THE STEPHENING STANDARD : Taking a ‘Captain Cook’ at 2010

(For the non-Aussie speakers, 'Captain Cook' means 'look' in rhyming slang)

New Year With the Rugrats

To see in 2010, Zach and I found ourselves on the island of Rottnest in Western Australia. Rottnest is from the Dutch for 'rat's nest' so named for the little animals found then and now all over the island. The little animals are in fact quokkas, a type of marsupial. The other little animals that populate this island (aside from tourists) are flies – as can be seen on my forehead in the following photo!

On Rottnest island, Zach and I joined my first cousin, David (from London), his wife Marian (from Perth), and my first cousins once removed (ie, their children). Zach spent most of his time with his second cousins (David's children).

I take a detour here to describe labelling of cousins which may be something you have always wanted to know about but never quite understood.

Degree of cousinship (first, second, third, etc.) is defined by the most recent common ancestor beginning with grandparent (first), great-grandparent (second), great-great-grandparent (third), etc.

Removal describes the number of generations separating any cousins. David's kids and I are related through grandparents to me (making them 'first cousins'), but they are one generation further away (my grandparents are their great-grandparents), so they are my first cousins once removed.

A Grand Tour

Zach joined me on my annual trip to Europe in June/July. One of the big highlights of this trip for Zach was a day spent exploring a forest with two of his French friends, Jean and Thomas (who are I believe second cousins to one another)

In the forest, we followed various trails, picked blackberries (not very ripe), hunted slugs (various colours and sizes - feel free to ask for photos), listened for bears, forded streams, squelched through water, swatted mosquitoes and stopped to eat packets of crisps.

Another memorable moment for Zach was spending some time with my father and his wife (Pauleen) in the tiny village of Montcuq in the Lot region of France. I'm not sure if I will be able to do this again as I discovered that Zach was not only out roaming the streets but ripping them up (see picture below):

Other highlights were a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g train trip from France to Italy, a visit to Monte Carlo (Zach as a car-enthusiast was enchanted by this stop), and a stay in Varenna on Lago di Como to celebrate the 50^th birthday of a primary school friend, Kim Cramer.

Yes, we went past George Clooney's house. He happened to be there and hollered out to me 'Hi Stephen', but I told him I was busy and we kept on moving. I note in passing that George will be celebrating his 50^th this year (2011). I consider this another of his sad attempts to emulate me.

Semi-Centennial Celebration

I celebrated my 50^th birthday in August 2010 with a Hawaiian theme boat trip on the Tweed River. If you think you were there, but you don't remember it – you're in good company!

My father having donated funds for the libations for this party was of course put on drinks duty. I bought various drinks, ice, loaded them into ice-chests and sent my Dad off to the wharf where the boat trip was to start. He was instructed to offer a welcome drink to those arriving early for the boat trip. I wondered how Dad would identify those going on the boattrip to offer them a drink. Dad's response was straightforward : "If they're wearing anything that looks vaguely Hawaiian, I will offer them a drink."

It is reported that street people in the Tweed region have taken up wearing Hawaiian shirts since that day.

Meanwhile, here are two 50-year old reprobates (Stephen and Kim) talking about the problem of the youth today.  They're not only old, but they clearly have poor long-term memory as well.

Vanuatu

Zach and I travelled to Vanuatu in September to join my brother (Timothy), his wife Louise and their son Mitchell (a first cousin to Zach of course). We also had the good fortune to be shown around the island by a first cousin to Louise called Brian who lives on Vanuatu with his wife and kids. Brian introduced us to the joys of hydroponic kava – or at least, I reckon it must have been hydroponic!

I loved Vanuatu for its unpretentiousness and the fact that many of the people there speak English and French and Bislama and one of the many native languages. Vanuatu used to be known as the New Hebrides and has the rather unusual claim to fame as being one of the only joint British / French colonies in the world up from 1906 until it gained its independence in 1980.

Brian and his family showed us many wonderful things on the island, but one of the highlights for me was the trip to a coral beach on the other side of the island. The photo shows (from the left) Jessie & Chloe (second cousins to Mitchell), Zach (first cousin to Mitchell) and Mitchell on his way out.

The Big Issues in Life

Zach finished Year 2 in 2010 and starts Year 3 in 2011. In the picture below, Captain Kidd, The Great White Hunter (Zach) and Hiawatha are in a serious discussion about the world's problems (how to lift the ban on fighting Kung Zhu pets in the playground) at Cudgen Primary School.


More seriously, Zach is probably telling them about how I announced to him that in ten years from now, we (yes, he and I) will be moving out of home. I figured it is good to get in early. I have told him that I plan to buy a yacht and sail around the South Pacific for a couple of years.

He was concerned about where he might go and asked if he could come with me. I said he was welcome to join me for some of the time. He then asked me how he might see his mother every other week. I guess we're going to have to do some more talking on this one!

Even more seriously, I have launched a website with my colleague Charles : www.theotherglassceiling.com. Visit to see what I have been working on for the last year or so.



Here's looking forward to 2011. I hope that you and yours have a wonderful year.

Stephening Standard – 2009

Happy 2010. I hope that 2009 was great for you, I hope that 2010 will be even better.

Attached, you will find a short update on the what Zach and I have been doing over the last year or so.

Zach does his commute in his sleep

Zach is a well-established bus-commuter taking the journey of over one hour between our home in Coolangatta to his school at Cudgen in New South Wales.

However, as our home is in Queensland without day-light saving, and his school is in New South Wales with day-light saving, the morning routine can be a little frantic during the summer months.

Zach began taking the bus at his insistence last year while he was still in his first year at school (‘Kinder’).

His first bus-driver, Bones (pictured) reports that Zach is very social during the bus-journey.

However, during the last 15 minutes of the ride home, there is no-one else on the bus, and Zach sometimes falls asleep.

On his second-ever trip, I had to carry Zach from the bus. Zach awoke as I carried him out of the bus and he announced how lucky it was that he had not fallen asleep.

Very lucky indeed.

Miles of smiles

Zach and I visited our dear friends, the family Larrieu south of Toulouse in July 2009. There Zach got to practice his French with Jean (both pictured below).

Zach who is very much into vehicles of all kinds was delighted to be able to visit the A380 factory while we were in Toulouse.

In 2008, Zach got to practice French when we were kindly accommodated first by the family Bitaud-Zerathe, and then by the family De Clercq on two separate visits to New Caledonia.

While sitting in the airport lounge in New Caledonia on our return from one of these trips, Zach was asking about which airline we would be taking for our return journey.

He recognised Qantas, I pointed out Air Calin and Air New Zealand to him.

Then, in the clear innocent voice that only a young boy can produce, Zach made a curious observation : “There aren’t many virgins here, are there Papa?” (Zach was referring to the Australian/Oceanic airline Virgin-Blue, part of Branson’s Virgin Group.)

That’s right Zach, our work here is done. Time for us to go home!

Couch potato to super-hero
Zach has applied for the position of couch-potato in the household.

He is very fond of his television.

Despite a letter to Santa requesting a Wii, I am glad to see that the big old fellow did not oblige.

Accordingly, I’m always delighted when I can get Zach off the couch.

I was less pleased however when Zach jumped off the couch while playing and managed to break his arm.

Despite the painful break, Zach was soon back in action as a super-hero – albeit with a clipped wing.

Over the renovations

Our home has been under renovation since about mid-2008.

Our home now sports a wonderful new deck overlooking the ocean at Coolangatta. Come and join us for a drink there sometime.

The kitchen and bathroom have been re-done, a new bathroom-ensuite added to Zach’s bedroom, and a repaint in and out.

In his visit during last winter, Dad was put to the task of putting a mural on the garage door.

Here, Zach and Dad show-off his handiwork.

Other stuff

I continue to work at Bond University on a 50% contract.

In the remainder of my time, I do parenting, consulting, and writing.

I am working on a book project dealing with gender inequality with a colleague of mine down at the University of Sydney, Charles Areni.

Charles and I were students together at the University of Florida many years ago.

In my spare time, I am pushing forward – very slowly – towards an MA in philosophy and sociology.

I completed my 49th year on this planet in August 2008, and am currently celebrating the passage of my 50th year.

I will celebrate the closing of this my jubilee year around Sunday, 1 August, 2010.

Let me know if you are in town and would like to join me.

For more on what I have been doing and thinking over time, please visit my blog : www.insideoutsite.blogspot.com

Family of Two (by Lucas Dell)

My family is unique,
We live differently than most.
Not worse, not better
Just different.
Mum and me

A bit like an echidna
Prickly and protective
Sometimes very prickly.
Not all the time though.

Somewhat like a family of bats,
She says I smell like one,
Musty, like a closed-off room.
My room is my musty cave.

A lot like a koala
Close, protective of heights
I used to cling to her like a koala,
When I was a kid.

A whole lot like the Tasmanian Devil
Having babies when she’s older…
Watchful, and scary if you mess with me.
She’s can be really scary, but mostly just noisy.
Mainly when I don’t do something.
Like cleaning my room

Our family is like all these animal families.
Different yet same.
She cares for me like theirs do.
Alone.
Without help
I never met my father, either.
All of us…
Fatherless families
Not worse off
Not better.
Different from some
But no less happy,
We are happy
Just us
A family of two.

Yes.
I come from a family of two.
Is that true?
But a family is three.
Not mine.
It began as two but changed when I began.
From three to two, again.
A family of my Mum and me.

I spoke to him once.
To ask if he wanted to meet me
before we left for another place.
He said no.
I wondered why.
I wonder why.
Still.
I wonder many things.
Is he a good man?
Or is he not.
My thinking makes him neither.
He is, who he is.
Someone I don’t know.
Never met.
Probably never will.
But I can’t talk about that
when I have ‘now’.
You probably wonder.
Having only a Mum.
No grandparents on one side,
others too far to know.
What is that like
growing that way?
A family of two.

It’s different.
She’s different.
She teaches me things
I might need to know.
She is a woman
and she teaches me things
she knows.
But she never taught me
to wrestle.
She never taught me
to hug. The hug of a boy and man.
She never taught me
how to read maps.
She never taught me that sometimes
you really don’t need to talk.
She never taught me
to fight.
She never taught me
to shave.
She never taught me
how to tinker with things.
She never taught me
to leave the toilet seat up.
She never taught me
about the taste of a cold beer on a hot day.
She never taught me
to aim my pee at the porcelain or the shower drain.
She never taught me
to use deodorant when then was no time for a shower.

But she listened.
She listened to me.
So I learned to listen.

She teaches me
grace
and kindness
And shares her knowing.
Our family of two.

It braces me now
for my journey.
The one I will begin.
Unafraid,
stepping strong,
boldly into future
and destiny

and I step confidently
On my right path
…because
she never taught me.

Lucas Dell
(16 years old)

Owed to Marilyn

Monday March 23, 12.42pm, I get an urgent phone call from Ant’s mum, Joan. She is looking for Ant. Marilyn has just been taken to hospital in an ambulance – seven minutes ago Joan tells me. I find Ant. He’s stoic. He’s on his way.

Later that day, at 6.12pm, I call Marilyn’s mobile phone. No answer. I leave no message. I call their home number. I feel awkward leaving a message, but I ask them – yes, ‘them’ – to call me back with an update when they have a chance.

Later that night, Ant calls me back. Marilyn died at 6.30pm.

Why all these detailed times? I don’t know. They have just stuck with me. Maybe because like the Superbowl this year, time is suddenly so much more valuable, so much more precious, so much more salient just near the end.

Ant and I continue our stereotypically, male telephone conversation.

“How you doing?” I ask.

“I’ve had better days.”

He has phone calls to make. He has family to support him. He seems ok.

I hang up.

And I cry.


The phantom which had given Marilyn breath, returned and sucked it away. That spark we call life was snuffed out.

I just felt hollow.


Thoughts of Marilyn flood my mind.

Marilyn always struck me as having the best of the American traits and none of the bad. For example, Marilyn was incapable of saying anything bad about anyone. Marilyn told me that one of my girlfriends was a ‘keeper’. As said girlfriend is now an ex, I think I can safely say Marilyn wasn’t always right. However, Marilyn’s falsely positive judgment did encourage me and X to produce a son, Zac – and he is a keeper.

The fourth Thursday of each November, Marilyn would invite all the American refugees to Thanksgiving dinner. The Seppos would bring enough food to remind us Aussies lucky enough to be invited that an entrée in American means all the food you can fit ‘on a tray.’

On a journey with Marilyn on the TGV across France one time, she talked to me about her family. Marilyn was an only-child. Her family were extremely long-lived. At the time, her mother was still alive. I remember remarking to Marilyn that she was in for a long life. I was clearly and sadly wrong.

While in France, Marilyn and I saw a proverb written on the walls of St Etienne Cathedral in Toulouse : “Fais ce que tu vouldrois avoir fait quand tu mourras.” Do now what you’d like to have done when you die.

On July 23, 2008, Marilyn called me to tell me that she had been diagnosed with cancer. I was overseas at the time. I didn’t know what to say. Later that day, I wrote to Marilyn: “I feel pretty helpless about your situation, and yep, I realise that what I feel is probably only a tiny little bit of what you feel. My thoughts are with you...” They still are.

Remembering the French proverb and our cross-cultural experiences, I chose to honour Marilyn while she lived with some token gifts – my treats, my choices.

I had always wanted to try the dégustation menu at the three-star French restaurant, Absynthe in Q1. I invited Marilyn and we went there on December 9 for a spectacular meal a few days after her most recent birthday.

I don’t know which birthday. Marilyn proved that women can keep a secret about some things. Nonetheless, I can say unequivocally that Marilyn had too few birthdays.

Some years ago, Marilyn and I had talked about trying a Grange Hermitage, the famed pinnacle of Australian wine. On February 19 this year, Marilyn and I and some others drank a Grange Hermitage. And yes, it was Grange ‘Hermitage,’ not simply Grange. Penfolds agreed to drop the word ‘Hermitage’ from their label in 1990 out of deference to the French gripe that Hermitage is not a grape, but rather a region in France. We drank Grange Hermitage. 1987. Made not long after Marilyn was born by my estimate.


My son, Zac is 6 years old, and knows Marilyn and Ant well. Ant even changed his nappy – once – kind of!

When I told Zac that Marilyn had died, he asked me, “Why?”

Is anyone surprised? A young child asks the question ‘why’ approximately 426 times a day.

The real question is this - are any of us listening?

Why?

Yes, why?

Douglas Adams, writer of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, has something to say on the question, ‘why?’ : “When you hear the word ‘why?,’ you know you’ve got one of the biggest unanswerables on your hands, such as ‘why are we born?’ or ‘why do we die?’ and ‘why do we spend so much of the intervening time receiving junk mail?’”

So what’s my answer to my son’s question ‘why?’

Life is a gift. And a gift that is frequently, and sadly overlooked.

Death is someone else’s gift to we the living. In letting go of life, Marilyn reminds us of the gift that we so often take for granted.

Of course, my son Zac doesn’t really understand these words. He does however understand the extra hugs and kisses that I’ve showered on him in the days since Marilyn’s death. Her gift is already working its magic. Even if my demonstrative affection leads Zac to ask me another inevitable ‘why?’ question : “Papa, you’re hugging and kissing me all the time, why?”

Just because!

And just 425 more ‘why’s’ to go today.

I want to thank Marilyn for her gifts to me. Both her own life which was a direct gift to me. And through her death which reminds me that the present is a gift.

I like to imagine I can hear Marilyn speaking some words written by Isabel Allende:

“There is no death…
People die only when we forget them…
If you can remember me,
I will be with you always.”

Thanks Marilyn for your wonderful gifts.

I owe you.

Marvelling at belief in miracles

(Circa 30 CE)

Arthur and a large group are following a man called Brian[1]: They believe that he is the messiah – and Brian is trying to dissuade them of their belief.

FOLLOWER#1: Give us a sign!

ARTHUR: He has given us a sign! He has brought us to this place!

BRIAN: I didn't bring you here! You just followed me!

FOLLOWER#1: Oh, it's still a good sign by any standard.

ARTHUR: Master! Your people have walked many miles to be with You! They are weary and have not eaten.

BRIAN: It's not my fault they haven't eaten!

ARTHUR: There is no food in this high mountain!

BRIAN: Well, what about the juniper bushes over there?

FOLLOWERS: Hhhh! A miracle! A miracle! Ohh!...

FOLLOWER#1: He has made the bush fruitful by His words.

FOLLOWER#2: They have brought forth juniper berries.

BRIAN: Of course they've brought forth juniper berries! They're juniper bushes! What do you expect?!

ARTHUR: It’s a miracle! In this high mountain with virtually no vegetation, you conjured up juniper bushes.

BRIAN: But you agree that juniper bushes can grow here – even if they are not numerous – right?

A: (Nods)

B: Well, wouldn’t a miracle be something a little more spectacular?

A: Like to raise someone from the dead?

B: But what makes that a miracle?

A: Because dead people, once dead, stay dead. That’s the law of nature.

B: But what if the dead person was my friend and accomplice? It is claimed he has died, but it ain’t so[2].

A: But you can’t fake death. If he’s not breathing, he’s dead[3].

B: He can hold his breath for a long time. He has been subsequently entombed for four days[4], cloistered away so no-one can confirm or disconfirm his deadness. When I roll back the stone from the front of the tomb, on my command, he walks out alive.

A: But that’s cheating!

B: It’s magic! You said earlier, I ‘conjured up juniper bushes.’ Perhaps I’m simply a master magician. If I am good at it, you might never know you have been duped.

A: What if I was to bring you someone I knew to be dead, someone you didn’t know.

B: Ah, so you would simply seek more evidence to support your supposition of a miracle. Not sure where this will end, but sure, let’s say you bring me someone newly dead.

A: Right.

Brian: What if I had some technique for resurrecting him. By striking a newly dead man in the chest, I am able to revive him.

A: That’s a miracle.

B: But what if any person could do it? Or even say a bolt of lightening could revive him. What then?

A: It would still be a miracle. Bringing someone back from the dead is a miracle under any circumstances.

B: But what if it is a technology that you simply don’t understand. Like magic[5]. For instance, do you think that turning water into acid counts as a miracle?

A: Don’t you mean water into wine?

B: What’s the difference? Aren’t they both against the law of nature?

A: I would be more impressed if you turned water into wine.

B: OK, so water into wine is a miracle, and water into acid is… something else!. Was the great flood not a miracle wrought by god? Not a lot of joy for those that missed the boat, ‘ark, ‘ark!.

A: God has his reasons which we cannot understand.

B: OK, but let’s return to who creates miracles later. For now, I want to nail down what type of event counts as a miracle. I’ll return to the stock standard of water into wine. If I added grape juice to the water, and turned it into wine, would that be a miracle?

A: No! We know that grape juice turns into wine anyway by law of nature.

B: Not always. Still, imagine the first person to discover wine. He foolishly left some grape juice in a vat for six months or so. Rather than throw it out, he tastes it and lo and behold, he tastes that it is good. How would he feel?

A: Pretty good!. However, it has been repeated so many times since, we now know that is an act of nature, it happens all the time.

B: Now. But not then! On the first occasion, it is a miracle, but with repetition it becomes a law of nature?

A: A miracle is an improbable, an infrequent event.

B: If time extends for not just millennia, but billions or trillions of years, something improbable becomes increasingly probable over time, so even that becomes a trivial way of defining miracles.

A: Look, people know a miracle when they see one.

B: Well, that’s not so clear to me. However, I’m not interested in quibbling about what constitutes a miracle. Does it not strike you as amazing that grape juice – water with some sugar in it – turns to wine? Imagine that is all happening through the operation of say a little animal that is invisible to our naked eye, it eats up the sugar and poops out alcohol. Is that not awe-inspiring?

A: Humph. Unlikely! Nevertheless, grape-juice to wine is indeed awe-inspiring.

B: OK. Is not life itself is a miracle. Life may be commonplace now, but it was not always so. The creation of life is a miracle. Even if only one life had been created, all subsequent generations from that one life would be amazing[6].

A: OK, yes, it is a miracle. You agreeing with me? Miracles prove that God exists?

B: Steady on. The existence of exceptional or extraordinary events may be labelled as miracles. However, I do not agree that miracles imply a sign of the hand of god. Why do you not simply doubt your understanding rather than attribute to it to be an act of god?[7]

A: But if the event were delivered in response to prayer, then wouldn’t that count as evidence of a miracle at the hands of God?[8]

B: OK. But whose god? The inhabitants of ancient Rome, Turkey, Thailand and China support their belief in their gods by pointing to miracles[9].

A: They are ignorant and barbarous peoples[10]. Their miracles are probably fabricated.

B: Which they would say about yours. Give me your reasons why you reject their evidence; they are the reasons I would use to reject your evidence!

A: Well, it is my god that performed their miracles.

B: As they would say about yours. Returning me to my key question. How can you ascribe a miracle – or anything else for that matter – to a god?

A: OK, maybe we can’t say which god, but it is a god, or even a collection of gods.

B: You might be encouraged by a fortuitous circumstance of an unusual event apparently coinciding with a request, but I do not think the evidence is compelling. Many prayers are unanswered, and I daresay many unusual events are unrequested! It is not clear that anyone ‘asked’ for creation or the great flood. In which case, we must conclude that some god decided to create these miracles of his own volition.

A: Well I already believe in God. So, I don’t need miracles to prove His existence. And given that I believe He exists, His existence gives me an explanation for miracles[11]. That’s one more explanation than you have!

B: So your belief in the existence of god has been established independently of miracles?

A: Yeah. And the existence of miracles simply serves to strengthen my belief in God.

B: Why do you need the arguments strengthened? Why would you or god bother to strengthen the argument if his existence is already established? We seem to agree that miracles can’t prove his existence. Just for interest, how is god’s existence established to your satisfaction.

A: Well, you said it yourself. The miracle of creation that gave rise to nature. Who could have created this complex world if not God? There must be a designer!

B: God is certainly one possible explanation, but not the only one. It could be that nature has provided us with an unlikely event. It maybe that Life, the universe and everything was created by some other entity[12]. Or perhaps it sprung into existence spontaneously. It seems no more unlikely to me than that god created it.

A: Is not God a simpler explanation[13]? God is the prime mover, the first cause, the creator all of nature – and the miracles that violate nature.

B: Your argument reduces to a singularity. God creates everything - nature, and all events violating nature. Is there some alternative against which we can test this idea? Besides, using god as an explanation still leaves us with the problem of explaining how god came to exist.

A: Nothing that I can imagine. Is that not as it should be? God is the ultimate beginning.

B: We are returning to what I would call magic. A miracle is an event for which we do not have an explanation. Neither miracle nor creation - nor nature by the same reasoning - proves the existence of god.

A: At some point, one must simply rely on faith. To do otherwise tempts eternal damnation[14].

B: That may well explain why so many are willing to believe in a god, but it does not prove that there is one entity – or more – who created everything.

A: Some things cannot be understood with reason. ‘I have neither hope nor expectation of convincing a skeptic simply by miracles’[15].

B: Ha! You would have me dismiss reason in this instance. Would not any man losing a debate seek to have their opponent abandon reason – especially if the opponent’s reasons do not fit the defender’s beliefs?

A: But aren’t miracles and everything prove there is a god.

B: I have an alternative theory… it proves you’re an ignorant and barbarous fool!

A: Ah, but didn’t that fellow Anselm say that ‘the fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. Does that not make you the fool?

B: Perhaps I am because Anselm said that a fool, with some understanding of God, would be forced to admit that he could not conceive that God does not exist.

A: Huh?

B: Yeah, that’s kind of how I feel too.

A: God you’re a pain to talk to.

B: They said the same about Socrates! Let’s call it quits. I agree there are miracles: (sings)

“Believe in miracles cause I’m one

I have been blessed with the power to survive

After all these years I’m still alive[16]”.

(Speaks) However, I do not agree that they are signs of god. I suggest you go help yourself to some of those miraculous juniper berries over there. I’m off to the tavern to sip in awe at a glass of wine. Divine!

---

[1] The section in italics is extracted from the script of The Life of Brian by Monty Python, 1979. The remainder of the script has been created to illustrate a variety of arguments for and against the existence of god based on miracles.

[2] Hume, ‘Of Miracles,’ R+W, p.498

[3] In 30CE, death would presumably have been established by breathing, the knowledge of heart and its measurement through pulse not having been understood then.

[4] John 11 recounts Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany who has been four days dead.

[5] C.f., Arthur C. Clarke’s observation that “Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

[6] Given that no other life has been yet found in the universe, the existence of life must count as an extreme, even singular example of an exceptional event, ‘E’ as defined by Swinburne in his paper, ‘Miracles’, R+W, p.500. As an interesting aside, the film The Life of Brian featured a bizarre scene where Brian was saved miraculously from a premature death, quite coincidentally, by a passing alien spaceship.

[7] Hume, ‘Of Miracles,’ R+W, p.495

[8] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R+W, p.505

[9] c.f., Hume, ‘Of Miracles’ R+W, p.496

[10] c.f., Hume, ‘On Miracles,’ R+W, p.496

[11] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R=W, p.505, from his argument that if god exists, then an explanation that an exceptional event “E is due to activity of a god is more adequately substantiated, and the occurrence of E gives further support to the evidence for the existence of a god.”

[12] Not to be confused with Douglas Adams, the author who did create a book entitled LIfe, the Universe and Everything

[13] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R+W, p.506 invokes Occam’s razor to justify god as the simplest explanation.

[14] Pascal’s Wager

[15] Kathryn Kuhlman, I believe in miracles, Gainesville, FL : Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1990, p.1

[16] “I believe in miracles” by The Ramones, 1986, later re-recorded by Pearl Jam, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwFydcnAVQ The Ramones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMvETKhyy7E Pearl Jam

No karma, no good ?

I think that the notion of karma, and the related notion of rebirth are bunk! So, if I don’t believe in karma, why would I do good? I believe that I do – but why? In this essay, I explore karma and the reason why people are good.

Karma Defined

Karma is defined as being about cause and effect. In Buddhism, karma is more correctly identified as ‘cause[1],’ it is the action that will eventually result in an effect.

Karma is likened to a seed that will ultimately bear a fruit (vipaka):

"According to the seed that’s sown,

So is the fruit you reap therefrom,

Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste the fruit thereof[2]."

This passage is strikingly similar to a section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians[3], the first verse being: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Finally, it is important to note that while karma is referred to as an action, karma is more about the intention underlying the action. However, it is acknowledged that actions originating from a deluded mind, even if well-intended, can sow a negative karmic seed[4].

So (the fruit of) karma provides a strong motivation to exercise good intentions and actions. But how is karma distinguished from an alternative motivation such as the Abrahamic god?

Karma vs. Abrahamic God

Karma says that good actions will attract positive outcomes later in this life or another. However, the Abrahamic god provides a similar reward-structure. Abrahamic scriptures say that a person’s actions will be rewarded or punished as appropriate in the afterlife, e.g., “As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens: a truly overflowing cup[5]”

Which reward structure is true? It seems impossible to know, at least here and now, although both Abrahamic apologists and Buddhists tell me that I will become aware of the truth of their position with the passage of time – although presumably only one can be correct. In this moment then, the choice appears to be a matter of personal preference.

I have a preference for karma as it encourages the individual to take responsibility for his/her actions. The Abrahamic view sometimes casts humans as helpless pawns at the mercy of God’s power (e.g., Job).

But what if one does not believe in karma or rebirth (or an afterlife)?

Belief and disbelief

While the Buddha exhorts his followers to believe in karma and rebirth, he acknowledges that there are few who can have direct knowledge or ‘experience’ of these two principles. Therefore, Buddhists must largely accept these ‘truths’ as acts of faith[6]. That is, they choose to believe; however, they do not know.

The skeptic is characterized as someone who falls short of believing. S/he is an ‘infidel,’ literally faithless, a non-believer[7]. There are however, a range of choices between believing and disbelieving. In the middle is doubt. The skeptic can range from doubt to strong disbelief. And strong disbelief, agnosticism as it was originally defined[8], is really an opposite belief. Agnostics believe (even ‘know’) that the knowledge is unobtainable.

The Buddha sees skepticism as “eel-wriggling”[9] However, the Buddha also encourages critical thinking about the claims of spiritual teachers[10]. So Buddha encourages skepticism of ‘authority’ on one hand, and encourages belief in principles without personal experience and on his authority on the other. Sounds like two eels intertwined to me!

Ultimately, the unknown is a matter of belief. It seems difficult to judge one belief as superior to another if the truth is unknown.

More pragmatically, the Buddha argues “that to believe in (the principles of karma and rebirth), and so live a moral life will lead to a good rebirth if rebirths exist. If rebirths do not exist, nothing will have been lost, and the person will in any case have been praised by wise people[11].”

Interestingly, this statement hints at why someone would be good – regardless of their belief or doubt in the concept of karma.

