Breakout economics

 

 Ok, so this is some thoughts. not entirely hanging together, but I find this idea of interest.

 

Breakout is a game I am playing on my phone at the moment. I am not claiming that I am especially good at it, but I play it a lot, because I find it helps me. You probably know some versions of it - where there are bricks and you have to shoot balls to bounce around and knock them all out. My version is basically similar, but maybe more interesting or complex than the original versions.

 This got me thinking about how this can apply this to economic idea - especially relating to the always discredited idea of "Trickle Down Economics". It is not by any means a fully coherent theory or principle, just some ways that it makes me think.

I sort of make the balls represent money injected by the government. And the values on the bricks sort of represent the actual needs of individual people (or households, or whatever), what they need out of the world, like housing and food. Some people need more, some need less, and this is just about needs ,not wants. Feel free to let it include whatever you want.

So when you put money into the system, you have to decide where to focus it, where you should hit first. Those at the top - who are pretty OK at the moment - or those at the bottom who are in danger of falling off the base of the game. When the blocks reach the bottom, that is when people start to die of hunger, or exposure, that is when the economy has broken. Irrespective of how those blocks above are coping.

The best times of playing are when the balls bounce all over the place. The more places that they hit - and so cover some of the costs that person needs - the better. The bouncing is all about the money providing for their needs, and that provision then giving someone else money - that is all the sign of a healthy economy. balls should get used time and time again. In fact just recently, my game is telling me how many hits I am getting - at least 3 per ball, and when it is working well, the 70 balls I start with can turn into thousands of hits (that is thousands of needs met).

So strategies. I am not especially good, I should point out. But most of the time, the only way to succeed is to target the lowest blocks, those closest to falling off the bottom. Some of this will often then bounce its way up, but mostly, it just covers the needs of those in the bottom layers. As an economic model - covering the needs of those close to dropping off the bottom, those people who do not have al ot of external resource, that is the right way of doing it.

On occasions, I do shoot right up to the top, and let it tumble down. Not often, but if there are good and clear paths, it can sometimes work. There are also boosts available - where the provision can be spread horizontally or vertically (or both), which are always worth aiming for. This is where covering one set of needs actually also covers other peoples needs - maybe, as an example, feeding someone means that someone else doesn't have to feed them. This benefit can spread either direction, of course.

There are also boosts where balls are fired all sorts of directions, or are tripled. These are useful, helping to provide better scattering. I suppose these are like places that direct money to different places, or who take money and use it as seed money to provide more than the original. All good things.

As I said, it is not perfect, but the principle of spreading the money around is important - of making sure it goes where it needs to. That the first place to direct it must be those at the bottom end of the scale.

 

But it also made me think - if there were those at the top - well protected from falling off the bottom - were to have unlimited needs, that would be impossible. You cannot win if the blocks don't reduce their needs when the balls hit. If they were also to stick themselves to the top of the playing field, then the only way of winning would be to avoid directing any of the balls at these. This represents the very wealthy, who are never satisfied, and who are never at risk of falling down.

This is why trickle down does not work. If you fire all the money to the top, to those who are never satisfied and never at risk, it doesn't provide for those lower down. It just vanishes. Money should actually be directed at those near the bottom. This can make a difference, this can actually deal with all of the other blocks.

The economy works when we provide for those who are at the lowest end of the social scale, those who are in danger of falling off the bottom. The economy works when the money injected is used repeatedly, where one persons use also helps another person, who helps another person... If the money disappears to the very wealthy, it vanishes, rather then bouncing.

Tattoos?

 So I have been looking into the biblical comments on tattoos - the fact that I have recently got into them is a significant part of this.

 The basic passage for this is Leviticus 19:28 says, “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” These type of passages need to be understood in context - not least because the understanding and place in culture of tattoos has changed within my lifetime - so looking at their place from 4000 years ago will not be the same as today.

The commentators are all clear that, while this is written in the discussions about funeral rites, this is almost certainly not what it is referring to. While there may have been some people who had their loved ones names inked on them, this is not, apparently, the real issue that was being addressed.

What was very common - and seems to relate to the second aspect (gashes in the flesh) is that this was often religious affiliation - that is, people would have the names of their gods or their religion tattooed onto their bodies. It was a way of identifying ones tribe, ones religion - so much more akin to gang tattoos in more modern culture.

So it got me thinking about what sort of thing is analogous today. I mean, most of the best ink I see around are great pieces of art - the fact that they are on skin not canvas is just part of the art. And yes, I think the ones I have are art, and that is why I have them - they are art that is important to have with me, on me.

But what would an equivalent of the ancient tattoos be? What would an equivalent of gang ink? I immediately thought of those Red MAGA hats. They are ways of signifying an adherence to a cult. They are ways of letting everyone know that you are part of that conspiracy.

Of course, there is an important difference between a tattoo and a hat. A tattoo is for life, so your adherence is there with you for ever, however short your actually process is. Except that it isn't. A tattoo can last for 15-25 years (depending on how your skin behaves). After that, it may be a mark, but it will probably not be recognisable.

These days, with social media, when you post your pictures wearing a hat - they are there forever. They don't fade, they don't vanish, your adherence has been recorded forever.

So tattoos are not unscriptural. What is unscriptural - and un-quakerly - is advertising your adherence to a  cult, to a belief set. Like MAGA. That is what is being decried.

Bringer of Peace?

 Listening to the Proms, and Holsts Planets suite - a piece I love - it always strikes me as fascinating that Venus is "The Bringer of Peace" - it was viewed as such in his time, because it looks so peaceful and calm from Earth.

But the exploration of the planet since then have shown that it is one of the most violent, inhopsitable planets we could imagine, and definitely not peaceful in any sense. And it made me wonder about the Quaker testimony of Peace - whether, a times, it can be like this - peace on the outside, but covering (rather than hiding, or ignoring) anger and frustration. Or maybe that was just me.

This morning, sitting in the St Albans Quaker Peace garden (where we had our worship), I was struck by these ideas in a different way.

There are 4 testimonies (or maybe 7 - we couldn't totally agree on this!) indicated there:

Peace

Simplicity and Sustainability

Truth and Integrity

Equality and Justice

Sometimes these are in apparent tension with each other. It is hard to focus on Equality, with Integrity, and not feel like punching some of those on the political right. Seeing Bob Vylan recently, where he made the point that they were not "pacifist punks" - they would fight for many of hte same things that we as Quakers would believe in, but also not only want to punch a Nazi or two, but actually do it.

And yes, the Peace testimony has been one of the important ones for us and for me. It is something of ritical importance for us to hold. In a world where one of the responses to not getting what you want it violence and rioting, to hold to a belief in peace is even more important. But - and I think this is also vital - in a world where truth no longer seems to be the starting point for so many, holding to Truth and Integrity is also critical. In a world where people have to fight for Equality and Justice not just once, but find it is taken away from them, and they need to fight for it all over again, it is important to see these battles as vitally important.

Peace is - as much as anything - a belief, a claim, that violence is not the answer. I would wholeheartedly concur with this. But sometimes, when another party has started wit hviolence - with doing violence to others, physically or agaisnt their humanity, their rights, their personhood, I wonder if the only way to peace is to be prepared to let some of the intense violence of Venus erupt. Because Venus is only apparently peaceful because of this. Sometimes, violence is the only language people speak. And speaking in this, for the purposes of Justice and Integrity may well be the only viable way forward.

But then, what do I know?

wierd vs normal

 Earlier this week, I saw a posting on social media that had a bunch of drag queens (some picture were from the Olympics but not sure if they all were) with the label "Weird". And a picture - stock library picture - of 2 parents and 2 children - boy and girl - in a grassy field, with a label "Normal".

 I was - as you might guess - angry but couldn't take images or respond as it disappeared quickly. So I thought I would explore it here.

Firstly, I should clarify that I am in the UK, and this was almost certainly a US-centred group. So my responses are from the UK perspective. But in the UK, we have had pantomine for decades - I have no idea how far back the tradition goes in the UK in anything like the modern form. In pantomime, the leading boy is always played by a woman, and the dame is always played by a man. Dressed in drag. And this is tranditional childrens entertainment.

The idea of men dressing as women for entertainment has a long and wide background. And this is a Europe-wide tradition, in various forms, and some aspect of this has been inherent in the theatre tradition for centuries. It is normal as entertainment, and that is what drag queens still do.

OK, that is one side. But what really struck me was the idea that a "typical nuclear family" - husband, wife, son daughter - could be considered "normal". So in the 1950/60/70 it was the promoted ideal model for family. The term is earlier than that, but not a lot, and even then, it refers to parents and their children, whatever, together. But it is only a century old as an idea.

But I was born in the early 60s and so grew up in the time when this was promoted, and yet I grew up in a household with 3 generation, up to 6 people, and far too many boys. I knew families who fitted this ideal, but also many families who were different is various ways - it was most definitely not "normal".

And historically, it has not been the normal way to be - in fact, it would be considered very wierd and abnormal for much of the history in the UK and wider in Europe. The idea of multi-generational families, of families units that include other relations, of single parent families is widespread and accepted across a lot of Europe. And wider than this narrow western concept - in other non-western cultures, the "nuclear family" is a peculiar abberation, an oddity that whould not be supported.

 And let us not forget also childless couples - sufficiently common throuhgout history and throughout cultures - or unmarried people who are also far more common than we would like to admit. These are "normal" especially as they did, on occasions, find themselves on the wrong end of public opinion and the patriarchal capitalist society.

Now it is true that gay couples as such are a relatively new phenomena, because they are allowed now to be married, and adopt as a couple (or for one of a lesbian couple to have a child). In truth, these are more formalised now than they used to be. More visible. But in many cases, different, non-traditional child rearing has been common for centuries - it is normal.

And I think I want to draw attention to the setting - family day out in the outdoors. Well, in the society today, that is not "normal" - parents are so often working long hours and long weeks. Children are so driven to clubs and sports and activities - finding a chance to be all togehter and spend a day out is not "normal" - it is a treat. It is a rarity. Assuming your kids atually want to spend time outside, and not on their electronica or watching TV. I mean, the biggest chance of getting the entire family in a field together is going to a music festival, and catching that brief moment before they all go off.

Now, just before I go - how does this relate in any way to Quakers - because that is a driving context behind this blog. Well, there is a relevane. In that we have never saught to fit into the normative social structures. When people have told us "this is societies normal, do this" the response in some areas has always been "no". And this is because - or maybe because of this - we embrace the huge range of people, celebrate the diversity of humanity.

Because that is normal.

The Opposite of Butterfly Hunting

This is a review of a book by Evanna Lynch. Evanna is best known as Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter movies.

A review comment on the cover describes the book as "Magical storytelling", and I have real problems with this description. It is not magical in any sense - it is gritty and real. And the "story" - looking at it as a properly plotted piece of work - has all sorts of problems. So I really don't think this description works.

I would also like to point out that the character of Luna Lovegood - and her portrayal by Evanna - is one of the most enduring of the Harry Potter series. She really deserves her own book.

Having said that - this book is extraordinary, and is without doubt my book of the year. Evanna is telling primarily of her struggles with anorexia, and is telling her story from deep inside.  Which makes it an intensely personal, but amazingly relateable and true book.

So often, we read stories of people with mental health issues that are told from outside. Sometimes, they will step out of their struggles to relate as they think they are seen by others. Or they are telling from a position after they have recovered, and are remembering back.

Evanna doesn't do this. She tells her story of being in a urgent, radical care facility, not in practical terms, but how it felt to her, how she responded to this (not well). She talks of her time filming the movies in an almost distracted way, because her focus is on her feelings about her mental health problems. This was her absolute dream job, and yet she tells of it as a nervous young girl and her constant inferiority complex, not as the most exciting time she could ever have.

She talks honestly about how her "recovery" - where she was not longer considered in a critical condition, and was doing her ideal job - from the very real position in her head that she was not "cured". There was a narrative that Harry Potter saved her from her anorexia, and she is clear that this is a mistaken perspective. She was starting the recovery process from her most life-threatening state, but she was still anorexic - in a mental health way, if not in a weight way.

And this is the most insightful aspects of this book. That mental health problems don't go away when you get your dream job. When you get a partner. When you appear on Dancing with the Stars (why did we not sign her up in the UK to Strictly?). Through all of this, she was still ill, she was still struggling with the inner voice chiding her, telling her off, demeaning her. The healing is ongoing. She seems, but the end, to be in a much better place. But it is not over - it is unlikely ever to be completely over for her.

But another critical aspect of her writing is the deep insights of the mental health side of anorexia. It is not just about getting someone to eat - that is the physical part of it. But without resolving the mental aspect, this will never be a solution. The person may no longer "look" ill, and we may believe we have therefore resolved their eating problem. But if the inner voice is still there, it will reappear in some form or other. Dealing with the inner person - the mental part of the illness - is the only way to help a person come to a better place.

Evanna is incredibly honest about this. By the end, she is not looking back and saying "Oh, that was a difficult time, but I am over that now". She is saying "This recovery, and this recovery from recovery, is ongoing". It is a fearful place to leave her - she is an incredible person through all of this, and when I saw her on Between the Covers (which is where I heard about the book), she seemed happy and lively. But this is an outside view, not an inside one. She is, I am sure, still struggling with these demons.

In the end, this is my (tenuous) justification for including this on a Quaker-focussed blog. Because Evanna tells us to look inside, not outside. To see a person not just from what they present, but from where they are inside their own heads. That is so often a more intensely challenging place to see someone from. But it is also a true picture.

The book of Job

 So I have been reading the book recently, and it struck me how rarely the book as a whole is considered. A few choice passges are sometimes referred to, and some basic overviews are addressed. But there are, I realised as I read it, some important messages.

So I think it is important to understand that the story is just that - a story, a parable, if you want, with a moral or purpose. Things like children and livestock were seen as an indication of wealth - so replacing 7 children by another 14 is perfectly valid (however callous this seems to us). All the characters are simply playing a part in a larger story.

