Accountability in the Governing Class

We continued with the government/authority/politics angle, branching off from the Leader's insistence on what government is for if not to have the people under control.  In order to have good governance, people in power need to be accountable for what they do.  Transparency is a fundamental feature of trustworthy and desirable administration.  Of course, we are not speaking only about governments, elected or otherwise, but the governing class, which includes social and economic elites who can be openly controlling or be power behind the power.  It might seem as if this idea is easiest to enforce in democracy, where the whole idea of the government is that it receives its power and legitimacy from the people, but in practice elected officials are more beholden to the elites who organize elections than the voters who ostensibly decide them.  Furthermore, since the government is working with private individuals, they can appeal to personal privacy to avoid giving details about their decisions and actions, since a donor or friend of a politician is not a public figure and therefore entitled to privacy.  How can we draw a line that clearly defines when we have the right to know and those in power have the duty to tell us, and when everyone is allowed the comfort of the shadows?

Our Doctor was happy with this topic as well, saying that we need to discuss more often in life.  Too many things go by without discussion.  He commented on the changes of the past 20 years, not only in Spain, but worldwide, that have allowed personal opinions to become bigger and louder than we ever dreamed in the past.  Opinions used to be individual and isolated, but now we can find out what anyone with access to a computer thinks, and even some people without access whose words are taken down by others.  To some extent, this should make things like accountability easier to maintain, since news arrives everywhere almost instantaneously, and accountability is necessary.  As humans we have a tendency to avoid personal responsibility, which is part of the reason for a governing class in the first place.  We delegate power to "professionals", trusting they will do their job and let us do ours.  Harkening back to the week before, though, the information we receive about our leaders comes to us oriented to what we are supposed to think.  Nothing is truly objective.  Still, he reminded us, if one looks at history it appears that we have never lived better than we do now.  Democracy might be a disaster, but we do not know anything better.  Our normal state is one of perplexity, our Doctor informed us, and while we try to keep tabs on people who do important jobs, anyone can lie.  We are experiencing something new, he said, and we just do not know what will happen next.  Instead of becoming keener on observing what is going on, we retreat and let our leaders do what they want more than ever.

An Occasional Participant insisted that the law should enforce transparency and freedom of information, for the benefit of the people.  Democracy itself should be a guarantee of transparency, which in turn would allow for accountability in leaders.  The separation of powers, also mentioned by the Leader, is a key feature of democracy which allows each branch to be held accountable, not just to the people but to the other branches, which ought to have some real power.  She wondered later if good government was the creation of a good society, or if government was necessary to improve a society.  She also admitted that we can gather enormous amounts of information, both on private citizens and on public figures, but the real question is if people are interested in that information.

The Leader, also the Source in this case, also reminded us of the past week's discussion with regard to information and control or manipulation of it.  For true accountability to exist, there must be neutral reporting, not just self-reporting by the authorities.  He also specified that accountability is really only necessary when things go wrong.  In his writing, he spoke quite a bit about Thatcher, which caused some agitation in other participants, but his explanation was that she, along with Reagan, was the primary source for individualism in modern politics.  The importance of information for everybody is so that we can all make better decisions, hopefully learning from others' mistakes as well as our own.  We cannot all be part of the governing class, but nobody can do whatever they want.  In modern society the individual counts, not the institution so much, but who is the individual accountable to?  All of society, answered the Leader.  Democratic elections are not a direct show of preference, and the power of each voter varies based on the type of constituency.  Still, politicians are supposed to be professional leaders and we should trust professionals.  His final thought was about the contributions made by individuals to society, saying that everybody contributes and receives the contributions of others, emphasizing the mutual accountability we accept as members of a society.

The True Philosopher led some examination of the make-up of the governing class, especially those who are not in the spotlight of public authority.  He also reminded us that "democracy" can mean or be made to mean many things, not all of which are desirable.  Much of the problem with accountability, he implied, was a problem with democracy itself.  If we accept that a country or society evolves into democracy as a more advanced form of public organization, we can criticize countries which have democracy in name but not in deed for lagging behind.  Voting might exist, as well as political parties, even opposition.  However, the governing class really has no accountability to the people, especially those who remain in a sort of shadow government, supporting the public faces but sharing in no public responsibility for their decisions, which are actually acted out by those public faces.

