Becoming lost in time

As Phil could testify, often one requires provocation to tease out thoughts and feelings on a matter. Today I was provoked by something.

My grandmother (whoI refer to as Nan) has gone into hospital with breathing difficulties. She is looking better than she did 24 hours ago so I'm not despairing. However, while visiting her, I was overcome with several different feelings. My initial feeling was that of my usual feeling for hospitals; a feeling of warmth and appreciation for the ingenuity and excellence of the hospital. But there was something quite painful that was caused to resurface while I was in there.

Many of the occupants in the ward were elderly (it would seem that they were all being kept together). Across from my Nan was a lady whom, having had her possessions put in a locker, had led herself to believe that she has misplaced them in various locations around the room. Down the end of the ward was a woman constantly squeaking for help. "Help! Please!" she would exclaim over and over. And there was a woman who didn't even belong in the ward, but with her mind elsewhere, she wandered aimlessly, perhaps guided by the loneliness of the hospital ward.

These were sad sights and they inspired great pain in what I can only imagine is one's heart. And it got me thinking about something that has been bugging me for a few weeks.

Recently there has been a report on an expected increase in the number of cases of dementia for the next generation. By 2050, there will be a million more people in the UK alone with dementia, predominantly by alzheimers. I had said to my sister that I wish never to be left to lose my mind, for to lose my mind is to have myself rubbed from the canvas of reality. I considered briefly that losing one's mind is comparable to nurturing one's mind in that we change as a person, but quickly dismissed this, as the loss of one's mind is the loss of one's identity, rather than the refinement of one's identity.

This was one thing that crossed my mind, that I would not wish to slip into nothingness, while leaving behind an empty shell of a body. But this was not my only problem.

The BBC had shown one of their "distressing" clips on dementia, and for once the word "distressing" genuinely applied; I was very nearly moved to tears. A man, whose name I forget, described the progression of his wife's dementia. He said that he began to get this aching feeling in his heart, and he soon realised that this aching was loneliness. His wife, who for so long had been the missing piece of the jigsaw that made him complete, was slowly being cut with a pair of scissors so that that piece did not fit anymore. Eventually dementia had totally disfigured her mind, leaving a confused being, unable to speak clearly, blind and disabled. He mentioned how she lapsed into and out of making sense as the dementia progressed. On one occasion, she said "We've had fun together haven't we?" and he supposedly broke down and cried.

Now this lead me to consider the more painful side of what I witnessed in that hospital ward. For me, the prospect of losing my mind is terrible so far as I would only know my suffering before it happened. Once my mind begins to go, I'd lose the ability to recognise that. But the more painful side is that there are people who will have to witness you lose your mind, with all the awareness that you once possessed. They would see your charms, your talents and your spirit dying in front of them, like a wilting flower. The person they loved would slowly become a memory, and yet they'd still be there, or at least, their body would make them appear to be there.

Perhaps if I were to ignore my emotions, I would accept the loss of one's mind by dementia as another unfortunate ailment that happens all the time. This school of thought extends to believing all of medicine to be a pointless attempt to delay the inevitable (and not just delaying death of a single lifetime. I refer to the greater life of humanity as a whole).

Fortunately or unfortunately, I have my emotions and seeing those ladies, still semi-aware, but so clearly not the beautiful roses they once were, inspired pain. There was no positive way to look at the deconstruction of a person's mind.

Plastering

You may ask why this post is titled plastering. What better way is there to fill a gap?

I'm currently in the middle of writing a rather long post on an interesting topic. Depending upon it's length after completion, I shall either post it as instalments or one big blog entry.

I gave blood this Sunday. Mr Brockington-Hill and his lady also came along and did the good deed. For those of you who may have been busy and unable to attend this weeks session, there are plenty more. If you're interested in giving blood, give me a buzz. I have a calendar with sessions in locations all around Southend. Come on, you know you want to ;)

For those of you who "don't like" needles, get over it. Nobody, except for people with an aim to harm themselves, likes needles. For those of you who have a "fear" of needles, I'm sorry that you suffer from this debilitating phobia. I don't think anyone could expect you to give blood.

Alright, I've finished being an arse...yeah right :D

Love?

No, I am not myself contemplating whether I am in love, and I do not intend to try and describe it. I intend merely to make observations on situations that may or may not be on the subject of love, depending upon the authenticity of the claims of respected parties.

Where do I begin? There is such a vast number of observations and many more unmade conclusions on them. When can you as a friend trust in the judgement of a friend who claims to be in love? One would like to think in all foolishness that it would be instantaneous, after all what trust is there when you cannot trust a friend? But it would be a lie to claim that I had absolutely no doubts in the claims of my friends. We are at our most unobservant and our most ignorant when we believe we are in love. Perhaps as it can be said that ignorance is bliss, it is true to say that bliss is ignorance. However, I do not mean this as a general rule. I mean only to observe that I cannot recall any case where someone has concluded unquestionably that they had not been in love and admitted that they had been wrong*.
It is our weakness, and yet our strength also, to hold onto our dreams so dearly, and what greater dream is there than that of sharing something special with someone other than yourself? No one would wish to return to the dire loneliness that inflicts those that are not in love, even if our error is clear to see. Not only this, but should we have been so sure of our being in love, it is only natural in future to assume a position of greater skepticism in believing our feelings as we have experienced the consequences of being wrong.
*I accept that one cannot totally believe oneself in error for having claimed to have been in love. Love itself has often been compared to a plant (I am trying to avoid describing it); it must be nurtured for it to flourish. We are quite capable of being in love and losing that love, and thus not being wrong, but becoming wrong in allowing the delusion of love to persist.

I suppose one can take the view that becoming more skeptical of one's feeling is a bad thing, leading us to doubt ourselves and taking us ever further into depression and paranoia based on a lack of trust in oneself. However, one can also take the view that it is in fact a development that improves our ability to know when we are in fact in love. As such it can be said of love that to find it, one must climb a rigorous learning curve to be able to discern it clearly from our mistaken suspicions. Once one has learned to understand one's feeling with clarity, it could be said of oneself that one has passed the course.

However, I feel it does no justice to love to consider it in such a simple way. I believe that learning to realise true love when it comes your way is an important part of finding love, but it is not the sole constituent of love.

My reasons for doubting my friends are perhaps based on my own doubts as established by the processes detailed above. It is easy to believe yourself in love when you see a kind face. It is too easy for one to associate a character with that person and to fool oneself into believing it is love. We can confuse ourselves by creating dreams of what our love would be like and grafting that dream onto reflections of a person's character, thus giving them the illusion of perfection. Unfortunately it is the perfect illusion because it is based on our unique ideas of perfection. Hence, I suppose, why situations arise where someone can believe themselves madly in love with a decent sort, while all their friends perceive the 'decent sort' as a person of no clear profligacy, or perhaps even worthy of criticism.

I would continue by asking "When then can we say that we are in love?", but I would be dancing dangerously close to the line of attempting to describe love itself. Instead I'll continue by detailing some observations of consequences from the often long thought battle with oneself (and yes, I have deliberately used the wrong thought) as to whether one is or is not actually in love. Not only this, but also the consequences of believing that you know the answer.

Those of us who dare to love learn rather soon that it is not just an experience of pure happiness. And love is not always a simple case of falling in love and being together. In fact, these two things are entirely separate. One such example is one where the person you fall in love with loves you, but already has a partner who they love. It is interesting to wonder whether it is possible to love more than one person at a time. I don't mean to say love as in a crush or mere compatibility. I mean to say true love, where you could not and would not dare risk breaking the heart of either person that you love. And further still, I must define further the boundaries within which I mean "not wishing to break either person's heart". This can be a selfish act, whereby the person stuck in the middle simply does not wish to feel guilty, rather than wishing not to cause pain in the respective persons. However, the opposite is also a case worthy of noting. True love is not wishing to inflict pain on the person(s) you love and neglecting to consider the multitudes of guilt that you will feel. But here I find myself defining true love, and so again I must cease.