So, what of the story? Well a good 35 chapters of the book are Job and his "friends" discussing righteousness. This is the first area that I find really interesting. Because what is clear here is that Job being critical of God - saying that God is unjust and unfair (which is true) is perfetly reasonable.

His friends were all arguing that Job must have comitted some sin to suffer like this. This view is that suffering is always and inevitably the result of sin. Which is interesting, because I have heard similar arguments far more recently. The idea that if you are struggling, unhappy, suffering than you must need to repent of something is still proclaimed.

And it is still wrong.

Which is (one of) the point(s) of the story. Linking righteosness to divine blessing is a fundamental mistake. God will bless who he will, and with withhold from who he will.

As Job says (in one of the quotes so often taken out of the context) "The Lord gives and The Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" - he had it right.

So when people tell you that the answer to your problem is to get "right with God", point them to Job.

But there is a second aspect that struck me completely anew this time. This is the response from God. Now, I should point out that this "response" is a typical approach in wisdom writing by not actually answering the question even slightly. What it is normally considered to be doing is telling Job that he has no right to question a God who has made everything.

But I read it differently this time. To me, it was saying "do you - humanity - have the slightest understnading of how the world works. Of how all of nature is interconnected, of how 'Gaia' (if you want) operates to manage itself? If not, how can you seriously onsider that you know why things happen to people?"

This really struck me because it is becoming abundantly lear that we have no idea whatsoever of the impact of what we do, and of how the world as a whole operates. We are causing rampant climate collapse, and we seem not to care. We are destroying our planet without understanding a billionth of what it does.

So how can we pretend to be "gods", to be so good, so righteous? How ome we claim to be the "most intelligent beings on the earth" when we are the only one wrecking it?

There is a lot of depth and meaning in this book. So often it is portrayed in a simplistic way, or a summary form that leaves aside all of the meaning. But it does speak to our modern world, I think. To a world that still consists of humans, and so - as with all of the wisdom books - a world that still needs this wosdom.

Brain hemispheres

 So I have been reading The Master and his Emmisary by Iain McGilchrist. It is a fascinating insight into the world we are in.

I would suggest that everyone should read it, but it is 450 dense pages of fairly academic writing, so I thought I would explain some of the ideas that I have got from it here - and how it relates to my faith. I do not underestimate how challengeing that is.

One critical and core aspects of this writing is his total rejection of the popular left-brain/right-brain division. The idea that people are either left-brained and logical, analytical or right-brained and creative or artistic does not have any support in the neurology community because it is invalid as an idea.

However, he does discuss in depth the role of the diffferent hemispheres, and especially the difference in people who are primarily dominated by one or other. This is different, because everyone uses both hemispheres and the interaction between them is how we come to conclusions and decisions. People are much more variable that this, and the division into a simple binary is far too simplistic.

People are often either left- or right-hemisphere dominant. This is not the same as left- and right-brained, but there can be an overlap. The dominance is not a binary split, but it is a focus or driver, and both halves of the brain work together in all people. The dominance issue comes about because the two hemispheres picture the world in different ways - in incompatible ways (as McGilchrist points out and will be touched on later). The dominance is which perspective on reality is most prominant for an individual.

What I find fascinating is the cultural impact of hemisphere dominance.

As an example: Biblical Hebrew does not have vowels or spaces between the words, and is read from right to left. For all sorts of reasons, this is a right-hemisphere-dominant approach. Because the writing is not entirely deterministic - it is entirely possible to interpret the writing in more than one way. And all of those ways are valid.

When the writing is translated into Greek or Latin - and thence to English - these languages are left-hemisphere-dominant languages. This means that the cultural understanding and interpretation of the words is different (and significantly different, because the entire cultural paradigm is different).

In fact, the world at the time of the Old testament being written was very different. Those who were writing (that is, those who were literate) would tend to be the right-dominant people, but the world and the species were less split between left and right. But since then, we can see times in history - especially European history - where one or the other has become culturally dominant. So, as an example, the Rennaissance was a time when the right-dominant people were widely accepted and the cultural flourishing that epitomises this time is an example of right-hemisphere-dominant people.

The reformation was - although being driven by right-dominant - was strongly influenced by left-dominant people. What we saw then was a more legalistic approach to matters of faith and creativity.

There are plenty of examples throughout history. But there are two important conclusions that he comes to:

1. Left hemisphere dominant people have many signs of schizophrenia

2. Left hemisphere dominant people have been in charge since the start of the industrial revolution.

meaning, that we are in a society that is wrong-headed. In fact, he makes it clear that the correct functioning of the brain is for both hemispheres to be working together. Anything else is wrong. And a society that is dominated by left-hemisphere people is one that will not function well.

How does this relate to Quakers (if at all)? Well I think the Quaker model is more right-hemisphere-friendly than left. The basic acceptance of "the Divine" or "the numinous" is more right focussed. The rejection of structure and rules and social norms is also indicative of a more right-dominant approach. But we also have our rules and organisation and traditions, so there is clearly left-hemisphere involvement.

But, maybe more than anything, it is the fact that Quakers do not accept the society we are in today, the capitalist, militarist, consumerist society that is so beloved of the left-dominant.

How small is your god?

Isaiah 40

Have you not known?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  

He brings the princes to nothing;
He makes the judges of the earth useless.

 

This is written in the context of carving wooden gods, but it addresses a problem that was throughout the time of Israel - that their vision of the divine was always too small. Whether this was as small as a wooden doll or as small as the people of Israel, they always made God too small.

This passage ways that we are like grasshoppers. That sounds demeaning, but what I get from it is that we all look the same to the divine. Not pink, brown, rich or poor. And the "princes" and "judges" comment means that being PM or being on benefits doesn't matter from the divine perspective.

Our God is not the God of us. Of Quakers or Anglicans or Methodists or westerners or Africans or - whoever. This perspective is that the divine is for all humanity, every one of us. Even - especially - those who we disagree with.

Perspective is important - actually, in my reading of the Bible, so much is about perspective. That we - people - so often don't see things from the right perspective, we usually see the world and the divine-with-the-world far too small, far too local. We cannot see from the divine persepctive, but we need to understand that that is the right one to have. And to acknowledge that our perspective is - always - too small.

Should I stay or should I go?

 I have recently finished reading Brian McLarens book, "Should I Stay Christian?" This is a really fantastic book, very unlike any other I have read in the same vein. This is a review, but also a reflection on my response to it.

There are a few reasons why this book is much better than most that attempt to address why people want to leave Christianity. Firstly, There is the deliberate order that the book is written in. He starts by saying "No", then "Yes" and finally "How" - which means that he starts by facing the real problems with the faith from the start. So many other books start by explaining how good Christianity is, before then addressing some issues.

This leaves open the very real possibility that some people will read the first part, decide that there is no point in any more, and decide to leave. Against this risk, it clears the air of the problems, because he is clearly prepared to deal with them face on.

