Cognition

What is it in a person’s make up that makes them want to be in charge of others and is it a quality that should be revered or feared?

Some people want to lead for constructive reasons like guiding their employees in a direction that will make a successful company or leading a team of volunteers to distribute help to the needy.  Some people want to be in power to take control and push their agenda onto others so they can control and manipulate them.  Some people are given positions of power so they can help to carry out the agenda of people above them whose task has become too large and needs to be sub-contracted.

There have always been leaders and followers for as far back as history goes and many would argue that this is reason enough for it to continue but I think as we continue to evolve that having people in control is starting to appear old-fashioned and the people in many of these positions are abusing them.  Even elected representatives don’t seem to represent the electorate.

Rightly or wrongly I have always tried to have a diplomatic outlook on life and I enjoy feeding off others input.  I rarely feel the need to ‘put my foot down’ and try to take control of a situation.  I think that I get a kick out of things being unpredictable and I enjoy letting life just carry me along and letting things unfold naturally.  I constantly hear from people who think that this approach doesn’t work and that you have to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and drive your life in certain directions to get what you want from it, which is admirable, I guess, but I don’t really “want” anything out of life, per se, I’m just here for the ride.  I really can’t see the point in pressuring myself or others to “achieve”.  Ultimately we’re all going to die and when we do we’re all equal again so enjoy the bit before you die in whatever way you see fit.  A friend recently said to me that I’m like a fly on the wall of life watching it all happen around me.  I like that analogy.

Goal driven people seem to have a different outlook.  They have life mapped out and have different objectives that they need to meet along the way with each one linking to the next one to ultimately achieve the end result.  In our modern society that ‘end result’ so often seems to be lots of nice shiny possessions, a stack of money, a family and a successful career, usually meaning that you have people in your command or, at least, that you are seen as being superior, in some way, to others around you.  Putting you in a position where you can enjoy ‘the finer things in life’.  As you achieve these things and climb higher up the ladder it is easy to start looking at those ‘below’ you as needing your guidance to try to get to where you are.  This is great for the people who do aspire to be like you.  They will love your input and guidance to help them along but the danger is that you start to assume that everyone aspires to be where you are.  Or worse still, that you can convince those who don’t think like you do that they should.

As we evolve I think we are starting to see now that powerful people are, often, just normal people lucky enough to fall into privileged positions.  They achieve their life goals much more easily because of their enhanced starting point and often already have positions of power waiting for them when they come of age.  Because of this, they don’t necessarily deserve their position through any kind of merit and the way that they play their position will make this strikingly clear.  You then end up with a situation of resentment from those below as they feel decisions are being made on their behalf by people who don’t really know what they are doing.  They are simply enjoying the spoils they have been given, trying their best to look the part and expecting respect without ever having earned it.  The royal family is a classic example of this phenomenon.  They still seem to just spend their days shaking people’s hands and making public appearances.  Not a massive contribution to the bettering of mankind is it?  And yet they are still driven around in luxury cars with a team of security personnel keeping them safe and have huge publicly funded residences and powerful positions in society.  We need to start looking at people in power and their motives and reasons for being there.

We have been led to believe that we need leaders but I think giving too much power to one individual is always going to be a recipe for corruption.  The temptation at that level is too strong.  We certainly need innovators, inventors, thinkers and pioneers to push things forward and better our plight but I am not convinced that we need leaders, as such.  Modern civilised society can run quite well without hierarchy.  I’m convinced of it.  There is no need for us all to answer to a single leader we need input and debate from many sources and there is no need for a single definitive solution to each problem.  Different problems in  different places require tailored solutions not just a list of rules to follow that are generated miles away by people who have ENTIRELY different lifestyles and viewpoints to the majority of those they are trying to lead and especially not from those who are trying to feather their own nests with corruption and greed at the expense those they are leading.

Writing a blog about paper seems ironic.

Paper was doing such a great job and then computers turned up and stole it’s thunder. Not withstanding all of it’s restrictions, I like paper.   Books feel good in your hand and you don’t get sore eyes from looking at a screen.  A book’s battery never runs out and I like the way my shelves look when they’re filled with books.  I hold a deep affection for books as they were my first portal into literature and language.  I love being in libraries.  I love the smell you get from the pages of vintage books, I love finding little penned scribbles that people may have made as notes in the margins years before when they were reading the same book that I am reading now.  All of these qualities are lost once you buy a Kindle.

I still like to write too.  Pen is fine but everyone should try writing with a pencil.  The sound it makes as it scratches across the paper and the way the writing looks in graphite grey as the pencil, literally, disintegrates onto your page.  It also has a slightly childish feel that harks back to my primary school days before we were promoted up to ink cartridge pens and then onwards into the world of the Biro.

When you write with a computer a lot is lost.  The individuality of the author’s handwriting, the odd scribbley correction, maybe half a coffee cup ring on the edge of the page.  All of these things make you feel a direct connection to the person who wrote whatever it is that you’re reading.  Like you’re holding history.  Think of being handed the original piece of paper that your favourite band wrote the first draft of your favourite song on.  Computers are much more clinical.  Yes you get tidy formatted text that is all neatly laid out, evenly spaced and easy to read.  Yes you get a spell checker so your mistakes are picked up.  Yes, when you make a mistake you can just click back space a few times and correct it and the big one is, yes, you can publish your work online so thousands of other like-minded individuals can read it but so much of the personal feelings you get from older methods are lost.

I like paper.

Paper

via Daily Prompt: Meddle

Meddle stems from the Latin word ‘miscere’ meaning ‘to mix’.  So a meddler or someone who meddles could mean they like to stir up trouble or ‘get into the mix’.  It can also be bad or good.  When Scooby Doo and his friends ‘meddled’ and unmasked the ghost it was deemed to be a positive but when things go awry the meddler becomes the villain.  If you are trying to learn English as a second language you’d be forgiven for thinking the meddler gives out or manufactures the awards after the events for athletics meetings but that wouldn’t be of too much concern if you were still dealing with what having the right to write the right thing on the right hand side of the page right to the bottom means or if you were trying to reign your horse in the rain while trying to recite a rane you heard.  You would never know if what you ‘read’ or have ‘read’ makes any sense or if red wine is the white wine to choose .

The word ‘exclusive’ is an interesting one as on the surface if something is described as ‘exclusive’ that’s a good thing, right?  Exclusive comes from the word ‘exclude’.   If you were booking a holiday and the resort or hotel advertised that they excluded certain groups of people to make your stay more comfortable how would you feel about it then?

Would you have signed up to buy your house so quickly if the bank had called your loan a ‘death pledge’?  Mort is French for death and gage is French for pledge.

The word ‘ nice’ – derived from Latin nescius meaning ‘ignorant’ – began life in the fourteenth century as a term for ‘foolish’ or ‘silly’. From there it embraced many a negative qualities including wantonness, extravagance, and ostentation, as well as cowardice and sloth so ‘ignorance is bliss’.

Lunatic is obviously derived from ‘Luna’, which is Latin for moon as people believed that lunar cycles played a role in insanity and could also explain the origins of the mythical werewolf.

The list goes on but I always think it is such a shame that for a lot of us all that language is, is a way to communicate with each other.  I find it so fascinating how words grow and mutate and even take on entirely new forms and new meanings.  I love how they traverse across different languages, I love discovering new words and finding ways to utilise them and I guess that’s why I love reading, writing, singing, rapping, poetry, slang…etc

Who needs actions when you’ve got words?

Meddle

Back when Steve Jobs first told us that we could have a thousand songs in our pocket it seemed like a music revolution.  I suppose it was.

I bloody hate when you’re in a room full of people, telling you to put some music on, and you stand staring blankly at Spotify unable to decide what to play, and sometimes even worrying that I play a few favourite songs too often, when the choice available to me is (give or take) about thirty million songs!  Or when a customer asks,

“Is this all the washing machines you have?”,

while they look at the thirty, or so, on display or when you decide to buy a new pair of shoes or a new set of pans.  There is an infinite array of stuff to buy, download, eat, listen to, watch, smoke, drink, date, adopt, shag, marry…etc

On the surface this seems brilliant but a quick flip through any book about buddhism will tell you that a clean uncluttered mind is the path to contentment and, maybe even, enlightenment.   I don’t think we even asked to have this much choice, a lot of it is forced upon us by our culture of nonstop consumption and the need for economic growth.  If there were only a few things out there for us to buy soon everyone would have all that they required and the only necessity to buy again would be when something needed replacing.  This isn’t going to stimulate growth.  We shouldn’t just be buying one item.  We should be buying the item that we like in three different colours and with all the additional accessories that are available to go with it and then when we’ve got better at what ever activity these items were bought to assist us with, we should upgrade the items.  Entry level stuff is no good if your now an intermediate and as you upgrade things become more expensive.  Not so easy to make the purchase now, you don’t want to waste a load of money on the wrong thing!  Enter people like Revoo, Which, Trivago, Trusted Traders and others to help you make the ‘right’ choice.  Is there a ‘right’ choice?  Is it possible to find a washing machine that is custom designed for your specific needs and out of all other the options out there you must to pare it down to this one?  Or is there a song on your IPod that will fit this moment perfectly, if only you could find it?  We convince ourselves that the answer is ‘yes’ and that having every single option immediately available to us will make it easier to find.

The brain, like any other part of your body, becomes tired with over use and by pondering so many choices all the time each and everyday what we are actually doing is fatiguing our brains which eventually exhausts us, makes us angry and, ironically, makes us make bad choices.   This mental fatigue is also what makes you put stupid purchases into your trolley when you are walking around places like B&M where you see things and think,

“That looks like a good idea!”,

even though it is something that you will never use and never wanted.  Our brains are busy enough and throwing a wall of a thousand options at ourselves every time we go looking to buy trivial shit or want to relax with some music is making it do work that is wholly unnecessary and leaves it with less energy for the good stuff.  Is it just coincidence that many times when choosing something we go back to the very first option we looked at?  Maybe instinct is as strong a tool now in modern society as it ever was.  Many animals depend on it.  Maybe we are stifling instinct with too many choices and fear of making the wrong decision in the same way we are stifling our immune system in our over sterile society.   Your instinct learns if you use it regularly and when you make a choice with a positive outcome you get a positive feedback.  The natural reward your brain gives you when you overcome obstacles by yourself.

Having lots of different things to choose from certainly seems great but it has reached obscene levels and is certainly impacting on our mental health and our ability to feel content and happy with the choices we make and – very importantly for some – other people’s opinions of the choices we make.  There is even an argument that people who are given fewer options are more creative as they have to be able to do more with less so as well as making us feel tired, angry, inferior and confused too much choice can make us less creative too.

The 2017 General Election was a really strong reminder of a phenomenon that sprang into my mind first during the 2007-08 recession.

When an event takes pace that engages the whole of the country like a recession, a referendum or an election it causes a strange move in the collective mood – for good or for bad reasons – of everyone.  Social media and the internet definitely accentuate it but you can feel it by talking to people , watching TV,  being at work.  It’s almost like something in the air.

During the recession there was a constant feeling of doom and gloom everywhere you went.   The media told us that the economy has stayed slow and the public are scared to spend money.  As a result of this the public were, indeed, scared to spend money but, I feel, for the majority of them (myself included) they were only scared to spend money because they had heard that everyone else was “scared to spend money”.  People didn’t know why, they just felt it even though fear of job losses and credit crunches were not even a reality for many of us but we were still part of the collective consciousness of paranoia and worry.   This same thing is being felt in the other direction now with Jeremy Corbyn’s “successful” election result and a feeling that we have all banded together and derailed the Tory hegemony.  The mood of the people seems notably lifted now.  A feeling that we’ve all banded together and actually achieved something against the system.  Again though, for the majority of us there have been no real changes in our lives or our wealth or our communities, it is just a nice ambiance of positivity that seems to feel visceral whilst having no actual real-time benefit for most of us.

I like it.  This idea that if we need to we can act as one consciousness, one feeling shared among many.  It’s almost like we all become one like when The  Power Rangers’ Zords all  merged to form one big Megazord.  The sad thing is it never seems to last.  We all seem to quickly separate into separate Power Rangers and go back to our individual ventures as quickly as steam dispersing into the air.  Maybe nationally it’s too big a thing for us all to hang on to with everything else we have to turn our attentions to.  This is why I am a firm advocator of devolving into smaller groups and communities and organising ourselves that way.    Maybe if we work to achieve things collectively in smaller groups these feelings could be a lot more real, a lot more long lasting and a lot more productive.  I think people crave that group mentality.  We all want to feel involved, necessary, functional, liked and, even, loved.  Smaller communities bonding together to achieve together may even create a stronger adhesion on a national scale as we would be asking, already active, groups to bond together rather than just large numbers of totally unattached individuals.

I know that this is already done with local politics but it just doesn’t seem to make any real engaging impact, only really addressing things like where a new car park should be or the lack of a lollipop lady outside the school.  Boring!  It needs to be larger more weighty issues with real feelable consequences for the participators and, as a result, participation increases, more people get behind the same goals and this lovely feeling of being a real cog in a functioning machine will stay and be physical rather than psychological.