26 August 2012

Week 35: 'Wooooooooooahh!'

Wonder spawned in: 1930s and 2000s
Wondered into being by: Skye, Naomi, Ginger, Fred, Nicholas Brothers, and Finland
Wonderspan: Less than 10 minutes. 
To experience this wonder at its best: Make sure you can hear the sound and click 'full screen'.

In 1920s and 1930s New York, an African American family struggling to pay the bills would organise a party for their neighbourhood.  Everyone from the street would drop a small entrance fee into a pot to help with the rent.  They would crowd into the apartment, enjoy a big meal and dance for the rest of the night.  In the morning the world outside still regarded African Americans as subhuman – nothing on that level had changed – but for one night the community created its own freedom.

Their dance developed into the lindy hop, an exuberant, earthy partnered dance that Europeans like me are learning today to the same Harlem jazz.  London’s smart-shirted office workers pitch up at the dance class, at first stiff-limbed and clumsy.  Those who get that this is a dance about freedom rather than getting the steps right become more fluid and creative, progressively released from the invisible straitjacket that sitting in front of a screen all day has put their bodies into.  Once the social dancing kicks in after the class the room becomes a pulsing mass of bodies improvising to the music.  In a small way the dance returns us to what matters most: those joys and passions that are real.

Here are some of the best lindy hoppers in the world, along with some of the old-timers who still inspire them.  The holy grail of lindy hop - well, maybe of everything - is to experience, with another, something effortlessly joyful. Just pick any one at random for your Monday morning way of loving...
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxPgplMujzQ  Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire dance themselves happy in one of those films where the dancing is so good and the dialogue is so bad that you're just waiting for everyone to stop talking and start dancing again.
If there are any lindy hoppers out there who think I've missed a better clip, leave a comment and share the love.
Extra…

Before lindy hop swept across Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, we did it like this:
or sometimes even like this:
(sorry, Finland)

____________________
www.waysofloving.com

19 August 2012

Week 34: 'What is is that unsettles us?'

Wonderdate: 1970
Wondered into being by: Evolution (and/or something else), Frederic Rossif and others.
Wonderspan: 10 min
To experience this wonder at its best: Click on the full screen icon and make sure you can hear the sound.

This week we look at three different ways of answering wonder.  Do we marvel at it, try to explain it, or just allow it to unsettle us?  There's a clip for each one.  They're all wonderful, I think, but if you only have ten minutes, skip to the last one.

I - 'The marvel of existence that is us.'

So we've just had the Olympics - the greatest show on Earth.  Or is it?  What, to you, could be described as the greatest show in the world?  Could it be this?
It seems to me that the wonder that Alexander Tsarias feels is such that he wants to resist an explanation for it.  Perhaps to explain is to explain away, and while we might think an explanation can comprehend a wonder, it might just be a way of swerving around it.  Perhaps Alexander Tsairias, doesn't entirely trust a scientific explanation to take full weight of his wondering experience, which is too rich for him to discount the possibility of the miraculous.

II - 'Nature, unaided by a designer, could produce an organ of seemingly miraculous complexity.'

But then some are keener to push science and see what kinds of explanations it can cough up.  Let's not be naive, they say - yes, nature is full of wonder but it's not magic.  Once you break down its complex processes into their many parts its wonder-full complexity can be comprehended without recourse to 'divinity' and 'miracles'.  For example:
III - 'What is it that unsettles us?'

