You have Free will - do you choose to use it?

 Do we have freewill?

The question as to whether we have free will,  the ability to independently decide how to act with out manipulation or predetermination, has been debated since ancient times, It is a simple question to ask but perhaps it is one that is too simple to be easily answered, especially as, when it comes to our actions, context is all important and is always unique.

Firstly, what is the difference between freedom and freewill? Freedom is the unhindered capacity  to act as one chooses. However, the making of a choice as to how to act, is always proceeded by thought processes, so to be truly  free, one will need totally free thought processes  combined with total freedom of action. Therefore freewill (freedom to think) is separate from freedom (freedom to act) and free will is a precondition of freedom. My definition of freewill is   “a state of mind where an individual is at liberty to think and choose how to act without, coercion, predetermination, or manipulation“.  To be totally free, you also need freewill as free thinking and unhindered decision making, proceeds any truly free physical act.

So “freedom” is freedom to act and “freewill” is the freedom to choose how to act. If you don’t have free will, you will only have an illusion of freedom.

Freewill, is a subset of freedom of thought, as thought does not always lead to a chosen action. I can think about the colour red, or clouds, but this doesn’t lead to an action, so exercising my free will is not involved. Also freewill is not just a feeling, as I have read in some books. It is an unhindered state of mind that considers alternatives and decides what an individual shall do. A feeling is just an input to the brain, which may cause you to start to use your freewill in order to select an action.  

Obviously, free will is a higher level of brain activity that just reacting to a stimulus.

Does a Prisoner have freewill? A prisoner is free to think what ever he wants, but is unable to act out those chosen actions - so using my definitions, he definitely has freedom of thought and therefore freedom of choice, but little freedom as he cannot act out the majority of those choices. Hence, even though he is incarcerated he has free will. If he attempts to leave the prison he will be punished, but will this stop him thinking of leaving? No, it will just discourage from him to attempting to leave in the future, but it will not stop his choice or desire to leave.

I have read of prisoners who have endured torture and who came to realise that, whilst their torturers can inflict bodily pain, they can never torture their minds. Once they realise this they are free of their captors, who can no longer harm “them”, by which they mean their thought processes. Also political prisoners have written that once in prison they feel more free, as rather than continually hiding what they think, they can freely express and discuss their views to fellow inmates, as they can’t be imprisoned twice.

Are there any constraints on our thoughts when choosing how to act? There are certainly constraints on our freedom, which may lead us to dismiss options when considering how to act, but as these options still exist in our minds, and we can consider them if we want, we still have freewill. Limited knowledge is certainly a constraint, as greater knowledge will give a person more options to consider. You cannot consider and option you do not know about.

If we don’t possess freewill, we will only have one option to consider so there is no mental selection process. Even if we only have a limited number of options, we can exercise our freewill to choose how to act. And as we can always do something or nothing, do we ever never have a choice to make as time progresses?  Different people will have more or less options for consideration than ourselves, so  we will all have differing levels of freewill, ie greater knowledge provides more options for consideration.  For example, do I go for a walk, a bike ride, a swim or stay indoors. If I can’t swim my options to act are reduced but I am still at liberty to exercise my free will within my capabilities.  I can still think about swimming, as I have seen others do it. But if I’ve never seen or heard of skate boarding, this is not an option for me.

In fact, are their any circumstances when you don’t have freedom of thought? Even when subjected to brainwashing, torture or constant propaganda, you could still have alternative thoughts inside your head, albeit it would take more effort, would need greater strength of mind and great courage to express them. Is there ever a situation where we never consider options to actions? Perhaps if we choose to live in the moment, thoughtlessly, then we would be living our lives on a stimulus/reaction basis. But humans are capable of so much more. Of course damaged brains or drugged brains will not function with free will but I will dismiss these as abnormal situations.

