Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in hlemkle's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Monday, June 11th, 2007
6:03 pm	Timshel Just finished Steinbeck's epic, East of Eden. It is, to say the least, a moving work, and written so skillfully and with such warmth that one cannot help but feel endeared to humanity. Truly Steinbeck had a gift at understanding the realm of human character. His purpose is noble, and I will minimise any exploration of the book here as prophylaxis against jumping up and proclaiming "Timshel!" and "Thou mayst!" left, right and centre. Essentially Steinbeck argues for free will: the ability to decide to do good rather than evil. Whether it is in the face of inheritance (genetic, financial, or otherwise), past histories, coming of age, or uncertainty. Deeply interwoven is a sense of inherent human goodness (there is a tendency for those who fail to strive for good and those incapable of it to fall victim of foul outcome) and deep interconnectedness between individuals and families; there is complex criss-crossing of relationship possibilities through time and space (in a sense, we are all part of on large family). I think there are 3 broad categories to analyse a novel such as this: i) The talent belying the message (style and literary technique) ii) The meaning (did the author try to convey any message, and if so, what?) iii) The author's meaning in broader context The 3rd point is a new one for me. The reason, I think, is that I have always found good literary technique to be an especially convincing medium for rhetoric. In the past I would cling to the "extractable truths" a novel would apparently offer, although the while the very human face of the author seemed to be lost against a foreground of very real characters, whose collective story had morals plastered all over it. Any philosophical truths from the last novel would be awashed anew with uncertainty. It is a humourous and astonishing thing for me, to pick over "East of Eden" with a truly critical mind. The bias towards the good will of humanity is obvious; amongst other things we see the invariably fatal fates of those unable to adopt the "Timshel" principle (whether they are evil or not). Perhaps losing self-centredness is a principle of maturing age - the realisation that there are others with other worlds outside oneself (an idea Mrs Dunn drummed into us as unmoveable fact). A more admirable ideology in my view is to extend this humble approach beyond the realm of humanity to include plants and animals, rocks, planets, the universe - a la Stephen Gregory and his reconciliation between Lyotard/Foulcault postmodernism and the search for truth (scientific method). All the same I loved reading this book. One gets swept away in likeness of this fiction's characters to true people, and can only marvel at their changing manners and journeys of self-discovery. His technique abounds in skill - at expounding his argument (the novel's final forgiving with "Timshel"; the naming of the boys as rite of passage in joining the fraternal right to be damned), at depicting life in those times, at smoothing over the rugged complexities of human nature (with beatiful conceptual illustration). The whole thing falls into a smooth series of breathtaking truisms and wonder at the human; an astonishing read. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 5th, 2007
4:58 pm	tootle-oo I realise now: Successful chronic ambition is to have already made up one's mind. Looking for inspirations along the way is just another part of the stepping towards that goal, not an indicator of incongruent desparation. (Comment on this)
Saturday, May 5th, 2007
12:20 pm	rah There were a few dips in confidence this week where, positivity fleeting, there was nothing to turn to but an overwhelming sense of indadequacy and worldy lonliness. It was very distracting, and a few years ago I note that this is the type of mood I would relish and ride through in song. I like people, I really do. But I have a great tendency to rely on others to make the call on the course of events. Worse, is my reactivity, or childish ease of changing opinion, action, even life goals in the shadow or radiance of another personality. The evidence for this day-to-day mindless sacrifice of independence is overwhelming. I need only cast my eye over the last week and look at movements in the 'home' (submissive to tv channel preferences), at work (repeatedly presenting cases that have a logistical problem, for example), and socially (when was the last time I initiated a conversational thread, really?). There is no doubt I find it difficult to be assertive. Oracle, Chris, Mus-Tang, PeteC, Garbz - people with such admirable adherence to their central goals (sex, academia, science, clinical skill, rnb production) hold with it such a lovely air of independence; yet how do they fight their lonliness, or do they fight at all? Does Oracle ever wonder at what some might call his "shallowness?" and dream of social circles outside PUA? Maybe, but I'm sure he gets over it quickly. Does PeteC wonder at his inability to hold a girlfriend for more than a few weeks? Perhaps, but I doubt he mourns the prospect. I venture that there is a certain escapism in these wonderful people's coping strategies - when the going gets tough, their willpower gets going. This post is about changing 2 things: - assertiveness of oneself (opinion, action, etc.) - getting through downtimes Both are things that highlight the importance of the sweetness of air and cheerfulness. Even in the face of a purposeless existence (c'mon I've intellectualised cheery air into this long ago!) or felt stigmatisation, C & F must hold true. That is, I take myself far too seriously. There is NO ROOM in this life to dwell, dawdle, wallow in misery. That is simply self-inflicted and my first world circumstances are far too permitting to allow for that. Being assertive is slightly more tricky. First of all: I must get over this self-worrying idea of people scrutinizing someone for trying to change. A) They simply don't care, and (B) there are beautiful unwritten laws of socialities that allows one to fall back on subtlety, even in response to another's non-subtle behaviour. There are also two things I want to avoid: being defensive and being aggressive. They both reflect insecurity (reactivity and worrying about others, really), and taking oneself too seriously - what I am ultimately trying to avoid. How to maintain C&F when there is call for seriousness (or perhaps one shouldn't maintain it)? Practicing certain shit tests? There are many nuances, and it would be ridiculous to try and document them - that is, write out a life before living it. This post really comes back to keeping sight of ones goals, and being cheerful about it. Hurrah! (Comment on this)
Thursday, May 3rd, 2007
2:49 pm	internship starts now This morning we were chatting about the health scandal up north with the sacking of 4 interns whom were actually not registered (even worse, one hadn't even a medical degree!)...the discussion moved quickly to the observation that skill level between doctors varies remarkably. You needn't have direct beaurocratic participation to notice the anaesthetist groan when such-and-such surgeon is operating on their list, or the consultant wail in despair when he has the JHO on call under him instead of his very experienced registrar. Then you look at the interns. Some are clearly confident with their knowledge and show evidently good critical thinking skills - as highlighted in clinical meetings and their ability on the wards. Then there are others, whose difficultly handling everyday speech makes you wonder how they might fare in day-to-day interactions with patients. There is something to be said for personal integrity here, as even the clinically less-able interns a greatly appreciated when well-organised and professional. Part of my lack of ganas for study is partly that I am overwhelming frustrated by the lack of spoon-feeding (not too mention assessment) administered by our school. Of course, the funding of universities being what it is, we can hardly expect more than their over-reliance on the good nature and firm commitment of students and staff. After all no one attends medical school with the intention of becoming a bad doctor. Get away from the idea of punishing the school through poor performance! Ultimately I am using the school a scapegoat; it takes time and commitment to feel confident in one's own learning, and so far I haven't sufficiently proved myself. Let those episodes of felt inadequacy come; ignore the self-perception of clnical supremacy. As long as I feel comfortable with my understanding of the matter. I must remember the beautiful greys of the world and take losses and successes all in the stride of intellectual interest and critical thought. And cheerful C & F. The talk today went OK. I was confident I had the best evidence (god bless uptodate, that wonderful tool), and kept it simple and clear (I hope!) by sticking to clinically-relevant questions....but was it too basic for the registrar level? I asked Hels for feedback and think she was genuinely congratulatory (although we had just left a non-medical discussion with medical colleagues and were in some kind of state of social high). It was appropriate enough. I find that a lot of these latest-clinical-evidence talks risk running into unnecessary jargon and technical details that leaves the audience confused. I'm not sure how it could have gone on for longer than 15 minutes; meh, a quick game's a good game. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007
7:16 pm	mobilise thy sloth Times when I am lazy: - putting off studying - putting off chores - not listening to others - not caring to address them on the occasion I do think they are wrong - not upholding my end of conversation - not keeping professional face - not keeping congruent character Why I am lazy: - disproportionate sense that it is too difficult - disproportionate sense that it is too late - some vague notion (an arrogant one) that at the end of the day it doesn't matter How I can avoid being lazy: - being aware of the above lazy times - make the most of times that appear hopeless or worthless - what would an assertive person do? - have free/recreational time only when it is earned. Earn these times. - look forward to free time when doing chores. (Comment on this)
Monday, April 30th, 2007
2:49 pm	"sleep when yer dead" Briefly whilst I recuperate with caffeine before heading back up. A very jolly trip. Fun of course being the main thing with anything social; I managed to avoid getting trapped into frame games (I find in-the-moment analysis tends to do this and avoid it accordingly). Some hindsight observations: - Both the fellas dressed very well (ie. according to persona), even for the dirt. - the deafult alpha was deservedly so: not at all aggressive (or even blokey), but very relaxed, non-reactive, and the main conversationalist (read: fun). The group tended to rely on him for the logistical calls. Great intonation and reasonable emotionally-charged storytelling. Even the politically- or career-orientated anecdotes avoided being boring - largely through vocal expression (and personal enthusiasm). Good bloke. - Good improvement with relaxation and BL. Having that sensation of relaxed control (ie. not to the point of laziness, but remaining assertive to the groups needs) and positive flights was coming more frequently. It's just like playing team basketball. - Both the fellas held a degree of individual alphaness and charisma. That is to say, I am sure mutual leadership is possible (just as in the scenario of 2 wings running routines on a group). After all, this is with FRIENDS! The goal may be for warm alpha and flexing social muscles, but independently other leaders; there is no AMOGing! And, just as in day game, information can be conveyed more subtley and slowly - we are not among strangers and outside of the highly-charged club environment after all. The proudest moment was returning back to the units at 10pm and opening up the textbooks. I figure study study study + chatter throughout the week, and 1x studio production and 1x social each weekend. Long live the externalisation! For next time: - warm alpha is goal; maintain the good BL and selective reactivity (I noticed I became more reactive with time - perhaps an odd sense of security, or simply bad habit? Social conventions still remain with best mates - stay respectful!) - be more relaxed when holding the floor. don't be afraid of chatting on (but don't feel obliged to!). There were a few occasions where I appeared to put my foot in it (big time), yet I moved on really quite well (this could be smoother by picking up the conversational thread rather than relying on others to do so). - speak up more often. I think the relative quiets in this most recent trip had several factors: 1. the social frame of mind is out of practice (I was a bit slow with the C & F, and even just processing info. being heard). 2. small confidence in identity I think both are aspects likely to passively improve with continued outings. Frequent encounters with shit tests and the like are nice exercise. (Comment on this)
Thursday, April 26th, 2007
