DISTURBANCE  

And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy

Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime

Of something far more deeply interfused,

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,

And the round ocean and the living air,

And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;

A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought,

And rolls through all things

Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey, on Revisiting the Banks of the Wye During a Tour, July 13, 1798 by William Wordsworth1770 – 1850

Have you not thought about how some of the most foundational things concerning existence come in threes?

 

Solid; liquid; gas – three states of matter

Length, breadth and depth – the planes of normative geometry

Electron, proton, neutron – the basic particles of matter

Red, blue, yellow (or green?) – the primary colours

 

You might be able to call to mind a few others?

At a risk of turning you away early I say:

Is it so strange that God should be looked upon as Trinity?  – Just a thought to consider.

But it brings me to my central theme; which is a consideration of the status of science; of what it is; what it claims for itself; what it has no place with; what it holds no truck with; what distinguishes it from say alchemy or magic.

 

The example threes I listed above are all pretty basic; and are all objects of legitimate scientific inquiry. Earth, air, sea; sun, moon, stars; wind, rain, fire – These threes now are getting a bit Wikka, don’t you think? But you can see how they kind of relate in an antiquated and maybe moribund way to the scientific threes I began with; how historically these Wikka threes might be seen to have been the precursors, the first glimpses to humanity of the scientific threes. At least you will come with me this far?

 

But, so far as we are aware at present, there are only two basic forces, and some people say there is only one, but they are hopefuls and speculate on the fact. In the main we say there is the electromagnetic force which is the strong force; and there is the gravitational force, which is the weak force.

 

My musings about threes is knocked about a little by this only two forces.

 

But let’s move on.  The strong force is the cement of matter; it is what holds us and all objects together as bodies and things. One must also assume the strong force to be the force which maintains, for us and for objects, our and their, shapes.  Look upon us and all objects as model kits. You get one in your stocking at Christmas.  You build a Junkers JU88 or a Wellington bomber or a Mea space station. It begins in bits which hang together when cemented (by the strong force) which is in that little tube you get with your kit.

 

The strong force cement holds the shape of your model of Titanic or of The Moon Buggy; it keeps it in the shape of Moon Buggy or Titanic once the cement has set. Thus we and all objects, each owns an integrity.  That’s pretty simple.

 

I don’t what to drift into a discussion about shapes themselves and about how shapes are determined. I have some of my own speculations – I have read Rupert Sheldrake and Jung and Jacob Boehme and each of these guys are magic on examining the possibilities. The question is a question of forms; and Plato is the key and source still for these ruminations.

 

The electromagnetic force is strong and difficult to break (fission) but with extremely powerful shocks when achieved (chain reactions).  So we and all things owe to it our soundness and solidity, our not having parts of us happily drift away or fall off willy-nilly. All well and good. Thus in this way the electromagnetic force allows us to hold onto some certainty about materials and material objects, their physical and performance properties in building and other uses. We can rely on the strong force keeping materials together in certain ways and so allowing certain characteristics be present in their use and application.

 

The weak force is gravity. Gravity may not seem the weak force. I was transferring a tonne of slate chippings from the street outside my house to the back garden making a feature there a week or two back now. Gravity seemed pretty potent at the time.  But the fact that I was able to get about and do the transfer is due to the less stringent demands of gravity upon me as a body.  Gravity is strong enough on earth to keep us all attached to the ground but not rooted in stasis to it; and this is because we have muscle sufficient to oppose the weak force of gravity, and so to move about, nonetheless.  It has been said that the whole mass of earth is exerting its weak force upon each of us; but such a massive mass is not able to exert sufficient gravitational force on us to prevent us moving and doing things. Nor can it stop less weighty objects moving or being moved. But yet glaciers and continents move also; and to some extent gravity, the weak force, is what allows, not alone, these things to occur.

 

So we have some pretty useful basic forces rooting for us and on our side here on earth – Like little bear’s porridge: just right.

 

Of course people who are committed against argument by design for a First Mover will not appreciate this generous accommodation which the earth and nature’s forces upon it make for our continuance here.  Quite reasonably the chicken/egg co-dependency is applied which says that man was made on earth, by earth, to suit the conditions of earth; otherwise man should not have appeared on earth; and no metaphysics are required. As man shapes earth; earth shapes man; (not perhaps as a physical form I mean but human habits, behaviours etc).

This argument of course gets over the fact of convenience of design as appointed by any God. But does it?  The cement of the strong electromagnetic force is, as far as can be deemed presently, universal – literally – when active under all but conditions we are not quite sure of; such as the first milliseconds of The Big Bang for instance. We can say with some confidence that the cement of electromagnetism is at work fairly equanimously in almost all of the visible universe, near all of the observable universe.

 

The point is it’s not local in the same way as the circumstances of the weaker force gravity impinge upon us.  Gravity as a quantity of force actually exerted is intensely and particularly variable, and depends on local circumstances So far as I know it would be gravity rather than the electromagnetic force which would constitute a contributory problem challenging sustainability of human life on the other planets. The electromagnetic force would still be, on balance, in our favours.

 

This universality of the strong force raises two considerations. Firstly its universality raises directly considerations of universal order or arrangement. Secondly its non-local even-handedness denies its value as a local evolutionary accommodation, local to earth.  Unless one wants to argue that humans had no choice but to adapt to the effects of the strong force upon them so as to come into being and survive sustainably.

 

But this is cart before the horse, it is perhaps better said that the strong force helped humans come into being; that without the strong force or some such effectual substitute for its effects, humans, creation itself, could not have happened.  The earth would not be; but all would happen ‘without form and void, and chaos [] on the face of the deep’.

 

Without doubt that tube of cement in your model kit under the tree is a sine qua non for a successful build. It is put in with the kit to assist building and to keep the build together. A help, a positive asset, and not something with like the more swings and roundabouts such as the weak force might be said to offer.  Locally the weak force allows you to zoom about the kitchen and the garden with your Junkers JU88 in hand pretending you’re an ace – But at the risk of a crash.

 

I do not want to go into the idea of the strong force being subject to slow decay and atrophy. I don’t know enough to do this. I don’t even know the actual status of the argument amongst scientists.

 

But these forces, weak and strong; and whether the two are able to be unified or else are discrete actions nonetheless; they are each and together what one might call emanations from what we call matter.

 

(Emanations was a word used by the Gnostics of Early Christian heresy; and the Gnostics assumed that God put out emanations and that emanations multiplied serially, each further one of extension having less contact and association with God himself, so that eventually matter was able to come into being; matter being a substance distant from God and somewhat corrupted because of this distance of it from God.

 

Likewise the Gnostics taught that emanations distant from God allowed evil to encroach into things and into doings. To some extent material things and material life were associated with evil things and evil life by this distance from God of the emanations in which they were able to subsist.

 

Why I have taken this diversion and tell you about this teaching of the Gnostics is twofold.  Firstly, I use the word emanations advisedly when I refer to the strong and weak forces and their manifest effects on matter; in a hope of, by connecting it with the Gnostics and their use of the word, opening up to you a connection between science and magic (i.e. between weak and strong forces and Gnosticism; Gnosticism itself a metaphysical, and one might stretch a point and say, Wikka-type understanding of things?). Secondly I want to prepare you for seeing the strong and weak forces more clearly; for what they are; as being at bottom seriously mysterious and inscrutable phenomena.

 

The emanations, which we perceive as gravitational pull and as electromagnetic attraction, arise out of and come from matter.  Lately in science we have as a general public been introduced to an idea of gravitational waves; the word wave here might just as well have been emanation.  A gravitational wave we are told has been detected, observed by machinery made by humans. Now what has been detected – have you any clear idea? And has the word wave been used by the reporters of this achievement instead of the word emanation because, simply put, joe-public is at home and happy with the word wave, but deeply suspects the smell of Wikka or Necromancy in a  word like emanation? Possibly. Probably.

 

The word wave is comfortable; but its use for observable gravitational – what? – radiation? – well whatever – its (deliberate I believe) use abstracts as far as humanly possible the entire magic and mystery of the thing itself.  Beware; the natives might get restless. Use wave. It’s safe.

 

I am going to ditch emanation and I am also ditching wave: I am going it alone with the word ‘disturbance’. The flicker of a Geiger-counter, the tremor of a leaf on a bough, are equally accommodated in the word – disturbance. Now take a look at William Wordsworth’s words again with which I have headed-up this essay, and read the lines afresh in the light of how far, so far, we have got in this mini-adventure of mine.  Would you say after reading him again that Wordsworth is scientific? If your answer to my question is NO! – ask yourself – why not? Ask yourself to name to yourself the distinction which prohibits science to Wordsworth.  Ask yourself what a scientific approach to Wordsworth’s theme might look like.  I hope you are knocking down those inner barriers placed in your observations and conceptions by the social cement around you; that social cement which glues tight the doors of perception!

 

The weak force and the strong force are equally disturbances then. But this matter from which emanate – there I go again – disturbances; what is this? This matter is electrons, neutrons and protons, the building blocks of matter. These particles we are told are electrically-charged (neutrons?) – or even we are told – are themselves electrical charges – what of, we are not privy to.  Thus matter itself is not a substance as such. It too is a disturbance.  It is an unsettled something. Scientists today often refer to matter as being at root information; although I think the use of the word information by scientists is a technical use peculiar to their province. But nonetheless the choice of the word information by scientists absolutely points us away from solidity; from materiality, from a sense of potentially being able by hand to grasp and to hold a piece of unadulterated primal matter in ones fist. The whole drift is a way from:

 

To see the world in a grain of sand

And hold eternity in the palm of your hand”  

 

So; let’s briefly recapitulate.  The weak and strong forces are distinguished by a key characteristic of disturbance. Matter also is distinguished by the character of disturbance.  Thus gravity and electromagnetism come about as being a disturbance emanated by a disturbance; i.e. by matter.  Interesting.  Are you getting the vibes?

 

Here then we have a clear foundation from which to look at things;  by our suggesting that everything manifests that manifests, by way of disturbance. The whole shooting match and nine yards is in progress as a continuous and continual disturbance.

 

We are getting into metaphysics now and there will be some discussion to come about this eventuality having arisen, and about how metaphysics is unavoidable to a mind willing to be open about things. I will be writing about a strong current trend in academia which disallows discussions of metaphysics; showing you, with I hope some good evidence, it is an intellectual closed shop and dead end.

 

Disturbance is all. Disturbing.

 

But no it’s not disturbing at all – it’s absolutely liberating; absolutely joyous; absolutely you could not make it up.  That word, or rather, that Word, by which God made the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, all nations; that Word maybe continues to echo, to resonate throughout Creation; thus having set up the vibrations which are the engines of that disturbance which made, and continues to sustain, us and all things? Fanciful? No.

 

Given the scientific facts as I have tried to lay them out truthful to the state of the science at present, so far as I comprehend it, I ask you to give me something more likely, better, more acceptable, more having a ring of authentic possibility. I challenge you to do so; but in good faith, both you and me.

 

At this point, whereat science melds into metaphysics and inevitably so; here the distinction between science and magic, between theory and Wikka, breaks down utterly.

 

Because I do not hope to know again
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is nothing again

 

Our science for all its seated certainties is, as are all things, situated in the final instance on the self-same seat as is Wikka, and Alchemy, and as is any other exploration by human thought.

 

I am not going to go into attempting to lay out for you the strong and coercive economic and social reasons why the story of science as we hear it being told to us daily in our days, adulates and professes with a dogmatic rigidity, a viewing of the world by us all, and makes captives of as many who are dragooned, pressed, persuaded by the people with the vested-interests, into viewing the world as exclusively material fact and without it possessing any extraneous, intractable, untidy, alien parts attached.

 

I am only going to say that when a person argues with you and says to you there is only empirical fact, materiality, and a world, a universe in which everything can be explained by science; you should please try to convince them, say, by using my disturbance arguments, how they are woefully misled.  They may add as a capstone to their beliefs be telling you that they know all things are predetermined because science is able to explain and so to predict them – or will be able to in the future. This is as much a blind faith as that which Bartimeus in his own kind held onto.  Bartimeus was healed with the gift of sight and thus his faith was vindicated.

 

At its frontiers science is ever neither fish nor fowl; neither magic or science.  At its frontiers science knows less, and is less certain, than were it in its settled heartlands. At its frontiers, one scientist’s research is speculation to another scientist, whose work is solid research. Just as many seeds sown by The Sower fall by the wayside, or on stony, thorny ground; so too the large portion of research at the frontiers of science leads nowhere; and has to be acknowledged at some point to have been wasted effort per se (although no effort is wasted and all effort can be turned to good account when a person who has exerted it is willing to take what it can offer and use it well).  Most new things tried fail – a general fact of life.

 

So has this vast amount of failed effort from scientists at the frontiers been an exercise in Wikka, or Alchemy; because it has been research conducted into a thing not bearing fruit; a wrong turning; strictly–speaking, not science? The scientists might have conducted their research is the spirit of science, adhering to scientific method best practice all the way, is this enough to have exonerated them from a charge of being Mountebanks in their researching of the barren areas they researched?  Remember the victors write the history books.  Those who are runners-up, or worse, defeated, are typecast villains and/or losers.

 

And then there are the examples of plate tectonics in Geology and of bacteriocins in antibacterial Medicine. Both these avenues today are current and frontline research; the first plate tectonics being a general theory accepted to be knowledge nowadays; the second, a revival of an avenue of research sidelined by Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in the 1930s; both examples were rejected as blind alleys by science, and scientists before their virtue and value became resurrected, again revealed as having good potential.  Sometimes history belatedly writes it own winners.  These ideas, once considered as good, or as bad, as Alchemy, Wikka, are now respectable and are science. Were the men who first advocated them scientists, and the guys who sidelined them, were they the alchemists, jongleurs?

 

I hope you are beginning to see that much of what we belive is about words, mere words.  “Tell it like it is”; this phrase is a downright lie.

 

Now Aristotle the ancient Greek philosopher studied lots of things including life forms; what we call animals and plants and so on. I believe he was not clear on the separation of specific life forms into animal and vegetable kingdoms; I believe he was not clear whether some of what we know as vegetables were in fact alive.

 

Don’t scoff. Consider a floating seed such as one like the dandelion flower emits in summer in Britain.  We called them ‘clocks’ when I was a kid because we blew on their fine cotton filigree globes, holding them by the stalk, and counting the hours.  As more and more filigree flew off we continued to puff and count.  I saw one of these in the air suspended today. It was moving in a very gentle breeze and being carried here and there by a motion of wind which was almost imperceptible. Even the filigree itself in its composition was moving within itself, again, so I understood, at the instigation of a very fine breeze.  Because I felt I knew this, and I assumed it was not an animal, because I knew it was from a dandelion plant.

 

But to the person who didn’t know this, a guy like Aristotle back two millennia might have seen several similar phenomenological oddities, to such a guy the floating and internally active wafting thing might reasonably be assumed animal. Why not?  There were all kinds of odd insects and bugs about in the air with it; some quite macabre in appearance and features; tiny and apparently without means of support in the air.  Why not?

 

Clearly the guys years ago who went to sea had similar difficulties in their understanding and naming of sea creatures.  There are animals we call sea cucumbers, and others we call sea anemones, and others called sea horses, and others called sea elephants, and so on.  We don’t want to think ourselves so knowledgeable as to think that what we know is all of it knowledge.

 

Besides, there are certain entities about which the jury is still out whether they are alive or not; others about whether they are animals, whether they are plants; others whether they are one entity or more than one.  So anyone who laughs at the guy who writes about Gaia; the earth as a discrete living organism, please it’s not for us to presume.

 

These are just a few examples I have offered whereabouts our assumed rigidly defined boundaries do not hold good.  Not only are our words by which we classify, divide and distinguish, confounded and called into question; our very assumptions, often having been fortified by these crumbling words and their categories, are likewise called to make account of themselves.

 

In regard to uncertainty of knowledge, I now refer to the three primary colours I mentioned in my opening paragraph.  I wonder are they objectively primary? I mean would they be primary were humans and any other life form which is able to observe them not in existence? Are our eyes responsible for their primaryness? Or do the quanta of light by which they manifest to us always comprise the precise same wavelengths so as conform to the visibility to us of the primary colours red, or blue, or yellow? Clearly colours themselves are a psychological construct; a response of our nature in us to a variety of mixtures of light quanta and wavelengths hitting our eyes. But the wavelengths of the quanta are another thing and are probably independent of our perceptions – but not certainly so. Is there always the same number of quanta elements in any quanta of the same primary colour light? Are they – always as being of a primary colour – all of the same wavelength?  Is there any other possible variables in light quanta of primary colour which act to diversify their content or effects – on our eyes and brains or else on their impact on plants, soil, on rocks, in space?

 

Is there a clear distinction always to be made between subjective human or life-centred responses such as self-generated ‘internal’ phenomena (e.g. most-likely colour perception) and an objective item assumed to be able to be still around were there no thing able to perceive it remaining existent?  The old philosophical problem: is the table still there when I’m not looking at it?

 

Certainly science is that set of all sets which it explains but it is not the set of itself in this regard. Nor can it ever be – I believe that this is a logical fact?

 

In our times, as science progresses and brings more and more data into a fold presumed to be sound theory; it proceeds just like Capitalism does, and for much the same reasons.  It is in fact subduing to itself, and in the process subduing us commoners to this new science; what formerly had been considered, perhaps widely (e.g. plate tectonics) to be Wikka, Alchemy. In this way science is thus expanding its imperial scope by way of poaching upon the ideas and projections of those studies which gave it birth; and which it has since spurned as being ‘unscientific’. Like a callow teenaged child will not be seen with its parents out together; and presumes all that its parents say and suggest to it is garbage; that the parents know nothing; this is the treatment of science and of scientists of the copious works of deceased men and women; copious works which have been the very foundation on which time has made science and scientists exalted in current our world.