Biologist and neurologists will point out that we automatically flinch from pain or have automatically reflexes, and that when we are growing up certain behaviours become hardwired into our character, They imply that what we decide is predetermined - and yes this may be the case if we make instant decisions or we are lazy and don’t think about what we are doing. However, we humans can think, train our bodies and minds not to flinch, predict and anticipate the future, be creative, learn and research, plan and develop a strategy. It takes effort but perhaps that’s the point, we all have free will but we don’t have to use it - we could just do what we are told or follow what other people are doing. It takes more time, more effort but we all have the ability to use our freewill. If we choose, we do not have to be  preprogrammed automata with a predetermined destiny.

Is it possible to be free to act however you like, but be unable to think of alternative actions, as you only know one way of thinking? This narrowness of mind, would imply that our lives are predetermined. For example if you where brought up  educated in only one of the many  religious doctrines, and where totally ignorant of the existence of others (or atheism), you will probably only be able to think and act as taught, even if you lived in a free society.  If you don’t know of a different way of thinking (and are punished immediately at the first sign of doing so), it is unlikely you will  think of an alternative by yourself, especially when young. However I don’t believe this is how the human mind works over a whole lifetime, as given greater experiences, reflection and time ie greater knowledge, new ideas would be constantly generated,.(by unlimited associative learning). The result of this lack of knowledge of alternative options, is that our tribal, unconnected, history means we live in a world of great variety, with widely differing  cultures, religions and language. If our lives are predetermined by the laws of nature, why do we not all think and behave in the same way? The laws of physics are the same all the time, no matter where you are. Similarly, animal individual behaviour is highly predictable for each species, so if humans do not have free will, where does the all the variation in human behaviour come from? Even identical twins think differently.

A thought experiment

You are walking alone down a deserted street, and you see a £20 note on the path. What do you do?
The options are
a) Nothing, keep walking.
b) Keep walking but return later to see if its still there, then pick it up.
c) pick it up.
Assuming you pick it up other options open up to you,
1) Put it in your wallet and forget about it,
2) Try to find the person who lost it and return it
3) Show it to everyone you meet telling them how lucky you are
4) Spend it on a luxury for your self
5) Spend it on a necessity  for your self
6) Buy a weapon, such as a knife and to do evil.
7) Gamble it (high risk attempt to enlarge it)
8) Invest it (low risk attempt to enlarge it)
9) Give it to the police and let them deal with it.
10) Give it to someone of higher social status,  
11) Give it to someone of lower social status
12) spend it on a gift for some one else
13) Give it to charity
14) If you are reading this in the future, you might sell it to an antiques collector or donate it to a museum.
15) Ignore the monetary value and use it as a piece of paper (do I have to spell it out?).
16) Stick it to the pavement and amuse your self as you watch others try to pick it up.
17) Make a paper toy plane
18) Destroy it
19) Treat it as litter and put it in a litter bin
20) buy some bird food to help wildlife
21) Buy a tree and plant it for future others to enjoy.
22) something else that you can think of, but I can't, because your unique knowledge of the world will be different to mine.(turn it into Art?)
23) eat it 

24) A combination of any of the above (ie keep £10 and give £10 away).

25) Donate to a political party 

26) lend  it to someone.

If this isn’t an example of freewill, then I don’t know what is! Just because we can only ever act out one of the options, and that our context means our chosen action might be highly predictable, doesn't mean we are automata.
 
However, now consider what you would do if you were being watched.  or with a friend, you are late for a train, you are rich or poor, or did/didn’t believe in God or the Devil, you are a member of a criminal gang. Finally imagine you’re a dog and it’s a cooked sausage on the path  (hence nr 23). Does the list change? Are  there more or less options open to you?

If you are a dog seeing the sausage, the only option is eat it, and quick, before another dog turns up. But for humans, what ever the situation, all the options remain open, it just means you rapidly dismiss certain options as implementation is constrained but other factors. But the important point is, that the options do still exist, no matter what the context and its still up to you to exercise your free will and choose how to act.

What other evidence, if any, is there that we have free will. I can think of several examples, which I don’t think can be refuted.

a) It is a fact that humans, with our big complex brains, possess the ultimate freedom to end our lives at any time we choose. Whilst this may be a rather unpleasant thought, the means to exercise this option is always available and some ancient philosophers even ended their lives by just holding their breath. Even Socrates choose to end his life, even though he could have easily defended himself against his charges.   If we didn’t have free will, this choice would not be open to us and wouldn’t even be contemplated, but unfortunately many seriously think about it and choose this option. Turning this on its head, by exercising your choice to continue living, you are proof that you have free will. Biologists will say that we are programmed by our genes to survive and reproduce and so even this choice is not of our free will. This is  certainly  true of animals, but is it true of humans? Do our genes over ride our brains? If so how do you explain our modern day use of contraception - doesn’t this proves the falsity of this biological determinism argument. Choosing not to have children makes no evolutionary sense.

b) We always have a choice between acting now or  holding out for the longer term. When you get paid you could spend it all in one go or you could spend some of it now and save a bit for later. You could gobble up the contents of your larder, store them as fat on your body, or you can leave it uneaten for later. Humans have the ability to make a judgement of possible future outcomes and decide how to act in the present. We do not just react to stimuli in a predetermined way. This process of determining our futures by deciding how to act now, is so common it is overlooked but is an undeniable example of freewill.

c) We always have a choice between selfishness and altruistic behaviour. This depends to a certain degree on whether you can get away with it, If everyone acts selfishly, society would break down so enforcement of the law would be strict. If everyone else is altruistic, it would pay to be selfish as expensive enforcement would be slack. Hence crime will always be with us.

d) If free will doesn’t exist, what is the explanation of my and many others  love of dangerous pursuits  such as rock climbing or (not in my case) drug taking. These activities are satisfying and pleasant for the individual but potentially very harmful in the long run. If there was a rational natural law of explanation then every one would do dangerous things but they don’t.  This behaviour certainly isn’t attractive to the opposite sex. Who wants offspring from a partner who will probably not be around very long to help raise a family?. Perhaps freewill means that individuals choose trills and trips rather than boring safety.

From these examples, I say that all humans do have freewill, but because it takes extra effort and courage to use it and act out it's results, we are usually lazy and choose not to, we just go with the flow. However, it is our responsibility to use it and not just do the easiest thing. The path of least effort is usually not the correct way to act which is why the world is in such a mess. If people deny we have freewill, they are absolving themselves of their responsibility, Just like Putin, who says Russia was forced ie had no choice, but to invade Ukraine. What Rubbish.

So, if we all have freewill, but some of us use it more than others,  does this rid us of determinism? Well, at the level of the individual, it greatly reduces it, but at the scale of society no. The behaviour of a society is the emergent property of the total behaviour of all the individuals within it, and this aggregate behaviour will be highly predetermined by past events and the levels of knowledge within that society. Therefore, a democratic society will contain some who (by exercising their freewill) decide to think that rule by a single strong person is best, but the majority would choose to think that regularly voting for a leader is better, so their will will be the one most likely to be the reality. The result is that from all those individual behaviours, the behaviour of the society as a whole  is predetermined ie the democratic society will be more peaceful, more egalitarian, and more free than one ruled by a dictator. Hence, at the level of an individual, there is great variability in behaviour as people use their freewill, but at the level of society or nation, a high degree of determinism as  the variables are averaged out and a pattern of overall behaviour emerges. Freewill and determinism can exist at the same time, but not at the same scale.

Finally 

Many philosophers say that free will is an illusion, but I’ve not been able to understand their line of thinking. The above are my thoughts on the matter and I do state that, because more options are available for consideration, greater knowledge provides a greater degree of freewill, . However, Socrates said that with greater knowledge, you can’t help but do the ‘right’ thing., so, if there is only one right or best thing to do, does that mean we have no freewill? Well no, because we still have all the options to think about in our heads, and some of us can dismiss knowledge we don't like as fake, but it does mean that we are more likely to choose the same course of action. So knowledge increases our freewill, but as knowledge increases our ability to predict the outcomes of those options, our freedom to act is constrained and more individuals will start to act in the knowledgable way with less variability in society . I would also point out that usually it is possible to act out more that one option, ie hedge your bets, or an action be started, but then changed later as the knowledge of the likely outcomes increases. 

PS Tunicates, a marine animal, starts life as a swimming tadpole with a brain, but later undergoes metamorphosis, becomes an immobile filter feeder and shrinks it's brain. Also, shrews decrease the size of their brains in winter when there's less to do. Wants this got to do with humans, well nothing, but remember - use it, or lose it!!!

Part 2 An alternative systems Approach

The present moment of a person will pass into a future moment.

The action being undertaken in the present moment will pass into the action being undertaken in the future moment.

Assuming the person remains alive, the present action will become the future action because of a process.

Applying  knowledge of systems, this process can only be one of the following 1) stable, or simple Ie unchanging predictability, 2) periodic ie variable but repeating predictability, 3) Random (ie totally unpredictable) 5) Chaotic ie appears unpredictable but there is an underlying pattern 5) complex. (ie very difficult to predict)

Applying the theory of evolution, we can dismiss periodic, chaotic and random when thinking about human processes. Natural selection has eliminated these forms of behaviour in animals.

Human behaviour cannot be described as stable or simple, or we would all do exactly the same thing, every day of our lives.

Therefore the process that gets a person from one moment to the next is a complex process.  

When applying this complex process, a person can only arrive at one future moment and not go back.

.However because a person always has options (ie alternative realistic future actions) for consideration, the one action undertaken in that future moment is always a choice of processing, or predicting and assessing the likely outcomes of differing options ie we can exercise free will to choose between options.

Assuming that because we can only undertake one single action in any one single moment, is not evidence of predetermination of behaviour, because it ignores the complex process in which we consider alternatives. exercise our free will and decide on which option to implement.

Given perfect knowledge, a complex system could be seen as a predictable and therefore a stable predictable system. However, in reality. perfect knowledge is impossible as the information needed, and the energy needed to process that information is so large, that it is impossible in the real world. Therefore stating that a complex system such as human behaviour is deterministic, is an attractive arrogance, but is false. 

Conclusion - We are not automata. .

Assuming we have no free will

You could say that all of the above is a delusion to give me comfort in thinking I have freewill. 

So  if we don't have free will, what could we do with this knowledge? Nothing, as we don't have free will. This information would be totally useless to us. 

So we may as well not waste anymore time thinking about it, live with our delusion and get on with something more useful or pleasant.

Make the world a better place

 The motto that I live by is that we should all strive to make the world a better place and that this applies to everyone. It applies to you and I, young and old, where ever you live, everyone. The “world” I define as every human being and every living thing alive now and in the future. The past is irrelevant. If you make the world better for all others, not just your family, tribe, gender, country, species or contemporaries,  it will  automatically be better for you.  What the definition of “better” is, is up to you to decide. Every person is the expert of their life and people should think about their circumstances and skills and decide how they can best improve the world. If everyone took this unselfish stance, putting others before themselves, the possibilities are unlimited.

Migration (Review of 'The Fourth Time we Drowned' by Sally Heydon)

 When reading about the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews I am emotionally disturbed. The suffering endured and inflicted by human beings like me is shameful. When I read about migrants suffering in Libya, I don’t like the cruelty they suffer, but I feel little empathy. Similarly, I support the Ukrainian refugees, or displaced Syrian people, or children sent by parents (as a form of substitute pension policy)  , but for the economic migrants crossing the Mediterranean sea or English Channel, I’m less sympathetic. Certainly they should be rescued from the dangers of the sea, as the middle of an ocean is no place to resolve migration problems, but as Ms Haydon’s book makes clear, the fact is, that most of the migrants want to make the crossing and have paid smugglers for the journey. Most have chosen an illegal route to Europe in pursuit of a dream that no one forced upon them. They are not victims, just humans, like you and I, wanting to improve their lives.  

It must be recognised that there are two types of migrants, those that don’t want to leave their homes and loved ones, but are forced to so, and those that want a quick and easy way to a better life.

The problem is, there is no human right to live where ever you like on this earth. Human rights apply to citizens of countries. Persecuted Citizens, or those  escaping war have a right to apply for the protection of asylum in another country and other counties citizens must do every thing they can to help.

Borders could be viewed as only lines on a map and some say they should be open, but just as life is not fair, with some born in wealthy countries and others who are not, geography isn't fair either. Landscape, culture and history means that what lies within borders is variable and therefore also unfair. Open borders are impractical as everyone who follows the natural desire to improve their lives would all head to what is perceived as the best place to live and  thus completely over load the local social and political infrastructure. We can’t all live with a sea view of Bondi beach and neither can every one in the world come and live in Europe. To illustrate this point I would ask has the EU’s open boarder policy within the Shengen area benefited southern Europe or Northern Europe?  Have not the younger generation left southern Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain and gone to work in the northern cities of France and Germany  thus  enriching the north whilst only slowly enriching the south? Also when West and East Germany merged, did people stay put or did large numbers move to the rich  west, leaving the east underpopulated? Another example is rural inland and booming coastal China. Therefore I conclude that open borders are an ideal, but in reality not a means to the equalization of wealth. Like people, some places are more equal than others. So borders are necessary and if you have borders, it means  there must be enforcement of laws, permits, exclusions, visas and deportations.  Migration is a good thing, but it has to be controlled, so local populations, institutions, infrastructure  and also the migrants themselves can adjust at a rate that all can cope with.

You only have to look at the long term problems caused in Northern Ireland and Israel to see why uncontrolled large scale mass migration is not wise policy, especially with culturally distinct peoples. A large influx of culturally different people into a society means that they don't have to integrate and all the problems of a divided society can arise.

Many of the sub Sahara migrants in the book are chasing their dream of a life in Europe. The internet shows them a rich western life style and criminals tell them they can get there for a price. Both the criminals (by demanding ransoms) and the migrants (by contacting westerners) use emotional black mail to get what they want.  Migrants choose to leave their own country and  often with the encouragement of  their families. follow an illegal route to a war torn country, which has little or no rule of law. The stakes are high, but like all gamblers, they see only the few lucky winners and not the many losers that fail. Why are they so surprised that they end up at the mercy of criminal gangs being treated as cash cows milked for what ever they can produce and then discarded when deemed empty and worthless. Its tragic, but what did they expect? - the nasty side of humans (who lack social constraints) is selfishness, cruelty and greed.   And because they are pursuing their dream, are the migrants not pursuing their own greed and selfishness?. Are they not making their world better rather than making a better world? Hopefully more in Africa will read Ms Hayden’s book before setting off.

When a young person leaves an African country for Europe, is that African country better off or worse? If this person comes to Europe and makes a successful life, learns and works hard, pays taxes and contributes to his new country, does Africa benefit? Money may be sent back to the family but has not Europe once again taken something at the expense of Africa? Is this not another form of imperialism of little benefit to the poorer nations of the world? Shouldn’t African resources ie its energetic  young people, benefit African Countries? If all of Africa’s talented young people leave, and never go back, it will forever be bad news coming from the African continent.

Freedom, peace, human rights are not the default setting of humanity. They have to be fought for and protected. Today, democracy is under threat from lies, ignorance and military force and those privileged to live in the west have a duty to stand up to those who follow old violent ideologies. Similarly, those in the developing world have a duty to make their world a better place and not just run away from the problems in their countries. Ms Haydon asks the reader of her book to think of what they would say if a person contacts them from a Libyan detention centre saying they are being tortured raped and staved and asking for help. Well I would tell them the truth, there is little I can do - it’s a cruel, uncaring, unfair world and you are in a lawless war torn country. Get out and go home. If you want a European life style as we all do, start to build Europe in Africa. Don’t run away from your problems. There is no quick fix, Work and fight for a better life for you, your loved ones and your fellow countrymen. Because if you don’t,  no one else will.

Is this response heartless? Yes, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. What would Europe look like if, in the 1939, Europeans just left and went to America? What would Ukraine be now if most chose not to fight and took the easy option and just left? The morally correct option, is not the easiest option.

In her book, Ms Haydon rightly criticises the UN and EU for wasting money and not addressing the suffering and human abuses in Libya. I recall no criticism of African Governments being mentioned. Perhaps she thinks they are beyond hope and so tries to influence those who may listen. However she should have more faith in humanity. African Governments have a responsibility to serve their people and others just the same as the UN and EU does. The failure of some African leaders is  where the heart of the migration problem lies. Incompetent, greedy, selfish leaders, who put themselves first and not their people, leaders who think that war is a solution to problems, fail to take the advice of other countries whilst sitting in their luxurious palaces are wrong and should be told so. If net migration numbers are an indicator of a counties success, most are a complete failure. You may dismiss this as an expression of my ingrained imperialist racism, but look at the facts. Perhaps, if all African Countries gave hope to their people by clearly making their countries wealthier and  had sound financial policies that included pension and welfare schemes, then perhaps parents in Nigeria wouldn't send their kids off to Europe to get rich and so support them financially in old age because a complete lack of access to sound pension schemes.

It could be argued that western countries have room and wealth for all who want to come,  and everyone should be welcomed as newcomers will enrich and enhance their new societies. After all, there are many jobs in the UK that need doing by hard working people. It is also true that anti migration policies are based on an irrational fear of flood gates opening, invasions of  multitudes and cultures being diluted. Such fears are deep routed and reach back as far as the collapse of the Roman empire, when the north European tribes came knocking on the door.  

Both arguments are wrong. What is required is a sense of proportion. Migration should and must happen but control is the important factor. Illegal routes should be shut down, but the priority given to migration for those in desperate need.Too few migrants is inhumane, too many is impractical. 

The motto that I live by is that we should all strive to make the world a better place and that this applies to everyone. It applies to me, you and the migrants. Everyone. The “world” I define as every human being and every living thing alive now and in the future. If you make the world better for others it will  automatically be better for you  What the definition of “better” is, is up to individuals to decide. Every person is the expert of their life and people should think about their circumstances and skills and decide how they can improve the world. If everyone took this unselfish stance, any thing is achievable and no one would have to leave home. 

PS (Added June 24). I find it strange that Right Wing politicians in Western rich countries use Migration as a major problem that must be addressed. Fundamentally this problem is distorted out of all proportion because they are rascists and see themselves and their countries as superior. If a Country is Great, it is no surprise that people from all over the world want to live there, so migration should be seen as an indicator of Greatness. If the people want to get rid of migrants, perhaps they should wreck their countries economies, start wars, and ruin law and order; then they will solve the migrant problem as no one will want to come, just as no one who has a choice migrates to Russia, North Korea or China.

I would recommend all readers to the UN 2024 report on global migration. Because of wars in Syria and Afghanistan, Iran is the country that is currently absorbing the most migrants. 

Marketing Sustainability

To bring about a speeder change to a sustainable life style. a tool at our disposal is marketing which, because it is very expensive, hasn’t been fully exploited to our advantage. However I have worked with marketing people and studied the books so here are my ideas for consideration.

• Keep it simple – focus on the single most important issue. From reading Greta’s Climate book I think this is “stop burning stuff” All other issues are secondary and  whilst important, distract. These can be dealt with after people have accepted the priority issue. So “Ban the Burn or its going to be hotter and hotter and hotter" or more positively  "Electrify your life".
  
• Answer the Why question – “just because smoke is clear these days, does not mean it’s not dangerous” or “We’ve made a good job of clearing up all the dirty smoke we can see  – now its time to tackle the important stuff we can’t see”. This last statement is a positive one showing its not all doom and gloom. ( Living in Sheffield, it annoys me when we forget UK rivers and air are the cleanest they have been for over a century).
• Make the message personal – answer the question “What is the benefit to me?” This can be addressed by saying “Show you are caring, smart and love life, by going green”. The implication is that if you don’t, your selfish, dumb and nihilist – but this must never be stated.
• Always  Stress the positive, not the negative, - “were making progress, the world is cleaner, so help to do more”
• Show that changing your choices or vote is not pointless - other people are rapidly changing too  – “people all around the world are joining us”, Get celebrity  endorsement. Show Green thinking is now mainstream – the other parties are making promises too, but will they implement?
• Address the doomsters – would you rather live in a hot house or a comfortable house?
• Stay focused – don’t get distracted, dismiss deniers with a simple, “ you still think that” or “your behind the times mate!” sort of attitude.
• Be humorous - For Celeb endorsement I would love it if Sean Kelly the world famous cycling champ and thoroughly lovely man stood up and said “go green – or its going to be a real killer!” , which is what he always says just before the cyclists have to pedal up some steep  mountain in the Alps.
  

