Environmentalnessness

This is something that I've been thinking about recently. How are humans as a whole treating the environment? what about global warming, rising sea levels, extinction of species? what do we need to do? what should we do? what can we do? There is a song called Perfect Harmony by one of my favourite bands. It implies that the only way that we can live in perfect harmony with the world, is to be part of the world, but not part of humanity. The protagonist never saw his mother, was born in a secret part of the deep forest, and was brought up in the forest by the animals and the spirits of the forest (yes, there was a bit of that going, but their lyrics are often inspired by fantasy so it fits in context). He was the 'only human being to live in perfect harmony'. So what should we do if that's the only way to fit? I'll discuss each of my questions separately. Before I start though, I must say that I am, have never been, and probably never will be an environmental activist, an animal rights activist or anything related to these fields. I'd just like a bit of responsibility.

First of all, humans aren't treating the environment well. Think about yourself, do you use electric lights? are you reading this on a computer? I'm not talking explicitly about your carbon footprint, although we may as well ask about that also. How big is it? Do you even know? I'm not trying to take the high ground here, I'm about as bad as anyone.

Global warming. While there is some (granted that there isn't much) doubt about whether its anything more than a cycle, and while it is a natural process (granted that the effect is increased by human activity), global warming isn't the point. The point is that the effect is exacerbated by humans. Yes it is irreversible (unless you want to start sucking all of the greenhouse gasses out into space) but it isn't as bad as it can be. This also apparently affects the sea level. I don't pretend to be a smart person, but as far as I knew the sea is most of the reason that the worlds temperature isn't as high as it could be, we should be thankful for rising sea levels to some extent.

Extinction of species. I will preface this by saying that I am not a fan of the whole thing. However, if we were to take the theory of natural selection, (which incidently is not a theory no matter how many people want to claim that it is, the theory is evolution. Natural selection has been shown to be true many times, for example, look at the peppered moth) the fact that these animals are dying out means that they were not suited to live in the environment in which they were in, they were weak and failed to adapt. In a strictly Darwinian sense (which I do not agree with) this is a good thing - it shows that those which are stronger live and the weaker perish.
However, biologically speaking, in any certain environment whether it be in nature or somewhere else, the thing which fulfils any function best is the thing which suits that function best, e.g. the best thing to get rid of quick breeding insects is something that will eat flies, a spider which has been designed (or evolved depending on where you stand) to fit this purpose. When you take spiders out of the system, insects thrive and eventually overrun the system in which they find themselves. From this alone, preservation of species in their native environment is a good thing.

The final real question there is what is there to do. Yes we've all heard what we should do and how we should do it. Yes we've all been told over and over again that we can make a difference individually. And yes almost everyone either is doing something or wants to do something. So I'm not going to give you any of these. What I'm going to give you is a reason. The reason comes by way of a question. What is it worth. It is unspecified. It may be the environment as a whole, it may be the area where you live, it may be the pandas. For me, it is potentially my kids, or, if that never eventuates, the next generations. People often say that they want to give their kids a better life than they had, how about their kids or their kids or so on. I heard someone the other day say that the sun would die in 5 billion years from the 17 of Movember this year; now I am fairly sure that the accuracy of that statement is suspect, but I'm fairly sure that the earth itself won't last that long under it's current level of strain. My reason is that our kids shouldn't have to deal with the way we've screwed everything up.

Ⓐ=peace

This is a transcript of a piece of graffiti that I found while walking home from uni this afternoon.

Ⓐ=peace.

First of all, before you ask, Ⓐ is the international symbol for anarchy, along with a black flag. The black flag refers to the non nationalist, non united nature of anarchy, that they don't fit don't go together in a national sense and so therefore don't use a identifiable flag. The Ⓐ itself comes from a quote, Anarchy Is Order, so it is an A inside an O and is the most well known symbol of the anarchist movement. So I thought it would be a good time to discuss anarchy as a movement and as a concept.

Anarchy as a movement is defined by the belief that a compulsory government is unnecessary, undesirable, but more than that, it is harmful. Anarchy has also become synonymous with chaos, although, the two are not mutually inclusive. Chaos may be a method that an anarchist uses to achieve his or her goals, but it is not the explicit aim of the anarchist. Instead, anarchy, is intended to both challenge repressive power and promote freedom and self-autonomy. These seem like admirable goals, and indeed, I agree with the concept to an extent. The problem comes when the goals are achieved. With self-autonomy comes complete self-governance which means that the only things that are required of you are what you require of yourself. This leads to sociopathy, which is considered a serious mental illness. Sociopathy is where you do what amuses you, when it pleases you, regardless of the consequences. Fortunately there aren't many true sociopaths, and many of those who have some sociopathic tendencies are either too scared to do what they want, or to dumb to be able to do anything with any level of intelligence and get caught quickly. With the removal of external governance, everyone becomes a sociopath, maybe not in the accepted meaning of the word, but none the less, people will do what they want, when they want - sociopathy.

Before I go on, I had better clarify something. I believe that a certain amount of true anarchy is required in any well functioning government system. To some extent, the job of the opposition party is to be anarchists. At some level, someone needs to challange what the government says so that thought will be applied to the decision that is being made. If there is no thought, and the government simply does what it thinks is best, then bad decisions are guaranteed to be made. Bad decisions will still be made, but there will be less of them, and the mistakes will be smaller. However, this does not mean that I condone anarchy as a system. It has its place, but its place is not as the majority rule (or unrule) or a nation. Its place is in challenging the government, good or bad.

Now that I've said that, Ⓐ≠Peace. Lets take a very basic definition of peace - the absence of war (although I have in the past said that this is not an accurate definition, check here for details, especially at the end of the post). The achieved goal of anarchy has been documented in history. The bible (and I'm using it as a historic text, not for any other purpose. The happenings here have been confirmed by other historical documents of the time) describes what happens when there is no established rule. Judges continually says that "In those days, Israel had no king." Then we read about things like genocide, rape, mutilation, fratricide, murder, kidnapping, wholesale slaughter, and the list goes on. "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" are the last words in the book. It doesn't sound like peace to me. Even with our basic definition of peace, when we aren't reading about these exploits, we are reading about pitched battles and armies lining up to fight. Ⓐ≠Peace. It can help in leading to peace, but it of itself is not peace. It can help to challenge the established order of things where war is a past-time for the men of high command, or an economic boost for a country, but even there, the main work needs to be done by an established government. We can see anarchy at work in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq where the established government, as brutal or evil as in may have been (I am not passing judgement, merely passing on the views of many people) was removed and a power vacuum put in its place. These two countries went from having law and order to nothing in a matter of weeks or months. Now Afghanistan may be a lot better than it was, but it still isn't great, and Iraq is definitely not anything to be proud of.
If we want to take a less basic and more accurate definition of peace, I would put forward that it is probably more about stability and strength combined. Anarchy of itself requires either an absence of strength or a weakness from the upper echelons of society, especially in the rule of society. So there peace and anarchy are opposed, but what about the stability. Yes I will grant that anarchy used well can assist stability in either a region or a group, but it requires more finesse than most people possess.

In a way, the anarchist movement is like a dog that chases cars. It chases and chases, the knowledge that it won't achieve anything always in the back of its mind, but it keeps trying regardless. Then one day, it does make a victory, and then it doesn't know what do to with it.

Differences of Opinion

It is interesting that people say that all religions are the same. Even the most cursory glance by the most ill-informed spectator will prove that thesis wrong (although if this were the case, people wouldn't say this). There are many differences between religions of any system that go beyond the syntax or the name of the deity. It is also interesting to note that out of all of the religions, the one that stands out as the most different to the others is Reformed Christianity (as separate to Catholicism). The main difference between RC and all other religions is in the role of the human, in this case, you, or me. The other fundamental difference between most of the religions is in the response of the deity. The final difference is the working of the goal of the religion.

I will start with the difference that I mentioned last, because it is the easiest to figure out. In all religions the ultimate goal is what I am going to call Deification. The reason I use this word is because the goal of every religion is to either become the deity or to become like the deity - hence deification. This is one fact that holds all religions together as different to humanism or secularism. In both of these the aim is to either better society, or get what you can. The difference between religions starts with the way that you achieve your deification. There are two main groups in this - what is called by some people as the Right and Left hand paths. The right hand path (a less used term because it is not accepted by its practitioners) achieves deification through association, ie, you reach God or godhood by being with of associating yourself with God. This varies in its outworking, but is essentially the method used by most of the larger religions. The Left hand path achieves deification through emulation, ie, you reach godhood by being like a god. This means that the left is usually associated with magic, magick or the occult. It is found most commonly in paganism.
Now I admit that this separation isn't perfect, but it is one of the quickest ways to separate religions. I also admit that most religions that can be grouped in the Right Hand will dislike being put there, but when you look at the teachings of most religions, they will fit into one or the other.

The role of the human is unique in Reformed Christianity. According to RC, you or I take no active part in the deification. In RC this process is completely carried out by the deity in question - God. In all other religions the human must complete some task, perform some duty or the like to be able to receive the prize.
In Catholicism you must go to Mass and follow the sacraments (laws set-up by the Pope - God's intermediary on earth). The sacraments may vary from Pope to Pope of from year to year.
In Islam, you must perform certain tasks (called the 5 pillars), follow the law, not eat the wrong foods, and perform jihad against the devil (jihad has also come to be associated with physical warfare). Also the only way that you are guaranteed to reach the goal is to die in a holy crusade, which will transport you directly to paradise.
Confucianism concerns itself with enlightenment, social order and social duty.
The Bahá'í must follow rules about their life and help society.
In Judaism, there are a lot of traditions that you should follow, but in essence all that you must do is live a good live. Even if you don't, you will be punished and then allowed into heaven.
In Hinduism you are expected to follow certain rituals, but in this there are many different ways that you can follow depending on which of the deities you follow most strictly.
In Buddhism, Nirvana is achieved by disconnecting yourself from physical reality and 'liberating' yourself from physical desires. Through a series of re-incarnations you can work yourself up the chain until you become a supreme being.
As you can see this one difference that separates RC from all other faiths.

The next difference is the response of the Deity in question. In all of these religions the deity will judge you or your efforts but most of them have differences in the way that this is carried out. In RC the judgement is carried out on the basis of the work that has been done for you. In most others, your life is weighed and if what you did right out weighs what you did wrong then you achieve your goal.
In Scientology (not strictly a religion, but I'll mention it any way), the judgement is not carried out by a deity, but (as far as I can tell, the church of scientology prides itself on not letting people know its doctrines) by your thetan - your inner-self, so you self judge based on how many souls of long dead space beings reside in your body.
In Buddhism and Hinduism, if you are worthy, you will reincarnate as a higher being that you were at death, however, if you are not judged as worthy, you will reincarnate as a lower being. This will continue until you reach your deification.
In Catholicism and Judaism, the judgement is reserved until after death. Your soul is transported to either purgatory or gehenna to be purified. then you are allowed into heaven. Your tenancy in purgatory can be shortened by penance of the living.
In Islam you are sent to either heaven or hell, however, hell may be a temporary punishment in some cases.

These are just some of the differences between religions, and there are many others that it would take both many years and a lot more knowledge on a lot more topics than I have to discuss. However, I may outline some other differences between religions (especially the Abrahamic religions with which I am most familiar) later.

Tips for better Love

My last post (where I got angry), highlighted something to me. It seems to me that the meaning of love has changed somewhat. It has become trivialised, and almost conversely been made an ultimately attainable ideal (something that is a virtual impossibility - if everyone can reach the ideal, it isn't really an ideal; there is another level that you can get). It seems to me that now, the meaning of love is sex. People make love, or after they have sex, they are 'in love'. I have no doubt that the 12 year old mother and the 15 year old father say that love each other, but I have serious doubts about the veracity of this statement. A few years ago, love was called a feeling, or sometimes, it was more than a feeling, but it had no manifestation in reality, there was no qualitative test for it except for the amount you felt or said that you felt. I disagree with both of these definitions. Yes both of these can fit into an understanding of love, but neither are a true meaning, the best I can say about these are that they are a symptom rather than a condition - which is not to say that love is an illness or a disease.

I would like to illustrate what Love is with a few actual happenings, not hypotheticals. The first one happened on the 28th of April 1996 - the Port Arthur massacre. You may wonder how I can find love in this situation where 35 people were killed and 21 were injured. This will be revealed. The second is a friend of mine and his Love for his wife. The final one is a bit of a conglomeration.

On the day of the Port Arthur massacre, Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people in a matter of minutes, the first 12 killed and 10 injured happened within 15 seconds. In this time, once people got over the initial shock, something amazing happened. Many of the later injuries in this original killing, happened while the victims were trying to defend their friends or family, men stood in between the gun and their wives, or pushed their daughters under the table where they stayed safer, one man physically lay on top of his wife in an attempt to save her life - one which was ultimately successful. These people, who were in the majority of victims, all died while literally taking the bullet for people they loved. This is Love, they were willing to lay down their lives for the people that they cared about.

The next incident refers to a friend of mine. He is moderately elderly (mid 50's) and his wife was diagnosed as having early onset Alzhiemer's Syndrome, a degenerative disease affecting the brain. She survived longer than expected, 7 years. During this time, she lived in a nursing home so that she could be cared for by people who knew how best to look after her. Despite not being the primary caregiver, he visited her at least once every day, usually over lunch. He retired so that he would be able to spend more time with her. In the later stages of her life, she barely remembered anything, this included his face, voice, name, and only really how to eat and sleep. Despite this, he continued to visit her daily, right up until her death, feeding her lunch, showering her, all the things that needed to be done for her comfort and continued health. This also is Love. He freely gave of himself with no ulterior gain; he got nothing out of his continued care for her, except for spending time with her, the care could quite possibly have been given more efficiently by those trained to give it and yet because of his love for her, he couldn't stand idly by and let others care for her when he could be.

The final illustration happened through a couple of people both separately but as a result of the same event. The first happening was the actions of Ian 'Jack' Cutmore. This man died while trying to save the lives of his two step-daughters, who were twins, and one of his sons while they were swimming in a local lake. He pulled the girls out and held up his son, who was rescued. However, to do this, he got himself trapped in the same mud and silt that the children were trapped in. He died at the scene. These actions are similar to those seen at Port Arthur, but differ slightly. Unlike those at Port Arthur, he could have saved himself, had he not gone back the second time, or had he not been so single minded in his aims. The second part happened as a result of this. The biological father of the twin girls who were saved, started doing everything that he could for the family. He was already on good terms with the entire family, consisting of Jack's children from his first marriage, Jack's widow's children from her marriage with the biological father, and their own children, but this shifted into a new gear. He held an auction, donating everything that he decided he didn't need to be sold to raise money for a car for 9, education for eight, food and hopefully be able to keep their house out of town. He headed up a donation trust fund for the kids. This also is Love similar to my friends display of love with his wife. He gave, not all of his time, but much of his belongings for, not just his kids, but also his ex-wife and her children and step-children. For this, he got nothing except respect from those who respect this sort of thing.

These are all good examples of real love, not the romantic kind which seems to dominate our awareness, especially through Hollywood.
For further listening, look up a few songs which cover the different types of 'love'
- Let me put my love into you - AC/DC
- Never fall in love again - Burt Bacharach
- Fields of Gold - The Police (nice... but eventually useless)
Or slightly better
- I don't have anything - VAST
- Lady D'arbanville - Cat Stevens (doesn't really make sense until later on, and still more about his confusion and inability to believe the situation)

Once again, we read the newspaper, and once again we are shocked by what we read. I think that over the period of my newspaper and other news media attention paying I have learnt to never be shocked by what happens, disgusted yes, but shocked no. This was brought to my attention again today when I read the story about a 12 year old who was about to be giving birth, a child to her 15 year old boyfriend who lived with her and her mother and again when I read the story about the students who consider rape, not just ok, but the way to go about getting sex. I am going to discuss them both.

Note - there is a great deal of self censoring in the following because it pissed me off a lot and even still, I may get a bit violent.
Firstly the girl. The story (which can be read here) was told mostly because her father made a call to DOCS saying that this sort of thing was happening. DOCS replied that they had no power to do anything about it because they can't stop two children talking. I will say that in this case, DOCS did not repulse me as much as other players involved - DOCS are ruled by, not just bureaucrats, but also by people who are convinced that everyone needs as much freedom as they can get, which means that when an 11 year old falls pregnant, unless there was a 30 year old father, they aren't allowed to care. However, everyone else was most definitely repulsive. Including the people who have tied the hands of DOCS the way that they have. THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AND THEY HAVE DISALLOWED ANY LEGAL METHOD OF DEALING WITH IT. THIS IS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS PARTICULARLY STUPID AND I VIEW IT AS AN DEPRAVITY.
While I freely admit I don't know the full circumstances, the father was absolutely wrong to leave it at that. I like that he told DOCS first, but when that avenue was exhausted, he gave up. This was completely ignoring his responsibilities as a Father. Again I will stress that I don't know the circumstance that he was in, whether he was disallowed by a restraining order or something, but still he should have done something more than outsourcing his responsibility, especially after that attempt failed.
The 15 year old 'live-in' boyfriend I would like to meet - he would quite possibly never walk again (say what you will about me). I actually don't know what to say about this because it's just so painfully stupid, irresponsible, disgusting, {insert your own descriptor/s here} - I would like to smack him in the face so hard that he can see the back of his neck. This is a boy who still doesn't really know what life is, he might have just got a job, he can't drive; he is still what we refer to as young and stupid, except that when we talk about young and stupid, we're usually talking about doing a couple of dumb things - this is chronic degeneracy. First of all, stick with someone your own age, no, three years isn't much in the grand scheme of things but when we're talking about someone who is still in primary school you're still (I would like to say f***head, but I won't, however, I can't think of any better words to use here). Secondly, grow a brain. and thirdly, if you don't want to consider either of these, learn how to use a condom - which isn't to say that I condone having to use one at your age.
The girl also needs to wake up and grow a brain. Yes it is hard to say no to something when you're 11, but it's harder to have to deal with the consequences when you're 12. Yes this sort of thing was commonplace back in the day, but that still doesn't give any justifiable excuse for it happening today.
The mother, who the two kids lived with is possibly the worst of the lot. By this happening under her roof, she condoned the actions of these barely pubescent kids. she can deny it as much as she wants, but by her not putting an end to, at the very least, the boys tenancy there and at a still possible stretch, his life, and then she should have been forbidding the relationship (acknowledged that this is quite hard to do in the 'enlightened' day and age). Yes I can talk about the father's responsibility, but the fact that he no longer lives there means that at least to some extent, she has taken his responsibility. Even if she shouldn't take that responsibility she still has her own there.
I'll just clarify some of what I said earlier. The girl (and the boy for that matter) are both minors. Technically someone having sex with a minor is defined as rape and it is punishable with long jail terms. I said that this was commonplace back in the day, but only with marriage; if it happened outside of marriage, either marriage would happen very quickly (not possible now without a judges permission - probably not forthcoming) or one of the parties would be killed in the town square.

Time to move on and take a few deep breaths before I bust some major artery or break something.