 

Our beginnings never know our ends”

 

Like Capital, in its own fields, science absorbs every new thing into itself; and so to achieve the same ends; of hegemony and those dreadful Freudian motivators; ‘money, acclaim; love of the other [or same] gender’. Both science and Capital behave exactly like the armies of the nations; which draught in ordinary men and women en masse so as to regulate, and to drill them, and to subdue these ordinary ones to their wills; often to an abject unthinking unabatable obedience.  Control is the mightiest watchword for all three entities; armies, Capital, science; extension of influence and of ability to exercise one’s will without baulk, to as far an extent as can be obtained. The so–called authorities of these entities, those in their fields who own most persuasion and effect to call the shots – these are those who have, and understand that they have, most to gain, and most to lose – these are those for whom steady sure continuous growth of their status quo of authority – of power, standing, influence – is the sole and whole factor determinant of their actions and their thoughts through their lives.

 

Words are bandied and bantered, twisted and misused so as to lie in all three fields; Capital, armies, science; an unholy trinity for our age.  Their phrases are in the language: ‘collateral damage’ ‘containment’ ‘mopping-up’ ‘pacification’ ‘peacekeeping’ ‘intervention’ (which hides invasion) – and so forth for armies; for Capital many myths have been fabricated, manufactured, and sustained in practice by those who gain from their persistent insistence; ‘Footie; Telly; a Tenner – who says you can’t!’ said one billboard I saw today, and it was advertising – what? – Wasting one’s money and time filling the pockets of those who talk to us like they are our pals, and simultaneously as though we are deficient children.  The doggedness of, the aggressiveness and ruthlessness of, the predatory nature of, unvarnished boardroom policy – which is marked ‘for your eyes only’ – displays the unleashed beast.  And science; how, how, tired am I of bedtime stories to help you sleep soundly and feeling secure in good hands.  Our TV for instance is being used in a studied way as a social engineering tool so as to proselytise and to propagate sets of ideas which are flavour of the month denials of service to God, and which are exorbitant exaltations of technical man-made things and thereby of those to be exalted, those scientists who discovered, invented, made, and continue to draw profits from their revels.

 

Science on TV is characterised by its presenters as being overwhelmingly benign; as a fatherly and generous figure in the hands of the fatherly generous whose lives have been dedicated to ‘serve humanity’ – i.e. to serve you and me.  Science chases the mysteries and forges the keys which it uses to have them undone. To science, and obliquely to scientists, we must be grateful and show appreciation; applaud their wonders and achievement, do obeisance; everything to Big them up in our consciousness.

 

Once this generously governing position has been established, then can the extraneous and social engineering coercive messages begin to come through. There’s no God. We can explain it all without him. Depend on us not on a fictional Old Man in the Sky. See, we got results. Count your blessings – and how many have we supplied you with? – Today you can check out on the bus what’s on at the cinema, whether your heating at home is switched off; but the box at the supermarket in which kindly people place donations of food for our distressed; we take no account of and eschew all liability for that phenomenon. Whole nations standing waiting for that box to be shipped charitably into a subtropical local port near you – and then there‘s the public riot to get some of it before it is all distributed.  But we of science are not to blame – we invent and discover – it is you who make a bad job of what we endeavour.

 

I reply Is there no tether on your scientific enquiries; can you free roam and do as you please; study pursue whatever takes your fancy?  Were you wholly free to go where you please and study that, would you not choose as often as not an inquiry of small social welfare value, of zero consequence; and then like the Scribe of The Good Samaritan, justify yourselves under the – because it’s there – and the – academic freedom arguments? You can’t rush art; you can’t force science etc etc.

 

Inconsequential science has led to some huge practical boons for humanity, you might say – so take the credit for an accidental benefit yes?

 

But this is all academic. The academicians and all their researches, are situated, take place in, Tied Cottages, and their livelihoods and their necessities for life are come by, by their frequenting of Tommy Shops.  They are obligated almost ubiquitously for their funding to the commercial barons of Capital, in whose pockets they are forced to be, or else have no funding. The unbiased standing, and the personal freedom and integrity of the scientist are a socio-economic fictions; part of that social engineering the TV carries out upon us.  These fictions are perpetrated in support of i. maintaining public order – putting us in our place – keeping us in our boxes; ii. sending us a bogus but always upbeat message – ‘science is in its heaven, and all’s right with the world’; iii. maintaining the mythical appearances of our liberal freedom and access to choice; that these remain nonetheless at work in the nation; iv. Most heinously, done so as to hide, disguise, to lie, about the fact of the dominant hegemony of Capital over and upon science and scientists; and thereby upon and over us all.

 

Over us all? Well. Few of us are able to build a radio, were all the radios to become smashed. This special knowledge is held in a great fund in a great silo exclusively by scientists; by scientists ubiquitously paid by and directed by Capital and its chiefs. Thus all of us except those Big Chiefs are at the mercy of a catastrophic breakdown of say, Google data centres in Silicon Valley; or in a smaller way, how Visa going down electronically in Europe recently stopped all shopping here at a stroke for most of a day.  We might as well have been headless chickens because our (ubiquitous) Visa cards were useless, worthless, and our pockets empty, but the shelves of the shops jammed full as per usual.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

So here is a conversation which epitomises pretty well the disparity displayed by TV between actuality and the presentation of science on its programmes.

 

ADRIAN

The air breathes upon us here most sweetly.

SEBASTIAN

As if it had lungs and rotten ones.

ANTONIO

Or as ’twere perfumed by a fen

GONZALO

Here is everything advantageous to life.

ANTONIO

True; save means to live.

SEBASTIAN

Of that there’s none, or little.

GONZALO

How lush and lusty the grass looks! how green!

ANTONIO

The ground indeed is tawny.

SEBASTIAN

With an eye of green in’t

ANTONIO

He misses not much.

SEBASTIAN

No; he doth but mistake the truth totally.

 

Maybe, I hope I have, begun to help you to be able to say, along with the guys in this old conversation, but about TV science?:

 

You cram these words into mine ears against
The stomach of my sense.

 

The words ‘progressive’, ‘state of the art’, ‘cutting-edge’, ‘next generation’, ‘advanced technology’, ‘our most advanced ever’; and so forth; are none of them factual descriptors, they are slogans crafted by people paid to come up with ways of enticing you to buy. They have the ‘ring’ of factual descriptors, which is their marketing strength; and also their source of untruth and deception. Just like the Corporation which calls itself ‘First National’ or another which names itself ‘Premier Direct’ and so forth; these are tricks of language; they are long-deliberated upon and carefully chosen from a bunch of suggestions, with intent to impress you and me and to suggest to us priority and competence, size and reliability etc, etc; they are then ‘springes to catch woodcocks’, ‘sprats to catch mackerel’.

 

Their watchword is perhaps: ‘Bullshit baffles brains’.  They are phrases which allow the arising in the ordinary shopper’s minds of unsubstantiated ideas of value and might; all connected with the organisations they are fronting; basically engendering in us a low-level form of adoration. Sometimes, and meant to be, craven, cringing.

 

This all takes me to ideas, which for this essay I am making my final topic of discussion. I will be brief.

 

Tell me where is fancy bred

In the heart or in the head?”

 

Words not only contain spoken the thoughts and ideas we have – or  try to express what we intend them to – words spoken also generate ideas associatively with their own meanings as they strung out in sentences.  I have given you the examples of ‘First National’ and ‘Premier Direct’ as being phrases which move us, often subliminally, without our full conscious awareness, to make assumptions and create tenuous attractive ideas, mind-pictures, thoughts, about them.  By their creators and their owners, these phrases have been selected and crafted very, very specifically and carefully so as to do this in, or to, your mind.  These crafters and selectors know well what they are doing; they know the power of the right word or phrase, to make or to break, their larger endeavours.

 

As one great man once said: “Words make a man; speak let me see thee.’

 

In short these business sharpers use stratagems, they use clever deceits, they use those undercurrents bearing unsubstantiated claims to one’s mind to fool you; and deliberately; after all, they are business-people. Advertising is a form of lies.  So too is politics.  So too is much of what passes for honest in our world.

 

It is because of this willingness of our age and of so many of our leading people to ‘be economical with the truth’ that one is able to see a terrorist obtain a Nobel Peace Prize – whichever side you’re on – Yasser Arafat or Henry Kissinger; – and to see a petty squabbling research thief get a Laureate in science – vide: Crick and Watson – sweets for the sweet indeed!

 

As for ideas, which are especially valued by people; especially good and also commercially valuable ones; all of us have them; yet how might they arise in our minds?  The ‘creative’ guy or girl isn’t particularly interested in where their ideas come from; if they are business-minded they will go and buy protection from them and so have them serve themselves.

