READ MY WORK

Ideas Above Our Station
new collection of shorts, one of which was written by me,
http://www.route-online.com/routev7/page.asp?idno=292

Nine Stop Trip
even newer collection of shorts, all of which were written by me,
http://chipmunkapublishing.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=65

Holy shit! Where does the time go?

Life's been a bit of a blur since I last posted but amidst the craziness I did find the time to have a bit of a ponder about the nature of communication.

Now I've written many times in the past regarding the defining significance of sharing information to humanity, ie. it's what makes us what we are.

Seems like accurate communication, or the lack thereof, lurks at the heart of most problems facing the mankind so maybe a bit more exploratory thought on the subject would prove helpful.

In order to encompass as many, if not all, forms of communication some abstract thought tools wouldn't go amiss. How about thinking of communication as having three aspects:

source - location of info before communication

info - the information to be communicated

process - the system of communicating the info

Now each of these aspects can act on the other two, giving us six relationships to consider. In order to concentrate on three of them, obviously, let's plough through the first few nice and quick.

source > process & info > process

Both the nature of the source and of the information itself define the most appropriate and effective process to use.

info > source

While initially it would appear that the info held by a source can't change it, because the source has already received the info and reacted to it, the process of communicating the info may reveal previously unseen aspects that can then further change the source.

The second three are, I think, a bit more interesting and relevant:

process > source

Now the last couple of posts have had what you might call a darker tinge too them, feeling a bit down as I was.

I find this blog very useful for venting and exorcising my demons but often find myself feeling guilty after doing so.

The paradox is that sharing my pain makes me feel better, ie. it lessens it. So while when I tell you guys that I'm feeling shitty I'm not lying, the very act of telling you makes me feel less shitty.

So I'm sometimes left feeling a bit embarrassed that I've kicked up such a fuss and actually don't feel so bad. Of course if I'd kept it to myself I'd still feel so bad so it's the lesser of two evils.

The information being communicated is not being changed, it's accurate at start of the process. It's just that by the time the information has been received, the situation it describes has altered.

Here the process itself actually alters the source of the information, rendering the information inaccurate without actually changing it.

Another example of this is the study of sub atomic particles. One of the more well known concepts in modern physics is the idea that you can't observe something without altering it.

The majority of us take sight for granted and never give it much thought. Instinctively we know that we 'see' the things around us.

It's worth remembering though that what we actually 'see' is not the object itself but light that has bounced off it.

In the case of sub atomic particles no mater how little light, (energy would be a more appropriate word but that's not really important here,) you shine on the particle, it's enough to alter it's nature.

Again the information coming out of the source isn't corrupted or changed, it's inaccurate because the source itself has been altered.

There's not a great deal can be done to counter inaccuracy in communication due to this relationship. However just being aware of this fact at least allows the inaccuracy to be considered.

source > info

Now this is probably the most familiar relationship and, if I didn't enjoy rambling on so much, it could be summed up in two words: Chinese whispers.

Basically the information is inaccurate because it is corrupted by the source. Both politicians and media professionals are experts in this, ie. saying something that, while is technically true, gives a false impression the furthers their own needs.

This can be overcome to a certain extent by understanding the nature of the uniform bias applied to any information so as to be able to account for it.

For example if you were to read coverage of the same news event in both The Daily Mail and The Guardian you'd be likely to find two very different stories.

Taking into account the open political bias(1) of each however the two together could actually provide a more accurate picture.

Such a correction is limited however. The problem with bias, with the source altering the info, is not so much with the bits of info subtly twisted or changed, but more with the bits left out.

Things left out because they are deemed either irrelevant or harmful to the source drop out of the communication process completely.

Inaccurate information is always better than none as something can always be at least implied or deduced. You can't do much with a blank page, believe me.

process > info

Has this ever happened to you? You're filling in some form or questionnaire and you're faced with a multiple choice question.

Unfortunately none of the answers provided are yours and there isn't an other box.

You, the source, are unable to communicate accurately due to the system you are forced to use.

Instead of supplying an answer that describes your situation you either have to choose something outright wrong or not make a selection leaving compete ambiguity.

I find myself in this position quite often at work. I am asked to produce some report or other to monitor some aspect of the business, only I have to do it in line with an existing format to allow cross comparison.

