Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Self Description

The nature of labels, what you describe yourself as has long interested me. There are many perspectives that people have of themselves cannot be apparent to a third person looking in. No matter how open the person, and how close the relationship, there remains a little window of the soul that remains opaque. No insight is gained here, or rather all insight is to be gained, but none shall have access to it. It is the ultimate sealed window of the soul. Behind this barricade I believe are our ultimate descriptors. They are what we label ourselves when we are most frank, most open and real about ourselves. And this is only done to ourselves, perhaps in the darkest of night, when the mind wonders on the cusp of sleep.

In a more everyday sense we all have the internal labels that we describe ourselves as. Things like introvert, extrovert, social, anti-social, friendly, grumpy and so forth. They are not necessarily real, they may not represent the actual us, but they are what we think that we are.

This brings me to a rather simple question; what precisely is the difference between these two concepts, and where does it stem from. To be precise what is the distinction between what I think I am, and what I am. Surely it should be that the second decides the first, that you are not free from your perception of yourself, and that to think you can be defies all common sense.

I think that there are two arguments to suggest that this distinction can be maintained. The first is that you can achieve what you did not believe was possible. It’s extremely rare, but its those moments where you look down the path which you have traveled, and are amazed what has bought you here, amazed that you possessed the requisite shove to get you this far. Of course others have also taken the initiative in parts, but the majority seems to be somehow your own achievement. Here in a very real sense, you have defied the limits of your description

The other is your ability to do new things, things that you are consciously aware that they are difficult or trying, events that you know will push against the natural inclination of your character, that will impose an additional burden on yourself, that you know you could refuse and deny if you so desired. But in spite of that, you persevere and push through the pain barrier. Things are different and uncomfortable, this is after all strange if not enemy territory, but you adapt, you grow to understand it and then your previous hesitation does not look so surprising to you then. The exaltation of achievement makes all the effort worthwhile.

They are perhaps twin aspects of the same argument, but I feel they are materially different in time and effect to suffice as two distinct arguments that prove that we can defy our self described labels.

Where it comes is a harder question. There is a fundamental divergence between what we expect of ourselves and what we can do. We kn0w that everyday, we aim low because you know you can succeed, you don't try as hard as you can, only as hard as you need to. This I think also happens at this major level. We become comfortable with what we are now, today is all that matters and today we're comfortable. We stop pushing ourselves, to explore new boundaries and try new things. And we fall into a rut, into a comfortable path, but with time it becomes harder and harder to diverge from.

We can become what we need to be when we allow ourselves to feel at risk. In vulnerability we can improve. Strength and comfort, routine and banality are the road to stagnation; exposure and challenge are the ways to growth and change, to a more able and better person.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

A Method of Change

I recently asked myself what made people change, and what could motivate them to want to be different to the person they are today. The answer to motivation, I'm sure there are millions, but it was with particular regard to how that I was more interested in.

Interestingly enough I have found my answer within the very words that you're reading. What we all possess, somewhere within ourselves, is an idealized view of ourselves. The person we want to be. We know our own potential, no one but ourselves can be so intimately aware of our own boundaries and limitations, and more importantly what we could be.

It is this idealized version that I have tried to crystallize in my writings for the last month, and I do find that as things go up here, I start to really think about what I have just written, what they mean and what they require of me. I understand that often these demands are harsh, that the alterations that they demand are exacting, and will push me to my maximum limit. They will demand a self-discipline and focus that I have not traditionally ever found myself demanding of myself.

The other is from keeping my eyes open. There is an Islamic maxim that all people are your teachers, for anyone who teaches you one thing is your teacher, and there is no person alive from who you cannot learn one thing if you know what to look for. I try now to spend a few minutes critically assessing people and thinking about everything I now have learned to look for, in the form of an internal checklist. It clarifies the nature of the person in front of me, but it also readily clarifies for me my own nature and what I should be aiming to be, what flaws exist in my on behavior and how I should regard them, given how I regard them in others.

My writing has been a tremendous catalyst of potential change in me. I now have to put into effect all of its teachings, when my holidays end, and life in reality begins again with the start of the new term. Lets see how it goes.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Work Makes Free : The Ethos of our Age

It is a famous slogan, standing prominently on the gates of Auschwitz. In a twist of the most profound, I feel that in some insidious manner, this conception has survived the invasion of the Nazi Empire, and exported an idea equally insidious as that of the dangerous idea that was destroyed in the embers of the second world war.

