A Quiet Watercourse

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.

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’ve just heard in the last few minutes that the Prime Minister has issued an apology for the awful treatment of Alan Turing.

I’m very pleased as this just underlines the fact that treating someone like this is utterly unacceptable in any society that claims to be civilised.

The link to Number 10 website is here.

I’ve been keeping an eye on the growing campaign for the British government to apologise for the treatment of Alan Turing.

I support this campaign, and have already signed the petition linked to above. But it’s not just because I think Turing was treated abysmally badly, but also because I think we still harbour the sort of tendencies that led to Turing’s treatment and that needs to be highlighted.  We need to stop writing people off because of one bad thing, it seems that as soon as we realise that they’re not perfect there’s hell to pay, our treatment of high profile media figures is a perfect example of this.  Lao Tzu, Buddha and Jesus all warn us away from this behaviour, and while I’m not sure what Psychology has to say on the matter I can’t see it being particularly favourable.

What’s been equally interesting is comments I’ve been reading on the story, the feeling that maybe the British should apologise for everything from the Empire onwards.  Of course, if that sort of thing is acceptable, then the old colonial powers (yes, all of them, it wasn’t just us Brits) will be apologising for the next hundred years!

But the point I’d like to make is that the current generation can’t be held responsible for things that were done by past generations, I appreciate that people are hurt or national pride (and I think that this is mostly pride) has been injured, but once reasonable amends have been made (like the symbolic apology above) we need to move on and drop the blame game.

Of course, this failure to forgive grudges is mirrored in the doctrine of original sin.  I’ve been reading about the history of both the middle eastern religious movement and also the Bible, and it’s fascinating to see how the way the people have regarded the text has changed and to be honest, it tells you more about people than it does about God.

As for original sin, there are questions over how literally the story of the Garden of Eden was intended to taken, with the strong possibility that it was never intended (as with much of scripture) to be read literally.  My own feeling is that it is not.

The doctrine was heavily influenced, but not originated, by St Augustine of Hippo, the idea being that Adam’s sin is passed down to all of his descendants.  Now quite aside from the fact that several churches disagree with this doctrine, there is another problem.

Consider that our reasoning powers, the ability to have the kind of awareness we do, are evolved right there into our nature.  This would put that doctrine in the position of condemning a person simply for being Human, so along comes the Church with the cure.  Nice setup isn’t it?  I’ll also point out right here though that not all churches accept original sin, I don’t believe in tarring everyone with the same brush.

But, let’s face it, Evolution does rather torpedo the Eden story and with it original sin.  I prefer another reading of it, which is that the great weight and inertia of human history, culture and society have combined to put us in a position where we often fall short.  This sounds very much like Karma and is also the position of many Orthodox Churches.

To summarise?  We need to stop writing people off for not being perfect and once people and countries have apologised, stop guilt tripping them indefinitely.  Finally we need to realise that the sins of the fathers do not fall onto the shoulders of their sons.  If we’re to have a healthy future, we have to let go of things.

I watched the recent furore over the US right attacking the British NHS with some interest and also a little head shaking.

Let’s be honest, it’s not a perfect system, but it’s there and it’s working and we’d be a lot worse off without it.  Many people, myself included, would not be alive today without the NHS.  I’ve yet to find a perfect system anywhere and to be honest, the criticism levelled at the NHS in the UK is a vital part of the process that refines it.  Such criticism is most useful if constructive and useless if done with ill intent.

It’s been instructive to watch the attacks, a certain US news mouthpiece proclaimed that if the scientist Stephen Hawking were British he’d be dead.  Hmm, slight problem with that is that he is British and also has received treatment from the NHS.  These people are so eager to attack, so full of vitriol that they can’t even do a basic fact check first.

I am honestly starting to wonder if this is the counter attack of the special interest lobby for US healthcare.  I just wish it looked to me like they actually cared about those less fortunate than themselves, because in my opinion they certainly don’t seem to.

This is an example of the sort of politics that we need less of, protecting the fatcats and special interests above all else.  It doesn’t actually solve any problems and when the system falls apart, as it surely will if abused and unbalanced for long enough, everybody loses – rich and poor.

I’ve been keeping up with the commentary on the unfolding storm.  One of the things I’ve noticed is that there is a definite tendency to go a little apocalyptic, in feel if not in explicit content.  It’s all too easy to get frozen in the headlights of the oncoming storm, with the feeling that we will be torn apart, a wrecked destitute society.

I’m of the opinion that this will be a huge challenge for us, and that our lifestyles will change.  The general phrase used is that our standard of living must come down.  I was talking on the phone to a very old and dear friend last night and something we agreed on has bubbled to the surface of my mind.  Most of the things we take for granted, could be described as “frivolous”.  CDs, DVDs, Playstations, large wardrobes, flashy cars and I’m sure that each reader can add to this list with your own examples.

