Author: Brand Smit

THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

Since 2011 I have thought of the years 2006 to the beginning of 2011 as a period of loss. What exactly did I lose? Time, I have always thought – because I wasted so much of it trying to make money in all sorts of ways.

Here is a more positive view of that period: I learned how to publish my writing – including formatting manuscripts so they can be printed, the creation and formatting of electronic books, setting up a WordPress site, basic web design, marketing; I learned about sports betting and trading, and I started my education on trading on the financial markets.

And, ladies and gentlemen, soon I will be able to say that the period 2006 to early 2011 also yielded a project consisting of more than seventy pieces which will include notes on the long and difficult process of trying to make money without having to work for someone else – which makes the material very different from all the material that preceded it, because it is about making mistakes, falling on your face, embarrassing yourself, failing again and again and again … and in the end deciding that you’re going to spend more time doing things that make you happy.

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2016

Something completely different: I recently discovered Edie Sedgwick. Not only was she a sixties icon, she was also to some extent a symbol of that decade.

She was known for behaviour that was already problematic by the time she became part of Andy Warhol’s inner circle. She was sensual, attractive, vivacious, and a little dangerous. She was an avid drug user and drank and smoked as if she would live forever, loved with boundless passion, and ultimately failed to make the impact she and others had thought she would.

She limped into the next decade on the proverbial one leg, and died at the relatively young age of 28 while trying to recover from all the excess and extravagance of the preceding few years.

Watch this video compiled from clips from Andy Warhol’s films Poor Little Rich Girl and Beauty No 2:

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2016

Someone I follow on Twitter recently posted a link to a video of a young woman criticising a Lyft driver for his choice of dashboard decoration.

To understand what it is about, take a look at the video first:

(In short, after the woman gets in the car, she notices the man’s Hawaiian bobble head doll on his dashboard. She takes offense and expresses her surprise that the man is unconcerned about insulting the “continent of Hawaii”. She also insists on him removing the item.)

* * *

I could easily have been one of these so-called Social Justice Warriors. I have this sometimes irrepressible desire to preach to people and to condemn their behaviour. On the other side I am well aware of horror stories of what happens when one group appoints themselves over other people, when they believe they have the right to judge other people because the latter are not pure enough, or because the things that they thought are quite innocuous are really horribly offensive, and concrete evidence of deep-seated incorrect attitudes about certain important issues.

Here are two examples from history:

* Starting in 1966, Red China leader Mao Zedong unleashed eager, fundamentalist students on the public to advance his own political agenda. The Red Guards broke into houses and pushed terrified citizens out of the way in a mad search for anything that would supposedly prove that the residents of the house were “bourgeois capitalist running dogs”. Items that were confiscated – ostensibly to destroy them but many items ended up in the private collections of Communist Party officials – included books, art, antiques, Western musical instruments and Western clothing like ties.

* The Khmer Rouge unleashed themselves on the ordinary people of Phnom Penh and elsewhere in Cambodia in the 1970s. Atrocities committed by the rabid fanatics included people being arrested and tortured for the simple “crime” of wearing glasses, which to the crazed zealots could only mean one thing: They were middle-class intellectuals who spied for the enemy.

* * *

The woman in the video believed that she was entitled to prescribing to the man what items he may or may not place on his dashboard, even that she had a right to order him to remove a decorative item because it had offended her.

I reckon if she were not comfortable with the interior of his car, or even if he had something worse like a portrait of Adolf Hitler pasted on the back of the front seat, she could simply have exited the car, or if she only noticed the item after the journey had begun, she could have asked him to stop and let her out. Instead, she criticised him while insisting that he still take her to her destination – she wanted to criticise him without sacrificing the convenience he offered.

* * *

Is it taboo to point things out to people or to shake your finger at someone and tell them that it upsets you to no end if they do or say this or that?

Here is what offends me to the point of nausea: some people in Taiwan drive their scooters with only one hand because the other hand is holding a cell phone, and their eyes are not on the road but on the damn phone. This really rubs me the wrong way. When I slide in next to such a wretched fool at a traffic light, I honk my horn enough times accompanied by a look so dirty that the person usually has no doubt about the fact that I think what they are doing is wrong. No, more than wrong – it is fucking stupid, because it is just a matter of time before the accursed halfwit hurts himself or worse, injures someone else.

So, do I have the right to be annoyed by someone else’s behaviour? I believe I do, when life or limb is at stake.

But to criticise someone else’s choice of decoration or word choice or clothing or joke is in my opinion getting dangerously close to the behaviour of the fanatical Red Guards of Mao’s China who foamed at the mouth at the mere sight of someone who did not look right, or who owned something politically “incorrect”, or who talked or thought in unacceptable ways.

______________________

MONDAY, 18 JULY 2016

Another example of how my own beliefs are rooted in schools of thought and movements of which I did not have any direct knowledge:

“The Human Potential Movement (HPM) arose out of the counterculture milieu of the 1960s and formed around the concept of cultivating extraordinary potential that its advocates believe to lie largely untapped in all people. The movement took as its premise the belief that through the development of ‘human potential’, humans can experience an exceptional quality of life filled with happiness, creativity, and fulfilment. As a corollary, those who begin to unleash this assumed potential often find themselves directing their actions within society towards assisting others to release their potential. Adherents believe that the net effect of individuals cultivating their potential will bring about positive social change at large.”

The sociologist, Elizabeth Puttick, wrote as follows about the Human Potential Movement:

“The human potential movement (HPM) originated in the 1960s as a counter-cultural rebellion against mainstream psychology and organised religion. It is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society.”

A list of people who influenced the movement, and people who were influenced by the ideas popularised by the movement include the psychologist Abraham Maslow of hierarchy of needs fame, Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, and the self-help guru Anthony Robbins.

More information on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement

______________________

FRIDAY, 15 JULY 2016

I was addicted to smoking cigarettes for about fourteen years. I had no illusions about the effects it had on my health. And, like other smokers, I was regularly confronted by people who regarded it as their duty to tell me that smoking was bad for me.

“Don’t you know that you can get lung cancer or emphysema?” these people would ask.

I know, I would say. Spare me the speech. I won’t even try to argue with you.

“If you know,” my well-meaning friend or relative would retort, “why on earth do you keep smoking then?”

Because, I would answer, I need it.

I believe there is a parallel between the conversation that smokers have with non-smokers and the conversation between atheists and theists over the latter’s faith.

Many so-called believers spare no effort trying to convince agnostics and atheists that there is more than enough proof for the existence of God (can be any divine figure, but let’s confine ourselves for the moment to the god of monotheists, and more specifically the Christian religion – hence the term “God” with a capital G). They will use science. They will quote famous scientists like Albert Einstein. They will refer to incidents and experiences in their own lives. They will try to catch opponents off guard. “What do you say now?” they will ask after some or other anecdote.

In fact, in the intellectual wrestling match between people who believe in the existence of God and people who do not believe in the existence of God, the former has the uphill battle. The only question the non-believer has to ask is “How do you know?”

If someone claims that water boils at a certain temperature, and someone else looks at him in disbelief and asks how he knows that, the one who has made the claim can simply put a pot of water on a hot plate, stick in a thermometer and – voila! – within minutes the claim will be proven as fact. If the other person argues that it was a fluke, they can do it again, or even better – the “non-believer” can perform the experiment himself, with exactly the same result.

“How do you know God exists?” is a problem question for believers because they cannot prove the existence of God. They say they can prove it, but not with the same certainty that it can be proven that water boils at a certain temperature. The existence of God can simply not be proven. Not that the challenge deters many believers.

It is at this point where I want to return to the smoker who says: I know. You can’t tell me anything.

Rather than getting hot under the collar and quoting everyone from Plato to Einstein and talking about the complexity of the fly’s eye and the heat of the sun to try to prove that God exists, I wonder how it will work out if a believer simply stands back and says: “I know. You can’t tell me anything. I’ve read Sam Harris’ End of Faith. I’ve read Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion. I’ve read Hawking. I’ve seen plenty of Christopher Hitchens videos on YouTube. I know exactly what you’re going to tell me. And I can’t really say much to counter it. I can’t prove the existence of God like I can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. I mean, I can tell you about times when I’ve prayed, and that certain things happened that I saw as proof that God had heard my prayer and decided to intervene. But again, I know you’re going to talk about confirmation bias and so on. I have to be honest: I see your point. The onus is definitely on me to say why I believe in the existence of God, and I can’t say anything that will satisfy you. I completely understand your arguments.”

Why do you believe then, if you cannot prove that what you believe in is true, the non-believer will ask.

“Because, I need to believe,” the believer will reply. “I want to believe. I really hope with all my heart that God exists, and that there is life after death.”

Okay, the non-believer will say, but if what you say is true, if the God of Moses and Jesus and Paul really exists, and there is life after death, what do you think will happen to agnostics and atheists and other people who base their beliefs on reason and science and logic? What will happen to people like me?

“To be honest with you,” the person of faith will start, “I don’t know. I believe in a merciful god, a god who does not need for people to confirm his existence. The god that I believe in is not an insecure god. So for all I know, in a hundred years’ time you and I will both be in paradise chatting away about something else.”

Why not? Why is the above such an impossible position for so many followers of the Christian religion to take?

Is it because it requires modesty? Is modesty not a Fruit of the Spirit? And if a person who self-identifies as Christian has such a big problem being modest, can he or she really assert that they are Christian – or is it not that simple?

Is it because many Christians believe in a god who is angry? Is it because they believe in a god who wants to punish, in a god who created people to test them? And that he punishes people when they fail? Believe, or I will punish you? Believe in the right way or face the consequences?

Is that why believers get so angry with atheists – because the latter dare to not believe in the right way?

How would it be if Christians were more honest, to other people and to themselves? If they do not harbour an unholy fear of the malicious atheist, but see him or her as just another vulnerable human being who tries to make sense of their life and the world around them? How will it work for the Christian if he or she replies to questions from non-believers with an honest, “I don’t know”? If they admit that they believe because they want to believe? If they have to admit that they believe because they need to believe? If they have to admit that an impersonal cosmos without God is just too lonely, and without purpose and meaning? If they have to admit that they believe because they hope that what they believe is true, even if they cannot prove a single thing?

Is it not true that the believer and the atheist and all grades of believers and non-believers in between are all human beings who just try to make it through another day and night?

What good does it do to be unreasonable? Who benefits from it?

______________________