A Quiet Watercourse

One of the themes I’ve picked up from re-reading Cosmos is a small feeling for the gradual growth and refinement of our knowledge.  We’ve slowly grown in our knowledge and, while quite often what we’ve thought initially is wrong, science is a self correcting process and we’ve slowly gotten nearer to the truth.

The planets are a prime example, originally we were unable to make out any details and had some very odd ideas due to this lack of hard data.  People imagined cities and civilisations on both Venus and Mars, later observations even showed what seemed to be a network of canals on Mars.  Of course, once we were actually able to visit the planets we found that this wasn’t the case and our knowledge grew massively.  Venus is utterly inhospitable, and the Martian canal network was nowhere is sight.

Our methods are not always direct and once it’s explained how we know the things about planets we haven’t even visited, it makes more sense.  For example, we know about the composition of an object by the radio frequencies it reflects when examing with a Radio Telescope, as different elements absorb different frequencies.

This, for me, underlines the reason I walked away from religious explanations of the world; Science can not only explain that it knows, but can explain in detail how it knows.  Whereas the religious explanation is generally either an argument from authority or circular reasoning.  Furthermore, when they are wrong (and they are wrong more often than they will care to admit), they often are incapable of self correcting.  One exception to this (and there may well be others especially Taoism) is Buddhism, to quote the Dalai Lama:

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”

Of course, given the Buddha’s teaching on change, it really shouldn’t be a surprising thing that Buddhism can do this.

I found quite an interesting read this morning.  An article that shows scientific research that makes the point that the facts we accept are the ones that conform to our cultural conditioning, our view of the world, rather than the facts as they are.

You can find it here.

Now, this kind of thing is exactly what the Buddha was talking about.  He pointed out that the reasons we suffer are that we are unwilling to accept the world as it is and prefer our illusions about it.  Note that I don’t say “unable to accept the world as it is”, to say that would be to admit defeat before we start.

I’ve seen a few versions of climate change arguments, it’s becoming more apparent to me that this is the 21st century religious war, with vested interests on both sides and too much shouting.  I find myself agreeing with the implication that this has become more about peoples cherished worldviews and egos and less about the science.  The Buddha tells us that clinging very strongly to our views can cause trouble,  it seems that we need to be reminded of this wise advice with regard to the subject of Climate Change.

For my part, it’s my understanding that the weather is very complex feedback system which we still don’t fully understand.  We’re introducing changes into this sytem and doing the equivalent of throwing mud in the works, and have been for years.  Let’s stop there; we’re taking a very large powerful and complex system; which we don’t fully understand and messing with it in an unco-ordinated manner.

The changes that we have started in the past will have their effect, some already have (anyone remember acid rain?), some no doubt have yet to become apparent.  This comes close to my understanding of Karma; it’s all about knock on effects in a complex system, sometimes unpredictable ones, coming back to bite you.  Remember the “Butterfly Effect”, the principle that small changes could get magnified quite a lot, this could get quite eventful.

When it’s put like this, does any of this strike you as a particularly wise thing to be doing?

I’ve been watching the economics news over the last couple of weeks of writers’ block with a sinking feeling.

Nobody mentions the Elephant in the room, the end of Oil and the limits to growth.  There just seems to be a vague feeling of ‘oh, somebody must do something’, but no sense that business as usual is not possible long term and that certain limits are approaching.

I have spoken to people who see the end of oil, it makes me wonder that if those of us on the ground can see it with a simple common sense, why can’t those in charge?  The technology is there, but maybe because it’s not shiny and new; some kind of shiny impersonal Ithing with no soul, nobody wants to know.

One of the things that made me smile in all this cold weather was the story of a modern diesel locomotive rescued by a steam engine in England.  I’ve been of the opinion for quite some time that newer ways aren’t always better, reading Robert M Pirsig’s view in Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that the correct question is not “what is new?” but “what is best?” confirmed my beliefs.

I’ve seen folks arguing that the renewable technologies need huge factories and lots of energy to build and all sorts of things, but windmills and water wheels have been around for centuries, they’re and ancient and time honoured technology and can provide a valuable contribution without all the rare elements and industrial wizardry, what is so hard to understand about that.

Or maybe we’re in denial because it’s not shiny and doesn’t fit our self image?

I was keeping an eye on the IT news the other day, I saw an interesting article about the way we are being forced into conformity by the corporations we work for.   The author mentioned a recent case, where a person who is very passionate about climate change was allegedly sacked because he disagreed with his company on the matter, his company disagree and all this is pending the attentions of the legal system, so it is all rather up in the air at the minute but does make interesting food for speculation.

The author of the article pointed out that, through “Codes of Conduct” and other methods, various organisations can work to exclude people whose views and lifestyles are not the strict majority norm.  A couple of examples he gives are a teacher who got into considerable difficulty for being a pagan and another teacher who posed topless a few years before being a teacher getting into trouble for that.

It’s a question I’ve pondered before with regard to the rows about Anglican clergy, for example, why should a priest’s gender matter?  What matters more is their ability to do the job, though fundamentalists would without a doubt disagree with me, as is their right. So when looking at teaching (which did seem to get singled out a little more in the article), surely what matters is that we have a good teacher, someone who can get the lessons across?  Who gives a damn if they’re pagan?  If you can do the job, the standard of the work’s good and you keep your professional life reasonably seperate from your personal life where’s the problem?  That question, forces us to confront our prejudices and frankly it’s needed.

All of this raises questions about how far employers should be allowed to go in these dictates, at what point do we turn and say “That’s none of your business”? Human Rights legislation is improving in this area in Europe, but it does seem to me as though in some instances employers are (without realising, I hope) working to undermine the human rights of their employees. This is a trend we need to fight and I notice Britain is very slow on the uptake (we have opt outs) with human rights and employment laws.  It is to be hoped we come to our senses.

I have a couple more things to say on the subject of speech and racism, and I’ll start with responsibility for our speech. This is a theme that I’ve covered before and I feel that the time is right to revisit it and write a little more.

We all are very much for freedom of speech and my previous post goes deeper into my thinking on that subject. But it seems that there is a tendency to have our say come hell or high water, and then shrug when the hurt is done, and simply point to freedom of speech. I’ve known people both professionally and personally who are very forthright and simply have their say, get things off their chest and be damned, I personally know of instances of this sort of thing causing harm.

This brings me nearer to my point here, right speech. The Buddha give us this precept to refrain from unskilled (or false) speech, and while is sounds on the surface like “thou shalt not lie”, it goes much deeper than that. One aspect of right speech is that we should be gentle, tactful. By all means be forceful or sharp if the situation warrants it, but we need to consider the wider impact of our words. The act of simply saying what you think and be damned can often cause hurt and pain to others, and to simply throw this out heedlessly of the consequences is not skilful. If we are delivering such views, is not better to measure and moderate our speech to still say what must be said but be mindful and avoid causing unneeded harm?

This draws us into the realm of Karma, that as we all know, speech can cause very real harm. That harm need not be immediate, sharp phrases and barbed comments can ring in our ears for a long time after the words have faded. The effects of these words can be felt for days, or even weeks, or can cause problems for even longer.

So, to bring things home. Well I think we should have our say, our free speech to bottle things up has it’s own Karma, I mentioned this in my previous post. But we must recognise that this freedom to sow the wind comes with the freedom to reap the whirlwind, we should exercise mindfulness and go gently with our words wherever we can.

A few days ago the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, made an appearance on the BBC 1 program Question Time.  His appearance was controversial to say the least, but I feel that the response and oppostion he got raises issues with the way we handle democracy and freedom of speech.

There were demonstrations outside BBC Television Centre and other BBC offices, and the view of the demonstrators that he wasn’t welcome on British TV was very thoroughly made.  The demonstrations were well meaning no doubt, and while I agree that racism and bigotry isn’t welcome, I’ll stick my neck out here and suggest that this risks taking the liberal movement into the territory of being an oppressive force.

The point I wish to make, is that the concept is “Freedom of Speech” not “Freedom of Speech We Like”. Our democracy gives everyone the chance at speech, and all points of view are necessarily represented.  The desire to suppress these views, to stop people expressing the views that are painful for us to hear, is only natural but it is wrong, no matter what our reasons are.  Once we start blocking speech on the grounds of the simple fact somebody somewhere doesn’t like it, it’s the thin end of the wedge, how long before that same power to block expression is turned on others?  How long before it’s turned on you?

We must hear the speech we dislike and challenge it, not cover our ears, to this will leave the field open to those who would spread hatred.  To silence or simply drown out the opposing points of view, undermines our own credibility, and simply shows that we cannot respond adequately.  It also deprives us of the chance to hone our arguments.

Suppressing speech also risks pushing issues under the carpet and they will never be addressed, left to fester.  Later they might resurface as political or social land mines, much larger problems than they needed to be.  Just because you don’t like what’s being said, or who’s saying it doesn’t mean that the speaker doesn’t have a valid point.

I know from my own experiences that listening to speech that you don’t like is painful and distasteful, but it is necessary.  I feel that this is where our mindfulness practise comes in, our sense of detachment is needed.

In short, while I disagree with the BNP on issues of race and discrimination (but will admit they seem to have been quite accurate in their assessment of post peak oil nuclear power and also nuclear emissions), I do defend their right to have their say.  Because to do otherwise, will ultimately harm us all.

I was reading a thread on a forum the other day, a guy had commented on the new “Ardipithecus ramidus” fossil find and said “so much for creationism” or words to that effect. The results were quite predictable, and as boring as usual, everyone jumped in and a blazing great argument started.

I have to admit to being something of an agnostic on all of this, I take the view that there is much we don’t know and will possibly never know.  As much as many would like to cling to a holy book and proclaim that this is certainty, it isn’t and I’ll refer the reader to my essays for more on that.  In many ways I can make a similar observation of the scientific orthodoxy, science seems to get a revolution every so often and is quite defined by the unknown.  I’m also not the first to observe that science seems to be gaining it’s share of fundamentalists, and I feel that a fundamentalist attitude does science no justice at all.

I’ll also step aside from the row surrounding the much misunderstood and misrepresented theory of Evolution, other than to observe that it seems to be producing the goods in a very practical sense across a number of fields and that its opponents have produced no science of their own that I’ve seen and seem to do nothing but throw mud.

So I’ll move towards the whole question of a creator prior to the beginning of the universe.  Now this, of course, assumes that there was a discrete beginning and that the whole thing doesn’t move in some kind of cyclical way that would make for a very interesting line of investigation.

Now, for what I can see of it everything we have regarding events prior to the big bang is pure conjecture, nobody really knows. It seems to me that every debate I’ve seen boils down to a “yes it was / no it wasn’t” with nobody willing to budge an inch. Now, this sort of thing is one of the questions that the Buddha described as being a net, I can see why, all it does it cause upset and you can never really settle the argument no matter which side you’re on.

But it makes me realise, that many people are shouting certainty from a position of not really knowing.  My sense of things is that true liberation and real courage is to openly admit that you don’t know and possibly never will.  Then get on with something more relevant.

I got involved in a debate with a work colleague a week or so ago about the death penalty, he was for it and I was against.  It was interesting to notice the faith in Science to give the right answers in such a case, almost unquestioning, though I’ll ponder the question of Science as a religion at a later date.

What was interesting, was that his position seemed to be emotionally chosen, and this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this.  I’m very sure everyone reading this has come across people making decisions emotionally or holding positions on issues emotionally.  For example, the debate on climate change seems to be such an issue, with much shrillness and name calling, and that does the subject no justice given the massive importance of what they’re discussing.  I also recall Richard Dawkins telling us in his book “The God Delusion”, of some very senior scientists who, while holding no religious faith themselves, go to church or synagogue out of a feeling of “supporting the team”[1].

So why do we have emotions?  The study of the evolution of emotions began with Charles Darwin in his book “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals”, which was published in 1872.  Darwin noticed that even in people who are born blind, many facial emotional expressions remain the same as in sighted people, research since has shown that many emotional expressions (joy, anger, etc) are common across even isolated cultures.

