The Life and Times of Miblo del Carpio

Mercifully this vice has long since departed from my life; so long, indeed, that I can barely remember why it was, those years ago, I bid this thing a fond farewell. However, I'll strain my memory, and see if I can't make a strong enough case to get it into room 101.

Attacking individual traits of particular religions isn't the way forward, for it will only allow the possibility of followers from other camps assuming their chosen religion to be superior to the one containing such traits as could be attacked if their own happens not to contain the trait in question; and as I see all religions to be equally detrimental to the happiness of the world, I can't allow this to happen, and so I will treat religions not with regard to specific aspects of each religion in turn, but in general terms.

One of the biggest crimes of religions seems to me to be what I consider their mass separative tendency. By which I mean that, to be a part of one religion, one cannot be a part of another, thus a person is separated from all those who are not members of their same religion, and the religion as a whole is seen as being separate from all other things. A consequence of this separation is that people are virtually discouraged from seeking out other modes of thought or pieces of wisdom than those which their own religion imposes on them, and so they are virtually trapped and have little means of escape. Even if a thing is perfectly acceptable, or I could say desirable, I feel it is necessary for the possibility to leave it to be present, and also that other possibilities be acknowledged and discussed. In religions, as far as I can see, such possibilities are not.

This separation then leads onto a further, more potentially disastrous situation: with the members of a religion being not allowed to consider other possible modes of thinking, such other modes as do really exist seem not to exist for them, and so an opinion other than their own and that of their religion is considered stupid and intolerable. This intoleration then in turn may lead to conflict, with the persons or religions on each side being outraged that the others do not follow their cause.

These reasons alone, I feel, are sufficient for religion to be consigned to room 101, but there is more.

I see the main function of religion as being to exert a controlling force on its followers - to keep them behaving themselves, and above all to keep them a part of the party. However, they are not content with that, but insist on interfering with people, good wholesome people, who want nothing do with these religions whatsoever and are quite happy as they are, thank you very much. There is this incessant determination to recruit as many followers as possible - for whatever motives, although I don't think it too outlandish a suggestion that money, that other thing in need of a good long stretch in room 101, is a key factor - that stretches so far as, and has the barefaced audacity, to have it that any children of their followers are snatched up and innocently ensnared into the party, without any real thought for the happiness of that child, or respect for that child's right to formulate, in due course, his or her own philosophies and thoughts on life. This clause is absolutely unacceptable, and alone is reason enough for religion's consignment to room 101.

Please, at least one of my attempts must be consigned to room 101. Have I reasoned enough in this instance? You are to decide.

Word of the Week

Religion

religion n. 1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship. 4 life under monastic vows (the way of religion). 5 a thing that one is devoted to (football is their religion).

Definition courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary

The atopical (as well as the understandably atypical) nature of this blog is clearly evinced by today's preplanned choice of item to try and consign to room 101. And in true atypical style - in an effort to keep my dear readers on their toes (or is it just that time is of the essence now, and so concessions must be made?) - I will argue not at length for its inclusion in the place, but leave my Concise Oxford Dictionary's definition to fight my cause and urge you on to welcome it with open arms to room 101.

Word of the Week

Cold

cold adj., n., & adv. —adj. 1 of or at a low or relatively low temperature, esp. when compared with the human body. 2 not heated; cooled after being heated. 3 (of a person) feeling cold. 4 lacking ardour, friendliness, or affection; undemonstrative, apathetic. 5 depressing, dispiriting, uninteresting (cold facts). 6 a dead. b colloq. unconscious. 7 colloq. at one's mercy (had me cold). 8 sexually frigid. 9 (of soil) slow to absorb heat. 10 (of a scent in hunting) having become weak. 11 (in children's games) far from finding or guessing what is sought. 12 without preparation or rehearsal. —n. 1 a the prevalence of a low temperature, esp. in the atmosphere. b cold weather; a cold environment (went out into the cold). 2 an infection in which the mucous membrane of the nose and throat becomes inflamed, causing running at the nose, sneezing, sore throat, etc. —adv. esp. US completely, entirely (was stopped cold mid-sentence).

Definition courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary

I could perhaps have chosen to consign commercialism, capitalism or that damned despised economy - that filter through which sheer stupidity appears at times to be the wisest choice on Earth - but have decided with mine own degree of wisdom not to pick off specks in dribs and drabs, but to throw the whole rotten thing out at once, to strike at the root cause of these three wonders, the thing that seems to necessitate their existence: money.

I waste no apologies for my unloving feelings towards money. At its simplest, it presents to some a seemingly insurmountable barrier to clear thinking, to endeavour, to innovation - 'Considerations have to be made, my son' said the toff in the white mess jacket and spectacles, 'Had we all the money in the world, perhaps this idea could change the lives of many; but, alas! we have not. Thus, we must be satisfied with changing only ours. It is regrettable, but it must be so,' the fucker said, with growing relish. And in that same thought he brings to mind the most serious consequence of money: viz. the damned inequality between the haves and the have-nots that must inevitably arise in such a structuring of society around money. There is the simple argument that there is only so much money in the world, thus it would not be possible for everyone to have the same amount, and inequality is a regrettable necessity for the furtherance of the world as a whole. I wholly disagree with this.

I say, if something can be done, then it can be done. Money is an unnecessary for the accomplishment of such tasks. It is true that money is now needed to pay for houses, to pay for gas, electricity and water, and to buy our food; but is it true that our houses, our utilities or our food would cease to exist with the demise of money? Of course not. Particularly with food, for example, provided a person has the requisite knowledge, (s)he can grow, nurture and pick food to live on through all their life. This requires that space be available, and the question of housing relies on the same. The deliverance of our utilities - electricity, gas and water - will necessarily involve a large-scale operation that cannot be handled by individuals, but must be provided for us. However, again, since it can be done now, it isn't the case that were money not to exist, the electricity, gas or water would no longer flow. I would say that society would merely need to be structured differently, in order that such large-scale operations would be carried out fluently and without fuss.

And, for the development and happiness of the world, it seems that such a change is required. Inherently, money breeds mistrust, it breeds jealousy, it breeds greed. One driven by money is never satisfied. Of course, the yearning for money is basically a yearning for possessions, and despite their protestations to the contrary it can be seen that their insatiable appetite for 'things' is never satisfied, with the last thing they bought being quickly superseded by a new thing, which in turn is quickly superseded by yet another, while the first is long forgotten and never thought of again. Transience, too, is another product of this sort of attitude, and if we take into account the health of the world, would it be beneficial to have a population incapable of consistent thinking, which only thinks of the here and now, and which barely remembers the thoughts or yearns of a week ago, and which will thus have little thought for the future of the world?

I would just hope that I've made a strong enough case to at least get this into room 101, if not to change the thoughts of those currently deemed wisest in the world. Many more have contributed to the argument, and I will doubtless do so again.

Word of the Week

Money

money n. 1 a a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes. b a particular form of this (silver money). 2 (pl. -eyes or -ies) (in pl.) sums of money. 3 a wealth; property viewed as convertible into money. b wealth as giving power or influence (money speaks). c a rich person or family (has married into money). 4 a money as a resource (time is money). b profit, remuneration (in it for the money).

Definition courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary