On The Importance of Being Idle

"Man was created to work; not to speculate, or feel, or dream." Thomas Carlyle.

I like to think that idleness is the virtuous vice, if such a thing is indeed possible. Work ethics are ten a dozen which outright condemn idleness or laziness as a great offense to human nature, if not the greatest of offenses. The Bible lists Sloth, or laziness, as one of the seven deadly sins, leading indirectly to the popular idiom, "The Devil makes work for idle hands". Writer Walter Gaston Shotwell once wrote; "The real source of almost all our crimes, if the trouble is taken to trace them to a common origin, will be found to be in idleness." This view was shared by automobile manufacturer Henry Ford, who stated once; "Nobody can think straight who does not work. Idleness warps the mind." However, I am disposed to think that idleness has got a raw deal in over 2,000 years of religious-inspired diatribes against sluggardliness, and it appears that I am not the only one. First, I have pre-eminent Philosopher Bertrand Russell on my side, who in 1932 wrote the essay "In Praise of Idleness" (which you can read here). Within the essay, Russell saw that great harm was caused by furthering the view that work in itself has a virtuous nature, because the need to work has decreased so substantially since the Middle Ages. He argued in favour of a 4-hour working day, claiming that "the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work." He saw that humanity did a lot more work that was actually necessary, and humorously categorised work into just two separate forms; "first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so." With so much administration, bureaucracy and other matters, the actual work that counts is often lost amongst piles of paperwork. Russell claimed that with more free time, the useful output of humanity would be greater than that of making everyone work instead, because everyone would do want they were genuinely interested in. Perhaps Russell was slightly too optimistic about the limits of human nature, but it is an interesting idea to say the least.

Russell's view cannot be said to hold any popular sway whatsoever; in fact, it cannot really even be called typically 'unpopular' in general terms because hardly anyone advocates it today. However, various statistics demonstrate that as our productivity has increased per head in developed countries, overall happiness has decreased amongst most of the population. It is also shown to be the case that over a certain earnings boundary, happiness does not increase in line with income. The reason for this decrease in happiness? It's mainly all about "keeping up with the Joneses". For example, imagine you're an office worker. You see your fellow workers getting promotions and pay rises, but you have been skipped over. Naturally, you're unhappy about this and work to rectify it by putting in extra effort at work, making your life more stressful as a result. But suppose everyone was earning less, and working less. You wouldn't feel the need to push yourself to worry and fret about lagging behind, because the gap between salaries wouldn't be so great. So everyone ends up working less, but is happier in the long run. Overall income is unimportant; it is your relative wealth compared to everyone else. Of course, this is quite a Communistic way of thinking, but I say that if everyone is happier because of it, there seem to be only a few downsides. Most people do not get happiness out of work; they get it from leisure activities, which can often be part of idleness, e.g. sunbathing.

A current champion of idleness may be said to be Tom Hodgekinson, writer and Editor of the bi-Annual magazine, "The Idler", a publication devoted to idle living. In 2004, he wrote an excellently brilliant article in The Guardian entitled "The Virtue of Idleness" (please be sure to read it here), which furthers the thought that idleness is an important part of life, and expels the idea that rising early somehow makes you a better person. As he writes; "...from early childhood we are tyrannised by the moral myth that it is right, proper and good to leap out of bed the moment we wake in order to set about some useful work as quickly and cheerfully as possible. Parents begin the brainwashing process and then school works yet harder to indoctrinate its charges with the necessity of early rising." Being someone who also has a tendency to stay awake late and then rise late, his story of how, as a student, he attempted to play the album "It's Alive" by The Ramones in order to wake up early, but instead ended up turning the volume down and climbing back into bed is very familiar. Hodgekinson also goes on to expose some of the myths which were circulated surrounding early rising. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who himself apparently used to wake at 4am each morning, wrote a sermon in 1786 called "The Duty and Advantage of Early Rising", in which he claimed that staying in bed too long was extremely bad for your health and essentially caused muscular atrophy; "By soaking so long between warm sheets, the flesh is as it were parboiled, and becomes soft and flabby." I on the other hand would have to agree with Hodgekinson that rising late is no indication of your moral worth, or indeed lack of motivation, self-interest or determination. I am perfectly able to take action during different hours of the day, not those which society imposes upon me. As he wrote; "Late rising is for the independent of mind, the individual who refuses to become a slave to work, money, ambition."

Hodgekinson goes on to point out that there are other apparent supporters of being occasionally sluggardly. For those in need of some kind of religious idea, they need look no further than the book which most say directly opposes laziness; The Bible. Within it, work was created during the Fall of Man as a curse created by the serpent. Eden was a paradise where work did not exist. Furthermore, as Paul Lafargue, son-in-law of Karl Marx wrote in his treatise, "The Right to be Lazy" in 1883, God himself is the ultimate slacker; after working solidly for six days, he now rests for eternity. How does the famous detective Sherlock Holmes solve his cases? Why, by sitting around 221b Baker Street in his smoking jacket, smoking his pipe and simply thinking. The idea that idleness is purely time-wasting is also false. Descartes, the dualist Philosopher, was a man who was highly disinclined to rise early, and enjoyed cogitating on matters in bed. Indeed, it is probably because Descartes spent so much time thinking about the mind-body problem rather than physical work that he established his idea of Cartesian dualism. This introspection is something that the modern world has lost touch with, as we are constantly 'doing', with little time for serious thought. When Henry David Thoreau went into the woods to live in solitude to write "Walden", his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson decried that there was "something unmanly, something almost dastardly" about the endeavour, because he was abandoning the rat race. Yet the work which Thoreau created during that time has been hailed as one of the greatest introspective works of all-time. Thoreau stated; "I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." Idleness gave him a chance to do this.

But the main reason I believe in idleness is that it allows us to dream. I began with a quote from Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle, who also wrote that "Every idle moment is treason." The Protestant-style work ethic of modern society is filled with similar sentiment, imposing on us a world where every waking moment must be filled by useful action, where we must rise early if we are to be considered morally upstanding, and where inaction is bordering on criminal. We must be productive, useful members of society, striving for greater profits, greater prestige. People who do not do so are rouge, unnatural elements, which should be stamped out. Get in line, shut up, and be a good member of society. But where in this picture is the chance to sit back and dream? To freethink? Did Capitalism kill our imagination? Without dreams and imagination, we are nothing more than ants, stuck in our hive entity, endlessly working for no purpose other than our survival. I'm not advocating a life devoid of work by any means, but what I am suggesting is that our villainisation of idleness and championship of the greatness of work is almost wholly incorrect. Utilitarian John Stuart Mill once wrote that it was "better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." I don't see any reason why humans beings (and Socrates) can't be satisfied with what we already have got.

"The man who is really, thoroughly, and philosophically slothful is the only thoroughly happy man. It is the happy man who benefits the world. The conclusion is inescapable." Christopher Morley (from "On Laziness", 1920).

Death of a Showman

The infamous legend that is Michael Jackson has died. Now, I will freely admit that I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson; the man, whatsoever really. The scandals, the weirdness of colour and facial changes and generally creepy nature in recent decades; none of this ingratiated himself to me in any shape or form. However, when you examine his music from the 1980's and prior, is just something else. Songs such as "Billie Jean" and "You Gotta Be Startin' Somethin'"; they are just excellent, timeless Pop songs, with a beat and rhythm that is addictive and funky. This is what his legacy is and always will be; the music. "Thriller" revolutionised what is today thought of as the music video, and is still the top-selling albums of all-time, even better that The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". This is what he gave to the music industry and the world, and this is what we should take from it. Frankly, I am not interested in his personal life, sordid or otherwise. All I know is that Michael Jackson was an excellent musical artist, for who the 1980's were his playground. In terms of his impact on popular music, he has to be up there with Elvis. They are both King's of their respective areas of music; for Elvis it was Rock 'n' Roll, for Jackson it was Pop. Naturally there is likely to be pretty large fallout about this story, considering how big Jackson had become. The controversy just seemed to make him more interesting for the media, even if rather unsavoury.

And of course, Jackson wasn't just a solo artist, although that was really when he was king. During his childhood and into teenage years, he was part of Motown and the incredible Jackson 5, who were ruthlessly trained (and apparently abused) by their father, and trailblazing for Funk with "I Want You Back". His voice back then was just incredible, and of course it really remained so for many years. A troubled child, and a troubled man, but a brilliant, world-class musician. Anyway, on to something else I think. I can never sustain a single topic for more than one and a half paragraphs. I just don't have the willpower, sadly. I recall that Glastonbury begins tomorrow. Not going, but I might watch some of it on the BBC. Crosby, Stills & Nash are there, as well as their occasional bandmate Neil Young. Of course, Bruce Springsteen is on tomorrow, which is the biggest thing. You can't mess with The Boss, with some excellent music. He's also managed to do a Bob Dylan by keeping the great music rolling in during recent years. "Radio Nowhere" from "Magic" is an excellent song. Sure, his latest album of "Working on a Dream" was a bit disappointing, but I'm sure The Boss still has some more great tunes inside him. Why is music so important to people? I can't really express why I find music important personally. I suppose it's a form of emotional connection, rather like a novel. It's a kind of performing art that stimulates and entertains, but also lets you imagination run wild. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

And though you fight to stay alive,
Your body starts to shiver,
For no mere moral can resist,
The evil, of the Thriller!

