Paul David Adkin's Blog, page 40

How to keep writing when time is scarce – 6 tips and video chat at #IndieReCon15

pauladkin:

Planning your creativity…

Originally posted on Nail Your Novel:

We all have periods when our creative time is nuked. Day jobs, family responsibilities or out-of the-blue crises can make our writing goals streak away into the impossible distance. Even if writing is our chief occupation, there are platforms to build, decisions to mull. And if we self-publish we can add more exacting tasks to the list.

This year I���ve become more aware than ever how scarce my writing time has become. As well as editing work, I���ve got invitations to speak and run courses. I���m thrilled, and happily surprised as I never expected it. I consider myself fantastically lucky to be able to build a career on this art I���ve practised quietly for decades. But if my own novels take a back seat, my soul will shrivel. So this is how I stay on track.

Micro-sessions

You don���t always need big chunks of writing time. Instead, schedule micro-sessions. Can���

View original 567 more words

Ken Robinson: Changing Education Paradigms – RSA Animate video

pauladkin:

This conference is now a classic, and, like a classic, it gets better every time I watch it. We HAVE TO change the paradigm.

Originally posted on Guyanese Online:

Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms | Talk Video .

In this talk from RSA Animate, Sir Ken Robinson lays out the link between 3 troubling trends: rising drop-out rates, schools��� dwindling stake in the arts, and ADHD. An important, timely talk for parents and teachers.

Reading list Ken Robinson���s reading list

View original 37 more words

Meaning and the Whole

Why is it so hard for us to grasp reality from the perspective of the whole? Instead of trying to see the universal, the normal thing is to sink into reduced areas of reality. These are built through careful separations and the establishment of shared identities via what we are not rather than what we all are. Even the great separating factors of ideology/identity (nation, race, religion, class and gender) have to be eventually broken up into subsets of the initial divisions. Yet the paradox within each individual���s search for meaning through identity is that the more individual one is the more removed one becomes from the meaningfulness of the whole. In this way, a spiritual search for meaning in the whole can often end by trapping the individual within the separations of the religious community or sect, instilling a false-meaning because it is not embracing humanity as much as demanding that the subject embrace its own separateness.

Humans will always be alienated from humanity as long as they persist in clutching on to identities that are not the human, Sapien identity of self. It is through the abuse of the signifier which, whilst granting us the coherency that separation offers by differentiating things ��� by naming things ��� that we lose touch with meaning of the whole. In this aspect there is no more profound adage than that we cannot see the forest for the trees.

The idea of the lonely tree in the forest is an absurd one, but once we lose sight of the most meaningful revelation that we are all part of the same body, then separation can only instil us with loneliness and a xenophobic fear of that which is not of my own identity. Only by establishing a strong identity through species will a human society work as a human society.

Best Sentence in English Lit

Originally posted on shakemyheadhollow:

From Henry Fielding���s Joseph Andrews (1742)

The scene is this. Parson Adams walks through the countryside with a chance-met traveler who is holding forth to Adams on the virtue of courage, when a woman cries out in distress. The gentleman discoursing on courage takes to his heels poste-haste, much to the amusement of the reader, whereas Adams responds thusly:

���He did not therefore want the Entreaties of the poor Wretch to assist her, but lifting up his Crabstick, he immediately levelled a Blow at that Part of the Ravisher���s Head, where, according to the Opinions of the Ancients, the Brains of some Persons are deposited, and which he had undoubtedly let forth, had not Nature, (who, as wise Men have observed, equips all Creatures with what is most expedient for them;) taken a provident Care, (as she always doth with those she intends for Encounters) to make this part of���

View original 633 more words

THE MYTH OF SURVIVAL

Recently we have received counter-arguments to our own humanistic theses using the premise that human nature is programmed or dominated by the need to survive. We agree that survival of the species is a fundamental moral necessity for humanity, but we see the association between survival instincts and human nature far too often used in developing justifications for morally questionable behavioural patterns or for defending ideological or dogmatic standpoints. For this reason, we now want to examine the biological knowledge we currently have concerning the relationship between evolution and survival or what we call the myth of survival.

First of all, let���s look at it logically. If the purpose of evolution were survival there would never have needed to be any development beyond the single-cell Bacteria or Archaea. These organisms are far older and far more resilient as a species than any of other more complex, Eukaryotic life forms like us. This world is teeming with bacteria, and there are probably more of them in a drop of water than the population of all of humanity. So what has evolving from a bacteria to do with survival?

Likewise if we look at reality from a subatomic viewpoint, particles and the atoms they make are virtually eternal and indestructible. The atoms in our bodies have been around for billions of years, since the early stages of the Universe, so it is doubtful that they are particularly concerned about ���survival���.

But, if we are not programmed for survival, what are we programmed for?

The most fundamental leaps in evolution occurred at the cellular level: from single to multicellular types. Again, not for reasons of survival. But why? Complexity? Diversity? Does complexity or diversity offer any real benefits? Certainly not in terms of simple survival.

The transition from a one cell organism to one with two cells required numerous evolutionary steps, but the next evolutionary process was far more dramatic.

Now, in order to find reasons for why evolution takes place we would do well to consider how it takes place, for in the how we might find some clues that will explain the why. The how is embedded in cellular development, and so, perhaps, is the why. Or, in the words of biologists themselves: ���Evolutionary mechanisms and cellular mechanisms are intertwined; each is necessary for the other and the study of one enriches the study of the other.��� This quote is from the Preface of Gerhart and Kirschner���s ���Cells, Embryos and Evolution���, published in 1997. The book is dedicated to the investigation into how cellular development has taken place in the creation of diversity. The first creatures with a high degree of intercellular cooperation were the metazoan animals. According to Gerhart and Kirschner, the secret of that leap contains a paradox. The gain was achieved via a loss. The morphological change came about when an organism shed its external cell wall.

Most unicellular organisms are invested with a durable outer coating to protect themselves from the environment. However, this protective shield also isolates the cell from its own kind. By shedding that exterior wall, therefore, the unicellular animal is not acting according to any survival techniques. Quite the opposite, it is making itself more vulnerable. What it is doing though, is opening itself up to the possibilities of interaction and communication with its environment. It is the first step towards being-in-the-world and everything that that implies: ���By divesting itself of this outer wall, individual cells could begin exchanging living material ��� and information ��� with one another.��� ��In a biological sense, the information age was born ��� over a billion years ago.

And so, after millions of years of survival, the multicellular creature decides to throw off its armour and start to exchange information with the world. Of course ���decide��� is the wrong term. Decision implies an intellectual process. The primordial metazoan did no more decide to do anything than we decide that we are hungry or decide that we need to pee. The need for communication came out of a natural ���command���. Can we say from a ���desire���? If we consider it a need we must ask: a need for what? What kind of need could be so important that it puts the primordial need for survival at risk? And the shedding of the protective coating must have been a risky venture. If the alternative is true: that there never was a need for survival as such, or at least not in the primary sense, then this would make the evolution unto information exchange the prime mover. The unicellular organism was just a first stage process, only really necessary until the organism had learnt how to progress to the next level.

Please don���t misinterpret us. The question of why evolution took place is a complex one that is better answered by biologists, palaeontologists and geologists than by us. We know that the primordial planet was a hostile environment vastly different in its atmospheric and tectonic conditions to the Earth we know today. Dramatic atmospheric and climate changes caused mass extinctions and stimulated incredible explosions of diversity in animal life. And yes, evolutionary leaps did take place when species were facing an adapt (change) or perish situation. But what we are arguing is that survival was not the logical prime mover of evolution, rather that the stimulus came from a need for communication.

This ���communication��� could also be its final cause: because communication is an ongoing process of constant exchange. Embedded in it is a necessity for qualitative growth in learning, and it is synonymous with ���becoming���. As a final cause communication would be imbued with deep purposiveness. Arguably, the most generous form of communication is love, but that term has already been too greatly abused by religious dogma. So let us stay with communication as the real object of our human purposiveness.

The Science of Mirages

Lacan called psychoanalysis a science of mirages, but aren���t all truth-seeking disciplines concerned with the mirage? Mustn���t truth always be uncovered from a reality which is a constant process of covering up?

That the truth is ugly and ashamed of itself while at the same time being proud of its power and its ability to seduce via the masks it wears, makes it easy for us to exist with our backs turned. It is more comfortable for us to look away from the real and face a false projection of reality rather than tackling the ugly truth itself. This is the unauthentic nature of the civilised human���s perception of life. It is a virtual but interactive existence that sublimates the real slavery inherent in our sacrifices. By immersing ourselves in the false projection we give ourselves a space to play in with our own meanings, where we are able to create roles with our own reasons for playing the game. The unreality of our fantasies seeps into the real in a liquid way, mixing with it, tainting it and making it even uglier than it already is. There is a psychological distortion affecting both parts of human nature ��� the animal as well as the Sapien nature ��� and the socio-cultural life of civilisation must pay a psychological price for that distortion. We lean ever further in the direction of the fantasy, and that act has another price to pay.

But the real cost of the fantasy is our misunderstanding of the world we must live in, and the over-appreciation of the strength of the bubble we have created in order to isolate ourselves from the natural space we will always depend on. We think the bubble protects us, but really it endangers us. The truth is ugly because it lies to us, and it is intangible for that same reason. How can one grasp a truth that is really a lie? What is the truth in the lie of the truth?

Such questions swallow their own tails. The paradox nature of this truth is maddening. Nevertheless once this is accepted we can act with purpose. If the truth is a lie, it needs to be changed. A new reality needs to be made. We need to make truth honest again. But in order to do that we need to burst the bubble of fantasy and lies that we are floating in. We have to walk through the mirage, confront the desert, and cross over it.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE END

In order to break out of our bubble, transcend the retarding influence of Habitus, unveil the ideological masks created by identity and escape the vicious circle of repeating our same mistakes, we need to question reality from a new perspective. Look beyond the actual and try to grasp the profound realities of possibility. Start to think in a teleological way in the direction of final causes. Perhaps we should even reinstate the idea of a final destiny for humanity as an inspiration. In any case, we have to look toward long-term future points of reference. Such long-term goals are now sadly lacking in the cyclical form of the global capitalist economy. The homo economicus is really going nowhere. And if there is no final aim there can be no becoming. ��Sure, there are horizons, but we never get any closer to them ��� the horizon is never reached and the homo economicus becomes trapped in an endless circular pursuit of happiness-through-fulfilment-of-desire that really goes nowhere at all.

On the other hand, by revindication of the species and our Sapiens qualities, meaningful results become immediately tangible again and humanity can drift away from nihilism into purposiveness.

See our entry The Way out of the Bubble – ��https://pauladkin.wordpress.com/2015/...

See our entry Habitus – https://pauladkin.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/habitus/

Scientific Research: from a quantum physics perspective

pauladkin:

How to see beyond the bubble … according to Richard P. Feyman.

Originally posted on Small World:

We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn���t any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing. Since winning the prize is a personal thing, I thought I could be excused in this particular situation, if I were to talk personally about my relationship to quantum electrodynamics, rather than to discuss the subject itself in a refined and finished fashion. Furthermore, since there are three people who have won the prize in physics, if they are all going to be talking about quantum electrodynamics itself, one���

View original 969 more words

The Way Out of the Bubble

In order to effectively criticise, the critic needs to have an alternative to the operating model. Herein lies the great impotence of the bipartisan system. Criticism is carried out in a basically sterile way, concentrating on the usual way that organisation is carried out. In other words, criticism is infected with Habitus. This infection prevents criticism from attacking the structures of the System itself, and makes it impossible for it to offer any real alternatives to the bubble it floats in. Any real alternative has to begin with pulling down the house, but this is such a radical step that hardly anyone, except the most extreme groups, would be prepared to advocate it. ���How could we possibly survive without the body that we occupy?��� think the Leviathan���s parasites.

The idea is scary and it sounds impossible. Scary and impossible enough to dissuade any serious thought from forming in that direction. Nevertheless, as more and more people find themselves being fooled and lied to by the System, or become direct victims of its imperialistic and dictatorial reality, the need for demolition becomes ever more apparent.

But once one decides that we need to escape, the great paradox embedded in Systemology raises its ugly head. We need to get out of the System, but we need the System to survive. We cannot escape the bubble we are imprisoned in without bursting it. If we do we will surely die, won���t we? Psychologically then, in order for us to be strong enough to burst the bubble we need to have assurances that the atmosphere outside of the bubble will not be toxic for us. The first question leading us to liberation from the System must therefore be: What kind of atmosphere will exist outside of the System?

Criticism on its own, without the assurance of an atmosphere within which the alternative may be liveable, is always ineffective. Just as alternatives that offer solutions within the System itself are basically impotent and therefore also ineffective.

To see through the masks and the Habitus created by the System we need to analyse the ineradicable evils of that System – its necessary evils, so often blamed on human nature ��� and explain why those necessary evils are not necessary at all.

The will to change will come out of the need to change, which will become more and more apparent as the consumer-will society falls into deeper and deeper conflict with the atmosphere that sustains it. The consciousness allowing us to break the bubble will be a deeper consciousness of the greater bubble of the world that encloses the System���s bubble of economy. By breaking the economic bubble we don���t die of suffocation, quite the contrary, we expose our lungs to clean air and breathe freely again for the first time.

HABITUS

Pierre Bordieu argues that control is created and maintained through habitus. Habitus is a cultural unconsciousness through which social activity can be regulated and harmonised, but it is also an enslaving force. Through habitus we act without being conscious of actually obeying any rules. Capitalist habitus has to be flexible and allow dynamism, but it must also rule out alternatives.

But, how can this be? How can anything be dogmatic and dynamic at the same time?

Bordieu says that this paradox is resolved by inducing aspirations and actions that are compatible with its dogma. In this way you can have individual desires and act according to the fulfilment of those desires without upsetting the status quo. Do whatever you want. Become your dreams. These are the messages that capitalism inculcates in us. Subjective aspirations are therefore defined by objective structures that represent capitalism. What matters is that which is determined by tradition: things are wrong because they are not the proper thing. They are simply wrong because we all know it, because our sense of decency tells us so, because it is common sense ��� because it���s always been like that.

But Habitus is really the Big Brother. He is watching, criticising, making sure our individuality doesn’t get out of control, making sure we work for the System without being conscious of working for it. Habitus creates the Matrix.