Flaxen Babbling About Life and Death, Once Again

Looks a Bit Like My Mate Barry After a Night on the Ale

I've touched on this topic previously in my blog. The meaning of life, and of course, death, should intrigue everyone, and to a certain extent, it does. Regarding death, most folk barely scratch the surface of the problem without digging deep. It comes as a dark thought (or dream) when we wake at 4 am slathered in cold sweat. Philosophers have pondered this intertwined duality of life/death for the past 2,500 years without any clear answer. If you want certainty, then you must turn to religion. Depending on the religion concerned and the denomination, the answer is different. Consider Judaism. Interestingly, unlike most religions, Judaism focuses heavily on this life, and their conception of the afterlife is often vague or none existent. Their Tanakh, the Christian Old Testament, is virtually bereft of commentary about what happens when we die. Apparently, due to Jewish tradition, we all have souls that leave the body at death. What happens after that is somewhat murky. Ask the Rabbi, but don't expect a clear answer. Christian tradition is murky as hell. This is where Judaism meets Platonic philosophy. But it is not apparent to the simple believer. The Priest and Vicar know this but are reluctant to share. Christianity has inherited the nebulous soul from Judaism but can be vague on its post-mortem destination. That's not strictly the case. Some Christian denominations are reassuringly certain about what happens. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance; righteous JWs receive heaven on Earth except for the 144,000 elect who go to heaven. The rest of humanity is annihilated- seems fair. According to the folk who collect this information, 61%  of Americans believe in an actual Heaven and Hell; no comment. Considering how many Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, they can be surprisingly inarticulate about what happens in the actual and final destination. This is interesting as, according to tradition, they are expected to reside there forever. Tis strange that some Christians believe their god to be just and benevolent but are happy to accept that sinners deserve to be punished for eternity. Likewise, Heaven is seen as a place of perpetual bliss. Surely, eternal bliss must become staid and banal after a couple millennia. 

Hinduism is highly explicit when it comes to what happens when we die. According to the Garuda Purana, the soul leaves the body at death. What happens to the soul depends on the accumulated karma achieved when alive. Most fall short, and the soul enters another body for reincarnation. Those souls that have accrued sufficient karma merge with the Divine (? enter Heaven), and the life/death cycle ends. There is also a concept of Hell for the very naughty. Hell has gradations of nasty experiences. But unlike the concept of Christian Hell, the punishment is not eternal and is a means of purification. Once purified, the cycle of rebirth/death continues. That is enough comparative religion and the notion of an 'active' or 'redemptive' afterlife. 

My Own Observations and Tentative Musings

The only certainty in life is death. As I grow old, I contemplate that I won't be here one day. As for the 'Meaning of Life', I've concluded that it is what you want it to be. For me, our existence has no meaning or sense of purpose. My existence is just a colossal cosmic accident. When pondering the statistics involved in the chance of any particular individual's existence, we must simply gape and stand in awe. And yet I am here. Like Descartes, I know I exist. Of that, I'm sure. As for others, there is always an element of doubt. To stave off the horrors of solipsism, I am happy to accept the existence of others unless future data suggests otherwise.

I'm not afraid of Death. I'm afraid of dying. I don't want to die as my father did. I want my demise to be swift and pain-free. As for what happens when I die, I have to say, if I'm going to be intellectually honest, "I don't know". The empirical evidence is lacking for a definitive conclusion. But that said, I can take a judicious guess.  According to all the empirical evidence, the seat of consciousness is tied inexplicably to the organic brain. I'm aware of the philosophical stance concerning mind/body duality that separates consciousness from the physical realm. I am not convinced this is a true reflection of reality and remain unrepentant in my conclusion. Without this 3 lb of organic matter between my ears, I would be one with none existence. 

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are oft-touted as evidence of an afterlife. We are familiar with the dark tunnel and the bright light scenario. Perhaps a dead loved one comes to mind, or maybe a religious figure dependent upon the person's religious affiliation. I'll not dig down on the neurobiology and psychology of NDEs here. It is enough to state that we can disregard NDEs as data for a continued existence after death. Although the heart may have stopped, and while that may have been sufficient to confer the state of death in earlier, less technological and scientific times, it is not considered a definitive metric these days. To state the bleeding obvious: NDE patients do not die. No matter how heartfelt the testimony, their anecdotal outpourings should be dismissed.

