Links to very cool things
Before I start ranting I'd like to share a couple of links courtesy of Brainsturbator. Check this out while it lasts - free knowledge:
http://docquan.com/lib_dead.html
And also good suggestions of ways to kick society's arse, but in a nice way!
http://www.brainsturbator.com/site/comments/10_ways_you_can_fight_fascism_around_the_world/
I may write a little critique of this article myself at some point.
God
Anyway, to business (he says, clinking his glass), and to the bit where I really annoy my (few)monotheistic friends.
I have a MySpace friend known as The Lord (guess who he's satirizing) who recently sent out a bulletin. It was actually an excerpt from someone's blog which was used to ask a simple question: If you met God today, what question would you ask him? A good question? It was quite well responded to anyway, but there was one question conspicuous by its absence. So I asked it.
I would ask him to stop pretending to be the only god.
Okay, who have I upset?
Religious Dogma
Everyone who answered the question had a very clear idea of God (as if this is a name). It was the assumed model as taught by schools and parents across the western world for the last 1500 years. The omnipotent all-father, exclusive and entire. Even the ones that asked silly questions were making that assumption, that the concept of God is entirely singular.
It's pretty obvious why - we've been brought up in a monotheistic society and this is what has been taught. But at the same time everyone is taught about Pagan civilizations in history as part of a normal education. British education leans heavily towards Egypt, Greece and Rome in this case. We're taught from a very early age about Roman gods, although we aren't expected to consider their existence in the present day. We are taught that the god of the Bible exists now.
Obviously, until I came along, no Pagans had responded.
Anthropology
Anthropologists have an accepted and standardized evolutionary pattern for the development of religion. Basically it states that you begin with primitive animism, which is a belief that everything is alive in some way and that there are spirits all around. The next step is polytheism which has many gods, usually related to natural phenomena like rivers or thunder.
The final, and thus the highest, step is monotheism. This is the belief in one infinite, indivisible, omnipotent and omniscient God (note the capital letter).
Oh, yeah?
I believe that the anthropologists have got it wrong. The natural (ie. unforced from above) religion of human beings is a combination of animism and polytheism, and the rise of monotheism was due to political machination. In other words, war, violence and oppression
I can't prove any of this stuff, nor am I going to try. What I am going to do is put forward a basic model of what might have happened with some evidence to support it. I'm indebted to Prof EO James and his book "The Beginnings of Religion" for the inspiration.
Let's start with a simple polytheistic society. There are many gods who rule over various aspects of people's lives and many people worshipping them. Some people prefer some gods over others, even having patron deities. For instance, a midwife would normally be expected to be a devotee of a goddess of childbirth, a merchant would worship a god of trade. This doesn't mean that the other gods would be denied, simply that there would be a natural bias. This happens amongst Pagans even today - I have a patron deity in Dionysos, although what that says about me I'll leave the reader to decide.
It is also normal for certain tribes to have a patron deity, often considered the ancestor of that tribe. That, then is our picture of an ordinary polytheistic society in, say, the Middle East around 2000 BCE.
Now let's consider a particular tribe. A wandering and warlike group of people searching for a land in which to live, and willing to fight like demons to get and keep it. Just for the sake of argument, let's call this tribe of several thousand individuals the Hebrews. At this time the Hebrews are polytheistic although, as befits a people led by a fearsome warrior-priesthood, their prime deity is a thunder and mountain god. Let's call him Yahweh.
Because the cohesion of the Hebrews is based on male dominance, due to the need for physical strength and mobility which isn't available to pregnant women and nursing mothers, Yahweh's power increases. This isn't to say that Yahweh himself increases, but the political power of his priesthood. The worship of other deities such as Astarte, the queen of heaven, tends to become overlooked in favour of Yahweh, possibly being relegated to private rather than public worship.
Over a long period of time the worship of other gods would become proscribed. Strictly, this isn't Yahweh's fault, but that of his warrior-priests. If other gods are worshipped then there is a dissolution of political power via a multitude of temples, but if only one god is worshipped then the power to control a society through that god resides entirely with the priests of that god. Every now and then the people would turn back to the old gods, but this would be severely punished. Eventually the old gods would be all but forgotten and Yahweh would become not a god, but God.
Outside of that tribe, conquered people would be forced to acknowledge and worship the god of their conquerors, and in time the worship of their own gods would be forbidden to prevent revolt. There aren't many steps from "My god is bigger than your god" to "My God is the only God and yours doesn't even exist"
History is written by the winners
All of the above is conjecture, of course! It's interesting, though, how a cursory study of the bible can lead to some interesting polytheistic conclusions. Here are a few examples:
The word Elohim is plural, and God is said to make man in "our image".
There are multitudinous references to Baal, Moloch and Ashtoreth (Astarte) or the Ashtoreths, as well as other gods, with serious injunctions against their worship.
The first two commandments are prohibitions against the worship of other gods.
Other gods are often called "false", but does this mean non-existent or simply untruthful ("Your god tells fibs! Na na ne na na!")?
The episode of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) almost stands all on its own. The people had their oppressive leadership removed for a while and immediately returned to their natural religion! The bible even calls the Hebrews stubborn, on a regular basis, because they don't want to do what Yahweh tells them.
The wisest man in the entire book, Solomon, turned from Yahweh to the worship of the gods of his wives' countries (1 Kings 11 - check it out!)
And finally, my favourite - Psalms 82:1-7
1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods.
2How long will ye judge unjustly and accept persons of the wicked? Selah
3Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4Deliver the poor and needy; rescue them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They know not, neither will they understand. They walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High."
7But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.
The highlights are my own, and the whole thing has obviously been politicized to make other gods look bad, but it does look like the bible's editors missed a bit with this one!
A final prayer
So, with all the above in mind, I'd just like to say this:
Yahweh. Will you please stop thinking that you're the only god. Will you please accept your place as the mountain/thunder god of a middle-eastern tribe. If you do this you won't have anything to prove any more. You can be happy and content without world domination. There will even be other gods to talk to, when they eventually forgive you. Bullies like you are obviously compensating for feelings of inadequacy. Go and talk to your mother.
If I've offended anyone with this article, think only this - what the hell does he know?
Love,
Seán
SEARCH FROM HERE!
Custom Search
Sunday, 30 December 2007
Monday, 24 December 2007
Happy Winter
We celebrated Yule over this weekend, with far too much alcohol and not enough nudity (it's too cold!). Yesterday morning we got up to watch the sunrise - about 8.30 am where we live - but it was much too misty, of course. It's strange that we watch the sunrise twice a year at the solstices but only see it about once every three years.
Anyway, later on I took advantage of the mists to do a little photography. So here is my little card to everyone - happy Yule, Channukah, Christmas, Eid or whatever else you celebrate. Let's hope it's as pretty as this:
Love,
Seán
Anyway, later on I took advantage of the mists to do a little photography. So here is my little card to everyone - happy Yule, Channukah, Christmas, Eid or whatever else you celebrate. Let's hope it's as pretty as this:
Love,
Seán
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Manchester Psychogeography
This was sent to me today by my extremely cool (and rather cute) friend Morag. I've thought about writing something on psychogeography but I couldn't possibly do it with as much eloquence as she can. So instead here's a cut and paste of the entire email:
The LRM recently thought about celebrating our first birthday but we decided to build a space rocket and play our melodica instead. It didn't feel like a birthday because we're still not quite sure we exist. But it's a year since the Accidental International Festival of Psychogeography, which is when we were given a name and started the first Sunday shenanigans (how long does something have to go on before it's a tradition?)
Our manifesto is disgracefully over due; we keep getting distracted by the beauty of flowers growing out of the side of buildings and the tragedy of commercialisation. It will appear one day, when you least expect it, but generally we like chaos more than rules.
We are becoming afraid that some people think psychogoegraphy is just for first Sundays or special occasions and one must be taught how to drift or heed expert directions. This is anathema to the LRM. Don't listen to us! We like DIY (but we're scared of power tools) and we never, ever want people to think we are custodians of some secret knowledge.
Symbols, maps and anniversaries matter because we invest them with power. The solstices have always been an important time for the LRM; we like to melt time and blur the boundaries between the worlds of myth and materialism. Last year we collaborated with The Shaping to dematerialise the gruesome Beetham Tower which for us represents much that is rotten within our glorious city but we won't dwell on past glories.
This solstice practicalities mean many LRM collaborators are spreading magick and mischief outside Mancunia but still we wanted to join together to celebrate both the sacred and profane so we politely ask you, whoever, whatever and wherever you are, to join us in a great experiment and help answer the eternal question 'but what is psychogeography?'
We invite you to play a game with us at a time and place of your choosing on 22nd December 2007. These are the rules for you to ignore:
1 Stop what you're doing and tap your heels together. Spin around if you feel like it. (the LRM accept no liability for any accidents that may occur due to over zealous spinning so please take care)
2 Head off in whichever direction takes your fancy and wander at will until you want to stop.
3 As you traverse, aim to discover something new and marvellous and look for something you have never seen, felt or listened to before (we bet there will be something)
4 Repeat as desired at intervals through out the day
5 Or don't. If you think this is pointless you may be right. But we think it will be fun and we can create something beautiful from it.
6 If you do have a solstice adventure please send us a few notes, observations, random words or pictures. We will weave them together into a virtual derive, and thus create a psychogeographical dot-to-dot linking freelance flanauers into a unique and amazing work of art (trust us, we will)
Friends and comrades, this Solstice reclaim your footsteps, invent your environment and discover your own psychogeography. We don't know what it is.
With glittery love and golden apples from
The Loiterers Resistance Movement
PS The LRM would like to thank everyone who has inspired, frustrated, bumped into, walked, talked and raised a glass with us this year, whether you consider yourself a loiterer or not. You have changed our course and bought new ideas, joy and mischief. We thank you all whole heartedly for this and hope to get lost with you again in the new year
I agree with every word.
Love,
Seán
The LRM recently thought about celebrating our first birthday but we decided to build a space rocket and play our melodica instead. It didn't feel like a birthday because we're still not quite sure we exist. But it's a year since the Accidental International Festival of Psychogeography, which is when we were given a name and started the first Sunday shenanigans (how long does something have to go on before it's a tradition?)
Our manifesto is disgracefully over due; we keep getting distracted by the beauty of flowers growing out of the side of buildings and the tragedy of commercialisation. It will appear one day, when you least expect it, but generally we like chaos more than rules.
We are becoming afraid that some people think psychogoegraphy is just for first Sundays or special occasions and one must be taught how to drift or heed expert directions. This is anathema to the LRM. Don't listen to us! We like DIY (but we're scared of power tools) and we never, ever want people to think we are custodians of some secret knowledge.
Symbols, maps and anniversaries matter because we invest them with power. The solstices have always been an important time for the LRM; we like to melt time and blur the boundaries between the worlds of myth and materialism. Last year we collaborated with The Shaping to dematerialise the gruesome Beetham Tower which for us represents much that is rotten within our glorious city but we won't dwell on past glories.
This solstice practicalities mean many LRM collaborators are spreading magick and mischief outside Mancunia but still we wanted to join together to celebrate both the sacred and profane so we politely ask you, whoever, whatever and wherever you are, to join us in a great experiment and help answer the eternal question 'but what is psychogeography?'
We invite you to play a game with us at a time and place of your choosing on 22nd December 2007. These are the rules for you to ignore:
1 Stop what you're doing and tap your heels together. Spin around if you feel like it. (the LRM accept no liability for any accidents that may occur due to over zealous spinning so please take care)
2 Head off in whichever direction takes your fancy and wander at will until you want to stop.
3 As you traverse, aim to discover something new and marvellous and look for something you have never seen, felt or listened to before (we bet there will be something)
4 Repeat as desired at intervals through out the day
5 Or don't. If you think this is pointless you may be right. But we think it will be fun and we can create something beautiful from it.
6 If you do have a solstice adventure please send us a few notes, observations, random words or pictures. We will weave them together into a virtual derive, and thus create a psychogeographical dot-to-dot linking freelance flanauers into a unique and amazing work of art (trust us, we will)
Friends and comrades, this Solstice reclaim your footsteps, invent your environment and discover your own psychogeography. We don't know what it is.
With glittery love and golden apples from
The Loiterers Resistance Movement
PS The LRM would like to thank everyone who has inspired, frustrated, bumped into, walked, talked and raised a glass with us this year, whether you consider yourself a loiterer or not. You have changed our course and bought new ideas, joy and mischief. We thank you all whole heartedly for this and hope to get lost with you again in the new year
I agree with every word.
Love,
Seán
Friday, 14 December 2007
Multiple IQ
I've recently learned something I didn't know about our standard IQ test. Let's qualify that statement: I've recently learned anything at all about the IQ test, since previously I didn't know a damn thing.
The IQ Test
According to Ben Mack in his novel "Poker Without Cards", the IQ test was created during WWI and used extensively during WWII to "ascertain proclivities towards success performing specific tasks. A tool invented by psychologists for a war effort. " It was developed from tests created by Alfred Binet to see if certain children would benefit from schooling. The problem with the IQ test is that it only measures one type of intelligence.
I'll come back to that statement soon, but to explain where I'm coming from let me state that I have a high IQ. I know this, even though it's never been measured, for two reasons. The first is that an ex-partner had a measured IQ of 162, and I could keep up with her in everything except pure mathematics.