Basically I have to present the figures via a method designed by somebody else. Unfortunately the method is pants and renders the info, at best, difficult to access and, at worst, downright useless.

One example of this was a benchmarking exercise wherein I was asked to arrive at an average cost for a selection of common repairs to council houses.

The number of jobs carried out over the considered period would be tens of thousands and yet I was directed to work from samples of ten jobs because this is what other teams had done and the figures needed to be compared.

Ten jobs out of tens of thousands? That's less than 0.1%, ie. in no way any kind of representative sample.

Regardless, I still have bust my ass to produce figures that I know don't really mean anything.

A slightly less self indulgent example would be a retelling of our first idea with the questionnaire.

When you, as a free citizen of free democracy with FREEDOM, (sorry, let me just wipe the rabid spittle from my chin,) cast your vote in an election what happens if you don't feel represented by any of the available options?

Due to the lack of a NON OF THE ABOVE box,(2) you are left either supporting a party you don't actually like or sending an ambiguous message to the politicians that can interpret in the way most useful to them.

When people talk about voter apathy they base it on the number of people who didn't vote.

Such a statistic has very limited usefulness however because there is absolutely no way to determine how many of those that didn't vote did so due to apathy or lack of representation, or any other reason.

So overall it's not a great picture in terms of our ultimate aim of perfectly accurate communication.

All humans feel angst at some point in their lives, (do correct me if I'm wrong,) regarding a desperate need to be truly understood by somebody else.

Turns out though that the deck is well and truly stacked against us. The six relationships above have been briefly considered in isolation.

Each one presents an obstacle to accurate communication and we haven't even considered the reality, ie. that actually all six relationships are constantly impacting on each other.

Why is it so hard? There's a bit in the bible about how in the beginning humans all spoke the same language and that god mixed it all up so that we wouldn't be able to understand one another.

From the picture painted so far it might actually be quite tempting to believe that somebody somewhere doesn't want us to communicate.

Before we all start throwing ourselves on the floor and hating gay people though let's take a minute to consider the wider context.

Since when did communication need to be accurate?

Most of the processes in the universe that fall under our broad yoke of communication are actually mechanical processes intended to provoke some physical response.

When photons tear around the universe smacking into stuff neither they, nor the particles they hit, care about how any information they may exchange is distorted and they're certainly not interested in what that information may suggest about the opposite party.

It's just another transfer of energy.

The point is that we're the only ones to whom such accuracy is important. As far as the rest of the universe is concerned if it gets the job done it's good enough.

So we're fighting against the natural order of things, but with good reason. The more sophisticated our systems of communication have become the more capable we've become of delivering a higher standard of living.(3)

There is another reason why accuracy is so important to us, namely the perception of time.

Everything else in the universe, from sub atomic particles to animals, lives in the moment. Even when animals draw from memory they're still doing so in response to some immediate stimulus.

We, on the other hand, perceive something called time, or rather its passage.

Perfectly accurate communication would be, in effect, a form of time travel. Everything is a state of constant flux, but by communicating something perfectly you would be recreating a past instant in time.

Communication is the technique we have, quite unconsciously, developed in order to overcome time.

Instead of being trapped on our own one way road through time communication allows us to see the view from other routes and places and thereby build up a wider picture.

So where've we come to? Communication, it's hard but it's worth it. Guess that about sums it up really.

Just a point of interest: maths is a system of perfect communication.

This statement can very easily be misinterpreted and is on a daily basis by many of the most powerful people in the world,

It does NOT mean that anything proven by maths is perfectly true. The accuracy of any maths is inevitably restricted by the accuracy of the data being used.

Maths is a system of perfect communication in another, quite different way.

The reason perfect communication is, apparently, impossible is due to the constantly changing and interactive nature of the universe.

In maths however an incredibly basic, non-physical world has been constructed which is utterly static.

The point here is that 1 is always 1, and to write 1 is to perfectly communicate the nature of 1, etc.

It's a kind of backwards cheat if you like. I can't run twenty six miles, I'll die, so instead I'll just change what a marathon is, twenty six feet sounds better.

I guess that final thought here is that, thanks to the nature of communication, many of the concepts I've tried to take from my head and make available to yours here will be lost, fallen by the roadside, never to be seen again, with just scraps making it through the gauntlet to you guys, panting and ragged.

Thing is we've been getting by like this for a fair while now, and we haven't done too bad from it either, know what I mean?

footnote

(1) I don't think there's anything wrong with political bias in the media as long as it's stated up front and opinion isn't presented as fact; I would in fact be far more suspicious of a media outlet claiming to have no political bias whatsoever as I'm not sure that's actually possible,

(2) I've been informed that they do have such a box on electoral ballots in Holland; the Netherlands was also recently announced to be the best place, (ie. safest with most opportunity,) for kids to grow up in, all this with brilliant public transport and legal access to weed, what the hell am I still doing living here?!

(3) notice I say 'capable' of delivering a higher standard of living, we are currently quite capable of clothing, feeding, housing and employing the entire human race, we simply choose not to,

BUY MY STUFF!

Ideas Above Our Station
new collection of shorts, one of which was written by me,
http://www.route-online.com/routev7/page.asp?idno=292

Nine Stop Trip
even newer collection of shorts, all of which were written by me,
http://chipmunkapublishing.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=65

Still off work, still feeling shitty, but the fever's broken and I'm feeling strong enough to be irritated by my lack of energy.

Been thinking recently about a big assumption on which we've chosen to base our society, namely that things are always getting better.

The present is always better than the past and the future will be better than the present.

This is of course closely tied to the development of technology as shown by our blind faith that more, newer technology is always better and can solve everything for us.

Before our obsession with contemporary technology however this same assumption reared its head in other ways.

Most of the big organised religions have at their heart, albeit twisted almost beyond recognition to their own ends, the story of how a funny walking ape became a human.

Whether it's the Judeo-Christian story of Adam & Eve taking the apple or the Buddhist story of the monkey stealing the peach, somehow we as a race passed the story of our birth on verbally until written language appeared and it could be recorded.

Most of the power structure religions also interpret this tale in a similar way, namely that our new thinking aspect is utterly superior, (or holy as they'd like to call it,) to the ignorant beast aspect of before.

Newer is always better than old therefore considered thought should always override primal instinct.

Now before you poor polarised peeps out there start getting all hot under the collar let's just establish that I'm not then suggesting that the opposite must be true.

What I am increasingly coming to think, is that there just shouldn't be a hierarchy, that both these aspects have great strengths and weaknesses and that if we want to make the most of them we have to choose when to rely on each.

So here're three examples of such a conflict:

Firstly, a few weeks back I was talking to a guy at work who served in the first gulf war(1) and he told me that when they thought they might be in danger from chemical weapons they had to sleep in protective suits complete with gasmasks etc.

A guy then had to sit in each tent all night with one job: to grab hold of people and sit on them if they woke up.

Why? Because the first reaction, even of highly trained, disciplined and accomplished soldiers, when waking up in a gas mask is to rip it off and take a lung full of 'fresh air'.

Now clearly, under such circumstances, this instinct could get you killed. I thought I knew vaguely how that might feel from my own experience of scuba diving.

The first dive I did was fantastic but did feature about a second and a half of abject panic. Just as I got to the bottom I looked up and saw the ten meters of ocean sat on top of me.

Just for a moment everything in me was screaming to rip the gear off and get to the surface as quick as I could. Of course considered thought then took over and instead of drowning I had a really good time.

Secondly, depression. Really been kicking my arse of late, and to be brutally honest it's only an abject lack of energy that's kept me from doing something 'stupid'.(2)

My favourite metaphor for this kind of situation involves holding your hand over a lit match.

Considered thought tells you that the match will quickly burn out and so the pain will stop, or at least lessen significantly, very soon.

Beastly instinct however, screams at you to remove your hand and will even do it for you if you're not careful.

(Just to spell things out, in this instance, removing the hand from the flame = removing yourself from the world, ie. suicide.)

The big D has a wide selection of hooks to get in you, like a perpetual loop about how you girlfriend couldn't care less whether you lived or died, or a relentless, infinite cringing over some past faux pa or even the absolute conviction that you have a serious illness.

The 'trick' if you like, is to recognise them as irrational, as symptoms of the depression and not make decisions based on them.

Instead you have to trust in considered thought that if you grit your teeth and ride out the agony the match will burn out.

Again, forcing yourself to go against your beastly instinct keeps you alive.

