Art and Poetry by Sean Mcdonagh and David Mcdonagh respectively

Kids corner - By Ellese Elliot

Kids corner, By Ellese Elliot

Speaker 1: Aliens!
Speaker 2: Where?
Speaker 1: Out there!
Speaker 3 : Ewwww gross   
Speaker 2 : Yuk! They have gunge implanted into their top parts!
Speaker 1: And holes in their bodies - You can see their insides.
Speaker 3: Eeeewwwwwwwww. Disgusting!
Speaker 2: Don't look Speaker 1 and Speaker 3.
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2 They're putting some weird stuff into their holes.
Speaker 3: Ewwww! Why do you think they're doing that?
Speaker 2: Probably so no one can see their hideous insides!


All: Ha ha ha . Ah Ha ha ha!

Speaker 3: But look - they do seem to be smart, in a backward type of way.
Speaker 2: How?
Speaker 3: Well they are building massive things to live in, which are millions of times bigger than they are to-
Speaker 1: To-
Speaker 3: To destroy themselves!
Speaker 2: Do you think they are doing it because they are so gross?
Speaker 1 and 2: Ha ha ha.
Speaker 2: But it's quite beautiful, in a ugly, dark kind of way.
Speaker 1: Meh (shrugs).
Speaker 2: A life that strives towards its own death.
Speaker 3: Poetic speaker 2.
Speaker 2: Thank you speaker 3.
Speaker 1: Maybe they think death is better.
Speaker 2: I don't see what all the rage is about. I've died a few times- it aint all it's cracked up to be.
Speaker 3: Look at them - making such complicated stuff to do something that is so simple.
Speaker 1: Ha ha- how stupid...

End thoughts:

What do you think aliens would think about us if they visited our planet? Do you think our view of aliens is limited by our minds or the fact that we haven't seen them? Do you think we are so used to our own ways that we label other things alien when they are really just like us? There is a long history of encounters with the unknown and we tend to judge before we understand. But let us try to understand before we judge. 

Art by Harry Wareham

Don't let it be. - By Lloyd Duddridge

Don't let it be.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Flight to Arras, 1942

We live in an age of data,everything can be statistically analysed,we can have a pie chart for this,a neat formula for that. We treat intelligence in the same way,we treat it in a mathematical way, and we like to give people a number. A child is encouraged to know exactly what level it is at. Yet is this picture of intelligence,helpful, should intelligence ever be conceived in this way ? I would argue that it is not; if anything it distorts intelligence and its nature.

    So let me first say what I consider the nature of intelligence to be. In the words of 'Hey Jude' by the Beatles,intelligence lies in taking a sad song and making it better. What I am arguing is that intelligence is creative. It is the art of making a situation the best it can possibly be. Intelligence is the art of adapting experience. I imagine intelligence to be similar to fishing. Imagine the stream is experience,on its own it will just flow, it is just a process. The act of intelligence, is the act of plucking the fish from the stream. You can not take too many fishes,for too many would be hard to keep. The good fisherman, knows just how many fish to take from the stream. This is the same with intelligence,too many thoughts would overwhelm us. We must be selective,and selection involves a creative process. Thus in this conception of intelligence,intelligence is not given as commonly held. It is not a gift, it requires work.  Intelligence is an act. However the question must then be asked,what  is intelligence selecting towards ? What is their end? What is their goal ? I would argue that the end must be happiness.

     This may at first seem a vague goal. You will ask - 'Well define happiness then fella', or say that everyone has different ideas of what makes them happy. I would agree with you it is a vague goal. However I would say that it is still the goal that we aim towards. This requires a leap of faith on my part. It requires me to hold the belief that it is more intelligent to want to be happy,than to want to be unhappy. This is a leap I am willing to take. Once I take this leap, I can link a critique back to my starting point of the conception of intelligence as a number. For in the statistical  definition of intelligence,we miss and disregard a lot of what I would class as intelligent action. Take for example the person,who sees the suffering of African children,goes over to Africa and helps to build a school. You may say that this is a kind, perhaps moral action but not necessarily intelligent. Yet I would say that this action lies at the heart of intelligence. The person that is building the school, has identified a problem, a state of experience they do not agree with,and attempted to solve this problem. They have taken a sad song,and tried to make it better. This links intelligence and morality,and so it should. This is not a new or novel idea, in fact it goes back all the way to Socrates.

     This conception of intelligence see the intellect as active rather than passive. It says the intelligent man is the man who can not simply read a pattern,but can make the pattern that they see is best. Does this mean that anything is permitted ?  Well yes and no. Everything should be attempted and tested, if only in the mind. For example genocide, does not need to be physically tested before we know its a bad idea,it can be tested in the arena of thought. However in general, all ideas and solutions should be tested. The fact I used the word tested, means there is something that an idea must be tested against. The test is seeing if an idea will work when it comes up against the wall that is experience. So for example, I have the idea that I want to fly. If I jump out of my window, I will injure myself, and if I take injury to be a negative thing I will see that my initial idea of flying has failed. However if I get in a plane,and jump out of it with a parachute, I have seen that I am able to fly, without injuring myself. Thus the second course of action is the more intelligent. After a period of time we may accept other peoples tests,rather than having to do them ourselves. This stage is why most of us will accept a scientist, or a doctor. However we must not become complacent, we must continue to test for ourselves. Or else our intelligence becomes flabby, and flaccid.

    So I argue that intelligence is active not passive,creative not given,moral not mathematical. So people, take up your fishing rods,and catch a sad song,and make it better.  

By Lloyd Duddridge

Why study Philosophy at all in this day and age? - Phil Overal

Why study Philosophy at all in this day and age?

Why would a group of (apparently) sane and intelligent people spend their time on a ‘Philosophy’ stall? What IS Philosophy anyway? 

What’s the point of it all?

Sometimes, when I look at the world, my degree, and all the various things I’ve done, I wonder why... well, actually, no, I don’t, but the article needs a framing device. And the question ‘Why?’ is as good as any. In truth, I know why I did Philosophy and it’s a secret I plan to share with you.

The thing about Philosophy is, more than anything else, it requires thought. Lots of thought. Luckily, an inquiring mind is all you need. The subject was born out of a lack of knowledge and a lack of science. In the words of Bertrand Russell, Philosophy “...is something of an intermediate between theology and science”. Science is the observed, the experimented. You look at the world, you poke it, you describe what you see, you make predictions, and see if they match up. If they do, then your theory is correct until the next iteration blows it out the water (see Newton vs. Einstein). It’s all based on what you can see, more or less. In fact, scientists before the word ‘science’ was invented were called ‘natural philosophers’, i.e. theorising about the natural world.

Theology, on the other hand, is arch certainty. Something descends from on high (the Pope, the Holy Book, the imam, the whatever) and tells you the world was made in six days, God made the world, mankind ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and now we're damned for all eternity because Adam couldn’t just obey God (really, God ought to have planned his garden better and put that tree up a hill...and that is why God created ‘landscape architecture’).

In between is Philosophy. Philosophy is about thinking things through, arguing and making things consistent, but it’s all speculative. The fields of interest to Philosophy are, or were, unknowable at the time. So, smart men thought about it using logic as their guide and tried to work out...well, the world. How do ethics work? What is the world made of? What can we know? What kind of knowledge is the best?

Some of these questions have become the realm of science. As science has expanded its scope and knowledge, Philosophy has receded from these subjects. Many philosophers, from those who lived before Socrates, to the 17th century, pondered what the world was made of.  Science probed the heart of the atom, then the heart of the proton, and now, we have awesome machines somewhere beneath the Swiss French border, looking for more answers. Philosophy has rescinded these questions.

Others are as alive today as they ever were. Ethics is a fascinating subject. I love it. There’s so much to it, yet so many easy places to grasp at it from. When I talk to people about Philosophy, this is often where I start. Theology often provides ‘answers’ to Man’s moral dilemmas, showing us books and saying “Here is the proof”. Moral philosophy puts forth arguments which, if not perfect, provide us with a greater grounding on which to find our own answers.

Yet I still haven’t answered those first questions. Why do Philosophy in this day and age? After all, I hear you cry (I have sensitive ears) ‘you said science is encroaching on Philosophy’s territory all the time.’ It is, but that doesn’t make Philosophy any less valuable. There will always be questions which can’t be solved by science. Questions which require a sharp eye, a sharp mind, questioning and equipped to see the flaws in arguments. These are qualities Philosophy gives you. Not only are its subjects fascinating, either as the foreword to science or as a study in itself, but the tools you need for it are increasingly important for questioning a world in which people seek to pull the wool over your eyes, with fancy foot work and quick words. Philosophy lets you see the hollowness in those words, to cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter.

It is important to remember, and I cannot stress this enough, that just because our understanding of science was possibly ‘less advanced’ in Ancient times, does not mean we should look at the world any differently to how they did. Whilst it may seem that during ancient times everything explored and discovered seemed shiny and new, and now there is ‘nothing left to discover’, nothing could be further from the truth. Socrates believed that we could only find the truth through questioning and this still applies today. Philosophy enhances your ability to see the world with fresh perspective, to gain child-like wonder, and to see everything you thought you ‘knew’ as ‘new’. To re-‘new’ that spark of ‘what if...?’ you had forgotten about years ago. We somehow idealise Ancient Greece as an intellectual revolution, where major leaps in science, maths, politics, literature, and philosophy somehow prove they were smarter than the current generation. Yet all these ‘geniuses’ had was an inquiring mind and lots of time on their hands. Inquire. Question everything, especially yourself. Ask ‘Why? If children had adult intelligence they would make perfect philosophers, as their perspective is not bound by preconceptions, with infinite curiosity. Luckily, you have adult perspective, and you can regain your infinite curiosity making you –yes, you- a philosopher. I challenge you, -yes, you – for ONE WEEK to ask the five W’s about EVERYTHING. Why is it morning? Why do you eat cereal? Why did you pick THAT cereal? Try it, and see your philosophical skills soar...     

Philosophy, in short, is the art of critical thought, and analysis, about anything and everything. It fills the space between what we know now, and indeed, what we can know. It looks at everything from why we live, to how we should live (or should we?) to what we can know. And the toolkit it gives is more powerful than anything else for analysing the world’s current affairs.

