Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg

Name

Email *

Message *

The Acting Class by Peter Cheevers


                                          



                                               The Acting Class
                                                                                  by Peter Cheevers

                                                                                                    Published by Ether Books 2016


c.

Image result for acting class

I know what I will do, that's it - got my weekends planned.  Living as I do in a sleepy shire, (one hour out from London). I decide I will attend an acting class each weekend in the ‘big smoke’.                                                                                                                                       
So I arrive in London, it is 9 a.m. and I stroll around Soho before the class begins,                                 soon I am hit on by the homeless like birds flapping for pickings around a land-fill;                              one in a surprising display of linguistics compliments me on my 'elegant attire’,                               
 I tell him to cut the bollocks as I hand him my small change.

The tutor at the acting class is quickly revealed to be uber talented,                                                        speedily she puts her finger on the minutiae of one's physical over                                                          compensations and failings; ‘no frown acting’ she opines;                                                                      ‘stop trying to look concerned with that look at me                                                                                 I am really thinking face, no compensatory hand in the pocket acting;                                                    don't try to make yourself secure in that way and don't compensate by jutting out your chin,                and when you are trying to be casual don't lean against the wall, in that studied casual way and no eyebrow acting.’ Right.
Then she is on to the classics, and the iambic pentameter  of da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM of William Shakespeare's Sonnet 12When I do count the clock that tells the time.     
The students try the Sonnet out; it doesn’t take our tutor long;                                                                ‘don’t  stop to admire your delivery, leave your inner critic alone                                                            and stop monitoring yourself  and don’t go on reset for the next line                                                      and don’t be scared by the sound of your own voice;                                                                                no need to get into character that's’ all  so Terence Rattigan 30s repertory acting’;                                  a student tries an American accent ‘noo, no, no’ she chides, ‘American accents                                     always start  in a high register, ‘Hey, you guys’ she emits as if abseiling from atop a mountain.            "All these don’ts, what am I do?"                                                                                                              "Just be!" she advises me and you know she is on the money.
Earlier on she had talked about how she admired scientists                                                                   and how their discoveries are just part to the next  discovery,                                                                   'relative truths', then, I don't say because if I do argue with her                                                              I would probably do so leaning against a supportive wall in that                                                            self protective way with my hand in my pocket, to give out the                                                              appearance I am in control and casual about it too and there                                                                      would be my knitted brow to demonstrate I was really thinking                                                            about what I was saying and that chin of mine jutting out in a                                                                  display of compensatory assertion. So, I don't say anything as                                                                I think of my day job in the ‘real’ world; of being harried on                                                                  overcrowded trains on the way to and from work and compare                                                             it to the relevance of non eyebrow acting. 


Just be’, ho hum, easier said than done. I conclude this is a perceptive and very talented person,  until she muddies the waters and starts offering 'truths' on the current UK political landscape and what then becomes evident is the lack of rigour in her lazy argument and that                                                 easily arrived at claim to the 'truth' for her views.  No room then for ‘truths’ being relative, or truth being a precious commodity, just the claim that her views are the truth, that will brook no argument, her finger wagging response to my slight offerings on her views highlights the weakness of her argument. 
‘We are all the same and that is that’ she avers, as she lays claim to some idealised universalism. I am amazed as she has already made it known to the class she is gay, so you are you the same, exactly the same as the person who wishes to throw you off a roof because of your sexuality but one gives up in the face of the mind numbing mantra 'it is the truth'.
The other 'actors' are a rag tag who appear to be almost manic in their desire to perform and be seen by their fellows to do so; no sensitive hesitation then from these 'actors'; rather cruelly I am afraid, it passes my mind that these people should be in therapy, when they are not seeking out job seekers allowance which I find out in a discreet census in the tea break that most of them are. It becomes almost unbearable to watch them and the talented tutor’s endless indulging of them. Astonishingly I find out at the lunch break that most of them have agents. Whaaat! Who said that the acting profession is replete with stupidity? What a scurrilous thing to say about that 'sensitive' group of people and their oh so perceptive agents. As for that truly talented tutor, if only she would have heeded ‘cobbler, stick to thy last’ and stuck to her remit.
I cut the class short and steal away, deeply disappointed, ah well, just have to think of something else to do for the weekends. Now, there is this Cookery class I have been looking at...
                                    .....................................................................


Some humanities students interact with teachers for just 26 hours in three years.

Talk about value for money - with a cost of £60,000 approx; for students for a 3 years Degree and
University Chancellors getting whopping salaries (£250,000) is this another fraud that is about to be taken down.

education is supposedly to do the civilising job of  “inculcating the spirit of the humanities”. But why is this a function peculiar to universities? They are by their nature exclusive, intolerant of free speech, with 77% of academics reportedly on the political left. They are entitled to claim that is their privilege, but it hardly makes them a uniquely civilising force.

Is Political Correctness a Religious movement?


The argument goes, yes it it.  If a 'philosophy' has a moral framework, without accepting that 'morals'
are just opinions  and believing that morals exist a priori, well by neccessity means you
must resort to the metaphysical which is 'Religious'.

Is it collusion with the Russians to read Chekhov/Dostoyevsky/Solzhenitsyn etc etc etc

Will it influence me?  This whole collusiom nonsense is ripe for derision - but then the USA is an
adolescent country

If you are free then you not equal and if you are equal then you are not free

If you are free then you not equal
and if you are equal then you are not free

Bill Maher is a cultural Marxist - although he doesn't know it...bless.


You come out  a left leaning University -  indoctrinated

Your Professors before indoctrinating you has been indoctrinated

by French Theory - that intellectually attractive and cerebally seductive mind game

where all notions of essentialism are put to the rack

you think you are a man or woman, sorry you can't be, that is biological essentialism.

You read something and you think it means that, sorry there are endless meanings and to give it one
is essentialist.

I could go on...I am sure you have got the idea.

Combatttig PC (Political Correctness) is Europe's most vital question

The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness
and retake their society back

It is just not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness for it tolerates a certain amount of criticism,
 even gentle mocking.

However it does not do so through genuine tolerance for other points of view,
under the guise of tolerance it aims to  disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural

Liberal PC brigade now bestride Western Europe and the United States like a cultural colossus
and they are too savvy to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.

Yet we nust defy it, we must use words it forbids, and
refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the
 rooftops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our opposition to Sharia on a national and local level,

While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that
Political Correctness is in fact is a totalitarian mind set  in a different set of clothes. As that realisation spreads, defiance will spread of it will also spread with it.



T

The dark side of compassion - pathological altruism

The Dark Side of Compassion

There is an emerging literature on "pathological altruism", suggesting that extreme compassion can have downsides such as difficulty passing judgment of right vs. wrong, and forgiving all transgression and failures of those in the in-group while acting highly protective and aggressive toward those in the out-group, even sometimes in the absence of actual provocation and injustice

Our 'compassion' is derived from the mother/child bond

High compassion is generally considered a good thing, 
however it's important to keep in mind that it evolved to facilitate the mother-child pair bond. 
Image result for google images virgin mary with child As such, the compassionate response is focused on those in need, and is biased toward negative emotional reactions (e.g., sad and fearful facial expressions). 

This increases a person's sense of similarity to vulnerable individuals and dissimilarity to dominant individuals

NATIVISM

Nativism is always aligned with an impulse or strategy to shape the culture with which it claims to have this privileged intimacy. It is urgently intent on identifying enemies and confronting them, and it is hostile to the point of loathing toward aspects of the society that are taken to show their influence. 

What good are the humanities? Why are they at the centre of our education









Oh the times! Oh the customs!   O tempora, o mores!


There is a great deal of questioning now of the value of the humanities, those aptly named disciplines that make us consider what human beings have been, and are, and will be


What is at stake now, in this rather inchoate cluster of anxieties that animates so many of us, is the body of learning and thought we call the HUMANITIES

Their transformative emergence has historically specifiable origins in the English and European Renaissance, greatly expedited by the emergence of the printing press. At the time and for centuries afterward it amounted to very much more than the spread of knowledge, because it was understood as a powerful testimony to human capacities, human grandeur, the divine in the human. And it had the effect of awakening human capacities that would not otherwise have been imagined.

And since the new cost of university is weighed against potential earnings, students and families being so burdened, the humanities are under great pressure to justify their existence

speaking of the mainstream media, therefore of the institutions that educate most people of influence in America, including journalists. Our great universities, with their vast resources, their exhaustive libraries, look like a humanist’s dream

bUT WHy teach the humanities? Why study them? American universities are literally shaped around them and have been since their founding, yet the question is put in the bluntest form—what are they good for? 

What is being invoked is the notion of a precious and unnamable essence, second nature to some, in the marrow of their bones, in effect. By this view others, whether they will or no, cannot understand or value it, and therefore they are a threat.



so how did the Political Correctness you live under come about?

The commissars of culture, Gramsci, Lukacs, MarcuSE et al (and other of the The 1930s Frankfurt School) are noted for their  theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance.
"Cultural Terrorism" was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to Western European schools.

In the 60s it would be 'French Theorists; Derrida and Foucault who followed this on.

What came about from this Critical Theory were sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, there was no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' that was biological essentialism (I can feel your eyes swivelling toward heaven) including "matriarchal theory", "androgyny theory", "personality theory", "authority theory", "family theory", "sexuality theory", "racial theory", "legal theory", and "literary theory". Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution and so you have POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

And the most passive recipients of this Cultural Terrorism were academics and today
Western Universities are in the view of some 'Little Koreas' of induction.

Many US college campuses becoming small, ivy-covered North Koreas.

Some say, make that many,  say that Many a US college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. 

Political Correctness now looms over Westerm society like a colossus

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus and be afraid, for depending on how you couch it differently you could go to Prison (the law in the UK) good old politicans those who emerge from PC Universities with the their
2.1s in PPV (Politics Philosophy Economics) and from there on in the words of Sophocles 'lurk behind every stone.

PC,  to give it its world renowned acronym, has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so-called Western European "conservative" parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness.
It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment


When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness - or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name - present their beliefs attractively. It's all just a matter of being "sensitive" to other people, they say. They use words such as "tolerance" and "diversity", asking, "Why can't we all just get along?"

The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about "being nice", unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.

Who is going to write the Algorithmns of our future?

What is taking place in technology is the great ‘decoupling’ of intelligence and consciousness by advances in artificial intelligence

Zonin down  to Algorithms -  they need to have their steps in the right order, they have to be sequential. Like say,  an algorithm for getting dressed in the morning...what if you put on your coat before your jumper? Your jumper would be on top of your coat and that would be silly! When you write an algorithm the order of the instructions is very important. 

So speaking of ‘new normals’ the view is, Algorithms embedded in silicon and metal will replace algorithms embedded in flesh. SCARY

Casting a dystopian eye on our future the consenual view is that new life forms will be created, breaking the chain which – from the beginnings of time from single-celled microscopic animals, from amoebas to Homo sapiens – made life an exclusive function of organic compounds. .

And  Who, what responsible persons are going to write these computer inputs...Silicon Valley is almost wholly left wing

Imitation is at the root of all behaviour

Human beings are born with a need for food and shelter. Once these fundamental necessities of life have been acquired, we look around us at what other people are doing, and wanting, and we copy them.  Imitation is at the root of all behaviour. So billions of people looking at their cell phones are like a multitude with their noses stuck in the sweet shop window envying others.  Social media is misanthropic.

Our 'new' reality, GOOGLE

We  are living in a world where Google is now people's reality; and these people  are being traduced by an advertising company who have digitally lobotomised billions of people on their ‘smart’ phones. 

Money making technology is the new shamanic power...that has us surrendering to the sorcery of our digital screens.., in the argot of a rampant Silicon Valley, human beings will become useless, ‘meat puppets’...but nothing is going to stop the advance of technology.

The solipistic left and their quest for personal definition

Those on the left students for instance, rooted in a solipsistic concern for personal definition, which explicitly excludes the idea of action embracing a whole political universe.

ctivist students of the left who are believers, in a prelapsarian philosophical idyll

There are lots of activist students who are believers, in a prelapsarian philosophical idyll – well, you are only young once..

The new 'abnornal' where students would deem quantum theory racist if they understood it.

Where the young (students)  and most thing are deemed  racist and in what might be termed as a rape or perversion of logic, where maths is even racist...wouldn’t surprise me if they deemed quantum theory racist and they would if they understood it.

The moral left - an egoistical yearning for personal transcendence


The Democrats and the left especially students  should  Stop imposing purist tests on people they want to convince...

one has to be wary of political activism that is really an egoistical yearning for personal transcendence

That is why one can refer to the liberal left agenda as a religion.

During Obama’s two terms in office, Democrats suffered a net loss of almost a thousand seats.

 Out of 99 state legislative chambers the Democrats now control only 32; 

only 16 of the 50 governors are Democrats. 

During Obama’s two terms in office, Democrats at state level suffered a net loss of almost a thousand seats.  Well done you Harvard graduate, once has to wonder who and what did they teach you.

While the progressives were out occupying Wall Street, it seems, the Republicans were occupying the country.

The American Constitution and the pursuit of that strange animal called 'happiness'

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".


Some of us might not believe in the Creator part now, and some of us might find more and more difficult the idea that people are born equal when the conditions in which they are born are manifestly so unequal; and most of us would want to assume that by "men" Jefferson meant "people". 

And yet, as many people have noted, the pursuit of happiness – something not mentioned in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – seems peculiarly salient; it is the only one of the things listed that is a pursuit.

What exactly might it mean to have an "unalienable right" to "the pursuit of happiness", given that it is fairly obvious that the pursuit of happiness is so morally equivocal – could be, among other things, a threat to the society that promoted it? At first sight it seems to be a pretty good idea; if we are convinced of anything now we are convinced that we are pleasure-seeking creatures, who want to minimise the pain and frustration of our lives. Or at least a "we" could be consolidated around these beliefs. We are the creatures who, possibly unlike any other animal, pursue happiness. But the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of liberty – the utopian political projects of the 20th century – has legitimated some of the worst crimes of contemporary history across the political spectrum

It is not happiness we should be pursuing but seriousness

Many esteeemed thinker think poorly of happiness and of people who claimed to be happy or desired happiness above other gratifications in life . . . they feel that seriousness not happiness was the desirable condition of man.

All writers are crypto psychoanalysists

All great writers consciously or not employ the associative habits of the analyst’s couch, and understand that in certain ways the forward movement of a piece of writing is a kind of voyage of self-discovery, a watching of their mind at work from a psychoanalytic point of view, all narrators are unreliable narrators.

Even the oh so sensitive with  their  armoury of caveats in their  internal landscape,  are always in the distance, panting to keep up to that cherished goal
Literature, the love of it, risks religiosity

A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy,

We all want to be happy, we want our children to be happy, and there are countless books advising us how to achieve happiness. But is this really what we should be aiming for?

It is not surprising, in other words, that happiness has always had rather a mixed reception. No one in their right minds we might think, especially now, would be promoting unhappiness; and yet the promotion, the preferring of happiness – the assumption of a right to happiness – brings with it a lot of things we might not like. And the desire for happiness may reveal things about ourselves that we like even less. "A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy," the anthropologist Marshall Sahlinswrote

Our relation to happiness often betrays an unconscious desire for disillusionment. The wanting of it and the having of it can seem like two quite different things. And this is what makes wishing so interesting; because wishing is always too knowing. When we wish we are too convinced of our pleasures, too certain that we know what we want. The belief that we can arrange our happiness – as though happiness were akin to justice, which we can work towards – may be to misrecognise the very thing that concerns us.


Happiness is something essentially subjective; in the sense of being not only personal but idiosyncratic). We can be surprised by what makes us happy, and it will not necessarily be something that makes other people happy. This has significant consequences not least in the area of our lives that is sometimes conducive to happiness, sexuality.


Second, bad things can make us happy – and by bad things I mean things consensually agreed to be unacceptable. It clearly makes some people happy to live in a world without Jews, or homosexuals, or immigrants, and so on. There are also what we might call genuinely bad things, like seriously harming people and other animals, that g


Cruelty can make people happy. And we might then want to think about what problem, or rather problems, happiness is deemed to be the solution to. It is not, for example, incidental to our predicament that so many of our pleasures are, or are felt to be, forbidden (this is what Freud's account of the Oedipus complex is a way of thinking about). So put briefly – as every child and therefore every adult knows – being bad can make you happy. Happiness is subjective, it takes many forms, and one of its forms is immorality.

 And this makes happiness as a social or communal pursuit complicated. We have only to imagine what it would be for someone to propose that we had a right to sexual satisfaction to imagine both how we might contrive this and what terrible things might be done in its name.

Unhappiness can, after all, among many other things, be the registration of injustice or loss. At its best, a culture committed to the pursuit of happiness might be committed, say, to the diminishing of injus

What if  ihe individual really loves and gets pleasure from, the immorality of pleasures and the lure of transgression

 Yet To pursue pleasure is to be pursued by punishment. There is no one more moralistic, more coercive, than a hedonist.

For one is hounded by the ferocity of inner morality


Happiness depends on the distance between who we are and who we should be according to the dictates of our internalised morality. We are mostly unhappy because we are rarely as we should be. When the internal authorities are so implacable and sadistic — over-severe, abusive, humiliating, for one is hounded by the ferocity of inner morality

“How Many Democrats per Republican at UC Berkeley and Stanford?”

 Daniel Klein and Andrew Western developed evidence and analysis of political affiliations in academia. Specifically, they compare professor names in 23 departments at Berkeley and Stanford with compiled political registration information in seven surrounding counties. With their matching methodology,1 they find information on 1005 professors out of 1497 investigated. For these professors, party affiliation is overwhelmingly Democratic

Right, well no surprises there.

The wide ranging  evidence supports general claims of “ideological lopsidedness in academia”. Second, they argue that this lopsidedness has a significant effect on students since academia is a “major part of political culture and it has a deep influence on students understanding of the world and of themselves.

We all know they have been indoctrinated

So all those pundits, liberals, progressives, libertarians and media graduates are conveyed out on a left leaning conveyor belt to loud hailer their progressive causes.

These soi disant  (so called) educated types then from some indoctrinated moral height feel superior enough to call others 'deplorables'

The prevalence of progressive professors in institutions of higher education, some argue, has created an environment that prioritizes political correctness above truthfulness. A report by the California Association of Scholars, put together in 2012 for the UCLA, argues that the lack of balance between liberal and conservative viewpoints has contributed to a culture that espouses socio-cultural and political apologists, whilst marginalizing those with center-right viewpoints

Non affirmative art = the pipe that is not a pipe



This is called non affirmative art it is affirming that what you presume to see
is not really what is there.

Every theory on morals requires a meta or ascendant theory

morals, ethics are things of emphasis, like art, that oh so precious bourgeois pursuit... We seem to think, when speaking about moral matters, that our sentences are judged against an independent criterion; every theory, requires a meta or ascendant theory and there is no view from nowhere . Why, why if I express a belief in heterosexual marriage that it equates to gay-bashing, why do I have to accept that I am inherently racist because I am white, why, why?

Are your morals altruistic or just ceremonial?

...there are two kinds of morals, the altruistic and the ‘ceremonial’ and we kind of know that the altruistic is self serving; but that herd; the safe place crowd are into ceremonial morals,   of standing on Mount Moral and proclaiming, because that is all you can do with moral and ethics is proclaim. What if one i  not into proclaiming, rather into expounding, you know the scienctific route.

 I  would submit ...what we have in morals and ethics is a deplorable lack of empirical controls, a kind of methodological infirmity compared say with sciences. 

With morals and ethic ...you just kind of get up on Mount Moral and, and say hey this is the right this is how we must behave...this is ceremonial morals.

When you are a failed artist of your own life - you seek out Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is sought by people when they are feeling under-nourished; and this – is either because what they have been given wasn’t good enough or because there is something wrong with their capacity for transformation. In James’s terms, they are the failed artists of their own lives.

Kafka on swimming

I can swim like the others only I have a better memory than the others. I have not forgotten my former inability to swim. But since I have not forgotten it my ability to swim is of no avail and I cannot swim after all.
Kafka

The world according to Adam,,,,your desire to be understood is a mistake

Adam Philips is a psychoanalyst practising in London


We should live our lives as gratifyingly as possible, the life we have. Otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for bitterness


Our lived lives might become a protracted mourning for, or an endless trauma about, the lives we were unable to live.
On Frustration,” in praise of that emotion. Frustration makes people real to us, he says, because, in our lives, they are usually the sources of it. Indeed, frustration makes reality itself real to us. 

Consider love:
There is a world of difference between erotic and romantic daydream and actually getting together with someone; getting together is a lot more work, and is never exactly what one was hoping for. So there are three consecutive frustrations: the frustration of need, the frustration of fantasized satisfaction not working, and the frustration of satisfaction in the real world being at odds with the wished-for, fantasized satisfaction. . . . And this is when it works.
.
: “On Not Getting It.” Here he claims that we’re better off not understanding ourselves, or others. “Perhaps understanding is one thing we can do with each other—something peculiarly bewitching and entrancing—but also something that can be limiting, regressive.” Indeed, it may be risky. “The illusion of knowing another person creates the possibility, the freedom, of not knowing them; to be free, by not knowing them, to do something else with them”—that is, mistreat them, on the basis of our presumed understanding.

But the error Phillips addresses most feelingly is our wish to be understood. This, he says, can be “our most violent form of nostalgia,” a revival of our wish, as infants, to have our mother arrive the instant we cry out from pain or hunger.  Winnicott’s good-enough mother as not just good enough but the best,ign up for our daily newsletter and get the best of The New Yorker in your in-box.
ign up for our daily newsletter and get the best of The New Yorker in your in-box.

In Phillips’s view, the quest for understanding is not just an insult to emotional health; it is an intellectual error. “We think we know more about the experiences we don’t have”—the unlived life—“than about the experiences that we do have.” In the candyland of our imagining, there is no check on “the authority of inexperience,
There is nothing we could know about ourselves or another that can solve the problem that other people actually exist, and we are utterly dependent on them. . . . There is nothing to know apart from this, and everything else we know, or claim to know, or are supposed to know, or not know, follows on from this.
. People, he writes, have no discernible connection to one another. But we can give solace to those we care about by allowing them just to be, without having to explain themselves. Rilke, in a letter, made the same point: “I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people: that each protects the solitude of the other.”
On the contrary, the therapy he invented “weans people from their compulsion to understand and be understood; it is an ‘after-education’ in not getting it. 

 psychoanalysis must always be conjectural:

 “Psychoanalysis is only just beginning to get the kind of public scrutiny, the intelligent hostility, it needs.” 

airy pensées, : “Most infidelities aren’t ugly, they just look as though they are.”
. .”  

His  lockstep logic, can daze you and make you stop worrying about the truth. “The only phobia is the phobia of self-knowledge”; “Religion is about the struggle not to be God”; “The mother is as vulnerable to her need for her baby as the baby is to his need for her”—

. He is a visiting professor in the English department of the University of York.

His love of paradox is clearly the product of a hatred of cant let alone from common sense.  such as his claim that we should stop trying to change our lives. I have never known a person who, having quit a job or initiated a divorce, felt, afterward, that he had made a mistake. But Phillips is attacking an idée réçue, and you have to thank him for it. Likewise his notion that we should give up trying to understand ourselves. It sounds crazy, but don’t we all admire people who, instead of constantly asking themselves why they’re doing such-and-such, just get on with it?

”: the beady eye, the knowing better than you do what your thoughts are, the readiness, if you object, to say that this is just your defenses speaking. I. He sees certainty, and the questioning that leads to it, as a wall separating us .