Before we were born, we were nonexistent. To ask what it was like before we were born is both obtuse and ridiculous. Whether extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere is uncertain, as we have zero evidence for life outside our small terrestrial bubble. I suspect that life elsewhere is scarce but likely. However, I suspect that complex life with the gift of 'consciousness' is a rare situation indeed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we are the only technologically able organism in the universe. I'm starting to stray from the remit. How uncharacteristic. 

I suspect that imagining Death as a perception of eternal darkness is inaccurate. We cannot conceive of what it is because death is the privation of all sentience. It is not eternal darkness, as both the concept of the 'eternal' and 'darkness' presuppose that we experience darkness and the passage of time. However, how can we experience darkness without consciousness? The passage of time likewise becomes meaningless without awareness. Consciousness is all we have; as far as I'm concerned, the self and the universe cease to be at death. It is comforting to contemplate that you are all coming with me when I die. I'll not delve further into this concept of death for fear of becoming mired in a field of inconsistencies and contradictions. I'll leave the arena to Epicurus (b. 341 BC) and his pithy reflection upon death: I am, then death is not. And if death is, I am not.   

O sweet Angel of Death,

You come uninvited, but your visit cannot be denied.

I beseech for another breath, another crave fulfilled,

But no brook to fate ordained.

Your visit tarries not, not a second to waste,

 Other souls wait in ignorant bliss for your sojourn.

Beggar and king alike cannot escape your final caress,

All must face the faceless and cower.

No wit or beauty can turn aside the scythe's blade,

The fate of all is preordained in a sweep of the arc.

Phragmosis

                                                 Looks Like An Oreo To Me

I will make this a brief post because the subject matter is boring/bordering on the freakish. Phragmosis refers to physical and behavioural adaptation noted in multiple genera. The body of the animal concerned exhibits morphological characteristics that aid in the defense of its burrow. An excellent example is to be observed in the humble ant. Cephalotes varians, colloquially known as the 'Turtle Ant' is a fine representation as shown in the above illustration. In this instance, the head is modified to resemble a shield. And indeed, the ant utilises the cephalic structure to block the entrance to its nest. In this way, predatory ant species and parasitic wasps are denied entry into the abode. In addition, the ant can use its outstretched head structure to glide from trees in parachute fashion, guiding its descent to elegantly alight at the nest's entrance. Characteristically, this adaptation in its most extreme form is confined to soldier ants, although the worker caste does exhibit a small degree of head modification. On their way out of the nest, worker ants stroke the soldier with their antennae. Once alerted, the soldier will stand to attention, allowing egress. Once the worker returns, it uses antennae to gently tap the 'door'. Is there a code that must be followed regarding the velocity and sequence of the drum play? This could constitute a weakness in the blocking system. Evolutionary pressure would quickly modify a predatory wasp's behaviour to mimic the worker ant to crack the code. No doubt, behavioural adaptation would be easier to evolve than a physical appendage with the ability to remove the head. It is easy to conceive mutual coadaptation between predator and prey as a continuous battle as each species responds to the prevailing evolutionary pressure.          

Further examples of this remarkable bodily adjustment can be found in vertebrates, such as frogs and snakes. However, very few examples are found in mammalian species. The only example I can find relates to a small armadillo resident of western Argentina. This six-inch-long creature sports a bony carapace to the rear that blocks the burrow while digging. A burrowing snake species indigenous to the Indian subcontinent has developed a bony shield at the tail. Again, like the armadillo, this shield blocks the snake's tunnel during excavation. 

In the unenlightened past, theologians used physical adaptations to denote god's glory and providence. In the 18th century, Rev. William Paley put forth this idea eloquently in his analogy of the watch. Imagine you are strolling upon a sandy beach, and your eyes should suddenly alight on a watch, deftly awash with spume and sand. You examine the watch and marvel at the delicate intricacies of the components and engineering. The good Reverand argued that it is reasonable to postulate that the watch had a maker. And therefore, the complexity observed in natural organisms is sufficient reason to conclude that they are the product of a divine architect. But not just any craftsmen, but the Ultimate Craftsman, Yahweh, the jealous deity of a Bronze Age barbarous folk. And yes, before Darwin, thoughtful individuals could be excused for thinking that a divine artificer was responsible. The manifest complexity of nature would pose a serious barrier to atheistic thought before the conception of natural selection, whereby small accumulative, adaptive changes could occur due to environmental pressures applied over aeons. 