So… Let’s re-examine it.  Given the above, how far does our quality of life really fall now?  Granted, access to medical treatment is an issue, but with the reduction of car use and a corresponding increase in our activity level shouldn’t we be generally healthier?

If a lot of what we are going to lose is our illusions and largely unimportant frivolities, how far will our “standard of living” really fall?  I honestly believe that we can rise to this.  Perhaps if we accept that we might just gain a sustainable, ethical way of life, coupled with my own belief that this change will bring opportunities for those prepared to forge ahead.  Could it be that our perception of our “standard of living” needs a reassessment?  I don’t have the answers right now, but as a correspondant once said of me, I tend to ask the questions and try to provoke my readers to think.

Guess what I’m doing now…..

In my previous post, I compared what’s happening to the ‘End of Rome’, if we’re not very careful then this is going to be very much the case.  Of course, this whole thing does provide us with an opportunity, all it requires is a change in the way we look at things.

I think this is an important change to make, as I think we seem to be largely in denial of the scale of what’s happening, but also unable to see a way through it.   Now, my personal conviction is that this isn’t a deficiency in intelligence, or in our ability to rise to the challenges ahead of us.  I think it’s a problem of perspective, we cannot accept the change because we seem to lose everything, and I admit the sheer enormity of the idea is frightening.

So can we turn that perspective around?  I think the answer is yes, we have an opportunity here to learn much more about living lightly on the Earth in a sustainable way, but also a chance to learn to take pleasure in something other than reckless consumption.  We could gain a better environment to live in, with less noise and traffic fumes.   A chance to slow down the pace of things maybe, gain some much needed time for reflection?  I feel that we lose a great deal because of our frantic pace, we miss a lot and I know I’m not the only one who feels like that, but more of that another time.

It’s easy to point the finger and call this wishful rusticism, but the alternative is unsustainable and will come crashing down around our ears sooner rather than later.  So we may as well find the silver lining, I don’t think it’s such a bad one.

So, this could be our chance at a new age, not a ‘Golden Age’ by today’s standards, but given where those standards have led us to, how much faith can we put in them anymore?

I’ve been watching the unfolding story of our global economic problems with a growing sense of foreboding.

People are running round trying to prop up the system without realising that it might just be time to question a few of the basic assumptions that underlie that system.

The one I think needs to be addressed with priority is the fixation with growth and how to restart it.  We have only so much planet, and we have been burning through the available resources with abandon.  You can only grow for so long, sooner or later you run out of room to grow and resources to grow with.  That’s the problem, we’re trying to do something that just isn’t possible and if you get into a fight like that, you won’t be the one left standing at the end.  Reality is always right and denying that basic fact just stores up trouble.

It’s time to start moving towards a path based on what we can sustain, it will be slow and challenging, but there really is little alternative and the clock is ticking ever louder.

We also need to realise that we need to start questioning the assumptions that underlie our methods and beliefs in all areas of our lives, putting our heads in the sand and allowing others to think for us is no longer an option.

Dare we begin to compare this to the fall of Rome and, in our denial, are we and our leaders guilty of fiddling while Rome burns?

Well, I had an interesting experience in Secondlife last night, at a sim called “The Buddha Center” they showed a BBC video on the life of the Buddha.  As aide from the odd technical hiccup it was an enjoyable experience and when I found the video on YouTube, I thought I’d share it with everybody!

It’s 50 minutes in length, so be sure you have a cup of Tea when you click play, and the DVD purchase notice will vanish after the first 30 seconds or so. 

Well, today is going to be historic, Barack Obama’s inauguration changes things on so many levels.  He has a huge task ahead of him and will need all of his fortitude and courage to face it, though to be fair, that’s going to be required of everyone in the months to come.

Some would say it’s historic because he’s America’s first African-American president, but I take the view that this runs a lot deeper than that.  According to my understanding of the media coverage, this was an election where a whole new demographic of American voter made their voices heard.

Also, we stand at the beginning of a far reaching process of change.  I’ve stated before my firm belief that continuing as we are is no longer a long term option.

So what to do?  Well, I start re-reading the Tao Te Ching a few days ago, and I think Chapter 3 has some good advice for us, not just for our leaders.

Do not glorify the achievers
So the people will not squabble
Do not treasure goods that are hard to obtain
So the people will not become thieves
Do not show the desired things
So their hearts will not be confused

Thus the governance of the sage:
Empties their hearts
Fills their bellies
Weakens their ambitions
Strengthens their bones

Let the people have no cunning and no greed
So those who scheme will not dare to meddle

Act without contrivance
And nothing will be beyond control

Source: www.truetao.org