The Actress complained about the complexity of the current structure, saying it was easier when you knew who you were against.  Today we do not have clear enemies, nor do our leaders.  In some cases it might be better to have fewer leaders, as that would lead to quicker decisions, and less influence from different background supporters besides.

The Seeker of Happiness saw a clear balance between haves and have-nots in society, and said accountability is the tool that would lessen the differences between the two parts.  For this reason, we get as little of it as possible.  He practically ranted about the tricks the powerful play to keep others from accessing power, but also wisely warned against using extremes to try to get what we want.  He said at first that anybody can be a politician, since there is no exam to take, but almost immediately disabused us of the practical truth in that idea, saying that people on the bottom do not understand enough to be effective leaders.  This is an intentional, cultivated ignorance, in his opinion, since the lower strata of society tend to be kept from education the upper strata.  The elite can hide their self-interest behind complicated topics and induce the less-informed voters to vote against their own self-interest.  His analysis of modern society gave him the view that most of our interpersonal conflicts are also tricks pulled on us by the elite to keep us occupied and unable to see what they do behind the smoke and mirrors.  Still, we cannot simply escape from society, for we are social animals by nature, and incomplete without a community around us.

not 300 oz.

It's not often I see Greek beer adorning shelves, even in the specialty shops.  And, a little like Argentine wine almost 15 years ago, it seems like something you can pick up for not too much money and tell yourself you're helping out a struggling economy.  Interestingly, the name of the brewery is Latin, while the beer itself is Thur's Day.  Some mix of mythology there?

It comes out nice and red enough, with just a light fuzz on top.  It's sweet in smell, a little more than I might like for an ale, but still appetizing.  The taste starts out with just a touch of bitter, and a mildly sweet aftertaste comes up after.  It's a very mild, easy-drinking beer, a little soft for the ale I'm used to.  It's not a big disappointment, although it's not really a beer that stands on its own.  It would be good for a light snack on conversation, maybe a movie.  It's been a while since I've seen "Clash of the Titans".

Snack time!  Release the crackers!

Is It 1984 or a Brave New World?

One of my internet browsing sessions lead to a comic based on Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which is a comparison of the types of authoritarian control seen in the works of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.  Stuart McMillan, the comic artist, no longer hosts it on his site, saying he felt it was not welcomed by the holders of the source material, but a google search of Orwell versus Huxley finds it plastered across many other pages.  When I first read the comic, I was alarmed at how...familiar what was said about Huxley's version of control was, with the constant distraction and the superficial freedom of choice.  It was also on my mind because of a discussion in another group, in which a woman professed to be sure there was no conspiracy of authority possible, because we are allowed to use the internet and find "the truth".  She is much less cynical than I am, apparently.  We know that some countries can and do censor internet searches, and in fact, how do we know that our own access is not censored?  If we have never been able to access the censored information, how would we even know it exists?  Moreover, just having access to the information is not enough for changes to be made, people have to demand that change happen.  We have to realize what is going wrong and be able to find solutions.  This requires some effort on our part that most people, frankly, are not interested in making.

We seem to live in a world of choices, but it is observable that too much choice reduces us to immobility and apathy, leaving us prey to those who will make the "best" choices for us.  We receive mountains of information everyday, dulling our interest so that we do not have the energy to focus on important information when it comes along.  We all know about the "evils" of totalitarian states and dictators, but who wants to resist control by pleasure?  We get want we want, we get more than we need, we are comfortable and entertained.  Anybody who wants to take that away from us is more likely to be painted as the villain than those who distract us with shiny, sweet objects.

However, some people seem to think grim repression is overtly present, as evidenced by this message left on Arturo Soria street:

"Orwell was right"

So we have at least one vote for Orwell's view of control

Our Doctor was pleased with the topic, probably well aware of the many places open to attack it has.  Like our article writers, he pointed out the differing dates of writing and publication as basic to the tones of the different stories.  He said he would not want to be Huxley's friend, based on his writing - although he would be Nietzsche's.  In spite of the Great Depression rearing its head, Huxley wrote in a somewhat frivolous time, while Orwell wrote after the Second World War.  Daily life left its coloring on their writing.  Our Doctor reminded us that the object of philosophy is to question and seek truth, although possibly not to find it.  Philosophy is not literature, yet the topic of this discussion is literature, fiction.  Being a doctor, he spoke from a medical perspective, that is, a practical one.  Being Spanish and of a certain age, he had some experience with a repressive government and said that Franco did bring suffering to the country, but he did not bring hell.  As for the control by the authority, we ask for control.  We ask for protection from chaos and instability, and the purpose of government or leadership is to provide that protection.  He later expounded on what we believe to be true about our world, warning us that what we believe is not what is true.  The universe does not exist; we only interpret our reality.  He mentioned patients with neurological problems who do not know that they have physical handicaps; their brains refuse to recognize the problems.  The implication is that many people live happily in a corrupt or problematic system, but due to lack of knowledge and experience or the way the brain can trick itself into seeing what is not true and not seeing what is, they do not recognize the problems.  They may even believe that the bugs are features, so to speak.  The Doctor ended with a description of believers, of any type, saying they had a certain dose of romanticism in them, but reminding us that belief is not the same as knowledge, or philosophy, for that matter.

An Irregular Participant called the books science fiction rather than just fiction, and commented on the exaggerated organizational structures present in them.  While she did not think those books accurate descriptions of society, she did wonder how real life had evolved since they were written.

The True Philosopher dug into the empiricist versus rationalist part of the question.  He gave quick summaries of both novels and pointed out the differences in the way control over society is achieved, but was clear that control is the end goal of both systems.  The question is where power is concentrated, in the individual or in the state?  When the books were being written, the world of science was examining the possibility of free will or the lack thereof in behaviorism and psychological conditioning.  The Communist Bloc is the obvious real-world stand-in for Orwell's 1984, but the True Philosopher does not see any society as controlling with pleasure and positive feelings as Huxley's Brave New World, although it might happen in the future.  In fact, transhumanism picks up from Huxley's novel.

The Leader was focused on the role of government or authority in society, and to some extent whether the "dystopian" worlds portrayed in the novels were warped or deviant models at all.  Before the Second World War, the government had no responsibility to individual citizens, and not even much to the populace as a whole, at least in the UK.  The danger of control by the government is the lack of guarantee that the information we receive is uncorrupted and factual.  We develop a fear of consequences of our actions and the actions of others, but sometimes those consequences or exaggerated or even removed from reality, keeping people in a mental trap of fear of taking action.  The Leader asked if the hierarchical system we maintain is really right for a moral society.  Would we be better off with more flexibility and less reverence for those higher up the ladder?

An Uncommon Visitor flatly stated that there was no philosophy in the books, but they did predict political manipulation in the past century through use and limitation of language, principally Newspeak in 1984, although the appropriation of religious phrasing for secular leaders in "Brave New World" is also evident.  The interesting thing about the rigorous strangling of language, limiting words to one clear meaning each, is that some participants in the meeting show a certain longing for that limitation in natural language, bleating and whining when nuance and wordplay appear, demanding that dictionary definitions be followed to the letter.  These people hilariously promote themselves as lovers of freedom and intellectualism, but talk is cheap, I guess.

The Educator commented on the prescience of Orwell's book for the dictatorships of the 20th century, in which people saw their neighbors demonized and were encouraged to report doubts and unpatriotic activity even from their own families.  She saw many parallels between the world of 1984 and the 20th century history of many countries, Argentina in particular.  She remembered television messages telling people to report "suspicious" activity in people they knew, and the search for external enemies and violence that led to the Falklands War, as well as conflicts with neighboring countries.  Sometimes she even thinks there was an agreement between the leaders of all those countries to manufacture these international incidents in an attempt to distract people.  She spoke less about "Brave New World", mostly commenting on the similarities rather than the differences.  The most visible one for her is the lack of privacy people in the two societies suffered.  In both cases, people are aware of their constant responsibility to society and to the state, which supercedes any private desires or needs.  It plays on the animal part of social animal, denying any agency to the human.

