Will we leave the sun behind?

The denizens of the sun’s bosom swing hot and fast around their Goddess.

Mercury, a hardboiled egg of iron, lifeless as can be.

Venus, an angry earth, a little too much celestial love 

Has burnt her up into a fiery storm.

Mars feels his mother’s chill and scorn.

In between lies our home, a delicate, beautiful orb.

No perfect creation, 

Just the right mix of this and that for complicated things to happen.

A warm sloshing bath of rock and sea awash with the most complex chemistry,

Some of which can even see!

Some of these eyes look deep into the deepest dark,

Searching for meaning’s heart,

For the signature of a great mind’s work.

What can we see out in the deep, deep, dark?

A trillion lights beyond our grasp.

A billion, billion beaming orbs of light.

Swirling majesties, galaxies of great might.

Arcs of pure light, a million constellations to light up the night.

What though is in our grasp?
Out there in the deep deep dark, waiting for that human spark.

One of the main narratives of our age is that we are destined for the stars, to reach out and grasp the infinite, ‘to boldly go where no man has gone before’. The main current focus of our efforts is to explore and possibly colonise Mars. It is a very long way to Mars, a trip of several months spent in what is effectively a large baked bean tin living at constant risk of radiation poisoning before you even try to land on another planet. This is at the limits of current human technology but seems like a feasible possibility.

Whether or not we will ever travel much further than Mars though is another matter. Space generally, even just our own solar system, is far larger than much science fiction would have you believe. Even if people are able to colonise nearby rocky worlds, the outer solar system is as vast as it is icy, where even giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn slip in the void. As distant as these planets are though, the distances to other stars are staggering. For example, ff the entire solar system were modelled on the scale of a football pitch our nearest neighbouring star, Alpha Centauri, would be approximately 5,000 km away!

It seems most likely that faster than light travel will remain the stuff of science fiction and the sheer distances involved travelling between one star and another make it unlikely any civilisation would actually last long enough to travel such vast distances. It would therefore appear unlikely that humanity will leave the sun behind any time soon. This does raise another question, even if other stars are outside of our reach, what is within our grasp?

We will be looking at this in the next post..

Image credited to wikipedia

Is the King Dead or Does He Surf?

This is my second piece in a short series, following on from the last post 'Waves';

A famous phrase is, 'The King is Dead, long live the King', announcing the passing of a monarch and the succession to the throne of another. The phrase implies that an individual ruler is of course mortal but that the institution they represent is intended to long outlast them, they are merely the current representative of a monarchy. That such institutions often last significant periods of time is an interesting fact. The British monarchy, for example, has endured for centuries through great social tumult.

It may also be the case that even if a regime is deposed a similar social set up can re-form in its place:

I recently watched ‘The Death of Stalin’ by Armando Iannucci. It was a rather refreshing mix of ‘In the Thick of It’ style satire and quite poignant observations on power and the tragicomic history of Russia. Its release coincides with the centenary of the Russian revolution. A strikingly important event in world history. Even Marx himself observed that the Russians always seemed to go for the most extreme available doctrine. There are always contingencies in such matters though, had the Mensheviks not walked out during the October Revolution history may have turned out differently.

The U.S.S.R. of course came apart at the seams in 1989, a lumbering behemoth that finally ran out of steam and, groaning, crashed to the earth like some titanic tree. An autocratic empire that long ago had lost the plot of its original goals, staggered into senility and eventually collapsed. Taken in isolation, this empire would be an interesting historical artefact. However, when situated in the wider arc of Russian history it appears less unique. The initial revolution was a rebellion against an autocratic and unaccountable Tsar, who presided over a sclerotic and discontented empire. That Lenin’s dream metastasised into something comparable and has again been replaced by an authoritarian government is as interesting as it is tragic.

