Living in the Moment: Part 2: The Moment

Leonard Cohen- who started my education on Buddhism many years ago

One of the central premises of theologies such as Buddhism and philosophies such as Stoicism is the notion of living in the moment. The thought goes, generally, don’t worry about the past or the future, just worry about the here and now. Whilst this makes a lot of sense, the absolute nature of it seems less sensical.

Firstly, we will consider the biomechanics of living in the moment. As you know, our awareness of the outer world comes from without, obviously. Although we can imagine the sun shining on  a rainy day, as Wordsworth did as he blathered on about being a little cloud on a day which, according to his sister’s journal, was rather tempestuous, we first need to know what we are imagining. This comes from prior knowledge of the world- we know what the sun is, we know what clouds are etc. Once we have this template, we can start to observe the world around us. We see trees of green, red roes too, and other lyrics from great songs, and we say, ‘I am looking at a tree’. However, from the moment of looking at the tree and our awareness of what we are looking at, there is a journey. As you know, we see through the medium of light, light hits a surface and (partially) bounces off (note: items absorb the frequencies of the light which correspond with their ‘colour’. For example a blue rose would take in the frequency associated with Blue and reflect the rest, thusly, to us, a blue rose looks red as the colour red is that which is reflected) and enters the eye and travels along the optic nerve until it enters the brain and the brain goes, ‘hmmm, that is a blue rose pretending to be red, the rascal’. So, as you can see, from the moment of physically seeing the rose to ‘seeing’ the rose, knowing what we have seen, there is a lag in time.  Likewise, if we are to burn ourselves on a stove, although we are burnt in the moment, by the time the skin recognises that it is being burnt, sends the sensation along the neve to the brain and the brain goes, ‘oh, darn, my dear Joan, we are being burnt’, there is a delay in time. Thusly, when we see a blue rose or are burnt, our awareness of it is less, ‘this is happening in this moment’ and more ‘this just happened’. From this we can conclude that our awareness of the world is only a memory of what just happened.

To move towards the metaphysical understanding of the phrase and world, we have to consider the human being as a whole. The notion of ‘living’ in the moment, shows a misunderstanding of what it means to be alive.

My definition of being ‘alive’ is that one ‘becomes’. This is a gradual process where one does not turn into who they become, rather uncovers who they are through a long, painful process (the Stoic philosopher Seneca noted wryly that one does not become wise by accident (note: knowing him as I do, which is not at all, I assume it was said wryly although evidence would suggest that he didn’t have a wry bone in his body). Regular readers will know that on the issue of Nature vs Nurture, I say both as one’s nature can shape who they are, but it also needs nurturing to be fulfilled and vice versa, and so one becomes the sum of one’s past. If one was to reject the past and only be who they are now, then they would not be them now, they would regress to the state of a newborn child. It is through lived experience that one is shaped and whilst we should not dwell on the past, learn from it, and move on, who we are is still rooted in the past.

If, to use my definition, we are beings that develop and grow then we must have something to develop into, to grow into. And what is this? The future. Although history ‘repeats’ as human nature is very primitive and generation upon generation makes the same mistakes and has the same justifications to explain it, it is for the large part unknown, unwritten, to use the tedious concept. The future is potential and as the actions of today have a bearing on tomorrow, it is prudent to be aware of them, (note: even the action of meditation, of being in that ‘one’ moment is performed to better prepare the individual for the next ‘moment’, i.e. the future), even in simple things such as, if I eat all of my food today, I won’t have any tomorrow.

In part one we concluded that to yearn for a Golden Age is nihilistic as one rejects life for a mythical past or future, and yet we also can conclude that to live in the ‘moment’ is also nihilistic as to do so one rejects the ‘real’ past and future, how one became who one is through the process of uncovering, and what one can be, the notion of potential.

I think we can draw the conclusion that to live for a Golden Age or ‘in the moment’ are not healthy ways to live, rather we must be conscious of the past in how we are as we are (not dwell on it as real events but to embrace the lessons it taught us) and note that the present also shapes the future and  through balance (easier said than done) learn form the past and live in the moment preparing for the future.

‘till next time      

Living in the Moment: Part 1: The Golden Age

The other day, I was reading a book by the philosopher John Dewey. Mr Dewey, in part, put forth the notion that with the advent of Christianity, one ceased looking backwards to a ‘Golden Age’, rather, started looking forward towards a ‘Golden age’, or land of milk and honey, to use the Biblical term.

His thought, although wrong, was very interesting and got me thinking about Golden ages and History.

When one thinks of a ‘Golden Age’, one invariably looks backwards. This may be a personal thought as to one’s childhood, or a time that they were happy (if many do it, is it still a personal idiosyncrasy or is it part of a cultural development or is it part of the human condition etc.?), or it may be cultural. The Ancient Greeks looked back beyond the first Dark Age (approximately 1200-800 BC) to the Mycenaean culture. In the Mycenaean culture they found the archetypes for their great heroes and gods. Whether or not Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are based on real people is open to conjecture, the fact of some of the events, the Trojan war, for example, stands within the confines of recorded history, and thusly combining, possibly, fictional archetypes of wisdom, valour, bravery, essentially what it means to be a great man (you’ll note in the books that the heroes lack love, real wisdom (the wisdom mentioned above may be more correctly characterised as slyness), compassion and mercy and other traits which denote true strength and nobility). Hesiod, in creating Greek history, also looked back to this era in creating the gods and thusly the male and (mostly) female goddesses conformed, as with Homer’s creations, to the archetypes of what it means to be a great man. Yet, interestingly, one must note that, although Homer was looking back, his characters were looking forward as though they want to create a Golden Age for those looking back. The great Achilles who given the choice between life and glory chooses glory so that his name may ‘echo through eternity’, only to find that Homer has played a trick on his great hero. When confronting Odysseus in the after world, Achilles brushes aside Odysseus’ praise and states that when you are dead, you are dead. There is no glory or greatness, you are just that. Dead. Whether Homer intended it or not, the Ancient Greek culture which he started (known as the, wait for it, Golden Age, of Greek culture) which encompassed himself through Thales and the birth of science, Socrates and the birth of philosophy, Euclid and the birth of geometry, etc. became a Golden Age which later cultures would hark back to. The Romans, or The Parasites as I call them, stole different cultures as they butchered them and thusly, they looked to the Greek Golden Age for guidance. They stole the theology and gave it a new name (Zeus became Jupiter, for example) just as they stole the technology from the Sabines to build aqueducts and roads. Greek architecture became the symbol of high culture; indeed you may recognise some of it still in Washington, DC, in the USA. The Romans, in turn, carried on the creation of a Golden Age. The Renaissance artists (14-17^th Centuries AD) looked back to ‘Antiquity’ (Greeks/Romans) to give ‘rebirth’ to high culture. This was then followed by (17-18^th C AD) the Age of Enlightenment, when thinkers looked once more to the past to uncover the teachings of the great mathematicians and philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. This was then followed in the 19^th Century by the great thinkers, such as Nietzsche, feeling that the Golden Age of Greece (from Socrates onwards) was corrupted and looked to the so-called Pre-Socratics (Diogenes, Heraclitus et al) which can be seen as a rejection of the Age of Enlightenment’s thoughts and values. Indeed, Nietzsche concludes that once art becomes cerebral (for example, Socrates helped/inspired Euripides) it loses its truth as it is removed from the moment (which he states is found in its emotion). Here, ironically, Nietzsche rejects the Golden Age as purported by the Enlightenment and looks back to one less civilised but still a Golden Age none the less.

To return to Dewey’s point, one might say that the Golden Ages thusly mentioned are in the past. Two exceptions to this rule (there are more) are the Egyptian and Celtic cultures to whom the Golden Age was in the future. Much time and many lives were spent in trying to secure a Golden Age for themselves. The Pyramids were testament to the Pharaohs’ notion that life was ephemeral (the average age expectancy was 25) and what was important was to live in paradise after death for eternity. (Note: even the poor of Egypt would try to mummify their corpses in preparation for the next world).   

There seems to be a contradiction created between a Golden Age being historical and a Golden Age being post-history. However, the Bible bridges the gap very well. In the Old Testament the Golden Age is in the Past with the Garden of Eden and then, in the New Testament, the Golden Age becomes the future, Heaven. I think it is fair to say that a Golden Age very much depends on the individuals at the time. If the present is unpleasant, they may look to the past or the future for comfort. It is also important to note that the Golden Ages are very, generally, male centric. To be a woman in many of the Golden Ages would not be more desirable than to be a woman now. Likewise, the Golden Ages seemed to only exist for a handful of people. If you were not an aristocrat, or very lucky with your friends, in Ancient Greece- a time without modern medicine, hygiene, food production etc.- then life would be short and, often, pointless. Regardless, to look back or forth for a Golden Age is to live a nihilistic existence for it is a rejection of the here and now, or, in other words, it is a rejection of our lives.

The notion is often put forth that one must live in the here and now, in the moment, but what does that actually mean and is it possible?

Check back at some point in the future (huh?) and we will look at this question in more detail.

‘till next time (past, present or future)                

English Cricket and Racism

The other day, hours after wearing t-shirts stating how cricket knows no discrimination, reports came out of an England player having tweeted racist and sexist comments. This revelation was quickly followed by the kind of apology that a child may give, ‘sorry I was caught, but it was over 8 years ago so…’ (I’m paraphrasing), and an announcement after the match that the player would be suspended, pending an investigation. The British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, the pilar of integrity and ethics and nuance, then objected to the ban, supporting his Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden (note: this was the first time I’d ever heard of Mr Dowden), calling for the ECB (England and Wales Cricket Board…huh? Shouldn’t that be EWCB?) to ‘rethink’ the ban. The Prime Minister who constantly cheats on his wives, let’s wealthy doners pay for things such as the refurbishment of his flat, found no issue with behaviour which can have serious consequences for others. I’ll pause here to give you a moment to get over your shock at this.

I have long suspected the ECB, The England Team and some fans of showing racial biases in their actions. The very name alone, ECB, shows one bias from the start as though Wales is not worthy to be considered as anything other than England.

The English cricketer, spinning all-rounder (bats and bowls) Moeen Ali recently spoke of being made a scapegoat by the England Team to explain poor performances. Mr Ali, the only Muslim in the team and of Indian descent, was justified in his comments. Given his flexibility and given how poor the England team have been over the last few years, Mr Ali, in the Test Team, would be moved from different batting positions- he would open or come in at three (first change) or down at 8 (he batted in every position from 1-11). Each position requires a different skill set and for a player to be moved from match to match would be very hard to do, considering how players often want to make one position their own and then thrive with a secure foundation. Ali’s form with the bat was up and down as he was moved around and often it would be him that the English media, public and team highlighted for the team losing. Mr Ali is a world-class spin bowler with an incredible record, however, as with many of us, he depended on confidence to thrive. Losses being attributed to his batting and bowling would have dented his confidence. When England started playing two spinners, the Media asked why and were told it was because Mr Ali did not feel comfortable as a frontline bowler and wanted to the be back-up spinner. The insinuations here were obvious- we are having to change everything because Mr Ali wants a comfort blanket, so if we struggle it is all his fault. The media went along with it calling him a ‘part-time’ bowler, even given his world records at bowling, made even more uncomfortable when another All-Rounder, Ben Stokes, would be called a front-line bowler and batter even though his numbers were nowhere near as good as Mr Ali’s.  Consider during a Test serious a few years ago, the England  All-Rounder batsman and wicket-keeper John Bairstow said in an interview, when asked if he would move up the order to help with the batting replied, ‘I bat at 7 and I keep wicket’, which the ECB had no comment on. On one hand you had a player who was doing everything the could for the team and another who was only focused on himself. One of the players was a white English person, the other an Indian heritage Islamic Englishman. Guess which the team seemed to take issue with? The one who cared about the team or the one who cared about himself (hint: the former was the Muslim and the later white).

(note: in 2020 the England players were rotated to deal with the stresses of being in bio-secure environments. It was prearranged when each player would leave. However, the England Team came out and said that Mr Ali was the only one they asked to miss his prearranged rotation and that he declined giving a lot of the blame to Mr Ali for something all of the other players and staff were doing).  

Whilst this may seem inconclusive and as we do not have many instances of ‘non-whites’ playing for England. The next good example would be the Indian heritage spin bowler, Monty Panesar. Monty Panesar, or ‘Monty’ as the media, including the irritatingly smug and insecure Johnathan Agnew, would call him, was a world-class spinner. If not for Grahame Swan being around at the same time, arguably England’s greatest ever spin bowler, Mr Panesar would have had a longer Test Match career. However, as Mr Panesar himself has stated, he was treated by the ECB, the team, the media and the public, as a joke. People would laugh at him as he ran for the ball, they would mock his bad fielding, or, to be blunt, to the English cricketing word, he was a figure of fun. Whereas Ben Stokes could fracture someone’s skull and be made Vice-Captain, Mr Panesar would be villainised for making a mistake with the ball running past him.

This kind of double standards was not contained to the English players with an ethnic heritage, it also went in without the main group of players (clique). When there was a problem between the England team and the South-African born Kevin Pietersen the whole of the English cricket machine turned against him. That there was evidence of him being bullied by senior team members (such as Stuart Broad, Grahame Swan (who gives the word ‘smug’ a bad name)) was irrelevant, they were having fun but the brilliant Kevin Pietersen, South African born, was a rotten apple that had to be removed.

I could go on, but in the name of brevity, I will reach my point.

The portraits painted above seem to indicate, strongly, racism in English cricket and (whilst the players (except for Mr Ali) are removed from it) one must consider the consequences. If you are a young Muslim boy who dreams of being a cricketer and idolises Mr Ali, to see how he was treated would make one think ‘this would happen to me too’, something they ay have already experienced in life. Likewise, a young girl from a Pakistani descent who sits and show her parents a cricket match and says ‘I want to do that’ will have to field questions such as, ‘why are they all laughing at the Indian guy? Why is his Captain mocking him post-match?’. Cricket is almost a religion in India and Pakistan and is widely played in the UK, however, representation at the highest levels is lacking. Now you need to go to a posh white school or come from a poor white background to play for England. If you are black or brown or yellow or green or etc. forget it, the game is not meant for you. And if you don’t believe me, just ask the ECB of the UK Prime Minister. If you find this repulsive and incredibly racist, then you are forgetting the one rule that every victim must follow. Just Get Over It.

