Pioneers

This is the age of people that pioneer. We push the boundaries, we have more opportunities, we have more growth in most facets of our lives.
Sorry, but I'm going to call a bluff on this one.
When was the latest 'new thought'. All our our thinking is based on things that were decided years ago. The belief that we actually exist, when was the last time that you questioned that one, was probably proved by Descartes in 1637 (cogito ergo sum) and it hasn't been seriously questioned since then. We don't actually question any of the fundamental things, only the nitpicky little things that probably fall under the topic of Dogma, and then we claim that we are high level thinkers.

I would say that the closest that we get is accepting new innovations. Even then, will we accept things that are developed by people our own age? How many mid-50 year olds do you know that regularly use computers for anything more than sending emails (if that). Bill Gates is currently 54.
All of our thoughts are just re-hashes of what has already been said; the alternative medicine movement? Chinese or tribal herbal medicines, been around roughly since herbs. New age stuff? Celtic or Scandinavian religion with some eastern occultism, been around since roughly Celts, Scandinavians and East Asians.
We can't do anything that hasn't already been done for us.
Look at art; the stuff that people say is the biggest shift is either monkeys throwing paint at a wall, or dead animals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a lot of people believe that cave paintings fulfil both of these criteria. And what performance art? Vaudeville acting often with a few less clothes on.
Look at music; modern pop music is just a rehash of last years pop music, which was a rehash of last years pop music, which was a rehash of last years pop music, and so it goes. Styles may change slightly with the addition of a new innovation, but then it's first tried on a rehash of 80's and 90's music and then it spreads to last years music. You only have to listen to a bit of modern metal to realise how much of it was almost written by either Pink Floyd or Metallica 30 or 40 years ago.
In technology, most of the thinking was done by people early last century - Science Fiction writers. We look at that now and think, "Yeah that could be feasible, and so we'll try it out" when the original thought came not so much from an idea of this would be cool, but from an idea of this should work if that can happen. Usually that happened roughly 10 years later and we didn't bother to do anything about it

Look at our moral compass (which as a generation is so screwed up it's given up pointing in any direction let alone north). Even that isn't new. We're just asking for it all to be legal now. Most of it was seen in Ancient Greece nigh on 2500 years ago.

As a generation, we've regressed. It's not so much that we aren't able to do new things, it's more that we don't want to. Without a few clinically insane people blurting out some completely new thing, there will be no paradigm shifts in our thinking because we don't want to have them.

The only new thought that we've had is that sitting on a small dark box that we call a room can give us the same social experience as going out and actually talking to people. And I'll call bluff on that one too.

Procrasti............................................

Ok, firstly, there is a reason that I haven't posted anything recently - Yes, I have been busy with real life commitments like study and doing anything here would have been mostly for the purposes of procrastination. As I do enough of that already, I thought it would be a good idea to not take up half a day writing and re writing a page of something about something. So, my rhetorical question (which I will answer here myself) is How do we procrastinate and secondly, why do we procrastinate. {Editors note: check this one out for how to procrastinate properly. Alphonse has no real idea - he just bludges}

The first question is easy. Procrastination is possibly the easiest thing that we ever do. Procrastination is just not doing what it would be more beneficial or necessary for you to be doing at the particular moment in time that you are in. Whether it's watching a movie, reading a book, playing a game, going for a walk, having a nap, baking a cake. The list goes on almost forever.
This isn't to say that the activity that you are using to procrastinate is a bad thing, for example going for a walk is often a good thing; it gets your cardiopulmonary systems working, clears out your brain, stimulates the appetite, helps you sleep at night, provides you with fresh air, tops up your vitamin D reserves. But if you should be doing something else it isn't a good thing. The actual action isn't wrong, it's the motive or the justification that's wrong.

The second question is also easy (makes you wonder why it is that I even need to be writing this down). We Procrastinate, because we want to, or we don't want to be doing what we should.

Yep, that's actually all I have to say about that, but surprisingly, it's taken me well over two hours - I kept finding other things to do.

Defining an Identity

In the movie Fight Club, there is a scene where a convenience store assistant is asked at gun point "The question, Raymond, is what did you want to be?" In the movie Hitman, Agent 47 tells us he is going off to do "What I do." Both of these approaches to life are interesting, especially when you consider that in both cases, we are finding out about their job. In the case of Raymond K Hessel (Fight Club) his identity was bound up in the job; he was going to be a Veterinarian. In the case of Agent 47 (Hitman) his job was merely a job, an almost all consuming job at the start of the movie, but by the end, just an unwanted job.
The difference is in how it's referred to. In the first case, it was what he was, in the second case, it was what he did. We all understand both of them to be the same and yet there are major differences that go beyond the syntax. One happens when it is your source of identity and the other happens when it impinges upon what your source of identity would rather be; no prizes for guessing which is which. Both can be dangerous.

We all understand 'working for the weekend'. This is a danger that we can fall into all to easily when a job is what we do. It comes with an attitude of TGIF and can lead to almost medical cases of Mondayitis, a serious condition through most of Australia.
However, on the other hand, along with different fingers, it is also true that when a job description is what you is, that's all you are. At this point you lose track of other things that happen - like life.