Phil Overal

Art by Harry Wareham

The Art of Carrying On, the amazingly unnecessary use of a Pop-Culture reference, with a side order of legal theory! - By Siobhan 'Shaz' Wilson

People are pre-occupied with perfection. People strive towards perfection. People are never happy unless they ‘have’ perfection. People obsess about perfection.

See? It has taken me, a self-confessed perfectionist, four different sentences to express the same idea: people want perfection. Unfortunately, through all of our self-lecturing for getting up three hours later than expected, eating Frosties for breakfast, and then sitting around in our pyjamas watching Jeremy Kyle until noon AGAIN, we miss something. People are imperfect.

This demand for perfection, and fury at imperfections is well-illustrated in public opinion of the legal system. We idealise the legal system to be sacred, and pure, and perfect. It is the stuff of comic books: The holy beacon of justice, run by these ‘superpeople’, who are far more intelligent, eloquent well-bred and efficient than we could even fathom. Yet every superhero experiences a backlash. How could our sacred, untouchable system ever go wrong? Why did it go wrong? How could that rioter get six months for stealing two bottles of water? Why haven’t rioters’ benefits been taken away? Why is this system not perfect? Holy smokes Batman- there is no justice anymore! And so, the myth of the legal system as an impenetrable ivory tower perpetuates, and we continue grasping for perfection in life, spectators and commentators on injustice that is seemingly evident everywhere, yet never taking action as we are too busy deciding which cereal contains more antioxidants, and feeling disappointed in the fallen idols we elected to save us.

People are imperfect. The legal system is man-made. The legal system is imperfect. A man-made creation is susceptible to man’s fallibility. We put the ‘law’ in ‘flawed’. Trials are slow due to inadequate facilities to hear cases. Trials are costly. Access to legal services is narrowing due to Government cuts to legal aid and closure of legal centres. Evidence is lost or inadmissible. Witnesses are unreliable. The law is inconsistent. The UK ‘adversarial’ approach to trial (Prosecution v Defence) means verdicts often depend on who has the better lawyer, not the case with the most merit. It may seem preposterous that we rely on such an imperfect system to resolve the ever-present problem of disputes and crime. This is correct. It is preposterous. It is preposterous that we so easily rely on such a small, select number of academics, judges and MP’s to reform. The law was designed by us, for us, over thousands of years through cases, protests, lobbying, legislation, and public demand. It is imperfect. Of course it is imperfect – we designed it. But it is OURS. The law doesn’t belong in an overpriced book in Waterstones, or in a weekly supplement in The Times (although do give those a read – it’s fascinating stuff). It belongs in public everyday discourse. It doesn’t belong as the preserve of ‘learned’ academics, or even of several thousand law students. The law is not to be preserved, like a ready meal, full of E-numbers we can’t pronounce, to remain frozen until the inevitable zombie apocalypse. The law is fruit. Fresh, often covered in an impenetrable skin which, once peeled, exposes a raw juice which can taste bitter at times yet once consumed, is often nourishing. Like fruit, the law cannot be left to fester without being used. It simply expires and rots. The law is best when exposed and consumed by the public.

To draw another terrible parallel, in ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’(required watching by all students), Buffy says in ‘Chosen’: ‘In every generation, one Slayer is born, because a bunch of men who died thousands of years ago made up that rule. So I say we change that rule. I say my power should be OUR power.’ Back in the unfortunately non-supernatural real world, in 1176-7, King Henry II divided England into six parts or ‘circuits’, to which he assigned three ‘justices’ or ‘circuit judges’, who were assigned to travel around resolving any disputes which arose in their ‘circuit’. It is from this early creation that our current legal system is born. The administrators of ‘justice’ are no longer selected by the monarchy, or even the House of Commons. Legal reasoning and reform is no longer the preserve of the few. Everyone who should have a say, can have a say. Everyone who wants to understand the law, can understand the law. It is in bookshops and on the internet. There are law firms and campaigns on Twitter. Parliament can be lobbied and petitioned. Cases are available to read. Courts are open to the public. What is happening in OUR legal system is open to discover and scrutinise. It’s almost like a democracy! Oh wait...

I have never experienced absolute perfection. What I do experience is waking up each morning. What I always experience is the passing of time. I have tried and succeeded. I have tried and failed. The Art of Carrying On. The art of finishing something. A job application, a letter, a book, a sprint, a drug program, a petition, a campaign, an article, a day, a month, a year. Life changes.  In my second year of A-levels, I nearly dropped out as I wouldn’t get the ‘perfect’ grades, which, of course, would ruin my entire life as a result. My Film Studies teacher (Incidentally, I nearly dropped Film at AS Level. I now worship regularly at the Church of Stanley Kubrick) said this: ‘Would you rather finish a race at 16^th place, or not finish at all?’ I carried on with my A-levels. I have now completed my first year of Law with a First Class grade. You had a bad day – it is about 99% certain you will wake up tomorrow. People are imperfect. Parliament, Whitehall, the Police, the Court – all imperfect. Perfection doesn’t exist, but beauty, love and goodness still do, as they did yesterday, and today, and tomorrow, making you smile as you eat that flapjack that you really shouldn’t have bought because you are breaking that diet you don’t need to be following, which will be burnt off during that walk to clear you head from that loan/uni/job application that isn’t going well RIGHT NOW, but will be completed, sent off tomorrow and forgotten by next week. The Art of Carrying On. Such is life.

By Siobhan 'Shaz' Wilson

Bravery

"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage.”- Ralph Waldo Emerson

When we hear the word bravery an automatic image enters our head. We think of the soldier, who battles through missiles, or the fireman who runs into a burning building to save a life. These both require a form of bravery, no one would argue against that. However this form of bravery I argue falls under the banner of Heroism. Heroism I contend is the condition in which certain individuals are naturally brave. By this I mean a hero will not fear the things that the majority fear. This strand of people are almost addicted to bravery; it is what they do.

     
I however want to talk about another form of bravery, and that is intellectual, or emotional bravery. This at first may appear an anathema, for the intellectual is not seen by society as brave. He is seen as geeky, other-worldly, abstract. Yet it is these people that I will argue are the real heroes within society. Now this is not to say that all intellectuals are brave, that could not be further from the truth. The intellectuals that I am talking about are those that dare to challenge the majority. These thinkers meet with no applause, unlike the soldier returning from war, no thanks when they rescue people. In fact what they often meet is derision. They are laughed at, they are mocked, seen as weak. Yet I ask you reader, which is braver: to fight and gain applause, when you are loved by the many, or to fight for truth, with only yourself as an army ?

    
We only have to look at recent events to see how this bravery can be mocked. In light of the recent 'riots', we have seen that 'human rights' has become a dirty phrase. Now the human rights act may not be heroic, it does not have the extreme edge to support it, but it is brave. It argues that in any circumstance, we as animals if we are to claim civility, deserve certain rights. Now almost  everyone agrees that this is a great idea, when things are going well. However whenever times become hard, civility and human rights become a burden. You will find that when times are tough, people seem to become experts. How many times in the last few weeks have you heard people slagging off 'human rights'? Are these people slagging off human rights experts in the law, are they philosophers ? The great majority are not, they are the herd, jumping on yet another bandwagon. In little to no time, after the bandwagon has been hopped upon, comes the time of 'common sense'. This is the time where things are accepted without reflection. It becomes common knowledge, that the human rights act is holding us back. This conclusion is reached, not by the head, but by the ear.

      
Now this is where the intellectually brave enter, to do a job as unpopular as that of the gravedigger. They stand out from the majority, not because they want to be cool and counter cultural, but because they have by thinking, reached a different conclusion from the herd. They stand in a position where the wind is always beating at their back. These people are truly lonely. Yet they are also brave. They are brave because they are often afraid and yet come through it. They do not choose to be heroes, yet where would we be without them? We would be stuck at the behest of the man with the loudest mouth, or the strongest arms. It is often risky to reach conclusions through thinking. Thinking is often unpopular, just open the nearest history book and you will see Socrates killed, Hypatia Murdered, Galileo imprisoned.  In the sermon on the mount Jesus praises many people, the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (5.3)

• they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
• the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
• they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (5:6)
• the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy. (5:7)
• the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
• the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (5:9)
• they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10).

Yet nowhere does Jesus praise the most ridiculed of all groups, the thinkers. The person who wants to reason things out. The man who stands out from the crowd, and says things that are not always comfortable. Ideas should not be separated from practice. A person is not other worldly because he disagrees with you. A person is not acting against common sense, because he actually thinks about a problem. A person is not geeky, because he has dedicated time to learn before he speaks.  So I say blessed be those innovators in thought, for it is they who are truly brave.

We live in an age where we are both attracted and repulsed by aggression. Women are taught to love the bad boy, men are taught to be strong and powerful. Yet when a person follows these lessons we condemn them. We must practice what we preach. If we want people to be intelligent, we should promote it as a value. Yet all too often we make people hide their ideas and intelligence, as if it is something to be ashamed of. No one wants more pedants. However we should not think of a person as a pedant, because he disagrees with you. If an idea is of value to us, we protect it when times are hard as well as smooth.

   
So I ask you reader, next time you read your Darwin, remember how brave he was to have his work published. When you read your Hume, remember he was looked upon as an Infidel. These people were not naturally heroic. Yet they had a courage and a belief, that their ideas mattered, and that in the long run their ideas would help us understand the world around us. We owe these people a debt of gratitude. Perhaps the best way to start paying it back is this. When you hear an idea you disagree with, be it at work, in the pub, in the hairdressers, or from a cab drive, you will turn around, look that person straight in the face,and say 'I do not agree'.

Lloyd Duddridge

Art by Harry Wareham

Christmas is unhealthy, so lets all go pick strawberries - By T.C.R.Moon

What is a tradition? Going strawberry picking every summer and celebrating Christmas are both considered traditions. Both traditions involve going to a certain place at a certain time of the year, they both have distinctive feel, for example the Christmas sprit or that summer time feeling we all miss in the winter, why would these be different?

Well to start we must ask the reason why these have become traditions. Strawberry picking is a seasonal activity that comes about because people enjoy strawberries, making jam and cakes and because strawberries only grow naturally in the summer. They become special, something that comes once a year and becomes distinctive of summer.  Christmas on the other hand is a religious celebration of Jesus’ birth, which is meant to be on the 25th of December, and for the good Christian, is a time of great joy and celebration, but for others a time of gift exchange, drinking and togetherness.

