Tag: terrorism

Links & Other Thinks

Image result for human terence


Image result for cyberspace is the human transition

I have this theory that what seems to be coincidence is in fact anything but. We may think we are surrounded by random stuff but deep down inside us there’s an intelligence beavering away to make sense of what’s out there and discover how we fit in. The more we panic about disconnection and incoherence, the harder our consciousness seeks out connection.

All this is implicit in the 2000-year-old quotation above from the Roman comic playwright Terence – actually a freed slave of North African Berber ancestry – and explicit in the quotation from Terence McKenna who is described in Wikipedia as an American ethnobotanist, mystic, psychonaut, lecturer and author. Google helped me make the connection and I regard their invention of a search engine based on popular choice as a big step towards McKenna’s ‘collectivity’.

Some people see any advance towards group-think as problematic, even dangerous. But the key word above is ‘optionally’. A creative approach seeks original directions rather than well-worn paths, deep associations before superficial correspondences. Examples of the latter would be the coincidence of name – both called Terence, big deal! – and the similarity of beards and Beatle cuts, but a more profound connection lies in the word ‘human’.

Reading a rather creaky old whodunit play by JB Priestley – Mystery At Greenfingers (1937) – I was struck by the following piece of dialogue. The first two characters are interviewing the third after a crime has been committed.

Crowther: What do you want to go and tell her that for?

Miss Tracey: Because she’s a sensible woman – and I believe an honest one – and we ought to deal sensibly and honestly with her.

Mrs Heaton: Thank you, Miss Tracey …

Crowther has a browbeating style of interrogation and, when he claims he’s entitled to ask anything following a serious offence, Miss Tracey plays good cop:

Miss Tracey (gently, encouragingly) : I think that’s true, Mrs Heaton. Though of     course you needn’t answer questions if you don’t want to.

As you might expect, her courteous style gets Mrs Heaton talking where Crowther’s bluster has met a brick wall.

What struck me was an obvious resonance with something I’d just read in a newspaper article on ‘new’ approaches to interrogation pioneered by psychologists Emily and Lawrence Alison who have studied thousands of interviews. It begins with a real case, a terror suspect with the pseudonym Diola who refuses to answer leading questions from ‘jobsworths’ that he regards as uncaring and insincere. A second interviewer tries a different tack:

“On the day we arrested you, I believe that you had the intention of killing a British soldier or police officer. I don’t know the details of what happened, why you may have felt it needed to happen, or what you wanted to achieve by doing this. Only you know these things. If you are willing, you’ll tell me, and if you’re not, you won’t. I can’t force you to tell me – I don’t want to force you. I’d like you to help me understand. Would you tell me about what happened?” The interviewer opens up his notebook, and shows Diola the empty pages. “You see? I don’t even have a list of questions.”
“That is beautiful,” Diola says. “Because you have treated me with consideration and respect, yes I will tell you now. But only to help you understand what is really happening in this country.”

You can read the whole article – lengthy but well worth the effort, I’d say – by clicking on this link:


This further quotation from the article provides a quick summary, however:

The premise of interpersonal psychology is that in any conversation, the participants are asking for status – to feel respected and listened to – and communion – to feel liked and understood. “Power, love,” says Laurence. “The fundamental elements of all human behaviour.” Conversations only go well when both parties feel they are getting their fair share of each.

Liberty, equality, solidarity … our old friends! Other people are the same as us. Who knew? Turns out things go better when we treat one another with civility, respect, even love. And in an age when divisions between people seem to be widening – economic, cultural, ethnic, political, strategic, philosophical –  it feels like a moral responsibility to argue for more amity.

Ed.   For what? Who ever heard of a protest march with banners that say, ‘More Amity’? Time to chuck out the liberal waffle, Dave, and cut to the chase! 

Right, then, cards on the table! I belong to the brotherhood of man or I belong nowhere. My family is all humankind or nobody. I revere life or nothing.

My creed is simple. I believe other people are just like me. I believe that when a loved one runs into trouble or falls ill, anywhere in the world, they will be cared for by others. I believe those others should expect the same from me. The ancient obligations of human hospitality pre-date statute law. If you shake me by the hand, you have my word.

Nearly 400 years ago Blaise Pascal suggested that before disagreeing with someone, we should first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord.

Civility opens doors closed to compulsion. Period.

Everything else is poppycock. Don’t come to me blathering about the need for hierarchy in human affairs. And, please, no more calls for strong leaders! Any concern, be it company or nation, that can only function under an autocrat should immediately overthrow the tyrant for gross incompetence. After all, who else could be to blame for such dysfunction?

I recently heard an episode from the excellent Radiolab series which explored  ‘Emergence’, defined in Wikipedia as “a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit”. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it seems, but only if growth is from below. The episode questions the need for leaders and you may be able to access it on:


And finally – while the main mood is jauntily jacobinical – I should include a link sent to me by a valued regular correspondent, Mike, who writes:

An alternative to small power groups telling us how to conform and how to make them more powerful has been proposed by an ex-diplomat, Carne Ross. He makes a compelling case for anarchy.

More details can found on


Up the workers and down with the drones!

Image result for workers and drones

(PS. Can it just bee coincidence that the worker is the smallest?)


Images: iz Quotes  AZ Quotes  Basic Beekeeping – blogger



Part of the Problem?

It behoves us oldsters once in a while to put aside the comforting toys of our second childhood and consider the state of the world we leave our children. Against a background of rising inequality and failing ecology that surpasses the foggy 19th century, we witness religious upheaval that seems to emerge from murky mediaeval mists. Wasn’t the Enlightenment supposed to banish the Dark Ages for good? And who in the egalitarian and optimistic 1960s would have predicted such a lurch into irrationalism and tribal conflict?

E.P. Thompson in his brilliant book The Making of the English Working Class (1963) suggested that history showed a desperate oscillation between periods of political activism and religious fervour: whenever one was seen to fail, the other would be tried once more. And as in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm … if my own experience is anything to go by.

I was a churchgoer as a child and would sit in my pew searching for spiritual illumination through stained-glass windows with the best of them. Left to my own devices I would later climb tall trees to the sound of church bells, as if to gain a higher perspective. The voice that came to me in the wind through the leaves spoke a different truth than the preacher below. Two voices, then, and both of them in my head still …


“I am an actor mouthing another’s words, my days spent in drab rehearsal for the cavalcade that shimmers behind death’s parting curtain. I want to know nothing beyond scripture, for it is blasphemy to search out divine purposes. I seek only to assuage an angry deity, despising and even persecuting those who fail to observe the little rituals and shibboleths that may keep the wrath of heaven at bay. I think of Us and Them. I am generous to those whose ways I approve because I yearn for eternal reward. No matter what else I may say, my one concern is personal salvation.”


“I search for the voice that nature and experience will give me, each day until my last a new voyage of discovery. I want to know everything because I seek to become as whole as the world. My happiness and security are founded in the union of equals. I think only of Us. I study the ways of every creature and strive to be generous to all. I do not fear death because it brings value to life, which I hold sacrosanct.”


A third voice might point out that the other two are polar opposites, exaggerated and even caricatured. Most of us are strung out on a ragged continuum between those positions, with many believers more charitable and many non-believers more selfish. My only question in these turbulent times would be,  which perspective is most conducive to peace?