What is the meaning of life?
Don't try to answer this. It rests upon a prior assumption, namely that there is one and only one meaning.
Let us first ask: Is there at least one meaning of life?
After that we are on good ground to pose the second question if, that is, the first answer is "yes".
But for me, the answer to the prior question is both no and yes. Let me explain.
For me, the bare answer is no!
Meaning is ascribed to things by human beings. So there is no meaning inherent in life in and of itself. That is the "no" answer.
But I also maintain that each human being is able to ascribe meaning in answer to the heading question. And that chosen meaning can change from time to time for the same person. So also lots of "yes" answers.
So for me the original question is either ill-formed and consequently meaningless (sic) or the original question has a legion, a multitude, a veritable plethora of answers.
So I don't ask it any more.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
If the guilty party does not own up ...
... the whole school will be kept in.
So it started here - punish the many innocent because of the 1 or 2 guilty.
And so, what some people learn in school they take into their adult life. And some become law- and rule-makers for the rest of us.
Soon, you will not be able to get beer in a glass in an aussie pub. For a tiny number of people, you see, the glass become a weapon. So to prevent this - no one can have glass.
If you are not a beer drinker, or if you have destroyed your taste buds with excessive and indiscriminate consumption, you might think that there is no difference in taste between beer in glass and beer in specifically engineered plastic.
There is.
And has anyone paid attention at all to the research that shows traces of polymers in liquid that is kept in plastic containers?
So - I guess we get take-away and drink at home out of glasses.
Well, if this was the only example of punish the innocent on account of the guilty we might just say ho hum and move on. But it isn't. I am sure you can provide your own examples, whether you support the principle or not.
So much for democracy. So much for 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.
I look forward to the next eample....
For pity's sake, Scotty - beam me up.
So it started here - punish the many innocent because of the 1 or 2 guilty.
And so, what some people learn in school they take into their adult life. And some become law- and rule-makers for the rest of us.
Soon, you will not be able to get beer in a glass in an aussie pub. For a tiny number of people, you see, the glass become a weapon. So to prevent this - no one can have glass.
If you are not a beer drinker, or if you have destroyed your taste buds with excessive and indiscriminate consumption, you might think that there is no difference in taste between beer in glass and beer in specifically engineered plastic.
There is.
And has anyone paid attention at all to the research that shows traces of polymers in liquid that is kept in plastic containers?
So - I guess we get take-away and drink at home out of glasses.
Well, if this was the only example of punish the innocent on account of the guilty we might just say ho hum and move on. But it isn't. I am sure you can provide your own examples, whether you support the principle or not.
So much for democracy. So much for 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.
I look forward to the next eample....
For pity's sake, Scotty - beam me up.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Beaver, Beaver, Beaver
Oh look. There are some beavers doing their thing, munching into trees, felling them, damming the river, making their homes and guaranteeing their food supply.
I wait and wait. I look and I look.
Nope.
I do not see another group of beavers holding signs saying "save the forests", "save the river".
I am a creature of earth just as they are, no more, no less.
Our earlier human hubris that led us to believe we had lordship and ownership of this earth and all on it caused problems. That is gradually passing.
Now it is a human hubris that leads us to believe we have responsibility and guardianship of the earth and all on it.
No change.
We do not have these things. We are the same as all living things in that respect. We err when we set ourselves apart, instead of just doing what all the other living things do - getting on with changing the environment to suit our needs. Need for shelter, need for food, need for quality of life.
Hey, who says that beavers are not taking quality of life into account? Let's assume that food and shelter are the only driving forces and then examine their locations on the basis of that model alone. I bet you we would find at least one case where we would ask ourselves: "Why did they settle there? This other spot would be more logical, would fit that model better."
Don't like the idea? OK. Do the research and then show me I'm wrong.
Until then ... just maybe.
I wait and wait. I look and I look.
Nope.
I do not see another group of beavers holding signs saying "save the forests", "save the river".
I am a creature of earth just as they are, no more, no less.
Our earlier human hubris that led us to believe we had lordship and ownership of this earth and all on it caused problems. That is gradually passing.
Now it is a human hubris that leads us to believe we have responsibility and guardianship of the earth and all on it.
No change.
We do not have these things. We are the same as all living things in that respect. We err when we set ourselves apart, instead of just doing what all the other living things do - getting on with changing the environment to suit our needs. Need for shelter, need for food, need for quality of life.
Hey, who says that beavers are not taking quality of life into account? Let's assume that food and shelter are the only driving forces and then examine their locations on the basis of that model alone. I bet you we would find at least one case where we would ask ourselves: "Why did they settle there? This other spot would be more logical, would fit that model better."
Don't like the idea? OK. Do the research and then show me I'm wrong.
Until then ... just maybe.
Friday, July 15, 2011
You ought to read ...
I'm over it.
I am sociable. I have conversations with people. We discuss many things of mutual interest. And then I express a view on the topic.
"Oh, have you read ...?".
"No."
"You ought to."
And that is that. Because I have not found an easy way to point out something that all the people I talk with seem not to know.
You can make a list of key books in different disciplines. These books contain ideas and insights that appear to be presented for the very first time by the author.
This is often not the case. The author draws on what is around at the time. But the readers are not aware of that, especially a few years after publication.
So please don't tell me I should read this book about, say, Object-oriented approach to creating computer systems. The books grew out of best practice by people already in the industry and using the principles even though the tools to make it easier had not yet been created. I mean, Larry Constantine proposed essential elements of the approach in 1973 and professionals in the industry were, on his advice and guidance, using them and refining them long before the later publications on the topic. Larry is still presenting at symposia. He is still leading edge. Listen to him.
Please don't tell me I should read this book on Agile approaches to system development. They were resurrected out of practices put in place in the mid-late '70s. In Australia, Rob Thomsett was a teacher and exponent of such and other development methodologies and these were put in place in a number of Government departments in that country. Rob is still a leader in the Agile field today. Listen to him.
And please don't tell me I should read "Atlas Shrugged". And... and... and...
It is admirable that a person is informed about a field. It is also admirable not to assume that your sources were the originators of the ideas and practices, but the collators and presenters who have a secure grasp of the subject area and have insights into the essentials. It is admirable, in my opinion, if you also know the history of the field and can see the development of that discipline, albeit with Popperian paradigm shifts.
Just check first the experience of the person you are talking with before recommending a book. They may have actually lived through and practiced the pre-cursors to the ideas or practices in the book. They may have been part of the water behind the dam wall or obstruction that added to the spill-over that you know about.
OK. I do really appreciate that I am being offered something in good faith. It's just a case of already been there, already done that, my insights, thoughts and experience already went into the pot with the others.
None of this denies or diminishes the value of the recommendations made by the authors of the books of the type I mention here, nor the value of the contributions made by the authors to the general good. That much I want to make clear.
I am sociable. I have conversations with people. We discuss many things of mutual interest. And then I express a view on the topic.
"Oh, have you read ...?".
"No."
"You ought to."
And that is that. Because I have not found an easy way to point out something that all the people I talk with seem not to know.
You can make a list of key books in different disciplines. These books contain ideas and insights that appear to be presented for the very first time by the author.
This is often not the case. The author draws on what is around at the time. But the readers are not aware of that, especially a few years after publication.
So please don't tell me I should read this book about, say, Object-oriented approach to creating computer systems. The books grew out of best practice by people already in the industry and using the principles even though the tools to make it easier had not yet been created. I mean, Larry Constantine proposed essential elements of the approach in 1973 and professionals in the industry were, on his advice and guidance, using them and refining them long before the later publications on the topic. Larry is still presenting at symposia. He is still leading edge. Listen to him.
Please don't tell me I should read this book on Agile approaches to system development. They were resurrected out of practices put in place in the mid-late '70s. In Australia, Rob Thomsett was a teacher and exponent of such and other development methodologies and these were put in place in a number of Government departments in that country. Rob is still a leader in the Agile field today. Listen to him.
And please don't tell me I should read "Atlas Shrugged". And... and... and...
It is admirable that a person is informed about a field. It is also admirable not to assume that your sources were the originators of the ideas and practices, but the collators and presenters who have a secure grasp of the subject area and have insights into the essentials. It is admirable, in my opinion, if you also know the history of the field and can see the development of that discipline, albeit with Popperian paradigm shifts.
Just check first the experience of the person you are talking with before recommending a book. They may have actually lived through and practiced the pre-cursors to the ideas or practices in the book. They may have been part of the water behind the dam wall or obstruction that added to the spill-over that you know about.
OK. I do really appreciate that I am being offered something in good faith. It's just a case of already been there, already done that, my insights, thoughts and experience already went into the pot with the others.
None of this denies or diminishes the value of the recommendations made by the authors of the books of the type I mention here, nor the value of the contributions made by the authors to the general good. That much I want to make clear.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Why Men this and Women that
Despite the publication of the results of a 25 year study in development, concluding among other things that the way the nervous system of a human being is hard-wired depends on the amount of testosterone in the womb at a certain point of embryo development, people still insist on saying 'men this' and 'women that'.
It ain't that simple.
First, you have to consider a continuum between the high testosterone leves at that time and the low levels. A continuum. Not either/or.
So what if male gender humans tend to be more to one end and female gender humans tend to be more at the other. That's just a correlation that is not high enough to draw all the Woman's Day conclusions that people bandy about.
Better, perhaps, to classify people as High-T and Low-T. Or maybe remove possible pejorative evaluations and call them T and N.
What is more, you can now do a normalised test to see where on the continuum your own nervous system sits. Wow.
I am about 60% T and 40% N.
No. That does not mean I am a big girl. It means I can read maps without turning them around and I don't lose my keys as often.
The T nervous system allows its owner to unthinkingly, naturally and without thought or effort make maps of reality and respond to those.
When the T puts his or her keys down, it is recorded in the map. If someone else moves them, that person, male or female, will not be able to easily find them. This is because they are working with the map they made, not the reality in front of them.
The N puts something down, again male or female, and makes no map. That step is not there. They see the reality directly. So if someone moves it, no problem.
I reckon there is a great opportunity here for researchers - redo ALL the research that has compared gender males with gender females. Do it on the basis of T - N, after testing the participants.
This will separate out the differences that are actually based on physical gender and those that are based on T-N nervous system differences. Across a continuum.
Research grants anyone?
Anyone got money to fund this?
It might not look important but the results could be staggering if we find much higher correlation N-T than we do M-F.
It ain't that simple.
First, you have to consider a continuum between the high testosterone leves at that time and the low levels. A continuum. Not either/or.
So what if male gender humans tend to be more to one end and female gender humans tend to be more at the other. That's just a correlation that is not high enough to draw all the Woman's Day conclusions that people bandy about.
Better, perhaps, to classify people as High-T and Low-T. Or maybe remove possible pejorative evaluations and call them T and N.
What is more, you can now do a normalised test to see where on the continuum your own nervous system sits. Wow.
I am about 60% T and 40% N.
No. That does not mean I am a big girl. It means I can read maps without turning them around and I don't lose my keys as often.
The T nervous system allows its owner to unthinkingly, naturally and without thought or effort make maps of reality and respond to those.
When the T puts his or her keys down, it is recorded in the map. If someone else moves them, that person, male or female, will not be able to easily find them. This is because they are working with the map they made, not the reality in front of them.
The N puts something down, again male or female, and makes no map. That step is not there. They see the reality directly. So if someone moves it, no problem.
I reckon there is a great opportunity here for researchers - redo ALL the research that has compared gender males with gender females. Do it on the basis of T - N, after testing the participants.
This will separate out the differences that are actually based on physical gender and those that are based on T-N nervous system differences. Across a continuum.
Research grants anyone?
Anyone got money to fund this?
It might not look important but the results could be staggering if we find much higher correlation N-T than we do M-F.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
ADD?
ADD, Attention Deficit Disorder.
Neither a deficit nor a disorder.
ADD covers a lot though. So I will deal with a subset. This is made up of those who have the following characteristics:
Capable of broad wide-ranging all-inclusive attention AND pin-point exclusive attention.
It is like there are people who have just these two modes and nothing 'in-between'.
Between the ages of 10 and 14 I read extensively and all the time I could find. My mum used to say that when I had my nose in a book, the house could burn down around me and I would not notice.
I guess in this mode, it looks very like a deficit of attention.
In my workplace, the day came when 'open plan' became popular. So I would be sitting at my desk doing my work and someone at the opposite end of the floor would ask a question. Not of me you understand. Just to someone nearby. But I found myself answering without missing a beat in what I was doing.
This is the other mode.
I hear that Alan Watts was at a symposium and for some of the time he was apparently talking with the person next to him. At the end, for 'any questions', he posed his question.