The Rules

As far as I know, Isaac Asimov has come closer than any author to creating a, for lack of a better term, code of conduct. This code is called the "Three Laws of Robotics". The absolute brilliance of this is implied in the name - the entire code is wrapped up in three small rules that manage to cover almost every circumstance.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Basically, the rules come down to 'people can't be allowed to be hurt', 'orders must be followed' and 'look after yourself', three rules that most people themselves try to live by which makes it even more incredible that Asimov thought of them. He synthesised altruistic human nature into simple rules.

Democracy is...

A youtube person/Blogger called Lyla put up a video as part of the Democracy Challenge, a competition put forward by the American Government. In it she puts down how she sees democracy.

Democracy is understanding
Democracy is loving others as you love yourself
Democracy is patience
Democracy is choice
Democracy is faith
Democracy is perspective
Democracy can be evil
Democracy can be good
Democracy is seeing the world for the way it is

I would like to answer some of these and maybe put forward some of my own.

Firstly, in and of itself, Democracy simply a choice. In our day and age is a choice over who becomes revered. It is usually considered as this in government, but has spread to things like awards (The Logies, Australian Idol). In Western Society, we have decided that we need almost absolute autonomy. We need the choice over things that don't affect us in the slightest as well as over the things that will affect us in the highest. However in this case we will be discussing democracy as the political system.
The rest of Lyla's list therefore is what she sees the outworking of democracy to be and therefore to discuss these they will be as opinion and will be compared with opinion.

Democracy is patience (with people rather than a situation is implied). I personally agree. The problem with this is that through democracy we demand to be able to do something now. We can see this with the campaign led by Sydney Morning Herald to 'Reclaim Your Vote'. Basically it is trying to enable people to not have to wait in a bad enough situation. Then we get a situation like in the US at the moment. Obama's call was for change. So people in their infinite wisdom decided that they wanted change now even when he said that it would take time and not be all done in one term let alone one year.
Democracy requires patience, but it invites impatience.

Democracy is faith (that things can get better). Yes it is. But it is also faith that things can get worse. In the book Looking for Alibrandi, one of the main characters gets up and says that the only reason that he will vote is to keep the worse guys out. Democracy has the faith that no matter what, things can and will change. Our part in democracy is deciding which parts will change.

Time for me to add one more.
Democracy is not an excuse. You can't claim that because you were voted for, you can do whatever you want. You can't get yourself voted in through democracy and then allow yourself to become a dictator.

Post Australia Day

Today is the 27th of January. Yesterday was Australia Day. In the past Australia has managed to get itself a bad reputation as the day that bogans come out to play, either getting completely drunk by 10 in the morning and then working up to pickled from there, gang bashing other Australians that happened to be of a different cultural or racial background as your group, or both. This year by all accounts, it seemed to be that people went out, had a few drinks with mates, had some fun down at the beach, but didn't cause trouble, and so it was a lot nicer than it has been in the past (think last year in Manly). The question that has to be asked in light of these sorts of things happening is, what is the national identity that Australia actually has? There is a stereotype of being either Crocodile Dundee, or Farmers, or Surfers and Beach bums that we have overseas. While this might not be completely accurate, we tend to play to these stereotypes. But is this our national identity. It used to be an identity as a convict nation but we've grown past that and while we might, albeit counter-intuitively, be proud of that, it isn't what we are anymore and thus can't be what we base our national identity on. So what is it that we can identify ourselves as?

I would argue nothing. We can't identify our nation as anything besides a group of Australians. Our country has moved beyond anything that would hold us together in any capacity except for the fact that we are currently from Australia where ever we may have been from in the past. It used to be that we were a country based on our 'belonging to' and then later, our loyalty to England. If you say that you are loyal to England these days you are dismissed as an idiot or put in the same group as the whinging poms. Looking historically at England, it is an amalgam of virtually every east European nation. Even the language is an amalgam of Greek and Roman with a few others added in for good measure and Australia now is like that, a 'bitsa' of a country, with no more loyalty to 'the Motherland' than a dog has to the petshop.

The only thing that we can Identify ourselves as, our national identity, is Australia. We need to embrace this instead of being afraid of being ourselves or trying to keep the status quo that ran away for the last time fifty years ago.

Why music is important

This comes from a poster I have seen around in a few places, mostly places that teach music. Thus, it is more appropriate for teaching music, but the conclusions that it makes are still good for everyone.

Why Do We Teach Music?

Music is a science
• It is exact, specific; and it demands exact acoustics. A conductor's full score is a chart, a graph which indicates frequencies, intensities, volume changes, melody and harmony all at once and with the most exact control of time.

Music is mathematical
• It is rhythmically based on the subdivisions of time into fractions which must be done instantaneously, not worked out on paper.

Music is a foreign language
• Most of the terms are in Italian, German, or French; and the notation is certainly not English--but a highly developed kind of shorthand that uses symbols to represent ideas. The semantics of music is the most complete and universal language.

Music is history
• Music usually reflects the environments and times of its creation, often even the country and/or racial feeling.

Music is a physical education
• It requires fantastic coordination of fingers, hands, arms, lips, cheek, and facial muscles, in addition to extraordinary control of the diaphragmatic, back, stomach and chest muscles, which respond instantly to the sound the ear hears and the mind interprets.