 

And yet were ideas to be gifts from a God (a very plausible consideration; think on it); just as the Early Writers on The Gospels considered ideas to arise; and just as the Protestants and Puritans considered that it was God who ‘opened to them’ that is ‘gave as a gift’ to them a thought or a connection or an understanding not present with them beforehand; if indeed we are all to be thankful to God for our thoughts and our creative ideas; should we go straightway and infringe His Intellectual Property and even steal the rights to it from Him, by exploiting to the fully and self-centredly what he has allowed us and under our own title and names?

 

I do believe God has given me this essay. I do believe I have been gifted these thoughts; these perceptions; observations; although my own animosities and prejudices may have acted upon these gifted thoughts so as to cloud or to divert them from their original soundness at source, here and there.

 

The Son of Man has said and still He maintains His truth that:

 

Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.

Postmodernist Poem

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late-20th century across philosophythe artsarchitecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era.[4]

 

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of scepticismirony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.[5] Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective realitymoralitytruthhuman naturereasonlanguage, and social progress.[5] Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.[5] Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self referentialityepistemological and moral relativismpluralismsubjectivism, and irreverence.[5]

Postmodern critical approaches gained purchase in the 1980s and 1990s, and have been adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including cultural studiesphilosophy of scienceeconomicslinguisticsarchitecturefeminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such as literature and music. Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François LyotardJacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson, though many so-labelled thinkers have criticized the term.

 

I was in two minds whether this ‘exposition’ of/on postmodernism was to be written in poetry or as a prose essay. Prose allows a more diffuse, and so a clearer, exposition because there is more room and more leisure for elaborations of ideas and thoughts. A poem on the other hand carries, ought to carry, much more sway, of emotional impact; and by way of its attempt to crystallise the ‘atmosphere’, the ‘ambience’, of what it is like to live in a world which intellectually and socially is postmodernist, a poem is likely to have more of what the musicians call ‘attack’ when it is perceived by the minds of its readers. The choice for a poem was made by me because of my wish to make impact emotionally, and so, by way of crafted words, to move, if I am able to, at least some readers to reflection, engagedly with their feelings, upon these postmodern ways of life we enjoy presently everyday a little more so. This preamble then is my statement of my aims:

 

Postmodernist Poem

 

Regimes’ relations temporise, their unctuous drawls

Tough-it-out improvising using clout and brawls,

Sets fires; their law the fiat of the Kings of Babylon,

Heirlooms of Sturm und Drang harangue in hanging gardens all day long

 

Slapstick insistence suppurates, blancmanges reason’s precepts,

The world’s last light is a candle spent on gamesome capers:

And who is to hold tomorrow its bit stump and weigh the judgement?

 

Here for our flaws faith-shot our glee is to be vending wars,

Welcome new-normal as past-masters,

Brothers, a new Prometheus at his gated castle games us,

Broker of one-way firefights, views befitting no solution,

Maroons get set off daily in our thoughts; coerced forced entry

Beats headaches all day long, the thrums of desperado booms

Patterns tattoo our pinked marshmallowed brains

 

Recruiting fictions come, attract, as magic writings

The dressed up para-media, its demotic bandoliers,

Our fine desire seeks light and fire, their knowledge traps, and frees

Trespasses by design disposing undone youth undesignated

To swarm galore the open door, the pipers calling tunes

 

Pretender praetors, vendor-bursars, boastful on the highways,

Their trafficked freights, doubloons and pearl of Tartary;

Fair dooms proclaim within our brains, declare there fair intentions

Emetic thoughts, like waste disposal pulp machines

Have managed all things down to empathetic trash

 

Here warm stale airs homogenise and smooth to blended fug

Handcuffed to lies, apostatised, our railings against nature

Are as one-legged pigeons jigging stumps on no-man’s land,

The scavengers of service sector inspiration

 

No rung’s firm fixed, uncompromised, no standard’s concrete

Lit sumptuous marts suborn, assume, the concourse-concussed vote;

Gnome manufacturers snare them; as with DrDee‘s dark mirror;

Fake masques and shallow alchemies

 

Rifling peremptory passions so to seed our Saturnalias

Line dancing’s made obligatory for trifles, party snaps,

The passing paraphernalia of a thousand, thousand ships

Freighting their storied hulls; the deal’s Louisiana

 

Secular priests extol our feasts as graced release from prison

Berserkers having chart nor compass, forming dispensations

Draw up the circuit, scope our hopes, rope-up decision,

Harlequin carnival engineers of cloaks of many colours

 

Gorgeous agendas, paper plausible; praxes labyrinthine

Poleaxe all nature, seek out fabled anthropophagi

Be ye gender-free, be ye bold, consider, contemplate

Installation indeterminate chapel-lavatories

 

Our is the world defined against the vet’s provided rules

Ours is a world divined assigned by boilerplater ghouls

Ours is a world designed inside neo-mediaeval schools;

Their work is an end-of-line, a knock-down firesale, load of balls

 

 

Going Nowhere; Saying Nothings

Being their livings, Homer, Shakespeare, Joyce,

Distrusted words, distressed them oftentimes,

And played them down, their fecklessness villainies

Congenial mineral, vegetable, animal, all

Grand luxury of bluster

 

Deprecation taints their lustres, soaring spirits,

As to outdo themselves, they preached hypocrisy

Feted their works create word-waves atomic,

They irradiate ages, store frissons yet to factor

 

Out of this box of paradox, who might redeem them

As Plato the poet strictured all verse from his

Perfected Peace

And those who prefer themselves an injured innocent

Too often protest too much?

 

Wrought words great powerful deeds of God; thus are they

Holy things; as is that Word conceived for us

In Mary; our dear Light

And like his sword which flames at Eden’s closed off

Fallen Gates

That Angel wields, and handles twisting, burning,

Turns both ways

 

Dividing the heart by penetration, piercing good

And searching evil; so revealing, to our bitter shames

And our chastisement, how our deeds devolve

By them are writ indelible calls fashioning our names:

The work of worthy words

 

Making and stating is one thing; a test assayed

Best single-eyed

One trained on, even strained upon, the dark and

Demon earth

In consonance, connection; fettered tethered ‘in the feet’

As Nietzsche saw that music has its pungent draw

Words served do fasten foremost working meaning:

 

Eased-out as lavish-sounding things, high chimes, breath-

Massaged coos,

Light payloads ranging waywardly, adrift and wandering

Or as caprice; a pomander, or lightly squandered dole

Cast impostures; impressions butter-over honey-lovers

Fold sumptuous covers

Cellophane shields from substance, styptic lotions spoon-devised

To slow the bloods with temporising foils

 

Brave words and battlings bathe-in – from a cosy chair

Mustard and gunpowder announce a flare to leisured hearts:

Action!  – less squalid traction to unrest tenured streams

Inured assured complaisance nothing concrete’s going to rock

The sweet charade

 

Words disengaged, detached, from works, enfranchise words unholy

Come out from the other place; promised fabrications

Refrains whose retainers make to meddle with officiously

Winding mange tout results, as though albeit innocuously

Detour the floor

 

Thrusting and cleaving, the sword of human tongue decides,

Either for pith and marrow, elsewise a seaside pony ride

Locked into ‘Yea or Nay’, besets the Evil One gainsayed

Or torn for a swirl of colour, maugre odour his nosegays

Under the Hill

They have all gone under the hill

Little Anthony and Bobby Vee

Who sang all the day long marvellous harmonies

Their cymbal, and their brush, and ambling four-four beat

Played out an art, extolled the part, of old romance

Sad Lesley Gore, and Dion di Muci, of The Wanderer,

All passions lively once; now sudden late

 

And who can overmatch those household tunes

Of Ketty Lester, or joyous Curtis Lee

And fabulous in style, the rare Phil Everly

With brother Don; together famously

Made ecstasies age-old on teenage griefs

Whose throne Roy Orbison alone, lonely, might reach

And sunny days with sorrows sing, so feelingly to breach

 

Thus have all carolled blithe with song, chansoned their precious place

And gone into utter darkness; so the pensive whippoorwill

Minimalist, lieder fashion, imitates their passing lights

Singing in darkness, waymarking our several selves goodnights

Voice in a Wilderness

Without likening myself to ‘a voice of one crying in the wilderness’ I feel I might ask with some relevance: “Why have not our authorities cottoned on, got a steer on, why so many of their failings in politics, government, public administration, are not ‘unfortunate’ or ‘accidental’ in a sense that they might not have been seen coming or else might not reasonably have been avoided?”

 

I myself am old now; and like many old persons I see the past as having had a better grip on its policy and practice in public affairs and in the administration of the authority of government.  And so I admit it is difficult for me to see clearly whether or what is my own perhaps nostalgic bias; and what might actually be substantive in today’s apparent rodeos of loose incompetence.

 

I can say with some certainty that despite extensive government deregulation of business rules and of terms of activity which it applies ubiquitously to all traders; which has been policy now for decades and which had aimed at and still aims at easing the passage of transactions buying selling making money for businesspeople; I can say that it is very sure that as the State has withdrawn its regulation of business; so business itself has stepped in and stepped up and has fitted us up – I use the term with all its pejorative meaning – loading innumerable fardels and burdens for the consumer to bear on her back, and in its own stead.