Reflecting on some of the themes in my last post, Waves, I am not one well qualified enough to pronounces that this is or is not due to some innate or inevitable cycle in Russian history. It may be more a series of waves of populism that fell on the same shores producing similar results. The likelihood of other European nations squabbling like cats in a sack on a regular basis also unfortunately appears to be just as high. I hold out some hope that this may not be the case and I am certainly no historical determinist. The role of non-violent resistance as pioneered by Ghandi, Martin Luther King and others is a powerful example of the ability of groups of concerned individuals to change the world. Indeed, to quote Margaret Mead, it is the only thing that ever does!

The interplay between the great trends of history, the agency of groups and individuals and the myriad other factors which affects how societies change over time are most likely impossible to disentangle. What can be said with some degree of certainty is that some things appear more likely than others and some trends look likely to crash onto shores as large waves. I have noted before and it has been cogently argued elsewhere that the United States may be in a similar position to the U.S.S.R. in the late 1980s, except with an Orangutan at the helm, rather than the relatively dignified figure of Mikhail Gorbachev. We shall have to see whether this comes to pass along with whether European nations re-commence with arguing or if the hydra of authoritarianism snakes out more widely into the world than at present. 

One of the major features of the oscillation of social waves is that those at the top of a social system are very good at preserving their status, even if the system superficially changes; kings, or more accurately, monarchies clearly know how to surf the social waves. What is unique about the present day and modern information technology is that the majority of us, not just a tiny minority, can have some understanding of the nature of some of these waves. We should of course use these insights to do what we can to hold the powerful to account & avoid some of the worse political possibilities and at the very least we can also learn to surf.

Image credited to wikipedia

Waves

I recently read a book called 'At the Existentialist Cafe' by Sarah Bakewell which I highly recommend, one of the best books I have read in years. It is an exquisite overview of an intellectual movement giving both a biographical narrative of the main thinkers and the development of the main ideas. I have tried to infuse some of the main themes into my daily life and writing; I try at least once a week to take a step back from daily life's chatter, find a nice cafe and stop and see what is in front of me. To write about what I am surrounded by and in the process of observing, reflect.

Today, the clouds are whipping overhead as I sit outside a Swedish cafe at the head of the Union Canal in Edinburgh. I can see water glistening in the early evening light. Plants flow in the wind, people bustle, children chatter, pigeons coo and here I sit and write. As I sit in the evening light and drink my coffee I don't want to get comfortable, I want to get raw and thoughtful.

I look over my scrawled notes from my last cafe outing, I had managed to get out of bed early and get to an open day of the Edinburgh University Anatomy Museum. It was one of those easy to miss one off outings that left me with some lasting impressions. The waves on the water on the canal reminded me of other, much more important waves.

The museum display was a glorious pokey mix of comparative anatomy, the story of how the study of anatomy has developed at the University of Edinburgh and wider social and medical history. It showed a grappling for greater understanding amongst all of the all too human dramas, misunderstandings and skulduggery of the 19th century. From executing people with mental health problems and then dissecting them to going round the world and shooting whatever rare exotic wildlife took an explorer's fancy and pickling it. There were death masks and skeletons of famous people, some good like Robert Owen and some infamous like Burke & Hare. There were also the cadavers of various beasts and fowl including those of human ancestors and our various primate cousins.

I was struck by how much we have learned, amongst all the curios was an urge for greater understanding, our understanding of phenomena rolling in like waves, one crashing in over the next. One such early medical example of which was the discipline of phrenology; it was an honest first attempt to understand human personality without ascribing the cause to supernatural causes. As knowledge developed of the nature of the human body and mind the lack of evidence for its assertions became clear and it was superseded and denounced as pseudoscience.

The development and change in the nature of institutions and the material conditions in which people live has been as profound as the advances in the nature of our understanding of biology. Edinburgh University started off as an institution that received patronage and validation from royalty and aristocracy, it of course in turn helped to preserve the status of such institutions with its prestige as a centre of learning but it has become so much more than that, a worldwide research institute, which, like so many other universities, has greatly added to our understanding of the world.

One of the most beautiful descriptions in 'At the Existentialist Cafe' was that of consciousness as being like a furl in a rug, a fold in reality. We have a much more accurate understanding of the details of how the systems of life operate but we still have many unanswered questions about the nature of life and consciousness. There is something transcendentally beautiful about the reality of being in the world, that we are, and then we are not.

Human skulls were laid out in cabinets in the exhibits, from otherworldly foetal skulls to the wizened fragile face of old age. I got a palpable sense of the sheer suffering and hardship of the lives of our ancestors, from the skull of a 14 year old boy who had been executed to stooped little skeletons of adults aged before their time. There was also a memorial book dedicated to all those who had donated their bodies to anatomy which I found truly moving. A humanistic show of thanks to the gift of others to enable the greater understanding of all.

I subscribe to the worthy goals of humanism to improve human knowledge and well-being though I think people make an unfortunate intellectual error when they assume progress is some sort of natural law, an inevitable, unstoppable wave. History may well have its own cycles and waves that may mean much of what we have discovered over the past few centuries goes the way of the Library of Alexandria, licked clean of memory by flames.

This is, however, not to denigrate or dismiss the valiant efforts or suffering of our ancestors making it possible for us to live our modern lives of comparative luxury, quite the opposite. Life is a wave that can roll slowly up the beach and dissipate its energy or hit a rock almost immediately but what I am most moved by is that there are waves at all. Coming from an existentialist perspective has helped me to appreciate each day, to learn, live, love and be kind. I will do my little bit to try and make the world a better place, and if that is only for its own sake, all the better.

Notes on Sartorial Elegance

Sartorial
Definition of sartorial in English:
Relating to tailoring, clothes, or style of dress: sartorial elegance

We have worn clothes for tens of thousands of years. Outside of a few very benign climates humans must wear some clothes for basic practical purposes such as keeping ourselves warm or cool. It seems unlikely though that wearing clothes was ever merely a practical endeavour. For example, in various traditional societies at tropical latitudes where people wear little or no clothing due to the climate they still adorn themselves with paint and ornaments laden with meaning. There are a vast range of cultural ideas about dress with a variety of fashions and norms between cultures and within societies with clothes ascribed on lines of gender, ethnicity, religion, social standing and a whole range of other factors.

I find what people say with what they wear or don’t wear and how it can be used to inform or subvert social norms fascinating; a great deal can be inferred about the ideals and social roles of groups within a society from their attire. The oscillation of social norms in a society are reflected in the clothes that people wear from men in Britain wearing striking heels, wigs and powder in the 18th century to tops and tails in the 19th and busty free dresses for ladies to 15 petticoats and bonnets. These differences reflected changes in the social zeitgeist from the relatively laissez-faire 18th century giving way to the prudish and conservative Victorian era. I am of course providing a generalised example here which erases the vital issue of class. The majority of the population wore much more practical clothes than this example and slaved away making some of the more impractical ones for the people at the top of the social pecking order.

People at the bottom of the heap in a hierarchical society are understandably often rather displeased with the unfairness of their situation and come up with a range of ways to subvert, contest and reform or overthrow the current social order. Part of this rebellion can be through the wearing of clothes deemed unsuitable for a specific group of people. For women to wear trousers in 19th Century Britain and America, for example, was scandalous but the bravery of those first to do so was part of the battle for equality for women that continuous to this day.

I find the potential for personal and group self expression through personal aesthetics something powerful and hopeful. Individual and collective emancipation can partly be achieved by developing one’s own particular sense of self through self expression, part of which is what you wear. With this in mind I am attempting to develop my own take on ‘sartorial elegance’.

There are a number of factors to be considered in such an endeavour: Different styles of clothing fit people with different body types and that adds to the individuality and autonomy that developing a personal aesthetic can provide. What cultural influences and styles someone wishes to draw on is also obviously a matter of individual taste, though preferably avoiding appropriating the clothing of other groups of people in colonial fashion, no kimonos or feather head dresses please!

There are also some general principles of good design which might be helpful in deciding what works with what. The design rules below that I find a useful guide are oddly enough originally from a talk about the design of flags. They can be applied to design in general though and I’ve found them rather useful in selecting attire:

• Keep it simple – think of something that could be drawn from memory
• Use meaningful symbolism – be discerning in what influences you draw on
• Use 2 to 3 basic colours - from the standard colour set; red, white, blue, green, yellow and black
• No lettering or seals – generally avoid writing on garments, especially writing you can't see unless it forms a pattern
• Be distinctive – be unique or relate what you wear to distinctive themes in fashion

My sartorial preferences:

There are a number of themes which inform my aesthetic preferences. Some are personal and arbitrary, some more ideological. For example, I am both a feminist and take very much a socially liberal, laissez faire approach to how other people want to go about their business, (within fairly obvious moral parameters).  I object to the fashion industry’s objectification of women’s bodies to sell items by drawing on people’s insecurities but if a lady wants to wear stilettos and fishnets to express her sense of femininity all strength to her!

I’m not one to impose my sensibilities on others beyond putting my views into the arena of public discourse with a pen. Aside from some types of dress that make me feel uneasy due to my own sensibilities such as military style clothes. I have preferences which are very much a matter of individual taste but which I think have a lot going for them. 

Design:

• I very much like clothes which are practical, where functionality and elegance can be weaved together. There are obvious reasonable exceptions to such whims such as wedding garb, evening wear etc. but as a general guideline I think it holds well.
• As someone with an environmental background, considerations such as sustainability of production (using natural materials where possible), durability of items and whether they are repairable all factor in to what I choose wear. Ethical production of items is also a consideration, something which some larger chains and boutique-type shops have a half decent record for.
• Elegant, practical and repairable clothes work best with simple design such as using buttons over zips, clean flowing lines rather than pleats and frills (if one is being a little 18th century), or in the case of shoes something practical and well rounded wear or some converse if feeling informal, rather than something a little more unusual.

• I apply the same principles to colour and form - outfits can look a bit ‘busy’ if you’ve too many patterns or colours. The same can be said for jewellery, hair etc. 

Style:

• This is of course very much a case of individual taste; the main themes I draw on are Steampunk and Art Deco styles.
• I think the Steampunk aesthetic is marvellous; I love the beauty of 19th century steam technology and the Victorian anarchic aesthetic. It’s kind of a cross between middle class Victorians and pirates! Elegant but not stuffy.
• I also love art deco imagery and patterns with its simple, sharp, clean lines, simplified imagery from nature and repeated patterns and shapes with all kinds of bold, contrasting colours.
• I’m not a fan of Victorain social norms or the excesses of their prudish clothing but frock coats, waistcoasts, boots and flowing shirts are just wonderful! Throw in some the colours and patterns of the art deco era and I’m very happy.
• Full blown Steampunk or Art Deco style garb would be regarded as fancy dress in many social circles but I’m treating it as a personal project to tie in some of their themes into my day to day dress. It fits my ideals of reusability, simplicity and elegance and has a great deal of character - clear, bright patterns on elegant, novel clothes.

A frivolous distraction?

This may all seem very trite and superfluous compared to some of the world’s more pressing problems. On the scale of the individual though I don’t think this is necessarily the case, it needn’t be a matter of conflicting priorities. The chance to express yourself as you see fit through what you wear can be a powerful act. The clothes we tend to wear reflect the society of our time so I say wear the future you want to see. Fashion or modes of dress can be revolutionary, repressive, dull, exciting, exquisitely beautiful or dreadfully mundane. Make yours exactly what you want it to be and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!

Image credited to: http://steamfashion.livejournal.com/1163716.html