There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, 9 January 2010

I went to bed early last night. Being cold is so tiresome. I am going to start campaigning for a new government initiative that all women, currently going through divorce - that have been suddenly made responsible for all utility bills - should get an extra heating allowance in extreme weather conditions.

I don't mind being cold, but this is ridiculous. Each and everytime I go out, I have to dress up like Nanook of the North. As an incentive for never gaining innapropriate weight, it works wonders. Once I have been encased in the padded ski trousers and the North Face, I become a size 14. My thighs brush together and I have to turn sideways to get through the stile. I am sure that you get used to it but frankly, I am bored of that too.


So last night I was in bed early, having decided a book and a down quilt was the answer. Except I could not decide what to read. I pitched between a 3 inch copy of Gestalt Psychology, a book on mistakes in business and finally, Gabriel Gabriel Garcia Marquez, The Devil and Miss Prym. I love this author and whilst not the best novel, it was an interesting read.

A stranger arrives in the secluded mountain village of Viscos. This is the place that Chantal Prym would give anything to escape, and she is one of the first to speak with the newcomer. He is carrying 11 gold bars and a notebook. He explains that he is seeking help in answering an important question - are people basically good or are they evil?

It is an interesting wander through right and wrong and moral compass. I wonder if faced with similar quandry, how I would behave? I suspect I know the answer already but does anyone really know ?

Imagine if a friend had a large pot of money but you knew they owed it to another company. Your friend left the company and now has bitterness towards his ex employee. Imagine that you worked for the company and that money was for wages. Would you advise your co workers that the money was safe, reassuring them but knowing this was untrue and thus allowing the friend to keep the money? This choice would be based on loyalty. The other choice would be losing your friendship but knowing that your work colleagues had been paid their worth. Would this be the right thing? This would be tricky as in assuring your colleauges that their future was safe, your role becomes as important as the initial deceipt.

Is there a point where the level of uncomfortableness in doing wrong outweighed the need to gain any benefit from the deceipt. The benefit of loyalty would thus end up as deceipt. If the original friendship was based on getting some need fulfilled then the actions rely on a similar level of selfeshness. It would appear then that all of our actions are probably borne of an inate need to self serve. It makes sense in my head. Tomorrow I may read more of the psychology book.

I had an interesting exchange with someone about honesty and perception. I am not sure that you can seperate the two but if honesty is based on truth, it becomes easier. If you start with truth then peoples own perceptions of that can alter the course.

Obviously in deep analytical mode, I noticed my favourite tree this morning whilst walking the Bitch. Surrounded by snow and lit by an early sunrise, it was staggeringly beautiful. It struck me that hundreds of people have seen this tree over hundreds of years. Each occassion has been different. So many different times of day. Some saw it on a windy day, others when it rained. Some people were elderly, others were children. All saw the same tree, all left with a different impression.

The tree remained, on the whole - exactly the same.

No comments: