Swing Time

This is just a brief post - my first in months. Since February I have been through quite a whirl with work, property renovation and our new (less so now) baby. Miri. is well - having cut teeth and started to stamp her mark on the world in a pretty jolly fashion. We have renovated our flats in Prague and London successfully and I enjoyed an incredibly busy and enjoyable period of learning a new job and sector (head-hunting fund managers in London) which drew to a close on Friday when I was sacked (for not making enough money).

The plan going forward is to follow the sage counsel of Fred Astaire - issued during that other major 'credit crunch' of the 1930's - and 'pick myself up, dust myself off and start all over again'.

In the short term at least I intend to work alone - as I doubt any of the reputable head-hunters will hire me until the markets improve (especially as I did not bill well over the last few months) and all I have to do to be relatively prosperous is beat the 'dole'. In an odd way this moment is liberating - as it has re-defined my horizons (by reducing the downside of lost salary). Moreover, assuming that we are not witnessing the demise of Western capitalism (even if a shift in the geographical locus of power towards the East), the pendulum will swing back again and there will be better times ahead.

However, the decision is also daunting. My resources will be my time, the contacts I have and a few ideas about how to improve client service. I will be up against bigger, more established firms. Consequently, this is going to be a heck of a challenging time - especially while the markets are turbulent - so please remember me and my family in your prayers.

The next post will revert to my usual rant against modernity - next weekend (I hope)...

The Great Transformation

I am back in the Czech Republic and left on Friday with nothing to read. Browsing in the airport bookshop enabled me to notice a book by Karen Armstrong called The Great Transformation. As I am only a few pages in, it may be too early to properly describe and extol the depth and breadth of the scholarship demonstrated by the author (a feat which may be beyond me anyway) but here goes.

She has taken a period known as the Axial Age which produced four of the great characters to guide world spiritual and philosophical consideration - Buddha, Socrates, Confucius and Jeremiah and examined historical and social conditions which led each of these men to arise and become great shapers of society. She also (I suspect - not having got that far yet) will dwell upon the unifying themes such as empathetic concern for their fellow man which marked them out as original within their own specific societies at their time, yet which ensured their immortal re-known.

In her introduction the author writes:

"Perhaps every generation believes that it has reached a turning point of history, but our problems seem particularly intractable and our future increasingly uncertain. Many of our difficulties mask a deeper spiritual crisis. During the Twentieth Century we saw an eruption of violence on an unprecedented scale. Sadly our ability to harm and mutilate one another has kept pace with our extraordinary economic and scientific progress. We seem to lack the wisdom to hold our aggression in check and keep it within safe and appropriate bounds. The explosion of the first atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki laid bare the nihilistic self-destruction at the heart of the brilliant achievements of our modern culture. We risk environmental catastrophe because we no longer see the earth as holy but regard it simply as a "resource". Unless there is some kind of spiritual revolution that can keep abreast of our technological genius, it is unlikely that we will save our planet. A purely rational education will not suffice. We have found to our cost that a great university can exist in the same vicinity as a concentration camp."

Perhaps I am not opposed to a desire to be enlightened, that might be innate in all of us, or much that has been achieved in the wake of the Enlightenment (such as many of the discoveries of science, rational scepticism about the old order and such like) but simply the prevailing notion that what we need is intellectual power or a 'rational' perspective to make the world better. Two centuries dominated increasingly by such certainties have not brought us much more than material comfort (even that is rather unevenly distributed). I feel Armstrong is on to something in stirring us to consider the thinkers of the distant past. They may not have been able to burn a CD or create webpage, split the atom or have realised about the ascent of man but they discovered something profound about humanity.

Rather than material pre-occupation and the pursuit of certainty, our age should realise that there may be things beyond our control. We are the product of divine creation - with a spark of the divine within us - not masters of the universe. The emphasis of our age is upon fleeting concerns, the stuff of 'moments' not eternity. Similarly, what the post-Enlightenment world has marginalised as ephemeral is far from so - it is at the very core of our being.

Black Holes - should we make them?

In a few weeks, somewhere in Europe, scientists will fire up the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. I am not well versed in their theory, so must apologise if my attempt to describe this complex area is imprecise in any way. However, I am concerned that they may well destroy everything - life, the universe, the whole kit and kaboodle, in their search to understand more about the origins of life. Essentially they may kill that which they seek to unveil.

The plan is to collide particles at super high speed so that they reveal something about the origin of the universe. Well, however lacking the term is, we now understand our world to have originated in a 'big bang', so perhaps we ought to pause before recreating it? Not according to the experts, who claim that the odds of a disaster are ''one million to one''. That would be reassuring, but let's consider that 'disaster', in their terms, does not mean just that I will die, or that you will, but that all life we know will be destroyed ,indeed erased forever. If history has spawned monsters comfortable in killing thousands or millions of their fellows in pursuit of a cause then how much more evil are those prepared to wager everything in pursuit of knowledge?

Moreover, their trial in November 'failed', but they are desperate to crack on with experiment, so will begin in earnest on plan in a few weeks - all dissenting scientific voices have been silenced as 'doom-sayers'.

Why do we seek this knowledge anyway? What will we gain? Why does it matter if we know more about the elusive Higgs Boson particle? Or rather, does it matter sufficiently to gambles life entirely?

We are likely to create black holes - but the optimists say that they will be tiny and expect that they 'will not grow', citing that fact that they have not created any truly dangerous ones yet because their machines have not been powerful enough. Now they have a more powerful machine, at their own request, but fail to join their previous failure to destroy life, underpowered machines, with their new toys - overpowered machines.

It may be facile to quote popular literature, but a character in 'Jurassic Park' opined "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Perhaps we should pause and re-consider before the engines fire up?

Of Men, Kings and Gods

One of my favourite films is the Man Who Would be King (it is a bit of a "dad" movie so I can now watch it with satisfaction rather than a mild feeling of being older than my time). Anyway, the story which inspired Rudyard Kipling the author (by the way a Freemason) of the book upon which the file was based, was that of Josiah Harlan (also a Mason by the way) who was a wild adventuring sort of chap. He was born in Chester County Pennsylvania and after travelling in Asia then returning and jilted by his sweetheart decided to leave America and try his luck in the East. After much more travelling and mishap he was made Prince of Ghor in Afghanistan and had a pretty happy time of things until the Kingdom was plunged into turbulence by the machinations of Russian Agents and British Armies. He eventually died, back in America, in the 1870's.

Musing on Harlan got me to thinking about other people whose lives have been dramatically transformed and there are two I would like to draw to your attention.

The first is the Frenchman and one-time king of the Mapuche indians - Orelie-Antoine de Tounens (one of my ancestors is Mapuche so their fate is close to my heart). The Mapuche had managed to hold off the Spanish colonial forces for several hundred years - being the only aboriginal South Americans to remain independent (admittedly perhaps aided by living in the most remote part of the continent). However, once Chile was established they were steadily plundered and their land stolen (receiving similar treatment to that dealt to the Plains Indians of North America). This treatment inspired the bold French Lawyer named above to travel and organise a defence of the Mapuche - proving himself a highly capable figure. He was anointed King but sadly captured by a Chilean patrol, tried and would have been freed if the court had not decided that no sane white man could believe that the "savage" Mapuche deserved their freedom, or to control their own land - therefore he must be insane. Thus a great and noble man has gone down in history as mad. He died a broken man, although remembered fondly in Mapuche lands.

Finally, last year, a British chap called Stephen Louis Cooper who had dropped out of university degree and then drifted through jobs in the UK decided to travel to India. His time in the country proved rather fruitful. At last note, he had been recognised by the people of Becharaji in Gujarat as Pema (Lotus), a recognised messenger of the god Bahuchur, and thus something of a "living god" himself. He seemed darn happy in his role and old pals from Britain wished him well but I think he was having difficulty with the Indian immigration authorities in extending his 6 month leave to remain in the country. It seems that nowadays even the divine suffer with bureaucracy.

It may not be obvious, but these three men go to the heart of my purpose with this blog. Each of them sought, or has apparently sought, to help their fellow man and has travelled to do so. They are not conventional in any meaningful sense but I feel are more civilised than much that surrounds us. The French historian, politician and writer Francois Guizot remarked that civilisation is "the amelioration of society by means of the (moral) amelioration of the individual". All of the above would (to my mind) meet this definition better than most people (like myself) in the developed cities of the West, where we now mark progress less in terms of "moral amelioration" than by trivial concerns or conspicuous consumption. The cities of the developing world make this even more stark - for the poor survival itself is such a struggle that Guizot's "amelioration" is not really feasible, whilst the wealthy seem to become increasingly corpulent and ever further from grace. Anyway, I had better get my supper and close this pontification.