The second reason is that he doesn't use straw men to attack - like so often. I am sure you have seen the same (Richard Dawkins has a trendancy to do this) - where they dismiss problems that they have made up, that do not actually reflect the problems that most people have. McLaren addresses real problems, fundamental to Christianity, and explains why these should be good reasons for leaving.

This leads to the third reason for his book being so good - that he is totally accepting that people may come to the conclusion that Christianity is of no value and should be abandoned. If that is where you get to, he is quite accepting of that. The reasons to stay are also very open and genuine, none of the often seen reasons like "Because it is self obviously correct" or "Because you will burn in hell if you leave".

And maybe the best part of the book is the "how" section, because this considers the reality that people who stay will probably need to adjust their relationship to the church and their faith. In many ways, this is critical, because people who stay after having seriously considered leaving will need to adjust and change their relationship. It cannot stay the same.

It was many years ago now that I abandoned the term evangelical. What is peculiar is that my beliefs and faith have nuanced and modified, but are still very much in the realm of Evangelical Christianity, but I rejected the term because most of those using it were not people I had anything in common with. The political right who are hate preachers had taken the term and I had no desire to be associated with them. This was mainly in the US, groups like Westboro Baptist Church, but many others and others in the UK that associated themselves with these ideas. So I rejected the label.

Of late in the UK, we have seen all sorts of groups using the "Christian" label and promoting ideas that I cannot associate with. Examples include Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre - they were roundly criticised in the Alfie Evans case. Also senior politicians like Jacob Rees-Mogg, who claims and promotes his form of Christianity, but whose actions are not ones I consider compatible with my faith.

The problem with my initial position - that they are not Christian - is not a valid position to take. This suffers from the No True Scotsman fallacy, but also I have no desire to try to define what is Christian and what isn't. It is far too much responsibility and it is not what I want to do. So I accept that the label is one I am becoming less and less comfortable with.

So here it is: it may be that those who claim the title with views that I cannot accept are right. I have no problems with them claiming that their Christianity is right. But I want nothing to do with them or that faith, so I can dismiss the title of Christian. If they are Christian, I am not.

McLaren talks about stages of faith. Simplicity;Complexity;Perplexity;Harmony. I think, especially since I joined the Quakers, I am finding myself more into the Harmony stage. The stage where there is an acceptance of things. I am not there yet, but am embracing this more and more. My understanding of faith - my faith, and what it means, and what the nature of divinity is - is changing, in flux. Maybe flux is not right - that implies that it will settle to something new, and I am not sure it will. I think it is uncertain and will remain uncertain.

But it is still what I used to consider Christian. I would still accept the creeds, even though I might not want to say them, not least because words are insufficient. But I have no wish to associate myself with those who preach and practice hate, whatever name they claim. So for now, maybe, I am a Quaker, a person of faith, a seeker of truth. The names matter less now than they did. The truth is the important thing.

Eugenics

 I have just finished reading the book Superior by Angela Saini, and heard her talk at Greenbelt, covering the same areas. It is a superb book, but also it is frightening.

What I found really interesting is that it helps to join up all sorts of related areas - starting from racism, something that we see more and more in the world.

Now I should say that that, until recently, I thought eugenics ideas had die out in the middle of last century, at or after the second world war - for reasons that are clear as I explore the meaning of eugenics. I was wrong, and that was disturbing.

Now - what is eugenics? Well, it is (simplisticly speaking) the idea that we should be breeding humans to produce the very best of humanity, in a similar way that we breed our farm animals to produce the very best. This was a result of the ideas of evolution initially produced by Darwin, and the term was created by Francis Galton, a relative of Darwin (I should point out that Darwin himself did not support the idea).

What is interesting is that, for the early part of the 20th century, these ideas were broadly acceptable and discussed openly. Selective breeding, producing humans as good as is possible, seemed like a good idea. Until, of course, Adolf Hitler adopted the idea and sought to eliminate all those who were not "good enough". Most of the movement died out after that, but no entirely.

The problem with eugenics is not actually Hitler. The problem is far deeper than that - the problem is that to pursue such a plan, you need to define what the best humans are. And this is where the problems really start.

The root of race was the division of people into what were random racial categories - all based on skin colour - I am reminded of the Sunday School song:

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
....

Hang on - yes that is it - the four racial groups - red (native Americans), yellow (Orientals), White (European) and black (Anyone with dark skin - African, Indian, native Australian). There are two fundamental problems with this:

Firstly, this division by skin colour is completely unscientific. In particular, the range of those who are covered under "Black" is a huge range, comprising many different skin colours and many unrelated people. There is as much difference across that range as there is between any two skin colours, speaking biologically. If you are wanting to divide people by their biological origins, skin colour is a very poor proxy - and the more we explore and discover about DNA relationships, the more we realise that there is no proxy, not way of dividing people. When it comes down to it, we are all the same, we all share the same DNA structures.

It is also the case that those in England - as an example - are almost certainly descended from people whose skin was dark. Of course, people in the UK are all immigrants from somewhere - none of us are "native" - the islands have been invaded from the North and the South, and the people here are mixtures of a range of peoples. Of many different skin colours as well - and all sorts of eye colours and hair colours and other genetic properties. We are a wild mix.

Secondly, of course, the racial groups were put into a heirarchy. Unsurpisingly, the whites were at the top - for no obvious reason, except that we were the ones making the lists. The heirarchy was mainly about "how like white Europeans are these people".

What continued to strike me was that the way we divide people is always biased. We argue about IQ tests - but these are not universal. They have to be adjusted for different cultures, and over time. an IQ score is not an eternal value (and the average for any cultural groups is, by definition, 100 - it only measures your position compared to the average). Often we talk about the scientific advances and technology that we in the west have made - ignoring the fact that these are not universal indicators of "success". Because we value these things over others - over an appreciation of nature or of community - we claim these to show that "we" are better than "them".

And so eugenics - in the various forms it crops up in neoliberal discourse - is ALWAYS a vile and disgusting concept, always a power thing, seeking to put "me" as being worthy of living and "them" as not. And the divisions that a eugenics mindset generates - races - are putely social ideas, with no actual basis in any sort of fact. We are all one race, we are all human. Those who seek to claim otherwise will have none of my time.

The Labour Files

I finally got around to watching these - they are available on Youtube (1, 2, 3, 4) and I felt that there was something needed saying.

For those who don't know, this is a series of 4 programmes from Al Jazeera revealing details of papers leaked form the labour party. In particular, they relate to the antisemitism claims around Jeremy Corbyn and many others.

It is worth bearing in mind that Al Jazeera is a Quatari owned and driven news organisation, that will have its own biases and reasons for promoting specific ideas and issues. It should not be considererd truly independent, although it has proven itself over the last few years to be a reliable news source.And the material presented here does reflect what others have said about the party.

At the same time, I am trying to be as generous as possible towards the leadership and senior members of the party - give them the benefit of the doubt, if I can.

After watching the first two episodes, I had learned a lot. Which is always good! In particular, there is a very complex issue around what "anti-semitism" means. In practice, there are two definitions that are used by different groups:

1. Any criticism of or negative action towards Jews or the Jewish state, for any reason.

2. Criticism or negative action toward Jews simply for their Jewishness.

In the gap between these, there is Zionism. This is the belief that Israel has a right to their historical national boundaries, and should be permitted to enforce these at any cost.

It is in this Zionist stance that becomes really challenging, not least because there are many Christian groups who would argue for this position. And a Zionist position will tend to make people use the first definition of anti-semitism above.

I, of course, do note agree with this position. I lean towards the latter. And - just for clarification - these are not intended as formal definitions, just expressions of the dividing issue. If you want more details, then there is a lot of material online about the IHRA definition and examples, which are at the heart of the Labour party disputes. The basic working definition is fine for me, but the examples include any criticism of Israels Zionist desires, and that is where I would disagree.

Still with me? Well done. Now the problems with Corbyn (and many others) was that he was definitively NOT anti-semitic according to version 2, the one I agree with. However, he was opposed to the Zionism of the Israeli state, and this brought the allegations on his head. Because there were parts of the party - driven, eventually, by Keir Starmer, who wanted to adopt the IHRA definition in total.

If I am generous, it may be that they saw a definition by a well respected international group, and believed that this is what should be adopted. That such a declaration would be the clearest and most uncontraversial definition ("uncontraversial" and "anti-semitism" in one concept is not something that is ever going to work). The generous answer is that this was simple naivety by Starmer and his supporters.

Except that I do not believe that Starmer is that stupid. I would totally believe it of the leadership of the Conservative party, that they would naively accept something like this without any real idea what it was about, but I don't think Starmer is made of the same stuff at all.

Which means he is an explicit supporter of Zionism, and was seeking to root out any opponents from the party. Which meant rooting out the left-wing from the party.

This takes a different turn in the last two episodes. What we see here is explicit and systematic bullying from the leadership of the party, desperate to win votes, power and influence. And to win this at any cost, it would seem. By eliminating the political left from the party, they were hoping to win the votes from the centre right - and, if some comments are to be believed, keep most of the left because they have nowhere else to go. Which is the arrogance of the party.

And yet, this is where I try to be generous and broaden my horizons. And consider that the station may have more problems where it has evidence of issues with anti-islamic behaviour (whereas the Tory party loves Muslims, of course, as long as they are not seeking access to this county and they have oil).

But this is not necessarily positive, because what I see is that both of the major parties have the same problem - they are desperate for votes at any cost, and seek power for their own purposes. There is a core problem in our political systems, that the voting system does not hold the parties to account. In the end, they both seek to get votes to put them in power. But they do not want to use their power for the good of the people, but for their own benefit.

Yes, this has been presented explicitly in the Labour party, but this is not a Labour party problem. This is a problem with the system, the entire political infrastructure in this country. Until we change this more fundamentally and radically, nothing will really change.

The Labour Files have revealed something very dark in the party, but the party is actually reflecting a wider problem in the political state that we are in

Spirituality and Music

At Christmas, I had a book about drone metal and spirituality, which was a fascinating read. 6 months later, this is a much deeper reflection on the wider issues around this.

Now, just to do this properly, I will start by defining terms. This is not just about drone, but wider, however, it draws on experiences recently attending a gig with two drone bands. This will therefore be a longer post than usual, seeking to explore the wider understanding. I have also seen some interesting techno artists at Bluedot, which also feeds into this.

Spirituality

This is a difficult question as to what this means. Especially coming from a Quaker perspective, because we don't really like to define this. In a broad sense, and for this post, I am defining this as a sense of connection to an "Other" a "numinous". An understanding of a wider reality. This is deliberately broad, and covers a vast range of experiences.

And specifically, this was my experience with the gig I attended. The band - Nadja - make a lot of noise, and it is all-enveloping. And as part of this, I found that I experienced something very special - a real sense of being enveloped by the music, held by it, and transported by it. That was a spiritual experience.

Music

This is actually as complex a question as the spirituality one. And the answer will be as challenging to define.

Most formal definitions of music would include the elements of Melody, Harmony and Rhythm. This is where is becomes difficult, because some drone music has none of these. Well, sometimes there some rhythm, but that is usually all. And lyrics are scarce and utilised as another instrument, rather than as words to sing along with.

While one of the bands I saw did have some interaction - the singer came into the audience to scream into her mike. But there are a lot of bands of various forms (not just drone) known as shoegaze which is explicitly not interacting with the audience. It is - for these - about the music, not the performance, although the actual performance of the music is a different experience to just listening at home.

For the context here, music realy covers any aural experience. Probably a positive one for at least some people. Even though my parents might say "You call this music?".

To add to this, a lot of techno is heavily dependent on rhythm - although that is often also played with. And often little or not melody or harmony.

So, worship songs then?

Let me make one point firstly, that is probably contraversial, but I feel very strongly (which means that there is a very good chance that others feel the same).

Most of the music that we consider "spiritual" isn't. It is words put to music, and so often the purpose of the music is to lend a background to the words. Whether this is hymns played on an organ or songs played by a band, the music is not the important part. In fact, if the music is too prominent, there will probably be complaints that the band are "performing". This applies to great classical works too - those mostly considered very deeply spiritual includes words - singing.

Often, when we sing songs and hymns, while the words are considered important, we often sing them without really engaging with them. This is why songs can be really good for remembering information. We remember, but don't engage with the meaning of the words so much. It means that whether the information or idea is correct, we will embrace it. That is part of the power of music and songs, that we can absorb the words easily.

It is important to remember that, just because an expression rhymes doesn't mean it is good theology.

This sounds obvious, but I have seen so much theology that seems to think that word-plays make for good theological ideas - sometimes, they do, but that is when someone has worked to make an easily-remembered phrase from a truth.

A lot of the music traditionally associated with "worship" consists of "tunes" - either hymn tunes or song tunes, often designed to be straightforward to learn and/or play. Which does not necessarily make for good music. Songs are great for learning and remembering. But not always for anything deeper.

Songs without words?

For me - spiritual music is just music, without words. I am not down on words, but they serve a different purpose for me. 

The problem for me is that I want to - need to - engage with the words and understand them and process them. But when there are no words, but there is music, I can let it flow through me, take me on and move me. Music engages with a different part of the brain, and that part of the brain engages with our emotions. 

For grabbing and engaging, for taking you to another place, doing without the words means that you can engage with the emotion of the music instead, the feel, the other-ness.

Spirituality and music is complex.And so often, in church environments, because there is a clearly defined place for music, we don't explore this any deeper. And, of course, in Quakers, we typically have no music at all (which is fine for me, because I get my music injection elsewhere). But maybe we miss out, because we don't have ways of exploring spirituality and music - we dont have the discussions either, because they are not seen as specifically relevant.

And why is this on a Quaker blog?

Always a relevant question! But I think there are good reasons for this.

When I look at words, when reading, learning, exploring, I focus on the words. There is an intensity of word-focus there. Within Quakers, our silence is also intense. We do have words, of course, but they are also brief and intense in intent. The ultimate focus that the silence gives us is the purpose, and anything else comes out from this intensity.

But the music I love most is also intense. And, I think, for me at least, it is this intensity that helps me to engage with the more, the other, and so inspires my spirituality, my sense of the reality of the other. And I think - to an extent - this is why I could no longer stay in a church where the music was not inspiring. Rather - where music as a concept was not really given prominence.

What do you do?

 ,,, in a Quaker time of silence?

It is sort of a strange question, but the church is marked by doing things that we need to have explained to us. We stand to sing (because you can sing better standing); you sit, kneel or stand to pray, because of all sorts of different reasonings; You sit and listen to sermons, maybe you take notes, maybe you occasionally shout "Hallelulia".

And even in silence, there is - in most traditional churches - some direction. Two minutes silence "to remember those who have died". Silent retreats, where there is usually some input to consider on and work ones brain around.

In most churches where there is an expectation of new people, it is common to give some direction as to what book to look in, or that everything in projected - with directions.

But when you go to a quaker meeting, I was given a leaflet to explain a little bit of what would happen. But there is no real direction as to how you spend the time of silence. And - actually - that is quite good in many ways. Not least, because it takes some time to understand the nature and the meaning of a meeting.

So what should you do in a quaker silence. The answer is - as always - whatever you want, but this is some insight into what I feel is a way of using it. There are a number of stages that I find I go through.

Firstly, there is a time when you need to settle into the meeting, the silence. Some people will turn up to church early to quieten down before the service starts, and this is what the first part of a meeting is about. Settling down, maybe dealing with the issues you bring to the meeting or the distractions that have given you an issue, and let them disappear. That can mean giving them over to the divine for a period, before trying to deal with them later.

I find that next, something from the week tends to remain, and that seems to be my focus for the meeting. Not always, but often that is at least a starting point. Sometimes I stay there, and that is quite enough.

Of course, sometimes, someone will minister. Ministry is usually at least a chance to reflect on what I was thinking, and give a different direction to it. And sometimes, of course, it is unconnected to what I was thinking, is no help to me at all! Which is the way of meeting sometimes.

The time after is then, often, very productive, because I am wrestling to thoughts together. Sometimes there is some other "distraction" - something that occurs around the meeting house (or home) that gives me this other direction.

What I find is that, sometime around 45 minutes, there is a point of completion (for me). I find resolutions to the thought I have had come, but also, there can be other ministries - or maybe I have worked through to something to minister myself. What I find most intriguing is that the best ministry often comes 40-50 minutes into meeting.And the timing of meeting them becomes really important.

Anyhow - that is the anatomy of silence for me. There is more to it, but I find it interesting to consider the flow and progress.

Quakers, Spirituality and Drone Metal

 Now there are things that don't often go together, but I feel that should. I do need to explain first.

I should also point out that this post is coming out of reading a book by Owen Coggins  about spirituality, mysticism and drone metal, which is a very academic - but very interesting - consideration of this overlap. And, in the midst of reading this, I went to head Divide and Dissolve, a new drone metal band. 

Actually, whenever I try to explain what drone metal is, people make faces at me, and tell me how terrible it sounds, so I will address it in different ways.

Drone music as a whole - it can be applied across varieties of music - does not really comform to the usual assessment of music, which is usually driven by the three parts of Rhythm, Melody and Harmony. In that, id doesn't have a strong or consistent rhythm, there is usually no melody and harmony is also only present in very broken or distorted ways.

Drone metal in particular very much has a focus on volume, and because of this, the whole process of listening to drone metal is experiential. That is, you don't really "listen", because that is not how you interact with it - you feel it, you are enveloped in it, it is a whole body experience, not just a hearing experience.

There is also an interesting visual experience. I have not been to that many drone concerts (OK, just one, but I have another one in the calendar), but Coggins explains more about the visual aspect of a concert - especially by bands like Sunn O))) (pronounced just sun, and one of the leading drone metal bands) - which is less watching the musicians, and more seeing the towering speaker systems. In fact, there is a view - outlined in Coggins - that the real instrument on a drone metal performance is not the guitar, but the amplifier.

So how does all of this relate to spirituality? Well, mainly that there is a drive to force you to experience the sound, and the performance. People say that they have experiences while listening that are not dissimmilar to deep spiritual experiences - being elsewhere, encountering a reality that is different to the normal one.

The nature of the music - the all encompassing experience, the way that it utterly removes a chance of remaining untouched, or unconnected - is important. It refuses to allow other random thoughts, or distractions. It is so all-encompassing that it forces a review of the world. Like other spiritual practices, it takes you out of yourself.

Another interesting aspect is that drone metal usually it produced by a downtuned bass string with fuzzy distortion. This means, in lay terms, the bass string(s) (sometimes all of the strings) are tuned to be lower than usual, so it doesn't have quite the tightness and sharpness it normally does. Also the effects are used to make the note very fuzzy - so that even the natural harmonics that you would get are often not present.

The effects of this are to make the sound very earthy. It means that the music has a tendancy to ground you, to make you feel part of the earth (that may well be shaking!). In fact, as Coggins points out, there is a lot of imagery around this genre that focuses on weight and solidity - and this whole experience gives a sense of our connection to the earth, the planet. There is something deeply spiritual in that - it is not a fly-away form of spirituality, it is about our existence as part of the planet we spin on.

Incidentally, in case you thing this is all very strange music, bear in mind that Pink Floyd on "Shine On" start with several minutes of a single note with some guitar on top of it - a style that is close to a drone style. And John Cage's As Slowly As Possible is being played on a church orgen in Halberstadt over an estimated 600 years. So others have toyed with these ideas. It is only in fully fledged drone metal that the intensity and volume are also added to make the experience even more immersive.

But can I relate this to Quakerism in any way? Well, at Christmas, I did describe a meeting as like a drone version of other churches 2 minutes silence. But it is more than that. The spirituality of drone metal is an all-embracing sense of connectedness, sense of earthiness, and presence-with-non-presence.

There is a spirituality in meeting that is not always easy to understnad or appreciate. It took me several meetings before I started to understand what the silence was about, what it meant to be there. When you first hear drone metal, if you are not used to it, there is a sense of it just being noise (like a meeting is just silence).

Spirituality in drone metal, as well as in a quaker meeting, is about being both in the here and now, and in another place. It is the sense of connection with "here" and "elsewhere" is the essence of the spirituality. It is the connection with the numinous, the divine, that is so important as Quakers. But it is this connection with the "other" that many people find in drone. That is spirituality.

The Luddites were right.

 This may be a strange idea coming from a software developer. But I will return to that later.

I have been reading Kropotkins "Mutual Aid" recently, and it is an interestsing thesis. What is more, as I watch programmes like Digging for Britain, ther eis a resonance there. Let me explain in my own words - drawn from Kropotkin but my interpretation.

We have an idea - promoted and established throughout our society - that the Western, industrialised world is more advanced than "Primitive" cultures. In particular, the paternalistic, heirarchical society in the best way to be, and the natural organisation for our society.

The truth is, I think, that this is a myth propogated by those who wish to keep their power.