Music is all these things, but most of all music is art
• It allows a human being to take all these dry technically boring (but difficult) techniques and use them to create emotion. That is one thing that science cannot duplicate: humanism, feeling, emotion, call it what you will.

That is Why We Teach Music!
• Not because we expect you to major in music
• Not because we expect you to play or sing all your life
• Not so you can relax
• Not so you can have fun
• Not Because we expect you to major in music
• BUT--so you will be human
• So you will recognize beauty
• So you will be sensitive
• So you will be closer to an infinite beyond this world
• So you will have something to cling to
• So you will have more love, more compassion, more gentleness, more good--in short, more life.

Of what value will it be to make a prosperous living unless we know how to live?
That is Why We Teach Music!

Armageddon

The doomsday clock is a clock intended to show how close the human race is to annihilation by nuclear weapons. The way it works is that the closer it is to midnight, the closer we are to mutually assured destruction. It is affected by the worldwide political climate and so the closest it has been to midnight was in 1953, ten years into the cold war. At that stage it was set at 11:58, meaning that nuclear annihilation was probably just around the corner and it stayed at this level for roughly 7 years. The lowest it has been set was at 11:43 in 1991, the end of the cold war. It has now been set at 11:54 following an agreement to try and reduce numbers of nuclear weapons world wide.
I wonder if you can you figure out my problem with the doomsday clock. I have two.

The first is that it is a self fulfilling prophesy. The first thing that people do when they find out that they might be under threat is they try and find ways of reducing that threat. And what is the best defence? a good offence. Meaning that if a country thinks that another country means to attack them with nuclear weapons they will try and acquire more for themselves. If you set-up a worldwide threat meter like the doomsday clock, everyone looks at it and says, "wow, it's getting bad, time to get some/more of them ourselves and make sure we can all strike back." We saw this effect during the Cold War. Russia and the USA were at a standoff . This in turn would push the time up closer to midnight. This is just me saying it, but it's coming from my experience of human nature, take it or leave it as you will.

The second is a bit more complicated because it involves psychology and that always messes things up. To start with, yes, if nuclear war does eventuate, then it will be effectively mean the end of things on earth. And yes, if someone does start wholesale nuking other countries then everyone else will start nuking back. The rules of engagement for any type of weaponry or warfare are as follows: if you hit me, I'm allowed to hit you back and with nukes, I can start to hit you before you finish hitting me. Then all of my friends will get in on the act and start hitting you and all of your friends will help you out also and starting my friends; nuclear war. This will never happen. Call me an optimist, but I can't see this ever happening.
In the Art of War by SunTzu, the seminal work on anything military, we read "IV:I, The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy." You only fight unless you are assured of winning and in a situation like nuclear warfare, you can't assure your victory will be greater than the enemy's victory. This is the first reason that no leader of a country or military wants nuclear warfare.
Leaders of countries have another reason as well. Say you win, what do you get? a blasted wasteland who's surviving population will hate you until they die and global condemnation for the result. This is not a victory. Militarily you may have won, but in all other facets, you have lost.
The final, and perhaps most convincing reason that I have, is an effect that can be best described in terms of torture. Torture is always the last resort of interrogation because up until then your motivator is fear. During torture, the motivator is pain and the alleviation of it. People can survive pain, they can not survive fear. As soon as the pain starts, people can think, this will be over, and I can deal with it; fear means that they 'know' that they can't. How is this related? People won't start nuclear warfare for fear that it will start. Once it has started, people think, I have to see this to the end.Until then, people won't want to start anything because the certainty of them dying is playing on their minds. This is called a survival instinct and it is hard wired into our brains. People fear death, and will in most cases do anything to avoid it. This means that only someone who either doesn't care if they die (suicidal) or is convinced that they won't die (delusional and idiotic) or doesn't care about the lives of anyone else (psychotic and sociopathic) will be willing to start nuclear warfare.

So you see, I feel optimistic about nuclear warfare, not something that most people will actually do, but something that I think is fair. The doomsday clock is nothing more than a gimmick left over from a time when this was a new technology and people had itchy trigger fingers.

Conclusions: a fun place to stay

In the newspaper the other day, there was an article about the use of cosmetics in ancient times, and by ancient times, I don't mean ancient Greece of Egypt sort of ancient times, I mean prehistoric times. Now, it may be surprising, but I don't actually want to talk about the article at all. "Why did I bring it up then?" I hear you ask. The answer is what happened in the pull out quote. They quoted an archaeologist as saying essentially that the conclusion that they had drawn was the only feasible one that could be had. Do you see what he did there? He made a conclusion based on minimal information, some evidence, and his interpretation of these two. This is what I want to talk about.

In the book The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, the three main characters all come to conclusions quite independently. This results in them literally jumping to a place called Conclusions (due to the nature of the book, this makes sense). Nothing can possibly go wrong now, We have plenty of time, and It certainly couldn't be a nicer day are the three conclusions in question. These seem to be fairly minor, but it's worth noting that even these are unprovable claims; conclusions that have been 'jumped to'. Things like a man sits down at a piano, you make the conclusion that he can play it or a woman holds a baby on her own you assume that it is hers.

