26 December 2007
JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Che
2) Robert F. Kennedy,
3) Martin Luther King,
4) Macolm X,
5) Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
......
All possibly murdered by the CIA (the Central Iniquity Agency - in my opinion) one of the most evil terrorist groups in human history.
25 December 2007
Paysan
I am a peasant, an urban peasant. A peasant - un paysan - a man of the country (in the non-urban sense of country). Just a person.
19 December 2007
19th December 2007 - A non-normative society
In a non-normative society where no one is forced to do anything and anyone can do anything;
where there is freedom and no one tells you what to do; there will often be a role for the evil of psychiatry to mop up those who in large numbers do nothing because they can and because no one has told them what to do or how to do it. I am not saying people should be told what to do. I want freedom. But at the least there should be care and advice. From someone. Anyone at all would be good.
In a survival of the fittest society, where everything is a competition, there will always be humans who lose the fight, or who don't fight, or, because of true human nature, desire instead to co-operate. These stubbornly human individuals will also often be mopped up by psychiatry.
You can't tell us that we are free and then tell us that we have to get paid work or we will starve.
-----------
As an anarchist I am against all prisons on principle.
where there is freedom and no one tells you what to do; there will often be a role for the evil of psychiatry to mop up those who in large numbers do nothing because they can and because no one has told them what to do or how to do it. I am not saying people should be told what to do. I want freedom. But at the least there should be care and advice. From someone. Anyone at all would be good.
In a survival of the fittest society, where everything is a competition, there will always be humans who lose the fight, or who don't fight, or, because of true human nature, desire instead to co-operate. These stubbornly human individuals will also often be mopped up by psychiatry.
Those who find themselves under the "care" of psychiatrists invariably have simply had problems with life and are not sick.
There is quite literally no hope whatsoever for society until it is a common belief that everyone is owed their basic needs as a right. This is totally feasible and has been for a long time.
A great deal of paid work is unnecessary and damaging to humans and the planet.You can't tell us that we are free and then tell us that we have to get paid work or we will starve.
-----------
Why is the Citizens Advice Bureau a charity? It is a necessity.-----------
As an anarchist I am against all prisons on principle.
17 December 2007
Dialogue
"Do you have a diagnosis of schizophrenia?"
"Yes."
"Do you think that you have schizophrenia?"
"No."
"Is there any such thing as schizophrenia?"
"No."
"So you think there is no such thing?"
"There's no such thing."
"Do you think you are mad?"
"No."
"Do you think there is any such thing as madness?"
"No.
...........Look, as long as they keep giving me the money I don't give a shit."
( A conversation I once had with someone ).
---------
Time for a basic income for all. Yawn.
"Yes."
"Do you think that you have schizophrenia?"
"No."
"Is there any such thing as schizophrenia?"
"No."
"So you think there is no such thing?"
"There's no such thing."
"Do you think you are mad?"
"No."
"Do you think there is any such thing as madness?"
"No.
...........Look, as long as they keep giving me the money I don't give a shit."
( A conversation I once had with someone ).
---------
Time for a basic income for all. Yawn.
16 December 2007
"Is it just me or is everything shit?"
Reading "Is it just me or is everything shit?" and it's better than I thought.
It is one of the few things that is not shit and it is excellent satire.
It is not cynical as one might expect. It has a quite sincerely radical thrust.
One thing: why didn't they call the sequel "Is it just me or is everything still shit?" instead of "Volume 2"?
It is truly excellent. Once again the flame of truth and reality is kept heroically burning. By someone somewhere.
Volume 2 even mentions the book "NHS PLC" which is about the destruction of the NHS by NewLabourUSDemocratPartyOfEngland.
It is one of the few things that is not shit and it is excellent satire.
It is not cynical as one might expect. It has a quite sincerely radical thrust.
One thing: why didn't they call the sequel "Is it just me or is everything still shit?" instead of "Volume 2"?
It is truly excellent. Once again the flame of truth and reality is kept heroically burning. By someone somewhere.
Volume 2 even mentions the book "NHS PLC" which is about the destruction of the NHS by NewLabourUSDemocratPartyOfEngland.
15 December 2007
Anorexia Politica
If anorexia nervosa (self-starvation) exists as an illness, would it would be equally logical to say that political hunger-strikers suffer from anorexia politica (self-starvation for political ends)?
This is discussed in Insanity: the Idea and its Consequences.
No behaviour or misbehaviour is or can be an illness or a disease. .....
===
The idea of mental illness and insanity can be used to absolve the guilty and punish the innocent.
There is no such thing as mental illness, insanity or madness; there cannot be such things as mental illness, insanity or madness.
This is discussed in Insanity: the Idea and its Consequences.
No behaviour or misbehaviour is or can be an illness or a disease. .....
===
The idea of mental illness and insanity can be used to absolve the guilty and punish the innocent.
There is no such thing as mental illness, insanity or madness; there cannot be such things as mental illness, insanity or madness.
11 December 2007
11th December 2007
Anyway, where was I.
Sanity - a word which means health - and a mind cannot literally be healthy or unhealthy - is defined by some as good adjustment to society.
What if you cannot relate to the society you find yourself in?
And what if some of the scum that it reveres - e.g. Thatcher - don't even believe in society?
-
By the way, all public transport should be 100% free....
Sanity - a word which means health - and a mind cannot literally be healthy or unhealthy - is defined by some as good adjustment to society.
What if you cannot relate to the society you find yourself in?
And what if some of the scum that it reveres - e.g. Thatcher - don't even believe in society?
-
By the way, all public transport should be 100% free....
5 December 2007
Suicide is not murder
I have said "suicide is a civil right" and yet that I do not agree with murder.
Suicide is not murder. Is suicide killing? Maybe. But it is not murder.
I have criticised others for compromising the Law of Moses and killing or murdering (outside - possibly - a just war).
Thou shalt not kill/murder (another).
The Law of Moses apparently says "Thou shalt not murder/illegally kill" and not "Thou shalt not kill", according to the correct translation.
----------------------
Suicide is not murder. Is suicide killing? Maybe. But it is not murder.
I have criticised others for compromising the Law of Moses and killing or murdering (outside - possibly - a just war).
Thou shalt not kill/murder (another).
The Law of Moses apparently says "Thou shalt not murder/illegally kill" and not "Thou shalt not kill", according to the correct translation.
----------------------
Unspeak
Have now finished the book "Unspeak" and discovered its' website, unspeak.net.
Broadly speaking it's about the fraudulent use of language in contemporary life.
To contradict Alistair Campbell, who apparently called the book "crap from start to finish", I would say it's brilliant from start to finish and I want more.
One thing that is interesting is the fraudulent replacement of the term "global warming" with "climate change". This seems to have been at least partly a deliberate tactic. And look how dominant the second term now is!
It does matter what you call things as this book makes clear.
He attacks one neologism which I had adopted - "islamofascism". And this is probably the only thing I disagree with.
Maybe "islamofascism" is stretching language. But I think it probably just about qualifies as a justified term..... Can't think of another term that does the same necessary job.
.....
Broadly speaking it's about the fraudulent use of language in contemporary life.
To contradict Alistair Campbell, who apparently called the book "crap from start to finish", I would say it's brilliant from start to finish and I want more.
One thing that is interesting is the fraudulent replacement of the term "global warming" with "climate change". This seems to have been at least partly a deliberate tactic. And look how dominant the second term now is!
It does matter what you call things as this book makes clear.
He attacks one neologism which I had adopted - "islamofascism". And this is probably the only thing I disagree with.
Maybe "islamofascism" is stretching language. But I think it probably just about qualifies as a justified term..... Can't think of another term that does the same necessary job.
.....
2 December 2007
Yankosceptic
If you can be "Eurosceptic" - doubtful/sceptical about some aspects of the EU, why can't you be "Yankosceptic"? - just a bit doubtful and sceptical about some aspects of the USA?
I am an anti-capitalist eurosceptic.
----
The US has c.5% of the world's population and consumes c.25% of its energy....
I am an anti-capitalist eurosceptic.
----
The US has c.5% of the world's population and consumes c.25% of its energy....
1 December 2007
Albert Camus
"There are causes worth dying for but none worth killing for."
Albert Camus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be pointed out, as it is not recognised by all conventional accounts, that Camus had an interest in anarchism.
Albert Camus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be pointed out, as it is not recognised by all conventional accounts, that Camus had an interest in anarchism.
26 November 2007
25 November 2007
What I'm reading
I have just finished "Insanity: The Idea and Consequences" by Thomas Szasz.
I will write something about it maybe later.
I am now reading "Unspeak" by Steven Poole which is excellent.
I will write something about it maybe later.
I am now reading "Unspeak" by Steven Poole which is excellent.
21 November 2007
Why?
You always hear:
"Get a job, scrounger! I'm paying for your benefits while you sit on your arse!"
Why don't they ever say to CEOs:
"Get a proper job, scrounger! I'm paying for your rounds of golf and swimming pools!" ?
"Get a job, scrounger! I'm paying for your benefits while you sit on your arse!"
Why don't they ever say to CEOs:
"Get a proper job, scrounger! I'm paying for your rounds of golf and swimming pools!" ?
----
See how effectively our minds are policed.
Your living room is the factory you are the product.
----
Yes ordinary people do pay for the profligate wages of people like CEOs and other business suits, as well as other members of the idle rich, who supposedly work for a living, as much as they pay for people's welfare benefits.
.....
MONEY
Money
[13c. L moneta, money, mint]
Anything which is generally accepted as a medium of exchange.
While often having little intrinsic VALUE, money or the lack of it rules many people's lives. "The argument is that money being the calculus we use to measure value, it is vital that the money system should operate fairly and objectively. Money values should reflect the actual values and preferences that people have. For example people's pay should reflect the value of the work they do. As things are, however, everyone knows that the money system does not work in this way. Some people get highly paid for work of little value, while others get paid much less for work of greater value. The people who run the money system - bankers, stockbrokers, and so on - do not run it professionally, with the aim that it should operate fairly and efficiently in the interests of society as a whole. They operate it in such a way as to cream off above-average incomes and capital gains for themselves and their clients. In this sense the present money system is fundamentally corrupt." (James Robertson, 1985). "Making money out of money - or more accurately making money out of debt - has become a massive industry, holding the world to ransom" (Green Party, 1987). (see DEBT CRISIS). Many Greens believe that our money system is beyond saving, so out of touch is it with real wealth and the real needs of people. While money can be liberating if used appropriately (never forgetting that it is only symbolic of real wealth), green-thinkers see LOCAL CURRENCY, BARTER, OWNWORK and informal work largely taking its place. See also INFLATION, WEALTH.
[source: "A Dictionary of Green Ideas", ed. John Button, 1988.
Words in capitals refer to other entries]
[13c. L moneta, money, mint]
Anything which is generally accepted as a medium of exchange.
While often having little intrinsic VALUE, money or the lack of it rules many people's lives. "The argument is that money being the calculus we use to measure value, it is vital that the money system should operate fairly and objectively. Money values should reflect the actual values and preferences that people have. For example people's pay should reflect the value of the work they do. As things are, however, everyone knows that the money system does not work in this way. Some people get highly paid for work of little value, while others get paid much less for work of greater value. The people who run the money system - bankers, stockbrokers, and so on - do not run it professionally, with the aim that it should operate fairly and efficiently in the interests of society as a whole. They operate it in such a way as to cream off above-average incomes and capital gains for themselves and their clients. In this sense the present money system is fundamentally corrupt." (James Robertson, 1985). "Making money out of money - or more accurately making money out of debt - has become a massive industry, holding the world to ransom" (Green Party, 1987). (see DEBT CRISIS). Many Greens believe that our money system is beyond saving, so out of touch is it with real wealth and the real needs of people. While money can be liberating if used appropriately (never forgetting that it is only symbolic of real wealth), green-thinkers see LOCAL CURRENCY, BARTER, OWNWORK and informal work largely taking its place. See also INFLATION, WEALTH.
[source: "A Dictionary of Green Ideas", ed. John Button, 1988.
Words in capitals refer to other entries]
19 November 2007
I wud just liyk to mayk another plee for logicul speling.
I wud just liyk to mayk another plee for logicul speling.
http://www.spellingsociety.org/
This may even be related to the Dyslexia issue.
.........
http://www.spellingsociety.org/
This may even be related to the Dyslexia issue.
.........
14 November 2007
Diagnonsense
Re: Mental health and employment in The Guardian today.
Reminding people of the reality that mental illness does not and cannot exist might serve to focus more on whether it was work situations that led to the problems in living revealed here. Conditions and diagno(nsen)ses such "schizophrenia", "OCD", "ADHD", "manic depression" - do not actually exist as distinct illnesses.
------
Also the common incidence of so-called "ADHD" must be related to the over-stimulation of kids in a multi-media society.....
Reminding people of the reality that mental illness does not and cannot exist might serve to focus more on whether it was work situations that led to the problems in living revealed here. Conditions and diagno(nsen)ses such "schizophrenia", "OCD", "ADHD", "manic depression" - do not actually exist as distinct illnesses.
------
Also the common incidence of so-called "ADHD" must be related to the over-stimulation of kids in a multi-media society.....
Bicycles in Beijing
Car ownership and use is growing very fast in Beijing.
Bicycles are used less.
And all for no reason other than slavish following of the industrialised world.
There is no need whatsoever for this switch to mass automobile use.
Bicycles are used less.
And all for no reason other than slavish following of the industrialised world.
There is no need whatsoever for this switch to mass automobile use.
12 November 2007
Unemployment Again
Johann Hari has written an article regarding unemployment and benefits.
He reveals a very important and under-known (to coin a word) fact - we can afford benefits!
Benefits for the unemployed constitute 3 percent of government expenditure.
We can afford welfare.
Please tell this to Anne Widdecombe and the DailyMail-ists!
Unfortunately Johann neglects to point out that work does not have to be the same thing as paid employment.
With mechanisation there will inevitably be less paid work. Other types of work have to be researched.
Other factors will mean that suitable paid employment will be hard to find.
Therefore to tell people who can't get a job to starve will be a terrible injustice and crime.
That is what is being proposed.
Saying to someone:
"You refuse to get or cannot get a paid job. Therefore you can starve," is the full horror of what is proposed.
Many people, because they are taught to believe in capitalist ethics, would at first wholeheartedly agree with this. "Earn your keep. Pay your way. No free lunch..." etc.
Firstly, the government can easily afford paying those who don't work a minimum allowance.
Secondly, there may not be work.
Thirdly, everyone has a right to basic needs.
Fourthly, why should work be paid work?
Fifthly, if we believe in human liberty people should have a choice as to what to do.
Sixthly, everyone wants to work and do something. So to believe that those who don't do conventional work are selfish and idle is not entirely true. ........
A universal income where the government gives money to the people instead of people giving money in taxed wages to the government is the best solution. What does it matter which way the money goes?
Tax revenue will still come from those who earn large amounts.
The only fair system is a universal basic income to guarantee the human right to basic needs.
...........
Logical ramblings:-
If I am owed my basic needs (because I can't work) then I am owed my basic needs in all circumstcances.
The alternative is to say:
If I cannot work then I am owed my basic needs but;
if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Therefore you are saying that: if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Which is absurd.
EITHER
1) EVERYONE IS OWED THEIR BASIC MINIMUM INCOME FOR NEEDS OR
2) THEY ARE NOT OWED THIS INCOME.
He reveals a very important and under-known (to coin a word) fact - we can afford benefits!
Benefits for the unemployed constitute 3 percent of government expenditure.
We can afford welfare.
Please tell this to Anne Widdecombe and the DailyMail-ists!
Unfortunately Johann neglects to point out that work does not have to be the same thing as paid employment.
With mechanisation there will inevitably be less paid work. Other types of work have to be researched.
Other factors will mean that suitable paid employment will be hard to find.
Therefore to tell people who can't get a job to starve will be a terrible injustice and crime.
That is what is being proposed.
Saying to someone:
"You refuse to get or cannot get a paid job. Therefore you can starve," is the full horror of what is proposed.
Many people, because they are taught to believe in capitalist ethics, would at first wholeheartedly agree with this. "Earn your keep. Pay your way. No free lunch..." etc.
Firstly, the government can easily afford paying those who don't work a minimum allowance.
Secondly, there may not be work.
Thirdly, everyone has a right to basic needs.
Fourthly, why should work be paid work?
Fifthly, if we believe in human liberty people should have a choice as to what to do.
Sixthly, everyone wants to work and do something. So to believe that those who don't do conventional work are selfish and idle is not entirely true. ........
A universal income where the government gives money to the people instead of people giving money in taxed wages to the government is the best solution. What does it matter which way the money goes?
Tax revenue will still come from those who earn large amounts.
The only fair system is a universal basic income to guarantee the human right to basic needs.
...........
Logical ramblings:-
If I am owed my basic needs (because I can't work) then I am owed my basic needs in all circumstcances.
The alternative is to say:
If I cannot work then I am owed my basic needs but;
if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Therefore you are saying that: if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Which is absurd.
EITHER
1) EVERYONE IS OWED THEIR BASIC MINIMUM INCOME FOR NEEDS OR
2) THEY ARE NOT OWED THIS INCOME.
"ADHD"
"ADHD" - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder - does not exist.
I repeat it because a) it is true b) it needs to be said c) people don't seem to grasp this:
"ADHD", "SCHIZOPHRENIA", AND ALL "MENTAL ILLNESSES" DO NOT EXIST.
I repeat THEY DO NOT EXIST.
I repeat it because a) it is true b) it needs to be said c) people don't seem to grasp this:
"ADHD", "SCHIZOPHRENIA", AND ALL "MENTAL ILLNESSES" DO NOT EXIST.
I repeat THEY DO NOT EXIST.
7 November 2007
U.S. Democracy
Like England, the USA can't really call itself a modern democracy unless it has voting reform and fair proportional representation and until it stops disenfranchising some groups of its citizens.
26 October 2007
Article about Eric Fromm by Neil Clark
Wanted: an Erich Fromm party
The social philosopher and psychoanalyst was one of the 20th century's most prescient - yet sadly neglected - thinkers.
Neil Clark
"A healthy economy is only possible at the expense of unhealthy human beings".
I wonder what the social philosopher and psychoanalyst Dr Erich Fromm, the man who wrote those words over 30 years ago, would make of Britain today.
Over the past decade we have witnessed an unprecedented period of uninterrupted economic growth. Yet our collective mental health has declined sharply. More than two million Britons are on antidepressants, a million on Class A drugs. Binge drinking, and what Fromm called "acts of destruction" - violence, self-abuse and vandalism - have reached record levels. The Samaritans report that five million people are "extremely stressed". Oliver James' new book, Affluenza, and last week's Unicef report, which listed Britain's children as the unhappiest in Europe, are powerful indictments of the society we have become.
For solutions to our predicament, don't look to neo-liberal politicians such as Ed Vaizey, and other members of the political parties bankrolled by big business. And don't look either to short-term fixes like the cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) advocated by Richard Layard.
Instead, turn to the work of Erich Fromm, one of the 20th century's most prescient - yet sadly neglected - thinkers.
In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm argued that a society, in which "consumption has become the de facto goal", was itself sick. He advanced his theory of social character: that "every society produces the character it needs". Early Calvinistic capitalism produced the "hoarding character", who hoards both possessions and feelings: the classic Victorian man of property.
Post-war capitalism, Fromm argued, produced another, equally neurotic type: "the marketing character", who "adapts to the market economy by becoming detached from authentic emotions, truth and conviction". For the marketing character "everything is transformed into a commodity, not only things, but the person himself, his physical energy, his skills, his knowledge, his opinions, his feelings, even his smiles". (For a perfect example of a "marketing character", just think of the current inhabitant of No 10 Downing Street).
Modern global capitalism requires marketing characters in abundance and makes sure it gets them. Meanwhile, Fromm's ideal character type, the mature "productive character", the person without a mask, who loves and creates, and for whom being is more important than having, is discouraged.
Fromm was also deeply concerned with the way that love, "the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence" was undermined by an economic system which rewards greed and selfishness.
In The Art of Loving (1956), Fromm identified five types of love, all of which were endangered. Brotherly love, the most important, "the one which underlies all others", was undermined by the reduction of human beings to commodities. Motherly love was threatened by narcissism and possessiveness. Self-love, without which we cannot love others, was destroyed by selfishness. The love of God was regressing "to an idolatric concept of God". Finally, erotic love was debased by its separation from brotherly love and the absence of tenderness.
In the turbo-capitalist Britain of 2007, the war against love which Erich Fromm warned of, has gone into overdrive. Glossy magazines encourage anti-love sexual permissiveness and the cultivation of selfish and materialistic lifestyles. Multimillion dollar industries promoting the cult of narcissism have grown up, in which reality television is the latest and crudest manifestation. We are encouraged to view all human contacts as expendable, to be "traded-in" whenever we can get a better deal. Hire and fire rules not just in the business world, but in our personal lives too. And we wonder why we are so unhappy.
Erich Fromm shows us how we can fight back. The good doctor didn't just diagnose the disease, he put forward the remedies. There could be no improvement in our collective health unless society changed from the "having" to the "being" mode of existence.
The brainwashing methods used in modern advertising, described by Fromm as the "poison of mass suggestion" must be prohibited. The gap between rich and poor must be closed. A new, participatory form of democracy, "in which the well-being of the community becomes each citizen's private concern", must be introduced. There should be maximum decentralisation throughout industry and politics. And most importantly of all, ''the right of stockholders and management of big enterprises to determine their production solely on the basis of profit and expansion" must be drastically curbed. Fromm was unequivocal: the needs of people must come before the needs of capital.
The measures that Fromm put forward will no doubt be dismissed by some as unworkable or too left-wing, (as indeed similar, sensible measures put forward by Oliver James have been). And as Fromm himself, warned big business would use all its "tremendous power" to fight such changes. But if we are serious about constructing a society in which solidarity and brotherly love come to the fore, nothing less than a complete overhaul of our economic system will do.
A healthy economy or healthy human beings? I vote for the latter. How about you?
The social philosopher and psychoanalyst was one of the 20th century's most prescient - yet sadly neglected - thinkers.
Neil Clark
"A healthy economy is only possible at the expense of unhealthy human beings".
I wonder what the social philosopher and psychoanalyst Dr Erich Fromm, the man who wrote those words over 30 years ago, would make of Britain today.
Over the past decade we have witnessed an unprecedented period of uninterrupted economic growth. Yet our collective mental health has declined sharply. More than two million Britons are on antidepressants, a million on Class A drugs. Binge drinking, and what Fromm called "acts of destruction" - violence, self-abuse and vandalism - have reached record levels. The Samaritans report that five million people are "extremely stressed". Oliver James' new book, Affluenza, and last week's Unicef report, which listed Britain's children as the unhappiest in Europe, are powerful indictments of the society we have become.
For solutions to our predicament, don't look to neo-liberal politicians such as Ed Vaizey, and other members of the political parties bankrolled by big business. And don't look either to short-term fixes like the cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) advocated by Richard Layard.
Instead, turn to the work of Erich Fromm, one of the 20th century's most prescient - yet sadly neglected - thinkers.
In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm argued that a society, in which "consumption has become the de facto goal", was itself sick. He advanced his theory of social character: that "every society produces the character it needs". Early Calvinistic capitalism produced the "hoarding character", who hoards both possessions and feelings: the classic Victorian man of property.
Post-war capitalism, Fromm argued, produced another, equally neurotic type: "the marketing character", who "adapts to the market economy by becoming detached from authentic emotions, truth and conviction". For the marketing character "everything is transformed into a commodity, not only things, but the person himself, his physical energy, his skills, his knowledge, his opinions, his feelings, even his smiles". (For a perfect example of a "marketing character", just think of the current inhabitant of No 10 Downing Street).
Modern global capitalism requires marketing characters in abundance and makes sure it gets them. Meanwhile, Fromm's ideal character type, the mature "productive character", the person without a mask, who loves and creates, and for whom being is more important than having, is discouraged.
Fromm was also deeply concerned with the way that love, "the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence" was undermined by an economic system which rewards greed and selfishness.
In The Art of Loving (1956), Fromm identified five types of love, all of which were endangered. Brotherly love, the most important, "the one which underlies all others", was undermined by the reduction of human beings to commodities. Motherly love was threatened by narcissism and possessiveness. Self-love, without which we cannot love others, was destroyed by selfishness. The love of God was regressing "to an idolatric concept of God". Finally, erotic love was debased by its separation from brotherly love and the absence of tenderness.
In the turbo-capitalist Britain of 2007, the war against love which Erich Fromm warned of, has gone into overdrive. Glossy magazines encourage anti-love sexual permissiveness and the cultivation of selfish and materialistic lifestyles. Multimillion dollar industries promoting the cult of narcissism have grown up, in which reality television is the latest and crudest manifestation. We are encouraged to view all human contacts as expendable, to be "traded-in" whenever we can get a better deal. Hire and fire rules not just in the business world, but in our personal lives too. And we wonder why we are so unhappy.
Erich Fromm shows us how we can fight back. The good doctor didn't just diagnose the disease, he put forward the remedies. There could be no improvement in our collective health unless society changed from the "having" to the "being" mode of existence.
The brainwashing methods used in modern advertising, described by Fromm as the "poison of mass suggestion" must be prohibited. The gap between rich and poor must be closed. A new, participatory form of democracy, "in which the well-being of the community becomes each citizen's private concern", must be introduced. There should be maximum decentralisation throughout industry and politics. And most importantly of all, ''the right of stockholders and management of big enterprises to determine their production solely on the basis of profit and expansion" must be drastically curbed. Fromm was unequivocal: the needs of people must come before the needs of capital.
The measures that Fromm put forward will no doubt be dismissed by some as unworkable or too left-wing, (as indeed similar, sensible measures put forward by Oliver James have been). And as Fromm himself, warned big business would use all its "tremendous power" to fight such changes. But if we are serious about constructing a society in which solidarity and brotherly love come to the fore, nothing less than a complete overhaul of our economic system will do.
A healthy economy or healthy human beings? I vote for the latter. How about you?
23 October 2007
Tuesday 23rd October 2007
I do not write what I write here to annoy anyone.
I write what I write because I believe it to be true.