So why use them in decision making?  The answer, in my opinion, lies in the value of fast decision making.  Dr Dawkins covers this in great detail in the God Delusion, and I highly recommend that book to everyone.  In short, we often need to make quick fairly reliable decisions, if we take time to consider our actions thoroughly, then the odds are we’d be dead long before we made a decision.  Sometimes, you need to act very quickly indeed, and our emotions cut in before our thoughts [2], how often have you acted first and then stopped to think?  This is the nub of it, emotions hit first and then we override our emotions with complex thought.

So coming back to where I started, is it so surprising that we take emotional stances?  How often do we hear the question “How do you feel about that?” not “What do you think of that?”, so I did an informal experiment.  I put the phrase “How do you feel about that issue?” into our Google overlord.  Interesting results, both with and without the quotes, showing a range of subjects in both searches that should not be left to feelings to decide.  I’m not saying we should abandon empathy and emotion, far from it, but my searches turned up health care reform, abortion, stem cell research, choosing the gender of children, these things need more careful consideration.

I think we as a species need to engage in a little consciousness raising here, stop letting our emotions control us and start thinking with our heads.  Not only the use of Science, but the Buddhist emphasis on mindfulness and the Taoist emphasis on awareness all serve to lead us in this direction, I suppose that there’s hope for us yet, eh?

[1] The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.  2007 Black Swan edition. ISBN 978-0-552-77331-7.

[2] Ethics as Emotions – An Evolutionary Approach.  Chris Lucas (date unknown)

I see that in the wake of their party conference, the UK Conservative party is talking about small government.  Well, it’s about time!  We’ve seen the effects of big top heavy government in the UK for a few years now, and it’s been a complete drain on the country.

Lao Tzu warns us specifically about this, Taoists don’t go for meddlesome Big Government, the flaws are too obvious and if we’re being honest about it the long march over time towards intrusive and overbearing big institutions is going to bury us if we’re not careful.

We have the sight in the UK, of government quangos, full of bureaucrats beefing up the ranks of the middle managers, increasing the number of highly paid Chiefs.  Yet the people providing the services are the first to feel the cull.

I saw the news today about the introduction of body scanners at Manchester Airport, the first airport in the UK to have them.  Not satisfied with no end of personal data, we now have to face the prospect of being electronically undressed before going on a plane.  It is optional, for now, but for how long?  This is how they do it, draw the line somewhere that nobody would argue too much, then push it to where you REALLY want it, arguing continuity all the way.

It’s time to get smaller.  Why do we need a huge bureaucracy?  It seems to me that the work of big government is to an extent self generating busy work, we could lose quite a few management postitions and some very much overpaid executives and be no worse off.  We need to honestly ask if some of the things that our government does are even needed.  As Lao Tzu correctly spotted all those years ago, big government is not good government.

We seem to be having something of a false dawn in the UK, in terms of the economy.  There is indeed a light at the end of the tunnel, but I have the funny feeling that it’s a flamethrower.  I’ve been looking round various financial forums, keeping an eye on some blogs, and wondering how the heck we let ourselves sleepwalk into this mess.

We’ve all been quite blind, and it’s interesting to watch the global reaction.  It seems, at least to me, that there is a feeling of waking up but also a desire for “just 5 more minutes”, people are not letting go of the old illusions easily.  Who can blame us?  It’s the start of a very long journey, and it will not be easy.  Watching the U.S. reaction to Obama, I’m inclined to think that there are some there who underestimated how change would happen.  It’s going to be a long and difficult road, there is no shortcut.

I was mulling the Tao Te Ching again, of all the books of philosophy/spirituality in the world, I find this one the most worthwhile.  I found a verse that says it all:

Holding a cup and overfilling it
Cannot be as good as stopping short
Pounding a blade and sharpening it
Cannot be kept for long

Gold and jade fill up the room
No one is able to protect them
Wealth and position bring arrogance
And leave disasters upon oneself

When achievement is completed, fame is attained
Withdraw oneself
This is the Tao of Heaven

We have tried to fill the cup to the brim, in our greed we have tried to extend the cup, we’ve tried to use complex financial methods to outfox reality.  Reality always wins, you can’t beat it.  Those in positions of wealth and power have behaved arrogantly, and the consequences are now being visited on all of us.

[Tao Te Ching verse from www.Taoism.net and Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths in 2006]