This is a danger that we all succumb to. We twist facts to fit theories instead of twisting theories to fit facts. This means that we give ourselves blind spots in regards to facts that have been proven wrong (because they once 'proved' the theory) and won't allow ourselves to accept facts that don't fit our theories. In this case, mineral pigment was found in 2 half oyster shells therefore, they must have been used for cosmetics. Now aside from the fact that they have only found two or they might have been used as paint palates for the much touted cave paintings, there is still the fact that we don't actually know and yet, it obviously means this. Like I said earlier, minimal information, even less evidence and an interpretation.

This often happens with history. In the future, archaeologists will jump to the conclusion that all anyone ever did now was to sit on the internet watching cats and talking about not sitting on the internet (even though this is fairly true). This is because they weren't here, they don't know but they have some evidence that points to these facts.

The saying goes that "when you assume you make as ass out of u and me" and this holds in most cases like this one. The problem with assumptions is that most times once it is made, it is much harder to change your mind about it later.

Now there is a danger that is less prevalent and in most cases not as bad, but can still often have negative results. This is the danger of NOT drawing a conclusion despite the fact that there is only one possible conclusion to make. The theory behind this is that there could be more information that will have to change the theory. While I can understand this, it also is a problem. The issue between the two is finding a balance, not jumping to conclusions too soon, and not getting left behind the three corollaries of the aforementioned (correct) conclusion.

What is evil

One of the Forums that I occasionally haunt, often has very interesting discussion topics. One of the most interesting of these recently was the question "What is Evil?" Being curious as to what other people thought about the nature of evil I had a look and was genuinely surprised at the sophistication of some of the responses. You had the usual troll answers such anything christian, athiest, muslim etc, and then you had some well thought out definitions. Some of them were amusing, some of them were quite intelligent and fairly easily defendable.
I think the biggest divider between "everyday evil" and "truly evil" is motive. Everyday evil has some justification, some rationalization to explain their actions. True evil is evil for the sake of evil.

To be Truely Evil... One must have style. Do you want to destroy the city with an easily accessible nuke? NO!! You want to destroy it with a large (cumbersome) robot. That is what seperates regular crime from someone that is Truely Evil.

First, everything true evil must understand the conceptions of "good" and "evil". Second, everything true evil must willingly walk down the path of "evil". Third, everything true evil must act in a manner of "evil" in a conscious condition, regardless what´s the outcome. No takebacks, no regrets, no exceptions, no excuses.

To corrupt a thing. To ravage and defile, to twist it into a mockery of what it once was. It seems to have the highest potential for inflicting suffering on an individual who valued the original.

It shouldn't be so stupid or short-sighted that it will self-destruct, so Evil should be ruthlessly selfish, except that it won't kill what it uses/needs to survive.

Evil does not want to self destruct, however by its very nature it cannot create, evil can only destroy. This is not to say all destruction is evil, but it is to say that evil cannot create it can only make a mockery of creation. Evil propagates more evil, that's always important.

But isn't "true evil" basically just being unethical to the n^th degree? Where do we draw the line then?

I would argue that a misunderstanding of good and evil is almost required for something to be evil, few villains consider themselves evil, rather they will view their actions as positive. Sure, Darth Vader caused millions (likely trillions, actually) of deaths, but he did so to advance uniformity and justice throughout almost the entire galaxy, whether the galaxy wanted it his way or not, so he was clearly not evil. [at least in his head]

or as one person put it
The most pure representation of evil I have come across is Iago from Othello. He is astoundingly manipulative, utilizes Machiavellian concepts constantly (and not in a good way), is amazingly deceptive, and does it all in iambic pentameter.

The end result of all the to-ing and fro-ing was this list.
1. It must know good and evil and choose to be evil, consciously committing evil acts.
2. Intelligent enough not to engage in self destructive behaviour or exhaust it's food and/or power.
3. Selfish
4. Malicious-Sadistic.
5. Deceiving/providing false hope.
6. Viral
7. Forcing/deceiving others to do it's will.

However, possibly the most interesting response was
Describing evil, to me, is a little like describing God or unicorns. I don't really believe it exists. I mean, sure, there are people and organizations that have caused untold suffering and death for millions of people, but that does not mean that said entities were/are invested with some sort of metaphysical quality of Evil.

Probably the most well known definition comes from the DnD universe. Here they give 3 variants of evil; Chaotic, Neutral, and interestingly, Lawful Evil. These 3 give you a fairly broad spectrum under the banner of evil based on their work in society. A Lawful Evil person will follow a set in order to get what ever they can get for themselves, probably best defined as Machiavellian. They will be methodical and intentional in their evil. The Neutral Evil person will do evil purely for the sake of it. They will have no honour in their evil as the Lawful person will but also won't vary in their evil. Finally the Chaotic Evil person. These people will do what ever their destructive nature leads them to do.

Any hoo, that was just something to think about during your new year holiday thingos.

A new year. A new leaf?