The presenter scathingly remarked that had he been paying attention he would have heard it covered at such-and-such a point.
So Alan repeated what the presenter had said at that point word-for-word and asked where in that was the answer he was seeking. Of course, it wasn't there.
I like this unverified story.
If you prefer verified, I was learning Welsh in a class, laughing sotto voce in a semi-flirting set of asides with another student. This was triggered when we were introduced in passing to the word for a frog and at the same moment, noticed only by me and my friend, the frogs in the pond outside starting their 'broga, broga' song. Both she and I had heard everything the persenter had said, every nuance and tut-tut from one or two class-mates, every 'broga', the velvet feel of the outside summer evening, the layout of the classroom, and so on.
This is the other mode.
Even this mode is deemed 'deficient' because the self-important person decides "He/she is not paying attention to me'. Get over it. You are right and you are wrong.
So as this type of ADD person I had to learn strategies.
Full awareness - my strategy became withhold response. Can't prevent being aware.
Pin-point awareness - teach other strategies to deal with it and with me in that state.
I repeat - it is not a deficit.
And disorder? I don't think so.
There was a particular paper published in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology some time during the '70s. Sorry. Don't have my copies with me at the moment, or even in the same country as me! Otherwise I would give the reference.
But the discussion was on 2 styles of meditation, which for here I will term Atman and an-Atman. Some schools favour one, some another. I think I recall that the sound of a bell was used as a stimulus with some long-time practitioners of each method.
But I will gloss and say that the an-Atman, non-self, approach will produce the full attention mode, eventually as a normal state of being.
The Atman, purified/perfected self method will produce the intense zero-point centred mode.
Some at least diagnosed as ADD have access to both of these.
It is not a disorder. From their point of view, not being able to do those things is a disorder. Not being able to understand and appreciate those modes is benighted.
Note: I am not saying that it is not difficult while these type of ADD are growing up. I guess it would be nice if they could be guided in that by peers or those who at least understand. When in one mode they are processing everything in their awareness. Please do not say they are 'easily distracted'. In the other mode they have excluded all from attention except the one thing of focus. Please don't say they are 'ignoring' you, 'refusing to pay attention'.
Please...
Neither a deficit nor a disorder.
ADD covers a lot though. So I will deal with a subset. This is made up of those who have the following characteristics:
Capable of broad wide-ranging all-inclusive attention AND pin-point exclusive attention.
It is like there are people who have just these two modes and nothing 'in-between'.
Between the ages of 10 and 14 I read extensively and all the time I could find. My mum used to say that when I had my nose in a book, the house could burn down around me and I would not notice.
I guess in this mode, it looks very like a deficit of attention.
In my workplace, the day came when 'open plan' became popular. So I would be sitting at my desk doing my work and someone at the opposite end of the floor would ask a question. Not of me you understand. Just to someone nearby. But I found myself answering without missing a beat in what I was doing.
This is the other mode.
I hear that Alan Watts was at a symposium and for some of the time he was apparently talking with the person next to him. At the end, for 'any questions', he posed his question.
The presenter scathingly remarked that had he been paying attention he would have heard it covered at such-and-such a point.
So Alan repeated what the presenter had said at that point word-for-word and asked where in that was the answer he was seeking. Of course, it wasn't there.
I like this unverified story.
If you prefer verified, I was learning Welsh in a class, laughing sotto voce in a semi-flirting set of asides with another student. This was triggered when we were introduced in passing to the word for a frog and at the same moment, noticed only by me and my friend, the frogs in the pond outside starting their 'broga, broga' song. Both she and I had heard everything the persenter had said, every nuance and tut-tut from one or two class-mates, every 'broga', the velvet feel of the outside summer evening, the layout of the classroom, and so on.
This is the other mode.
Even this mode is deemed 'deficient' because the self-important person decides "He/she is not paying attention to me'. Get over it. You are right and you are wrong.
So as this type of ADD person I had to learn strategies.
Full awareness - my strategy became withhold response. Can't prevent being aware.
Pin-point awareness - teach other strategies to deal with it and with me in that state.
I repeat - it is not a deficit.
And disorder? I don't think so.
There was a particular paper published in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology some time during the '70s. Sorry. Don't have my copies with me at the moment, or even in the same country as me! Otherwise I would give the reference.
But the discussion was on 2 styles of meditation, which for here I will term Atman and an-Atman. Some schools favour one, some another. I think I recall that the sound of a bell was used as a stimulus with some long-time practitioners of each method.
But I will gloss and say that the an-Atman, non-self, approach will produce the full attention mode, eventually as a normal state of being.
The Atman, purified/perfected self method will produce the intense zero-point centred mode.
Some at least diagnosed as ADD have access to both of these.
It is not a disorder. From their point of view, not being able to do those things is a disorder. Not being able to understand and appreciate those modes is benighted.
Note: I am not saying that it is not difficult while these type of ADD are growing up. I guess it would be nice if they could be guided in that by peers or those who at least understand. When in one mode they are processing everything in their awareness. Please do not say they are 'easily distracted'. In the other mode they have excluded all from attention except the one thing of focus. Please don't say they are 'ignoring' you, 'refusing to pay attention'.
Please...
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Prejudice Hormone
'A chemical [Oxytocin] well known for encouraging bonding may also underlie bias' - Scientific American Mind, May/June 2011, p8.
Chomsky's 3 deepest semantic structures underlie more than most people think. They are fundamental to so much of how we think.
They map onto the three fundamental structures with which we can specify any algorithm, be it a computer program, a recipe in cooking, a circuit diagram. The three specification units are (using my words):
Sequence - this then this then this
Divergence - if this then that otherwise something else
Repetition - do this until/while such and such is the case
[OK, there is also a fourth unit required - "here's one I made earlier", (subroutine, sauce, etc) - but it is a meta unit and this pre-made unit slots in as one of the sequence units]
Now the repetition unit creates a loop and a loop has a boundary. Boundary conditions are fundamental to our behaviour and understandings.
So when the French searched for a fundamental rally-cry that would encapsulated all they chose Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite.
These three map onto the three deep semantic structures. Fraternite relates to the boundary, loop or membership condition.
So it should come as no surprise that a chemical that operates in us in relationship to membership should also signal non-membership as well.
A boundary defines an inside and also defines an outside.
It's deeply within our semantics, regardless of culture or language, because it is in our human nervous system.
To have a concept of inclusion or membership or fraternity or commonality and so on automatically defines exclusion, non-membership and just simple 'other', 'etrange', 'fremd'.
Nothing laws or recommendations of the PC people can do about this.
[In case you are interested, Sequence = Egalite and Divergence (or choice) = Liberte]
Chomsky's 3 deepest semantic structures underlie more than most people think. They are fundamental to so much of how we think.
They map onto the three fundamental structures with which we can specify any algorithm, be it a computer program, a recipe in cooking, a circuit diagram. The three specification units are (using my words):
Sequence - this then this then this
Divergence - if this then that otherwise something else
Repetition - do this until/while such and such is the case
[OK, there is also a fourth unit required - "here's one I made earlier", (subroutine, sauce, etc) - but it is a meta unit and this pre-made unit slots in as one of the sequence units]
Now the repetition unit creates a loop and a loop has a boundary. Boundary conditions are fundamental to our behaviour and understandings.
So when the French searched for a fundamental rally-cry that would encapsulated all they chose Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite.
These three map onto the three deep semantic structures. Fraternite relates to the boundary, loop or membership condition.
So it should come as no surprise that a chemical that operates in us in relationship to membership should also signal non-membership as well.
A boundary defines an inside and also defines an outside.
It's deeply within our semantics, regardless of culture or language, because it is in our human nervous system.
To have a concept of inclusion or membership or fraternity or commonality and so on automatically defines exclusion, non-membership and just simple 'other', 'etrange', 'fremd'.
Nothing laws or recommendations of the PC people can do about this.
[In case you are interested, Sequence = Egalite and Divergence (or choice) = Liberte]
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Wave
In a wave in the ocean, that water does not move along. Successive sections of the water just move up and down.
Some buddhists practice a meditation where you become aware of how thoughts arise out of nothing and pass away, continually. This is to start the experience of how what we call reality arises and passes away continually from the ocean of being behind that outer reality illusion.
So as the wave peak pops above a certain level, that is our reality illusion arising. The water molecules of the prior position are not related to those of the current or future positions. All of the ones at the current position are related to each other much more strongly than to those 'before' or 'after'.
This is a challenge for causality. It is a challenge for discussions on free will and determinism.
But what if you were in that water on something buoyant. You would just bob up and then down as the wave 'passed'. So let's say you started your floatation device travelling to keep at the weak of teh wave. The molecules of water 'ahead' are there before they rise under you. So that is pre-determined.
But you can place yourself 'here' on the wave, or 'there, or more to the left, and so on.
That would mean that both free will and determinism are operating in the same scenario.
But a more interesting consequence of the whole of existence passing away and arising constantly is that in this moment, everything is related. All parts of that arising form one complete coherent group.
I heard that Idries Shah once won the spanish lottery. He described it as easy. Oh, yeah, they said. Yeah. And the next week he took a ticket and won again.
My friend and I were talking about all sorts of things in the sportsbar. We had been talking navy and seafaring stuff because he had been in the merchant navy and was reminiscing a bit.
At a brief pause in the conversation, we looked at the TAB screens. We both spotted 'Mister Hornblower' in the list. He took a $4 each-way bet. He collected $192.
If you can be in this moment, then your are in touch with all that is also in the same moment.
(The Idries Shah story is unverified. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.)
Some buddhists practice a meditation where you become aware of how thoughts arise out of nothing and pass away, continually. This is to start the experience of how what we call reality arises and passes away continually from the ocean of being behind that outer reality illusion.
So as the wave peak pops above a certain level, that is our reality illusion arising. The water molecules of the prior position are not related to those of the current or future positions. All of the ones at the current position are related to each other much more strongly than to those 'before' or 'after'.
This is a challenge for causality. It is a challenge for discussions on free will and determinism.
But what if you were in that water on something buoyant. You would just bob up and then down as the wave 'passed'. So let's say you started your floatation device travelling to keep at the weak of teh wave. The molecules of water 'ahead' are there before they rise under you. So that is pre-determined.
But you can place yourself 'here' on the wave, or 'there, or more to the left, and so on.
That would mean that both free will and determinism are operating in the same scenario.
But a more interesting consequence of the whole of existence passing away and arising constantly is that in this moment, everything is related. All parts of that arising form one complete coherent group.
I heard that Idries Shah once won the spanish lottery. He described it as easy. Oh, yeah, they said. Yeah. And the next week he took a ticket and won again.
My friend and I were talking about all sorts of things in the sportsbar. We had been talking navy and seafaring stuff because he had been in the merchant navy and was reminiscing a bit.
At a brief pause in the conversation, we looked at the TAB screens. We both spotted 'Mister Hornblower' in the list. He took a $4 each-way bet. He collected $192.
If you can be in this moment, then your are in touch with all that is also in the same moment.
(The Idries Shah story is unverified. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.)
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Gambling for Fun and Profit
There are people who gamble.
I put them in three groups - Profit, fun and In-the-moment.
The gamblers for profit play the machines or the TAB and their external intent is to win. They seriously believe that they can win more than they invest in this game. OK. There may be the odd one or two who can make money on this game, especially where they have more information, such as betting on horse.
I worked with a guy who made more money from the trots than he did at work. I often "rode shotgun" for him when he went to collect his winnings from the TAB. He only bet on the trots, he knew every horse and driver backwards, he spent all his leave time from work watching the trials. He made money.
But this is rare and it is highly dedicated research, due diligence and flair that got him his profits.
Not so the usual gambler.
Now the gambler addict might be thought of as someone who is driven by winning. Not so. Winning is not the pay-off for this person. Losing is. Only that justifies the continued chasing of the lost dollars.
Then we have the funsters.
These guys, alone or often in a group, have a pre-decided kitty from which they have their flutter. They have a laugh together and they may or may not end up with a profit. Usually not. But that was the stake, they had their fun, and when it is gone it is gone. That was the more or less agreed cost of the fun.
Now the in-the-moment mob are quite different and partly mystical.
There will be 1 - 4 of them and they will drink in the sports pub and laugh and bullshit with each other. They loo kat the names of the horses or dogs and some name leaps out, relevant to what they have been joshing about. Right. $1 win/ $3 place on that one. All agreed. Amazing how often it pays.
I arrived in the pub dressed, unusually, in collarless shirt and suit. It was a Sunday. They asked, have you come from church, or how are you father.
The next race had a horse called Bless Us All, running in Hong Kong. Me and my two mates did the one on 3. It was long odds but is won. Kerchink.
I should really call it I Ching betting - it is a feature of the idea that in this moment everything in that moment is related.
Or, like any gambler, we could be fooling ourselves.
But we have a heap of fun at controlled money amounts.
I put them in three groups - Profit, fun and In-the-moment.
The gamblers for profit play the machines or the TAB and their external intent is to win. They seriously believe that they can win more than they invest in this game. OK. There may be the odd one or two who can make money on this game, especially where they have more information, such as betting on horse.
I worked with a guy who made more money from the trots than he did at work. I often "rode shotgun" for him when he went to collect his winnings from the TAB. He only bet on the trots, he knew every horse and driver backwards, he spent all his leave time from work watching the trials. He made money.
But this is rare and it is highly dedicated research, due diligence and flair that got him his profits.
Not so the usual gambler.
Now the gambler addict might be thought of as someone who is driven by winning. Not so. Winning is not the pay-off for this person. Losing is. Only that justifies the continued chasing of the lost dollars.
Then we have the funsters.
These guys, alone or often in a group, have a pre-decided kitty from which they have their flutter. They have a laugh together and they may or may not end up with a profit. Usually not. But that was the stake, they had their fun, and when it is gone it is gone. That was the more or less agreed cost of the fun.
Now the in-the-moment mob are quite different and partly mystical.
There will be 1 - 4 of them and they will drink in the sports pub and laugh and bullshit with each other. They loo kat the names of the horses or dogs and some name leaps out, relevant to what they have been joshing about. Right. $1 win/ $3 place on that one. All agreed. Amazing how often it pays.
I arrived in the pub dressed, unusually, in collarless shirt and suit. It was a Sunday. They asked, have you come from church, or how are you father.
The next race had a horse called Bless Us All, running in Hong Kong. Me and my two mates did the one on 3. It was long odds but is won. Kerchink.
I should really call it I Ching betting - it is a feature of the idea that in this moment everything in that moment is related.
Or, like any gambler, we could be fooling ourselves.
But we have a heap of fun at controlled money amounts.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
License or Permit
I got my driving license a long time ago. At that time, you presented yourself to an examiner who checked that you met the requirements. If you did, you got the driving license.
You might have, I suppose, lost your license if you subsequently no longer met the requirements, such as might happen after serious injury that impaired your driving ability or even just aging.
Now of the countries I have lived and worked in, it seems there has been a common transition in those where english is the first language.
I twigged to this when I heard of what to me was something quite odd in Australia.
A fellah had been out on a boat with mates. He had been drinking, but not all of them had. They came up to the slip and prepared to put the boat on the trailer which was hitched to the RV that his wife was driving. Up steps Mr Plod and breathalyses him. "You are done, mate". He lost his car driving license.
Along the way it seems that the idea that your ability to meet requirements when driving has changed. Previously it was justification for the issue of a license. Now, the license is something different - it is a permit. It is permission to drive which can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. And this regardless of you having met the requirements for what was once a qualification.
So, say you have a degree or, better, a doctorate. You obtained it as a qualification by satisfying the requirements. Heaven help us if the day comes when it is regarded as a permit to be withdrawn at any time for any of a growing number of reasons.
Please note, I am aware that honorary doctorates have been withdrawn when institutions felt that the behaviour of the recipient cast a shade on the reputation of that institution. This is different. The analogy would be getting your driving license in a box of breakfast cereal, which was a common comment at one time in South Australia.
You might have, I suppose, lost your license if you subsequently no longer met the requirements, such as might happen after serious injury that impaired your driving ability or even just aging.
Now of the countries I have lived and worked in, it seems there has been a common transition in those where english is the first language.
I twigged to this when I heard of what to me was something quite odd in Australia.
A fellah had been out on a boat with mates. He had been drinking, but not all of them had. They came up to the slip and prepared to put the boat on the trailer which was hitched to the RV that his wife was driving. Up steps Mr Plod and breathalyses him. "You are done, mate". He lost his car driving license.
Along the way it seems that the idea that your ability to meet requirements when driving has changed. Previously it was justification for the issue of a license. Now, the license is something different - it is a permit. It is permission to drive which can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. And this regardless of you having met the requirements for what was once a qualification.
So, say you have a degree or, better, a doctorate. You obtained it as a qualification by satisfying the requirements. Heaven help us if the day comes when it is regarded as a permit to be withdrawn at any time for any of a growing number of reasons.
Please note, I am aware that honorary doctorates have been withdrawn when institutions felt that the behaviour of the recipient cast a shade on the reputation of that institution. This is different. The analogy would be getting your driving license in a box of breakfast cereal, which was a common comment at one time in South Australia.
Statistics
You can do anything with statistics. It has been said often and truly.
A mate of mine insisted, this is in the early '70s, that he and his recent bride were avid supporters of the breast-feeding of children.
He was so adamant I had to press him further. He told me that 80% of people in prison at that time were bottle-fed.
I mentioned that at the time those people were children the decision to bottle-feed babies accounted for some 90% of cases (from my information gathered as a mid-wife from my fellow mid-wives).
Taken together those figures would seem to indicate that there is more likelihood that a breast-fed child would end up in prison.
I suppose you have guessed that I don't have many true friends. But then, who does?
An advert, or, rather, item of propaganda (**), on Australian TV claimed that in 45% of boating accidents alcohol was involved.
I've done my time in boats and on the waterways with mates in Australia. I have to tell you I estimate that in more than 55%, much more than 55%, of boating adventures, alcohol is involved. Oh yes.
So how come the non-drinkers are causing a disproportionate number of accidents?
(OK, it is nowhere near rigorous, but I could not resist it).
** I say "propaganda" because an advert advertises products and services. A government version of what looks like the same thing seeks to change ideas, influence public opinion, and not to promote sales. It is qualitatively different.
A mate of mine insisted, this is in the early '70s, that he and his recent bride were avid supporters of the breast-feeding of children.
He was so adamant I had to press him further. He told me that 80% of people in prison at that time were bottle-fed.
I mentioned that at the time those people were children the decision to bottle-feed babies accounted for some 90% of cases (from my information gathered as a mid-wife from my fellow mid-wives).
Taken together those figures would seem to indicate that there is more likelihood that a breast-fed child would end up in prison.
I suppose you have guessed that I don't have many true friends. But then, who does?
An advert, or, rather, item of propaganda (**), on Australian TV claimed that in 45% of boating accidents alcohol was involved.
I've done my time in boats and on the waterways with mates in Australia. I have to tell you I estimate that in more than 55%, much more than 55%, of boating adventures, alcohol is involved. Oh yes.
So how come the non-drinkers are causing a disproportionate number of accidents?
(OK, it is nowhere near rigorous, but I could not resist it).
** I say "propaganda" because an advert advertises products and services. A government version of what looks like the same thing seeks to change ideas, influence public opinion, and not to promote sales. It is qualitatively different.
How to have a baby
Sometimes couples experience problems getting a baby on the way.
A woman walked into a bar late afternoon and sat down on a stool at the bar next to a fellah. He was drinking champagne. She too ordered champagne.
He comments, "Champagne, eh?".
"Yes," she relies, "I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," he returns, "I'm celebrating too."
"Yeah, right," she thinks but asks, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer and hen breeder," he answers. "For a long time I have not been happy with the number of chicks I have been getting. Now that problem is solved and I am celebrating. Why are you celebrating?"
She smiles and replies, "For a few years I have been trying to get pregnant and my husband and I have had loads of test, followed a heap of advice. We were at our wits' end. I have just come from the doctor's and I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence, " he replies.
"But tell me," she asks, "how did you solve your problem?"
He smiles and says, "Changed the cock".
"What a coincidence," says she.
There are some who say that when it comes to procreation we are merely transport devices for our genes. It is our genes that know what the match is going to be. If you, young lady, listen to your genes and they say "that one", then you will have a child without any problems at all, sometimes on just one encounter.
And it does not matter whether the fellah has a job, or money, or good looks, or a great build, or a sense of humour or even youth - that is the fellah that will do it. Just go for it.
Of course, partnerships are more than this. We mate for life, right? So your life companion had better have other qualities if it is going to work for years and years. Fine. The two requirements are often in conflict. Solve the two requirements separately.
My work colleague married this lovely woman. I got the "spark" when I first saw her and it was returned. This is not lust, this is not desire, this is genes calling to genes. You have to be aware of it but one you are it is unmistakeable. Mind is not involved. Desire is not involved.
They tried for a family for a while. It so happened that my colleague went away for the weekend and she and an long-time female friend of mine called round at my house and invited me over for a party. My female friend was interested in some fellah and I realised it was just going to be the four of us. OK, I spent the night there.
She had a lovely daughter.
Of course, she, her husband and my friend had colluded together and arranged the whole episode.
The genes matched up. Everyone knew.
A woman walked into a bar late afternoon and sat down on a stool at the bar next to a fellah. He was drinking champagne. She too ordered champagne.
He comments, "Champagne, eh?".
"Yes," she relies, "I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," he returns, "I'm celebrating too."
"Yeah, right," she thinks but asks, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer and hen breeder," he answers. "For a long time I have not been happy with the number of chicks I have been getting. Now that problem is solved and I am celebrating. Why are you celebrating?"
She smiles and replies, "For a few years I have been trying to get pregnant and my husband and I have had loads of test, followed a heap of advice. We were at our wits' end. I have just come from the doctor's and I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence, " he replies.
"But tell me," she asks, "how did you solve your problem?"
He smiles and says, "Changed the cock".
"What a coincidence," says she.
There are some who say that when it comes to procreation we are merely transport devices for our genes. It is our genes that know what the match is going to be. If you, young lady, listen to your genes and they say "that one", then you will have a child without any problems at all, sometimes on just one encounter.
And it does not matter whether the fellah has a job, or money, or good looks, or a great build, or a sense of humour or even youth - that is the fellah that will do it. Just go for it.
Of course, partnerships are more than this. We mate for life, right? So your life companion had better have other qualities if it is going to work for years and years. Fine. The two requirements are often in conflict. Solve the two requirements separately.
My work colleague married this lovely woman. I got the "spark" when I first saw her and it was returned. This is not lust, this is not desire, this is genes calling to genes. You have to be aware of it but one you are it is unmistakeable. Mind is not involved. Desire is not involved.
They tried for a family for a while. It so happened that my colleague went away for the weekend and she and an long-time female friend of mine called round at my house and invited me over for a party. My female friend was interested in some fellah and I realised it was just going to be the four of us. OK, I spent the night there.
She had a lovely daughter.
Of course, she, her husband and my friend had colluded together and arranged the whole episode.
The genes matched up. Everyone knew.
Voting?
I love the way the voting system works. You get a vote, and just the one vote. Really?
While a government is in power, representing the wishes of the electorate, allegedly, there are numerous influences on the decision-making process. There is of course lobbying. A kind of horse-trading agreement where benefits might accrue to a politician or a party, be it even enhanced public image, if only a certain course of action is favoured. Someone is getting an extra vote.
Or what about the case in Australia where after election, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, arranged - as promised - discussions with unions and business on issues of labour and capital. Someone is getting to vote twice.
But this is really of no consequence whatsoever. The real voting takes place in another way.
Every time you spend a dollar, you are voting for the lifestyle, monetary consequences, cultural consequences, ethics and more by where you choose to spend that dollar and what on.
Every time you choose to buy something, you are voting with your dollars.
It is this that more dictates the choices available to everyone, the life-style choices available to all, the ethos and culture of the country and, to some extent, the laws that are made.
Spend your money wisely to support only those businesses, outlets, products, manufacturing practices, business ethics and , let's face it, countries that you truly wish to support.
Otherwise - well, you are just wasting your voting power.
While a government is in power, representing the wishes of the electorate, allegedly, there are numerous influences on the decision-making process. There is of course lobbying. A kind of horse-trading agreement where benefits might accrue to a politician or a party, be it even enhanced public image, if only a certain course of action is favoured. Someone is getting an extra vote.
Or what about the case in Australia where after election, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, arranged - as promised - discussions with unions and business on issues of labour and capital. Someone is getting to vote twice.
But this is really of no consequence whatsoever. The real voting takes place in another way.
Every time you spend a dollar, you are voting for the lifestyle, monetary consequences, cultural consequences, ethics and more by where you choose to spend that dollar and what on.
Every time you choose to buy something, you are voting with your dollars.
It is this that more dictates the choices available to everyone, the life-style choices available to all, the ethos and culture of the country and, to some extent, the laws that are made.
Spend your money wisely to support only those businesses, outlets, products, manufacturing practices, business ethics and , let's face it, countries that you truly wish to support.
Otherwise - well, you are just wasting your voting power.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Sexism and Language
I supported the anti sexist language advice of the '70s. I obtained a copy of the ABC (Australian TV) guide for their announcers and copywriters that was produced and issued at that time. Very useful it was.
But you have to understand that sexist language is a feature of the english language.
The english language has several rather interesting features.
For a start, it is not a phonetic language. Not like Czech for example. Hear a Czech word and you can write it down. See a word and you can pronounce it. Well, the first part is a little less accurate considering the "i" and "y". But it is pretty damn close to perfect.
(Parenthetically, they used to teach children to read english at primary school by recognition of the word as a unit. Later in life people's nervous system would have derived the rules behind the language. Nowadays, teaching to children uses a lot of sounding out the components of a word. Too fine, too fine, to produce people who can really read, write and spell in english).
Second, it stands, to my knowledge, apart from other languages that have gender-based words in that the gender words of english refer to the reality whereas the gender words of, say, french or german or italian, refer not to the physical reality but to the gender of the words being used.
I was watching an episode of Columbo in France. Colombo arrived at the scene, as he does, and asked "Ou est la victime?". The answer was "Elle est la". The coarse translation is: "Where is the victim. She is there". The murdered person was male. "Elle" or "she" had to be used because the noun "victime" is feminine.
This is the easiest example I know.
So talking to non english-speakers about sexist language is a different thing altogether. In a sense, they do not have it, cannot have it.
By the way, in "A Fish Called Wanda" ("Un Poisson Nomme Wanda"), the english version has the judge say "She has known him all her life". The french was "... tout sa vie".
Had it been "She has known him all his life", guess what - exactly the same. Because the "sa" refers to "vie" and has nothing to do with the gender of the actual real life persons.
So if your first language is english, before you slag off to someone, whose first language is something else, about their sexist language - hold your tongue. First, learn their language. Then judge, if judge you must.
But you have to understand that sexist language is a feature of the english language.
The english language has several rather interesting features.
For a start, it is not a phonetic language. Not like Czech for example. Hear a Czech word and you can write it down. See a word and you can pronounce it. Well, the first part is a little less accurate considering the "i" and "y". But it is pretty damn close to perfect.
(Parenthetically, they used to teach children to read english at primary school by recognition of the word as a unit. Later in life people's nervous system would have derived the rules behind the language. Nowadays, teaching to children uses a lot of sounding out the components of a word. Too fine, too fine, to produce people who can really read, write and spell in english).
Second, it stands, to my knowledge, apart from other languages that have gender-based words in that the gender words of english refer to the reality whereas the gender words of, say, french or german or italian, refer not to the physical reality but to the gender of the words being used.
I was watching an episode of Columbo in France. Colombo arrived at the scene, as he does, and asked "Ou est la victime?". The answer was "Elle est la". The coarse translation is: "Where is the victim. She is there". The murdered person was male. "Elle" or "she" had to be used because the noun "victime" is feminine.
This is the easiest example I know.
So talking to non english-speakers about sexist language is a different thing altogether. In a sense, they do not have it, cannot have it.
By the way, in "A Fish Called Wanda" ("Un Poisson Nomme Wanda"), the english version has the judge say "She has known him all her life". The french was "... tout sa vie".
Had it been "She has known him all his life", guess what - exactly the same. Because the "sa" refers to "vie" and has nothing to do with the gender of the actual real life persons.
So if your first language is english, before you slag off to someone, whose first language is something else, about their sexist language - hold your tongue. First, learn their language. Then judge, if judge you must.
Just and Victims
There is a word in the english language "just". It is used in lots of ways.
One way is when you are upset with something someone does or is doing and you mention it.
"Oh," they say, "I was just ...".
Apparently, that makes it alright in their eyes.
Has this happened to you?
I think that the problem is one of semantics. The word "just" meaning "only" is the same as the word "just" meaning "rightful". Like in the root of the words "justice", "justified" and so on.
So in the perpetrator's mind there may be semantic leakage leading them to believe that they have a perfect right to do what they are doing. And, by the way, who are you to complain.
So if it happens, why not "correct" them. Rephrase what they say as "I was only ...".
Funny how pleading that makes it sound.
This is related to a fairly common practice in the english-speaking world - when you are the victim of something and you make a comment or a stand, the perpetrator immediately takes the victim role.
"Can you please stop thumping my desk? I am trying to work"
"Oh? And what about all the times you have done things that annoyed me? "
I am not going to enumerate the examples. If you have them you will know what I am talking about and if you don't then you won't know what I am talking about anyway.
It is pure and simply a learned strategy. Maybe it worked with their parents in a development of "that's not fair". Maybe not. But however it develops, it is a winning strategy in most cases.
When it happens to me I borrow a phrase from London - "Never mind about that".
You say, "Right now, we are dealing with your hurt to me. After that I will listen to your complaint. But first we deal with what is happening now, not stuff from the past. Anyway, you should have mentioned it at the time."
Takes presence of mind amongst the possible emotions to deal with things that way, but don't let people con you with a winning strategy rather than person to person in the now communication.
Ironically, I am not communicating with you person to person in the now. I would rather do that than this.
One way is when you are upset with something someone does or is doing and you mention it.
"Oh," they say, "I was just ...".
Apparently, that makes it alright in their eyes.
Has this happened to you?
I think that the problem is one of semantics. The word "just" meaning "only" is the same as the word "just" meaning "rightful". Like in the root of the words "justice", "justified" and so on.
So in the perpetrator's mind there may be semantic leakage leading them to believe that they have a perfect right to do what they are doing. And, by the way, who are you to complain.
So if it happens, why not "correct" them. Rephrase what they say as "I was only ...".
Funny how pleading that makes it sound.
This is related to a fairly common practice in the english-speaking world - when you are the victim of something and you make a comment or a stand, the perpetrator immediately takes the victim role.
"Can you please stop thumping my desk? I am trying to work"
"Oh? And what about all the times you have done things that annoyed me? "
I am not going to enumerate the examples. If you have them you will know what I am talking about and if you don't then you won't know what I am talking about anyway.
It is pure and simply a learned strategy. Maybe it worked with their parents in a development of "that's not fair". Maybe not. But however it develops, it is a winning strategy in most cases.
When it happens to me I borrow a phrase from London - "Never mind about that".
You say, "Right now, we are dealing with your hurt to me. After that I will listen to your complaint. But first we deal with what is happening now, not stuff from the past. Anyway, you should have mentioned it at the time."
Takes presence of mind amongst the possible emotions to deal with things that way, but don't let people con you with a winning strategy rather than person to person in the now communication.
Ironically, I am not communicating with you person to person in the now. I would rather do that than this.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Half a Bed
I have half a bed to rent.
Thank you Susan for this gem from your father.
Had one prospect last week, but she did not fancy any of the optional extras during the test drive.
And the rental bond was optional!
Thank you Susan for this gem from your father.
Had one prospect last week, but she did not fancy any of the optional extras during the test drive.
And the rental bond was optional!
Micro Manager Gardners?
Yes.
They walk around the flower beds and vegie plot each day. They uproot every plant, check the root growth and put them back.
You should see the gardens they produce.
They walk around the flower beds and vegie plot each day. They uproot every plant, check the root growth and put them back.
You should see the gardens they produce.
Number Facts
The school my children were attending invited parents along to find out how subjects, particularly maths, were being taught in the then present day and age. It was a chance for parents to learn something that might help them help their children with their learning. After all, learning is not just the responsibility of the school, is it? There are the parents, and there is the community at large, at the very least.
So I went along. It would be rude not to.
And oh, shock, horror! In maths, these primary school children were being taught 'number facts'.
For example, if the sum of the digits of a number divides by 3, then the number divides by 3. And so on.
No. No. No. Too early.
First spend some time with the numbers and their behaviour and addition and subtraction etc etc. Allow time for the way of numbers to become entrenched in the nervous system. Then, for some, the 'facts' would emerge without having to be told.
Not for everyone, mind you. But by teaching these 'facts' too early, you risk impeding the process of emergent discovery. The nervous system will pattern what it takes in. And that gives the wonder of discovery, the glow of realisation. Teaching 'number facts' too early will deny some children that wonderful experience.
There was a savant, I am really, really sorry but I know longer have the reference details. Anyway, he stopped work - probably pissed off with it like we all could be at some time or other - and spent all his time reading aand reading and reading multiplication tables.
And guess what - he can now give you the product of any two large numbers in a few moments.
No. This is not from memory. He performs equally well with number products that were not included in his reading and memorising.
What had emerged from all of his memorising and reading was the pattern. The pattern of multiplication of two numbers.
So when given two numbers, he just applied the pattern as a process.
Here's a thought. Start watching the lottery draws each and every week. Memorise the numbers in the order in which they are drawn. Keep building that up for two years.
There is no such thing as randomness. Actually, I proved it in my philosophy course. So a pattern will emerge from your wonderful nervous system doing what it does best - seek out patterns in experience.
So then start going down and putting in lottery tickets. The numbers will "come to you" without having to think about it.
I'll accept 1% of what you win for the tip. OK, be pedantic. I'll pay you back 1% of what you had to pay out.
But - come one - both of these are only when you win ...
So I went along. It would be rude not to.
And oh, shock, horror! In maths, these primary school children were being taught 'number facts'.
For example, if the sum of the digits of a number divides by 3, then the number divides by 3. And so on.
No. No. No. Too early.
First spend some time with the numbers and their behaviour and addition and subtraction etc etc. Allow time for the way of numbers to become entrenched in the nervous system. Then, for some, the 'facts' would emerge without having to be told.
Not for everyone, mind you. But by teaching these 'facts' too early, you risk impeding the process of emergent discovery. The nervous system will pattern what it takes in. And that gives the wonder of discovery, the glow of realisation. Teaching 'number facts' too early will deny some children that wonderful experience.
There was a savant, I am really, really sorry but I know longer have the reference details. Anyway, he stopped work - probably pissed off with it like we all could be at some time or other - and spent all his time reading aand reading and reading multiplication tables.
And guess what - he can now give you the product of any two large numbers in a few moments.
No. This is not from memory. He performs equally well with number products that were not included in his reading and memorising.
What had emerged from all of his memorising and reading was the pattern. The pattern of multiplication of two numbers.
So when given two numbers, he just applied the pattern as a process.
Here's a thought. Start watching the lottery draws each and every week. Memorise the numbers in the order in which they are drawn. Keep building that up for two years.
There is no such thing as randomness. Actually, I proved it in my philosophy course. So a pattern will emerge from your wonderful nervous system doing what it does best - seek out patterns in experience.
So then start going down and putting in lottery tickets. The numbers will "come to you" without having to think about it.
I'll accept 1% of what you win for the tip. OK, be pedantic. I'll pay you back 1% of what you had to pay out.
But - come one - both of these are only when you win ...
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Dirty Dishes
Oh no! Dirty dishes in the work kitchen again!
OK. You start with a kitchen and all the dishes are clean. People use the dishes. Some wash up afterwards and some do not. There is an imbalance.
So, do nothing until all the dishes are dirty. Leave them that way as the default. Then everyone washes the dishes they need in order to use them. Balance restored.
It's like the difference between snooker tables in a club and pool tables in a pub.
The pub pool tables are clear of balls. Each time you want to play you set up, play and walk away, leaving the table once more clear of balls.
In the club snooker hall, the tables are all set up ready to play. You play, set them up again for the next players and walk away.
Robert Benchley famously said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world and those that do not."
If the two cases described above were determinants of the kind of world we want to live in, which would you prefer?
OK. You start with a kitchen and all the dishes are clean. People use the dishes. Some wash up afterwards and some do not. There is an imbalance.
So, do nothing until all the dishes are dirty. Leave them that way as the default. Then everyone washes the dishes they need in order to use them. Balance restored.
It's like the difference between snooker tables in a club and pool tables in a pub.
The pub pool tables are clear of balls. Each time you want to play you set up, play and walk away, leaving the table once more clear of balls.
In the club snooker hall, the tables are all set up ready to play. You play, set them up again for the next players and walk away.
Robert Benchley famously said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world and those that do not."
If the two cases described above were determinants of the kind of world we want to live in, which would you prefer?
Wine Invents Nothing
"Wine invents nothing, only lets things out"
You will find this little gem in the New Testament of the Bible. Now I'm not a Christian myself, more Christian-friendly, but I do like to find little gems here and there in the scriptures and writings of any religion.
Let me tell you why I like this one.
From many years of observation I have come to several conclusions about the intake of alcohol in various forms by various people.
And from my reading and studies I know a tiny bit about the effects of alcohol on the human system.
It seems to me that one of the effects of alcohol on a person is to diminish or neutralise the effect the "censer" - that part of us we internally build up after a while that lets us know what is and what is not appropriate behavior in this or that situation. Yes, it is situational. I did not speak the same way to my friends as I did to my parents. My friends would just find that too weird for words.
Anyway, as this censer become less and less able to act, we see the unmodified behavior of the individual coming through.
Putting it bluntly, the pisseder you get the more truly you show your true self.
I don't mean mumbling and falling over. I mean your demeanor, the way you are with yourself and others.
Some get pissed and their smile getts bigger and bigger. And maybe they get a bit silly, but they are definitely geared to fun and the funny side of life.
Some get serious about the topic of conversation, mounting good or not so good reasoning for their part in the discussion.
Some become belligerent, spoiling for a fight with someone.
Some just fight, hit out, damage people and property.
But whatever it is, I maintain that you are seeing what that person is like at core - from self-assured and jubilant to insecure and aggressive.
So I can't help being disappointed when I read in the papers or hear on the news that the government is taking a serious look at youth drinking, because of the aggression and fighting. Or at drinking generally because of domestic violence.
Look. You will never solve these problems because you are looking in the wrong place. Alcohol is not the cause, merely the thing that highlights it.
Ask not why there are so many drunken people who are therefore aggressive. Ask rather why society is becoming more aggressive - as shown by the hard clear light of the effects of the alcohol. Address that rather than merely clamping down on drinking. That will only sweep the problem under the carpet.
Unless, of course, that is exactly what you want to do.
You will find this little gem in the New Testament of the Bible. Now I'm not a Christian myself, more Christian-friendly, but I do like to find little gems here and there in the scriptures and writings of any religion.
Let me tell you why I like this one.
From many years of observation I have come to several conclusions about the intake of alcohol in various forms by various people.
And from my reading and studies I know a tiny bit about the effects of alcohol on the human system.
It seems to me that one of the effects of alcohol on a person is to diminish or neutralise the effect the "censer" - that part of us we internally build up after a while that lets us know what is and what is not appropriate behavior in this or that situation. Yes, it is situational. I did not speak the same way to my friends as I did to my parents. My friends would just find that too weird for words.
Anyway, as this censer become less and less able to act, we see the unmodified behavior of the individual coming through.
Putting it bluntly, the pisseder you get the more truly you show your true self.
I don't mean mumbling and falling over. I mean your demeanor, the way you are with yourself and others.
Some get pissed and their smile getts bigger and bigger. And maybe they get a bit silly, but they are definitely geared to fun and the funny side of life.
Some get serious about the topic of conversation, mounting good or not so good reasoning for their part in the discussion.
Some become belligerent, spoiling for a fight with someone.
Some just fight, hit out, damage people and property.
But whatever it is, I maintain that you are seeing what that person is like at core - from self-assured and jubilant to insecure and aggressive.
So I can't help being disappointed when I read in the papers or hear on the news that the government is taking a serious look at youth drinking, because of the aggression and fighting. Or at drinking generally because of domestic violence.
Look. You will never solve these problems because you are looking in the wrong place. Alcohol is not the cause, merely the thing that highlights it.
Ask not why there are so many drunken people who are therefore aggressive. Ask rather why society is becoming more aggressive - as shown by the hard clear light of the effects of the alcohol. Address that rather than merely clamping down on drinking. That will only sweep the problem under the carpet.
Unless, of course, that is exactly what you want to do.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Ask someone
I hired a car the other day. The guy at the counter asked if for a little extra did I want a GPS.
I said: I've been married. I have served my time with someone giving me directions I did not want. So no, thanks.
There was a web site, ages ago, that was set up so that musicians could showcase their work to a larger audience without having to go through the hassle of agents, record labels, distributers and so on.
The music was free to download. The site noted that 10% of downloaders subsequently purchased a performer's works. But that is beside the point.
One lovely track I got from there was called "I'm not lost, I'm exploring". What a perfect description of the way a bloke gets from A to B in a strange city.
I was working in UK and one of my workmates asked: Does anyone know a panel beater shop near here? No one did - except me. I said there is one on such and such a street.
How do you know that?! was the response.
Well - I took a "wrong" turn and so was exploring. I still got to my destination, but armed with more information than if I had "asked someone".
So here's to exploring and not getting directions.
I said: I've been married. I have served my time with someone giving me directions I did not want. So no, thanks.
There was a web site, ages ago, that was set up so that musicians could showcase their work to a larger audience without having to go through the hassle of agents, record labels, distributers and so on.
The music was free to download. The site noted that 10% of downloaders subsequently purchased a performer's works. But that is beside the point.
One lovely track I got from there was called "I'm not lost, I'm exploring". What a perfect description of the way a bloke gets from A to B in a strange city.
I was working in UK and one of my workmates asked: Does anyone know a panel beater shop near here? No one did - except me. I said there is one on such and such a street.
How do you know that?! was the response.
Well - I took a "wrong" turn and so was exploring. I still got to my destination, but armed with more information than if I had "asked someone".
So here's to exploring and not getting directions.
Multiculturalism
How do you overcome the culture in which you were raised when you go to reside in another country?
Well, multiculturalism says you do not have to. Does that work?
I don't know.
I was working in England with some people from different countries - haha, like myself.
I noticed something. Among the people working on the project who were from India, there were some who took absolutely no notice of what their manager, english in each case I noted, required of them. They covered themselves expertly though.
So I observed more closely their interactions among themselves and between themselves and members of the host and other countries.
I found an explanation for what I observed - the caste system.
If you have in your home culture a set of rules, observations, etc that let you know where you are in relation to others and what you can and cannot with propriety do, it is likely that you will bring it with you to your host country, unless you deliberately do something about it.
So if you are, say, from India (and I have other examples and observations from other countries too, not singling out India), then you may well, without thinking about it, assess those around you in your terms of where they sit in relation to you. You might judge this on a variety of things like their appearance, their demeanor, the way they are with others, and so on. And again, without thinking about it, you will begin to act towards them as though they were of such and such a status according to your own cultural upbringing.
And so if they are assessed "lesser", then even though a manager, there will be no need to put value on what they say or require - perhaps.
Whether this assessment is sound or not does not alter my original question: How do you set aside your cultural norms when living in another culture?
Does it matter?
A friend of mine, female, german, went to work in Wellington after the horrors of the Christchurch earthquake. She started work at a back-packers - so there was money and an accommodation deal, which suited her fine.
Her supervisor did not believe she had come from Christchurch. He said outright that he thought she was only saying that to get sympathy and help get the job.
To me this says more about his cultural norms than hers. Yes, she was there. Yes, she escaped the flying books and falling bookcases in the library when the 'quake hit.
And, the person concerned is not a kiwi, he comes from Japan. He has later intimated that he has a problem with german women.
Whacky-do. But I'm afraid, my friend, that you are running counter to the employment laws of the country you are living in.
So yes, there can be a clash between your own cultural upbringing and the law of the country you now reside in.
There was mass migration into Australia in the '60s. The immigrants found a lot of resistance to them if they tried their own way of doing things and if they did not make an effort to speak english.
They were, perhaps forcibly, integrated into the existing society. And in becoming Australians, they added to the culture of Australia with their own traditions, foods, style of doing things - once they had made that first effort to be accepted.
Hey, I have worked and lived in a number of countries and I always felt it was downright rude of me to talk loudly in public with same-tongued people while a guest in my host country. I'm a nomad, but if I had a home country I would not like to be immersed in the loud public language of another country.
In multiculturalism, which came along later for Australia, there is no requirement to make any adjustment whatsoever, other than required by law. And so there is no merging of cultures into the one, as before. There is separatism.
When there is a major issue for the host country nationals: the newsreaders will tell you that "the indonesian community commented that ..." or the "mulsim community commented that ...". I never hear the words "the Australian community commented that ...".
It is just like in my home, wherever it may be. I have guests. There is a protocol for hosts and guests. I make space and allowances for them being there at my invitation. I'll go out of my way for them. On the other hand, I do not expect any of my guests to comment forcibly on the way I do things in my own home. And I certainly am not going to be happy if different guests start laying the law down with each other about how to behave in my house.
It's easy for me I suppose - I am at home wherever I go and yet a guest at the same time. I always respect my hosts, as one should.
Think on it.
Well, multiculturalism says you do not have to. Does that work?
I don't know.
I was working in England with some people from different countries - haha, like myself.
I noticed something. Among the people working on the project who were from India, there were some who took absolutely no notice of what their manager, english in each case I noted, required of them. They covered themselves expertly though.
So I observed more closely their interactions among themselves and between themselves and members of the host and other countries.
I found an explanation for what I observed - the caste system.
If you have in your home culture a set of rules, observations, etc that let you know where you are in relation to others and what you can and cannot with propriety do, it is likely that you will bring it with you to your host country, unless you deliberately do something about it.
So if you are, say, from India (and I have other examples and observations from other countries too, not singling out India), then you may well, without thinking about it, assess those around you in your terms of where they sit in relation to you. You might judge this on a variety of things like their appearance, their demeanor, the way they are with others, and so on. And again, without thinking about it, you will begin to act towards them as though they were of such and such a status according to your own cultural upbringing.
And so if they are assessed "lesser", then even though a manager, there will be no need to put value on what they say or require - perhaps.
Whether this assessment is sound or not does not alter my original question: How do you set aside your cultural norms when living in another culture?
Does it matter?
A friend of mine, female, german, went to work in Wellington after the horrors of the Christchurch earthquake. She started work at a back-packers - so there was money and an accommodation deal, which suited her fine.
Her supervisor did not believe she had come from Christchurch. He said outright that he thought she was only saying that to get sympathy and help get the job.
To me this says more about his cultural norms than hers. Yes, she was there. Yes, she escaped the flying books and falling bookcases in the library when the 'quake hit.
And, the person concerned is not a kiwi, he comes from Japan. He has later intimated that he has a problem with german women.
Whacky-do. But I'm afraid, my friend, that you are running counter to the employment laws of the country you are living in.
So yes, there can be a clash between your own cultural upbringing and the law of the country you now reside in.
There was mass migration into Australia in the '60s. The immigrants found a lot of resistance to them if they tried their own way of doing things and if they did not make an effort to speak english.
They were, perhaps forcibly, integrated into the existing society. And in becoming Australians, they added to the culture of Australia with their own traditions, foods, style of doing things - once they had made that first effort to be accepted.
Hey, I have worked and lived in a number of countries and I always felt it was downright rude of me to talk loudly in public with same-tongued people while a guest in my host country. I'm a nomad, but if I had a home country I would not like to be immersed in the loud public language of another country.
In multiculturalism, which came along later for Australia, there is no requirement to make any adjustment whatsoever, other than required by law. And so there is no merging of cultures into the one, as before. There is separatism.
When there is a major issue for the host country nationals: the newsreaders will tell you that "the indonesian community commented that ..." or the "mulsim community commented that ...". I never hear the words "the Australian community commented that ...".
It is just like in my home, wherever it may be. I have guests. There is a protocol for hosts and guests. I make space and allowances for them being there at my invitation. I'll go out of my way for them. On the other hand, I do not expect any of my guests to comment forcibly on the way I do things in my own home. And I certainly am not going to be happy if different guests start laying the law down with each other about how to behave in my house.
It's easy for me I suppose - I am at home wherever I go and yet a guest at the same time. I always respect my hosts, as one should.
Think on it.
Encounters with Nature
I was outside the warehouse and heard this strange sound in the trees. So I asked someone what it was. Oh, that's the tui bird.
Well, imagine the sound of a sweet note saying "tui, tui". And that is followed by the sound of an asthmatic cough into plastic down pipe. This is followed by a sound like hitting your cupped hand on the opening of the same down-pipe. Interesting.
It reminded me of my mate on an island in Moreton Bay.
He has decking out on the first floor of the house. That's the one above ground level, in case your english is different to mine.
He has the barbie out there and near where you would but the bin with the beer there is plastic down pipe attached to the outside of the railing. It terminates just above the recycle bin below on the ground.
When you finish your tinnie, you get another one and drop the empty one down the pipe. That is exactly the sound this bird makes.
Fond memories of lost afternoons on the island.
Well, imagine the sound of a sweet note saying "tui, tui". And that is followed by the sound of an asthmatic cough into plastic down pipe. This is followed by a sound like hitting your cupped hand on the opening of the same down-pipe. Interesting.
It reminded me of my mate on an island in Moreton Bay.
He has decking out on the first floor of the house. That's the one above ground level, in case your english is different to mine.
He has the barbie out there and near where you would but the bin with the beer there is plastic down pipe attached to the outside of the railing. It terminates just above the recycle bin below on the ground.
When you finish your tinnie, you get another one and drop the empty one down the pipe. That is exactly the sound this bird makes.
Fond memories of lost afternoons on the island.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Bar or Pub?
What is the difference between a bar and a pub?
Silly question. There are maybe as many answers as there are people asked this question.
I only want to give my own definition and you can make of it what you will.
I have noticed two distinct situations. In the one case, you have a group of two or more people who are going to go out somewhere for the evening. Maybe for a meal, maybe for a few drinks, maybe for a walk. In this situation, the social group is the given and it is that group that chooses a place or places to be together and enjoy their evening or afternoon together.
On the other hand, you have the situation where an individual goes out to a specific place. This may be the train spotters club or the knitting circle and so on. In this case, the social group is at that particular venue.
So when it comes to an evening where alcohol is involved, you have the same two situations - a social group that goes to one or more venues, taking the social group to each place. The social group is primary. The other situation is where a person goes to a particular place for the social group they will find there and has a few drinks while engaging in that social group.
The place for the first situation is what I call a bar. The place for the second is what I call a pub. It just hinges on whether the social group is formed before the outing or already exists at the venue.
The existing social group in a pub, as I define it, is made up of people that the publican and others would refer to as "the regulars". In such a place, I have heard the people who come in as an already existing social group for a couple of drinks before moving on referred to as the "randoms".
Of course, a bar does not have regulars as such and caters specifically for the social group custom. A bar is more likely to have happy hour and 2-for-1 specials to woo the nomadic drinking groups.
A pub does not have to do much at all. It has its regulars, some of whom will be there most days, summer or winter, rain or shine, money in the till as regular as clockwork - ker-ching.
Another way of looking at it is one the one hand you have people who get in a group and go out to drink. On the other you have people who go to meet and talk with mates and have drinks as part of that process. The primary purpose is different.
The first group consists of people who are more likely to "do shost" and end up marauding the streets on a friday night, bereft of speech and only communicating in neo-simian whoops and calls. The second group consists of people who do not intend to get drunk, put away a fair few of their regular tipple and bid a polite goodnight to all, making their way home alone and unstripped of the power of speech.
But these are only my own observations across 6 countries and 20 years.
Silly question. There are maybe as many answers as there are people asked this question.
I only want to give my own definition and you can make of it what you will.
I have noticed two distinct situations. In the one case, you have a group of two or more people who are going to go out somewhere for the evening. Maybe for a meal, maybe for a few drinks, maybe for a walk. In this situation, the social group is the given and it is that group that chooses a place or places to be together and enjoy their evening or afternoon together.
On the other hand, you have the situation where an individual goes out to a specific place. This may be the train spotters club or the knitting circle and so on. In this case, the social group is at that particular venue.
So when it comes to an evening where alcohol is involved, you have the same two situations - a social group that goes to one or more venues, taking the social group to each place. The social group is primary. The other situation is where a person goes to a particular place for the social group they will find there and has a few drinks while engaging in that social group.
The place for the first situation is what I call a bar. The place for the second is what I call a pub. It just hinges on whether the social group is formed before the outing or already exists at the venue.
The existing social group in a pub, as I define it, is made up of people that the publican and others would refer to as "the regulars". In such a place, I have heard the people who come in as an already existing social group for a couple of drinks before moving on referred to as the "randoms".
Of course, a bar does not have regulars as such and caters specifically for the social group custom. A bar is more likely to have happy hour and 2-for-1 specials to woo the nomadic drinking groups.
A pub does not have to do much at all. It has its regulars, some of whom will be there most days, summer or winter, rain or shine, money in the till as regular as clockwork - ker-ching.
Another way of looking at it is one the one hand you have people who get in a group and go out to drink. On the other you have people who go to meet and talk with mates and have drinks as part of that process. The primary purpose is different.
The first group consists of people who are more likely to "do shost" and end up marauding the streets on a friday night, bereft of speech and only communicating in neo-simian whoops and calls. The second group consists of people who do not intend to get drunk, put away a fair few of their regular tipple and bid a polite goodnight to all, making their way home alone and unstripped of the power of speech.
But these are only my own observations across 6 countries and 20 years.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday Morning, Clean Desk
I worked with a fellah who put me on to this. So I am promoting his idea, not my own. But I loved it.
There are all these people in positions of power who specialise in saying "no". There is something the people like to do. There are people who for whatever reason not only dislike doing that thing but also wish to stop others doing it too.
So, say there is a particular campaign driven by the "no brigade". If they are successful in stamping out that thing that irks them, they will come into work on monday morning and find an empty desk. Job done. No more work. Out of work.
That doesn't happen. They won't let it. They already have a new thing up their collective sleeves to wheel into place. After all, they are the "no" experts, so they can do all that is required to remove anything from the playing field. Publish partial and selected facts to create a character arc in the population, to get them on-side. And away we go again.
So don't yield to the peer pressure they have created and heavy me to stop doing whatever the current target is. Next year, they will be doing the same with something you like doing. Word.
And that was my mate's contribution.
Oh - I said "partial" back there. Here's some information for you.
In New Zealand, the annual excise on tobacco product sales is $1b. The annual healthcare cost for smoking related problems is $300m. This leaves a massive $700m going into consolidated revenue to benefit all.
Published information (propaganda, n. Government adverts) gives only the health care cost to persuade the mob that smokers are costing them money.
So all the smokers stop tomorrow. Healthcare costs for smokers will not immediately stop. The government is down $1b per year. Who is going to make good the shortfall of at least, at least the $700m balance?
Everyone is. Which is fine for the ex-smokers because they end up paying less net than they did. But are you non-smokers who pressure and criticise and marginalise smokers, are you ready to put you hand in your pocket and pay for us all to stop without harming the country's economy.
Then there are the little shops that will lose business.
Then there is a good excuse for the government to introduce cut-backs in health services - despite the fact the ex-smoker care need would not stop overnight and has already been more than paid for by the potential users.
And don't even get me started on the idea that smokers and drinkers should go further down the queue for health care!
Don't accept what you are told - even by me. Check it out, expand it, get the whole drum of oil before you decide how you are going to behave towards others.
There are all these people in positions of power who specialise in saying "no". There is something the people like to do. There are people who for whatever reason not only dislike doing that thing but also wish to stop others doing it too.
So, say there is a particular campaign driven by the "no brigade". If they are successful in stamping out that thing that irks them, they will come into work on monday morning and find an empty desk. Job done. No more work. Out of work.
That doesn't happen. They won't let it. They already have a new thing up their collective sleeves to wheel into place. After all, they are the "no" experts, so they can do all that is required to remove anything from the playing field. Publish partial and selected facts to create a character arc in the population, to get them on-side. And away we go again.
So don't yield to the peer pressure they have created and heavy me to stop doing whatever the current target is. Next year, they will be doing the same with something you like doing. Word.
And that was my mate's contribution.
Oh - I said "partial" back there. Here's some information for you.
In New Zealand, the annual excise on tobacco product sales is $1b. The annual healthcare cost for smoking related problems is $300m. This leaves a massive $700m going into consolidated revenue to benefit all.
Published information (propaganda, n. Government adverts) gives only the health care cost to persuade the mob that smokers are costing them money.
So all the smokers stop tomorrow. Healthcare costs for smokers will not immediately stop. The government is down $1b per year. Who is going to make good the shortfall of at least, at least the $700m balance?
Everyone is. Which is fine for the ex-smokers because they end up paying less net than they did. But are you non-smokers who pressure and criticise and marginalise smokers, are you ready to put you hand in your pocket and pay for us all to stop without harming the country's economy.
Then there are the little shops that will lose business.
Then there is a good excuse for the government to introduce cut-backs in health services - despite the fact the ex-smoker care need would not stop overnight and has already been more than paid for by the potential users.
And don't even get me started on the idea that smokers and drinkers should go further down the queue for health care!
Don't accept what you are told - even by me. Check it out, expand it, get the whole drum of oil before you decide how you are going to behave towards others.
The Politics of Addiction
You can like or enjoy lots of things. You can can also be addicted to almost anything.
The difference between really enjoying something and being addicted to something is the answer to the question: "Do I sometimes, or even often, neglect my day-to-day responsibilities - be they self-appointed or thrust upon me - to engage instead in this thing that I like."
Basically that and that alone.
Some of the people who drink are addicted to drinking alcohol. Some are not. Some who smoke are addicted to smoking. Some are not.
Your specialists in various fields can come out with all sorts of qualifications about "addiction" - alcohol addiction, nicotine addiction and so on. Any dependency on a substance is secondary to the addiction. For example, you can be addicted to watching TV, gambling, work.
And as for "substance abuse" - what a dodgy expression. It has the same structure as the expressions "child abuse" with an entirely different intent. Hello substance. Are you abused? No. I am being used in exactly the way I was designed to be and for my intended purpose. I think "self abuse by substances" might be better, but clumsy.
You use language to think with. To the extent that your constructions are inadequate or inappropriate representations of reality, so will your thinking processes and conclusions reached be equally suspect. Listen to the language used and it will be a good indication as to whether you are going to put any faith in the speaker's conclusions and subsequent advice.
And then, to make things even clearer (to me) or befuddle those I have just mentioned, the "addiction gene" has been isolated and identified.
I have seen expert opinion reported as stating that it is fine to target smokers, because they can choose otherwise.
Well, yes. They can give up fairly easily if they are "merely" enjoying what they are doing. If they are addicted, they can switch to a different target for their addiction.
Fair enough.
But if they are addicted and if they do (therefore?) possess the addiction gene in their makeup and if they do switch their addiction, who's to say whether that target too will be now or later subjected to the same restrictions, media-generated peer pressure, carefully edited facts, etc that smoking is at the moment.
So yes. It is not like skin colour as such. You can switch your target of addiction. But you remain addicted.
And for those people, restrictions placed on the target(s) of their addiction are restrictions that have a genetic base.
I thought in our PC world we did not discriminate on genetic grounds.
A congenital addict, outside in the rain and wind of winter having a smoke or a person with one colour of skin sitting in the back of the bus.
Be honest, and admit the agenda all ye who sit in judgement backed by laws.
The difference between really enjoying something and being addicted to something is the answer to the question: "Do I sometimes, or even often, neglect my day-to-day responsibilities - be they self-appointed or thrust upon me - to engage instead in this thing that I like."
Basically that and that alone.
Some of the people who drink are addicted to drinking alcohol. Some are not. Some who smoke are addicted to smoking. Some are not.
Your specialists in various fields can come out with all sorts of qualifications about "addiction" - alcohol addiction, nicotine addiction and so on. Any dependency on a substance is secondary to the addiction. For example, you can be addicted to watching TV, gambling, work.
And as for "substance abuse" - what a dodgy expression. It has the same structure as the expressions "child abuse" with an entirely different intent. Hello substance. Are you abused? No. I am being used in exactly the way I was designed to be and for my intended purpose. I think "self abuse by substances" might be better, but clumsy.
You use language to think with. To the extent that your constructions are inadequate or inappropriate representations of reality, so will your thinking processes and conclusions reached be equally suspect. Listen to the language used and it will be a good indication as to whether you are going to put any faith in the speaker's conclusions and subsequent advice.
And then, to make things even clearer (to me) or befuddle those I have just mentioned, the "addiction gene" has been isolated and identified.
I have seen expert opinion reported as stating that it is fine to target smokers, because they can choose otherwise.
Well, yes. They can give up fairly easily if they are "merely" enjoying what they are doing. If they are addicted, they can switch to a different target for their addiction.
Fair enough.
But if they are addicted and if they do (therefore?) possess the addiction gene in their makeup and if they do switch their addiction, who's to say whether that target too will be now or later subjected to the same restrictions, media-generated peer pressure, carefully edited facts, etc that smoking is at the moment.
So yes. It is not like skin colour as such. You can switch your target of addiction. But you remain addicted.
And for those people, restrictions placed on the target(s) of their addiction are restrictions that have a genetic base.
I thought in our PC world we did not discriminate on genetic grounds.
A congenital addict, outside in the rain and wind of winter having a smoke or a person with one colour of skin sitting in the back of the bus.
Be honest, and admit the agenda all ye who sit in judgement backed by laws.
Filler Cap
Time for petrol.
Oh-oh - I'm not in my own car. Which side is the filler cap.
The same side as the windscreen wiper stalk on the steering column.
Easy.
Oh-oh - I'm not in my own car. Which side is the filler cap.
The same side as the windscreen wiper stalk on the steering column.
Easy.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Music, culture and enforced immigration
I was talking to a girl in Wellington who said that Christchurch was musically uninteresting because she and her friends could not find any live hip-hop music there.
