What do we do now?

Its been a while, but I'm back. I haven't had much of an inclination to write so I simply haven't done so. But today I find myself wanting to write something again. Here I am tackling a big question, namely: "What do we do now?"

So...what the hell do I mean, now, and what exactly am I pulling you into by saying "we"? By "What do we do now?" I am asking what "we", as a society, as a race of sentient beings who have great power and hence great responsibility, should do next. By next I basically mean in what direction should we head, where should we take humanity now...or next as i just phrased it?

Personally, I feel that we as a society have made many mistakes over the years, but having said that I'm sure we've avoided quite a few too, so I shouldn't be too critical. There are however some problems which are of immediate concern which include problems with wealth inequality and poverty, problems with materialism and unhappiness, and problems with profit, greed and damage to our dear earth.

I feel that the capitalist system, despite its potential benefits, has been used to justify wealth in the form of monetary profit, over all other things, including our morals and values, hence including the very basis for our desire to live. The gap between rich and poor broadens, not just within countries but also between them. The poor struggle more, while the rich enjoy ever greater luxuries all the while living unhappy lives of hedonistic greed. Its been proven that doing things such as volunteering for local organisations that help those in need gives a great feeling of purpose and happiness. Why then is it that we don't all help each other to reach for higher and better things and at the same time improve not only our physical standard of life, but our emotional one?

Are you really proud to live in a world based on greed, exploitation, callousness and a moral imperative to make money over all other things? I thought not. Few of us are so fanatically inclined, yet that seems to be the system we live in. Unfortunately we, as tacit participants of the system, are, whether consciously or not, supporting such a system.

The problem need not necessarily lie in capitalism per say or forms of liberalism for that matter, but rather the ways in which they can be appropriated. I feel that a welfare liberal state could solve many of our problems. A state in which the individual has great freedom so long as he does not hurt those around him. Classical Libertarians argue this too, however their definition of "hurt" only includes physical harm and not economically crippling people by condemning them into debt cycles and so forth.

We need some degree of social welfare. We are after all, only human, and we will all have times in our lives in which the going may get tough. Its only far that if someone loses their job, or is seriously injured, or disabled or something of the sort, that there is a kind and supportive governmental system in place which can provide financial assistance to these people. The mere fact that such a system exists will also greatly reduce anxiety and worry within a society as people will no that if they should fall in life that they will still have a basic standard of living assured for them. Overall I think the benefits of such a societal structure will improve the happiness of the society. This will also be highly likely to improve not only the quality of life, but interesting the societies productivity and ability.

In contrast a complete free-market, akin to what is developing in America, creates a broader gap between the rich and the poor and creates a society based on fear and greed. The large majority of the people live lives of subservience and essential slavery, with moments of hedonism for escape. They live tough and unhappy lives, with consumerism being the favourite attempt to avoid the feelings of unhappines. In many ways I think that many of America's problems stem from its unhappiness, which stems from its inequality and harsh free-market, laissez fare system.

Don't read me wrong here, I have nothing wrong with some people being rich and some poor, difference is all well and good, however, i feel that the poor should at least be afforded the basic necessities of life while the rich should not necessarily have such a reckless excess of luxuries. I think everyone would be all the happier for this arrangement too.

With the development of technology and general advances in the world, everyone should be able to live easier lives, with more time to simply enjoy life. Yet we still seem to work so much? What for, why are we driven to work so much? A large part of our expenses are on consumerist shite which we probably don't need but feel good about buying because we typically feel so bad. So one solution is to simply be happier and hence need less stuff, and hence need to work less, in turn giving us more time to enjoy life. The cycle can however spin the other way too. It we work harder we end up having less freetime and often feel less happy and hence buy more crap we don't need and then need to work all the harder to afford the lifestyle we become accustomed too.

I suppose the big question here is what sort of society do we want to live in? I personally feel that a welfare liberal society will create a happier and more stable society, who will in turn be more positive and also, rather ironically, achieve more by doing less. Work smarter, not harder... thats something we should be remembering here. When i say achieve, i don't mean make lots of money, what kind of fucking goal is that? I believe that a welfare liberal society will support more environmental awareness, more equality, a closing of the gap between the rich and the poor, a reduction in exploitation and material greed. I believe it will allow morals and ethics to resurface, for our race to become all the more learned, and wise, with the knowledge that we live to support we believe in, and that those values should not be how many golden coins we can stuff into our pockets.

Many people yell angrily when leftists talk about government intervention and raise a whole bunch of valid points about how the money is often lost in beurocratic systems and so forth. This is true to some degree but there are two simple answers to it:
1) in a free-market economy the same ridiculous "loss" of money would occur, even on a much greater scale, except that it would be done by large corporate businesses that will come to dominate certain sectors in life.
2) I believe the welfare liberal government would eventually, over time and with the development of our values, become a much fairer and honest system than many governments such as those we have today.

As a further point I would much rather have the government held accountable for what goes on in the world that giant corporations who have no interest except profit. I want ethics to matter, I want humans to be treated like I feel humans should be. As I said in “Classical Liberalism vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?” "A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness."

This is all well and good Sam you argue, but what are we going to do about it? Well realistically it might be hard to completely change how the world is run in one day, but then again it took them a fair arse long time to build rome so... One step a time tiger. The beginning, like so many things, starts in the mind. It starts in us collectively wanting and craving a change, and hence demanding it, hence supporting it, hence living it. If you believe in a society where the environment counts buy recycled toilet paper. Yes it will cost you a buck more, but it will mean that you are craving, demanding, supporting and living the life you choose, on the smallest level perhaps, but just imagine the potential for mass change. Imagine if everyone took that mentality, imagine if everyone bought recycled toilet paper... i think you see where i'm getting at... Alone we are divided, but together we are strong.

God, I do sound like a communist. Anyway, theres so much more I could right, but i'll save that for another rant. I think I've gotten the broader picture across. Remember to live life as you want it to be, not as you feel forced to by society. What ever made social norms right? Just because everyone else is being a stingy capitalist and cutting down all our trees to save a buck on toilet paper doesn't mean you have to. Now go out there and do your bit by buying some recycled toiletry accessories...


PS: A special thank you to the all philosophical Dominic Jarkey, for giving me the courage to get off my arse and write something inspiring. Bless you matey, for firstly sneezing into recycled tissue paper, and secondly and perhaps more importantly for simply being there for a friend in need.

Is Guilt a Useless Emotion?

Today I wish to question the use of guilt as an emotion. Guilt is typically defined as feeling culpable and responsible for things past or possibly for things still to come. However isn’t this a little odd as why should we worry about things we have no control over? If you got angry at your good friend the other day then why feel guilty today? Please don’t get me wrong, realising that what you did was perhaps uncalled for or wrong is perfectly fine, but there is no need to then place a burden upon yourself which will make your life all the worse, this will only add to the damage the initial anger caused. Having an appreciation of how mistakes can be improved is fine, but don’t view it in a negative way.

Guilt is a negative emotion and as such can be very destructive. I know that I personally have a problem with being too hard on myself. I beat myself up about small things and drive myself into the ground for any mistakes made. This problem is also probably linked to the fact that I’m a bit of a perfectionist. Thus my standards are too high, and I can never meet them. Not meeting my expectations leads me to feeling guilty and aggravated which causes a negative cycle and then its all downhill from there.

An interesting example of this would have to be when I played competition tennis at age 15 or so. Coincidentally the tennis has been broadcasting on Australian TV recently as the Australian open is going on in Melbourne. Or perhaps I should say it is concluding in Melbourne as today is also the day of the finals. Anyway, I started playing tennis at around 12 and by the time I was 15 I was, trying not to sound to vain here, quite competent really. However when at 15 I started doing competition tennis I found to my dismay that I would lose pretty much all of my matches, even when my opponents had terrible technique and were obviously far worse than me (technically). Why was this? Ultimately I believe it was due to the stress and guilt I placed upon myself and how I would play badly due to putting myself in a negative state of mind, by beating myself up internally. Basically I’d make one bad shot, give myself a difficult time about it and then never manage to psychologically pick up my game again. Hence I would make a huge amount of unforced errors.

What I’m getting at is that tennis is a very psychological game. I always like to compare it to a fight. When talking singles its just you and the opponent. Hence if they win a point there’s only one person to blame, and that’s yourself. I’d come back each Saturday feeling despondent and being unhappy as well as angry with myself for having yet again lost, normally to an inferior opponent.

Guilt is an overrated emotion. Often people feel guilt for things they did years ago, and while it is good that they wish not to repeat that it is not good that they live in anxiety and fear of that past. Accepting responsibility is immensely important and I encourage it 100%, but it need not lead to guilt. Guilt is a waste of our time. If you do something wrong you accept it, you take responsibility for it, but you do not beat yourself up about it. Where does beating yourself up get you? Nowhere fast would be an appropriate answer, or perhaps the answer should be backwards.