10:49 pm	Take II and avoiding reality television Coffee is so very fine. 3 today and Lord knows I need it after the rusty sleep all through last night. I felt obliged to scroll back through this year's history with a view to ward off thoughts of PUA fancy. Yes, in the depths of procrastination (exams must be edging ever nearer) I wandered over to the lair and before I knew it there was oracle and new textbooks to be read... We have been roped into these excitements before. Now, I am of course all for the generation of a socially-stable ID and devloping dandy sophistry. Yet, along with level-headed critical examination of the world around (not least my own behaviour), thirst-for-learning medical memorisation and synthesis, habitual musical production, book club philosophising and being mesmerisied by the wonder of podcasts....what room left is there? Noting of course that I am forever juggling all of the above as a Percy-of-all-trades, disallowing the mastery of any one. Certainly I shall PUA. But not until I can master these other goals...they take priority. And why not use breaks from our top priorities (pre-intern confidence and Folie) to get into these? Well here is my scantily clad critical thought. I pass the buck - yes, allow the mind to wander - in those moments where the going towards those goals gets a little tough. It's tragically immature: the slightest hint of challenge throws me into backwards-rationalisations of alternative success stories - I try to convince myself that indeed I am on a road to my goal, and even that there is some URGENCY for its attention being immediately paid. Now you might imagine that with an afternoon swimming in PUA theory I have all sorts of new ideas about reconciling emotional socialities with self-reflected critical thinking, clinical reasoning and science with a parallel mind of C & F, so on and so forth, and you are absolutely correct. But I cannot divulge the pretenses of my newfound wisdom. Wisdom, after all, it certainly isn't. Just as in medicine to not see patients is to not set sail at all (whilst not consulting texts is merely sailing uncharted waters), and PUA is learnt in the field...I return to Lennon with "life is what happens to you when you're too busy making plans." That is, I have my goals, and they might be black and white ideals (however modest); yet I repeatedly fail to apply them to the humourous greays . If these 25 years have taught nothing else, it is that there is simply insufficient time to design the business of living before having the chance of living it. Yes, it my perusals of the past I found that 'sow a thought' has been mirroring back nigh on eight weeks. Can Emerson truly be 2 years in the making? I know that the cream of the jest is to be. And let's not even attempt to reincarnate even older thoughts - locked away, thankfully, as they are on fading paper. Am I throwing away philosophy as a bad habit? Let me remind you how I have been recently humbled. I can now pick up Nietsche's philosophical history and dislike the man for his insistence of superiority. And whilst I do come across new personal revelations on rare occasions, how much more common in this tail-chasing? Groundhog days being, of course, permitted in the world of habit-striving-for-goals. I no longer need to convince myself that unless the bolt of lightening is jotted down this instant that the world will be swept with underprivilage. Let us come across those truly new ideas through habit. So that we can again stamp this year with a familiar tail-chaser: externalise, positivity, habit. but chased, of course, with review by the critical mind, in its grey splendour. i think it's time we safely abandoned black-and-white religious fervor. Current Music: Claude Bonning;'s Enjoyment (Comment on this)
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007
12:29 pm	Humouress greys Was it only this week whence I resolved to abandon parrot-regurgitation of facts, and apply synthesis to clinical scenarios? An admirable habit to maintain, and today I hope to swallow a good deal of knowledge to take along for the 6th week...the end of the week every-approaching. A career entrenched in the clinical sciences has become more attractive now that science seems to have, in my mind, the firmer grip on reality, and interestingly I dedicated an evening of procrastination to wandering the RACP and australasian society of ID web pages. Dreams dreams dreams - the recent re-instigation of podcasts (philosopher's zone; science) has proven my weakness at fiction. Not because they, or any fiction, are arbitrary, untrue, or meaningless (in fact, quite the opposite), but because my mind is too obsessive to allow it the opportunity to solve the fascinating dilemmas of every discipline. Worse: In conjuring up fanciful careers one slips from the present, into that world of dream where music bubbles through beakers and grows on petri dishes. Into repetitive visits to myspace. My good habits have been compromised of late then. Naughtily spending the weekend wrapped in Rushdie's midnight, I am sure I would have eaten more chocolate if it were available. Part of a self-imposed ignorance-of-self (read: procrastination), escapism from negativity of thought, to recuperate, nay, mourn, the destitute social muscle that christened the weekend. I could go on in allegory. The sponsored dinner and subsequent boozy outing was worthwhile. I don't want to dwell on perceived stigmatisations; it is enough to say that I was reminded: i) Life is a shit test. How congruent is my person across the professions, individual authorities, the different 'classes' of society? ii) How limited time we have this year to flex the social muscle. But of course social pleasantries, like fiction, can be just that - without any need of exercise. I miss storytelling and being heard. Our inaugural MSAT practice was deeply satisfying (perhaps oddly so), despite the heavy emphasis placed on logistics at its start. One can feel accepted intellectually then (although I note the danger of mixing pursuit of truth with social values). I'm not entirely sure why Mick had a go at me on friday evening; resentful of his expectation that there aren't more partygoer's in town, perhaps? He certainly revealed an unlikeable part of character. But, taking a leaf from The Champ, I don't paint him black: the world, you see, if full of humourous greys. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 18th, 2007
9:05 pm	pre-intern 1 Subsequent to repeated feelings of inadequacy, confusion, and self-scloding, yesterday I resolved to commence a professionalism-orientated blog; some self-reflected direction in the lead up to the workforce.  Today I kept wits about me and managed to succeed in successfully presenting very complicated case to Jim the Consultant, in the AM clinic. Also today, I had cause to genuinely doubt another consultant's decision to not admit a patient seen in antental. You see, I seem to have perpetually fallen victim  of unquestioning the decision of authority and have allowed myself to become numb to clinical talk, just as I was, as a child, dismissing adult conversation as trivial, relevance soon to be osmosed through the passivity of time. Medicine, it is no mystery, is learnt in the field. I know this but unfortunately rarely practice it so. This rotation has been a large eye-opener for the very reason that, thrown into clinic, we are forced into clinical descision. The knowledge base is not so difficult to grasp; what IS difficult, and what I must quickly rectify, is absolute memorisation of that knowledge so that it can be confidently applied. (Comment on this)
Monday, April 9th, 2007
7:47 pm	Stephen Gregory on the Postmodern purpose Reading Salman is engrossing. Yet I cannot help but wonder at these snippets of rationalism that surreptiously surface to point out the absurdities inherent in, say, the narrator's pondering of some paranormal phenomenon, or even speculations of fate. The whole experience glares at the past; a child is glued to the tv screen in some inexplicably fervent excitement: Yes, the worldy truths are about to be revealed in superman's swift heroics. Ah, those extractable truths... now, perhaps, I am overcompensated. Still I am to learn how to read fiction! A brilliant Ockham's podcast from yesterday. Mr Gregory puts forward a very admirable interpretation of Foulcault's postmodernism, and manages to address extremism far more sensitively than Dawkins. Artists, I have found, love to dwell on the postmodern condition; opinion becomes a phenomological playground for intensifying convictions that are "all relative, man." Yet there is a noteworthy exception in the hoardes of brunt ideologies - one that, as Steve notes, carries with it an inherently postmodern theme. While there is such as thing as scientific assumption, it is necessarily a temporary bridge to something better; it is not adverse to investigating the possibility of alternatives, as other ideologies are - a concept Dawkins had some difficulty of explaining to a studio audience accusing him of narrow-mindedness. The 'just another ideology' argument has sat rather unsettlingly for some years now. Perhaps driven adrift in a mind freshly full of democratized truths and marijuana. To coax a former (non-) self, I highlight that science is unique for several reasons. First and foremest it is amenable to change (self-intentioned, not to be confused with the belief updates religious authorities have afforded through the ages); it is (unintentionally) inherently a postmodern enterprise. Secondly (and, enough for now - I'm tired), it works. I should mention that the label 'science' carries with it individuals, institutions, and geopolitical and cultural influences that muddy its metaphysical clarity, just as one might expect any authorative term to. What in particular is fascinating from Mr Gregory is the idea of building a moral ground (or, in fact the NECESSITY to do so in reducing the number of civilisation's extremists) from the empty space of lacking humanity. Reglious apologists accuse atheistic belief of rendering ethics obsolete. This is the type of rashly conclusive jump we could expect from any black-and-white self-rationlisation, perhaps from someone, as Dawkins pointed out, that is frightened of moral responsibility. If we do identify absolutism as dangerous, then isn't the humbling vacuum of individual insignificance necessarily good? Camus suggested we fight everyday meaningless but I prefer Satre paralleling with (zen) Buddhism, that existentialism is liberation (though I don't think one has to necessarily meditate all day to achieve it). We are free from ideas of 'humanity' and 'self.' After all, though we may be built to stake out everyday purpose, good behaviour needn't rely on some Great Purpose. Humanism is weak here, for it relies too heavily on humanity as an idea. It is a pervasive cultural mishap of today to assume that existentialism concludes pessimistically. How I would love to portray artistically the ideas of de-centred (self/humanity) gregariousness and humble (non-existent yet cheerful) everyday purpose. What a great thing to aspire to - to experience the exhilirating rush of passion without needing to resort to gradiose delusions. At any rate I shall have to suggest Foucault's fable for BC. ----------------------------------------------- Stephen Gregory: While preparing this Ockham's Razor talk, I heard Ramona Koval promoting her Book Program on this station, with help from a sentence by Harold Bloom, to the effect that reading well is one of the great pleasures afforded by solitude. I understand why such a program might seek the support of a literary critic as well known as Professor Bloom, but my reaction was, I suspect, far from being the desired one. In the course of a career teaching and writing about literature, much less illustrious than his, I have on more than a few occasions had recourse to Professor Bloom's expertise. What I found led me to the sad conclusion that his early brilliance had been progressively undermined by ever more paranoid delusions of grandeur. So my immediate response to hearing Ramona Koval's appeal to him was to ask myself what makes Professor Bloom think he knows very much about reading well. I have a not dissimilar worry (among other, certainly) when I hear the advocates of creationism or intelligent design. Even allowing the existence of their god, however defined, I find myself asking by what logic they derive their certainty that the nature of its mind and being is intelligible to humans, and that they, like Harold Bloom with literature, are among the select few who know how to read it correctly. For these are among the dubious assumptions made even by someone who asserts something as apparently simple as that the Bible is literally true. There is here a nostalgic desire to introduce the act of faith, whereby we can be sure that there is, at some last resort, solid ground on which we can base the principles we hope to apply to the business of living. What the theories and artefacts gathered under the much misrepresented umbrella of postmodernism aim to do is show not only that recourse to such a sense of security is unnecessary and irrational, but also how we can learn to cope with the feelings of loss and abandon inevitably occasioned by being cast adrift in a universe where all that is solid has indeed melted into air. And among the first things to go were human beings themselves for, as listeners may have already appreciated, along with the assurance that God exists, comes the surreptitious implication that the beings that make that assertion must be at the centre or pinnacle of their God's creation. One of postmodernism's abiding tasks has been to find alternatives to the ways in which human beings set themselves up as protagonists in a tale that does little more than trumpet their own self-importance. Similarly, one can justifiably wonder whether some theoretical physics describes a divinely created universe or merely translates the workings of the scientist's own mind into mathematical imagery. Incidentally, we can glimpse here why few major postmodern works address scientific matters directly, for as far as authority and legitimation are concerned, science already lives in a postmodern world. All its results and theories are considered doubtful unless confirmed by experiment, and all its conclusions are provisional in the sense that future knowledge may render them redundant just as, say, Einstein's equations superseded Newton's. As William of Ockham seems to have been among the first to glimpse and Darwin one of those who have most vigorously claimed, science can only be done properly (some might say, done at all) if a putative creator and an ultimate point of origin are expelled completely or, at the very least, put at a very distant remove. However, one of postmodernism's most provocative short texts, Jean-François Lyotard's 1992 'A Postmodern Fable', takes cosmology as its subject matter and covers a time period of no less than nine billion years, the figure Lyotard accepts as measuring the lifetime of the star we call the Sun. A first person narrative voice, situated in our present, introduces, tells and comments upon a fable which impersonally relates how an energy force has evolved on Earth up till now, and foresees how that force, in whatever form, might concentrate all its efforts on devising a way of abandoning the planet and finding somewhere else to go before the solar system's ultimate demise when the Sun burns out. Part prophetic science fiction, part Cosmology 101 essay, 'A Postmodern Fable', by suggesting that the human species is but one of the ephemeral forms assumed by a contingent, purposeless energy force, enacts a ruthless ejection of humanity from the centre of its own story. This decentering of the human subject takes many forms under postmodernism, not the least of which are the globalised communication technologies that have done so much to compress or telescope our experience of time and space that they now challenge or dissolve the very notion of centre itself. Even more crucial to the postmodern enterprise is the decentering that takes the form of a radical questioning of that lynchpin of humanism: an idealised, mythologised abstraction often called 'Man', with a capital M, set on a never-ending journey to ultimate self-realisation. Attempts to find alternatives to this secularised Christian story, the most beloved of the so-called 'Grand Narratives' denounced by Lyotard in his path-breaking 1979 book 'The Postmodern Condition', are closely associated with the name of Michel Foucault. His 'History of Sexuality' and the earlier books which analyse the growth (in France) of institutions such as hospitals, asylums and prisons, show human beings as moulded and constrained by ideological and psycho-social forces that can only be modified or contested if their formative role in making us what we are is fully recognised for the very material entity it is. In short, for Foucault there is no immaculate, sovereign essence called in abstract terms 'Humanity', or, at the individual level, 'the Self', which exists separately from the flawed men and women who embody it. Difference, which has become an all but meaningless buzzword in a narrow identity politics, was for Foucault a strategic weapon in the struggle whereby humans, released from the chains of having to live up to an unrealisable and conformist ideal, could find ways to insert themselves into history before history itself inserted them willy-nilly. Remembering that Foucault loudly advocated the rights of marginalised minorities such as prisoners, the insane and sufferers of AIDS, the disease that would finally kill him in 1984, we might say that Foucault sought to construct a methodology for the human sciences that would be as humane as it was resolutely anti-humanist. It is in this context, I think, that we can best understand Roland Barthes now 40-year-old polemic on 'the Death of the Author'. For Barthes, the author was a mythologised authority figure whose intentions and role as originator of a discourse were manipulated to constrain the ability of readers to generate new meanings and functions for it. Not long ago, I saw on the news a home made video showing how a Palestinian grandmother who had lost her grandsons in an attack strapped on explosives and set off into Israel to kill other grandsons and sicken other grandmothers. This may indicate a problem with grandmothers, but there is a much bigger one with Grand Narratives. Decades ago, in a landmark TV series from the dawn of postmodernity, Jacob Bronowski dug his hands into the mud of the concentration camp at Auschwitz, held them up to the camera and told us, 'This is what happens when men try to be gods'. They can get to think that way when people (including grandmothers) are persuaded to arm themselves with a theory that claims to explain everything once and for all. By which I mean those often unacknowledged, always unquestioned sets of beliefs legitimised by Authors with a capital A, such as God or Allah, Hitler or Stalin, entities such as this Country or that Empire, abstractions such as Globalisation or State Socialism. In short, believing we are something more than human is what can happen when we mistake our consoling fictions and metaphors for substantive truths. We should join that eccentric English modernist, G.K. Chesterton, who was first an atheist, then an Anglican and finally a Catholic, in asking: 'When the surface of the planet is littered with the ruins of civilisations, what makes any of us think there's anything permanent about ours?' Being a postmodern fellow-traveller, I have purposely changed Chesterton's somewhat evasive 'you' and 'yours' into the inclusive 'we' and 'ours'. Because, for me, this is what postmodernism is about: how to live in a world where no authority (especially our own) is forever and all legitimation can be overthrown, without succumbing to the nostalgic yearning for any kind of superhero or superwoman to lure us into believing that they can make things other than they are. To accept, finally, that we are but fragile, transient and expendable tenants in the universe is a small price to pay compared with the havoc we have already caused by believing we are the masters of this planet and of everything on it. [end] (Comment on this)
Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007
9:49 pm	ploughing in technicolour A rather embarrassing incident today regarding cannulation of a needle-phobe. Certainty being pushed to its limits with a first failure, I conceded to the pt's wishes of a more senior member and went tail-between-legs to Clive. Ah! The Cephalic vein is ideal for the 16G, not the narrow veins on the dorsum of the hand! Flimsy self-confidence has thrown simple practical minds out the window. We needn't paint ourselves useless. Feeling so grand after bball, I can't help but note the recent deficit of exercise. It jumped the boat last rotation with self-frenzied work up of anaemia and never made a comeback. One of the midwives joked, "You've failed the first rule....you always know what you're doing." There certainly is room for "faking it 'til you make it" this year, and in distinguishing anxiety over variations on situations previously encountered (eg. a simple phlebotomy) and getting out of one's clinical depth is a subtle skill that needn't be left for intern. There is little point in scolding. It is the small habituals and sowing of thoughts that I am chasing. Lovely externalisation. Step-by-step towards the goals of 2007. I note without conceived self-congratulation that a cheery greeting to roomies and peers alike relfects back beautifully; instead, fatigued, I am happily warmed. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, March 27th, 2007
11:12 pm	Mrs Dunn's 2 cents Oh, and one corollary of critical thinking is of course personal responsibility. Is this what Mrs Dunn and her Grapes of Wrath was aiming at all along? (1 Comment |Comment on this)
10:33 pm	on being humbly dismantled 20mins left until the bball shirts are ready to hang out. Dawkins' newest IS astounding, as the preliminary perusals at the turn of the year suggested (once again: How distant overseas travel becomes after a few modest repeats of routine!). Though I note he commits a cherry-picking of his own in the later chapters, making no attempt to hide his passionate advocacy of scientific endeavour and disgust at the 'religious mind.' As a reader, he reaches me well: I am guilty of his apt descritpions of: the confused amateur philosopher (who manages to categorise scientific 'ideology' as simply another slice in the pie of cultural relativism); the modern democratic citizen (who shudders at the rude dismissal of the sanctity of religion); and the amateur biologist (who falls into the trap of viewing darwinism as a process of chance, whereas it is really the improbability of the BEGINNING of life we admire). For being exposed to the err of my ways, the book has been invaluable. How could I, a graduate of science whose career now devotes itself to the objective gathering of patient data to administer scientifically-tested pharmacotherapy, even consider that science could be not be superior? It's a new freedom from indoctrination. I believe in the geography of maps after all. There is something to be said for the critical mind, and having my eyes open to the processes of reason, is nothing short of a personal revelation - one of entirely new direction. Yes, one to replace the drug-induced cultural relativism that has given us so many 'enlightenments' in the past. Ah! How ever-changing and surprising is this world the mind drifts throught - just luverly!! I still feel cultural relativism very important for artistic purposes (indeed I am somewhat hestitant and bolting full throttle into developing a critical reasoning machine, for fear of losing those inspirational moments of eves); despite Dawkins' satisfaction with unweaving rainbows (which is perfectly reasonable for 'filling' that 'spiritual' void of wanting to feel a part of something bigger) - marvelling at the wonders of science, however breathtakingly (un)imaginable they are - is limiting. Of course, I return to Malouf. Science and religion: the case is clear. Critical reasoning and flights of fancy? I am yet to reconcile the two although I cannot see it as impossible for co-existence side-by-side. After all, science's greatest refutation of religion (in fact, its entire doctrine), is explaining the world based on evidence. Identifying and examining truths of reality. Art has no such obligations. I sincerely hope that developing the critical mind does not compromise the ability to fly off into never-nevers. Surley not, otherwise how could the scientist devotee successful recount an anecdote, dramatise a joke? It's the switching frames of mind back and forth again. I say plunge in. Live, re-examine, read & discuss. Experience is the mother of new directions, so it would seem. ------------------------ In other news, fantastic inspiration in theatre then in colp clinic today. Such great mentors. Emptied bladders, first assistant in cesar, and did around 6 smears - all the while treated as a colleague. Brings a tear to the eye really. Careers talk this evening has prompted all sorts of different ideas. Inclusion of research is one of them. The disciplines I see as having dramatic advances in my lifetime are microbes (ID/tropical infection); neuroscience (neurology, psych), and developmental biology (I wonder whether O & G superspecialisation into fertility be a step in the right direction). A week or so ago (under the influence of Dawkins), the idea of triapsing to melby in the hope of collaborating with Elle seemed rather unappealing. Just THAT way of life - endless stupor and subscription to pop subculture. Though he is a great bloke and I think I will always love music. Must return to writing the weekly goals (broadly). Churning is going nicely, must STOP the intermittent dreaming (remember it is SECOND NATURE to churn!). At the moment, the flights of fancy are rather unproductive! The machine is beeping... (Comment on this)
Monday, March 19th, 2007
10:48 pm	Critical thinking II Disciplined thought, clearly, was in dire need during those desperate years of adolescent isolation to the shallow epicurian of university days. And, Lordy! How we searched for a method, how we cursed the religious for the luck in falling into guiding systems of thinking, how we howled at the famous for meaning and spited the parents for lack thereof. How we searched our peers, driven deferentially, admired the obsessed for their unquestioning integrity, scrambled opinion in the name of solemnity, dripped dry by ourselves in solitude. Waiting. Hoping. Scratching at the walls for any shiny fiction that would impress sufficiently to deliver us from an existential depravity. And finally, bore of all bores, critical thinking comes knocking on the window. Suddenly the arg mentality - a struggle for cultural acceptance and social meaning - is ridiculoulsy superficial. And yet, not. Even a character devoted to a year of smiling politely can find limits. And I do recall debating on various scientific topics con Maria y Agustin and plenty of others facts and figures that were most definitely correct. But somehow (the smoking perhaps), it all wafted away, and there we were, struck with a sense of total cheerful existentialism...unfortunately one doomed to crash and burn away from the holiday mirage of travelling high. I still have reservations towards the critical thinking idea. From Criticalthinking.org: A How-To List for dysfunctional living: 1. Surround yourself with people who think like you. Then no one will criticize you. 2. Don’t question your relationships. You then can avoid dealing with problems within them. 3. If critiqued by a friend or lover, look sad and dejected and say, “I thought you were my friend!” or “I thought you loved me!” 4. When you do something unreasonable, always be ready with an excuse. Then you won’t have to take responsibility. If you can’t think of an excuse, look sorry and say, “I can’t help how I am!” 5. Focus on the negative side of life. Then you can make yourself miserable and blame it on others. 6. Blame others for your mistakes. Then you won’t have to feel responsible for your mistakes. Nor will you have to do anything about them. 7. Verbally attack those who criticize you. Then you don’t have to bother listening to what they say. 8. Go along with the groups you are in. Then you won’t have to figure out anything for yourself. 9. Act out when you don’t get what you want. If questioned, look indignant and say, “I’m just an emotional person. At least I don’t keep my feelings bottled up!” 10. Focus on getting what you want. If questioned, say, “If I don’t look out for number one, who will?” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The excerpt is from an article (itself a book extract) with (I fear) spiritual overtones. Yet self-assured opinion (whether critically analysed or not) IS in a sense spiritual. And yet I can't help but think of Malouf's "opinion is the death of all thinking." Is rationalism counter-productive to the artist, some (creative) imagination-limiting effect? Looking at point 10. Are critical thinkers truly that non-ambitious? In fact, are ambitious persons simply unreasonable enough to plunge pig-headed into a solipsistic destiny of self-assured success (questions of morality aside)? Or is this my immature mind lingering. We return to questioning Karl Popper's Logic and the material constructs of science: evidence enough for the rationalist endeavour (compared to religious opinion, for example). At any rate, I am excited. Whilst I am doubtful (is this a good sign?) that critical thinking can provide all the answers (how do the heavily-emotionally tactics of PUA resolve themselves with the quest for the truth, or is storytelling morally corrupt?), here is a method for socratic self-reflection (no doubt what he originally intended?) and, experience being the mother of all teachers, a mental template for one to wilingly adopt. (Comment on this)
10:27 pm	Defining Critical Thinking As well as raising fantastic arguments against religion and making us wonder where morals truly do come from, Dawkins has set my mind spiralling after structure to thought and I am flung into memory of Mustang Sal's exuberance over the brief stint in philosophy he trialled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defining Critical Thinking (A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction) Summary Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking. Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results. Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one's own, or one's groups', vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use. Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on , among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. Why Critical Thinking? The Problem: Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition: Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. The Result: A well cultivated critical thinker: * raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; * gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; * thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and * communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. (Comment on this)
Sunday, March 18th, 2007
10:52 pm	R2 Well, I AM glad not to have returned to 'vegas for the hols. We had a mini-enlightenment in terms of clinical attendance, managed to order in the new lappy (coming this week - hurrah!) and with twist, complete the first churn instalment. I do love his poetics; miraculously original. And gosh the man doesn't seem to have an ounce of pop in him, which I must admit is troublesome; adapting to his complex scripts is oh-so demanding and already I am on the verge of complete drainage - a remnant of obsessing over the first. Some kidA/matricey loosenening with the next i hope will entertain as a different approach. 'twas a good idea to churn. let us make sure we can keep pace (avoid deliberating in dreams). o&g tmrw! must get cracking back to the revision. already one feels behind on the books! Must get chatting heartily with the consultants tomorrow. Talk talk talk. Ask the stupid (yet reasoned) questions). on separate notions, why does pater sound so distant on the phone and quick to end the call? Both the last ended in his rush, and gone is the enthusiastic greetings we have had in the past. Yet he does enquire as to skype, so presumably he is interested. O, I do hope he is not too troubled with work and so forth at the moment. (Comment on this)
Thursday, March 15th, 2007