And my mind drifted off as usual. I was thinking about music genres and their origins and how many people take a liking to music that is not of their culture. Why not? Hey, I like celtic music and I am not celtic, although I do have Welsh and Scottish ancestors, so I suppose that could be a factor.
And in a flight of fancy I thought about people, forcibly taken from their own country and put to work in a far away land. I thought of the music they brought with them and the way they kept their own cultural origins alive with song and story. And I thought of how in the "host" country, their music became a major influence of that country's musical traditions. And how the music from that host nation finds its way all over the world. It has its own style and is easily recognisable as regards its origin to all who have a reasonable ear.
Of course, I am talking about Australia and the transportation of people having in the main irish or cockney ancestry from their homes into a foreign and hostile land, where they worked hard in captivity until they died or were eventually freed.
And so the irish ballads are not only alive and well in the old songs of Australia but their influence lives on in latter day song-writers and performers. So what problem is there if others can relate to those songs and the culture that gave them birth?
Which brings me to the USA. Did you think earlier that was the country I was going to talk about. Same difference as far as I can see. People taken from their home country, made to work, died or were freed, developed their own songs and stories based on their own culture, that genre being developed and becoming mainstream in the host country, that music listened to all over the world regardless of cultural difference.
Seems the same to me.
And my mind drifted off as usual. I was thinking about music genres and their origins and how many people take a liking to music that is not of their culture. Why not? Hey, I like celtic music and I am not celtic, although I do have Welsh and Scottish ancestors, so I suppose that could be a factor.
And in a flight of fancy I thought about people, forcibly taken from their own country and put to work in a far away land. I thought of the music they brought with them and the way they kept their own cultural origins alive with song and story. And I thought of how in the "host" country, their music became a major influence of that country's musical traditions. And how the music from that host nation finds its way all over the world. It has its own style and is easily recognisable as regards its origin to all who have a reasonable ear.
Of course, I am talking about Australia and the transportation of people having in the main irish or cockney ancestry from their homes into a foreign and hostile land, where they worked hard in captivity until they died or were eventually freed.
And so the irish ballads are not only alive and well in the old songs of Australia but their influence lives on in latter day song-writers and performers. So what problem is there if others can relate to those songs and the culture that gave them birth?
Which brings me to the USA. Did you think earlier that was the country I was going to talk about. Same difference as far as I can see. People taken from their home country, made to work, died or were freed, developed their own songs and stories based on their own culture, that genre being developed and becoming mainstream in the host country, that music listened to all over the world regardless of cultural difference.
Seems the same to me.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Anecdotal Evidence
To a friend: You and I were discussing many things in the Wellington Chinese restaurant as I sipped on a Tsing-Tao waiting for my take-away. And yes, you did indeed anticipate everything I was going to say. And yes indeed to you it would have been anecdotal.
But I now realise what was irking me about that classification. I had, as the General Semanticists would say, confused orders of abstraction.
I have heard that in some Buddhist sects, acolytes are encouraged to say either ‘I know ...” or “I have heard ...”. Let me call the passing on of something that I know directly from my experience a 0-order anecdote. It is not anecdotal to me but it will be to you. And let me call something I have heard about or read about a n-order anecdote. That would be anecdotal to both of us. It was this 0-orderness that made it uncomfortable for me to accept your “anecdotal” tag.
So you may well have heard the things I was going to say before from others. But in my case they would have been 0-order. I suspect that where you had heard those same things before from others they were often if not always n-order. Or perhaps I am taking bets on myself.
Either way, it is the difference between being told a current situational joke face-to-face by Billy Connolly or Eddie Izzard and being told a joke by a bloke in a pub who heard it from a mate who got it from a stand-up routine. It is still funny if you have not heard it before. But the one is 0-order and the other is n-order and they are different.
Here is a 0-order joke: A Palestinian, an Arab and an Israeli walked into the pub. They looked at each other and said “We must be in the wrong joke”. 0-order albeit derivative.
So thank you, my friend, for helping me to sort this out.
And, perhaps you might like to consider whether there is a different “weight” you can apply to what people say, depending on the order of the anecdotal offering. Just ask them if it is anecdotal to them.
And perhaps I can be a bit more rigorous in saying “I know that ...” and “I have heard/read that ...” as appropriate, providing I am not cut off before speaking.
I think that I could rarely be / in a talk as helpful as with Tree. (Apologies to Joyce Kilmer).
Is TWOCing* looting?
From the western edge of the cordon around the city formerly known as Christchurch you can look across the river at “The Strip” where all the bar-restaurants stand with their doors still wide open from hasty escapes. No one is allowed into the cordon area but we saw members of the army reserves sitting outside the cordon to maintain order and compliance. This is good.
The only problem is – they are sitting on seats under umbrellas that used to be outside those bars and restaurants.
Aw, you might say, they are doing a good job under difficult conditions. Give them a break.
So where is the line in the sand? At the end of a shift, if they feel like de-stressing with a drink, should they go over and grab a bottle of whiskey? If they need to get somewhere quickly, is it OK to take an abandoned car?
It is these people that I and others are relying on to ensure that there is no danger to persons and no looting of effects.
I have been unable to get to my apartment since the ‘quake’. And yes, like everyone else, I can walk away from 95% or so of what is in there. But everyone has that odd 5% of stuff that can never be replaced. Some of course is of sentimental value. There are some things, hand-made jewellery, say, or collectables where those items may be the only ones in the world.
Fortunately, any looters – and rest assured there have been some getting in and out – would probably only value the things that I do not.
So I guess there is a difference between looting and TWOCing. The looters keep quiet about what they have done.
Quis custodiet custodies?
* TWOC is the delightful UK expression for ‘taking without consent’.
Text vs Voice
Three business reasons for using electronic mail instead of the phone:
- · The person you are contacting does not have to be available for you to start the communication process. At the time you communicate, you do not know if you are interrupting the other person in some important activity.
- · When the other person constructs a reply you have their full attention and they have all relevant facts, documents etc to hand.
- · There is a ‘hard’ copy of all that transpires. It is easy to file, document, forward etc the responses and/or attachments.
I learned this in 1986 and have rarely used a phone since for business or personal. (We DID have established world-wide connectivity in business before the internet you know. Dur).
And hooray when I got onto SMS in 1999. You won’t find me walking along the street or outside a pub, restaurant, someone’s house, yelling into a mobile phone.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Where's My Towel?
When you stay in a hotel, the carts come around each day with the clean linen. The staff go into the rooms, one by one, collect the sheets, towels etc, drop them in the bin on the cart and then put the fresh ones out.
In most hotels in my experience, the people who do these jobs are female.
The system works well.
But, I have to ask myself, why is it that when a man is living with a woman, and the woman takes it on herself to deal with the linen changes, the old is taken away but not at the same time replaced with the new.
So the bloke comes out of the shower to discover there is no towel in the bathroom.
He should have checked first? Don't be silly. That would mean, for a bloke, him checking each and every single time. You can't expect a bloke to know what else is going on at the same time.
Of course the difference could be that the people working in the hotels are employed. The woman in the relationship is not. She is her own boss and as such is perfectly entitled to do the self-appointed, albeit unpaid, task her own way in her own time. Fair enough.
Aha! So while employed, the staff are acting under the instructions from someone else - the manager, the boss, the hotel standard protocol.
In my experience, the usual workplace gender imbalance applies and the jobs of this sort are mostly filled by men.
So, guys, if you have a problem with this the answer is simple.
Get yourself a paid housekeeper. This has several advantages:
You have the chance to turn a whining complaint into a benefit for all.
Oh, one more thing. Keep your relationship with your employee professional only.
In most hotels in my experience, the people who do these jobs are female.
The system works well.
But, I have to ask myself, why is it that when a man is living with a woman, and the woman takes it on herself to deal with the linen changes, the old is taken away but not at the same time replaced with the new.
So the bloke comes out of the shower to discover there is no towel in the bathroom.
He should have checked first? Don't be silly. That would mean, for a bloke, him checking each and every single time. You can't expect a bloke to know what else is going on at the same time.
Of course the difference could be that the people working in the hotels are employed. The woman in the relationship is not. She is her own boss and as such is perfectly entitled to do the self-appointed, albeit unpaid, task her own way in her own time. Fair enough.
Aha! So while employed, the staff are acting under the instructions from someone else - the manager, the boss, the hotel standard protocol.
In my experience, the usual workplace gender imbalance applies and the jobs of this sort are mostly filled by men.
So, guys, if you have a problem with this the answer is simple.
Get yourself a paid housekeeper. This has several advantages:
- You will always have fresh towels, tea-towels, pillow cases, sheets, etc as and when you need them
- Your partner will not have to do that work and have more free time for herself
- You have created employment
- The employee's pay will be spent on things and benefit the economy
You have the chance to turn a whining complaint into a benefit for all.
Oh, one more thing. Keep your relationship with your employee professional only.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
"Just Friends" and other Thoughts
I know this woman in NSW. We worked together and were always on the same vibe. With little discussion we jointly tackled complex tasks putting grant proposals together for voluntary and community organisations. Everything ran like clockwork.
We spent a lot of time together out of the office and we were always on the same page in discussions on all types of subjects, or plans about what to do on any particular occasion. Little discussion was required. We laughed about the same things and we laughed often.
We hosted a couple of theme parties at my house and in preparing stuff in the kitchen we created multiple dishes quickly and effectively without any collisions or need for planning or discussion. It was like a dance.
But when it came to the proposal that we extend the way we were into a life together as partners, she said "I don't want to risk spoiling the friendship we have".
We are still great mates, which is good. And I still love her to bits.
But this situation is not unusual, it seems.
And I had to ask myself, is that kind of life harmony something that a woman does not look for in a partnership/marriage?
Some of the women who had said this, to me, to mates, enter into relationships with fellahs who turn out to be arseholes to them.
All became clear when I asked the lovely irish barmaid at my local irish bar in chch why this was not on the list when women were looking for a partner. She laughed and said it was. She said that "I just want to be friends" was code for "I don't fancy you". Aha. Problem solved.
But I wish they would just say that and then we know where we stand.
On the other hand, I was in a club in Brisbane one night. I like a beer after work to draw a line between my business life and my personal life and I had been working quite late.
Anyway, this fellah starts talking to me about his problems (this happens all the time). He was very miserable because he had come to the conclusion that he did not love his wife.
"Does she love you?" I asked.
"Yes, deeply. That is what makes it so hard."
So I told him that in my opinion it is easy as anything to find people that you can love, be in love with. But one of the rarest things on earth is to find a person who loves you that way.
He paused, said "Thank you". He put his half-finished beer on the bar and walked out.
So in a long-winded way I come to my questions:
Ladies. If you make a list of all the things you find necessary in a bloke as a partner, will 'He Loves Me', be at the top of the list? Not he says he loves you but if he loves you truly. And not doe-eyed puppy dog stuff either.
Is love at the top of the list? I bet it is not.
You reckon that if you get all or most of the stuff on your list, you can change him to get the rest.
News Flash - you can't.
You can come to love someone who already truly loves you. You have buckley's chance of engineering someone to love you who does not. Might sound like a paradox but it is not. Anyway, if you love them you would not even try to change them.
In fact, the very wish to change someone from what they are is totally counter to my understanding of loving someone.
Which is why when someone I love tells me that they are not interested. I don't weep. I don't argue. I don't try to persuade them or manipulate them or emotionally blackmail them. I just accept it and continue to love them.
That's who they are and that is more than fine by me.
On my lonely death-bed I will be able to say, to everyone and no-one, "I have loved and I have loved truly".
Fideli d'Amore
We spent a lot of time together out of the office and we were always on the same page in discussions on all types of subjects, or plans about what to do on any particular occasion. Little discussion was required. We laughed about the same things and we laughed often.
We hosted a couple of theme parties at my house and in preparing stuff in the kitchen we created multiple dishes quickly and effectively without any collisions or need for planning or discussion. It was like a dance.
But when it came to the proposal that we extend the way we were into a life together as partners, she said "I don't want to risk spoiling the friendship we have".
We are still great mates, which is good. And I still love her to bits.
But this situation is not unusual, it seems.
And I had to ask myself, is that kind of life harmony something that a woman does not look for in a partnership/marriage?
Some of the women who had said this, to me, to mates, enter into relationships with fellahs who turn out to be arseholes to them.
All became clear when I asked the lovely irish barmaid at my local irish bar in chch why this was not on the list when women were looking for a partner. She laughed and said it was. She said that "I just want to be friends" was code for "I don't fancy you". Aha. Problem solved.
But I wish they would just say that and then we know where we stand.
On the other hand, I was in a club in Brisbane one night. I like a beer after work to draw a line between my business life and my personal life and I had been working quite late.