But an immediate difference becomes clear, while those who go strawberry picking do so because they wish for strawberries, most people do not celebrate Christmas because of Jesus.  It boils down to a desire to have fun with friends and family. Yet also the economy has warped this good feeling in a exchange of cheap gifts and a red Santa tall tales.

The origin of this tradition of Christmas is religious and a form of corruption has grown, fastening itself to the belief structure of the priest and Christian alike.  This is the origin of Christmas and all other religious traditions, a belief structure based on a species of faith, inherently subjective. for what creates the faith itself is that what you believe, exists outside of the subjective realm and in the objective world, it is the jump from subjective to objective.

Here is the major difference between picking strawberries and Christmas. Strawberries grow in hot sunny weather, this occurs in summer as the earth is closer to the sun, providing the soil is fertile, the strawberries will grow, it is not a matter of faith, I am not imposing a faith in the strawberries growing, that’s what they do and while this is inductive in nature (i.e. just because the sun has risen everyday the earth has been spinning around the sun, doesn’t mean it will tomorrow), I am not imposing a subjective belief structure on the world; the structure was  put in place in nature and I believe it will maintain this structure, the origin of the belief starts is sourced from the objective into the subjective.

In regard to Christmas, the exact opposite is the case. It is a clear case of logic that Palestinian winters are too cold of Shepherds to be herding sheep and so the three wise men wouldn’t have been there in the first place, for example, but many other flaws in the Christmas story have been proved.  No solid evidence for these events exists really stands to reason and so loses objective validity. In fact the notion of the Christmas story as simply a fantasy story adds to the element of faith, the less proof you have means more faith must be used, to maintain the belief as still worthy of such esteem.

This however, the imposing of belief structures onto the world is an unhealthy one, much like pushing a triangle through a circular hole - it is a violent act.  If we believe that just because we have faith in what a tradition like Christmas stands for, the birth of the saviour of humanity, we base it on repetition enforced by generations of gift exchange and commerce, on midnight mass and the queens speeches then this tradition has no objective quality but what we choose to imbue into it.

What we have imbued Christmas with shows the corruptible character of those who enforce it. Christmas is about giving not receiving, of religious joy and family bonding in theory, but in application has become a tool for the justification of selfish purchases; most who celebrate Christmas revere Santa Claus more then Jesus.  So what should be a holy and humble day, giving praise for the one who gave us intangible freedom from sin, is now a brash melee of materialism.

But this power of imposing our will on the world leads to dangerous realms of insanity, for what is insanity then to see the right choice and choose the opposite, to see clearly what can and cannot be and choose to believe the cannot be.  It is frustrating trying to push a triangle through a circle, when a friend shows them that it cannot fit, they become angry at the friend, trying to help him understand why the triangle wont fit:  ‘How dare you, of course it fits, I was raised to believe it fits,  and you dare question that.  I just believe it will, you just can’t understand’…that’s absolutely correct.  Sadly though, no matter how much someone protests, the triangle will never fit the circle.

This sense of desperation that stems from this species of faith, is not contained within the tradition of strawberry picking. There is no faith involved and what better way to spend a summer day picking strawberries with family and loved ones, amongst golden sun and rolling greenery.  While strawberry picking has this down to earth feel, Christmas has a material feel to the masses, while some still have the religious element, this is simply because they have absorbed the tradition into the subjective and impose it back on the world, this being the Christmas story.  This is how a tradition like Christmas has taken hold: It starts with one person, who inspires a group (expresses his belief), that grow (taken in and enacted), until it has become a “fact” (because enough now enact it, for it to resemble objective fact, but is a ‘Argumentum ad populum‘ - argument of popularity) in the eyes of those who practice the tradition.

So this is a tradition, the imposing of a belief such that it is taken as fact, regardless of what is actual, this denotes a insanity at the core of our culture. Christmas is a major holiday, around the world.  It is a burlesque of what it would want to be and a sham to believe otherwise, yet it is still believed.  Christmas is a rigid tradition, with  rules and practices, yet nothing is so rigid that it lasts forever, a diamond will change eventually, and when it does, it shall become something different. Not even Christmas can escape change, much like a stack of cards, the taller it becomes and longer it stands, the weaker it  becomes and the more likely it will fall. 

Like everyone else, when we see the twenty generation tall and strong stack of cards, see also see how weak it is and the temptation of tapping one card, just to watch it fall. This is the only truly human response, because religious traditions are unnatural practices, that grate against the human that go against reason because it is enforced by  almost war-mongering faith, as unyielding as insanity, but as corruptible as a politician at a BP convention.

This being the case, picking strawberries loses its mask of tradition and reveals a ritualistic face, based on seasons and biology, not on tall tales and faith.  While this species of faith, enforced by religious traditions, is akin in the level of insanity of that of Kierkegaard and Abraham, it shares no resemblance to it. Faith is a purely subjective matter, there is no belief structure to impose. Faith, for Kierkegaard was infinite, structure-less, with  none of this imposing onto the world.  It is the imposing on nature that is unhealthy, it is a violent act against her, trying to make her look prettier but, for nature, she needs not the lip stick of commerce or the blusher of religion.  She is beautiful as she with her strawberry red lips and golden hair and the make up only services as a vice, a homage to our arrogance.  To summarize:

Christmas is an unhealthy tradition, so I think we should all go pick strawberries.

By T.C.R.Moon

The book of life. - By Lloyd Duddridge

 "The brain appears to possess a special area which we might call poetic memory and which records everything that charms or touches us, that makes our lives beautiful ... Love begins with a metaphor. Which is to say, love begins at the point when a woman enters her first word into our poetic memory." -Milan Kundera

With free will,judgement becomes permissible. Yet with the 'death of god',and with the denial of objective standards of morality,judgement has to evolve. A common metaphor for life is that it's a game. However this view of life in relation to judgement I would argue is still stuck in the psychology of objective judgement. For a game has rules,and thus there is a logical necessity in judging how one succeeds in a game. Life is just not like that,it has no rules,it has no winners in the objective sense. So you may well ask: 'If a game is not a suitable metaphor for life,then what is?' I will argue that instead of thinking of life as a game,we should think of it instead as a narrative.

     Life like a novel starts with a blank page. This should not be seen as a Lockean denial of genetics, for every narrative owes a debt to the influences that came before it,however a narrative cannot be fully determined by the past,a narrative by its very nature must distinguish itself from what came before it. This is because if a narrative is identical with another narrative,there is no sense of identity. Thus if we are looking to write a story,we must try and distinguish it from others. If we don't distinguish our story at least in parts,we end up with the idea there is one single story,and thus arrive back at the objective psychology.  In contrast with the game as a metaphor for life,a novel starts with no pre-ordained rules. This idea will pose no problem for many religious believers. Believers have understood this view of life for centuries. However for believers,an all powerful God is the author,who orders and creates the story of your life. I reject this view,and argue that what one must do is become the creator themselves,and thus the author of their own story.

      This view of life has its own internal morality. For if you see your life as 'your novel',you must make every judgement against that fact. A life much as a book must one day be read,must one day be judged. So all your choices must be made against this backdrop. An example of this may be in your choice of lover. Under this view,you should choose the lover that if a person was able to read,and thus judge your life,you would be proud to have as part of your story,when it is looked upon. This of course is not an easy path,it may be full of thorns. However just as any good reader should not judge a book until it is finished,one should not judge a life until it is finished. One is always able to change,to evolve ,to grow. Yet this should not be seen as a passive philosophy. Nobody knows exactly when they will die,so this 'life writing' should be put in an order you are proud of,as soon as you can. Think of those people that you want to be major characters,and who should have nothing more than a minor walk on role. To err is to be human,they say. I say by creating you chose,exactly what you want a human to be.

     Now this view of life is dangerous. It requires people to take responsibility of their own being. To become their own fate, to make it your puppet. Without rules,it can often feel as if the ground is shaking.  This is nothing more than writers block; a block that only effort and existential bravery can overcome. However with this danger comes the opportunity for great beauty. You are free. You create your own story,you choose what to put in,what to leave out. You choose who you want to spend time with,and those people that are not worth your time. It also lets you escape from the cold cruelty that objective judgement can bring about. Yes others will read your story, and they may pick it apart as a hyena does a carcass. However let them pick,for if you are proud of your story,what does it matter?

    All the major monotheistic religions talk of a book of life. The book that will evaluate your life. These religions  got it all right,apart from in one major respect,the book is not written by an all powerful God. It is written by you,and only you.    

By Lloyd Duddridge

The journal of the legendary hero Manlius, and his ventures into the (metaphorical) dark caves (of the psyche)!

It has been perhaps three sunsets since I descended into the dark caves of immanence. Now my breath is drawn but a yard from my chest. The clammy walls of the muddy cave prevent my body from stretching. The low ceiling constricts my space and the feeling of being forever crushed oppresses my skull. My glorious instruments of heroism are blunted - my great sword dulled for digging, my shining shield dark as midnight for mud, and the nipples on my gold-fitted chest plate have been filed away for hours of scraping past stone cliff-faces.

Aye, it is a dire time indeed.

Doubly so when I remember, with misty eyes, the good old days of patriarchal immortality. Back in that transcendent era I used to fly with my brothers amongst the clouds, soaring on veins of heat, silhouetted against the resplendent sun. I'd commune directly with the manly, bearded gods of reason and logic. The world was clear, for my eyes were distinct crystals of beaming power, and my memory stretched back into distant aeons beyond mortal reckoning. Oh my memory was vast, my experience huge, all swathed in Reason's understanding of the immutable laws holding together the tendons of reality. Absolutely certain was I that glory was part of my very essence. Oh it was just great...

At least until that cosmic fold sucked me out of paradise twenty-five years ago and plunked me down onto this wretched world, a screaming, helpless babe suckling on a...oh I don't even want to admit it - tis so embarrassing!

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't entirely mind the mortal realm of existence - it's not that bad. The sun is pleasant on the skin, as is a light gale passing through ones hair. Sometimes you awaken to the scent of wet flowers and the sensation of delicate dew-tipped grass upon the toes. Sometimes the grandness of the starry chamber above causes a sense of wonder and cosmic helplessness that cannot be felt when you are immortal and stuff. 

Yet, yet I feel like my fire is now slowly being drained from me. The mortality of my earthly man-body brings me misery whenever I think about it. I like being alive, but every-time I think about my being alive I am instantly reminded of the fact that I am going to die. I am trapped within the all encompassing placenta of nature, inexorably woven into the cycle of death. The sight of the germ in the soil reminds me of my own shameful beginnings, reminds me of all that I lost when chaosmother brought me into nature.

So, I came to the caves of immanence to become death, to fight off terrible giants of nature and the bestial goddess-worshipping hordes. And let me tell you, I had my moments! Cutting that Minotaur’s balls off was one for the theatres! If only you were there. And that mass of warped goat-men I slew with a mere manly glance - I taught their kind a thing or two about staring at someone for an inappropriate length of time (it is most awfully rude, and fatal when directed at an all-powerful demigod such as myself). Onwards I strode, making war, saving the helpless, seducing swooning fanciers by the dozen.

Now my days are numbered; my hubris has led me to fight Death itself with a sword, a fight that can never be won . Nature's earthy passageway seems to stretch on into infinity. There is no way I can dig my way out. I have strutted unto my own grave. Before snuff it, I might as well deliver another few nostalgic paragraphs:

Ah yes, the lads back home, how I'll miss them. We used to drift along the river on our barges, letting the sun crisp our skin. We would talk of noble things on our adventures; great tourneys and the skill of their combatants, battles and magic, the construction of engines, various types of fermented barley. And then, when we returned home, we would take our ploughs and tear mother-soil and plant our seeds, and hew the forests and quarry the stones, and melt the iron and control the world and stuff. There was always another rebellious realm to subjugate, always a river dyke that need fixing, always excitement on the horizon.

Worst of all was home time! The number of times I would be dragged by the ear to bed by that nattering gnat of a fishwife! And the lads too, oh it was terrible. The bitter crones, the haggard hags, the wearisome witches, they would clip our wings whenever they could. It was almost as if women are compelled to act by their glands alone (I mean, I too have glands, but am most certainly not governed by them). Fishwife always seemed closer to nature than myself, subject to the most illogical swings of mood.

Yet now I feel the clutches of death darkening my vision. Farewell reader, I am now dead. Yep, definitely dead as of...now! Uuuuuh...

...darkness...void...

Hark! Affairs just got really weird dude, I mean, really weird. Everything was pitch black. The ground felt papery and smelt of dust. Then I felt the surface rumble beneath the footfalls of some great giant entity in the darkness! It lowered itself to my level, drew breath and snapped its fingers. Two towering candles on either side of an immense book burst into life and projected my tiny flickering shadow over the gargantuan pages! Leering down at me were the brown eyes of a giant, glint with the reflection of the candles flame. Then, like a great sliding cliff she leaned back in her monolithic chair and started to mockingly talk down to me (in a distinctly french accent!). She seemed to know everything, of my birth, death, resurrection. She knew of my deeds, my dreams, my desires, my past. She knew of an eternal battle between man and...that other one. Wo-man. Thats the one! She spoke of how this endless, reciprocal war for essentiality, this war of push-and-pull, this war to be the default voice of humanity, led to all sorts of drama (I can say!) yet realized us as free beings, and granted us our humanity. She spoke of how wo-man had been liberated from nature; how mother-earth was no longer mother, but simply earth.

Then, with a very slight smile, she accused my supremacy of being a myth! It cannot be, it is as real as that four-headed pink pegasus on page eighteen!

Oh, oh maybe she is right; maybe there is no empirical evidence for my noble, transcendent essence and my cursed fishwife's illogical, immanent, Other essence, but where's the romance in living your life according to facts and figures and such?

'Get a life you big beaverface!' I bark

Now what is she doing? For some capricious reason this illogical creature has placed her fickle hands on either side of the book and has slowly raised the...ah shit.

FWUMP!

Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Marxtrix: Revolutions - By Sean Ash

            Last week, many parts of London and other cities across Great Britain were hit by looting and rioting as public disorder had entailed destruction across the land. Although senior politicians, the media and the public had perceived this riot to be 'opportunistic' many Marxists have stated across social media sites that they believed this was a classical example of the "class struggle" and an uprising of the proletariat.

            The German philosopher Karl Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) had previously written that the ruling class could not be overthrown in any other way but on the grounds of a collective communist consciousness of the masses subsequently followed by revolution. Since his publication entitled 'The Communist Manifesto' in 1848, Marx's legacy has gone on to influence billions of people across the world. There are now Marxist and Fabian societies in almost every university as well as political movements such as Socialist Appeal, The Communist Party of Great Britain and more notably 'The Labour Party' who are all a force for economical and political change based on Marx's grounding.

            There are two distinct and contrasting means, or schools of thought, aiming to meet the ends proposed by Marx. The first are the Marxists, who believe that the necessary means must be identical and literal to what Marx had envisaged to be the means used to reaching the overall goal of revolution . The second means is the Fabian method - the reformist approach; refuting the act of revolution, and more in favour of reforming Capitalism to meet the same ends.

            However, through the influence of Hegel's dialectics (which had discussed the process of an object alienating a part of itself in order to fully understand itself) and Marx's revolutionary theory of the emancipation of the proletariat due to the oppressive tendencies of capitalist society, a clear similarity has been made transparent through modern political thought and the philosophy behind the film 'The Matrix'. This similarity could prove that a third means to meeting the ends is possible, and could also potentially prove both Marxist and Fabian methods as completely wrong due to a clear misinterpretation of Marx's theory, as both of the said movements walk in the opposite direction to Marx's road that is said to lead to the revolution..

            Considering that both Marxist and Fabian means have, hitherto, been unsuccessful in their attempts to bringing about social and economic change, it can therefore be suggested that the reasoning why this has not been made possible is actually nothing to do with the forces of capitalism and all its protectors, but more so to do with the Marxist , Fabian and socialist movements themselves.

            As nature is unable to manifest itself (as we intervene upon nature in order to protect the poorest of society), this means that the proletariat is not reaching a mutually understood class struggle. This is more so to do with the Fabian and Socialist methods than it is due to methods of Marxists , as Fabian and socialist views are continuously counteracting Capitalism where they should adopt a laissez faire approach. Marx corroborates this stating "....as history continues, and as the struggle of the proletariat takes shape more clearly, they have no further need to look for a science in their own minds; they have only to observe what is happening before their own eyes" and Marx then goes on to say "...they see in poverty only poverty, without noticing its revolutionary and subversive aspect, which will overthrow the old society". Therefore, Marx has clearly been misinterpreted, as we are in no way the determination but the prolonger of the revolution and material determinism.

            As our movements are based on a science, the scientific thought that we collude with prolongs the material determination and the nature of man. For example, in the film 'The Matrix: Revolutions' Neo can be seen as the driving force of communism and Agent Smith perceived as the destructive force of Capitalism. As they fight at the end, the struggle is continuous and it is not until Neo concedes to Agent Smith, and becomes as he is, that Agent Smith has reached his entirety and has been exposed to everyone around him, that an implosion from within sees the very end of him and his kind. One man fights using fire, and so in retaliation the second man fights fire with fire... In the end, all that is left behind are the ashes of both forces and the eternal continuation of the war.

            Therefore, if communism should succeed, then capitalism must peak and reach its entirety in order for the revolution to derive and manifest itself into the eye of nature. This is the same rule with all life as it is the same with the polymorphism of caterpillars into butterflies and the apoptosis (which is the programmed cell death of healthy living cells that commit suicide for the greater good).

            The entire population must not fight against capitalism, just as Neo stopped fighting against Agent Smith in The Matrix. This is so that capitalism can manifest itself entirely and absolutely. Socialist parties only strengthen both capitalism and the status quo, as we set out to prolong our own lives by prolonging nature's course, do we actually prolong the revolution from taking place.

By Sean Ash

The ambigious battle and harmony of Mind and Body

            So, you just got back from work, turned your computer on, logged into your email account, and found this wonderful newsletter gracing your inbox! All is well in the world. Or so it seems. Think about your journey home - how much of it were you consciously aware of? Think about your last ten journeys to work, unless there was some manner of incident, I imagine they are all one large blur. Or perhaps we should try a more extreme example: Think of the last time you sat an exam! How your pen flowed with uncontrollable fury, how surprised you were about how much you knew about Astrophysics, how swiftly the time flew past in the exam hall. These situations are examples of your Body operating independently of the Minds direct commands and expectations.

            The Body is effectively a flesh engine, a construct of nature. It has sexual impulses, it has rational capabilities, it creates great works of art, it has a sense of rhythm with which it creates music. It is an uncontrollably unfolding organism. We cannot ever disable these creative/destructive Bodily impulses, we must simply accept them. Nor should we wish to be free from these Bodily impulses, for they obviously play an essential part in our human being. These abilities of the Body are decided according to the whims of evolution: If you have the potential to be a great artist, writer, musician, inventor, anything, you should thank nothing beyond your physical make-up.

            The Mind, in contrast to the Body, is that transcendent eye-of-awareness that is currently fully awakened and reading this very article. The Mind is what attempts to control your Bodily actions. This awareness can only guide the Bodies innate skills in a general direction. That is, your Mind has a general framework of where it wants to go in life; in its awakened moments it decides a rough course of action and devotes the skills of the Body toward that goal. This is a 'Moral context', which puts all of the Bodies pre-determined abilities, quite literally into the context decided for it by the conscious Mind. If you'll excuse the tired cliché - think of a human Body as a ship, upon a stormy sea. The Mind is the captain of that ship, and has limited control over where to guide it. Where is that blasted port?

            Now, you may feel somewhat disheartened, or disempowered by all of this stealing away of exact power over your Body. Yet don't be! We are not always in total control of our actions, but this is a price we have to pay. Constant awareness and constant control leads to constant boredom. We must sometimes allow ourselves to fall into the world of action; we must submerge ourselves into the general flow of events. This will make the slow crawl of time bearable. We need to childishly conform to some of societies rules (there is no denying that we already do! May as well admit it). We need to be somewhat naive and easily amused, seeking the approval of others and not just being creatures of complete self-caused enlightenment - that would be boring! To make life bearable, we humans thrive in semi-sentience.