In the modern capitalistic world, it somehow appears that in the vestiges of the American Dream, and its western counterparts, there is an exhortation to even greater labour, to spend more and more time working, so that one may buy more things, and that in things one will find solace. Work, time spent on the clock and on the job, will give you the means to freedom.

In essence, I describe the triumph of materialism, the triumph of the idea that not only are wants unlimited, but that wants ought to be unlimited. That the main duty is possession, the duty to buy more stuff, to gain more things. So many people nowadays, even I find in my own house, we have so much stuff so much that we don't ever use. Things bought today, for the express purpose that it is conceivable that some day we might find the use for it. Things bought to satisfy potential wants.

The mind boggles. It is clear to me I think, even at this stage that such an argument is fallacious. It does not follow that continual spending will eventually enable you to buy what it is you desire. Its a trite proposition that money will let you buy the husk of a thing, but the core of it can only be given. Sex can be bought, but not love. Acquaintance purchased, but never friendship. I need not illustrate with anymore trite examples. Suffice with these ones.

The real problem is that of the essential conflict. The few people I've managed to talk about this with have recognized the fundamental truth. The things that you want to do our in fact the very things that work prevents you doing. If you work for so many hours, in so zealous a pursuit, you're not able to do the things that make life worth living. You have a big house, but no time is spent in it. A fast car, but no time to drive it. You have all the things, but ultimately are denied the ability to use them. It's surprising that no one realizes this. Rather what may be surprising that if they do realize it, that they chose to ignore it. Not preferring to make any changes, or make plans in the management of their time, they just accept that they do not have the time at all. The mind boggles.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Fun Language

I've had the chance recently, to have a long conversation with someone who used their words in a really interesting manner. Instead of just using words in a banal manner, to convey meaning, they bought their conversation to life, they infused it with exaggerated metaphors, drew on references both mortal and mythological, and with every sentence sought to seek the boundaries of their language and knowledge with their words. The words had vitality beyond their meaning.

It was the most fun I ever had talking to anyone in such a long time. Its a very distinct style of speaking, and I find it leaves some people quite easily flustered. They're not used to the sheer variety of language, the twists the turns, the intricacy and even the false intimacy a word can generate. Those who don't get it, eventually end up tongue tied, lost without any response to words that revel in such flights of fancy. I myself was at a loss for large chunks of the time. It was only with careful listening to what was being said, to here the nature of the words and not just the meaning conveyed that I began to appreciate the game, and then to realize that it is a game.

I've discovered that the only response to such verbal repartee, is to engage in it yourself. To respond to each pointed edge with a quick verbal parry and a bit of ones own quasi-poetry. Conversations sound fabulous when played out in this confrontation, words swing by from side to side with an elegance more apt on the ballroom floor then the lips of men. I'm trying and talking like that to others now, and I find that they find talking to me much more interesting, though they do tend to be a bit flustered as to how to respond. Maybe in time they'll figure it out, or they may read this and understand.

Then the game begins again, twice as fun, because now both know that meaning is not confined to the words, it floats ethereal around the entire conversation. But more importantly that infused in the heart of this conversation, lies a small portion of nonsense, a casual happiness that is both welcoming and entertaining, while all the while being serious.

Try it, it's fun.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Failure

There is a tendency to play what is called the blame game. The idea is that if you can blame someone, anyone other then yourself that you can divest yourself of the taint of failure. There is something dangerous in the common conception of failure, that it critically undermines a person forever, or at least that seems to be the myth.

Failure is an undeniable part of life, the world is not certain in any way of course, it comes with its ups and downs. In the modern world somehow, this fundamental truth, this duality of reality, has somehow been denied. The idea is now to associate yourself with all the ups, you play for credit undeserved, even if it is gained at the expense of the real achievements of another being unrecognized. There is somehow a belief that acting like this will bring you the greatest advantage, in both the long and the short term.

To associate yourself with the taint of failure in any form is a cardinal failure. Even if it is assuredly your own mistake and failure that was responsible. One must ensure that you are not responsible, or at least that if you can handle it, that you should shirk the blame on to someone else. Never should it be you attached to the problem which you are connected too.

It invariably something that I find myself doing, its the easy thing to do, but I'm trying to ensure that I cease to do. The problem is that it's seductively easy to do. It requires a great strength of character I believe to be able to say that you are wrong, that you made a mistake. It's also amazing that when you do this, people's perceptions and reactions change radically. They feel the stress that they were labouring under is gone, and that they too can confess to what they did wrong in a situation, realize that things were too complicated to be reduced to a blame game, and move onwards with things. More then that they react better to you then they did before, they recognize the great strength that it displays.

Isn't it odd therefore that we try to avoid behavior that we are in fact given the highest praise when in fact we do the behavior that is seemingly discouraged.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Changing Your Mind

There's a trite quotation that is amongst one of my favourites which states simply that "A mind is like a parachute, they both work best when they're open". Its a powerful illustration of what is needed to make a person functional in the world. The ability to hold an opinion, to hold strong opinions even, needs to be balanced against the relevant counter force, which is to be able to keep a mind so flexible that it can adapt to the latest evidence, to change when change is warranted.

Its a difficult line to draw when one thinks about it. What amount of evidence is needed to keep yourself sure, when do you start to change to get in line with the latest effort. In Tesauro a case before the European Court of Justice, the Attourney Generale gave his opinion on what constituted the cutting edge of scientific knowledge for the purposes of a defense at law. One of the more interesting observations was that the cutting edge of scientific thought, of thought in any fields, was that the right view was usually championed by some lone wolf, who was considered to be on the outside of mainstream opinion. Gradually the evidence for a position would mount up, and eventually the mainstream would move to adopt the position that was previously considered fringe.

There seems to be that what amounts to evidence to change your mind are heard to quantify. There is clearly no security in following the main stream, the main stream is never certified to be correct, in fact the mainstream seems to change its position with enough alacrity to justify little faith in them.

The question then becomes, besides our own subjective experience, what else justifies a change of opinion. I guess that there must be some procedure, an amount of evidence that satisfies that our previous thoughts were incorrect, but I'm left without any answers as to what changes the mind, except an assurance that somehow it does, in a gradual or a sudden manner. Just how is hard to know.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

The Discredited Question

The most important question that one can ask about the world that one inhabits, the most powerful and the most meaningful is 'why'. I understand that its not the most common question to be asked, and in certain scientific circles the question is reviled as being redundant or even meaningless. I cannot accept this and I have no intention of doing so.

There are two implicit questions asked when someone says 'why'. The first questions reasons, and asks why a specific event has occurred in a specific way, in specific form. It presumes a level of causality and coherence in the universe, that things have reasons, that cause precedes effect, and that from effect one may deduce cause. These are fundamental axioms of the macro world, that we can understand it. It is the only way that we can come to terms with the world that surrounds us everyday.

The second aspect that I think is inherent in asking why is that it asks what justification a certain position has, and implicit within that is the challenge to the outcome. It requires a certain critical awareness of the world around, the desire and the perspective to realize that it is not immutable, it is subject to frequent change, but that change may be directed and focused towards a particular end result. More then that though, it implies that one end is qualitatively better then another end, that there is a certain way that things ought to be. It reminds us of basic principles, the firsts from which all our other edifices grow and develop, and which must always be placed in the most prominent position.

The very power of 'why' is that it forces critical assessment of what we do and why we do it. It asks what things mean and within it subsumes all the who, what when where and how questions, they all being only tangents of the meta question. It is the question that is the catalyst for change in oneself, and which allows one to realize your full potential. It is a powerful word, but an even more powerful idea.

There is a certain shift in scientific thinking, especially after the development of quantum theories on the micro scale, that why is an utterly meaningless question in the quest of science. That why is indeterminable, that the question has no meaning because the answers are beyond our scope to offer. I think that is pathetic. If one cannot answer the question, the technique or the technology to solve it being non-existent does not mean that the question itself is invalid. There is nothing wrong in admitting that one does not know.

The further more disturbing implication I feel is that such a blanket denial of the why question seems to undermine the very nature of scientific investigation, or certainly what it should be at its core. The notion of Einstein of "wanting to know the mind of God", the big plan, the big picture, is subverted by saying that the picture is unresolved by us in any form. It should be this noble motivation, this desire to the highest aspiration of knowledge that should motivate those who live on the frontiers of knowledge. Instead now we must turn to inferior motives of pride or payment to motivate, but these are selfish attributes giving rise to a selfish culture of learning.

I strongly feel that 'why', the ability to question the very base and foundation of every aspect of our lives, to draw our own conclusions to seek and understand properly the structure of all things, is within the scope of humanity. It may be that we have not the tools in our possession to do it now, and that tomorrow or the next day may yield no answer, but the quest is eternal and is not to be so lightly discarded.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Patience with People

It is without doubt one of the great virtues of the world, but its hard to understand what its limits are and where it properly fits into the balance of everyday life. The conventional wisdom goes along the lines of 'all good things come to he who waits' but at the same time, it seems that things only fall into place for the go-getters. The conflict is between where one waits, and where one stops waiting and goes for what one must do

I've always been a very patient person, an unduly patient one I'm starting to think. There seems to be a certain point where you have to stop being patient with people and to let vent to your anger and frustration towards them. I have no idea where this point is, but I do feel that certain people that I know have crossed the line. They keep pushing the limits of your tolerance, one goes out of your way to accommodate them, to keep lines of communication and hopefully understanding open and viable, but they respond continually with a casual coolness and a lukewarm reciprocation.

I know they don't dislike me, that I'm not intruding on them or anything like that, and I do know that if I was to cross over in to that field I wouldn't press them anymore. But I don't feel that I am there yet. Where I am is people who don't mind you doing all the running in a friendship, but don't want to even walk at a brisk pace when you ask them to carry the baton for a while. How am I meant to accommodate them, to keep them happy at the expense of my effort. There are people whose company I enjoy so much more, and that I could put the effort into keeping the vibrant lines with these people open even wider, but some sense of duty and hope of success keep me also involved with those who try my patience just as much.

What is to be done about them I wonder?

Monday, August 15, 2005

Religion Unchanging

Its a common enough occurrence, to hear people say as if the most natural and logical of things, that religion ought to change with the times, that it ought to adapt to the particular foibles and perceptions of the modern age, that somehow modern man's great intellectual advances and tolerant society behoove that even God should modify his diktats to conform with our newly realized erudition. This notion is often called in Christian circles that of the Liquid Church, in Islam they call for a return to Ijtihad (Intellectual Striving) and wait for the Islamic Reformation to 'update' an religion out of synch with the demands of modern day life. These are but examples, and you will find such false progressives in every faith.

I think this notion is the most patent rubbish that I've ever encountered, all the more dangerous because of the importance of the topic that they try to mold in this manner. I think three telling arguments demolish any argument on this matter.

The first is what proof do you have that man has really changed? This minor aberration of civilization in the last 200 years? And what real civilization do you see there? Millions are starving, millions deprived of the basics at the expense of an elite few. Jealousy, hate, petty revenge and materialism probably still the dominating driving force on the planet. Prejudice, racism and sexism run rampant, heck I would say that we live in a even more sexist era then ever before, feminism now a corrupted idea of female objectification rather then any liberating ideology. How is that progressive against religious ideas that command you to treat each as his brother, and to give all you can in the trust that the Lord will provide you more. Tell me again how things have changed that we can discard such demanding standards in favour of lower standards.

Even if people have changed, then one wonders what basis that they have for thinking that the rules God laid down hanged. His message and the revelation still stand unchanged, no new prophet has arisen to show people that their is a new religious order that is both right and true. God in the conception of most of these religions is entire, eternal and unalterable. How presumptuous then to decide when to alter our covenant with God, and the never to vary it unilaterally. We don't allow two people to vary their contracts unilaterally, but we presume God won't notice or care when we alter our oaths to Him. Keep dreaming.

The second aspect of the same argument is that no one in their right mind expects the laws of physics to change between today and yesterday. They are eternal and unchanging, a veritable physical reminder of the nature of the covenant with God. Fixed eternal and unchanging. One would be a fool to presume that when one woke up tomorrow, that you could unilaterally repeal the law of gravity, just because you didn't like it anymore. This deals conclusively with the argument that people feel internally incapable of accepting the stricture a religion places on them, that it somehow cramps their ability to be themselves. The argument is patent nonsense, if it restricts then it does so in the same way that the laws of thermodynamics restricts, naturally, obviously and without an escape clause. To think that somehow you are too clever, too precious an individual to be subject to Gods law, is the height of arrogance and folly.

It follows logically and of necessity, that religion should be fixed, timeless and its edicts eternal. To do otherwise is to consciously err, and to believe that somehow you know or understand yourself better then your Creator. It is the most rampant delusion.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Hard Work

There is no substitute in the world, for the industriousness of a man. There are no shortcuts, no quick paths, no untroubled glades by which to circumvent this most demanding edict. Intelligence is unhelpful, unsuccessful genius is almost a proverb, wealth is no panacea, squandered wealth is also a proverb, and wisdom is a resource unavailing, the poor and wise are cliché in many stories.

I do not disparage all these other elements, I do not say that they are unnecessary, but rather that they are rendered nugatory by the absence of hard work. The other attributes are attributes of potential, they are the acorn seed with all the potential of the oak within, but are not and can never be, the means by which the seed may be bought to germination.

I have only slowly come to grips with the nature of hard work in the world. For many years, I have been fortunate. coasting by on the wings of my intelligence, and have scrapped through many a situation, worse for the close calls endured. I found enough leeway to scrape by, and scrape I chose to, confident that I could always get away in the same manner.

It has taken me two years of university to realize that this cannot be, and that the margin for error now has grown tragically thin. And I understand that the only way to reclaim that margin is through work. The focused mind, the discipline, the desire that accompany hard work will enable me to transcend the limitations that I labour under, but it comes with the accompanying understanding that it will, if it can be harnessed, lead to much greater and better things.

Its not an easy thing, to be so always proudly lazy and unapplied to change my course so radically will require great stubbornness of mind, a trait that I know I have not been blessed with, and a heartfelt desire to achieve the results. I know now thought that I have potential greater then I have ever exhibited to this date, that I have let myself down by not pushing to the greatest extent my boundaries and limitations, and to truly try and transcend not the examiners and the markers, but myself. To push my abilities to their maximum and to endure the inevitable failures that are on the horizon, but to fight back their down heartening effect and to rise again messianically, to fight another day.

I do not know whether such a program can succeed but I mean to find out.

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Emotions and Actions

I take no pride in acknowledging that at times I can be a pretty moody person, and that my mood swings can be swift and sudden. I often find that days can be like emotional roller coasters, brilliant mornings, happy afternoons, and a totally despicable evening. What aggravates this problem for me is my inborn cynicism which makes it more likely then not that a bad mood will continue for days.

Its the queerest feeling, knowing that your in a bad mood, despising the world and the people that inhabit it, wondering why you're even bothering to stick around in such a den of infamy, but knowing also at the same time that its just my brain being stupid and moody, suggesting dumb and stupid things and trying to aggravate the self pity the down mood is feeding upon. Side by side with that is a feeling that "this too, shall pass", knowing that perhaps tomorrow or the day after, I'll get up and everything will be fine with the world, that the sun will stream through the window and reflect of the mirrors bathing the world in light, that the breeze will blow swiftly through the windows and the curtains will greet it with a gentle wave.

The thing I'm starting to learn is that emotions are not unidirectional, they alter your actions and moods but your action and mood can also transform your emotions. If in a foul mood one smiles, instantly happier thoughts fly by, good times shared with friends, fun times now passed, and the faked smile turns into a happy one, a genial chuckle escapes as libation to times gone by, and hopefully good times to come, to friends far from sight but alive in the heart. And one is happy again.

What a powerful change when you realise that its not in chemical control, but instead in your control. What a power to use and harness.

Friday, August 12, 2005

On Beauty

It seems to go without saying, that we live in a world now where beauty is only skin deep in the general perception. Not in the sense that we only consider the exterior of a person, but that we give disproportionate weight to the exterior, and have been deluded in to believing that the exterior is of greater import then the interior.

The conventional argument then proceeds to blame the media, but I can't make that leap myself. I do not see how we can casually blame other people for what is a societal perception on the whole. It is not confined to one sector or generated by one sector to further its own goals, but is in fact a collective perception. To a great extent we all buy into and perpetuate this common myth.

I can understand the biological arguments that compel the scientist in his critical assessment of beauty, the harsh metric of biological fitness is completely incapable I think of answering the question in any meaningful manner though. One only has to look at common cliches such as that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder to know that this is not the case. Beauty both applies and transcends such cruel approximation and denigrating definition.

So what does drive our collective conception of beauty? I will of course concede that physical lust must play a role, as does the imagination of the human mind, but the question must be asked that what does it on a societal basis. The only answer I can offer is that we live in a society that ascribes too much worth to physical appearence, and does not understand that evil can wear a fair face. In fact that face does not and cannot testify to what it conceals.