I write what I write because I believe it to be true.
Despicable
The Catholic Clergy are despicable.
In a desperate attempt to seem relevant in some way, they constantly complain about abortion.
This is a non-issue. Abortion is a woman's choice.
E'crasez l'infa^me!
In a desperate attempt to seem relevant in some way, they constantly complain about abortion.
This is a non-issue. Abortion is a woman's choice.
E'crasez l'infa^me!
22 October 2007
Kurdistan
Turkey's suppression of the Kurdish people is as terrible as Saddam's suppression of the Kurdish people. If not more terrible.
But because Turkey is an ally this fact is ignored completely.
Nowhere in the many recent news items about Kurdistan is the full story of the Turkish repression of Kurds reported.
Nor is it reported that the Kurds are possibly the largest people in the world not to have achieved self-determination.
But because Turkey is an ally this fact is ignored completely.
Nowhere in the many recent news items about Kurdistan is the full story of the Turkish repression of Kurds reported.
Nor is it reported that the Kurds are possibly the largest people in the world not to have achieved self-determination.
The Slave Begins
"The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown."
Albert Camus.
The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a woolly hat.
Albert Camus.
The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a woolly hat.
21 October 2007
Glasgow Nirvana
I have decided to switch my support to Glasgow Nirvana - the Glasgow Buddhist team.
Buddhism is an excellent philosophy of life.
But I suppose a distinction must be made between Buddhism as a philosophy, and Buddhism as a religion.
Aspects of the beliefs and practices of Buddhism as a religion are as absurd as those of many other religions....
Buddhism is an excellent philosophy of life.
But I suppose a distinction must be made between Buddhism as a philosophy, and Buddhism as a religion.
Aspects of the beliefs and practices of Buddhism as a religion are as absurd as those of many other religions....
20 October 2007
14 October 2007
14th October 2007
"All religions die when they are proved to be true."
(or something like that)
Oscar Wilde.
“When a religion is proved to be true it becomes a Science.
Science is the record of dead religions”.
Oscar Wilde.
Hmmm....
(or something like that)
Oscar Wilde.
“When a religion is proved to be true it becomes a Science.
Science is the record of dead religions”.
Oscar Wilde.
Hmmm....
11 October 2007
Thursday 11th October 2007
Just seen a delicious piece of TV.
A flustered elderly lady is getting out of a taxi outside her house and is met by loads of paparazzi.
"Why are you taking pictures? What's going on?" she mutters.
"We're here for you."
"Why?"
"You've won the Nobel Prize for Literature."
"Oh Christ!"
A flustered elderly lady is getting out of a taxi outside her house and is met by loads of paparazzi.
"Why are you taking pictures? What's going on?" she mutters.
"We're here for you."
"Why?"
"You've won the Nobel Prize for Literature."
"Oh Christ!"
9 October 2007
The Sanctification of Selfishness
NewLabourUSDemocratPartyofEngland have successfully sanctified selfishness with their tax plans.
8 October 2007
7 October 2007
The English Education System
Someone was saying in today's Observer that going to Eton is now acceptable and something comparable to elitism in other societies like the USA and France.
I am sorry but the English education system is still profoundly and uniquely immoral.
I feel shame and have since the age of 9 for having gone to an English public school.
Yes you should still feel ashamed of having gone to Eton and you should still be worried about being in the Eton Rifles.
This will only change when the best schools in England are free.
I am sorry but the English education system is still profoundly and uniquely immoral.
I feel shame and have since the age of 9 for having gone to an English public school.
Yes you should still feel ashamed of having gone to Eton and you should still be worried about being in the Eton Rifles.
This will only change when the best schools in England are free.
It also must be pointed out that many so-called "public" schools in England were founded in the late medieval period and early modern period with the explicit intention of educating the poor or the general populace.
The term "public school" it seems is a good example of a simple anachronism.
It was invented to distinguish these schools from "private tutors" in the Victorian era.
Drowning in media mess
The media is swarming with such piffle.
Gordon Brown is quite within his rights not to call an election.
The last election was in 2005. This is still a "Labour" government.
The Conservative Party is overflowing with rubbish as it has been since 1979.
Gordon Brown is quite within his rights not to call an election.
The last election was in 2005. This is still a "Labour" government.
The Conservative Party is overflowing with rubbish as it has been since 1979.
6 October 2007
The Lure of the Orient
3 October 2007
3rd October
Talking of jobs and absurdity.
Millions of people could be newsreaders.
Alll you have to do to newsread is correctly read an autocue.
Literally millions of people could do this.
Yet only some lucky few get the job and the big pay packet.
Hardly fair.
Bit like winning the lottery I suppose.
Millions of people could be newsreaders.
Alll you have to do to newsread is correctly read an autocue.
Literally millions of people could do this.
Yet only some lucky few get the job and the big pay packet.
Hardly fair.
Bit like winning the lottery I suppose.
2 October 2007
Democracy
Interesting piece in The Observer about democracy. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2179968,00.html
They asked a lot of questions to a lot of pundits concerning democracy but I don't think they asked the question, "Do we live in a democracy?"
A society is democratic to the extent that people decide what happens.
Most people didn't want a war so why was there one?
Is this a democracy?
They asked a lot of questions to a lot of pundits concerning democracy but I don't think they asked the question, "Do we live in a democracy?"
A society is democratic to the extent that people decide what happens.
Most people didn't want a war so why was there one?
Is this a democracy?
As you do
I was feeling depressed so I decided to put the tellydrug on.
What would cheer me up?
I watched a bit of the Conservative Party conference.
After a few moments, I was on the point of ringing a friend of mine to see if he could rustle up a shorn off shot gun.
Let's force people to work all hours!
Let's take away what little money they have!
Let's tax really rich people a lot less!
What would cheer me up?
I watched a bit of the Conservative Party conference.
After a few moments, I was on the point of ringing a friend of mine to see if he could rustle up a shorn off shot gun.
Let's force people to work all hours!
Let's take away what little money they have!
Let's tax really rich people a lot less!
1 October 2007
30 September 2007
The Pun - Justice Not Vengeance is Our Foundation
"Third Time Unlucky" was The Pun's headline regarding Ian Huntley's suicide attempt.
It is important to realise how deeply barbaric a headline this is.
Firstly it is not news worthy of a front page given what is happening in the world.
It is indicative of a warped worldview.
Secondly, it could be taken by someone to imply that The Sun's view is that they wish harm to come to Huntley.
This is against the law and against all civilised values.
It is an essential point that justice shall rule and not vengeance.
This is the cornerstone of our world. Without it we are nothing.
Justice not vengeance is our foundation.
The Sun is the epitomy of barbarism.
It is without doubt one of the least civilised newspapers in human history.
It is important to realise how deeply barbaric a headline this is.
Firstly it is not news worthy of a front page given what is happening in the world.
It is indicative of a warped worldview.
Secondly, it could be taken by someone to imply that The Sun's view is that they wish harm to come to Huntley.
This is against the law and against all civilised values.
It is an essential point that justice shall rule and not vengeance.
This is the cornerstone of our world. Without it we are nothing.
Justice not vengeance is our foundation.
The Sun is the epitomy of barbarism.
It is without doubt one of the least civilised newspapers in human history.
Which country has vetoed the most UN resolutions?
I was really pleased to see Dubya's speech to the UN.
I was really enthused by what he said. I agreed with it and I think he is saying the right things.
Praise the Lord!
It should be noted all the same that the USA has vetoed a great deal of UN resolutions.
-----
Question: Which country has vetoed the most United Nations resolutions?
Answer: The USA.
I was really enthused by what he said. I agreed with it and I think he is saying the right things.
Praise the Lord!
It should be noted all the same that the USA has vetoed a great deal of UN resolutions.
-----
Question: Which country has vetoed the most United Nations resolutions?
Answer: The USA.
27 September 2007
Industry Shmindustry
"What’s made me align myself with Finkelstein is the implication that what he says should be unsayable."
Someone writing in the Jewish Chronicle.
BUT HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY! if the summary of his book on his webs(h)ite is anything to go by..!!
READ IT! Read the summary..... NOWHERE AT ALL IN THIS SUMMARY DOES HE SAY EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS BY THE PHRASE "HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY." Some of it is rather higgeldy-piggeldy:)
Well I will be off to be consoled as I read my Einstein and Spinoza:)
---------
Mind you, NOWADAYS we talk of a
POP "Industry"
MUSIC "Industry"
PORNOGRAPHY "Industry"
FILM "Industry".....
etc.
Everything's an "industry"...
Well, all I can say is... er....Industry Shmindustry! and leave it at that...
I think I understand how useful this Yiddish (?) way of expressing scepticism (?) is now..:)
----------
Unrelated - sort of....
"The love of money - the root of all kinds of evil." - was that only in the Christian Bible/New Testament?
Is there anything like that in the Torah?
------
Unrelated.
"What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews."
ANNE FRANK.
Why?
Well, that may have been true once upon a time, but I hope that we live in a world where this does not have to be so.
Someone writing in the Jewish Chronicle.
BUT HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY! if the summary of his book on his webs(h)ite is anything to go by..!!
READ IT! Read the summary..... NOWHERE AT ALL IN THIS SUMMARY DOES HE SAY EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS BY THE PHRASE "HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY." Some of it is rather higgeldy-piggeldy:)
Well I will be off to be consoled as I read my Einstein and Spinoza:)
---------
Mind you, NOWADAYS we talk of a
POP "Industry"
MUSIC "Industry"
PORNOGRAPHY "Industry"
FILM "Industry".....
etc.
Everything's an "industry"...
Well, all I can say is... er....Industry Shmindustry! and leave it at that...
I think I understand how useful this Yiddish (?) way of expressing scepticism (?) is now..:)
----------
Unrelated - sort of....
"The love of money - the root of all kinds of evil." - was that only in the Christian Bible/New Testament?
Is there anything like that in the Torah?
------
Unrelated.
"What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews."
ANNE FRANK.
Why?
Well, that may have been true once upon a time, but I hope that we live in a world where this does not have to be so.
How psychiatry oppresses
Psychiatry oppresses me and millions of others.
How can something that is supposed to help me oppress me?
1 I have to take toxic brain-damaging medications.
I do not have the freedom not to take these medications, as I would have with any other kind of medication and as I would have were they prescribed by other kinds of medical doctor, and as I ought to have. I ought to have the freedom to do what I want with my own body and to refuse toxic medication in any circumstance.
2 I have to see psychiatrists and other "mental health" workers.
I do not have the freedom not to see these people as I would have with any other medical workers. I should have this freedom.
3 I - and anyone else for that matter - can at any time be incarcerated by "mental health workers" backed up by the state for no crime and for no reason.
No other medical specialism has this power.
I ought to have the power to refuse incarceration against my will in any circumstance unless I have committed a crime.
4 By putting me on benefits and into the meaningless category of someone with "mental health problems" psychiatry precludes me from various activities that I should have the right to take part in such as for example full time paid employment.
And hence the oppression of millions and crime against humanity that is psychiatry.
This is what it means for millions of people who have been arbitrarily defined as "mentally ill".
And this is what it means potentially for all human beings.
I hope that the 21st century will see an end to this oppression.
Psychiatry is a crime against humanity. There is a strong case for abolishing it.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-P6_FwpVo_s&feature=related
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/25reason.htm
How can something that is supposed to help me oppress me?
1 I have to take toxic brain-damaging medications.
I do not have the freedom not to take these medications, as I would have with any other kind of medication and as I would have were they prescribed by other kinds of medical doctor, and as I ought to have. I ought to have the freedom to do what I want with my own body and to refuse toxic medication in any circumstance.
2 I have to see psychiatrists and other "mental health" workers.
I do not have the freedom not to see these people as I would have with any other medical workers. I should have this freedom.
3 I - and anyone else for that matter - can at any time be incarcerated by "mental health workers" backed up by the state for no crime and for no reason.
No other medical specialism has this power.
I ought to have the power to refuse incarceration against my will in any circumstance unless I have committed a crime.
4 By putting me on benefits and into the meaningless category of someone with "mental health problems" psychiatry precludes me from various activities that I should have the right to take part in such as for example full time paid employment.
And hence the oppression of millions and crime against humanity that is psychiatry.
This is what it means for millions of people who have been arbitrarily defined as "mentally ill".
And this is what it means potentially for all human beings.
I hope that the 21st century will see an end to this oppression.
Psychiatry is a crime against humanity. There is a strong case for abolishing it.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-P6_FwpVo_s&feature=related
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/25reason.htm
25 September 2007
"Let Them Die" and "Against Multiculturalism".
I think Kenan Malik's essays
"Let Them Die"
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/letthemdie
and
"Against Multiculturalism"
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/523/against-multiculturalism
are excellent essays.
I agree with them.
24 September 2007
All the ones
All the ones I want don't want me.
All the ones who want me I don't want.
It's never mutual and I can't work out why.
All the ones who want me I don't want.
It's never mutual and I can't work out why.
24th September 2007
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Why so much talk of our country and national pride and so much other associated guff?
Politics is not entertainment.
Why is politics treated as entertainment by both politicians and the media?
What about reality?
Is the NewLabourParty now a democracy-free zone?
Even I remember when policy was debated, agreed upon and voted on.
