Been a while since I've posted a blog here, or indeed anywhere. And rather than it be a bitch or a whine, I thought I should write about something that I love and can't do without, musically.
The Clash will likely always be my favourite band, and though I tend to fall in and out of love with several of their songs as time passes, the top of a very impressive heap, will always be "(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais". This is one of those songs you either get or you don't. If you do, you'll clutch it very tightly to your heart, and if you don't...it's cool. The Clash are probably fortunate not to be branded racist now by alarmist, hand-wringing Lefties, what with song titles such as "White Riot" and then "(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais", but it should be recognised that both of those songs are written from the perspective of envy. In these songs, Strummer saw what black people in his community were doing and wished people of his own colour were that savvy, that angry, and that switched on and up for change.
The track starts with a count in and an accidental guitar sound, which serves to convince you that this is a live take, before juxtaposing an angry and abrasive guitar with Jones' reverb-drenched, high-pitched 'ooo'-ing melody line. It then kicks off into a, what is now a by-the-numbers, white-boy reggae riff. But back then, and for a band like The Clash, this was anything but by-the-numbers. This approach was among the first to knit punk and reggae together. The brick-through-a-window rage of earlier tracks such as White Riot and Career Opportunities were ostensibly missing, but a few listens to this track showed that it was still there but had been replaced by an anger more subtle, as Strummer and Jones stretched their songwriting chops, and each band member started to come into their own, musically. Take Paul Simonon, for example. The Clash's bass player was a massive influence on their appearance due to his affinity with art and a paint brush, but when the band started he was so inept at the bass that he took to writing the notes on the fretboard. This is so that when Jones told everyone it was "Going to a G there...", for example, Simonon knew where to put his fingers. To go from that to the sparse, less-is-more, massively effective bass line in this song, is quite something.
It is this musicality that set The Clash aside from other punk bands of the time. American psychologist Abraham Maslow, who devised the Hierarchy of Needs, once said that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. The Clash had started angry, and they were still really pissed off, but they were developing new tools and finding, through their influences, different ways to use them. Sometimes if you project your anger with a calm disposition, you can be way more affecting - and effective - than shouting and screaming the whole place down. By taking a different path, The Clash were ensuring that once punk had passed they would still be around. There's a saying, "The more now you are, the more then you'll be", which emos and chavs will no doubt wish they were mindful of when they look back on pictures of themselves in 20 years time. The Clash knew it, though. And they knew that by staying within the 3-chord-and-fuck-the-system mould of every other Sex Pistols wannabe, you were doomed to be a part of the past rather than forging the future.
In the first verse of the song, Strummer speaks of attending a concert to see, among others, Delroy Wilson and Leroy Smart. Hoping for a good show, he instead leaves disappointed, as these acts seem to have succumbed to commercialism. This initial disappointment bleeds into the rest of the song, which covers topics from the state of the country to the state of punk rock. This is impressive, to me. Strummer has highlighted, in a punk rock song, an unfortunate process which can sometimes occur - one disappointment can make you pay more attention to the other disappointments you were trying to ignore. One piss off and you suddenly become the world's biggest cynic. It snowballs. Cascades. I picture Strummer walking away from the concert, through the rainy streets of London, head down and collar up, heavy in disappointment and contemplation. He had been let down by the non-event of something that he had hoped would lift him. So he started to project his disappointment on to everything else he was thinking about and that was happening around him. The song is therefore quite cynical, but as George Carlin said, "Scratch any cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist".
Certainly, the idealism of the punk movement that The Clash had helped to create, had withered, and this had disappointed Joe by the time he wrote the song. In one verse he sings, "Punk rocker in the UK; They won't notice anyway: They're all too busy fighting; For a good place under the lighting". The punk movement, what was once something honest, that was to be a force for change, had descended into mindless violence and a misunderstanding of the ethos of the movement itself. Strummer suggests here that he is done with it. This is reinforced with the next few lines, "The new groups are not concerned; With what there is to be learned; They got Burton suits, they think it's funny; Turning rebellion into money". This last line was thought to be a dig at The Jam, who never really fitted in as punk rockers. Regardless of intended target, it shows that Strummer believed passionately in the potential of punk rock for change, and was crushed at the way it had been hijacked by the mainstream and then diluted, the ready money and easy fame draining it of its previous power and energy. The Pistols and The Clash had lived in squats and had no money. They were driven by creativity and passion, not the expectation of record deals, groupies, and sports cars. These new groups, they hadn't earned it. They were being soaked up by record labels desperate to jump on the punk-rock bandwagon, and were handed big advances to produce second-rate albums which could be sold to the kids who were caught up in a fad.
This is a common occurrence - money infecting a movement. Things that are pure and original and inspiring are that way because their originators have been through hell to get there. Movements like punk rock are fueled by everything but money, really. But such is the influence of the movement that many want to become a part of it. Ultimately it becomes commonplace, bland, and vanilla. Success becomes a double-edged sword. If you want your message to be heard, you have to go mainstream, you have to use the biggest platform you can find. People would slate Rage Against The Machine for signing to Epic Records and being label mates with Michael Jackson. But it's analogous to either appearing on the 6 o' clock news to communicate your ideas, or tweeting them out to 120 followers, hoping you'll go viral. Playing the corporate game then becomes a necessary evil. You give away credibility, but you take the opportunity for mass communication you now have. Strummer would have known this surely, but he no doubt hoped it would go another way. Additionally, in the case of The Clash, the rumour is that any money they made from their record deal was absorbed by the bank account of their manager, Bernie Rhodes. Maybe Rhodes could defend his thievery as a way of keeping his band hungry, angry, and passionate.
What strikes me most about some of the final lyrics are the way they are still relevant, "All over, people changing their votes; Along with their overcoats; If Adolf Hitler, flew in here today; They'd send a limousine anyway". In just those few lines, Strummer says enough for a lifetime. Certainly today in the UK, as the Tories and Labour became pretty much the same party in the 90s, and people are now more likely to say that no political party represents their beliefs, voters are flitting between political allegiances depending on the scandal or the soundbite. Fundamentally though, Strummer is right with his line about Hitler. Hitler was a man responsible for attempted genocide and is rightly considered one of the most heinous individuals who ever came to power. But do we not have equally reprehensible leaders now? Have the UN not ignored other genocides that have been committed? And do we not ensure that the perpetrators live in protected opulence when they visit the UK? An entire book could be written on the significance of those last two lines, as they are philosophically, psychologically, and politically poignant.
The last line which Strummer repeats, is that he is "Only looking for fun". This suggests that he has given up on pursuing his dreams of change. That the groups described in the song, the people who populate them, and the attitudes they carry, have ground him down. These fakers and chancers, these politicians and the fickle who flit between political parties, this respect we give to monsters who treat people like vermin. So he's going to stop trying to fix the world and just try to enjoy his life, perhaps through artificial means, as he earlier calls himself the "All night drug prowling wolf". But is apathy, and giving up, not a natural and understandable reaction when you have the kind of night Strummer is describing? 'Fuck this' is a go-to response these days. Fuck this. He tried, but people just didn't get it. So, fuck this. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do people not use recreational drugs or alcohol to burn their problems? A temporary fix, sure, but an effective one nonetheless.
Strummer is describing a dark night of the soul, and we all have them, and most of us recover. We wake up arguably more determined to put things right in our lives, and sometimes in society, too. Certainly, The Clash found determination from this change in musical direction. The musical output that was to follow, from the focused brilliance of London Calling to the sprawling mess of Sandinsta!, likely found seed in this one track where two musical styles, seemingly at odds with each other, were pushed together to create something fresh and affecting. To see just how affecting it can be, cast your eyes over the footage below. Though not The Clash, this is Strummer singing his song with the Mescaleros in London. Watch Strummer's face as the crowd sing the first line, you'll see a flicker of a smile before he gets back to back to being angry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBbxRtnHp-A
Tuesday, 22 May 2018
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Psychology As A Badge
So that's that for my degree. All done. Dusted. A 2:1. Upper, of course. Realistically, I think I could have attained a First if I'd forgone every kind of human communication for two years, something I wasn't prepared to do. I'm not too disappointed anyway, 10 years ago I never even thought I'd ever be in possession of a degree, much less a 2:1 one.
My love affair with psychology has not ended, however. I plan to return in October to take a Masters degree in applied neuropsychology, a topic I received a First in for my undergraduate degree so I should be alright with it.
The everyman's idea of what psychology is or what it does is perhaps slightly distorted. It's a massive subject, covering many, many things. Some quackery, some scientific. Either way, unless you wade through the murk of a single honours undergraduate degree, its hard to explain just how murky it is.
Someone I know took a combined degree. English and psychology. Now, here's where I become unpopular. If you take a combined degree, I don't believe there's any chance you know more about either of those subjects than someone who took a single honours in either. This someone took English and ONE psychology module. Just the one. An easy one; counselling psychology. Their dissertation was taken in English, their exams weren't exams they were coursework....all except for counselling psychology.
All of this is fine.....except. When bragging on Facebook that they received a First in their degree, they stated that it was 'Psychology with English'. Errmmm, no. Its the other way around isn't it? Your degree is weighted in favour of English, not the other way around.
Why the need for this subterfuge? I believe it is due to the nature of psychology and how the layman might believe it is a more intellectual subject or....and this is common....that being knowledgeable about psychology means you are in some way privy to certain information regarding behaviour or subconscious thought in a Derren Brown style. I assure you, the second part is not true.
Psychology students are met with 'I bet you're analysing me right now' type discussions with strangers and its fun to play on them, but playing is all you're doing. You have no idea what's going through someone's mind, just as you have no idea if my idea of red is your idea of red. Your red may be my green, and vice versa, which - if we could see what each other was thinking - could get interesting at traffic lights. Reality is entirely subjective, and perched on a knife edge.
The desire to wear a subject as a badge of intelligence is an odd thing to do. I don't consider my degree to be worth more than someone who took a drama degree or a mathematics degree. I did my fair share of statistical analysis in my degree, and I certainly had a fair amount of drama in it too.
Just as we are all philosophers at one point or another, so too are we all psychologists. You read people without knowing it, you analyse them in conversations with your friends too.
Getting through a degree, either combined or single honours, is an incredibly difficult thing to do. As such, I believe any new graduate has the right to brag for a while, to be proud, and to shout it from the rooftops regardless of grade. However, enlisting the help of a subject to come across a certain way is slightly pathetic. You should be proud of the subject you favoured. I would struggle to do an English degree, just as I struggled through a psychology one. Taking a counselling module however, does not make you a psychologist. It makes you someone who's read a little about counselling. Taking a degree in psychology does not make you a psychologist, and god knows there's plenty of my colleagues who will gladly take a job or career in any other discipline. It does however, give you a very small insight into a huge and largely fascinating subject. An insight that, though small, is a damn sight bigger than a single module.
My love affair with psychology has not ended, however. I plan to return in October to take a Masters degree in applied neuropsychology, a topic I received a First in for my undergraduate degree so I should be alright with it.
The everyman's idea of what psychology is or what it does is perhaps slightly distorted. It's a massive subject, covering many, many things. Some quackery, some scientific. Either way, unless you wade through the murk of a single honours undergraduate degree, its hard to explain just how murky it is.
Someone I know took a combined degree. English and psychology. Now, here's where I become unpopular. If you take a combined degree, I don't believe there's any chance you know more about either of those subjects than someone who took a single honours in either. This someone took English and ONE psychology module. Just the one. An easy one; counselling psychology. Their dissertation was taken in English, their exams weren't exams they were coursework....all except for counselling psychology.
All of this is fine.....except. When bragging on Facebook that they received a First in their degree, they stated that it was 'Psychology with English'. Errmmm, no. Its the other way around isn't it? Your degree is weighted in favour of English, not the other way around.
Why the need for this subterfuge? I believe it is due to the nature of psychology and how the layman might believe it is a more intellectual subject or....and this is common....that being knowledgeable about psychology means you are in some way privy to certain information regarding behaviour or subconscious thought in a Derren Brown style. I assure you, the second part is not true.
Psychology students are met with 'I bet you're analysing me right now' type discussions with strangers and its fun to play on them, but playing is all you're doing. You have no idea what's going through someone's mind, just as you have no idea if my idea of red is your idea of red. Your red may be my green, and vice versa, which - if we could see what each other was thinking - could get interesting at traffic lights. Reality is entirely subjective, and perched on a knife edge.
The desire to wear a subject as a badge of intelligence is an odd thing to do. I don't consider my degree to be worth more than someone who took a drama degree or a mathematics degree. I did my fair share of statistical analysis in my degree, and I certainly had a fair amount of drama in it too.
Just as we are all philosophers at one point or another, so too are we all psychologists. You read people without knowing it, you analyse them in conversations with your friends too.
Getting through a degree, either combined or single honours, is an incredibly difficult thing to do. As such, I believe any new graduate has the right to brag for a while, to be proud, and to shout it from the rooftops regardless of grade. However, enlisting the help of a subject to come across a certain way is slightly pathetic. You should be proud of the subject you favoured. I would struggle to do an English degree, just as I struggled through a psychology one. Taking a counselling module however, does not make you a psychologist. It makes you someone who's read a little about counselling. Taking a degree in psychology does not make you a psychologist, and god knows there's plenty of my colleagues who will gladly take a job or career in any other discipline. It does however, give you a very small insight into a huge and largely fascinating subject. An insight that, though small, is a damn sight bigger than a single module.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
The Everso Slightly Inconsistent Left
Following on from my previous thoughts on Woolwich, I have become concerned to the point of being irate at the attitude of many left-wingers.
Numerous times this week on social networking sites, I have been informed that I must object to hate marches by the BNP or the EDL. Frankly, I'll decide what I object to, but moreover; this is a country of free speech. Many people lost their lives to keep it that way. As such, attempting to silence those whose opinions differ to your own is really rather ridiculous. If you don't agree with it, I'm afraid it's tough.
However, alongside the Facebook and Twitter campaigns, a group of anti-fascists decided to try and spoil the days of the EDL and the BNP by counter-marching against them and blocking their proposed path.
My question....and its rather uncomfortable for these left-wing nutters.....is, where are they when Muslim extremists are walking the streets of Luton chanting "UK got to hell" and "British police go to hell"?
This is fascism too. And yet, this is not opposed with anywhere near the kind of vehemence reserved for white people marching against this kind of lunacy.
If you're going to be left wing, then you need to be consistent. It is not only white, British skin heads who can be right-wing and fascist. It is anybody, and in the case of that video, the Muslim extremists are of as much concern as the idiots in the BNP or EDL.
Another thing I tire of, is those leaping to the defence of the Woolwich murderers, stating they are "angry", or they felt "oppressed", or that society is ignoring them. So, left-wingers are prepared to look beyond their actions to the cause of them. That's good, there are bound to be some determining factors to their behaviour. What's bad is, why is the same scrutiny not applied to those marching for the EDL?
Dismissed as lager-swilling, coke-snorting thugs, why is their behaviour not held up to the microscope either? Do the left not consider that they feel angry, that they feel oppressed, and that society and government are ignoring their wishes?
Of course they do. Where then, is their break? One side is given the benefit of the doubt and dare I say it....sympathy......and the other is dismissed and branded.
It doesn't work. It seems the majority of the left are simply out to wring their hands and moralise. We must let ethnic minorities march for their beliefs, but the whites are thugs that need to be dealt with. Attempting to steer anyone's thoughts in a certain direction is by definition the opposite of freedom of thought and therefore freedom of speech. If they don't want the EDL to march by all means picket, but where are they when the Muslims are marching for an Islamic Britain?
Numerous times this week on social networking sites, I have been informed that I must object to hate marches by the BNP or the EDL. Frankly, I'll decide what I object to, but moreover; this is a country of free speech. Many people lost their lives to keep it that way. As such, attempting to silence those whose opinions differ to your own is really rather ridiculous. If you don't agree with it, I'm afraid it's tough.
However, alongside the Facebook and Twitter campaigns, a group of anti-fascists decided to try and spoil the days of the EDL and the BNP by counter-marching against them and blocking their proposed path.
My question....and its rather uncomfortable for these left-wing nutters.....is, where are they when Muslim extremists are walking the streets of Luton chanting "UK got to hell" and "British police go to hell"?
This is fascism too. And yet, this is not opposed with anywhere near the kind of vehemence reserved for white people marching against this kind of lunacy.
If you're going to be left wing, then you need to be consistent. It is not only white, British skin heads who can be right-wing and fascist. It is anybody, and in the case of that video, the Muslim extremists are of as much concern as the idiots in the BNP or EDL.
Another thing I tire of, is those leaping to the defence of the Woolwich murderers, stating they are "angry", or they felt "oppressed", or that society is ignoring them. So, left-wingers are prepared to look beyond their actions to the cause of them. That's good, there are bound to be some determining factors to their behaviour. What's bad is, why is the same scrutiny not applied to those marching for the EDL?
Dismissed as lager-swilling, coke-snorting thugs, why is their behaviour not held up to the microscope either? Do the left not consider that they feel angry, that they feel oppressed, and that society and government are ignoring their wishes?
Of course they do. Where then, is their break? One side is given the benefit of the doubt and dare I say it....sympathy......and the other is dismissed and branded.
It doesn't work. It seems the majority of the left are simply out to wring their hands and moralise. We must let ethnic minorities march for their beliefs, but the whites are thugs that need to be dealt with. Attempting to steer anyone's thoughts in a certain direction is by definition the opposite of freedom of thought and therefore freedom of speech. If they don't want the EDL to march by all means picket, but where are they when the Muslims are marching for an Islamic Britain?
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
How Woolwich Affected Me
Its hard not to have been affected by the happenings in Woolwich recently, and its hit me in a way I never expected. The nature of the attack; its violence (meat cleavers? really?), its randomness, the apparent lack of concern or emotion in the face of the perpetrators, and personally speaking....witnessing the insanity that then turned up all over social networking feeds.
I know some of my friends are racist. You can spot them too, they commonly start sentences with "I'm not racist, but....." and then proceed to say something so strikingly racist you wonder how that caveat ever managed to bump its way up to the start of the sentence. Simply saying you're not something is no good if you then prove that you are that something in the same breath.
But that's their position. I cannot tell them how to think or feel, and I wouldn't expect them to change their beliefs because of something I say. Racism is not something you're born with, you learn it. Its environmental. Happily, this means you can unlearn it too; you just have to want to.
After the Woolwich murders, many have decided their racism is well justified. My issue has always been with the religious aspect. I won't judge someone on their race, but I'm afraid I now judge everyone on their religious beliefs. I'm hoping it will pass, but the incident last week has snapped something in me and I can no longer stomach the bullshit that comes with organised religion. Its difficult not to focus on Islam, but there are plenty other organised religions bringing pain, misery and suffering in the name of something supposedly good.
I read, often, that the attack was not religiously motivated. I also read that the men were mentally ill. That they were oppressed. That they were angry. That they were drug abusers even. I doubt you, the reader, would stay with me as I picked apart each one of those reasons....or excuses.....so I won't bother. The men were certainly confused; they referred to 'our' government and then 'your' government. 'Our' country and 'your' country. As yet, its not clear what they wanted, or what they wanted to prove. They have, and deserve, little sympathy and if I was the resident nurse attending to their gunshot wounds, it would be difficult not to bring a little NaCl to work with me.
The majority of Muslims are peace-loving. Brilliant. Keep it up then. Their problem is they need to rat out and deal with those that are not. If they know some clerics are extreme, preaching hate and fundamentalism, they need to clean their own house. Then strip them of whatever title or license they need to preach their shit and they get rid of them. The Quran appears to be so ambiguous that it can advocate any amount of death, violence and bloodshed, and yet when read by another proves itself to be a book of peace and goodwill.
This is a massive problem. There must be an ultimate truth there, otherwise the thing is worthless as a spiritual guide.
Of course, as an atheist I believe all 'good books' to be inherently worthless. I have lost all respect for religious rituals and posing. Its bullshit, its make believe. We need to grow up and move the fuck on. Muslims seem to be the touchiest when it comes to having fun poked at their beliefs, and they need to get a grip. If their faith is strong, then what does a little Danish cartoon matter? Does Allah not preach forgiveness? If not, why the fuck not? Surely that's a first in any divine being's handbook.
We now have the counter-attacks, we have coked up lager fuelled idiots marching the streets of Britain making with the Nazi salute. The biggest idiots are the media for reporting it. As long as they do, attack and counter-attack will continue.
Religion appeals to those who think themselves so important they can't just cease to be. There is no afterlife, pleasant or otherwise. You die. You just stop. Being scared of this is fine. Being scared of anything is fine, but know that fear of something doesn't make anything less so. If you want to live on, you do so through your kids, your acts and gestures, the things you leave behind be they experiences with others or music, books, paintings. You don't see Allah, you don't see God, you are aware of nothing.
My solution is a radical one and probably seen as ridiculous by many. Simply; ban all religion. This country becomes secular. Keep the buildings up - churches, mosques, as relics, as museums even, but you cannot practice in there. No praying, no worshipping. Nothing. If you want to believe in that shit, you go somewhere else and do it. You are then responsible for your actions, for your life, for the good and bad, for courage, for strength, for forgiveness. Attributing this stuff to a figment of your imagination is bad for your mental health, you need to give yourself some credit. I have lost my patience with religion, and the people who fanatically believe in it. Whether the attack was religiously motivated or not, I'm afraid that's what Woolwich did to me.
I know some of my friends are racist. You can spot them too, they commonly start sentences with "I'm not racist, but....." and then proceed to say something so strikingly racist you wonder how that caveat ever managed to bump its way up to the start of the sentence. Simply saying you're not something is no good if you then prove that you are that something in the same breath.
But that's their position. I cannot tell them how to think or feel, and I wouldn't expect them to change their beliefs because of something I say. Racism is not something you're born with, you learn it. Its environmental. Happily, this means you can unlearn it too; you just have to want to.
After the Woolwich murders, many have decided their racism is well justified. My issue has always been with the religious aspect. I won't judge someone on their race, but I'm afraid I now judge everyone on their religious beliefs. I'm hoping it will pass, but the incident last week has snapped something in me and I can no longer stomach the bullshit that comes with organised religion. Its difficult not to focus on Islam, but there are plenty other organised religions bringing pain, misery and suffering in the name of something supposedly good.
I read, often, that the attack was not religiously motivated. I also read that the men were mentally ill. That they were oppressed. That they were angry. That they were drug abusers even. I doubt you, the reader, would stay with me as I picked apart each one of those reasons....or excuses.....so I won't bother. The men were certainly confused; they referred to 'our' government and then 'your' government. 'Our' country and 'your' country. As yet, its not clear what they wanted, or what they wanted to prove. They have, and deserve, little sympathy and if I was the resident nurse attending to their gunshot wounds, it would be difficult not to bring a little NaCl to work with me.
