The confidence project

My own, existentialist, view on life is that you must be grown up and accept that existence, in general, is absurd.

It is, therefore, your own responsibility to add unique and specific meaning and purpose to your own life.

With this in mind, and taking other factors into consideration, I have decided to embark on a new purpose – improved confidence.

Now, admittedly, this is not something that can be improved upon over night. In fact, it is a lifelong challenge.

But, for now, I am going to take baby steps in improving my confidence, with the view to, hopefully, become better at work, with women, with my friends and with myself.

With an interest in self improvement, and people generally, I have read a lot of psychological, nutritional and general health books on maintaining good moods and generally happiness.

However, there is no substitute for practical application.

Therefore, I am going to attempt to improve my confidence piece by piece until I feel satisfied with the results.

I am logging this on my blog so I can record my progress and socially commit myself to the project.

The first task I have set myself comes from a book I read recently about charisma in conversations.

I am going to set myself a target of talking to four strangers a day for a week, starting on the way home from work tonight.

Hopefully, they won’t all fall flat. Stay tuned to track my progress.

The Meaning of Life

The search for meaning is the primary motivation in a human’s life.

This meaning is unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by that person alone – only then does it achieve a significance which will satisfy a will to meaning,

Some psychologists contend that meanings and values are “nothing but defense mechanisms, reaction formations and sublimations.”

But I would not be willing to live merely for the sake of my “defense mechanisms,” nor would I be ready to die merely for the sake of my “reaction formations.” Humans, however, are able to live and even to die for the sake of their ideals and values.

What is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life differs from person to person, from day to day and from hour to hour.

What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment.

To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?”

There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one’s opponent. The same holds for human existence.

One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment.

Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone’s task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.

As each situation in life represents a challenge to man and presents a problem for him to solve, the question of the meaning of life may actually be reversed.

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognise that it is he who is asked.

In a word, man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.

“Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!”

It seems to me that there is nothing which would stimulate your sense of responsibleness more than this sentence, which invites you to imagine first that the present is past and, second, that the past may yet be changed and amended.

By declaring you responsible and that you must actualise the potential meaning of your life, the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within your own psyche, as though it were a closed system.

Psychologist Viktor Frankl has coined this “the self-transcendence of human existence.”

It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself—be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter.

The more one forgets himself—by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love—the more human he is and the more he actualises himself.

How to find meaning

We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by experiencing something or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering. The first, the way of achievement or accomplishment, is quite obvious. The second and third need further elaboration.

The second way of finding a meaning in life is by experiencing something—such as goodness, truth and beauty — by experiencing nature and culture or, last but not least, by experiencing another human being’s uniqueness — by loving them.

Love

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of their personality.

With love, you are enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, see potential , which is not yet actualised but yet ought to be actualised.

Furthermore, through love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualise these potentialities.

By making them aware of what they can be and of what they should become, you will make these potentialities come true.

Suffering

The third way of finding a meaning in life is by suffering.

We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed.

In accepting this challenge to suffer bravely, life has a meaning up to the last moment, and it retains this meaning literally to the end. In other words, life’s meaning is an unconditional one, for it even includes the potential meaning of unavoidable suffering.

In Nazi concentration camps, the prisoners’ question was, “Will we survive the camp? For, if not, all this suffering has no meaning.”

“Has all this suffering, this dying around us, a meaning? For, if not, then ultimately there is no meaning to survival.”

The Economic Mess Which Labour DID NOT Leave Us In

The Tory Party Politcal Broadcast, aired on 6 October 2010, left me with the feeling that David Cameron is a con artist.

For those who missed it, it blamed the Labour Party wholeheartedly for the recession. This argument is not only deeply flawed – but it is a blatant form of propaganda.

It seems to be the policy of the Coalition and right-wing press to constantly state the “fact” that Labour has left Britain in an “economic mess” – giving them a perfect excuse to cut public spending and blame the opposition.

The idea, like with all propaganda, is to repeat the statement to such an extent that it becomes true – even though it has no basis in fact.

And the alternative argument – the blindingly obvious truth – is forgotten (except by a handful of Labour MPs).

So what is this truth? The irony is that everyone knows – it’s a global recession.

That’s right – it really is that simple. America, Ireland, Portugal, Japan and many other countries all have the same problem – and in some cases worse.

Ireland, for example, has a budget deficit which is a whopping 30 per cent of its overall GDP. The country is almost certain to face a double dip. And why? Because they implemented exactly the same policies as the Tories are now – cut, cut and cut some more.

And considering the American economy was probably hit the worse by the recession, since it started there, it seems to be on the recovery. The OECD, which is based in Paris, indicated in its latest US Economic Survey that “after shrinking through the first half of 2009, US GDP began to increase again and is now projected to be 2.6 percent higher in 2010 than the year before.”

And why is this? Because President Obama is pumping money into the economy – exactly what Labour would have done.

Our deficit is 10 per cent of our overall GDP. It’s not ideal, but it is by no means fatal – and no different from many other countries.

David Cameron’s classic argument is that we have the highest deficit (proportional to GDP) in the G20 – so that in itself is proof that it was Labour’s fault. The simple explanation is Britain is highly dependent on the financial industry – which makes up around 40 per cent of our GDP. Most of the other countries in the G20, however, have an economy based on manufacturing.

Germany, for example, is a huge manufacturer. Important to Germany are its traditional industries of steel and coal mining – both heavily subsidised and still large employers. Precision engineering remains a strong area. Aerospace is a small but growing industry – also heavily subsidised – and German companies often join with companies from other EU countries.

Britain lost its manufacturing industry in the 80s. Just one of Thatcher’s damaging policies was to close down the coal mines for her own political purposes. Without an export it became more and more dependent on borrowing and lending.

It’s bizarre that these clear arguments are rarely put forward. Even in America Gordon Brown is hailed as a hero for saving the world economy. It may be a product of the right wing press in Britain – and I don’t like it.

The Kooks – A Review

It was a cold evening in Blackpool but hundreds of music fans were waiting outside in a queue that stretched out as far as the eye could see.

The people joining the growing crowd were arriving unusually early on 8 December for a gig they had clearly been looking forward to for months – The Kooks.

Walking into Winter Gardens, on Church Street, and seeing singer-song writer Kid Harpoon, it felt like there was already a headline act on stage.

“First we’ll take Manhattan”, he shouted before pausing for a second, “and then we’ll take Berlin” and he launched back into the verse. It was a song the crowd soon picked up and were shouting back.

And warm up acts do not come much better than what followed – Mystery Jets.

The almost tribal chanting of “Zoo time! Zoo time!” symbolised a frantic yet amazing set from the London five-piece.

So when The Kooks launched into their first song “Always Where I Need to Be”, fans were already geared up for what was to be a sensational gig.

The four-piece from Brighton played most of their classics from their first album “Inside In Inside Out”. And just as many from their second, “Konk”.

The crowd went berserk during “Matchbox” and sang along to “Ooh La” and “She Moves in Her Own Way”. But they were even more stunned when “Naïve” began and an echo of every lyric could be heard throughout the room.

“Mr Maker” also stood out as the riff captivated a danced-out audience

The Kooks’ mix of catchy tunes and lyrics, which has given them hit after hit, kept the crowd chanting all the way through.

“This is an amazing crowd – and we’ve been all over the world!” exclaimed lead singer Luke Pritchard as he returned on stage to play “Seaside” in an acoustic encore.

The Kooks ended on “Sofa Song” after an hour-and-a-half and over 20 songs – leaving fans tired and sweaty, but incredibly satisfied.

The dawning of a new era

Today is an historic day for world politics. This morning, Britain woke up to the news that the first African-American president will take office in January. This will end eight years of Republican domination over America.

Barack Obama symbolises many thing to many people. Jesse Jackson shed a tear as Obama made his first speech as President Elect last night.

“Now we see many whites choosing reason over race, hope over fear,” said Jackson.

He believes working class whites, Hispanics and blacks can help build a new Democratic coalition in states such as Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

To Britain, however, it means something else – the end of war.

Under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the government has been looking to move troops out of Iraq, when the security situation allows, and to win more international support for the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan to ease the burden on the 7,800 British troops in southern Afghanistan.

Obama’s thinking on foreign policy priorities runs along similar lines, said Robin Shepherd of the Chatham House think-tank.

“He has made it very clear… that he regards Afghanistan as a priority,” the analyst said. “That suggests he would want western allies to stump up more troops … Britain has been arguing for this for a long time now.”

On Iraq, Obama campaigned across America on the promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq over 16 months. And after already drawing down British troop numbers in Iraq, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised MPs a further fundamental change of mission next year.

As well as Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown hopes the new US administration will be more open to coordinated, international action on cutting greenhouse gases, and on Wednesday welcomed Obama’s stance on the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

With this, and the expectation of somehow leading the world out of an economic downturn, Obama has much to do.

Obama’s presidency has potential to be more progressive and co-operative than the Bush Administration ever was. Everyone is expecting so much from him. Perhaps, with expections so high, he can never live up to it – but he will do his best.

One Argument for The Left

A whole book could be written arguing why someone should be left or right wing in modern society. So, instead, I will make a case for one basic leftist principle – one that is at the heart of the differences between it and conservatism.

It is perfectly acceptable for the government to take an active and substantial role in areas such as the provision of health care, the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, and some provision for the poor and disabled.

Now, a great many conservatives would have a problem with this. Such government programmes will tend to benefit some more than others, and are always funded disproportionately by the rich and well-off middle classes (even if everyone paid a flat percentage of income, the rich would still pay much more).

They effectively redistribute economic goods – but I do not intend to justify them on the grounds that they aim towards a particular ‘just’ distribution. In fact, I intend to bypass the issue of justice altogether.

Because if we concede the point that the rich people’s money is ‘theirs’, but then go on to ask what they should do with it, conservatives have little to say.

I suppose what they would say is: “Whatever they want”. But while apparently answering the question, this in fact waves it away. People are “entitled” to spend their money as they please – that is their right in a liberal society with a free market.

But, in asking what the rich should do with their money, we are really asking “what would it be best to spend it on?”

This does assume that you have a morality. With that assumption we can also say that some things are morally better than others.

Wouldn’t most people say that charity is right? Even if money is yours, if you are faced with spending £300 on a designer T-shirt or spending the same £300 on providing shelter for someone who is homeless for half a year, the latter is absolutely the right choice.

I’m assuming the existence of absolute morality and absolute right-or-wrong choices. Absolute morality is a fair assumption because most people do acknowledge right and wrong.

But if that’s the case, couldn’t it be the right choice for rich people to pay, along with smaller contributions from less wealthy members of society, for some basic goods? For instance, basic shelter for the homeless, a health-care safety net if people fall seriously ill and can’t afford vital operations, education, or the broadly shared public good of clean air?

This basic left-wing idea is correct, and should be believed in by everyone. So everyone, rich people included, ought to be voting for these government programmes for moral reasons.

The point I’m making is that the welfare state is simply the voluntary socialisation of charity, for purposes of increasing efficiency and evenly sharing the burden of paying for it (so that larger contributions come from those who can comfortably afford them). It would be exactly equivalent to voluntary private giving, if everyone voted for it.

Isn’t charitable giving right? Though I wouldn’t defend the superior efficiency of all forms of state action currently practiced, it clearly brings a huge boost in practicality in some cases. For example, few could doubt that if people wanted the benefits of law-and-order (who doesn’t?), common laws, courts and police are the only real option. Coordinated shelter for the homeless is, at least in theory, more effective because it allows comprehensive coverage and ensures everyone in need gets an equal share.

If everyone agreed on the moral rightness of certain goals, the state would simply be an avenue for agreed cooperation in the service of these goals. So we would spend on defence because it would bring everyone the obvious benefit of security.

Likewise, some sort of safety net would be provided by society simply because of the benefit it would (hopefully) bring to the poor or temporarily unfortunate - not because they have any inborn ‘entitlement’ or ‘claim’ on the rich, or could wave a fictitious social contract in their faces. And people who could more easily afford to do so would voluntarily pay for much of this simply because it is the right thing to do.

So what I’d like conservatives to answer is: if it is good to help people by choice, then isn’t it good to choose to vote for such public charity?

What this means is that public policy debates ought simply to concern what we can do for the best results and the least cost, tempered by any distinct moral concerns we might decide there are.

Standard left-wing answers may not be the best way to help people: for example, there is some evidence to show that overly-generous welfare systems tend to create ruts of poverty and dependence, and people actually do better after reform of these. But if the state, or charity, is the best, most effective way in which to do good, then why shouldn’t we go for it?

At this stage, conservatives tend to point to failed government programmes, as if this counted against the principle that we should engage in collective action when it works, rather than implicitly accepting it. At the very least, this suggests some confusion in their ideas.

What can conservatives who regard themselves as less confused say to defend the idea that the right thing to do in private choices (i.e. good) isn’t it the right decision to do in public choices? If you don’t feel that do-gooding deserves its name that’s a different matter, but most of us do.

Popularity of the Brown government

Ever since Brown decided not to hold a general election at the end of last year there has been a wave of criticism from all sides of the media. And it’s not just the tabloids.

The Telegraph has been quick to receive the negatives in Cherie Blair’s and John Prescott’s autobiographies.

They reported Prescott saying: “On one occasion, Gordon wouldn’t let Tony see what was in his preparatory budget proposals. He even banned the Treasury from telling him. That was totally against tradition. The Prime Minister is always told in advance.”

This comment, in The Telegraph article Brown will quit as PM before election, Field predicts, was placed above any positives in the article.

In the Metro there has been daily attacks on Brown’s personality and his ability to lead by focusing on Conservative put downs.

But, in The Times this week, a comment piece entitled King Oil Will Turf Out Gordon Brown, gave a much more logical explanation as to why Brown has lost popularity. William Rees-Mogg attempted to explain popularity cycles in terms of economics.

Oil traders, he says, have predicted that oil price will eventually reach $200 a barrel. Food prices are also escalating worldwide.

These factors are having a direct effect on British politics in that British consumers are already paying higher prices for gas and petrol  due to the market crash.

None of this is Gordon Brown’s fault. It is very unlucky that he became prime minister at a time where global recession was about to begin.

“We shall pay more for petrol and bread but our houses will be worth less”, says Rees-Mogg. “The average person is likely to express his protest with a vote.”

The recession has not done Brown any favours. Perhaps the attack is not reflective of his actions. Maybe it is due to a natural turn in world economics.

The phenomenon of meaningless comedy

There is a growing trend of jokes on TV these days, aimed at teenagers and young adults, that seem to have no relevance to anything – they are just crazy.

Yet everyone seems to find them utterly remarkable.

Many people, myself included, find themselves laughing out loud at these immature ramblings without quite knowing why.

The classic example is the BBC 3 series The Mighty Boosh which seems to have brought it to a new level.

Many others have followed or have been running for longer.

In Britain there is the Channel 4 series The IT Crowd and Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace.

The ‘voice of E4′ is utterly ridiculous, but we just cannot stop ourselves laughing at such lines as ‘big shiny films in your dinky little home’.

Abroad, there is Flight of the Conchords, which I must admit, I am getting very addicted to.

There is also the American string of ‘adult cartoons’ such as Family Guy and Futurama which have so much influence worldwide.

This morning I was listening to the Mighty Boosh Radio Show on my iPod. I drew everyone’s attention on the train by laughing out loud.

The line which caused the outburst was “I’m a chinese dancing horse, look at my hooves of cress”.

Why do we find these jokes so amusing, when, in actual fact, they have no meaning or link to anything? They are the sort of things we used to say in the playground as children.

My colleague suggested today that these programmes ’dare to lack wit’.

The reason they are so appealing, he says, is because they are satirical of modern comedy.

Maybe the fact that it makes no sense is, in itself, funny.

But the more logical explanation is that we see in these comedys something in ourselves that we miss – something we were when we were younger.

This kind of comedy is what I wanted when I was 12. Apparently, nothing has changed.

Rejection of the collective

If you ask a British citizen above the age of 80 about what makes them most nostalgic they will almost always talk about the sense of unity during or after World War II. This is interesting since in reality the war was horrific on many levels, and the aftermath of war was financially disasterous for Britain.

So why is this period seen in a positive light? It is more straightforward than it sounds. It is because of the British attitude at the time. The desire to help each other for the good of the country which in turn made everyone feel like a community.

In the modern world, most people seem to have disregarded the idea of working together to make the country a better place for everyone. From doctors, to lawyers, to truck drivers to police men, everybody seems to be pursuing money and possessions.

To a degree, this is a product of our surroundings. The fact that America have been hammering home the idea that ‘pure capitalism’ is the only way a society can work throughout the Cold War has made the world sceptical of the value of the ‘common good’.

When you look at the growing shift from public to private ownership and the ever growing wage gaps in society it is easy to see how this might have had a negative effect. Yet, even the people in the lower wage bracket seem to be obessed with wanting flat screen Tvs, iPods and clothes.

Most of my closest and most intelligent friends conform to the rules of our society, accepting there is no other way. I have had at least five arguments now about doctors salaries. “Anyone who can save someone’s life deserves every penny they earn” they say. This is usually followed by “have a go at footballers, they are on ridiculous wages.”

What they cannot seem to comprehend is that this is not the point at all. Apart from the fact that doctors are government funded and therefore their wages come from ours, why should a doctor be worth more than anyone else. Some people cannot afford to get medical training, and others have never had the intelligence or encouragement. I am not claiming that they should not get more than some, only that they should not be entitled such a copious amount - no-one needs £100,000 a year. “Are you telling me you wouldn’t take £100,000 if it was offered to you?” they say. When I say no, the response is always “b*****ks”. This is just an example. It’s not specifically doctors.

The pursuit of personal happiness is important. It is natural for individuals to want a comfortable lifestyle. Perhaps people should just take a second to think, there could have been another way.

A mixture of capitalism and socialism is no bad thing. Since the Thatcher Government however, Britain seems to be gearing much more towards pure capitalism than ever before, and we are getting more in line with American society than we should be.

A disaster of the human mind?

In times of emotional uncertainty, human beings tend to think too much. When something is bothering us we roll it over in our minds over and over again until it becomes much worse. My method of coping with life’s trials and tribulations is to listen to music. Music is supposed to soothe the soul. There are some things however that won’t go away no matter how hard you try. Death, for example, is an obvious tragedy that, on various levels, provokes unavoidable sadness.

But another matter that triggers feelings of loss and depair is something that, to me at least, seems ridiculous - intense feelings of affection. When this is not quite reciprocal where do we end up? When we want something so badly that it hurts. So badly that it’s all you can think about and it affects you to the greatest extent. Until finally, it gets to the point where all you want is for the feelings to go away.

But why does this happen? Why do we torture ourselves in this way? It struck me that that one way to conquer these feelings is to understand what we are experiencing. A few years ago, in my limited experience, I thought that the concept was connected to an inbalance of power. To an extent it probably is. But in reading, and further life lessons, however, there seems to be another reason. I believe it is much more simple than our minds make it: it is about passion.

Without having this term properly described, this seems like a very abstract concept. The word ‘passion’ comes from the Latin patior, meaning to suffer or to endure. It is an emotion of feeling very strongly about a subject. Passion is an intense emotion compelling feeling, enthusiasm, or desire for anything and often requiring action. It often applies to lively or eager interest in or admiration for a proposal, cause, or activity. These feelings can be expressed as a feeling of unusual excitement or enthusiasm about a subject, idea, person, or object.

According to author and journalist Thomas Friedman, passion and curiosity are key components for education in a world where information is readily available to everyone and where global markets reward those who have learned how to learn and are self-motivated to learn.

Friedman states, “Give me the kid with a passion to learn and a curiosity to discover and I will take him or her over the less passionate kid with a huge IQ every day of the week.”

In the same way passion is related to education in an academic context, it too is related to emotional learning. If you go through life without feeling and experiencing, the whole rocky ride would not be worth while. Passion will motivate us to one day get the things we want the most. Until then, the pain that come out of these situations will make us stronger.

We all have feelings, we are human. But the more we experience and the more we learn from them, the better we will be for it.