10:54 pm	etOH drinking mentors A heavy week. Yet I am glad as it has reminded that one really needs the in-your-face and hands-on as a continuous reminder that learning in medicine (just as in PUA) is heavily dependent on the field. Muted silence is my recurring error, and I am embarrassed by it. Yet the embarassment from making an incredibly dull comment remains incredibly there. Ideally we would have the habit of rationally zipping through all the mnemonics and algorithms before speaking up, but even then fatigue and lapses of concentrations surface. And I don't appear to be alone. Why, as students, are we plagued by such timid stature? I think back to our very first clinical sessions in first year - simply watching and rating interpersonal communication in outpatients. And from there, with B-Rad - we went through system by system, talking it up the whole way. Where did things fall flat? Not keeping up with the weeks meant that the possibility of what was MEANT to be known was infinte. That's one. Slowly realising that not every clinical coach is as supportive as B-RAD. That's two. Fearful respect is another; that long-held odd social habit of silencing (identity in particular) in the presence of any individual perceived to hold greater social value. Not wanting to harm; the fear of getting in the way, using up resources, lacking competence to deal with a situation appropriately. And finally, the lack of certainty that surrounds the student role: We must learn procedures for competence as RMOs, yet we lack the experience to take control of the situation, we have no formal responsibilities to the unit nor have certain expectations from them. In summary: - uncertainty on part of the student (gaps in memory, fear of making mistakes, not wanting to challenge ideas of seniors, not wanting to get in the way or impede flow in the clinic) - uncertainty on part of the (sometimes unwittingly) accepting unit (what can or cannot the student do?) Of course, as the intruder, THE ONUS IS ON THE STUDENT TO LEARN. This means 1.being proactive (helping with obvious practicalities, , being ENTHUSIASTIC to be involved in patient care, and of course doing sufficient readings and memorisation in their own time)  v 2. being a good communicator (professional attitude, vocalising questions and comments, discussing diagnostic, management and ethical issues, and having a good time with work peers!). In turn, the student can expect to be respected as a member of the profession and for their attempts at trying to grasp good knowledge and experience of the discipline. Of course this will vary incredibly between preceptors and work peers and many may even respond negatively. The key is to have one's learning in mind and the best way to do this is to consider WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE PATIENT - both the current and future. A friendly environment where everyone is working as a team is clearly better. And of course chatting to establish (if only to oneself) identity. (Comment on this)
Saturday, March 10th, 2007
3:10 pm	fools' tools Gosh what a foolish week the last has been. It was incredibly disappointing yesterday not to have made the credit mark for CCC - the poor time management especially. Most disappointing however was the childish avoidance of study throughout the week. After all, there is no secret to the personal challenges of habit change. As a society we are incredibly talented at marketing products that aren't of any use - the self-help industry based around diet and exercise, personal discipline and power etc. etc.. A library of these things surely an indicator of an owner who enjoys the idea of productivity but has reached no further than indulging his or her imagination. Whilst I am not such an owner, I am guilty of feigning enlightenment at the banal generalisms the authors of such books have to offer. Sigh; I may as well have attended the clinic en force rather than sit at the internet and dream of computer processing speeds. In anticipation of the arrival of The God Deulsion, I watched some of Dawkins' responses recorded during the public readings on his US tour. What an inspiration: so humble and yet objective; he debates for truth, never to insult. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007
10:52 pm	learning to read fiction Happilly! Those solipsic preoccupations of undoing oneself in some tampering attempt at personal reductionism can be left to the literary world. The nauseas of steppenwolf and augie march, for example. The cream of the jest. Satre's novel was thoroughly enjoyable and returning to the translator's preface, intellectualising the whole thing is rather invigorating. How comforting to know that there are populations of yorkes out there in the limbo of self-conscious existence! How interesting; perhaps through some deeply embedded narcisissm I have the tendency of overenthusiastically clinging to these books as moral guideposts - a desperate search for 'extractable truths' as Owen Meany's author would point out. 'Learn to read fiction,' he reminds. Not that a solid literary history was really necessary for us to regurgitate that all-too-familiar idea of externalising. And I suspect there won't ever be a stimulus that comes along and prods us into cheerful activity and producing copious outpourings of works. But let us not dwell! O ye metaphysical! Our friendship must uphold exemplary manners! What is truly fascinating, as Twist & I discussed, is that these self-obssessed writings should fall in so early last century. Of course it was a mix of starry eyes and blissful naievity (it happens around that age) to allow one to attribute such concepts to pop and rock artists of the 60s and onward. Stil, Bob Dylan and the Beatles brought deeper meaning to popular music and catchy lyrics is admirable in its own right. Little else to report. Though solipsitic I must mention that I am slowly sowing thoughts. The mirror tells me so. (Comment on this)
Thursday, March 1st, 2007
4:19 pm	titrating the does. After perusing the IRG yestereve I went to bed with a small dose of nausea. The future was unclear; work location next year appeared rather a concrete decision compared to the dilly-dallying slaphazard choosing of study leave. Direction, nay, life's very ultimate purposes were called into question and after some brief overanalyses an unconvincing conclusion in the shape of deficient personal relations arose and we drifted off with anthropomorphic motivations. These weeks of goal setting have been a sham. I blame it on the photocopier. The thud (let alone expense) of those volumes on the counter poured in the unrealistic expectations. A couple of thousand pages, properly learnt (for recall), in 2 weeks? Little wonder there was a drove of procrastination crises and meagre participation. What a poor student I have been! With some resolve to apprenticeship, these last few days have entered into some heavier investment in the practical. Lord, how the barriers between library and clinic lift! Suddenly attitudes and logistics can be appreciated quite separately from our objective training. In short, the larger picture (passing and becoming a safe junior) was forgotten and, perhaps wrapped up in a moment of ambitious peers, our quasi-equilibrised ideology was lost. This may of course simply be racking up excuse for poor habit. Yet habits (especially those in thought) do take time and the talent for perpetual attention change may (one would hope) be nothing more than heightening the hoop a little excessively. And so we chase our tails. With generosity of truth in self-reflection, fingers-crossed the race is gradually spiralling upward. (Comment on this)