In the Slick Stream of Giants

Our world is obsessed with progress, and its easy to see why. I love progress too, its exciting and promises a better life. I'd love that new tablet that cool looking tablet that's coming out in three years, my current one is now inadequate by the very expectation of the shiny new one. I seem to forget that one day I will end my love affair with that new tablet, as I have done with my current one. But it's okay, technology doesn't hate me for it, and the industry rubs its hands in delight. When I look back at my intense excitement for a laptop with a full 64MB of RAM, I am reminded by the futility of this circle of desire. But unless it stops you ever being content as it can do, it's actually one of the better aspects of capitalist consumerism. Nothing else can drive progress to such a degree. With that obvious exception of the vicious circle of discontent, progress is still great. We are born into a world with a certain level of technology: this is our baseline minimum. The newborn don't appreciate the progress of history, only what they can perceive from their baseline. If progress stopped, we would become restless and bored by the lack of it.

Occasionally though we can break the cycle. Because there is only desire for the latest and the greatest, yesterdays technology can be produced very cheaply. For example the Raspberry Pi, with only a 700MHz processor and 256MB of ram, its quite pitiful compared even to my humble desktop. However, at only £16 (or £22 for a slightly better one) it is a bargain for something that would have been considered a supercomputer compared to my first laptop. So paradoxically, the way to be rewarded by consumerism, is to defy it.

Happiness is?

Personal happiness, its something I've never been able to grasp properly, only fleetingly like a handful of sand. Sometimes I just can't seem to be happy, then for no reason at all my whole outlook changes. Maybe if I went to some medical professional I'd be diagnosed with bipolar or some depressive disorder. As you can probably tell, I'm constantly trying to work it out. Usually I put it down to myself being a sceptic, as a (feeble) mathematician and scientist I tend to over critically assess everything. Despite all my attempted rational thinking, I still fall short of a complete understanding or realisation of happiness. This to me seems like a paradox, why isn't the logically correct and true way the happiest? There are a two possibilities, either happiness requires irrationally or I've got rationality all wrong.

Despite my Christian upbringing, my way of thinking is more readily identifiable with a sceptical atheist, critically assessing anything and everything, generally being a sarcastic smart-arse. This way of thinking is based on the idea that proof is required for everything, therefore the supernatural is just a silly notion that should be dismissed without evidence and emotion is just a mental construct of which I have no time for. But this is where my reasoning first begins to chase its tail. Most of the things I do are concerned with being happy, I like warmth and food because my brain tells me I like it and it makes me happy. I enjoy knowledge and critically being sarcastic because my brain says I like it. And there it is, my basis for dismissing emotion is based on emotion. Last time I checked, that counted as a major logical flaw. Should I then reject emotion completely for no reason? Well I guess I could try, but its something I find difficult to imagine ever being able to do. What purpose would it achieve? And there's another flaw, my reasoning is becoming holier than the pope and all I'm trying to do is grasp it. Why do I talk of purpose? Surely there is no purpose to life, I see no evidence for it, we are just arrangements of atoms. A quote from wachmen sums it up "A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference." But yet, this ever present, seemingly illogical sense persuades me that happiness is paramount and purpose is important. To fight it would be pointless, as I have shown, the feeling is either illogical and there is no point to anything (pointless) or there's something more and to fight it is just kicking against the goads.

Despite being stuck between the two ways of thinking, they nicely come to a similar conclusion: that I should be concerned with my own happiness and purpose should not be dismissed so readily. So that's where I'm currently up to, my main motivation is happiness, but I still haven't answered my early question of how I can be happy. So I haven't really got anywhere...

The True Pain of Sin

Too often we throw around the word sin, like its a small discrepency that just needs improving on, as if we were a machine not quite running at maximum efficency. We become beaurocrats, writing our well phrased sorrys to God and to others, like a corporate responsability form. Too often we forget the gravity of what we do. Our relationship with God should be like the relationship with our partners, time and time again in the bible it is compared, the church is the bride of christ etc.

We have faith in God that he will save us and care for us in this life, and in return he has faith in us that we will obey his commands. When we sin we break that bond of trust, just like when we break our promises to our partners. It breaks his heart when we sin, and so often we just brush it off because of God's mercy. But it should break our heart too, just like we try to repair our relationships with humility and guilt. God is the perfect partner, slow to anger and never breaking his promises. If then he's done nothing wrong, how much more then should we, steamy eyed, walk to his from door and beg forgiveness? 

Cultspotting

From a young age I have been interested in human behaviour, and the way it seems to endlessly perplex me. Cults are particularly facinating, especially how people in them can become so detatched from our world and refuse rational logic. It is a subject I have some degree of personal experience in, which you may guess from the tone of this essay. Understandably I won't identify people, and talk only in general terms. I am not just writing this randomly, I did plan to write it for my epq which is basically just a really long essay for an AS level. Without further ado I will begin.

Cults feature surprisingly frequently in the news, despite their almost inherent secrecy and closed nature. This is mostly due to the behaviour of their members, which appears to us as completely uncomprehensible. However, once we understand a few things about the mindset, we can finally understand why. First we must define what a cult is. A quick search on google sums it up well
1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

The definition suggests the definition for cults is quite relative, ie people who just hold different views to ours. However, usually a cult is a group who's views don't stand to reason, or they refuse to even discuss it. Cults tend to believe things that appear stupidly bizzare to us and it's a wonder that anyone can accept it. Often the word brainwashing is thrown around, and images of strange military experiments spring to mind. Unfortunately in cults it is rarely so overt, mostly due to the fact the members and leadership genuinely believe that worldview.

How does the brainwashing happen? Cult members are almost always open minded but most of all, not rationally critical of new ideas. If a prospective member spends enough time around people who believe the crazy views, they will begin to accept it. Only the most rigidly stuborn and critical people will not yield to the views that surround them all the time. An analogy can be seen in the world around, we more frequently yield to popular opinion than we would like to admit. With cults there is more to it however, as their members are often exposed to the more mainstream view too. So how do they choose the more irrational view over the mainstream view?

Almost always a cult is headed or was originally headed by a single, usually eccentric man (I will for simplicity presume it is always a male head, although of course it is not always). The man usually fits into a specific archetype, giving the appearance of knowing all but still remaining elusive. This serves many purposes, firstly it means his answers aren't automatically questioned because they are hard to define and secondly because it means people have to keep going back to him for more answers. A valid question at this point would be: how does someone ever get to be in this position of intellectual veneration? As with most human behaviour it's a gradual thing, the 'go to' guy for one person quickly becomes the go to guy for everyone. I'm sure you've noticed this behaviour before, particularly when you were younger, there were always those groups where one person was practically worshiped. I guess its a similar mechanic. Another possible reason would be if someone just attracts only the kind of person you could describe as sheep or natural followers.

How does a cult then maintain its members? Surely the small amount of doubt would build up? This is where it gets interesting, and from personal experience I have noticed several mechanics going on. One links back to the mans illusive nature. If someone gives illusive answers, it means the person has to project their own meaning on it. For example the man may say indirectly suggest that a certain practice is bad (for whatever reason). From what the person does he can judge their attitude and more effective control them (consciously or subconsciously). Furthermore, he can later contradict himself without actually making himself seem unreliable, the person then blames themselves for their obvious incorrect interpretation. This serves to bring people into line as it makes the person feel guilty. Also it makes the person further doubt their own judgement, and instead rely on his.

Another method used is fear. Cults tend to demonise their enemies (example Scientology and psychiatry), which weakens their arguments and draws them closer to the protection of the cult. Secondly and something which is almost the acid test of a cult is ex-communication. The threat of ex-communication in a cult is a scary one for many reasons. Firstly you'd no longer be in the group of people that are constantly portrayed as right, implying you would be wrong. The implications of this are usually magnified by religious ideas, eg only the cult will go to heaven. The other thing is the self contained nature of cults means that a member's whole world is contained with it, to leave would be a catastrophic event for them. It's like for us to loose all our friends and lifestyle all at once. This leads me full circle back to the definition; the danger in cults is that someone can get so trapped in it that they will put up with atrocities and obvious injustices. Which paradoxically leads me to define a dangerous cult (one you should get out of) as one you can't get out of.

Queues

I hate queues, we spend so much of our lives waiting, waiting for a short event that flashes before our eyes. Theme parks and game expos just to name two. It is in the latter that I find myself now, waiting for a glimpse of the much anticipated skyrim. Legs aching and having run out of queuing banter I find myself bored. Without sounding over dramatic, why does it have to be this way?

Surely there would be a way to sit in comfort and be entertained so that I could spend the majority of my time here having fun? Despite gamefests best efforts, paper craft just doesn't cut it. An ideal solution would be to have a kind of love child between a conveyor belt and a bench. I think this may be a little far fetched but it would be reasonable for a basic bench to be installed around the queue line. Or maybe i'm just whiney, either way im stuck in a line with aching legs.

Fear

Saw, insidious, paranormal activity... I could go on. There are plenty of films out there that are meant to scare us shitless. I also have plenty of friends who love this idea, always searching for the flick that will top the last fear ridden adventure. As you may have detected by now, I don't particularly identify with this culture or mindset. Mostly due to the fact I dislike the way fear lingers when the film is over (OK don't laugh :-( ).

Recently I went to a large theme park for the (embarrassingly) first time in my life. My first ride ever was one called oblivion which is very well described by its name. Basically it goes high, tips over and drops you down toward a dark 'oblivion' in the ground. Usually people work themselves into a trembling stupor on the way to the drop. However, me being a typical rational smart-arse reassured myself I was safe. When it finally sent me hurtling to the earth in free-fall, fear and adrenaline flooded my veins in equal measure. These volatile substances proved an addictive mix as I went on to have a brilliant time scaring myself. Eventually, after several more rides I found I had lost most of the rush, mostly due to the fact that I no longer had any fear on rides, after all,  I wasn't in any real danger. For the first time in my life I found I longed for fear and tried to trigger it. I finally understood why people liked scary films.

Unfortunately that left me bored, and still with the question of why I didn't like scary films. On reflection it appears that the reason that the specific hit of fear just doesn't release that much sought after adrenaline. Maybe I just have a fearful disposition or I'm just a coward, either way, it leaves me still unable to enjoy a good scary movie. How to change this is anyone's guess...

First Post

Why have I started a blog? Well I guess its because its better than talking to a brick wall. No one likes the sad realisation that no one else really cares what they think, a blog saves us from this with the perhaps vain hope that someone somewhere will read your thoughts and be inspired. This is what I hope =)

So in this fantasy world I have chosen, it seems apt that my first smattering of cerebral goo on the internet is about fantasy worlds. From the age of around 12, I have wasted huge chunks of my life on fantasy RPGs. In particular Runescape. I quit around the time the infamous trade restrictions were put in place. At that point (another) sad realisation hit me, it was just a fantasy world, and all that effort and all potential future effort was being wasted on changing integers and string on a server somewhere. You see, the delusion of actual value of your virtual character is vital in maintaining the motivation to play. Every attempt to return to Runescape is (thankfully) thwarted by me remembering that fact. My point to this perhaps long winded post is that: how is real life any different? Apart from the fact that its the most important known reality, it really does make you think. What if we are just moving matter and energy around that ultimately has no real value?

PS: I apologise about the downbeat tone of my first post, I hope it doesn't set a standard for the rest =)