Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The TV News each evening doesn’t carry many uplifting stories but tonight on channel 4 news they had a piece that grabbed me and fed my optimistic nature. It was about Filmclub. This is a project started by Director, Beeban Kidron, which introduces movies into schools throughout England. She’s had a trial running and it’s been hugely successful so it’s now being rolled out around the rest of the country.

“I think that stories and the telling of stories are the foundations of human communication and understanding. If children all over the country are watching films, asking questions and telling their stories, then the world will eventually be a better place. That’s how important I think FILMCLUB is.”

Oh, I agree, Beeban. Stories and the telling of stories really are the foundation of what it is to be human. Filmclub’s co-founder, Lindsay Mackie said –

“ Films have the power to raise your gaze and raise your game and give you a ticket to pleasure and enlightenment forever more….”

YES! Well, that’s aiming high, isn’t it? How wonderful!

I use movies a LOT in my teaching (I teach mainly doctors, but also nurses, dentists, vets and other health care workers). I know that some of you (yes, mrschili, I’m talking to you!) also use movies a lot in your own teaching work. This Filmclub idea has sparked a thought for me – what if I started a Filmclub for patients in the hospital where I worked? If I was going to do that, which movies would I show? Patients are often suffering and in distress. Which movies might be catalysts to discussions which encourage healing? Any suggestions?

Dementia is such an awful disease. It can be utterly harrowing to see the loss of self and independence of a loved one. I find it such a sad illness. So I was interested to read this piece of research from JAMA today.

One of the most difficult problems for dementia sufferers and their carers is the disruption of the normal circadian rhythms, so these researchers tried two interventions which might make a difference – melatonin and light. The patients who were treated with melatonin did experience improvement in their sleep but their mood deteriorated and they became withdrawn. Bright lights were fitted to the care homes and kept on throughout the day. Residents who lived with the brighter light AND who took melatonin showed the greatest benefits in both cognitive function and in reduction of depressive symptoms. The authors conclude by recommending the light plus melatonin regime, but point out that increased light alone made a difference and that melatonin without increased light should not be recommended because of the adverse effects on mood.

This is a nice study. Very simple intervention which apparently can make a useful difference.

Asparagus

asparagus

One day at the local market in Aix I saw this stall. Have you ever seen this much asparagus for sale? There’s a whole wall of it here!

I think asparagus is really tasty, but I don’t remember ever tasting it as a child. Do you have any foodstuffs which you didn’t taste until you became an adult but which you discovered you really enjoyed?

I decided to check out wikipedia and see what I could find out about asparagus before I posted this photo. I was interested to read that it has certain medicinal properties – not least that it can bring on an attack of gout, but that it’s been a traditional medicine for the treatment of urinary tract infections and stones.

There was one surprising fact I discovered though – it’s about the way asparagus consumption changes the smell of your urine! Apparently Marcel Proust commented on this claiming that asparagus “…transforms my chamber-pot into a flask of perfume.” It’s something I’ve been very aware of since I first ate asparagus, but the one thing I didn’t know was that only 40% of the population have the genes needed to be able to smell it! This may be something peculiar about the way my mind works but that fact suddenly made me think of the old zen puzzle – does a tree falling in the forest, where nobody is present, make a noise?

Isn’t it interesting that a smell might only exist if the person doing the smelling has a certain gene? Oh, and what on earth are we doing with a gene for smelling the metabolites of asparagus in the urine?

I love movies. I’m an addict. I think it’s my insatiable thirst for stories which hooks me. I’m not a fan of the blockbuster kind of movie that’s all special effects though. I like a movie which draws me in and absorbs me in the characters and the story. Of course, that fits with my other great addiction – books. I’m really never without a book and I’m often reading more than one book at a time.