The majority of Muslims are peace-loving. Brilliant. Keep it up then. Their problem is they need to rat out and deal with those that are not. If they know some clerics are extreme, preaching hate and fundamentalism, they need to clean their own house. Then strip them of whatever title or license they need to preach their shit and they get rid of them. The Quran appears to be so ambiguous that it can advocate any amount of death, violence and bloodshed, and yet when read by another proves itself to be a book of peace and goodwill.
This is a massive problem. There must be an ultimate truth there, otherwise the thing is worthless as a spiritual guide.
Of course, as an atheist I believe all 'good books' to be inherently worthless. I have lost all respect for religious rituals and posing. Its bullshit, its make believe. We need to grow up and move the fuck on. Muslims seem to be the touchiest when it comes to having fun poked at their beliefs, and they need to get a grip. If their faith is strong, then what does a little Danish cartoon matter? Does Allah not preach forgiveness? If not, why the fuck not? Surely that's a first in any divine being's handbook.
We now have the counter-attacks, we have coked up lager fuelled idiots marching the streets of Britain making with the Nazi salute. The biggest idiots are the media for reporting it. As long as they do, attack and counter-attack will continue.
Religion appeals to those who think themselves so important they can't just cease to be. There is no afterlife, pleasant or otherwise. You die. You just stop. Being scared of this is fine. Being scared of anything is fine, but know that fear of something doesn't make anything less so. If you want to live on, you do so through your kids, your acts and gestures, the things you leave behind be they experiences with others or music, books, paintings. You don't see Allah, you don't see God, you are aware of nothing.
My solution is a radical one and probably seen as ridiculous by many. Simply; ban all religion. This country becomes secular. Keep the buildings up - churches, mosques, as relics, as museums even, but you cannot practice in there. No praying, no worshipping. Nothing. If you want to believe in that shit, you go somewhere else and do it. You are then responsible for your actions, for your life, for the good and bad, for courage, for strength, for forgiveness. Attributing this stuff to a figment of your imagination is bad for your mental health, you need to give yourself some credit. I have lost my patience with religion, and the people who fanatically believe in it. Whether the attack was religiously motivated or not, I'm afraid that's what Woolwich did to me.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Coming Up For Air
The title of this post is the title of a book by George Orwell. I read it....strewth......nearly twenty years ago now. Its about a chap who goes back to the visit the place he spent his childhood in, hoping to re-experience some of those things that made it so special. He finds that time - unsurprisingly - has not waited for him, and that many of the things he looked forward to seeing again are now gone, just like many of the people.
Its a book about nostalgia really, and how you must realise that you can never go back. Those days are gone. I always remind someone I know who is very nostalgic that eventually, he'll be nostalgic for these days too, so enjoy all hell out of them while you can. I know I'll look back on this time very fondly indeed, as I have a lot to feel fortunate about.
However, there is a lot going on right now, and I need a break. Often, my breaks would come in the form of music festivals. Sadly, finances and line-ups that defy my age and musical tastes mean I rarely go anymore, and when I do go, they tire me to the point that I need another break after them.
I'd like to come up for air right now. I know you can never go back, but just some greenery, some sunshine, and less stress would be marvellous. So here is a poem by William Butler Yeats, which sums up my mood for today. I hope you all know your own way of coming up for air, and I hope you get enough of a lungful so that you can cope with the 21st century once again.
I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
Its a book about nostalgia really, and how you must realise that you can never go back. Those days are gone. I always remind someone I know who is very nostalgic that eventually, he'll be nostalgic for these days too, so enjoy all hell out of them while you can. I know I'll look back on this time very fondly indeed, as I have a lot to feel fortunate about.
However, there is a lot going on right now, and I need a break. Often, my breaks would come in the form of music festivals. Sadly, finances and line-ups that defy my age and musical tastes mean I rarely go anymore, and when I do go, they tire me to the point that I need another break after them.