But Big Brother Brown won't have this.
Why so much talk of our country and national pride and so much other associated guff?
Politics is not entertainment.
Why is politics treated as entertainment by both politicians and the media?
What about reality?
Is the NewLabourParty now a democracy-free zone?
Even I remember when policy was debated, agreed upon and voted on.
But Big Brother Brown won't have this.
23 September 2007
Languages as a study - Philosophy is the only subject
I studied languages at university.
I now wish that I had studied a proper subject like Philosophy.
That's probably the only proper subject there is.
Philosophy in a sense is the only subject.
Philosophy at universities in the English-speaking world is maybe not the same thing as it is elsewhere. Which is one reason I was never encouraged to do it.
"A country without a language is a country without a soul": This may be true. A language does also articulate the culture that it is part of, and is part of that culture.
But the actual process of learning a language is a task and not really a study.
I was put off studying Social and Political Sciences at Cambridge which was the course I wanted to take at one point. I was disillusioned with literature as something to study. I loved literature I just thought you can't really study it in a meaningful way. I much preferred the idea of trying to learn things scientifically about life - hence social sciences. Literature can teach you about life, but is it scientific?, I reasoned.
The man who helped put me off S.P.S. was Mr. A.R.M. Little who taught me English A-level and who later became headmaster of Eton, himself an Old Etonian. Oh I say what ho, old bean!
He said to me - "Sociology? That's the kind of thing taught by sniffy types in donkey jackets."
He seemed to have a low opinion of it at any rate which rather rubbed off on me. He didn't seem to give much more of a reason than the comment already related. Such analysis! Hmm.....
He is now supposedly an expert on education since his retirement from Eton. But I remember him as a bit of a snob. But that is precisely what Eton produces and is designed to produce.
You don't need to be an expert on education to know that Eton in its current form is utterly immoral and wicked. You only need to be a 9-year old child.
I was taught to respect people like him and his views. But I wish I had stuck to my own thinking even at that young age.
If I'd been educated in France I would have been studying Philosophy at the same age and hence would have had the chance to think about things.
If I'd been educated in the USA I would have specialised a lot less at university anyway.
-----
All of the above does not apply to linguistics, the study of language, which I believe is a very important subject and distinct from the learning of languages, an activity which I am questioning here as an academic subject.
Linguistics is an important discipline. Learning languages is a chore.
Discuss. etc.
There are other skills and subjects that go with language learning - e.g. interpretation, translation etc.
These are also to some extent a part of linguistics.
May 08
Maybe everyone at University should study some form of philosophy or intellectual history.
I think in the Hispanic world many Arts degrees are awarded by a faculty called Filosofi'a y Letras: Philosophy and Arts......
In the English-speaking world these two activities - Philosophy and the Arts - can often be separated...
In France, they realised long ago that philosophy is the only subject so they teach it to you at school. It is also a country where people value education for its own sake as well.
I now wish that I had studied a proper subject like Philosophy.
That's probably the only proper subject there is.
Philosophy in a sense is the only subject.
Philosophy at universities in the English-speaking world is maybe not the same thing as it is elsewhere. Which is one reason I was never encouraged to do it.
In England Philosophy is sometimes seen as a quaint hobby and not a mainstream subject and fundamental activity as it is often is in France for example.
If I had my time again I would study philosophy and anthropology and politics and social sciences.
Not languages. I am thoroughly disillusioned with the idea of specifically learning languages as an academic study and activity.
Learning languages in itself should not be an academic study. It is a task not a study."Studying" a language is possibly something different.
If I had my time again I would study philosophy and anthropology and politics and social sciences.
Not languages. I am thoroughly disillusioned with the idea of specifically learning languages as an academic study and activity.
Learning languages in itself should not be an academic study. It is a task not a study."Studying" a language is possibly something different.
But learning a language is a task not a study.
Learning a language is nothing more than a sometimes enjoyable chore.
Something that can be done easily simply by exposure, by staying in the country and a perhaps a little study. Anyone can do it. It's like riding a bike.
The most proficient speakers of languages other than their mother tongue (or mother tongues) are almost always people who have simply lived where they are spoken, or used them a great deal, rather than those who have studied them.
I thoroughly regret the many hours I have spent in a classroom learning languages - learning another way to say the same thing - when I could have actually been actually learning things.
And I could have learned the language in a far more enjoyable way.
The reasons why I did languages at A-level and degree level were that I was good at them and because I was advised and encouraged to do them and because I could. I enjoyed languages.
Learning a language is nothing more than a sometimes enjoyable chore.
Something that can be done easily simply by exposure, by staying in the country and a perhaps a little study. Anyone can do it. It's like riding a bike.
The most proficient speakers of languages other than their mother tongue (or mother tongues) are almost always people who have simply lived where they are spoken, or used them a great deal, rather than those who have studied them.
I thoroughly regret the many hours I have spent in a classroom learning languages - learning another way to say the same thing - when I could have actually been actually learning things.
And I could have learned the language in a far more enjoyable way.
The reasons why I did languages at A-level and degree level were that I was good at them and because I was advised and encouraged to do them and because I could. I enjoyed languages.
I was told and I believed that studying languages or more specifically learning languages was useful.
But even then I knew that it was not really a study. I couldn't really see any other proper subjects around to get my teeth into. I nearly applied to do Politics. But that appeared not philosophical enough. As did philosophy itself.
I also harboured a belief that some kind of metaphysical transformation would happen to me when I could speak, write, understand and dream another language fluently. That I would grow a new self. Not remotely true.
A language definitely does have aesthetic and cultural qualities that can be appreciated once learnt. However a language is fundamentally a means of communication.
A language definitely does have aesthetic and cultural qualities that can be appreciated once learnt. However a language is fundamentally a means of communication.
"A country without a language is a country without a soul": This may be true. A language does also articulate the culture that it is part of, and is part of that culture.
But the actual process of learning a language is a task and not really a study.
I was put off studying Social and Political Sciences at Cambridge which was the course I wanted to take at one point. I was disillusioned with literature as something to study. I loved literature I just thought you can't really study it in a meaningful way. I much preferred the idea of trying to learn things scientifically about life - hence social sciences. Literature can teach you about life, but is it scientific?, I reasoned.
The man who helped put me off S.P.S. was Mr. A.R.M. Little who taught me English A-level and who later became headmaster of Eton, himself an Old Etonian. Oh I say what ho, old bean!
He said to me - "Sociology? That's the kind of thing taught by sniffy types in donkey jackets."
He seemed to have a low opinion of it at any rate which rather rubbed off on me. He didn't seem to give much more of a reason than the comment already related. Such analysis! Hmm.....
He is now supposedly an expert on education since his retirement from Eton. But I remember him as a bit of a snob. But that is precisely what Eton produces and is designed to produce.
You don't need to be an expert on education to know that Eton in its current form is utterly immoral and wicked. You only need to be a 9-year old child.
I was taught to respect people like him and his views. But I wish I had stuck to my own thinking even at that young age.
If I'd been educated in France I would have been studying Philosophy at the same age and hence would have had the chance to think about things.
If I'd been educated in the USA I would have specialised a lot less at university anyway.
-----
All of the above does not apply to linguistics, the study of language, which I believe is a very important subject and distinct from the learning of languages, an activity which I am questioning here as an academic subject.
Linguistics is an important discipline. Learning languages is a chore.
Discuss. etc.
There are other skills and subjects that go with language learning - e.g. interpretation, translation etc.
These are also to some extent a part of linguistics.
May 08
Maybe everyone at University should study some form of philosophy or intellectual history.
I think in the Hispanic world many Arts degrees are awarded by a faculty called Filosofi'a y Letras: Philosophy and Arts......
In the English-speaking world these two activities - Philosophy and the Arts - can often be separated...
------------------------------------------------------------
In France, they realised long ago that philosophy is the only subject so they teach it to you at school. It is also a country where people value education for its own sake as well.
In England, those with power know that philosophy is the only subject, or the most fundamental subject, so therefore they avoid teaching it at school at all costs.
And even at English universities it is regarded as little more than a hobby.
I exaggerate for effect. As usual.
..........
March 2018
I am further confirmed in my opinion that it is not worth studying languages by Bernard Shaw's sententious observation: "No man fully capable of his own language ever masters another."
At the age of 45, I am quite sure that this contains the greater part of the truth.
Those who say that people are naturally fully capable of being highly multilingual are not really telling the truth in my opinion.
What further compounds my frustration is that I fully realized the truth of this observation when I first read it aged about 18. I very nearly acted upon it and chose not to study languages but circumstances and inertia prevented me from fully acting upon it and rejecting languages as a study. I truly wanted to apply it to my life ,but I got stuck in a course of action that I partially felt to be in some way more suited to me and which I then had to re-persuade myself to fully follow.
Overall, I regret having studied languages and wish that I had studied Philosophy.
--------------------------------
March 2018. A note on Education.
The decisions I made when I was between the ages of about 16 and 20 affected my entire life.
I remember being very conflicted and tortured by the decisions I had to make - mainly with regard to choosing what subjects to study. I remember how hard I found these years and looking back I feel that I made a lot of bad decisions at this time.
I feel that a less specialized education system after the age of 16 and an education system that involved the study of philosophy from the age of 11 would have helped me a lot.
Also an education system that was less competitive and less obsessed with exam success would have helped me too.
I also think that education should be universal, of good quality and a human right rather than something that parents have to pay for. A society should not need to provide Education through privatized institutions. An education of a high standard across the whole of society is essential.
..........
March 2018
I am further confirmed in my opinion that it is not worth studying languages by Bernard Shaw's sententious observation: "No man fully capable of his own language ever masters another."
At the age of 45, I am quite sure that this contains the greater part of the truth.
Those who say that people are naturally fully capable of being highly multilingual are not really telling the truth in my opinion.
What further compounds my frustration is that I fully realized the truth of this observation when I first read it aged about 18. I very nearly acted upon it and chose not to study languages but circumstances and inertia prevented me from fully acting upon it and rejecting languages as a study. I truly wanted to apply it to my life ,but I got stuck in a course of action that I partially felt to be in some way more suited to me and which I then had to re-persuade myself to fully follow.
Overall, I regret having studied languages and wish that I had studied Philosophy.
--------------------------------
March 2018. A note on Education.
The decisions I made when I was between the ages of about 16 and 20 affected my entire life.
I remember being very conflicted and tortured by the decisions I had to make - mainly with regard to choosing what subjects to study. I remember how hard I found these years and looking back I feel that I made a lot of bad decisions at this time.
I feel that a less specialized education system after the age of 16 and an education system that involved the study of philosophy from the age of 11 would have helped me a lot.
Also an education system that was less competitive and less obsessed with exam success would have helped me too.
I also think that education should be universal, of good quality and a human right rather than something that parents have to pay for. A society should not need to provide Education through privatized institutions. An education of a high standard across the whole of society is essential.
22 September 2007
Popper and "Begging the question"
Popper says that a scientific statement is a statement that can be falsified.
"God exists"
"Schizophrenia exists"
Neither of these statements are scientific as neither can be falsified.
Depending on what is meant by the two terms.
I mean by them their conventional meanings.
__
These statements - or similar ones - are also related to examples of "circular reasoning" or "begging the question" or - in Latin - petitio principii (which literally means "begging the principles" I think).
For example, in order to prove the conclusion, "Schizophrenia exists";
it may be said that "all schizophrenics have been found to have brain lesion x,y,z"; and as "schizophrenia is a brain disease"; it therefore must be true that "schizophrenia exists."
This would be an example of petitio principii because the propositions assume that schizophrenia exists, which is that which it is being attempted to prove.
.....
"God exists"
"Schizophrenia exists"
Neither of these statements are scientific as neither can be falsified.
Depending on what is meant by the two terms.
I mean by them their conventional meanings.
__
These statements - or similar ones - are also related to examples of "circular reasoning" or "begging the question" or - in Latin - petitio principii (which literally means "begging the principles" I think).
For example, in order to prove the conclusion, "Schizophrenia exists";
it may be said that "all schizophrenics have been found to have brain lesion x,y,z"; and as "schizophrenia is a brain disease"; it therefore must be true that "schizophrenia exists."
This would be an example of petitio principii because the propositions assume that schizophrenia exists, which is that which it is being attempted to prove.
.....
MBS
Had an interesting experience today in a bookshop.
Was looking through the various sections in a Waterstone's - which seems to be the only kind of bookshop left, but more on that later - and came to History, then to Religion, then to MBS - MBS? What was that? It was a temporary paper sign. MBS? I looked at the books in MBS and they were stuff like astrology and New Age stuff and Paul McKenna and all that. It was quite a large section, 2 shelves wide. MBS? I racked my brains. What did MBS mean?
I asked an attendant, "What does MBS stand for?"
She said "Oh that's Mind, Body and Spirit"
I said "Are you sure it's not Miscellaneous Bull Shit?"
Was looking through the various sections in a Waterstone's - which seems to be the only kind of bookshop left, but more on that later - and came to History, then to Religion, then to MBS - MBS? What was that? It was a temporary paper sign. MBS? I looked at the books in MBS and they were stuff like astrology and New Age stuff and Paul McKenna and all that. It was quite a large section, 2 shelves wide. MBS? I racked my brains. What did MBS mean?
I asked an attendant, "What does MBS stand for?"
She said "Oh that's Mind, Body and Spirit"
I said "Are you sure it's not Miscellaneous Bull Shit?"
13 September 2007
"Fundie"
I am an anti-psychiatry fundie - there is no such thing as mental illness and no such thing as madness.
There are no such things as lunatics, nutters, madmen, loonies, headcases, nutters.
Van Gogh, Hitler, Nietzsche, Ezra Pound - none of them were lunatics or madmen because there is no such thing.
Didn't Nietzsche eventually "go mad" in later life?
Well, he may have suffered from a brain disease in later life but he didn't "go mad" because this is meaningless.
There are no such things as lunatics, nutters, madmen, loonies, headcases, nutters.
Van Gogh, Hitler, Nietzsche, Ezra Pound - none of them were lunatics or madmen because there is no such thing.
Didn't Nietzsche eventually "go mad" in later life?
Well, he may have suffered from a brain disease in later life but he didn't "go mad" because this is meaningless.
11 September 2007
OCD exists?
OCD exists?
Does it?
The psychological patterns are so similar in many "cases" of OCD.
Surely it can be said to exist if only as a metaphorical illness.
It has no biological cause or biological existence therefore it does not exist strictly speaking.
And as has been said before a metaphorical illness is a metaphor and not an illness.
It is absurd to say one person "has OCD" or "mild OCD" and another person does not "have" it.
It is totally normal psychological patterns and tendencies that we all have that have gone haywire.
Everyone - or everyone responsible - can check the back door is locked before they go out.
So anyone can do it ten times.
----
31.01.08
Such thought patterns may constitute a brain disease of some kind but there is no evidence for this.
And to say that OCD is a brain disease is not justified at the present time.
There is no evidence that OCD is a disease of any kind so it can't really be a brain disease.
It is probable that all it is is activity in the upper brain or cortex - and probably normal activity at that.
to be continued...
.....
----
.......
If the mind is entirely sustained and created by brain biology then surely everything in the mind has a biological cause? and a biological footprint?
This may be true but it is possible for psychological and/or mental events to have no biological cause and for them to have only a neurological or memory footprint???
When I scratch my nose because it itches - does this have a biological cause? no. In so much as my free decision to scratch my nose is free and does not have a biological cause....
see previous blog about the mind....
Does it leave a biological footprint? no. it is a normal body process.
Does it?
The psychological patterns are so similar in many "cases" of OCD.
Surely it can be said to exist if only as a metaphorical illness.
It has no biological cause or biological existence therefore it does not exist strictly speaking.
And as has been said before a metaphorical illness is a metaphor and not an illness.
It is absurd to say one person "has OCD" or "mild OCD" and another person does not "have" it.
It is totally normal psychological patterns and tendencies that we all have that have gone haywire.
Everyone - or everyone responsible - can check the back door is locked before they go out.
So anyone can do it ten times.
----
31.01.08
Such thought patterns may constitute a brain disease of some kind but there is no evidence for this.
And to say that OCD is a brain disease is not justified at the present time.
There is no evidence that OCD is a disease of any kind so it can't really be a brain disease.
It is probable that all it is is activity in the upper brain or cortex - and probably normal activity at that.
to be continued...
.....
----
.......
If the mind is entirely sustained and created by brain biology then surely everything in the mind has a biological cause? and a biological footprint?
This may be true but it is possible for psychological and/or mental events to have no biological cause and for them to have only a neurological or memory footprint???
When I scratch my nose because it itches - does this have a biological cause? no. In so much as my free decision to scratch my nose is free and does not have a biological cause....
see previous blog about the mind....
Does it leave a biological footprint? no. it is a normal body process.
9 September 2007
Graffiti
Graffiti is as natural as plant growth.
I think graffiti is art and should be legal as far as possible.....
I think graffiti is art and should be legal as far as possible.....
"Inverted" "commas"
In my experience, nothing shows disdain more effectively than a couple of so-called "inverted" "commas".
------------------------------------
"Rehab": CitizenSofa Version
They tried to make me go to rehab
and I said "no fucking chance"
so they got the police,
hand-cuffed me and stuck me in the back of a cop van.
"Rehab"
They tried to make me go to rehab
I said No No No
They said "We'll make you go"
And I said
"No you can't call the police
Because I am a rich and famous pop star."
And they said "Oh OK. You have a point there."
Why oh why fucking why don't pop stars ever get sectioned???
This is the most profound philosophical musing I can think of at the moment.
I must say the idea of Doherty getting sectioned fills me with glee. Only joking.
He wouldn't hack psych ward. He'd be climbing the walls.
You may say but he is not mad and you are.
Well I disagree.
It is my contention that when you say someone is "mad"
all you mean is:
"I disapprove of this person's thoughts and behaviour"
and NOTHING more.
------------------------------------
"Rehab": CitizenSofa Version
They tried to make me go to rehab
and I said "no fucking chance"
so they got the police,
hand-cuffed me and stuck me in the back of a cop van.
"Rehab"
They tried to make me go to rehab
I said No No No
They said "We'll make you go"
And I said
"No you can't call the police
Because I am a rich and famous pop star."
And they said "Oh OK. You have a point there."
Why oh why fucking why don't pop stars ever get sectioned???
This is the most profound philosophical musing I can think of at the moment.
I must say the idea of Doherty getting sectioned fills me with glee. Only joking.
He wouldn't hack psych ward. He'd be climbing the walls.
You may say but he is not mad and you are.
Well I disagree.
It is my contention that when you say someone is "mad"
all you mean is:
"I disapprove of this person's thoughts and behaviour"
and NOTHING more.
7 September 2007
6 September 2007
6th September 2007.
I have decided to put the blog up because there are at least some bits of it that are worth putting up.
5 September 2007
"Saint Joan"
Saw "Saint Joan" by Bernard Shaw.
Great play.
Always had a soft spot for Joan of Arc.
One theme of the play - how society tolerates difference and dissidence is interesting.
In 1431 Joan was executed as a heretic.
Nowadays she would undoubtedly have had the pleasure of interacting with psychiatric services.
Something of an improvement on being burnt alive.
Great play.
Always had a soft spot for Joan of Arc.
One theme of the play - how society tolerates difference and dissidence is interesting.
In 1431 Joan was executed as a heretic.
Nowadays she would undoubtedly have had the pleasure of interacting with psychiatric services.
Something of an improvement on being burnt alive.
Crime
Crime is caused by capitalism.
Capitalism is a crime.
No, seriously if you ask a lot of criminologists what causes crime, they will say Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
But you won't hear this in The Sun and The Mail.
Capitalism is a crime.
No, seriously if you ask a lot of criminologists what causes crime, they will say Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
But you won't hear this in The Sun and The Mail.
Wednesday 5th September 2007.
The discrepancy between advertland and tellyland and reality is getting bigger.
Adverts about spacious wonderlands.
In reality there is hardly room to breathe.
Hard to keep the show on the road, surely?
-----
The fact that loads of people are single is not accidental.
It is deliberate.
Capitalism wants atoms.
......
Adverts about spacious wonderlands.
In reality there is hardly room to breathe.
Hard to keep the show on the road, surely?
-----
The fact that loads of people are single is not accidental.
It is deliberate.
Capitalism wants atoms.
......
2 September 2007
"Freedom Next Time"
Just read "Freedom Next Time" by John Pilger.
Excellent as ever.
I challenge anyone to read it and not be compelled and convinced.
Also just read a great article by him in The Morning Star.
www.johnpilger.com/
Excellent as ever.
I challenge anyone to read it and not be compelled and convinced.
Also just read a great article by him in The Morning Star.
www.johnpilger.com/
30 August 2007
Why?
WHY SHOULD IT MATTER WHAT I SAY????
==
I take no delight
In being proved right
or wrong.
Just imagine I don't exist.
==
I take no delight
In being proved right
or wrong.
Just imagine I don't exist.
CALL THAT A JOB!???
I DESERVE ALL YOU HAVE.
MANY PEOPLE COULD DO WHAT YOU DO. EASILY.
NOT MANY PEOPLE NEED TO DO WHAT YOU DO.
MANY PEOPLE COULD DO WHAT YOU DO. EASILY.
NOT MANY PEOPLE NEED TO DO WHAT YOU DO.
Anniversary 1 Year in existence
This blog is now a year old.
Only about a third of what I write gets put up.
"Thank ****", I hear you say.
But sod it. It's going up.
Only about a third of what I write gets put up.
"Thank ****", I hear you say.
But sod it. It's going up.
USA Bombed
None of these bombings led to the establishment of humane democracies in any of the countries concerned.
For Reasons of State
For Reasons of State
by Michael Bakunin
"The State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest….
This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue….
Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellow man is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue…..
This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries---statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors---if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.
There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."
MICHAEL BAKUNIN. 19th century Russian thinker.
Introduction.
"
The lessons of history are rarely clear and permit few conclusions of any generality, but among those few Bakunin’s judgments, just cited, must surely rank among the most firm. If they are open to criticism at all, it is that the century that followed has proven them to be banal.
There is a traditional form of sentimentality in the English-speaking world that regards the United States as uniquely immune to such judgements. It is easily documented that such illusions persist. No doubt a Flat Earth society also holds regular meetings somewhere...
"
NOAM CHOMSKY
In the Introduction to “For Reasons of State”, 1970.
The Flat Earth society alluded to above still has very well-attended meetings.
-----
Support for the USA and its actions in the English-speaking world and across the globe continues, because of sentimentality and ignorance. Also because of racism.
by Michael Bakunin
"The State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest….
This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue….
Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellow man is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue…..
This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries---statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors---if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.
There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."
MICHAEL BAKUNIN. 19th century Russian thinker.
Introduction.
"
The lessons of history are rarely clear and permit few conclusions of any generality, but among those few Bakunin’s judgments, just cited, must surely rank among the most firm. If they are open to criticism at all, it is that the century that followed has proven them to be banal.
There is a traditional form of sentimentality in the English-speaking world that regards the United States as uniquely immune to such judgements. It is easily documented that such illusions persist. No doubt a Flat Earth society also holds regular meetings somewhere...
"
NOAM CHOMSKY
In the Introduction to “For Reasons of State”, 1970.
The Flat Earth society alluded to above still has very well-attended meetings.
-----
Support for the USA and its actions in the English-speaking world and across the globe continues, because of sentimentality and ignorance. Also because of racism.
29 August 2007
29th August 2007.
I had taken this blog down for a few days and it made me feel a lot better.
But then the same things get my goat again and I feel I need to put my side back up to public view.
It's not kicking back at the world.
To me it is nothing more than pointing out the obvious.
Why bother to point out the obvious?
Because no one else does.
I am putting this back up as I have a right to my view.
But then the same things get my goat again and I feel I need to put my side back up to public view.
It's not kicking back at the world.
To me it is nothing more than pointing out the obvious.
Why bother to point out the obvious?
Because no one else does.
I am putting this back up as I have a right to my view.
22 August 2007
Against Leaders
The cult of leaders is childish in the extreme.
Leaders are a comparative irrelevance.
Policies are all that really matter.
I support the anti-leader camp in the Green Party.
Leaders are very 20th century.
They are not necessary any more.
The "leaderisation" of politics is an attempt to reduce politics to personality differences as the policy differences become less and less.
It is what capitalism wants. The leaders are its puppets.
Leaders are a comparative irrelevance.
Policies are all that really matter.
I support the anti-leader camp in the Green Party.
Leaders are very 20th century.
They are not necessary any more.
The "leaderisation" of politics is an attempt to reduce politics to personality differences as the policy differences become less and less.
It is what capitalism wants. The leaders are its puppets.
21 August 2007
Against Crimewatch
Crimewatch is propaganda.
Crimewatch is a truly and awesomely unique programme:
IT IS THE ONLY PROGRAMME ON TELEVISION THAT REPRESENTS REAL LIFE AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
A CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION IS THE ONLY EVER (NON-FICTIONAL AND NON-DRAMATIC) TV REPRESENTATION OF LIFE AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIVED.
What does that say about us?
I never ever watch it. Because it scares the shit out of me.
I can't help thinking that it is supposed to scare the shit out of me.
Which in itself scares the shit out of me.
It divides humanity into two groups: normal people and savage, feral criminals.
......
--------------------------------------
Governments are bigger criminals and wars bigger crimes than anything shown on "Crimewatch."
The inequality of our society is a major crime too.
Programmes like "Crimewatch" are designed to make you forget things like these, amongst other things.
Crimewatch is a truly and awesomely unique programme:
IT IS THE ONLY PROGRAMME ON TELEVISION THAT REPRESENTS REAL LIFE AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
A CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION IS THE ONLY EVER (NON-FICTIONAL AND NON-DRAMATIC) TV REPRESENTATION OF LIFE AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIVED.
What does that say about us?
I never ever watch it. Because it scares the shit out of me.
I can't help thinking that it is supposed to scare the shit out of me.
Which in itself scares the shit out of me.
It divides humanity into two groups: normal people and savage, feral criminals.
......
--------------------------------------
Governments are bigger criminals and wars bigger crimes than anything shown on "Crimewatch."
The inequality of our society is a major crime too.
