Trans. Part I. The Awakening

This blog's primary focus is not on social commentary. Most of my readers take for granted that Modern Society is Donald Ducked; Tipton rhyming slang. So, I don't want to make a habit of this sort of thing. This blog is an oasis of clear water in an arid desert of impending Doom. And now I'm being a pretentious cunt. The trouble is the world is becoming more and more strange (is it?), and I'm adrift in a sea of floating detritus, and mayhap a bit of flotsam and jetsam thrown in for dramatic effect. (stop it, Flaxen! You are waxing lyrical again, and either you haven't taken your meds, or you are pissed again.) Nuff said. 

I'll be using the US as my paradigm for discussion; however, what I have to say is clearly relevant throughout the West.   

My previous post, 'LOST', has certainly struck a chord with my regular readership. Admittedly, the folk who frequent my modest blogging effort tend to be of the elder demographic. However, I will boldly state that they also belong to the class of folk who think deeply about the world in which they live, and many are the recipients of a higher education. But higher ed is not essential. From my comment section, I get the impression that my core block of readers is smarter than the average ferret (sorry shagger).

The thrust of my post put forth the idea that I no longer feel part of society. Society over the past 20 years has morphed into something no longer identifiable as Western or European civilisation. Or has it? We seem to live in an age where every minority within society has a voice disproportionate to the small size of the group- and that voice is certainly loud. And we are expected to uncritically agree and endorse these folk, regardless of how bizarre or counter to the norms of a well-ordered moral society their agenda purports to be (?wot is dat den). The thing is, for the most part, society has not changed. The majority have not changed their views at the drop of every cultural fad. Most of us ignore the minority social interjection, laugh at the blatant ridiculousness of the agenda, and go on about our lives unsullied. What is insidious is the constant social media deluge we are subjected to on issues that generally do not impact our lives and which we have zero interest in. The problem is that wily politicians and the media are quick to notice this background social 'noise', and if they see movement that may give them traction amongst certain minority voting sectors, or readership, they may consider lending their support.  Even traditionally conservative groups that have, in the past, baulked at supporting outlandish ideologies may be tempted to relent. If there is political mileage to be made, a bandwagon to jump on, or a trumpet to blow, sleazy career politicians are always first in line.

Mainstream society can weather a lot of attacks from the left-wing press and sleazy politicians. The deluge of print and words from folk trying to swamp us with ideologies we do not care about leaves little impact on the millions who go about their day, go to work, and ignore crass nonsense. Sometimes the message does register, but not in ways predicted by those who promulgate it. Remember the backlash against the Bud Light ads a few years back. The inclusion of a transgender woman in the tele ads caused a drop in the beer's sales between 11 to 26%  within a month of the ad's projection. The brewery's stock fell 20% within a very short time. The boycott caused serious financial damage to the company. Never underestimate the power of drunks when they sober up. What were the ad people thinking? Perhaps they were trying to elevate a traditionally blue-collar drink to the chattering classes. It failed miserably. They lost their traditional customers, and the targeted audience did not take up the slack. Feminine heads did roll. 

Related to the ad is a movement that has gained almost unprecedented momentum over the past 16 years. I'm referring to the Transgender Revolution. In 2010, it was estimated that 1 in 10,000 people in the US suffered from Gender Incongruence, a rare condition where the biological gender does not coincide with an individual's perceived gender identity. In most cases, clinicians of the not-too-distant past considered the condition a mental disorder. The definition can be extended. In extremely rare cases, individuals possessing gonadal tissue from both male and female sex organs, with associated morphological changes, render sex assignment at birth exceedingly difficult. Truly, these patients deserve to be allocated a distinct third gender; in the past, they were termed Hermaphrodites, now Intersex. A chromosome disorder or a single-gene defect may be identified as the causative factor, but not in all cases. The genetic and chromosomal aberrations associated with these conditions are highly complex and fascinating, and they beg to be discussed on this very blog. Especially as it impinges on my previous professional interest and expertise; be warned, it can get technical.

Skip forward to today, and the incidence of perceived Gender Incongruence in the US hovers around 3%, with 2% expressing doubts about their assigned gender role. And this change has come within 10 years. WTF has happened within the past 10 years to validate this massive jump in gender confusion? And this phenomenon is not confined to the US, as similar figures are being reported in Western Europe and Australasia. The increase in cases is mostly affecting Generations Z and Alpha, which should give us a clue, as these generations were the first to grow up fully immersed in the explosion of online social media. Another clue lies in the sex of those identifying as Trans. Historically, the condition overwhelmingly affected men much more than women; however, today the demographic shift has been reversed, and biological women are coming forward in greater numbers than men- I wonder why?  

So what has happened to completely uproot society's gender norms and push society to entertain concepts that only exist in a linguistic freak show?  Only those born in a social quietude that existed previously will have a clue about what I am alluding to. Somehow, society appears to have lost its grip on reality and noisily slipped into the 'Twilight Zone'.

The rise of social media has been rapid and transformative. Facebook, the undoubted leader in the game, has 3.1 billion consumers as of 2025. Media platforms, WhatsApp and YouTube, have over 1 billion users each. Social media is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. It enables folk to share their views with the world and to connect with like-minded folk. However, it is a nest of manipulation and a hive of misinformation. People, especially young people, are influenced by social media. Questionable agendas from minority groups can be promulgated worldwide. The platform is easily distorted, and spurious information can be disseminated en masse to the masses. Then there are issues of privacy. Information can be collected and sold to unscrupulous parties for financial gain. There are other societal influences that are operating to interweave the 'Transgender Issue' into the realm of everyday reality. And it was achieved with an efficiency and an overarching impact that staggers the rational mind.  

In the subsequent posts on the topic, I'm going to consider the driving forces behind the take-off of the Trans Movement, its societal, political and medical impacts, and anything else that has suddenly popped into my tortured psyche. In particular, I would like to discuss the biology of Intersex Folk and its ramifications. And of course, I need to rationally discuss whether we are talking about biology or something else. My heart goes out to those who genuinely belong to the exceedingly rare group of folk with the condition. Their plight is being distorted and drowned out in the mass, collective tumult of those who don't deserve a hearing. But how to discern the difference? What I don't want to do in this blog is to take a swipe at folk with a genuine medical diagnosis, or the poor kids being manipulated and coerced into decisions that will have significant physiological and psychological consequences for the rest of their lives. The latter category is victims of social forces that they are too young to comprehend.

Lean back and soon be ready to read Flaxen's askew and oft awry look at a topic that demands a cold, critical and sober appraisal (Hic) from a man tottering and weaving toward the abyss of frank insanity. And, don't forget it's ferrets all the way down. Makes complete sense, doesn't it?

LOST

I wrote this post without previous forethought or planning. It flowed from my 'pen' as if it had control of my tortured mind. It is long, but there is much to say. I don't blame my readers for giving up mid-flow. This post is my way of shedding thoughts on paper that need to be said. It is my personal cathartic release and has to be said for the prime purpose of my mental clarity and sanity.

I am the archetypal Baby Boomer. I was born in 1956, and my father, like many young men of the era, had been a soldier and had actively fought in combat. My father was 'demobbed' in 1953 after suffering severe wounds obtained during the Korean War and spent 6 months in a Japanese hospital. The men of the Silent Generation were the product of the Great Depression and the Second World War, probably the most destructive war in history, in which 80 million people lost their lives. It is difficult for the modern mind to contemplate the impact this war had on the world: the wide-world desolation; the economic cost; the geopolitical consequences; and, finally, the effect on the minds of the folk who went through these times, especially the men and women who were actively part of military action. Again, it is impossible to comprehend how these experiences shaped the way their minds responded, developed and coped. However, as a general rule, they were tough, resilient and self-sufficient. And in Britain, at least, many were poor. Britain had been bankrupted and placed in hock to the new emerging superpower, the United States. Unlike the defeated nations, Germany and Japan, Britain was not subject to the huge largess lavished on the vanquished. How come the enemy thrived, while Britain, which had contended with Germany from the very start, became diminished and pauperised? Food rationing didn't officially end until July 1954- a wartime contingency initiated in 1939. And only after unrest and protests by the population was this measure lifted.

The point is that our parents were a different breed, shaped by their experiences and the hardships they endured. Their children, the Boomers, were raised in a way incomprehensible to the generations that followed. My father was a hard man and set out to raise me in his image. He inculcated into his 4-year-old flaxen-haired son a simple dictum: 'Never suffer anyone laying their hands on you, or verbally threatening you'. In these circumstances, I was commanded to fight without any verbal foreplay. It was a simple rule that my small, developing brain absorbed wholeheartedly. There was no room for nuance or graded response. It was perfect behavioural conditioning that was imprinted on my emerging and evolving neural landscape. The response was binary, a simple on/off switch triggered for violence. There was no thought involved; the reaction was primal and primed to go off. Invariably, as I played in the grimy streets of a small Black Country town as a dirt besmirched, undernourished four-year-old, an urchin would tickle the neural trigger. Those were the halcyon days when a four-year-old could roam the streets unsupervised. I remember one particular occasion where an ike, no different from myself, saw fit to swing on me for no particular reason. We fought in the street until a passing adult intervened and pulled us, urchins, apart. The aftermath: whenever we sighted each other, we would run like demented berserkers (is there any other type?), crashing into each other without a word. Again, we would be parted, but the cycle would continue. Eventually, an older kid in the alley brought us together, we exchanged names, shook hands and never fought again.

My parents wanted me to absorb the values, strengths and qualities that made them get through the worst of times. They wanted me prepared for horrors that never came. It was the midst of the Cold War, and there was always the real risk that the Third World War could erupt with scant warning. The Cuba Affair was a close-run thing, and we came close to Armageddon. Europe had no illusions about their chances. Thousands of Russian tanks were poised in East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, ready to careen west. The Soviet doctrine was simple: overwhelm NATO with huge numbers of men, tanks, artillery, fighter and bomber jets. They called it Deep Battle. They relied on speed and dislocation, and there was also the overarching threat of nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic. They planned to reach the Rhine within days. We lived in exciting times.  Could our parents have been preparing and inuring us, either consciously or unconsciously, to the likely hardships and vicissitudes to come? Regardless, we became our parents, well, at least I became my father.