I make the assumption that it is entirely possible for us to love more than one person at any one time. However, by making this assumption we must explore the realms of comparison between the two or more persons loved by a single soul.

If one should find oneself in a position of loving two persons, should one be forced to decide between which of the two persons they will continue to love? I feel that it is a "decision" and I say this so that I make clear that I believe that there are no external forces (but for society who would have us believe polyamory wrong) forcing the lover of two to pick one answer over another. It is in every sense a dilemma because both choices will result in good and bad consequences. However, we must realise that in a real situation, one choice will inevitably produce more good outcomes, and therefore less bad outcomes, than the other.

With this realisation, we see that the lover of two will either choose to maintain a relationship with both persons, or be forced to choose between them. With the latter, one begins to identify the criteria of the different persons that would be good and bad. The process need not be conscious. Basic awareness of our surroundings and of other people occurs without any effort (I say "basic" because of Francis' post on awareness recently). One would like to believe that the person who must make the choice is intimately aware of every intricacy of the personality of both persons that they love and so can immediately make an informed decision. But it would be wrong to suggest that we ever entirely know a person (I now find myself touching upon Fergus' post).

So we now realise that not only do we not totally know these people, causing us to perhaps disrepute our feelings to a degree due to their civil conflict, but that we shall never entirely know these people. All I can say here is thank God for rational thinking. We should not be discouraged by the apparent impossibility of knowing everything about someone. We can still learn a hell of a lot about someone and continue to do so for a very long time. And so just because we can't know everything, it does not mean that we should not try to know a lot of things.

Once one has passed this time of doubt, or perhaps simply learned to think alongside it, one realises that there are significant differences between the two persons. I am not suggesting that there are not significant similarities, only that I assume that there are differences between the two, and in the case of deciding who to love these differences become more significant in the eyes of the chooser. It is these differences that lead one to try to make a decision between the two. But it is only trying to make a decision because even if one were to eventually choose one person over the other, the positive outcomes that will never come out, because one chose one path over another, leads one to doubt oneself (little giggle for Fergus there - Clive James would be proud).

And so I say again, it is a decision for the lover of two, but it is a decision that can never be fully resolved with absolute belief in oneself in having made the "right" decision (and there in itself is another topic for discussion - what is right?).

Should one actually be able to make a physical choice between the two, even if not the mental one, one commits oneself and the two persons that were and are the object of their love to a single, narrow path. Should one lose one's footing, it is of no surprise that one would try to find one's way back onto the path, retrace one's footsteps and find oneself back at the point of decision. Here then one may find themselves choosing to love again the person that they decided not to love any longer. And then so many more problems begin.

This post is an unfinished article, but there are quite a few points of discussion within this alone to satisfy a few curious minds with the will to read and respond. I still have to talk about fallback lovers and misinterpretation. I also did not discuss the perils of maintaining a relationship with two lovers at any one time. I may also wish to go onto the subject of marriage.

Upon mentioning that I was reading Pride and Prejudice, a friend of mine told me that they were in the process of writing an essay on why the marriage between Charlotte and Mr Collins was a bad thing. Perhaps I'll use that as my springboard for my next post on this. But you'll be glad to hear that that will most probably not be for a fortnight, if not longer.

If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to trawl through this article.
Alternatively, if you've scrolled down to the end of the post, go back and read the whole thing you lazy git.

Topics of interest: Embryology

Yes, one of my many topics of interest is that of our coming into existence. For those with a crude sense of humour, I am not referring to the act of bringing us into existence, but rather that, which results from that act. Further still, for those of you that suffer with a droll sense of humour, I am not referring to the 9 months of back breaking pregnancy that befalls the female, nor the 18 years of 'torture' that will ensue, for those who would consider parenting in such a light.