I think movies are called movies, not just because they are “moving pictures” but because they can be so “moving” – they can stir our emotions so strongly. How do they do that? Well, here’s a slightly disturbing piece of research. Using the fMRI technique (the brain scan that shows which areas of the brain are active at any given moment) researchers observed which parts of the brain became active at particular moments in different movies and they used an interesting tool called “ISC” (Inter-subject Correlation) to see if different people had the same parts of the brain lighting up at the same moments. They picked a Hitchcock movie, “Bang! You’re Dead!”, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, an episode of “Curb your Enthusiasm”, and an unedited video clip of a concert. The results were very different –

  • The Hitchcock episode evoked similar responses across all viewers in over 65 percent of the neocortex, indicating a high level of control on viewers’ minds;
  • High ISC was also extensive (45 percent) for “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”;
  • Lower ISC was recorded for “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (18 percent) and for the Washington Square Park, or unstructured reality, clip (less than 5 percent)

In other words, Hitchcock really was the master. His movie evoked the most similar responses in peoples’ brains.

“Our data suggest that achieving a tight control over viewers’ brains during a movie requires, in most cases, intentional construction of the film’s sequence through aesthetic means,” the researchers wrote. “The fact that Hitchcock was able to orchestrate the responses of so many different brain regions, turning them on and off at the same time across all viewers, may provide neuroscientific evidence for his notoriously famous ability to master and manipulate viewers’ minds. Hitchcock often liked to tell interviewers that for him ‘creation is based on an exact science of audience reactions.’ “

The researchers claim that these techniques pave the way for the development of “neurocinematic studies” – oh my!

heart of the poppy, originally uploaded by bobsee.

I was walking down to town and spotted some large poppies in someone’s front garden.
Oh, look at this one!
This is one of those flowers you can lose yourself in!

I’m sure you are very familiar with this phrase. You’ve either said it or thought it, and if you haven’t, then, at least, you’ve sure heard it said.

Sometimes somebody expresses a view, or behaves in a way, that is so different to how we would view or do something that it can feel as if they don’t actually live in the same world as we do.

Saint-Exupery, in “The Little Prince”, has this theme running right through his brilliant, thought-provoking little story. The philosopher, Ravoux, says that the main theme of “Le Petit Prince” is the difficulty we find in making connections. We all experience the world from the first person perspective, and we have no way of experiencing the world from another person’s perspective. Not wholly. Not fully. We use language and fashion stories to try to convey our views and our experiences to others. We use imagination and empathy to try and put ourselves in others’ shoes, but it’s not easy.

The Little Prince visits six, very small, planets. In fact, the planets he visits are so small (really they are asteroids) that only one person can live on each of them. Saint-Exupery uses the common device of pushing each example to an extreme to make it more clear (Deleuze favours this technique, stating that we should push something to its extreme point to reveal its true character).

On the first planet lives a king. He needs to be in control of everything. But he isn’t stupid. He knows his limitations and has rationalised his experience to fit with his need. He only commands to happen what he knows will happen. The Little Prince sees that this is what the king does and finds it absurd, but lots of people are like this. The important issue of them is of feeling in control of everything. The need for control lies deep within us all. When it becomes all-consuming it becomes the standard against which everything is experienced.

The second planet is inhabited by a man who needs to be told that he is the most handsome, most admired man in the world. When The Little Prince points out that there is nobody else on this man’s planet, the man dismisses the point, saying “admire me anyway”. In our present time the cult of celebrity runs very, very strong. It doesn’t matter what you’re famous for, as long as you’re famous. Admire me! Admire me! Notice me!

The third planet is the world of a drunkard. He tells The Little Prince he is ashamed because he drinks so much and he drinks to forget. Forget what? Forget that I am ashamed! Alcohol and drugs as a way of life? You sure know people like this.

The fourth planet is inhabited by “the businessman” who sits at his desk, counting his possessions and ordering them. He claims he owns all the stars in the universe, and when challenged about how this can be so, he shows the pieces of paper which represent his ownership. It’s not the actual stars which matter, it’s the owning them! The Little Prince finds this idea equally absurd.

The fifth planet is where a lamplighter lives. His planet is so small that day and night are only a minute long each, so the poor man is trapped in a constant cycle of lighting and extinguishing the lamps. The Little Prince points out that if he walked slowly round his planet following the light, he could have a break from the continuous cycle of his work, but the man can’t do that. He says it’s important to follow the rules and that’s what he is doing. He is following the rules. Lots of people only feel safe when they strictly follow the rules.

The sixth and final planet is the one where The Little Prince finds a geographer. This man sits at a desk writing down all the reports which people bring him to create the complete knowledge of the planet. However, he never leaves the desk to go and experience the planet for himself. The Little Prince finds it strange that someone can think they can know everything about a place without experiencing it.

We are all different and we are all unique. I can never know if what I experience as “red” when looking at a red rose, is what you experience as “red”. But we can both agree to give our experiences the same name.

Cemetry rose

Owen Flanagan explores this issue with his idea of “spaces of meaning” where he makes it clear that we each have different ways of making sense of the world. Mary Midgley argues the same point with her analogy of the aquarium which we can only see into through the small windows which are personally available to us.

So, if we really all are on our own planets, with our own sets of values and ways of making sense of things, each of us with our individual world views, then how can we connect? How can relate to other people in their other worlds? Well we need to hear their stories because only they can tell us what they have experienced. And we need to hear their stories using something fundamental and special, Saint-Exupery tells us, and that is LOVE.

It’s LOVE that allows us to connect, to see, hear and understand each others’ worldviews, and it takes LOVE to break down the barriers of isolation and loneliness.

It’s a strange thing, the present. We consider three time zones, don’t we? The past, the present and the future. A lot of patients I see are suffering because they are trapped in one of these time zones (and it’s not the present!). We experience the past through our use of memory. The past doesn’t exist. Not any more. We can only bring it back to life by remembering. Remembering is something we do. The future doesn’t exist. Not yet. We can only bring it to life by imagining. Imagining is something we do. So if we do remembering to experience the past, and imagining to experience the future, then what do we do to experience the present?

Usually when I think about experiencing the present, I concentrate on my senses, and becoming aware of what I’m hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling or touching. Amy, at livelessordinary, has written beautifully about just that way of living in the present.

I was reading “Donner un sens a l’existence“, by Jean-Philippe Ravoux, recently. Jean-Philippe is a French philosopher who has written about the philosophical basis of “Le Petit Prince”. He makes a strong point about the present which, when I read it, made me suddenly stop and think. Some of the greatest truths are the simplest ones. He says that living in the present is about acting. He says that we can ONLY act in the present. The present is the ONLY time we can DO anything. When I read that point, it was as if a penny dropped. Until then I had considered living in the present as a fairly passive affair – a time of sitting still, being quiet, savouring, sensing consciously and mindfully. Well, I still think all that is true, but look at all the verbs in that sentence! The present isn’t something that just happens to us, or passes us by. It’s what we do.

The way to live in the present is to be conscious of what you are choosing to do.

What are you doing right now? Reading? Thinking? Drinking tea or coffee? Remembering? Imagining? All these actions are your actions. These actions, these choices, are how you create your experience of living. William Glasser understood that when he developed Reality Therapy. Living in the present – it’s what we do!

I came across a great post entitled “Why it may be worth becoming more like a child” on the slow leadership blog. The main reasons to become more child-like laid out in this post were – being more imaginative, being encouraged to learn, forgiven for mistakes and becoming more creative. Carmine Coyote, the post’s author, asks what would work be like if people started to be a bit less adult? She argues it could be more exploratory, experimental, exciting and passionate. I like this post, and agree with it too. But let me tell you a little story, because this post fits in with one of those strange, synchronicity moments for me.