Post-Darwin, the hand of God is no longer required to explain the manifest complexity of life. In fact, the 'Hand of God' was never a satisfactory explanation for nature's evident complexity. The explanation ultimately relies on the irrational concept of Divine Intervention or an invisible deity by unknowable means doing stuff. This does not inspire those taking a rational stance. Before we posit the action of supernatural causation (whatever that means), tis best to exhaust all that is natural and grounded within this world. If we look hard enough, a natural explanation will come. To post an explanation outside nature is easy to articulate and just as easy to dismiss.      

CHAOS

Father of Chaos Theory

The human condition craves uniformity and certainty. Unpredictability is a gross insult and offence to our sensibilities. That said, we are surrounded by a morass of chaos. Some folk seek rational refuge, but we are a small island surrounded by the havoc of absurdity.

The 17th century was a wondrous time for the relentless march of science and rational thought. After a millennium of intellectual darkness, religion in the West was receding from secular dominance at long last. It was a time for intellectual giants to shine. And of all the bright stars in the rational firmament, none was so bright as Sir Isaac Newton.  Newton's tome, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), represented a paradigm shift in Science and Mathematics. Newton's scholarship was so profound that the foremost scholars of the day could only gape in awe. Within this seminal work, Newton outlined his new mathematics, Calculus, and utilised this powerful and versatile mathematical discovery to complement and add new light to his laws of motion and gravity.    

Newton's unravelling of nature's laws pointed to a deterministic, clockwork universe controlled by equations that predicted everything. Perhaps the mind of God had become clear, and God was a mathematician.      

Newton used his new-fangled mathematics to calculate the motion of two celestial bodies, the Earth and the Sun. All well and good. However, when he tried to apply his equations to three celestial bodies, he confessed that the problem was beyond solution. His exact words: "...to define these motions by exact laws admitting of easy calculation exceeds, if not mistaken, the force of any human mind." I've discussed the intractable Three-Body Problem elsewhere on this esteemed blog- go seek and find.  

It is time to introduce  King Oscar of Sweden and Norway. The gracious king decided to mark his 60th birthday (1889) by offering a prize of 2,500 Crowns and a gold medallion to anyone who could solve a very difficult mathematical problem. Of the problems submitted, it was determined that the following question should be put forth: 'Is the solar system stable? Would the system remain, as if by clockwork, forevermore, or at some predetermined date, would collapse ensue? A very difficult question indeed. Solving this conundrum meant reevaluating the very equations that Newton considered unsolvable.

Enter our hero, the French mathematician Henri Poincare (b 1854), stage left. Poincare considered himself the man of the day and confidently set to work on the problem. First off, he had to solve the Three-Body Problem. He quickly realised the problem was too difficult and devised a shortcut. Firstly, he imagined two bodies interacting and introduced a speck of dust for his third body. He reasoned that the two bodies would be unaffected by the speck of dust, and thus, they would continue with ellipses around each other. The gravitational force of the two planets would attract the dust speck, and Poincare then attempted to work out the pathway the dust speck would take. The upshot of his analysis showed that the bodies under investigation would exhibit periodic paths, and periodic paths, by their very nature, are highly stable and repeatable. Obviously, the solution fell short of the rubric by a large margin. Newton's insight was vindicated, but Poincare's work set the stage for future contributions. Regardless of failing to come up with a definitive answer to the problem, the submitted paper was deemed impressive enough for Poincare to win the prize. 

A Little Oopsie With Big Consequences

Poincares' paper was about to be published in the Swedish journal Acta Mathematica when one of the editorial staff posed a point of clarification concerning the rounding out of data. Each step in a mathematical proof requires rigorous attention. Poincare had made an assumption that seemed justified in his chain of reasoning. He assumed that rounding out some of his data points by small amounts would not significantly change the overall predicted orbits. He reassured his detractor that his data and reasoning were sound, but just in case, he would double-check. To his horror, he found that even the slightest corrections in his data could result in huge changes in the outcome of orbits (O Bugger!). Unfortunately for Poincare, by then, copies of his paper were already cascading from the press. In a desperate bid to save Poincare's reputation, the next few weeks were spent scooping up copies of his paper to prevent wide readership and limit the damage. Poincare offered to pay for the print run, which ironically exceeded the money gained for the prize.   

In 1890, Poincare penned a second paper discussing the stark realisation that small deviations in the parameters defining stable systems could result in large deviations, culminating in unpredictable instability. His mathematical blunder led to the concept of Chaos Theory—a new and exciting branch of mathematical endeavour. However, it wasn't until meteorologist Edward Lorenz's rediscovery of chaotic dynamics in the 1960s that the concept became widely known. This story and others will have to await the second part of this saga. 

                                                

Glorious Leader

 

Ferret Wobbler of Renown

We all know Kim Un Jong as the loveable, affable, glorious leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea. But what do we know about the prodigy himself, really?  Often as I leave the 'Scrofula Arms', Tipton, on a Saturday night imbued with 17 pints of Banks best bitter, I'm accosted by sundry revellers who regale me with their lamentable deformities and once satiated, and replete, vocalise, thusly: "Flaxen, you big hairy inebriate and ferret fancier of renown. Why don't you un-lift the veil of enigma and trepidation which shrouds the glorious nation of North Korea, in a miasma of gross turpitude. But specifically, we want to know more about the god/man (more god than man, mayhap?) that bestrides the nation like a bespoke colossus".

Frankly, after much discussion with my psychiatrist, Professor Defacto Mugumbo, I have decided to unload my insistent knowledge gained when incarcerated, as a guest, in Ping Pong's Mental Health and Indoctrination Centre, North Chorea. So here, in no definable order, is Flaxen Saxon's insight into the life of Kim un Yong.

1. Kim Un Jong's haircut has been adopted as the only official haircut endorsed in North Korea. Hence, it only takes 20 minutes to train the average barber with a template.

2. Kim un Jong is 6 foot 3 inches tall, but to express solidarity with his well-nourished and beloved people, he has insisted that all photos of himself should be taken at a jaunty angle, which shows him represented as 4 foot 9 inches, thus in accord with the prevailing height of the average Northern Korean.

3.  North Korea is all about being healthy, slim and fit. Obesity has been officially banned. Few edicts have been followed with such universal fixation and dare I say it, aplomb. The glorious leader is the exception that proves the rule. Also, he is an acknowledged breatharian with a glandular problem.

4. Kim un Jong was manufactured fully formed and did not undergo gestational restriction as mere mortals experience. Henceforth any representation of Kim un Jung's belly button is a mere figmentation (not a real word) of Photoshop enthusiasts.

5. Kim Un Jong has never endorsed a nuclear programme in glorious North Korea. North Korea is rich in plutonium isotopes, and all citizens are encouraged, at the point of a bayonet, to visit all North Korea's non-radioactive facilities to achieve that all-around healthy tan and that all-too-fashionable and in-vogue disease, leukaemia. Cough. 

6. Kim un Jong encourages animal rights and is particularly interested in young succulent dogs. In accord with his wishes, da Glorious Leader has set up a pound for itinerant hounds serendipitously housed next to 'Mr Kim ate Chow's slaughterhouse, cum restaurant for party members not on the latest list to be executed by anti-aircraft gun fire. 

7. The Leader eschews alcohol and drugs of any description/prescription. His favourite beverage is a rum vodka mix with a hint of angostura bitters. Because of his unearthly metabolism, before he quaffs said elixir, the concoction turns to the sweetest spa water.      

8. Kim Un Jong's favourite sport is skiing. He is a frequent and notorious participant on the piste. In his finer moments, he has been described as a: 'Slope on the slope, pissed'.     

9. The Leader's education was prolific and swift. Indeed, his absorption of knowledge was unequalled by any previous scholar. It is prophesied on the wind, that he has gained several degrees in woodwork, geography, social studies and physical education.   

10. The Leader leads a simple life as only a man allowed access to a poor countries' resources can be. The simple people are devoted to Kim un Jong, as are the military elite. The 'Kim' brand has merit and should be continued until lack of issue or impending political collapse evokes change. Anyway, the Generals with the broad hats are expected to be watching China, closely.  

      

Arse, big fat, arse.

Owning A Business- Six Years On

Couldn't Have Done It Without Him

When I retired six years ago, my son and I decided to start an online archery business. Combining my passion and hobby with a money-making enterprise would be exciting. Even though the business was small in scope, I had vastly underestimated the amount of work required. We engaged a third-person company to manage the administrative activities and taxes. Stock needed to be sourced and ordered, and on top of that, there were various regulations and additional taxes that the government imposed on an arbitrary basis, or so it seemed to us. The company required registration, a logo was designed, and business cards were printed. 

At the outset, we focused on 'old-fashioned' traditional bows such as English longbows (ELBs) and Asian-style horse bows (AHBs). However, we also kept several modern-style recurve and Olympic-style bows in stock. Archery accessories such as arrows, armguards, gloves, tabs, and quivers were obtained and stored. Inventory and stock regulation systems were implemented, and my son designed, set up, and worked very hard on our professional-looking website.

At last, after much tears, sweat and long nights, we were ready to open our online store to the New Zealand public. I was very much aware that our company sold a niche product. Of our total customer audience base of 5 million, only a few thousand Kiwis shared our passion for traditional archery. I was under no illusions. If we could break even, I would be happy. Turning this passion project into a highly profitable corporation would be challenging as there were but a few potential customers and competition with other archery companies was fierce. And now, in 2025, we face the harsh realities of a problematic economy. New Zealanders are cutting back on spending as they become dismayed at rising rents and food prices. There is little left for luxuries and hobby expenditure.  

Of course, my son and I had to parcel up the various business activities. Flaxen Junior gravitated toward stock acquisition and maintaining the website while I was concerned with logistics and customer service. Looking after customer queries, complaints, and other strange requests has placed my compassion and empathy under severe strain. Folks are weird, and some of their requests and enquiries should not be tolerated in any civilised society. However, I remained professional and treated all customers respectfully and courteously. In fact, I acted with a modicum of aplomb and self-possession.   We recently attended and set up a stall at the local fair and did surprisingly well. We hope to reprise our success at this weekend's market and are keeping our fingers crossed regarding the weather.

I doff my hat towards my son. Not only does he manage to hold down a professional (proper) job as a Project Manager and direct many of the activities concerning our joint venture, but he also has another business setup hosting Archery Combat. I don't see how he can find the time for everything he does.   

While I wouldn't call the joint venture lucrative, it pays for itself, and I even manage to take home a little pocket money. Also, I've learned a lot. After a lifetime as a professional scientist, it has been refreshing and enjoyable, though challenging, to change tack and engage in an activity never before experienced. Taking on a demanding and totally alien activity has made me realise the importance of maintaining and utilising the thinking structure between our ears, ensuring that it is used and not allowed to atrophy.  I have also gained an appreciation and respect for those who put forth the effort to start a small business venture/adventure, especially those bereft of substantial financial and other support systems. And those folk looking to gain a livable livelihood from their enterprise deserve my infinite esteem in addition to lashings/dollops of good luck. According to Statistics New Zealand, only 37% of start-ups are trading after two years of operation. Those who remain in business can only do so by remortgaging their family home or taking out loans they can ill afford to pay.

      

Diogenes

Alex, Have You A Drachma For A Cup Of Tea. Arse?

