Slowly, and I would argue imperceptibly, the social construct of our community is changing, notably as it relates to altered states of consciousness, and related social gatherings.
What I really mean is that folks don't drink like they used to, and the very fabric of our society is changed, and I say not in a good way.
I think we were better off as a community when there was more social drinking.
Much better in my pa's day, yep, that's for sure.
Just talk to the ol' timers. They'll tell you.
Many more memorable events, by their own recounting, involved a big piss-up.
And ain't that what it's all about? memories! The more the merrier.
Count me in.
Examples of the morphication abound.
Tonight's event a prime example, as I now relate.
The 52 Annual Ch. Acc't Dinner; this one at Bryston's on the invite of EMoles.
150 like suited souls, with hardly a wit of enthusiasm among them.
They oughta make having done a small doobie an entrance token.
Or at least a couple of stiff scotches. As was long the practice.
And can you believe this: the cocktails followed by the dinner meal followed by dessert, and then the guest speaker Dr. Fernando, followed by cash bar and networking was over by 8:30 pm!!?
Sheeucks, my kids don't get out of the shower till 9:30pm, predrinking starts at 9:30 or 10 or later and then it's time for a public appearance, and then the altered conscious state peaks. and for a short while the buzz/mania continues.
Anyway the event was a mere shadow of its formal self.
Add up all the credits, ( the smiles, the laughs, the fun, the memories ) then subtract the debit shit, and there was invariably a positive difference.
And, ye-as, I acknowledge the debit stuff is no trivial matter. It has heft. But the heft gave rise to hype. And the hype is what annoys.
Meanwhile as a gang, a society, we somehow got mesmerized by the hype.
And we somehow ignored all them credits.
And the Temperance cabal got traction.
But we can now see more clearly the consequences.
And some of them are not so felicitous.
I knew it was going on quite some time back.
The trend line has only continued in the same direction.
Less drinking, less socializing, less positive; net.
With the Sat. Industrial League Curling one may get serious data.
The charting would be simple, simple.( good grade eighter)
And the conclusions would be obvious.
Temperance traction is highly co-related with dwindling numbers of participants and diminished intensity of socialization of curlers.
And then there is the ACT, a local chapter of a fraternal group I associate with.
Same kind of story, same kind of numbers. Dismal and dwindling.
And so I sez to m'self, Self:how is it that all this is Good?
And to this very moment, perhaps beyond, I don't know how it could be good.
Seems to me it is no good, net.
Well the energy tank is near dry,
so I close for the moment.
Anxious to return.
y'rs etc.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Astrology - commentary
Comments to a young adult on the topic of Astrology.....
I know you saw my eyebrows go up (or down, or sideways?) when you mentioned Astrology.
This was an involuntary response. Not conscious. But I acknowledge, a window into my head.
Allow me to explain better.
I'm pretty big on 'science' - and the scientific method, and rational thought, and all sorts of related concepts.
And it just seemed to me that astrology is at odds with science.
Wikipedia seems to think so too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
They call it a pseudoscience. Look up pseudo.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo
Actually I found the Wikipedia entry to be pretty good, and can commend it to you.
It does a far better job than I could of conveying my views.
And as you might imagine, the Wikipedia entry tackles head on the conflict between astrology and science, complete with all sorts of academic references, for you to explore at your leisure.
Most interesting are the references to commentators who have tried to explain why astrology does indeed get traction with folks - these last few thousand years.
My spin - well, of the 3,000 years that astrology has been around, meaningful science has only been around for a few hundred years - say the last 500 - and only really taken off in the last 150 ( or the last 5% of the time astrology has been around.) So for the first 2,500 years of astrology, it had no/little competition in the marketplace of ideas.
In any event, the confounding issue is:
how can I reconcile what I learn about astrology (coupled with my own personal observations on a day to day basis that give some credence to astrological principles) with the naysayer science / academic types????
Ahhhh now - that is a good question.
Happily, others have made some pretty good attempts to answer that question using the scientific method.
I encourage you to check some of that stuff out.
(for instance the work on 'confirmational bias')
My sense is that you may come to look at things in a slightly different way.
And importantly, not just looking at astrology in a different way, but looking at human behaviour in all its beautiful, crazy manifestations, in a slightly different way.
Which reminds me of one of my favourite aphorisms:
from philosopher mathematician Alfred North Whitehead - dead these last 50 or so years,
"Wisdom is a function of the breadth of your experiences".
Meaning you are wiser by reading up on astrology than if you hadn't.
And you may be wiser still if you read up on what the naysayers say.
And for the record, I believe wiser is better.
BTW - my own key problem with astrology is the emphasis on linking the alignment of the constellations (and other celestial masses) with the moment of birth of an individual. It just seems so, to use a word that's overused these days, Random.