It's worth noting that the irrationality of those thoughts doesn't necessarily mean they're not accurate, (I do believe the first of the three examples I gave to be true,) their irrational nature can simply blow them out of proportion.

Finally, this all seems to be going one way doesn't it? Well here's some counterbalance.

Had my big job interview on Monday, got the call yesterday, didn't get it, big shock.

I coughed and spluttered through the interview, kept forgetting what I was saying, the whole thing was a phlegmy mess basically.

Turns out however that it came down to a photo finish between myself and one other candidate. My written test was the best but they did better in the interview.

If I'd been on form I'd have pissed all over it.

What's this go to do with anything? Well besides me just being a bit pissed off about it the point is that impressing people at job interviews is all about enthusiasm, convincing them not only that you can do the job but, more importantly, that you want to.

Clearly I managed to do this, the thing I don't want a job, not that one, not any one.

(I don't consider writing to be a job, it's just something I am regularly compelled to do to release the pressure in my brain.)

How many of us do things every day that make us miserable? We follow considered thought and ignore beastly instinct to chase the things we don't want and neglect those we do.

The assumption is that it's always best to follow new considered thought because beastly instinct is outdated and ignorant, useless to us in today's modern world.

Beastly instinct however, if we can hold our noses and have a good look, got us a hell of a long way before considered thought came on the scene.

Fair enough in our first example we're right not to listen, though it does give us an essential reminder as to the risks we're taking.

The second example is, I feel, actually a halfway state. Fine, maybe the solutions my gut suggests, disappearing or dying, are not the most constructive, but it's telling me that things are not ok, that something needs to change or I will eventually break.

The third example is pretty much the same thing I guess, only in a much more insidious, calmer, everyday way.

Considered thought is an incredibly powerful tool but one that, if not understood and used with care, can blind the user into accepting a life of pain and disappointment that beastly instinct would never have allowed for a moment.

So are you a brain or a beast?

I'm sure we're both but can't deny it's damn hard line to walk.

footnote

(1) although that's a useful term to communicate where and when I'm talking about it does rather suggest that we stopped being at war with the Iraqi people before 2003 which, sickened to say, just isn't true, we've been killing them and their kids in one way or another ever since,

(2) the definition of 'stupid' in this context is entirely relative I assure you, ie. you think it is, I don't,

BUY MY STUFF!

Ideas Above Our Station
new collection of shorts, one of which was written by me,
http://www.route-online.com/routev7/page.asp?idno=292

Nine Stop Trip
even newer collection of shorts, all of which were written by me,
http://chipmunkapublishing.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=65

Will somebody, anybody, please come round my house and kill me.

Been off work since Wednesday with flu and just cannot even begin to describe how insanely rough I feel.

Everything hurts and, until the last few hours or so, I have been completely out of it.

Having a fever is like free acid, only the trip's always bad.

Had a whole bunch of mental dreams / trips yesterday and last night and no real idea what was going on.

Most of it was so crazy that even though it felt real I know it can't have been. One bit did throw me though.

I can remember, with absolute clarity, my girlfriend dumping me. There was a whole complex conversation and I can recall all the details but, as it turns out, none of that actually happened.

She wasn't even here last night!

All very unsettling, but she assured me earlier today that it didn't happen and that almost all those details were way off.

I say almost because, of course, she has dumped me, just now, and this time I know it's real because I still have the text.

It never rains eh?

(04/02/07: turns out I misunderstood that text and wasn't dumped after all, not really sure what's going on to be honest, watch this space.)

It's funny but you'd think that'd trigger my depression big time and yet I feel strangely calm.

I can only assume that the fact that I only just about have the energy to make it upstairs for the occasional piss means that I just don't have it in me to plummet to the depths of despair right now, as fun as that would no doubt be.

Anyway, what better way to distract myself from my health, former relationship and the big job interview I have on Monday, (that's right) than by examining the nature of consumer capitalism.

global warming, (not fucking climate change,)

Subtle rebranding can be very effective if not recognised for what it is. The phrase climate change suggests, to me anyway, a local change in no specified direction.

'Global warming' however makes it very clear exactly what's happening and to whom.

Now I was reading the Guardian's coverage of the IPCC report online earlier today and when I got to the bit where they were talking about how to avoid, or rather minimise, the various impending doomsday scenarios, I couldn't help but think about consumer capitalism.

