Animals are not stupid just coz we don't know how to speak their language......

''Man is the measure of all things'', a dictum made by the 

Greek Philosopher Protagoras a long, long time ago.

Commonly it is interpreted as meaning that things are

true, or not true, according to how the individual

 perceives them.

The ''truth'' therefore, is relative and differs according

to each individual.

To express the way we experience life and living, we use words.

Words, spoken or written, in my view however, can be very ambiguous.

We know what we mean when we say or write something,

but how can we know for sure that the ''receiver''

interprets the words we use the same way?

''I'll be a little late for dinner tonight.'' ''Late'', as in

ten minutes or two hours?

''Trust me, I'm telling you the truth.''

Truth? As in according to your interpretation/perception of what

the truth is or.....?

Take something as simple as the words we use for colours:

What you call yellow, someone else may call orange,

your blue may be purple for someone else, etc.etc.

It gets even more muddled when we use words such as:

reality, consciousness, mind, soul, heart, love, etc.etc.

The spoken and written language if often used as an example

of what separates (and some say elevates) human beings from

animal species. 

But here's the thing: language can be both destructive

and constructive. It can soothe, it can irritate, it can heal, it

can destroy, it can bring clarity, it can confuse,

it can bring peace, it can bring war, it can bring love,

it can bring hate. (And much more)

Being a ''pondering'' kind of person, I often ponder how 

us humans have come to hold the notion that we know

that animals are less ''smart'' than humans.

Come to think of it, how do we know that animals don't

experience cruelty and suffering just as intensively as

we do?

How do we know that they don't experience trauma just

as deeply as we do?

How do we know that they don't experience loss just

as devastatingly as we do?

What makes us think that we know what goes on in their brains?

My opinion is that we don't know, we speculate.

Australia is right now going through an almost incomprehensible

loss of animals through fire.

Experts say that they don't know if our precious fellow beings

will ever be able to recover from this terrible devastation.

But perhaps worst of it all, it seems to me that mankind's 

lust for more;

more land, more oil, more water, more coal, more uranium,

 more lebensraum, more profit; 

is destroying this planet exponentially.

''Man is the measure of all things''.....

How are we doing as custodians of this planet?

We are ''smarter'' than the animals, yet it is us who are

poisoning the air, the water, the earth, the forests,

the fields, and not to mention.....ourselves.

For being smart, it seems to me that we are pretty stupid.

We are destroying our own habitat in favour of

what we call progress.

A few markers of DNA may separate us from

other living species,

but let's not fool ourselves any longer,

we are obviously not the ''smarter'' one.

''Because we have viewed animals through the 

myopic lens of self-importance,

we have misperceived who and what they are.

Because we have repeated our ignorance,

one to another,

we have mistaken it for knowledge.''

(Tom Regan)

Are we letting numbers and digits control our lives?

A few days before I finished college, I was called into the

principals office.

As I entered the office, I was met by a stern looking principal

and an even sterner looking math's teacher.

I was told to sit down, and although I should probably have

been shaking in my boots, I was not. I sat down full of the confidence

of a ''mature'' (an oxymoron really) teenager, crossed my arms

and waited for a tongue lashing.

''You do realize that I can't actually give you a final grade in math's

since you have failed every test this year'', Mr Peterson, the math's teacher

said as he raised his eyes above the rim of his glasses.

''Is there a reason for you failing all your tests?''

Mr Peterson and the principal both looked at me with

searching eyes as they waited for me to give an answer.

So I told them that I had been accepted to the Conservatorium

of Music and that I would start straight away after the

summer holidays.

Boldly I told them that there was no need for math's in

music so I didn't care about not receiving a grade, because

I was going to become a professional musician.

Much to my bewilderment, as I was making my proclamation,

they looked at each other, smirked, and with a ''Good Luck'' I

was shown the door.

What was that all about? I wondered.

So, this is what you need to know: Until I started to study music,

I was what is called an ''ear player''. Which meant I learned how

to play by listening and then copying. 

I could not read a dot of music, it was all hieroglyphics to me.

For the first two years of studies I faked my way through

all my lessons by relying on my ears, but as the music we

studied became more and more complex,

it became clear to me that knowing how to read sheet music

was a definitely a huge benefit.

(Reading sheet music one does not have to memorize everything.)

I finally told my piano teacher, Stella Tchaikovsky, that I couldn't

read music and this made her roll her eyes, and slap me on the shoulder.

''Naughty!!! she exclaimed.

So, from then on, I started to learn how to turn the ''hieroglyphics''

into something that I would eventually be able to read as easily

as words on a page.

And guess what.....it's all math's!!!!

Numbers everywhere. Numbers for the notes, the tempo, the

chords, the fingering, the scales, the modes, etc.etc.

(Hence the reason for the math teacher and principal

smirking when I told them that there is no math's in music.

They knew there was. 

Mind you, regular math's does not ''sound'' as good

as musical math's methinks.)

(A digit is a single numerical from 0 to 9. A number is a string of 

one or more digits.)

Alright, enough with the technical stuff.

What was once primarily a tool for measuring and counting 

has now progressed into something that in my view seems

to be pivotal to life as we know it.

Right now, for instance, I am typing this and what I see

looks like words, letters, but, really it's 1's and 0's.

And, the image above looks like a man and a giant question mark

although really, what I see, is a bunch of pixels.

More and more we are relying on the intangible, codes of

1's and 0's, than on the tangible.

Which for me is a bit of a worry.

I watched a doco on Netflix which asserted that basically

it would only take 8 good hackers to cause serious havoc on

 the planet. I think they said that it could be done

 using a process I think they called ''the process of

 a fire sale''.

Are we putting too much trust in technology?

Are we relying too much on numbers and digits?

Since all technology is driven by some form of ''energy'', 

what happens if we run out of it?

Will tomorrow's child know how to make a fire, 

know how to cook over an open fire,

know how to keep warm without electricity,

know how to wash clothes without a machine,

know how to work together face to face,

know how to write, calculate, or draw

 with an ordinary pencil?

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Albert Einstein

was right when he said:

''It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has

exceeded our humanity.''

about the image: acrylic on paper in homage to the original movie poster

Bias....so easy to detect in others, yet often invisible to ourselves......

Deduction, the process of reaching a decision or answer by

thinking about the known facts.

Known Facts. How does one distinguish a known fact

from an assumed or perceived fact? What makes a fact a fact?

Usually, a fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true

either with evidence and or proven to be true.

Before I started to read a lot of books on philosophy, I never 

really considered whether a fact is actually a fact, now however,

I am pondering whether outside of mathematics, facts are more

often than not influenced by the ''eyes of the beholder''.

History tells us that facts often tend to change as the sciences 

uncovers new ''facts'' regularly.

(Bloodletting does not cure, the earth is not flat, earth is not the center

of the universe etc.etc.)

Confusing the subjective with the objective or vice versa, is 

something many of us do without even being aware of

doing so. We may feel as if we are very logical in our reasoning,

it makes perfect sense to us, so it must be a fact.

But, is it really possible to be objective as a human being?

Is it possible as a human being to be bias free?

According to Emily Pronin, we all have a bias ''blind spot''.

Through research Emily together with other colleagues have done,

results have shown that we are largely immune/blind to our 

own biases.

We are quick to spot biases that others may have, 

but less quick to spot our own.

Pronin and her colleagues found that when we evaluate others,

we tend to go by behaviours, but introspection often fails 

to disclose to us how our own biases affect our behaviours.

Bias, something that often feels like a ''fact'', is in

fact not a fact, it is predilection. Whaaaaa...t?

(A preference for or against is already present in our minds,

although commonly hidden in our subconscious.)

When my son became a goth, folks were very quick to

tell me that being a goth was all manner of wrong.

At first I listened them, and then it dawned on me that

I didn't really know what being a goth meant for my son.

So I asked him, he made sense, and that was that.

It was a valuable lesson for me, so I decided to confront

a number of biases that I found hidden just beneath

my knee-jerk reactions.

Not all drunks are irrational and or violent, not all homeless

 people are so due to their own doing, not all ''crazy behaving''

 people are crazy, not all jobless people are dole bludgers,

well, the list was long.

To overcome my biases, I decided to confront them, and

that meant joining a number of charities dealing with

the realities and experiences that so many people

who deal with these issues go through every day.

I think that perhaps we throw around the terms ''fact'' and

''known fact'' too lightly and carelessly at times in our

haste to score a point, to be right, or to win a debate.

Whether something is a fact or not matters little to

someone who has already decided that they

 KNOW the REAL fact.

A tool I have found to be really useful when it comes

to checking up on my biases, is to ask myself: 

''Do I have any evidence, any substantial proof that

verifies my stance on this matter?

What is the source? Is the source reliable?

Is it backed by a number of different experts in the field?

Is there an underlying hidden agenda?''

In my view: A well founded deduction depends on reliable facts,

verifiable evidence, and a consideration of 

many possibilities in order to be trustworthy.

''We don't see things as they are,

we see things as we are.''

(Anais Nin)

about the image: acrylic on paper, it's not a print, this is a hand-painted

piece.

Happiness is but a moment, not a continuous state.......

I stare at the number, but it just doesn't compute.

2020. Really. 

2020 sounds more like the title of a Science Fiction novel than

reality to me.

I don't know about you, but I am worried about the future.

The future of this Planet, and the future of mankind.

For all the advancements and progress we have made,

have we really considered the possible consequences

and the costs they may bring?

Are we asking ourselves the ''right'' questions before we

throw ourselves head first towards pushing boundaries?

Are some boundaries perhaps best kept?

Is the ''new'' always better than the old?

After all, regardless of all our advancements,

basically, do we not still deal with the same needs,

wants, and desires that we did hundreds of years ago?

Do we not all still share the need for belonging, for 

feeling accepted and included, for being loved

and love in return, for being valued and appreciated,

and for being understood?

Do not most of us chase after ''happiness''?

Happiness, this illusive something that is so hard to define,

and so often behaves like a slippery bar of soap.

(Just when we think we have a hold of it, it slips through

our fingers.)

Often, I think we attach conditions to what we think we may need

in order to be happy.

When I get xyz I will be happy, when xyz happens I will

be happy, when he/she/they accept me I will be happy, etc.etc.

Strangely, more often than not, even when our conditions

are met, the feeling of happiness often tends to wean off.

So, we come up with new conditions.

And like hamsters in a wheel, we keep on running.

James Pawelski, a philosopher says : ''Happiness is both a goal of, 
and a construct of culture.''

(I take this to mean that regardless of where on this planet

 we may live, how we view happiness depends on the culture in which

we live.)

But, what if happiness is not a ''state'', what if happiness rather than

being a continuous state, is more of a moment?

And a floating one at that.

If this is the case, then in order to experience happiness

we need to be living and experiencing the present moment, the now,

and to let go of the past and the future.

Which is really, really hard to do.

But, not impossible.

But it takes awareness, and learning how to recognize those fleeting

moments that feels like  ''happiness moments''.

We need to acknowledge them, experience them,

 make a mental note of them,

because they will pass, but they always leave a little

''tingle'' behind.

''Happiness is like a snowflake in the palm of your hand.

It lasts but a moment, but it leaves 

a drop of glistening water behind.''

(Citizen Z)

about the image: A graphite drawing I made on cardboard paper from

a photo I took of my son while he was having a ''happiness moment''.