The Man in the High Castle

I must like the novels of Philip K. Dick quite a bit, because I've recently bought his seminal work; "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", from which the film "Blade Runner" is based on, and already own a few other of his novels. Before that, I've already read the titular novel here, "The Man in the High Castle", which is set in a future where the Nazis and the Japanese won the Second World War and divided the United States between them. Beyond that, I've also read "Time Out of Joint", which is about a man called Ragle Gumm apparently living in 50's suburbia where things are not what they seem, especially concerning the fact that he wins the local newspaper competition every day. Also there is "Ubik", which is quite confusing but is basically a futuristic story about a group of people who are searching for their boss, who has seemingly died in an explosion. In general terms, Dick's novels are occasionally difficult to follow, because you are never sure of what is real, and what is synthetic. Characters themselves may even be not real, and the world is anything but stable. The backstory to "The Man in the High Castle" is especially interesting. The point of convergence from reality is 15th February 1933, when Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but instead killed Chicago city Mayor Anton Cermak. In the novel, Zangara succeeds in assassinating Roosevelt, meaning that Vice President-elect John Nace Garner became the 32nd President of the United States in March 1933 instead.

Unfortunately, Garner was not able to pull America out of the Great Depression. The Second World War breaks out as normal in 1939, but the United States refuses to be drawn into the fighting, or even to support the Allies in any way. In 1940, Garner loses the election to Republican John W. Bricker, who continues to pull America down a path of isolationism. In 1941, the Nazis manage to capture Moscow and with it the rest of the Soviet Union, systematically exterminating most of the population, whilst rounding up those who remain into confined, Gulag-esque internment camps. When the Japanese launch their attack on Pearl Harbor, it completely cripples the US Pacific Fleet, and actually allows for the invasion of Hawaii. Eventually, the Japanese conquer all of Australia, New Zealand and Oceania, whilst the Nazis, without the USSR to deal with on the Eastern Front, launch Operation Sea Lion and invade the United Kingdom. By the end of the war in 1948, the Nazis and the Japanese have invaded and occupied the mainland United States, splitting it between them. The Eastern Seaboard is controlled by Nazi Germany, the Rocky Mountain States act as a kind of autonomous buffer-zone, and the Western Seaboard is administered by Japan. Fascinating alternative plotline which isn't really discussed in detail during the actual novel itself. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has started out great as well.

A War Built in 45 Minutes

The Second Persian Gulf War (or the Iraq War) was built on lies, fuelled by lies, and now continues to collapse, surrounded by mountains on unanswered questions. The thing that still makes me squirm is the nasty business surrounding the dirty September dossier, and the death of Dr. David Kelly. I don't mean I suspect conspiracy in his actual death; I think it is incredibly sad and unfortunate that he committed suicide. What I hate is that the government pressured him so much, set him up as their fall-guy, and then did not take responsibility for causing his death, because the stress was what really got to him and drove him to commit suicide. The Channel 4 documentary "The Government Inspector" really brings it home. I only recently got around to watching that. And even now, they still refuse to acknowledge that they, indirectly, killed Kelly. Plus, the September Dossier was filled with what can only be described as downright lies. The Hutton Inquiry was not appropriate in simply blaming the BBC and journalist Andrew Gilligan totally, and the government not taking any responsibility for their actions. Alright, I'm pretty sure that Gilligan was simply reporting Dr. Kelly's fears and personal thoughts about the 45 minute claim rather than the actual truth of the matter, but that is a separate issue concerning verifiability in journalism. I may have to agree with The Independent that the Hutton Inquiry was "Whitewash". The September Dossier was definitely 'sexed up', and it's quite plain to see.

Rather in fact similar to what is going on now in Iran with their election disputes, and the blacked out MP's expenses claims available online in this country. Politics continues to be irrefutably interesting. You'd have thought it would have given up the ghost by now, but no. That is politics for you. Too much spin, not enough substance. I think the major downfall of all politicians is failure to admit defeat or mistakes. And even when mistakes are admitted, it is in a half-hearted manner, such as "We took a beating, but we'll come back stronger than ever." I've never heard of a fully, unreserved apology or respectful defeat. This Iran business is a sticky situation, because the region is so volatile to begin with. I can only forecast that in the short term, there are going to be a number of demonstrations and other engagements, but I don't know if it will spark another 1979. The election results are very suspicious though, given the fact that some areas managed to have more people voting than were actually eligible, and results being announced before polling had actually closed. We will just have to wait and see how it all pans out I suppose.

Belshazzar's Lost

The titular King of Babylon's feast is the origin of the saying; "The writing on the wall". I normally don't take much store from Bible stories being an agnostic, but when it is combined with a great Johnny Cash song then I don't really mind. Plus, the history is reasonably interesting. This Bible story also is based in fact, because someone called Belshazzar definitely existed, as it is proved by the existence of the Cylinder of Nabonidus. Nabonidus had a son named Belshazzar, as the cylinder states; "...and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart." And don't get started on the infamous Shroud of Turin. Anyway, let's move on. Mitchell & Webb have returned with a third series of their sketch show. What killed the sketch show? I'm not sure, but maybe it's that Monty Python did it so well, and nobody can really equal them. Maybe the sketch show was just always flawed from the start. This series seems very much like the others; great sketches in between some quite awful ones. However, because it's David Mitchell and Robert Webb, they are likely to keep getting commissions because they are so well known and popular already.

Although I started writing this a few days ago, it's now Friday (thus how I am able to talk about Mitchell and Webb with a better idea for the show), and I can tell you that there is a much better "sketch" type show which began on Thursday night. It's from the makers of "The League of Gentlemen", and is just as creepy, dark and sadistically twisted as before, if not more so. It's called "Psychoville". It's just... weird. But that is the greatest thing about it, it's just so weird. I don't think I will ever forget "This is a local shop, for local people! There's nothing for you here!" I'll be interested to see what directions the series moves in. Eurgh, I'm getting a sore throat. Damn it with this summer cold! My family have given it to me. That's the thing about family; you might love them to bits, but they also make you ill sometimes. Occasionally you can be infuriated with them, but it won't last. They always have the best intentions, even if sometimes your own can come to naught. I sound like Robert Burns, although not nearly as Scottish.

Monday's Dead

Feeling rather tired-eyed and tired generally at the moment. Wearing sunglasses seems to help. It's all this bright sunshine, streaming in through my window. I'd close the curtains but I want a bit of a breeze to combat the hot air the computer is churning out, and the only way to do that is to leave the curtains and pull down the blind instead. Still, rain is supposedly coming, so it doesn't matter that much. The weather is glorious at the moment though, so we must enjoy it whilst it lasts. The garden seems to have picked up several tropical looking plants which I'm sure aren't native to the country. If I believed everything I read in Science Fiction, I would say they looked rather like Triffids, although without the stinging tentacle arm-thing. To other news, I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue has returned to Radio 4. Stephen Fry, Jack Dee and Rob Brydon are filling in as the chairperson, since the death of Humphrey Lyttelton. No one can be truly said to have 'replaced' Humph, but I am glad they didn't cancel the programme entirely. Victoria Wood was also on the programme for the first time, and certainly is a welcome addition who provided some of the funnier moments. Samantha was away, Stephen Fry had 'Sven' as his assistant instead. I wanted to hear a round of Mornington Cresent, but sadly it was missed. It will definitely be in the series though, I'm sure. It's definitely my favourite game which is played.

Looking back, I know I've done this before considering the Rooftop Concert and Candlestick Park, but another event I wish I could have witnessed would be The Beatles live at Shea Stadium on 14th August, 1965. Watching footage on YouTube, it looked utterly mental in every concievable way. The noise when they walked onto the field was deafening, and it didn't abate for the entire time they were on stage. A plethora of security guards had to try and stop girls who were jumping over the security barriers and running across the outfield, all whilst putting their hands over their ears because the noise was so loud. Even listening to the recording of the song "Everybody's Trying to be My Baby" on Anthology 2, I'm surprised The Beatles were able to sing in time, considering they probably couldn't hardly hear themselves or their instruments at all. In fact, towards the end of their set, John Lennon started playing the keyboard with his elbows and they had no idea of the sound they were making. Sure, I'm certain that as a spectator, you probably could hardly see the band (let alone hear them) on their small stage in the middle of the field, but it wasn't really about the music that night. It was all about Beatlemania. If anything, it was quite frightening the mass hysteria that the group generated at the time, with girls crying, screaming and fainting in the stands. It must be said, you don't really get that happening these days.