The simple fact is that capitalism, by definition, must lead to global warming, and no actions within that system can reduce the impact of that process.

I admit that's a fairly sweeping statement but hear me out.

Capitalism is based upon the concept of material value, that all raw materials, goods and services have a, usually monetary, value.

Clearly these values are in constant flux, prices are always changing, but what is it the controls the direction and magnitude of these changes?

Abundancy.

Quite simply, the rarer something is the more it's worth, and herein lies the rub: the whole thing relies on limited availability.

Fossil fuels are a perfect example of this. Again, by definition they are finite, the time scales for their creation being so much longer than the time scales within which we can excavate them.

It's important to note here that I'm not really interested in the intent of the individuals involved, be they philanthropic or malignant, because they don't really make any difference.

Try to think of this in terms of natural selection. If a system, such as capitalism, is successful it will continue to exist and to spread itself.

The less fossil fuel we have, the more it will be worth as the capitalist system feeds itself.

Now in my utopian vision, every community is surrounded and served by small fields of hemp.

We use it as the basis of just about everything, particularly for generating electricity and fuelling vehicles.

The use of biofuels is one of the the recommendations of the IPCC report unfortunately capitalism's self preservation instincts cannot let this be.

If hemp were grown on the scale I envisage, ie. an effectively infinite source available locally everywhere, then hemp would have zero, monetary, value.

How could a capitalist society have as its basis a commodity with no material worth? It doesn't work.

Capitalism requires the destruction of something which cannot be replaced, ie. a planet that can support human life.

fat kids

We have probably never been so obsessed with our own personal health and yet at the same time we've probably never been less healthy either.

Let's compare a super healthy lifestyle with a super unhealthy one and consider how capitalism gains, or not, from them both.

We're all aware of the 'five a day' veg target, but it's worth noting that how fresh the veg is is just as important as how much you eat.

Super healthy would be to eat veg that's barely out the ground, ie. either grown yourself or grown locally.

This means however, no packaging, no storage, and no transportation.

How much money is there to be made in those industries do you think?

There is a direct correlation between food that comes in shed loads of packaging, each component of which has probably been made using oil and then stored, (usually refrigerated,) and transported thousands of miles using even more oil; and food that's really bad for you.

Getting out of the house is also pretty healthy, physical exercise and a break from urban environments are both proven to be hugely beneficial for the human body.

Being out the house means you're not in front of the TV however, and being out of town means you're even beyond the reach of billboards.

The fact is that an unhealthy lifestyle is a profitable one. Just as with global warming, our obsession with the pursuit of material wealth is at the very heart of the problem.

It's a vicious circle as capitalism has established itself as being the god of all gods. If the healthy lifestyle described above was adopted on mass we'd be fucked as it would lead to massive job losses.

So no matter how many ad campaigns or other government initiatives are attempted, we can't escape the slide toward being big fat bastards as long as capitalism is the foundation of our society.

what is it good for?

A quicky to finish, as I can't really be arsed anymore, (sorry!)

What is the single most profitable industry in the history of mankind?

Well I must admit I don't know for sure, but I'd put my hard earned sick pay on it being the business of war.

Talk about disposable produce. A scared enough public will write you a blank cheque to develop more lethal technology.

Once you've built it, you smash the fuck out of it, or just wait a few years until your 'duty' compels you to do it all again.

There's a book called 'Pentagonism' by Juan Bosch explains this better than I ever could and is well worth reading.

It amuses me, in a bitter kind of way, when people struggle to understand the US's obsession with warfare.

They're a country born of war and war has been the foundation of their economy and ideology ever since.

Let's not forget that we UK taxpayers have only just now finally paid off our WWII debt to the US. They made an absolute mint out of that one.

I once read an article that stated so much money was tied up in illegal activities that if you could flip a switch to turn off crime across the globe, every economy and stock market in the world would instantly crash.

If the common dream of world peace could be achieved by the flick of another magical switch I believe exactly the same would happen.

Capitalism requires need to exist and so creates need through destruction, whether it be boiling the seas, expanding our waistlines or blowing up children.

We're doomed to carry on down this greasy slope for as long as we refuse to open our eyes to other possibilities.