Diogenes was a Greek fella of the diaspora and was born around 413 BC and died in 324 BC, or thereabouts. Apparently, he was a well-to-do citizen of Sinope, a Greek colony in what would be now northern Turkey. As a man of independent means he was the recipient of the liberal  Greek education of the time. This education focussed on learning the epics of Greek literature and memorising Homer while cultivating a healthy body through gymnastics. His father was a money changer responsible for exchanging foreign currencies for the local coin. When Diogenes came of age, he followed in his father's footsteps and assumed the position of Money Changer. Early in his career, he became embroiled in an accusation of Defacing the Currency. This was a serious charge, and he either fled from Sinope or was officially exiled. The details concerning the interlude are not clear. At some stage, he migrated to Athens, the seat of high Greek culture and philosophical thought. His banishment affected his economic status, and he was forced into penury. For many, the shock from wealth to sudden impoverishment would have had a baleful effect on their character. However, Diogenes embraced his hardship due to the adoption of Cynic philosophy. Cynic philosophical thought flourished at this time, advocating the rejection of political and social norms. They preached a simple, austere life, valuing reason and virtue above all else. A most admirable stance to take, especially if you are penniless. Diogenes would take the Cynic worldview to the extreme by living in a large jar, begging and defecating/pissing/masturbating in the street. He considered possessions as encumbrances and consequently owned nothing. Although he possessed the skills and wit to earn a good living as an administrator, orator or teacher, he chose to do nothing. He believed that true virtue and simplicity came from living like a dog. He would berate passerbys as they went about their driven and pointless lives. Better to contemplate the absurdity of life by not taking part in it. Be content with nowt and be free of society's fetters. Diogenes did not believe in government or private property and preached oneness with nature. There are elements of hippy culture, communism, anarchy, and nihilism in Stoic thought, but not coherently stated. 

Though Cynic philosophy is immediately associated with Diogenes, he was not the founder. Diogenes had a teacher named Antisthenes, another aristocrat turned beggar. Cynic philosophy is not a philosophy spawned of optimism. Indeed, it is a philosophy of its time and reflects a degree of pessimism born of political reality. The politics of the city-state had been upended by those pesky and barbarous Macedonians led by Phillip and Alexander. Optimistic philosophical thought in the ancient world ended with Aristotle. Aristotle was an unabashed elitist. Greeks were superior to non-Greeks, and Greek aristocrats were superior to all. This is interesting as Aristotle was a Macedonian and considered by Athenians semi-Greek at best. By the power of the Macedonian sword, the Greeks had lost their autonomy and independence. Macedonia had imposed political stability on the quarrelsome Greeks; they were fettered if not tamed (go tell it to the Spartans). Thoughtful Greeks, by dint of political reality, became weary and resentful of the trappings associated with their old Greek city-state conception of 'stability'. Proud and supposedly 'superior', Athens had been humbled and stripped of its age-old power. The solution: nothing matters in this world. Turn to a simple life of no material consequence. Cynic philosophy would never have emerged in Pericles' Athens.

Diogenes is oft remembered for his acerbic one-liners. Once, he was visited by Alexander of Macedon. During the visit, Alexander stated that he would grant Diogenes anything he wanted, and Diogenes supposedly replied, "Move out of my light." And my favourite, "There is nothing more beautiful than freedom of speech."    

What are we to make of this mixture and the man himself? Diogenes advocates a simple life without all the baubles that we exalt but do not make us happy. The long hours at work at a boring job, physically demanding and unfulfilling. And for what purpose? Do you really need that 'top of the line' luxury car? Do you need to live in a five-bed home when there are only two occupants? Strip it all down and list what you really need to be happy. I'm not promoting penury here. When we lay our existence bare, what are the important things to sustain life and peace of mind? This is not a mindset that is appealing to most. Diogenes would be admired more if he had willingly given up his luxurious lifestyle for that of a mendicant, but this was not the case. In this regard, Diogenes' mentor and founder of Cynic philosophy, Antisthenes, deserves our accolades and applause. 

Diogenes was true to his beliefs and remained a harsh and consistent critic of contemporary Athens throughout his life. There was no hypocrisy in Diogenes, or so he thought. Although he embraced poverty, he was happy and willing to accept alms from those he admonished and abused. Folk, unless impoverished, do not naturally lend themselves to this mode of life. Very few can follow its strict precepts. Diogenes was an exception and a very odd fellow at that. In the final analysis, I baulk at considering Cynicism as true philosophy—there just isn't enough intellectual and structured merit in the 'thought' system. From a philosophical standpoint, it proffered no new science or deep ponderings. In its purest form, it is reminiscent of the Eastern aesthete, of which I have no interest. Parts of Cynic teaching were absorbed into a contemporary philosophy, Stocasiam. Now Stocasism, is a much more interesting philosophy by far.         

In the final analysis, was Diogenes a wise sage (without onion) or just an eccentric, dirty old man? 

 

On Knowledge

Berty had an interesting love life...

I wrote about the Dunning-Kruger effect a while back. If anyone is interested, they can search the 'back catalogue'. In essence, folk with limited cognitive abilities overestimate their competence (there is a caveat). Not only that, but they are also blithely ignorant of their own shortcomings. There is more to the effect than, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What many people don't realise is that there is a flip side to the phenomenon. There is a tendency for highly competent people to downplay their own skills, especially in comparison to their professional peers. It is often misunderstood by 'lay folk' that those afflicted with the condition are necessarily stupid and unintelligent. However, misconceptions about their skills may be restricted to a specific area of knowledge. In other regards, they may actually possess expertise. That said, I suspect there are more dullards than wise men within the Dunning-Kruger community- tis a very large assemblage.

Most of us have encountered an individual afflicted with classical Dunning-Kruger at some point in our corporeal existence. The typical pub boor who will painfully berate anyone within earshot of how incredible they are at any given task or subject. Usually, these folk are self-confessed polymaths. Any topic you mention will garner a quick and confidential reply about how skilled and knowledgeable they are concerning said task/topic. A typical pub boor is forever lost in his inconsequential world, never comprehending. 

I remember quite distinctly when I was 16 and studying for my O'levels, feeling I had grasped everything I needed to know about physics, chemistry, and biology. What else did I need to comprehend? I confess that, at 16, I was a foolish proto-man. I was angry and reactive, responding to the chaotic swirl of the hormonal deluge. Luckily, this was just a stage in my natural maturity, physically, emotionally, and intellectually.

I'm curious about many things and have a particular and abiding interest in a few subjects. With one exception, I do not consider myself an expert in the interests I follow. There is only one subject where my knowledge base borders on the expert: Human Clinical Diagnostic Cytogenetics. I confess that my genetic knowledge extends to other areas of human genetics, but I know enough to know that I'm not an expert in these subjects. This is not false modesty but a cold, hard reality. Expert status in any endeavour can only be achieved through hard study and application over many years. And then the student must admit that further hard work is ahead. Regardless of the subject matter, any expert knows that the quest for ultimate knowledge is folly as it can never be attained. We are all perpetual students lost in the chase. When we think we are close, we are far away.   

There are a few, very few, intellectual souls that come close to the sublime when it comes to knowledge acquisition. We are oft to use the word 'genius' rather glibly, and the term is loosely applied, daft buggers that we are. True folk of genius are rare eggs indeed. For instance, John Lennon is often cited as a genius; he was not. He was a mediocre poet and an average guitarist with a poor taste in women. The rest is just media hype. Isaac Newton was a genius, as was his contemporary Leibnitz. Other folk of this ilk include the mostly forgotten Spinoza and the sadly tortured and probably mad Wittgenstein. Obviously, Einstein and the mobility-impaired Stephen Hawking enter this exclusive arena. There are others (don't forget Darwin), but I won't turn this post into a list. A gaggle of ancient philosophers also enter this restrictive club. Perhaps Plato comes to mind, but I'll place his derivative student, Aristotle, in the enclave instead. Paradoxically, the vast majority of Aristotles' work, excluding his ethics, logic and political musings, is complete and utter bollocks. Sadly, his 'scientific' work would stifle the advance of Western thought for nearly two thousand years; such was the man's authority, especially with the Catholic Church.     

I'd like to finish my disjointed discourse with a brief consideration of a vastly underrated man of genius, Bertrand Russell. Some books leave a distinct imprint on the intellect. This is the case with Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'. My paperback copy is falling apart—I should have bought the hardback edition. The breadth and depth of knowledge within this hefty tome is impressive enough. However, this, combined with Russell's astute analysis of the subject matter, elevates the book into the monumentally profound category. Not only are we participants in a work of astonishing erudition, but we are also privileged to be part of Russell's brand (sorry, I couldn't resist) of breathtaking, if audacious, synthesis.  Anyway, I recommend that my readers purchase a copy. But be advised, it is best to own the hardback edition. Enjoy.