Check out this rather interesting admission from a strong climate campaigner about the role of animals in agriculture and their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
I am about the read the book that sparked this change of heart, But as interesting as this main claims are (that raising and eating animals in not always a negative thing, ecologically speaking), it demonstrates the need to be led by evidence, not ideology.
Oh, by the way, in case you meat lovers get too excited, I don't think this is a carte blanche argument supporting the current animal raising practices of large agribusiness.
But I will need to be clearer about the argument before I can really come to a justified conclusion.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Battle for Haditha
Not sure I really want to post this, but here it is anyway.
In 2005 a small unit of American soldiers patrolling the town of Haditha north of Baghdad were attacked via a roadside bomb blown up by a 'terrorist' who detonated it with a cell phone. One soldier was killed and two seriously injured. The resulting reaction from the soldiers led to the massacre of 24 people, including many women and children.
In his retelling of this true story, British director Nick Broomfield, well known for his documentary approach, used both current and former American servicemen to create a devastatingly realistic piece of cinema. I shan't review it, as many have already. But I do want to say that this is one of the most morally complex movies I have seen. Broomfield takes us into the lives of the soldiers, the families who get massacred, the Iraq men who plant to bomb (and are paid $1000 by Al Qaeda), into the complexities where violence is the inescapable logical outcome. There is no simple black and white truth here. There rarely is in life.
The moral complexity does not overshadow the fact that this was an illegal and brutal act by the soldier. (Some of the soldiers were eventually prosecuted). But the strength of this film is that it humanises the people involved. Even the older terrorist, after planting and setting off the bomb, safely escapes back to his family. When he holds his young daughter, he shakes with regret as he wonders what he has unleashed. He is a pawn in a political game.
But then, they all are. There is no simple pathway through this environment of fear, distrust and violence. I felt angry at the soldiers, but then you see the retching behind the Humvee, the violence surrounding them, their desire to simply survive the next patrol, the latent fear that haunts them at night. Forgive the brutality, never. Understand how they acted like this, most certainly.
We yearn for a simple world where the boundaries are clear. Broomfield allows us to see behind these simplistic categories, to understand. That itself is an achievement.
In 2005 a small unit of American soldiers patrolling the town of Haditha north of Baghdad were attacked via a roadside bomb blown up by a 'terrorist' who detonated it with a cell phone. One soldier was killed and two seriously injured. The resulting reaction from the soldiers led to the massacre of 24 people, including many women and children.
In his retelling of this true story, British director Nick Broomfield, well known for his documentary approach, used both current and former American servicemen to create a devastatingly realistic piece of cinema. I shan't review it, as many have already. But I do want to say that this is one of the most morally complex movies I have seen. Broomfield takes us into the lives of the soldiers, the families who get massacred, the Iraq men who plant to bomb (and are paid $1000 by Al Qaeda), into the complexities where violence is the inescapable logical outcome. There is no simple black and white truth here. There rarely is in life.
The moral complexity does not overshadow the fact that this was an illegal and brutal act by the soldier. (Some of the soldiers were eventually prosecuted). But the strength of this film is that it humanises the people involved. Even the older terrorist, after planting and setting off the bomb, safely escapes back to his family. When he holds his young daughter, he shakes with regret as he wonders what he has unleashed. He is a pawn in a political game.
But then, they all are. There is no simple pathway through this environment of fear, distrust and violence. I felt angry at the soldiers, but then you see the retching behind the Humvee, the violence surrounding them, their desire to simply survive the next patrol, the latent fear that haunts them at night. Forgive the brutality, never. Understand how they acted like this, most certainly.
We yearn for a simple world where the boundaries are clear. Broomfield allows us to see behind these simplistic categories, to understand. That itself is an achievement.
Political dysfunction
One problem with contemporary politics is that it is very difficult to run a government on the basis of sound or evidence-led policy. Underlying this is, actually, an issue that goes to the heart of, er, the brain! If you will forgive the mixed metaphor, I am referring to what philosophers call limited human reason.
It goes like this. We human learn about our environment through trial and error (we do this collectively over time). Because our cognitive capacity is limited, we rely on others to help test our ideas. We never get it right all the time, and often get it wrong. Accurate understanding of the world around us is a collective endeavour.
The bottom line in all of this is that there is always a possibility that we are wrong. Apart from a few simplified bits of knowledge such as basic 'facts' about our world, most of what we 'know' is actually an interpretation from our personal or cultural lens. We can't really talk about such things as right or wrong in a simplistic binary sense. Anyone who has had exposure to quite different cultures will understand this. This means we will always need to be open to change, to modify our ideas. This is as true for individual as for societies.
A health mental attitude is open to new information, ideas, and perspectives that will enrich our understanding of an issue. This is especially true of complex issues.
The trouble in politics is that politicians are not given that freedom. If they 'change their minds' over an issue, they are castigated for flip-flop policy. We want consistency. We want them to stand for their values and policy position come hell or high water. But this locks them into the position of not being able to revise their position as the situation changes or as new information comes to light. And that is irrational, and at times dangerous. President Bush saw the world in simple terms: them and us, the good and the bad. (See the movie 'The Battle for Haditha' and tell me the world is not morally complex).
A black and white world is a simpler world and that is what many many people want.Yet, it is dysfunctional because we get stuck in our far-too-simple- versions of life, and we are only left with power.
I am not suggesting that politicians abandon broad policy positions at all, but rather we should celebrate a politician or party that, in light of new information and understanding, modifies their position. That is how healthy individuals function, and also how a healthy polity functions.
It goes like this. We human learn about our environment through trial and error (we do this collectively over time). Because our cognitive capacity is limited, we rely on others to help test our ideas. We never get it right all the time, and often get it wrong. Accurate understanding of the world around us is a collective endeavour.
The bottom line in all of this is that there is always a possibility that we are wrong. Apart from a few simplified bits of knowledge such as basic 'facts' about our world, most of what we 'know' is actually an interpretation from our personal or cultural lens. We can't really talk about such things as right or wrong in a simplistic binary sense. Anyone who has had exposure to quite different cultures will understand this. This means we will always need to be open to change, to modify our ideas. This is as true for individual as for societies.
A health mental attitude is open to new information, ideas, and perspectives that will enrich our understanding of an issue. This is especially true of complex issues.
The trouble in politics is that politicians are not given that freedom. If they 'change their minds' over an issue, they are castigated for flip-flop policy. We want consistency. We want them to stand for their values and policy position come hell or high water. But this locks them into the position of not being able to revise their position as the situation changes or as new information comes to light. And that is irrational, and at times dangerous. President Bush saw the world in simple terms: them and us, the good and the bad. (See the movie 'The Battle for Haditha' and tell me the world is not morally complex).
A black and white world is a simpler world and that is what many many people want.Yet, it is dysfunctional because we get stuck in our far-too-simple- versions of life, and we are only left with power.
I am not suggesting that politicians abandon broad policy positions at all, but rather we should celebrate a politician or party that, in light of new information and understanding, modifies their position. That is how healthy individuals function, and also how a healthy polity functions.
The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible
Well, despite what some still persist in believing, just published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),shows that June 2010 was the hottest in recorded history (since records began in 1880). Not only that, but there is a consistent warming trend in-line with modelling what happens as greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere.
But pay attention to the statement that a warmer world is now incontrovertible. This does not mean there are not some places which have colder than average temperatures (Victoria, Australia did; I was here and it was cold), but that on average, the earth was warmer.
This is not a good thing, by the way.
For the Guardian article go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/16/june-2010-warmest-recorded
But pay attention to the statement that a warmer world is now incontrovertible. This does not mean there are not some places which have colder than average temperatures (Victoria, Australia did; I was here and it was cold), but that on average, the earth was warmer.
This is not a good thing, by the way.
For the Guardian article go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/16/june-2010-warmest-recorded
Sunday, June 13, 2010
We need a new story
Every culture, epoch and civilisation has a grand narrative that defines it. A grand narrative is a flash way of talking about a story. Humans are defined by the stories we tell about ourselves, the language we use, the way we weave words and ideas into large conceptual maps that help give us meaning. These stories help provide a sense or purpose that guides the way we live on the planet.
When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the earth, it was about the only commandment that humans actually obeyed! This story has provided a powerful collective understanding sense of humans place on the planet for some millennia, but most recently since the industrial revolution when dominion over nature actually became possible.
Or at least so it seemed! This myth of continued abundance is being challenged by the increasing evidence that we have overreached in our desire for more and more material consumption. In much the same way as Prometheus overreached his power and place in the cosmos, to his eternal regret, we have been exploiting the earth's resources without pausing to consider where the limits are. Our collective story of abundance for all and ongoing material well-being as natural is now highly problematic.