Its hard to remember this in everyday life, to realise that no one is deserving of extra advantage by virtue of their physical appearance, and equally important that it ought not to count against anyone. We have what is almost a reflex action that counters our democratic tendencies and instead encourages us to make the easy choice and discriminate on the factors that are most easily acquired by us to decide upon.

It behoves us all to not surrrender to it.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Foundations

I asserted a while back what our society ought to be basedupon, but simultaneously I wondered what I thought society was currently found open. And oddly enough I found that the answer I was seeking might best come from the field of economics. What suggested that to me was the famous quote by the father of Economics, Adam Smith in his seminal The Wealth of Nations. In it, in words that are eminently quotable, but equally questionable, he asserts:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest."
The first question that jumps to mine is why? On what basis should we accept Smiths sweeping statement that it is only the self interest of the baker that grants us our bread. Why not his love of his art, his profession, his desire to be productive, his simple ability to be able to help other and extend to them his compassion?

I posit all these as alternates, but I do not really contend that they are in fact viable. It stands to reason in the world that we live in that, and given the pysche of the people who inhabit it, that this is the only true and viable method on which to base a maximally efficient and properly productive society.

It is here though that the cardinal flaw of the argument appears. The essential circular nature of the reasoning is laid bare for the first time. Self interest creates the optimal conditions for productivity which is typified by the economics of capitalism which is the simultaneous philosophy of capitalistic self-interest. Self interest creates a system designed to perpetrate a society and a people conditioned to always put their own benefit above that of the other. It is not so overt as perhaps the Objectivists would hope, and for that we can be thankful that the other human virtues of Wisdom, Justice, Courage and Temperance which have due to the kindness of the greeks and thier decency in predating Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, have embeded their thinking into the western mind.

It is this combination that takes the edge of the cardinal desire of self seeking, and it is what ultimately makes our world a better and more habitable place for it. The self seekingness proceeds to procure efficiency, but it does so at what must be considered an unacceptable cost, it demands nothing less then the very nature of humanity and compassion be sacrificed at its alter.

I believe that we live in a society that is more and more retracting from making this commitment. We understand that their are things more important than profits , that the desire to material things is not sufficient, that there is a immanent and transcendent dimension to being a human, a certain spirituality that defies just the material plane. I think that this is the story of the 20-21st Centuries. It is the understanding that man is more then the sum of his parts, and that to classify him and pigeonhole him as just that has failed. Man is not a beast, a beast of burden of the economic engine, but also its master and the navigator, free to chose how far to sail as well as determine if he desires to sail at all.

This is a hopeful conclusion I know, but hope in the last resort perhaps, hope in our own abilities and our own beliefs, in their essential correctness, is perhaps all that we have. If we hold to them only then do I think will we see a world that is better for all, and not just a few elite who by chance have been born with a whip to crack over the shoulders of their beasts of burden.



Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Asking For Help

I would have to say when pressed, that I'm a lousy person when it comes to asking for help. I possess a firm desire to do things on my own, that my own merits and efforts ought to be enough to gain what I desire. Failing that I expect to be able to spend money to achieve that goal, or to otherwise achieve it. What I don't want ever is achievement by the kindness of others. In other words, I'm fiercely proud under the surface.

Its odd though, but this summer in my quest for finding a summer internship it's resolved entirely the other way. I've been compelled to ask people for help, something which I really didn't want to do, but the people I have asked have been uniformly gracious, accommodating and helpful. It has been amazing how well so many people have been willing to help me and give me a chance, especially those who didn't even know me for more then a few minutes, or just on the request of another.

What is more the opportunity they provided out of a request, has sooner rather then later turned into being impressed, and (I hope) the impression that I have some ability and merit and so deserving of slight further accommodation. Things have worked the other way then I thought that they ought to work. The helpfulness of others found me a gap, a small weakness in the armor, and it has been my own endeavor that has turned this small weakness into an exploitable opportunity, from which not only am I being useful to the people that have given me the chances, but that I'm helping them with their work and learning at the same time.

I find this odd, but I recall how good a feeling it is to be able to help others. I often want to help my friends and family and I don't in the least mind doing things for them, indeed I feel it a privilege that I am so deserving of their attention that they would ask for my help. In that light things make sense, and perhaps also that others realize that in their trust they weren't disappointed. I understand that everyone deserves to be given a chance to prove what they really are, that you cannot classify them by the categories and conventions that make life so easy to live. Each individual is different and deserving of a chance. It is a revealing and interesting lesson, that far transcends everything else I've learned this summer.

It's made me a little more amiable to asking people that I wouldn't say were close acquaintances for their help in the knowledge that I am required to do it by circumstances, and that perhaps more profoundly, deep down, most people are decent and honourable people, who in the common lot of life, will bare small burdens to allow others to benefit greatly.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Time

It is the fundamental marker of our existence, the fourth dimension by which all others have meaning. Time is the barometer of our existence, all things have meaning through time. In the last year I've come to many realisations about time, and its nature given our varying and subjective perceptions of it.

The first is that one never ever has 'spare time'. In fact the whole concept of spare time is a delusion, perpetrated by our desire to do more in less, to cram events into less linear space. In fact the only way one has time is when one makes it. You have to consciously make the effort to block out time for anything that you want to achieve. It takes a measure of foresight and planning, and a commitment beyond the notional, but it is the only way to 'have' the time to accomplish anything that you want to do.

The second is that there are a few laws that time does obey, and the most fundamental is oddly enough Jones' Law of Shelf Space. Jones' law with regard to books says that books expand to fill up all the available shelf space. The same in fact is true of time. The time a task takes is directly proportional to the time that you allocate to it. The great thing is that this is a process you can control. If you decide that something that can be done in 15 minutes normally, is decided by you that it can be done in 10, then you will find that you can often manage to do just that. Start applying this to everything and suddenly things start getting done a lot faster then you would have ever thought that it would.

The third thing is that there are a million ways to waste time, but none, not a one, that will let you bring even a second of it back. This means that each second, each millisecond of time is immensely precious, and to squander one even is something that you ought to be profoundly aware of. You have perhaps a 100 years on this earth, and you will miss so much, see so little, experience a miniscule amount of what the world will offer. Take advantage of it all before it passes you by. The corolllory to that of course is that time you enjoy wasting isn't wasted. Not everything needs to be serious and not all life is to be experienced to the max. Sometimes the best experiences are those where your'e just free to be yourself, with people that let you do that. It's nothing new, its not usually too exciting, but it does deliver a powerful sublimal joy that transcends the few minutes or hours you can spend with them, and leaves lasting memmories that one can cherish for a lifetime, and perhaps beyond.

In essence this is the true encapsulation of time. Time is a container by which to direct, live and drive yourself, but it is not the purpose nor the goal. It can help you realise the goal, but its just another factor in the life lived well.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Politeness

It says much about how little that I understand the world that we live in, that only now am I twigging on to the full importance of politeness, and how essential an element it is in our modern lives. It is needed more then we realize. It is the essential lubricant of the social world, the grease that keeps the cogs of interaction from jamming as they are wont to do, and preventing the friction bursting into violent flame.

It is to this end that we all are so polite to strangers, are so full of courtesy to people we have never met, and in all likelihood that we shall never meet again. Yet the idea of behaving in a rude or deliberately confrontational manner for most people is an anathema. I would like to think that its our base decency, but really I suspect its the fact that you can't tell who has a black belt in karate and who might have really tough friends.

Cynicism aside, we tend to forget though that it is even more a requirement for friends and family. They are the people that its so easy to take for granted. We can rely on them to do things for us, and not complain too much, they will be willing to do mundane and odd things for us out of friendship and blood, that we would never dream of asking an acquaintance to do. But they are also the people who get asked to do things without the benefit of a please, and do things without the reward of even a thank you. Paradoxically we are least polite to the people that we should be most polite to, the people who do the most mundane things for us.

I think that this is something about me that I'm going to change, and see where it leads me.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Vindictive Games

I’m on the record ranting about the amazing ability of people to say one thing, mean another and then do a third thing. I’m again left wondering what the hell this means, and why people have the time and energy for such pointless perfidy.

My generation, certainly in my religious community, is the first that is free from the pervading nosiness that used to define us, and still does in the older generation. The busyness of modern life, the independent paths that people can take now with the variety of choice, the ability to find and choose our own friends and more importantly the exposure to the modern world has made a tremendous impact in freeing us from the chains that bind our elders and turned them to what I consider incredibly disgusting behaviour.

There is no need to know everything about everyone, and play careful games in protecting your own information. In fact it’s this whole notion of needing to play games that annoy me. In such games the true virtues of honesty friendliness compassion and an open mind are the first things to be sacrificed. It’s a trite saying but none the less true: even if one wins the rat race, you’re still a rat.

The stupidity of this paradox becomes clear when one puts it succinctly. A whole generation that guards their privacy jealously, but strives to undermine that of everyone else. Wouldn’t it make sense to just equally respect that they have the same desires as you? To hold away from them, and let them live their own lives, share what they wish to share and conceal what they wish to conceal? I'm only beggining to accept that common sense has nothing to do with the world.

At the same time I realize, I can hardly avoid, the fact that this appears to be an essential part of the human psyche. People somehow derive great satisfaction from knowing and saying nasty things about other people. I just can’t understand this. It seems that this vindictive spirit of humanity is coupled to some notion of power, that if we know everything, then we can manipulate events to our favour. It is the only rationalization that I can find, but that does not hide that it is a mere rationalization and utterly immoral.

I appreciate a distinction between wanting to know what a person has been up to, and where they’ve been if you’ve lost contact with them and someone else has retained it, but I think that such behaviour ought rightly be confined to the positives, and not dwell on the negatives as people tend to do.

I understand that I must accept these games, but I always try to make myself aware that they are games, and that the first rule of any game is that one must want to play to be involved. I have no desire to play, and will not do so as far as it is in my power to ensure. The right way out of this mess is to take the moral high ground, to accept the sacrifices it requires in the name of the higher virtues. It's not an easy path to take, and it's very easy to lapse back into the lower state, which appear to be meaningful, but are designed to rob one of ultimate meaning. I think if one can remain conciously aware of that, you can't fail in eventually defeating these silly games.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Work or Play

You rarely meet people who know what they want from life, and I would be lying if I professed to be able to give any such comprehensive description of myself. But I have found over the last few weeks the work that I want to do. I think.

The idea of being a barrister has always been part of my consciousness, through books and the like, but seeing the reality of the work, I realize that this is a profession that I can really do well at but more then that, it would be a profession that I would enjoy. The people I was working with, other summer students, found it incredibly odd that I chose to keep coming back, when they wanted to keep getting away with the minimum time that they could. The fact was that it was just fun to be doing the work and trying to understand the background and methods of a barrister just didn’t seem to register to them as a viable reason.

It’s odd looking back at the random things that got me to this point. I chose law at the last minute on my UCAS form, driven to that switch by the practicalities of my parents, and my own sure knowledge that I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life doing maths or sciences. The public speaking skills that I picked up at MUN, were really the result of my desire to try something that someone else had recommended to me, and only later did it become something natural and something I enjoyed tremendously in my own right. The understanding of hard work and its critical importance has only lately flowed from the viscidities that marked my second year. The question in the background of course is, did I do this because those were my interests and the profession fits those, or did the profession and the interest control the activities that I was interested in. A pointless question perhaps, the answer is after all unchanged by it.

Its an interesting feeling to have a purpose suddenly. It adds clarity of goal and a focus of mind that really you lack before it. New questions, thoughts and ideas bounce around the head, the list of things that I’m curious about goes longer, and I start wondering whether that will inevitably abuse the kindness of the answerer of my questions. So far they’ve been too kind though, and my desire to be involved in the profession grows.

I hope I know where its going, I have the big picture all worked out. The question now is filling in the details and while I know it can't be easy, its just a matter of belief in myself and keeping the focus in times when the goal will seem far out of reach and blurred by the horizon.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Quickie: A short Intro; and the finished product.

I’m sure no one has noticed, but I seem to have abandoned my efforts at writing on this online tablet. So I’m starting what I consider an easy way to get back into it, by setting myself a simple target of getting a hundred words a day minimum out there. This will hopefully motivate me to get cracking on more longer stuff, but really its just to get me used to doing entries again.

It’s been a long time, and I do have things that I want to talk about, its just that my muse and thoughts rarely do me the honour of appearing while I have the ability to get a post up here. I compose most of my great bits of writing, really as passing facies in my mind, never destined to see the light of day. Hopefully by having to only dash out a short mention, I won’t fall into the trap of waiting upon false expectations, and instead will have something on here, hopefully interesting and thought provoking, everyday. I suspect that like all people, I have things to say and more importantly thoughts to organise and ideas to weigh in the balance. I think that you can never get more clarity then when you take the time to put these thoughts on paper. You get a priceless chance to assess their real value and merit, and you get them organised in a better form then you could ever hope without this initial effort.