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


Email *

Message *

Planet Earth is in the Goldlocks zone, why and how?

In cognitive science and developmental psychology, the Goldilocks effect or principle refers to an infant's preference to attend to events which are neither too simple nor too complex according to their current representation of the world.[3]This effect was observed in infants, who are less likely to look away from a visual sequence when the current event is moderately probable, as measured by an idealized learning model.
In astrobiology, the Goldilocks zone refers to the habitable zone around a star. The Rare Earth Hypothesis uses the Goldilocks principle in the argument that a planet must neither be too far away from, nor too close to a star and galactic center to support life, while either extreme would result in a planet incapable of supporting life.[4] Such a planet is colloquially called a "Goldilocks Planet".

Will technology create a Homo Deus (God-man)?

·         Technology races ahead at breakneck speed, as it evolves there is the threat which technology has over humankind and humanism and the continued ability of humankind to give meaning to its life under new conditions which have arisen.  Many sober scientists are prophesying the coming replacement of humankind with a super-man or a Homo Deus (God-man) endowed with supernatural abilities such as eternal life.]


Religion requires cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is out ability to hold 2 beliefs at the same time, ie you believe in God, but you also believe in science who purport there are no facts to uphold that view.

Cognitive dissonance can be a type of glue that keeps some religious adherents "in the fold," so to speak, when their interaction with competing belief systems of scientific understanding would otherwise undermine their faith in a particular dogma

What keeps us all together are stories of countries, religion, justice and money

What keeps us together is human kinds cooperation around  stories.

Countries with their man made borders that section off countires are stories

Justice/human rights are stories, dissect a human being and you will not uncover and human rights

Money is the biggest story of all, this piece of paper is believed by all yet it is just a story that it has

All religions are stories

This belief to believe in and cooperate under man made stories is our social glue

Can we predict the future - soon we may be able to

Such a notion of predicting world future events has long been deemed as fortune teller nonsense 

However as technology speeds on what was unsolvable yesterday may not be tomorrow
- for the development of algorithms capable of accurately predicting global events through the use of vast reservoirs of web-based information sources - may soon be our window to the future,

You speak but you are not recognised,or validated, indeed you are rubbished

 You are not stand alone 

  •  you are not separated out from power but work with it, negotiates with it, in matters of knowing and doing. Nor is virtue conceived in abstraction from the materiality of places, persons, and communities: 
  • In the light if this epistemic ( relating to, or involving knowledge) practices are worth scrutinising
For there are epistemic injustices, which leads on to testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice , each of which consists "most fundamentally, in a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower" 

There is a conception of social power which Fricker glosses as "a socially situated capacity to control others' actions" and which manifests in patterns of incredulity, misinterpretation, silencing.

Within this frame, her particular interest is in "identity power" and the harms it enacts through invoking identity prejudices under whose sway hearers deny or withhold credibility to/from speakers qua members of a certain "social type

That a person's capacity to claim recognition as a conveyer of knowledge, a bona fide informant, is essential to her or his achieving human value in a first-, second- and third-personal sense is the deep thought that grounds the argument and carries it forward. Thus, with testimonial injustice, speakers are, variously, thwarted in their claims to acknowledgment as subjects of knowledge, and thereby harmed in their self-development. 

With hermeneutical (method or theory of interpretation) .injustice, speakers' knowledge claims fall into lacunae in the available conceptual resources, thus blocking their capacity to interpret, and thence to understand or claim a hearing for their experiences

When such harms go deep, Fricker suggests, people are "prevented from becoming who they are" (5). Even though they may be experienced and performed individually, these are not merely individual harms: testimonial and hermeneutical injustices come from and refer back to a social fabric within which the biases and prejudices that animate and sustain them are tightly entangled, and conceptual lacunae are more and other than places of unknowing, ready to be "filled in" by inserting the appropriate facts. Image result for people not listeningImage result for people not listening

Structurally, members of some social groups are ill-understood, marginalized, reduced to unintelligibility through patterns of testimonial and hermeneutic injustice that often seem to be everyone's and no one's responsibility.

Source Miranda Fricker

On being moved by the radiance of the windows

Image result for church windows

Are people in Churches moved by the radiance of the windows?

Image result for church windows

Studies have shown the pupils in schools who are seated near windows do better academically and when there is more light in prisons then there is less recidivist crime

eImage result for church windows

music notes 

Humanists are the 'Moms' and Scientists' are the 'Dads'

The 'Moms'Image result for humanistsImage result for humanistsImage result for humanists


Image result for scientists
Image result for scientists
Wheras Scientists believe in

One man’s utopia is another man’s dystopia

Iis there a non-didactic imagination -  a liminal place where we might all agree on: eg Trump/Obama, Brexit/Remainians

 However there is an incomensurability of different people’s view of happiness and value.  with little presence of a foundation principle.

It is on some interest that the most poignant critics of utopia are those those who have become disillusioned by a youthful/student ideal, ie the older generation.

Jeremy Bentham advocated the utilitarian pragmatism of the greatest happiness for the greates numbe; but we return to a foundation principle;
conservative ideologues accuse liberal educationalists ideologues replacing education with indoctrination, the loss of canonical texts; trendy methodologies; no value is better than any other, reasons liberatory power;  diverstity tolerance et al,

the repost of the liberal to this if you have a counter view is:  'you are beneath contempt.'

To this failure of concensus of left/rigth could there not be a cultural mosaic under which they both operate? But that is a Utopian suggestion, the naivety of  the idealist. 

Still patience, it might come, in the meantime let us be banal

and have a little patience, music notes 

as we dont really know what is going on


The Tempest - where Shakespeare met Montaigne

Image result for Montaigne
Image result for The Tempest

BornMichel de Montaigne
28 February 1533
Died13 September 1592 (aged 59)
William Shakespeare 26 April 1564 (baptised) – 23 April 1616)

LISTEN  music notes

The Tempest is a play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1610–11, and thought by many critics to be the last play that Shakespeare wrote alone. It is set on a remote island, where the sorcerer Prospero, rightful Duke of Milan, plots to restore his daughter Miranda to her rightful place using illusion and skilful manipulation. He conjures up a storm, the eponymous tempest, to lure his usurping brother Antonio and the complicit King Alonso of Naples to the island. There, his machinations bring about the revelation of Antonio's lowly nature, the redemption of the King, and the marriage of Miranda to Alonso's son, Ferdinand.

Think of a being who has never seen a man or woman, never looked in wonder at the
the elfishness of a child, never stood in awe at the beauty of girlhood, and never witnessed  benign philosophy of old age.  That might be Caliban in The Tempest

In the Tempest we witness Sahakepsere's catholicity of taste in a quest for fact.
and Shakspearian alchemy ballasted with fact.

One of those 'facts' is Shakepseare's supposed  reading of Montaigne.  For there are many  passages in Montaigne that reflect upon the human condition in ways distinctly similar to sentiments expressed in Shakespeare, particularly in the plays written between 1600 and 1605, from Hamlet and Troilus and Cressida through to King Lear.

When Hamlet reflects on the absurdity of life, when the Duke counsels Claudio that death is to be welcomed, when Lear sees in Poor Tom a general truth about 'unaccommodated man', it is very possible to find parallels - sometimes slight, sometimes striking - in Montaigne.

To demonstrate influence in such a tricky case, one would need to emphasise the element of similarity. The real interest of the comparison lies, however, in the divergence it reveals, for the Montaignean vision of radical naturalness, of unaccommodated man, both fascinates certain of Shakespeare's characters, and generates a kind of recoil. Thoughts which Montaigne embraces as salutary and humane, as fostering a profound toleration of the nature of human life, become in their Shakespearean context radically destabilising, markers of an intolerable distress, often associated with cynicism or disgust

Both the engagement and the recoil can be felt in The Tempest, and may be summed up in the statement that Montaigne's splendid cannibals become Caliban - although we must remember that we never meet Caliban in his original, natural state, but only as Prospero's expelled pupil and rebellious slave. There are two accounts of how he came to be what now he is, and Shakespeare gives us no way back to adjudicate between Caliban's own, sufficiently Montaignean, claim that he has been corrupted by his education, and Prospero's insistence that he was, from the beginning, 'a born devil'; neither witness speaks disinterestedly

In 'Of Cannibals' Montaigne knew well enough that the New World could hardly be a role-model for the Old. But the vitality in the essay expresses the sense that what has been discovered in America uncovers a real potentiality, of which the bare idea is enough to alter the Old World's sense of itself forever. Gonzalo's idea, however, is Utopian in a way which cannot act upon experience, for it omits too much - it is too 'innocent' - for its rehearsal to touch any reality:

 Gonzalo. And, - do you mark me, sir? Alonso. Prithee, no more; thou dost talk nothing to me.

Montaigne's affirmation of a radical naturalness, of the sovereignty of our 'puissant mother Nature', cannot be so vigorously affirmed in Shakespeare;

Speaking of the unspeakable

Why should sex not be speakable? Montaigne asks and delights in thrusting into consciousness, through all the refinements, decencies, and equivocations with which most writers have clothed the matter, the reminder of some naked truths:

Well then, leaving books aside and speaking more materially and simply: when all is done, I find that love is nothing else but an insatiate thirst of enjoying a greedily desired subject... a tickling delight of emptying one's seminary vessels: as is the pleasure which nature giveth us to discharge other parts: which becometh faulty by immoderation, and defective by indiscretion.

To Socrates, love is an appetite of generation by the mediation of beauty. Now considering oftentimes the ridiculous tickling, or tittilation of this pleasure, the absurd, giddy and hare-brained motions wherewith it and agitates

Like when you see a beautiful woman:  Listen music notes

 Wherefore out t unadvised rage, our enflamed visage in love's lustful and sweetest effects: and then a grave, stern, severe, surly countenance in such an act, that one hath pell-mell lodged our joys and filths together, and that the supremost voluptuousness both ravisheth and plaineth, as doth sorrow: I believe that which Plato says to be true, that man was made by the Gods for them to toy and play withal. — quaenam istajocandi Saevitia ?
as to sex:

What cruelty is this, so set on jesting is?

And that Nature in mockery left us the most troublesome of our actions, the most common: thereby to equal us, and without distinction to set the foolish and the wise, us and beasts all in one rank, (iii. 105 f.) Nor is it only the sexual act in itself which marks 'our vanity and deformity', but our peculiarly preposterous sense of shame at so fundamental a part of our being: 

Baying in Hollywood - dead from the chin up

P. G Wodehouse gave his account of being a writer in Hollywood
'The actual work is negligible. ... so far, I have had eight collaborators. 
The system is that A. gets the original idea, 
B. comes in to work with him on it, 
C. makes a scenario, 
D. does preliminary dialogue,
and then they send for me to insert Class and what-not. 
Then E. and F., scenario writers, alter the plot and off we go again.middle-aged man in overcoat and trilby hat smiling cheerfully towards the camera

Wodehouse in 1930 (aged 48)
Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, October 1881 – 14 February 1975) was an English author and one of the most widely read humorists of the 20th century.

Although most of Wodehouse's fiction is set in England, he spent much of his life in the US and used New York and Hollywood as settings for some of his novels and short stories. During and after the First World War, together with Guy Bolton and Jerome Kern, he wrote a series of Broadway musical comedies that were an important part of the development of the American musical. He began the 1930s writing for MGM in Hollywood. In a 1931 interview, his naïve revelations of incompetence and extravagance at Hollywood studios caused a furore. In the same decade, his literary career reached a new peak.
Show people don't you just love them Listen music notes

Are you one of the herd, a 'group' thinker? If you are then veer off the herd

music notes

Image result for herd of buffaloGroupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influencesImage result for herd of buffalo

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields ofcommunication studiespolitical sciencemanagement, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5]However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.
Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.[7][8] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated William H. Whyte, Jr. coined the term in 1952 in Fortune magazine:
Groupthink being a coinage - and, admittedly, a loaded one - a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity - it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity - an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.[11][12]
Irving Janis pioneered the initial research on the groupthink theory. He does not cite Whyte, but coined the term by analogy with "doublethink" and similar terms that were part of the newspeak vocabulary in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. He initially defined groupthink as follows:
I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidiousconnotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.[6]:43

'Adenosine' and a double expresso coffee before the 10,000 metres race

Image result for mo farah

Image result for cup of coffee
Forcing ourselves to keep going phsyically also means ignoring all the signals from our body telling us to stop.

This “response inhibition” is very mentally taxing, and it causes a substance called adenosine to build up in the brain.

Adenosine is associated with the feeling of mental fatigue – it builds up when people run marathons or work on boring spreadsheets, or if they haven’t had enough sleep.

 Adenosine increases perception of effort. It is the enemy of endurance.
Caffeine blocks adenosine. This is why Mo Farah drinks a couple of espressos before a race, and why caffeine pills and gum have become an essential part of the long-distance runner’s pre-race preparation.

You can also train your brain, by doing monotonous response- inhibition tasks before or during exercise. In the short term, this will make your performance worse, but in the long run your brain will learn to produce less adenosine, which will reduce perception of effort and increase endurance.

   Wearing Theory like a Versace Waistcoat