I will not bore those who do not share my interest in the subject by writing about it in gross detail. I need only say that it is quite involved and it is my opinion that embryology when first realised, gave the chance for many an idle scientist to create words with no derivation but that stemming from their ability to sound impressive and infinitely condescending. I am quite aware that there is more to each word than their ability to sound extraordinary. Many words in fact share their roots in Latin, which for those of you familiar with medical terminology (and perhaps a little Latin) will find to be no revelation. However, I myself suffer from the congenital defect of a sense of humour and cannot help but exhibit symptoms of it by ridiculing the profound ability of Biology to confuse matters by not only using unnecessary polysyllabic words, but a whole anthology of them dedicated to a single subject.

Please enjoy the amusing nature of the last sentence :)

Alright, so it is hypocrisy to mock something in a manner comparable to the subject being mocked, but I find that amusing. One could suggest from that that I find hypocrisy amusing and I suppose one would be correct in that assumption. However, it must be made clear that I do not find the act of hypocrisy itself amusing, but rather its ability to be used as a method of revealing the true absurdity of that which the hypocrite chooses to emulate, be that to the benefit of the hypocrite in asserting a point, or the detriment of his/her integrity (yes I do have room for equality of the genders).

I must say, I'm being quite defensive of my stance on such matters. I'd apologise for that, but I cannot falter a little caution and foresight into the disagreements of others that might arise should I not cover my arse. Feel free to disagree with that.

A social observation (1)

I have already attempted to make a blog, but it would seem that that blog is now lost to me.

I begin this blog in a different fashion to that of the other, as the content of a post is a reflection of the events that have passed before it, and the events that have not yet had chance to affect it. Simply put, a post is unique to its time of posting.

I have titled this first entry "A social observation (1)" and shall justify this title henceforth.

Rather than offend anyone, which given the sensitive nature of some is inevitable, I shall instead use letters to represent persons present in the social encounters I am to describe.

Person A brings up a topic indicative of causing disagreement between people of different dispositions. At this point you might say that any topic is graced by the ability to encite disagreement between two individuals, but to clarify, this topic is capable of producing strongly opinionated arguments, based on both moral and rational thinking (I apologise for giving the impression of moral and rational thinking being two separate schools of thought). The topic of attention is that of "Should Gay Couples adopt?"

Person B is a religious character, a Christian for the purposes of this argument. According to the religion of Person B, homosexuality is wrong and unholy. Person B's immediate knee-jerk reaction, and I apologise if in this situation the person had actually given the topic more than a moments thought, is to view adoption by Gay couples as wrong.

Person A asks of Person B to provide him with a coherent argument that would justify Person B's opinion. Once more, Person B is guilty of a knee jerk reaction, refusing instantaneously to provide Person A with an explanation, claiming to have the right to an opinion.

Person A at this point feels that Person B is viewing Person A as an idiot, incapable of simple acknowledgements, such as that of people's rights. Person A, however, persists with maintaining an air of serenity and continues by adding that he understands Person B's entitlement to an opinion, but cannot, with veracity, give Person B the pleasure of agreeing with their opinion.

Upon reflection Person A decides to pursue the subject no further, having concluded that Person B, though perhaps capable of rational thought, refuses in this situation to entertain its use. Person B is strongly opinionated, perhaps due to his overawareness of his "right" to possess one as such. Person A has no problem with this. As it is one's right to have an opinion, it is also one's right to refrain from justifying that opinion.

However, Person A is not happy with the aggressive nature of Person B's argument, should one choose to call it that. I can only assume the dissappointment felt by Person A is attributed to Person B's acting in a manner that Person A can only observe as being unjust. This feeling of injustice is then multiplied yet further still by the claim of Person B to be of a faith, the ideal of which is one of good triumphing over bad.

It is perhaps wrong for Person A to tie so closely the act of good and bad with justice and injustice (there in itself is a topic of interest). However, Person A would appreciate speaking to a person with a pair of unobstructed ears, rather than one whose secondary phalanges are shoved firmly into their ear canals, it is, after all, Person A's right to speak, is it not?

Perhaps I shall enjoy retorts discussing the fact that although it is one's right to speak, it is not one's obligation to listen. Perhaps then we can discuss whether it is instead one's duty? It shall also be interesting to hear anyone's opinions and, more pleasingly, their justifications for holding such opinions on the matter of gay couples adopting.