The Seeker of Happiness arrived a bit late, and so missed the introductory explanations, but he had about 40 minutes to listen to other contributions and comments.  For that reason, his insistence on not understanding the topic was particularly aggravating.  "What is 'it'?" he demanded, going on to complain that the books are novels, not truth.  He also dismissed Orwell's prediction of totalitarianism, saying the Soviet Union ended up disappearing, apparently unable to apply the metaphor to any other government or government activity.  He agreed with the Doctor on the subject of reality, saying that we invent what we want to see, but also said that what we think is best is not what will happen.  He spent quite a bit of time going over and over the structure of the topic question, which might not be surprising in a non-native speaker.  However, the structure is perfectly normal and not especially uncommon, not to mention the topic was clearly stated by several participants, and the two essays were also free of opacity.  What it seems to be to my mind is a distraction technique, by somebody with little to say but a lot of need to speak.  He took over 10 minutes to complain, and end talking about throwing food away so we can feel superior to the hungry, with the Uncommon Visitor leaving in the middle and other participants rolling their eyes with boredom by the end.  He must have had some difficulty finding his happiness that day.

in the darkest days of winter

It's actually spring now, I think.  At least, technically.  Some gray and damp winter weather has made a not too unusual comeback, though.  It's good stout weather, so here's another one.

Reptilian is a Spanish brewery, based in Cataluña, which explains why Retiro's famous Fallen Angel isn't on the label.  The beer is a little oddly unfoamy, with only the slightest ring of suds around the edge of the glass when it's poured in.  There is a strong chocolatey scent though.  The chocolate is less apparent in the taste, although some notes remain underneath.  It's mostly earthy bitter, like most self-respecting stouts claim.  It's a mouth-filling dark chocolate, thick and heavy looking, but smooth drinking.  The beer is friendly and pleasant, not at all devilish.  Really, like any heretic I've ever met.

Have a close-up

Halloween version?

Cult of Personality in Politics

To a certain extent, we might say that it is necessary to have a cult of personality in order to succeed in the political world.  Politicians need to have the support of their public, whether to garner votes or to stave off revolution.  We need to believe in them, probably beyond what their true abilities are, and trust that they are making decisions for the benefit of all, not just thinking of themselves.  The problem when a cult of personality develops is that the object of the cult becomes above criticism, almost god-like.  We give up critical thinking about the decisions that are being made, preferring to allow free rein to whoever is in charge, blindly accepting whatever happens as for the best.  There are politicians or social leaders who deliberately cultivate the cult around them, and a few who become the center of the cult without their input, obviously in an attempt to gain and maintain power over those around them.  It is true, however, that the public has to accept the image being sold to them, the strong leader, the savior, the wise decision-maker, whatever it is.  There is a certain savviness to it, as the cult generator has to create a respectable image to project.  The public craves stability and order, which the center of the cult tends to represent, whether there is any truth to it or not.  The phrase is also used to dismiss opponents, perhaps more often in this sense in the Western world, implying that supporters of a particular candidate or public figure are not examining the positions and actions taken with any sort of objectivity, and are merely joining a bandwagon of sorts.

Our Doctor had quite a bit to say on the subject, being involved in the theater world and well acquainted with domineering personalities.  He began by giving a short history of the word cult, coming from Latin and being connecting to growth and cultivation in its roots.  In use, however, the cult is connected to worship and exaggeration, rites and ceremonies, and generally with a negative feel to it.  The development of a cult is not based on logical or rational thinking, and any normal person should be against them because they deform reality.  He warned us of our limitations in perception and observed that we live in our global society the same way we lived in the Middle Ages.  What we need is to stop and think about what we do.  Why should we agree with anything or anyone?  "I'm my own worst enemy," he said, "Why shouldn't I be your enemy?"  Nevertheless, he admitted that these cults of personality become necessary when times are difficult, because we look for leaders.  We are social animals after all, desirous of a group to belong to and roles to play within the group.  He complained later about the ideas filtered through from "old" philosophy to the present day being absolutely insufficient; we need to develop our thinking, but meet with resistance from those around us, mostly in the form of disinterest.  He pointed to ancient heroes as examples of past personality cults, possibly real people whose deeds were exaggerated and elevated to levels of superhumanness and divinity that left them as impossible examples to follow, only representations of superior leadership that we can remember and use as molds to push our current leaders into.  He also mentioned Spanish leaders in the early days of democracy as people who were able to convince others of the correctness of their daring ideas, people who were able to develop the ability to guide a society into a new place without (many) violent or unpleasant consequences.

