Appearance, Subjectivity and Truth

 

Regular readers will know how I, and my good friend Plato (note: we are so close he lets me call him, ‘Mr Plato, Sir’, before adding, ‘would you like to see today’s specials?’) are bemused about the significance appearance seems (tee hee) to have in this world. Whilst I have illustrated how in certain contexts it is thus, as I understand more about the world, I notice how it seems to permeate nearly every facet of life. The fact that this oft leads to bad things happening seems not to factor in at all.

 

However, one thing that strikes me is that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the tyranny of appearance, rather appearance is the scapegoat of that most insidious of all things- insecurity.

 

One example is thus- the lady whom I spoke about before who was badly bullied and discriminated against by her workplace, until she was forced out, told me the following things. At one time she, and others were bullied by three senior managers who were concerned with Christmas decorations not looking inclusive enough. Whilst this might be something people should consider, there are ways of going about it. Bullying a person and then saying that, although it looks bad it is actually for the good of the team, is saying two things 1) my behaviour was good and 2) all that matters is the substance, in this instance ‘equality’ (I use “ ‘…‘ “ marks to illustrate that the word being used is not in the sense of this event). However, later when the lady had her personal medical information disseminated buy the same persons again, the argument was that the substance of this act was ‘good’, even if it appeared bad.

 

Here we have two examples of the concept of appearance being manipulated to serve an end, as language often is. From both examples we can clearly see that the manager(s) in question are not interested in substance or appearance, they are only interested in protecting themselves from their own insecurities, to maintain their superficial notion of ‘self’ without having to question their own self.

 

The twisting of the concept to serve personal ends is widespread. A few years ago, there was general mirth and disdain as the Flat Earth Society came to the fore. The argument was that science has proven that the earth is round (actually, spherical…) so to ignore science these people are stupid. Ok, fine, but science has also proven that substances such as caffeine, alcohol and tobacco increase the chances of health problems. If you believe that that the earth is flat, then the biggest risk you have is falling off the edge, which won’t happen. If you drink, smoke etc. then the biggest risks you have is death from health problems which are intrinsically linked with the substances. Yet people still indulge in them, against the knowledge gleaned by medical science. Again, we can conclude that this is more to do with personal insecurities than actual ‘appearances’.

 

When painting The Last Supper, Da Vinci spent the year before wandering the streets of Milan looking for models. It was believed at the time that external appearance mirrored inner appearance (beautiful soul- beautiful face etc.), a facile which remains today in that substance is ignored for the superficial (note: imagine the conversation: ‘ah, hello sir, you look like the person who would do what Dante said was the greatest sin of all and betray Christ, do you mind if I paint you?’)

 

From these we have shown that not only appearance is subjective but also the interpretation of appearance is subjective. How one views appearance stems more from how one views one’s own self, the wiser and more confident you are the less you disdain the appearances of others and actions. It is said that first impressions are important but what is not said is that first  impressions may take decades to formulate properly as one has to see another in all of the contexts of their lives to start to get a vague picture of the nature of a person (although how they treat those they deem to be arbitrarily inferior can usually give you a good start).

 

If you are reading this unconvinced then allow me to delve into history for a rather grand event which will illustrate better what I mean. I then will ask the reader to extrapolate what they have read and consider their own worlds.  In Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692/3 30 people (and some dogs, go figure) were found guilty of witchcraft, 19 being hanged (14 women). The process was thus, a person could be accused. It would go to trial. As one could neither prove nor disprove that they were a witch they were found guilty, the very fact that if they had caught an actual witch then he/she could have very easily extricated their self from the proceedings by the use of magic, or the aid of the Devil, never seemed to cross these enlightened minds, not until the Governor’s wife was accused and he ended the trials.

Let’s look at this in a bit more depth. A person is accused of witchcraft. They are put on trial. They can neither prove nor disprove the accusations, although general sense (not remotely common as we see here) would prevail to clear the accused. Thusly they are sentenced to death. Why? Because they appear guilty for not being able to prove innocence however, once the Governor’s wife becomes accused the appearance of the Governor’s wife changes the Governor who says that substance is more important than appearance. Or in other words, appearance is all that matters when it suits me, but when it looks bad for me, it is allll about the substance. Ah! smart.

 

As I have said before, our entire existences are subjective, stemming to everything we see, do, are etc. Thusly we manipulate the world to suit our own image of self, to make the world as ugly as we are. In this we can suggest that those who are ugly within will give the appearance of their actions that they are ugly within, however, as we are all so self-absorbed these actions will only give the appearance of, or the substance of, whatever we deem best to try to give us the courage to look into the mirror without seeing the cracks. (note: maybe an ugly person will live in an ugly world (not speaking aesthetics) as the world around us that we create is a better reflection of self than anything else)

 

And now you can go to myself and Mr Plato, sir, and say ‘ah, but appearance does not tyrannise over truth, insecurities tyrannise over appearance, for the world is how we shape it in our subjectivity. Or in other words, appearance does not tyrannise over truth, rather insecurities tyrannies over truth and appearance is the unwilling dope who has its name dragged through the mud in service of weaker and terrible gods, those collectively known by the name the Insecurities’

 

‘till next time

The Broken Truth of Mercy

 

Regular readers may recall that I once write a study on what is vengeance, or rather why does it belong, in theological writings, to God alone. I concluded that this was because only God is wise enough, powerful enough, not to use vengeance.  You may recall I opposed the death penalty on the grounds that it wasn’t cruel enough, rather preferring that people have their bones broken, healed and then broken again to teach of the consequences of their crimes. From this we can conclude that I am not a good person, lacking in wisdom.

 

The world is full of broken things. Broken windows, broken mirrors, broken glass and, mostly, broken people as Hemmingway wrote…

 

‘If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.’

 

In Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, a child asks an old man what war is like. To save the children from pain the old man replies, ‘everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt’.

This is the essence of mercy. Mercy is the most broken of all things for one must first be broken to be able to bestow mercy. One must then transcend the brokenness and go into the broken world and heal the brokenness with mercy, something which comes at a terrible personal cost. However, as Leonard Cohen wrote:

 

‘It’s broken where there’s beauty

It’s broken where there’s death

It’s broken where there’s mercy

But broken somewhat less’

 

What he meant by that even he may not know, the cold and broken hallelujah had long been on his mind, but I would argue mercy is broken less for it is the embodiment of all that is good and that is love, as Plato wrote, ‘the greatest God of all’.

 

Mercy is the broken side of love. It is when one is so full of love that one can spread love into the world to heal it. It is no secret, as Hemmingway said above, that the most beautiful people are dammed to suffer,

 

‘Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth’ (Dostoyevsky, as you all know as I quote him often),

 

but their beauty is shown in their love and compassion, and generosity and kindness, something that cannot be diminished no matter how broken the world may be, how broken the individual may be. Father forgive them, thus spake Jesus a man so full of love and compassion for his fellow that he gave the ultimate sacrifice that that he dedicated his life in the attempt to lessen the brokenness by bringing just a little more love into the hearts and lives of those whom he met.

 

Whilst vengeance may be the domain of gods alone, mercy is the right and duty of all of us who claim to be human, that vile and disgusting creature crawling through the sewers of a broken world with ‘the broken mirror of innocence reflected on each and every face’ (Dylan)

 

‘Till next time

Walkin’ With Dylan

 

Yesterday, after a week cooped up inside, I went for a walk to stretch my legs. It felt good to be outside, in the sunshine with very few people around. I saw some horses and some cows, some birds and some fowls. As I walked, I listened to a compilation of Dylan circa 85-86, as one does.

 

Just as I was starting back, a song came on from a live telethon which Dylan had done (originally recoded by Hank Williams, written by Fred Rose) for Chabad. The song, in its simplicity seemed the perfect antidote for the world as of now, giving one a clearer perspective (check it on YouTube- Dylan- Thank God)

 

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.

 “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

 

There’s a road that straight and narrow

That the saints have travelled on

Filled with all the tribulations

Of the martyrs that have gone

(these times aren’t new, others have lived them, although, ironically, you may argue with

The current market system and its flaws highlighted post 2008, even the Black Death had a more stable economic foundation)

 

If you’re grateful for their victory

And for showing us the way

(this, kids, is why we should study history- to learn how to move on)

Give thanks for all your blessing,

Get on your knees and pray

(true humility is true strength and becoming humble is true success)

 

Thank God for every mountain and each sea

Thank God for every flower and each tree

Thank God for giving life to you and me

Wherever you may be, thank God.

(for true beauty)

 

There’s a world of pain and sorrow

Filled with selfishness and greed.

(amen)

There remains that Glory Fountain

(where?!)

To supply our every need

You can find it in the temple

(the Temple of the Heart)

With a welcome on the door

(regardless of creed, faith, or denomination, or whether you believe or not, God believes in you and all are welcome)

But be sure to count your blessings

Before you ask for more.

(think of all of the wonderful things we have in our lives)

 

Thank God for every flower and each tree

Thank God for every mountain and the sea

Thank God for giving life to you and me

Wherever you may be, thank God.

(we are one world, one people, after all!)

 

‘till next time

The Art of Being Likeable

 

The other day I was idly perusing reviews of the 1922 F Scott Fitzgerald novel, The Beautiful and the Dammed, a book I have long held curiosity over whether or not I should invest the time in reading. One of the reviews I found particularly interesting. It stated that, although the book was well written, the characters were very unlikeable. This, in the mind of the reviewer, stopped it from being a good book. This is a fair point, what works in literature, fiction and non-fiction, is the ability to connect with the reader. If you cannot connect then bye-bye books, as I have stated before, we often only read the books we can see ourselves in (which is why most of the books I read are called things such as The Beautiful and the Dammed).

 

However, this notion of connection got me thinking- why must a character be likeable to be connected with? Surely a character such as Raskolnikov is Dusty’s Crime and Punishment cannot be likeable? He kills two people for his own selfish ends- one of which he can justify by saying that she is unlikeable however, one makes a connection with him, maybe not emotionally, but one has an interest in the wellbeing of the character. Many of F Scott’s characters are unlikeable but we connect with the either from a) envy of their elevated position in society, b) curiosity etc.

A book will take between a day and a year (or so) to read, if we expand this to include films then 90-120 minutes, and yet it is important to us that we make a connection with the characters. Yet, one must ask, why are we so discerning about the fictions that we read and less discerning about the fictions that we live?

 

It is said that nice people finish last. I have no idea what this means, or what they are finishing last in, personally, genuinely nice people, to me, have won at a game that we don’t even know we are playing, that of being human, regardless of stature, economics etc. However, it is said that to succeed you must be a selfish b*****d and use people as a means to an end. Many people enter into work to get a position of power, many enter into relationships to feel better about themselves, and do you genuinely find these people likeable? How many of them do you think, oh this person is great, I really like him/her? The answer is probably not many. The biographical sketches created by Michael Lewis shows very likeable people who have been deemed unlikeable as they do not fit into a mould yet these people are few and far between which is why we can read about, for example Michael Burry, and really like him because people like him are few and far between.

 

Before I continue I must add  a disclosure, two former managers of mine have told me that I was disliked by my fellow employees, one going as far to tell me that they were ‘right to do so’, so I am making no aspersions about my own likeability or not.

 

Anyway, one thing that I find interesting is the significance that is put on what one calls universal popularity, i.e. having everyone liking you. They say it is important but how many people in your lives do you genuinely like? If you real off a list of 20/30 then fantastic, 20 or 30 out of 7.4 billion is a massive number! However, in all likelihood (no pun intended) the number will be smaller than that which is fine. To have 2/3 real friends in a lifetime is an extraordinary feat and if these 2/3 or 20/30 people are all of those who really matter then why worry about the rest? You might say that they might try to ruin my career, and as sad as it sounds, this can be done by the pettiness of some individuals, but at the end of the day, does a career really matter? If a true reflection of one is those around, then surely the only way to say whether or not you are likeable is if those around you are likeable? And as far as universal popularity goes, that is just nonsense. The art of being likeable is very simple- dedicate yourself to the wellbeing of your friends, treat those kindly whom you meet and, above all, don’t worry if people like you!

