Merchants of Doubt

"This is the crux of the issue, the crux of our story. For the shift in the American environmental movement from aesthetic environmentalism to regulatory environmentalism wasn't just a change in political strategy. It was the manifestation of a crucial realization: that unrestricted commercial activity was doing damage - real, lasting, pervasive damage. It was the realization that pollution was global, not just local, and that the solution to pollution was not just dilution.....
To acknowledge this is to acknowledge the soft underbelly of free market capitalism: that free enterprise can bring real costs - profound costs - that the free market does not reflect. Economists have a term for these costs - a less reassuring one than Friedman's 'neighborhood effects'. They are 'negative externalities': negative because they aren't beneficial and external because they fall outside of the market system. Those who find this hard to accept attack the messenger, which is science."
(Emphasis added.)

Phew!  That took me a while to read.  But it was well worth it.  I was shocked, stunned, angered and incensed by the material I read.  And this is for someone who already knew some of the dirty, underhand tactics the Tobacco companies used in the past - so I guess I should not have been so shocked to find similar techniques used by the anti global warming campaigners.

The book is very thoroughly researched and is extensively referenced.  Unfortunately, it is not an easy read and is not likely to be become one of those best sellers that nearly everyone reads, or intends to read.  I found I got a bit lost occasionally in all the names, abbreviations, historical facts and technical details.  But the overall message comes through very clearly. 

It you don't have the time, inclination or patience to read the book, you could instead check out the web site or watch the 4 minute interview below.

The web site is worth a look: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html
It has a lot of information and links to interesting web sites.  It also lists and links to the key documents referred to in the book.

The techniques commonly employed by the merchants of doubt include:
1. Fostering uncertainty and doubt about an issue long after a scientific consensus has been reached.
2. Using the popular media to foster this impression of uncertainty by debating the issue in the popular press rather than in the usual scientific means of peer reviewed scientific journals, and in some cases long after a consensus has been reached in the scientific literature
3. Invoking the idea of fairness to demanding equal time for their views in the media.
4. Attacking the messenger - mounting personal attacks against scientists who have published work that does not support the political agenda of the "Merchants of Doubt."  Recognize this fallacy anyone?  It is the arguement ad hominem.
5. Presenting information that has no real bearing on, or place in a scientific debate as if it should convince you of their position.  The Heartland billboard below is a prime example.

Oreskes and Conway respond in the book to the idea of for "fair media" employed in the 3rd technique:

"While the idea of equal time for opposing opinions makes sense in a two-party political system, it does not work for science, because science is not about opinion. It is about evidence. It is about claims that can be, and have been, tested through scientific research—experiments, experience, and observation—research that is then subject to critical review by a jury of scientific peers. Claims that have not gone through that process—or have gone through it and failed—are not scientific, and do not deserve equal time in a scientific debate."

The rice video was recently posted on Facebook by a friend and is an example of the fourth technique.  The information presented made me cringe.  The presenter wants us to believe that just because the total number of CO2 molecules in the whole of earths the atmosphere is very small that global warming can't be true.  Umm, what?  There is  discussion of what level of the atmosphere he stops his count at, density of molecules in the crucial zone, what the CO2 molecules do there, etc.  Never mind any discussion of the decades of research and evidence about climate change.  And he completely disregards the undisputable fact that CO2 has been increasing at an alarming rate (see image below). 

From the wikipedia page: CO2 in Earth's atmosphere

So who are the merchants of doubt? Oreskes and Conway name a few of the key players in their book: 
Frederick Seitz
Robert Jastrow
William Nierenberg
Fred Singer

The book presents detailed evidence of their shenanigans in fostering doubt and misinformation on a range of issues - including the risks of passive smoking, acid rain, CFCs and the ozone hole and of course global warming.  It also reveals sources of their funding including the tobacco industry and energy companies.

The organisations they often channeled their work and funds through include:
Global Climate Coalition
The George C Marshall Institute - founded by Seitz, Jastrow and Nierenbery
Heartland Institute 
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

The GCC has disbanded.  Unfortunately the GC Marshal and Heartland Institutes are still operating.  If you click on the links above it will take you to their wiki pages.  Well worth a look.

Here is a recent example of the Heartland Institute's handiwork:

I discussed this here: Murders Tyrants and Madmen.

Global Warming has been know about for a very long time. 
- It was first reported in the 1930's
- Many scientists have been working on it since the 1950's.
- Climate scientists have largely understood it since the 1970's/80's.
- There has been a scientific consensus that Global Warming is occuring since the late 1980s, however it was not until the early 1990's that there was wide spread consensus that Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic.

If you would like to examine the Global Warming timeline in more depth check out this link: Global Warming Timeline.

Despite this, beginning in the 1990's, there has been a concerted effort by certain groups to undermine this knowledge, particularly in the popular media.  Since then the media has largely presented the issue of global warming as if there was still no consensus amongst reputable scientific bodies.

Why?

Oreskes and Conway sum it up very well:

"To acknowledge this is to acknowledge the soft underbelly of free market capitalism: that free enterprise can bring real costs - profound costs - that the free market does not reflect."

At the heart of Global Warming Denial is the ideal of free market capitalism.  If you are ideologically opposed to government regulation in general, then you may find yourself specifically opposed to acknowledging any problem for which the most obvious solution is government regulation.

I do not believe that the free market can solve the problem of Global Warming.  Capitalism is based on growth, not on restriction.  Yes it is true that scientific innovation, in the hands of entrepreneurs, may offer some help to the Global Warming crisis, however it is extremely unlikely that this will be sufficient without regulation by governments to stimulate innovation, and the application of innovation, in relevant areas.

Some have argued that capitalism drives innovation.  This is historically not true, as is touched on in the book.  All the major innovations of the last century, from transportation to communication, owe their realization to governments. Either because they were originated in government departments (primarily the military) or they are the result of research that has been heavily funded by government grants.

Haven't we learned our lesson from the tragedy of the commons yet?  No, free market capitalism will not and cannot solve this problem for us.  So what has been the response to global warming by the die-hard free market capitalists?  Denial.

The merchants of doubt and those associated with them have been known to call global warming advocates "Watermelons": green on the outside and red on the inside.  But I am not a communist.  I do believe in the free market but I think it seems very clear that it needs to exist within boundaries.  A free market + sensible government regulation seems to be a clear answer to me.

Well, that is quite enough ranting from me.  What else can I say?
- It's a great book and I highly recommend it.

Hell's Angels

A rambling account of a journalist's time hanging out with a lot of Hells Angels in the 60's.  Yep, that about sums it up.

I found the overall structure of the book felt almost random.  There was a very, very loose chronology but a lot of the information seemed to be stuck in haphazardly.  A "stream of consciousness" is one thing, but to me the style of this book just felt a little lazy. 

The book presents a lot of information, opinions about the "Hells Angels phenomenon" from a variety of people, and some analysis by Thompson himself.  I think one of my favorite aspects was the insertion of relevant quotes from a spectrum of sources: poets, news articles, literature, policemen and of course from members of the Hells Angels.

My least favorite aspect of the book is the misogyny.  Actually, perhaps "misogyny" is perhaps too generous a word as it is not really hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.  It is more like a complete failure to recognize the autonomy and person-hood of women.  Certainly this may just be a reflection of the Angel's attitudes towards women.  But I don't think this adequately excuses Thompson's failure to present a female perspective.   Surely he could have found time to interview one of the "mummas" or one of the the alleged "rape" victims.  Or if he felt this would have endangered his standing with the Angel's he could have at least commented on this, or presented some further assessment of the Angel's disregard for the rights of women.

The absence of female perspectives led me to wonder how much the Angel's attitudes influenced Thompson.  He is credited with pioneering Gonzo journalism and as such he can be seen as an integral character in his book.  He immersed himself in the lifestyle and culture of the Angels and so he is able to present us with (almost) an insider perspective.  Overall the technique is effective and makes for interesting reading.  We know he participated in drug use, risk taking on his motor cycle and alcohol soaked partying.  I respect his right to do so and thoroughly enjoyed his account of this lifestyle.  However, I was left wondering if he also participated in the appalling attitudes and behavior towards women.  If so, this is something I cannot respect or take lightly.

After finishing reading the book I did some further digging.  (Google comes in very handy sometimes.)  I found this YouTube video which you might find interesting.  It restored my esteem of Thompson and took the murky sheen off my assessment of his book.  It refers to an incident that occurred after the book was published.  Apparently Thompson tried to intervene to stop an Angel from beating up his wife.

In case you don't catch it, the Hells Angel's representative says"

"If a guy wants to beat his wife and his dog bites him, that's between the three of them...."
You walked right up to him and said "Only a punk beats his wife and dog....
To keep a woman in line you have to beat them like a rug once in a while..."

Shockingly the audience applauds and laughs at this!!

Thompson was a fascinating person with a colorful life.  He "partied hard" in the 60's and 70's and has made an impressive contribution to our record of these times.  He took his own life in 2005 at the age of 67 years old.  According to the wiki page: 

Artist and friend Ralph Steadman wrote:
"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment. I don't know if that is brave or stupid or what, but it was inevitable."

For more information:
The Hells Angels Website.  Does this combination of words strike you as bizarre?
Wiki article on Gonzo journalism
Wiki article on Thompson. 

Overcoming the Fear of Fear

I encounter a lot of people who live with heightened anxiety in my professional and personal life.  A friend suggested that I read this book so that I could better understand what it is like to live with anxiety, which can often be disabling, and be able to offer more constructive support.  I am grateful for their recommendation because I think it has helped a lot.

The authors develop the concept of "Anxiety Sensitivity."  They define it as "the tendency to respond fearfully to the bodily sensations associated with fear and anxiety. .....  In other words, anxiety sensitivity is the fear of fear."

We all experience fear or anxiety from time to time.  Something shocking or stressful occurs (the trigger), we have an adrenaline surge and we have associated physical sensations such as an awareness that our heart rate has increased.  For most of us we do not focus on these sensations as we know that they are harmless.  We deal with the situation at hand, then the sensations and any fearful thoughts abate, usually pretty quickly, and we get on with our day. 

Unfortunately for some people it does not work like that.  The sensations such as quickened heart rate, or faster breathing, seem catastrophic in themselves and lead to a cascade of various mental and physical events that can culminate in panic.

The book gives a very in-depth analysis of how and why the trigger leads on to this over reaction in some people and not others.  It also explores why some people are prone to this (including a good summary of childhood and family of origin influences) and why very minor events can be enough to trigger the cascade in them.

As with any good self help book it doesn't stop there.  It goes on to give a program to overcome this, based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).  The book is well researched and referrenced.

From the cognitive angle they look at unhelpful thought patterns and how to challenge them, particularly:

• Catastrophizing
• Overestimating the probability
• All of nothing thinking 

From the behavioral angle they look at the counter-productive "coping" strategies that people often employ, particularly many forms of avoidance.  They suggest the use of interoceptive* exercises to help people "to be in anxiety".  The theory goes that exposing yourself to the feared sensations will help reduce your fear of them.  I have to say, that even as someone who does not suffer anxiety, I think that some of the interoceptive exercises they suggested sound awful.  I will be incorporating a lot of the information I learned from the book into my clinical practice but I don't see me recommending any of these exercises to anxious patients anytime soon, unless they are first performed in a therapy session with a good therapist:

• Shake head from side to side for thirty seconds.
• Breathe through a narrow drinking straw for two minutes.  Combine with running on the spot or stair climbing to evoke more intense sensations.
• Place a tongue depressor at the back of the tongue for thirty seconds.

The book includes some good sections on the importance of a healthy lifestyle (stress reduction, sleep regulation, good nutrition, exercise and the benefits of humor), and the Stages of Change (pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance and relapse).

Overall, I think the book would be a great read for anyone suffering with anxiety, or wanting to understand/support someone they are close to who has an anxiety disorder.  I think the chapters on addressing the "cognitive" side of CBT, particularly challenging the unhelpful thought processes that are often the trigger for anxiety, are really good.

However, I think that more of a Graduated Exposure Therapy approach may be more acceptable and manageable for a lot of people, than the interoceptive challenge approach that the authors advocate.  I think that perhaps these exercises need a "Don't try this at home - alone - without therapist supervision" caveat, otherwise, if not followed through correctly the exercises carry the risk that people's anxiety sensitivity may be increased rather than abated.

For a good description of Graduated Exposure Therapy (also called Systematic Desensitisation) see: Overcoming Anxiety for Dummies

*Interoceptive - of, relating to, or being stimuli arising within the body and especially in the viscera.  From Merriam Webster Dictionary

Love Wins

"Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?"

"Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be Christian."

"It often appears that those who talk the most about going to heaven when you die talk the least about bringing heaven to earth right now, as Jesus taught us to pray: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  At the same time, it often appears that those who talk the most about relieving suffering now talk the least about heaven when we die."

- Rob Bell  

Bell makes some astute observations and very good points in this little book.  So why are so many "Christians" gnashing their teeth and denouncing him?  One word: Universalism!

There has been so much furor about this book that my interest was piqued.  I just had to read it for myself - unlike many of it's critics who have slated it without bothering to read it.

Love Wins is an incredibly short book for one that has caused such a stir.  It could be read in one sitting.  However Bell has managed to stretch the printed version to a standard book size with his

annoying habit

of spacing out the text

so that a few sentences

cover one page.

And then,

he leaves gaps between paragraphs 

to make it clear where you should 

pause

and get all contemplative.

Grrrrr....  Annoying isn't it!

I felt like yelling "I'm an adult.  I can cope with a few sentences per paragraph!"  It's like he hasn't quite decided if he is writing prose or poetry.  How very emergent of him!

The sleeve carries a strong endorsement from Eugene Peterson (of The Message fame) which includes a description of the book as being "without a trace of soft sentimentality".  Rubbish!!  I can't remember the last time I read such soppy, sentimental and emotive writing.

Putting aside pedantic ranting about his style, how about the content?  Well I certainly can comprehend his point of view more than the opinion of the majority of evangelical Christians who want to cling to their view that many/most of the people they know will be punished infinitely and consciously for finite sins.   

I really like his treatment of the story of the Prodigal Son.   He uses the attitude of the older brother to confront the view of those who cling to the fundamentalist, evangelical view of hell. He shows the self-satisfied "them vs us" mentality for what it really is.

He claims that his father has dealt with his brother according to a totally different set of standards.  He thinks his father is unfair.  He thinks he's been wronged, shorted, shafted.  And he's furious about it.

The older brother has been clinging to his version of events for so long, it's hard for him to conceive of any other way of seeing things.

My question is: why haven't there been more Christian leaders in the last two centuries advocating for Universalism, or at least expressing that they hoped Universalism to be true.  As Bell aptly puts it "one has to admit that it is fitting, proper and Christian to long for it."  Support for this view in the modern church would have saved me a lot of confusion, angst and pain in my teens and twenties. 

The only evangelical theologian I know of, or at least theologian accepted by the evangelical community, who came close was John Stott.  But even he shied away from fully endorsing it:

Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it . . . my question must be — and is — not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?

And C.S. Lewis of course - but evangelicals are so selective in their Lewis reading that they often miss it.  Interestingly, in his acknowledgements, Bell thanks his parents for "suggesting when I was in high school that I read C.S. Lewis."  I will whole heartedly endorse reading Lewis to make the journey from childish (often idealised as "child-like") faith towards a more  consistent view of reality, with less delusion and denial.  

That's not to say I have embraced a belief in Universalism.   I am still at the starting point of questions.  Like: Is there a God?  Is there any form of existence after the death of our body?  If there is a God, then why the problem of evil?  Does God, or would God, reveal himself to humanity through any (or all) of the world religions?

As I can't seem to get a convincing yes answer to the first 2 questions, it seems pretty pointless to bother about the rest at the moment.  And I think that anyone who claims to have a water-tight, uncontestable view on those two questions, whatever answer they arrive at, is deluding themselves.

But........, if there is a God, I sure hope they believe in Universalism.  I just cannot see how they could possibly live happily ever after with some, while imprisoning the rest of their human creations in eternal, conscious punishment.  Surely the double pre-destination inherent in that view would be as abhorrent to any kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being as it is to me.  (Avoiding male pronouns sure makes for some awkward writing at times!)

One last favorite quote from the book to end my little rant:

This is why Christians who talk the most about going to heaven while everybody else goes to hell don't throw very good parties.

On Liberty

Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.

If the cultivation of the understanding consists in one thing more than in another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions. 

I enjoyed reading this immensely.  (Like my very 19th century choice of word?)  It was the subject of my first politics essay for the unit I am currently studying The Liberal Democratic State.  The book is insightful, engaging and challenging.  I tagged, highlighted and scribbled in this book with gusto.  I even chuckled to myself many times.  

Despite Mill's dour expression, (unattractive fellow wasn't he?), he was a man capable of intense passion.  I enjoyed reading the in depth introduction with lots of biographical information in this Penguin edition.  Harriet was a very lucky lady!   I don't know of many other examples of a relationship as deep, enduring and productive as theirs.  Pity she was already married when they met.  Fortunately her first husband, being much older, conveniently died while Mill still had a lot of life left to live with her.  Perhaps their years of honorably being "just friends" was in some measure responsible for the depth of their intimacy.  Is there a better basis for enduring love than deep and abiding friendship?  At the bottom of this entry is Mill's dedication to Harriet in On Liberty.  A tear-jerker! 

So what is the book about?  Mill is advocating for liberty - that individuals are sovereign over themselves.  He argues that it is not legitimate for anyone, government or individuals, to interfere with another person, except to prevent harm to others.  This has become famously known as the Harm Principle:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.  

Mill sees the repressive Victorian culture as very damaging to individuality and originality.  He recognises that social pressures to conform lead to the suppression of truth and laziness of thinking.  He argues that liberty is essential in three domains: liberty of thought, liberty of tastes and pursuits and liberty of association.  He presents a compelling case for freedom of speech that has been the cornerstone for western societies commitment to this freedom.

John Stuart Mill had a brilliant mind and his political ideas were revolutionary.  It is a shame that their subsequent effect on the western political landscape has been so diluted and polluted by capitalistic greed.  Perhaps Hobbes was right after all, though I wistfully hope not.

To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

The Ethics of What We Eat

"We can make better choices." 

This book has been sitting on my book shelf for about 4 years.  I have put off reading it because I knew that when I did I would need to make some changes.    And I did.

The book starts from the view point of the dinner table and shopping habits of three families: “Typical American Diet”, “The Conscientious Omnivores” and “The Vegans”.   

I think that the eating style of the families represents most of the spectrum of family eating patterns, and I think any reader would find a lot they could identify with in the concerns expressed by the families.  From budget constraints, to lack of time, to struggles in balancing good nutrition with the children’s taste buds.


The consequences of the families' food choices are investigated.  The families are all treated respectfully, but it is made very apparent that some food choices are having terrible consequences which can be considered ethically wrong, even if unintended.

