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.

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 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]

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.

Our society is getting faster and faster, I’ve talked about this and questioned it before in a few articles.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when I’m not the only one talking about this and that there is in fact a whole movement related to this, The Slow Movement.  There is a book “In praise of Slow” by Carl Honoré, that covers this subject as well.

It seems the whole thing started as a protest at the opening of a McDonalds in Rome and snowballed from there.  I have to say it’s heart warming to find that this is happening and it does give me hope.

I plan to look deeper into this wonderful phenomenon, slowly, of course!