Running

I had to miss the Gosport half-marathon; I still have a lingering cough.

It's the Luton relay next weekend. I hope I'm up to that one. It's now two weeks since I have done any running at all.

Wrist Result

I've just been told "no abnormalities seen" on my wrist x-ray.

I guess that means it's just a soft tissue problem and needs stretching and exercise.

(I'm nearly over the head-cold, I think).

Buying Strings

I've just been ordering some bass guitar strings online.

Is it just me? Or do shopping sites for guitar strings look strangely like sites for buying condoms? Maybe it's the use of black as background colour. Maybe it's the brand names. Maybe it's the way they're so much cheaper online than in the shops. It's one of those things where, if you buy online, it's cheap, but if you want one in a shop, they reckon you want it now, and aren't really going to be comparison-shopping...

Anyway, I've looked at the "super longs" and the "double ball ends", considered "La Bella" and "Elite" brands, and decided whether I want them ribbed or smooth, and finally ordered myself a pack of D'Addario EXL220 supersoft.

Dawkins part 3

I've just re-read chapter 4 of The God Delusion, which Dawkins says "contained the central argument of my book". The chapter is called "Why there almost certainly is no God".

Just to make it easier, he summarises the argument briefly in six numbered steps at the end of the chapter. I can summarise it even more briefly, as follows: "the main argument for the existence of God is that someone must have designed all these incredible creatures we see around us. But now we know about evolution, that argument fails. So God doesn't exist."

Huh? It's just another Dawkins book about evolution? Is that it?

He seems to think that demolishing one argument for the existence of God, proves that God "almost certainly" doesn't exist. That's a logical fallacy, known as the "straw man". Refuting one argument FOR something doesn't disprove it, or even lower its probability.

Two further points:

(a) in the body of the chapter (but not in the summary) he suggests that God must be very improbable, because if you accept that the world as we see it is improbable (and I'm not at all sure what that would mean), and you invoke a designer to design it to get round the improbability, then, he says, "the designer has got to be at least as improbable" as the world he designs. That statement (in bold) is made without any justification, as far as I can see.

(b) he notices that evolution doesn't explain how the universe came to exist. But, he says (point 6), "we should not give up hope of a better [explanation] arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology".

"We should not give up hope" ! It's nice to see that Dawkins has faith.

(Reminder: I don't believe in God).

Music

Totally stuck in my head at the moment: Push The Button by The Chemical Brothers (borrowed from Karen).

Don't you just hate it when music does that to your head?

(It's not entirely dissimilar to Vertigo by Groove Armada, or Leftism by Leftfield, which had similar effects. I still really like Vertigo.)

Unlucky

I had a call from a headhunter a couple of weeks ago. (This happens about three times a year).

As is usual, he asked for my email address, so he could email me, so that I would then have his, and could email him my CV. Then nothing happened. This is not unusual.

Then a week later he phoned me to ask why I hadn't sent the CV. "I didn't get an email from you" I said. He checked and discovered he'd mistyped my email address.

So then I sent him the CV. And then a week later he left a message on my voicemail to ask why I hadn't sent the CV. And then another saying sorry, he'd found it, the cat had eaten it or something. Or the email server had eaten it. So he had got it after all. And would I please phone him. No indication of what I'm to phone about.

I just have this uncomfortable feeling that, although I've done everything he's asked, quickly and correctly, somehow he's finding me difficult. And I just don't want to do business with someone that makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not a good start. To put it another way, none of this is probably his fault -- he's just been unlucky -- and I've decided I don't ever want anything to do with unlucky people. So I don't think I'll be calling him back.

Maybe it'll be the biggest mistake I've ever made. But I've decided it's not worth living with those "hmmmm" feelings.

By contrast, a man came round a couple of weeks ago and said "I'm painting the windows of a house up the street, shall I do yours, £500 guvnor" and I just liked him so I said "yes please" and we shook on it -- all done in two minutes. It seems to have worked out OK.

I have a cold

... but you can't catch it by reading this. So I'm not doing any running for now.

Gosport half marathon next weekend. If I'm sufficiently better.

Last weekend was nice. I had a hypnosis "CPD" seminar on Saturday, then spent the evening with Karen, and visited Brighton for a RW lunchtime social on Sunday while K was on a course. As is not unusual, fewer people turned up for the social than expected -- it was blooming freezing that day, and then it rained, and anyone who'd actually run probably needed a hot bath rather than a session in the pub. Still, I quite like a small but perfectly formed social. I met a couple of people I knew, and a couple of new ones.

I suspect part of the attendance problem is caused by a tendency of some people to post, the day of the event or the day before, something like "Is this still on?" casting doubt upon it, or "that pub isn't very nice, why don't we meet in X other pub" throwing everyone into doubt as to where we'll meet. It happened at Beachy Head too. If you don't catch these "fear and doubt" posts in time and answer them firmly, it confuses everyone. There ought to be severe punishments for posting such things shortly before an event. "I just wondered", they'll say, having confused the hell out of everyone. We always meet in Horatio's in Brighton, and yes, it isn't all that nice, but it's always empty and always easy to find .... and then the day before, someone posted "shall we meet somewhere else"...

The hypnosis thing was good. I learned some useful techniques, not mainly from the presentation itself, more from talking to a few full-time professional hypnotherapists in the break.

Bl**dy Cleaners

My apologies to those who've already seen me rant about this, but it does take me back to college days.

See this. And keep a straight face.

The gist of the story is that the cleaners let themselves into this chap's (locked) bedroom with a master key, and found him involved in some rather comical sexual practice.
They've complained, and he's been given ... a criminal record.

For doing something privately in his own locked bedroom. Totally outrageous.

A job for the Lords, nay, the European Court of Human Rights, I say.

We used to have cleaners like that when I was in college. "We did knock first..." yeah right, I've heard that one before.

Numerology

Someone pointed me to a website where it works out your personality by numerology from the letters of your full name. Nonsense, obviously. One of those amusing web things.
Here's what it said about me:

Your number is: 7

The characteristics of #7 are: Analysis, understanding, knowledge, awareness, studious, meditating.

The expression or destiny for #7:
Thought, analysis, introspection, and seclusiveness are all characteristics of the expression number 7. The hallmark of the number 7 is a good mind, and especially good at searching out and finding the truth. You are so very capable of analyzing, judging and discriminating, that very little ever escapes your observation and deep understanding. You are the type of person that can really get involved in a search for wisdom or hidden truths, often becoming an authority on whatever it is your are focusing on. This can easily be of a technical or scientific nature, or it may be religious or occult, it matters very little, you pursue knowledge with the same sort of vigor. You can make a very fine teacher, or because of a natural inclination toward the spiritual, you may become deeply emerged in religious affairs or even psychic explorations. You tend to operate on a rather different wavelength, and many of your friends may not really know you very well. The positive aspects of the 7 expression are that you can be a true perfectionist in a very positive sense of the word. You are very logical, and usually employ a quite rational approach to most things you do. You can be so rational at times that you almost seem to lack emotion, and when you are faced with an emotional situation, you may have a bit of a problem coping with it. You have excellent capabilities to study and learn really deep and difficult subjects, and to search for hidden fundamentals. At full maturity you are likely to be a very peaceful and poised individual.

If there is an over supply of the number 7 in your makeup, the negative aspects of the number may be apparent. The chief negative of 7 relates to the limited degree of trust that you may have in people. A tendency to be highly introverted can make you a bit on the self-centered side, certainly very much self-contained . Because of this, you are not very adaptable, and you may tend to be overly critical and intolerant. You really like to work alone, at your own pace and in your own way. You neither show or understand emotions very well.

Your Soul Urge number is: 9

A Soul Urge number of 9 means:
With a 9 Soul Urge, you want to give to others, usually in a humanitarian or philanthropic manner. You are highly motivated to give friendship, affection and love. And you are generous in giving of your knowledge and experience. You have very sharing urges, and you are likely to have a great deal to share. Your concern for others makes you a very sympathetic and generous person with a sensitive and compassionate nature.

You are able to view life in very broad and intuitive terms. You often express high ideals and an inspirational approach to life. If you are able to fully realize the potential of your motivation, you will be a very self-sacrificing person who is able to give freely without being concerned about any return or reward.

As with all human beings, you are prone to sometimes express the negative attitudes inherent to your Soul Urges. You may become too sensitive and tend to express emotions strongly at times. There can be significant conflict between higher aims and personal ambitions. You may resent the idea of giving all of the time and, in fact, if there is too much 9 energy in your nature you may reject the idea. You may often be disappointed in the lack of perfection in yourself and others.

Your Inner Dream number is: 7

An Inner Dream number of 7 means:
You dream of having the opportunity to read, study, and shut yourself off from worldly distractions. You can see yourself as a teacher, mystic, or ecclesiastic, spending your life in the pursuit of knowledge and learning.

Provisional Diary

November, continued. Will be updated as events unfold.

Weds 14th - working in Staines

Sat 17th - Hypnosis Continuing Professional Development Kingston Hospital 2->5pm

Sun 18th - Social noon-ish on the pier after Brighton 10k (I am not in the race)

Tues 20th - Choir

Weds 21st - Bass lesson

Sun 25th - Gosport half marathon

Fri 30th - Christmas RW Social in London (Doggetts pub)

Sat 1st December - Choir rehearsal afternoon, then 5 rhythms dance Tufnell Park evening

Sun 2nd December - big RW gathering Luton, race in morning, social in evening, stopping over

iPhone

Someone at the party last Saturday was showing off their new iPhone.

"I was just passing the shop, and went in and bought one! No queues, no difficulty getting one..." they said.

I resisted saying "doesn't that tell you something?"

Fret Ye Not

I have been and gone and purchased a Yamaha RBX270F in green. That'll be my Christmas from everyone. It's a lovely fretless bass guitar, which means it can sound a bit more like a double bass for playing jazz-like stuff.


I was thinking of buying a big f***-off amplifier too, but the man in the shop embarrassed me out of it by saying "oh, are you gigging then?" to which I had to answer no.

Poliakoff

I watched some television last night, which is unusual for me. It was a rare TV appearance of Maggie Smith, who is nearly always worth seeing (Miss Jean Brodie, A Private Function...). This time in a drama by Stephen Poliakoff, which also starred David Walliams (him off Little Britain) as the bad guy.

My overall feeling was wtf was all that about? Okay, the sets and costumes were lovely, okay, Maggie was lovely as always, and Walliams was acceptable I suppose... but ... I don't think I'm dim, and if I don't get it, I'm going to assume the author is being a bit obscure, or has nothing to say really. It seemed to be about the Maggie Smith character and how an incident with a man (Walliams) in her past, where he said something nasty to her, continued to obsess her for the rest of her life, and ruined everything, until she visited the place where it happened and got the **** over it. That took an hour and a half.

I am glad to see a Grauniad columnist agreed:
there's a truth about his [Poliakoff's] dramas that is rarely acknowledged - they're not very good. In fact, they are pompous, pretentious and, in the end, empty.
...
As they exist in an unreal world, Poliakoff's characters don't behave as people do. They casually spill beans and bare souls because the story demands it.
...
unintelligible, self-indulgent claptrap.

I found I didn't believe in the characters and their reactions ... but, worse than that, it didn't seem to be about much. "Oh, there's that creepy man again, I don't know what he wants, I'm going to avoid talking to him, but he keeps looking at me..." She needs to get the **** over it .... then she does ... The End. Am I too simple-minded?

