Thoughts on Water

‘All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.’

Ecclesiastes 1:7

 

 

Years ago, I had the startling revelation that I am water. Of course, this is not true, nothing more than vanity and self-delusion on my part. Rather, it may be said that water is what I aspire to be, or rather properties that I wish I had.

 

What do I mean by ‘properties’? Well, for one, water is almost indestructible. Add fire to it and it becomes steam, put it in the cold and it becomes ice. Whatever environment it is put in, it reshapes itself to fit perfectly without losing the core element of its ‘true self’. Too much of it can kill you, as can not enough. It washes away filth and brings new life. It is the building block not only of nature but also ‘civilisation’ as nothing could not be built without the proximity of water. Buildings that scrape the sky could not do so without a foundation of water. It has great patience and can wear down and endure any obstacle, it has great violence and great tenderness. Water is almost the very definition of perfect balance; it is, in many ways, one of the few times we can conceptualise the vague meaning of the notion/word ‘perfect’.

 

One writer who refers to water as having a great symbolic role is Hermann Hesse. In two examples, The Glass Bead Game and The Prodigy (my favourite of his) at the defining point where the protagonist has to decide whether to change his life, when his notion of self has been all but obliterated, the character drowns, whether this is by accident or as suicide is as ambiguous as Ophelia’s demise, yet, in many ways it seems that Hesse is killing the character so as not to have to confront the change which the character, possibly full of autobiographical qualities, has to face. Yet, in another of his works, Siddhartha, the protagonist tries the many forms of gluttony- abstinence, hedonism etc. and then only finds peace when an older, wise man tells him to just sit and watch the river flow:

 

‘People disagreeing on all just about everything, yeah

Makes you stop and all wonder why

Why only yesterday I saw somebody on the street

Who just couldn’t help but cry

Oh, this ol’ river keeps on rollin’, though

No matter what gets in the way and which way the wind does blow

And as long as it does I’ll just sit here

And watch the river flow’

-Dylan

 

One might argue that this is also a form of suicide as to withdraw from the world and watch the river flowing is to remove the person from the responsibilities of being within the world.

 

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, maybe understood the metaphor and nature of water greater than any other. Just as it says in Ecclesiastes, there never is, unlike what Hesse tries to create, any closure when it comes to water. Heraclitus expanded upon the notion of water to relate it to both time and the development of the individual as he stated that one cannot step into the same river twice as with the motion of the water the river is not the same as it was before (i.e. no longer those molecules) and nor is the person stepping into the water (hopefully) the same having developed as a person (note: I say hopefully as I have met too many people who have seemed to stop growing at high school/university which seems to indicated a wasted life). After all, water erases the past and gives birth to the future.

 

Water in terms of actuality and in terms of the realms of metaphor is almost perfect in many ways. Maybe that is why some love looking out over the ocean whilst some fear it so much as it, in many ways, becomes a mirror of who we are. The great vastness of desolation with superficial changing moods and emotions but beneath the surface a dark and complex world unfathomable (gettit?) to the human mind.

 

‘till next time

 

Where We Are, and How We Got Here

 

The other day, whilst out walking, I stumbled upon a metaphor. I had to cross a wheat field to get back to the main path but, not wanting to destroy the wheat, I had to find a way. I started looking at the ground, like a tracker (yeah, ok…), an saw some bare patches of earth. I started following them, until I started to see a pattern. With the pattern established, I continued on and then, halfway across the field, I looked back and saw that I was on the correct path, the sides of which were marshalled by majestic stalks of shin high wheat. Looking before me, I saw the path continue in the same vein (no pun intended) and realised that, even though I had not known it or seen it, I was on the correct path.

 

A lot is made of paths in life. Some subscribing to higher powers (gods), others to arbitrary placements of celestial bodies, and some as a retrospective fatalism. One way in which people explain any difficulties that they, or others, are having is by stating the belief that people are always exactly where they should be, that their lives have led up to this point and this is where, in the grand scheme of things, the cosmos as dictated that they should be. This theory can be questioned quite simply because for a theory of this ilk to be accurate, it must be universal. What do I mean by that? Well, sat in a boardroom (boredroom), pub (boredroom), or living room (boredroom) etc., one may look at the trials and tribulations of another and state with assuredity that one is where one is as that is where one deserves (?) to be, or rather, as the fates have dictated. The obvious rejoinder to this would be: are you saying that a mother carrying a child who has died from want of clean water, yet who cannot put down her child, even though her own government is approaching to commit genocide, as she simply does not know how to is exactly where she should be? does she and the child deserve to be here? One dead and one facing death for no other reason than being ‘different’ or ‘unlucky’?

 

When these rejoinders are made, people purse their lips and do not respond (trust me) and then go back to the comfort of their certainty, the certainty that creation and the cosmos exists only for them. Before we act to harshly and condemn these individuals, it might be not that they do not want to consider this, it might be that they simply cannot, in that they lack the emotional/intellectual curiosity and strength and also the mental resilience (I didn’t want to use strength again but it works better) to think that what they have been told is wrong and/or to think for themselves, to question. We live our lives in hindsight. We look at where we are and construct the history that led us here. We look at our future plans based on what we have previously experienced. We are, after all, reflective creatures, as we cannot know what we experience, in the moment, as our chemistry/mind does not work like that, we reflect on what we have just experienced. I just slapped my face. I wasn’t aware at the time that I had slapped my own face as it took time for the optical nerve to tell the brain what it had seen and the brain to find meaning to the random images (don’t forget words are arbitrary in that they are not inherent, they are learnt therefore the brain does not, instinctively, know what a hand or face or slap is) and the pain receptors to transit to the brain a signal which is then decoded. Yet, more than biological imperative dictates, we look to the past, we are the historians of our own lives, to find meaning in the present and future. To do this we create myths and stories, such as Eden, astrology, possibly even psychology/philosophy/theology, to explain where we are and how we got here, not once acknowledging that these very pretty stories and ‘universal laws’ only serve one purpose and that is the abdication of personal responsibility.

 

‘till next time

 

 

Note: whether or not the likes of astrology bare truth is not known. Eminent psychologist Carl Jung incorporated astrology and the mystic into psychology, as Freud did with archaeology and mythology. There may be some truth in them, but then again, we may only find truth in that which we already believe about ourselves and that is the true undiscovered country (sorry Shakespeare), the landscape of ‘self’.

Acceptable Slavery: Humans and Animals

 

It has been often written that the defining relationship between everyone in the world is that of master and slave. Stemming, presumably, from a massive inferiority complex which many in the world seem to suffer from, it is the goal of many to subjugate others to, not only aid, but to glorify them in life and in death (compare the lavish tombs of kings and queens to the pits the Nazi’s filled).

 

For the longest time, in the West, the hierarchical structure has been

 

White men

White women

Black men

Black women

 

And this was/is accepted as being a normal state. Quite rightly people have/are questioned this, and hopefully it will change, but the change must come from a collective realisation and not from a few weeks of chaos. One of the most tragic elements of this is that the victim often goes/stays in the position willingly, the slaves singing as their backs are whipped, and make no attempt to free themselves. Indeed, after slavery was abolished in the US, many slaves stayed with their former masters (now with recompense) as they were used to that way of life. Indeed, when in Tolstoy’s War and Pace, Prince Andrew mocks Pierre’s desire to have his surfs (sorta slaves) build schools and churches to educate themselves and find the acceptable notion of God (as though the surfs don’t already have their own notion of God):

 

‘You talk of schools,” he went on, crooking a finger, “education and so forth; that is, you want to raise him” (pointing to a peasant who passed by them taking off his cap) “from his animal condition and awaken in him spiritual needs’

 

Going on to suggest that what they (the surfs) do is all they want to do, a problematic notion in itself as if they don’t know differently, how can they want other?

 

Although these bonds may not seem obvious, they, sadly, appear to be there. If, for example, black people in America united (as Dr. King hoped) and ask for equality, through weight of numbers (physically and in elections) a change would have to come. However, if one listens to rap music it is full of black men ‘bragging’ about how they can dominate over other black men and over black women. Whist I’m sure going to clubs, mistreating women, selling drugs to children and killing their friends is something to be proud of, it just reinforces the stereotype that blacks have of being inferior and of whites that black are just animals.

 

If all is equal, then the hierarchical structure will become

 

Black/white/brown/etc men/women/etc

 

Yet you may have noticed a line I left of previously

 

White men

White women

Black men

Black women

Animals

 

The relationship between humans and animals has always been very interesting. The thought is that, as is stated in Genesis (no, not Phil Collins…), humans have dominion over animals and that animals need us. If one was to look at the history of anthropology, then one would see a very different picture. Whilst animals (such as canines) lived in familial groups and supported each other, humans struggled to survive. It was found that dogs, for example, had an excellent ability to track, a quality humans lack, and thusly were brought into the world of humans. Whether consciously or unconsciously (probably a bit of both with a large dollop of ignorance) the humans gave themselves mastery over nature and by the building of fences and through punishment (classical conditioning whilst Pavlov’s family tree was probably still a seed). Not only did they imprison the body of the animal, but they also imprisoned the spirit and soul of the animal. Suddenly the animal became anthropomorphised and, as with the gods we created, we put our worst qualities into animals. Instead of being true to their own nature, the animals started to conform, in the minds of humans and then in actuality, into the embodiment of human emotion and desires. A dog bites someone, it is cruel, not just following its nature but the human concept of cruelty. In response to this ‘cruelty’, and in fear of it happening again, the dog is slaughtered. Ah, thank goodness humans aren’t as cruel as animals, eh!

Suddenly the most domesticated of all of God’s creatures had an alibi and scapegoat (pun intended) for its own bad behaviour.

 

‘ah, he beat his wife again, that’s famous people for you’

‘yes, it is sad, but a leopard cannot change its spots’

‘very true, wonder if he will match the set next time?’

 

Wait…on one hand you have the ‘skin’ of a leopard which cannot be changed any more than human skin colour can be changed- no matter what girls in Asia are told and sold (Michael Jackson aside…), nor, would I assume that leopards have the insecurities required to change their skin or even want to, yet the bad behaviour has nothing to do with innate aspects, such as skin colour, it is about behaviour and by excusing bad behaviour as though it is an inherent aspect such as skin colour is to hide from reality behind the goat which will forever be associated with badness.

 

The relationship between humans and animals is created for one reason and one reason only, no matter how much we kid ourselves (get the pun?). Humans ‘enslaved’ animals and passed on our worst qualities through behavioural changes and reputation because, *whisper* we need them. They don’t need us, we need them.

 

Animals evoke in us the desires and dreams which we lack. Dogs are kind and loyal, full of love. Animals are free and adventurous, not held back from their natures by inhibitions. The literature (fictional and non) suggests that with all creatures, animals thrive best in their natural habitat, and that is not as a slave to humans. From Ancient Egypt to Native Americans to modern India, animals have had a place amongst the gods as they were recognised for what they are- superior to humans. They are the muses that inspire the best in us, but we lack the courage to embrace what they teach.

 

I’ll leave you now and, as with Kerouac, I’ll jump onto that Greyhound bus and follow my own nature into adventure and excitement. Who knows? I may even find a better, more honest, version of myself.  See you down the road!

 

‘till next time

 

 

 

Degrees of Separation

 

‘They ask me to reveal

The very thoughts they would conceal’

(Bob Dylan and Bono)

 

A child with a slightly darker skin complexion is walking home from school. Suddenly he finds himself surrounded by children with a slightly lighter skin complexion

 

‘go back to your own country, terrorist’

‘don’t blow us up, terrorist’

 

The children go home. One, in tears, their parents helpless to know how to help. The others go home and go:

 

‘have you seen this new James Bond film? He fights terrorists! How cool is that!? I wish I could blow stuff up’.

 

In this we can see something interesting happening. Why is it the other children are scared (yes, scared) of a child who looks different, and so resort to lazy stereotyping and yet find a film about that which they fear exhilarating?

 

The answer, as with most things, is actually very simple.

 

The ancient Greek, Solon (possibly partially the model for Plato’s philosopher king) went to see Thespis. Thespis is renowned as being the first, recorded, actor to speak on stage. Solon asked him how he could speak lies on stage. Thespis replied that he could as it was a fiction. No! responded Solon, for if people think it is ok to lie on stage then this will spread to all facets of culture! (I’ll give you a moment to marvel at the genius and foresight of Solon). Why is this? in fiction there is a degree of separation from reality. One can watch a film about terrorism and feel safe as one is in no real danger- if you don’t like it you can turn off the TV, or, even better, stop watching James Bond films- films about a man who abuses women, alcohol and, dispassionately, violates people’s rights to live.

 

As our lives are wholly subjective, we view them through the prisms of ourselves and with this we run the danger of not being in touch with reality. We demand from others that which we wouldn’t give. In an interview Leonard Cohen reversed the questions and started asking the journalist about his private life. The journalist refrained from answering on the grounds that the interview was being recorded for broadcast.

 

As the man was lying on the ground being chocked to death by a policeman, other police stood around watching. What is worse, in my opinion, is that other people stood by watching and filming it on their phones. They later expressed their outrage at what they had witnessed. The question I would have for them, and why they sicken me more than the others, is that the police officer and the other police seemed to think that what they were doing was acceptable (note: very few crimes justify the taking of another life, the ultimate violation of being) yet those watching did not yet they did nothing to intervene. It was easier for them to watch what was happening through their phone screens than to understand that this was real and to take part in the drama, for example, stop the man being murdered by speaking up, or even using force. The world to us is a fiction and is treated thusly. A CNN presenter recently wrote a book about war, a book being made into a film, and suddenly the presenter and the film have become stars. Other than, valid, questions about journalistic integrity when the presenter makes themselves the story, the star (you cannot throw an avocado on CNN without hitting a wannabe star), it brings into question the integrity of the news.   The news is just that, it is a passionless look at what is happening, presented within a context. The anchor should be known but unknown, i.e. we recognise the face but don’t know the name or what they personally think.

 

Of all the qualities in the world, one which is sorely lacking is empathy. If one cannot be empathetic (as it does, often require a certain level of intellectual and emotional intelligence), the very least one can do is listen  to the stories of others and view them for what they are, not stories, as one wold see on a Greek stage or at the cinema, but rather the reality of one’s existence. And if you see something you don’t like, something which does not pose a real threat (such as death…) then remember the words of a comedian- before you judge another take a walk for a mile in their shoes ‘cos then it won’t matter as you’ll be a mile away, with their shoes.

 

Hey, mama, see my new shoes?

 

‘till next time

The Peculiarities of Age

Have you ever noticed, when one thinks of one’s self, one is never young or old? One never goes, gosh I am old, or, gosh, I am so young, dwag (as young people speak according to TV) rather, one thinks of one’s self in that moment of space and time as they are, as it were, devoid of both space and time- ‘I am therefore I am regardless of external factors’.

 

Yet where do we get the notions of ‘young’ and ‘old’ from? As with most things, it comes from relation. We see ourselves as the benchmark (subjective) from which the whole world is viewed. For example, when you are ten, twenty is very old, when you are twenty, thirty is very old, when you are sixty then seventy is very old etc. etc. Yet when one is seventy, sixty is very young, when one is thirty…(you can see where I am going).

 

From this we can deduce that aging in the chronological sense is not a real measure of ‘age’ (if indeed we exist within space and time) so then we must ask ourselves what does ‘ageing’ actually mean?

 

Maturity is one of those things- hard to define, and hard to notice in others, given our subjectivity. One might think that the mature thing to do is to speak up at every occasion about every thought that one has. Why? Because one is an adult and thusly can exercise the right to speech.

 

However, one might refrain from speech- not because they have nothing to say, not because they aren’t better versed and ‘wiser’ in the situation but because it might be wise not to speak in that situation due to the possibility of bad consequences or the words falling upon deaf ears etc. For example, to go to a Nazi rally in Germany whilst Hitler was railing against the Jewish people and putting your hand up to say, ‘no, sir, I am Jewish and I think my friends are really swell’ might not be the wisest thing to do, even if it is ‘right’ or ‘the truth’. Charles Chaplin suffered slightly for this, adjusted for inflation, when he made the brilliant film The Great Dictator, a film mocking Hitler, as at the time Hitler as one of the darlings of the liberal intelligentsia in Hollywood (same the Russians and Napoleon and America and the Soviet Union).

 

It once again leads us to the (tedious) debate about nature vs nurture (note: it is both) for is one born wise or does one become wise? The answer, it seems, would also be both. One can be born with an intellect (emotional, intellectual etc.) which  is more predisposed towards reason, however, it is through life’s events that one learns what one is and what one knows comes to the fore, not to be mistaken with Plato’s notion that we know everything before we are born and learning is the remembering of what we once knew. However, experience is not a teacher, as often it is claimed to be. Rather experience is something that ‘happens’ and it is through reflection and study that one learns to understand the experience and vice versa. For example, in a situation a manager acts in a way that is counterintuitive to a productive work atmosphere. I see this happen and go ‘hmm, why did this happen’, I then recall previous readings of Plato where he states that often those least suited to power gain power (I’m paraphrasing). I suddenly glean a greater understanding into Plato’s work though personal experience. I later read a quotation from Cato the Elder in which he stipulates that those who ‘treat ridiculous things seriously, treat serious things ridiculously’. From this I have been through three stages: I have read Plato and understood intellectually; I have personally experienced the event which brings greater understanding to my understanding of Plato; I have read Cato and understand better both the intellectual (Plato) and the actual (experience), thusly if I were to speak on the subject I would speak with more authority and expertise than I would otherwise. As I am speaking one may look at my face and say, ‘ah, you seem less progressed chronologically than I am, therefore I know more than you do on this subject’. If I was to reply to this statement, ‘I am drawing upon sources of people, one who was younger than you now, and one who was older, plus combining it with my own life experience’, (note: we cannot discount the inherent nature of one in one’s development, for as Plato writes aging is still a very subjective concept: ‘…for he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age’) would my understanding be greater and would I display more wisdom?

 

 

This is not for me to say, but to get back on topic, I think that age is a very simple thing, if you can look at your life and say that you have no regrets (in terms of real things, not skipping the gym…) then you are exactly the age you should be, and if you look at your life and find there are regrets then as Mary Ann Evans (the real name of George Eliot) states, ‘It’s never too late to be who you were meant to be’.

 

 

‘till next time