 

‘till next time

 

 

Note: in life there are the following states:

People like you

People don’t like you

You like people

People you don’t like

You like a person they don’t like you

A person likes you, you don’t like them

You dislike someone who dislikes you

Or the best

You like someone who likes you

 

These are all just natural states of being, nothing to worry about.  We only have so much of our selves to spare so be careful with whom and how many people you dedicate yourself to the wellbeing of.

Lessons from Dumbo

 

Once upon a time an elephant was born. Now this elephant was like any other elephant in that it had four feet, a small tail, a looooong trunk, two eyes and two very big ears. Whilst you might be thinking, dear reader, ‘ah, elephants do have big ears, which are very useful and keep away flies’, the ears of Dumbo were slightly bigger than those of an average baby elephant. Luckily, people are very tolerant of those who are slightly different, ah! who am I kidding? The other animals mercilessly bullied the newborn baby elephant, before it was even old enough to speak or realise how to eat and so the mother of the elephant decided to protect her baby. Unfortunately, the humans also found the elephant funny. Whilst sweet little Dumbo thought that they were just playing, Mrs Jumbo knew the score, she knew that the humans, the most evil of all animals, were actually being very, very cruel, as only humans can. In this moment, she did what all good hearted, and brave, people would do, she tried to protect the child being cruelly punched by those bigger and dumber than he. One life lesson we have learnt is that, if a group of people engage in cruel behaviour then this is ok. If one is brave enough to stand up to bullying, then one is seen as going against the ‘norm’ and thusly one must be at fault. There are more punishments meted out, in daily society, to the good than to the bad. Makes one wonder whether society is inherently good or bad, eh?

As punishment for the love in her heart, Mrs Jumbo was taken away from her son to be locked away in prison. Now, without her love and protection, without a friend in the world, little Dumbo became depressed and isolated, lost in the world. As luck would have it, Dumbo happened upon a mouse, though small in stature, big in heart, and seeing the sadness in the baby elephant the mouse became his friend.

The two wandered around together, the young elephant gradually learning to trust his new friend, trust being the rarest and most important foundation in any relationship- not mutual interests or social equality (as arbitrary as that is in this world) but trust.

 

After the two inadvertently ingested a dangerous substance (alcohol which had entered the water supply) they awoke to find themselves up a tree. ‘How did we get here?’, they wondered before realising that it was the baby elephant who had used his special gift, his ears, to fly!

 

Whilst the mouse was very ecstatic, the elephant, after spending all of his few weeks/months on earth being bullied, was shy and scared of being different. ‘don’t worry’, said the mouse, ‘with this magic feather you can do anything!’ and thusly the elephant believed the mouse and soon became an incredible act at the circus as a clown (note: even now the special qualities of the elephant could only be used be people as something to mock) and then, one day, disaster struck. The elephant dropped the feather! ‘oh, no!’ he thought, ‘without my feather, safety blanket, I cannot do anything, I am worthless’, ‘not so!’ screamed the mouse, quite nervous as they were falling to earth, ‘the feather is not magical, you are magical, the magic comes from within you, not from the feather, you are MAGIC!’

 

And then, the elephant realised that it was true, the safety blanket, was not needed, the magic came from within. He did not need external sources to tell him his worth, his true worth came from within!

 

The end of this story is bittersweet. Once Dumbo became famous, he was accepted into society as a curiosity. Others clung onto his coattails to benefit from his specialness, reflected glory as the moon benefits from the radiance of the sun. As the other reindeers accepted Rudolph only once he was famous, so did the other animals and humans accept Dumbo, the elephant who was born slightly different, the elephant who had one dream, and one dream only, to be happy in a weary world of woe, an elephant who not only flew in his imagination but also flew in his life. Whilst those around him still lived their lives of bitter insecurity and jealously, young Dumbo cared not, he learnt the most important lesson of all, the only self value must come from within and Mrs Jumbo was happy as she had had all of her dreams come true, she had a baby who was happy.

 

No matter what life throws upon you, the praise and the blame, remember the only real value comes from within and only those who look past your differences and see your heart and want to be your friend, no matter how small they may be, are the truest treasure in all of the worlds, this one and beyond.

 

‘till next time

Stupidity Rules

 

In the 1980s, a man named Lewis S. Ranieri had a great idea. Why not take the very foundations of a healthy society (the housing market) and play a game of Russian Roulette with it? The thinking was very simple- people want to live in houses, houses cost money, to buy houses people take out loans (mortgages) so, if this is as certain as death, and taxes for the non-wealthy, why not find a way to get rich off of it? Why? Because he loves money! Being rich= status in this society and the more wealth you have, the more status (value) you have. In more simplistic terms- if you are a sporting superstar people beg to give you the best equipment. If you are not, like the other 96%, an elite star, you have to scrimp and save to buy the basics.

 

Whether Ranieri thought ahead or cared, I cannot say but the results were shocking. Suddenly the bond market was where the graduates ended up (many with PhDs) because they wanted status. The fact that 99% knew nothing about the bond markets was irrelevant. After all, we live in a society where ‘fake it until you make it’ is an unwritten rule of not only business but also life. But, as with all things, there is nuance. If you pretend to be a baseball star but can’t throw, other than looking ridiculous for a moment, there is no knock-on effect. If you are playing with the foundation of people’s lives, then if things go wrong, because, let’s be honest, no one who ‘fakes it’ ever truly ‘makes it’, even if their paychecks do get bigger and their title gets longer, disaster strikes.

 

• 2.6 million (2600000) unemployed
• 777.68 percent DOW drop
• $3.3 trillion (3300000000000) lost in the housing market
• $6.9 trillion (6900000000000) lost to shareholders
• 3.1 million (3100000) foreclosures (1/54) of houses/homes

(note: bullet points 1 and 5 equate human lives)

 

These figures are just from America alone and do not reflect the global impact of the 2008 market crash. After the taxpayers bailed out the banks to the tune of $3.6 trillion (3600000000000) the taxpayers then paid the price. It became much harder to find employment of any kind, companies had major cutbacks. The advent of the Zero-hour contract meant that there was no job security and one could not get sick and holiday paid leave. Whilst this was happening, the banks went back to trading the very bonds which called the crash- avoiding the illegality of it by changing their names. The housing market became virtually impossible for anyone not already on it under the age of 35 to get onto whilst these fine fellows:

 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.

N.Y. Fed Chair Timothy Geithner.

Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld.

Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.

 

Who caused the crash with irresponsible lending/regulating went on to have successful careers in economics, politics and higher education.

 

But what does all this mean now?

 

Well, very simply. The money reserves which were kept to one side were spent on the bailout and the influx of cash into the system led to inflation and the devaluing of currency. Which is to be expected, sure, but when the unexpected happens- say a virus- then any resilience which would have been kept in place for acts of God are no longer in place due to the stupidity and greed of humans in what they (ironically, I assume?) call civilization. With unemployment rising due to companies having no cash reserves, even companies, such as football teams, which have multimillion-pound TV deals, are cutting the wages of minimum wage workers. Why? Because they have spent all of their money on luxuries such as multimillion-pound player contracts- players who they have spent and are expected to spend millions upon in the next summer.

 

To get to the crux, or to be blunt, (me? Blunt? Never!) the stupidity and greed of a few individuals caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes. Those who caused the crash went about their daily lives- buying and selling futures, not once taking responsibility for the truth that the future that they were/are buying and selling relate to human lives. And whilst the rich tighten their belts by reaching down to take the bread out of the mouths of the poor, the poor slowly starve to death on a diet of humiliation, neglect, poverty and despair. Or as Bob Dylan put it, ‘I pay in blood, but not my own!’

 

‘till next time (you know it is coming)