I'd like to come up for air right now. I know you can never go back, but just some greenery, some sunshine, and less stress would be marvellous. So here is a poem by William Butler Yeats, which sums up my mood for today. I hope you all know your own way of coming up for air, and I hope you get enough of a lungful so that you can cope with the 21st century once again.
I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
Sunday, 3 February 2013
Matrices and Simulations
I haven't written a philosophical paper for a couple of years now, and I'm not really sure this is one. Regardless, what I'm about to write will probably produce derision in many, because in order to wrap your head around it your identity and place in the world is fundamentally changed.
Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.
Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.
Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.
Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.
The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.
Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.
So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.
The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.
Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.
Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.
Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.
Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.
Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.
The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.
Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.
So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.
The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.
Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
A Quickie
Haven't written for a while but this made me chuckle so much today I wish to preserve it in pixels for years to come.
In a seminar on Abnormal Psychology, we were treated to the 'teachers friend', the DVD. This one was by the national hero, all round splendid fellow and wordsmith Stephen Fry. Speaking of his problems with manic depression, the program followed him around as he took in old stomping grounds and met people similar to himself.
One of these people was Rick Stein, the TV chef. Now, Mr Stein suffers from bi-polar depression, and claims that it is hereditary. His father not only suffered from it, but threw himself off a cliff in front of his sister because of it. Suicide and manic depression are common, and dying from manic phases because the individual is so hyped up they forget to eat or drink have also been documented. The program took Rick, Stephen, and of course the viewer, back to the cliff where it happened, and it was clear that Rick Stein had both come to terms with the incident, and was still disturbed by it.
After the program finished, we were urged to comment on the things that surprised us about the program. I myself didn't realise manic episodes could get quite so manic, nor last quite so long. Others were surprised that kids as young as 4 can be diagnosed with it (Americans......sheesh).
However, one girl.....one girl.......she was surprised by something different.
When asking if there was anything else we wished to state as surprising, she put her hand up and said, "I didn't know Rick Stein's dad committed suicide."
The tutor looked at her, looked to the floor, then looked around the room and said "Anything else?". Leaving the completely ridiculous statement hanging in the air like a fetid Pinata which doesn't need to be struck with a stick, its spilled out its awfulness all over the room anyway.
I was initially embarrassed for her, then saw the hilarious side. Bless her all to hell and back. They did ask what we found surprising, but I think she took it a tad too literally.
In a seminar on Abnormal Psychology, we were treated to the 'teachers friend', the DVD. This one was by the national hero, all round splendid fellow and wordsmith Stephen Fry. Speaking of his problems with manic depression, the program followed him around as he took in old stomping grounds and met people similar to himself.
One of these people was Rick Stein, the TV chef. Now, Mr Stein suffers from bi-polar depression, and claims that it is hereditary. His father not only suffered from it, but threw himself off a cliff in front of his sister because of it. Suicide and manic depression are common, and dying from manic phases because the individual is so hyped up they forget to eat or drink have also been documented. The program took Rick, Stephen, and of course the viewer, back to the cliff where it happened, and it was clear that Rick Stein had both come to terms with the incident, and was still disturbed by it.
After the program finished, we were urged to comment on the things that surprised us about the program. I myself didn't realise manic episodes could get quite so manic, nor last quite so long. Others were surprised that kids as young as 4 can be diagnosed with it (Americans......sheesh).
However, one girl.....one girl.......she was surprised by something different.
When asking if there was anything else we wished to state as surprising, she put her hand up and said, "I didn't know Rick Stein's dad committed suicide."
The tutor looked at her, looked to the floor, then looked around the room and said "Anything else?". Leaving the completely ridiculous statement hanging in the air like a fetid Pinata which doesn't need to be struck with a stick, its spilled out its awfulness all over the room anyway.
I was initially embarrassed for her, then saw the hilarious side. Bless her all to hell and back. They did ask what we found surprising, but I think she took it a tad too literally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)