One of the greenbelt talks was by Stephen Oram discussing the question of opting out. And yes, I know that was ages ago, but it takes me a long time to put these thoughts in place sometimes. At the time, it made me think that the idea is a fallacy, because it is actually impossible to opt out.
I am very positive about the idea of opting out, in theory at least. There is some attraction about going "off the grid", cutting dependencies on others - no internet, no television, making your own electricity, recycling everything you can, growing your own food. Actually, I would miss the connection with others, but I would like to make my own electricity, personally recycle stuff more, have less reliance on services. I would also find it a whole lot of hard work, and enjoy not having to do all of this.
The problem I have is that it is only possible to be off grid to a certain extent. I want to identify the things we can do and the ones we can't.
The services are the first thing to try to sort out. Electricity can, if you have a large enough area, generate this from solar panels and wind turbines. Gas we have to do without, but we can heat with wood burners, and cook in a similar way, if we have an appropriate supply. So with a large enough area, this works.
Water we can achieve if we have a stream on our property, so we need to take care at finding the right place. Of course if too many people take water from a stream, it will run dry, so we also need to collect rainwater, and use this where possible. The other service, telephone and internet, is impossible to get without paying, so we either have to accept this or do without this. It is, of course, possible to have no phone or internet, but then you would not be able to read this.
Sewage can be dealt with by recycling the water having cleaned it up enough for some purposes. Recycling the excrement as fertiliser can be achieved with a little work - a dry closet does this, apparently. So the services can be attended to.
Food can be grown, if you are prepared to harvest and deal with it yourself. That is a large amount of work, but, assuming that you are not working outside your home, this should not be a basic challenge
The problem with this is that it has too narrow a scope. Which is a strange thing to say given that it seems to require a lot of planning and organisation. However, the aim is to "opt out", to remove oneself from a dependency on a society that we might reject (for any reason).
Firstly, I presume that there is a house on the property, which has been built using resources from the society. This could be avoided if you choose to build the house yourself, but somewhere in that, there is likely to be some external dependency. Can you build a house yourself without using facilities from outside? It can be done by skip diving, but this is not opting out, this is depending on other peoples rubbish. If you use tradespersons, they are external resources that are needed.
An existing property has all of this already inherent in the location. This is opting out only for the now, using what has been created already. This is like being homeless for a few weeks, and thinking you know what it is like. It is one of the things that irritates me about the "sleep-out" events. One night sleeping out is a bit of fun. Every night is not. Claiming to be opting out, while still relying on what others have done is short-term opting out.
The other problem is that your little property cannot exclude itself from being part of the UK. If, as an example, the locals rivers are managed to not flood, then your property benefits from this work. Similarly, if it does flood, you can rely on the emergency services to assist. If someone is ill, you can take advantage of the NHS. Those aspects of "society" that do not affect us directly and imminently are easy to ignore, but they are still there, still aspects that you are engaged with. If the country is threatened from outside, the government will not point to your smallholding and say "you can invade there, they are opting out" - you are still reliant on the military, however much you might disapprove of them.
To me, this is the core problem with trying to "opt out". There are some aspects which are comparatively easy to avoid, with some thought and planning. But opting out of "society" is a whole lot harder. I think this is why I don't choose to opt out, rather I choose to be involved and try to change. That is not an implied criticism, just the way that I choose to go.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Evangelising England
OK, so this was announced last week Evangelising England.
To which I let out a resigned sigh.
To those who don't know me - and probably some of those who do - this may well sound like I have rejected Christianity, and don't want people to get to know Jesus. That could not be further from the truth.
I am a passionate believer that people need to know Jesus, need to engage with the Divine, need to find faith, find spiritual truth and reality that engages them and drives them and fires them on.
I am a passionate believer that we, as Christians, need to talk to others about what we believe, discuss with them, engage with them about faith - ours and theirs.
The reason I sigh is that the Church of England as a system and structure has done so much damage to these conversation over the last few years. The damage has been done mainly with the farce over Women Bishops and the constant and continuing hand-washing over sexuality. The messages that these have sent out - very publicly - are that women are just about tolerated and that anything other than heterosexuality is an abomination to God. The recent suspension of ECUSA over this issue is a clear demonstration of the feeling from the church system.
Now I know that there are many Anglican churches that strongly support women in all roles. There are many churches who are less interested in peoples sexuality than their humanity. The problem is that the general public perception of what Christianity means is set by the more public statements. There is a perception that Christianity is anti-women and anti-homosexuality. This is not helped by some of the more fundamentalist reports coming from the US and (sometimes) supported by people in the UK. The impression given is, although we are very British, and are not going to shout and rave like the Americans do, British Christians are also very much the same.
This statement is likely to have a number of effects:
1. All sorts of money and resources will be poured into ineffective, outdated "evangelism" campaigns.
2. Some of the larger, more conservative churches will push their agenda again, and there will be embarrassments.
3. For a few people, in a few places, the negative impressions that the Church of England has given over the last few years will be undone.
Of course, there is a view that not giving total support to any activity that you define as "evangelism" makes the baby Jesus cry. In truth, some of these activities make him cry - both in sadness and laughing.
I am all for evangelism. I am all for telling people the good news. But the starting point today is to undo so much of the damage caused by the Church of England as an organisation. And then it is to engage and listen. And then to change and accept and embrace others, to move to being where they are, to be the presence of God for them.
Yes, I am all for evangelism. That is why I sigh at the statement, because I suspect, in many cases, this will put back the work once again.
Monday, 25 January 2016
Saga
The BBC had a discussion about the significance of Saga Noren from the superb Nordic Noir series The Bridge, the third series of which has (as I start writing this) just finished (and has been, once again, utterly superb, disconcerting and shocking). However, I think there are more reasons why Saga has been so significant and popular, that has nothing to do directly with her gender.
I think one reason she is popular is that she is not the usual autistic character. Actually, as is often pointed out, she does not have an autistic diagnosis, but this seems to be something like what she has. Her problems of engaging with other people and expressing her emotions indicate something of that nature.
The thing is, she is not the usual autistic savant. We have seen some of these, and they are often well done, good characters. People like The Mentalist, and Sherlock show some of these traits too. Their oddities are usually accepted because they are brilliant at solving problems. Saga is a superb detective, but not on that level, so she is tolerated and accepted for her oddities. In this series, she comes up against someone who is less accepting of her peculiarities.
But Saga is also very aware of her shortcomings. She knows - has become aware over the series - of those areas she is less than optimal at. She is seen, in this series, to be trying hard at improving her performance in some of these areas. She is a fallible human being, she sometimes makes mistakes, and her character is very hard on herself for making mistakes.
I think what is so appealing about her is that she is so vulnerable. She faces, in the third series, the reality that she could be perceived as a problem, that her peculiarities may not be fully countered by her skills (which are part of her autism-like nature). She is made to see, to a greater degree than previously, her frailty, and we see her through these eyes too. Unlike the savants, who we sometimes feel need taking down a peg or two, we feel sorry for her, because she is human, she is struggling with a psychological disorder, and at this time, her disability is proving more significant than her talent. That is a very human, very real insight into her. It is a real insight into every persons failings, every persons potential failure.
For me, the real reason that Saga is popular is that she shows us how vulnerable we are, how odd we might seem, how close to losing it all we all are. I know that I want to give her a hug, because I feel her pain, feel her struggle to comprehend.
I think one reason she is popular is that she is not the usual autistic character. Actually, as is often pointed out, she does not have an autistic diagnosis, but this seems to be something like what she has. Her problems of engaging with other people and expressing her emotions indicate something of that nature.
The thing is, she is not the usual autistic savant. We have seen some of these, and they are often well done, good characters. People like The Mentalist, and Sherlock show some of these traits too. Their oddities are usually accepted because they are brilliant at solving problems. Saga is a superb detective, but not on that level, so she is tolerated and accepted for her oddities. In this series, she comes up against someone who is less accepting of her peculiarities.
But Saga is also very aware of her shortcomings. She knows - has become aware over the series - of those areas she is less than optimal at. She is seen, in this series, to be trying hard at improving her performance in some of these areas. She is a fallible human being, she sometimes makes mistakes, and her character is very hard on herself for making mistakes.