Programmes like "Crimewatch" are designed to make you forget things like these, amongst other things.
19 August 2007
A permanent memorial for Tony Bliar?
As a living memorial to Tony Blair I suggest we make a change to the English language so that we never forget his infamy.
Whenever we say "liar" we should instead from now on say "bliar".
So instead of saying "you fecking liar!", we should now say "you fecking bliar!".
In fact, we could even get carried away and change the verb "lie" to "blie", as in "don't you fecking blie to me!".
Or we could invent a different type of lie. A "white lie" is a harmless, inconsequential lie.
A "blie", on the other hand, could be a momentous falsehood used to justify terrible deeds.
Whenever we say "liar" we should instead from now on say "bliar".
So instead of saying "you fecking liar!", we should now say "you fecking bliar!".
In fact, we could even get carried away and change the verb "lie" to "blie", as in "don't you fecking blie to me!".
Or we could invent a different type of lie. A "white lie" is a harmless, inconsequential lie.
A "blie", on the other hand, could be a momentous falsehood used to justify terrible deeds.
I am a scientist
A friend said to me "I can't comment on climate change as I am not a scientist."
I said "Well I can because I am a scientist."
He said "What? You're not a scientist!"
I said "Yes I am. I have a B in GCSE Physics and I can tell you that if you put Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere it will warm the atmosphere. That is what we are doing in exponentially increasing amounts so the atmosphere is warming on a very large scale.
I can also tell you that if you warm the atmosphere it will rain."
I said "Well I can because I am a scientist."
He said "What? You're not a scientist!"
I said "Yes I am. I have a B in GCSE Physics and I can tell you that if you put Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere it will warm the atmosphere. That is what we are doing in exponentially increasing amounts so the atmosphere is warming on a very large scale.
I can also tell you that if you warm the atmosphere it will rain."
"Economy" reprise.
I said in a previous blog "there is no such thing as an economy."
I stand by it.
"Economy" has been defined as:
"The fair distribution and wise use of RESOURCES. The antithesis of what most politicians and industrialists call "the economy.""
I stand by it.
"Economy" has been defined as:
"The fair distribution and wise use of RESOURCES. The antithesis of what most politicians and industrialists call "the economy.""
14 August 2007
Global warming
When you add carbon to the atmosphere it will warm.
When you heat the atmosphere it will rain.
Serious and dangerous global warming has already happened.
When you heat the atmosphere it will rain.
Serious and dangerous global warming has already happened.
13 August 2007
Monday 13th August 2007
Not everyone on the planet has a rich consumerist lifestyle.
People die every day from war and starvation.
They might as well have disappeared for all the leaders of the rich world care.
People die every day from war and starvation.
They might as well have disappeared for all the leaders of the rich world care.
12 August 2007
Iraq and genocide
Why do I say the genocide perpetrated against Iraq is anti-Semitic?
Because it is at least in part targetted at Iraqi Arabs and I believe it is a result of sometimes overt, sometimes latent, even subconscious (anti-Arab) racism.
There were many overt examples of anti-Arab racism in the English and American media at the time of the first Gulf "War", as well as among the US and English military at the time of the first Gulf "War".
Why Iraq? That's the question that I have asked myself for 18 years. Why Iraq?
There have been many terrible regimes across the globe during the last 18 years.
Why have we not bombed their countries, bombed their civilians, starved their people, destroyed their countries?
Why Iraq?
Everyone says it's about oil.
I think that's a load of bollocks to be frank. I have scorn for that view.
They are bombing, starving and destroying Iraq - for oil? Cock!
What precisely has killing loads of people got to do with oil?
Fred Halliday concurs that it has little or nothing to do with oil.
Fred Halliday says it is power politics.
There's a simple and in my view correct answer: racism and anti-Arab anti-Semitism, and Anglo-American insecurity and triumphalism.
Is it a coincidence that the countries attacking this country are the USA and England?
Is it a coincidence that this country is a cradle of civilisation?
------
Other reasons have been given for the destruction:
"Another factor to consider is that the destruction of Iraqi civilian life means a much more compliant working class when Iraq's oil returns to the open market.
As Chomsky explains: "So, if the population of Iraq were reduced or marginalized, maybe even reduced to such a level that they are barely functional, then when the time comes to bring Iraqi production back on line, they will be less of an impediment" (quoted in Iraq Under Siege, p.53)."
Source:http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/iraq_the_continuing_war.php
So the destruction of Iraq is to "soften up" the people?
What is left to be "an impediment"?
......
------------------------------------------------
Because it is at least in part targetted at Iraqi Arabs and I believe it is a result of sometimes overt, sometimes latent, even subconscious (anti-Arab) racism.
There were many overt examples of anti-Arab racism in the English and American media at the time of the first Gulf "War", as well as among the US and English military at the time of the first Gulf "War".
Why Iraq? That's the question that I have asked myself for 18 years. Why Iraq?
There have been many terrible regimes across the globe during the last 18 years.
Why have we not bombed their countries, bombed their civilians, starved their people, destroyed their countries?
Why Iraq?
Everyone says it's about oil.
I think that's a load of bollocks to be frank. I have scorn for that view.
They are bombing, starving and destroying Iraq - for oil? Cock!
What precisely has killing loads of people got to do with oil?
Fred Halliday concurs that it has little or nothing to do with oil.
Fred Halliday says it is power politics.
There's a simple and in my view correct answer: racism and anti-Arab anti-Semitism, and Anglo-American insecurity and triumphalism.
Is it a coincidence that the countries attacking this country are the USA and England?
Is it a coincidence that this country is a cradle of civilisation?
------
Other reasons have been given for the destruction:
"Another factor to consider is that the destruction of Iraqi civilian life means a much more compliant working class when Iraq's oil returns to the open market.
As Chomsky explains: "So, if the population of Iraq were reduced or marginalized, maybe even reduced to such a level that they are barely functional, then when the time comes to bring Iraqi production back on line, they will be less of an impediment" (quoted in Iraq Under Siege, p.53)."
Source:http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/iraq_the_continuing_war.php
So the destruction of Iraq is to "soften up" the people?
What is left to be "an impediment"?
......
------------------------------------------------
Albert Ellis - CBT - REBT
"There are three 'musts' that hold us back," he wrote. "I must do well. You must treat me well. And the world must be easy."
We upset ourselves with the grandiose requirement that we should perform perfectly, and that others should be nice to us. But in fact we are imperfect: we fail, in love and in work, all the time. And other people, often enough, "act like jerks"."
Albert Ellis.
I very much like R.E.B.T. and C.B.T. and think they are philosophically correct.
They are of course similar to Stoicism and also other ancient philosophies.
There are those who accuse REBT/CBT of being pro-capitalist and stuff like that.
And they are accused of encouraging conformity and acceptance of circumstances that are adverse and which are adverse but could be changed.
Well they are pretty much the same thing as Stoicism anyway.
And Stoicism is not pro-capitalist per se obviously.
We upset ourselves with the grandiose requirement that we should perform perfectly, and that others should be nice to us. But in fact we are imperfect: we fail, in love and in work, all the time. And other people, often enough, "act like jerks"."
Albert Ellis.
I very much like R.E.B.T. and C.B.T. and think they are philosophically correct.
They are of course similar to Stoicism and also other ancient philosophies.
There are those who accuse REBT/CBT of being pro-capitalist and stuff like that.
And they are accused of encouraging conformity and acceptance of circumstances that are adverse and which are adverse but could be changed.
Well they are pretty much the same thing as Stoicism anyway.
And Stoicism is not pro-capitalist per se obviously.
Thought is not language: Sceptical reflections on language.
Sceptical reflections on language.
Thought is not language.
Thought is not language and language is not necessary for thought.
....
Thought is not language.
Thought is not language and language is not necessary for thought.
....
10 August 2007
"Rational Human Being"
What do I mean when I say I am a "rational human being"?
Diagnosed as being my major problem, being a rational human being is hard.
I just mean as a human I like to think I am capable of at least trying to be rational.
This belief may be totally mistaken. I think it is not mistaken.
When I was mocked for calling myself "a rational human being",
I assume that it was from the perspective that obviously humans aren't always rational - look around you or read a history book. Also that terrible deeds were done by people who thought they were being totally rational.
--------------------
But we are capable of being reasonable. It is part of our nature.
You may say "one man's reason is another man's folly" and there is no agreement as to what is objectively rational or reasonable. And that what is rational is just what the speaker says is rational. It's an opinion.
Well, I would dissent, along with Richard Dawkins I would hope, from this view.
All the same, any belief may be totally mistaken.
....
-----
Just take a look at this:
"The sickness of secularism: The threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion."
Soumaya Ghannoushi
"We are witnessing the rise of an arrogant secularist rhetoric founded on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress, dogmas which arouse ridicule in serious academic and intellectual circles nowadays."
Soumaya Ghannoushi
Hmmmmm....
For a start:
Secularism does not mean "no religion" or "anti-religion" it means "any, all or no religion."
..... to be continued.
Diagnosed as being my major problem, being a rational human being is hard.
I just mean as a human I like to think I am capable of at least trying to be rational.
This belief may be totally mistaken. I think it is not mistaken.
When I was mocked for calling myself "a rational human being",
I assume that it was from the perspective that obviously humans aren't always rational - look around you or read a history book. Also that terrible deeds were done by people who thought they were being totally rational.
--------------------
But we are capable of being reasonable. It is part of our nature.
You may say "one man's reason is another man's folly" and there is no agreement as to what is objectively rational or reasonable. And that what is rational is just what the speaker says is rational. It's an opinion.
Well, I would dissent, along with Richard Dawkins I would hope, from this view.
All the same, any belief may be totally mistaken.
....
-----
Just take a look at this:
"The sickness of secularism: The threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion."
Soumaya Ghannoushi
"We are witnessing the rise of an arrogant secularist rhetoric founded on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress, dogmas which arouse ridicule in serious academic and intellectual circles nowadays."
Soumaya Ghannoushi
Hmmmmm....
For a start:
Secularism does not mean "no religion" or "anti-religion" it means "any, all or no religion."
..... to be continued.
9 August 2007
OBE? - No thanks!
If a miracle happened and I was offered an OBE for services to something I would simply say to her:
I do not want a fecking Order of the fecking British Empire because there is no such fecking thing as the fecking British Empire end of fecking story, ya hoor sor!
The British Empire does not exist.
Therefore it is apart from anything else highly silly to award people with awards called Orders of the British Empire, or with any awards referring to this non-existent institution.
When Spile Milligan was offered an OBE he said, "I would rather have got the OMK - The Order of Milton Keynes. Because at least Milton Keynes exists."
I do not want a fecking Order of the fecking British Empire because there is no such fecking thing as the fecking British Empire end of fecking story, ya hoor sor!
The British Empire does not exist.
Therefore it is apart from anything else highly silly to award people with awards called Orders of the British Empire, or with any awards referring to this non-existent institution.
When Spile Milligan was offered an OBE he said, "I would rather have got the OMK - The Order of Milton Keynes. Because at least Milton Keynes exists."
Open Veins - The Pillage of Continents
"Open Veins of Latin America: 5 Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
Eduardo Galeano.
It continues.
This is one of the most amazing books I have ever read. It is exciting, readable and interesting.
It makes interesting points about economics as well.
Are these books possible? :-
"Open Veins of Africa: 5 Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
It continues.
"Open Veins of Asia: 5 Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
It continues.
Dictionary of Green Ideas.
Here are some more entries from my prize possession,
A Dictionary of Green Ideas by John Button. (1988).
(Words in capitals refer to other entries)
Nationalism
[1844. L natio, birth, tribe]
While it can be taken to acknowledge a shared cultural heritage and the right of a people with a common culture to political autonomy (see NATION), nationalism today relates more often to the (frequently arbitrary) area within the borders of a nation state (see STATE), and the engineered patriotism created by politicians and generals to control its citizenry.
"We cannot discuss nationalism without first defining the word "nation", and the only definition which covers the ground is "a community organised for war". A nationalist is thus a person who wishes to surround himself, and those who can be induced to conspire with him, with a closely and aggressively guarded military frontier, and incidentally to prevent as far as possible that cross-fertilization of ideas which always has been and always must be the sole insurance against the relapse into barbarism which perpetually threatens all human communities".
Aldous Huxley, 1937.
"Nationalism is a tough political power to replace. Throughout the twentieth century we have watched grudging efforts to modify the cruder forms of nationalism, and the continuing resistance to this process. This may explain the decade of UN conferences, where over a hundred governments have repeatedly voted in favour of resolutions on international action, but signally failed to do much to implement them. There is a curious tension between what governments subconsciously know to be the international realities and what they are prepared to accept in limitation of their own sovereign interests." (Barbara Ward, in Erik Eckholm, 1982)
Nation
[14c. L nation, birth, tribe]
Usually used as a synonym for STATE, though it is important to recognise that the inhabitants of culturally homogenous areas which are not recognised as states may consider themselves to be part of a nation, albeit a nation which is considered second-rate because it is not a state, such as Scotland and Wales within the UK, or Quebec within Canada.
