Assorted Notes

WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2013

It is indeed intimidating to stand in front of the majestic edifice that is the Christian religion, to clear your throat and to declare that this religion is, in your humble opinion, the handiwork of humans, developed and refined over more than two thousand years by thousands of thinkers and theologians, priests and popes, monks and pastors, and by regular believers.

It is also very difficult when your own parents believe the Christian religion to hold the universal truth of the One and Only God Almighty. It is difficult if you have come to believe the exact opposite, but you do not want to upset your parents. What makes it an especially sensitive subject is that they find great solace and comfort in this system of beliefs.

THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2013

An important question to ask regarding the Christian religion is this: Why did Jesus have to die?

The answer you get will mostly be about a blood payment culture prevalent in the Middle East two to three thousand years ago.

What will usually not make much of an impression is if you point out that it is somewhat strange that a god that is supposed to be universal, who according to church doctrines had existed for billions of years before any human being came up with the first sparkle of culture, custom or civilisation, would allow his own son – according to some theological viewpoints, himself – to be tortured and murdered, because a custom prevalent at a particular time and place dictated so.

If too few confessing believers ask such questions, it may be because questions of this kind are actively discouraged. Religious people are often reminded of the painful and everlasting punishment that will befall them if they fail to believe in the right way – that they will certainly not escape the “wrath of God” if they ask questions that insult him.

Another question that will not be appreciated: Where does culture of particular time and place end, and where begins what is supposed to be timeless truth?

______________________

TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2013

Situation one:

Imagine a crime scene. A detective arrives, flashes a light here and there, and pulls a booklet from his jacket’s inner pocket. He reads for a few minutes then declares that it is logical that “the man” did it – according to the book he tightly clutches in his one hand.

“The man?” a few bystanders inquire.

“Yes,” replies the detective. “Don’t act like you don’t understand. You know exactly what I’m talking about.” Shortly afterwards, he leaves.

Subsequently a second detective arrives at the scene. He also flashes his light in a few places, but he also lifts fingerprints, he takes dozens of pictures, seals items in plastic bags, and he talks to several potential witnesses.

After a few days someone asks him who he thinks perpetrated the crime. “I don’t know yet,” the second detective answers. “I’m still seeing where the clues take me.”

Situation two:

A man goes to a doctor. He explains that his heart is no longer working as well as it should, that it sometimes flutters a bit, and so on.

“What’s wrong with me?” he asks the doctor.

The doctor leans over, looks in the general direction of the man’s chest, and pulls out a book from his drawer. The sick guy notices that it is a very old book.

“It’s logical,” the doctor announces. “You’re not keeping time with the seasons.” Then he informs his assistant that he is ready for the next patient.

The next day the sick guy goes to another doctor. The doctor asks him questions – what he eats, if he smokes, whether he gets any exercise, and whether he has a stressful job. The man is weighed, his blood pressure is taken, and the nurse draws blood for some tests. Then the doctor asks him to take his shirt off. He knocks here, listens there.

At the end of the consultation, the doctor informs the man that he should return in a few days. He will then be able to tell him what the tests results are.

———–

Which detective will you trust – the one who follows the clues with an open mind to see where they lead him, or the one who looks at a few things and interprets them in a way that corresponds to what his book says? Which doctor are you going to trust?

Like any reasonable person, most religious people will also prefer the detective who looks at where the clues take him, and insist on the doctor who considers various possibilities and does tests and asks questions before concluding that the cause of the problem is likely X, Y or Z.

What surprises me, though, is that when it comes to questions about the origin of the universe and life on earth, many people refer to religious mythology and dismiss all doubts and speculations as disrespectful and offensive and demand that such behaviour immediately cease.

“Put away your so-called science books,” these people will say. “We already know what the truth is.”

______________________

THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2013

Situation 1:

Person A says Charles Manson never had a chance. His childhood was filled with alcoholism, neglect, and a lack of nurturing and love. The fact that he became a criminal and was ultimately complicit in several brutal murders is hardly a surprise.

Then Person B asks Person A if he is justifying what Charles Manson did.

“No,” answers Person A. “But I would much rather try to understand why someone did something than to just shake my head at all the incomprehensible evil in the world.”

“What would you have done in 1969 if you knew about Charles Manson,” asks Person B, “if you knew of his abuse and neglect, and you saw him cruelly assaulting someone?”

“I would have tried to stop him, by violent means if necessary.”

“Would you have gone so far as to kill him if you thought the other person’s life was in danger?”

“If that ended up being necessary, yes.”

“Even if you understood his youth and how it had led to this attack?”

“Yes. His childhood explains to a large extent why he did what he did. But his childhood and the life of the person who would have been in danger are two different issues. He had no right to assault another person. If he had done something to harm this person, he would have had to bear the consequences. The fact that I would have had some understanding of what might have caused this behaviour would not have diminished my moral responsibility to at least try and protect the other person’s life.”

Situation 2:

Person A says he understands that the Red Army soldier in Berlin in April 1945 was angry with all Germans because they had brought the war to him and his country. He was full of rage and energy and fear for his own life. And he missed his wife. He hadn’t seen her in months. He heard of other Soviet soldiers just grabbing a woman in the street and forcing themselves on her. He missed the closeness of a woman. He felt nothing but hatred for the Germans. And he was sexually frustrated, full of adrenaline, and the testosterone in his blood made him think about things in a way that ran counter to his moral values.

