Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May, 2011

I swear what I see out of my window every day is different (I’ve literally hundreds of photos to prove that!), but today I saw a phenomenon I’ve never seen in my life before – a horizontal rainbow!

horizontal rainbow

This image is enhanced using iPhoto to make the rainbow more obvious. The next two are straight photos – no enhancing (the naked eye saw the colours much more clearly)

horizontal rainbow

horizontal rainbow

Read Full Post »

I’ve said it before, but one way to get great, different photos, is to change your position before you take the shot. So many people just stand upright, holding their camera at eye level in front of them. Crouching down, bending over, lying on the ground even, will give you very different shots and a very different view of the world….

umbell

Read Full Post »

through the seat

Read Full Post »

It’s rained a lot here recently…..it makes the plants sparkle…..

rain drops

rain drops

Read Full Post »

As I strolled through the garden at work today, this stopped me……

colour contrast

Read Full Post »

paeony garden Ueno

paeony garden Ueno

paeony garden Ueno

paeony garden Ueno

paeony garden Ueno

May, being the month for the budding of potential, here are some more buds….

Read Full Post »

Do you ever ask yourself “what’s going on?” I’m sure you do. There’s a trend which seems to be at it’s peak just now (at least, I’m hoping it’s about to decline!), which you can trace back to Enlightenment, the development of positivism as a philosophy and, emerging from that background a belief in the power of capital and reductionist science to produce both our globalised financial/political power elite and scientism (the belief that science, and only science, can reveal “truth”).

I recently watched Inside Job. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. It’s the clearest explanation of the 2008 financial crash and its roots I’ve read or heard. The frustrating thing about Inside Job is how it reveals that the same elite is still in power, still in the money, and still in control.

Then I read an article by Sam Harris in The Nation.

More a habit of mind than a rigorous philosophy, positivism depends on the reductionist belief that the entire universe, including all human conduct, can be explained with reference to precisely measurable, deterministic physical processes. (This strain of positivism is not to be confused with that of the French sociologist Auguste Comte.) The decades between the Civil War and World War I were positivism’s golden age. Positivists boasted that science was on the brink of producing a total explanation of the nature of things, which would consign all other explanations to the dustbin of mythology. Scientific research was like an Easter egg hunt: once the eggs were gathered the game would be over, the complexities of the cosmos reduced to natural law. Science was the only repository of truth, a sovereign entity floating above the vicissitudes of history and power. Science was science.

What’s the connection between this and the financial crises? –

During the past several decades, there has been a revival of positivism alongside the resurgence of laissez-faire economics and other remnants of late-nineteenth-century social thought. E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology (1975) launched pop-evolutionary biologism on the way to producing “evolutionary psychology”—a parascience that reduces complex human social interactions to adaptive behaviors inherited from our Pleistocene ancestors. Absence of evidence from the Pleistocene did not deter evolutionary psychologists from telling Darwinian stories about the origins of contemporary social life. Advances in neuroscience and genetics bred a resurgent faith in the existence of something called human nature and the sense that science is on the verge of explaining its workings, usually with reference to brains that are “hard-wired” for particular kinds of adaptive, self-interested behavior.

Beginning to see the connections?

Then along comes Adam Curtis’ new documentary on BBC2, All Watched Over by Machines of Love and Grace. What a strange title! It comes from a poem of that title by Richard Brautigan. It’s a three part series, and this first episode focused on Ayn Rand and her disciples, including the still influential Alan Greenspan. What a disturbing piece! I found it alarming to see such an emphasis on selfishness, such disdain about altruism, and such delusional belief in the power of “rationalism” to control outcomes. But these ideas still seem to be the foundation of the current power base in the world.

When I started this blog, and titled it “Heroes not Zombies”, I wrote about how to make zombies – and, later, I wrote about limits to control. Are there signs of change?

I do think the next wave will be based on an understanding that the world is not predictable, not controllable, and that human beings are not best served by being dominated by power elites, or so called “experts” (“scientific” or otherwise!)

But it’s a long road ahead……!

Read Full Post »

Great post across on the NPR blogs about whether or not we can know if there’s an afterlife. I especially liked this quote –

I do ponder, though, that as we incorporate new matter over our lives, we DO become different beings—our “I-ness” changes over time.

That’s so true….we change constantly, never really knowing the “I” we will become. It’s a wonderful mystery leading to daily discovery of amazement and wonder.

I loved the quote from Prospero at the end of the post –

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp’d tow’rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

and, the Iris Dement song too…..

Read Full Post »

geisha style kyoto

geisha style kyoto

photographing the blossom

One thing that strikes me when looking at these photos I took recently – you can tell where, I bet – is how different this style of dress is from the throw-away ever changing fashions – but, then, maybe they say something too……what do you think your clothes say about you?

Read Full Post »

David Cameron today is defending his government’s proposals to change the English NHS. Interestingly, this debate seems to be happening as if there isn’t another functioning model in Scotland! There is – why not refer to it? Maybe there are aspects of the Scottish NHS which are better than the English model? Why not learn from them? Maybe there are aspects which are worse. Why not learn from them too?

The fundamental problem with all the health services of course is that they are actually disease management services, not health services at all. Almost all of health care has a primary focus on disease, and only a secondary one on health. Cameron says the NHS in England has to change – and in particular he says “we’ve got and that is to change and modernise the NHS, to make it more efficient and more effective and above all, more focused on prevention, on health, not just sickness. We save the NHS by changing it.”

He’s right about that, but what exactly within his proposed changes will produce an NHS “more focused on prevention, on health”?

The BMJ this week has a lead editorial on the issue of disease definition. The problem is that the definitions of diseases keep changing and as they change, more people become “eligible” for drug treatments, and there is enormous drug company influence on disease definition.

the definitions of common conditions are being broadened, so much so that by some estimates, almost the entire adult population is now classified as having at least one chronic disease.

This makes no rational sense. As Fiona Godlee says

I’m struck by the quote from Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who chaired the task force for DSM-IV. “New diagnoses are as dangerous as new drugs, he says. “We have remarkably casual procedures for defining the nature of conditions, yet they can lead to tens of millions being treated with drugs they may not need, and that may harm them.”

Moynihan’s article is a fascinating and thought provoking one. But I finished up reading it thinking, hang on, we don’t even have an agreed definition of health, let alone a host of diseases! Shouldn’t we agree what health is, and then craft a health service towards maintaining and developing health in individuals and the population, instead of one focused on the continually expanding definitions of disease which, literally, plays into the hands of those who want us on drugs for life?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »