Demonstrating

I was forced to face another fear today - demonstrating a computer-based practical for 4th year undergrads. I really didn't feel like I understood the subject well enough to do it. What I learnt is the following.

• When you don't understand something, it's not necessarily because you're stupid, but could be because it's actually quite hard.
• Admitting this and asking for help is essential. God, I wish I had asked for help more in life. When you ask for help, you generally get it, without judgment. Duh.
• The effect of getting help can be dramatic, psychologically.
• Even 4th year students do not like asking for help. I guess we all have that fear of looking like an idiot. They will sometimes consult wikipedia before they consult the demonstrator.
  
• Being in a role where I'm able to give help, I can see how much easier the students would make life for themselves if they asked for help. That is, as long as they can understand the help they're given.
• I actually quite enjoyed giving help. And I thought, you know what, maybe I do have something to offer in this type of situation. Maybe the fact that I need stuff broken down to simplicity means I'm in a good position to help others who need the same thing.
• There is no need to pretend to be anything other than I am. I am just another learner sharing a perspective on what I've just learnt, and that's OK for them.
  

Disciplines and their traversal

I am in a "school" (subdivision of a university) that comprises what were previously three distinct departments. The distinction has been officially removed, and we are all simply affiliated with the school. We are still in three separate buildings, though. Inter-mixing between the three does not seem all that natural yet. I once went to a seminar in one of the other buildings and someone I spoke to was surprised I'd come.

Recently there was a debate session on whether disciplines are relevant, or whether they just put walls between people that could otherwise benefit from each other. I'm not sure what the alternative to having disciplines would be.

It was pointed out that some of the best scientists in history crossed disciplinary boundaries. But what does that mean? That if we didn't have disciplinary boundaries (if that were even conceivable), we'd have more brilliant scientists? Or just that disciplinary boundaries don't inhibit brilliant people?

There are actually conflicts of interest within the school that are starting to show themselves and cause problems. We have both geologists - with connections to the oil and gas industry - and environmentalists - for whom the oil and gas industry is basically the enemy. Certain annual events which have started out in the geology camp and been extended school-wide are receiving ethical objections from the environmentalists due to the sources of sponsorship. The passionate polemics that are ensuing are quite interesting and almost amusing to someone who feels totally on the outside of everything.

I have been to inter-disciplinary complexity meetings and I have never been able to see the benefit. Everyone knows in theory that learning techniques and perspectives from other fields is a good idea, but I have no experience of that because I can never understand enough of what's being presented. Anything good I have ever done is based on answering a question with a very narrow scope. Incidentally, my best work so far disproved the work of physicists who were trying their hand at a seismology problem.

I frequently say that I don't feel anywhere near a brilliant scientist, and I am frequently rebuked for saying that. But whatever "brilliance" may have produced that paper of mine, it is clearly not the same kind of brilliance that allows a person to glide over disciplinary boundaries as if they don't exist - the brilliance of Maxwell and Darwin and Newton. If anything, I am only moving away from that as I become reluctant even to try to learn new information. This is a very confusing and bewildering position to be in. I am basically a square peg that people seem to be convinced belongs in a round hole. I might be quite a good square peg, but I am never going to go where a round peg could.

Gift-giving (bah humbug)

I've been thinking about whether our western tradition of gift-giving on specific occasions like birthdays and Christmas - and I think it is just a "western" tradition - is good, or bad, or both.

I have no doubt that gift-giving in general is a nice thing. It is nice to see something and think of a person you care about, and get it for them. Even if it's not something they need, and even if it's something they wouldn't have bought for themselves; that's what makes gifts special along with the thought that accompanies it.

But do we really need to force that on ourselves at particular times of the year? Do we need these rigid channels through which to show our love and care for the people around us? Is that even what it's about, generally? Or is it just that it has become a social norm, something we do because we can't not, and something we don't really reflect on why we're doing? Isn't it even the case that it is a headache for most people to get the Christmas shopping done for the whole family, because it's difficult to find equally good gifts for everyone when we are at different stages of life, with different levels of need, and have different interests which may not in some cases lend themselves to obvious gift choices?

The internet makes gift shopping easier, with wish lists people can set up to let others know what they'd like; but it does seem rather pointless and impersonal to just buy each other's wish lists. Everyone gets everything they wanted, but there are no surprises and the net result would have been the same if everyone had just bought their own wish list - something no-one would ever have done, of course. Plus there is the inevitable duplication of gifts that occasionally happens, even when you try to make sure no-one else has bought the same gift.

I feel the same way about cards. Cards are sent for all sorts of occasions, and there is a tremendous social pressure to remember occasions and send cards in time. My Algerian side finds this almost amusing. Cards are a nice warm fuzzy for about two minutes, decoration for a few days, and waste paper thereafter. If we need that in order to feel loved and appreciated, something is seriously wrong.

On top of this is the obvious fact that many of us in the developed world have everything we need and then some. The word "clutter" comes to mind. If anything this material buoyancy just increases the expectations on ourselves in terms of gift-giving, while at the same time it becomes harder to think of a gift a person would truly appreciate. Do we really want to encourage and reward a desire for material things? In the extreme, no-one finds that attractive in a person. Consumables such as food items are a way around this, but are there any conventional food-related gifts that are actually healthy? Indulgence really does underline the whole event.

And why is that a problem, you might ask. Well, perhaps I still have something of that radical spirit I came back from Malawi with more than 10 years ago. I can't help but think that our Christmas money might be better spent feeding and clothing poor people. Actually doing something to improve the world, rather than overfilling our closets and our stomachs and then going and spending more money on gym membership to shed those pounds.

I even think this applies to children. Growing children might be continually in need of age-appropriate clothes and toys, but how many of these does a child need at one time? I think they generally get more than they need here. And I don't think they are immune to the negative side effects of getting everything they want and more.

I can already feel the bad vibes heading my way... who does she think she is, daring to question life's cosy rituals and be idealistic? What a sorry little life she must lead with no fun... If she wants to be an ethically-minded spoilsport she really shouldn't be doing X, Y and Z either, so ha! Failure!... There is something about idealism that just bothers people, isn't there?

I welcome comments on this, particularly if you disagree with me... I want to hear other views! Not that it's even possible to implement any changes (unless you are happy to be seen as rude and miserly), so this is really just a thought exercise.

My current "ideal world" would probably be one where people gave gifts only when they felt moved to do so; or if on traditional occasions, then perhaps only one well-considered gift, and feeling less constrained by those dates. Just not being so rigid about what constitutes "love" and "care". When it comes to children, there is probably greater potential for meaningful gift-giving than for adults, but I think ideally the parents should be consulted about what the child needs or would appreciate, giving them the opportunity to veto things.

What do you think?

"How to Read the Bible"

I recently read "How to Read the Bible" by Richard Holloway, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It has given me lots of scholarly insights that I didn't know, as well as some of the author's own interesting thoughts. His writing style is very readable - it's as formal as it needs to be, with the freshness of well-placed informalities lifting the tone. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the Bible - it's very short and easy to read.

There are 4 "topics" that have come out of it for me:

1. Idolatry
2. Writing theology into history
   
3. Morality in religion
   
4. Psychology of Paul

1. Idolatry

"Jerusalem... became God's greatest rival [for the affection of the Jews]." This brings back memories. Loving God's gifts more than God himself is a danger that I was taught to be concerned about. In my church, worship just meant adoration, and so anyone or anything that we had a strong liking for became a potential idol. It seems like there could be other definitions of worship, though.

2. Writing theology into history

The book discusses the aim or thesis of each of the gospel writers, and how this influenced their story-telling at the expense of historical accuracy in some cases. Christian theology as we know it today didn't emerge until Paul converted, and it was then worked into the gospel stories retrospectively when they came to be written down. This sounds very dishonest, but I don't get the impression from this book - or from Idris Tawfiq in a talk at the mosque - that it was intentional. It makes me wonder how easy it is to be faithful to history when we have a well-developed retrospective understanding of it. What might this say about hadiths for example?

3. Morality in religion

The link between God and goodness happened around the 8th century BCE. It was not always obvious that God cared about ethics. Previously people just made animal sacrifices to win the favour of God. But eventually an ethic of compassion emerged, which Holloway says Jesus later emphasised as the "universal human ethic". In other words, our selfish side is bad and our altruistic side is good.

"Though he probably wasn't a Marxist, God was certainly a socialist who wanted more mutuality and less competition in society."

I think this is worth some more thought. Another post maybe.

The message of Jesus' sermon on the mount, Holloway says, is not some naive platitude but a subversive reversal of the existing brutal order of things. Jesus congratulates and values the destitute, the utterly powerless, those outside the "system", and proclaims that they are innocent precisely because they are not implicated in a system of power which victimises people. They can turn the other cheek and so on because they have no need to react as those who have something to protect. That is still a hugely subversive message today, and something of an antidote to the Darwinian capitalistic mindset that has pervaded our societies.

In regard to religious moral codes and law, Jesus has a "general but not unconditional acceptance" of the temple cult. He is not a letter-of-the-law type. He is criticised for his relaxed approach to observing the Sabbath, for example. Holloway clearly approves:

"It is true that we need moral and religious systems to protect us from the chaos of our passions; but if we give them transcendent and unchanging authority they become a greater danger to us than the unfettered passions they are supposed to curb. An unalterable code can close us against ordinary pity for our fellows, and cause us to treat them not as humans, but as abstractions, as things."

4. Psychology of Paul

A complex psychology lay behind Paul's dramatic conversion to Christianity. What interested me was the idea that, as a zealous Jew with a strong and tortured sense of his own weakness and failure to live perfectly by the religious law that he so revered, he projected his self-hatred onto those who didn't even try to live up to the letter of the law - i.e. the followers of Jesus. I can actually see something of myself in that. Paul could not be moderate about anything, and was clearly a perfectionist, which are tendencies I can relate to.

Of course Paul then converted, and arrived at a solution for his angst in the idea that Jesus had fulfilled the law for him, something he could not do for himself. In taking Christianity outside of Judaism, Paul divorced the ritual from the moral, leaving the ritual behind, so that the "law" for Christians consists of moral exhortations only. This goes some way towards explaining why Christians regard themselves as "not under law" but at the same time make huge efforts to live up to a moral standard. Something that has long puzzled me. I actually think Christian theology is so complex that a lot of Christians don't understand it, know it, or believe it. There are a lot of Christians that seem to believe that if you do good you will go to heaven and if you do bad you will go to hell, but that God is so nice you'd have to do some really bad stuff to go to hell. This is not what the New Testament overall teaches. So why do they believe that? Maybe because it's more intuitive?

Hypnosis, bike accident and writing

Yesterday I got up very early and listened to my "perfectionism" hypnosis track. It was actually very good. It encouraged me to appreciate even the small successes. I went out with a much more positive outlook than usual.

I don't know why it's hard to write positive things like that, but it is. I always imagine the good is going to be short-lived so I'd better not count on it and immortalise it in writing. But I hope I will continue to do that.

So rather than chastise myself for taking so long to read and understand a paper, I just concentrate on congratulating myself for every little bit I do manage to work out. It's sort of working, I guess.

When I arrived at the campus yesterday there was a guy cycling really fast in front of the buildings, in a curvy trajectory. After he passed me I heard a crashing sound. I turned round and saw him and most of the bike on the ground, with one wheel rolling away. It seems he'd come off going over the speed bump. There were several people nearer to him than me and at least one person had gone over to help, so I got on with my day and thought not much more about it. In the afternoon there was an email sent round asking for any information about the bike accident that happened that morning. It turned out to be from the guy's friend who was trying to locate his bike for him basically. He'd been taken to hospital in an ambulance and couldn't remember much. They didn't know who had called the ambulance or where the bike had ended up. It really shocked me and reminded me - as if I needed reminding - why I gave up cycling. Although admittedly riding that fast with no helmet is a silly thing to do.

It was just such a strange thing because it didn't involve any other traffic, or ice, or pedestrians, or colliding with a stationary object, or any of these usual things. He did it all by himself.

I'm about to go to writing class. I wrote a dialogue-based piece for this week. Not totally happy with it but with limited time I can only do so much. I really look forward to hearing other people's stories as well as sharing mine. I may post it up later if I get brave enough. :)