The way of wondering I most want you to see today is of another kind altogether.  In the 1970s, Frederic Rossif worked with the musician Vangelis to create a series of documentaries about the natural world.  These films are full of a kind of wonder that just isn't safe - either to marvel at euphorically or to explain coolly.  They inspire awe, and so their main effect on a domesticated consciousness (and as human beings we all have one of those) is to unsettle it.  In the face of such awe, the rational mind does not become wrong, it just loses its purchase; scientific explanations are possible but seem trivial in the face of the too-much-reality of the experience.  At the same time, it seems feeble merely to marvel at nature's awe, as if it were enough to say, 'How wonderful it all is!' as we might when calmly observing it from a distance.  (I think this is what we do when watching the tamer BBC Natural History Unit productions which, to put it bluntly, dumb down the killing).  The willingness to marvel and the will to explain are ways of responding to an experience we know what to do with - they belong to the realm of the expected.  I think what Rossif manages to convey in his rough film is something altogether wrong-footing: call it the wild.  To experience the wild is to feel drawn towards it and become afraid of it in equal measure.  This primal mix of curiosity and fear is a response to what we were not expecting; it is a visceral experience which both warns us not to get too close and yet also stops us from taking flight.  Witnessing nature in this way, we might actually feel we are in it or, even scarier, that we are it.

Here are the first ten minutes of L'Apocalypse Des Animaux.  It's all in French!  It works without the narration but if you can understand it, the text is extremely beautiful (and unsettling).  Early on, we are shown a fossilised fish skeleton:
‘And what is it that unsettles us, in discovering the fragile destiny of this fish, its demise written in stone 170,000,000 years before?’
 Unfortunately the full documentary isn't online.

Extra...

More Rossif:
_____________________
www.waysofloving.com

12 August 2012

Week 33: 'A child said What is the grass?'

Wonder spawned: Today!
Wondered into being by: You, with help from Walt Whitman.
Wonderspan: 2 min reading + 8 min writing
To experience this wonder at its best: Don't make plans for lunch today just yet.

This Monday's morning wonder is dedicated to Jonathan B, who turns 40 today and can still meet the world with the spark of a wonderstruck child.

The lawns, playing fields and parks reek of green this week as they get a haircut from the council's mowers.  Today's way of loving will be made by you, wonder-lovers.  This is your mission, should you choose to accept it.
'A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands'
So reads a line of Walt Whitman's long poem, Leaves of Grass.  Your mission is to spend about 10 minutes this lunchtime answering this child laden with grass and a question.  So, what is the grass?  Walt Whitman begins his own answer by suggesting that grass might be:
'...the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven'
Grass is a flag waving in the breeze, lain out across a hillside perhaps, or between two council blocks with a duet of council tractors do-si-do-ing across it.  In a moment of Whitman's imagination, hope looks and smells like grass.

If you’re game for this, spend a few minutes jotting down five metaphors for grass and include them in a comment (anonymously if you like) at the foot of this blog entry.  I will do this too – even if no-one else does!  In any case, if you have nothing much planned for lunch, why not give it a go?  It's just a few minutes from the day, after all.  Even if you spend the first five minutes doing nothing, which can feel like a lot of just sitting still, you'll probably spend the other five surprising yourself.

(Stuck?  I suggest you don't try to be poetical - that way lies anguish and despair!  Just try to notice the qualities of grass - the way it looks, smells, grows, the way it's lots of little spiky bits up-close and a large smooth expanse from a distance.  Then think about what else from life has that same quality... That's what grass 'is'.)

Here's the excerpt from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, 1855 (first edition):

A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
  How could I answer the child? . . . . I do not know what it is any more than he.

  I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green
      stuff woven.

  Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
  A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropt,
  Bearing the owner's name someway in the corners, that we may see
      and remark, and say Whose?

  Or I guess the grass is itself a child . . . . the produced babe of the vegetation.

  Or I guess it is a uniform hieroglyphic,
  And it means, Sprouting alike in broad zones and narrow zones,
  Growing among black folks as among white,
  Kanuck, Tuckahoe, Congressman, Cuff, I give them the same, I
      receive them the same.

  And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.

  Tenderly will I use you curling grass,
  It may be you transpire from the breasts of young men,
  It may be if I had known them I would have loved them,
  It may be you are from old people, or from offspring taken soon out
      of their mothers' laps,
  And here you are the mothers' laps.

  This grass is very dark to be from the white heads of old mothers,
  Darker than the colorless beards of old men,
  Dark to come from under the faint red roofs of mouths.

  O I perceive after all so many uttering tongues,
  And I perceive they do not come from the roofs of mouths for nothing.

With thanks to Julia Casterton for getting her poetry group (my very first class) to try this out.  Julia had been ill for some time and died just a few months after the class.  She was a superb teacher and helped many people including me to start their journey in poetry.

___________________
www.waysofloving.com

5 August 2012

Week 32: 'Can we just get the gym shoes out of the way first?'

Wonder spawned in: 1870s
Wondered into being by: A plimsoll and the people
Wonderspan: 5 min.

I have no film for you this week but I do have this:
That's that, see you next week!

Ah, you want to know what it is?

Ok, so a little context for this week’s way of loving would be helpful.  Let’s start with your shoes.  Did you wear gym shoes for PE at school?  The ones with the narrow strip of rubber around the edge and a canvas upper?  If you’re posh you might have called them pumps (in Stratford-upon-Avon they’re definitely pumps even when your dad is a window cleaner) and if you’re Scottish you might know them as sannies, for 'sand shoes'.  Or did you call them plimsoles?  If you did, you’ll know what a sole is, and that makes sense because shoes have soles, but what’s a plim?

Come in out of the rain, gather round, make yourself comfortable and feel the warmth.  Together we’re going to put this stubborn mystery to rest but not until the end.  First, let's get back to that painted symbol.

If you already know where and what the symbol is then you get five points, you win (but no-one likes a smart arse, as I know from experience).

If you don't know what it is then have another look at it.  You’ll see that there are some thickly painted planks of wood and at the bottom there is some metal showing.  Now do you know what it is?  Four points if you do.

Still stuck?  The surface is vertical – the wood is higher up the surface than the metal, which is actually copper alloy.  Three points?

No?  Those planks form the side of something and are painted with waterproof tar-pitch.  Two points if you know now where and what the symbol is now.

Deary me.  Alright!  It's on a boat!  But what is it?  Just shout out if you know and claim one point, otherwise please don’t feel too bad, zero is a cool number.

*   *   *

The symbol is a ship's load line, also called a Plimsoll Line.  This particular one is on the pre-whoops-it's-on-fire Cutty Sark but it’s now found on every ship in the world.  The horizontal line should always be visible, otherwise the ship is deemed to be overloaded.  The circle is there to make the mark easy to spot when looking at the hull.  L R stands for Lloyds Register.  The F and R are more obscure; F stands for Freshwater and W stands for Winter.  These initials have to do with the variable buoyancy of ships according to the salinity and temperature of the water they're in.

[geeky fact begins] Sailing ships like the Cutty Sark are only required to have F and W but modern cargo vessels have a few more letters and extra horizontal lines to show the different levels of buoyancy allowed; they stand for things like tropical, North Atlantic, winter, summer, seawater, freshwater and so on. [geeky fact ends])

Before the Plimsoll Line was instituted in the late 19th century there was no regulation at all, in any country, setting the maximum load of a ship.  In the 1850s and 1860s, ships that were clapped-out and overloaded were sinking far too easily.

The problem was that many owners were happy to let their ships go down.  Rather than repairing or breaking up unseaworthy vessels, owners would keeping working them but insure them for more than their real value, so in some cases they could be worth just as much sunk as afloat.  These were the so-called coffin ships, overloaded to the gunwales and sent off around the world.  If the ship arrived then its owner made a much greater profit than had the ship been sensibly loaded.  If the ship sank, then they cashed in the insurance.  Either way, it was a win for the owner and it was quite normal for some of them to work a ship until it sank in this way.  The lost crew were poor folk and, as everyone knows, in the eyes of some rich folk, poor folk are replaceable because no-one knows their names.

My dad – an old Merchant Navy sea dog who once took cargo ships through the Panama Canal – first pointed out to me the Plimsoll Line on the side of a ship and asked me what it was.  I got nought points.  He explained what it was for.  Most of everything else I know about it, I know from Nicolette Jones, who wrote a highly acclaimed book about the coffin ships and the campaign to stop them.  She cites a report of the British Board of Trade in 1871, which said that in just one year, 856 ships sank within 10 miles of the coast in winds no stronger than a stiff breeze.

Seamen were afraid of crewing the coffin ships but it was illegal for a sailor to refuse to sail.  Even so, many men preferred three months in prison than likely death by drowning.   With sailors refusing to crew, it became so difficult to find replacements that, in one case, a coffin ship was crewed entirely by boys under 17 years of age; she went down and they all died.

These unscrupulous ship-owners were surely at fault, but they were also incentivised by the free market system to overload and over-insure their ships.  If they did not, another company could easily undercut them and that could put their business at risk.  It wasn’t easy for them to do the right thing even if they wanted to, although Nicolette Jones says many did resist the temptation to overload.

Parliament, whose natural state as we all know is one of inertia, was nonetheless becoming more aware of the coffin ships, mostly thanks to one of the first successful campaigns combining public agitation with democratic representation.  Many ship-owners were also MPs, however, and while some were honourable, others did whatever they could to stop any progressive legislation.  They argued that the state should not interfere with the right of business owners to govern their own affairs.

I wonder, wonder-lovers, whether any of this sounds familiar to you.  The owners of coffin ships were hedging their bets on the ship arriving or sinking so that they would win both ways.  Similarly, hedge funds of today bet both ways on the stock market, so they can be invested in the failure and success of a business at the same time; if the firm does well, the hedge fund wins; if the ship sinks, the fund still wins.  The people who stood to profit from the coffin ships, as well as government and parliament of the time, were the ruling class, while the working class took all the risks.  You can see the same demographic divide today, for example between in the government, which decides whether or not to go to war, and the soldiers who have to fight.  The free market, combined with a lack of shipping law in the 19th century, incentivised competitive greed; it was difficult then, as now, for a business to put ethics first because the economic system would punish them for it.  And people in power today, just as then, argue they have a sovereign right to govern their own affairs as they see fit; when the state intervenes it is seen as a ‘nanny’.

The corrupt ship-owners didn’t win, though.  Samuel Plimsoll MP led the campaign over many years to make shipping safer for crews.  He wrote a book to marshal the arguments and toured the country speaking to maritime communities, many of whose loved ones had been sent to the bottom of the ocean in the coffin ships.  He agitated in parliament with passionate rhetoric; at one time he worked up such a righteous rage that he was escorted out of the chamber.  (Oh, for an MP who would do that now!)  It was Plimsoll who argued for a symbol on the side of every hull to mark a ship’s maximum load, but ship-owners said that would be too complicated. 

Nonetheless Plimsoll was a stubborn and cantankerous chap.  Change was many years coming but he had the people on his side, and after he began to create political waves, The Times joined his campaign.  Largely thanks to Plimsoll's oratory and determination, rising public anger persuaded MPs that their seats could be at risk if they didn’t back the campaign.  Eventually, the government amended the Merchant Shipping Act in order to require all ships to display Plimsoll's load line.

It is perhaps not surprising that Plimsoll was an amateur inventor.  The symbol he designed is minimalistically simple.  No fancier markings are needed to do the job, whereas any less would be insufficient.  For all the modern gadgetry on modern shipping, the Plimsoll Line is still the universally agreed, standard means to know a ship’s maximum and current load

But, you wonder, what about the footwear?  Well, we call gym shoes plimsoles because we think the name has something to do with feet, but it doesn't.  The canvas-and-rubber shoes were originally called plimsolls, so named by a rubber merchant who invented them.  Samuel Plimsoll’s indefatigable campaign had earned him such a public profile that he was known in every household as the sailor’s friend, so most people knew about the simple hull mark he devised to save thousands of lives at sea.  When the shoe-maker made a pair of shoes which would get your feet wet if they were plunged into a puddle that was anything other than very shallow, he knew exactly what to call them.

Extra...

Nicolette Jones talking to the British Library about her book:

Reference: Nicolette Jones: The Plimsoll Sensation

____________________
www.waysofloving.com