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.”
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wikileaks again
This wikileaks saga is getting out of hand. As I understand the situation, the only ‘crime’ committed has been by someone in the American armed forces who wishes to make a point and cause maximum embarrassment – in this they have succeeded, I am sure, beyond their expectations. Now that Julian Assange has handed himself in the British Police (in response to an Interpol “red note”), the American wolf pack is salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on him. This response from those whom wikileaks has exposed is what one has come to expect – outrage and a thirst for revenge.
The Americans are calling him a terrorist – how far out is that! To me wikileaks is definitely worthwhile as it exposes murder, deception, underhand activities and the general ineptitude of many in positions of influence. How can the Americans say Assange is a terrorist? He has killed no one; has no plans to. His only rationale, as far as I can make out is to expose injustice in any shape or form. Now THAT is a good idea and needs to be supported by all fair minded people.
At least Julian Assange is doing something to clean up the world and he needs all the support we can give him. Remember it was the British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who said, “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”
The Americans are calling him a terrorist – how far out is that! To me wikileaks is definitely worthwhile as it exposes murder, deception, underhand activities and the general ineptitude of many in positions of influence. How can the Americans say Assange is a terrorist? He has killed no one; has no plans to. His only rationale, as far as I can make out is to expose injustice in any shape or form. Now THAT is a good idea and needs to be supported by all fair minded people.
At least Julian Assange is doing something to clean up the world and he needs all the support we can give him. Remember it was the British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who said, “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Everyday life
It is strange how different cultures have developed differing ways of looking at life and the world about them. This difference also affects behaviour and emotions. For instance it is well known that someone from the “West” or brought up in the “West” will have a more individualistic approach – “me, I am the important one.” By “West” I mean the more industrialised countries that have been influenced by European standards. On the other hand someone from the “East” or brought up in the “East” is more likely to have a collectivist approach – “us; the group is the important one.” By “East” I mean those countries in the Middle East, Asia and South East Asia; in other words those not having had a historically long European influence.
This “division” between Individualistic and Collective cultures would appear to be a remnant from the older less industrialised days when peoples were grouped by tribal or village affiliation. This affiliation and the small numbers of people concerned encouraged a “one for all and all for one” attitude. This was as defence or survival mechanism that developed to keep the village or tribe as a viable unit. Once industry and a “cash” economy developed then the situation changed and it became more of a individualistic “free-for-all” wherein people sought to get as much of the cash and what the cash would buy as possible. Thus there was no longer a pressing, defence or survival, need for the support of the group, village or tribe. People could go it alone and support themselves.
This means that when someone in the “West” is discomforted by, say a Wikileaks disclosure, they tend (and in using this word I am cautious as I am against categorising people) to take it personally – unless of course they speak for a government in which case the government and the political party concerned would be exceedingly discomforted. This discomfort would not necessarily flow on to the entire country – if people felt strongly enough about the matter they would, most probably, vote the government out at the next election and be done with it.
In an “Eastern” collectivist culture, on the other hand there is a tendency (again I use this word with caution) to take any discomforting disclosure not only as a personal affront – loss of face or a feeling of shame – but this feeling often flows on to the entire country which now “feels” the shame and considers itself diminished thereby.
While this division between “East” and “West” is (thankfully) no longer what it was because of the rapid industrialisation of the “East”, this “collectivist” attitude may still give rise to expressions of outrage and accusations that the international community is interfering in the internal affairs of their country, be it China, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Burma or whatever.
What is affected may not be the image of the country so much as the ego of the country’s leader – this is what gives rise to international tensions and aggression.
This “division” between Individualistic and Collective cultures would appear to be a remnant from the older less industrialised days when peoples were grouped by tribal or village affiliation. This affiliation and the small numbers of people concerned encouraged a “one for all and all for one” attitude. This was as defence or survival mechanism that developed to keep the village or tribe as a viable unit. Once industry and a “cash” economy developed then the situation changed and it became more of a individualistic “free-for-all” wherein people sought to get as much of the cash and what the cash would buy as possible. Thus there was no longer a pressing, defence or survival, need for the support of the group, village or tribe. People could go it alone and support themselves.
This means that when someone in the “West” is discomforted by, say a Wikileaks disclosure, they tend (and in using this word I am cautious as I am against categorising people) to take it personally – unless of course they speak for a government in which case the government and the political party concerned would be exceedingly discomforted. This discomfort would not necessarily flow on to the entire country – if people felt strongly enough about the matter they would, most probably, vote the government out at the next election and be done with it.
In an “Eastern” collectivist culture, on the other hand there is a tendency (again I use this word with caution) to take any discomforting disclosure not only as a personal affront – loss of face or a feeling of shame – but this feeling often flows on to the entire country which now “feels” the shame and considers itself diminished thereby.
While this division between “East” and “West” is (thankfully) no longer what it was because of the rapid industrialisation of the “East”, this “collectivist” attitude may still give rise to expressions of outrage and accusations that the international community is interfering in the internal affairs of their country, be it China, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Burma or whatever.
What is affected may not be the image of the country so much as the ego of the country’s leader – this is what gives rise to international tensions and aggression.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks.
I have generally applauded the efforts of the Wikileaks team in trying to show up unethical conduct and to bring pretentious people down a peg or two. I just love that – when tall poppies are chopped down!! I have always believed that as humans we are all, basically, the same. We all have hopes and aspirations; we all have relatively fragile emotions and we all bleed when hurt; that, at the core of their being, no-one is better or worse than anyone else – just some have bigger egos!!
The previous Wikileaks exposure of documents relating to the war in Iraq I thought was excellent as it highlighted some very shady dealings and cover-ups. This was, I believe, a “correct” use of whistle-blowing. But I am not so sure about this time, with about 400 000 diplomatic documents having the light of public scrutiny directed at them. I ask for what purpose? Surely governments, like individuals, should be afforded some privacy; some “space” in which they may speak their minds without fear or favour?
Now I have no real issue with Wikileaks itself or the idea behind it, but I think reason must have a part, somewhere, in their “mission statement” otherwise it may be considered they have gone a step too far this time and possibly lost some of their moral high-ground. Exposing the actions of banks, telecommunication companies or other commercial organisations, I have no trouble with. Be that as it may I believe the Americans must look to their own before trying to arrest and charge Julian Assange and his Wikileaks team for criminal activities. Someone in the American administration is very frustrated or very angry and is trying to seek “revenge” by wreaking havoc in the diplomatic field – and by all accounts succeeding.
I do acknowledge that I have not had time to read any documents in the current “crop” so I am writing with information based on what others, possibly biased, have said. I await further details on this “case” with great interest!
The previous Wikileaks exposure of documents relating to the war in Iraq I thought was excellent as it highlighted some very shady dealings and cover-ups. This was, I believe, a “correct” use of whistle-blowing. But I am not so sure about this time, with about 400 000 diplomatic documents having the light of public scrutiny directed at them. I ask for what purpose? Surely governments, like individuals, should be afforded some privacy; some “space” in which they may speak their minds without fear or favour?
Now I have no real issue with Wikileaks itself or the idea behind it, but I think reason must have a part, somewhere, in their “mission statement” otherwise it may be considered they have gone a step too far this time and possibly lost some of their moral high-ground. Exposing the actions of banks, telecommunication companies or other commercial organisations, I have no trouble with. Be that as it may I believe the Americans must look to their own before trying to arrest and charge Julian Assange and his Wikileaks team for criminal activities. Someone in the American administration is very frustrated or very angry and is trying to seek “revenge” by wreaking havoc in the diplomatic field – and by all accounts succeeding.
I do acknowledge that I have not had time to read any documents in the current “crop” so I am writing with information based on what others, possibly biased, have said. I await further details on this “case” with great interest!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Love is everywhere
Well, after a month of very heavy studying followed by exams, I am back. I am sure my one reader will be as pleased as I am. Strange though it may seem I enjoy academic work – it seems to satisfy something and gives me a sense of fulfilment.
But what I really wanted to write about was something I saw the other day while driving to work. What caught my eye, on the road ahead of me, was a group of three black crows on the road trying to get at something, which I guessed was some “road kill”. What they were trying to pick up was very small and I immediately thought it might be a small bird killed by a passing motor car. Then my attention was drawn to a small shape – a sparrow – attacking the crows and trying to drive them away. They were ducking and weaving to avoid the little “dive bomber”. This was a contest the sparrow could not win – one against three was not a fair contest. Sure enough the sparrow was diverted by one crow and one of the other two immediately scooped up the little carcass and flew off followed by the other crows. I saw the sparrow fly back to where, presumably its mate, had been killed and then commence a fruitless pursuit of the crows.
The whole episode was over in a minute or so. I know it was a sparrow that was killed because as I drove passed I looked down as saw a few feathers marking the spot. It is difficult for me not to assume that the surviving sparrow was trying to defend the body of its mate from being eaten by the crows.
We are told never to anthropomorphise the lives of animals – never to assume that human like attributes are present in animals – you see to do so is not “scientific”. But to me it makes perfect sense to do it, after all we are animals too, aren’t we?
I like to think that love IS actually everywhere, even in a bird. Swans are known to mate for life and to grieve over the loss of a mate. If a swan can why can’t a sparrow?
But what I really wanted to write about was something I saw the other day while driving to work. What caught my eye, on the road ahead of me, was a group of three black crows on the road trying to get at something, which I guessed was some “road kill”. What they were trying to pick up was very small and I immediately thought it might be a small bird killed by a passing motor car. Then my attention was drawn to a small shape – a sparrow – attacking the crows and trying to drive them away. They were ducking and weaving to avoid the little “dive bomber”. This was a contest the sparrow could not win – one against three was not a fair contest. Sure enough the sparrow was diverted by one crow and one of the other two immediately scooped up the little carcass and flew off followed by the other crows. I saw the sparrow fly back to where, presumably its mate, had been killed and then commence a fruitless pursuit of the crows.
The whole episode was over in a minute or so. I know it was a sparrow that was killed because as I drove passed I looked down as saw a few feathers marking the spot. It is difficult for me not to assume that the surviving sparrow was trying to defend the body of its mate from being eaten by the crows.
We are told never to anthropomorphise the lives of animals – never to assume that human like attributes are present in animals – you see to do so is not “scientific”. But to me it makes perfect sense to do it, after all we are animals too, aren’t we?
I like to think that love IS actually everywhere, even in a bird. Swans are known to mate for life and to grieve over the loss of a mate. If a swan can why can’t a sparrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)