Although Singer is well know for his animal rights activism the book does not focus narrowly on the impact our food choices have on animals.  Instead a broad range of issues is considered including the environment, poverty, equality, and fairness.  I was particularly impressed that the complexity of the issues is presented, rather than broad, generalizations with overstated easy solutions. 

I found that the format worked very well as it made the information seem so relevant and applicable.  The book is well researched, extensively referenced and presented in very readable style.

Singer and Mason present a compelling argument that inspired and motivated me rather than making me feel guilty - and that is not an easy balance to find.  I highly recommend this book to, well, everyone.  We all eat!  And, to echo the authors, we can all make better choices.

Living Organized

On average I have read a home organisation book about every 2 years of my married life - making this number 5 (I think).  This little book was a quick read and provided me with a few helpful hints and a big shot of motivation for keeping my home a bit more organized.

It also encouraged me to think about my own "style" and to get an image of what I would ideally like my home to look like so that I have something to work towards.

She starts the book with a quiz entitled "Do you need this book?
I had to laugh at question 2:
"The thing that most frightens my children is
a. the thought of being killed in a car accident.
b. the threat of international chaos.
c. the possibility that one of their friends might come to our house without giving a two week warning.

Well, I don't have kids, but I could certainly identify with this fear.  When I know that people will be visiting my home I like to have it looking clean and presentable.  If you come to my house at a prearranged time you will enter a place of orderliness and serenity and will probably be greated by the smell of freshly baked biscuits or muffins.  But, pity the fool that drops in unannounced!  They will be greeted by a very embarrassed hostess who quickly tries clear a place for them to sit down, and they will likely leave with cat fur clinging to their clothes.

Needless to say - this is not how I want to live! 

So, time to get organised.  But I have done that many times before.  So really what is needed is a plan that not only helps me to get organised but also helps me stay that way.   Felton's book has encouraged me to get a strong visual image of the beautiful home I want to achieve.  Now to see if I can continue to work toward that goal!

The Brain That Changes Itself

I have really enjoyed this book.  Informative, inspiring and very easy to read.   The book is well researched and thoroughly footnoted. 

The quote on the cover is from Oliver Sacks, and the book has similarities to Sack's writing.  Anyone who enjoyed "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" will enjoy this. The subjects include brain development, learning disorders, sensory loss, anxiety and obsessional disorders, the benefits of psychoanalysis and of course stroke and other brain injuries.  The stories of personal triumph over disability are very moving, and the advances in the relatively new science of neuroplasticity are amazing.

But Doige goes beyond just reporting on interesting stories of disordered neurology. He has an agenda and seems genuinely concerned about the health of our brains in our current society.

The appendices are worth reading.  Appendix 1 "The Culturally Modified Brain" will fascinate and horrify.  The statistics about children and television watching are frightening.  The information about babies and brain plasticity, in this appendix and through out the book, are worth reading by any new or prospective parent.
  
Chapter 4, "Acquiring Tastes and Loves" was a little discomforting to read, and was perhaps a little more explicit than strictly necessary at times.  However central issue, how internet pornography is affecting people, is significant enough to warrant reading the chapter.

I came away challenged and motivated to do things, and keep doing them, that will help my brain stay fit and stave off Alzheimer's disease and general age-related decline.  

If you want a few hints on preventing the onset of your own dotage, here is a little snippet:

The more education we have, the more socially and physically active we are, and the more we participate in mentally stimulating activities, the less likely we are to get Alzheimer's disease or dementia. 

Not all activities are equal in this regard. Those that involve genuine concentration—studying a musical instrument, playing board games, reading, and dancing—are associated with a lower risk for dementia. Dancing, which requires learning new moves, is both physically and mentally challenging and requires much concentration. Less intense activities, such as bowling, babysitting, and golfing, are not associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s.

More than Matter: What Humans Really Are

The question of what it is to be a human person is the biggest intellectual question of our day.

I have enjoyed reading this book. I often paused, put the book down and thought. (Which seems like exactly what a good book should lead you to do.) Thought about things like the nature of reality, meaning in the universe and the value of human life. All with lots of question marks.

My one word response to the book is: unconvincing.
And yet I did enjoy it and I very glad I read it.

Ward presents an argument against a materialist view of humans (that we are purely matter) and advocates for a metaphysical view part-way between Idealism and Dualism, so called Dual-aspect Idealism. It is not easy going and would be pretty tough without a basic knowledge akin to "Philosophy 101". But it is still a very enjoyable read as Ward writes with a level of humour that had me chuckling out loud at times.

For me, the crunch of the book came in Chp 9: "In Defense of dualism". The book seemed to be building up to this point and, after reading his arguments against materialism/physicalism, and his "doesn't this sound nice" enthusiasm for idealism, I was looking forward to finally reading his arguments for dualism. However the chapter seems to be a tenuous pulling together of insubstantial strings of various pro-dualism ideas, none of which are convincing on their own, and together are no more convincing. So much for that!

In the final chapter "Can we still speak of the soul?" he alludes to his Christian views, though a lot of Christians would have trouble reconciling Ward's well thought out religious ideology with their own narrow view of the bible. He paints a beautiful picture of dual-aspect idealism which culminates, in distant space-time, in a kind of utopian future of super minds which "transfigure all the conflicts and suffering of our previous lives." (It sounds wonderful and reminds me very much of a Stephen Baxter Sci-fi trilogy that I thoroughly enjoyed!). Ward then goes on to say:

That is the dream of idealism. But is it true? It must be plainly said that there is no proof. Yet it is more than an ideal wish. It is rooted in the firm belief that mind is the ultimate nature of being, and that intelligent mind aims, as far as it can, at goodness, at what is worthwhile for its own sake. This dream is what mind would realize if it could, if it were at all possible. It does seem possible, since it contains no contradiction. Dare we then hope for it?

My response to this: Hmmmm, I think it probably is no more than an ideal wish, but yes, I do still feel that it is worth hoping for, especially if this leads people to living a more full and ethical life. I wholeheartedly agree with his beliefs in practice: that we should act as though mind matters, humans have special value and strive for goodness for goodness sake, (not just to avoid punishment or gain reward - as the lowest form of most religions boils down to).

After living most of my life believing that I had a "soul" that would continue to exist independently of my body after death, I now find it hard to see how any form of my personal consciousness can exist when my neurons stop firing. I still hope it is so, but I really see it as no more than wishful thinking. It seems to be contradicted by the increasing evidence from neurobiological sciences that our "thoughts" are accounted for by the function of our neurons. When neurons are interfered with, via trauma, drugs or direct electrical stimulation, it leads to completely different "thoughts", and thus personalities, beliefs, etc. The demise of my faith started long ago, Phineas Gage you did not help it. The questioning started something like: "But if someone believed in Jesus before an head injury and afterwards denied him, when they died did they go to heaven or not?". Thinking this through over the subsequent years (18 to be precise, now that makes me feel old), it now seems to me when neurons stop working we will stop "thinking", and therefore stop "being".

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Me: When my neurons stop firing, I stop thinking, therefore I am not.???.
(Though Descartes would definitely not agree with me)

I do not warm to this conclusion, I don't want it to be true, but I can't seem to shake it. Professor Ward, I had hopes that you might be able to at least give it a little shake, but alas, you have not!

For more info on Keith Ward:
http://www.keithward.org.uk/about/

Getting Real

I came across Susan Cambell about 2 years ago at the Rangiora Public Library. The book on the shelf at that time "Saying Whats Real" was amazingly helpful at the time. And I have revisited the notes I made from the book when I have found my self struggling again to express myself.

I ordered a second hand copy of "Getting Real" from Better World Books (highly recommended). It is actually a forerunner of "Saying What's Real" and I think it would have made more sense to read them around that way. However, I think the principles and advice in "Saying What's Real" was more immediately applicable and effective - or is that just because by the time I finally got around to reading "Getting Real" I had already integrated some of the key messages into my life. That's not to say that I didn't learn a lot from this book, a lot that I am still digesting and learning, slowly, to apply. Well, onto the summary....

