Five forces...

It seems to me that the next decade or two are pretty crucial for Mankind and his poor long-suffering planet. I see five forces being the most important:

1The incalculable effect of the rise of China. Napoleon once said 'Let China sleep, for when she wakes, the world will tremble'. Quite so.We ain't seen nothing yet. Will China economically colonise all of central Africa, and with what result? Will she come to absorb the major part of the world's diminishing resources? And what effect will this have on the stability of the USA and hence on theb alance of world powers?

2 Pollution and Global Warming. Catastrophe for us all waits just around the corner if the governments of the world, particularly those of the developed and developing worlds can't bang their heads together to work out something just and rational that will stop the rot.

3 The power of the multinationals, including banks. They have no sense of responsibility or morality, and will terminally plunder the wealth of us all and the planet unless prevented by either multinational government, or People Pester Power.

4 The internet in all its guises. New media might challenge the monopoly that a few unpricipled money-monkeys like Murdoch, Berlusconi etc have on world 'news' and mind control. We've seen the value of networking sites recently in Egypt. It is becoming increasingly difficult for tyrants to keep truth at bay and populations misinformed and subservient. Networking will also develop pester power via such sites as Avaaz, and will organise increasingly effective boycotts of companies who abuse people, animals and the planet. The www is a powerful force for bringing democracy.

5 The growing influence of women. Over the last twenty years or so, women have been quietly getting on with liberating themselves, to the benefit of all. They have brought their nurturing/cooperative talents with them, and have an excellent record in the business world in the west. In the developing world, the Grameen Bank and similar initiatives is slowly but surely increasing the influence and power of women in 'traditional' societies.

I might add 'destruction of the world's soil by crass farming methods' but I guess that probably comes under 'Pollution' up to a point. I'm optimistic that the potential for People Pester Power inherent in the www might develop some powerful boycott campaigns against eg GMOs and animal abuse and the supermarkets etc that promote or encourage them.

What do you think? What have I missed? Or am I just plain wrong!

Namaste Chas

Any tips?

I used to be able to copy from elsewhere, and then paste into my New Post Window... convenient!
It now doesn't do this.
Any tips, anyone?

The Colours...

A few years ago the Georgians had their 'Rose Revolution', and the Ukrainians had their 'Orange Revolution'. Are the Egyptians about to experience their 'Eau de Nil Revolution'?

I wish everyone in Egypt and the Arab world the very best of luck . Democracy will come one day.

Let's all Co-operate...

Dear Mr Osborne....

Tough job you have there.... fixing the taxes and everything so that everyone is happy. Call me an old cynic, but I suspect that by the time you've finished, at least the Old Etonians will be delighted with your efforts. Still, got to start somewhere, eh?

I'd like to make a suggestion for where you might look next. How about awarding a big tax break to any company that forms, or re-forms, into a co-operative? After all, what possible problem can there be with this as a principle? It would be a case of genuine public involvement with business, which you must surely approve of; and would bring greater stability to the workforce, as people would not feel exploited and would thus be keen to stay on; it would also generate greater worker involvement and guarantee higher productivity from staff. No strikes!! Wages controlled from within!! And, for what it's worth, your Lib Dem allies would be delighted with such a step; as would the Labour Party of whatever stripe. And so would all the workers involved. Who could possibly be the loser here?

Would co-ops work? Well, ask 'the Co-op', which has been a model of stability and probity thoughout the piracy and greed of Thatchers' years. Better still, ask 'John Lewis' and 'Waitrose', whose profitability has steadily risen while all about them were falling on their (borrowed) swords.

Can't see a problem myself? Any views, Mr Osborne?
I dare to predict that you would never consider such a sane step forward to stability and worker participation, as that would remove the bosses' right to slash and burn all about them as and when they think fit, in the name of personal greed and off-shore profits. Or am I being cynical again?

Good Luck, whatever. I don't think you'll have too long to do your worst in. But I'm afraid that the destruction you will wreak will be hard to put right again.

Chas Griffin

The funeral is fast approaching.

Anne's Mum breathed her gentle last a week ago with her daughter at her side. She went as she had lived: quietly and self-effacingly; no fuss; no drama.

For the last few days we've been organising the final farewell ceremony. Neither daughter was clear about Mum's religious convictions, so we've decided that it would not be appropriate to drag in a strange vicar (or a normal one, come to that) to trot out a few platitudes about someone he had never met. And anyway, none of the small family gathering would be churchy types either.
The only alternative to a vicar is for us to do it ourselves. It seems more appropriate to us all, and a sort of last duty and thankyou, undertaken personally and not bureacratised.
We've employed an undertaker to arrange things with the crematorium, but have decided that I ought to conduct the ceremony, as I did for my Dad last winter.

Again, he was not churchy, and it seemed to be the decent thing to do. He hated hypocrisy above all things, and a priest would not have been right for him.
We arranged the music with the chapel ourselves. We entered to a Chopin ballade, one of Dad's favourites. Then his grand-daughter read a poem that felt right to her. I delivered an indaequate but heartfelt eulogy and, to my surprise, I felt strong enough to press the button myself without needing to call the undertaker to do it. We took our farewells to Andrea Bocelli's soaring voice.
It may have been a bit ramshackle, but it was personal. And surely a funeral should be personal.

Phyllis's ceremony will be similar. We'll enter to Moonlight Serenade by Glenn Miller, music from her youth. Two grand-daughters will read something; one a little poem called 'The Ship' by Bishop Brent, and the other a reading from Phyl's husband's diary, recalling how she ran their newspaper business single-handedly for four years during the war while he was away on service.
Then we'll listen to the Lord is My Shepherd by Kings College Choir. Then I'll read my eulogy. And then I'll press the button, and the curtains will close to Faure's 'In Paradisum'. Quiet and modest, for a quiet and modest person.

Are funerals changing? We're surely not the only people who think that a remote and official Church is not automatically relevant to our needs. I think we are part of a growing trend towards more personal funerals. What do you think?

I've wrtten a poem to read. Does it speak to you as it does to me? Again, I think these ideas are growing in currency, although not yet often stated.

We start our journey as a point of being, far beyond the dawn of day,
And slowly we descend to action and the world of form.
We choose, each day, a kindness or a curse, a thousand times
And slowly build our strength to hold our own.
Each cause plays out its own effect, and so will ours:
For every kindness we will gain a recompense;
For every meanness, a reciprocal.
And when we've done the job we came to do;
Fulfilled our promise to ourselves;
Created love where once was none before,
Then we return, as points of larger being, bright, enlightened and enlightening,
In due proportion,
Welcomed, and prepared to come again.

Can't reach...

Hi Sonia...

Thanks for your comment. I've tried mailing you direct but the message has bounced.

Why grieve?

Hello one and all (or possibly just one)...

A quick line to wish you a very happy new year. May all your best ideas work for you.

It's been a big year for me. Dad dying in February; daughter having a son in June; and as we speak, waiting for a phone call from the local Care Home to tell us that Anne's Mum has finally given up the battle, and moved on.

We've had plenty of time to ponder on the great mysteries of life and death this year, and I have found that the understanding I have come to still works for me, despite the invitations to let grief flood out reason.
It still seems clear to me that the world is not mad. Thus it must be sane. Thus it must be based upon reason. The fact that I don't understand it all is no argument against this. And clearly, 'reason' and 'logic' do exist in the world.
These forces of 'reason' and 'logic' must have come from somewhere, and can not have spontaneously self-generated themselves from chaos, as that would require magic, not to mention a gross violation of the First Law of Motion.
And as logic and reason must lie behind all the order and pattern and design that we see in the world (ie, you can't have a pattern or a design without reason and order, otherwise you can not call it a 'pattern' or 'design') there must be a Mind capable of wielding this reason and logic, and working at a level beyond my comprehension. (Logic and reason are tools used by Mind: they can not exist separate from it).
Logic and reason operate according to the Law of Cause and Effect. Thus, as reason and logic clearly do exist, and as they are tools of Mind, by definition, our world must be run according to Cause and Effect, but very few people seem able to accept this, largely due, I think, to the smothering effect of Scientific Materialism which keeps thundering at us that there is no purpose to the universe or ourselves, but without providing a scrap of evidence for this deafening declamation.

There is an ancient philosophy however, called variously The Secret Doctrine or the Perennial Philosophy, which does recognise what I've written above. It is fundamental to yogic philosophy, for example, which takes the Law of Cause and Effect and extends it from the physical and into the emotional and mental world as well, claiming that all our thoughts and actions are real 'things' which create a web of effects every bit as real as a physical act.This extension is called the Law of Karma. 'Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind'; 'what goes around comes around'; 'whatever you do, you do to yourself'. Thus, if we behave well, and treat our neighbour as ourself, we will not leave a trail of devastating bad karma behind us.
However, the yogis say, as we are all on a path of individual evolution from brute to saint, one lifetime is not enough to sort out all the karmic threads and debts we will have caused in one brutal life. Thus multiple lives are necessary: hence the necessity for reincarnation, improving our level of self-control and ethical values with each new birth.

Does that make sense? It does to me, although I've spent years studying it and realise that you can't explain such a complex and elegant philosophy in just a few words, as above.

So.... every time I'm faced with tragedy, I return to the ideas above, and can find no fault in them. Certainly they appear more rational to me than The Church's story that we are born once, as either a gifted prince or a demented beggar, by lottery, it would seem, and will be eventually judged and either flung into hell or sit around playing a harp. I exaggerate..... but the random and unfair element does not sound like the God of Love and Mercy to me. Something is awry with The Church's story somewhere. For most people, the only alternative to this story is the irrationality of Scientific Materialism. Thus many intelligent people are left stranded and hopeless, being unable to accept the irrational Church, and being suspicious somehow of Materialism, without really knowing why.
I do know why, and it seems to me that the Law of Karma + Reincarnation is the only game in town, along with the implicate reason behind life and death that goes with it.

Parents die... they do. So do other loved ones; even children. Is it a tragedy? For the survivors maybe, unless they have a rational and credible philosophy. But by all accounts, even those of The Church, death is not the end of anything, merely a step into another room. Every religion in the world agrees on this. So does reason, if you follow my points above. The only dissenting voice is Scientific Materialism, which is easily shown to be irrational, and unevidenced as well, believe it or not.


So... I'll miss my Dad, and my Mum-in-Law, but I won't be wasting energy in grief. They will survive death, as there seems to be no rational alternative.

A Happy New Year to one (and possibly) all!

(I've probably mentioned this already, but my book goes into all this in more satisfying and convincing detail. I'm still not sure of the title, but it might well be SuperEvolution: Darwin, Religion and the Paranormal. I'm about to start formatting it for release as an ebook. If you think it might interest you, please get in touch.)