If you were born a week earlier or a week later, how could that be linked to your personality or your prospects?
On the flip side, I ask myself, why has astrology had such a great run over all the centuries past, seemingly transcending different civilizations and cultures.
Part of the answer I've already suggested - the lack of science for most of that time to offer alternate views.
But another part of the answer must be:
the very human, hard wired, totally ingrained, compelling interest
To Know the Future, and To Know what Path to Take,
which particularly afflicts young adults in the throes of big life decisions,
and the inclination to latch on to any clues (from others) that resonate with you.
I observed this human need and human response in a fairly profound way when in my mid twenties I messed about with palm reading. For me it was all in fun. Well mostly. I did think that there might be some predictive aspect of the shape of hands and fingers and joint and nails, as opposed to the creases on the skin of the hand. Still do. As in a stumpy, squareish, muscular, short fingered hand, might suggest more someone inclined to manual labour than rocket science or philosophy.
But the fascinating thing was how, sometimes, the subject of my amateur palm readings were utterly convinced that the make believe shit I was espousing had validity. What a lesson / experience. I felt myself so much the wiser for it. Mindful always, that there was some possibility that I was deluding myself.
Oh well.... enough already.
just personal views - I claim no monopoly on truth.
Like a lot of others, I continue on a voyage of discovery - LTD living the dream sort of.
thanks for your attention
I know you saw my eyebrows go up (or down, or sideways?) when you mentioned Astrology.
This was an involuntary response. Not conscious. But I acknowledge, a window into my head.
Allow me to explain better.
I'm pretty big on 'science' - and the scientific method, and rational thought, and all sorts of related concepts.
And it just seemed to me that astrology is at odds with science.
Wikipedia seems to think so too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
They call it a pseudoscience. Look up pseudo.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo
Actually I found the Wikipedia entry to be pretty good, and can commend it to you.
It does a far better job than I could of conveying my views.
And as you might imagine, the Wikipedia entry tackles head on the conflict between astrology and science, complete with all sorts of academic references, for you to explore at your leisure.
Most interesting are the references to commentators who have tried to explain why astrology does indeed get traction with folks - these last few thousand years.
My spin - well, of the 3,000 years that astrology has been around, meaningful science has only been around for a few hundred years - say the last 500 - and only really taken off in the last 150 ( or the last 5% of the time astrology has been around.) So for the first 2,500 years of astrology, it had no/little competition in the marketplace of ideas.
In any event, the confounding issue is:
how can I reconcile what I learn about astrology (coupled with my own personal observations on a day to day basis that give some credence to astrological principles) with the naysayer science / academic types????
Ahhhh now - that is a good question.
Happily, others have made some pretty good attempts to answer that question using the scientific method.
I encourage you to check some of that stuff out.
(for instance the work on 'confirmational bias')
My sense is that you may come to look at things in a slightly different way.
And importantly, not just looking at astrology in a different way, but looking at human behaviour in all its beautiful, crazy manifestations, in a slightly different way.
Which reminds me of one of my favourite aphorisms:
from philosopher mathematician Alfred North Whitehead - dead these last 50 or so years,
"Wisdom is a function of the breadth of your experiences".
Meaning you are wiser by reading up on astrology than if you hadn't.
And you may be wiser still if you read up on what the naysayers say.
And for the record, I believe wiser is better.
BTW - my own key problem with astrology is the emphasis on linking the alignment of the constellations (and other celestial masses) with the moment of birth of an individual. It just seems so, to use a word that's overused these days, Random.
If you were born a week earlier or a week later, how could that be linked to your personality or your prospects?
On the flip side, I ask myself, why has astrology had such a great run over all the centuries past, seemingly transcending different civilizations and cultures.
Part of the answer I've already suggested - the lack of science for most of that time to offer alternate views.
But another part of the answer must be:
the very human, hard wired, totally ingrained, compelling interest
To Know the Future, and To Know what Path to Take,
which particularly afflicts young adults in the throes of big life decisions,
and the inclination to latch on to any clues (from others) that resonate with you.
I observed this human need and human response in a fairly profound way when in my mid twenties I messed about with palm reading. For me it was all in fun. Well mostly. I did think that there might be some predictive aspect of the shape of hands and fingers and joint and nails, as opposed to the creases on the skin of the hand. Still do. As in a stumpy, squareish, muscular, short fingered hand, might suggest more someone inclined to manual labour than rocket science or philosophy.
But the fascinating thing was how, sometimes, the subject of my amateur palm readings were utterly convinced that the make believe shit I was espousing had validity. What a lesson / experience. I felt myself so much the wiser for it. Mindful always, that there was some possibility that I was deluding myself.
Oh well.... enough already.
just personal views - I claim no monopoly on truth.
Like a lot of others, I continue on a voyage of discovery - LTD living the dream sort of.
thanks for your attention
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)