Be who you are

 

Be who you are --
for no-one else can be

Become who you can be --
for no-one else can do it

Ssh

 ----------------

To be what we are,
and to become what we are capable of becoming,
is the only end of life.

Robert Louis Stevenson

----------------

Be who you are and say what you feel
because those who mind don't matter,
and those who matter don't mind.

Dr Seuss

More is the enemy of enough

 

 

'More' 

is the enemy of

'enough'

(Ssh)

 

 

From impossible to improbable: small step or giant leap ?

Simon: Isn’t it ludicrous that some people think that the moon landings are a hoax? Bloody conspiracy-theorists! The moon landings happened, the evidence is incontrovertible.

Thomas: What is that evidence?

Simon: This article tells and shows how photographs taken by NASA's reconnaissance lunar orbiter reveal human footprints on the moon.

Thomas: Yeah, that seems compelling, but maybe the photographs could be fakes. Or maybe NASA actually landed a mechanical lunar rover on the moon that has two wheels on each side with boots in place of tyre treads, and it was set to "walk" around a bit. Voila! Footprints.

Simon: Aww, come on, that's just stupid.

Thomas: Stupid, yes. But possible, right?

Simon: No way. They have soil and rocks that they brought back from the moon that are not found anywhere on earth.

Thomas: Well, you’ve set up an interesting paradox: these rocks not found anywhere on earth are currently on the earth; they're found in NASA labs and museums. How can we be sure they are not elsewhere too? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And besides, have you seen these rocks? Are you a geologist? Can you confirm that they absolutely cannot be of this earth?

Simon: No the experts have made this judgment. I trust the experts.

Thomas: Sure, I trust experts too. But I also know that it is sometimes wise to ask for a second opinion. Experts do not always get it right. Indeed, they often disagree: it's almost certain that for any expert opinion, you will be able to find another expert who has a different view.

Simon: Oh this is silly. The theory that the moon landings are a hoax is simply impossible.

 

Thomas: I'm not asking you to admit that there were no moon landings, or no humans walked on the moon, or even that they are a hoax. I'm asking you whether you might be wrong about man walking on the moon?

Simon: While I acknowledge the points you are making, let me respond with the 17th century idiom that your words 'doth butter no parsnips with me'. In the modern vernacular, I ain't buying it.

Thomas: Let me respond to your parsnips quote with another bizarre one from the same century called Cromwell's rule: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken?'  

 

Simon: What?

 

Thomas: Cromwell's rule says that anyone who is 100% adamant about their view is in trouble for two reasons: (a) they might be wrong and (b) they are blind to this possibility.

 

Simon: Ah, OK, I think I’m beginning to understand. You’re trying to crack me open to the idea that a hoax about the moon landings is possible. So let me respond using the words of an Aussie character Jasper Jones: 'Course it's possible. I don't reckon it's likely but'. And yes, I see that I can’t make the claim that the hoax is absolutely impossible.

 

Thomas: Yes, exactly. It's a small step, but with enormous implications.

 

Simon: But you have to make a giant leap to get over a problem that remains. Your view presents an absurdity, namely that the impossible is not possible at all! 😂 

 

---

Course it's possible. I don't reckon it's likely but.
 -- words spoken by Jasper Jones in Jasper Jones, Craig Silvey

 

Induction is the glory of Science, and the scandal of Philosophy

   -- C.D. Broad, Commemorative Address at The Bacon Tercentenary, (1926)

Words are but wind that do from men proceed;

None but Chamelions on bare Air can feed;

Great men large hopeful promises may utter;

But words did never Fish or Parsnips butter

   -- John Taylor, Epigrammes (1651)

 

I never made a mistake in my life.

I thought I did once,

but I was wrong.

  -- attributed to Charles M. Schulz, creator of Peanuts

Excuse, pardon, or forgive others ?

What does it take for me to excuse, pardon, or forgive others?

 

Well, it depends!

 

Beer Spills

 

If someone is pushing past me in a pub on their way to the bar or to the toilet, that person may say to me as they bump into me, "excuse me" or "pardon me."

 

S/he, the bumper, is asking to be excused or pardoned for a minor infraction, namely endangering or even manifesting a beer spill. 

 

While it is technically a question (will you excuse/pardon me?), it is typically offered more as a declarative statement in which the bumper expects me to excuse or pardon him or her. 

 

In fact, I might even be considered rather rude if I did not excuse or pardon someone who made me spill my beer, especially after s/he asked to be excused/pardoned.

 

Sometimes, if I'm minding my own business drinking a beer, and someone bumps into me without saying anything and spills my beer, I might get irritated enough to bump back by saying "excuse me?" or "pardon me?" In this context, my words are offered as a gentle, ironic rebuff. The double irony is that my words mark some disinclination to excuse or pardon the bumper.

In this beer-spilling sense, excusing and pardoning and even forgiving someone are synonymous. To excuse or pardon someone who causes a beer spill is little more than a politesse. And a rebuke by the bumpee with an "excuse me?" or "pardon me?" is a reminder to the perhaps thoughtless bumper of the need for this politesse.

 

Big Spills

 

But how about the situations in life where the bump is something rather more substantial than a beer spill? Maybe an oil spill with economic, financial and ecological consequences. Or a physical assault perhaps resulting in a literal blood spill. Or maybe something more emotional as in a metaphorical breaking of the heart and copious tears are spilled.

Do prayers get results ?

 Two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness.

One of the guys is religious, the other's an atheist.

The two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer.

The atheist in a fleeting moment of vulnerability says "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from camp in that terrible blizzard and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing and it was 50 below and so I tried it. I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh God if there is a god I'm lost in this blizzard and I'm gonna die if you don't help me now.'"

In the bar the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled: "Well then you must believe now" he says "after all here you are alive."

The atheist just rolls his eyes: "No man, all that happened was a couple of Inuit happened to come wandering by and they showed me the way back to camp."

(From David Foster Wallace, Commencement Speech, Kenyon College, 2005, https://youtu.be/OsAd4HGJS4o?t=161)

QUESTIONS 

Does the atheist's experience in the blizzard prove that prayers are answered or not?

How can the same experience mean totally different things to the atheist and the believer?  

Is it possible that belief, meaning & interpretation actually precede the evidence?

History - true or false or irrelevant ?

A brand new school opens freshly painted doors to welcome its first students to their first classes.

An enthusiastic history teacher, Anna Chronism, arrives to face her first students in her first class ever.

She considers that she is not simply teaching history, but helping to make history.

She arrives to find three young women sitting in a row, all have their heads bowed down, each is reading a book.

She is surprised to observe that the covers of the three books are exactly the same.

"Morning everyone," says the teacher. "Enjoying your book?"

"Yes Ma'am" the three say in unison as they look up.

She gasps. The three girls are dressed quite differently and yet appear to be physically identical. One has baggy cargo shorts, loose top and tattoos on her arm, another has a pleated skirt, a fitted black T-shirt, loose blouse over it, and prominent crucifix showing at her neck, and the third is dressed in long pants and a jacket with a belt at the waist. Despite the variation in what they are wearing, the three girls appear to be physically identical: same eyes, same nose, same hair, same height, same build.

As she seeks to calm herself, Anna asks the three girls what book they are reading.

The girl with the tattoos responds: "I dunno!"

Anna asks her for her name. She responds: "People call me Mysteryy. That’s with an extra ‘y’ at the end."

Nodding, Anna asks, "So Mysteryy, aren't you interested in the book, its name, its author?"

"Yes, yes, I am interested in the book, it is a great book, I'm really enjoying it. But I judge a book by the contents, not by the cover, not by the title, not by the author."

The wearer of the crucifix raises her hand offering her explanation, "Excuse me Miss, it is a book called Silas Marner by George Eliot."

And what's your name" she asks?

"I'm called Faith."

She turns to the third one wearing a jacket, and remarks: "You appear to be reading the same book. What do you think of it?"

"Well, not exactly the same book, because we each have our own copy. But yes it appears to be the same book that Mysteryy and Faith are reading. Its proper title is Silas Marner: the weaver of Ravelhoe, and the author's name was Mary Anne Evans, but she published under the name George Eliot."

The teacher is impressed. The other two young women are not.

"And your name?"

"I’m Verity."

"And all three of you are from the one family?" Anna asks.

The girls laugh out loud.

"Not likely" says Faith responding to the confusion showing in the teacher's eyes.

"Forgive me my presumption. But you all look very similar. Perhaps if you each tell me a little about your history. Who wants to start?"

Mysteryy says: "Well, my history is unknown. I was a foundling left on the doorstep of a kindly couple. There was no information left with me, I don't know where I was born, I don't know when I was born, I don't know my parents. And I don't know much beyond the names of the couple that raised me for the first five years as they then died in a car accident. I was then transferred to another couple who have looked after me for the last ten years. So I don't know my early life, but it doesn't seem that important to know it. I'm here and I'm happy. That's what counts, right?"

"Well yes, I'm glad to have you here today, and yes, I guess that is what counts," admits Anna.

Mysteryy nods and smiles.

Faith follows: "Well, I know my history perfectly. My parents tell me that I was conceived through the grace of God on the day of St Peter and St Paul which is June 29, and I was born nine months later on 1 April 2006 which was a Saturday. This was a sign of God's blessing because it would have been awkward if Mum had laboured on Sunday. God has commanded that we must not labour on the Sabbath in recognition of His act of creation, and His resting on the seventh day."

Verity, flicking her long blond hair with a hand, and offers her own thoughts: "Actually, Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week."

The teacher delicately intervenes, "Yes, there are a variety of views. It’s Verity, right? What’s your story?"

"I was given up for adoption by my mother who was a drug addict, and she died of an overdose shortly after my birth. My father was incarcerated before my birth, and died in prison without ever seeing me. I was one of three identical girls, but we were separated at birth and I ended up with a couple of lawyers, Marie & David. She’s now a judge, he’s a retired lawyer and they’ve looked after me all my life. So that's my history."

----------------------------------

QUESTIONS

Which of the three girls is happier? Why?

How important is history?

Is it important for history to be true?

Will false history serve just as well as ‘true’ history?

Is it better to have a history, even false, than none at all?

 

ENDNOTE

The celebrated case of the ‘three identical strangers’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Identical_Strangers) provides a factual - even historical - basis for this thought-story. These identical triplets separated at birth are pictured at the right.

 

The image at the top of this post shows the Levesque triplets: https://levesquetriplets.com/  

Practical uncertainty - believe less, be less certain

Entrance to Centre Court, Wimbledon

Believe less.

Be less certain.

Or rather, 

believe this one certainty:

there is always more to learn.

Learn well from your mistakes.

Your wins are nothing.

Self-aggrandizement from wins,

is a card-house

founded on luck.

Your losses are learning opportunities,

personal pain is the powerful teacher.

Lose that opportunity,

you lose everything!

Ask questions,

and pay attention.

Nurture conversations, dialogues, discussions, and even debates,

but aim for discovery rather than destination,

pursue exploration rather than exposition.

Better to question
than to answer.

No news is good

The Caribbean Sea is justifiably famous for its well over 7000 idyllic islands. 

They are the very definition of paradise - no shoes, no phones, no devices, no news, no interruptions.

 

In paradise, you are free to lie in a hammock under a coconut tree or swim in the aquamarine sea.

In short, nothing to distract you from being with yourself.

 

But paradise ain't perfect. And imagine how paradise could be spoiled if the imperfections were revealed...

Philosophy is a sandbox: get in & play !

Virtually everyone is aware of the trolley problem in philosophy: a run-away trolley/streetcar/tram is going to kill four people, but you're standing by a switch and you have the capacity to redirect the tram to another track where it will kill one person - do you pull the switch? 

The 'trolley problem' is a staple of philosophy - and it is an example of staple method used in philosophy - the thought experiment.

Or put another way, 'what if' questioning. Or to put a fancy term on it: hypotheticals.

Philosophy then, is a sandbox. It is a place for grownups to play with ideas, concepts, hypotheticals, thought-experiments (e.g., in software development). 

A psychokinetic paradox?

Professor Cecily P Science is confident that people can know the outcomes of future random events, a so-called 'psi' effect.

The study of 'psi' or the power of mind over matter, of consciousness over the physical world, has been explored at length in psychology, often within a sub-field known as para-psychology. One of most famous labs studying psi is PEAR: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.

Cecily is keen to run an experiment to show that people can predict outcomes of coin tosses at a rate better than chance.

She explains her hypothesis to a graduate student, Laizee Bumm, and asks him to conduct the study for her. However, Laizee is a research assistant with other priorities. He does what she asks, but makes up the data to save himself time.

He generates random data for 100 people guessing a thousand coin tosses each. The results from the random-number generator "show" that 50% of the guesses (of the fake respondents) are right, and 50% are wrong.

In actual fact though, the results from the random-number generator happen to show that people correctly guess 501 out of 1000 coin tosses.

This result it should be noted, happens to be in line with previously reported studies of the psi effect: 'The effects that the volunteers accomplish are very small, but amazing. The operators are roughly altering one bit in 1,000,' explains Michael Ibison, a British mathematical physicist who has come to work for a year at PEAR after stints at Siemens, IBM, and Agfa. 'That means if you had a coin toss, psychokinesis could affect one of those coin tosses if you tossed a thousand times.'  Van Bakel 1994, Wired

QUESTIONS

Do the final results of this study by Cecily and Laizee provide evidence of a psychokinetic effect? 

Why? Why not?

If Laizee's data are fabricated using a random number generator, doesn't this mean the observed results were the outcomes of random events?

If Cecily's expectations were supported, doesn't this mean that she has proved her point that people can know the outcomes of future events? Didn't she got the result she expected?

What is truth?

1. The Truth is... a riddle

What is something that humans seek, and don't know it when they see it?

The answer is the truth!

(C.f. Jacobellis v Ohio 1964 in which the judge declined to define hard-core pornography, but famously said "I know it when I see it".)

2. The Truth is... not known

 

The conundrum of seeking truth but not knowing it when we see it is embedded in the idea of knowledge as justified true belief. 

It is said that we know something to be true if 

    (a) we believe it to be true, 

    (b) we have justification for our belief, and 

    (c) it is true.

We can build towards knowledge 

with beliefs and justifications, 

but we fail unless it's true.

And how do we "know" if it's true? 

 

Whether something is true is... unknown. 

Frustrating! 

Do you believe in God(s): Yes, No, or Other?

"Do you believe in God (however you choose to define that entity or those entities)?" 

A dichotomous version of this question would allow only "Yes" or "No" as responses. 

 

But doesn't this create a false dichotomy?

In particular, if I respond "No", someone might respond, "Ah, so you are an atheist, you believe there is no god".  

But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm merely saying that I do not hold a belief in God. That is not the same as saying I hold a belief that there are no gods.

There is some ambiguity in the original version of the question "Do you believe in a god?"

One version is "Do you hold (or have) a belief in God?" To which I can legitimately respond, "Yes" or "No".

The other version is: "Does God exist?" To which a more nuanced response may be justified.

Democracy: a declining faith ?

Democracy - a declining faith

While we deify the concept of democracy, it appears to have lost much of its shine. The magic of democracy has diminished as a number of numbers show.

The declining faith in democracy is illustrated in the marked reductions in voter turnout observed over the last 50 years in Australia and elsewhere in the world. Political scientist Simon Tormey in a 2016 lecture at Parliament House reports that while voter turnout varies from vote to vote, the general tendency is that we are becoming "reluctant voters".

Degrees of desire

The three degrees of desire:

• I'd like to be rich
• I want love
• I need air

The three degrees for dealing with desire:

• gratitude: I am grateful for the riches I have received
• detachment: I accept the love that is offered
• nirvana (not needing): one day, I will stop grasping for air

Puzzling views on life

Two inconsistent views about life

1. My life is nothing and supremely unimportant

2. My life is a great and glorious event

In short, life is nothing and nothing is great!

-------------------------------------------

So, paradox, doublethink, conundrum, or something else?


Paradox: a logical contradictory statement: 'this statement is false'

Doublethink: "Holding contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them": "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" 1984, George Orwell

Conundrum: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun or unexpected twist: "People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day." Winnie the Pooh, A.A. Milne

My mistake

Life is long

... if you are lucky.

Making mistakes is inevitable,

learning is not!

Mistakes are made for lack of reflection*, but

learning is achieved only on reflection.

A daily practice:

Today, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I erred. 

What were the mistakes I made today?

What - if anything - could I do to avoid making such mistakes again?

---------

* My mistake... only some mistakes result from lack of reflection! To repeat, 'making mistakes is inevitable'

Getting it right by being uncertain

Certainty for humans is like a flame is to a moth.

Blind instinct takes us there, but we may well get burnt.

We might get more things right in this world if we were a little less certain about everything.

How can we avoid the trap of certainty?

The wrongs of the righteous

There's no lack of certainty in the world, and lots of evidence that despite that certainty, we're wrong!

Marketing is plain sailing

Marketing is easy, but only if you really understand it.

And most people do not.

Most people think that marketing is powerful, that it can make people do things that they would not otherwise do.

We have a long history of being scared of such things - like hypnosis, subliminal messaging, hard sell salespeople, etc.

But just because we're scared of the bogeyman doesn't mean that he exists! Subliminal advertising was debunked decades ago - but many still believe it.

The blame game: sports, alcohol, violence, and research

A raft of headlines reported on a fascinating finding that linked State of Origin matches to a spike in domestic violence.

For instance, the SBS report ran the headline "Study exposes 'clear' Origin link to DV" (where DV is domestic violence).

Big story because basically, the data showed that between 6pm on State of Origin night to 6am the following morning, domestic violence increased by 40%. Incidentally, non-domestic violence (blokes beating up other blokes) went up by 70% as well.

Despite this sobering result, the media have leapt on this story, and spun a long drinking yarn. Specifically, they have drawn conclusions about the involvement of alcohol in all of this - even though alcohol consumption is not directly observed in the original study in any way.

 

To do: nothing

"Just don't do it."

Just do nothing.

Ethics is the philosophy of action. So part of its domain surely therefore includes, the philosophy of inaction.

And this is a defence of doing nothing.

But there's so much to be done!

How can I defend inaction in a world with so many inequalities and injustices that plague our lives?

My answer? For precisely that reason! Precisely because so many are raging at inevitable inequalities and injustices which will forever plague our lives.

Glorious food, inglorious super-marketing bastards & the obesity crisis

Blaming supermarkets for obesity is a little like chopping down a tree we are standing on. Or like tying our bootlaces together so we don't trip up on them.

"No wonder we have an obesity epidemic" the article announces as an introduction to "the nutritionist's eye-opening video post to Faceback".

Sure is eye-opening - if you have never been to a supermarket before.

Or eye-opening if you have been, but didn't notice the end-aisle displays because you were headed into the aisles which are filled to the brim with stuff that most nutritionist's would find to be equally awful.

No wonder we don't make any progress on obesity when we continue to run stories like this.

This kind of story about the evil of supermarkets is popular because it is an awesome cover story. It allows us to completely shift the responsibility to someone else.

Every parent has heard it: "He made me hit him."

Supermarkets, like siblings, are easy targets.

But supermarkets don't even make the products that people are so angry about. And if people are so damn angry, why are they still buying the stuff?

We're listening to the righteous leaders, while the masses (excuse the pun) are right behind waving their packet of chips and saying how they are right behind their nutritionist friends.

What about the good that supermarkets do?

Supermarkets have replaced the old family-run corner store groceries.

We've lost a way of life, rather like horses, carts and buggy whips. The wheel turns, and it does so because it generates something good.

Modern supermarkets give us access to an enormous range of food stuffs of excellent quality at a good price. Oh, and lots of choice!

And so many good things that supermarkets have done to support healhier life-styles. Supporting activities for local schools, introducing and supporting organic and other specialised food ranges, giving fruit away to the kids as they walk around the supermarket.

The reason why we don't talk about the good is simple. It ain't a story.

Are we serious about tackling obesity? If so, there is no "us" and "them." Sure supermarkets want to make a profit, and we want good food - meaning both good for you and just plain yummy even if not good for you - and we want it cheap.

We both individually and jointly contribute to the problem of obesity.

Time for us to make up our minds. Do we want to solve obesity?

Yes? Well then we need to make changes. And it's not about just one side or the other, but both sides together. Obesity is a community problem, one that consumers and marketers need to work on together.

Pointing fingers at the other side is like junk-food -- it has a really satisfying mouth-feel in the moment, but isn't doing us any good.

Don't lie if you want the Easter bunny to visit

The Easter bunny is apparently a German innovation and brings painted eggs, candy and even presents to children who have been good.

What a delicious irony! A fiction to encourage honesty along with other good behaviour.

Meanwhile, neither parents nor clerics tell their respective flocks that there is no "bunny" in any of the stories about Jesus' death and resurrection.