 

Where for instance once an employer would bear the costs of training specialist apprentices, assistants, and so on, and would put the callow youth out in the field with an experienced hand whose often parental-like care was to train up his charges to that high standard which he himself had achieved, initiating the young cubs trusted to his care: whereas the commonplace procedure nowadays appears to depend much more on the callow cub having to shell out of his own inexperienced and so shallow pockets cash to study to obtain his own certificates of competence; certificates which are only a part of his heavy pre-requirement equipment he presently needs to get hold of for him to be able to apply for a lowly and first experience of actual paid work in his chosen trade.

 

The onus on the inexperienced youngster to show ready ability has thus fallen rather more heavily upon her as the candidate herself, than traditionally it had done, at least at that time when I was once callow and raw. The willingness of employers to shoulder the weight of costs and diligence for training an upcoming generation to excellence has declined considerably; and for the young training now must usually be got where it can be obtained by those young who would want to learn skills in a trade.

 

In tandem with this displacement of the youth training phenomenon, has been seen the changing role of schools and of FE colleges and even alas of Universities, over the years in which my life has been spent.  Utterly gone are the, now discredited, alas, although not justly so, approaches to learning which one might tar with pitch nowadays by labelling them by the epithet ‘academic’.  All that ‘useless’ junk I learned in history, geography, science, maths and so on at school, which to a tee was in every way unconnected with anything else likely to happen to me after I left school excepting in the field of learning – and learning for its own sake; this all has been jettisoned and learning as it is being done now has to be learning able to be directly applied, vis, its teacher must establish that knowing it has clear concrete uses, and furthermore, directly applicable uses, just like a can opener or a toaster has.

 

That old fashioned concept of offering our children a ‘liberal education’ is now foreign and alien to our schools and to our teachers; teachers whom I might add mostly have their pedagogic penchants firmly constrained to those of The Department of Education and to its curricula and to its finely tuned micromanagement.  Theory of Education has become a department of child and adult psychology, as if there were a blueprint concerning how and what one should impress upon a young mind an understanding or as the Victorians called it ‘sweetness and light’.  A ‘liberal education’ then has died the death everywhere today in our nation, excepting in our Public Schools and in our top half dozen ‘Super’ Universities (Oxbridge, Edinburgh, London etc) whose clientele even now is mostly drawn of that draft which trickles from our Public Schools, just as it has always been.

 

Our ‘economy class’ Universities to a man in the first place were honoured with a promotion from Polytechnics and Higher Education Colleges to the standing of Universities; and thereafter, like an Indian- American bringing gifts, as the popular idiom has it, the persons who promoted them then took away their urgency for intellectual rigour by way of a dilution of breadth and depth, of searching and stretching students, and by providing instead milk and water faculties with soured milk courses providing no desserts.

 

Thus our education of our children and young adults has become an ‘organ’, as the Bolsheviks used that term, in the service of industry and business; and this servile function of our educators, and of their ‘system’ today, is not something being hidden in a corner, as is the madwoman in the attic shoved away and never acknowledged nor spoken of; and as it ought to be for shame and sorrow’s sake; but this fine aim and high achievement is openly and with adulations paraded as being ‘good, all  good’ and right and proper.

 

This tendency of our educational efforts to have become dismal and low achieving lowbrow hack stuff – I am not a snob, our youth’s brains are as good as ever they were in any previous age, but they are denied, and are spoon fed dogmas and decrees about what is learning, what is relevant, what is fruitful, what is essential, and vital in our knowledge – this hack stuff is now, excepting for the exceptions I listed above, become ubiquitous in our nation.  And there is indeed, if the word can be marshalled for use here with any dignity, a philosophy behind this approach to the nation’s knowledge requirement and acquisition, that learning and its individual pupils’ ability to realise themselves as human spirits. This philosophy (not the apposite term I am afraid) is science-led and reduces down in actualities and often in outlooks, and very much so, to a dogmatic and often evangelical materialist determinism.

 

To unpack these terms: The allowance of a possibility of the existence of, and so to validate a study of, metaphysical postulations, such items as spirit, transcendent value, freewill, and so of autonomy of action, and of ultimate ends and prime actors; all bearing upon being and existence; this allowance is wholly closed down and its speculations all foregone.

 

The result, or maybe the cause, of this illiberal closing down of thought, is most usually a dogmatic insistence on a deterministic universe in which men and women are capable of mastering and harnessing, more or less, a complete (scientific) knowledge of everything in it.  This is a wish rather than a theory, or even an hypothesis – the term ‘hypothesis’ being a metaphysical expression itself – and just as there are no strictly empirical grounds in consideration of metaphysical postulants, there are no grounds in empirical considerations which on the other hand are able to exclude with a surety metaphysical postulants.

 

Materialism is the bedfellow of determinism; a consequence of it and a support to it in the schema of things which our cognoscenti promulgate.  In short nothing is immaterial, nil is not matter; and all phenomena, whether observed, or postulated to be existent from having made observations, or else as yet unexplained, are wholly aspects of matter at bottom; and not ‘abstracted essences’ or else not, in traditional terms, ‘supernatural’ immaterialities. Materialism supports determinism because science depends heavily, almost absolutely, upon ‘cause and effect’ as a presumed phenomena for its explanatory power; and items which are beyond material, should it be entertained that these might exist, would not be able to be explained readily in terms of material ‘cause and effect’, and so by science’.

 

Politically-speaking I see this dogmatism of the science crowd and the dilution of education and so the effective removal of near all ‘liberal education’ in our nation; all of which outlook and policy has occurred and grown ever more rigid and powerful in my lifetime, I see this as being nothing less than a coupe d’état, a power grab; and one such in the honourable line of The Reformation: The Enlightenment; The Enclosure of Commons; The Industrial Revolution; The October Revolution in Russia; The Legacy of and the Present US Foreign Policy; and so on.

 

The alliance of science with industry and particularly with technology manufacturers and traders, but yet nonetheless with all who supply unhealthy excesses of goods and services to a vast consumer penal colony of shoppers like you and me; this is the devil’s bargain of our times. I think that either these elites feel they have us now where they want us to be, or else have believed their own propaganda; and so either way these top dogs who run the world, run a world which they for the most part have created its present zeitgeist, its current ambiences.  Materialist determinism suits excellently well as a philosophy for making money, and so for aggregating ever more power and influence; and so keeping the ducks all lined up, and the bricks all in a pile, so that this status quo, this stasis quo, can continue – to only their benefits -as they see things, is the sad consequence.

 

Yes I do believe we are prisoners within our own lives, and that these trends and their impressions, howsoever they have come about, lay hold on our minds and volitions, on our tastes and beliefs, on our reasoning and its powers and our choices; so as to have us follow our leaders into a black hole of their own choosing.  This black hole we see the beginnings of its makings right now.

 

The numbers and enormity of the mishaps piling out of our policymakers works and their applications, and arising in a milliard other areas of practical life today; the ‘cock-ups’ and the remiss behaviours and understandings being seen these days to be emerging; from so many public officials and representatives, administrators and legislators of affairs, cannot be anything but a clear manifestation of the crash course which we have laid out for ourselves to be our desired trajectory for living life.

 

The upshot of our ‘betters’ effectively having debarred liberal education from among the mass of people; the upshot of them having instead decreed by stealths that all things that are to be held up as valuable for learning should have without fail material and direct applications, and be so tied rigidly to material effects and their outcomes; all this has closed down scope for thought, and mental freedom, and so actual freedom, and has culled the scope of study and of studies, narrowed the understanding and the reach of many, many otherwise fine minds, just like one acid tweet in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time is able to flood a whole population with anger and fear of the foreigner, or of an immanent virus, or of a dipping stockmarket, or of the mere cancellation of train or plane journeys – these latter working almost as powerfully as inclement weathers are able to do.

 

We are being blow around like chaff in the wind because our ballasts have been taken away from us; our judgements are shallow and immediate, and alas too often vengeful and petulant; even in our public and foremost responses from high places. Few believe anymore in the existence of objectivity; of giving due respect; and of taking due consideration; of honouring even one’s enemies when they behave admirably; and next will crash down loyalty, to our neighbours and to others, then to our governors, and then toleration will wither and at the same time our living standards will fall even further; since these immaterial things are not without their eventual effects in their loss and absence, nor else in their presence, metaphysical items though they be.

 

In all this is our decline, as a culture, as a nation.  Our intellectual trajectory is third world; we are willing ourselves to become a place where those options we have closed down so fully and so rigidly, are not able to be enjoyed, and are considered to be the luxuries of advanced economies.

 

I say nothing about God; except that he watches and disposes.

