thelogicalview.co.uk

Tag: logic

  • The successor to Sir Kier? Simple..

    This blog is a non-personal comment on how the human lives on the surface of Earth, the spinning mass of rock held in place by the gravitas of Helios. How the biology of one human, which by the definition of life had to exist from two humans, male and female, and how it is linked with other humans in a small grouping which is called a tribe or bigger to a society, is organised according to survival not greed is a genuinely fascinating subject.

    Survival means fighting when needed to defend your territory, from where does come food and water and in some parts of the world still does though the ‘UK’ departed from such logical principles a while back and food now comes from all parts of the spinning Earth and water comes through a very complicated processing system so logically where it exactly comes from is a matter of definition.

    Survival also means communication and ease of communication is a direct formula to the outcome for that society. How communication links with the physical survival of the network of humans down to their individual biology could be said and of course, to the land itself, (and obviously this blog is careful here with the current zeitgeist in the ‘UK’ being as it is) to fall into natural structural patterns reflecting both the actual biology and the sort of chemical interaction which produces different functions, leadership being one of them, or ‘leadership’ because the human has given this function a word yet in the natural world, of which the humans in the ‘UK’ are not now considered a part, the function – the function – of leadership arises from the land and whichever particular grouping of biology we are talking about. This could be earthworms, beetles, seagulls, rats, deer, spiders, crabs or wolves, ah no, not wolves now, so wild boar, again returned to native lands (illegally in the 1990s possibly by desperate residents of the Forest of Dean where human groupings go back virtually untouched to before the mists of time and experiencing the unhappy clash of C21 ‘UK’ policies).

    Having established that leadership is a natural part of any society, which is biology, and also, as an aside, where different biologies according to strength and gender and cognition have a natural spectrum, as observed by Aristotle, to fulfil a particular function in order for its society to survive and although he didn’t write in particular I’m sure he would agree that us autistic humans generally do work best in the male function regardless of biological man or woman but as he was in mortal form in the fourth century BCE then it was only the Earth, Helios (hot in the latitudes of Athens and Macedonia), the built environment of local stone and wood, and writing being on papyrus not the paper of modern times and long, long before the tip into the never-never land of digital tech so he observed the general categories of male and female, and how a society functioned according to strength and temperament. Of course society included slavery as a natural part of all ancient societies so his references to slaves and certain biology and temperament as part of society functioning, well, what he was meaning is alas far lost now in this world of the increasing individual as god.

    Whether there is no commentary and a biological society is just functioning, which hunter gatherer’s do just not have time to do, or whether there is commentary from when times had become much easier and there was both some study time, or leisure time maybe for others, and something to write on, it does not matter. The structure of a society must exist regardless, if it wants to survive at all.

    This brings this blog (totally inpersonal) to the subject of leadership with the ‘UK’. Obviously there is much debate going on in the present time, both within the governing Labour party and within the ‘UK’ as a whole. This blog is putting a solution to this quandry where questions of leadership came to the conclusion that unless a serious challenge is made (through administration processes these days and ballot boxes, not through the processes of strong arms) then the boat must not be rocked because all sorts of elections and events are coming up, and politics in the ‘UK’ is in such a precarious position that best just not to rock that boat.

    The suggestion put forward by this blog is that there is a natural successor to Sir Kier, someone who would be in a position to begin the process of realignment with the Truth, the real facts, the Logical state of affairs on Planet Earth. The requirements of a political leader in the ‘UK’ have been included by some to be that no one, absolutely no one, under the age of 40, and no one who has not had some kind of a real job, no matter where on the manual to manager etc., scale that falls. This is utterly sensible given the lowering age and that relentless race to the most individual and personal that can be of the Members of Parliament now. This is where that suggestion parts company with leadership before the British political system and leadership in the British political system. In the natural biological societies there have been many leaders under the age of 40, and if they can step up when needed, many young people are strong at 15. We do not know how old Boudica was but she was unlikely to have been over 40, and note the ‘she’ there, there are a few females who are capable of performing the true leadership function of reference to land not politics, and it is not possible to speak for him, but Aristotle would surely agree.

    But to continue the point, there is a natural successor to Sir Kier and curiously only came into Parliament from a newly created MP due to Local Government Reorganisation in Cumbria in 2023, so very new. Markus Campbell-Savours, the MP for Penrith and Solway is over 40 years old, though would be included in function of a leader, not age, and on a quick list of what is needed for the descent into political chaos, already his actions show him to be the man. He voted against the Government in the tragedy of inheritance tax being taken from farmers. His MP seat in the not just rural but far out rural lands of Cumbria where until recently many people had not gone further than their local big market town, because they were so busy on the land and fishing and from where such very strong and resilient communities existed over millennia. His voting against the ….er…. dictatorial government gained him the suspension of the whip. Markus C-S knows the biological reality of society on the land, and he voted accordingly. Alas the change of mind over the Assisted Dying Bill does not continue the Logic, especially from such a rural area where the few humans still able to farm and fish are still so aligned into the reality of life and passing between Helios and Earth, but such are the times. However, defying the urban government and speaking for the generations of farmers, most of whom have never had a holiday, never been abroad, eat by no air miles, see it as an honourable way of life if children continue the work instead of heading off to the ‘uni’, this is the sign of a real leader.

    Going further, his Icelandic genetics of mother would be so very useful at the moment as the desperate humans seek the last possible supplies of raw materials to perpetuate the world of tech, and the growing world of tech. To have a leader in place who would participate in the focus on the region of Earth now in the headlines, Greenland, Iceland, and the complications of needed resources and national governments, this would be very useful. Going even further, a very useful partnership would form if a whole new political party was formed, and which the practical leader of the Conservatives would surely join. The Practical Political Party of Kemi Badenoch and Markus Campbell-Savours would provide an alternative to the growing Reform party who is only there and growing because of the disjunct of leadership between Helios and Earth which has happened in the ‘UK’. It is only a suggestion, but a Logical one. Reform is on the rise, and there is no doubt about it, there is a bit of hype going with this, and the media excitement when another MP jumps ship and appears in Reform (not literally but that is a very old metaphor). If a Practical Party was formed to also counteract the increasing chaos in political leadership, this would give the voters two alternative options, one aiming for the headlines, and one aiming for survival on the land.

  • The Nobel Nuclear Peace Prize, a new award or a logical and noble amalgamation?

    The Will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrial successful person who died in 1896 (130 Solar turns ago) shows he made enough money from manufacture of goods, amongst them armaments (weapons of warfare) to leave the Will substantial enough to set up global prizes for Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature, and that 5th category of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Now, 130 Solar years ago is a very long time. Not a long time in the history of Earth (45 billion solar turns), or the earliest evidence of humans, arising from previous hominid type biological creatures and which this blog must not get distracted into the geographical groupings of how these hominids survived in all the various astonishingly intricate and magical networks of life on Earth in hot, cold, coastal, mountainous, arid, delta, forest, desert, no it must not. But these hominids have been around a long time, and the humans who are industrialists and ‘scientists’ are only since the ‘Industrial’ revolutions of first coal and steam, then electricity. To be able to award a global prize at all, maybe Nobel was the first. Yes, just checked on Google, the 1901 start of the Nobel Prizes were the first international awards.

    Alfred Nobel in both inventing and manufacturing all sorts of things, amongst them weapons of war, in late 1800s was factually engaging with a very different physical society to 2026. And Norway and Sweden were a very different physical society to the Mediterranean latitudes and further on south through the Sahara to the Equator. Armaments were ground objects, air warfare did not exist. The Italo-Turkish war in 1911 had not happened, WWI had not happened, WWII obviously not, and so on, into the rapid collapse of all Logical scale to conflict.

    And in a logical progression, neither had nuclear.

    Because the Will of Alfred Nobel was left according to how he saw matters at the time, and possibly because even he saw a slightly Illogical direction of travel in western society and knowledge that he built in these prizes in the first place, what are the criteria for reassessing a past action according to present day reality? The answer is, it’s not done, because the original person had made the money and had the right to state in his Will that prizes of those categories be awarded.

    Mmm….difficult. What if Alfred Nobel himself would now worry about the state of affairs (state of human civilization on Earth) in 2026? His categories of chemistry, physics, physiology, all then were separate categories, each combining in the realm of the mysterious life on Earth, far beyond the ken or control of any one human. Literature is a recent human invention, or the modern book is, and peace there has never been on earth, nor goodwill to all mankind. Now with the arrival of a category of nuclear technology, of ‘the bomb’, where does this define the definition of Nobel’s world of late 1800s. Nuclear warfare is factually a combination of those chemistry, physics and physiology (not literature of course) expertise, and is now used as the ultimate Peace holder, that is, by having nuclear bombs then peace ensues because nobody actually wants to press that button.

    If it were a legal case with barristers standing up in court, would it be argued that Alfred Nobel’s original intention is now null and void because of the developments since? The arrival of nuclear which stands over and above all the previous categories (but not over Helios) and which is held up as the keeper of peace, can also be seen as the creator of the greatest conflict, in the pecking order of rights and opinions.

    If Alfred Nobel was alive in physical today, would he add a 6th Nobel Prize, that of nuclear negation? Apart from the confusion of some countries using nuclear for energy supply, and which John Swinney First Minister, is so against despite the precarious situation of Scotland, preferring instead to build 1,000s of giant wind turbines, but if there were a clear distinction drawn between nuclear technology used for a bomb and nuclear technology used for energy supply, amongst those countries in 2026 who have an active ‘bomb’, would he add that 6th Nobel Prize as a Nobel Nuclear Peace Prize? The first nuclear holding country who can lay out its component parts of what was once a bomb and prove it is dismantled gets awarded the huge gold medal of Nobel Nuclear Peace Prize.

    If that happened, and the resulting dismantling top down automatically dismantled all the other nuclear holding countries, down into those who wish to have one merely to counteract that top of the pyramid, and warfare was reduced to traditional (from 1911) air warfare, how much less confusion would there be on the surface of the Earth?

    Of course if time really were taken back to Alfred Nobel’s lifetime then neither would there be any air warfare, and how much less confusion would there be on the surface of the Earth from no air warfare (and no aeroplanes for leisure either)?

    As the Nobel Peace Prize was left to award from the Norwegian Nobel Committee and the other Prizes to the Swedish Nobel Committee, what if both those Committees (both far northern countries on the spinning Earth) were to have a good lunch together with plenty of Northern liquid refreshment, and decide either to disband all Nobel Prizes, to acknowledge that in the time since first they were awarded that alas, human society on Earth no longer represents the reality of Alfred Nobel, or create a new Nobel Prize of the Alfred Nobel Prize for Nuclear Peace?

  • The Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in Westminster now

    Assisted dying: the Kindest thing that Life can offer

    Herein lies a great paradox, and possibly this current matter contains one of the greatest paradoxes of all ‘UK’ modern time. The Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – to repeat the full title, with the addition of ill written like that because Ill is actually a capital ‘i’ with two lower case ‘l’s’ which look like purely three capital ‘i’s’ which doesn’t mean a lot. Reversing upper and lower case to iLL equally works, but whether iLL or ill, the fact is the same, The Terminally ill/iLL Adults (End of Life) Bill is about one thing only, not general illness or serious illness, it is about terminal illness and to make it doubly clear End of Life has been included in the title. A terminus is the end of the line. In Eastbourne, East Sussex, Terminus Road outside the rail station is just that, the end of the train line and the beginning of the walk to the seafront. There are many terminus rail stations where the train will not go forward because it is the end of the line. Stranraer is another, as is North Berwick, and as is Tweedbank in the recent history of the resumed Borders Railway.

    Terminal is definite, factual, measurable, an overarching situation within which all the normal daily life events are relegated to that vastness of human birth and death of the physical life, and which we call a span. A span does end otherwise it would not be a span, it would just go on and on and be actually nothing.

    Certainly there are those few who are expected to pass shortly yet continue on months, even a year, or occasionally (very occasionally) even longer. In the scheme of things, which under this Bill is life and passing/physical death, terminal means terminal, the buffer is in sight and everyone knows it, primarily the person themselves.

    As Leader of the Opposition (and how different things look when you are in opposition and free to promise anything, challenge anything, opinionate on anything) Sir Kier Starmer promised Dame Esther Rantzen, herself terminally ill in the biologically factual sense of the word, that if his party gained power they would definitely give time to this issue. Esther Rantzen was talking biologically. Sir Kier Starmer was talking politically and after the sweeping Labour victory Sir Kier has not followed through on that. Probably the statement was made in the giddy whirl of celebrity, not realising that Dame Esther was talking biologically, real life, pragmatically.

    It has been, paradoxically, the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill to bring the subject into the public legislative realm. and paradoxically again, Lord Falconer’s, a Labour peer, clear thinking and drafting in 2014 bringing this base matter into Parliament. Base as in basic, not base as in gross, which opponents view it, for the two-pronged religious opponents – the very religious Christians and now other religions which now have a power presence in the ‘UK’ but it is the Christians who turn out in front of Parliament to oppose the Bill and whose hatred of the supporters is scarily near wanting to do away with them (us) with no terminal illness present, and the politically religious who believe that ‘the State’ is heaven on Earth and is the one to give or take away, and any rejection of ‘the State’ is akin to aligning yourself with the political devil domain.