State
[16c in this sense. L status, manner of standing]
(also "country", NATION, "nation state")
An arbitrarily-defined part of the earth's surface, occasionally having a human population with a common culture and language, which is more or less cut off from all other parts of the world and forms the geographical base for centralised and hierarchical control of its human population by powerful elites. The division of the world into states is a condition so much taken for granted that we almost never stop to think why we have states at all, why we need them, and what the world might be like without them. Yet the very notion of the state is antithetical to green thinking. "The nation-state makes us less human. It towers over us, cajoles us, disempowers us, bilks us of our substance, humiliates us - and often kills us in its imperialist adventures" (Murray Bookchin, 1986). The idea of arbitrary division and rigid boundaries is totally unecological, the concept of centralised elitist control contrary to individual empowerment, yet every aspect of our lives is controlled by the fact of our citizenship of one of the world's 229 nations........
[incomplete]
Self-determination
[1911 in this sense]
The belief that a NATION or cultural group should decide its own policies without pressure from outside. See COLONIALISM, NEOCOLONIALISM.
Anarchism
[16c. anrchia, without a ruler]
The refusal to accept forced AUTHORITY, especially governmental authority. From its very earliest use, the term was subverted by those in authority to mean a state of disorder and chaos, thought to result from the failure or absence of government. "Anarchism, if it means anything at all, is trying to remove coercive authority from human relationships." (Alan Albon, Green Anarchist, June/July 1986).
..... [incomplete]
Whether or not it is called anarchism, a belief in individual FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY and the right not to be coerced by arbitrary authority is central to green thinking.
Mental Illness
[c 1950]
A creation of professional psychiatrists from the mid-nineteenth century onwards to explain rebellious or anti-social behaviour, usually called 'hysteria' until the 1950s and thought of as a predominantly female "disorder". In the last twenty years many people have questioned the legitimacy of the label mental illness, and have criticised the way that those given the label are treated as second-class human beings. Green-thinkers prefer to take mental health or mental wellness as their starting-point, rather than framing the issue within the conventional and limiting terms of mental illness, disease or handicap. Some humanistic psychologists use the term 'mental distress': "Humanistic psychology does not attach very much importance to diagnostic categories, and does not see mental distress as a medical problem". (John Rowan, 1976).
Economy
[c.1530 Gk oikonomia, household management]
The fair distribution and wise use of RESOURCES. The antithesis of what most politicians and industrialists call "the economy." Some green thinkers, following Donald Worster's example (Nature's Economy: The Roots of Ecology, 1977), see ecology as "nature's economy", thus stressing that economic sustainability must be based on ecological sustainability. See ECONOMICS.
Economics
[1792 Gk oikonomos, household manager]
The exploration of WEALTH, VALUE and the distribution and management of resources.
...
"Conventional economics is a form of brain damage." (Hazel Henderson, quoted in John Elkington, 1987).
...
[to be completed]
A Dictionary of Green Ideas by John Button. (1988).
(Words in capitals refer to other entries)
Nationalism
[1844. L natio, birth, tribe]
While it can be taken to acknowledge a shared cultural heritage and the right of a people with a common culture to political autonomy (see NATION), nationalism today relates more often to the (frequently arbitrary) area within the borders of a nation state (see STATE), and the engineered patriotism created by politicians and generals to control its citizenry.
"We cannot discuss nationalism without first defining the word "nation", and the only definition which covers the ground is "a community organised for war". A nationalist is thus a person who wishes to surround himself, and those who can be induced to conspire with him, with a closely and aggressively guarded military frontier, and incidentally to prevent as far as possible that cross-fertilization of ideas which always has been and always must be the sole insurance against the relapse into barbarism which perpetually threatens all human communities".
Aldous Huxley, 1937.
"Nationalism is a tough political power to replace. Throughout the twentieth century we have watched grudging efforts to modify the cruder forms of nationalism, and the continuing resistance to this process. This may explain the decade of UN conferences, where over a hundred governments have repeatedly voted in favour of resolutions on international action, but signally failed to do much to implement them. There is a curious tension between what governments subconsciously know to be the international realities and what they are prepared to accept in limitation of their own sovereign interests." (Barbara Ward, in Erik Eckholm, 1982)
Nation
[14c. L nation, birth, tribe]
Usually used as a synonym for STATE, though it is important to recognise that the inhabitants of culturally homogenous areas which are not recognised as states may consider themselves to be part of a nation, albeit a nation which is considered second-rate because it is not a state, such as Scotland and Wales within the UK, or Quebec within Canada.
State
[16c in this sense. L status, manner of standing]
(also "country", NATION, "nation state")
An arbitrarily-defined part of the earth's surface, occasionally having a human population with a common culture and language, which is more or less cut off from all other parts of the world and forms the geographical base for centralised and hierarchical control of its human population by powerful elites. The division of the world into states is a condition so much taken for granted that we almost never stop to think why we have states at all, why we need them, and what the world might be like without them. Yet the very notion of the state is antithetical to green thinking. "The nation-state makes us less human. It towers over us, cajoles us, disempowers us, bilks us of our substance, humiliates us - and often kills us in its imperialist adventures" (Murray Bookchin, 1986). The idea of arbitrary division and rigid boundaries is totally unecological, the concept of centralised elitist control contrary to individual empowerment, yet every aspect of our lives is controlled by the fact of our citizenship of one of the world's 229 nations........
[incomplete]
Self-determination
[1911 in this sense]
The belief that a NATION or cultural group should decide its own policies without pressure from outside. See COLONIALISM, NEOCOLONIALISM.
Anarchism
[16c. anrchia, without a ruler]
The refusal to accept forced AUTHORITY, especially governmental authority. From its very earliest use, the term was subverted by those in authority to mean a state of disorder and chaos, thought to result from the failure or absence of government. "Anarchism, if it means anything at all, is trying to remove coercive authority from human relationships." (Alan Albon, Green Anarchist, June/July 1986).
..... [incomplete]
Whether or not it is called anarchism, a belief in individual FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY and the right not to be coerced by arbitrary authority is central to green thinking.
Mental Illness
[c 1950]
A creation of professional psychiatrists from the mid-nineteenth century onwards to explain rebellious or anti-social behaviour, usually called 'hysteria' until the 1950s and thought of as a predominantly female "disorder". In the last twenty years many people have questioned the legitimacy of the label mental illness, and have criticised the way that those given the label are treated as second-class human beings. Green-thinkers prefer to take mental health or mental wellness as their starting-point, rather than framing the issue within the conventional and limiting terms of mental illness, disease or handicap. Some humanistic psychologists use the term 'mental distress': "Humanistic psychology does not attach very much importance to diagnostic categories, and does not see mental distress as a medical problem". (John Rowan, 1976).
Economy
[c.1530 Gk oikonomia, household management]
The fair distribution and wise use of RESOURCES. The antithesis of what most politicians and industrialists call "the economy." Some green thinkers, following Donald Worster's example (Nature's Economy: The Roots of Ecology, 1977), see ecology as "nature's economy", thus stressing that economic sustainability must be based on ecological sustainability. See ECONOMICS.
Economics
[1792 Gk oikonomos, household manager]
The exploration of WEALTH, VALUE and the distribution and management of resources.
...
"Conventional economics is a form of brain damage." (Hazel Henderson, quoted in John Elkington, 1987).
...
[to be completed]
8 August 2007
Fair Trade v. "Free" Trade
There is no such thing as Free Trade.
There is only fair trade and unfair trade.
Discuss.
What goes by the name of free trade certainly constitutes the opposite of freedom for some people.
There is only fair trade and unfair trade.
Discuss.
What goes by the name of free trade certainly constitutes the opposite of freedom for some people.
7 August 2007
The Greatest Quote of All Time?
"My country is the world.
My religion is to do good."
Thomas Paine.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is a good candidate for being the greatest quote or "motto" ever in my opinion.
If you like quotes and mottoes, proverbs and adages etc.
The thing is - everyone can relate to it and try to enable and live up to it - even though they may be nationalist or religious in whatever way.
--------------------------------------------------------------
He is indisputably an "English Che Guevara" figure.
Though at the moment Che Guevara is more well known than him in England. Probably.
Though at the moment Che Guevara is more well known than him in England. Probably.
Why should a lawyer have to say things like this?
Straight from the horse's mouth. Couldn't have put it better myself:
"Lord Hoffmann, ruled that there is no
"state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation"- the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from article five of the European convention, the right to liberty."
It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Mr Blunkett which posed a threat, he declared.
"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." "
Lord Hoffmann,
regarding NewLabourUSDemocrat PartyofEngland Terrorism/AntiTerrorism Policies.
Why should a lawyer have to say things like this?
Perhaps a constitution would help.
"Lord Hoffmann, ruled that there is no
"state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation"- the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from article five of the European convention, the right to liberty."
It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Mr Blunkett which posed a threat, he declared.
"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." "
Lord Hoffmann,
regarding NewLabourUSDemocrat PartyofEngland Terrorism/AntiTerrorism Policies.
Why should a lawyer have to say things like this?
Perhaps a constitution would help.
Kenan Malik
"Neither a culture, nor a way of life, nor yet a language, has a God-given right to exist."
Kenan Malik, in "Let Them Die".
-----------------------
Kennan Malik is an excellent and interesting writer.
His arguments are worth engaging with.
www.kenanmalik.com
Kenan Malik, in "Let Them Die".
-----------------------
Kennan Malik is an excellent and interesting writer.
His arguments are worth engaging with.
www.kenanmalik.com
"Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so".
"Finally, I cannot but add that no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist, except in the sense in which believers in the literal truth of the Scriptures, while unable to make contributions to evolutionary theory, are not precluded from making contributions to archaelogy and Semitic philology. Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so."
E.J. Hobsbawm. "Nations and Nationalism since 1780."
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein.
"Nationalism is the hand maiden of racism".....
Hmmmm....
As someone who would have called themself a "committed political nationalist" I need to think about this.....
Hobsbawm is comparing belief in nationalism or a nation to belief in a religion.
I just reckon that the bottom line is that if there is a group of people who share a culture, then this group should be allowed self-determination.
----
We all have our foibles: Hobsbawm himself is, or was, a Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-communist and maybe a Trotskyist too (?).
All of these things are fantasies as well.
----
Most conventional historians of nationalism, including Hobsbawm, more or less insist that nationalism as an ideology roughly began in 1789 along with the French Revolution.
My first reaction is "How can this be so?"
[to be continued]
....
Hobsbawm's contention seems to be that before about 1789, the ethnic or cultural group was never necessarily identified with or associated with a source of political power.
Once again I say, "How can this be so?".
Intuition says "How can this be so?".
....
Can nationalism ever be progressive and left-wing?
....
-----------------
This must ultimately mean something like -
E.J. Hobsbawm. "Nations and Nationalism since 1780."
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein.
"Nationalism is the hand maiden of racism".....
Hmmmm....
As someone who would have called themself a "committed political nationalist" I need to think about this.....
Hobsbawm is comparing belief in nationalism or a nation to belief in a religion.
I just reckon that the bottom line is that if there is a group of people who share a culture, then this group should be allowed self-determination.
----
We all have our foibles: Hobsbawm himself is, or was, a Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-communist and maybe a Trotskyist too (?).
All of these things are fantasies as well.
----
Most conventional historians of nationalism, including Hobsbawm, more or less insist that nationalism as an ideology roughly began in 1789 along with the French Revolution.
My first reaction is "How can this be so?"
[to be continued]
....
Hobsbawm's contention seems to be that before about 1789, the ethnic or cultural group was never necessarily identified with or associated with a source of political power.
Once again I say, "How can this be so?".
Intuition says "How can this be so?".
....
Can nationalism ever be progressive and left-wing?
....
-----------------
"...the....assumption, that national identification is somehow so natural, primary and permanent as to precede history, is...widely held..."
Top Marksist Apostle - Eric Hobsbawm.
"Nationalism requires too much belief in what is simply not so."
Eric Hobsbawm.
This must ultimately mean something like -
LES NATIONS SONT DES FANTASIES.....
6 August 2007
"Milosevic can stop it now"
During the 1999 NATO (North American Terrorist Organisation) "50th Anniversary Air Show" bombing of Serbia - Tony Blair made the ridiculous and idiotic statement "Milosevic can stop it now!" in order to add justification to the bombing.
Logically the only person who could have stopped the bombing was the person doing the bombing - a certain Tony Blair.
There was no intention of stopping the bombing whatever Milosevic did anyway.
Lies and propaganda - Blair all over.
During the same bombing Blair said (something along the lines of) that he had no alternative but to do what he was doing. Utter bollocks obviously.
I am not saying that the bombing was not justified but I found such statements by Blair to be particularly barbaric and absurd.
If you are the person who is giving the orders to bomb then you are obviously the only person who can stop it.
This is related to the constant mantra that we are fed about so many things: "There is no alternative." TINA.
This is also self-evidently false. If you are free to do it you must be free not to do it. Surely?
TATA to TINA.
There Are Thousands of Alternatives.
During the same bombing Blair said (something along the lines of) that he had no alternative but to do what he was doing. Utter bollocks obviously.
I am not saying that the bombing was not justified but I found such statements by Blair to be particularly barbaric and absurd.
If you are the person who is giving the orders to bomb then you are obviously the only person who can stop it.
This is related to the constant mantra that we are fed about so many things: "There is no alternative." TINA.