Anyway, this fellah starts talking to me about his problems (this happens all the time). He was very miserable because he had come to the conclusion that he did not love his wife.
"Does she love you?" I asked.
"Yes, deeply. That is what makes it so hard."
So I told him that in my opinion it is easy as anything to find people that you can love, be in love with. But one of the rarest things on earth is to find a person who loves you that way.
He paused, said "Thank you". He put his half-finished beer on the bar and walked out.
So in a long-winded way I come to my questions:
Ladies. If you make a list of all the things you find necessary in a bloke as a partner, will 'He Loves Me', be at the top of the list? Not he says he loves you but if he loves you truly. And not doe-eyed puppy dog stuff either.
Is love at the top of the list? I bet it is not.
You reckon that if you get all or most of the stuff on your list, you can change him to get the rest.
News Flash - you can't.
You can come to love someone who already truly loves you. You have buckley's chance of engineering someone to love you who does not. Might sound like a paradox but it is not. Anyway, if you love them you would not even try to change them.
In fact, the very wish to change someone from what they are is totally counter to my understanding of loving someone.
Which is why when someone I love tells me that they are not interested. I don't weep. I don't argue. I don't try to persuade them or manipulate them or emotionally blackmail them. I just accept it and continue to love them.
That's who they are and that is more than fine by me.
On my lonely death-bed I will be able to say, to everyone and no-one, "I have loved and I have loved truly".
Fideli d'Amore
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A Ghost Story?
Last night I stayed in the Vulcan Hotel, St Bathan's. The hotel is supposed to be haunted. Coops, Frank and Catherine were there with me.
The story concerns a female client-faced officer of a local sexual services outlet (I understand that this would have been rendered "a prostitute from a local brothel" in pre-PC english). She came to the hotel one night to meet a client. Well, the client received the service and then murdered the woman. The murderer was never caught.
So since that day the woman has haunted the hotel on occasions. Male guests awake to feel an icy touch on the leg, or even icy fingers around their throat, throttling them.
Anyway, I got home and me mate asked: "Did the ghost throttle you?" and I replied "No. I tied her hands behind her back and we were fine after that."
No. That didn't happen. No ghost story I'm afraid.
But the countryside is great and Mike Kavanagh, mine host, was entertaining and very knowledgeable about local affairs and people. And by local I mean he covered all of Otago and half of Canterbury as well.
A great night.
The story concerns a female client-faced officer of a local sexual services outlet (I understand that this would have been rendered "a prostitute from a local brothel" in pre-PC english). She came to the hotel one night to meet a client. Well, the client received the service and then murdered the woman. The murderer was never caught.
So since that day the woman has haunted the hotel on occasions. Male guests awake to feel an icy touch on the leg, or even icy fingers around their throat, throttling them.
Anyway, I got home and me mate asked: "Did the ghost throttle you?" and I replied "No. I tied her hands behind her back and we were fine after that."
No. That didn't happen. No ghost story I'm afraid.
But the countryside is great and Mike Kavanagh, mine host, was entertaining and very knowledgeable about local affairs and people. And by local I mean he covered all of Otago and half of Canterbury as well.
A great night.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Toilet Seat
Hey Guys, train yourself to put down the toilet lid.
This gives 3 advantages:
Sorted.
This gives 3 advantages:
- Both you and her have to work the hinge;
- You can sling off at her when she puts the seat down but not the lid;
- You replace the gender myth about men with a gender myth about women.
Sorted.
The Toilet Roll
Toilet paper against the wall or toilet paper away from the wall?
There is no right or wrong answer to this. Everyone has their own way of doing it and some don't particularly care which way it is when they put a new roll on the holder.
But here is what I have observed.
In all the 4 and 5 star hotels I have stayed at in different countries, the paper is always away from the wall. Always.
When I call in at an outback truck stop cafe, I am never surprised to see it against the wall.
Which way you prefer says a lot about what type of environment you prefer to live in, the values for your home environment.
There is no right or wrong answer to this. Everyone has their own way of doing it and some don't particularly care which way it is when they put a new roll on the holder.
But here is what I have observed.
In all the 4 and 5 star hotels I have stayed at in different countries, the paper is always away from the wall. Always.
When I call in at an outback truck stop cafe, I am never surprised to see it against the wall.
Which way you prefer says a lot about what type of environment you prefer to live in, the values for your home environment.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Youth Culture
I have lived and worked in different countries and this morning I shared one of my observations with some folk from different countries staying at the same farmstay place as myself.
As often happens with discussions among middle to older age people, the subject of current youth culture - language style, behaviour, values, etc - came up. We all know that while in that 'youth" age-group we were less than perfectly behaved. But we measured that against the culture in which we had grown up. This is different in different countries and we can share and compare those differences. To a certain extent we can also appreciate and understand the differences.
(I haven't defined "youth". It's too tricky to do rigourously. I will hope the descriptions here will "point to" the group I am talking about).
I mentioned over coffee that I had partly formed the conclusion that the "youth" of the different countries in which I had lived and worked had more in common with each other than they did with the culture of the country they lived in.
I have observed a commonness of values, behaviours, evaluations of situations, norms, reactions, language style across the board. It is as though the shared or community values of this group have been learned or developed from some source other than their parents, teachers, fellow community members,etc.
If that is the case, those people are NOT behaving countrary to "the culture". They are behaving consistently within it. In fact, those few who do not share it but are within the bounds of their country of origin, they will be the odd ones out, the pariahs. The common-culture group are not misbehaving and will perhaps be puzzled if you take them to task over their actions or language.
I wonder how it is that those responsible for the transmission of their culture have in so many countries dropped the ball, leaving their children to find other sources for learning community values. And I wonder why the result of that is a certain commonality across the board.
There may be many answers to these questions, but certainly one place to look for the common source of cultural values is the so-called "third parent" - the TV.
Well, it was the TV at one time but now that provider of cultural norms of behaviour includes DVD, You Tube, video games, on-line gaming and so on.
There is a commonality across many countries in the offerings and use of these media. The most successful are used world-wide.
Looking at the proportions by country of origin, you will find that the USA is a leader in this field.
Certainly in the english-speaking countries the use of the phrase "Oh my God" is pandemic. OK, just one example and I am not going to enumerate them. Travel and observe for yourself and the pattern may form for you.
But I am not at all concerned about this in and of itself. What does concern me is that this substitution of a different culture in a new generation growing up will lead to the end of the specific and unique country-based culture in which they live. If I am in Australia and ask "have you a zac in your kick" or say "that's a furfey", how many would now understand those iconic terms that had been in place for nearly 100 years? The values and lifestyles will be at odds and the existing culture will lose out, there is no doubt about that.
Am I saying this is a bad thing? Is there not a benefit from the whole world in a couple of generations having shared values and understandings about how one behaves in a given situation?
Of course there could be benefits. It could even lead to a shared global culture. Fewer misunderstandings in the United Nations? Perhaps.
But couldn't we have done this with a better choice of culture-of-origin? We could end up stuck with the culture of arguably the most conservative, hide-bound, competetive, aggressive country on earth.
IMHO
Whatever...
As often happens with discussions among middle to older age people, the subject of current youth culture - language style, behaviour, values, etc - came up. We all know that while in that 'youth" age-group we were less than perfectly behaved. But we measured that against the culture in which we had grown up. This is different in different countries and we can share and compare those differences. To a certain extent we can also appreciate and understand the differences.
(I haven't defined "youth". It's too tricky to do rigourously. I will hope the descriptions here will "point to" the group I am talking about).
I mentioned over coffee that I had partly formed the conclusion that the "youth" of the different countries in which I had lived and worked had more in common with each other than they did with the culture of the country they lived in.
I have observed a commonness of values, behaviours, evaluations of situations, norms, reactions, language style across the board. It is as though the shared or community values of this group have been learned or developed from some source other than their parents, teachers, fellow community members,etc.
If that is the case, those people are NOT behaving countrary to "the culture". They are behaving consistently within it. In fact, those few who do not share it but are within the bounds of their country of origin, they will be the odd ones out, the pariahs. The common-culture group are not misbehaving and will perhaps be puzzled if you take them to task over their actions or language.
I wonder how it is that those responsible for the transmission of their culture have in so many countries dropped the ball, leaving their children to find other sources for learning community values. And I wonder why the result of that is a certain commonality across the board.
There may be many answers to these questions, but certainly one place to look for the common source of cultural values is the so-called "third parent" - the TV.
Well, it was the TV at one time but now that provider of cultural norms of behaviour includes DVD, You Tube, video games, on-line gaming and so on.
There is a commonality across many countries in the offerings and use of these media. The most successful are used world-wide.
Looking at the proportions by country of origin, you will find that the USA is a leader in this field.
Certainly in the english-speaking countries the use of the phrase "Oh my God" is pandemic. OK, just one example and I am not going to enumerate them. Travel and observe for yourself and the pattern may form for you.
But I am not at all concerned about this in and of itself. What does concern me is that this substitution of a different culture in a new generation growing up will lead to the end of the specific and unique country-based culture in which they live. If I am in Australia and ask "have you a zac in your kick" or say "that's a furfey", how many would now understand those iconic terms that had been in place for nearly 100 years? The values and lifestyles will be at odds and the existing culture will lose out, there is no doubt about that.
Am I saying this is a bad thing? Is there not a benefit from the whole world in a couple of generations having shared values and understandings about how one behaves in a given situation?
Of course there could be benefits. It could even lead to a shared global culture. Fewer misunderstandings in the United Nations? Perhaps.
But couldn't we have done this with a better choice of culture-of-origin? We could end up stuck with the culture of arguably the most conservative, hide-bound, competetive, aggressive country on earth.
IMHO
Whatever...
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The River: A Love Story
Life can be like a river, if you relax and let it happen.
I am a leaf, swirling along, taken by the whim of life's current. Without volition. Without desire. Without regret.
Sometimes the flow is swift and things happen around me in a rapidly changing kaleidoscope. Sometimes the river widens and the flow slows. These are the languid days. Beer and mudcrabs on the island.
Sometimes there is an eddie that swirls me around and around the same part close to the bank. Routine with the taste of security.
Sometimes the river runs fast through the shallows or in white madness over rocks. Leaf-me flung through the air and precipitated into raging foam. Ordering a plain old Indian Take-away for lunch and having the whole restaurant building fall around you in an earthquake.
But ah - the beautiful times when another leaf finds itself for a while following the same liquid path. Edges touching, overlapping as we share the joy, the madness, the routine, the dangers, the losses.
Together, yet each still pursuing their own way, the destination unknown, the journeying the whole.
And so the time comes, as it always will if you allow life to be the driver, when our responses to the flows within the one river take us on our separate ways. A rightness. A beauty. A sorrow. But Love remains.
Ivonne left for Wellington today.
I am a leaf, swirling along, taken by the whim of life's current. Without volition. Without desire. Without regret.
Sometimes the flow is swift and things happen around me in a rapidly changing kaleidoscope. Sometimes the river widens and the flow slows. These are the languid days. Beer and mudcrabs on the island.
Sometimes there is an eddie that swirls me around and around the same part close to the bank. Routine with the taste of security.
Sometimes the river runs fast through the shallows or in white madness over rocks. Leaf-me flung through the air and precipitated into raging foam. Ordering a plain old Indian Take-away for lunch and having the whole restaurant building fall around you in an earthquake.
But ah - the beautiful times when another leaf finds itself for a while following the same liquid path. Edges touching, overlapping as we share the joy, the madness, the routine, the dangers, the losses.
Together, yet each still pursuing their own way, the destination unknown, the journeying the whole.
And so the time comes, as it always will if you allow life to be the driver, when our responses to the flows within the one river take us on our separate ways. A rightness. A beauty. A sorrow. But Love remains.
Ivonne left for Wellington today.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Man with Stick
Give a small boy a stick and he will play happily outside for ages.
Give a grown man a stick and he will play happily outside for ages:
Fishing rod;
Hunting rifle;
Golf club;
...
Add your own. It's true!
I guess even the remote counts....
Give a grown man a stick and he will play happily outside for ages:
Fishing rod;
Hunting rifle;
Golf club;
...
Add your own. It's true!
I guess even the remote counts....
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Difference
The man goes into the shower. He comes out. The woman goes into the shower. "You've used my towel!". "No, I have not. I used mine", say he.
"No," she replies, "yours is the red one".
"No," says he. "Mine is the one on the left".
And that, folks, is the difference.
Get over it and understand each other.
"No," she replies, "yours is the red one".
"No," says he. "Mine is the one on the left".
And that, folks, is the difference.
Get over it and understand each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)