I think what is so appealing about her is that she is so vulnerable. She faces, in the third series, the reality that she could be perceived as a problem, that her peculiarities may not be fully countered by her skills (which are part of her autism-like nature). She is made to see, to a greater degree than previously, her frailty, and we see her through these eyes too. Unlike the savants, who we sometimes feel need taking down a peg or two, we feel sorry for her, because she is human, she is struggling with a psychological disorder, and at this time, her disability is proving more significant than her talent. That is a very human, very real insight into her. It is a real insight into every persons failings, every persons potential failure.
For me, the real reason that Saga is popular is that she shows us how vulnerable we are, how odd we might seem, how close to losing it all we all are. I know that I want to give her a hug, because I feel her pain, feel her struggle to comprehend.
Saturday, 16 January 2016
Music
Since Christmas, we have lost two giants of music - Lemmy and Bowie. There has been an interesting meme on Facebook with the title "This is what you get when you pay for music" with pictures of Lemmy and Bowie, and "This is what you get when you don't pay" with pictures of One Direction and Ed Sheeran.
Actually, I have to admit, I quite like some of Ed Sheeran's work. But the point is made.
One of the problems with shows like X-Factor, and The Voice are that they focus on commercial success. I am not one to dismiss commercial success as such, but these days, commercial success is the antithesis of musical freedom and creativity. One of the best x-factor winners - in terms of her vocal ability - was Alexandria Burke. I watched that series, and I loved her voice, but in all of the music that I have heard her record since, there has been nothing of that talent shown. Yes, she has had success, but at the cost of her musical integrity. That is a sad loss. there are suggestions that last years winner, Lousia Johnson has some talent as well, but she is unlikely to do well from being involved. Especially as she failed to get the Christmas Number One. If Simon Cowell cares about anything, it is success, and she has failed to provide him with what he wants.
I remember when Steve Brookstein had won the first x-Factor, which was a surprise, and the following year he made a comment that "at last I am free of the contract". I was as cynical as most others, that he was apparently "glad" to be free of a £1M contract, the largest that he will probably ever get. Today, I think he may have had a point - having a binding contract to produce Cowell-Musak is only the dream of people who can sing, not of singers.
When I was younger, in the 1970s/80s, most bands would produce records to sell and make money. That was how they made money, and to do this, they needed a recording contract. There were all sorts of record labels - the independents - who would pick up bands they felt had something and would produce their music for them. Bands would go on tour to promote their record sales, and would often make a loss on the tour, which would be made up for by increased sales.
All of that has changed - partly for the better, but partly for the worse. Today, getting your music out there is so much easier, with the internet, BandCamp, YouTube and suchlike. However, nobody can make a living making music and selling it any more. The downside is that it is no longer the music that is so important. Musicians can only make money by touring and performing, which means that it is no longer the music that is so crucial as the "performance".
Now Bowie, in particular, was a performer maybe over anything else. However, I don't think Cowell and his like would embrace that style of performance. It is not just Cowell, it is the majority of the music industry, and Cowell is the public face of this. It is a particular style and form of performance that is expected and needed. I listen to Heart radio on my commute - mainly for the traffic news. I used to listen to Vibe, another local station, with (possibly) better traffic news. The problem is that both of them play a lot of Cowell-Musak, and it is very hard to tell them apart. When you look at them, they all look identical (Maybe the numbers or the hair are different, that is about all). This is the music that makes money, so if you want to make money in the music business, this is what you have to produce.
As I am writing this, I am listening to a BBC documentary on Bowie, and they have got to the Heroes section. This song - maybe my favourite Bowie song - combines him with Brian Eno and Robert Fripp, two other musical geniuses. I don't think, in the current musical environment, any of these would be able to find a start or a role in the music business.
That is my problem with the era of "what you get when you don't pay". It will continue to give you what you had last time. Because of this, radical new talent that doesn't fit into the accepted commercial categories has a far more difficult time to get attention and any degree of "success". While success is not the be all of music, if you can't make something out of it, musicians will stop producing.
We will never see another David Bowie or Lemmie. Not least, this is because people that different would never get a way into the business. In truth, this is the real sadness of the Cowell influence in the music industry. He has destroyed the real creativity in it. That is why the genius of Bowie will not be seen in that business again. Today, such people have to find a new outlet.
Actually, I have to admit, I quite like some of Ed Sheeran's work. But the point is made.
One of the problems with shows like X-Factor, and The Voice are that they focus on commercial success. I am not one to dismiss commercial success as such, but these days, commercial success is the antithesis of musical freedom and creativity. One of the best x-factor winners - in terms of her vocal ability - was Alexandria Burke. I watched that series, and I loved her voice, but in all of the music that I have heard her record since, there has been nothing of that talent shown. Yes, she has had success, but at the cost of her musical integrity. That is a sad loss. there are suggestions that last years winner, Lousia Johnson has some talent as well, but she is unlikely to do well from being involved. Especially as she failed to get the Christmas Number One. If Simon Cowell cares about anything, it is success, and she has failed to provide him with what he wants.
I remember when Steve Brookstein had won the first x-Factor, which was a surprise, and the following year he made a comment that "at last I am free of the contract". I was as cynical as most others, that he was apparently "glad" to be free of a £1M contract, the largest that he will probably ever get. Today, I think he may have had a point - having a binding contract to produce Cowell-Musak is only the dream of people who can sing, not of singers.
When I was younger, in the 1970s/80s, most bands would produce records to sell and make money. That was how they made money, and to do this, they needed a recording contract. There were all sorts of record labels - the independents - who would pick up bands they felt had something and would produce their music for them. Bands would go on tour to promote their record sales, and would often make a loss on the tour, which would be made up for by increased sales.
All of that has changed - partly for the better, but partly for the worse. Today, getting your music out there is so much easier, with the internet, BandCamp, YouTube and suchlike. However, nobody can make a living making music and selling it any more. The downside is that it is no longer the music that is so important. Musicians can only make money by touring and performing, which means that it is no longer the music that is so crucial as the "performance".
Now Bowie, in particular, was a performer maybe over anything else. However, I don't think Cowell and his like would embrace that style of performance. It is not just Cowell, it is the majority of the music industry, and Cowell is the public face of this. It is a particular style and form of performance that is expected and needed. I listen to Heart radio on my commute - mainly for the traffic news. I used to listen to Vibe, another local station, with (possibly) better traffic news. The problem is that both of them play a lot of Cowell-Musak, and it is very hard to tell them apart. When you look at them, they all look identical (Maybe the numbers or the hair are different, that is about all). This is the music that makes money, so if you want to make money in the music business, this is what you have to produce.
As I am writing this, I am listening to a BBC documentary on Bowie, and they have got to the Heroes section. This song - maybe my favourite Bowie song - combines him with Brian Eno and Robert Fripp, two other musical geniuses. I don't think, in the current musical environment, any of these would be able to find a start or a role in the music business.
That is my problem with the era of "what you get when you don't pay". It will continue to give you what you had last time. Because of this, radical new talent that doesn't fit into the accepted commercial categories has a far more difficult time to get attention and any degree of "success". While success is not the be all of music, if you can't make something out of it, musicians will stop producing.
We will never see another David Bowie or Lemmie. Not least, this is because people that different would never get a way into the business. In truth, this is the real sadness of the Cowell influence in the music industry. He has destroyed the real creativity in it. That is why the genius of Bowie will not be seen in that business again. Today, such people have to find a new outlet.
Monday, 21 December 2015
When do we get to do the stuff?
This is one of the most famous quotes from John Wimber. He had read parts of the Bible, what was done in the early church, and went to a church expecting to see the same sort of thing. He was, of course, disappointed, and he asked them "When do we get to do the stuff?".
I have recently finished reading Sara Miles "Take this Bread", and she experienced something of the same struggle, but from a very different perspective. For her, she read the Bible, saw that Jesus fed people, welcomed people, accepted people. She found the church that she arrived in was generally very welcoming of others, open to different liturgy and worship, but was still struggling to be as accepting as she saw the New Testament church was.
And it raised the question for me, as for Wimber, of when the church starts doing the stuff. Unlike Wimber "the stuff" is not the miraculous, the amazing - the stuff is the core of the New Testament church. The Stuff is the care, concern, acceptance and love that the church was known for. John 13:35 is a core promise of what the New Testament church was showing - that Christians should be known for their love.
What I see today is that Christians are known for all sorts of things, but "love" is not high on the list. We are known for being reactionary, for hating homosexuals, for being cliquey, for rejecting others and being legalistic.
And I know that whenever I say that, there are many people who say that "we are not like that. We know churches who are but not us" to which I would argue that yes you are - to those outside the church you are known for something other than being loving. Almost certainly (there is always a possibility that you are an exception, and I have not heard of you). And even if you are, in your area, the Christian Church as a whole - and that reflects on each one of us - does not have a positive perception.
Sara Miles church was far more open and accepting than many. She became involved in it because it was prepared to accept her, coming from a very antagonistic position. It was considered by many other churches as being rather tolerant and unconventional. So in terms of churches, it was very much on the forefront of what I am looking for - and yet still struggling to accept, to tolerate and welcome the broken, the damaged, the sick and the disruptive. If they were seen as struggling - from an insider - how much further from a New Testament ideal are most churches?
A long way.
I think so many churches like to focus on "outreach" and "programmes" (including Alpha and suchlike), and fail to do the basics about being a fellowship, a group who are caring for each other, working with each other. I don't think a church should focus on itself until it is perfect before looking out. I do think that churches should consider very critically what they are inviting people to join. I think they should ask why people would want to join them, and what it would mean if they did.
In truth, I don't think that the New Testament church is a model that we should build everything on. I think that is dangerous, because they were working to their own situation. But the church was supposed to be living out the principle of loving others, and that is something that we today need to also demonstrate.
So come on, when do we get to do the stuff?
I have recently finished reading Sara Miles "Take this Bread", and she experienced something of the same struggle, but from a very different perspective. For her, she read the Bible, saw that Jesus fed people, welcomed people, accepted people. She found the church that she arrived in was generally very welcoming of others, open to different liturgy and worship, but was still struggling to be as accepting as she saw the New Testament church was.
And it raised the question for me, as for Wimber, of when the church starts doing the stuff. Unlike Wimber "the stuff" is not the miraculous, the amazing - the stuff is the core of the New Testament church. The Stuff is the care, concern, acceptance and love that the church was known for. John 13:35 is a core promise of what the New Testament church was showing - that Christians should be known for their love.
What I see today is that Christians are known for all sorts of things, but "love" is not high on the list. We are known for being reactionary, for hating homosexuals, for being cliquey, for rejecting others and being legalistic.
And I know that whenever I say that, there are many people who say that "we are not like that. We know churches who are but not us" to which I would argue that yes you are - to those outside the church you are known for something other than being loving. Almost certainly (there is always a possibility that you are an exception, and I have not heard of you). And even if you are, in your area, the Christian Church as a whole - and that reflects on each one of us - does not have a positive perception.
Sara Miles church was far more open and accepting than many. She became involved in it because it was prepared to accept her, coming from a very antagonistic position. It was considered by many other churches as being rather tolerant and unconventional. So in terms of churches, it was very much on the forefront of what I am looking for - and yet still struggling to accept, to tolerate and welcome the broken, the damaged, the sick and the disruptive. If they were seen as struggling - from an insider - how much further from a New Testament ideal are most churches?
A long way.
I think so many churches like to focus on "outreach" and "programmes" (including Alpha and suchlike), and fail to do the basics about being a fellowship, a group who are caring for each other, working with each other. I don't think a church should focus on itself until it is perfect before looking out. I do think that churches should consider very critically what they are inviting people to join. I think they should ask why people would want to join them, and what it would mean if they did.
In truth, I don't think that the New Testament church is a model that we should build everything on. I think that is dangerous, because they were working to their own situation. But the church was supposed to be living out the principle of loving others, and that is something that we today need to also demonstrate.
So come on, when do we get to do the stuff?
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
Zaophobia
Trigger Warning : Suicide
OK, this is a neologism, a word I have devised from Greek roots, that seems to reflect something of what suicidal feelings are like. Sorry if such a lovely word means something so bleak, but that is the way it goes sometimes. Let me explain how I got there, and why it seems to be an appropriate word.