Traditional at this time of year is the laughable activity of making resolutions, things that you will or won't do in order to make yourself a better person. Traditional activities for a weeks time therefore include things like forgetting to go the the gym, smoking, eating out, what ever it happens to be.
The theory behind this is that with a new year comes a new chance to make things anew - to stop doings that you don't think you should be doing or to start doing things that you should be doing. This is ridiculous. The only thing that a new year really brings is a new number and a new excuse for the retail industry to 'lower' prices again (excuse my cynicism). It must be noted here that I have nothing against the resolution itself, the thing that I object to is the idea that these things must be undertaken at the new year.

In the movie Fight Club, a main character says that self improvement is worthless, and that self destruction is a better path to yourself. The theory behind this is the engineering theory that when you take anything that is unessential, you are left with something that is essentially perfect. This is in one sense true. However, what it fails to take into account is that humanity and human life is not some engineering project, it isn't a great finished work. Every human is a work in progress, but every human is a work in progress that hasn't found its exhaustive list of purposes yet. What I mean is that every person living will almost definately have to change what they are doing at some future stage in their lives, and that will probably require adding something, not taking something away.
But that's not what I wanted to discuss. Stop making me digress people or I'll never get to the point.

In every endeavour, if you do not progress or advance, you recede. This is what a resolution is. It is an attempted advancement or progression to what you deem as a better you. The problem is that in general we either pick something that is only a minor change, I will wear my underwear for less than two weeks at a time before washing them, or we pick something that is so hard we will never be able to do it, I will finish the last three years of my medicine degree while picking up a degree in law for thursday afternoons by the end of January. This way we can either feel good about doing something, or we can placate ourselves by saying "well, you never really had a chance did you".

My call is for you to decide to make a change, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one until such time as you don't think about them anymore, but don't make this the resolution. If needed, make small changes, I will have only 17 servings instead of 18 at desert time, but keep making changes, otherwise you go backwards.

I'll leave you with a list of resolutions over time. See what you think.

• 2009: I will pay off my bank loan promptly.
• 2010: I will pay off my bank loans promptly.
• 2011: I will be totally out of debt by next year.
• 2012: I will try to pay off the debt interest by next year.
• 2013: I will try to be out of the country by next year.

The family friend

This is possibly one of the greatest social curses you can inflict upon a child (after red hair, an Irish accent or a name like Richard Phlop). The family friend will always wait in a corner expecting you to remember them and then feel gravely insulted when you fail to put a name to the vaguely familiar face in front of you in less time than it takes them to tell you that they've known you since you were this big (always being slightly lower than their hip). And this is the ones that you keep in contact with, that you see every couple of days. Invariably however you will meet the more insidious family friend - the friend of grandparents. These are the ones who don't live anywhere near you, don't remember which one you are (despite being six or seven years older than the other one) and insist that you've grown at least 4 inches (10cm for those non ancient people out there who make up most of the Interwebs) despite not having grown for the last few years due to the fact that you're now over 25.

If you're unlucky you will see this particular species once a year, for granny's birthday. If you're exceptionally unlucky or you've irritated more than a few leprechauns in your time, they will live near your grand parents and so you will see them every few months shortly after you make the arduous 6.5 hour odyssey, crammed in the back of the non airconditioned car that your dad has decided isn't quite broken enough to warrant a new one, when all you really want to do is either find a small dark corner and rock back and forward like you're suffering withdrawal, or find a wealthy person to adopt you and ensure that you never have to deal with 80's mix tapes again. That is when this most cunning of beasts will strike.

"How's school going (great, I wish I was there right this very instant)... I knew you when you were this big (that's because you knew my parents when they were that big too)... Do you remember me (yes, is there a way that can be changed?)..." and on it goes. You can't get a word in edgewise though so they just yammer on about how good it is to see you and how their second cousins nephew has just got his first job and how Mrs Betty Stein (you know her, from Brightly, her son babysat you once when you were 3, remember) just got a cataract out again and it's about time she started looking after herself, she's not 93 anymore you know. All this leads up the inevitable finale, "Do you have a girlfriend yet, you're getting old". The appropriate answer to this of course is "No I don't. All of the girls I know get scared off when they find out that I spent half of my Christmas holidays being talked at by a seventy year old with rheumatoid halitosis"
Don't try to complain about it either because parents are in on this too. "She's just interested in you (I wish she wasn't)... well just talk to him (about what? he only wants to talk about arthritis treatments)... It's only for a little while (you can die in less than a second; a week is a long time)... - or my personal favourite - just be nice, it isn't often they get to see young people (because they're old, they're not supposed to see young people)"

The only way that this can be made worse is by adding both a large group, and a few people of your own age who all know each other. This means that you're stuck wandering around trying to fend off vicious comments regarding your young age or your above average IQ unable to escape into the only possible place that there is to hide because the second you try, all conversation in the circle ceases and eight pairs of slowly narrowing eyes all point at you.
You gravitate to the back wall and look around at everyone you do know at the party (your siblings, next to you counting bricks, or your parents, easily mingling with all their old friends from before time began) and then compare this small number with the number of people of you don't know (all of whom are happy and laughing, except the fat guy with arthritis and rheumatoid halitosis who wants to talk to you about your Great Aunt Ethel). You realise that this is like a school reunion for your parents - you shouldn't be there.

Just in case you detected no hint of sarcasm here, I'll warn you, there was a bit; it's the only way that I can talk about this with out running to a small dark corner and rocking back and forth like I'm suffering witdrawal.

Silly Season

I'm going to make what will probably be an unpopular confession. This is one of the times of year that I don't really like. The days leading up to Christmas are some of my least favourite. This is for a few reasons (someone once said that I always have more than one reason for doing or thinking anything, my reply was that without more than one reason, you're just floating), primary among them the over commercialisation of everything. The next is the self-righteous sanctimonious statements from people, Christians in particular, such as "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" or similar. The third major reason is I despise Christmas Carols and you almost can't walk anywhere without having your eardrums assaulted by countless versions of White Christmas (something unlikely to ever happen in Australia), or Silent Night (unlikely to ever happen in Sydney) or any number of others (this is just personal preference and is unlikely to ever be anything major). Now, I don't think that many people outside of the retail industry will disagree with me on the first dislike and the third is just a personal preference built over years of playing these over and over again. So what this will be talking about is the second and probably more controversial point. The whole mythology built up around Christmas is essentially false. Therefore most of the traditional Christmas things are falsehoods.
Before I go on I will clarify what I mean. What I don't mean is that people have been deliberately lying to you all these years (unless you've been told Santa exists - disregard this if you know that he does). One of the problems with a polygraph test is that if you think it is the truth, then the machine thinks that it is also. This doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, it just means that you are not lying. People still think of this as truth, therefore they are not lying, they are merely passing on well documented urban myths that they believe.
I should also clarify, this is nothing against Christianity. All I'm saying is that the 'history' of the myth of Christmas is incorrect.

First of all, and probably the most damning piece of evidence against this so-called history, is that Christmas was not celebrated until a few hundred years after the birth of Christ. This was because before this, celebrating a birthday was considered a pagan ritual and therefore not appropriate. One theory holds that later on, people started attending festivals such as the Saturnalia - the celebration of the dedication of the Church of Saturn, the Roman god of time. This particular festival was celebrated over a week before the 23rd of December (on the Gregorian calendar). It was decided that a Christian festival should be held to help believers be able to not attend. What better thing to pick than the birth of Christ. This, while clearly showing that the celebration wasn't primarily about the birth of Christ, isn't enough to be able to advocate a worldwide boycott of Christmas (something that will almost never happen). However, if you look at the way the Saturnalia was celebrated, it bears similarities to the Christmas celebrations. Everyone, regardless of social standing, would have a massive feed together and sit around having fun for a few days giving gifts to their friends and family(sound familiar?).
The other theory is that it replaced another festival called Sol Invictus, the birth of the unconquered sun in much the same manner. Isn't it coincidental that of the 365 days in a standard year that happened to be the date that Jesus was born.

Some of the myths of Christmas also need addressing, first but possibly not foremost is my personal favourite, the 3 wise men, but equally validly, all of the parts of your standard nativity scene, like the snow (which is fairly rare in the middle east). Many of these myths have been propagated and continued through the carol Away in a Manger. I'll look at the 3 wise men first.
The tale is that there were some magi (wise men, where we get the term mage from) who decided to pop around for a visit. Being chivalrous guys, they brought around something for their hosts; Gold Frankincense and Myrrh. The 3 gifts are where we get the 3 men from, because obviously there couldn't have been more than one person taking a traditional gift for a king at a time. Now in these times, magi were kind of a big deal what with being high priests and court officials and royal advisors and such like, so even if there was only one magi heading over, he wouldn't have been alone. He would have had probably a consort of guards, some slaves, camel drivers, apprentices and assorted others, especially since they travelled a fair way (Myrrh comes from Yemen - near India). Now one magi travelling on his own (not counting all of his employees) was also unusual. Traditionally they came from Persia (modern day Iraq) and so for only 3 to travel when they were part of a fairly insular sect of Zoroastrianism would have been almost unheard of. So in all likelihood there would have been a group of 10 or 15 magi and an entourage of about 100, a far cry from the 3 that has been espoused for around 1400 years.
Away in a Manger I dislike, not the least for its dissappointing chordal progression and scalar melody. However its lyrics were written by someone who wasn't aware of the situation that happened. The lyrics can be found here. Firstly, who romanticised a manger to be a nice looking cot that any mum would be happy for their baby to use? A manger is a feed trough. It was likely lined with a bit of hay left over from the animal's dinner, probably had manure around or in it and almost definitely wasn't 2 foot long (just long enough to fit baby, not long enough for him to move around). Next, the carol states that this was outside. No it wasn't. This, if we are going to assume it was at an inn - something that is also disputed, would have been for guests to keep their animals in. It would have been a covered shed. Next, cattle usually only low when they have been disturbed, this would in all likelihood wake any nearby babies. I have never seen a baby which was woken up without crying unless it was fairly sick (probably from lying in manure all night).

There are other reasons that this post could quite easily incite violence upon my person due to unpopular statements, but that would require much more length than I would like to give it. Add to that the fact that I am lazy and you really have most of my reasons against continuing this.
Anyway, I might not be back for a couple of months so until then, be safe, eat fruit and remember, it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.

psych

Human psychology is one of a very few completely amazing studies in the realm of human knowledge. The more you learn about it, the more it amazes you. This post is going to hopefully show a couple of the different ways that people think, particularly with regards to body language but also mentioning responses to situations. The latter I will discuss first.