    And thinking about it, there has now appeared a third religious-type opponent, of the individuals who do not have full mobility and therefore need to use a chair on wheels to get around, and which must be a big trial every single day, but who have appeared as an equal right opponent to this Bill. Pam Duncan-Glancy in the earlier part of 2025 when Assisted Dying appeared in Holyrood and Tanni Grey-Thompson as a current member of the House of Lords where this Terminally iLL Adults (End of Life) Bill is currently being debated – having been passed through Parliament and to repeat, having been passed through Parliament – and the very personal and very public on radio and TV and social media that is said this Bill is trying to kill us does factually show more a narcissistic personality issue than being able to read the title of a Bill from which it is too obvious to even debate that n/a to them. And within the very personal opponents are those who say their loved one did survive a lot longer than expected, and it led to that closeness which inevitable death brings and which is a good memory for those, but only because the person could talk, was not begging to die, was not asking why their loved ones were not doing the kindest thing possible of ending the fear and horror of a very bad death. But because politics is now all about the individual, even a new ‘Cult of the Individual’, and the individual voice and experience rather than the function of governance, even in the inner workings of government under the ‘UK’ and in the devolved chaos left by Tony Blair, in a debate as baseline as bad and traumatic endings for a terminally ill person and all around them, the illogicality of someone who is not terminally ill being able to speak in a debate as if it is about them, well, such is the state of governance in the ‘UK’.

    Biology being biology, very many animal ‘owners’ or co-workers with animals however we define the various human-animal pairings can see when a bad ending is approaching and when that measurable point has appeared – like not able to eat or drink, being in obvious pain and distress, losing a lot of weight or bodily distortion of the part where the terminal illness is taking over – take the no-option decision out of care for the animal to either visit the vet or have the vet come to the animal especially for big farm animals, or the farmers of which there are still a few just have to act according to natural principles, which is to end mindless suffering. It is not legal in the ‘UK’ for a human to go to a vet, and this writer never understands this. Biology is biology and especially with End of Life Terminal iLLness, the principles are the same.

    The opponents – all three, the religious zealots, the State zealots, and the personal zealots who cannot read the title to know it would not apply to them unless they had a terminal illness – who have introduced in the HoL, House of Lords, and Ladies now, the very very long list of objections to this Bill which has already been passed through the Commons say that the Bill is not clear, all the grey areas will lead to abuse and coercion, and their list goes on and on. In logical thinking it is the opposite, and the current situation is the chaotic one.

    The title is as clear as could be, and all alongside this is the option for the person approaching the very bad end to ‘go to Dignitas’. The word Dignitas sounds very like Dignity, which of course is what it is. Dame Esther says she may consider that herself. It all stands as yet another avoidance in the ‘UK’ of the void – in food, in energy supplies, in education systems, in the apparently free NHS, in soft global power, in the ships which leave our coastline every night laden with tons and tons of recycling to be processed by some quiet arrangement with a sizable payment involved, and the option safely just outside the ‘UK’ of Dignitas where every opponent of this Bill in the Commons and the Lords/Ladies must know it exists. All the countries and USA states who have integrated Assisted Dying into their daily life governance systems, and now the Isle of Mann in 2023 Parliament now in law in 2025 and awaiting Royal Assent, are those who see a human as biology over sociology and politics, and whose government structures align with logical processes.

    Would the House of Lords opponents argue that those going for a Dignified passing at Dignitas are doing something illegal, because they are British citizens therefore should be bound by laws of Parliament? Their long list of ‘points needing clarification’ could easily be reversed by looking at facts, such as the Isle of Mann, our very near neighbours around the North Sea who take a very baseline approach to humans on the physical Earth, and also to those MPs who started off opposing the Bill from back in 2014 but who then saw physical reality in someone close to them, and that horrible, shocking, deeply inhuman and torturous last few weeks or months changed their mind, and the reality of this Bill became clear, and they this time voted for it.

    Yes, the process of this Bill, now passed through the Commons but being determedly held up by the Lords/Ladies does show almighty collision of all things biological, health systems, politics, religion and the new ‘Cult of the Individual’. If Dame Esther does decide to go for that uncomplicated, inevitable and clear ending out of ‘UK’ jurisdiction then maybe this would be the year of a watershed of common sense could reappear in ‘UK’ politics and a return to the real facts of life, and death, which are biology on a physical planet where everything has a span, and within which we are just very little cogs in a very big cycle.