The starting point was actually the phobia side - suicidal thoughts are not rational, they are more phobic than anything. I will explore this more later. I started by using the phrase Zoephobia, from the Greek Zoe meaning life, but I realised that this was not quite what I was meaning.
Zao comes from the same root, but is more of an active phrase, meaning living, not just life. Zoephobia would be a fear of life, whereas Zaophobia is more a fear of living, a problem with the process and the effort of continuing to live.
Phobia is not really a fear in the traditional sense. It is an anxiety disorder where the dread of the thing is disproportional to the thing itself. Zaophobia is therefore an irrational dread of continuing to live.
Why is it so important that it is seen as irrational? The prime reason is that an irrational fear cannot be calmed by rational ideas and discussion. I don't like spiders, and I know that my fear of them is not rational. I know that "they are more afraid of me than I am of them" - something that has never been scientifically tested as far as I know. I am aware that they are not out to do me any harm. But this rational, logical argument does nothing for my feelings, my emotive response. What is more, this lack of a rational basis for my emotional response does not make it "all in the mind" or "imaginary". It is very real, but the means of dealing with it is through working with the fears and emotional responses, not by explaining why it is not logical to fear spiders. In truth, I am much better than I was.
Someone who is suicidal does not need logical, rational explanations of why their choice doesn't make sense. To them, it makes perfect sense (which is partly a result of post-rationalisation), so explaining why they are wrong can sound like explaining that they are stupid. Whereas dealing with it in terms of a phobia, an irrational response, means that you are accepting their conclusions, their thought processes, and deal with it according to an emotive response, not a rational one. Rather than an argument of "no, that is not how it is really", this is a response of "yes, it sucks big time".
I look at Jesus' responses to people, and sometimes, he comes back with rational, logical, law-based arguments - when people challenge him with rational, law-based arguments. But for people who are hurting, he doesn't - he sits by them and engages with their emotions. The woman caught in adultery, for example: those who wanted to stone her because The Law said so, he responded with a logical reply - none of them conformed to the law completely. But to the woman (who, it would seem, he had stayed by this whole time), he simply told her than nobody was condemning her. As one example among many.
The healing at the start of John 9 always intrigues me. The disciples wanted a logical, rational explanation for why a particular man was born blind. Jesus response was not a logical or rational response - he didn't give the disciples the reasoning for babies being born blind, he didn't offer then a codified answer to the effects of sin (and bear in mind that the action of sin on people was part of their rational understanding). His response was unbelievably unsatisfactory in so many ways. He explained that this man was born blind so that Jesus could heal him. Which might not make up for the 20 years he had spent blind, or for the unpleasant response he had from the Pharisees. But the man's enthusiasm towards the Pharisees suggests to me that Jesus had engaged him emotionally, even though the rational arguments didn't seem to add up.
The first part of this word is also important in terms of understanding the suicidal mentality. It tends to be (and I am aware that there are always cases and situations that do not match this) that the struggle of living is where the problem lies. It is the difficulty and the day-to-day effort that is required to continue living that is so hard. The thoughts of having to do that again and again and again is too much. It is hard work living, but for most people, it is something that we can cope with, because that is what we have to do. For many people, spiders are just part of nature, and they are not a problem. But for some, zao is really difficult. The decision to take ones own life is not an easy one, and not a rational, logical one normally. But for many, it comes from this incredible burden of zao, of having to live. It is not rational, but emotive, which is how it should be engaged with, but it is very real, very significant.
It is also important in terms of understanding how a depressed person acts and behaves.Imaging having a fear of heights, and waking up every day in a bed slung on the side of a cliff. Actually, that is rather extreme, because most people with a sense of perspective would find that a frightening prospect. Imagine always waking up somewhere high up, near a precipice. Or being forced to work as a tower crane operator. You wouldn't do it, of course, it would be a living nightmare, you would have to find an alternative.
So imagine if your fear was of living.
I should point out, I am not suggesting that depression is the same pathology as phobias, just that seeing suicidal thoughts in this way might help those who do not suffer from them understand a little more what it means, what it actually feels like to be inside these brains.
So zaophobia - a new word for suicidal responses, trying to reflect the emotive nature of these feelings, and the importance of responding in the appropriate way.
OK, this is a neologism, a word I have devised from Greek roots, that seems to reflect something of what suicidal feelings are like. Sorry if such a lovely word means something so bleak, but that is the way it goes sometimes. Let me explain how I got there, and why it seems to be an appropriate word.
The starting point was actually the phobia side - suicidal thoughts are not rational, they are more phobic than anything. I will explore this more later. I started by using the phrase Zoephobia, from the Greek Zoe meaning life, but I realised that this was not quite what I was meaning.
Zao comes from the same root, but is more of an active phrase, meaning living, not just life. Zoephobia would be a fear of life, whereas Zaophobia is more a fear of living, a problem with the process and the effort of continuing to live.
Phobia is not really a fear in the traditional sense. It is an anxiety disorder where the dread of the thing is disproportional to the thing itself. Zaophobia is therefore an irrational dread of continuing to live.
Why is it so important that it is seen as irrational? The prime reason is that an irrational fear cannot be calmed by rational ideas and discussion. I don't like spiders, and I know that my fear of them is not rational. I know that "they are more afraid of me than I am of them" - something that has never been scientifically tested as far as I know. I am aware that they are not out to do me any harm. But this rational, logical argument does nothing for my feelings, my emotive response. What is more, this lack of a rational basis for my emotional response does not make it "all in the mind" or "imaginary". It is very real, but the means of dealing with it is through working with the fears and emotional responses, not by explaining why it is not logical to fear spiders. In truth, I am much better than I was.
Someone who is suicidal does not need logical, rational explanations of why their choice doesn't make sense. To them, it makes perfect sense (which is partly a result of post-rationalisation), so explaining why they are wrong can sound like explaining that they are stupid. Whereas dealing with it in terms of a phobia, an irrational response, means that you are accepting their conclusions, their thought processes, and deal with it according to an emotive response, not a rational one. Rather than an argument of "no, that is not how it is really", this is a response of "yes, it sucks big time".
I look at Jesus' responses to people, and sometimes, he comes back with rational, logical, law-based arguments - when people challenge him with rational, law-based arguments. But for people who are hurting, he doesn't - he sits by them and engages with their emotions. The woman caught in adultery, for example: those who wanted to stone her because The Law said so, he responded with a logical reply - none of them conformed to the law completely. But to the woman (who, it would seem, he had stayed by this whole time), he simply told her than nobody was condemning her. As one example among many.
The healing at the start of John 9 always intrigues me. The disciples wanted a logical, rational explanation for why a particular man was born blind. Jesus response was not a logical or rational response - he didn't give the disciples the reasoning for babies being born blind, he didn't offer then a codified answer to the effects of sin (and bear in mind that the action of sin on people was part of their rational understanding). His response was unbelievably unsatisfactory in so many ways. He explained that this man was born blind so that Jesus could heal him. Which might not make up for the 20 years he had spent blind, or for the unpleasant response he had from the Pharisees. But the man's enthusiasm towards the Pharisees suggests to me that Jesus had engaged him emotionally, even though the rational arguments didn't seem to add up.
The first part of this word is also important in terms of understanding the suicidal mentality. It tends to be (and I am aware that there are always cases and situations that do not match this) that the struggle of living is where the problem lies. It is the difficulty and the day-to-day effort that is required to continue living that is so hard. The thoughts of having to do that again and again and again is too much. It is hard work living, but for most people, it is something that we can cope with, because that is what we have to do. For many people, spiders are just part of nature, and they are not a problem. But for some, zao is really difficult. The decision to take ones own life is not an easy one, and not a rational, logical one normally. But for many, it comes from this incredible burden of zao, of having to live. It is not rational, but emotive, which is how it should be engaged with, but it is very real, very significant.
It is also important in terms of understanding how a depressed person acts and behaves.Imaging having a fear of heights, and waking up every day in a bed slung on the side of a cliff. Actually, that is rather extreme, because most people with a sense of perspective would find that a frightening prospect. Imagine always waking up somewhere high up, near a precipice. Or being forced to work as a tower crane operator. You wouldn't do it, of course, it would be a living nightmare, you would have to find an alternative.
So imagine if your fear was of living.
I should point out, I am not suggesting that depression is the same pathology as phobias, just that seeing suicidal thoughts in this way might help those who do not suffer from them understand a little more what it means, what it actually feels like to be inside these brains.
So zaophobia - a new word for suicidal responses, trying to reflect the emotive nature of these feelings, and the importance of responding in the appropriate way.
Saturday, 5 December 2015
Why trident is a waste
I read on facebook recently a post by Alan Storkey (sorry I can't link because I can't find it any more!) on reasons why replacing trident is a bad idea. They were great thoughts, but one resonated with something I have thought for a while, and for me is the main reason that Trident is a bad idea.
The problem is that Trident - and all nuclear weapons capability - belongs to a different age of warfare. I am not saying that 40 years ago it was valid and acceptable, just that then there were different reasons to challenge it. But the world today is different.
The major threats on the world stage today are terrorist groups like IS. The majority of the conflicts across the world are not nation-on-nation, as they were for much of the last century, they are faction on faction, organisations like IS who are fighting for recognition and a cause. Groups like Boko Haram in Africa and the drug barons in Mexico are involved in much more typical conflicts today than was the case.
And, of course, Trident - any nuclear weapon - is of no use against them. How could we use any of them against IS? They do not have a geographical claim, so the use of such weapons - which are indiscriminate across a geographical area - is pointless and dangerous.
"But we have to have them, to protect ourselves against other nuclear nations". This has been the argument for decades, and yet it is flawed. As noted above, conflicts today are not against other nations. The likelihood of, say, Iran attacking us with a nuclear weapon is extremely remote - they may not like us, but that tactic would be so abhorrent that they would never utilise it. Because they are a geographical nation, they would be destroyed in a range of ways that would not require a nuclear strike back.
"They are a deterrent against anyone using nuclear weapons against us". The thing is, let us suppose that IS had nuclear capability. Let us suppose, horror of horrors, that the Paris attacks had been nuclear. Would we then use our nuclear weapons against them? Of course not, because they are not a geographically located group. It is groups like IS with nuclear capability that is the biggest danger, but even if they did achieve that, out deterrence would not stop them and out defence would not be appropriate to use. So what is the point?
I hope against hope that we never see another nuclear weapon deployed. But if it is, it will not be a nation using it against another nation. The response will not be more such weapons. Nations arming themselves with nuclear capability in the 21st century is an anachronism. We would all be safer if we had none of them around.
The problem is that Trident - and all nuclear weapons capability - belongs to a different age of warfare. I am not saying that 40 years ago it was valid and acceptable, just that then there were different reasons to challenge it. But the world today is different.
The major threats on the world stage today are terrorist groups like IS. The majority of the conflicts across the world are not nation-on-nation, as they were for much of the last century, they are faction on faction, organisations like IS who are fighting for recognition and a cause. Groups like Boko Haram in Africa and the drug barons in Mexico are involved in much more typical conflicts today than was the case.
And, of course, Trident - any nuclear weapon - is of no use against them. How could we use any of them against IS? They do not have a geographical claim, so the use of such weapons - which are indiscriminate across a geographical area - is pointless and dangerous.
"But we have to have them, to protect ourselves against other nuclear nations". This has been the argument for decades, and yet it is flawed. As noted above, conflicts today are not against other nations. The likelihood of, say, Iran attacking us with a nuclear weapon is extremely remote - they may not like us, but that tactic would be so abhorrent that they would never utilise it. Because they are a geographical nation, they would be destroyed in a range of ways that would not require a nuclear strike back.
"They are a deterrent against anyone using nuclear weapons against us". The thing is, let us suppose that IS had nuclear capability. Let us suppose, horror of horrors, that the Paris attacks had been nuclear. Would we then use our nuclear weapons against them? Of course not, because they are not a geographically located group. It is groups like IS with nuclear capability that is the biggest danger, but even if they did achieve that, out deterrence would not stop them and out defence would not be appropriate to use. So what is the point?
I hope against hope that we never see another nuclear weapon deployed. But if it is, it will not be a nation using it against another nation. The response will not be more such weapons. Nations arming themselves with nuclear capability in the 21st century is an anachronism. We would all be safer if we had none of them around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)