Parliament

Self-satisfied, wealth-gratified lot

Happy to bray and cheer on without fervour, thought,

Milky words spilling piddling pools all over the place

Public with honours, at home in comfort with disgrace

 

Sure you can riddle and pepper with bland and blasted shot

Throw out rejoinders’ unguent insinuations

Set up in statutes who might stand, secluding who does not

In your pants do dance, belabour forecourt karaoke vows

 

You close down who may say, and whose agenda prospers

With your old-age charm, disarm, working in Chinese whispers

Taking the feet of them away whose votive urn your turf impeaches;

You set all to your lustres

 

Like fixtures stood you gather dust on mildewed platforms

Play-actors living out Gogglebox to please a gawpy nation

Doing untold meanderings, both quaint and weird; familiar;

Like residents in a Pleasant Valley Nursing Home

 

Your selective pity confirms an antecedent prejudice

You nod out sentiments but cannot stay with fealty

Bumming on; low and blowsy drones befuddle a protestation

Brimming sad droplets flowing cheeks: …take comfort in the port

 

Coddled, this happy breed, full vested in assurance

Wound round with banners fifty years since outed, undeceived,

You flounder on, wallowing buoyed by muddled hands who vote you –

It seems forever – catatonically, priming your pump

 

The simple hoodwinked; fed myths that tryst with cardboard liars

Stuffing your stuffings, full bosomed loose-fit airbags

Twee buffoons ballooning damage so to manage cakes all round

And teas before the ward round, checking pulse, gratuities

 

MPs, they can’t plan a route or use a paper shredder

Uncountable years stuck at the top have raided their skill sets

Having their living done for them defrays them weak as water

Palled cut-out simulacrums, drag prosthetic rubber smiles

Public Domain Method for Impartial Non-Tamperable and Sound Judgements on All Qualitative Items

We have three types of jury

  1. The first deals with Classification of a work
  2. The second confirms or rejects the classification and says Yea or Nay to a work proceeding further to the third jury
  3. The third jury confirms the decisions of 1 and 2 juries, and adds a quality rating on the works which have survived the sift. From which contributor rewards are assessed

Jurors are:

  1. Global
  2. Never know to one another
  3. Use usernames only
  4. Dispersed scattered around the world
  5. In mixed demographics and social standings etc fields of knowledge
  6. They check checkboxes for fields of knowledge they wish to adjudicate on
  7. Juries are formed randomly of these jurors
  8. One jury is never the same composition of jurors as another
  9. Thus their decisions cannot be tampered with or unduly swayed
  10. They are secure from threats or persuasions
  11. They are paid in DCZ
  12. At first 9 per jury; thereafter 7 and at last 5 per jury
  13. As mass adjudications come I, Matthew’s algorithm processes stats on each juror
  14. Those jurors who are on the money stay; others less good or playing us are fired
  15. Thus we end up with 5 person juries of calibre
  16. I Matthew write a software tool for administering this global selection of  jurors
    1. Choosing each jury for each work fairly randomly (within expertises)
    2. Paying them in DCZ for their trouble
    3. Keeping them anonymous to protect them so and the work
    4. Stats on who is ace at the work; who poor. Filtering jurors
    5. Maintaining the pool of potential jurors (a dormant standing army)
    6. And so on

The power of the world wide web plus the acumen of a world of affictionadoes

from: Matthew Raymer and Peter Smith

The Disservice Economy and its Bad Goods; Fueling The Global Money Making Engine: 7

(I know this is a bit of a rant on my part. I still think it’s valuable for its statements albeit baldly of the dreadful states of affairs we are in so deeply so widespread, and made by us, across our world/Peter)

“Added Value”

‘Added Value’ is a phrase bandied around in Branding circles; amongst those who would Trade Mark their goods and services or else who are considering doing so and so are getting ‘advice’ either from government offices or from legal attorneys; these latter being those who shepherd rights such as Trade Mark rights through government offices to completion: registration.

“Added value” is a concept, given the words in which it is couched, which appears to be a positive and desirable thing to obtain – for anyone interested in or in the course of buying and/or selling.

“Added value” implies getting extra revenues or performance from something which otherwise, without it having had the value added, would have obtained less revenues or performance. But to us in doing business words are cheap and are frittered away like dud and toy monopoly money

Suckers as we are, we are lured, seduced by words; words like ‘GT’ or “Turbocharged’ or ‘All terrain’ or ‘Supertuned’ and so on for automobiles; or else words like ‘deluxe’ or ‘premium’ or ‘unmissable’ and so on for goods ranging from heaters to clothing. Services too are perhaps ‘Premier’ or else ‘Gold star’ or else ‘5 star’ and so on; almost as if everything on offer for sale is somehow a fantastic deal and so-so good.

Everything appears on the surface ‘the ideal solution’ or has a ‘lifetime guarantee’; from that mastic filler you bought to temporarily stop a water leak in your bathroom, and which is never up to the job its advertising maintains it is ‘fantastic at doing’; and right to that ‘bag for life’ which the supermarket sold you which collapses on the way to the house strewing your shopping across the street and gutters.

It’s like we have a disconnect; that words no longer pledge anything to us in product descriptions and trader pledges. We have been ‘educated’ to just shrug and to throw the thing away and get another; happy to expect this other to go the same way as the former. Or else just to pass on our losses to the next unsuspecting shopper. I saw one guy write in a forum about a dud Sky Remote Control he’d bought ‘off the bay’ saying: ‘Oh, well, back on the bay for a fiver with it’!

A not so merry go round of pass the buck in a parcel to the next walk in shopper. I did some work a few years back on counterfeiters and statistics online on sales at a few big popular sales sites. I was analysing user-feedback on turkeys shoppers been sold as pups. A good percentage of people who received what was sheer junk for their money; items which often were reported by their purchasers as ‘falling apart in my hands’ or ‘it broke after a day’s use’; they chalked the losses down to experience, chucked the junk into landfill via their local council refuse collectors, and made zero attempt to obtain refunds or to call to account the sellers in any way.

In peddling this junk, most of which was imported in bulk by the sellers from less rich less developed nations, whereabouts to earn a crust in any way that is possible is acceptable and necessary for so many people thereabouts (and herein lies the only true value in the manufacture, shipping and sale of much of what they produce) – the online sellers, the retailers were reaping a great deal of ‘added value’ from their products; but not the sort of added value which governments like to praise and to promulgate in their speeches and policies – so they would have us believe.

In order to feed and shelter millions of people who are borderline in poverty across the world; it seems that our economic systems ares et up so as to manufacture, ship halfway across the world, and sell as under false pretences as being ‘bargain’ goods to affluent nations’ shoppers, a million and one containers a week of wasted minerals and other scarce resources, and many persons’ honest but wasted labours, the building of container ships and their running and maintenance, the pollution and species detriment all this causes, then there is the online setup and retailing premises, and in the first world, warehouses and storage, import and export duties and officers etc, postage charges, delivery by couriers in vans running everywhere and so on; all this, simply to get a few pennies of a dollar to poor people to live on and to subsist barely in relatively poor areas of the world.

One should be happy I should think, that this great rigmarole does have this single laudable end result; because our economic systems were and remain set up to do nothing of the sort; anathema indeed!

But yet pretty much the same convoluted logic and scamming thing is going on, being generated, here at home in sixth richest nation Britain. The differences are that it’s all above board here; a trader or manufacturer in Britain (it’s probably the same in USA) is able to rake in extra cash – ‘added value’ – lawfully by using pretty much similar tactics to the counterfeiters; but of course dressing up the unlawful mutton as lawful lamb.

The dummies remain the consumers – as in all these legal scam exercises, these wheezes dreamed up by the fly boys in charge – it is the consumer who pays and whereat the buck stops every time; and I do believe our National Lottery and the masses of betting shops – one at every street corner in all lower class districts – and then the online casinos aimed at bored housewives and at over-sanguine punters – all these are great sources of revenue for our government – all these voluntary taxes on an ignorant undereducated lower class sets of persons – are nothing less than the apotheosis,and epitome of consumerism as it works in our world here in the West, and maybe elsewhere and beyond my observations.

The lottery and other gambling merely cuts out a need to exchange something for money; instead a trade in gambling just begets income to the organisers, and their expenditure is only in maintaining their operations, and online there are not even premises to speak of to be maintained.

Great store is set by many of us here on the National Lottery Fund which helps to finance items of National Heritage or of Historic and Cultural Importance – a heritage and an importance of concern only to richer more educated people but not to those whose money is raked in and spent on the upkeep of opera, of historic sites; all of which by and large are pricing- out lower class people by their expense to visit, and these are places, venues also which the general run of visitors to them are well capable of maintaining and improving from their own pockets but, no, that would be just and fair but not politic nor acceptable to them, nor to their elected representatives.

By the way, many of these same well-heeled who would value culture and heritage are further mollified by governments subsidising their rail fares to work and back daily; many of whom have enough loose cash to run smart vehicles and own second homes in again priced-out exclusive villages in the ‘(rotten) Heart of England’.

Visitors come from abroad to Britain and many of their more decent types are appalled at the levels and the conspicuousness of the social cultural and educational disparities shown blatantly in almost every town and city here.

These Brand bandits who would ‘add value’ to their goods and services courtesy of the national government which maintains the (failed and longstanding) policy of encouraging business and trade massively, at the expense of more directly much more useful and social welfare areas, and then seeing its wealth generated NOT filtering down cascading into all order of society beneath it, as the theory insists against the facts that it does, and is doing. (Note this word “beneath” – our sense of priorities is invested wholly in this assumption that all other classes of society are lower down, “beneath”, the order of and the concerns and values of the business class.

The lawful wheeze is to trade mark your brand – simply that – it ‘adds value’. Not on its own maybe – add a thorough and saturated advertising campaign so as to give your brand name what? – all those adjectival superlatives which we listed in our beginnings above here – “superb”, “glorious”, “phantasmagorical!” etc etc, so as to establish the brand name by way of a much repeated and inane thrusting of it down the throats of a populace,it ever being presented accompanied by loud music flashy colors lots of hectic action and crowd-pleasingly going nowhere, and so on, and hereby a sort of familiarity cum legitimacy begins to accrue to the brand name, and so its goods and services just almost magnetically begin to be bought and so this brand grows into a sort of stupid kudos amongst a people, who, inured to having become consumerist bait and fodder for an industry, and economy, a nation set first and last on money making, are sorely beguiled.

You might have observed in your workplace how when a guy or girl your peer and equal gets a promotion at interview and is thereafter set over above you and your crowd, maybe as a manager or a person of authority; that lo!, inexplicably most of us are happy to fall in and so o set ourselves beneath the person lately promoted; and obey regardless, nor ever questioning why or whether we ought to.

This may not be particularly a phenomenon of note but for the fact that so many of the persons who obtain such promotions do really appear to be, at the least, rather questionable material for advancement. This is not sour grapes, nor envy nor jealousy. Rather it is observable that the persons who obtain promotion are those most likely to say ‘yes’ to anything so as to have obtained it, Thus the upper echelons at organisations become filled with persons having no self-integrity nor independence of thought or of action. And this is the reason why there is so much wastage and inefficiency and general jobsworth attitudes across industry and commerce here.

The very same is true of advertising. We just swallow it whole like an oyster or a gobstopper; and in no time we are singing the jingles and dancing the dance to the tune of millions in the bank for brands which have at a stroke ‘added value’. In fact they have merely persuaded us to pay more for the addition to an item of a name – a brand name. Some of us even wear their brand names on our clothing! On our kit. On our cars. We do their advertising for them and we think we’re cool having a flash on our car saying ‘castor oil’ or ‘exxo’.

I heard a guy talking on the radio the other days saying how advertising and polling companies, who process colossal amounts of data about common citizens’ habits to try to help influence the common people’s decisions and lifestyles; this guy told how he had employees going out and ‘chatting’ with people about their ‘families and children’ and what they feared and desired in these regards; and he said blandly that in this way ‘you can soon see what the average guy’s political views are and often which way they vote in elections etc’.  Thus these guys are out befriending ordinary people with a base ulterior motive of luring them into speaking from their hearts things valuable as dirty collateral lucre to their interlocutors. The radio speaker saw nothing wrong in doing this. Blind. Insensitive. Working people like puppets is AOK, eh?

And this is just one of a whole industry vast of technique and techniques with which to corral and to push us plain people here, there, wherever our ‘benefactor betters’ would have us be in their own interests.  This is how things work, nearly everywhere in our lives, and right now.

The ‘added value’ then is ever toward the brand owner, toward the maker and the seller; never to the man in the street Mr Joe Consumer and his lady friend. To this guy Mr Consumer the case is sheer ‘added cost’, for no tangible benefits, nor intangibles, sheer ‘added cost’ every time.

We really are herded like cattle; shunted like sheep to the abattoirs of the malls, where we are slaughtered in our purses and pursuits; and made suppers of in our utterly entrapped and inability to see beyond an all pervading miasma of consume, consume, consume.

One final complaint. Our consumerism is destroying the planet and thereby it is destroying we ourselves. We hear ‘concerned noises’ from the press and media every now and again about plastics in the oceans, landfill, nuclear waste disposal, air pollution, water contamination, and water shortages, lots and lots of impending and impinging deteriorations and depredations of the environment and of resources and of health and of species and on and on and on.

Our governors, our so called betters, those misnomered ‘great and good’ do nothing – they might stick a tax on sugar in foods, and on tobacco, on plastic carriers, on drinks and all that; and claim thereby that they are doing something for the environment. What occurs is that sales in tobacco, drink, carriers, sugar drinks and foods plummet for a month, maybe two, but thereafter gently begin to level out to much the same levels previous to the taxes having been imposed. Everyone knows this scenario from their own personal experiences which have many such instances of these and like cases.

Direct attack, approach, right on the actual problems, are rare, and happen very very seldom; only when the effects of not doing anything for generations, have become overwhelmingly unpalatable for us, and disaster is knocking at the front doors of the governing, wealthy and leisured class.

Thus poor people can smoke and drink in excess; drink sugar and pay for carriers; the wealthy are fine with this in general – they are a class apart in both instances. “Thou hast committed fornication; but that was in another country and besides the wench is dead”

The wealthy are preparing for environmental disaster I’m pretty sure. Not in organised conspiracy together, but powerfully unified nonetheless by their badges and their tokens and their habitual required codes of behaviour which they have evolved so as to denote and identify themselves one to another as the top knobs who have ‘arrived’. There are plant banks and seed banks and other ‘precautions’ of similar purpose across the world and across the nations; bunkers – supposedly to save the ‘necessary’ in event of nuclear attacks etc – but also handy for the better-off to dive into and so take cover in an event of an environmental Perfect Storm. Why would they not? Just another instance of how we are their consumerist fodder and biddable herds, able to be, ready to be, ‘sacrificed’ when/if the time comes.

Nothing environmentally will be done of substance unless a) money can be made for clearing up our environmental acts of thuggery or b) the escape routes for the crème de la crème (aka the scum) are cut off or otherwise become suspect, and ill-boding events are encroaching and are imminent, immanent.

For something right on the button of the problems to be done would strike at the inmost arteries of the heart and so shed fatally the lifeblood of consumerism; and such an event is unthinkable for those big bad boys (and girls) who nurture us for fools. The governments know this too, and approve of the status quo, are a glad and willing part of the well-heeled status quo.

There are – contrary to the propaganda, the advertising, the complete thrust of all economic speech and life as we hear and experience it – alternatives to consumerism. It is not a hapless trap we have inadvertently set for ourselves and cannot now avoid. Such a line of thought is part of the propaganda. It can be stopped. Only all of us don’t want it to stop. We who are its victims are sold on it fake news of untruth and advertising lies, daily at every waking hour, the general message being that all in the garden is rosy and that we have to keep producing, selling, buying, to keep things cosy rosy.

This is THE BIG LIE. There are other ways of life in which we can live more sanely and happily and just as securely and comfortably. They do not involve a wanton rape of the planet; nor a psychic persuasive dominion over ordinary people. Some few involve a more true freedom and individuality (‘individuality’ of person being yet another cyber-myth’ of our shaded economic unreality) for all people. (How many fashions are designedly, surreptitiously, and cunningly, created by people paid to influence us and who are working for economic generators of goods, services and propagandas? How we are told we are ‘individuals’, and we in fact like a massive bunch of bananas in a monkey’s hands)

We are unaware of these better and other ways of life and living because systematically we have been coached out of them and led to believe things convenient for our belief and so we are in large part unable to see a way out, even were we to begin to desire one. Our education system openly boasts its purpose is to provide young and other people with skills for the workplace and the marketplaces. To suit employers needs etc etc. No exit. Cul de sac.

Even my son who is not greatly experienced and who has observed life in a few short years he has had so far of adult life, he independently has come to conclusions close to some of mine here as being his thoughts on life in general.

I would go so far as to conclude that the persons who aspire to ride up the ladder in life as we live right now, are aspiring unaccountably and without their knowing it, to having others in large part living their lives for them; them thinking to have all their time as leisure time or with a few short intervals for directing those others living their lives for them.

Further we have returned to a Pagan Pantheon of gods whom we admire and do praise to. Our Marvel hero movies and our screen and stage goddesses, singers and what have you, sports men and women, the movies and games of graphic carnage and conflict and of wars of deceits and wiles and sheer betrayals, of peripatetic turnarounds and sudden continuous switchbacks, all is a general degeneration into an adulation and worship of power at work within a general theatre of chaos. All its prominent role models in art are all the types of Pagan Pantheon gods; doing, acting, living as if larger than life lives for the impress of the common person; whose aspirations these monsters inspire. They are the reflections of  the ethos of those who control things.

All is a mock-up of life, of a way of life we moved forwards from thousands of years ago, but which has now come again, retrograde and in a dark time, and in a time when its homage will add to our distress and worsen our downfalls.

Truth remains, and will do so ever; it is only we, the untrue, who shall dissipate away.