This grand narrative has a number of dimensions. It assumes that we will not run up against material limits in present or future development, or if we do, we can substitute through human ingenuity. It assumes that we are clever enough to figure out answers to all the technological challenges we face. It assumes that material consumption will provide happiness. Each of these assumptions fail.
We have already run up against significant material resource challenges, particularly when looked at in light of an expanding human community of at least 9 billion by 2050, all who want a share of the materially defined good life. The end of cheap oil is clearly on the horizon, and with it not just energy but the manufacturer of plastics and nitrogen fertiliser.
Our intellectual capacity to resolve the major challenge of climate change is highly suspect. We are very clever in technological developments, and our species is genuinely remarkable at discovery and innovation. But the challenges we face pose unprecedented challenges in their very scope and scale. We have to be integrationists now, and that is hard. Our brains struggle to deal with he complex interconnections, because the scale of our problems goes way beyond what we can easily intuit or understand.
As to happiness, there is a significant body of research now that clearly shows that above a certain amount of material well-being, more stuff does not make us happier. It doesn't, by any measure, except on a very short term basis (the high of shopping! Though the buzz we get from the released dopamine in our system only happens when we are anticipating an exciting opportunity. It has less to do with the end result, so we are tricked, in effect, by our brain chemistry).
As in our personal lives, if childhood stories (internalised beliefs about ourselves and our roles in life) no longer serve us well, then we do well to replace them with more useful stories. It is time for our civilisation to create a new story that drives us forward into an uncharted future. The old story, like the Emperor's new clothes, has lost its way. The world into which it spoke no longer exists. There is coming a new heaven and a new eaarth (sic), and we need a story that is up to the task.
I will explore this idea in my next blog.
When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the earth, it was about the only commandment that humans actually obeyed! This story has provided a powerful collective understanding sense of humans place on the planet for some millennia, but most recently since the industrial revolution when dominion over nature actually became possible.
Or at least so it seemed! This myth of continued abundance is being challenged by the increasing evidence that we have overreached in our desire for more and more material consumption. In much the same way as Prometheus overreached his power and place in the cosmos, to his eternal regret, we have been exploiting the earth's resources without pausing to consider where the limits are. Our collective story of abundance for all and ongoing material well-being as natural is now highly problematic.
This grand narrative has a number of dimensions. It assumes that we will not run up against material limits in present or future development, or if we do, we can substitute through human ingenuity. It assumes that we are clever enough to figure out answers to all the technological challenges we face. It assumes that material consumption will provide happiness. Each of these assumptions fail.
We have already run up against significant material resource challenges, particularly when looked at in light of an expanding human community of at least 9 billion by 2050, all who want a share of the materially defined good life. The end of cheap oil is clearly on the horizon, and with it not just energy but the manufacturer of plastics and nitrogen fertiliser.
Our intellectual capacity to resolve the major challenge of climate change is highly suspect. We are very clever in technological developments, and our species is genuinely remarkable at discovery and innovation. But the challenges we face pose unprecedented challenges in their very scope and scale. We have to be integrationists now, and that is hard. Our brains struggle to deal with he complex interconnections, because the scale of our problems goes way beyond what we can easily intuit or understand.
As to happiness, there is a significant body of research now that clearly shows that above a certain amount of material well-being, more stuff does not make us happier. It doesn't, by any measure, except on a very short term basis (the high of shopping! Though the buzz we get from the released dopamine in our system only happens when we are anticipating an exciting opportunity. It has less to do with the end result, so we are tricked, in effect, by our brain chemistry).
As in our personal lives, if childhood stories (internalised beliefs about ourselves and our roles in life) no longer serve us well, then we do well to replace them with more useful stories. It is time for our civilisation to create a new story that drives us forward into an uncharted future. The old story, like the Emperor's new clothes, has lost its way. The world into which it spoke no longer exists. There is coming a new heaven and a new eaarth (sic), and we need a story that is up to the task.
I will explore this idea in my next blog.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Between earth and eaarth
It is becoming much clearer to me that we are now living on a planet that is quite different from the one on which I was born. Let me elaborate.
First, I did the WWF environmental footprint calculator (again) the other day to discover that no matter what I do, I need at least 1.4 earths to provide enough resources for everyone on the planet to live like I do. And that is by going vegan, no car, walking or riding my bike, living on a farm (no food miles) and no grid connection. The life styles we enjoy are literally unsustainable by many metrics. This simply means we will run out of key resources and not have alternatives.