The second reason is that I once took a test of visual logic. It was a simple thing which involved looking at an arrangement of 3 patterns forming a logical progression and you had to choose the 4th from a small selection. I got 59 right out of 60. The examiner was amazed at how high my score was, I was amazed that I got any wrong out of such simple nonsense.
I also know, because I work at a University and because I know a lot of Pagans, a great many people with very high IQ's. The problem is that they're not all terribly clever!
Multiple Intelligences
I was first introduced to the concept of multiple forms of intelligence by a friend who works as a schoolteacher. One might think that her job would be biased towards an academic view of intelligence, but she has had to find ways to relate to and teach an immense multitude of personalities and abilities. Thus, although the system doesn't work that way, she has a lot of time for multiple intelligences theory.
The theory was formulated by Howard Gardner, a Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He originally discovered or proposed seven different intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, kinesthetic and musical. Later he added an eighth, naturalistic.
He also considered spiritual and existential intelligences, but found them impossible to measure.
According to Wikipedia the various intelligences can be defined like this:
Interpersonal: The ability to relate well to, understand and deal with other people. I suppose we could call it a form of empathy.
Intrapersonal: The ability to understand oneself in terms of motivation, fears etc, and use that information to regulate our lives.
Linguistic: A sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to express oneself effectively.
Mathematical-Logical: The ability to recognize, analyze and deal with patterns and problems in a logical fashion.
Visual-Spatial: "the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas."
Kinesthetic: The ability to use ones mental faculties to create bodily patterns, such as using a physical skill.
Musical: Pretty much what it sounds like - musical ability. It appears to run in parallel with linguistic ability.
Naturalistic: The ability to "recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment."
According to a quick self-assessment test my own balance of intelligences is as follows (according to a system that awards points out of a potential 25):
Interpersonal - 13
Mathematical-Logical - 15
Intrapersonal - 17
Linguistic - 17
Visual-Spatial - 18
Kinesthetic - 19
Musical -20
Naturalistic - 22
This seems fairly well-balanced, although I'm apparently not as good at dealing with people as I could be.
Eight
One of the things that struck me is that the amount of measurable intelligences seems to have settled at eight.
There are a lot of eights in this world, especially in occult/religious matters, such as the Eight Sabbats, the Eightfold Buddhist path and most importantly for this piece: Wilson and Leary's eightfold model of human consciousness.
A full explanation of the eightfold model (even just for myself) would take far too long, and will have to be saved for another entry. What I want to consider here are the first four.
The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness.
This is a model formulated by Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary which basically states that the human mind has four circuits or imprinted behaviour patterns. These are part of the left-brain and rule our normal day-to-day affairs. There are also another four (which we're not really concerned with here) which reside in the right-brain and function as higher or more spiritual aspects of the first four. That was a totally inadequate explanation, but for the functions of this little essay, it'll do.
The four circuits are:
1. Bio-survival: Imprinted at birth or just after and concerned with bodily needs, functions and security.
2. Emotional-Territorial: Imprinted during the toddling stage and concerned with emotional dominance and submission, hierarchies and authority.
3. Semantic: Imprinted during early life and concerned with the ability to handle symbol systems such as language and logical thought.
4. Sociosexual: Imprinted during the first sexual experiences (although I'm not sure that's true) and concerned with social and sexual matters such as morality
Each individual tends to favour one of these four imprinted behavioural patterns or concerns above the others. It's fair to say that I'm rather strongly a 3rd circuit person. Having said that, under threat the most important circuit for anyone immediately becomes the first - biosurvival.
The important thing here is that these circuits are set in the brain, not in stone, and can therefore be changed. According to RAW, the learning of a martial art leads one to deal with biosurvival problems in a much more positive and less stressful way.
Connections
What I'd like to find out now is if these two theoretical patterns can be melded and integrated. I don't know because I'm making this up as I go along with minimal research, but I get a feeling that the eight intelligences could be directly related to the four circuits.
Just as a for-instance: Naturalistic intelligence directly relates to biosurvival because it's the basic intelligence needed by any hunter-gatherer. Linguistic intelligence directly relates to the semantic circuit, and interpersonal to the emotional. The intrapersonal seems to have a relationship with the sociosexual circuit.
That's only half of them, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or corrections of what is becoming a potential working model.
Hooray!
The really great thing about multiple intelligences, though is this. Even though what you are and how you see the world are partly genetic and partly imprinted from an early age, they don't have to remain the same. You can take control and change them.
I've proven this to myself very simply. Before the age of 30 I couldn't play a musical instrument - my musical intelligence was very low - now I play flute solo and in a band and (according to the funny little test) my musical intelligence is second only to my naturalistic intelligence.
We are what we choose to be!
Love,
Seán
The IQ Test
According to Ben Mack in his novel "Poker Without Cards", the IQ test was created during WWI and used extensively during WWII to "ascertain proclivities towards success performing specific tasks. A tool invented by psychologists for a war effort. " It was developed from tests created by Alfred Binet to see if certain children would benefit from schooling. The problem with the IQ test is that it only measures one type of intelligence.
I'll come back to that statement soon, but to explain where I'm coming from let me state that I have a high IQ. I know this, even though it's never been measured, for two reasons. The first is that an ex-partner had a measured IQ of 162, and I could keep up with her in everything except pure mathematics.
The second reason is that I once took a test of visual logic. It was a simple thing which involved looking at an arrangement of 3 patterns forming a logical progression and you had to choose the 4th from a small selection. I got 59 right out of 60. The examiner was amazed at how high my score was, I was amazed that I got any wrong out of such simple nonsense.
I also know, because I work at a University and because I know a lot of Pagans, a great many people with very high IQ's. The problem is that they're not all terribly clever!
Multiple Intelligences
I was first introduced to the concept of multiple forms of intelligence by a friend who works as a schoolteacher. One might think that her job would be biased towards an academic view of intelligence, but she has had to find ways to relate to and teach an immense multitude of personalities and abilities. Thus, although the system doesn't work that way, she has a lot of time for multiple intelligences theory.
The theory was formulated by Howard Gardner, a Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He originally discovered or proposed seven different intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, kinesthetic and musical. Later he added an eighth, naturalistic.
He also considered spiritual and existential intelligences, but found them impossible to measure.
According to Wikipedia the various intelligences can be defined like this:
Interpersonal: The ability to relate well to, understand and deal with other people. I suppose we could call it a form of empathy.
Intrapersonal: The ability to understand oneself in terms of motivation, fears etc, and use that information to regulate our lives.
Linguistic: A sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to express oneself effectively.
Mathematical-Logical: The ability to recognize, analyze and deal with patterns and problems in a logical fashion.
Visual-Spatial: "the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas."
Kinesthetic: The ability to use ones mental faculties to create bodily patterns, such as using a physical skill.
Musical: Pretty much what it sounds like - musical ability. It appears to run in parallel with linguistic ability.
Naturalistic: The ability to "recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment."
According to a quick self-assessment test my own balance of intelligences is as follows (according to a system that awards points out of a potential 25):
Interpersonal - 13
Mathematical-Logical - 15
Intrapersonal - 17
Linguistic - 17
Visual-Spatial - 18
Kinesthetic - 19
Musical -20
Naturalistic - 22
This seems fairly well-balanced, although I'm apparently not as good at dealing with people as I could be.
Eight
One of the things that struck me is that the amount of measurable intelligences seems to have settled at eight.
There are a lot of eights in this world, especially in occult/religious matters, such as the Eight Sabbats, the Eightfold Buddhist path and most importantly for this piece: Wilson and Leary's eightfold model of human consciousness.
A full explanation of the eightfold model (even just for myself) would take far too long, and will have to be saved for another entry. What I want to consider here are the first four.
The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness.
This is a model formulated by Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary which basically states that the human mind has four circuits or imprinted behaviour patterns. These are part of the left-brain and rule our normal day-to-day affairs. There are also another four (which we're not really concerned with here) which reside in the right-brain and function as higher or more spiritual aspects of the first four. That was a totally inadequate explanation, but for the functions of this little essay, it'll do.
The four circuits are:
1. Bio-survival: Imprinted at birth or just after and concerned with bodily needs, functions and security.
2. Emotional-Territorial: Imprinted during the toddling stage and concerned with emotional dominance and submission, hierarchies and authority.
3. Semantic: Imprinted during early life and concerned with the ability to handle symbol systems such as language and logical thought.
4. Sociosexual: Imprinted during the first sexual experiences (although I'm not sure that's true) and concerned with social and sexual matters such as morality
Each individual tends to favour one of these four imprinted behavioural patterns or concerns above the others. It's fair to say that I'm rather strongly a 3rd circuit person. Having said that, under threat the most important circuit for anyone immediately becomes the first - biosurvival.
The important thing here is that these circuits are set in the brain, not in stone, and can therefore be changed. According to RAW, the learning of a martial art leads one to deal with biosurvival problems in a much more positive and less stressful way.
Connections
What I'd like to find out now is if these two theoretical patterns can be melded and integrated. I don't know because I'm making this up as I go along with minimal research, but I get a feeling that the eight intelligences could be directly related to the four circuits.
Just as a for-instance: Naturalistic intelligence directly relates to biosurvival because it's the basic intelligence needed by any hunter-gatherer. Linguistic intelligence directly relates to the semantic circuit, and interpersonal to the emotional. The intrapersonal seems to have a relationship with the sociosexual circuit.
That's only half of them, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or corrections of what is becoming a potential working model.
Hooray!
The really great thing about multiple intelligences, though is this. Even though what you are and how you see the world are partly genetic and partly imprinted from an early age, they don't have to remain the same. You can take control and change them.
I've proven this to myself very simply. Before the age of 30 I couldn't play a musical instrument - my musical intelligence was very low - now I play flute solo and in a band and (according to the funny little test) my musical intelligence is second only to my naturalistic intelligence.
We are what we choose to be!
Love,
Seán
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Subgenius Announcement.
The following is an official communiqué from the Branch Radcliffian subsect of the Church of the Subgenius:
Eeh, I'm glad I've got that out of my system!
Love (and slack!)
Seán
Rejoice, Rejoice, oh Rejoice with Great Gladness.
Rejoice oh my brethren, sistren and transgendren for, behold! there is a new Warrior For "Bob!" amongst you!
I am truly no longer pink, for "Bob!" has indeed seen my green. My ordination papers are at this very moment winging their sacred way to "Bob!"'s holy grove of Cleveland OH!
I have rediscovered my Yeti ancestry, I am at one with my Bonobo nature, I have released my Inner Cuttlefish.
Rejoice, and I say again Rejoice! Loosen the slack and break out the frop (although not for me, thanks - the damn stuff makes me vomit - I'll stick to wine). Let there be debauchery and off-key singing, let cats howl in the night and X-ists dance until their flying saucers wobble uncontrollably.
And let it be known amongst all you Yetisyn and interlecherals, amongst all you morealists and fleshfulsome Texan sekz goddesses that a new SubGenius is born a-knew.
And let his "true" (i.e. for a given value of truth) name be shouted amongst the trees and mountains, cities and car parks, squirrels and winos. Yea, unto the very stars themselves.
For I am here and I am:
Revd. InsertNameHere!!!!!!!
Hail Dionysos! Hail Eris!
Praze "Bob!"
Eeh, I'm glad I've got that out of my system!
Love (and slack!)
Seán
Saturday, 1 December 2007
The Honesty of Children
Bikeface!
During the summer I attended a Green Party Rally in Manchester. As I was representing cyclists and cycling and there was a nice lady there who did face-painting, I got her to paint a bicycle on my face. It all seemed pretty logical to me!
The rally itself was a bit of a washout. It heaved down and we all got very, very wet. Afterwards, I pedalled my weary, dripping way home via a supermarket for some wine and nibbles to warm up the evening of an otherwise disappointing day. The thing is, I hadn't removed the picture of a bike from my face.
The reactions were fascinating, and all exactly the same - except for one. Everybody looked at me with surprise, and then attempted to appear as if they hadn't looked at all - all within a split second. The body language of a person desperately attempting to be nonchalant while trying to look at something unusual is just this side of hilarious.
So, who was the one exception?
He was a little boy of about 5 years old. He stared straight at me whilst swinging on his mum's arm and said in a loud, clear voice, "That man's got a bike on his face!", to which I replied (smiling whilst his parents suffered mild heart attacks and made frantic attempts to shut him up), "That's right. I have!"
Pink!
My beloved and better half has recently dyed her hair. It's pink. Not pink bits amongst the blonde. Not a subtle shade of pinkish tinge. Bright pink. All of it.
It really suits her. It brings out the blue of her eyes like some kind of lantern. She looks great.
Other people seem to think a little differently, though. She went to Asda yesterday (for my American friends, that's the UK branch of Walmart, more or less) and had much the same reaction that I had with the bikeface - a whole bunch of people deliberately and obviously not looking.
Except for (yep, you guessed it) a child. In this case it was a little girl of about three years old who shouted "Mum, Mum. That lady's got pink hair!"
Any other reactions to her hair have been as positive as the little girl's, but only from friends and family. Never from strangers, who pretend they don't notice.
The Question
Now, I fully understand why a child can (and often will) say and do things that an adult won't. It's called socialization. It's the same training that teaches us from an early age not to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema or pinch traffic wardens' bottoms, and for the most part it's quite a useful thing.
Without a basic level of socialization the normal day-to-day interactivities of people wouldn't work. We couldn't, for instance, get a bus to work and expect the driver to take us there. We're socialized to expect that the bus will go to the place that's shown on the front, and the driver is socialized to do what he's agreed to do - ie. drive the bus from point A to point B, picking passengers up on the way.
The question is now whether socialization is entirely good and if it isn't, is it possible to separate the good bits from the bad and retrain ourselves.
Honest children
The children who shouted out were only saying what their parents were thinking, and what they shouted contained no sense of judgement, simply an expression of surprise at something unusual. This was entirely harmless and perfectly acceptable from a child, but not, apparently from the child's parents. I'm reminded of things said by people who suffer some sort of facial disfigurement. Adults try to ignore it, young children ask about it in simple, honest and non-judgemental ways. Unfortunately they get told off for that, possibly because they're doing what the parents want to but can't.
So what are we, as adults, afraid of? Is it possibly the fear of causing offence? In my own example this doesn't seem to work. I'm not a scary-looking person (I don't look like Mr. macho-hard-case, is what I mean), so there's unlikely to be a fear of violence. Questions such as "Why have you got a bike painted on your face?" are likely to elicit a sensible response such as "Oh, I've just come from a Green Party rally". Even the act of shushing the child seemed to be an act of fear of some kind.
Fear of difference
I've always been a bit different from a normal person. Mostly this has been in attitude and interests - I like art but I don't like sport, for example - but as I got older this came out in my appearance. The only strangers to comment (with a few notable exceptions) were confrontational. In other words, they were reacting to something unusual with violence and, as any good Buddhist knows, violence is a direct descendant of fear. Sadly this is a worldwide problem - think of the recent death of young Sophie Lancaster from Bacup, who was killed for wearing heavy eyeliner.
Obviously the "people" who killed Sophie weren't the thoughtful types. If they (and others like them who do and have done similar things) actually bothered to think, they wouldn't have done it. Instead they reacted to a stimulus, much like one of Pavlov's dogs. The stimulus was: here is something different and the response was fear followed by violence. This doesn't excuse them their actions because they are - at least nominally - human and therefore capable of choice in their actions.
Instead, though, they followed a stimulus-response pattern. I used to think that such patterns were genetically coded (like the coding that makes a white blood cell attack any foreign body), but the example of the honest and non-judgemental children proves that theory wrong. Fear of difference is a result of socialization. In other words we are taught to be afraid of what we don't understand, to see it as a threat and reject it, often violently. This isn't genetic, it's societal. Rather than some form of survival strategy, fear of difference has appeared as a form of social control via socialization.
Mutation
I once read a piece by a sociologist (if you know who this was, please tell me!) who said "Nature loves variety, sadly society hates it".
Mutation, change, experimentation and difference are the ways of nature. These are the mechanisms of evolution and without them we wouldn't have the staggering diversity of life that covers this incredible planet, even in places where we think it shouldn't be able to. As a Pagan and Taoist it is my job to accept, understand and follow the ways of nature. To do otherwise would be to hold back the natural evolution of the human race.
Fear of difference is one of the forms of socialization we could do without, but it's deeply entrenched. Can it be separated and done away with? Well, I'm trying to "Embrace the Mutation" (J.K. Potter), and I hope that the more people that do will eventually reach a kind of critical level and cause some perceptual change in society as a whole.
It may take small children to teach us how to do that.
Love,
Seán
During the summer I attended a Green Party Rally in Manchester. As I was representing cyclists and cycling and there was a nice lady there who did face-painting, I got her to paint a bicycle on my face. It all seemed pretty logical to me!
The rally itself was a bit of a washout. It heaved down and we all got very, very wet. Afterwards, I pedalled my weary, dripping way home via a supermarket for some wine and nibbles to warm up the evening of an otherwise disappointing day. The thing is, I hadn't removed the picture of a bike from my face.
The reactions were fascinating, and all exactly the same - except for one. Everybody looked at me with surprise, and then attempted to appear as if they hadn't looked at all - all within a split second. The body language of a person desperately attempting to be nonchalant while trying to look at something unusual is just this side of hilarious.
So, who was the one exception?
He was a little boy of about 5 years old. He stared straight at me whilst swinging on his mum's arm and said in a loud, clear voice, "That man's got a bike on his face!", to which I replied (smiling whilst his parents suffered mild heart attacks and made frantic attempts to shut him up), "That's right. I have!"
Pink!
My beloved and better half has recently dyed her hair. It's pink. Not pink bits amongst the blonde. Not a subtle shade of pinkish tinge. Bright pink. All of it.
It really suits her. It brings out the blue of her eyes like some kind of lantern. She looks great.
Other people seem to think a little differently, though. She went to Asda yesterday (for my American friends, that's the UK branch of Walmart, more or less) and had much the same reaction that I had with the bikeface - a whole bunch of people deliberately and obviously not looking.
Except for (yep, you guessed it) a child. In this case it was a little girl of about three years old who shouted "Mum, Mum. That lady's got pink hair!"
Any other reactions to her hair have been as positive as the little girl's, but only from friends and family. Never from strangers, who pretend they don't notice.
The Question
Now, I fully understand why a child can (and often will) say and do things that an adult won't. It's called socialization. It's the same training that teaches us from an early age not to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema or pinch traffic wardens' bottoms, and for the most part it's quite a useful thing.
Without a basic level of socialization the normal day-to-day interactivities of people wouldn't work. We couldn't, for instance, get a bus to work and expect the driver to take us there. We're socialized to expect that the bus will go to the place that's shown on the front, and the driver is socialized to do what he's agreed to do - ie. drive the bus from point A to point B, picking passengers up on the way.
The question is now whether socialization is entirely good and if it isn't, is it possible to separate the good bits from the bad and retrain ourselves.
Honest children
The children who shouted out were only saying what their parents were thinking, and what they shouted contained no sense of judgement, simply an expression of surprise at something unusual. This was entirely harmless and perfectly acceptable from a child, but not, apparently from the child's parents. I'm reminded of things said by people who suffer some sort of facial disfigurement. Adults try to ignore it, young children ask about it in simple, honest and non-judgemental ways. Unfortunately they get told off for that, possibly because they're doing what the parents want to but can't.
So what are we, as adults, afraid of? Is it possibly the fear of causing offence? In my own example this doesn't seem to work. I'm not a scary-looking person (I don't look like Mr. macho-hard-case, is what I mean), so there's unlikely to be a fear of violence. Questions such as "Why have you got a bike painted on your face?" are likely to elicit a sensible response such as "Oh, I've just come from a Green Party rally". Even the act of shushing the child seemed to be an act of fear of some kind.
Fear of difference
I've always been a bit different from a normal person. Mostly this has been in attitude and interests - I like art but I don't like sport, for example - but as I got older this came out in my appearance. The only strangers to comment (with a few notable exceptions) were confrontational. In other words, they were reacting to something unusual with violence and, as any good Buddhist knows, violence is a direct descendant of fear. Sadly this is a worldwide problem - think of the recent death of young Sophie Lancaster from Bacup, who was killed for wearing heavy eyeliner.
Obviously the "people" who killed Sophie weren't the thoughtful types. If they (and others like them who do and have done similar things) actually bothered to think, they wouldn't have done it. Instead they reacted to a stimulus, much like one of Pavlov's dogs. The stimulus was: here is something different and the response was fear followed by violence. This doesn't excuse them their actions because they are - at least nominally - human and therefore capable of choice in their actions.
Instead, though, they followed a stimulus-response pattern. I used to think that such patterns were genetically coded (like the coding that makes a white blood cell attack any foreign body), but the example of the honest and non-judgemental children proves that theory wrong. Fear of difference is a result of socialization. In other words we are taught to be afraid of what we don't understand, to see it as a threat and reject it, often violently. This isn't genetic, it's societal. Rather than some form of survival strategy, fear of difference has appeared as a form of social control via socialization.
Mutation
I once read a piece by a sociologist (if you know who this was, please tell me!) who said "Nature loves variety, sadly society hates it".
Mutation, change, experimentation and difference are the ways of nature. These are the mechanisms of evolution and without them we wouldn't have the staggering diversity of life that covers this incredible planet, even in places where we think it shouldn't be able to. As a Pagan and Taoist it is my job to accept, understand and follow the ways of nature. To do otherwise would be to hold back the natural evolution of the human race.
Fear of difference is one of the forms of socialization we could do without, but it's deeply entrenched. Can it be separated and done away with? Well, I'm trying to "Embrace the Mutation" (J.K. Potter), and I hope that the more people that do will eventually reach a kind of critical level and cause some perceptual change in society as a whole.
It may take small children to teach us how to do that.
Love,
Seán
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