The True Philosopher also touched on the superhuman aspect of leaders who develop a cult of personality, and pointed out three types of domination that people often use: rational (logically I am the best choice); traditional (I am part of what we have always done); charismatic (Look at me! I'm awesome!).  He reminded us in the meeting that there are always two sides to every coin, pointing out that leaders we deem repressive and dictatorial may have been able to rise to power for legitimate reasons.  Kim Il Sung was, in fact, seen as a liberator for his part in freeing Korea from Japanese oppression, to give one example.  He wondered why so few women were the centers of cults of personality, asking if there was something inherently patriarchal about it, but the answer is probably that women are simply not allowed to take power by any means.  When the phrase is mentioned in relation to women, it tends to be the criticism of their followers rather than an analysis of the situation.  Later he pondered what prompts the emergence of cults of personality, suggesting that the influence of commercialization in today's society is mostly to blame, at least in Asia.  I wonder how modern political cults of personality would be different from past political and religious cults if we can point to commercialization as the germ that starts the modern ones.  He also reminded us that not all charismatic leaders develop cults of personality, echoing the sentiment of the Doctor that special conditions are necessary for them to flourish.

The Source revealed her deep mistrust of all forms of cult, but also her belief that the modern media is a sort of firewall to protect us from falling into them.  Strong leaders control and manipulate the media, obviously, but they cannot control media from all over the world, and thanks to the internet and television, we have access to news and opinions from almost anywhere we want, at least in the majority of developed countries.  In answer to the True Philosopher's question about the involvement of women, she mentioned Evita Perón, who was a master at projecting the image she wanted for the effect she wanted.  Possibly, what irritates her most about these cults of personality in politics is the treatment of the public like a bunch of children.  The Actress said that it is cult followers who are really childlike, especially when their leader disappears.  Before that, though, these people seem to be happier than skeptics.

Our Leader, who perhaps cultivates his own cult of personality by cleverly allowing us total freedom of expression, spoke of the need for enemies in the political world.  Nothing brings a group together like an external threat.  However, it is one thing to have enemies and another to create them out of whole cloth.  Modern society is more or less comfortable, and most people do not have to worry about basic survival from day to day.  He also mentioned the different personalities that get elevated to cut status at different times, or even the same time due to different levels of effort put in.  When things are calm, politicians generally see no reason to do the extra work of creating the cult, but hard times present great opportunities for those willing to go after them.

The Seeker of Happiness focused on the existence of a group of followers for the creation of the cult of personality.  Even without an ambitious leader, a group of followers will create the cult around whoever they deem suitable, in accordance with the human being's tendency to seek out and create order.  He thought the connection between the leader and the followers was a much more organic and mutually dependent one than others had implied, saying the leader needs to identify with the people and accept the responsibility to find out and take care of the needs of the followers.  He said further that empathy, rather than charisma, was the key to rising to power.  A leader who can connect emotionally with enough supporters will reach the top, and then develop what charisma is necessary to remain.  In a nod to Godwin, he stated that Hitler did not invent anti-Semitism in Germany, but followed the clear direction of the voters to find a good scapegoat for the ruins of the country after losing a world war, although more than an example of empathetic leadership, his tone made it sound like the answer to a question nobody had ever even considered.

at the end of the rainbow

As a good American, I can't let this holiday pass.  What, it's for some Irish saint?  Who wasn't even Irish?  C'mon...

Anyway, I found a good Irish stout this year, with the evocative name of Celebration Stout.  The label tells me to expect a range of flavors, and promises to please the experienced stout drinker, a title which I feel fairly confident in claiming.

Easy-off cap, for when it's not your first of the night

A puff of chocolatey stout scented air pops out immediately.  Good chocolate liquid comes out too, with a creamy looking head settled on top.  The taste surprises me a little, with a quick shot of dirt up front, but the bitterness is tempered by a calmly rising tide of chocolate.  As soon as the sweetness disappears down the throat, however, the foundation of bitter earth hangs on for a bit.  After letting the beer sit for a while, a definite curl of smoke can be felt in the smell and taste.  Ok, I'll say I'm pleased.

To the stouts and stout-hearted!

yes, drink a peach

So, I've said many times that I'm not a fan of lambics.  But sometimes a challenge comes along, and you can't help taking it.  Besides the cider, The Beer Garden also had a varied stock of lambics, with the usual red berry ones.  And, peach.  That's new for me.  Guess I better try it.

So unassuming

Krtek?

