I LEAVE IT WITH YOU

Everyone I speak to is distraught about what is happening around the world. It is not a healthy way to live. There is too much confusion and very little relief. This is a refrain that keeps swirling around my brain. I have started and discarded a number of possible thoughts for deliberation on the blog and have yet to settled on anything worthy of analysis.

 

As pompous as that reads, it is nonetheless a state of mind. With advancing years, it is essential to keep the brain functioning. At the moment, physical exercise is not as much of an issue as mental exercise, or rather it is as important; however, physical abilities tend to decrease with longevity no matter how much exercise you do, whereas mental acuity can disappear in a trice unless some cerebral activity is undertaken. I am assuming this is a reasonable view even though I am not a scientist, anatomist or physiologist.

 

As to the brain, one can perhaps borrow as few maxims from popular culture. “What happens in the brain, stays in the brain” and “The first rule of The Brain, is you do not talk about The Brain”.  With that in mind, welcome to the brain. The second rule of The Brain is YOU DO NOT talk about The Brain. Third rule of the brain: if some incident causes extreme trauma and conscious thinking ceases, The Brain is over. Fourth rule: keep interaction limited. Fifth rule: one grand thought at a time. Sixth rule: Thinking is to be individual, no outside aids, no ChatGPT. Seventh rule: Thinking will go on for as long as it has to: The eighth and final rule: If this is your first time with consciousness, you have to think.

 

What is remarkable is that despite its flexibility and ability to absorb information it can become locked and rigid, perhaps even frozen. What is difficult to understand is why so much of our behaviour is dependent on the information that is put into the brain whilst in its infancy when so much more information is absorbed in later life. Why do the first five, or so, years of input have such a hold on the rest of our lives? 

 

Most countries with an established representative government institute a form of early education to teach its children basic information to enable them to function in society. We learn to read, write and count. In addition, due to the most usually adopted method of education, it is performed in groups with a teacher and similarly aged students in a classroom where a framework is created for learning social skills as well.  

 

The learning or curriculum is expanded, as we grow older, from basic reading, writing and counting, into the study of one’s native language and literature as well as more complex forms of mathematics. Additional cultural activities are included, such as history, geography, sciences, music, art, and sport. The progression is towards learning certain subjects in more depth and perhaps specialising in certain areas of higher education which would include law, politics, economics and philosophy, as well as architecture and more sophisticated science and technology. Not everyone goes on to university education and may prefer to learn more practical skills or develop their artistic proficiency and talent in fine art, music and drama.

 

Although we like to think that all human brains are exactly alike in structure, they may not be so similar in respect of capability. Not everyone is able to follow the trajectory indicated above, and even those who do sometimes, or perhaps more often than one supposes, fall away from completing the course. The great tragedy is that most of the world’s population doesn’t even have the chance to start the journey. Despite all that, the basic desire and instinct of any human being is for adequate food, shelter, security, health and safety, freedom to roam or not, as the case may be, without interference and in peace.  All rather simple and straight forward; yet, the diversity of opinions on how to achieve that state of affairs, is problematic and chaotic in the extreme. This results from the same structural material we all carry in our heads. This malleable collection of nerves, cells, neurons and synapses has produced religious fundamentalism, bigotry, obstinacy, narcissism and psychopathy as well as compassion, love, generosity and civility.

 

What can we make of this mess? We have a world body of united nations who have established a forum through which to air our differences and yet more groups and treaties between nations to do the same. What is so difficult about coming together? What creates this necessity to impose someone’s fixed ideas on others? What is it about a flexible and accommodating organ such as the brain that makes it so rigid, uncompromising and ready to do evil?

 

What is it that permits the leader of one country to ignore the representations of masses of people around the world and other world leaders to stop the killing? What allows the powers that be to ignore the appeals of its own citizens to stop aggression and counter aggression? How long does it take for sense to prevail? Why has education and experience so dismally failed the representative leaders and legislators of nations and peoples? There must be some way out of here. I put it to you and I leave it with you.

MY LETTER TO THE GUARDIAN

I have today sent this letter the the Guardian newspaper which no doubt will not be published, so I am sending it out on the web, which will probably have as much effect as sending it to the Guardian.

To the Editor,

I am minded to refer to Suella Braverman’s expressions of concern as either simply hypocritical or possibly specious. Her primary concerns in Government, her ‘dreams’, her obsessions, are entirely negative. She seeks to have total control and prevent what she sees as contrary to her wishes, which she claims are the wishes of the British citizenry.  She wants to prevent immigration at any price and is willing to sacrifice hard won human right legislation. She seeks to prevent dissent of any kind by preventing public demonstrations and free expression of opinions contrary to her own, by sacrificing hard fought for constitutional rights with legislation containing harsh sentences to imprison protesters. She seeks to enact legislation limiting legal rights and preventing the courts from having any say in what affects the rule of law. She seeks a government that has total control without scrutiny or any kind. That is the effect of what she says.

At the same time she professes to support traditional conservative values. Small government and free market trading with little interference or regulation whilst paying lip service to health and social care, which, in any event, should be provided by the private sector. You will note, she said nothing in her ‘written agreement’ with Mr Sunak about social welfare or the cost of living; however, she claims “It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good.”

Her whole being is arrogant in the extreme and her behaviour and constant refrain spouting repression has nothing whatever to do with the pubic good. It is she who has abused the privilege of public service, and has indeed taken her position for granted. She is not at all interested in collective responsibility only here own views. It’s her way or no way. This is bravado not bravery. This is narcissism, not selflessness.   

ALPHABET SOUP

How we read is what we read. That we read at all is a consequence of having something to read. From the moment we open eyes or become conscious we have the ability  to interpret signs, to reach an understanding of what is before us, in front of us, what we can see and possibly reach out and touch in the immediate present. I do not confine reading to the reading of text. The necessity to read and interpret is crucial to survival and our lives are taken up with survival.

 

Recently in Waterlife, the magazine of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, an article on how to identify tracks and signs was published. This takes us back to probably one of the first things a newly evolved homo sapiens would have been taught to read some 300,000 or so years ago. That, together with images painted or carved on walls of dwellings, and observations of weather and climate conditions, would have been the first ‘texts’ of required reading. 

 

As to what we now call writing, that did not happen until some 5500 years ago. Of course, it did not just happen, and it came about in more than one place on the planet to accommodate the various languages that had emerged around the world. As interaction between individuals became more complex, trade and relations require some form of record keeping, and indeed the first known writings concern accounts (numbers and stocktaking). This would have required the creation of symbols to represent the word for cow, chicken or pig. Again, necessity was the mother of invention.

 

The facility to read and organise out thoughts is developed in the brain. Stuff is poured into us the moment we emerge from the womb and probably a couple of months before that. We learn a language or several languages over time, but it is our so called mother tongue that defines us for the rest of our lives. Our thoughts, dreams, impromptu expletives and reactions are expressed in that language. We are what we speak and we speak what we read. The brain organises and records it all. We can consciously recall, or retrieve from our stored memory banks, events that have occurred. Sometimes some exterior stimulus will prompt a memory to surface to the forefront of our thoughts. Included in this retrieval are the emotions that coloured the incident at the time it occurred. The language expressing those emotions and recalling the associated events is the same. So, we become, and are, what we speak.

 

According to a Wikipedia entry there are some 40 languages spoken by at least 45 million people around the world, from English  at 1.456 billion people (380 million as a first language and 1.077 billion as a second language) to Yoruba at 46 million (44 million as a first language and 2 million as a second language).

The CIA have done some research and have produced the following chart of most spoken language as a percentage of world population:

We have, however, come a long way from tracking signs. Communication is now universal and certain languages have dominated the landscape at various times in history. At present, it is the English language that is becoming the lingua franca of our time. Communication for commercial airlines and airports requires English. Many countries participating in the Eurovision song contests, produce music with English lyrics. The tourist industry thrives on the ability to speak English. Many placards and posters held up at demonstrations throughout the world will be in the English language. In addition, the proliferation of mobile technology and the world wide web have changed the landscape seemingly beyond control.

 

As to writing, things are a bit more problematic. There are a number of alphabets, but not as many as there are languages. There are some 15 alphabets or scripts that are in current use, as per this chart:

The various symbols and letters of alphabets are sound keys that represent the sound of syllables of words. It is interesting that the Latin alphabet can be used to convey the sounds of a variety of languages. The Cyrillic and Greek notations have much the same sounds as their Latin equivalent. It is also interesting that the same notation or script can be used for Slavic, Germanic and Latin based languages.

 

The Wikipedia entry defines an alphabet as “a standardised set of written graphemes (called letters) representing phonemes, units of sounds that distinguish words, of certain spoken languages. Not all writing systems represent language in this was; in a syllabary, each character represents a syllable, and logographic systems use characters to represent words, morphemes, or other semantic units.” 

That does not however change the fact that we are what we speak, although it has made us realise just how similar we all are as human beings. Our basic requirements are entirely the same: human rights including secure shelter, health, safe and secure employment, education and free speech. The eradication of prejudice and bigotry of any kind would be a help.

 

Looking at it from another perspective, our brains are little understood, but extremely advanced and sophisticated data processors. The brain never stops functioning and is constantly siphoning or drawing in information, whether we are awake or asleep, and no matter what our level of intelligence. All our senses, touch, smell, sound, taste and vision are in constant operation so long as we are alive. We all have the facility to retrieve the information we are gathering so long as we can breathe. How we choose to use that information is what makes us all different. What keeps us alive, what gives us the energy to keep functioning is the same for every creature on earth. In that respect we are all the same. The eradication of prejudice and bigotry of any kind would be a help.

 

So let us not talk falsely now.

 

A BIT OF A WIZARD ?

My thoughts are interrupted by a bit of political news which brought to mind the Munchkins, given our prime minister’s diminutive stature:

 

                               Song of the Munchkins
And oh, what happened then was rich.
The house began to pitch. The prime minister took a slitch.
It landed on the Wicked Witch in the middle of a ditch,
Which was not a healthy situation for the Wicked Witch.
The house began to pitch. The cabinet took a slitch.
It landed on the Wicked Witch in the middle of a ditch,
Which was not a healthy situation for the Wicked Witch.
... Who began to twitch and was reduced to just a stitch of what was once the Wicked Witch.

Ding Dong! The Witch is shed. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is shed.

Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is shed She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is shed!

DON'T LOOK AT THE CAMERA

There is a scene in Apocalypse Now in which a Television news team is filming and telling passing soldiers not to look at the camera “Go through like you’re fighting”. This is it:

A deliberate bit of irony by the director Francis Ford Coppola and probably very near the truth of the situation. If you consider the numbers of reporters and press crew at any given tragedy, you can be overwhelmed with information and astonished by the multitude. Watching the BBC newscasts from the Middle East there are at the very least 7 people on the ground. (Reeta Chakrabarti, Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin, Lyse Doucet plus camera operators and sound technicians). The BBC is not the only crew reporting. There are ITN and Channel 4 crews and probably other newspaper reporters as well.  There must be at least 50 or so press from the United Kingdom alone, if not more. The French, German, Spanish, Italian, Scandinavian, Dutch, United States, Canada, Japan etc will no doubt have sent reporters and support staff as well, together with all the equipment and assorted paraphernalia to cover the story. There could easily be a thousand people wearing flack jackets with PRESS scrolled across them. Where do they stay? What hotels and bars are the hangouts?

 

That single crew portrayed in Apocalypse Now is clearly a very modest portrayal of what the situation must actually be like.  I would guess there are at least 10 crews on the job at any one time. They could easily be mistaken for a military troop or company of men. Is it any wonder not more are killed, or that any survive at all?  Does that single word PRESS emblazoned on the vest really act as a shield? Does the sniper, on seeing the word in his/her scope, shift the gun barrel away in another direction? These are questions to ponder and give us pause.

 

This international polyglot crowd must have significant impact on the local population suffering the effects of whatever horrific trauma they are experiencing. The interaction between the victims and the representatives of the press must be extremely sensitive. There must be some element of resentment by the intrusion. Indeed, I have it on good authority, from a reliable unnamed source, an informed anonymous participant, that the BBC is not at all liked by the Israelis. “BBC You Lie!” is a quote.

 

Whether there is any possibility of impartiality on the part of the members of the press in a war zone, is difficult to assess. The sight of the casualties, dead and wounded, particularly children, must take its toll. The perpetrators of these atrocities on either side of the spectrum are to be reviled. To let one’s political, tribal or religious affiliations colour one’s human reflexes or instincts is a questionable position to adopt. Likewise the appearance of impartiality or objectivity can appear callous in the extreme. Thus, can one fail to note the resentment felt by victims watching and listening to the press talking to camera? Depending on the news agency, there will be an agenda. CNN will be very different from Fox News as from Al Jazeera, the BBC, CBS, CBC, Le Monde etc.

 

The other issue, of course, is the focus of the spotlight. The eyes of the world are turned towards the headlines. At the moment they are on the Middle East. They have turned away from Ukraine and Russia. Not that the situation there is not being reported, it’s just that it is not, at present, on the front page. Surreptitious activity is likely to occur if the gaze is diverted. Alliances are fragile and actions by others are sometime welcomed and then vilified. As an instance in point, so long as Putin supported al-Assad and bombed the Syrians, the Israelis welcomed the action; now, in the Russian support of the Palestinians, it is a very different story.

 

Politicians often speak of the winds of change, by which they mean different courses of action may follow on from one course and take one in the completely opposite direction, or simply go off at a tangent. The political will is a whirlwind spiralling like a tornado across the landscape. Alliances come and go. As to  Britain it is recorded that on the 16^th August 1681 the following comment was published by Heraclitus Ridens: “He makes no more of breaking Acts of Parliaments, than if they were like Promises and Pie-crust, made to be broken.” I confess I have difficulties finding out just who he was referring to, but it seems just as appropriate today as it did in the 17^th Century. Charles II was on the throne but died 4 years later on 6^th February 1685. We now have Charles III on the throne, so the goings on in Parliament appear to mirror the past situation.

 

The camaraderie of the press is well illustrated in films such as It Happened One Night, The Front Page or His Girl Friday, Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, Olivia Manning’s Levant Trilogy, De Maupassant’s Bel Ami, All the Presidents Men, Ace in the Hole and a number of others depicting the reporter’s crusade to expose wrongdoing in the search for truth. There is no doubt that a free press is essential in any society which must be kept informed. Sadly, much of the information is propaganda and opinion, facts and objectivity are hard to come by. For a citizen to navigate through the oceans of information, s/he must remain vigilant and do their own research, educate themselves in seeking the truth, and not rely exclusively on the current press. Whilst one likes to think of the BBC as being utterly reliable in providing true facts, it is not always told the truth.  It has a world-wide reputation as a provider of objectivity and various cross sections of opinion, although it has a tendency to lean towards support of the establishment and the current government. In short, a bit conservative in its outlook, even though it’s meant not to have an opinion. On the whole I still think we can rely on it, just don’t look at the camera.

DREAMS OF PEACE AND MACBETH

No one likes listening to or watching the news anymore. The neighbours that I have spoken to all feel the same. There is too much atrocity in the world and no one knows where to begin.

 

Once again one is drawn to Shakespeare:

  (A slight change to the text)

 

(They) should have died hereafter.

There would have been a time for such a word.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets (their) hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

 

I had this going through my head all through the night, but could not remember the whole text in the correct order. Lines stuck in my head, out of place and out of sorts.

 

‘there would have been time for such a word’ ‘tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow’ ‘t’ll the last syllable of recorded time’ ‘a player that frets and struts upon the stage’ ‘a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing’ ’full of sound and fury’

 

All a bit of an annoying jumble that I had to look it up and take in the whole of the text at 3 o’clock in the morning. Indeed what dreams do come in the middle of the night to disturb one’s sleep.

 

I ask myself why I should be so upset and discombobulated by world events that are tragically so predictable. There are more personal problems to cope with, which, of necessity or proximity, are of far more importance in my daily life, and amble through steadily day to day. They may be more subdued and gentler in comparison to what is going on in Middle Europe and the Middle East, and most assuredly elsewhere; but, they are personal to me and contribute to the unease of the mind.

 

At present I feel akin to a curmudgeon. It is all complaint, angry criticism, bad temper and intolerance, ready to apportion blame from a very one sided prejudiced point of view. I do not like the current British Government. They are, in my view, a complete disaster. I do not like Donald Trump and the millions of his Maga supporters, in particular certain disgustingly right wing conservative representatives in the Congress of the United States. Equally there are various people, who preside over the government of a number of countries throughout the world, who are very much to blame for the death and destruction of people and places that are entitled to so much more than their present lot. As an individual citizen, I am powerless to do anything about it. I believe many people may feel the same.

 

I live with someone who has a much more caring and forgiving perspective on the world and is often fed up with my never-ending complaint. She points out that being a public servant in a democracy is not an easy proposition. She points out that, although one disagrees with what they say and fail to do, they have at least put themselves forward to be elected to office. They have at least made an attempt to  do something to improve the lot of their constituents, and given all the difficulties involved, must at least have felt the desire to be responsible representatives. They have, one has to accept, been elected to be representatives. It is not credible to assume that they all have ulterior selfish evil motives in seeking office. Should you not seek office if you feel so strongly, or take a more active part in some sort of public service? As a matter of fact, we know very few people, personally, who have been in or sought pubic service.

 

Two of our friends have been local councillors. One Labour and one Liberal Democrat. I have known an MP and have had dealings with a couple of other MPs. I had occasion to meet with a prospective MP running in Camberwell and discuss her views and situation. She lost in Camberwell, but subsequently became MP for Vauxhall. Much to my later distress, although she was a much loved constituency MP, she supported the Brexit referendum. She left the Labour Party in December 2019 and was made a peer as an independent in the Dissolution Honours List of July 2020 after the General Election of 2019 and the assent of Boris Johnson. She is now a Baroness. That Honours List created 10 Conservative Life Peers, 2 Labour, 1 Democratic Unionist and 5 Non-affiliated (former Labour MPs) Life Peers. After 30 years in Parliament she probably gets quite a decent pension as well as her daily fees for sitting in the Lords.  I have no doubt that up until 2016 she was a very good constituency representative. Her views on hunting and Brexit were something else again. There is also one American State Congresswoman who features large in the mind.

 

Be that as it may, I have never sought public office and have not put myself forward for public election of any kind. This does not mean that I am not allowed to offer criticism, nor does it mean I must temper my complaints. I am a citizen and as such I have a right to vote and have exercised that right on numerous occasions. I have, on rare occasions, written to my MP expressing views and requesting action. I have received polite replies from staff, or automated replies, to emails. Indeed, in 1977 I sent a stinging 5 page letter to Albert Booth MP Secretary of State for Employment, David Ennals MP, Secretary of state for Social Services and 3 other Civil Servants, which I know was actually read and, sort of, acted upon.