Try watching a game of tennis some time, you’ll understand just how psychological it is. Not that any other sport isn’t of course, but I suppose as I used to play it I understand it particularly well. Its interesting to see that someone who was playing badly can turn their game around or vice-versa, all as a result of mood. Its obvious that being in a good mood can improve not only your actual performance but how you perceive that performance. Allow me to explain:

Imagine yourself playing a game of tennis, and you’re in a really good, positive frame of mind. Typically that means that the positive frame of mind will fuel you and make you play all the better. But even if you still lose (which isn’t to say that the positive thinking isn’t making you play better), you can still think “wow that was a great game of tennis and despite losing I played a good game.” Unfortunately I was never mature enough to think this back when I played tennis, but somewhat ironically it can’t just be thought but sincerely believed, otherwise the thought is like someone else saying it and you saying “bollocks, I played terribly and got beaten as a result.” Personally I find the first, more positive outlook much better and I think it also helps people to perform better too, not to mention just living a more enjoyable life generally.

So where does guilt come into all this? Well, as I mentioned earlier, guilt is a negative emotion and negative thoughts lead to negative results, at least such has always been my personal experience. Taking responsibility for your actions is all well and good, but dwelling on past and potential future failings is psychologically harmful. Indeed the Buddhist philosophy of “Living in the Now…:” coincides with the idea that we should not live in the past or the future, but rather in the ever evolving period of now. Guilt is an escape from the present, inserting worries over which we don’t have control, over what is done, or not yet even the case.

Maybe I’m naïve and foolish to believe that guilt is overrated, but I honestly feel that so much could be gained and that people could move on and better themselves so much more if guilt were at very least toned down, if not eliminated. As the science daily website http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516081014.htm argues, self-compassion (the ability to treat ourselves kindly) is extremely important. As it puts it: “Life’s tough enough with little things that happen. Self-compassion helps to eliminate a lot of the anger, depression and pain we experience when things go badly for us”. Surely self compassion would be not putting yourself through unneeded pains and anger in the form of guilt.

Remember that getting ride of guilt and hence being more compassionate to ourselves need not remove responsibility. As the science daily site explains: “Self-compassion allowed people to accept responsibility for a negative experience, but to counteract bad feelings about it.” The website also explains how “researchers found that: People with higher self-compassion had less negative emotional reactions to real, remembered and imagined bad events.” It certainly seems that eradicating guilt and with it needless negative tensions yields more positive results. As though in proof of my hypothesis Djokovic just won the Australian Open, despite losing the first set. He kept his cool though and didn’t beat himself up, and it ended up earning him a fancy trophy. I imagine professional sportsmen must have to have be psychologically strong to, else they could not win. The minute a sportsmen starts blaming himself for what he did wrong, it all goes down hill.

So I feel that we as a society or as a species perhaps, must learn to reduce our susceptibility to unneeded guilt. For the third or so time I will stress that taking responsibility is not what I have a problem with, it is doing this by psychologically crippling yourself which I have a problem with. Worrying about all the bad things you have done in life won’t help fix them, only truly accepting responsibility for your actions and by trying to work to improve on how you act can. Guilt is useless, its role is destructive not constructive and as such it should be avoided.

Positive Thinking:

Positive thinking is essentially just thinking in an optimistic manner, in contrast to thinking in a pessimistic way. How we perceive the world and let external influences effect us is in large part a subjective process and we can see it either negatively or positively, the essential argument I wish to make is why not view life positively? Positive thinking may certainly sound like a wanky concept, and trust me once upon a time I would have laughed it off as superstitious shite, but today I am all the wiser for coming to terms with it.

I have an uncle who is, as all my uncles, are a good fellow. However whenever I talk to him on the phone I swear he sounds depressed. I told him once to not be so pessimistic and instead be more optimistic. In reply he stated simply that he was being realistic. Well and good, but what I think he was not understanding is that we in large part define what is real. We choose how we react to a situation. Sure influences themselves may be caused outside our sphere of influence, but we still ultimately have a large amount of control in regards to how we react to a given situation.

Let me give you a bizarre example that sticks in my mind. Let us say you go for a stroll around the block, just to stretch your legs, and in doing so you fall and unfortunately break one of your legs. Your instinct is of course to get very angry at the fact that you’ve broken one of your legs and that you can’t ride your bike anymore or whatever other negative thoughts seem to seep into your mind. However a positive thinker might say “right well, I’ve broken my leg that is a bit unfortunate but I suppose things could have been worse, after all I still have the other leg to get home on, and at least its not hailing.” Odd I know, hence why it seems ridiculous. But out of the two responses to the situation which would you rather be? Neither is right or wrong for in the world of the subjective such concepts are intangible. Given that both responses accept what has happened and are as such not denying reality I would much rather be the optimist. Sure there’d be distress at the broken leg, but on the bright side it would soon heal and at least the unfortunate victim in our scenario would be able to gain back his ability to walk on two legs.

So here is where my uncle was wrong. You can indeed be both a realist and an optimist, much as you can be a realist and a pessimist. Admittedly there is a lot wrong in our world and the media serves largely to make us feel bad about it, but this still doesn’t mean we can’t accept the reality and approach it positively. To say that being negative is being realistic simply isn’t so, one can be negatively realistic or optimistically realistic, the way we approach something needn’t change how real it is. However as I addressed in “TPOH – The Media…:”, the negative image painted to us constantly by our ever loyal media really doesn’t help.

The benefits of thinking positively are well known, firstly you’ll increase your chances of enjoying life and secondly you’ll be more likely to, as a result, do better in many ways in life. So let us all be realistically positive, as why would anyone want to do otherwise and be unhappy and depressed?

Changing your thinking is however, not an easy task. Its easy to consciously say, “right I’ll start thinking more positive now”, in practice however the subconscious does not implement this so easily. The idea of “Living in the Now…:” and appreciating things in their current state I find helps one to think positively. Take the process of change slowly, simply try to see the good things in life over and instead of the bad. Try to shift your focus. If it’s raining as your walking home at least think “I’ve got a place with a roof to go to, somewhere to get dry, and for that I’m thankful.” Give it a go, shift negative thoughts to positive ones. Think “I can” instead of “I can’t”, these little psychological changes can create a huge difference to how you live your life. The tricky part is that its not only a matter of saying “life is good”, but also believing it, or else you will simply feel like you are lying to yourself. I don’t promise that this change will happen over night, but it will certainly happen if you put your mind to it, and in turn will make life all the more enjoyable. So think positively and “Carpe Diem”.

The Middle Way:

Recently I have begun to learn about Buddhism, purely out of self interest. I personally am atheist, but Buddhism definitely has some interesting ideas to offer. One idea it offers in the notion of living ““In the Now:”” which I have already written an article on. The other great idea that Buddhism promotes is the ideal of “the middle way”.

Essentially “the middle way” is a theory of moderation and balance. It is also known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism. It preaches that one can have too much or to little of something and that happiness and a good life is always found somewhere between the extremes. From the limited lectures I have heard on Buddhism I understand that the great Buddha himself starved himself for some time when he wanted to reach enlightenment. Thus there are pictures of him deathly thin during this stage that survive in artworks today. Needless to say the Buddha realised that starvation was one extreme and was therefore something that in actual fact, due to its extreme nature, inhibited him from reaching nirvana and all the connotations of happiness that go with it. “The middle way” thus became seen as a path taken by the Buddha to avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other. Thus the notion of “the middle way’, stressing the importance of balance in all things, came into being.

However the idea of “the middle way” is not complex and need not necessarily involve any true appreciation of the Buddhist religion. As I have said I myself am atheist but the idea of leading a balanced life makes perfect sense to me. I think most people would agree that balance is important in all things. I mean, I can not think of one single thing were balance is not required. Even take something as seemingly harmless as water, if you don’t get enough you die of dehydration, yet if you get too much, you drown!

The question should not really be whether balance is appropriate or not, but rather how one finds this balance and where on a spectrum it should be. Still, the importance of balance it seems, still needs to be advocated as it seems that many people still haven’t really gotten the idea into their heads. Its important to realise that this notion of “the middle way” is not confined to the material and what is done, but also how things are done and how people think.

The idea of balance as conveyed in “the middle way” has also been known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism, and this I think, conveys its origins very well. Extremes are never good, they are unhealthy, they are damaging. Obsessions, addictions and other extremist tendencies ruin peoples lives, hence they should be avoided. The principles behind “the middle way” are simple yet effective, as balance seems to be the one key to life.

Where exactly balance lies, is not an easy question and in many ways I suppose it could be subjective and hence depend on the individual. The problem here is that many individuals stuck with some obsession are often in denial. This fact makes it rather hard for them to really have an understanding of balance and their lack of it.