We are not told that the word Easter commemorates a pagan goddess, Eostre. Or at least, might do if St Bede's account of Eostre is not a lie as at least some scholars contend!

What a web we weave,  when we practice to deceive.

Does it matter if we lie? Well, how do I know when to believe?

The Bible (to stay with the Easter theme) would have us believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday.

Is it true or is it a lie? That's an awful lot of consequences if that is a lie!

But let's back up a little. Let's start by being a little clearer about what we mean by lying.

The truth about eternal life is... we don't know!

We like to believe that our beliefs come from good solid reasons. 

But given that we selectively choose evidence to reinforce what we already believe suggests otherwise (i.e., the confirmation bias).

We only question our beliefs when evidence comes up to suggest it just ain't so. 

Or so I like to believe... but maybe that simply ain't so!

Even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, the human mind remains remarkably resistant to doubt.

Consider Leon Festinger's fascinating work on a group who believed that the world would end on December 21, 1954. How would they deal with the evidence that their predictions of the date were wrong - assuming they were wrong?

What is truth?

La Vérité sortant du puits armée de son martinet pour châtier l'humanité

Jean-Léon Gérôme (1896)

   

• The truth is very often not knowable
      
• The truth is that many beliefs are formed without knowledge
     
• The truth is that people claiming to know the truth are generally deluded
     
• The truth is that a fiction can be powerful (think placebo, nocebo, etc.)
     
• The truth is that truth may not be a supreme virtue
     
• The truth is that what works, practical wisdom, may be all that matters

Facebook & fast-food - superficially satisfying, but bad for you

Social media is to human connection what junk-food is to human nutrition.

Facebook like fast-food is convenient, it meets a desire, is superficially satisfying, it even offers some of what we need (connection or calories respectively), but by and large and in the long run, it is not all that good for us.

Look at the change in the fundamental unit of community — the family. Today, one in five children are raised in a home where the other biological parent is absent.

Some still see the nuclear family, mum dad and 2.5 kids, as the ideal. But the ideal community unit had already gone the way of REAL hamburgers and real food.

Prior to the nuclear ideal, the extended family lived together, providing a community that supported and sustained them all.

Even now, grandparents have time for kids that parents do not. But now the grandparents have their place and we have ours. We live our lives apart: each child in their own room, each parent may even have their own house. And the grandparents? Live elsewhere.

even though it's not good for me!

Mmm? I may be lovin’ it, but I am pretty sure it’s not good for me.

What is good for me? I’m not sure, but it seems more like when I live in a community, a village, surrounded by say 10–20 people whom I know and trust.

Facebook with 500 or more so-called “friends” cannot replace my village, the people I know and trust.

And trust should not be confused with like. All humans are flawed, and there may be things that I might not like about someone, but that does not mean I am not able to trust them. Trust means I know the person, I know her or his limitations, I know of the contexts in which I might trust them to do the right thing and which ones where they might not.

They are not even necessarily dear friends, I don’t even necessarily like them so much of the time. Rather, I know them, and can trust — as in rely — on them to behave in certain ways.

Uncle Frederic might be an odd-bird, a bit of a bore at social gatherings, still a bachelor and frankly, we can understand why. Nonetheless, he is good with the kids, and they love him, and at a pinch, he could be called in to take Cathy out for a talk and a soda as she wrestles with life as an adolescent.

Just as fast food has supplanted simple, real food cooked at home from scratch, so Facebook and the other online copy-cats have supplanted community created at heart in the home.

A “like” from some 500 or more of my Facebook “friends” may give me a little frisson of pleasure, but a more limited gesture of friendship is difficult to imagine. Pressing a thumbs-up symbol, and then moving on to the next image in a continuously changing stream of images and words is hardly much display of friendship let alone commitment.

The problem is that convenience is king in so many things. We love quick-fixes. And fast food and Facebook offer just that.

Unfortunately, what we want is not necessarily what we need. And what we need — healthy food, exercise, and making time and space for our village, some of whom are frankly a pain in the butt — is bloody hard work.

So we don’t bother. We choose the junk option, the quick-fix, the one that sets off the pleasure centre in our brain. We hear a ping on our phone and leap to look: someone likes me!

That’s not good, that is sad.

To feed your body, you need to eat well. To feed your soul, you need to connect well.