It definitely smells peachy, like a peach yogurt.  Somehow I was expecting a pinker liquid, but really the beer is peach colored.  A light head bubbles up and settles down quickly.  Now the taste: changeable; first sweet and then sour, quickly becoming sweet again.  Much less tongue-strangling than the last lambic I tried - although with undeniable sour notes, very manageable and balanced.  The taste is clean, and also a bit like peach yogurt, and doesn't hang around much after the beer is swallowed.  The balance and smoothness remain from top to bottom.  I'm pleasantly surprised by this lambic.  I may even try other Timmermans', just out of curiosity.

Do We Deserve Our Government?

In a supposed democracy, it is easy to answer with an impatient "yes" and get on to why people make such bad choices, causing well-deserved consequences because the results are those that naturally evolve from our own freely made choices.  Even in a non-democratic society, we can blame the citizens for "allowing" the government to remain, not taking up arms and forcing it out, which any truly responsible citizen body would do if the government failed to perform to their expectations and benefit.  However, are those reasonable assumptions?  People in societies where the majority do not participate in, and may not even be fully aware of, a national government can hardly be expected to attack it for the vague reason that its actions are not what the people "deserve".  Indeed, most individuals, even idealistic ones, are not willing to risk their safety or lives for any old slight.  Furthermore, even in democracies where the citizens are, at least theoretically, having a say in who gets to govern, those elected are still human, still weak or devious, still unable to please everyone all the time.  It is akin to saying because a voter has cast a vote, he or she is responsible for everything the government does, and very few people would actually go this far in general terms, although we do have a tendency to blame supporters of one political group or another for the failures of those representatives in government, as if their support were directly responsible.

The Source said first that she regretted proposing the topic, but would do her best to work through it.  She mentioned several quotes, including "People get what they deserve," and "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."  The latter she called beautiful, but clarified that it is unfair to ask anybody and everybody to die for anything.  As for the hesitance or resistance to revolt from among the people, she insisted that there is a difference between resignation and collaboration, and people are not only under the influence of their own government.  There is usually some outside influence from other, perhaps more powerful governments, that can discourage people from reacting in an openly defiant way.  She also declared education to be fundamental to create a responsible and involved populace, saying politics and ethics should be taught to all in school.  She wondered why corrupt politicians win elections when they are held, and thought the Leader's points about money and government may have something to do with it, and ended by saying that people can be politically ignorant, but that does not justify others trampling their rights or legitimize a bad government. 

Our Doctor mused that there was a great deal of discussion available in the topic.  He reminded us that systems change constantly, and asked if we deserved anything at all?  Further, what do we think of as our government?  As he often does, he said everything exists because it is necessary, and government is necessary to provide order to society, meaning that any type of orderly government can be attractive to the people if it seems to provide the desired stability.  This seems to hint that we shoulder some responsibility for our governments, even bad ones, because we the people have in some way chosen them, even if this is by not actively opposing them.  Later he said, darkly, that people suffer too much and there is a tremendous amount of evil in the world.  After this somewhat theatrical introduction, he went on to say that in the case of Spain, the monarch is a foreigner and the government is separated from the people.  We deserve free expression, but we do not know why.  Democracies generate into dictatorships, because of our search for the stability we feel we deserve, apparently more basic than anything else a government might give us.  His final word for us seemed to indicate that he did believe in the tit-for-tat sort of deserving, as he told us that history has shown that if you do not have anything to eat, you need a gun.

The Leader focused quite a bit on the economic inequalities in his written thoughts, and continued down the path in the meeting.  He mentioned the constant exchange of influence between government and governed as the people choose the government that reflects society and at the same time government can shape a society to support it.  Choosing something, in his opinion, is not the same as deserving it.  The basis of the law is to protect society's weak, and be sure we have what we need.  The question is not whether the poor deserve to be sick, but whether they deserve medicine.  He emphasized the separation of the government and the people, saying that there are other interests involved that prevent investigations into corruption.  When people want to protest bad behavior by government, they run the risk of arrest or other punishment, since we are not told how to protest "legally".  The link between what we choose and how to make sure we get what we deserve is broken, or was never forged to begin with.