Allow me to use some examples from an interesting nutritional perspective that support this principle of balance. Nutrition seems to be an area I know a fair bit more about that I really probably need to, probably as I got obsessively interested in it in a rather “unbalanced” sort of way during my last year of school. Needless to say the obsession has caused some nasty habits, but thankfully I’m at least no longer in denial about it and that’s the first step to reaching moderation! Now, onto the information:

A few years ago I essentially came across the simple facts that for example, non-alcohol drinkers live longer than alcohol drinkers and that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. At first this all made sense as it saw an obvious link between meat and alcohol with various health risks which decreased average lifespan. However, later results revealed something interesting. While for example non-alcohol drinkers lived longer than alcohol drinkers at large, the group that lived the longest were in fact those that drank small amounts. Amounts which could be described as “balanced”, and “in moderation”. As http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1106591095.html states:

“Research extending back as far as 1926 has demonstrated that drinking in moderation is associated with greater longevity than is either abstaining or abusing alcohol. The medical research evidence is now unquestionable and demonstrates that the effect is not the result of health-compromised alcoholics who abstain. When studies restrict abstainers to lifelong teetotalers the result is the same. Nor is it the result of moderate drinkers having better overall health habits. When lifestyle factors are taken into consideration, the result remains. And the effect occurs not only for red wine but also for white wine, beer, and liquor or distilled spirits.”

Similarly it was found that while vegetarians lived longer than meat-eaters, it was those people who ate meat only infrequently in moderated amounts that lived the longest of all. The obvious conclusion I have come to from this evidence is that it is not so much exactly what they are doing, but what it represents that is important here. Those who eat no-meat for example are most likely extreme to some degree, as are those who pig out on hamburgers all day. In contrast, those that live a happy, balanced life and as such one which isn’t extreme, don’t deny themselves things which may be a little bad for them (in this case seen as alcohol and meat) but simply make sure to enjoy small amounts of it in moderation. Thus they live a happy unrestrictive lifestyle in which they get enjoyment and through moderation good healthy, both physically and psychologically.

So I personally believe it is the fact that those who can moderate what they eat and drink and do etc, live longer as they are probably happier with who they are and more content in there day to day lives than the others who either over-indulge, or refuse to indulge at all. So here we come full-circle to Buddha’s personal experiences which led him to, as I said earlier, “avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other.”

The importance of balance in life cannot be understated, and it is important to remember that all things are ultimately in balance. Extremes are primitive, try your hardest to avoid them. Remember too that the state of mind is greatly important here to. If you forced yourself to only eat limited amounts of meat and drink limited amounts of alcohol you’d probably find that you wouldn’t live as long as those who do it without being forced, simply because again you are being extreme by forcing yourself to do something constantly. What you need is a combination of discipline and desire.

So go find balance in life. Find “the middle path”. I hope you do, and that it brings you contentment ““In the Now:”” and a happier, less stressful life. Happiness seems to come with moderation and balance, at least, that’s certainly what I’ve found to be the case.

Nature vs. Nurture – An Intelligent Issue:

Often I have asked the question is Intelligence a genetically inherited trait or one endowed by the environment? Obviously it is a combination of the two, but we must wonder if one of these factors dominates the issue more than the other. Historically it was noted that intelligent people typically had intelligent children and that intelligence seemed to run in families. The early principles of eugenics confirmed this and there is a fair bit of evidence to prove that intelligence runs in families. However this hardly means it is all genetic. Granted there are genetic links here, but we must also accept that substantial evidence shows that environmental influences in life also play a huge role in matters of intellect.

If we take, for simplicities sake, IQ to be an accurate measurement of intelligence (which it isn’t really), then we can see that as per usual neither factor alone determines intelligence. It is interesting to see that “Various tests have shown that there is a socio-economic link to IQ as people who are better off financially score 17 point higher on IQ tests than those financially disadvantaged people who take the same exam.” (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) This certainly stands to prove that a good environment strongly allows one to develop to ones greatest potential. It is also important to note that 17 points on the IQ test is quite a considerable amount.

As I argued in “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” it has also been shown that learning a language and learning a musical instrument are the two best ways to increase the brains neuroplasticity (its ability to create and strengthen links). The previously mentioned website (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) also notes that “cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language.” So in many ways it would seem that environmental influences can greatly enhance ones ability to reach a higher IQ (or intelligence). Many of the activities that affect us seem to particularly potent if they are done at a younger age. If you learn a second language and an instrument at a young age it allows your brain to be all the more flexible than if you learnt these things at an older age. Similarly mothers who are pregnant and eat a bit of fish (or other foods containing omega-3) often have children who are ever so slightly smarter. See the “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, if you want to learn more about the amazing benefits of omega-3. I also noted in “The Many Benefits of Exercise – Part 3:”, that exercise has great benefits for the brain. There is also scientific evidence that has concluded that lab mice who had the ability to run and did were more intelligent than there counterparts who did not run.

However all of these environmental things seem to be allowing us to fuller realise our potential. I suppose it would thus seem to be the case that it is ultimately genetics which set our potential in the first placel. However this has not been conclusively provien. There was a rather controversial book released in 1994 known as THE BELL CURVE. Ultimately its research into twins who were raised apart or together seemed to suggest that genetics played the biggest role in intelligence. Unfortunately the book then goes on to make some rather racist associations between whites and blacks which are completely unfounded and very naïve. It has spawned a great deal of controversy and several books have been written in response to it, so it is hardly the holy grail of nature vs. nurture in regards to intelligence. None the less the studies within are interesting and do have some scientific validity in associating a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence.

Still, like all of the nature and nurture articles I have written the answer seems to be that ultimately it is a combination of nature and nurture which affects who and what we are. If genetically you are born with no brain obviously you’ll never be a genius. Equally, if you are born a genius and have a serious brain injury then you may well no longer be a genius. Neither category (nature of nurture) should be excluded, and it wasn’t my intent to do so. My research into the area is rather inconclusive and to be honest this doesn’t surprise me.

So what does all this research teach us? What can we learn from this? My advice would be that we must accept that, yes, genetics do play a role in many of our characteristics including how intelligent we are/could potentially be. However, this need not mean we can’t improve ourselves! To think that would be self-defeating. It is a fact of life that the person next to you might be smarter and hence be able to learn twice as fast as you, but is that any reason to give up learning all together? In the end being disciplined and studious seems to pay off more than pure intellect, as I know rather a few smart people who simply don’t care about their academic work and as a result do rather horribly.

Genetics are often viewed as a boundary. However this is often used as an excuse for inaction. Personally I’d rather see genetics as a realistic simple fact of life. If your dumb or short or uncoordinated it needn’t be the end of the world. Just because you are born brilliant doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t become it. Even if your genetics in a certain department aren’t good doesn’t mean you can’t at very least improve somewhat. Typically people can at very least reach an average level of ability in anything despite setbacks. Maybe you don’t have the brains of a natural born scientist, but who the hell says that doesn’t mean you can’t give it your best and try and become one anyway? Why let the fact that you have bellow average genetics for intelligence (which how do you even concretely know anyway, remember the IQ is hardly a good test of intelligence) get in the way of you trying to do your best?

I’ve recently been reading a book about small business (LINK TO BOOK?) in which there is a rather empowering section on not giving up. It essentially gives the outline of an unlucky man’s life, including how this fellow was rejected from parliament on several occasions. However he didn’t give up and in 1860 he eventual managed to become president. That man was Abraham Lincoln, a man who in hindsight people couldn’t imagine as anything but a president. Maybe he wasn’t a born politician, maybe he was but he got unlucky on the way, regardless the point is that he was determined to become something and he didn’t let setbacks or difficulties stop him from trying.

Another interesting fact I can throw in is that a national geographic program called “My brilliant brain” had an episode about Susan Polgar. Essentially her father, a psychologist, believed that the greatest factor to becoming very good at something was simply practice and not natural ability. Susan was then raised to become a champion chess player, and sure enough she did. Her family has no history of great chess players yet her and her two sisters who were brought up similarly, simply played lots of chess and became extremely good through discipline and devotion. It makes one question whats more important, what we start with, or how we use it? In many ways I am inclined to think that the later is more important, as no matter how good we start if we don’t use our talent it is wasted. The later view is also more empowering as it essentially argues that anyone can excel at anything with practice and devotion.

It’s true that genetics limit us, and its important that we take a realistic perspective on how they do. If you’re in your mid-thirties and only one metre tall chances are you’re not going to grow any more. That’s something you can’t change so the only real answer is to try and accept it and move on to change the things we can control. A realistic yet positive outlook would accept various limitations by genetics yet still be optimistic in encouraging positive change and trying to be the best we can. It is unfair to expect anything else and foolish to let genetics provide you with an excuse for never at least trying. All too often genetics become a scapegoat for mediocrity or even worse simply not attempting something. While the limitations placed upon us by gravity, genetics and other limiting things starting with the letter G (maybe guerrillas?), should be accepted and seen as a simple fact of life, we should not get dismayed by these facts. We should simply change our plan of attack to target something we can change, influence and do something about. So look out for killer guerrillas (Jesus, it rhymes!) and other than that enjoy life and live it to its fullest. Change isn’t easy, but its all the easier if you believe you can do it and do think things like “I’d like to do it by genetics won’t let me.” So make a realistic goal that your genetics will allow and shoot, shoot to win, (or slow down rampant guerrillas, the choice is yours)!

The Philosophy of Happiness – Accepting Yourself

If you don’t like who you are you’re not going to be happy now are you? There is a fundamental need to accept oneself before one can be happy. Most of us who are in some way unhappy dislike something about ourselves and hence envision our happier counterpart as someone with very different characteristics. This subconsciously drills into our mind the notion that we cannot be happy simply as we are and therefore puts a condition upon happiness. If this condition is reached all well and good, but if its not (which most often it isn’t) then if you do not change your thinking you are doomed to a life of unhappiness. Not a pretty thing really. What I’m suggesting is that there is some link between being content with who and what you are and being happy. Indeed the words happy and contented are synonyms.

Who cares if your fat, short and poor, why does that mean you can’t be happy? Why do we let the media do this to us? We’ll we don’t really, at least I know that I too am affected by the same stereotypes and I certainly don’t give them my consent to tap into my subconscious as they do, particularly in such a negative way. The irony is that consciously we know that the media’s ideal is bollocks, rubbish, fake and unrealistic, we're not stupid, yet subconsciously we still absorb and believe the ideas we are feed. This is simply because the mindless repetition of the media's ideals become ingrained in our very thought processes. This is essentially how the subconscious mind operates.

The Subconscious mind stores far more than the conscious mind yet the conscious mind’s information is more direct and controlling. The idea of affirmations are that we should affirm things we wish to be the case, as it will in turn allow us to accept them and allow our subconscious mind to act upon them. It’s a rather strange idea which if you haven’t heard before might confuse you for a while. What’s more the whole thing is mood controlled.

Allow me to use a simple demonstration. If you need to do something difficult and you think “I can’t do it”, its quite likely you won’t manage to do it, for one reason or another. If on the other hand the same difficult situation had been approached with a more positive “I can do it” sort of attitude, then suddenly your chances of succeeding are much higher. It’s funny how the subconscious mind works. Having faith in yourself is unfortunately not an easy thing to do.

Unfortunately we live in a rather negatively tuned environment. I’ve already noted that the media tend to not only be unrealistic and so forth but tend to focus on negative qualities and events. See “The Philosophy of Happiness – The Media & Unrealistic Expectations:” for further details. By focusing on negative qualities it becomes far to easy for us to blame ourselves and to beat ourselves up internally. We don’t accept or like who we are and thus we think negatively. Thus we wish to change to be something we do like and in doing so place a condition upon happiness in assuming that one must become or do that thing to be happy. A fantastic example is of course the media’s emphasise on people being thin. So many of us strive for this ideal yet the whole time you aren’t at the stage you want to be and are still unhappy and as such are highly unlikely to get to the stage you want to, in turn making you unhappier. This leads to a negative cycle of blame, guilt and unhappiness. Life is spent striving for an ideal to make you happy and in doing so you are not content "in the now" and remain unhappy. (The idea of being happy "in the now" is discussed further in:“Living in the Now –The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen:”)

What we should of course do is simply enjoy and love ourselves simply for being what and who we are. To view life through a realistic yet positive lens and be content with where we are. That way if we never get anywhere at least we can be happy. The true irony however, is that often being content with who you are makes it easier for you to follow your own desire to do something. The example of losing body fat is again pertinent here. If we are happy with where we were we’ll paradoxically be more able to follow through on our own wishes and change ourselves, funny that. At the very worst you accept yourself for being fatter and simply live life happy and not worrying and stressing yourself over your weight.

Think about it, you may never lose the weight but at least you can be happy. Only you know how hard you may have tried to lose weight and how it failed each time. Indeed it’s statistically proven and has been said by the famous Tom Venuto in his Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle, that 95% of conventional diets fail. Why is this? More often than not it’s a psychological issue as I commented in “Why Diets Don’t Work”.

America has been dieting for years, and with it the average weight has gone up. As the ideal media weight goes further and further down so too does the average weight rise. Why you ask? A large part is no doubt environmental. There is a problem with America and food being so cheap and plentiful. However there is also another side to the problem and that is simply that people are never happy with how they are, so they try drastic things to change like going on ridiculous diets. They are unhappy the whole time, as they are not happy with themselves. They see little progress as goals and expectations are far to high and they ultimately fail. Then they get depressed and eat. This leads them to get more upset, often angry and frustrated and creates a negative cycle that endlessly fulfils itself all while spiralling further downwards. The evidence seems obvious in how fat countries are getting with the same rise in dieting.

Now as I said, don’t get me wrong, environmental issues clearly play a large role, but psychologically there is something here too. People just aren’t happy with how they are, they just aren’t accepting of their own selfs. I want you to look into the mirror and see that what stares back at you however fat, however tall, however lopsided and ugly is the vessel that you find yourself in. That thing gives you life, it gives you experience, it gives you both pleasure and pain. It is god in a sense. Get rid of it and you get rid of yourself. That’s not to say you can’t alter its exterior, but remember, its simply an exterior. The real you is more so what’s inside it, what makes the vessel do what it does.

To be healthy and well requires not only physically doing the right thing but psychologically feeling that you are doing the right thing. Accepting yourself is an important piece in the vast jigsaw puzzle of total-wellbeing that will help to make life a more enjoyable ride and probably bring greater results as a paradoxical added bonus. Indeed Studies have shown that people who are happier live longer:
http://www.health-and-happiness.info/happiness/happiness-increases-longevitywhere-do-we-find-this-gift-of-life.html, so there’s got to be something to it.

Essentially being happy will make life worth living and quite possibly make it not only of better quality, but of longer duration. Happier people are also more likely to create positive change, help the world and generally get more done. So whats the secret to being happy? Well there is no one clear cut simple answer, but the first step to anyone being truly happy involves accepting yourself. You cannot truly love others and the world you find yourself in and thus be happy, until you love yourself. You have to come to terms with yourself, its always the way. So how can you go about it? My suggestion would be to go and do something nice and simple, not something hedonistic, but rather something seemingly spiritual. Go and sit in a nice garden and simply sit and watch the plants, and give yourself time to relax and accept yourself. Never force yourself against your will, work with yourself, cooperation can yield even greater benefits than competition, particularly when it is of an internal nature.

So go now, and be at one with yourself. I mean why the hell not? We only live once, we deserve to love ourselves, at very least. So even if all you’ve got time for is a quick sit down on your floor and a gentle five minute pause where you simply focus on how wonderfully intricate life is, than so be it. But trust me, do at least this, the dividends you will reap by accepting and coming to terms with yourself are worth far more than anything else we can fathom.

Virtual Reality – Step Into This Giant Hamster Wheel, the Future Awaits...

As a child I was rather fond of a good computer game. To be honest I really don’t see it as greatly disconnected from reading a book. Indeed in some ways I see it as potentially freer as plotlines can be more malleable. Having said that its important to realist that books leave more to the imagination and probably in that sense use creativity more than computer games. Even so I think in essence both are quite similar. Of course with the stress of my final years of school I sort of phased out of computer games and nowadays I don’t play them at all.

Thus as a child I was never particularly fit, such is to be expected of one who does little exercise. However I always liked the idea of virtual reality for computer games as it would allow one to experience another world and not just mentally imagine it or visually see it but also interact with it. Jump, climb, run and fight within a 3D environment, ohh what fun it would be, and how damn fit you’d get! Getting fit and doing regular exercise helps the body in a myriad of ways: “The Many Benefits of Exericse, Part 1:” Think about it, fitness would become integral to a games plot line. If you weren’t fit it would be that much harder to play the game, in turn encouraging you to get fitter as you played more. Getting better at a game would not only involve understanding how it works and having good finger reflexes but also a good level of fitness, all of which could be developed by running around in a giant hamster wheel, well, essentially anyway.

Yes, the giant hamster wheel is for real. I found it at good old Science Daily. Here is the link I’m primarily drawing off for those of you who enjoy further research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0409-the_new_virtual_reality.htm

Essentially what has been developed is like a mouse’s running wheel except much larger, big enough for humans that is, and instead of being circular being spherical. Of course the technology is still primitive in how it reacts with the computers I’m sure but, its still an impressive feat to invent this wheel which turns on the spot allowing you to run in any direction. It is also said that it allows you to jump, although I’m still not quite sure how. There are still flaws this is obvious, but it’s a damn good start and its happened far sooner than I would ever have anticipated.