The Battle of Codson's Beard

I was rummaging through some of my grandfather's old papers today and came across a piece of doggerel verse, recorded in old red note book with Kyrllic letter on the cover. My paternal grandfather was a poor orphan who joined the Royal Navy as a stoker during the First World War (later joining the Army and rising through the ranks to become a Colonel - fighting behind enemy lines during the Second War). If you know anything about this period of history, please let me know. I would really appreciate more information but should mention my gratitude to Patrick Kidd who identified that the poem was written by A.P. Herbert of the Royal Navy who later became a Liberal (regrettably in my eyes) M.P.

During the Russian Revolution, a detachment of British troops was sent to support the anti-Bolsheviks and my grandfather's ship, the Forester, went along. Some British sailors (including Herbert) were attached to army units, to form the Royal Naval Division (R.N.D.) and this is the tale of one of them. It should be noted that soldiers were expected to be clean shaven but sailors were allowed a beard.

Anyway, here is the verse, which although hardly the work of Sassoon or Owen, touched me for it's warmth:

The Battle of Codson's Beard

A.P. Herbert

Now I'll tell you a yarn of a sailorman
With a face more fierce than fair,
He got over that on the Navy's plan
By hiding it all with hair.
He was one of the rough old sailor breed
And had lived all his life at sea,
But he took to the beach at the Nation's heed
And fought in the R.N.D.

Now Brigadier General Blank's Brigade
Was tidy, neat and trim,
And the sight of a beard on his parade
Was a bit too much for him,
"What is that?" he cried, with a terrible oath,
"Of all that's wild and weird",
His staff replied "a curious growth,
But it looks very much like a beard".

The General said "I've seen six wars,
And many a ghastly sight
Men with locks that gave men shocks,
And buttons none too bright,
But never a man in my brigade
With a face all fringed with fur,
So you'll hurry away and shave today."
But Godson said "you err".

"For this old beard of which you're scared,
It stands for a lot to me,
For the great North gales and the sharks and whales,
And the smell of the dear grey sea."

Then Generals gathered around the spot,
And urged him to behave,
But Codson said "You talk a lot
But can you make me shave?
For the Navy allows a beard at the laws
And thus a beard is the sign for me,
That, where'er I go, the world may know,
I belong to the King's Navy."

So they gave him jobs in distant parts,
Where none might see his face,
Town Major jobs that break men's hearts,
and bullets at the base.
But, whenever he knew a fight was due,
He hurried there by train
And when he had done for every Hun,
He hurried back again.

Then spake another old sailor,
"It seems you can't have heard,
Begging you pardon General Blank,
The reason for this man's beard,
So I've brought you this 'ere photograph
Of what he used to be,
Before he stuck that fluffy muck,
Upon his Physionomy."

"It's a kind of a sort of a 'camouflage',
And that I take to mean
A kind of a thing that hides something
Which ought not to be seen."
The General looked and fainting cried:
"The situation's grave,
His beard was bad but Kamerad,
He simply cannot shave."

So when these thin lines sage and sag
And man goes down to man,
That great black beard is always in the van,
I've been in many a hot spot,
Where death is the least men feared,
But I've never seen anything quite so hot
As the 'Battle of Codson's Beard.'

I love these lines and will always treasure their sentiment. The tale of a stubborn salt-water sailor, whose courage and character deserve our fond remembrance.

Cometh the hour, cometh the pig

I flew back into London last night from being with Vera and Miriam. Tomorrow, my family will slaughter a pig on a day which is traditional for that sort of thing across the continent (the BBC have a nice if somewhat squeamish article on the subject on their site today, featuring an Italian family doing the same). The conditions for the pig's demise are probably in breach of some European Union regulation but I cannot help feeling that the enterprise, if bloody, is entirely laudable (unless you are a vegetarian). The pig is killed pretty swiftly and the meat divided up by various members of the family, who will engage in helping each other actively - making sausages, preparing hams for smoking, salting and preparing chops, bacon and all the other trimmings.

By contrast, I popped into a stark neon-lit supermarket this morning to grab pre-packed cuts of meat. The experience was clean but devoid of "warmth" - purposefully so I guess. However, I feel it merely creates ignorance or dis-honesty in those of us who enjoy meat. Having spent plenty of time with the family and having eaten food from the smallholding - including vegetables, fruit, nuts, I am certain that the natural method of preparation produces more wholesome, healthy and tasty meals and fosters greater respect for the natural world. The animals, pre-slaughter at least, enjoy a decent life and, when killed, are put to good use. There is nothing of "the machine" about their life, or death, and something supremely social and pure in their distribution and consumption. A family in touch with the land, aware of animal husbandry, to my eyes, is one which is likely to have well-rounded values - having created a full sense of the relationship we have with our food - cast in vivid colours, rather than wrapped in cellophane. It may sound "Walton-esque" (perhaps Miriam's arrival has turned me sentimental) but a life lived in such circumstances is one to be applauded.

Finally, off at a tangent, there was a film, released a few years ago, called the Hour of the Pig. It is set in a French villlage in the days leading up to the arrival of the Black Death. Marvellous film - if you have not seen it you would be well advised to try to track it down somewhere.

So what was the Enlightenment?

I guess it might be worth throwing around some ideas about my understanding of what it is I am against. The "Enlightenment" is rather elusive of tight definition but has been summarised neatly, in that fount of all wisdom, Wikipedia so it might be worth running a quick search there.

When did it begin? Well it is possible to regard political theorists like Hobbes as being part of the early germination of the enlightened thinking and even to see it as partly the legacy of men like Newton. Nonetheless, it is generally regarded as a product of the Eighteenth Century. In origin, it was largely European and indeed perhaps Anglo-Saxon, as many Continental proponents looked to the balance of powers they saw in Britain as exemplary. It generally countered the superstition of religious dogma and challenged rigid social stratification - the dominance of nobility and absolutist monarchy. In essence, it was an optimistic movement that sought to remodel society on "rational" lines. Perhaps it is fair to say it bore fruit most obviously in America and France with their revolutions and then became a dominating influence on 19th century political and social reforms more widely. Even what we might now view as conservative, particularly nationalist, movements owed much to the Enlightenment. Subsequently, with European Empires and American trade it was exported around the globe. Saint-Simon, perhaps exemplified some of the spirit of the movements when he wrote in 1825 "the golden age, which blind tradition has hitherto located in the past is ahead of us." Stirring beautiful sentiment. However, it is worth noting that neither rational thinking nor optimism originated in the Enlightenment. The ancient Greek philosophers and Cicero (as well as Abelard and Heloise) were certainly profound thinkers, while we cannot but count the Puritans (for all their sanctimonious guff) as optimists who wished to re-shape their age.

The Enlightened merely came to dominate and deploy their "rationalism" in challenging the old order and unlocking greater freedom for thinkers, writers and liberals of all hues.

Unless you are pretty extreme, there may be little in that summary above which warrants condemnation. We might regard democratic institutions, much scientific advance, a great deal of global capitalism as legacies of the Enlightenment and to that extent I would concur that it had positive influence.

However it has also created a dominant intellectual paradigm that rapid progress is and ought to be "good" and that those who doubt the wisdom of rapid advance are either stupid or self-interested. Think about politics for example. Progressive politicians in most societies I can think of enjoy "the benefit of the doubt" if trapped in dishonesty or other tawdriness. There was little investigation of the links Mitterand had with Vichy France, Bill Clinton was able to shrug off claims of dishonesty, whilst in the U.K. Tony Blair, in his early days as Prime Minister, was blatantly trapped in a dodgy party funding row which he escaped by claiming to be a "pretty straight sort of guy." That such politicians should attempt to elude dismissal is understandable self preservation but that they should enjoy a reservoir of goodwill because they are "progressive" is, I believe, a tainted legacy of the Enlightenment.

Later, I will try to claim that some of the worst violence of the last few hundred years was "ideological" and thus had its roots in the Enlightenment which spawned so many "isms". Wars which convulsed the world, every bit as devastating as the crusades, were driven by ideals which in turn were forged by Enlightened thinkers - liberal revolutionaries, nationalists, Communists and even, perhaps contentiously, I will suggest that even Fascists were a product of the Enlightenment. Moreover, the arrogance of the Enlightenment is that it enables us to perceive earlier evils, such as the sacking of Jerusalem by the crusaders, as the children of ignorance, or distorted faith, but modern wars as less so - more matters of misfortune and conflicts of interest.

I will also contend that, in science, particularly in the realm of particle acceleration, our destructive potential, coupled with eagerness to unravel the mysteries of the universe, may (and I understand the chance is slim) lead to the loss of all life as we know it, and that that sharp intellectual curiosity, willing to take such risks, is itself a product of the Enlightenment. I will suggest that our age needs a corrective current of spirituality and morality, such is most easilly given through the very institutions challenged by the Enlightenment. Essentially, I feel we need more wisdom before we seek more knowledge.

All of this should wait for the future. I am rather exhausted after nappies and burping last night and should be helping Vera with our little bundle of joy. Outside, we have a crisp Bohemian winter day. The weather is beautiful and calling out for us to take Miriam for a walk.