The True Philosopher also put the question to us: what do we expect from our government?  He noted the difference between government and governance, saying individual politicians may belong to the elected authority, but they do not always act in accordance with their stated task.  They are supposed to be public servants, but all too often they serve private interests.  Although people vote, they are not in control.  They vote for what they think is best, but the information they receive is manipulated for the benefit of the elite, who are really in control.  In his own experiences as an embedded reporter, he saw how the government of his own country controlled the news and allowed reader to know only what kept them under control. 

Other participants made similar comments, saying that we are blinded to reality by the media, perhaps under the direction of the government, or perhaps those who "really control" the government.  It seems the underlying feeling is that we do not deserve what we are getting, although we cannot quite put our finger on why.  Maybe first we need to decide what it is we deserve.

pretty in pink

Now that spring is coming up, I felt like a little change.  Maybe a nice, light cider instead of the usual snappy ales or substantial stouts.  The Beer Garden had a selection of ciders, mostly Swedish, and I am a sucker for berry mixes.  Rekorderlig has a rather strong, sour smell, although pleasant.  It looks a bit like a rose wine, with the color and the tiny bubbles.  The taste also surprises with a sour kick at the end, but it definitely starts out sweet, like the popular Irish or British ciders of the moment.  Refreshing, definitely summery, a little sugar for energy and a little alcohol to let it out.

The Joy of Breathing

The Source of this topic did not find a moment to write a preparatory essay or article, not did he make an appearance at the meeting.  We were left to our own devices, pretty much, and our own frustrations.

Knowing the Source and his interest in tuning oneself to the universe, I imagine his idea was related to the fad of mindfulness.  While doing our daily activities, we often let our minds wander or we multitask in a way, thinking about plans for the day or the next day, basically everything but focusing on what we are doing at the moment.  Promoters of mindfulness recommend paying attention to every task we do, finding enjoyment in the activity itself and the art behind completing it to the best of your abilities.  Why would we focus on joy of breathing rather than any other small thing we do?  Possibly it is because everybody breathes, but any other activity has limitations on place and circumstances, as well as the interests of the person doing it.  Eating or preparing food is another option, I would think, but breathing also has the advantage of being free and something that not only can you do everywhere, you have to do it everywhere.  The act of breathing is not intrusive into others' lives and, while normally not noticed, is something we can exert some control over, unlike heartbeat, for example. 

The Educator connected the importance of proper breathing for proper performance of music as well as the link to Eastern philosophies to the concept.  She said breathing is the most natural thing we do, but we can do it more or less effectively.  We can use others' breathing to read their emotions, and modify our own breathing to throw others off.  As for music, she explained how singers and players of wind instruments need to control their breathing, both inhaling and exhaling, to be able to produce musical phrases that transmit the intended message.  The joy of producing art is a way of finding joy in breathing.

An Occasional Participant reminded us that awareness is necessary for joy in anything.  By taking conscious control of our breath we control other bodily functions, since they naturally align with respiration.  She also mentioned breathing as proof of being alive, which is something that should be a source of joy.

The Leader was slightly grumpy with the topic, unable to find much joy in it, mostly because of the language problem it presented.  While "the joy of X" is a common and easily understood expression in English, there is always a context that makes it clear where the joy is coming from.  He mentioned this in his writing as well.  Breaking it down, joy is an emotion and breathing is a mechanical action, an everyday activity.  Why should the two necessarily be linked?  He complained a bit that this expression, a valid expression, can lead to any kind of thematizing and reminded us that language is not chemistry, with the same reactions produced by the same ingredients every time.  Language, like joy, is subject to a vast amount of subjectivity, and words without context are not as much able to take on any meaning as they are left meaningless.

The True Philosopher brought a knowledge of scripture and sacred language to the table, pointing out how important breath was as an idea in old religions, including Judaism.  In many beliefs, breath and soul are linked, if not even one and the same.  He also connected the spiritual to finding joy, saying the spiritual person loves life, and again, life is demonstrated by breath.  We can also conceive of breathing as a connection to the world; by inhaling the atmosphere we take it into ourselves and we leave a little of ourselves to the world when we exhale.

The Seeker of Happiness was a little surprisingly quiet, given his apparent quest.  He also understood breathing to indicate the presence of life, but life is connected to movement and change.  Living things have instincts that promote their continued life.  The joy is not so much in the act of breathing, but more in what it represents - the victory of surviving another moment, another day.