Virtual reality has an absolutely huge amount of potential, just imagine the possibilities for a second. They mention education and training for emergency services such as firemen as well as of course computer games. Computer games could become a way of not only zoning out to have some fun (much like reading a book, watching a movie or playing a contemporary computer game) except with the added benefit of moving the body around and the extra sensation of actually being there.

I’ve certainly always been attracted to the idea of getting and staying fit and healthy through something I consider as engaging and fun as a good computer game. Admittedly certain games I’d enjoy such as many strategy games wouldn’t benefit from this technology, however there are still a large amount of games that could. In a sense I suppose the Wii is the precursor to movement based games, and there was even some guy on the internet who blogged about his weight loss adventure using the Wii as a form of exercise. (“Wii Sports: Lose Weight With Wii Sports”) Personally I don’t think the Wii really cuts much of a workout and I think that running around and jumping and slaying barbarians or whatever it is your doing in some adventure game would be far more physically beneficial than the Wii. Whats more it would be a very entertaining form of exercise, and could literally phase out most conventional exercise! Fitness would as I said before become integral to gameplay, just like how fitter people perform better at various sports (and obviously people who have trained more and developed other skills more) Most young people love computer games and I’m sure that if and when this technology becomes widely available (when I cannot say but I’d guess within say 10 years or less) that most young people will become far fitter than they would otherwise be.

Of course virtual reality isn’t really a substitute for real life and all the great things that we get from simply going outdoors. It would be imperative that people still got time outdoors for many benefits from vitamin D from the sun to simply psychologically connecting with our environment. Indeed the whole virtual reality idea while appealing in many ways is also rather scary, as the thought of a generation of people who have no need to leave home what so ever scares me. Although I suppose in many ways were half way there. But with virtual reality on such a level people could literally lose touch with the real reality. I can imagine people interacting socially through the internet with virtual reality, and conducting business virtually and maybe even going to work virtually… it would be like the matrix all over again!

Still as usual it’s not the technology that is at fault. The technology is simply knowledge neither good nor evil in itself. Rather, its how that knowledge is applied that will determine whether it is good or bad. Personally I’m inclined to think that it will bring many positive changes, and hopefully the negative changes can be kept to a minimum. So what are you waiting for (other than the technology of course)? Simply step into this giant hamster wheel, the future awaits...

Nature vs. Nurture – The Unending Debate Part 2:

Genetics definitely play a large role in how we turn out in life, this is quite obvious. If you’ve ever seen identical twins or even just similar brothers and sisters you can often see similar features such as face shape or eye and hair colour, this is largely genetically based. However the evident problem here is that these siblings share quite similar environments, which makes it hard to really say that its all genetically based. However it is certain that some traits are far more genetically based than others and some are more within our control than others.

Often people seem to use genetics as an excuse. For instance someone may believe they have genetics which make them rather slow at thinking, and therefore decide to avoid an academic life as they don’t think they could possibly compete. Maybe they’re right, but there is also a large chance that even if they are right they could still be an academic through determination and vigorous application to studying. What seems to happen here is that genetics determine how well someone reacts to a certain environment, but obviously that isn’t the whole picture, because then it comes down to how often the genetics get the chance to interact with the environment. Allow me to try and explain with an example. Person A may have a good ability to gain muscle, whereas person B may have a below average ability to build muscle. However, if person A were to not exercise regularly and lead a rather lazy life whereas Person B kept quite fit and exercised regularly as well as eating well then Person B would most likely be quite well muscled. Most people would in comparing them think “ahh Person B has a unique ability to gain muscle”, but in fact this is simply not so, Person B in fact has a disadvantage in our comparison yet he still comes out on top due to simple persistence and determination.

Similarly you may have a genetic tendency to get diabetes or high cholesterol, but that in itself does not doom you to either. Rather it means that it is easier for you to get these medical problems and that therefore you may have to try a little harder to avoid them then people who are not so genetically prone. A healthy balanced lifestyle should keep you from ever developing the problems as while the genetic potential is there it is never being realised (and in this case it is a good thing that the potential isn’t being realised)! At the same time it is important that we realise the genetic limitations that are unique to each person. You certainly can gain more muscle than another person with identical genes by training, but maybe you will never be a professional Olympic-lifter as you simply lack the muscle and joint strength. Its not to say you couldn’t do Olympic-lifting and have fun and keep fit all while improving your strength, it is however to say that you must realise that if you have certain genetics you may not be able to go pro. Realising these limits need not be pessimistic, it is simply trying to put a realistic perspective on life. As http://www.maxwellsfitnessprograms.com/pdf/GENETICS%20OF%20A%20TRIATHLETE.pdf states:
“Accepting your genetics is by no means negative or limiting. It is quite the opposite. It is taking control of all the things you can to be the best you can be.”

It is important not to think of Genes as dominating the environment in a causal way. As http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm argues: “Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.”
Genes are dependant on the environment to be expressed, and the environment is dependant on genes to have a basis for expression. The two work together, they are mutually inclusive and intertwined, in reality the nature vs. nurture debate is a little silly as the two categories should never really be split as they are. Another article (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2820222/Blinded-by-Science-Nature-via.html), put this nicely in saying:
“We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle.”

In my opinion some things are simply more determined by environment or as the case may be genetics. If you’re fat you may be predisposed to gaining fat but you can most likely lose it through exercising and eating healthy. In contrast changing your eye colour could be rather more difficult! What’s more there also needs to be a distinction made between simple genes (genotype) and genes which have then also been set to a certain degree by early environmental influences (phenotypes). That is to say that everyone has a fat storing gene (although if your unlucky you may have a few more), but there tendency to store fat can be greatly effected by the diet of the mother while the baby is still prenatal. I remember reading a study about it in identical (presumably cloned) mice. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find it again. All I remember was that these mice were genetically identical and while they were all in their genetically identical mothers they were split into two groups. The control group ate a typical western diet high in saturated fat and sugar while the other group ate a much more healthy diet. Once both groups had given birth to the technically genetically identical groups of babies they put them all on the control group diet (the crappy American style diet) and they noticed that the original control group gained far more weight and had a far greater likelihood of developing diabetes and other problems on the rather unhealthy diet. The irony is that the other group didn’t even though they were genetically identical. This shows that the initial interaction with the environment sets the genes at differing levels (phenotype), and this is ultimately nearly as important as the genes themselves.

Regardless of all this essentially what I wanted to get around to saying was that we can’t change our genes, or how they are set. At least not at this stage, and the prospect of changing them certainly brings up odd ethical questions. But, we can at very least control our environment to a degree and make it as best we can to help how our genes express themselves in the future. If you unfit then you can exercise regularly and eat well and improve your fitness, regardless of your genes. Maybe your neighbour can get fit quicker than you but who really cares? The point is you’re doing something good for yourself, and that’s all that matters in the end.

I think this whole article about genetics brings up a really important issue relating to competition which essentially argues that we should only really compete with ourselves. Its often far to unfair to compete with other people as they may often not be on a similar level whether it be genetically or from environmental exposure. Thus instead of racing against the Olympic marathon runners times simply race against your own best time. Who cares if its ten times as long, if you improve your time only a little bit you are still improving, and in the end that’s all that matters. I suppose a nice way to conclude on genetics is to say that not everyone can be a professional athlete within a certain field, otherwise there amazing performances wouldn’t be seen as nearly as amazing as they are. But even so that is not to say that every singly one of us can work with what we’ve got and improve.

Nature vs. Nurture – Part 1:

Obviously the nature vs. nurture debate is not clear-cut. It is going to be some sort of balance between the two, this is not really in question, rather were on the continuum between genes and environment does the end point lie? As I mentioned in,“Nature vs. Nurture – A Short Introduction:”, the prelude/introduction to this article historically there have been trends, first starting with a genetic emphasis in the 1800’s and then moving more to an environment based approach in the mid 1900’s. I like to think of it as rather like a pendulum swinging. Its gone from one extreme to the other and now gravity (which I suppose in our metaphor would be scientific research) is slowly doing its thing and bringing it closer to the middle. I’m sure most people would agree with me up to here, this all seems rather self-evident. However then you must realise that certain things about us seem to be more genetically determined, and other more environmentally determined. To keep with our previous allegory we must now imagine a pendulum for every characteristic, both physical and psychological for each human being. Suddenly we have a large amount of pendulums!

Take a characteristic like eye colour and you can see that genetics seem to play by far the larger role in this instance. Once you are born with a certain eye colour, seldom do they change. In contrast while some people may build muscle better than others it is possible for all individuals to increase their lean muscle weight with the correct training and decent nutrition. In fact many people with not so great muscle building genetics can still become much more muscular than their genetically superior counterparts who don’t exercise. Arnold Schwarzenegger provides yet another example of environmental influences. While Arnold was always quite ripped in his youth he is now a middle aged pudgy governor of California, who has no doubt gained the pounds as he is no longer dieting as he once was, nor exercising to the same extreme. This information should be seen as an empowering thing though. Think about it for a minute. This is Schwarzenegger! If he has genes which allow him to get fat like anyone else than it also shows than anyone else can lose fat and look to a degree (within reason and everything) like he did! It works both ways. You see Schwarzenegger probably does have good genetics for that sort of thing (and a large amount of steroids) but that doesn’t mean that he can just sit on his arse all day. By the same token you may have quite bad genetics for something like muscle building or fat loss, but that by NO means whatsoever condemns you to a life of being obese. Psychologically if you use the excuse that your genes are crap then you’ve given up before you’ve even started.

Feel empowered by the fact that ultimately it is that environmental influence which tweaks what genes we have. Your friend might lose fat twice as easily as you. But if he never exercises then he won’t be realising his potential, whereas you can. Genetics are a bit like getting good cards in a card game I guess. It helps, but it doesn’t guarantee success. Ultimately it comes down to how you play the game, and that is an environmental thing. Having said that this is only with regards to body fat and muscle and so forth. Many other characteristics like the aforementioned eye colour are far more set in stone. Height is similar in that each person has a potential maximum height which is largely genetically based. Certainly environmental factors like malnutrition can limit someone’s potential, but the fact is if all your relatives are really short, chances are you will be as well. Hence height should be seen as a predominantly genetic characteristic. Tweaking the pituitary gland to release more human growth hormone could I suppose theoretically lead to increased height, and perhaps drugs and so on could do this, but it would be incredibly hard to alter ones height once it was set short of taking very new drugs which alter our biochemistry, essentially altering our genes.

This brings me to a rather interesting point. At what point in time do genes and the environment mesh into one larger category? In my previous article “Exercising Efficiently – the Intensity Debate:” I compared two different groups of mice who had been genetically altered. One group known as “Marathon Mice” could run much further than their counterparts, had far more slow-twitch muscle and had a great ability to not gain weight. Interestingly scientists are now saying that if you are already born your genes might be set, but you can still take drugs to do the same tweaking. Hence scientists are in the process of inventing a pill which does exercise for us. Basically the pill tweaks a gene called PPAR-d (delta) by turning it on, so that the body wastes excess energy.
Here’s a link for anyone interested:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070429154936.htm

Essentially my question is what happens when environmental influences (crazy scientists) are able to tweak genetics, after our genes are set? Is this an environmental influence or a genetic influence? Surely it is both. Here the line between the two categories blurs all the further. Interestingly, in the case of the “marathon mice” those who were given a pill to alter PPAR-d, only gained the fat burning effects and not the increased endurance. This does indicate that perhaps there are limits to what can be changed after our genes have been set.

Another interesting issue could be to do with the ethics behind fiddling with genetics. Doesn’t changing our genetics effectively change who we are? After our DNA code is unique to us (with the exception of identical twins). The nature vs. nurture debate is certainly an interesting one. It is also one which may in the greater scheme of things be unanswerable in a simple this or that manner. The issues we are dealing with are complex, and hence the answer too will reflect this. My understanding is that different characteristics are determined to differing degrees by both the environment and ones genetics. What we must remember is that while we cannot change our genetics (at least not at this point in time) we should not dwell on that we cannot control, but rather be empowered by what is in our control. We must take responsibility for our environmental influences, and alter them as we see fit to create an environment we find hospitable for our general wellbeing.

The Art of Blogging – One Month and Counting – Building Traffic and Esteem on the Web:

So it’s been exactly a month since my first post! 31 days to be precise, and I have managed to post daily so far! Personally its rather an achievement to find the motivation to do it, especially seeing as most of my articles are a good couple of pages long, well researched and hopefully of reasonable interest. Doing 31 posts of such a quality has been demanding, yet rewarding. I have turned this website from a site no one new existed to one which has managed to get over a thousand page impressions in a month. Admittedly it really isn’t huge in the scheme of things, but it’s a damn fine start. I’d love to keep blogging daily but I doubt that I will be able to maintain the level of quality I like to have for my articles. I don’t really like to have short simple posts, I prefer to really write about something passionately and do research into the subject so as to deliver information of worth.

Personally I think this strategy will work well for me, and what I wish to accomplish with this website. I want to share information with the world, and the internet is probably the single best resource for this. Books are good too, but they cost people money to buy, as well as costing authors money to publish. Here it costs me only time to write about matters I am passionate about, and for that I am allowed to spread what I consider to be useful, valuable knowledge. You on the other end as the consumer if you like simply have to have an internet connection and then you can gain free information from this site. I do quite like the internet.

So I have posted for thirty one days and written about all sorts of topics I’m interested in. These include: “Exercise”,
"Cycling”, "Philosophy”, “Pyschology” and “Global Warming” , along with a whole host of other smaller sub categories. Generally speaking I suppose I’d be interested in health issues but in a much broader sense than people typically think of. I’m concerned not so much with an individual's health but of the worlds collective health. For instance I think helping a charity which helps poor people makes the world a healthier place. All over it just makes it that much better. Not even just for the person receiving aid, but rather the fact that others are decent enough to supply it, that gives me hope that the world is not an evil place, and that we can together work on global problems such as poverty and global warming.

My biggest interest at the moment is really building up more traffic. The reason I posted daily for the last month was of course deliberate, with the intention of building up some initial content so that people that should fortunately stumble onto my website actually have something worth reading! I will probably now resort to posting only every second day, but still I’ll see how long I can last posting daily. Even just hitting the 40 mark would be a nice accomplishment. Two months on the other hand would be quite intense. Before I started the blog I had lots and lots of completely new things I wanted to write about, now I find I have less concrete ideas. There are still definitely some things I wish to blog about, bur often they are now vaguer and I am less certain how to go about coherently presenting the information. Having said that I felt that I wasn’t ready to post 31 posts one month ago, but sure enough I’ve managed it. Sometimes pushing yourself is really the best way to get results, other times it certainly seems to back fire horribly with people never wanting to do that activity ever again!

So what have I learned from my experience. Well, at first I just posted and expected people to stumble onto the site. But after the first couple of weeks I only had a total page impressions of about 270. Then think that just two weeks later that had already grown to over 1000! What changed? Well I suppose I had more articles for people to read and link to, I also started sending more of my articles into blog carnivals to try and get my information out there and published on other sites. This also helps with linking and improves a sites ranking in search engines. Now at least I can find my site when I type in the right parameters into Google. It’s a start. The blog carnivals are good too as they allow you to distribute anything you write to an audience that may well be interested in your work and thus helps to build up your reputation on the internet.

I imagine I shall continue following essentially the same strategy as the one I am employing now, as to be honest I don’t really know of any others. Essentially I am trying to write good, useful articles and then submitting them to blog carnivals. I’m hopping that the quality of the articles will in time become realised and that more interested in my site will develop as a result. Still, competition is fierce. The internet may be relatively new territory in some senses, but that does not mean it is easy to become known on the internet. Its popularity is increasing tremendously and with it comes ever more tough competition for good sites. Nonetheless I imagine those free-market capitalists would argue that competition is good and brings out the best in us. Sometimes I wonder though…

I’m rambling a bit much at the minute, as to be honest I’ve said all that needs to be said I think. Its only been a month, so its to early to really tell if anything has had much of an effect. Come back in a month and see if I’m still posting, then we may have an indication of whether this site keeps growing both in terms of the traffic it attracts and the articles that are hopefully attracting it. Here’s hoping it does.

Breaking an addiction:

Anything can be an addiction in a psychological sense, and this can in turn manifest itself physically as well. Addictions are generally understood to be an interplay between genes and the environment, so obviously some people are more genetically predisposed to addictions just as others are to illness or depression. Despite all that is outside of our direct control it is imperative not to lose faith if you wish to break an addiction. The most important thing to breaking the addiction is having the motivation to do just that. Deciding to break the addiction is after all the first step and as such literally half the battle.

Of course it is important that you understand why you have the addiction as well, that is to say you must have an understanding of the causes behind your particular addiction. Not having an understanding of what the addiction is a symptom of can be detrimental to breaking it. Allow me to explain through an example:

Let us say that you become an alcoholic due to feelings of isolation, and general social insecurity. Simply trying to force yourself off alcohol isn’t the solution to your alcoholism, as you will simply go back to abusing it or some other substance because you have not psychologically satisfied what it is that you crave. In this case the situation could be much more effectively solved if you gave yourself the social contact you desire, and once this had been granted getting rid of the addiction would become much more manageable, as what motivated you to develop the addiction is no longer there to reinforce it.

Thus the main part of breaking an addiction is actually figuring out what the addiction represents and why it is that it exists. Of course it may seem at first that someone is addicted to something simply because they like it, and to a degree this is true, but if it is a serious obsessive addiction there is typically more emotionally involved with the addiction. In the case of the alcoholic he may well say that he just likes alcohol but the real reason for the addiction could be more to do with the fact that he may be in denial of his emotional distress and cannot come to terms with his social insecurity.

Ultimately the causes for addiction are as unique and varied as there are individuals with addictions (that is to say virtually all of us!). Sometimes addictions are not really that bad, of course it is all relative any obsessive and extreme addictions then typically inhibit ones normal ability to do day to day activities. The reason we now that addictions often represent deeper emotional problems is because people often wish they didn’t have the addiction, yet keep doing it and find it extremely hard to stop doing it.

For instance one of the reasons that dieting doesn’t work is to do with psychological pressure. While not a typical sort of addiction it is an dieting and bodyimage are also a good example as people often develop eating disorders as a consequence. For some reason or another people feel the need to look a certain way and therefore put themselves under a lot of pressure to get there. This pressure typically drives them to binge as it is stressful and anxiety provoking. The binging is then followed by guilt and or anger, which then leads to renewed pressure to eat well. Thus the cycle comes round full circle, round and round in a downward spiral. The interesting thing is if you tell a binge eater to simply stop eating it normally won’t work. Here is were it gets emotionally complex. Don’t you think the binge eater has told themselves to stop thousands of times? But it didn’t work then, so why will you telling them the same thing they’ve been pressuring themselves with work?

These issues are complex, and there are no set answers. Often simply telling people that they are only human, that you care about them as a friend/peer/relative or whatever and that life is really not such a bad place will cheer them up a little bit. I never said it would stop the binging, but at least it will make them a little happier and feel more accepted of by others and also accept themselves more. Feeling loved is a powerful motivator. After a binge cycle it is also important to try and get the binge eater not to give themselves a hard time for their so called “failure” and simply tell them it really is not the end of the world and help them take their mind of their inability to stop the addiction. The frustration will only drive the cycle onwards otherwise.

Addiction is a largely psychological phenomena and this makes solving the problem difficult. Despite this there are physiological things that can be done to help. Many friends of mine who have successfully quite smoking did things like go for a stroll around the block or do a set of weights every time they felt a nicotine craving. Doing this would take their mind of their want for nicotine as well as making them feel like they did something productive and often it release endorphins which can help make people feel better, in turn helping them avoid future cravings.

Doing regular exercise, eating in a healthy balanced manner and getting adequate amounts of sleep will also help people to fight all sorts of things, including addictions. If you are well rested for instance you are much less likely to crave a coffee, or some chocolate or even a cigarette to wake you up with. Another really important aspect to beating an addiction is to get help from your peers. You need to branch out and get social support from your friends as you need not fight the deadly addiction alone. You can have many potential allies who can help you. Of course if all your friends are alcoholics maybe you should make a few new ones to hang with at times so you not always drinking. But if they are all alcoholics you could also all make a social pact to stop (or if you wish to be more reasonable, cut down, together). You could even place bets so that there is a money incentive for those who stick to it! Also remember to take up activities that distract you from your addiction. Learn a new sport or skill, maybe take up a language or learn a musical instrument as both of those have been shown to be the most effective ways to increase the brains Neuro plasticity. See “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” if your curious for more info.

But most importantly we come back to our main idea of motivation and willpower. To have the courage to break the addiction you must have the motivation. YOU must want to break the addiction. If your cousin wants you to and you really don’t want to then I doubt its going to happen. If however you really do want to break the addiction then as cliché as it sounds “you can do it”. Of course there will be set backs, there will be obstacles as life is always challenging which at least keeps things interesting, but in the long run that motivation will mean you keep on fighting and eventually you will triumph. You cannot lose hope, as then you succumb and simply accept the addiction again. As they say only YOU can change yourself. I don’t care what it takes for you to do something you need to have the motivation, that desire, that encouragement to do it. It need not even be in relation to an addiction.
I for instance like social motivation so if I wanted to get into a good habit like exercise the best way for me to do it would be to do it with friends or get social encouragement, or a coach, someone to connect with and share the experience with. Others are motivated by money. If you want to stop smoking there are hundreds of things you can think of as motivators. Financially you save money, health wise you live longer and are healthier, also your colleagues don’t inhale as much smoke, you don’t remain dependant on a drug like nicotine, sport wise it will improve your aerobic capacity and probably help in other areas too. You get the idea. Another example is the bike ridding I do. While I do this alone I am greatly motivated to travel around without causing pollution that I, others and our environment would otherwise have to deal with. This for me is probably the biggest reason I do it. I feel that I am doing my little bit to make a cleaner, greener and generally better world.

So the main key is really finding the key formula for you individually, which will help you to overcome any addiction. After you’ve found it its simply a matter of implementing it. Results won’t be immediate, they seldom are, but they will be much quicker than if you don’t really ask yourself why you have the problem and how you can best solve it. If you don’t ask those questions then you are simply trying to break the addiction through trial and error, and generally our emotions get in the way and cause us to get stuck in vicious addiction cycles. So do some thinking, try not to be critical, rather we want constructive analysis. These brief tips will make a world of difference in overcoming an addiction, at very least the problem will be properly identified and a solution established, then comes simply a slog to try and implement it. Good luck, expect to encounter obstacles and simply treat it as life throwing you a curve ball to keep things interesting.

Discipline Vs. Desire – Is Discipline Really Such an Omnipotent Virtue?

Most things in our life require balance. It’s a strange fact that is seemingly always the case. Even something often viewed as a virtue such as self-discipline can be overdosed on. You may well know some people who suffer this, they are typically crazily controlled, or if not they wish and strive to be, they live life in an extreme manner and grant themselves little emotional outlet. Typically these controlled people are also very rational in how they act and think, they almost always tend to deny their emotions. Thus it comes as no surprise that these people also have bad-habits which they probably wish they could curb, as a result of their emotions trying to vent themselves.

My now deceased Polish grandfather comes first to mind for me. He was a scientist, an engineer and a rather accomplished one at that. There’s even a nice photo of him and the queen which I have somewhere. The point is that the man was no idiot in terms of rational intelligence. He was the chief engineer of the snowy mountains hydro scheme and did a whole array of other projects. He managed to live through the great depression and then through WWII despite being captured by the Nazi’s on two separate occasions. He led…an interesting life. However he did like his alcohol, and he always seemed to be rather uptight and angry. Maybe it was just that he was old, but I don’t think this really explains it. He was a man of rigid habits and never really changed his attitudes. He was also notoriously stubborn and would always argue with my mother whenever she tried to help him. In a nutshell he tried mostly to think rationally and as such led a controlled life, one in which his emotions were all pent up in a corner. Needless to say I don’t think he ever really enjoyed life quite as much as he could have.

My grandfather was however a man of great self-discipline in that he would do things even though he didn’t want to, he forced himself to do certain things. His stubborn nature is undoubtedly connected to this fact. However the act of self-discipline is actually very repressive and tends to only bring short-term results. Over disciplining oneself leads to an unhappy controlled life, which typically leads peoples shunned emotions to try and express themselves, hence my grandfather's fondness of alcohol. Theodor Adorno said of self-discipline: “Work while you work, play while you play - this is a basic rule of repressive self-discipline.” But why can’t we enjoy work and be productive when we play?

What I’m getting at is despite what some think we are not purely rational beings, we are not machines, nor were we meant to be. Despite the fact that working for 12 hours everyday 356 days a year would make a lot more money than only working 8 five times a week, its just simply not easy to sustain that sort of activity, we sort of emotionally overheat. Let's say you wanted to get good at tennis and you were a machines, you could easily see the benefit in playing tennis literally almost all your waking hours, short of basic things such as resting, refuelling and maybe watching some tennis games to learn from opponents. However as humans we are not machines. Even notice that the process of eating was referred to as “refuelling” rather than having an enjoyable meal. Even something as nice as food loses its enjoyment and becomes instead a way of furthering the mechanical tennis player’s ability to play good tennis.

Unfortunately we as a species seem to think largely in rational terms. Emotions have been seen as unwanted, undesirable and simply an obstacle to being able to rationally accomplish things. However while rationality may allow us to find out that X does Y and generally speaking make sense of many of life’s mysterious phenomena it is emotion that gives us the curiosity and drive to discover that in the first place! A purely rational being would, in my opinion, have absolutely no desire to do anything, and therefore would not. Phew, I’m certainly glad I’ve got emotions now. Emotions need not be bad, as they are so often viewed. They can be extremely helpful as well, as if you simply enjoy playing tennis all day then its hardly a chore for you at all is it?

This is where the article starts to attack the question, is self-discipline ultimate? Let me firstly define discipline as the ability to make yourself do things. The fact that you need to make yourself do something typically means you don’t really have a drive to do it, but your make yourself anyway. An example would be that discipline is partly what makes us get up and go to work to pay the rent, even if we don’t want to (although you could say necessity is involved, but that in turn is then operated upon by discipline). Admittedly some discipline is needed as there is no way we can enjoy every thing we do in life, but surely we can make some activities more enjoyable, in turn making them easier to commit to and thus making them require less discipline!

