Xtra-Medium Philosophy

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Astrology - Or how the Moon is in Uranus

My dear friends,

As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you", you lack the eye of knowledge - Friedrich Nietzsche

First off I'd like to say that your path to riches/success in love/happiness is not to be predicted by the movement of the stars and planets. It never has been the case. It remains to not be the case. The Moon is definitely not in Uranus.

However I am not here to ridicule anything. As you may have gathered in my previous posts I am not one to mock, but to learn. Ridicule is dismissive and non-productive. It belies arrogance and ignorance. These are not worthy attributes of keen minds. To dismiss something out of hand, because of cultural influence, is to be closed minded and foolish. Although I must say that just a cursory search on the internet with the term "Astrology" certainly mitigates some of my point.

I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical.

Arthur C. Clarke

I don't believe in Astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're sceptical. - Arther C. Clarke

I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical.

Arthur C. Clarke

I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical.

Arthur C. Clarke

Astrology was the first Science of humanity and therefore the foundation upon which all scientific thinking has been extrapolated from. It sits before physics and far older than mathematics.

If we break the word down into its components,

Astro = Star
Logos = Words

Star-Words. And as we explored on a previous post, Words are Thoughts. So it could be said that Astrology = Star-Thoughts. Now that doesn't mean the stars have thoughts (I know I shouldn't have to spell this out) but that it is our thoughts on stars.

Imagine, if you will a time before science. A time before philosophy was a concept let alone a subject of discussion. Where nothing was known and everything had be learnt for the first time. Modern humans were not mere brutes in pre-history. They would have had their equivalents of Einstein and Newton, Rembrandt and Raphael, Men and Women who saw the world and wanted to understand it more. But where to begin? What can be studied when nothing had ever been studied before?

The simple answer was, what you can see. There was no numeracy nor literacy. All you had was the ability to observe and make a picture of what it was you saw, throwing in a bit of creativity and imagination. The most easily seen and measured things in the world of ancient humans were the celestial bodies. Seems simple enough, but consider this, to understand what the sun does in the sky requires 1 year of daily observation and recording, at least three times daily, sunrise, noon and sunset. Same as the Moon. Knowing what these bodies do and how the world changes depending on their relative position might give you some valuable insight. E.g. when should one plant the crops and harvest them? When are the rains due? Are we to expect pestilence again? Practical questions given practical answers.

Now throw in the 5 planets known to the ancients (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and you can see how, very quickly your simple study has taken on a very complicated hue. Then throw in the stars and constellations and their relative positions to each other and you have a subject of near infinite variety and interpretation.

A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right call himself a physician. - Hippocrates

As I have said already, the Sun itself requires 1 year of continous observation just to understand what it does in the firmament. How is a single person to observe and record the movements of the cellestial bodies? Of course they can't. A single Precession of the Equinox takes greater than 2000 years, so the only way the knowledge could be maintained was through the establishment of priesthoods or cults. These groups would often perpetuate the study of a particular celestial body with little to no contact with the other priesthoods.

Through many years of observation and recording, patterns began to emerge, anthropocentric patterns, but patterns nonetheless. When certain events were occurring in the heavens, human events appeared to coincide. A rich and creative mythology was formed which persists to this day. The Hermetic Tradition is worthwhile looking into as the saying "As above, so below" is of direct relevance to this understanding of Astrology.

The major cults of the ancient world were the Solar Cult, the Lunar Cult and The Cult of Saturn, but there were many, many more besides. These cults are the progenitors of many of the modern religions today. Their stories and beliefs having been co-opted often for the purposes of recruitment into the early churches.

A striking example of this is the importance of 25th December. Here is a list of the deities purported to have been born on this day in particular (Years are approximate):

Horus 3000 BCE
Osiris 3000 BCE
Attis of Phrygia 1400 BCE
Krishna 1400 BCE
Zoroaster 1000BCE
Heracles 800 BCE
Mithra 600 BCE
Tammuz 400 BCE
Dionysus 186 BCE
Jesus Christ 5 BCE

Possibly all coincidence, but all of their stories share many similarities and themes. Most were born of a virgin, performed miracles, were persecuted and killed on a cross, only to be resurrected 3 days later. How can this be? Well very simply these men were all representative of something. Something very important to the ancient and modern world alike. They were all Sun-Gods. The light of the world, God's only Son (Sonne/Sun). Jesus does not have a monopoly on these terms.

In the northern hemisphere December 21st is the Winter Equinox, the day in which the Sun rises at its most northerly point, (this also happens to be exactly beneath the constellation of Cygnus which contains the asterism known as the Northern Cross). At this point the Sun's relative position does not change for three days, so the Sun "dies" under the sign of the Cross. On sunrise on the 25th December, the Sun moves one degree to the South. The Sun is reborn, promising the days of cold and darkness are numbered and new life is professed.

Please understand that I am not questioning the validity of any belief system, I am merely pointing out things that many religious scholars already know. It is well understood that the Bible contains no actual dates of Jesus' birth, but we can infer a lot. Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth, because his father Joseph had to return to his place of birth for a census. We know when the Romans conducted their censuses, which were NEVER in winter for obvious practical reasons. So Jesus, the historical figure, could not have been born in winter. The reason December 25th was picked by the early church was a pragmatic one, fuelled by a necessity for mass conversion of ancient civilisations.

This is a larger topic than I would like to discuss right now so I will leave it there.

I'm a typical Capricorn. I'm hard-working, loyal, sometimes stubborn, and I don't believe in Astrology. - Jonah Peretti

Just finally I would like to point out that whether or not you accept astrology in any capacity or not, it is a very important part of human history and dismissing it out of hand will only open you to exploitation by those who do understand it. Just look at almost any corporate logo, company name, marketing campaign and you will see Astrological symbols and archetypes. It is all pervasive, whether you like it or not. Understand it's place in the cultural psyche and if you choose to ignore it, then so be it.

Yours in the stars,

the Filosofer

-----

A little light relief for a return to to blogging. Thank you so much for being patient. I will endeavor to blog with greater frequency in future.

If you would like to contact the Filosofer you can email by clicking here.
Otherwise you can get him on his Facebook page www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog
Or Twitter @xmphilosophy

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

A Prayer for the NHS

My dear friends,

"The National Health Service is the closest thing the English have to a religion, with those who practise in it regarding themselves as a priesthood. This made it quite extraordinarily difficult to reform. For a bunch of laymen, who called themselves the Government, to presume to tell the priesthood that they must change their ways in any respect whatever, was clearly intolerable. And faced with a dispute between their priests and ministers, the public would have no hesitation in taking the part of the priesthood." - Nigel Lawson

We are social creatures. Humans always have been. Our societal institutions are reflections of our cultural sensibilities. Certain institutions are relatively ubiquitous. There may be some nuances between countries but some things are universal. These have no interest me. The mundanity of existence in this vast world we live in are there for all to see and are best left to the analysis of Stand-Up Comedians, whose insights are often of more value than a faculty of teachers and professors.

Some institutions however, are entirely unique. Not only are they unique to the human experience now, but they were unique upon implementation and may be unique when the histories of our time are written centuries from now.

The National Health Service in Great Britain is one of these unique institutions.

There is a worrying trend I am noticing in our society. To often the term "social" is being used as derogatory, derisory or as some political punchline. Yet we are social creatures. We are strongest when we look after our weakest. There is no mileage in survival of the fittest when it comes to humans as individuals, but as societies, bound together through shared ideals and concerns, there most certainly is.

Too often are we told that the only way we can succeed is through individual endeavor. While that is true to a degree, the individual cannot survive without the society it is a part of. It's the society more than their parents that nurtures and educates, that protects and nourishes. (Not that I am diminishing the role of parents, but I am making a wider point.)

"To ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. Reality TV, pornography, fashion, sports, and gambling are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable." - John T Harvey

The National Health Service in Britain is the only institution I am aware of in the world, that provides the most up to date, expert healthcare, at the point of need, for any citizen who needs it, for free. It is a truly social institution, in its conception at least. It is only 65 years old, yet many still do not fully appreciate how delicate an institution it is and how easily it may be broken for the sake of profit.

Make no mistake, healthcare is profitable. Massively so. In most developed countries it consumes more than 10% of GDP. There are many people, throughout the world, who stand to make a great deal of money from the dismantling of the NHS. From pharmaceuticals to the seamstresses that sew the curtains, our healthcare institution is as tantalising to business as a dying wildebeest is to a committee of vultures. But like the wildebeest, the NHS must die before the feasting can start.

Yet a frontal assault on the service would be political suicide, as even the most conservative of middle-class Britons holds the NHS, among the most treasured features of this land. An institution we can be proud of. So something more subtle is being done.

Our socialist healthcare is being de-socialised. And we are being asked to do it. Alongside stories portraying the NHS as, at best a bumbling incompetent and at worst, intentionally cruel and heartless, there are "debates." For example the debate re smokers and drinkers, or fat people. Or old people. Should we have to pay for those who choose to smoke? Or drink? Or eat too much? Or have the audacity for being old?

Maybe you agree with some of those. Well what about the children of parents with genetic diseases? Why should we pay for their healthcare when their parents knew they might get the same disease they are afflicted with? Surely they should have to pay for it (healthcare, not the child) themselves.

Well if not them, what about the extreme sports enthusiast that makes an error of judgement and smashes into the ground? Or the motorcyclist that hasn't the good sense to drive a car? Or the owner of the trampoline who lands awkwardly?

Or maybe the young people who engage in unsafe sexual practices with multiple partners? Why should we pay for them? Or homosexuals who have unprotected sex?

What about the depressives and the suicidal? They should just get a grip and walk it off anyway, right?

The point is that everyone engages in some activity that is potentially and perceivably risky to someone else. The system of socialised healthcare can only work if it is free for everybody and devoid of judgement. For any group to deny it to any other is unacceptable and so it should be.

The alternative is to allow the exact opposite. Allow private business and insurance companies to dictate who gets what and for what price. You may get excellent healthcare, but not everyone will.

We all get sick. We all will die. But not all of us will be able to afford it. Not under that system. Are we ready to sell ourselves down the river? Just to feel as though somehow we aren't being inconvenienced to look after those whose choices we don't agree with?

As I have said before, I work in the NHS. I am an Emergency Department doctor. The people I work with daily, from the cleaners to chief executives, are employed in an institution which transcends our petty nitpicking. It is a reflection of what we as a group of social creatures, want to do when we are at our best. We want to look after you (and ourselves, of course).

With that in mind I offer you a small prayer for the NHS. I know many reading this are not of a religious persuasion, but it is a secular prayer of thanksgiving, so I don't foresee any dilemma. I'm sure Nigel Lawson didn't mean for this to happen, but who cares what he thinks anyway?

Dear NHS,
I know that I do not say this enough to you
nor to those who deserve it, but thank you.
Thank you for being there when I am in need.
Thank you for being there when others are in need.
I will try and preserve you always
for you are the best of us incarnate.
May you always strive to improvement
and may we have the conviction to support you.
May your decisions be always wrapped in compassion
and may our trust in you never be tested.
I offer this as an honest plea,
May you look after us forever and ever,
In Aneurin Bevan's name, So be it.

Yours from the priesthood,

the Filosofer

-----

To contact the Filosofer you can:

email: xmphilosophy@gmail.com
twitter: @xmphilosophy
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog

I'd love to hear what you think

Sunday, 12 January 2014

In search of Bigfoot

My dear friends,

What am I doing? People claim knowledge of statistics that say at any moment everything will change.

Life is not static. It's relentless. The millions of years of history prior to human consciousness and every moment since has been in a state of perpetual flux. Nothing is permanent. Everything dies.

Through observation of the cosmos we have glimpsed at the birth of galaxies, the death of stars. Forces so beyond our capacity for understanding that they almost scoff at our attempts at comprehension. The sequences that occur in the skies are played out through the rise and falls civilisations to the nth degree.

Human existence is so fleeting it makes a mockery of how seriously we take it.

So why do what I do? And by "what I do" I mean; think, discuss and write about all sorts of subjects. I do it, like many others, because I want to know. I hate not knowing. A criticism I have faced many times, even as a child, is I have an answer for everything. Some of you may agree with that I'm sure. However, not surprisingly, I have a more sympathetic interpretation of my perceived Smart Alekary. I don't have the answers, but I can assure you, no matter what the subject, I will have a lot of questions.

It has been my good fortune that, despite many attempts, I have yet to succumb to any mainstream world view. I am neither religious nor atheistic and I'm definitely not agnostic, whatever that means. I don't belong to any political parties, nor do I ever want to. I don't even vote (more on that in a future weblog, so hold your grumbles.)

As such I have a deficiency in my cognition of the world. I have no Denial-Reflex. When I hear of a new concept, or version of history, or remarkable discovery, I don't have that little gremlin in my head saying "That's impossible, according to my world view, and therefore must be some deception/hoax/fraud/illusion." It is a burden that I must bear and it is a burden. Some can so easily dismiss an idea before it is even fully formed and get on with their lives as if they were never privy to the paradigm shifting information that is being presented to them. I cannot.

Arthur C. Clark once wrote three laws:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In recent history, the above laws, when applied to scientific advancement, have been proven true in sometimes comical affect.

Radio has no future. Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax. William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1899

Why is it that people have such a vehement denial reflex? Why is it one's perception of the world must be set in stone? Why do learned members, of any field make such absolute predictions?

Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction. Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology, Toulouse, 1872

There is a comfort in believing that the smart guys and gals who are at the forefront of their fields know what they're talking about.

Everything that can be invented has been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner US Office of Patents, 1899

Yet what if what we think we know is just a fiction? An agreed upon fable that fits the current level of evidence for not yet fully discredited theories?

There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom. Robert Milikan, Nobel Prizewinner in Physics, 1923

What if the people put in front of us as the last bastions of knowledge, the guardians of truth, are winging it? Not because they are deliberately trying to mislead necessarily, but because they're just making it up.

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. Albert Einstein, 1932

They know more background on the subject than anyone else, they have been appointed "expert" so why shouldn't they give their two-penneth? It's likely to be more correct than anyone else's.

Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics Yale University, 1929. Later that year the Wall Street Crash occurred leading to a decade of the Great Depression.

But what if they aren't "expert?" What if the comments they make are only there to protect the fragility of their world view? The fragility of their psychology?

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project, 1940s

Imagine that everything you thought you knew, your entire life's work, is being challenged by some upstart. Some young buck, muscling in on your territory. Making wild accusations and predictions, which if true, would consign you and everything you "know" to be true, into obsolescence.

Young man, I am afraid you are wasting your time. If there were any more planets, they would have been found long before this. Visiting Astronomer to Clyde Tombaugh, before he discovered Pluto, 1930. (This means you Neil deGrasse Tyson.)

It is difficult for seasoned scientists, or anyone else for that matter, to admit being wrong, or misguided, or just plain foolish.

Space Travel is utter bilge. Sir Richard van de Riet Woolley, Astronomer Royal, 1956

Until a time is reached when the facts become irrefutable. Often the world will be a decade, or maybe even a generation older, before what was considered impossible, becomes ubiquitous and mundane.

There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

And even those whose vision has transformed the world have been made to look unambitious in their foresight.

640K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981

So... What am I doing? I suppose what I am doing is justifying to myself and to a lesser degree to you, the reasons why I study the topics I refer to as High Strangeness but what most would call Anomalistics. Things that are there, but shouldn't be. They shouldn't be there because we have no model to explain why they are, yet there they are.

Over the next few months I will, from time to time, take you along with me, on voyages to distant lands and forgotten epochs to discover, rediscover and uncover many mysteries. It will challenge your understanding of both history and science, modern and ancient. It will leave you with many more questions than before the outset, but it is my sincerest wish that it will, in the very least, amuse you. I make no guarantee that what I present to you will be true, whatever your definition of "true" is, but that is not the point. Remember this...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Aristotle

And why do I do this? Because...

"I'm bored" is a useless thing to say. You live in a great, big, vast world that you've seen none percent of. And Even the inside of your mind is endless. It goes on forever inwardly. Do you understand? Being, the fact that you're alive, is amazing. So you don't get to be bored.

Louis CK

Yours in strangeness and definitely not in boredom,

the Filosofer

-----

Sorry for the delay in getting this post out. The Christmas period and the time since New Year is a busy one as I'm sure you'll agree. But I'm back now, so you can look forward to weekly-ish updates on the weblog.

I am also going to host a series of interviews on the site over the coming twelve months. Sporadically at first, but who knows, perhaps in time it will become a regular thing. We shall have to see.

To contact the Filosofer you can:

email: xmphilosophy@gmail.com
twitter: @xmphilosophy
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog

I'd love to hear what you think

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

Merry X-Mas from X-M Philosophy

My dear friends,

Just a quick note to say I hope you and your cherished friends and family have a truly happy Christmas.

Be thankful for the bounty before you and know how lucky you are to have more than you can eat, more booze than you should drink and be in the company of those who mean the most to you.

The feast or festival is important to us as humans, beyond the various allegories we attach to them. It's important because without plenty we cannot appreciate scarcity and vice versa.

So raise a toast to each other and be contented, for the worries of the world will still be there when you're done.

Glad tidings, one and all,

the Filosofer

-----

I'll be back in the New Year with more of my ramblings, but in the mean time I want you all to enjoy feasting!

Monday, 16 December 2013

Mind your Language

My dear friends,

"The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for." Ludwig Wittgenstein

When teaching medical students I use this quote regularly. Seldom has a sentiment been truer to me through my practice in life or in medicine.

During my more contemplative and playful moods I like to occasionally undertake a simple thought experiment. I came across it when reading a book by a modern French philosopher, Roger-Pol Droit. Try it yourself if you would like and you have a spare minute or two.

Take a simple object. It has to be small and light enough to be held comfortably in your hands, e.g. an apple or pencil. Look at it. Speak it's name. Then repeat. Keep repeating it. The word should be that which most naturally relates to you the idea of the object to hand. Do this for at least one minute. Notice how as you keep saying the word, the object and word begin to separate from one another. The word, which is now just a sound becomes almost silly and is never exactly the same. The object remains static, unchanging. Note how the sound you make becomes partitioned from the idea of what the object actually is. Give the object to someone who does not speak a language you know and they will have the same idea of what the object is, but the sounds they use will be indecipherable.

The point of this thought experiment is to demonstrate how language is more than just letters on a page and sounds one makes. It's about the transference of ideas and thoughts. That example was just using a simple, small, everyday object. Something that can be seen, measured and felt. The idea behind what an apple is, for example, is relatively straightforward. Some ideas are not so simple to relate.

Let's think about how the transference of an idea occurs. An idea comes to mind and an area of the speaker's brain sends a signal to the body. Air is forced through the vocal cords that vibrate producing sound, a series of vibrations travel at a fixed speed towards the listener. The sound reaches the ear of the listener, the vibrations are transferred to their eardrum which move the three tiny bones in the inner ear, amplifying the signal that travels to their brain. The listener's brain then deciphers the signal.

That whole process works well for simple objects or concepts. Things which day to day affect everyone. But when an abstract concept is used there is always an element of trust involved and that trust is not always deserved.

Say a word like "Love", or "Fear", or "God." I know most people have an idea of what those things are, but they won't be my idea. Not exactly. So for language to work at all for these concepts, one must trust that the person listening has some clue as to what you mean when you say "Love" for example.

What do you feel when you hear the word "Love?" What is your idea of "Fear?" What is "God" to you?

I don't know. Nor will I ever truly know. Through years of contemplation and introspection I feel I am closing in on what I think "God" is. I may never get there. But have you taken the same thought journey as I have? Of course not. You've had your own. Just as valid, just as real. Just as all of us have. We experience our lives only through our own perspective, not through anyone else's. Your truth is just that, yours and no one else's.

"God" is just one example. No one but you knows exactly what you mean when you use thousands of other abstract words. You may casually say that you are "Starving", when you're merely hungry, but you probably (I hope) do not really know what "Starving" is. You might say that you're "Terrified" about a job interview or a public speaking engagement. Yet that word might stir different feelings in a Holocaust survivor, or child soldier in the Congo.

It's all relative I know. I am not trying to belittle peoples emotions, but it is important to understand that language is not dead and the words you use are actually ideas and thoughts you are trying to express. Words are not just letters or sounds.

A professional needs to know the words they use, because everyone in that profession will expect them to. It is required to make the transference of ideas to be as seamless as possible. Complicated matters will take an age to relate if every other technical word needs defining and agreeing upon before moving on. A doctor may know all the technical words they need for their profession, but should they eavesdrop upon a group of structural engineers discussing the construction of a bridge, they will probably find it difficult, if not impossible to follow the discourse.

It's not enough to think you know what you mean when you use a word, you need to actually know it, because sooner or later your ignorance will be found out. Again I am not preaching to anyone from a pedestal. Everyday I have to reference a word or phrase I thought I knew from childhood, learning its meaning and its origins. I do it to learn about my work and about our history.

I do this because I think what Wittgenstein said about language is true. Even if I have thoughts and ideas which transcend my limited language, what use is it to be unable to relate it?

I'd love to hear what you think.

Yours in words,

the Filosofer

-----

You can contact the Filosofer at: xmphilosophy@gmail.com or twitter @xmphilosophy or on Facebook www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog

Sunday, 8 December 2013

Differentness

My dear friends,

It cannot have escaped your attention that Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela died on the 5th December. There were many subjects that I wished to discuss on this post, but I feel it would be churlish to not at least make mention of this one in honour of Mandela.

I am sure many of you have read at least one or two articles written about him since his death. I am also certain that many of you have read and shared a plethora of his most famous quotations. I am not being derisory, I have done so as well. So, as respite for you, I will not be talking about Madiba (that's what his friends call him, if you hadn't heard a thousand times already.) Instead I will be discussing on this week's post the reasons for the need of a man like Mandela and the miracle of his leadership.

We are, whether we know it or not, at an interesting point in the continued development of our species. We stand at a precipice, a tipping point, a place where see meets saw (or where teeter meets totter.) It is the result of discussions, like the ones we will have regarding the upcoming topic as well as those to come, that will define the world as it is and as we would like it to be.

I use the word species above quite deliberately, because we are a species. From the pygmy tribes in South-East Asia, to the behemoths of north America, we are one species, in the strictest sense of the word. All humans can procreate to produce viable (i.e. fertile) offspring. Yet if one examines the historical record of human's interaction with any other group of humans, it is not difficult to see that we have always differentiated between ourselves, usually with a view to annihilation.

The history of man, is a history of genocide. The further removed from the history one gets, the more complete the genocides seem to be and more worryingly, how easily these atrocities are reduced to a few words so as to keep the narrative of some conqueror rolling.

Entire civilisations came and went. Their stories and knowledge lost in the spilt blood of generations. Made to endure the Carthaginian Solution of tyrants, whose own names are forgotten to all but the most learned of historians.

There was no nuance to the argument. They are different, whether it be their appearance, language, gods, traditions, laws, clothes etcetera. Therefore we are justified in taking their stuff and doing what we want to them. They are different. We are not.

As we move from ancient to modern times, we see that there has been no further improvement on the argument. Yes we sell it to each other using various subtleties, but the underlying feeling is always the same.

Our differences, however small, are the justifications for any and all of our interactions from benign to murderous. The differences we see prejudice almost all subsequent interactions. They are used to manipulate and guide us towards unsought paths, leading to outcomes undesired. It is easy and has been done since humans first walked this Earth.

It has always been the harder task to convince us of our sames. Those who have come to us whether through divine intervention or just dumb luck, to remind us that we are brothers and sisters, have oft been derided, scorned, ignored or crucified.

The miracle of Mandela was that not that he survived his formative years, but that he then went on to do something almost unprecedented in human history. He made the different see each other as the same. Not equal, that's not going to happen for a long time yet. But the same enough to sit and listen to each other's stories of cruelty, heartbreak and pain. The same enough to reconcile their differences and despite many flaws, try to build a country for all to live in. A country where all voices are heard, before the judgement of sight is imposed upon thought.

That was his miracle. That is how I will remember him.

Yours in thought,

the Filosofer.

-----

A short one this week. Not heavy on the specifics either. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or any other topic.

You can contact the Filosofer at: xmphilosophy@gmail.com or twitter @xmphilosophy

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Daddy Cool Part 1

My dear friends,

It has been nearly one year since I became a parent. It has been a rewarding and emotional experience for me and my wife. I'm sure that many of you who have children can relate to that.

Ever since I've been a parent though, one thing has struck me as unusual. I don't know why I didn't expect it, perhaps I never really thought about it until I was made to. Why is there still so much disagreement on how to raise children? I was genuinely astonished. Think of any aspect of child rearing and I can find you at least two if not more, conflicting ways to do it. From breast-feeding to schooling and everything in between. It is a source of continued and sometimes quite vicious debate.

Surely, I thought, there must be some consensus? Something we must all agree on? I suppose it depends how you define "all." As nation states we have laws governing the minimum standard we expect for our children's treatment, but I don't need to tell you that the "minimum standard" is also highly variable across the globe.

As someone who is very much interested in history, I thought I'd delve there and see if I could make at least some sense of it. Not an easy task, because there is a genuine dearth of information re children in history, when compared to adult men and women. Children genuinely are the silent players in history, rarely mentioned but just as effected by historical events.

I feel it is important at this point to warn you. Some of what I will be presenting in this weblog post is uncomfortable in the very least and downright sickening at it's worst. That is my experience at least and I have a strong stomach and a healthy perspective. I will try and leave out the gratuitousness as much as I can. Yet I feel it is important that we examine our history fully, including the truly perturbing aspects, if we are to understand where we are today and the direction we are heading in the future.

There is a professor of history in an American University, that each year challenges his students to find him evidence of parenting techniques prior to 1850, that if practiced today, would NOT end in prosecution for the parent. To date not one student has managed this. Quite remarkable when you first hear it, but as soon as anyone picks up a book relating the story of children throughout human history, it becomes evident to see why.

Let's start near the beginning...

Anthropologists that study the very earliest modern humans have been quite forthright about their findings and theories about how children were treated by their palaeolithic and neolithic elders. Infanticide was a common practice. Sometimes the tribe could not sustain another one of their number due to environmental reasons and usually the children were the first to suffer rejection from the collective. The youngest would go first and if necessary the next youngest and so on until the tribe was left with only sexually mature adults. It made sense to them. Children weren't useful and actually reduced overall survival, in times of hardship. It was a brutish, harsh existence.

Cannibalism seems to feature quite a lot also in the fossil record. People ate people. Kids are people too and easier to catch from opposing tribes. And it would seem that the vast majority of those eaten would have been children.

Fast forward to the ancient Mediterranean. It is a matter of historical fact that the civilisations of and around the Mediterranean used children for sexual gratification, some younger than my son is now. Reading the primary sources for this era makes one question the humanity of these people. It's easier to see them as somehow alien and unrelated to us today. It's much more difficult to try and understand their reasoning and psychology. It makes one ask deeply disturbing questions about themselves and humankind in general. It's also easy to forget that the adults that would do these things to children, were once children themselves and almost certainly were treated in a similar fashion.

There was no religion that prohibited such behaviour, no damnation culturally for it. To all at the time, it was normal. So normal in fact that when one reads the primary sources describing these behaviours it's as if they are talking about the weather. The history of General, then later Emperor Tiberius is full of sickeningly graphic accounts of what today would be considered paedophilia of the worst kind, but in the history is related as if he's a mild alcoholic. Or the works of Petronius Arbiter, a friend to Emperor Nero and satirist whose "Satyricon" is a romance featuring young boys.

I'm not picking on the Romans either, because there is plenty of evidence that such practices were widespread, from Carthage to Iona, Assyria and Greece.

So what of the the Christian world? Surely the introduction of an increasingly moralistic world view coupled with a fear of eternal damnation if not at least being a pariah, would stem the suffering of children?

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14

So Christ was for children being included in society and taught that one must be innocent and childlike in the presence of God to understand and be incorporated into the Kingdom of Heaven. That's my interpretation anyway, based on this and several other aspects of Christ's words as recorded in the New Testament. But the realities of Christian Europe in the Dark to Middle Ages, much as some would argue today, were far removed from Christ's message.

From around 300 - 1300 AD the spread of the Christian message did little to dissuade the practice of infanticide. It did however make vogue the custom of abandonment, often at the steps to a church or monastery. Children became subject to new dogmas and so in addition to the murders and rapes and regular beatings, came religiously inspired violence.

Children were described as "changelings" if they were somehow physically deformed or mentally deficient. Physical and mental disability aside, St. Augustine said some children as "suffer a demon," and are "changelings" if they merely cried too much and needed to have "the devil beaten out of them." Death was not an uncommon occurrence during these of demonic exorcisms

Babies were swaddled and bound for years. The belief being that children's limbs could potentially become evil-shaped if left loose, or they could tear off their ears, scratch out their eyes, break their limbs or touch their genitals. The infants were often tied to chairs all day, lest they crawl on the floor "like an animal."