If you are working for a sustainable future, I wish you success with your endeavours. You have the whole world of science saying that what you are doing is correct.  If you just pull on the holds you can reach, and after that reach for the next ones, you will reach the top of the mountain!!!

Charity Shops and how to fill the existential void

 I love charity shops. They are something of which us Brits should be very proud. Rather than chuck unwanted, but perfect good, stuff away, we can recycle it for resale thus helping good causes. And hunter gatherer hoarders like me can fill their houses up with wonderful things for next to nothing.

Upon a visit to my favourite local charity shops, (the ones that have yet to be ruined by a professional make overs), the jigsaw section is the priority. I’m a sucker for jigsaws of beautify works of art. Whilst completing each puzzle, I can really get to know the details of each picture and learn the brush strokes of the masters. I can also break the second law of thermodynamics (albeit on a temporary basis)  by restoring a little order to the world. Now my attic is so full of Botticellis,, Van Goghs, Turners, Constables, Klimits, Kandinskys, Giottos etc etc etc that I could probably open it up as a small art gallery. It’s a shame that the bedroom ceiling is now developing some rather large cracks.  

After the jigsaws, it’s the book section. Why buy a new book when we have libraries and charity shops? Of course, what is on offer is totally random, but that is just what makes it so magical, Who knows what you will find and what you will end up reading about.

Currently, I’m reading “Danube” by Claudio Magris, for which I paid £1. What a gem! I would never have bought this book full price and I’ve never heard of the author, so how could I search for him on line. Who ever donated it, was either a fool or very wise. This is just one of the many admirable paragraphs that gave me great pleasure.

“Perhaps writing is really filling in the blank spaces of existence, that nullity which suddenly yawns open in the hours and the days, and appears between the objects in the room, engulfing them in  unending desolation and insignificance. Fear, as Canetti has written, invents names so as to distract itself. The traveler reads and takes notes of the names, of stations his train passes through, at the corners of the streets where his footsteps lead him; and he goes on his way with a breath of relief, satisfied with that rhythmic order of nothingness“.

Wow. Where’s that jigsaw of the Scream? This is exactly how I used to feel until a few years ago. But now I’ve moved on.

Fear, as I’ve already written, only exists in our heads and holds us back. Even fear of death should be banished, after all it can’t be that bad, because, if it was so terrible, why would we all do it?

As for the existential void, that boring bit between birth and death, what should we fill it with? Biology says reproduce, travel writers say travel, and Voltaire said gardening, but that still leaves plenty of time to fill. So what to do?

Well I’m a boomer, and was constantly told, in that super confident time, that I could become what ever I wanted . However, I was in a bit of a dilemma, as no one ever told what was worth doing - so I became a Quantity Surveyor. This gave me a quiet comfortable, boring life that I spiced up with dangerous rock climbing.  

Now that I’m retired, and weaker, (so can’t progress on the rock), I’m faced with a similar dilemma. What to do?

Make the world a better place, that what. But how to achieve this? There are so many things we can all do, But I like to think big - what are the biggest issues the world faces? How can these problems be  solved? Firstly pick a topic and then learn. Secondly understand, predict, and finally, interact. Apply a bit of pressure at a sensitive spot and see if the world twitches. I Listen for echoes of what I write and so far, what I hear gives me encouragement.

Of course these echoes could all be delusional creations of a Don Quixote, or the imaginings of a small dog, that whilst yapping at passing juggernauts, is very pleased with itself because it believes it has chased them away.

Well, as my friend Pete says "a mans got to have a hobby". and I’m happy visiting my local Charity shops!

Ps A burglar broke into our house recently but didn't take anything of mine. So another advantage of getting your stuff from charity shops - none of it is worth sealing!!!.

Life's a Joy, or it should, would, could be.

Every Wednesday afternoon, even in the final years of her life, my great grand mother visited the local cinema for her movie fix. The family legend is,  that for a couple of years, the Wednesday matinee was always the Sound of Music! Nobody knows how many times she saw it!

“She went a bit senile at the end” my mum explained, but having watched the film for the first time recently, I’m not so sure. The Joy explodes off the screen and is a delight to watch. Perhaps Great Gran Ma just loved being reminded of the simple joys of living. Perhaps she would agree with me that it is simply the best film I’ve ever seen. All others are just incomparable to it!

When watching the news, or thinking about the state of the world, it’s almost impossible to see the positive. Such Suffering. It’s almost debilitating thinking about it, especially  as most of it is totally avoidable. Its depressing a friend said to me, but its only depressing if you have lost your faith in humanity.

War in Ukraine - come on Putin, what’s the point anymore, no one is winning, Pull the plug on it!
Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria - we have the engineering skills to build earthquake proof buildings.
China US tensions - co operate don’t compete.
Global warming - don’t burn stuff, love life and care for the world.
Poverty and disease  - Share the wealth and medical knowledge. Israel Palestine - integrate don't segregate.
Suppression of freedoms and human rights - is it really so important for those in power to cling so tightly to it. They should just relax and play with the kids or walk in the mountains, swim in the ocean. Be more Julie Andrews, than great dictator.

Why do we make it so difficult for ourselves? Perhaps we have forgotten the joys of life and need to rediscover them and then help others to find them too.

When ever possible, wallow in the joy and wonder of your existence. Its fantastic!, And help all others to do the same...Lets make the explosion of joy in real world, not the movie world.

----------------------

In my essays below I've tried to make sense of the absurdity of the world, and (perhaps) having come to some understanding of why we are making such a mess of it, what can be done about it.

The Tyranny of The majority

 In the UK and Israel, the democratically elected Governments are attempting to pass laws that protect their own positions. From the stand point of "we represent the people", they think the can do what ever they like. However, history tells us time and time again they cannot - think of the Terror after the French Revolution as an extreme case. 

As the new bill is still making its passage through Parliament, I have sent the following letter to my Member of parliament to see if our historic system still works. 

Dear Sir

 By the differences in their nature, upbringing, learning and experience, every human being has a unique outlook on the world. This means it is perfectly natural for people to have differing points of views on a wide range of issues, and as we in the West believe in freedom of expression, these differing views should be permitted to be aired and discussed, rather than be driven underground or kept unspoken by self censorship.  It is also the duty of the majority, not to oppress the minority, and not to abuse their power for their own benefit.

 If minority views are not permitted to be aired by passionate people who get frustrated because the majority will not listen, then what will happen? They will find other more extreme ways to protest, and the majority will react with more bans, to which more extreme forms of protest occur to which the majority calls in the army to start shooting. THIS IS NOT A MADE UP STORY, BUT HAPPENS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, ALL OVER THE WORLD.

 What the current majority forgets, (or only knows too well) is that today's minority may be tomorrows majority – but this is not a  bad thing this is PROGRESS.

For these reasons the Law and order bill which reduces the power of citizens to express their views should be thrown out. It goes against every thing this country has stood for in my life time. I can only speak for myself but no one will ever take away my freedom of expression, but it is up to others to decide how extreme that expression is displayed.

Please discuss my words with all of your Parliamentary colleagues.

 Yours Sincerely 

 

The reason this bill has been proposed in the UK is because protesters have been blocking motorways, disrupting the center of London for days on end and generally being such a pain that the Government feels it has to act. However the protesters actions have not been popular and so their tactics have backfired on them - the general population has turned against them. Therefore the bill is no longer required. However the protestors made them selves heard and will no doubt try other less disruptive but more persuasive methods in the future.  Good for them.

However if it is passed, and similar anti freedom bills are passed in the future, I will be making a few free downloads from the Albert Einstein Institute.