‘till next time

Why Do We Need to be Right?

The other day, I was listening to an interview with Viggo Mortensen, the actor best known for his portrayal of Aragorn (Strider) in Peter Jackson’s adaption of J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Mr Mortensen was promoting a film he had recently made on dementia, based, partially, on his experiences with his parents succumbing to the disease.  During the interview Mr Mortensen spoke of how, when one has dementia, those around are constantly correcting them. Dementia effects the memory and people with dementia can often think that events/people from their past are currently their present. For example, one might say that they had dinner with Uncle Billy when Uncle Billy died ten years ago. People’s response to this is frequently to correct them and remind them that their brother passed away. Mr Mortensen asked, why do we do this? Is it for the benefit of the ‘confused’ person, or is it for the benefit of the person to whom they are speaking? Mr Mortensen hypothesised that we correct them for our own benefit for we are uncomfortable with their ‘reality’ and want them to be part of our reality, and, possibly, to be the person we known they are, the person we need them to be. This may not, on the surface, seem selfish but if we consider it from the perspective of one with dementia then it may seem so.

Imagine, if you will, you see a friend of yours, someone you love and respect. You see the person and say, ‘ah, I saw your Uncle Billy today. We had lunch’. The other person then respond, ‘Uncle Billy is dead…you are wrong’. In this case there seems to be three things going on: the person being spoken to feels uncomfortable at an alternate ‘reality’; the person speaking feels shocked and surprised that the person to whom they are speaking is questioning their ‘reality’; if/once they accept the ‘other’ ‘reality’ they are forced to relive a terrible event: the death of their brother.

Yes, I understand that dementia is a terrible thing for those with it and those around, maybe more so for those around who witness it from the ‘accepted’ reality, and that I am not qualified to speak on this subject, so I won’t. I will move on to the main thesis: why do we need to be right?

We, in society, seem to live in the absolute terror of being wrong. This, it has to be said, is not helped by schools giving standardised testing to very young children, children who then learn that they can be right or wrong and that there is no middle ground. In our desperation to be right, we commit some heinous acts.

Think, for example, a news story the other day. A person had evidence shown that they made racist and sexist comments. The person, after the news broke, apologised in one of the least sincere apologises I have ever seen, highlighting that it was ‘over 8 years ago’, when the actions took place. Social media then did what it does, it defended the perpetrator of the actions. This, in itself, was illuminating. Often how we react to things, what we chose to stand up for, reflects who we are as people. The argument that ‘it was 8 years ago’ and ‘haven’t we all done such things when we were young’, show two things. 1) there seems to be a stature of time on crime and 2) those defending the actions themselves see nothing wrong with bad behaviour and by defending the person for being young at the time, shows that they themselves, probably, think the same way. Or, to be blunt, that they themselves are racist and sexist.

The argument of ‘time’ is irrelevant for when we are children our selves are there, just undeveloped. Thusly, how we act as children reflects who we are as adults. Likewise, it shows a very narrow perspective. It does not take into consideration the victims of the actions. By saying ‘ah, come on, who takes this stuff seriously?’, just goes to show that they themselves do not take it seriously, which could be why racism and sexism look here to stay. If, for example, a woman is raped or a child is bullied or other tragedies, the onus is on the victim to ‘get over it’, whilst people flock to defend the perpetrator. This, not only shows that they are one and the same, shows that they lack the inclination and/or ability, to see things from a different point of view, that of the victim.

Why is this? Because they are scared. To be wrong is a scary thing. Not only may it ‘humiliate’ you, but it also may make you question the very thing which we believe to be, ourselves. By saying that we were wrong, is to show ourselves to be less than perfect, yet, what people don’t realise is that we can learn a lot from bacteria. Bacteria evolved with a deliberate design flaw. This flaw means that it can adapt and exist in many forms. It is easy to argue that bacteria are the dominant species on this planet. By the bacteria saying, ‘I was wrong’, it is able to evolve and move forward in its development. By saying ‘I was wrong’ we have the chance to learn to be right and to move on in our development. The key to wisdom is to be wrong more than you are right but to then acknowledge our flaws and try to move forward. To never admit to being wrong is never to grow, never to evolve. In Platonic terms, it is to sit staring at the shadows dancing on the walls whilst the truth lies just behind us.

‘till next time