedly pointed out in these posts, money is useful but without human beings, people, individuals, you and I, there would be no money. So to me it is a blinding glimpse of the obvious to realise that human beings, people, individuals must be considered more important than money!! Look after people, customers, patients – whomsoever, and the money will flow.

This is ‘service’. The core, the prime purpose of every business is to provide a service. Think about it. I need a jacket – I can’t make one so I go to someone, a shop for example, that provides them. They are servicing my needs. The shop purchases the jacket from a tailor – the tailor services the needs of the shop; the tailor buys the jacket material from the weaver – the weaver services the needs of the tailor – and so on right back to the farmer who breeds sheep and has them sheared for the wool. Each is servicing the needs of the other. Likewise if I need coal or iron ore for my factory I approach an organisation that provides these minerals – they too are servicing my needs. So by default all commerce and industry is ultimately providing a service – but to whom? To human beings, people, individuals – you and I!!

The jacket or the coal or iron ore does not make money; it is the people who require the products that pay for the goods or materials (the service) provided that “make” the money. So, once more (it is worth repeating again and again), take care of the ultimate source of the money you are seeking - provide a service to human beings; care for people, and the money will flow. It is really very simple.

This is the ideal and the ultimate “win – win” situation. Commerce and industry win and people win, each get what they want. Greed, hubris, inflated egos and plain old selfishness, however, are all too common human attributes that need to be accounted for when the subject of money is mentioned. Enough, seemingly, is never enough.

But the truth remains – provide a service and money will flow.