March forward to today. Discipline is lax both at home and at school. A few months ago, I had the dubious pleasure of watching three teachers trying to control a potentially violent situation at the gates of the local school. A large Maori lad, about 15 (?stone ), was facing two male teachers with outstretched hands, desperately trying to defuse the enraged boy. A couple of yards away, a female teacher was remonstrating with a girl who was actively taunting the boy. The boy responded with grave threats of violence. As the boy advanced, his way was blocked by the teachers working in concert. At no time did the teachers make physical contact with the pupils. Eventually, both kids lost their steam, and the much-relieved teachers escorted them back into the school, separately. But it seemed a close-run thing that could have gone awry with just a twitch. When I was at school, discipline was maintained by our natural respect for authority figures, and teachers fitted that role. And indeed, if steely-eyed sanctions failed, the teachers of the day could lay hands on rebellious students. Pupils could be physically restrained, and corporal punishment was the norm. I wasn't a particularly naughty pupil, but there were occasions when I was caned, slapped across the leg and hand with the ruler and spanked with the pump. On one instance, I had a well-aimed blackboard rubber bounce off my well-appointed noggin- 'good shot, Sir'. At home, I was verbally and physically disciplined. Now, let me be clear. I am not advocating that the young folk of the land should be physically assaulted in the name of discipline. I raised two wonderful humans to respect others and be good citizens of the land, without ever performing an act of violence on their beautiful blond/blonde heads. With a glance and a word, discipline was maintained. Of course, no system is perfect, and a little high-spirited rebellion is to be expected and tolerated. We are not raising unthinking drones, after all.

There has to be a middle ground within society where teachers are allowed to physically restrain students in difficult circumstances without the career-ending indignity of arrest and incarceration. Young minds are inherently immature, and if left to meander unrestrained within society, insanity will ensue. We are starting to see that in the Western schoolroom. With zero sanctions, there is zero control. The internet is festooned with anecdotal stories from teachers, crazed by administrative direction, that undermine the core values of education. Today, I heard from a frustrated teacher, on the verge of collapse, about how she must award a 50% mark to a student for unsubmitted work on a project. A piss poor submission of unredeemable effort and quality receives an automatic 66% mark. In a classroom where no one can fail, even if they never turn up or submit work, what is the point?  A rubber stamp approves laziness and stupidity. No wonder US teachers are leaving the profession in unprecedented numbers. Indeed, the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.   

And there's more: Consider the situation in an American university sorority where a supposed transgender, born male, now 'female' managed to insinuate itself in a traditional all-biologically-female (is there any other type?) sorority with the backing of the university administration. The situation is ludicrous. Apparently, the individual in question is 6' 2' and weighs 240 lbs and makes no effort to dress or behave femininely. This he/she has been foisted on the all-female biological sorority against the wishes of the majority of the real female members under the rule of inclusivity. Apparently, this individual becomes patently aroused in the girl's presence, acts in a creepy manner and asks the girls inappropriate questions. Such as: "Can you describe your vagina?" The girls took the matter to court in order to have he/she removed from the sorority as it is an all biologically female association. The judge adjudicated in favour of the interloper on the basis that the sorority's rules, written in the 1850s, do not specifically exclude transgender wierdos, er, I mean he/him/she/her/it/that/ferret. The girls are seriously considering dissolving the sorority and starting anew with new rules for acceptance, with specific reference to the presence of anatomical female pudenda. Genius move by the girls. And then I watched a video of two backpackers, aged in their 20s, obviously boyfriend and girlfriend. They seem to be positioned in a high street festooned with shops. The shop's camera captures the incredible unfolding situation in all its sad, pathetic clarity. As the couple stand in the elusive peace of the street, an incident unfolds. Out of the blue, a young man appears and grabs hold of the woman's backpack. This is the cue for the boyfriend to rush to his girlfriend's aid, beating off the assailant to the relief of the girlfriend, thus illustrating the age-old rule: A man protects the womenfolk. But no, boyfriend nervously looks on as his partner furiously and bravely keeps hold of the backpack. The assailant keeps on attacking. Boyfriend now decides to retreat behind a pillar, occasionally glancing to see how the proceedings are developing. This crazy situation seems to go on for an indordant amount of time. The brave girl is not giving up her backpack. Eventually, a gaggle of real men intervene, and the weasel (note: not a ferret) of a thief is taken down. Once the danger had dissipated, the now 'brave' boyfriend appears from behind the safety of his pillar to administer succour and comfort to his courageous girlfriend. Too late the hero. I hope with all my strength and enraged sinew that this brave young lady kicks the ex-boyfriend in the bollocks and starts dating to find a real man. I am not saying that all men of the latest generation are blatant, wretched cowards. But there is a definite move to undermine masculinity and promote male softness. Men are being emasculated without consent, and the trend continues.      

I'm lost. I don't understand society and its so-called rules. The crazy thing is, most folk, including later generations, don't get it too. Doesn't matter. Quiet dissenting voices of the majority are drowned out, beaten down by a small cadre of screaming, strident, raucous and strangely unpleasant people. And we see that this insanity is increasingly backed by those in power. Freedom of speech is becoming a fiction in Western society. A right that has been gained by the blood of our forefathers is being stripped away by those who only care about image and money. The majority have been discarded for the insanity, posing as inclusivity, of every minority group with an agenda that is getting increasingly strange and beyond the comprehension of everyday folk. I am lost and awash in a society that I no longer understand or want to be part of.

Social Darwinism

Hello Daddy? I've got his nose

I often scroll through YouTube for ideas and enlightenment. Today, I came across a brief post in which a professor lectured to students about a hypothesis concerning male aggression, its social consequences, and its implications for social evolution. I was intrigued by the post and decided to outline his thesis to provide fodder for further discussion and, perhaps, debate.

Here goes: The goodly professor begins with an observation about our primate cousins, then extends his ideas to encompass Darwinian Selection. I confess, I do not have the name or credentials of the lecturer to hand, but that is immaterial for the thrust of the discussion. All I can offer is that the lecturer under scrutiny is not named Dr Mugumbo, of that I'm sure. Let your imagination run free and wild. If your curiosity remains unrestrained, then Gogle is your friend. Let it loose to satisfy an urge that is difficult to articulate but remains rampant. Sometimes an itch must be scratched, even if the pruritus is non-afferent in character and lies unrestrained within the conscious portion of the cerebral cortex. Moving on.  

The lecturer noted that our closest primate relatives, including chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, operate on the principle of 'The Alpha Male Hierachy'. In primate troops, there is invariably a prime alpha male who corrals and enforces exclusive access to the sexually mature females of the troop. This primacy is maintained by hyperaggressive behaviour. Under these circumstances, the alpha male will rely on behavioural intimidation tactics to discourage other aggressive males from challenging his enviable position of excessive female appropriation. Ultimately, if posturing and bellowing fail to deter, then the ultimate recourse is physical violence. This is not something that is casually undertaken by the challenger. The alpha male has ultimate control for a reason. Hyperaggression is not the only attribute required. This male is likely to be very large, quick and tough. And after many encounters, he is likely to be a battle-hardened veteran. The potential interloper must pick his fights with due care and prudence. If injured, it is not only pride that is at stake. 'A Good Sound Kicking' can lead to infection and death. The impudent male challenger must pick his fights with deliberation. However, a young 'buck' flooded with testosterone is an impetuous fellow.  Eventually, the top male will teeter, fall, and be replaced by a younger, alpha male. Ultimate failure is written in the genetic code. Age and time are relentless and make failures of us all, in the end. 

The social system, as described, results in sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism refers to differences in physical size and strength between the sexes of the same species, and, within mammalian species, the male is invariably the larger as determined by these genetically controlled characteristics. Large, aggressive males will, all things being equal, sire large, aggressive males. The genetic lottery is rigged in their favour. While sexually mature females of the troop suffer the indignity of forced sexual exclusivity, they also can be assured that the genes passed on will tend towards hypergressive traits in their sons. Hyperaggression does not ensure troop dominance. Indeed, most males, even those with favourable attributes, will fail to breed under this social system. With that said, hyperaggressive behaviour is an essential characteristic for a male, together with an imposing physique, for him to gain ascendancy of the troop. The rest of the males of the troop are denied the powerful urge to reproduce by his presence. Interestingly, some males, by dint of stealth and opportunity, may gain sexual access to the females, albeit intermittently- so-called 'Sneaky Maters'. The alpha male must remain constantly vigilant to ensure exclusive access to his valuable resource. By virtue of the system, the alpha male has no allies to help sustain his position, and 100% attentive and covetous surveillance is a fiction. Thus, smaller, agile males may take advantage of the alpha males' downtime to secure a brief romantic interlude; however, hurried and rushed it may be. Therefore, genetic flow within the troop is not necessarily maintained exclusively by the alpha male; 'Genetic Leakage', though small, is virtually assured.  

At this stage, we must ponder why humans do not follow the 'Alpha Male' social structure as practised by our primate cousins. Clearly, this system is highly disadvantageous to the vast majority of males within the troop, as they lose the opportunity to mate. We differ fundamentally from our close relatives by virtue of our superior intelligence. We are capable of higher-order communication that, in turn, facilitates social organisation. Thus, by collective male action, any potential alpha male takeover of the breeding pool can be easily curtailed by concerted, higher-order action. Alpha males do well, but 10 beta males with pointed sticks do better. 

Let us go back 12,000 years, when humanity was beginning to transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled, habitual way of life. 

 With human settlement, as a natural consequence of the introduction of agriculture, and the expansion of the population due to the availability of a predictable food supply, a higher order of societal cohesion and development would be required. Autocratic, 'one man rule' (kingship) seems to have become invariable, for reasons not to be considered here. The institution of kings, whether hereditary in nature or by other means, can only be sustained with the cooperation of others. This is in stark contrast to our primate cousins, where the lack of concerted cooperation is essential to the maintenance of alpha male control. With a settled society and greater societal collaboration comes the development of an institutionalised justice system, albeit crude and highly reliant on the sanction of death, for even minor infractions. The good professor argued that individuals so inclined by temperament and genetics to exhibit and respond with hyperaggression would be quickly sought out and subject to judicial assassination by decree. This would not only act as a deterrent to those similarly inclined but also prevent the establishment of the primate model of alpha-male usurpation within the society. Also, as a consequence, there would be a reduction in the flow of genes into the population that are responsible for hyperaggressive behaviour. Monogamous mating would be the consequence. Most men in a population would be able to exercise their powerful urge to procreate. Sadly, there will always be outliers who, for various reasons, are unable to sample the pleasures of sexual congress. I am not suggesting that the advent of agriculture initiated a change in human mating strategy. Undoubtedly, the impetus to move from alpha-male status to egalitarian sexual behaviour arose much earlier, when humans relied on the erratic bounty of hunting and gathering wild herbs. The ability to employ a Beta Male cooperative strategy came about when humans, or proto-humans, gathered enough intelligence to plan and execute the execution of alpha males. The days of Alpha Male Sexual Usurpation were doomed.  

In modern society, hyperaggressive males, who are unable to control their violence towards others, are quickly identified and subject to neutralisation and removal from polite society in order to cauterise, nay curtail, potential harm. Need I say more?

Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis as outlined above? Remember, for a hypothesis to become a theory, we need evidence, experimental or otherwise, that supports the contention. We know from genetic evidence that in humanity's remote past, very few males contributed to the gene pool. Undoubtedly, we observe sexual dysmorphosis in humans. As a general rule, the male of our species is naturally taller and stronger than the female. This is genetically determined. Though there could be a number of plausible reasons why this might be the case.

I am interested in what my readers make of the speculative hypothesis as outlined above. Is it worthy of further inspection or does it crumble under the weight of inconsistencies, contradictions and implausibility?  Let me know your thoughts in the comment section. 

 

Lagomorphs Lament

The Hunter Awakes!

When I wake in the morning and part the curtains in my bedroom, my eyes are assailed by the bright summer sun.  As I squint and adjust to the deluge of light, the back garden slowly comes into focus. As I scan my domain, I become aware of nature's bounty. Birds perch aloft in maple and sycomore. Bees go about their business, clumsily bouncing between the floral cacophony of delight. Summer is in full swing, and yet the balance of nature has silently shifted. For in plain sight, feeding with gusto, are the scattered forms of my bane. Rabbits, hordes of the voracious critters, sit, dig and munch on what was a healthy lawn. They dig beneath and eat those succulent roots, leaving a scar that no anodyne can repair. The centre piece in the front garden, lovingly tended by Mrs F, has become the Somme c1916. Bulbs have disappeared, and flowers consumed. Mounds of dirt remain rendered sterile by a thousand mastications. And let us not forget the proliferation of warrens.

 Nature In All Its Majesty

Through the eyes of the biologist, I can appreciate the beauty of nature, the rhythms, and the multitude of species coexisting in apparent harmony. But ultimately, I can also see nature in all its raw, cruel and apparent wasteful horror. There is nothing kind in nature. Existence is hard, and lives are curtailed well before their natural time. However, all ecosystems are subject to constraints and the supposed 'harmony' is but an illusion. All species are subject to pressures irrespective of their position in the so-called 'Food Chain'. But here lies a problem that is very much part of the New Zealand landscape. My adopted country is not one naturally teeming with top predators. Before the coming of man, the only mammalian presence was the bat, and the top predators were avian. The arrival of the Maori (c1400AD) resulted in the extinction of many indigenous species. European settlers in the 19th century introduced a variety of mammalian species, including the rat and the rabbit. Rabbits have a well-deserved reputation for rapid reproduction given favourable conditions. The main threat of predation comes from critters introduced by the Europeans, such as stoats and cats. There are also hawk species that will happily feed upon the cute bunnies.

The Solution

I have a powerful .22 air rifle in my possession. I have used it to cull rats that sometimes proliferate on the property. At 10 metres, it delivers a tight group; however, at 25 metres, the spread of pellets makes it unsuitable for an ethical kill at that distance and beyond. It is a relatively modern airrifle and sports a long suppressor on the barrel. The downside is that the barrel that actually fires the projectile is relatively short, which bodes ill for consistent accuracy at long range. Thus, I have just purchased a second rifle: Benjamin Trail NP XL, Nitro Piston Air Rifle in .25. This is a beast, combining raw power with repeatable accuracy at long distance. At .25 calibre, the projectile is heavier and larger than the standard .22-calibre projectile, which is chambered in the most popular type of rifle. It has a break system that takes an estimated 47lbs to cock. This energy is stored within a cylinder containing nitrogen gas. Most airrifles use a spring system to store the energy. The Benjamin Trail, although it propels a relatively large projectile, releases enough energy for the pellet to leave the barrel at blistering speed, maintaining a flat trajectory at distance. This rifle is about as powerful as it gets without owning a gun license, in New Zealand at least. Even so, I had to complete a form and take it to the local Police Station for identity verification, and no doubt, clandestine registration. Once countersigned by an officer, the form is to be emailed to the supplier of the 'Instrument of Doom', or 'Redemption', depending on perspective. I was assured by the police officer that the form would be expedited to the gun shop on the morrow. Only when said form reaches the supplier can my rifle be dispatched. Days later, I'm still awaiting confirmation of receipt from the dealer. Yesterday, with quiet despond, I emailed the company with a characteristically humour-laden message enquiring as to status. As yet, I haven't had a reply. For the enlightenment of my cherished readers, all four of you, I've appended the content of my email. Read and weep.   

Hi Mr Teapot Mugumbo,*

I suspect that the police folk who inhabit the Tipton Police Station have not emailed the requisite form required for the transport of the rifle that I have bought from your esteemed boutique. Strangely enough, the police lady (for it is she) who checked my credentials assured me most assuredly (unnecessary double positive), that the form that would release my property from your sticky fingers to my pristine and unnecessarily hygienic digits, would be sent by electronic means on the morrow. I can only tentatively surmise that great mendacities might be the culprit, or afoot; I am restrained in my conclusion on the premise that those who hold power over us mortal folk never lie. With that said, I am at a loss as to how to move forward to expedite my lawful access to the air rifle of my dreams (don't ask). O woe is me. Mayhap, a passing benign supernatural entity will perceive my dilemma and intervene from their lofty and implausable estimological perch, and take pity on someone so benighted. In the meantime, hordes of lagomorphs dine with impunity on my land, without recrimination or favour. Surely, the insouciant universe, vast as it may be, has more important matters not to contemplate. How am I to proceed? Am I just a pawn, poorly shaped, to be tossed on the storm waves of caprice and dejection? Is this my ultimate fate? How am I to proceed before the shreds of my tenuous, nay, nebulous sanity, become fragmented beyond the capacity of entropy's relentless march to redress? Teapot, I am in your hands. I seek help in a matter that drains my very soul. Is there a timely solution to my conundrum? Or is it my fate to stare from my domain, awaiting a parcel, unrequited, bereft and without hope. Teapot, you are my last resort. I await your return missive with unrestrained expectation.

Cheers,

Flaxen of the Saxon   

*  Name changed to protect the innocent

Commentary Akimbo  

When it comes to the flora and fauna that I coexist with, I live by a single dictum: 'Kill nothing unless I have a reason'. Like most rules that govern our existence, self-imposed or imposed by a 'Higher Authority', they are not always followed without exception- caprice and expediency are the final arbiters of life. My wife looks on incredulously as I spend 15 minutes scooping 10 spiders from our ceramic bath and placing them on the wall in the hall; I like spiders. 

Dogge

Foo, Foo, How Much Rabbit Shit Would You Like For Your Lunch Today?

This post is about our furry companions, dogs. Personally, I'm a dog person and own three furry friends. I have a father-and-son pair of Maltese Terriers and a Maltese/Shitshu bitch. In this short post, I won't go into the evolution of the dog from the wolf or consider the genetic changes that ensured this transition. Today, I want to delve into the rarefied world of Etymology. This is not a topic that I have dealt with before, and I can truly assert I'm woefully ignorant of the subject in general.

Here Goes...

Interestingly, the derivation of the word 'Dog' is unknown. Usually, a word in any language can be traced through its common derivation from related languages. In English, we use another word for 'dog', although it is usually used in connection with specialised breeds. Hound is synonymous with 'dog', although in general usage it is reserved for hunting breeds. The word 'Hound' has a known etymology and is related to the German word 'Hund' and the Dutch word 'Hond'. 

The problem with the word 'Dog' is that it first appeared in writing during the Middle Ages, as 'Dogge'. There is no record of the word before this. This doesn't mean the word sprang fully formed from nowhere. Before it was written down, it must have been used linguistically for perhaps hundreds of years to describe that bag of fur sitting in front of the fire, gently farting. The word comes out of the linguistic void. There is no such word in related languages. From an etymological point of view, the word is an orphan. There is only one culture that uses the same word for 'dog,' and it is found in an indigenous Australian language (Mbabaram). Etymologically, there is no relationship between English and Mbabaram, and etymologists consider the usage of the same as a serendipitous coincidence.

There have been a number of theories proposed to explain why we use the word, but to my ears, none sound convincing. Unlike my usual renderings, this will be a brief post, so I won't be delving further into the various possibilities put forth. This is far better than saying: 'I can't be Arsed,' Arse. If your curiosity about the subject is insatiable/irresistible, then Google is your friend. 

Interestingly, there are other words in English that seem divorced from their linguistic origin and appear in print as if by 'Language Osmosis'. Where did they come from, and do you really care? The words 'Boy' and 'Girl' are also in this category, as are 'Hog' and 'Pig'. Mayhap, the same letter ending is a clue in this latter case. For those who may be interested, our English word 'Ferret' is derived from the Latin, 'Ferretus', which means 'Little Thief'. Anyone who has owned a ferret will understand. As an aside, my property is awash with rabbits. As I write, I can see five of the little buggers through my study window, happily munching on my lush green pasture. The grassy areas are awash, nay festooned with their small faecal pellets. My Maltese/Shitzu bitch has taken great delight in gobbling down this abundant, boundless, bunny bounty of manna on her forays unto the land. This is the same hound that will refuse the finest and most expensive kibble and, in the home environment, will only eat finely teased apart boiled chicken breast. A couple of ferrets and a good terrier would be mighty useful in these circumstances. Actually, rabbits are good eating. I have very fond memories of roast rabbit when I was a nipper. A very underestimated protein source, in my opinion. 

    

Leibnitz I

Nice Hair Concealing a Massive Cranium

Just a note: I ain't no philosopher; I have received no formal training, and therefore I hold no qualifications in the subject. I am simply an educated individual with an enquiring mind that encompasses several acadaemic topics. I make no pretence of having deep knowledge and understanding of most of what I write in this blog. My particular field of expertise is cellular genetics and biochemistry. With all that said, I have a wandering/wondering intellect that restlessly and carelessly seeks to take part and learn of the marvels of the world. I invite criticism of my work. I will not take offence at contrary comments as long as they are respectful. My wife may call me a 'know-it-all', but we know better. 

According to the esteemed British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russel, the German savant of the 17th century, Gottfried Leibnitz was, 'One of the supreme intellects of all time'. This is quite the accolade from a man who was no intellectual slouch himself. And indeed, the 17th century was a remarkable time, heralding in the 'Scientific Revolution'. Leibnitz's contemporaries included the acclaimed polymath, Isaac Newton- possibly the greatest scientist of all time (discuss). There are others too many to list here. The 17th century was an astonishing century for the production of great folk of intellectual genius. I'll leave it to my readers to seek out other remarkable individuals whose contributions to science, mathematics and philosophy simply boggle the mind. 

This brief post just scratches the surface when it comes to Leibnitz. It is a mere introduction to an introduction. The more I read about this man, the more I am in awe of his intellect. The sheer breadth and depth of his scholarship invite grandeur, and I can only gape in admiration of his achievements in metaphysics, science, mathematics, logic, linguistics, engineering, geology and even computer science. Therefore, this post is just the first in a series that will delve deeper into the wondrous insights of this Great Man. Sadly, Leibnitz is hardly remembered in Anglophone countries these days, except by specialists. Considering his vast contribution to scholarship and knowledge, the lack of awareness and interest in this man is criminal, and I declare that part of the UK curriculum should include obligatory introductory courses outlining his achievements. 