Aside from the physical aspect of the children's treatment at the hands of their guardians, is the plethora of psychological tricks and strategies for creating the kind of behaviour deemed necessary for the development of a good person. Stories from eastern Europe to the colonies in the Americas are abound with such practices. Children were sometimes literally scared to death.

In Europe, when a public execution was to occur, a special area right at the front of the crowd watching, was reserved specifically for children. They were made to stand and watch the condemned as the various charges were read and the appropriate punishment meted out. Once the execution was ended, the children were then beaten, severely. This was not a punishment, but a lesson. That lesson was, "Remember this day."

This sort behaviour, as well as countless other forms of what can only today be described as torture, persisted as necessary for well over a thousand years. Generation upon generation meeting out the same brutal judgements upon the next.

From 1500 AD until 1750 AD, children were given a slight reprieve from the physical punishments, but sexual exploitation was still rife. To understand how widespread this was, one must know that even the royal princes and princesses, heirs to the throne, were not exempt from this. The practices that occured are so utterly repellent I don't want to describe them here, but for those who are curious what makes me so squeamish, I will link to various historical source websites at the end.

Around 1750 came the newly formed study of Child Psychology. One of the earliest proponents of this new field was a German writer called J. Sulzer wrote in one of the first books dedicated to child-rearing,

These first years have, among other things, the advantage that one can use force and compulsion. With age children forget everything they encountrerd in their early childhood. Thus if one can take away children’s will, they will not remember afterward that they had a will…[sic]

[it is necessary] to drive out willfullness from the very beginning by means of scoding and the rod…

[it must begin] in the child’s first year.

Versuch von der Erziehung und Unerweising der Kinder (Attempt at the education and instruction of children) 1748

This was generally the mindset for most of the child psychologist that were adhered to by parents from across Europe. Even today there are high profile proponents of such forms of child-rearing, maybe not so much the physical aspect, but the psychological aspect certainly.

Change in attitudes on how to raise children has been exceedingly slow over the past few thousand years. The idea of parental "love" for the child seems to really be an invention of modern times and not in ingrained, hard-wired, immutable and inalienable feeling that I and many others today experience.

But before we start judging our ancestors too harshly, we must remember that context is easily lost with hindsight. Not that I'm making excuses, but it is important to keep context in mind whenever history is discussed, especially such a bleak and sinister aspect of it. We must never forget that these people, in the most part, did not consider their behaviour as abhorrent, but actually beneficial.

It should also be considered that, despite the deaths meted out by adults on children, for whatever reason, the greatest killer of children, even today, is disease. Thousands of pathogens, unchecked by antimicrobials and immunisations, took the vast majority of infants and children before they were five years old. The average ages of our ancestors is so low, not because people died at 25, it's because so many died before 5. If you were one of the lucky ones to survive up to your fifth birthday, chances were you'd live a good few decades after that.

Imagine the psychological strain that would put on a parent. There are many stories recounting the devastation that disease wrought on individual families. One that always wrenches my soul when I think of it, is the story of a pilgrim family in Maine, late 17th Century, where a husband and wife had thirteen children, not one of which survived beyond adolescence. Imagine having to bury every child. Imagine thirteen pregnancies, thirteen labours, thirteen illnesses, thirteen last rites and thirteen funerals, all for your own children.

That is just one family, in the history of humanity there are many more whose stories go untold.

Is it any wonder that perhaps parents didn't attach too strongly to their children? It is considered today that one of the most soul-destroying events for a parent, is the loss of a child. Imagine if almost every parent you knew had lost one if not multiple children to death and disease. How different would your outlook be then?

It is also worth remembering that all of the terrible things done to children throughout history, still occur to this day. Rape, torture, kidnapping, slavery and murder. We may be much more advanced technologically speaking, but there are those who are still very much mired in the darkest corners of the human psyche.

So, the fact that there is no concensus on child-rearing is because raising children without fear of death and with genuine parental love, is a relatively new phenomenon in the human experience. And it is still not universal amongst humans, the reasons for which we will discuss in Part 2 of Daddy Cool. It won't be the next blog post I do. I think I'll need a little breather after this one.

I'd love to hear what you think on this and any other subject,

Yours in thought,

the Filosofer

-----

Thank you for making it through that, I commend your sticktoitivness. Here are some links for you, should you wish to look deeper into todays subject matter.