 

So, as a citizen, I have exercised my right to complain and make suggestions. Is that enough? I do recall seeing a bit of graffiti on a wall at the Place de la Sorbonne in Paris “Qu’attendez-vous pour changer le monde”. There was no question mark. It was, I would guess, implied or perhaps rhetorical, which, being written, would still require a question mark, would it not? In any event is it enough, as a citizen, to exercise one’s right to complain, or must one do more, by taking an active role in the scheme of things? Might it depend on the frequency and seriousness of one’s complaints?  

 

A problem arises from my questions about questioning. In August of 1953. Martin Heidegger, gave a lecture entitled Wissenschaft und Besinnung (Science/Knowledge and Reflection). He proposed a distinction between matters which he called fraglich ‘questionable’ and those which are fragwürdig ‘worthy of being questioned’. ‘Questionable’ is used in the sense of capable of being the subject of a question rather than something suspect, and is also a question for which there is a clear or definitive answer (e.g. Whose yacht is that?). As to that which is worthy of being questioned, the subject can be inexhaustible, one comes to no specific conclusion. The fragwürdig apparently “dignifies the question and the questioner by making of the process of interrogation and response an ever renewed dialogue and counterpoint.”

 

I am not at all comfortable with the notion that certain questions are more worthy than others merely because they have no conclusion.  The idea that posing such questions is more dignified or intellectually uplifting is questionable. In addition one could ask Mr Heidegger why was he antisemitic and why did he support the Nazi Party, if that’s no too fragwürdig?

 

So on the matter of politics and modus vivendi, where are we? Is it absolutely necessary to seek office if one is to severely criticise a public servant or elected representative put in charge of a government department, no matter how useless they appear to be? If one does not like things as they are, are we not entitled to complain? I am perfectly prepared to vote for and support someone who can demonstrate a certain degree of capability to be an effective, reliable and honest public servant. But does that mean that I must go out and campaign for said person? Am I obliged to get the vote out and actively participate in the electoral process in addition to just casting my own vote? Does that single act of participation in the process give me full licence to complain as much as I want?

 

Numbers of people in the democratic world have put themselves forward as representatives and public servants, or have been delegated by elected public servants, to deal with domestic and international problems. They are our world leaders and convene as necessary, and have meetings and conferences, in order to resolve international problems.  World peace has yet to be achieved, even though a Nobel Peace prize has been awarded every year since 1968 when René Cassin was awarded the prize for his struggle to ensure the rights of man as stipulated in the UN Declaration.

 

Since I have been alive (81 years) only one Englishman has received the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1949, Lord John Boyd Orr of Brechin “for his lifelong effort to conquer hunger and want, thereby helping to remove a major cause of military conflict and war’.  The next British recipient was a Scot in 1959 Philip Noel-Baker “for his lifelong contribution to the cause of disarmament and peace”. Thereafter four people from Northern Ireland for efforts to find a peaceful solution in the Northern Ireland conflict, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan in 1976 and 22 years later, John Hume and David Trimble in 1998. A conflict that continued for over 30 years, `and may still smoulder. 

 

As to the Middle East and Palestine, we’ve had over 75 years of conflict; however, in 1950 the Peace Prize went to Ralph Bunche “for his work as mediator in Palestine in 1948-1949”, and in 1994, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin were awarded the Peace Prize “for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East”.  That clearly has not gone well.

 

All in all, not a great success at achieving peace although lots of recognition for effort. There were no prizes awarded in 1942, 1943, 1948, 1955, 1956, 1966, 1967 and 1972. If you think about what was going on during those years, you will know why. 

A lot of worthy people have made great efforts for peace and been applauded. The latest recipient for 2023 is Narges Mohammadi,  pictured above, born 21^st April 1972, in Zanian, Iran, “for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all”. She is in prison. And they say some people have no sense of irony.

I have not put myself out there. I accept that, but I do still feel that I have a right to complain and if nothing else, write a futile blog in the hope that maybe somebody in a position of influence will find it fragwürdig, and at least start finding some answers. Can we not get Narges out of jail?