Leibnitz* was born in the German town of Leipzig in 1646 during the dying embers of the Thirty Years' War (another post mayhap?). His father was then a professor of philosophy. Young Gottfried studied law and, at the tender age of 20, obtained a doctorate at Altdorf. A good education of the time required the eager student to be thoroughly steeped in 'Scholastic Philosophy'. This philosophical system was based on the extensive teachings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In turn, Aquinas relied heavily on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. By the mid-17th century, 'free-thinking' students were starting to rebel against these church-inspired teachings. Scholasticism was becoming to be seen as stodgy, dogmatic, and archaic, with little relevance to the developing ideas of the New Science. Liebnitz was of this ilk and became averse to the malign influence of the 'good doctor' on European universities. A little digression is required: at this time, the distinction between philosophy and science was a tad blurred.  What we would regard as 'true science' was often subsumed under the overarching concept of philosophy. With time, the subjects would part ways and science would achieve wonders, while true philosophy would continue to amass baseless concepts and commentary (a tad harsh and wrong, Flaxen!). Here endeth the discussion.  

Leibnitz was a true polymath, as was his arch-rival, Newton. The days of the polymath are no more. Ever-expanding scientific knowledge and the advent of micro-specialisation guarantee we will never see their kind again. Of course, when discussing Leibnitz, it is impossible not to compare him with Newton. Both men were rare geniuses of a high order. While Newton was an empiricist, Leibnitz placed greater emphasis on rational, logical deduction. Both men invented calculus independently. Leibnitz contribution involved integration, while Newton founded differentiation. A rift occurred between the two scholars concerning primacy. Newton could be exceedingly nasty and spiteful if he felt that his genius was to be challenged. At the time, it was determined, in Britain at least, that Newton was the first to unravel the mysteries of this powerful mathematical system. Modern historical investigation supports this view. Newton discovered calculus first, but was tardy in its widespread reveal.    

After this expansive introduction, tis time for a fleeting look at some of Leibnitz's achievements.

Monadology and Other Philosophies 

Leibnitz's concept of 'Monads' was his metaphysical attempt to apply a universal system to reality. He envisaged that everything was composed of an infinite number of entities Leibnitz labelled monads. Monads represent the fundamental state of everything. They are non-physical and represent a nondivisible unit of self-aware 'force'- ultimately energy. They occupy no space; however, each monad mirrors the entire universe from its own perspective. Leibnitz's Monadology is not as simple as it first appears, as it represents an ambitious attempt to unify everything and overcome a series of philosophical problems under a single concept. Several categories of monads exist, each with its own particular attributes. Thus, there are monads that represent matter, a second class concerns cognition, and ultimately, the supreme monad is a concept of god. As my regular readers are aware, I'm not a great fan of metaphysics. It belongs to a bygone age of intellectual development best left to Ancient Greek Thought and its subsequent expansion in the Middle Ages. Science conquers all. However, I have to make an exception with Leibnitz. His concept of Monadology is expansive, all-encompassing and extremely logical. The more I read about his metaphysics, the more I appreciate its innate beauty and harmony. Tis an impressive logical edifice. In a certain light, it anticipates quantum physics and panpsychism. It is certainly deserving of a deeper delve in a future post. I can't help but think that his ultimate reliance on the 'God Concept' is redundant. However, some free thinkers of the time were not yet ready to discard reliance on supernatural agencies. Educated men of the 17th century were generally pious, so perhaps I shouldn't be too harsh. True naturalistic development would coalesce later, resulting in the discarding of superannuated constructs. Enter the shade of Darwin, stage left.  

Leibnitz wrote extensively on metaphysics and published a treatise on Theodicy that argued that god created 'The best possible of all worlds.' He was heavily criticised and mocked by the French intellectual, Voltaire, for this misplaced optimism. All theodicies ultimately fail due to the inherent evil evident in this world. Why would a supposed all-powerful, all-loving god embed the horrors and unmitigated evils into existence? He also developed 'proofs' for god. His theodicy and extreme advocacy are obvious to the modern mind as sophistry run wild, and his arguments for 'letting god off the hook' are easily revealed as philosophic sycophancy better suited to the brutal Middle Ages. As said, he was a deeply religious man, like Newton, and his philosophy reflects his religious devotion. However, by the late 17th century, his extreme religious views were becoming misplaced and outdated.                 

Calculus and Mathematics Akimbo

I have already alluded to Leibnitz's work on the branch of mathematics known today as calculus. Sufficient to reiterate here that he was not the originator, although his contribution was independent of Newton, and today, we use Leibnitz's notation rather than Newton's. Also, Leibnitz invented a mechanical calculating machine (Stepped Reckoner) that implemented the four basic functions of calculation more efficiently than any preceding machine. This machine was used for centuries and anticipated the fundamentals of computing technology. And let us not forget that he also developed the Binary System, the basis of modern computing. And if this was not enough, Leibnitz made important contributions to the developing field of statistics. 

Engineering

Leibnitz worked on the design of a wind-powered water drainage pump for mines. Although the project ultimately failed, it was an early attempt to combine mechanical power systems and demonstrated his theoretical and intellectual reach, as well as his ability to apply theory to practice.  

Logic

Leibnitz worked tirelessly to systemise syllogistic reasoning by introducing a small number of axioms based on deduction. He introduced algebraic notation to represent logical connections, thereby heralding foundational concepts in Symbolic Logic.  

Final Comment

I will stop here, not because I have come to the limits of this man's formidable achievements and contributions to knowledge. There is more to be said, but that will have to wait for future post(s). Leibnitz was a voluminous writer, and much of what he wrote did not get published in his lifetime. Indeed, the final release of all his work was only completed in the latter half of the 20th century. Russell was of the opinion that much of his unpublished work was actually more profound than his published work. If possible, I will see if I can't tease out some of Leribnitz's more radical and deeply thoughtful musings.      