Second, the speed of change we need to make from an oil based economy and society is simply too slow to seriously limit changes to the global climate system. For example, the world's current investment in oil infrastructure is worth around 10 trillion dollars and needs between 10 and 50 years before the capital costs are paid off. Who is going to pay for this? There is tremendous inertia in the investment system and even on the best case scenario this asset investment will not be given up without a major fight.
Third, how long will it take to replace the transport fleet? We are seeing hybrids and electric vehicles enter the market place (hybrids are ahead of electrics in Australia), but it will probably take 20 years to replace the stock. In the meantime, we continue to pollute.
Fourth, the alterations in the climate system due to historically unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases will be very hard to pull back. But this is no longer a future scenario, as it was when concerns about climate change first emerge over 30 years ago. We have increasingly frequent extreme storm events from drought to forest fires. We have always had these but there is clear evidence that these events are increasing. This is not a future impact of climate change, it is a current impact.
I am not sure our political systems are up to the task. I simply cannot see a clear pathway through the complex policy, economic, and political landscapes. We will make some progress, and I do think there will be unprecedented innovation and technological development. We may be able to hold the climate system to a limited temperature increase overall. But we not only cannot stop change, change is here, now.
Bill McKibben states this most powerfully in his new book, 'Eaarth; Making a life on a tough new planet'. The old earth we grew up with has actually gone, and we now live on a new eaarth.
For more on McKibben
For another interesting take on this see The Dark Mountain Project
First, I did the WWF environmental footprint calculator (again) the other day to discover that no matter what I do, I need at least 1.4 earths to provide enough resources for everyone on the planet to live like I do. And that is by going vegan, no car, walking or riding my bike, living on a farm (no food miles) and no grid connection. The life styles we enjoy are literally unsustainable by many metrics. This simply means we will run out of key resources and not have alternatives.
Second, the speed of change we need to make from an oil based economy and society is simply too slow to seriously limit changes to the global climate system. For example, the world's current investment in oil infrastructure is worth around 10 trillion dollars and needs between 10 and 50 years before the capital costs are paid off. Who is going to pay for this? There is tremendous inertia in the investment system and even on the best case scenario this asset investment will not be given up without a major fight.
Third, how long will it take to replace the transport fleet? We are seeing hybrids and electric vehicles enter the market place (hybrids are ahead of electrics in Australia), but it will probably take 20 years to replace the stock. In the meantime, we continue to pollute.
Fourth, the alterations in the climate system due to historically unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases will be very hard to pull back. But this is no longer a future scenario, as it was when concerns about climate change first emerge over 30 years ago. We have increasingly frequent extreme storm events from drought to forest fires. We have always had these but there is clear evidence that these events are increasing. This is not a future impact of climate change, it is a current impact.
I am not sure our political systems are up to the task. I simply cannot see a clear pathway through the complex policy, economic, and political landscapes. We will make some progress, and I do think there will be unprecedented innovation and technological development. We may be able to hold the climate system to a limited temperature increase overall. But we not only cannot stop change, change is here, now.
Bill McKibben states this most powerfully in his new book, 'Eaarth; Making a life on a tough new planet'. The old earth we grew up with has actually gone, and we now live on a new eaarth.
For more on McKibben
For another interesting take on this see The Dark Mountain Project
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Food Inc.
It had to happen, someone had to make a documentary based on two of the most influential recent publications on food, Fast Food Nation (Eric Schlosser), and the wonderful tale told by Michael Pollan in The Omnivores Dilemma (www.michaelpollan.com).
My brief conclusion is simple: SEE THIS MOVIE and get others to see it.
It is compelling, worrying and mostly convincing. The way we produce and consume our food in the industrial agriculture economy should have us signing up at the local vegetarian society.
One of the most compelling aspects of the movie was its attempt to take us inside a chicken farm. Apart from one brave farmer, no farmer would allow the cameras into the darkened chicken sheds. Why? Why the secrecy? It is nearly impossible to get cameras into these animal factories. The farmers that I know all welcome visitors to their farms. They take time to explain what is going on. They answer questions, even when ignorant city folk haven't a clue about how food is actually produced. But the doors of the big factory farms are shut tighter than North Korea's democracy movement. I am suspicious.
