Go On, Be Fickle. Well, You Can If You Want, It's Up To You. Unless....

As is often the case, I recently got embroiled in a conversation which ended up turning into a rather spiky argument (I think it was about the question of porn on the internet). I became over-involved, took everything personally and ended up shouting loudly in the pub, much to the sympathetic disdain of other people in the vicinity (I might add that despite often shouting and gesticulating like a drunkard, I had only had one pint, it's just my way).


Why am I telling you this?  What do you care about my porn views?


I am telling you because I realised, after the intensity of the conversation reached a level of awkwardness that even I could perceive, and piped down a bit, that the line of argument I had taken bore almost no resemblance to my true views.  Yet I had been arguing for them with such ferocity that I had, for that moment at least, truly believed that that was my reality.

I realised that I am a Pathological Devil's Advocate.

I wrote recently that the truest form of love that I could describe was where you and your partner attempted to carve out a worldview together.  I reasoned that it was perhaps easier to have a bounceback boy - someone to check and iron out your responses to the world, in order to better understand it.  This is typically expressed (particularly in my house) in the form of outrageously overwordy arguments.  When we emerge, blinking, from the Argument Tunnel, I often become aware of how far I have strayed from the bounds of my own perceived opinion.  Having berated myself for a long time for my lack of commitment, my slutty morals if you will, I have come to realise that complete fluidity of opinion is much truer to the nature of Reality than we give it credit for.

Welcome to Diesel Island - Land of the Stupid and Home of the Brave

Our society is geared to the individual, to the self.  We are our lifework.  We are our greatest achievements.  (Luckily there is a whole panoply of consumer durables available Right Now at Half Price with a Red Sticker On to aid us in our odyssey, but this isn't a blog about the hypocrisy of capitalism, however this article in Bloomsberg Businessweek both supports and posits a fantastic alternative use for this profit-driven selfishness.)  We are all to strive to better ourselves, and we do this by whittling a personality out of the lumpen mass of our childhood.  How could you possible engage as a socialised, educated, worldly individual unless you have an arsenal of Opinions at your disposal?  Why don't you care about Issues?  Come on, look at them - we will Clockwork Orange you in front of Newsnight if you don't Form Some Opinions About Current Events Right Now!

I believe that we are entirely mistaken in this.

If you have paid attention to the world for anything up to one minute, it becomes very clear that nothing is certain at all.  (Yes, yes, uncertainty and death, fine, you can have those.)

Famous old hag/hot lady picture to demonstrate visual paradoxes

Everything which is true is almost always feasibly untrue at the same time.  The colossal ball-ache of politics is that it tries to separate and create distinction in the infinite gloopy cloud of our reality.  You can literally pick an arbitrary startpoint on any Big Topic - immigration, healthcare, education, foreign policy, warfare - the list is endless - and immediately the opposite is also conceivably true.  Perhaps the opposite view feels uncomfortable, wrong, even, but someone out there thinks that, there will be reasoning behind that view, and therefore the concept can legitimately stand.  (This is where Kantian ethics, in particular his Categorical Imperative - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law - i.e. if you cannot justify murder as a universal law for all, then you must not murder in any circumstances - sounds reasonable, but the current brouhaha surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden, for example, shows clearly that this kind of dichotomy falls away pretty rapidly in the face of Reality.  There are very few Universals.)


Hold on! you cry, that can't be right! The Nazis had a well-argued manifesto but we have universally condemned them as wrong!  What are you talking about?  Why aren't I entitled to my opinions?


Well, hush your beak, for a start, I haven't finished.  The trick of living as a Devil's Advocate is that, if you truly embody a point of view, any point of view, outside of judgement, even for ten minutes, then you have a sense of the other side, a frame of reference from which to sketch out something which feels relevant for you.  Opinion-forming is a personal and malleable thing - what is true for me today is not necessarily going to be true for me tomorrow, but that doesn't make me a shallow, unprincipled person.  Indeed, as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) said:

Each man calls barbarism what is not his own practice, for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in. 

It is infinitely easier to condemn what is unknown rather than try to understand.  Even "evil" has a rationale.  

Perhaps it isn't so strange that it is so difficult to form views, to cement opinions.  If, as I have said before, the value and clout of science often comes from its being upheld consensually by many, then the closest form of "Truth" we can admit is one which has been proven, calculated and agreed upon by many separate experts, each in their turn having tried to disprove it before acquiescing.  One of the most controversial but niggling "truths" that the 20th century coughed up was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, explained here by Professor Jim Al-Khalili (whose Everything and Nothing you should watch to see quantum mechanics explained with the flair and cinematography of a Darren Aronofsky film).

If, at the very heart of existence there exists an infinity of uncertainty, then it seems somewhat naive to doggedly be chasing certainty throughout our lives, because it doesn't exist.

The Zen Buddhists' famous paradoxes or koans (the tree falling in the forest guys) thought that the acceptance of the inherent unknowableness of the Universe was the quickest, truest and most profound way to Enlightenment - these simple and enigmatic statements cannot be understood by using conventional logic or the part of the brain that seeks certainty - it can only come about through letting go of our reliance on certainty, a deep questioning of all that we take to be real.  


This, ultimately, is at the heart of all scientific enquiry - we cannot rest on our laurels (as the religious do, because it is written) of our description of reality, we have to keep imagining what might be, what is not, what is unlikely, what is not yet proven, in order to keep pushing forward what we know about the Universe.  Here is the almighty Richard Feynman speaking in 1983 about the need for a creative imagination in order to test the limits of theory (which in some cases have subsequently been proven - for example his speculation on the origins of quasars, which we have now discovered and proven) - this is the first part of two on Youtube, but for a clearer and more comprehensive archive of his most inspirational lectures please visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/feynman/10704.shtml.

So, by playing Devil's Advocate, by loosening your attachments to your opinions and choosing to stand on the other side from what you take to be true, even just for the duration of an argument, is most important indeed, both in terms of reflecting the true nature of the world, and also in terms of its future, for unless we make wild imaginative leaps from time to time, criss-crossing from Right to Left and everywhere in between, we may never grow and we will never learn to tolerate those who differ from us.  As Feynman says: "You can sort of stand in the middle and enjoy everything both ways."


That sounds like much more fun, after all...

What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.
Voltaire 1694 - 1778

Applying "The Being Interested In Everything" Towards The Face Of A Person

So I trust you have all been looking, as if all on some very pure hallucinogen, at more things, the every-things, the all-things, searching for the waves, the connections, all that jazz.  As Huxley said in The Doors of Perception: 

"To be shaken out of the ruts of ordinary perception, to be shown for a few timeless hours the outer and inner world, not as they appear to an animal obsessed with survival or to a human being obsessed with words and notions, but as they are apprehended, directly and unconditionally, by Mind at Large — this is an experience of inestimable value to everyone and especially to the intellectual."

I like very much this idea of Mind at Large - a bit like Carl Sagan's Spaceship of the Imagination, the Mind at Large whirls around the alleyways, bumping into things, having a nice analytical squeeze, and then moving on.  We are so bound by our corporeality, our need to piss or our desire to cry or our desperation for a sandwich, to be taken seriously, to be loved, to be remembered - that we forget how free the Mind at Large can be.  (Perhaps the kind of bright-pink-vomiting, ankle-shattering-heels, freshly-fake-baked Joop! cloud that sprawls across city centres every Friday night, and which is so excruciating that I feel obliged to apologise to all foreign taxi drivers on their behalf, perhaps that is the "freedom" of the Body at Large.) 

As Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) said, "Au plus eslevé thrône du monde si ne sommes assis que sus nostre cul." (On the highest throne in the land we are not sat but on our arse) - we so rarely get the clarity of thought of being perfectly balanced, being well-fed, well-rested and not needing to go to the toilet, but when we do we should be ready to pounce.  

We have only our minds really, and it our human duty, as I have already said, Captain Kitchener style, to feed and water and change the straw of the hutch of our brain.  

And yet, I have thought recently that this is a very lofty but very lonely pursuit. It is much nicer to have someone who you can ricochet your ideas off.  I think that we have lost sight of the fact that a relationship, in its most profound and useful sense, should be someone who you can roam about in your Minds at Large with, and try to flesh out a worldview based on your considered findings.  This in no way sounds as exciting as finding your soul mate, The One, your lobster, or any of the various misleading titles we have given to our imagined Other, and which are liable to cause us diabetes for being so sugary.  I understand that Love also has a lot to do with the prosaic things - with convenience and chemical impulse to mate and shared debt and history and jokes and fear and fear and terror and fear of being alone - but beyond all that is the exquisite chance of ending up with someone who can sherpa you through the sierras of sight, the mountain passes of memory, the sand-dunes of smell - reality itself.  Then, "Wonder into wonder, existence opens" (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) 

I have never understood why people think that to argue with someone is a bad thing, a destructive thing.  I have to argue in order to understand.  If you're doing it for the right reasons, then it hurts because your version of reality is being challenged, which is disconcerting and destabilising.  Your guideropes to reality are twanged and everything teeters for a moment.  But, if you and your co-pilot in the Mind at Large are sailing  for the right reasons (more of a Beagle than a Black Pearl) then you find something approaching a mutual truth which will have been tested, rather than a dogmatic truth that only has value because it has never been questioned.  

Sexy, you might think, love is nothing more than having a science lab partner.  

You're wrong for thinking that.  I'm disappointed in you.  

Huxley himself said:

"We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies — all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes." 

This pooling of our Minds at Large, whatever that process ends up creating, is the only thing you can do, the only monument to your life, that you can make, before it all gets blown away by time:

You can make children to keep yourself immortal (Shakespeare's first 17 sonnets speak of nothing but, as do the vast majority of ancient literature - all of Brad Pitt's dialogue in Troy is essentially, "Ma, my legend will last through the ages, won't it, Ma?" and so on), and you can spend the rest of your days attempting (in vain, yes, but all the best things are in vain in the end) to pool our experiences, or to reconcile the fractalised universes that we all inhabit:

And while you're in the pool, have a little look at all the waves, just for continuity's sake.