The Benefit of a Dyson

I think it was Adam who pointed out to me the secret of the beer glass strategy for spider removal. The key to it is that when you've got the spider in the beer glass, you can see it, so you know what it's up to, and when you fling it out the door or window, you can see that it's really gone.

Well, the same thing works with a Dyson vacuum cleaner. If you suck up a spider, no more wondering whether it's in the bag, or making its escape back up the tube to seek revenge. You can see it in the canister and assess its threat level before removing it. That alone makes the Dyson worth the several hundred pounds extra....

The Five Rhythms Again

Yesterday afternoon I spent three hours at a "five rhythms" dance class. You may remember I did one of these last year, in October 06, and really liked it, so I tried it again. It was a different teacher this time, but again I enjoyed it very much.

The advert said: a structured dance practice that focuses on opening and freeing the body to move deeper into meditative movement, becoming truly part of the whole self: fluid, spacious and expressive.

I've just had a look at what I wrote in INWAP last year:

There were a few ground rules, including no talking, and generally no physical contact; and a few more implied ones, like no bringing other people down, no "taking centre stage", no clowning , and no becoming a passive observer.
. . .
A bit like a good disco, but without the alcohol, the "social" agenda of who's dancing with whom, or the option of not joining in.
. . .
There was no learning of "steps". You have to get past self consciousness, and the effect of being in a group helps with that. It's also very enjoyable, and good physical exercise. The theory behind it, though, was not really talked about -- it wasn't a talky kind of a day at all -- but my guess is it would be about integrating body and mind. Trusting the body to produce spontaneous action, with no advance thinking about it.

There was even less instruction this time. The teacher just put on music and told us to do whatever we felt like. Money for old rope, perhaps ... but interesting. It took me about ten or fifteen minutes, this time, to stop thinking ... thinking about what to do, thinking about what other people were doing, thinking how I'd look to them ... and start letting my body respond to the music ... and then it was great.

The teacher occasionally intervened, to ask us to work in groups of four, for example, or to exhort us to be aware of our breathing, or of our feet -- but there was no instruction in how to dance or what the five styles are.

Anyway, somehow I find it useful, and will do some more when I can.

Wrist

I got my wrist x-rayed on Wednesday. I don't really think there's anything broken in there, but best to play safe and get it ruled out. Results in 2 weeks.

I also had my 6-monthly diabetic checkup -- all my numbers are fine, as usual.

Dawkins part 2

I've read about 120 pages of "The God Delusion" now. I'll comment more when I've finished it.

My immediate impressions are that I agree with his overall claim, in as much as I don't believe in a "personal" God, but I find his logic incoherent and hard to follow. It reads as if he has some kind of attention disorder, leaping about from this to that. He doesn't really define his terms or what he's trying to prove. Is he saying that religion (generally) is false? Or that it's harmful? Or is it specifically Christianity he's arguing against? I've just read a section casting doubt on the factual details of the Christmas story (manger, three kings, census, that stuff) which to me seems like an irrelevancy, just an "oh and another thing" kind of point.

Dawkins talks with approval about Betrand Russell's "teapot" argument, which has always seemed particularly fatuous to me. (Russell generally was, when he wasn't doing mathematics).

The teapot argument goes like this: if someone told you there was a teapot orbiting the sun, but too small to be detected with any instruments, you would have no way of disproving the claim strictly by observation of evidence. But you'd still be sceptical. You wouldn't be "agnostic" about it, you'd say "pull the other one". The conclusion he draws is that just because there's no way to disprove it by observation, doesn't mean we have to take it seriously. And that we should apply the same logic to "God" -- he may be impossible to disprove by observation, but we should still be sceptical, not "agnostic".

But it seems to me we are sceptical about the teapot, and not agnostic about it, because we know a lot about teapots, where they come from, how they come to exist, and so on. We know they are a product of human culture, and human culture has little reason or opportunity to put a tiny one in orbit around the sun. We can see how it would have to happen, and there is plenty of indirect evidence that it hasn't. (Although full credit to NASA if some Russell-disliking scientist there has actually managed to make this happen.)

We know much less about what a "God" would be. If it's the creator of the universe, it would have to be external to the universe, and so, for example, concepts such as matter, energy, causation, and time (which are all descriptions of things in the universe) might well be entirely inapplicable to it. It would be far from our intuition. I think our grounds for deducing that it doesn't exist are much less clear than for Russell's teapot example.

As for a bunch of semitic tribesmen making up fairy stories about it in the bible (three kings, manger, that stuff), that in itself doesn't prove to me either that God exists or that it doesn't.

Zone of Awareness

I was out for a run at lunchtime in Regent's Park, and, as often happens, I had to run through a bunch of primary school children from a local school being exercised there by their teachers. There are lots of runners in Regent's Park, so we are not an unfamiliar sight to the children. Also the children are quite well supervised, so I never (for example) get any shouting out at me or anything. Basically the children ignore me, which is as it should be.

However, what amazes me is how they just "don't see" runners. I am quite big, and it's broad daylight, and I am running towards the group -- they are spread out over a very large area, so it would not be easy for me to go round them entirely, but there are big gaps in between them and I just stay on the path, which goes through their area. I can't be that easy to miss, and the human eye is tuned to pick up on objects moving towards the viewer . . . . but nearly always, they will just walk into me, or right in front of me. I don't really mind, as I can dodge them, I just find it fascinating how they seem to operate within a little zone with about a one-foot radius, and they seem almost literally blind. They are in their own little world.

I'm not sure what's going on there. Whether it's some sort of programming not to acknowledge unfamiliar adults -- but you'd think that even if they avoided looking at me or acknowledging me, they'd also avoid walking into my path. It genuinely seems to be that they constrict their attention very tightly. If so, I can understand how small children are very vulnerable to traffic and other hazards. On the towpath once (where there isn't much room to pass) I saw a group of them coming and just stopped and stood still -- and more than one of them simply walked into me. Again, just as if they were literally blind. How do they avoid walking into lamp-posts and other obstacles? I'm not sure that they do!

Well, you know what the moral of the story will be. It's interesting to play with your own zone of attention, try contracting it, try expanding it, see how much of the time you can keep it "out there" and avoid being like one of these small children. My apologies for being so blatantly didactic.

Favourite blogs

I haven't sorted out how to create a "sidebar" with links in it YET, but my favourite other blogs at present (excluding the personal ones of friends and family) are

http://www.mattmetzgar.com/ Musings on Big Ideas, Health, and Other Topics

and

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/ The Hidden Side of Everything

I used to read thepioneerwoman.com and waiterrant.net but they seem to me to have gone downhill recently.

Training

My training plan is changing. I find it's best if I focus on ONE of three goals:

• 1 running farther / faster, or
  
• 2 weight loss (i.e. fat loss), or
• 3 gaining muscle.

Trying to do more than one of those at the same time doesn't work very well, so I switch between them. The "muscle" one is in there not because I want to look like a body-builder, but to counteract the muscle loss that occurs with age and the other two regimes.

They look like this:

• 1 running farther / faster: lots of running, not much weight training, calories in = calories out
  
• 2 weight loss: lots of walking, some weight training, a little running mainly speedwork, calories in < calories out
  
• 3 gaining muscle: lots of weight training, a little running mainly speedwork, calories in > calories out

All three plans require adequate nutrition, stretching, and sleep.

I've just finished a "running" phase (preparation for Beachy) followed by a rest, I have another race in 4 weeks (Luton) but not taking it very seriously, and am now trying to do a little bit of weight loss. Probably until Christmas.

Dawkins and The God Delusion

I've been wanting to write a piece about my views on religion, Dawkins, and his book The God Delusion. The problem is, I haven't read the book. I just took an instant dislike to him when I saw him on the telly ranting against religion. Ranting like a religious fanatic.

I'm not really planning to refute his arguments logically, because I haven't read them, and anyway, I don't disagree with his conclusion about the non-existence of God. I just want to indulge in some ad hominem attacks on him. (On Dawkins, that is, not on God. Can one make an ad hominem attack on God?).

It did seem as if he'd entirely missed the point, somehow. His anti-religion views seemed so ... juvenile. As if his balls haven't dropped. I'm embarrassed to be in the same camp. In fact, I'm not in the same camp. I want a different term for people of his viewpoint. People like me, who don't have any belief in God, but aren't worked up about it, are Atheists. People like Dawkins, who see the whole God thing as a wicked conspiracy or a bunch of irrationality, and see themselves as heroic debunkers saving the rest of us, I shall refer to those people as Dawks.

Anyway, it was forcefully put to me at the weekend that I can't say all this without having read the book, so I've bought a copy. Watch this space. I shall be reading it to see whether he offers any definition of "religion", "god", or "believe". I had already read what he describes as the main chapter, the one where he says he puts his argument that shows that God almost certainly doesn't exist -- and found no such argument in that chapter. Now I'd better read the rest.

Interestingly (well, interesting to me anyway) I see a strong connection between this and another "philosopher" that I work myself up into a state about, John Searle, and his arguments against AI, that no machine could ever think, even in principle. Both debates revolve, for me, around the question of what it is for something to have, or to create, meaning. Where does meaning come from? More on this later. You have been warned.

Mary's Birthday

Today is Mary's birthday -- she would have been 55 today. For me, it's a time for reflection, on the plans that we had and the future that we'd imagined. And on the many things that she achieved. I would be an entirely different person today, had we not happened to meet at D and P's wedding. But that's a story often told.

I still have the occasional moment of feeling that this is all a temporary aberration, and that normality, as I've known it for most of my life, will return. As if I only have to get by like this for the time being. I guess that's what they mean by denial, or it's my version of it, anyway. Somehow, I always sort of thought that she'd outlive me: longevity runs in her family, and women live longer anyway.

We were never "dependent" on each other. We were both people who could manage perfectly well on our own, and our relationship was based not on need but on things we enjoyed together. Family, primarily, and music. Driving to places together. There are certain occasions and places that are going to be difficult: the biggest will be grandchildren, if and when there are any. But in the immediate future, the first Christmas without her; the next time I go to Cornwall; and indeed, visiting Aberystwyth.

I went to Aber at the weekend, with the children, and it was a very good trip -- but very strange to be there without her. Today, life doesn't seem awful or impossible, just strange and puzzling.

No Comment

You may notice I've turned comments off.
If you want to comment, please email me.

Bacon Is Bad For You

Bit of a fuss on Runners World today about a new report that says, amongst other things, that if you want to minimise your chances of getting cancer, you should cut out "pink" processed meats like ham, bacon, and whatever that pink stuff inside pork pies is. (I'm not sure about sausages).

The reactions vary between "we've known that for a long time" which is true (the carcinogenic effects of nitrites in pink processed meats have been studied for decades) to the sort of "why bother, you could always step under a bus" and "you're going to die anyway" and "if you worried about everything you'd never leave your house" comments.

I guess there's some truth in that too. You have to weigh up the risk involved and the pleasure involved. You do have to be prepared to take reasonable risks that allow you to do things that are really important to you. The bacon risk is actually fairly small -- the difference to your chances of getting cancer is slight. On the other hand, I lived without eating any ham or bacon for many years, and I don't think it made my life the tiniest bit less happy. Bacon can give you pleasure, but not happiness. Maybe I'll buy a bit less of that cheap Sainsburys ham now.

I think people's problem with it really is a feeling of "so okay, if I do that, what else is it going to be next week?" A feeling that we're constantly being told new things are bad for us. And actually that's not true. The message of bacon and crisps bad, fresh fruits and vegetables good, has been unchanging for decades.

Other cancer-avoiding recommendations included avoiding sugary drinks (e.g. fruit juice), avoiding alcohol, and avoiding being overweight.