Category Archive

Surviving a threat has a way of focussing the mind. For the past few days, the question of priorities has been uppermost. What is important, what is not needed? What and who do I care enough about to invest time in, having been made aware that time is the defining resource limitation?

The heart attack has served to remind me of what might be considered my core philosophy, the essential, buck-stops-here points. Which, at the same time, serves to remind why I thought, a year or so back, that pursuing the questions posed by climate change, and switching occupations, were worthwhile.

Being enagaged in an enforced idleness at home, sat on a day bed contemplating the options of computer chess or daytime TV, I am reminded that, for me, the meaning of being, the purpose of existence, is tied intimately and inexorably to the well-being and happiness of others (you, if you like). A person’s life in and of itself, self-contained and complete (all false imaginings, I promise you), is a very little thing, of small significance. What makes a life big, what makes it full, what gives it meaning and value, is the manner and extent of its interactions with other people.

And here is the connection with climate change and the current state of discussions. Notwithstanding the few who insist otherwise, by and large we are aware that there is a sickness, a malaise, a problem with our world (our home). Whilst one or two will dispute the causes, of more concern is the disagreement over the solutions; how should we treat the patient?

I suspect that it is going to be difficult to decide the best treatments, though, unless we first establish the priorities for governments and industry. Beyond that, we need to establish the priorities for communities and social groups; beyond that, the priorities for families and micro-communities. Which also means establishing our own, individual priorities.

I have established, to my own satisfaction, my list of priorities for a happy and fulfilling life. It goes: People (here and now and present); people future; place/world (environment)[home] and all that it contains; the Future; the rest.

Here is an arrogant suggestion, then. Let’s try this as a template for good decision making about climate change, about adaptation and mitigation, about policy, ,investment and cost.

First priority goes to the problems which need dealing with now; Darfur, Timor, Zimbabwe, poverty, unnecessary death, AIDS, water, food…

Then there are the problems which need dealing with to secure the future for people; food, water, medicine, peace, justice, liberty…

The next priority are the problems which, if they have not already had to be addressed because of the above, relate to the environment, the world, etc; conservation, preservation, protection from exploitation, biodiversity… (though, not unsurprisingly, many of the problems of the first two sets of priorities also involve an attitude to the third set).

The next priority is to resolve the potential longer-term problems; sea levels, water supply, agriculture, resource exploitation…

And, finally, we can invest time, effort and money into to dealing with the other shit.

This set of priorities should be usable to guide us to making first decisions about where effort is needed and how important it should be compared to other issues.

More on that, later.

Well, not so  much a hiccup, actually, more a small heart attack.

Happened a week last Saturday Night (probably the fourth of a short series),

Operation on Thursday put in two stents.

Now home and recuperating, but obviously, not overly active, for a while.

Honest, it had nothing to do with the paper…

This will probably give me a bit of time to trawl around the blogosphere and irritate a few folks.

Apologies to all those who were expecting to hear from me. Now you know why.

Some interesting may conceivably follow in the days to come.

It’s not even as if I’m actually really that old, you know….

Perhaps a part of our attitude to climate change is dependent on our attitude to the future. The science of climate change is, after all, at times a kind of futurology; an attempt to at least ascribe a probability to things yet to be. This is what the IPCC was created for, in a sense; to seek an understanding of the causal connections between present and future ‘events’ and thereby provide a ‘picture’ of what tomorrow might bring, under a given range of varied circumstances.

Even before  the issue of how well it does this is addressed, there must be a primary matter, of our attitudes to such a project in the first place. We have a long history of seeking guidance from augury, and a long history of acting in the present in an anticipation of a set of circumstances in the future which are not guaranteed, but seem likely. Is the project of climate science any different? After all, the argument about mitigation is in the end an argument both about whether we can act now to transform the future, and whether we should act.

But many people feel reluctant to allow the possibility that the future is at all ‘knowable’, or that people, as individuals or collectively, can influence future events, either because they are fatalists (often without realising it), or because they believe that the weight/inertia of the global chain of determinism is so great that it is effectively inexorable, which in turn promotes a resignation.

This is a difficult problem because our attitudes to determinism, free will, existence, fate, destiny, human potency or societal inevitability, are often formed at a very deep level, and are intimately tied in to our sense of who we are and what our place is in the world. In particular, these issues force us to address a central neurosis/challenge in our sense of identity, the question of control or power over our own lives and  the impositions on this from outside.

A large scale scientific activity which brings into the open our uncertainties about personal determinism, about freedom, about the satisfaction or thwarting of deep drives like desires, needs, guilt and shame, is therefore a threat. It is not just a threat in that what is anticipated is potentially dangerous, the very activity itself is threatening; the possibility of its existence may force upon us the requirement to decide whether we can see the world and our influence in it in a new, different way.

And this may be why some people resist. A response to ‘this will happen’, or ‘given x, y will probably happen’ is often going to be negative, simply because it contains within its construction a series of implications about how the world functions and, in particular, the role we play in shaping the future, which are potentially unpleasant to us.

If this is right, I suspect that it, too, is based on a series of misunderstandings and misapprehensions about both what climate projections involve and what they logically imply about the relationship between the present and the future, and the role of humans in it. It is also probably often based on  a very simplified, unformed sense of how the world works, rather than a serious attempt to rationalise such a complex matter.

But perhaps this might explain why communication so often breaks down, why it is so difficult to  get action from people. The very process of climate science when it is engaged in projection, in futurology, strikes at deeply embedded neuroses and unarticulated fears which force upon the person a ‘fight or flight’ response; denial to preserve the sense of self-determination in the world, or resistance to fortify the sense of personal potency, of agency, in a world which otherwise might just possibly be too big and too out of control to handle. In other words, for some people, coming to terms with the idea of climate science may require first a coming to terms with their own existential being. Its a lot to ask of an everyday person-in-the-street.

I was going to write about whether  it makes sense to think in terms of ‘prediction’, when so much of our histories are about how the unpredicted came about, or are, alternatively, about hindsight and the juggernaut that is historical inevitability (its probably an illusion).

We are engaged in a task the like of which has never been attempted before, to rewrite the future before it comes to pass, with a greater price to pay for failure than has ever been at stake before; the persistence of a world, an environment, which is still beautiful, rich, varied and valuable to our descendants. And this will require all our best attributes; courage, determination, refusal to give up, fighting against difficult odds, resolving our weaknesses and making of them strength. If we want to turn down the volume knob on the tomorrow machine, we will have to be heroes. A bit.

We live in a world without a moral absolute. No; there are moral absolutes, for some, but these are often seen to be inadequate, false, misguided. In fact, people with moral absolutes appear suspicious; they smack of extremism. Certainty is a characteristic of the terrorist, the evangelist, the holy warrior.

Where there was once an unquestioning belief, sat so deep in our culture that its meaning remained unquestioned, in the existence of a god, or gods, superior power external to us in the face of which we were powerless, unimportant, now there is left a vacuum.

Now, the very idea of unquestioning faith leaves many of us worried. We who lack that faith. With this loss of faith, of a religious foundation to our being and the possibility of knowing right from wrong, comes a shadow into our lives; how can we be good? How can we know that we are doing the right thing? How can we judge the choices and decisions of others which effects us?

If our lives have any meaning insofar as they exist, this meaning is ethical. To be human is to be aware of the need to face others - to actually face others - and engage in a way which is profoundly moral. The meaning of what we are is to be found in the way we face others and in what we do in that facing.

The questions we ask about what it means to exist are tied inextricably with the questions of what it means to be good, to do right, to add to the net value of the universe, rather than to take away from it. We want to know, with more clarity, what goodness is, what right doing is, what is positive. (Add and subtract, positive and negative, are simple enough ideas, but they contain implied value as well; this needs to be resolved at some point).

Why do I make this claim? Because it seems that to ask such questions about the meaning of being is to ask how we can be of worth. We can understand who, what we are; we can understand the difficulty of facing others and being for them open to their meaning; but we do not easily comprehend the value of our existence.

To ask ‘What is the meaning of life?’ is, therefore, actually to ask ‘What is the value of (my) life?’ We seek a way of placing value on our existence and our actions. this is a key to the project.

As always, be loved.

The first three questions I offered before were these:

• Why do I exist?
• Why does anything exist?
• Does anything really exist at all?

Staring with the third of these is necessary. Removing the doubt from this most basic inquiry allows progress to be made on the more - interesting subjects.

The answer to the third question is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If the answer is ‘maybe’, it isn’t an answer at all. If the answer is yes, something exists, then there is no problem. The real problem seems to be when the second question ‘how do I know that anything exists?’ follows from the first. This is because it takes us into the world of what ‘know’ might mean.

But it is, really, a false dilemma. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that what we think of as ‘existence’ does not, actually, ‘really’ exist. What is it that we think is going on then? If not ‘actual’, then it must be imagined - perhaps the dream of a butterfly, or of a divine figure, of a ‘cosmic mind’ - who knows? Perhaps all that we imagine exists is our own fevered dream, and we are trapped in ‘the Matrix’, some kind of dream-state, as in the film of that name.

There are two responses to this; first, if it is imagined, then it must be being imagined by a consciousness of some kind, a ‘mind’ must exist to do the imagining. And if a mind must exist, then something exists, there must be something, in or outside the Universe, which actually does exist. Ah, you say, but what if that mind’s existence is also imagined? Then the step goes one stage farther back. It doesn’t make any difference how far back you take it, at some point, infinitely far down the line, perhaps, at bottom, there must be an existence.

‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but all it might be is radio waves, or electromagnetic forces, or the accidental collision of particles of energy.’ it makes no difference; whatever the cause is of imagined existence, it in itself must exist. So, it is not possible for nothing to exist.

Do you see where this takes us?

The second response (roughly) is this: It makes no difference to us and our lives whether what we think existence is is real or imagined; in terms of how it effects us, both the real and the imaginary have equal power; the imagined may only ’seem’ real, but that seeming has the force of reality; it is immanent and experienced (or perceived). The status does not change what happens in our lives one jot, permits no escape from some kind of real. It is simpler, then, to accept that what appears to be real actually is real, rather than worry about how real it might not be. In the end, the question is not worth asking: it makes no difference to us, to you.

So, this is the first axiom, or principle, of the meaning of life: Life is real; the world is real, we are real; everything actually exists as it appears to, by and large. To speculate otherwise is pointless. Accept this first: existence is.

And be loved.

This is the normal way of thinking for most of us, most of the time. Tensions occur, though, when an effort is made to consider one’s own interests and desires. Am I being selfish? How much should I take other people’s interests and concerns into account? Is it possible to thing self-interestedly and still be thinking of (or for) others?

There is much literature and many theories about self-help and satisfaction: Philosophical and quasi-philosophical texts, self-improvement books and study programmes, life-coaching and psychoanalysis/psychotherapy are the most common examples, outside the informal realm of introspection. Sadly, many of these are founded on very basic misunderstandings about people and the world and, whilst they may appear attractive at certain times, to certain people, often avoid the deep nature of reflection and the deep causes of dissatisfaction, or need.

There are times, however, when some of these approaches can be of help in our search for happiness or goodness. Most often, this is in the relatively short-term. As such, a self-help book, for example, might answer our immediately felt unhappiness with practical action to encourage a re-structuring of our thought processes or our lives. This is, possibly, good as far as it goes, but unless the introspection goes to the roots - the fundamental analysis of one’s state of being-in-the-world - then, ultimately it can be futile.

It is important to distinguish between the dissatisfaction which stems from an awareness of an immediate ‘wrongness’ in our everyday lives, and the dissatisfaction which originates in an awareness that one has no sense of meaning, of purpose, or of direction as a human being.

An important idea of this blog is to face this deeper uncertainty, this existential hollowness, and find, for you, an understanding of what you are and what your life in the world can be.

As always, be loved.

Starting takes place somewhere; here it is for me.

In forty-seven years, some common themes emerge out of the choices I have made and the life I have lived.

Foremost among these are (today):

•  the search for a ‘meaning’ in life.
•  the search for ’something to believe in’.
•  the search for love and the possibility of love.
•  an endless fascination with the world, people in the world, ideas and things.
•  a need/hunger/desire to be other than I am - to transcend everyday experience and understanding.
•  a passion for the new-found, (but not necessarily the fashionable).
•  a fondness for words, the uses of words, the poetry, magic and mystery of words.
•  reflection - sometimes useful, often just procrastination - on all these matters.
•  bad faith - in so many ways.

As time reaches into the immanent, present now, what seems clear is that the searching, the conclusions, the mistakes and hopes, have value, in and of themselves. That for  you (others), there may be interest, the chance for self-definition, the opportunity to pursue your own search. And also has come a recognition; that our being(s) need each other, for definition, if not for more.

 So, this ‘journey’ begins, this step into the new. It is a sincere effort to make a good intent out of the good-beyond-being. It is an attempt to make manifest the good-beyond-being. But language can be a problem as well as a means. Trained in Philosophy, at times my words are - too obtuse. I find the language of academia and philosophical theory stifling at times, though it is sometimes also necessary. So here is a promise to you: I will try to say things simply, clearly. Most of the time. Sometimes there will be musings, ramblings, diversions. these are part of my being. For your being, I will try to keep it simple.

The aim of this blog is to create in time a dialogue. It works best when you engage, ask questions, offer your thoughts and ideas. I will respond. If your post is evidently an act of bad faith on your part, I will try to accept it, but sometimes it will not appear. While time passes and in no real expectation of response, my thoughts on the above will appear. Links will appear, as time allows, to places of interest to us.

Later, the first invitation to dialogue will appear: an introduction to the idea of the meaning of life.

Here, in all sincerity, will always be an attempt to love you.

Be welcome.