History tells us that the Roman Empire was the peak of civilised society, for all its problems. They made roads, they waters their cities, they protected their people. Those outside were called barbarians, because they didn't have this civilisation. Well, actually, it is beause they didn't speak Latin, and their language sounded like "Bar Bar Bar Bar" to the Romans - this is just the common demeaning of "others" that we see even today (Rees-Mogg is considered to talk sense because he has a posh voice, Rayner is demeaned because she has a Stockport accent).

When the Romans left, of course, the UK fell into the "dark ages" of uncivilised society. Of course, what that means is that the records we have are minimal, the structure of society becomes more hidden. Without the admin and documentation, we assume the society is less "civilised".

The truth is, I think, that it was more civilised. The inequalities, the murder, the rampant empire building of the Romans (under the guise of "Civilising the Natives" as was the British Empire centries later) was corrupt and broken.

"Ah no" those in charge will say. "Look at the monuments they built - that is the indication of their civilisation." Monuments build - usually - with slave labour. To honour someone who was not worthy of it, but had power to make it happen. Often the worst of people. But people wrote about them, so we know - admin and documentation.

I would take the view that these are the indications of a broken society. In many of the "primitive" societies, they communicate their stories and their skills verbally. I would say this represents a far more advanced environment than one where everything is written. Stories told have so much more life and vibrancy to them - this is why we read stories to our children, sometimes even when they are able to read for themselves. This is why poetry that is performed is so much more engaging than poetry on a page.

And skills - well, I know that in my business, documentation is both something I hate doing (along with most others who are developers of some form) and very difficult, because it needs to go into such a lot of detail. Passing on ideas, approaches, concepts is much easier in person. You cannot learn skills form a book, you need a person to work with you. 

And I am also reminded that the film industry also sees this divide. Look at, for example, Avatar. We are definitely encouraged to be on the side of the Na'vi. The people who are the community, who work in harmony with the Earth. And we are expected to be against the RDA, the technologically advanced side. We see it in Lord of the Rings as well. We are always expected to be on the side of the nature-lovers in the films. And yet, in the real world, we are expected to be on the side of the technological teams. And they are not compatible.

 

But what about the Luddites? It is the same thing, in a different context. The mill owners insisted on running things for their own benefit. When they found they could introduce machines to produce their products cheaper, using machinery, they did, and removed the workers. They did this to make more money for themselves - to increase their market share. To keep their money coming in.

The problem here is that, by reducing the VALUE of a product to financial, we don't take into account the HUMAN aspect. If people work together to produce what they need, it is entirely possible to introduce new machinery (as Kropotkin describes) for the benefit of the whole group. By losing this, the ideas of mutual aid are sacrificed to the god of capitalism, and that is why I think the Luddites had it right - they saw the route we were going, that has lead to global outsourcing, and the tragedies like the Dharma collapse. Losing the mutuality is a bad thing - the more advanced societies are, oddly enough, the ones where they do not have the Wests sociopathic capitalism drive and insistence of paternalistic heirachies.

More recent evidence has come from the pandemic times in the UK. The biggest success has been the vaccine rollout - largely done by volunteers, which is the mutual aid principle. Driven by the NHS (which is an example of a mutual aid organisation on a large scale). The biggest disaster has been teh Test and Trace, which was just throwing money and failed to achieve anything.

What if?

 What if the Christian story originated in the North? I mean, not Wigan, just somewhere in more Northern lattitudes, rather than on the Med.

It is a question that struck me recently, with the shorter days here - something that doesn't happen to the same degree in Israel, but is important in the UK and even more so into Scandinavia. I am not saying a different understnading would be better, just that it might be different.

Phrases like "From the rising of the sun to the setting, the Lords name be praised" (Ps 113) - well, in Norway that would mean a couple of hours praising God in the winter, and 22 hours in Summer. This is not the intention of the passage, but the change of day length is so core, so fundamental to those of us in more Northern locations that it would hold a different meaning.

The sense that God departs in the Winter - something that is quite common in folk legend - becomes part of our inherent understnading, whether we mean it or not.

There is a related matter that is also important - in Israel, at around 6:00 in the evening, the sun vanishes, and it turns from light to dark in a matter of minutes. In the more northern places, we have a think called a "sunset". Especially in the summer months, this can be an important part of the sun going down - this transition is significant, and in some places even further North can be very extended. Even to the point where the suns light does not entirely vanish. The low sun, even at this time of year, lightens up the horizon. This is so much a part of our understanding of the evening, it would have featured. The transitional times are at the core of our relationship to the world. The rather black and white interpretation of good and evil that some put on the Bible messages comes from this light and dark relationship to the world.

Maybe in the North, we would have introduced more gray into the equation.

The context was also one of a very consistent seasonal pattern. Of consistent patterns across the year, of hot times and of rain. I am reminded of Luke 12: "When you see a cloud in the West you know it is going to rain". In the UK at least, it just means you are East of Manchester. Clouds not only don't mean rain always, but they don't always mean a lot of rain where you need it. Or when you want it.

Now, of course, farmers do know the patterns and signs of the weather, but it is far more complex than the comparatively simplistic weather patterns seen in Israel and that area. This is why in the UK we always talk about the weather - it is highly unpredictable. This is why the Weather Gods of the Northern lattitudes are seen as a lot more capricious. It is why the mythology of Northern Europe is so much more about a battle with nature, about adapting ourselves to the world, than about rights to land.

That might have proven a much more environmentally sound approach.

Finally, one of the features of Israel is the desert - or wilderness. the barran land, where Jesus went to be tested. In the UK we don't have deserts, and even in the further North locations, the wildernesses are more likely to be ice-deserts. Equally inhospitable, but in a different way, meaning the temptations would be different. I wonder, also, if some of the imagery of Hell would be different - maybe less burning heat, more freezing cold.

 

The conceptions of this world and next are very much based on the environment these stories were developed in. The challenge to those of us living in different environments is to take these stories and images, and understand the messages contained within. And then to re-interpret them in ways that fit and work for us. To see the reality of the divine as it related to us, here and now.

And not to ignore the cultural and environmental influences on the story we tell.

Evil

This came up today in meeting, and I have been thinking around it since - it never quite solidified into anything within the time.

I come from a tradition that tends to personify evil - the Devil or the Demonic. One of the problems with this is that it tends to lead to a combatative idea - which turns into an "Us and Them" mentality: good vs evil. Of course, the Christians are on the side of Good.

I have moved from that position. In fairness, I get why it can be helpful to personify the evil, and the good, to be able to identify these as differing sides to people. But I think we need to understand that there is no "us and them", there is only us. That there is no devil and angel on our shoulders, there are just our own desires and intentions, and we need to balance these to make the right decisions. It is our own responsibility to choose what to do and to take responsibility for those actions.

This came partially from the conviction of Sarah Everards murderer. It is easy to assign this to "an evil person" and so to "other" these types of people, that is, to make them fundamentally not like us, and so deny that there are evil intentions in all of us, that most people manage to control. That is, to deny their humanity, because it is challenging to accept that they share anything with us.

But near the end of meeting, something else happened. I look out over a tree in the park opposite, and it has been interesting to watch it over the year as it changes. Now, of course, the leaves are starting to turn brown as Autumn sets in, and at this moment, the sun shone through it making it glow golden. The reality is that this golden picture is only possible because of the dying of the leaves - it will, in a few weeks, be bare, I am sure. The death of leaves, and the regrowth is part of the life of the tree. Without this death and regrowth, the tree will not grow

And it made me think that the reality of ourselves is that the dark side of ourselves - the parts we might not want to acknowledge - might the parts that make us grow. That make us shine golden. That make us the well rounded people we are. They are part of us and accepting that is how we grow.

Edge of Tomorrow

I am actually watching a film with this title, but it is also referring to the so called "Freedom Day" that is tomorrow (19th July) as I write.

I know that many who are clinically vulnerable are really worried about the relaxing of restrictions, and for then, "freedom" means precisely the opposite - it means they are unable to go out as much.

So it made me consider the difference between "Freedom From" and "Freedom To". There is a lot of celebration of the supposed freedom from restrictions. I totally get that people want to be free from the restrictions put on us - because wearing masks is uncomfortable, and keeping social distance is inconvenient. Yes, I totally want freedom from these restrictions.

But also, we need to see it as freedom to - freedom to wear a mask, to protect others, freedom to act in a way that considers the needs ot other people. That is also freedom.

Freedom always has two sides. I have freedom to use the roads to drive on to get places, but that freedom means that I have a responsibility to drive safely, and it constrains others from their freedom to drive however they like. These restrictions are not that severe, and they make the world safe for all.

For some, it would seem, the need to keep wearing a mask is too far, too much. Some people celebrate freedom day when they no longer have to. But "freedom from" restriction should also mean "freedom to" make the right choices to keep everyone safe. They are no longer legal requirements, but that does not mean they are no longer a good idea, for everyone.

Keep safe.

Deep Adaptation

 So, I have read a paper by Jem Bendall called "Deep Adaptation", not least because it is a core paper for Extinction Rebellion. I was not entirely happy with this paper, and have found some critiques of this. If you want to read the original paper, it is available in many forms online.

It draws on a concept known as Collapsology, which I will also consider later. The core approach is that our society will collapse in the near future, and we need to understand how to deal with this.

As I have argued before, there is a lot of overlap between Quakerism and Anarchism, so you might think I would embrace these ideas wholeheartedly. The problem is that the deliberate introduction of an anarchist society is not the same as a societal collapse - which is (as we have seen in the last years) liable to benefit the wealthy who can use their money initially to remain safe. The society we would have at the end is much more like the nightmare scenario at the end of Atlas Shrugged, not a fair and egalitarian society for all.

So this is the critique of Deep Adaptation. The main problem they have with the original paper is that it is unscientific. This is critical, because Bendall makes leaps of assumption, without evidence, without a justification. He makes claims that are exagerated and not jsutified by the evidence or the science behind this.

A lack of scientific basis does not as such mean that he is wrong. He may be right, the science may be wrong. But the point is that he is making claims based on the science, and that is always dangerous. Right or wrong, there is no actual justification for his claims.

Most importantly, he draws from individual scientists who differ from the consensus argument. These outliers are really important in scientific study - they can sometimes identify issues with the consensus argument, and drive modifications and change to adjust the consensus position. Not to change to the outliers view, but to adjust the core principle to embrace the issues.

Bendall does not do this. He ignores the consensus provided by the IPCC, and focusses on contrasting views. This is worrying, because it is the same approach that the "-deniers" use - climate, vacine, covid: whatever it is, they use the same techniques. They ignore the 99% of scientists and focus on the small number who disagree. It is dangerous in all sorts of ways, not least, because these ideas can then get emphasised and repeated way beyond what they deserve. Because they are then often repeated, they are seen as being authoritive, which they are not.


So, Collapology - an idea based on books like this. The problem with this idea is that it is similarly not really backed by science - not least because there is little science around the collapse of civilisations. Because there are insufficient examples, that are applicable.

Society is changing. In the next decades, we will see some radical changes in the society we live in, because of the challenge of fossil fuels, climate change and who knows what else. We will change, but will we collapse? If - as I can only hope - capitalism is at an end, what would this mean? For some, it would mean something that may appear like collape, but for most people, it would just be a change, a new society, run on different lines. What these lines are we cannot say. But we would still have society.

So Collapology appears to have little real justification either. This doom-mongering is what Roger Hallam of XR is known for. It might help their cause, but for many people it is demotivating. If - as is claimed - our society is inevitably doomed to collapse, why do anything about it? This is a core problem with this approach, and why I struggle with this approach.

I think it is better to argue that we need to change - we need to destroy the capitalist ideaology that destroys everything; we need to change our society to one where all are valued and supported; we need to have a society that exists in harmony with the earth.

Gender is not binary

 I know that I am gooing to get in so much trouble for this, but I would stand by the title. Gender is not binary. People are a mix of male and female, and people exhibit characteristics of their gender identities.

And, yes, some people do not feel comfortable with the gender they are assigned and so should have the chance to change it.

And whenever people say this, the respons is always: "Oh, so you want men to be able to identify as women and invade womens safe spaces?"

And - to me - that just buys into the binary division again. It shouldn't be "womens safe spaces" (Not even getting into the question of what sort of society requires safe spaces for half the population) - maybe cis-womens spaces? Maybe vulnerable females spaces? Defining purely by gender is not what these should be about. And yes, I know that many women feel that they need places where there are no men because of their past experiences, and I support that. But they need defining more clearly - gender is not a good way of specifying these.

"Oh what about toilets then?" Sigh. Well, I think our odd human-created binary division of toilets is itself rather peculiar. I have never quite worked out why we feel a need for shared spaces there anyway. And yes, I do think that some places do need safe spaces as well, for vulnerable people. I think we are confusing messages when we amalgamate these.

 

And then we get to the biblical arguments. Gen 5:2 "Male and female He created them". Well, there are all sorts of issues with this, and I might translate it differently: The (ungendered) divine created humans as (both) male and female. In other words, in each of us is both male and female. 

Now I am not claiming that this is the "right" interpretation - although it does seem to make viable sense. All I am saying is that the traditional understanding is not the only way to understand it. Claiming that there is a "Biblical justification" for a binary gender divide does not hold water.

And there are implications of this in other areas. Complimentarianism is one area: the idea that men and women are "equal but complimentary" which is a teaching very common in some evangelical circles. The thing is, if gender is not binary, the ideas of complimentarianism are invalidated. There are not "assigned roles" to each gender, becasue the genders are not so clearly divided. 

If not binary - if trans people are vallid in terms of who they are - what do I understand? I think - in broad terms - that someone who is born male but understands themselves to be female is not then simply able to define themselves as female. They are then "trans", somewhere on their way to female. They are simply exploring their more female aspects. Like we all should be. Refusing to divide into binary classifications is not a negative thing. It is a positive. It is about acknowledging that we - none of us - are not stereotypes.

I think that is a positive.