I regularly spend time in France. My French language skill isn’t great. I get by, understanding most of what I hear, but I’m not good at expressing myself in French. I love to read French however and I’m not too bad at that. I take my time and consult a dictionary when I need to. I never let a visit to France pass without a good browse in the bookshop. French language books are SO different from the English language ones I find in the UK. It’s really like a whole other world for me. Last month, as I browsed in one of my favourite bookshops, “Vents du Sud“, up past the market in Aix-en-Provence, I picked up an interesting-looking book, entitled “Donner un sens a l’existence” by Jean-Philippe Ravoux. I guess you could translate that as “Making sense of existence”, but “donner” means to give, so it’s more “Giving sense to existence”. I am convinced that one of the essential characteristics of human beings is that we are meaning-seeking/meaning-creating animals. A closer look revealed that this book is by an Aix-based philosophe and is an exposition of the work of Antoine Saint-Exupery – in particular, “Le Petit Prince” (The Little Prince) and “Citadelle” (Wisdom of the Sands). “Le Petit Prince” is THE top selling book in the world, second only to the Bible. I bought it, and I’ve been reading, underlining and annotating it since. I SO enjoyed it! I also decided it was time to refresh my memory of “Le Petit Prince” so re-read that too (first in French, then I bought myself a new English language copy and read that too, in case I didn’t understand anything in the French version). Well, I finished it during a train journey yesterday, and I’ve already gone back to the beginning to re-read the parts I’ve marked up for myself. I’m intending to write a few posts about the main themes over the coming days. But here’s the connection and the strange part –

The main theme of Le Petit Prince is how child-like innocence and wonder can challenge the adult view of reality. The little prince questions everything. He doesn’t just take things for granted. Ravoux claims that Saint-Exupery based this attitude on Descartes‘ “Discours de la Methode” (but more of that in another post!) Through his wonder and questioning, the little prince challenges our rather unthinking ways of living, our attitudes to power, money, belief and so on, and this questioning makes us “wake up” (become heroes not zombies?)

My head is full of these thoughts just now, so what a surprise to stumble this very day upon a post about becoming child-like!

What an amazing and curious world we live in! I love how it continually surprises me!

the moment of the setting sun

This is the moment, the present moment, that time we call sunset, and as the sun sinks behind the mountains, it throws up a final farewell flare. I’ve never seen it do that before. Not behind these particular hills. The unexpected, the unpredicted, how it jumps up and grabs our attention, demands we pull ourselves right out of the dreams and worries about the future, right out of the memories and reveries of the past, and just for this brief moment, we are reminded that the present is sliding past our eyes, so maybe, just maybe, it would be good to open them.

fMRI is definitely the “in” tool in neuroscience. It allows a scientist to see what areas of the brain light up while a person is doing something. A study I recently came across is using this technique to work out how the brain deals with words. More specifically they are mapping the areas of the brain that light up when someone here’s a word associated with a “concrete noun” – a noun related to something experienced with one of the five senses.

Hmm, not quite sure how interesting that is, but then I read this –

“We are fundamentally perceivers and actors,” he said. “So the brain represents the meaning of a concrete noun in areas of the brain associated with how people sense it or manipulate it. The meaning of an apple, for instance, is represented in brain areas responsible for tasting, for smelling, for chewing. An apple is what you do with it. Our work is a small but important step in breaking the brain’s code.”

This is SUCH an important point in understanding how human beings function. Our nervous systems involve a whole network involved in sensing stimuli from the environment and a whole network involved in carrying out actions. These two networks are intensely and complexly (is there such a word?) linked up to each other. At a simple level, that implies we sense things then we act in response. In fact, it’s more complicated. Some neuroscientists and philosophers have suggested that sensing and acting are actually two aspects of the exact same thing – that sensing is a kind of an act. That seems right at some level, but it’s also quite challenging. This particular insight from these researchers makes that idea a little clearer I think. We can see that the brain actually represents what it perceives by using the areas that are involved in carrying out the actions normally associated with the object being perceived. In other words, perception and understanding are fundamentally entangled with acting.