The problem of good

The problem of good can be stated as follows: if one does not believe in karma, what is the motivation to be good?

One obvious reason is the ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ in this life. A person may be complimented (“praised by wise people” as in the quote above), liked or receive other rewards for good deeds, and may be criticized, judged or punished for bad deeds. From this point of view, it is sensible for a person to be good – even without believing in karma.

Another reason is intrinsic motivation and that being good has its own rewards. Following the ‘right’ way feels good, deviating feels bad. The Epicurean philosophy of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain reflects a simple version of this notion[12]. More subtly, most ethical systems, religious or secular, encourage a person to strive for right conduct and a life worth living[13].

The notion of intrinsic rewards is well captured in the notion of “pay it forward” where the recipient of a good deed is invited to do a good deed for another. The original do-gooder does not get any direct reward; their only possible reward is the hope that someone else – and maybe many eventually – will benefit.

This idea does not invoke karma or any rewards after this life. While popularized by a 2000 film called Pay it forward, the practice is traced back to 1784[14] when Benjamin Franklin extended a loan to Benjamin Webb. Franklin invited Webb to ‘repay’ him by ‘lending’ the money to “another honest Man in similar Distress” in the future[15]. Franklin wrote “This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money.”

Therefore, karma motivates good actions, but good actions may have other motivations. There are many who are good even if they do not believe in the Buddhist form of karma.

So, karma is not needed to explain why people are good. How does it go in explaining bad actions and bad events?

The problem of evil

Buddhists argue that karma is a satisfactory explanation for the suffering (dukkha) of people “who have done nothing to deserve it in this life[16].” That is, their past actions in this or another birth account for what they are experiencing today. Buddhists further argue that the karmic balance sheet is inaccessible (“unthinkable”) to anyone but a Buddha[17].

The argument is similar to the Abrahamic argument asking believers to accept that god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. God’s actions cannot be understood by mortals, followers must trust that God treats people as they deserve and has (good) reasons for his actions[18].

Interestingly, Buddhism uses what is typically known as the ‘problem of evil’ to dismiss the notion of an Abrahamic God (identified as Brahma). Epicurus is often credited with being the first to describe this rebuttal for the existence of God:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;

or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"[19]

However, the argument from dukkha (suffering) is laid out by Buddha (who predated Epicurus) in the Bhûridatta Jataka which is in turn a story about one of the Buddha’s previous lives (therefore long predating Epicurus!):

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness? [20]

Dukkha appears to serve a more fundamental role in Buddhism – it is the first Holy Truth. So, is dukkha inevitable, or is it a consequence of karma?

The Four Truths & karma

The first Truth states that there is dukkha. The second that dukkha comes from cravings. However, karma states that dukkha comes from past actions. The second Truth and karma are not inconsistent – the second Truth focuses on proximal causes, karma on distal causes – but they do give cause to pause on the issue of cause.

I accept the first Truth, but I do not believe karma. I have experienced dukkha but not karma. My lack of belief about karma does nothing to discredit the validity of the Four Truths. I acknowledge that I create dukkha through my cravings (second Truth). Of course, I seek to end dukkha (third Truth), and I believe that the Eightfold Path is an appropriate approach (fourth Truth).

Interestingly, given that I do not believe in rebirth, I have at least relinquished my craving for existence beyond this life, and presumably, I have made at least some tentative steps towards the Buddhist ideal of ‘not-self.’

Conclusions

Overall, I find Buddhist (and Abrahamic) cosmological views challenging as they are supported with little to no evidence. They are therefore, a matter for personal belief.

Moreover, I see such beliefs as irrelevant. It is as in the Buddha’s Parable of the Arrow where a man wounded by an arrow asks the name of the archer[21]. Such knowledge is irrelevant. So it is with karma. I am concerned about finding the right path in this life. To know the truth of karma is for me, irrelevant.

---

[1] Harvey, P. An introduction to Buddhism: teachings, history and practices, p.39, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism, accessed 9oct08

[2] Samyutta Nikaya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyutta_Nikaya, accessed 9oct08

[3] Galatians, 6.7-10

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma, accessed9oct08

[5] The Koran, 78th surah entitled “The Tidings” (or Al-Naba’), Dawood, N.A. (trans.), p. 417. It is interesting to note that Islam like Buddhism appears to favour

[6] Harvey, p.44

[7] http://www.answers.com/topic/infidel, accessed 10oct08

[8] Thomas Huxley created the term ‘agnostic’ and defined the ‘strong’ position : “They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.” Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays, 237-239

[9] Harvey, p.14

[10] Anguttara Nitaya, I.189, cited by Harvey, p.30

[11] Harvey, p.44, paraphrasing Majjhima Nikaya I.403, Harvey’s emphasis

[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus, accessed 10oct08

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics, accessed 11oct08

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward, accessed 9oct08

[15] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Franklin_to_Benjamin_Webb, accessed 9oct08

[16] Harvey, p.44

[17] Anguttara Nikaya, IV.77, cited by Harvey, p.41

[18] e.g., see Job, 34.10-13

[19] Haught, James A., 2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People With the Courage to Doubt, 1996

[20] Bhuridatta Jataka, VIII, http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_03.htm, accessed 8oct08

[21] Majjhima Nikaya 1.426, cited by Nelson, Peter, “The Buddha: Our Spiritual ‘Contemporary’”, originally published Westender Vol. 5(3), April, 2002, http://www.buddhanet.net/spiritual-contemporary.htm, accessed 26sep08

The Stephening Standard (v6, 2007)

Zac at MiniSchool
in 2007
wearing his favourite
Holden t-shirt

Editoral - Life at Last

If you wake up, it is a good day…you’re alive at least. Getting the annual newsletter from Stephen may not make it a good day, but at least you know he is still alive.

The year 2007 was a very big year for me. It was not all good, and not all bad. Two big events are discussed in the following However, 2007 was a major turn-around year for me and that was great.

The big news in the here and now is that Zac started ‘Big School’ yesterday. I am proud to say that I did not cry – at least not while anyone was looking. So 2008 is looking great…but now, for a brief review of the highlights of 2007.

Papa & Zac
building card houses
at the weekly
French conversation
breakfast

The Good News - Lost in Love

The sometimes annual Latin Ball at Bond University happened on Friday, March 16, 2007. As I was walking toward the venue, I saw a ravishing dark-haired beauty standing looking a little lost.

She turned to ask me if I knew the location of the Princeton Room which was the location of the Latin Ball. It was with great pleasure that I offered to accompany her there…and beyond as it later turned out.

However, it was not ever too easy between us. Is it ever? Jeanette had been invited to the Ball by one of my friends, Marie-Claire. Marie-Claire as a perpetual match-maker had rather hoped that Jeanette might hook up with a particular fellow at the Ball – not me! This other guy quickly made it clear he shared the same hope. To fuel his hope, he had the good fortune to end up on the same table as Jeanette.

The odds against me seemed long, but I was not giving up. I managed to snatch some dances and some brief conversation with Jeanette when her attentive companion let his guard down briefly – for the call of nature or the bar or perhaps both as one seems inevitably to lead to the other. I later got her number from Marie-Claire, gave her a call, and we went from there.

Zac, Jeanette, Mac and Keaton

However, some challenges remained. Jeanette was in the process of embarking on an effort to immigrate to the US. She planned to join her sister who lives there. Together they wanted to help their parents living in South Africa to immigrate to the US.

Ultimately, Jeanette decided to head to the US. She did ask if I would go too – ironically to Jacksonville, Florida about 60 minutes from Gainesville where I lived when studying in the US in the 90s.

However, as the other love of my life lives with me one week out of every two, and his other week is with his mother who lives just 15 minutes from my home, I declined her offer.

And so it ended. I learned that I am capable of loving again, and I’m still capable of attracting challenging women! Despite that, I thoroughly enjoyed our six-month sojourn.

Bad News - Suspicion & Intrigue

August 21, 2007 was a crap day to begin with, and it only got worse. The weather sucked…it was rainy, windy and all-round miserable. I was with my neighbour and his two boys, Mac and Keaton (you can see them in the picture with Jeanette and Zac). Mac had been with Zac and me for the afternoon. Mac’s dad and his other brother, Keaton, had come around to join the fun.

A ring at the doorbell heralded the end of the fun for me although I did not know it at the time. At my door were three police officers and two child safety officers.

In short, it was alleged (by an anonymous person) I was sexually abusing Zac. I was given no alternative but to submit to an interview myself, and to subsequently submit Zac to an interview with these same people without me or anyone that he knew present.

I will not go into further details here other than to say that after about 30+ minutes, the five people left without any apology and simply telling me that they felt there was no substantiation for the case made. It was a dark day as you can imagine.

Further details (read : an impassioned account of the event that I wrote the day after) elsewhere on this blog (see August 2007). One piece is entitled ‘confessions of a putative child abuser’; the other is a brief essay ‘on the nature of abuse’.

I survived, Zac has appeared to have come through the process unscathed thankfully.

The lesson to learn here is that it takes years to build up trust, and it only takes suspicion, not proof, to destroy it. The other lesson is that when whatever hits the fan, it is not going to be distributed evenly.

(Above and Left)

A labyrinth
on Coolangatta Beach
that I built with some mates

But Wait, There’s More

As noted earlier, lot of things changed for me in 2007. I won the right in court to move to week about with Zachary in December – and that is now in place and Zac appears to be very happy with it.

I also won the right to take Zac away on extended overseas holidays beginning in 2010.

I have cut back to a 50% contract in my job at Bond University in order to be able to look after Zac half time.

I have also taken up study again. I am currently studying towards a MA in philosophy and sociology. I hope to give more detail on this project at the end of this year.

I hope 2008 is great year for you & yours.

Cheers, Stephen.

Dejeuner au Chateau Larrieu
just south of Toulouse in June