A few are 'household' names, some are one-offs. But the list, note, is for just ONE day!
As I say, this is the flipside - every coin has one - of what for me are the far more intriguing and worthwhile issues of technology & art. It's just that to be scrupulously honest one should acknowledge the existence of a dark side, as it were, since its influence could turn out to be devastating... though instead, I hope, it could be ultimately benign?
.
OVER THE YEARS
Around Oct 2008 I experienced an amazing jog of memory to right back when I was about 7. Suddenly I recalled several of the kids I knew then, even a few names, and how we behaved together and so on. I was amazed at what was still in my head.
Now, on radio a few days ago - April 15th 2013 - a group of academics were discussing human evolution. They agreed there was no explanation for altruism. This confirmed for me the wisdom (among the many absurdities) of what arch-polemicist Christopher Hitchens (see stirring & poignant INTERVIEW) wrote in one of his memoirs: 'Picture all experts as if they were mammals.'. Not only did that academic consensus demonstrate the fatuous short-sightedness of those partaking in the discussion - which was otherwise astute and at times quite gripping - but above all their lack of VISION... because reflecting on when I was 7, I had understood even at that age the significance of altruism. Yet here were these 'top' academics dismissing a powerful human trait, which they nevertheless acknowledged to exist, simply because they couldn't explain it; while here was me, as a mere 7-years old, grasping the explanation with ease. Only today, by sheer coincidence, a quote on ICH (see link to the left - black text) reads:
Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind. - Henry James
Soppy and mawkish though this might appear, it was key to how we related to one another as 7-year olds. Any kid who was aggressive or bullying would be ostracised... at least by me and those I associated with (and considered friends) who were generally kind to one another. True, to an outside observer, it was probably us, as a minority, who were being ostracised. I remember a kid called Clive who, together with another boy and myself, would rescue worms from the school playground and chuck them on the grass. I remember too feeling deep empathy for a kid who was often ill and sad, the younger of two brothers who I spent a lot of time with in the playground. Even today, as throughout my life, I avoid unkind people when possible. I regret not having had the insight to do other than react to them likewise when I've been forced to endure them. Either way, I've always been reluctant to cooperate with those I've judged unpleasant or unkind. And the opposite is also true - that I've been eager to put myself out for those who I've found to be kind. This must be universal... and tediously obvious to almost everyone. If so, it means altruism is crucial for cooperation, which in turn is crucial for any group to live harmoniously together. (Maybe I misunderstood precisely what those academics were saying?)
But all that is a digression, because the issue that alerted me to those old memories of 57-years ago, is what I intend to explain here. I was looking at a list of suggested 'friends' on that curious website 'friendsreunited'. There were many I recognised - who I presumed once shared my place of work/college, etc. But one name stood-out - an unusual name that I couldn't forget: Pink. This was a kid I last saw in infant school, the day I nicked his tuck money - six-pence - a misdeed that left me lightly tainted with guilt. I've never since nicked anything from an individual (so far as I can recall).
I guess I don't need to confess that I'm actually NOT unfailingly kind (who is?), and nor am I averse to nicking things. Like most people, I'm subject to that old shortcoming 'hypocrisy', but at least I'm aware of what I'm doing - I know when I'm out of line. There have been moments when for expedience I have failed to be kind; and if I thought I could get away with it I wouldn't hesitate to swindle a bank. But to nick an item from someone's pocket is another matter entirely.
However, I emailed this guy Pink explaining who I was and about the 6d I'd nicked off him all those years ago. Surprise, surprise: he didn't respond...
But this is only part of the story, because the friendsreunited info revealed where Pink had disappeared to back in 1956. At least, it showed he became a pupil at Leys School, Cambridge. And it's that detail which provoked me to write this article - because I discovered a few days ago from Wikipedia that the colourful outspoken character mentioned above, Christopher Hitchens, was also a pupil at Leys School - and at the same time too: he was the same age as me within a few weeks, which means he was probably in the same class as Pink, so there's a good chance they knew one another.
The net provides all the data anyone might want on this contentious figure, Hitchens: youtube is one source that's worth a glance. He died of oesophageal cancer in Dec 2011. He was certainly a colourful figure, a maverick intellectual who enjoyed controversy. His brother, Peter, with whom he was intermittently estranged - a curious fact given that they shared the same polemical nature - remains much alive. He's a newspaper columnist and is frequently on broadcast media. I feel no affinity with either. The views of each resemble an improbable, if divergent, amalgam of Thatcher and Galloway. It's as if they randomly pick arguments from those diametrically opposed politicians... and then voice their unlikely conclusions with such force and confidence that so long as you don't take them seriously you can only be gripped and entertained. Alternatively, I imagine, you'll experience disgust and outrage.
None of these people have vision. In fact, going by current Wikipedia entries, Peter Hitchens (unlike his brother) represents the very antithesis of vision. What's the word for that, I wonder - not blindness (that's mere lack of vision) - maybe retro-vision, or retrocedence? So Peter Hitchens is a 'retrocessive'. He belongs - like too many other powerful voices throughout history - in the past, prior to where they actually are or were in time. These are the 'flies-in-the-ointment' of progress.
Because of people like him, five decades ago it was illegal to be gay, swearing on TV was not permitted, several examples of great literature were banned, pop music was thought corrupting... what else? Oh yeah, institutionalised violence against helpless children wasn't just legal, but positively encouraged. There's a long list of irrational humbug the gullible public was persuaded to support in those days. Luckily, the most nonsensical has in recent times been exposed for what it is, and is now unacceptable to a more questioning and perceptive public.
Even so, establishment propaganda remains solid; vociferous retrocessives like Peter Hitchens are as active as ever - only the issues under focus have changed, and the list remains long. To counter remaining humbug requires VISION as never before. There are people who sacrifice their whole lives attempting to correct some injustice that a member of the elite could brush aside with a single gesture; yet due to their brutal, greedy nature the latter doggedly maintain the status quo. To effectively challenge the handful of elite who are holding us in a tawdry and wretched past demands new insight.
The next five decades will see many new visions and insights that will gain notice and put an end to more lingering absurdities:
One of these will doubtless be the monumental fraud that's constantly and provocatively in the headlines: of CEOs and bankers receiving colossal bonuses and payoffs, while their work input is usually about the equivalent of a part-time shelf-stacker (frequently incompetent, corrupt or both). Another great leap will be in energy. I could fill an entire book elaborating on this - it would probably bore your pants off so I won't bother, but it would contain vision and insight too all right - even if not exactly original! I'm sure we can all think-up any number of areas ripe for visionary input - the list, as I say, is long... very long... perhaps endless...
-------------- // -------------