So suspicious that I will not eat chicken or pig, or beef because I don't trust where it comes from. I do not wish to participate in the ritual abuse of other species. I don't believe it is wrong to eat other species. But how we have turned them into mere protein machines is ethically wrong. Don't buy chicken unless you know that it has been raised free range, or organically.
The film offers a powerful indictment of the marriage of corporate capitalism with mass industrialisation. We need industrialisation to feed the growing world, but we must limit the cruelty and abuse of workers that occurs in these industries. The only way we can get the message through is to NOT BUY THIS STUFF. Buy from farmers markets where possible. Eat less meat (it won't kill you, despite the fears of some people that I know!).
But the film is not perfect. It did say we should eat only organic, but this is problematic for many people in the world. I am not convinced that organic is the only way, nor the only ethical way, to produce our food. Nothing wrong with it, and the idea is appealing, but I don't think it is the magic bullet it sometimes is sold as. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (May 12, 2010) published a review of over 98 thousand articles to assess the health affects of organic food vs non-organic. Only 12 articles were considered relevant and the authors concluded that: "
From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for
nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs". They did not conclude that there are no health differences, but just that the research cannot substantiate this yet, given the paucity of data.
There were some other issues I thought confused the message of the movie, such as the strong link between large corporations and poor labour laws and abuse of workers. The cause of this is not being a large corporation, but lax legislation and enforcement, and of course the power that large economic entities can exert. This is a powerful reason for ethical shareholders to hold these companies accountable, and demand strong environmental, social and ethical economic practices. Sustainable businesses need to make a profit to sustain themselves, but they need to do it within an system of ethical practice.
Please see this movie, if you haven't, and change the way you eat, if you need to.
My brief conclusion is simple: SEE THIS MOVIE and get others to see it.
It is compelling, worrying and mostly convincing. The way we produce and consume our food in the industrial agriculture economy should have us signing up at the local vegetarian society.
One of the most compelling aspects of the movie was its attempt to take us inside a chicken farm. Apart from one brave farmer, no farmer would allow the cameras into the darkened chicken sheds. Why? Why the secrecy? It is nearly impossible to get cameras into these animal factories. The farmers that I know all welcome visitors to their farms. They take time to explain what is going on. They answer questions, even when ignorant city folk haven't a clue about how food is actually produced. But the doors of the big factory farms are shut tighter than North Korea's democracy movement. I am suspicious.
So suspicious that I will not eat chicken or pig, or beef because I don't trust where it comes from. I do not wish to participate in the ritual abuse of other species. I don't believe it is wrong to eat other species. But how we have turned them into mere protein machines is ethically wrong. Don't buy chicken unless you know that it has been raised free range, or organically.
The film offers a powerful indictment of the marriage of corporate capitalism with mass industrialisation. We need industrialisation to feed the growing world, but we must limit the cruelty and abuse of workers that occurs in these industries. The only way we can get the message through is to NOT BUY THIS STUFF. Buy from farmers markets where possible. Eat less meat (it won't kill you, despite the fears of some people that I know!).
But the film is not perfect. It did say we should eat only organic, but this is problematic for many people in the world. I am not convinced that organic is the only way, nor the only ethical way, to produce our food. Nothing wrong with it, and the idea is appealing, but I don't think it is the magic bullet it sometimes is sold as. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (May 12, 2010) published a review of over 98 thousand articles to assess the health affects of organic food vs non-organic. Only 12 articles were considered relevant and the authors concluded that: "
From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for
nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs". They did not conclude that there are no health differences, but just that the research cannot substantiate this yet, given the paucity of data.
There were some other issues I thought confused the message of the movie, such as the strong link between large corporations and poor labour laws and abuse of workers. The cause of this is not being a large corporation, but lax legislation and enforcement, and of course the power that large economic entities can exert. This is a powerful reason for ethical shareholders to hold these companies accountable, and demand strong environmental, social and ethical economic practices. Sustainable businesses need to make a profit to sustain themselves, but they need to do it within an system of ethical practice.
Please see this movie, if you haven't, and change the way you eat, if you need to.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Distractions
I love life. More particularly, I love my life. I feel lucky and life feels good. But that isn't really why I love my life. No, it is more that there are such possibilities in existence, such untapped capacity to go deeper and deeper into life, being, or essence. I certainly am not thinking of the Nike type of possibilities, to 'just do it', to go harder and faster and take on more things. While I understand the attraction of new additions to our lives, to travel and creating a bucket list to aim for, or edgy sports, I sometime wonder if all this novelty is not much more than a distraction.