The other story (which can be read here), about the pro-rape students, I'm actually not sure which is worse. These are students - all male - who have probably grown up in rich families, gone to exclusive (read here high fee) schools and have been taught that they are paramount. They seem to believe that because their dad is some high-flying CEO and can buy them a lot of toys, that they are better than other people. These are the people who are convinced that no matter the circumstances, they are right and even if they are wrong, then daddy can bail them out by paying the right people. Most of this occurred at a college of USYD. I don't know what is worse, that there is the capability for this to happen at this college, or that when rapes actually do occur there that nothing is done about it. One reported case was that the college advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop a rape happening - which means that none of the other students (senior residents or otherwise) were doing anything about it and none of the on campus supervisors were doing anything about it; also the guy in question didn't get the hint when the advisor knocked on the door to ask what was happening, otherwise, he wouldn't have been there when he found the key.
They have defined themselves as "anti-consent" and joined a now shut facebook page called 'Define Statutory'. Ok then, here is my definition of Statutory Rape (because that's exactly what it is). She didn't say yes and you kept going. That is all it needs to be to be rape.
In terms of the players in this sordid state of affairs that disgust me, there are four. The students, the staff supervisors, the parents of the students and the makers of the facebook page that drew attention to this.
The students I don't think I have to say much about, and I won't, otherwise, something will be broken. I'm just going to leave it at grow a brain, get some sensibilities and a conscience, or alternatively, let me have a 'talk' to you that I can guarantee you won't consent to. Again, while this may have happened in the distant past, it occurred when you had captured your victim in battle and you desired to demean the entire enemy - if it happened outside of this, you were executed; so don't try to justify your actions.
The staff supervisors also acted abhorrently. Yes they are quoted as saying that it is "in every way at odds with what we are trying to achieve", but they hadn't done anything about it it prior to this happening. The fact that the resident advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop this happening doesn't speak very highly of your resolve to stop this happening. Yes, I will admit, you have gotten together with various groups including the police to set up a liquor accord which is some of the problem, but in this you haven't discussed sexual assault at all because it is "a delicate issue" because "the colleges are very closed communities". Closed communities just means that those who are in charge of enforcing rules need to do a better job of it because they are alone in it and this is something that hasn't happened as yet.
To the makers of the facebook page I will say the same thing that I said to the students and then add that inciting the actions is worse that committing them, especially if you wash your hands and say that you aren't at fault if someone else does something. Yes you are and you are more at fault.
And finally to the parents of the students, the ones who have brought their kids up in such a way that they think that this is fine. I have no doubt that when you find out about this you publicly condemn the actions of your kids, but that isn't all that is required. What is required is that prior to this happening you condemn the actions of those who perpetrate them, and condemn them with extreme prejudice. If your child thinks that these criminal acts (even if they weren't disgustingly abhorrent and bereft of humanity as well) are fine to commit, then you have failed in your duty as a parent, the main instiller of values in your child's life, and don't give me anything about that being the job of schools, if you're willing to outsource your parenting to schools, then give them your child completely and don't ask for him or her back.
EDIT: shortly after writing this, I noticed that NSW minister for women was "sickened" by this. All well and good, now do something about it.

Sorry about that, I just felt the need to break something.

Isn't it nice when people work together. Have a look at this. I don't think any more really needs to be said in regards to that.
It is worth noting, that they aren't sure if there will be any long term side effects, but from the initial reports, it looks fairly good.

Choices -

What would you do if you were given a choice similar to the one proposed in movie The Box? If you accept, you will receive a million dollars, and then, someone in the world, probably someone you don't know and would never meet, will die. Remember that they may well be a 'bad' person, or they might be about to die anyway, or in them dying you might save the lives of many other people who they might have inadvertently killed for example in a car crash. However, they might be a family man who is the sole income earner for his 5 kids and wife, or it could be a human rights activist or some other such person.
What about the potential from Death Note; If you write a name in the book, they will die that night. Who would you choose? Would you choose people that you really really don't like, or would you choose people that you deem as evil, and if so, then who would you choose and how would you define evil? or would you just never use your power.
What if you were a 'mutant' such as in X-men? Would you work to defend those who hated you? or would you defend yourself from them? What if your choice (either way) meant alienating some people who you have had as friends or even making them enemies.
What about the choices that are made in the Sin City story 'The Yellow Bastard'? Could you choose to die to save the life of someone else - who you probably didn't know very much at all? or if you don't want to answer that one take the choice featured in 'The Big Fat Kill', another Sin City story - could you kill many people to save the lives of others?

What about some choices that are more likely to happen; chances are that we will never find ourselves in any of these situations so how about some plausible ones.
How about a simple one to start with. What if when receiving change for something you slipped it in your pocket without counting, only to find out 15 minutes later that you had been given an extra couple of dollars? What about if you had been short changed by the same amount?
What if you found a wallet on the side walk that had a $50 in it? What if there was no identification? What if there was a couple of hundred dollars in it and no identification?
What if a close friend of yours was assaulted and you found out who did it. What would you do? What if after you notified the police, they managed to get off all charges? What if it was a friend of yours?

Just something to ask yourself.

In other news, it is the beginning of the month formally known as November. Movember is a charity to raise both funds and awareness for two issues in men's health, Depression and Prostate cancer, both of which are ignored by men due to the stigma attached by it and the desire to appear bigger or tougher than you are. Get behind it guys.

Descriptions of God

There are many ways in which God (in the Judeo-Christian form of the Diety) is described. Most of these don't appear to have any basis in either the literature or the mythos of these two religions. So I thought I'd look at a few of the descriptions that come from either the Septuagint (known to Christians as the Old testament), or in the final case, from the book of Revelation.

I think my favorite description of God comes in Isaiah 6 verses 1-4, simply because it shows the sheer awesomeness of God. Basically Isaiah describes God by talking about other things. For example, the first thing he mentions was that the hem of his robe filled the temple. By way of comparison, on us, the hem is at most an inch and more often only about 10mm; this hem, the tail end of the robe, filled one of the biggest buildings of 5th century BC Israel - a space roughly 3500 cubic meters.

The next thing that is mentioned is his entourage. We have an indiscriminate number of seraphim, what are now considered (at least in christian circles) as the greatest of angels. They have 6 wings. With two of them they are covering their faces (so that they don't see the incredible glory of God, like Elijah had to wait in the cave - another awesome description of God), with two of them they are covering their feet (so they don't sully the sanctity of they ground - like Moses and the burning bush) and with two of them they are flying (even if for no other reason than they can this shows awesomeness). Still we haven't recieved a clear physical description of God.
Then these guys start singing. They're singing about how awesome God is, even though there isn't much that can compete with them. Their voices shake the entire temple, meaning that even without direct contact with the ground, their voices are having the same effect as an earthquake, and they're just God's crew.

My next favorite description of God has already been mentioned. It comes in 1 Kings 19. Elijah's life has been threatened and so he is feeling quite depressed (understandably). It shows both the awesome power of God and seemingly conversely, his incredible gentleness. Elijah is hiding in a cave in Mt Horeb when God tells him to step outside for a moment and see God's glory. A tornado style of thing comes and tears up the mountain, an earthquake shows up and shakes the mountain around, and then comes an inferno. We're also told that God wasn't in any of them. This is merely the glory of God. When we actually do see God, it's in a gentle whisper that essentially says, 'don't worry, I am here'.

The final description of God, as I've said, comes from Revelation, in particular Chapter 19 v 10 - 16. Here, we are given a description of Jesus. This isn't the baby jesus of the stable (yes lack of capitals was intentional there) or the caucasian jesus on the cross (which conveniently forgets that Jesus was a Jew and therefore didn't have blue eyes) - this is a warrior king about to ride into battle. His eyes are fire, he wears many crowns (making him a King of kings), his robe is dipped in blood (presumably the blood of his enemies, meaning that he is riding out against an already defeated army), out of his mouth comes a razor sharp sword where there should be words, he is the one who treads the winepress mentioned in chapter 14 which leaves the blood of his enemies flowing at a height of around 6 feet for 300km, and finally on his thigh is tattooed KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS as his name. Yes he does have tickets on himself, he isn't meek and mild like we've been told.

Dreams

Dreams are one thing that I think we take too much for granted. I mean, what actually is it? We lie comotose for a few hours, hallucinate vividly and then usually suffer amnesia about the whole thing. What, except for the fact that it happens to everyone, is normal about this? I ask this question because of a few dreams that I've been having lately - things like being in the very centre of an explosion (the only part of this dream I remember) or windsurfing in a river style of dam thing before going to get psychoanalysed. These are the less messed up dreams. So my question is, Why do we put so much stock in our dreams? It isn't often that I think about explosions or dying in them, or even windsurfing, so why did I dream about them? Is it a Freudian slip of my subconscious or is it just random? These are things that I don't know or pretend to understand. The inner workings of my subconscious brain are something that I'm still trying to figure out.

However, I'm not just going to leave it there. I had a dream last night that I would like to discuss. In it, someone said to me that he knew why I did things. This almost definatly has to be an outworking of my subconscious somehow - so I took note. I was told that I only did things so that I would be recognised as a good person (ironically this was immediatly before I beat someones face in), something that I have in the past noticed. So then the question arises, why did my subconscious feel the need to tell me this and why now? I don't know I and I don't particularly wish to speculate.

In other news, I've changed the layout of the blog and was wondering if there is anything else that I should do to it, or if there's anything that you would like me to discuss here. If there is, feel free to leave a comment below.

It will be sunny one day

Often when I see something that is supposed to be inspiring or motivational, I look at it and almost immediately think how clichéd it is, often because these things end up being clichéd on their own, and as the demand for these things increases with our desire to 'improve' ourselves, I don't envisage that this will change any time in the near future. This means that me finding something that I see as motivational is a rare occasion, which I suppose has given me a bit of a pessimistic view on many things.
However, on these rare occasions that I find something inspiring, I usually save it somewhere. This has lead to a large pile of quotes sitting on my computer like:

All knowledge is stored somewhere. Be it in books, heads or deep under glaciers. And when we find it, we make it ours. Faith is bricks; knowledge is mortar. -- From The Book of Cataclysm

or,

Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque. -- U. G. Krishnamurti

These get left in the WSOGMM of quotes that I find interesting due to their humour or their views on the world.

I recently found a letter that Stephen Fry sent to someone who was suffering from depression which I found to be quite thought provoking. Having lived through it, he wrote to her, not with specific advice, not by telling her how much she was loved (in fact he said that he didn't want to do that), but with understanding. The link to see the letter is here. He likened human emotion (in some cases) to the weather in what I think is one of the most insightful metaphors around. In essence, he said that, Yes sometimes it rains, Yes sometimes it rains for a long time, yes at the end of the rain, the clouds go away and the sun comes out, no you can't control the rain, and yes life can be crap. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety just for the gentle way he says it.

Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities. -- Aldous Huxley

RIP Sheldon Kaplan

You will never have heard of Sheldon Kaplan, and yet, he has made an incredible impact on the lives of many people you know, and possibly your own. He is the inventor of the ComboPen, an early auto-injector syringe used to combat nerve gas. He is also the person who realised that this system could be used in other applications - like the more well known EpiPen, which he also invented. He died about two weeks back.

Many people who have designed/built/invented medical equipment are sadly overlooked in any capacity except for in obscure textbooks about medical history or occasionally for the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine (again mostly ignored), and yet, they usually make a difference in most peoples lives. For example how many of you have heard of Roald Dahl? How many of you knew that he helped develop the WDT valve for alleviating hydrocephalus, a developmental disease more common than Down Syndrome.
This is a sadly ignored part of research and design.

However, now that I've mentioned the Nobel Prizes, how can I fail to lead you to the Ig-nobel prizes; the awards that are given to achievements that that first make people laugh then make them think, and according to Nature magazine are "arguably the highlight of the scientific calendar." It is a list of absolute, whacked out, brilliance that Australians feature on possibly more frequently than our population would normally allow. It features things that often deserve more attention than they get, for example, Lal Bihari, the (not) dead founder of the Association for Dead People, an Indian organisation that actively lobbys on behalf of people who have been wrongly declared dead and therefore no longer exist - leaving them unable to work, travel, acquire property etc, despite being still alive. Or this years Peace Prize (slightly more deserving than Barack Obama in my opinion), Stephan Bolliger and associates from the university of Bern, Switzerland for their research on whether it is better to be hit in the face by a beer bottle if it is full or empty. Or my personal favorite, the Australian man who in 2001 invented and patented the wheel. (the patent application and acceptance can be seen here)
Click here for more details on the award and the winners.

Life to the full

Dylan Moran once jokingly said that you should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead, a sentiment that I agree with, and one that was poignantly apparent yesterday. I went to see someone I've known all my life (who will remain anonymous) who has just been diagnosed as having dementia; two weeks ago he was almost fine, last week he didn't remember who he was. Yesterday he seemed better, meaning that he could mostly keep a reasonable conversation, but he still wasn't great - he couldn't find his way across the hall to go to the toilet. However, he was enjoying humour that he wouldn't have found amusing before. What does that have to do with living life? He's virtually bedridden, can't remember how to comb his hair or shave his moustache and yet he is still trying to make a go for what ever he can. When you compare that with other people younger, fitter, smarter, more ambitious and healthier than him (read here us), he blows us out of the water with zest for life despite not being able to live nearly as much as we can and having a definite limit on his mental capacity.

This is not me proposing hedonism as a great way to go, this is me saying that we should enjoy life. When you look around at us today, we have everything we want right at our fingertips and this is the problem. All we seem to want is what we can get easily. To have to try to get anything is anathema to our societal stance. It inhibits our enjoyment. We have to be reminded that working for something increases our appreciation of it. All we want to do is, in the words of Voddie Baucham, get what we can, can what we get and sit on the can. No, what I want to put forward is what John Piper calls Christian Hedonism, the view that says that we should enjoy what God has given to us because 'he is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him'.

How's that for train of thought. But I'm not done. I want to also mention someone else I know (who will also remain anonymous) who has been virtually reduced to a anxious wreck from his job. He, despite being 30 years younger has had almost the polar opposite response. He has withdrawn and is depressed about almost everything. Now, I do know that anxiety and depression almost always go together, but when you compare the two responses, I'd much rather take the first response.

Victory

How do we win at things? I realised that my views on this subject may be different to others after watching the movie Donnie Darko the other night (which did not blow my mind as advertised). Shortly before the end of the movie I said that he won. This was greeted with confusion by the other people who were watching with me, primarily because in the process of doing this, he lost. But in this losing for himself he won in general. This I called a victory for Donnie. Why? I'll try to explain. (NB. Watch it and then judge for yourself, it is a brilliant movie)

The following contains spoilers.

In the action of his loss, he made the choice to lose, thus countermanding anything else that was going to happen later (which due to a temporal anomaly has already happened). In doing so, he died rather than living through all that was going to follow - crime (perpetrated by him), the loss of his sanity (so far as he and others could see) and the death of his girlfriend (who at the time he hadn't met). He decided that the loss of his own life was a price that he was willing to pay for this outcome. He cheated the destiny that he had foreseen for himself. He made the choice to avoid his destiny in an act of freewill that was beyond belief. As he himself discussed, the future is predetermined - he made the choice in the present to stop that from happening.

As for him winning, in the moment shortly before his death, he comes to the realisation that this is the only way to not let everything happen; his victory comes about through the loss of the other party - the destiny. For a victory to occur, you do not need to win, you merely need to not lose when your opposition has. This is the victory that he achieves.

Responses to daily occurances

The other day as I was walking into Sydney for uni, I was quite surprised at two responses to things that I did. The first happened as I was about to step out to cross the road. I looked around to see a car bearing down on the corner. So, not wanting to be hit by a 1.5 tonne piece of moving machinery, I stopped. The driver of the car seemed surprised and waved her gratitude to me; that was what surprised me, that she felt grateful to me for not making her hit me - what I thought was essentially self defence on my behalf. The other response, which worried me more came from a homeless woman who asked me for the time. She asked me just as I passed her so I had to turn around to tell her. When I did, she looked at the ground with an expression that I would have described as fear. Being a six foot bearded male who habitually wears sunglasses and hides his expressions while in public, this is something that I have seen before, but not from someone who initiated the contact. The question that I found myself asking as I walked along was why these responses were so surprising.

The first response I think stems from societies changing attitudes towards responsibility. Where your responsibility used to stem from your actions and position, society has tried to change so that in as far as is possible, you are not responsible for anything that you do, or that happens to you - especially if something goes wrong. This has lead to an increase of court cases that should be laughed out, but amazingly win, like the guy who sued the preschool for not looking after his child while the lawn was being mowed by a volunteer parent. His child was run over while running over to daddy, who happened to be mowing the lawn at the time (for more of these click here). This attempted decrease of responsibility has had a not too subtle effect on the way we think. We can always find someone to blame, can always point the finger, and almost always find a way to pass the buck. The driver of the car, didn't expect me to take responsibility for my stepping out into the path of her car and when I did, she showed her gratefulness through a wave which itself is surprising. Usually, in this circumstance, people will beep their horn at you, trying to tell you that you are at fault and that you should back away from imminent crushing - fair enough as a warning, but as anger, probably not.

The second response is a bit more puzzling. Why would someone who asked for the time appear scared when she received it? and why if she was going to respond that way did she ask in the first place? It may be that she wasn't expecting help and so her reaction was based on a surprising reaction. In that case, why, if she wasn't expecting anything, did she even ask? and why was she so worried when she did receive help? These I think come from the way that we have as a whole started to almost require a choice in everything we do. When she solicited my aid, she limited my choices. So when I turned to give her the time, she was worried about the outcome that didn't involve my actual response. So then why did she ask? My thoughts on this lead me to the conclusion that she wasn't expecting any response and she possibly didn't even want one. If she didn't get a response, she could at least say to herself that she had tried. This may not have been her motive, but thinking about it, to me it seems the clearest possibility. This desire for a lack of response has grown to be a curse upon our society. We fool ourself into thinking that if there was no reaction from a third party (or even a second party) then our responsibility in the matter ends there. In actuality, our responsibilities grow at this point as we then have to deal with what would have happened on our own, and this is too scary for many people these days.

On a different note (E flat to be precise), listen to the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky - Awesome in 15 and a half minutes of music.

What is the nature of war.

A recent discussion I've had got me wondering about this. We in Australia are privileged to not have to worry about this in general - out of all the armed conflicts that our military are involved in, we have only had about ten fatalities in the last decade, and most of what we do is in peacekeeping and training rather than actual front line combat; we aren't directly threatened by any imminent fights on our soil; we are allied to many nations that are strong militarily and will protect us even if just to keep trade routes open - by and large, we're fairly safe here from open warfare. And yet, it is something that regularly finds it's way into our news bulletins and papers. It intrudes on our nation's consciousness. Probably our biggest national holiday is the 25 of April, ANZAC day, where we remember one of the most devastating armed conflicts in recent history and the Australians who were there. Out of the top 40 highest grossing movies of all time, 11 of them feature open warfare of some kind, whether it be massive galactic battles or fantasy style sword and shields with cavalry charges. It can't be because war is a good thing; Jimmy Carter said it this way, "No matter how necessary, war is always an evil, never a good". By my reckoning, the only real reason that humanity would spend so much time, money and effort on this base waste of life, is because either we enjoy it, or it is somehow part of the human psyche. I can't think of anyone who enjoys war (except for those so devoid of humanity that we call them sociopaths or psychopaths) so we are left with only doing it because it is part of our nature.

In a small way, you see wars all of the time in nature; predator kills prey being the obvious example, but nothing compared with the violence that humans visit upon one another for nothing more than an idea or an order. The most ruthless murderers are those who kill for their ideas and this is never seen more than in war; look at WWII, the most pitiless murderers were those who killed for the idea of the so-called master race, the Aryans. Now look at the other side of the coin, at the Allies; they often killed for no more than an order - the most lasting peace before armistice was the unofficial Christmas Day truce, where hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides of the war lay down arms for up to a week for no more reason than it was Christmas and they didn't want to fight. In many places they disregarded orders to keep fighting and talked with people who only hours previously had been shooting at them. This then would seem to mean that war is not part of the mind of a normal person. Why then do we persist? Is it just a part of our collective character or is it hardwired into our heads genetically?

We all know of the horrors of war, so I won't go into them. We all know that normal people don't enjoy war, so I won't discuss those who do, or why we don't. I'm going to finish with the words of Adam Roberts, someone not known for his knowledge of war, but for his satirical humour. he says that the end of war isn't peace, "For what is war but struggle? And the opposite of struggle is not peace, but death." His point is that struggle is an integral part of life, regardless of what we do with ourselves.