I'm sure you're aware that the easiest way to split people up is by gender, not just physically, but also mentally, emotionally, and psychologically, anyone who tells you different is fooling themselves and lying to you. This is what made me think of this particular topic to discuss - a difference in responses. You probably know, but you may not have realised, guys respond to things almost immediately, especially in the case of disagreements or arguments. There will likely be a large fight, and then 5 minutes later you would never know it had happened. This is different to the female approach which tends to be more considered, thought out and slower. There will probably be a separation and then there will usually be a long drawn out hate thing happening. This may last for years until the original slight is forgotten; I've seen this happen over failing to mention a new haircut before.
Now the new piece of information is that there is actually a name for this phenomenon. Males are usually 'situationalists' and females are usually 'generalists' or 'universalists'. These names refer to the way an incident will affect a relationship. Guys will often think only in terms of the current situation, and therefore anything after that will be as if it had never happened. Girls will add or subtract the situation from the ever growing pile of situations. This can mean that something that happened months ago which a guy will have completely forgotten will be remembered and considered by a girl. Which is also why guys forget to buy flowers after a fight and girls won't forgive without them (a generalisation I know, but an apt one).
I thought about this after a female friend asked for advice over a perceived incident with a mutual friend. My answer was to let it go and see what happens (situationalist): the situation will probably sort itself out. My friend was worried that there might be a schism in the future (generalist) and was wondering what the cause may have been: the situation won't sort itself out and will be affected by any other situations in the past or future. Just as an example of the two different ways of thinking.

I also said I would talk about body language. Body language is possibly one of the most fascinating things to observe in humans. It is one of the hardest things to lie about and most people have an instinctive, albeit basic, understanding of the out-workings. For this reason, a conscious understanding of body language is almost crucial in understanding people (something I have spent a great deal of time trying to do).
First thing to notice is stance. If you have a group of people standing in a circle, look at the feet of the both yourself and the people around you. The feet will be pointing in the direction of the person each individual most wants to impress. When they say something, often they will initially look in this direction as well, especially if they are about to say something funny or important to the discussion at hand. Next thing to notice here is with the guys. How far are the legs apart? This is most noticeable when sitting down. The guy who's legs are the furthest apart will usually be the dominant male of the group. This comes from the idea that the alpha male will need the most room for his genitalia. This has both advantages and disadvantages. Males in the group will almost instinctively follow this persons lead, however, if they are showing themselves to be too dominant, females will be subconsciously intimidated.
Position of the head is also easy to notice. If a persons head is slightly to one side, exposing one side of the neck, they are trying to defend themselves through deliberate non-aggression. In this case, their legs will often be closer together. Their voice will often be softer and they won't often disagree with the general consensus. This posture comes from saying that you are no threat, and to prove it, here is my head on it. If you notice this combined with slightly spread legs, they will likely by trying to manipulate something subtly (or they have a sore neck). If the head is slightly back, the person is confident and will often be in control of the situation. Conversely, if the head is forward and down slightly, the person will be more passive in any situation. If the head is forward and up with no apparent interest, back away slowly; this person is moving into a strike zone.
Here's one that you can try in a small group of friends. When everyone is relaxed, change your stance slightly; fold your arms, cross your legs, lean back, what ever you want (as long as it is natural). You will notice that people in the group will often follow this change without thinking about it. The more you notice this however, the less likely you are to follow the change yourself. The more someone likes you, the sooner and the more accurately they will follow your movements; the converse is also true to the extent that if someone really doesn't like you, they will sometimes reverse your movements in themselves.
Now remember what I said about stance? This is sometimes misleading. If there is an interest between two people one will often look away from each other and they may be facing someone else. This person will be the one who is most nervous about the situation and won't know what to do. They will also rarely the person who initiates any change in the status quo. They will look away and attempt to never make eye contact. If eye contact is achieved by design or by accident, it will be broken quickly. This can be fun to watch.
The final thing that I will mention is the shoulders. This can be a more accurate indication of temperament than either the face or the rest of the body. This is due to the effect of the lungs on the positioning of the shoulders. If your observee is confident or wishes the illusion of confidence (also related to dominance) their shoulders will be further back. Quiet sadness can be seen through the lowering of one shoulder (not always two as commonly thought); this shoulder will usually be the shoulder of the dominant hand. The other shoulder lowered can sometimes indicate aggression. Both shoulders lowered indicates pensiveness, distraction, or submission. It can also show more sadness than a single shoulder. These responses are not definitive and so to get a conclusion from these only is misleading. It must be combined with other signs to make a cogent diagnosis of the situation.

The absolute final thing that I have to mention in regards to all of this is that this comes mostly from my own observations which have at times been known to be wrong. The other thing that has to be noted is that every different person will be slightly different and so while this may work for some people, it will never be an exhaustive list of the only things that you need to watch. Use at your own risk.

Beloved Wife

Two events recently made me think about what marriage actually is. One, appropriately enough, was a marriage. The other is slightly less obvious, and so in order to retain suspense here, I'm not going to tell you what it is yet.

Disclaimer: You will not agree with this so don't tell me that you don't agree with this.
Immediately preceding the wedding I was wondering if I would actually go (despite the fact that for me to get there it would have taken me only a couple of minutes). This was mostly due to the fact that I am not really a wedding person, eg. I missed a family wedding for the potential offer of work (which never eventuated) but also partly because I would feel obliged to get into some fancy clothes (by my standards) and I don't like fancy clothes; I didn't have a real reason and so I went. During the wedding my mind went to the thought that a wedding, in its simplest sense, is essentially a moot point. Let me explain; What a wedding basically is, is a contract between two people the assures long term co-existence for mutual gain. Look at the vows: have and to hold (co exist); from this day forward ... till death do us part (long term); love, comfort, honour, keep, care etc (mutual gain). So in reality, a marriage contract is essentially the same as a long term share house agreement (long term co-existence for mutual gain) or a business contract. When you look at it this way, a marriage is basically a formality, a hoop that people like to jump through. This is especially the case following new laws here in NSW that state that an uncertified de facto relationship that has been in place for 3 years holds the same legal weight as a legally binding marriage certificate. And even more the case as divorce rates continue to climb leaving the 3 year de facto relationship as almost an ideal in many cases.
While I was writing this, I was reminded of something that happened a few years ago. There was an attempt to pass a law that meant that in order for intercourse to happen, a signed contract was required ensuring that there would be no ambiguity in rape cases (conveniently forgetting both drunken sex and forgetfulness). My thought upon hearing about this was that it already exists - its called a marriage certificate.
Any way, after that detour I'll get back to my point. If marriage is a formality and there is a continually easing of the difficulty of escaping the legality of the ceremony, then surely it would be better to simply agree to this long-term co-existence for mutual gain and leave it at that. I know that this may sound unromantic or crass and kind of stupid, but if the certificate is really only worth the paper that it's printed on, then the best way would be to disregard it from the start. It would save a lot of trouble on all sides and potentially a lot of mess.

Now don't tell me that this approach will simply lead to more short term or abusive or broken relationships. The quality or success of relationships is usually compared against a long term marriage, something that is sadly becoming more and more rare.
Also, don't say that in a Christian marriage this is less likely to occur. Yes it is, but the rates are quickly reaching equilibrium.

And finally on this point If a marriage is just a long term co-existence for mutual gain (kind of like a symbiotic relationship between sucker fish on sharks that clean parasites of the sharks back), then what is the major point of the whole thing. If we compare it this way, then there is no romance about it, a tapeworm will remain faithful. If we look it as merely a contract, then it is a very expensive contract to sign, there is the cost of the ceremony no matter how simple it is, the cost of changing any documentation about your identity, the cost of... ... ... and then statistically it will end within a matter of years. In the book Company by Max Barry, one of the Characters states that any relationship only works when clear rules are drawn up about who is the greater, otherwise a power struggle breaks out and then both the relationship and everything else suffers. Often, both the Bride and the Groom take the same vows, meaning, effectively, complete equality - both parties promise to do for the other what they promise to do for them. If you take this view, then all marriages are flawed from the start. This isn't to say that I support either misogyny or hardcore feminism (which is the same just with different people on top of the pile) either in a marriage or out of it.

The second thing that made me think, ready for this, was a throwaway line in a 1970's cult sci-fi movie called Logan's Run (I told you you wouldn't expect that). In this movie, everyone is an individual unit who essentially lives for self pleasure, whether that requires a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth person). Thus, there is no such thing as a family and therefore, no marriage or married couples. Two of the characters find grave stones, not understanding what they are they read the writing on them. Most of them say some variation of Beloved Husband or Beloved Wife and because there is no marriage, this is also not understood. When they find someone who has been in a family, they ask what those words mean. When it is explained, the first response is that the words hold them together. This was, for me, a mind blowing thought. Essentially, what is being said is that being called a husband or a wife, is what keeps you with the other. This made me realise that all of the above reasoning was flawed. As long as there is a Husband and a Wife, they remain together; without this distinction, there is nothing. The two characters perform what is called a common law marriage, they get married without any ceremony and minimal witnesses (in this case, they decide to call each other husband or wife).
This on its own was enough to make me rethink all of the above but interestingly, not to redefine what I was calling a marriage (the long term co-existence for mutual gain). What it did do, in terms of the above argument, was say to me that my share housing or parasitic symbiosis analogies were wrong. What a marriage does is eliminate the self (interestingly the aim of communism). At the point that you say "I do", you no longer exist. Both of you exist as one entity; suddenly instead of there being Alphonse Romano and Jane Smith, there is only one, the Romano Family (as I wrote this I realised again how much this name sounds like a mafia boss - how it that in a post about marriage), 1 entity rather than 2 individuals. This is a truly symbiotic relationship, without the other, you no longer exist, suddenly Alphonse Romano is an individual again, but now there is only half of him, the same applies to Jane Smith.

So the upshot of this, Marriage in its simplest form, co-existence for mutual gain, is moot unless there is another agreement underlying it. Whereas in a business agreement or a share house there is always more than one party right the way through it, what sets a marriage apart from these is that there is only one party from the exact moment the contract is signed.
That is why marriage is important, and also where it works the best.
As with everything I say, the is the ravings of an occasional lunatic, take it or leave it as you will.