Do we make a choice to walk in front of that car that hits us and changes our life forever? Do we make a choice that our loved one will suddenly stop loving us, sending our life into chaos?
Sadly, our ability to choose is restricted by society.
Even culture plays its part, often defining what kind of person you are based on a stereotypical image of your ‘type’.
Yes, we do have choices within this social/cultural mix, but to say our personal choice is everything is a con. And there is a very good reason why it exists.
The idea of our individuality means that we deny everything above it. Hence, society, community, culture, even religions, fall by the way side as the individual marches on. And this leaves us with a society that is both atheistic and materialistic.
The upshot of such views on life is that there is no ‘meaning’ to be had above the individual. Rather, the individual must make his own meaning. But from where can his ‘meaning’ come?
Oh, that one’s easy. Just look at society today and you’ll find ‘meaning’ exists in the fads and fashions of consumerism – in our power to ‘buy’ the meaning we want.
Handy, that, isn’t it?
WHEN GOOD BECOMES EVIL
There are certain statements that seem so true that they are rarely questioned. Consider, for instance, the following: ‘It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.’
The statement is attributed to Edmund Burke.
In most instances it is absolutely true. Few can doubt that Adolf Hitler rose because good men did nothing; and equally, the evil came to an end when those good men decided to do something and defeat him.
But often the picture is not as simple as that. Consider the Anglo/US adventure in Iraq. We can argue it was the intent of ‘good men,’ but is the outcome ‘good’ in the way it was hoped to be?
In the UK political correctness was at first a ‘good’ idea, freeing minorities from discrimination. But today it has become so dictatorial that it is shutting down free speech and making people so fed up that it may well destroy those freedoms it fought for.
Good can, at times, become the new evil. It happens throughout life. Take the school bully, eventually overthrown when a ‘good’ person stands up to him. Sometimes it remains for the good, but often the ‘hero’ becomes the new bully.
In the wider world, the reality has many a historic precedent. Nothing could be more ‘good’ than the ideals of Christianity. Yet for a thousand years the Christian orthodoxy caused totalitarianism throughout Europe.
Nothing could have been more noble than the philosophical search that was the 18th century Enlightenment. Yet the outcome was pernicious social engineering that led to the French Revolution and most errors of the modern world.
How can it be that good intent can so often become the new evil? I think the answer can be found in what I call the Law of Opposite Effect. The law has two elements that seem to apply in such cases.
The first is a warning to beware of being over zealous in your need to put down evil. For so often a fanaticism breeds an equal fanaticism to counter it. Just as black is the opposite of white, we need to remember that the happy medium is grey.
The second is a reality that is open to see from the above examples. A fanaticism has a habit of causing the opposite effect to that intended. Because whenever a fanaticism strikes, those who disagree will fight back.
Evil must always be fought wherever it rears its ugly head. But we must beware that, in fighting it, we do not employ the fanaticisms that breed it in the first place. When this happens, we usually end up with the opposite to that intended.
And evil retains its hold on our world, and our history.
PSYCHO-ANALYSIS
Something became obvious about my research many years ago. I’m an optimistic kind of guy, perhaps a little eccentric, but my deepest writings always seem to concern the more bizarre areas of life.
I’ll write about anything, but I’m in my element when the subject concerns the paranormal, cults, conspiracies, criminals, hoaxers, disasters or atrocities. How can I have a bright side when so much of my work concerns darker areas?
It began one day on a train.
I had been suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome for some six months. Of course, it was hardly known in those days, and the medics sent me off for relaxation therapy.
The day it ended I caught a train, which then decided to catch fire, resulting in a two hour delay. When this was announced, I sat back, perfectly relaxed. But it wasn’t long before I noticed something quite strange.
The people in the carriage were changing.
Slowly, any sense of normality disappeared, replaced by what can only be described as a form of communal neurosis. These people were becoming angry, worried and suddenly under confident.
This had been caused by the fact that they were to be late, and in no time at all I could see perspiration, feel headaches and they seemed to be communicating anxiety to each other.
I had realised there is a madness below the normal.
And even more interestingly, I had only noticed it because I had been temporarily taken out of normal human interaction. Clearly, I had previously been one of them and would never have noticed it.
Outside my family, this was the most important moment of my life, and sent me on a quest to understand the human condition, and the madness below it, which still fuels me over 25 years later.
Which brings me back to the bizarre.
I very soon realised that in looking to the extremes of human behaviour, you are more likely to identify this ‘madness’ because it is more pronounced – more open to observation. Which obviously leads to another insight.
If a madness can be easily identified in the extreme, then it must also exist, in a lesser form, in the normal. So could it be that practically everything we do as humans holds a touch of insanity?
When I look to more ‘rational’ subjects such as politics, environmentalism, science and religion, it seems to be so. After all, how else can we understand war, bigotry and intolerance?
This is why the study of such subjects is so important; and the way they are shunned by academe is perhaps another indication of this ‘madness’ - unless, of course, I simply produce the rantings of an eccentric – in a normal kind of way.
ON DESTINY
Is there such a thing as destiny? And if so, what exactly is it? History has given us many people who claimed to be destined for something. Churchill was one such, convinced he had been born to achieve a moment of greatness.
Whether this was ego or not, it is hard to decide but certainly, ‘cometh the hour, cometh the man’. But if Churchill had not been around, would another have risen to the challenge and saved the world?
The idea of destiny is encapsulated in divination.
This can include Astrology, where the life reflects the predictability of the movement of the planets. The problem with such predestination is free will.
Does such a concept exist? If so, it contradicts destiny, in that we can choose our path through life. But maybe this ‘path’ is, itself, the point from which to begin an understanding of destiny.
We live best if we live our dream.
This gives us meaning in life, purpose, direction. The upshot of such notions is that we become optimistic about ourselves and abilities. And if we believe enough, life DOES seem to fall into place, as if destined.
However, studies of luck have shown that ‘lucky’ people are better than others at calculating odds. Does this give a clue? Does this ability allow us to see what is coming and calculate the best path to negotiate?
If so, then life becomes coincidental, synchronous, and really does fall into place, as if destined.
THE CORPORATE JUNKIE
Oh, you lovely multi-nationals! How you rape the planet. How you destroy custom. How you say goodbye to morality. How you screw up the human race. But what are such minor considerations compared to that glorious goal. Profit!
To many world trade protesters, the multi-nationals are the most heinous conspiracy of empire building the world has ever known. Bit by bit they are wrapping their tentacles around the planet and the species in a way no other ‘system’ has done before. And they are quite right.
The system works like this. They move into a society – any society – and they realise the people are held together by family, duty and custom. These three values are hard work, and if a way could be found to make life easier, the people will inevitably take it. So the attack is two-pronged.
First of all, they allow their lackey, the political correctness brigade, to offer liberation from family, duty and custom by giving them rights; and then they fill the void with media images of good times and wealth. Within no time at all, the people are junkies and the invasion is ready. And in flood the consumer goods, and credit to fulfill your dreams.
So yes, the world trade protesters are right. It is empire building. But is it a conspiracy? Or put another way, if it was, would they really allow these protesters to organise on the internet? Would they allow them to coordinate their riots on multi-national mobile phones? Would they allow the protesters to congregate, globally, by virtue of multi-national airlines?
No, the conspiracy doesn’t ring true. The real power behind the multi-nationals is our inherent need for comfort and success. In work, we require promotion. So to guarantee a career ladder, we demand organisations that are big. And in life, we want to be pampered – and that is what consumer society is all about.
So, no, there is no conspiracy – at least, not at the top. The multi-nationals are simply the ultimate realisation of what we all want to be. Put simply, we’ve got what we deserve. Which does, of course, offer a way to beat the system. And that is to fight the urges of the conspirator.
Ourselves.
WHAT IS FOUL?
Yuck! Stink? You’ve no idea. It’s like bad eggs and smelly socks all rolled into one.
It could be many things – a down-and-out in need of a bath; a teenager’s room; the teenager himself … in need of a bath. Or the word ‘foul’ can apply to what you don’t like.
A nice spider’s web is the foulest terror to some. Forget the fact that they help keep a house clear of other creepy-crawlies. They’re just so – foul. But this is more a phobia – an unconscious reaction to what we consider gross.
But who decides what is foul or not?
For instance, I remember reading about some anthropologists. They were telling of an ancient tribe they lived with. They thought a cheese sandwich was horrendous – as they tucked into a termite nest.
The sociologist Foucault could tell us something of what we think is foul. He was interested in knowledge and how it is related to power. Examining mental illness, sexuality and crime, he noted that often such things are decided by categorizing things as normal or abnormal.
Abnormal tended to be areas that were a threat to the system.
Hence, Soviet Russia could class anti-Communist behaviour as insanity; at the time of the Industrial Revolution, insanity was down to idleness – after all, everyone needed to work, work, work.
And let us not forget the Christian view of the Devil. You won’t find this fellow, with his ‘foul’ sulphuric stench, in the Bible. This description followed – a definition of the ‘foulness’ of not following God’s ways.
So that which is ‘foul’ becomes that which is against a consensus devised by the powerful. On an innocuous level, it can be excused and applauded as good manners. But so often the definition of ‘foul’ can be a socio-political control mechanism.
Indeed, it has a consensual morality all its own. After all, do YOU worry about farting in an empty room?
ON EMPOWERMENT
We all feel the need. You know, to be empowered. As a consumer you feel ‘consumer choice’ empowers you, but this may be an illusion. For the more I look at the ‘system’, the more it seems we are serfs, tied to restrictive lifestyles to afford it.
The whole idea of the ‘west’ could hold a similar illusion. For instance, we are ‘empowered’ by freedom. But freedom is a pretty relative kind of thing. You can be who you want to be, as long as you have mortgage, fat pension plan, two cars, designer clothes, two holidays a year and a predilection towards ‘faddish’ purchasing.
Some are empowered by ‘doing’ good causes.
We class such people as ‘selfless’, but it’s kind of nice to be seen as such - gives a buzz. But isn’t that rather selfish? Indeed, it seems to me that most people who crave empowerment do so because they are under confident in themselves. Empowerment is more a ‘need’ to bolster self-esteem.
Democracy is seen as the route to empowerment, but this is a route that needs warning signs. The ultimate democracy is ‘direct democracy’, with everyone having a vote on every issue.
The problem with this is minorities.
Would we all be fair and allow minorities to exist? Or would the majority destroy the freedom of minorities to exist? And seeing that we all belong to a ‘minority’ of sorts, the end road of democracy could be power for the State, and none for the individual.
For this reason, we enjoy ‘representative democracy’ in the west, where we loan our ‘freedoms’ to politicians. But sometimes we need to remind them that it is only borrowed. Too many see it as ‘empowerment’ for themselves.
ON PASSION
Now this is something I can feel passionate about. Passion. The word rolls off the tongue. But can I write about passion in a rational way that can be understood in a short essay like this?
I’d say the answer is no. Rather, passion is ‘other’ than reason. It is another area of mind. Yet if so, how can we rationally follow something ‘passionately’, such as a science, or a philosophy?
Maybe we need to split the brain.
Indeed, the brain is known to be in two distinct parts – the left and right cerebral hemispheres. The left is thought to be the rationalist within you, whilst the right is said to be the emotional artist. The balanced individual lives mainly in the left brain, whilst the right offers input, placing passion in your thoughts.
Passion is very much the arena of emotions, and in this passion can be many things. Both love and hate can be experienced passionately. And when we do so, rationality is trapped in the left brain, and emotion undertakes a neuronal charge that can shortcut the circuit.
This could well be what madness is.
At least, of a sort. A total exclusion of reason. A period of insanity. So maybe passion is bad for our health. But who can really do without it? Oh dear, our rationality seems to be disappearing quickly.
Passion also has many associations with spirituality. Christians speak of the Passion of Christ, whilst many eastern philosophies place passion central to the spiritual path. Indeed, the word ‘ecstasy’ highlights the height of both religion and love making.
Passion is also the reason for many wars, antagonisms, brawls. Indeed, when we think of all those slain to the passions, it makes you wonder why we don’t get rid of it once and for all. Do a Vulcan, and go Spock yourself. But it is also the supreme impulse of our arts, our music, our literature. It is the greatest, yet the most despicable of things.
Get rid of it? Would we still be able to call ourselves human if we did?
AND I WANT IT NOW
Many reasons can be offered for the high levels of petty crime we live with today. Drug addiction breeds crime to pay for the habit. Boredom can lead to youth turning to crime, if for no other reason than the buzz. All these ideas are valid. But some reasons are not quite so obvious, but are valid nonetheless.
One possible reason finds its roots every time a law abiding person rushes to a shop for new, fashionable clothes, or moans about some sleight they have been forced to take. We all exist in a world where the slightest abuse leads to victimhood, and a society that glories in our ability to buy what we want. Wants, it seems, are what we want more than anything else.
The obvious r
eason for this is an innate selfishness throughout the modern world. But we can go deeper than this. It is not so much selfishness, but an absolute belief that we have rights, from the right of the consumer, to human rights. Rights, it seems, is the new philosophy, the new religion, with a new priesthood of lawyers to make sure we get them.
In such an environment, an apparent or perceived lack of rights can easily lead to crime, whether theft to produce the goods, or violence to return a sleight. From as early as they can think, children are taught about these rights. And if a child knows nothing but rights, rights will be all that interest the child.
But there is a balance to rights in what is known as duties. In previous times, duties came above rights. Indeed, rights could only be achieved once duties had been performed. Duties tied the person to society, to wedlock, to parenthood. Duties were the thing you had to do, and usually do gladly, for the reward of rights was not far behind. In a balanced society, selfishness was kept at bay.
We can here see how the prevalent credo of society in general can give a hint to a reason for crime in the particular. For if there is one thing crime lacks, it is a sense of duty. So in a way, all society can be seen to be to blame for the modern crimewave said to be with us. However, we can take the argument even deeper than this.
Duties grow from a sense of oneness with the society to which you belong. When the modern world arose after the 18th century Enlightenment, the idea of a ‘contract’ arose between the government and the governed. It was a simple contract. Both had rights and duties. Duties by the person were a guarantee of duties to the person by the state. This bonding was the centrepiece of society.
With the rise of super capitalism in the 1980s, all this changed. A new mood arose that duties would not be returned by the state. And it was inevitable the people would replace duties with rights. Until the State reintroduces their part of the contract, rights will rule, and crime will thrive.
HOW TO EXPLAIN YOU