This is also self-evidently false. If you are free to do it you must be free not to do it. Surely?
TATA to TINA.
There Are Thousands of Alternatives.
Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
"Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth" is one of my favourite websites.
It's excellent.
It's what the internet is all about IMHO, if you ask me.
It is to be found here:
http://pocm.info/index.html
-----
It's excellent.
It's what the internet is all about IMHO, if you ask me.
It is to be found here:
http://pocm.info/index.html
-----
2 August 2007
The Sun Glorifies Terrorism!
The Sun has on many occasions glorified (state) terrorism.
This fact should be assimilated.
In other words it does exactly what others are not allowed to do.
There are other reasons why I don't like The Sun.
One is that it thinks it speaks for the average English person and that it's finger is on the pulse of the nation. I won't even bother discussing this.
They say there is a demand for the type of news coverage they provide.
Now if The Sun did not exist there would not be armies of people banging on the doors of Fleet Street demanding that a dirt rag sheet be produced for them without delay.
T S Eliot: “Those who aim to give the public what the public wants begin by underestimating the public taste, and end by debauching it.”
As for Page 3. It's not the fact that there is a pair of tits every morning on Page 3 that's the problem. This could even get boring.
It is, as has been pointed out by others, the utter sexism inherent in the whole package that is Page 3 and what it entails.
The Sun seems to want to debase and degrade; it wants us to celebrate our boorishness and ignorance; to be a slob and proud of it.
To be the perfect thoughtless automaton consumer.
Mind you The Sun is very funny sometimes.
Found the headline to the story about Brian May of Queen fame getting his Ph.d. very amusing: "Is thesis the real life or is thesis just fantasy?" Very droll. Maybe they should rename the newspaper The Pun.
But everything is a joke to them.
And the degenerates who write for the rag spout such quasi-fascist childish shite.
The Sun claims to have a dear place in the nation's heart etc...Bullshit.
"The Sun - We Love It" they claimed in their sexist adverts about tits. "No We Fucking Don't" :)
"The Sun" in its present form is a few decades old and is in no way a national institution.
It's a load of right wing shite. The English people aren't inherently right wing.
If The Sun thinks it speaks for England I think it's wrong.
I don't recognise the English people's views in it's view of the world.
......
The Sun exudes English cheekiness and quirkiness and humour. Maybe so.
England has always had that element in its press. Maybe so.
But The Sun in particular often has a vicious streak in its coverage that I don't recognise as English, and that is not English.
......
There are two things to be said in The Sun's defence:
i) It's persual of Nazi war criminals and
ii) It's attack on Islamofascism.
Zamyatin quote
"True literature can exist only where it is created, not by diligent and trustworthy functionaries, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics."
Yevgeny Zamyatin.
Yevgeny Zamyatin.
1 August 2007
Musings on "Anti-psychotic" Drugs
"Anti-psychotic" drugs?
Can there be such a thing as an "anti-psychotic" drug?
Psychosis means "a break with reality".
This involves mistaken beliefs.
Therefore the effect of an anti-psychotic drug must surely include the changing of beliefs.
Is there a drug that can actually change a belief?
Surely there cannot be any drug that can actually in and of itself change a belief.
"The mode of action of olanzapine's antipsychotic activity is unknown.
It may involve antagonism at serotonin receptors."
Wikipedia.
This is not science!
Even if Olanzapine did cause suppression of serotonin, how would this actually affect the ideas of the person?
It has no direct effect on ideas or behaviour or distress.
It may have the effect of calming the patient (victim) a great deal and this may hence calm the intensity of the patient (victim)'s thoughts and behaviour but surely it cannot in any way affect the content of his/her thoughts.
It is effectively poisoning.
Can there be such a thing as an "anti-psychotic" drug?
Psychosis means "a break with reality".
This involves mistaken beliefs.
Therefore the effect of an anti-psychotic drug must surely include the changing of beliefs.
Is there a drug that can actually change a belief?
Surely there cannot be any drug that can actually in and of itself change a belief.
"The mode of action of olanzapine's antipsychotic activity is unknown.
It may involve antagonism at serotonin receptors."
Wikipedia.
This is not science!
Even if Olanzapine did cause suppression of serotonin, how would this actually affect the ideas of the person?
It has no direct effect on ideas or behaviour or distress.
It may have the effect of calming the patient (victim) a great deal and this may hence calm the intensity of the patient (victim)'s thoughts and behaviour but surely it cannot in any way affect the content of his/her thoughts.
It is effectively poisoning.
30 July 2007
On the Special Relationship
In my humble opinion the USA should have no special relationship with England and England should have no special relationship with the USA.
Other than as two fellow countries of the English-speaking world that have cultural and historical links.
Politically the USA is an independent secular republic that fought to free itself from the English Empire. It is now fully independent and should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and have an equal relationship with all countries, showing favour to none. The same applies to England. It should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and be truly independent, yet co-operating where necessary.
Some countries today still have not yet freed themselves from the English Empire as the USA did in 1783.
Historically the alliance between the US and England has saved the world. It has also harmed the world in my opinion. Maybe there always will be some kind of special relationship because of the good that this alliance has done. That does not mean we should not be wary of it and that each one should not slavishly follow what the other says.
-----
Other than as two fellow countries of the English-speaking world that have cultural and historical links.
Politically the USA is an independent secular republic that fought to free itself from the English Empire. It is now fully independent and should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and have an equal relationship with all countries, showing favour to none. The same applies to England. It should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and be truly independent, yet co-operating where necessary.
Some countries today still have not yet freed themselves from the English Empire as the USA did in 1783.
Historically the alliance between the US and England has saved the world. It has also harmed the world in my opinion. Maybe there always will be some kind of special relationship because of the good that this alliance has done. That does not mean we should not be wary of it and that each one should not slavishly follow what the other says.
To show favour to an England that is now part of Europe is to compromise the integrity of a Europe that should show unity where co-operation is necessary.
-----
Why doesn't the USA play the field and have a "special relationship" with another country like France or Spain?
29 July 2007
Sunday 29th July 2007 - Bleuler
Further to discussions of psychology.
Maybe one of the essential errors made by psychiatry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and before is that a perceived mental or behavioural malfunction had to have a biological or chemical cause. This is self-evidently false.
It is more complicated than this. The error seems to be social as much as scientific, and I recommend the works of Szasz for enlightenment on the history of this area.
No behaviour or misbehaviour can in and of itself be an illness or disease.
"Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939) revised the whole concept of dementia praecox. He introduced the term "schizophrenia" to denote a group of psychotic reactions, rather than a straightforward type of disease, and distinguished between a number of different kinds of schizophrenic disorder. His monograph, La schizophre'nie, published in 1911, is still a classic in psychiatric literature. ...."
p.203, "The Pelican History of Psychology", Robert Thompson, 1968.
If the instigator of the entity "schizophrenia" did not think of it as a "straightforward type of disease" then how has it come to be seen by some as a distinct disease?
It is now 2007. I hope we have the confidence to say that this monograph is no longer "a classic".
Unless it is as a classic in fantasy.
"In using the term schizophrenia, I am not referring to any condition that I suppose to be mental rather than physical, or to an illness, like pneumonia, but to a label that some people pin on other people under certain social circumstances."
R.D. Laing in "The Politics of Experience", 1967.
----
Catatonia, paranoia.... all of these are descriptions rather than illnesses.
.....
Maybe one of the essential errors made by psychiatry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and before is that a perceived mental or behavioural malfunction had to have a biological or chemical cause. This is self-evidently false.
It is more complicated than this. The error seems to be social as much as scientific, and I recommend the works of Szasz for enlightenment on the history of this area.
No behaviour or misbehaviour can in and of itself be an illness or disease.
"Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939) revised the whole concept of dementia praecox. He introduced the term "schizophrenia" to denote a group of psychotic reactions, rather than a straightforward type of disease, and distinguished between a number of different kinds of schizophrenic disorder. His monograph, La schizophre'nie, published in 1911, is still a classic in psychiatric literature. ...."
p.203, "The Pelican History of Psychology", Robert Thompson, 1968.
If the instigator of the entity "schizophrenia" did not think of it as a "straightforward type of disease" then how has it come to be seen by some as a distinct disease?
It is now 2007. I hope we have the confidence to say that this monograph is no longer "a classic".
Unless it is as a classic in fantasy.
"In using the term schizophrenia, I am not referring to any condition that I suppose to be mental rather than physical, or to an illness, like pneumonia, but to a label that some people pin on other people under certain social circumstances."
R.D. Laing in "The Politics of Experience", 1967.
----
Catatonia, paranoia.... all of these are descriptions rather than illnesses.
.....
27 July 2007
I don't swan around the planet
I don't swan around the planet as if it's a village that I own. But I like travel.
If flying is destroying the planet, then we are literally destroying the planet for no reason other than frivolous inanity.
So much travelling is unnecessary.
If flying is destroying the planet, then we are literally destroying the planet for no reason other than frivolous inanity.
So much travelling is unnecessary.
Excellent Huxley quotes
"Towards the kind of religion whose fruits are moral evil and a darkening of the mind the rational idealist can only show an uncompromising hostility."
Aldous Huxley in "Ends and Means", 1938.
"The history of ideas is to a great extent the history of the misinterpretation of ideas."
Aldous Huxley, ibidem.
Aldous Huxley in "Ends and Means", 1938.
"The history of ideas is to a great extent the history of the misinterpretation of ideas."
Aldous Huxley, ibidem.
18 July 2007
The truth be told.
The truth be told though the heavens fall.
Because if the heavens can't handle the truth they were never going to stay up anyway.
"The whole truth can never be immoral"
Tolstoy.
Because if the heavens can't handle the truth they were never going to stay up anyway.
"The whole truth can never be immoral"
Tolstoy.
17 July 2007
Result 2007
Wanted to do a pitch invasion last night when SOAS beat Magdalene Oxford.
Best team won I thought.
I always want the non-Oxbridge team to win.
I have a fanatical devotion to the underdog.
But absolutely ecstatic to see Oscar Wilde's old college beaten.
University Challenge is like football to me.
I can answer quite a few of the questions too.
Oxbridge just ain't right.
7% of people go to Private schools.
40% of Oxbridge students went to private school.
The final word on Oxford is maybe the fact that they let Boris Johnson in.
Best team won I thought.
I always want the non-Oxbridge team to win.
I have a fanatical devotion to the underdog.
But absolutely ecstatic to see Oscar Wilde's old college beaten.
University Challenge is like football to me.
I can answer quite a few of the questions too.
Oxbridge just ain't right.
7% of people go to Private schools.
40% of Oxbridge students went to private school.
The final word on Oxford is maybe the fact that they let Boris Johnson in.
16 July 2007
The Immorality of Religion
Religious belief can be deeply immoral because it can be deeply dishonest.
15 July 2007
Kenan Malik quotes on Multiculturalism
"Clearly no human can live outside of culture. But to say this is not to say that they have to live inside a particular one."
Kenan Malik.
"Can multiculturalism work? As an increasingly authoritarian form of social regulation, yes.
But as part of a process through which to create a freer, more equal, more just society, in which we can critically engage with diversity as lived experience? No."
Kenan Malik.
Kenan Malik.
"Can multiculturalism work? As an increasingly authoritarian form of social regulation, yes.
But as part of a process through which to create a freer, more equal, more just society, in which we can critically engage with diversity as lived experience? No."
Kenan Malik.
How should one define religion?
To continue with the ramblings on religion....
To precis the entry on religion in Anthony Giddens' text book, "Sociology",
Religion is
NOT (just)
1) Monotheism
2) Moral prescriptions
3) Explaining how the world came to be as it is
4) Belief in the supernatural
because there are religions that do not include any of these things.
Religion IS
- Symbols
- Reverence and Awe
- Rituals
- Community of Believers
Don't know how much I agree with any of this but it makes more sense than other sources.
By this definition, supporting a football team perhaps qualifies as a religion.
But being a fan of a particular team is not a "way of life" or a matter of "ultimate concern" - two other definitions of religion. Or is it?
I would add that maybe religion can include
- Dogma
- Hierarchy
- Leader figures or founder figures - sometimes charismatic and idolised/worshiped.....
Maybe also
- Exclusivity
- Persecution of dissenters from dogma
- .....
I am not convinced that humans are "religious animals" by nature - as some contend - however one defines religion.
To precis the entry on religion in Anthony Giddens' text book, "Sociology",
Religion is
NOT (just)
1) Monotheism
2) Moral prescriptions
3) Explaining how the world came to be as it is
4) Belief in the supernatural
because there are religions that do not include any of these things.
Religion IS
- Symbols
- Reverence and Awe
- Rituals
- Community of Believers
Don't know how much I agree with any of this but it makes more sense than other sources.
By this definition, supporting a football team perhaps qualifies as a religion.
But being a fan of a particular team is not a "way of life" or a matter of "ultimate concern" - two other definitions of religion. Or is it?
I would add that maybe religion can include
- Dogma
- Hierarchy
- Leader figures or founder figures - sometimes charismatic and idolised/worshiped.....
Maybe also
- Exclusivity
- Persecution of dissenters from dogma
- .....
I am not convinced that humans are "religious animals" by nature - as some contend - however one defines religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)