Tweet Tweet

The discovery of new technologies presents us with a challenge. At present, and for the last few centuries at least, virtually all technology has been assumed to constitute "progress" and as such, taken on board. Later, and in hindsight we often find adverse or side effects. We haven't as yet achieved a mechanism to evaluate technologies before they are adopted and become mainstream. The term"Luddites" has commonly been used in a negative context and yet the Luddites' basic premise was correct- that the new looms would destroy their way of life and de-skill (in modern parlance) their comunity.
Today, there is a widespread acceptance of the internet, together with its various offshoots- Facebook, Twitter and forums etc. Critics are often regarded in a similar light to that in which Mr Ludd and his compatriots would have been viewed. I use the internet- its hard not no and still contribute actively within our communities. And yet it concerns me that this new communications revolution, whilst providing impressive new possibilities, envelops each of us in a cyberspace "bubble", effectively isolating each of us. The virtual reality of the net is increasingly replacing conventional relations and inevitably has practical repercussions for everyday community life.

Its a crude analogy I know, but the optmistic reception that the internet received is not dissimilar to the excitement that greeted the first motor car, 200 years or so ago. Then, this amazing machine promised freedom of movement and a general emancipation of the everyday citizen. At first, the car did seem to be delivering on its promises, but today the picture is not quite so rosy.

Somehow, we manage to overlook the fact that every new technology exacts a price from its users, and inevitably, advantages and benefits  become nullified by the hidden costs. How many of us consider the energy costs of using IT? A Harvard academic argues that 2 Google searches results in the production of 14g CO2 and that IT now causes 2 per cent of global emmisions. These emmisions stem from the electricity used by the computer terminal and by the power consumed by the large data centres operated by Google and the like around the world. These are the physical impacts of the technology. The social implications have yet to be fully understood- but they are likely to be substantial.

Ivan Illich used the term "convivial tools" for technologies which chimed with our human needs, without exacting a high ecological or social cost. He considered the bicycle as a prime example of a convivial tool. I doubt if the internet would meet these criteria.

Similarly, Schumaker promoted the benefits of " small"- and again, the 'net would fail the test- it is incurably centralised, and although it can empower communities and individuals in many ways, the balance of net benefit will always rest with those with the greatest financial and political power.
This point has been eloquently addressed by Jerry Mander, amongst others, who wrote the book "Four arguments for the elimination of TV" back in the 70's and has since turned his attention to the role of the internet as well as globalisation and technology in general. His conclusion-" Technological evolution is leading to something new: a worldwide, interlocked, monolithic, technical-political web of unprecedented negative proportions". His solution-   dismantle technological civilisation. Simple as that!

Be naiive

I am certainly not alone in thinking that state education is probably now doing more harm that good to us as a society. When did you last hear a serious discussion regarding the role of education? Hours are spent reviewing and arguing over targets and qualifications but few ever broach the question "what is education for?".
My main objection is that schools view children as empty vessels which have to be filled. If this is the goal then perhaps schools are fit for purpose. However, children as well as adults are not mere sponges for facts- we learn when we are ready to learn. You can present concepts and ideas to a person but it will only make sense if they are ready to understand. We find this in our own lives- a book which we previously couldn't fathom, suddenly makes sense. Campaigners will also tell you that you can hit people with all manner of facts and statistics but only when they are ready, or on the same "wavelength" do they actually take them on-board.
Krishnamurti goes further in saying that knowledge gets in the way of learning- because knowledge represents past experience, and as such has been through the mill of the mind and therefore is not "reality". In other words, to truly learn we need to start with a blank sheet of paper- not one coloured by previous knowledge/experience. In everyday life, the mind is continually judging, comparing etc. To learn we need to suspend the mind's activity in order to accept the reality for what it is- unclouded by our own ideas, preconceptions etc.
One could say we need to be naiive in order to learn. Its an analagous situation to that of instinct and "gut feeling" which rise in response to a given situation. Then, invariably, the mind kicks in and clouds the issue with logic, experience etc.
It may appear a truism but, if education is to mean "learning", the primary task of the teacher must be to enable children to learn. They need to understand how learning occurs, the role of the mind, and what instinct is. Having taught 2 of our children at home over several years, it was quite a revelation to observe how little time a child needs to learn what a school takes years to achieve. This is because, once a child is ready to learn, the teacher almost becomes superfluous, as life and living become the child's teacher. Schools need to be replaced with life- the best teacher there is.

Entropy and spiritual growth

In his book The Road Less Travelled, M. Scott Peck interprets evil as pure "entropy"- the natural tendency in all systems towards a reduction in energy over time. However, most of us are not evil but are still subject to an element of entropy. When we fail to apply effort against this entropic force, what Peck defines as plain "laziness", we commit "sin". In contrast, when we resist  entropy, through love,("the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing our own or another's spititual growth") we grow spiritually. This novel way of representing otherwise rather nebulous phenomena I find rather interesting. Peck is contributing to bridging that increasingly flimsy divide between science and spirituality.
Jung carried off a similar exercise when he compared the relation between the unconscious and the conscious to that of a rhizome and its fledgling sprout, the latter appearing temporarily in the spring, only to die, the rhizome (the unconscious) remaining. "Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome . Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away, an ephemeral apparition."
Peck, however goes further and suggests that the unconscious is God. He can then suggest that mental illness occurs when the individual's conscious will deviates from that of his unconscious (God). This makes sense to me, since I understand that one needs to be "tuned in" to one's intuition (our subconscious/unconscious) and not be tempted to follow our inner ego-voice. Many of us, by contrast, take that "gut feeling" as meaningless or primitive- I suggest it is the very opposite. The usual pattern is for us to dismiss that initial "gut feeling" or intuition and allow the conscious mind to weave its logical tentacles in a deathly embrace.
Of course God can also be seen as "truth" or reality and as such our aim should be to live "in truth" or "in reality". Hence the oft repeated injunction to live in the here and now- to be truly present. To achieve this state is a continual battle and whether we see it as a struggle against entropy or a fight with our ego- the result is the same. No surprise then to hear the shaman talk of the "path of the warrior", because a spiritual person has to be a peaceful "warrior"

Coincidence, Homoeopathy and the morphic field

The film "A dangerous method" portrays the develpment of the young Jung and his relationship with Freud in early 20th century Vienna. The most fascinating aspect for me was the response Freud displayed as Jung increasingly delves into the occult, spirituality and related phenomena such as "coincidences". Freud warns Jung that such interests risk damaging the reputation of the fledgling science of psychoanalysis--there is a threshold beyond which public opinion will turn against him.
The film title refers to the concern that Freud's "talking cure" could be damaging to the patient- as doctors of the time considered. Well, science has moved on since that time but still the rank and file science community treats many therapies and theories with deep scepticism. Many doctors today, for instance, would consider homoeopathy "dangerous" even though it has a longer track record than modern medicine and little if any of the side effects of the latter.
I wonder what Jung would have made of Rupert Sheldrake- and his theory of morphic fields?  After all, Jung's notion of a collective unconscious is not a milion miles away from Sheldrake's proposition, if one adopts the maximal interpretation of his theory.  But Sheldrake's concept is perhaps better able to provide a mechanism for explaining "coincidences", or "synchronicity" as Jung termed these, since individuals will experience similar realities when they are focused on similar "frequencies".
At a recent wedding I attended, a passage from Kahlil Gibran's the Prophet was read. The previous night,reading in bed,  I had read exactly the same short passage!  Most of us can can provide similar examples illustrating this phenomenon. Personally I consider that everything is imbued with meaning and thus such synchronous events are worthy of our attention.And "attention" for me is the crucial element here- the more attentive and "being in the now" we are, the more likely we are to understand the deeper meaning behind such synchronous events and the like. I also feel that we should be able to attract such "coincidences" although I can't propose how this could come about- apart from positive visualisations.
We also get messages in dreams. In his book "Conscious Dreaming", Robert Moss outlines many examples of such communication and how we can interpret and benefit from it. Again, once we accept that everything is interconnected and has meaning, the world becomes a far larger and more fascinating world-- fact is truly far more exciting and amazing than fiction.
And nowhere is this better illustrated than in the practice of homoeopathy where remedies are chosen by means of tuning in to the person's "wavelength" and matching this with the similar (the similimum" wavelength remedy. The practitioner has to synchronise his observations of the patient with his knowledge of the remedies. That Hahnemnann happened upon this incredible means of healing the sick is miraculous indeed and indicates how important it is for us to be able to suspend disbelief  in order that our minds can be broadened beyond the limits of our past experiences.

On physicality

“Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and adventures are the shadow truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes and forgotten.” 

– Neil Gaiman

There is a continuum between material and spiritual. It has been said that the East reflects more spiritual aspects and the West the material in life. That contrast is increasingly blurred but there's still some truth in it. Enlightenment, by definition, aims to focus on the spiritual and minimise the material. Current society is rushing full pelt in the opposite direction. Everything about globalisation and consumerism aims to extinguish as much spiritual content from materiality as possible. The material can be quantified, valued in solid currency and profited from. McDonald's is a case in point. Can you detect a thread of the spiritual in those establishments? All elements of the place are designed in order to maximise financial return. Have you visited Milton Keynes or Swindon? Most of our city centres are now almost devoid of beauty and "spiritual" content. There is no space left for the imagination, for personal creativity to express itself. What personal creativity, art or drama is allowed has to override the cold and forbidding concrete and glass surroundings. These spaces are for spectators to view the enticing merchandise, there is no "need" for involvement or participation- you are there to buy. 
The non-material is increasingly at a premium and we all sense, to varying degrees that emptiness within us. Understandably, it is often difficult to define. And if we do try and define it we run the risk of being labelled as "Luddites" or of wallowing in nostalgia. The absence of "material" render these sensations nebulous and hard to describe. What is it for instance that makes a place "human" and comfortable to be in? Christopher Alexander in "A Pattern Language" aims to do just this. He dares to put a value on the non-material. But Alexander is swimming against the materialist current.   
David Fleming considered another vital dimension of our non-material lives- the role in society of ritual. He recognised 7 specific elements within it- emotional daring, membership, continuity, consciousness of time and events, practice, meaning and locality.  Fleming understood that ritual attaches us to place, to community and gives us a feeling of belonging and sharing a place in history. Where ritual dies, so does community.  


The church has, until relatively recently in the West, fulfilled an important role in providing a focus for ritual. With its decline, we struggle to replace that function. The local pub has faced a similar decline and the community is the poorer for it. 
Ritual is increasingly under threat in a society where material values dominate. People are predominantly focused on substantive reasons for any activity- and ritual has no such inherent basis. Ritual also usually requires a space which may not have any other material uses- such spaces are increasingly at a premium. Ritual needs that shared but unspoken sense of common humanity, a feeling that can be forgotten when the striving for material  things dominate our lives.


They say that nature abhors a vacuum; well so does modern society. In fact, the more material we become the more wary we are of non-materiality. Silence has been devalued and we extinguish it wherever possible. Radio and TV cannot tolerate spaces between words, between action. Those appearing on TV or radio now talk faster, with more "sound-bites" than was the case even 20 years ago. Jerry Mander, in his book " Four Arguments for the Elimination of TV" explained how children's TV programmes such as Sesame Street  had progressively increased the speed of flow of images to match the shorter attention span of our young generations and retain the mesmerising effect of the medium. 


When other humans aren't around we fill the space with TV, with radio, any noise in fact. The jogger with her i-pod, the driver with his CD player, the commuter with his i-phone all represent the same tendency. In contrast, the growing practice of meditation aims to help us reconnect with that inner quiet- that infinite place where true enlightenment lies.
It helps us to re-establish a balance wherein the mind does not overwhelm the "id" or "soul".

MEAT

To kill or not to kill- that is the question...If you're an Innuit or hunter/gatherer, there is no problem: you kill to survive. But here in the affluent West, when there is plenty of non-animal protein available, the question becomes more problematic. However, ultimately, the moral argument must trump all other considerations. 

As Simon Fairlie explains in his meticulously argued book "Meat- A benign extravagance", there are many legitimate technical justifications for keeping animals destined for slaughter.Thus animals may also double up as draft beasts (horse, oxen); they may act as insurance against crop failure or to be fed wastes (pigs) or to clear ground and remove pests (poultry, pigs).For the nomad of course, the great advantage of an animal is its mobility- you can't take your allotment with you on the road!  Such scenarios provide ample reason, from an energetic standpoint, for eating meat. 

Fairlie also quite rightly takes issue with vegans and the concept of a vegan agriculture. How will the vegan control crop damage by deer, rabbit, badger or squirrel?  Without some culling, crop losses could become substantial. In the past, the poacher helped to control this problem and it often provided a source of protein for the needy peasant. Otherwise, of course, veganism is more defensible than is a vegetarian diet since the consumption of any dairy product necessarily involves animal slaughter.

So, we can provide numerous arguments to explain why animal protein is consumed all over the world. However this does not address the moral issue- is it right to kill? I would suggest that the answer is basically- no. And this may help explain why indigenous cultures often have elaborate rituals surrounding the eating of animal flesh- to appease the gods- it reflects their respect  for life. In our culture we have no such qualms. However, many of us may feel uneasy about eating meat and this reflects our intuition that, if we don't need to eat meat when there are alternatives, it is wrong. Although we often use all manner of intellectual arguments to "justify" our actions, none of these can override the moral issue.

Every action we take has its impact- this is inescapable. Every hurt we cause, verbal or physical ultimately also hurts us Whatever suffering our actions cause, whether evident to us or hidden from us, we will also suffer.These are universal principles. 

Ultimately, the answer has to be that we should listen to our intuition- that quiet little voice that we hear first but which generally is then overridden by the mind with all its justifications.Intuition, which may present as a "voice" or a "gut feeling" is always right- because it represents the voice of God, cosmic wisdom, the all-pervading truth. 

PEAK CIVILISATION

Historians will no doubt ask themselves "when did Western civilisation reach its zenith?" But can we as un-objective participants do the same? Surely there are plenty of signs that social cohesion and harmony are and have broken down in plenty of countries. 
Duane Elgin in his book "Voluntary Simplicity" proposes four stages in the life cycle of civilisations:
  
  Stage 1 - High growth, "Springtime", Era of faith
  Stage 2 - Full blossoming, "Summer", Era of reason
  Stage 3 - Initial decline, "Autumn",  Era of cynicism
  Stage 4 - Breakdown, "Winter", Era of despair


Clearly, different countries will experience this process differently, as will areas within countries depending on a multitude of factors such as economic viability, governance and historical inheritance. Thus it may be easier to reach a conclusion on this question by examining individual states or perhaps regions and defining their likely stage according to the above model.  


As Britain led the way into the industrial era it might appear likely that it would also lead the field as regards the decline of industrialism and the de-civilisation process.Thus one might conclude that the departure of Britain from India in 1947 marked the high tide of British civilisation. Another analysis could propose that Margaret Thatcher's premiership defined the start of Stage 3 of the model. And, although a relatively immature democracy, post-WW2 saw the US overtake Britain as its economy and infrastructure grew and it replaced Britain as the major player on the world stage. If we are looking to define, on a micro-historical level, the equivalent US peak-civilisation moment might be Ronald Reagan's presidency which paralleled Thatcher's reign in Britain.  


But for me, what is most interesting is not academic accuracy in pinpointing the moment in time when our civilisation started its decline. After all, other commentators could equally justifiably suggest that World War I and II marked the turning point into stage 3 or perhaps even the Luddite struggles of the 19th century. Others will debate over the likely start of Stage 4- which, many believe, myself included, we have now moved into. But, of greater interest to me is the challenge that these momentous changes present to those living through them. 


In this regard, one question to ask is whether we have any choice over these changes and the process they represent, or are they, like evolution, a structural feature of our species, over which we have no control. The obvious repost would be that if we have free will then the future is in our hands, not some nebulous "fate". I would suggest that, either way it makes sense to respond constructively.


Thus, as institutions, corporations and governments collapse under the weight of complex bureaucracy and inertia, openings will appear that individuals and communities can exploit. Already, we see examples of saprophytic activities exploiting the waste and excess inherent in the consumer culture- people living off the waste food of supermarkets; others scavenging materials for re-use. I myself have often grasped these opportunities.


Nevertheless, I would suggest that there is also merit in helping lay the foundations to a new order by developing "parallel communities". Many of the building blocks for these already exist- eco-villages, alternative currencies, the Freeman movement, alternative media and the many spiritual communities. Perhaps the biggest challenge for this "parallel" approach is that of disengagement from the dominant economic model. This is vital if the destructive economic juggernaut is to be starved of oxygen before it chokes us