Distractions take our attention away from something, they literally distract us so we don't see. The more interesting question is what we see when we are not distracted. When we are very present to our selves, our physical being, our minds, our thinking. It is these times that allow us to move deeper into our being, that experience of our self, the inner 'I'.
I was recently in South Africa at a conference, and took some time after to go on a Safari in the Kruger National Park. This was quite an extraordinary time, not just for all the magnificent creatures I saw, or the savannah, but for the other times when we were not out in the vehicle or walking (it was called Africa on Foot). This small camp was too remote for power lines and so we lived by gas hot water and paraffin lamps at night. It also meant that there was no television, no internet, no blog, no cell phone, no rugby results and no email. There was just searching for animals, looking at the stars, and then, after meals, reading and sleeping. We couldn't go walking off into the bush as it was potentially too dangerous. There was just rest, reading and being. No distractions. That was the best part, just silence (though I didn't hear the lions walking outside my hut one night; their tracks gave them away!). I can't recall ever feeling so refreshed, even with 5am starts each morning.
When I finally got back to Johannesburg for one night before flying out, I stayed in this cheap hotel near the airport. It was raining. So I ended up watching some rugby on TV, then channel surfing, watching three movies simultaneously, while all my 'being' said, 'go to bed and read a book'. Well, I finally got to bed, tired and late. And I thought this is such a stupid thing to do, fritter away my time with crappy TV programmes. It did nothing for my mind, my health, my well-being. It was such a contrast to the beautiful time in Kruger.
This Johannesburg syndrome was all about distraction and habits. I am not opposed to TV, well, not entirely, and it does have a place, but it can so easily suck our time and energy, and simply lure us away from our selves. Silence is a gift in which we can visit our selves, getting in touch and listening. The great gift of Kruger for me was this reminder to recognise the nature of distractions, not turn the TV on and take time to think, read, sit quietly with myself. That is enough and it is beautiful.
That's why I love life!
Distractions take our attention away from something, they literally distract us so we don't see. The more interesting question is what we see when we are not distracted. When we are very present to our selves, our physical being, our minds, our thinking. It is these times that allow us to move deeper into our being, that experience of our self, the inner 'I'.
I was recently in South Africa at a conference, and took some time after to go on a Safari in the Kruger National Park. This was quite an extraordinary time, not just for all the magnificent creatures I saw, or the savannah, but for the other times when we were not out in the vehicle or walking (it was called Africa on Foot). This small camp was too remote for power lines and so we lived by gas hot water and paraffin lamps at night. It also meant that there was no television, no internet, no blog, no cell phone, no rugby results and no email. There was just searching for animals, looking at the stars, and then, after meals, reading and sleeping. We couldn't go walking off into the bush as it was potentially too dangerous. There was just rest, reading and being. No distractions. That was the best part, just silence (though I didn't hear the lions walking outside my hut one night; their tracks gave them away!). I can't recall ever feeling so refreshed, even with 5am starts each morning.
When I finally got back to Johannesburg for one night before flying out, I stayed in this cheap hotel near the airport. It was raining. So I ended up watching some rugby on TV, then channel surfing, watching three movies simultaneously, while all my 'being' said, 'go to bed and read a book'. Well, I finally got to bed, tired and late. And I thought this is such a stupid thing to do, fritter away my time with crappy TV programmes. It did nothing for my mind, my health, my well-being. It was such a contrast to the beautiful time in Kruger.
This Johannesburg syndrome was all about distraction and habits. I am not opposed to TV, well, not entirely, and it does have a place, but it can so easily suck our time and energy, and simply lure us away from our selves. Silence is a gift in which we can visit our selves, getting in touch and listening. The great gift of Kruger for me was this reminder to recognise the nature of distractions, not turn the TV on and take time to think, read, sit quietly with myself. That is enough and it is beautiful.
That's why I love life!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Back on Earth
Well, I am back again. Lost my old blog sometime in the last few months. It was probably something I did to offend the gods of binary script; I shall offer a sacrifice to propitiate those vain deities. I will not yell hatefully at windows when it next crashes (probably tomorrow). Windows won't crash at home because I am enlightened (i.e., use a Mac).
I will try to retrieve some of my old ramblings so I can admire my earlier thought processes. Or not, as the case may be.
Back soon.
SOE
I will try to retrieve some of my old ramblings so I can admire my earlier thought processes. Or not, as the case may be.
Back soon.
SOE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