I think you see were I’m going with this right? Take the example of Bob, John and Tim:

Bob goes through life forcing himself to do things (i.e.being disciplined) and even if he does end up being successful leads a rather unhappy life. Most likely Bob won’t even be successful because he’ll become depressed and run out of steam, as even the most disciplined person in the world is still only human. This doesn’t seem like the way to be now does it?

In contrast Tim has absolutely no discipline and never gets things done. He is unable to do things other than those things he really enjoys, and while he may do these well as discipline never factors in when doing them, the simple fact is that he hasn’t showered for three years because he can’t bring himself to. Hmm, Tim really doesn’t seem much better off that Bob, although he may be a little happier, but even that is dubious given that he is so out of tune with reality.

John is our middleman, so to speak. John has found a balance between discipline and desire. John gets up and goes to work, which he enjoys and seldom feels he needs to force himself to do it. Occasionally there are bad days however, but he has enough sense to employ discipline in some cases such as those bad days and manages to convince himself to go to work. He also manages to unstack the dishwasher despite it not being the most exciting thing to do in the world, as he realises that it is simply something that needs doing, and he disciplines himself to do it. However as much as possible John tries not to view things in terms of “must”, but rather in terms of “would like to”. He replaces the imperative of doing a task, with a desire to do the task regardless of whether it needs be done or not. Take John’s job for example. He doesn’t like to think of needing to go to work to earn money to survive, rather he thinks of wanting to go to work to get money to survive. This tiny change in the choice of how life is formulated makes a world full of difference and as such John enjoys most of life, and as such has little need for strict discipline. Instead he does largely what he desires, and gets by fine like that.

So, have you gotten the general gist of things yet? Essentially I will admit that discipline is necessary, indeed useful, particularly for certain things that just have to be done, whether we want to or not. However the secret to not needing discipline to any great deal, while also simply enjoying life more is simply to do what you love, and love what you do. Of course there is always some difficulty here. If you work in a really bad job maybe it will be impossible to learn to enjoy it, maybe therefore you should change jobs. However often a simple change of perspective can change your mood for you! Looking at things as things you choose to do and wish to do, over things you are forced to do is a great start.

The ideal life is of course to live as the hypothetical John does. Some discipline for the days and occasions you require it and for when the going gets tough, but otherwise doing things not out of necessity and self-discipline but rather a desire to do whatever it is that needs doing. As our example showed the theory of balance triumphs again! Those Buddhists and their theory of ““The Middle Way:”” are certainly onto something, I will no doubt have to investigate it further myself. But take it from me, I will enjoy researching into it, indeed I will go so far as to say I desire to do just that, in turn it won’t really require much in the way of self-discipline to do!

The Meaning of life (and other trivial concerns!)– An Existentialist Approach:

Probably man’s most asked questions would have to be something along the lines of “why are we here”, in essence “what is our purpose” or as it is often phrased “what is the meaning of life”. This question is of course closely rivalled by “where do all my socks go and why is it that despite how many socks I buy I never have a matching pair?” which is yet another of life’s many great mysteries. Personally I always liked Douglas Adams’ simple answer to the meaning of life in his: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The answer was of course the now rather infamous number “Forty-Two”. In many ways his comical answer to one of life’s greatest problems highlights how insufficient any clear cut answer would be. How can you go about answering a question as mind boggling as what is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life certainly does seem to be a rather subjective question, and thus one which embraces relativism. Yet this doesn’t really help us much and we now start to wonder if there is no concrete answer. Existentialist theory addresses the issue of not knowing a concrete answer to this ultimate question in stating that it leads to anxiety. If on the other hand there were a clear-cut and set answer to life such as “To eat spaghetti”, then everyone could take comfort in knowing that they fulfil life’s purpose by regularly eat spaghetti and so on. But while the answer remains unknown so to remains a feeling of insecurity in not knowing whether we are in fact doing the right thing. This uncertainty is seen to lead to the aforementioned anxiety.

However fear not, for existentialists and Buddhists alike argue that we need not live a life of anxiety. They admit that there are no fixed values in the world, no things which are simply right or wrong but therefore argue that this places the moral onus on us to create our own values and build society upon these values. They argue that this provides humanity with a fresh slate on which to carve its own values, as shaped by its individuals. Instead of feeling anxious at the lack of values this optimistic way of looking at life stresses felling empowered by our ability to create our own values and to support what we believe in. Thus, while the existentialist view is sometimes associated with a period of angst in which people don’t know what exactly they should be doing, it is seen as able to be overcome when people take on responsibility by defining their own morals, thus empowering themselves. Hence, existential theory is not really nihilistic at all, but rather positive in how it expresses that we are in a position of creative freedom. This creative freedom provides us with a means to mould the pillars of society as we see fit.

Typically existentialism by its nature denounces God as it denounces pure objective truth, yet there is also a stream known as Christian existentialism which still accepts Gods existence. Christian existentialism however must settle be content with the idea that god exists but in no way interferes with human development and hence leaves values open to us to decide upon. The atheist view obviously thinks the same thing, but without there ever being a god. So whether you are religious or not must not necessarily stop you from accepting the primary ideas behind existentialist theory.

I suppose the hard part comes in accepting that life has no true meaning before we create one. While it seems easy to accept I think subconsciously this scares us greatly. I think instinctively we want values to exist of their own accord, much as a physical object would? We want to think that certain virtues, such as helping old ladies to cross the street, exist independently of our minds. Otherwise those virtues become nothing but tentative beliefs. When I say unfounded I mean that they don’t have something concrete to back them up.

Here’s a good example to illustrate what I’m trying to get at. I recently mentioned that I got Terry Pratchett's lattest book Making Money (Discworld). Fear not for it is not a self-help book about making money, rather it is a brilliantly entertaining and comical masterpiece as most of his works are (in my humble opinion of course – but then I always had a taste for the bizarre and humourous). In not giving the plot line away I will simply say that the protagonist who is trying to help the bank out of financial difficulty wants to implement paper money as a currency and in turn get rid of all the gold in the bank’s vaults. The people of the city Ankh-Morpork of course enquire as to what exactly the paper money is other than just paper if there is no gold being held by the bank to give concrete worth to the currency. The protagonist argues that the money is given value by us anyway, and that the whole notion of the city (Ankh-Morpork) itself and all within it should give the paper value as a currency, and therefore that the gold is not required to give it its value.

Okay, if you’re still with me, the equivalence to my article on the meaning of life is that it is simply the way that our minds work that we think better in concrete terms. We can more easily accept and understand values being “right”, “true” or “worthy” if they are concretely supported. That is to say if some figure who can’t be wrong like god says hitting old ladies is bad, then hitting old laddies is bad. We take comfort in knowing that we don’t really have to understand why these things are, or take any responsibility for why they are, they just are. However existentliasts argue that nothing gives value to a concept like “hitting old ladies is bad” other than us ourselves supporting such values.

Essentially the difficulty here is in the individual taking responsibility for being a bastion of human values, or values that he would see as being of best use to humanity. Accepting this does require some open-mindedness, and open-mindedness typically leaves people open, funny that. The thing is when people are open they are also vulnerable. An analogy would be accepting someone else’s blood into your own veins, certainly it might help, but equally if that blood is somehow tainted it could hinder, such are the uncertainties anyone faces when they let their guard down. This quote from Tool sums the idea up nicely:
“To think for yourself you must question authority and learn to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability, to inform yourself.”
- Intro speech to “Third Eye Live” by Tool

It seems that all this theorising has lead us to conclude that the meaning of life is only given meaning by living, which seems rather self-evident, as how could we have any meaning without conscious life? What we do through living and what we support and believe gives life meaning. Meaning doesn’t give life, rather life gives meaning!

Excuse me if that was rather a leap of faith, I don’ think I made that journey of understanding as pleasant as I probably could have, but the words sort of just typed themselves out. So it seems that those who run around life looking for meaning are like the people who run around looking for their glasses when they are in fact wearing them on their head. No, they’re not stupid, or blind, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Rather, meaning is always there, it is not something which can be sought in a physical sense, rather it is found through doing. In the odd analogy of the person with glasses on their head the glasses are found when the person instinctively pulls them down to read something. So too does man instinctively reach out and use meaning, when he requires it to see life with clearer vision.

Therefore to find meaning in life we must take full responsibility for our own lives and thus through living life we create meaning. If you believe in stopping poverty then take responsibility. Firstly you must realise that the problem exists and the you must take action. Donate to a charity. Volunteer to do charity work, raise money for a worthy cause. Why not? Why not you? Why wait for someone else to do it? You are the one who holds the values you believe in, therefore you should be the one to try and spread the sense behind those values and to in turn place the foundation for meaning through life.