Then, one afternoon, he saw a young woman enter a building. He ran after her. By the time she reached the second floor, he was behind her. He called to her. She started running. He grabbed her, forced her against the wall.

Person B: If you were there and you understood why he was acting that way, what would you have done? Or, what do you think would have been the right thing to do?

Person A: I would have tried to stop him by any means necessary, even if that would have meant killing him.

Person B: Even if you understood why he was doing it? Even if you understood the circumstances, the war, the fact that he hadn’t seen his wife in months, his rage, the adrenaline, the testosterone, the fact that he knew that he might be dead the next day? Would you still have killed him?

Person A: I would have done anything to stop him. The reasons why he was in this situation, which could be explained rationally, and the woman’s life are two different issues. He had no right to force himself on any woman. It is immoral. It is wrong – even if the reasons behind his actions can be explained. My moral duty would have been to protect the woman. Even if meant taking the soldier’s life. Even though I would have understood his situation.

Conclusion: Understanding immoral behaviour does not diminish your moral responsibility towards your fellow human beings. In a situation where an innocent person’s life is in danger, that is all that matters. To compromise your resolve at that moment with consideration for the motivations behind a perpetrator’s violence is a luxury the person at risk cannot afford.

______________________

TUESDAY, 26 MARCH 2013

It’s always the same: Ask the right questions. Break the problem into smaller parts. You’ll never get where you want to go if you constantly ask the wrong questions, and if you don’t know what you are talking about or what your end goal is.

* * *

Before you can start making money you must ask yourself one question: Do I want to sell something, or do I want to speculate?

To bring together what you need, you also have to consider the concept of probability. You may think that something is not absolutely necessary, but ask yourself if the availability of a particular resource would increase the likelihood of success or not. Or the opposite: How much will the absence of a certain resource reduce the likelihood of your success?

* * *

What do you need in order to make money selling something?

– Seed capital – not always necessary, but consider the likelihood of success without it.

– A market – more specifically, you need to identify a market that already spends money on certain products.

– A product – someone else’s product you can sell, or your own product. A good approach is to think of a product that people need to get to a place where they want to go, or something that will help them get away from a place they don’t want to be, or a product that will help them hold on to something they don’t want to lose, or simply something that gives them joy, comfort or entertainment.

– Marketing platforms and channels to familiarise your market with the product you believe they would buy if they knew it existed and is available.

– Human resources – can you do all the work that has to be done yourself? Will it increase the likelihood of success if you have one or more partners, or if you employ one or more people to do some of the work for you, or if you outsource some of the work?

* * *

What do you need if you want to make money by speculating on, for example, the financial markets?

– Seed capital – a few thousand rand (or dollars or pounds) you won’t need for anything else and that you are willing to lose.

– Guidance of a trustworthy source that will teach your basic strategies, signals to look for, pitfalls to avoid, and so forth.

– A positive attitude, and patience.

* * *

Is it better to make money selling something or speculating on something?

Of course, people differ in their preferences, and both ways of making money have both pros and cons.

If I had a good product and a hungry market, I would rather sell something. Why? You can later delegate a lot of the work to other people, and depending on the type of product, a large part of your income may eventually be passive – that is, you wouldn’t have to pay attention to it every day to make money from it.

It is also true that things can go wrong with any product, or with the place where you sell your product, or with a marketing channel, or the market can get lukewarm at first and then turn ice cold.

Because there are risks involved with both ways of earning an income, it is probably best to try both approaches, or if you’re smart enough or willing to work hard, to master both.

Since you are unlikely to generate an income overnight speculating on the markets, the best thing you can do is to become familiar with at least one niche where you can start selling a product or service as soon as possible.

The golden rules: Start small; Start sooner rather than later; Keep it simple; Constantly refine your processes and methods; Repeat what works.

______________________

SUNDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2013

Appearance is a nasty business. On your own, in the privacy of your own rooms, you are near perfect. You’re not too fat, you’re not too poor, you’re not too stupid or too boring.

And then you realize you need milk.

The moment you appear in public, you realise you’re fat – compared to the slender person who passes you on the sidewalk. You realise you are actually quite unattractive, compared to the much more attractive person standing next to you at the traffic light. You realise you are actually quite broke, compared to the amount and variety of groceries the person behind you in the queue at the supermarket has in their trolley.

WEDNESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2013

1. Is it not strange that, as adults, we are almost by default under the impression that we are not free to do what we want. We have to make ourselves valuable in order to justify our existence. We hope someone is so gracious to give us work as soon as we finish school, or after we have undergone some training to make ourselves more valuable. We hope somebody sees what we can do for them and are willing to pay us for the value we can deliver so that we can survive. Freedom, we’ve been told time and again from childhood, is like a private beach: a privilege reserved for the wealthy few.

2. You want to be a good person; you want to support your fellow travellers through life in their struggles. At the same time you want to detach; you want to free yourself from the mess that society is at times.

MONDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2013

Over the past couple of weeks I discovered I am suffering from some kind of disturbance. I considered possible causes: money … my approaching holiday … my plane ticket, and so on. I think maybe it’s not about money. I think maybe it’s appearance.

______________________