Gottfried Leibnitz/Leibniz* 

Usually, 'Leibnitz' is rendered 'Leibniz'. My spelling of the name is not incorrect; it is just uncommon. Nuff said.

The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, Part I

Don't Ask the Vogons to Read Their Poetry

The question posed in the title was answered by the supercomputer Deep Thought after 7.5 million years of binary cogitation. And the final answer to the fundamental, most profound puzzle that has occupied the minds of brilliant individuals for the past 2.5 thousand years is: Forty Two. Well, that is according to the late, great Douglas Adams in his book, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. An excellent book, by the way. However, the BBC series adaptation will haunt me to the end of time. In particular, the incarnation of 'Beeplebrox' with a poorly constructed second head, made of rubber. It was unconvincing and wobbled precariously on Beeplebrox's shoulder. Occasionally, the mouth would move up and down in a parody of a demented ventriloquist's dummy. It looked ridiculous and was disturbingly distracting. Rant over.

As mentioned, the Great Question has fascinated and intrigued our species over the millennia. The question can be put forth in several ways, such as: Is there meaning to the universe? What is the purpose of our existence? Is there an underlying purpose to life? Philosophers contend that there is no answer to these questions. That sounds unsettling. We strive to understand, and we become perplexed when we are thwarted in our quest. Not all are so limited in their understanding. Great systems of thought have solved the conundrum, or so they think. Religions have the answer. In fact, their answer is definitive and true. There is something terrifyingly unsettling in certainty.    

Generally, there is no wriggle room when it comes to religious systems. The question is definitely answered by belief in an unknown, invisible, supernatural deity. A deity of superlatives. A deity that acts in space and time and gets things done. Believe, and there is no reason to ask for an alternative solution. God knows the answer to all things, and that should be enough for the devoted. Deities do not directly project their wisdom and knowledge to the common folk; an intermediary is required. A special class of men who act as conduits to pass on god's edicts and other profound stuff to the simple devotee; a cadre of individuals solely devoted to the role. Usually, the work is well paid and not demanding- a good gig if you satisfy the entry requirements.  

We don't have to understand the mechanism or minutiae of existence. We have the broad outline, and that should suffice. Asking for clarification or raising objections is strictly forbidden. But here is the rub. Different systems propose different solutions to the ultimate question. Even those who claim to adhere to the same deity offer different resolutions. Compare Catholicism with Jehovah's Witnesses. Both, at the very core of their beliefs, worship Yahweh, an Israelite warrior, storm god; however, their versions of '42' are fundamentally incompatible. This can't be.

Simply put, when it comes to religions, various (take your pick), either one system is correct, or none are correct. This is basic logical analysis that cannot be refuted. Unlike induction, deduction provides absolute knowledge. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion is unassailably true. The thinking man knows this and ponders anew. He knows that so-called religious 'veracity', regardless of type/flavour/cult, is not founded on knowledge but on speculation without evidence. When pushed, the theologian will invariably resort to the concept of 'Faith'. Faith, as a theological vehicle for knowledge acquisition, is a baseless fabrication. Invariably, the believer will falter and resort to 'Faith' as a special form of cognition bestowed by the deity. Not only is the concept dependent on supernatural intervention, but some theologians have the intellectual audacity and breathtaking dishonesty to declare that atheists are denied access to this special form of cognition as a consequence of their nonbelief. Frankly, this is where rational debate must end. 

My Personal Journey toward a Solution to the Great Question: Prologue

As a young man of 21, my intellectual development was ragged, fantastic and filled with supernatural causation. It was a time when I earnestly believed in the existence of ghosts. Admittedly, this stemmed from an unsettling visitation by an apparition at the tender age of three. My ghost was no ephemeral shade. It was solid, in vivid colour and materialised within a foot of my bed.  

My Story

I awoke to see an old, bespectacled woman seated on a large wooden chair next to my bed. I was transfixed, unable to look away. I still remember how she was dressed, her grey coiffed hair spun into a bun. A shawl was draped across her shoulders. There was something antique about my visitor, as if she belonged to a bygone age. How long my unearthly, unbiden phantasm tarried, I could not tell. Eventually, the image broke and dispersed into a kaleidoscope of fractured colour. During the experience, my visitor remained still, staring, inert and expressionless. The spell was broken, and I ran to my parents' room crying in terror. This vision had a significant impact on my immature mind.

 At 21, I should have known better. The hint: my wraith came as I awoke from a deep sleep. I no longer believe in ghosts. That said, our present home is afflicted with a mischievous poltergeist whom I have named Rupert. We never see him; however, he takes delight in hiding my pens, reading glasses, car keys and wallet. He is a very naughty sprite! Flaxen, enough of this nonsensical digression and rambling narrative, you must return to the topic in hand. You have something important to say, at least it is important to you and your understanding and conception of ultimate reality.     

I had the fervent hope that I could cover what I wanted to say in one, coherent post. This was not to be. For reasons not apparent to the reader, or the author, to be honest, I have veered from my avowed purpose and found myself mired in narrative verbage that has lurched from 'sensible' to a babbling brook of words, that swirls and disperses into the depths of muddied/muddled soggy inconsequence. Thusly, I have wisely decided to split the post asunder into two (unnecessary redundancy), to prevent 'reader fatigue'. It is my avowed intention to conclude with a second post before the arrival of the new year or the next medication cycle.