Contradictions

Contradictions let them stay

Don’t think to reason them away

They are our Meatloaf, heavy metal

They are our carving irons and kettle

 

Salute their nightlight bright obscurities

Adore their sagacious efficacious absurdities

Amours, allures, propellers of sweet life

Of a sharper blade than any Bowie knife

 

There on a ledge a pledge tiptoes peep over

Empty abyss, a single kiss, a hand picks clover,

An emblem reminder, a controversial wonder

Hallmark of hung conundrums we live under

 

Levelling out the polkadotty mottled surface

Of oddities does no person general service

Elated, grateful, let them feather, fly, display, and go

Happy in seeing, and thinking not to know

 

Your need for carbuncles rumpling head’s sunk inner tube

So as to fit up the factoids as a standard rule

A ready rough measure, support against extremity

And something to savour, delectate; pure vanity

 

So severs the helix lacerates its thread

So as to magnify crown an encephalic head

To stand upon perfect proofs apropos; albeit sped

On blurted certitudes

 

Too fulsomely tootyfruity to sustain recount;

Even the laid out surface of this circlet wound about

The gladsome globe itself returns as object and a ground

Of vol-au-vent temerity, grand surveys it confounds

 

College is power say know by rote affiliations

Sanity dwells in paradigm-design white coats

Shored on a sore assurance; pregnant learning floats

Like continents

 

Passing into and passing from is all, and all things flow

Cardboard Canutes stood sentinel, en guard would seemly trow

Being known as knowing like an elevated upstarts crow

Interrupters of the tides, or rather make the show

 

Here can be knowledge unforgiving, ineffaceable

Unfaceable although traceable to Eden’s mortal sin

Fear of the fire inspires desires for fatal instruments

Which fire, it sires, engenders

 

Know what we know is nothing; insignificance

Salted and peppered, trussed up with impediments

Placed so to baste amongst a stew, as savour added

To a flimsy dish of pickled fish, is also known as – you

 

When all the razz is over, a pooped pavolva, bimbo’s donkey derby done

When we agree, unanimously, absolute exception none

Then we shall see, and ubiquitously, no palaver, nor yet conundrum

Everything, and that what is true lives, everything, in The Son

Today’s Tragedy

Just heard a programme on TV speaking about Ancient Greece and interpreting the events, mostly of Athenian history of the 5th century BC through the lens of the, mostly Athenian, drama.

The airing of such a programme presented for its narrator academics an absolutely Golden Opportunity to train that same lens on political and social activity here in Britain (and in the USA) as it is muddling on right now today.

It was a BBC programme; and the BBC has a charge, a duty, not written down but yet more imperative than are mere words, laid upon it by its position as the State Natoinal Broadcaster funded by the people. This charge, this duty being the welfare of the people it serves, and who are the source of its funding and the audiences of its services.

The learned Classical scholars extolled with some gusto and an amount of vicarious pride the allowance of The Athenian State to its dramatists and to its people as a whole (the citizens that is) a liberty of very broad freedom of speech. The learned scholars were at pains to point out the ways in which Athenian dramatists used this freedom of speech so as openly and before the very persons aimed at, so to castigate and rigorously criticise them as politicians, and also the social trends, the fashions and the moods and the actions and decisions of the Demos (the Athenian citizens as a body).

There followed a great deal of broad Athenian history, beginning at the Persian Wars and running down to the Pelopennesian War; and as this history and the programme went along the dramas (which we today have surviving from that time and that place) were referred to and related to those events and actions and attitudes.

All very well.

Here was a bunch of scholarly persons commenting and expanding on, even extolling Greek life, and in particular lauding this openness of Athenian Society of that age, as seen in the Athenian drama and elsewhere; and this bunch of scholarly persons being a group paid, again from the public purse; educated by the State, paid for by the people (at least in large part), and who are holding secure prestigious positions of consderable remuneration and privilege; again all publically endowed upon them; and yet this group clearly ducked this very rare but clear chance to speak in more direct terms to the present and to its dreadful states of affairs in many areas of our society today, but perhaps most particularly in government.

Thus the message coming from this privileged bunch was, for those educated sufficiently to read it, that these scholars were going to be too cautious to rock the boat; too circumspect to put their principles and admirations on the line and so use them, just as they so admire the Ancient Athenians for having used them; in pursuit of castigating and holding to public account the utter shambles and the ignorance and interia and incapacity and heedlessnes, and much more, of our political people in power and in parliament, as they are behaving today right now, and in our daily affairs.

These not alone. The group of scholars might have considered when they discoursed knowingly about how one old Athenian playwright used his works to put before the people of Athens what are the terrible results and effects which redound upon their doers, of shabby and woolly thinking; of thoughtless animosity and callous brutalites, so that the scholars might have made it absolutely crystal clear to anyone watching their show that yes, we too are like as were the Athenians; quick to jump to condemn and to use force and so crush opposition; thoughtless and ill-reasoning beings; led by seductive (untruthful, muddled, cunningly contrived) arguments and down the garden path to a future waiting to rebuke and to chide us for our licencious follies. Just as were the Athenians rebuked and chided by their subsequent history once their sense of themselves had also overstepped the marks of justice and due consideration.

Very markedly this show on TV gingerly avoided any metaphysical background of the Greeks or the Athenians; all instances drawn from the drama were kept very firmily political, empirical, historical; as if these scholars were saying to their audiences that there is nothing of importance besides these material and empirical areas of investigation. This presentation of thought on British TV and Radio and also in our newspapers and in our discussion magaizines is the standard practice in these times; and by tacit agrement amongst those who would have it that they know about such things, any metaphysics is proscribed, usually considered by them to be irrelevant and for some strange reason, dangerous.

This show on Athenian drama then was merely folowing a commonplace status quo in regard to the scope of its subject matter; and also in its levels of real engagement to do good and so atempt by direct reference to improve things it was deliberately silent; and it shied away from any actual gracious mordant controversy or critique of ‘modern times’.

And so these scholars were as it were holding up the recovered treasures of Ancient Athenian life and showing them off to their publics and saying how wonderful they were; but then instead of distributing the knowledge of how to use them to advantage right now, and so maybe giving half-a-chance to our nation for it to pull itself out of this serious nose dive it is making into the ground of hard factual repercussions for delinquent behaviours; instead the treasures were wrapped up and put away by the guys and dolls into a study or a lecture room or a seminar in some place far remote from street life in Britain, from governance, simpy because: why?

Well, these guys and molls are just another part of the problem; they are of the opinion that the trajectory in which we are headed is AOK. Kick religion and metaphusics into touch; micromanage an under-educated mass of citizens; provide distractions; muddle through; etc etc all will be just dandy. What is it these guys and dolls are lacking then? Not intelligence perhaps, or foresight, or even discernment; but what?

I’ll tell you my opinion.

These people could have made a good deal of difference for good and they ducked it. They no doubt had seen these great posibilities but either tacitly and silently agreed together not to bring them to life; or else spoke about them and poohpoohed them, probably derided them. Not our business. Our business is to refer to remote times and to study them and have nothing to say on today’s disaster area called Britain.

As the Lord Jesus said: They ‘walked past on the other side’.

Their lack? That awareness of that very metaphysic to which they deny airtime and even refuse an acknowledgement of it existence. Their beliefs put them in a jail of incredulity, of presumption, of pride, of acceptance of things as they are; a kind of listless Beckett-like and Sartrean-type gloom and doldrums, which they recognise as being definitively the human condition.

The real villains of the piece are the values and the assumptions which come into place in lieu of the spiritual values which these sorts of persons utterly deny headroom to. What is there left, when one denies Christ or any and every realm beyond the mundane and sublunary, but these sordid statements; ‘Might is Right’ and ‘Eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow we die’ and ‘Life is short brutish and nasty.’ and suchlike.

And to where does such currency lead but inevitably to a) nihilism and thereafter b) premiership of the self and one’s ego; and if I may make a Grand Statement: THIS IS ALL OUR TROUBLE.

Hence it makes aboslute sense in the world these scholars inhabit, not to go out on a limb and risk one’s career or one’s neck in a bold and generous essay to enlighten peole watching their programme. Instead audiences are getting a rareified and remote; wholy dissassociated acount of ancient history; like as though the public was in urgent need of being able to drive but was instead shoved in a back seat and strapped in. No windows to see through.

It makes absolute sense for these scholars to present their show in this way because there is for them, and in their opinion, no higher court than one’s own opinion and no higher good than one’s own welfare. Ipso facto QED.

And why do they think like this? Because they do not expose themselves to the beauty and truth and love and wholesomeness of the Lord as the gospels speak of him. His words and life are to these contemporary people, like as to so many of us right now, a closed book.

The Light of the World, The full and final Revelation of God; The Saviour; The Holy One; The Vine; The Water of Life; He who is so wonderful in what he has done for us and left for us to cling to as solace and hope and as guidance for life, to live it so as to be in accord with His will, in charity and sweetness and light, and in humility and due reasonable service: none of this is in their vocabularies, in the mentalities of these would-be knowing and assured mentors to the world.

Had they had and shown just a little sensitivity to our Lord’s life and teaching; maybe we should have been given a programme which actualy was worthwhile learning from?