She begins by giving a very absorbing (though slightly kooky) account of her upbringing that illustrates how she (and by implication we) come to be the way we are. I found I could identify with so much of what she had to say about the formation of her personality and default communication strategies that I felt right away that I could learn a lot from her journey and the lessons she had learned.

Campbell's basic premise is that much/most of human communication is motivated by the intent to control - others, ourselves, outcomes, our environments. When we feel uncertain of an outcome we immediately/unconsciously fall back on old communicating strategies that will lead to a familiar outcome - even if this outcome is unpleasant/destructive. It's like we are all running around with the MO of "Better the Devil you know".

Her solution is to "Get Real" and there is a good does of only partially concealed Buddist philosophy in the accept "What Is" advice, rather than fretting about what we think should/could be. She sums it up as "How to stop being right and start being real".

Not surprisingly, after all this is a self-help book, there is a 10 step plan for changing your life:

The 10 Truth Skills
1. Experiencing what is.
2. Being transparent.

3. Noticing your intent.

4. Giving and asking for feedback.
5. Asserting what you want and don’t want.
6. Taking back projections.
7. Revising an earlier statement.
8. Holding differences or embracing multiple perspectives.
9. Sharing mixed emotions.
10. Embracing Silence.

For a little more info on each "skill" :
http://www.susancampbell.com/datinghelp/10truthskills.html

The two "skills" that I recognised as most difficult for me are "Being Transparent" and "Asserting what you want and don't want: supporting your feelings with action." I guess the transparency issue is partly pride, partly a difficulty trusting enough to make myself vulnerable and partly feeling like I don't want to burden people (a lot of this is really about devaluing yourself at the heart of it).

It may not seem, to some people who know me, even those who know me quite well, that I have a lot of trouble with this. And, honestly, I don't think I used to have so much trouble with it. But it seems to have become increasingly difficult as I have gotten older. I am still working out how much of this is due to misguided concern for other peoples feelings (misguided because if you really care about someone else you will have the respect to deal with them truthfully), and how much is due to fear - of many things but primarily of disappointment.

I do think most people, and most relationships, could benefit from some of the insights of this book. I think I will revisit the summary from time to time to remind myself to stay present and to be real.

Power Politics

I have just finished reading "Power Politics" by Arundhati Roy.

It is a a collection of her excellent political essays and is definitely worth reading. She is obviously very passionate about advocating for the disadvantaged and taken-advantaged-of masses, not just of India but of the world. I have included links to some of the essays in case you want to read the whole thing - they are not too long and are easy reading.

"Power Politics: The Reincarnation of Rumpelstiltskin" is a thought provoking critique of the insatiable beast of globalization.

"The Algebra of Infinite Injustice" is a biting but fair attack on the foreign policy of that other insatiable beast, the USA. While Roy clearly puts the blame on the rich and powerful puppet masters, she does not completely exonerate the "average American" and drops a few of her poetic bombs their way. My favorite example:

"Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know (because they don't appear much on TV)."

To make sure you get her point, she prefaces it perfectly with a very telling quote from a newscaster on Fox News, September 17th 2001:
"Good and Evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know, massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Apparently the newscaster then broke down and cried.

And in "War is Peace"*, referring to the government rhetoric/spin doled out via the mainstream media as medication she has this to say:
"Regular medication ensures that mainland America continues to remain the enigma it has always been -- a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government."

While I would love to fully enjoy a virtuous and contemptuous snicker at the expense of these "curiously insular people", I am also acutely aware that I too am curiously insular and that just occasionally reading about injustice is not the same as opposing it.

* Interestingly "War is Peace" apparently had a different, and delightfully more provocative title originally: "Brutality Smeared in Peanut Butter. Why America Must Stop the War Now."