Fame & Fortune

What do Celebrities offer the masses?


Shared extensive and abbreviated language?

For Example:

Two strangers meet,

After a friendly and respectful exchange of greetings (appropriate) there's no further obligation to remain in each others vicinity unless it's by force (additional duty) or choice.
(I am English)

Introductions will also have outlined the parameters of the outcome.

(what their direct interests are and to what extent).

Polite discussion topics:

a) The Weather - can include impact on local or international events.

b) Health

c) Occupation

d) Family Life

e) Cultural influences (Television, Theatre, Literature, Concert, Cinema etc).

Celebrities offer a short encode descriptive by shared and recognised association. Who hasn't said, of one of the characters from 'Friends' - "I'm like... "

(In My Case, I generally say, "I'm most like Phoebe" - my favourite scenes with her often include Joey.

Especially the scene where Phoebe and Joey are sat on the sofa watching TV, which keeps switching channels. Phoebe's blinking and demonstrating how she's controlling the tv to Joey's obvious amazement... sadly Phoebe 'loses' that ability.)

Favourite cartoon is another good one. My favourite character is Sylvester. I love the way he reacts to the ridiculous situations. One of my all time favourite cartoons is the one with Sylvester and Tweetie as Jekyll and Hyde.

I liked Foghorn Leghorn too.



I liked Norman Wisdom, Tom O'Connor, Dave Allen? - Irish Comic/Catholic - especially his parting catchphrase, Danny LaRue, Tommy Cooper 'Just like that'.

How much information did you understand by associations?

Best Friends...

Shouldn't that be your husband/wife/partner?

What is a best friend anyway?

Somebody 'Else' ?

How do we recognise them?

Is it the way that they make you laugh and the fact that you love the way they do?

More than just the shared sense of humour?

What does that include then?

Similar (if not exactly the same) hobbies?

Mutual appreciation?

Attraction?

Goals?

Respect?

Interest?

Habits?

All of the above?



Well, when you find someone like that, I guess you'd know.

....Bitch?

Well, I suppose I might be considered as such.

Why is it a problem if I know more than you?

Didn't I say it right?


Which part did I get wrong?


True, no body gets it right all the time.

<listens>

Are you sure that's me you're talking about? (observes)

<critical analysis>



"1958, Harvard psychologist, Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.^[1]

1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others, but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
2. Dissent: is when people who are expected and encouraged to agree, but actually don't, make this public.
3. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity or a favorite uncle.
4. Dissassociation is when boundaries are known to be broken
5. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately. "
6. Procrastination? Justification?
7. Conformity : Agree social structure
8. Co-operation: Value, Rewards
9. Acceptance: Consistency? Evidence?

1. 12
2. 12

 <click>


Author waves photo, "Here's a snap-shot"

A which.... would ...?

Oh... you meant

...... "A Witch wood... " ? (Correct, me?)

Sorry...(you'll have to repeat that, I was thinking something else) ...

What would witches do again?

They have big noses, like ... ?

Sorry.... What?

Sorry?

Like Pinocchio?

You Believe That?

Whisperings..

There's this moment

Somewhere in time..

When a voice speaks

Sotto voce (Under voice)

The skin ripples and tingles (In Cognito)

Every part icle focused, paused.... .... poised


Like

Breath


Controlled

Like a 'bubble'




An image forms

in

the quiet air



Is it a Bird, A Plane or


Superb CK Vision




Or a Ghostly.....

Politician 

Salutations..

To My Children!


The eldest two are in Paris, France. My son texted me earlier to smugly announce he's about to tour the Louvre, and that he'll put a good word in for me while he's there.

I thought, how lucky, for him to be able to take a close look at some masters. I had told him that the reason the Mona Lisa is considered a masterpiece is because Da Vinci himself proclaimed it as such, and of course, he's a genius who enjoyed using codes.

I wondered if he might get a chance to take a look at Van Gogh's work, possibly even a sunflower, to see what he thinks when describing it. I'd like to be with him when he sees The Cherry Trees for the first time. I know how I felt when I saw them.

See, although I don't know all the historical facts associated, I do understand that art is about perspective and that an intelligent one has a lot that they'll unconsciously include in each painting, for example. I've noticed this within my own paintings.

Even the most apparently boring portrait (especially if commissioned) will include references to what the artist was thinking, if you know how to look.

Who Cried?

When you reconsider old clichés, trying to imagine how they might apply in modern society, you can find that, like all literature (the arts), there's much more than initially meets the eye.

Sample:

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Told to me, as a story, when I was a child and something I've heard repeated (clichéd) as a phrase, "Like the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' ", as some definitive explanation.

At the time I also understood there were morals (lessons) within stories and asked, "What was the 'moral' of the story?",  when I heard this one.

Mum said, "Well, the boy shouldn't have told lies, that's what got him into trouble"

"What if he wasn't lying?"

"He was,"

"How do you know?"

"Because there were no wolves, he lied about it"

"Why would he just say it though, if he knew that would get him into trouble?"

"Maybe he thought it would be funny, I don't know Barbara".


That story puzzled me because it wasn't as simple as it seemed.

Wolves (baying at our doors?) may not be the problem today that they were in our history, but we don't expect children to warn us, or blame them for making mistakes and possibly wasting our time, do we?


I tried to imagine myself as the boy - to figure out what circumstances could combine together - to make it seem a good idea to tell everyone in my village that there were wolves about.

I considered how I would feel, especially when it turned out that there weren't any wolves to be seen.

How the villagers might react to me, how that might influence repeating this again.

I thought about what it might be like as a child, sitting in the dark maybe, on a hillside perhaps all alone.

Would I be pleased or scared if wolves started emerging from the woods nearby?

Why would I decide (if there were no wolves there) to wake everyone up and tell them there were?

What's good about that?

What makes it fun?

What's the reward?

There must be one?

It didn't make any sense to me.

If Logic is Maths, this sum thing didn't add up.




What has this got to do with Bees?

Well, when I was watching a documentary about Bees, they explained during the film why the bees danced with such intricate steps. This fascinated me because I also understood what it implied (I knew about Ariadne's dance and the map). So in effect, apparently irrelevant or random occurrences could have significant value underpinning or shared (duo) purpose.

Ex Sample..

A Few years ago now...


I conducted a private experiment online, all participants were given details, in as much as I was aware and could provide.

I'd joined AOL in April 2000, when they introduced the flat rate (£15 a month) price.

That was when they were still using AOL 5. Remember that?

The chat rooms were buzzing, so alive, so busy and such a diverse group inside.

A number of new people became regular 'Buddies' and we'd talk about all kinds.

After a while I began to wonder what it was that I found so entertaining whenever I had conversations with these particular people, not least because their evident conversational skills were so disparate.

What was the common trend, underlying interest etc.

I wondered how I could gather the information that would provide me with these answers, how I could check for accuracy, what would be a credible control that would prevent self elimination and prove appropriate?

I was relatively new to computers, but I looked at the way the program itself allowed me to save and in what areas in use they could be reproduced.

I typed about this with those I had instant messages with and in group discussions in chat rooms, understanding what was considered to be fair and 'permitted' by general consensus in response.

What was allowed, what wasn't and why.

At first I started saving the conversations, just so that I could read over them again and re-enjoy.

Then I started being more critical.

What was it that made it so funny?

What had I enjoyed so much I wanted to read it again?

I started reading them all again with these questions in mind and attempting to identify the answers by parallels between all conversations as a means of independent but associated (established) corroboration.

I was amused more than worried about my initial conclusions. (Confirming source of humour).

Only 12 months previously, I had sat, blushing, looking at my 'Windows 98 - Blue Screen' announcing, "This programme has performed an illegal operation" and half expecting the 'Cyber Police' to break through 'Windows' and arrest me. I considered implied & related laws, as a precaution.

I also had to make a decision, given the conclusion.

What did I want to achieve?



I wasn't really sure, I wanted to see what else might be revealed, I was intrigued.

I devised

Once Upon A Time...

Maybe not that long ago, but for always, there was a little girl and a little boy. We might call them Eve and Adam, or Janet and John, depending on where you remember reading or hearing their story first.

They were so happy growing up together, it was so much fun. Adam would point to new things (that he'd just noticed) and Eve would look in wonder at both of them and say, "Wow!".

Adam would look into Eve's face everytime she said wow, and the feeling in his chest told him he knew exactly what she meant.

That's how much they loved each other.


One day, Eve was sitting on their favourite 'thinking' mound, thinking, because that's what you do on 'thinking' mounds, picnic mounds have a completely different use, although sometimes have to be multifunctional (if you know what I mean?).

Anyway, she kept looking at Adam who was watching her thinking and creating a daisy chain, until she broke the silence by asking him, "What do you think, you know, when you look at me, can you describe how you feel?"

Adam looked at Eve while he thought about her question and started to explain, "Well, you know when you were looking at the apple earlier, I knew how I felt when I saw it, I wanted you to feel the way I did when I saw it.

 I felt ... " and he thought about it more,

how could he explain this so that Eve would understand?

".... "Wow", and watched her face to see if she knew what he meant.

Eve thought too.

She thought about when she saw the apple, how she'd looked up to Adams face first and his expression.

He was pointing, she'd looked down his arm to his hand and the direction.

She then looked back at Adams face.

Eve looked again at the apple, to see what it was about it which made Adam so happy.

It was where the flowers had been,

Underneath was a smaller tree.

Quite the Contrary..

"Mary, Mary, quite contrary

How

Does your garden grow

with Silver bells and cockleshells

And pretty maids all in a row"

I always wondered why I identified with, probably, the least attractive personality trait, but liked it because of that.

I'm not sure why this reminds me of the occasions I would travel into Liverpool to discover and consider the objects to be found in the museum there. I would always head for the local history scenes, where you could walk along a mock cobbled alley way (with wall to ceiling imagery depicting days gone by) in Liverpool and immerse your imagination.

Through which you could hear the sounds of the Docks, Sea men calling, women talking, childrens voices raised, laughter and the lilting soft scouse accent of the girls singing a skipping rope song along with the rhythmic sound, that the rope made, as it flexed each way and slapped the surface of the cobbles now and then.

In the Natural History section I would wind my way through to the stand for the greatest mammals of all, "Whales". I would stand listening intently to the recording - playing one of nature's most amazing sounds. The song of the whale - lamenting.

I tried to save this part of my tour around the Museum for best and last, mainly because, I tended not to see anything else if I did this first, or second. Know what I mean?

Ever Wondered Why....

We look at eyes so much, transferring focus from one to the other when face to face, for example.


We have cliches about them, "The Eyes are the Windows to the Soul".

Sounds prophetic, profound, but do you know what it means... how that works in practice?

Could you provide totally independent scientific corroboration to support that theory, or are you just guessing?

Practical...

Example:


I was about 13 years old, but, with a little make up and careful selection from my older sister's wardrobe, I could look a lot older.

My friend Suzanne (with a Z'd not an S) and I had decided we'd go to a local pub, one close enough to walk to, but far enough away that people wouldn't recognise us.

The Punch Bowl - Sefton Parish.

We'd got ready at my house and we wanted to leave and walk to the pub after dinner. My Mum and Dad were loitering around the kitchen, which meant that Suzanne and I couldn't make a quick exit. Our make-up and clothes had been noticed.

Casually I said (eventually). "Er ... we're just going out for a walk somewhere".

Mum looked over the kitchen table as she wiped the surface over again, "Oh that's nice, where are you heading for?"

I looked at Suzanne, I wasn't prepared for this question.

Suzanne answered, "Oh we're going to stroll as far as The Punchbowl, we're thinking we'll be able to get a drink there".

We all laughed.

I started to put my coat on and prepare to leave while my Dad said to my Mum, "You do realise they've just told you the truth, don't you?"

Mum said, "Don't be silly, they're just joking"

Dad laughed again as he said, "That's what they're hoping you'll think, but they've told you what they're planning".

Mum turned to me and Suzanne and asked directly, "Is that what you're going to do?"

Suzanne laughed then said, "Yes, of course".

We all laughed again and Mum said to Dad,

"See... they're just joking"

Dad said, "Like I said".


He was right.

Clairvoyance....

... we're talking about Clear Vision, right?

Principally, a view without obstruction? Right?

When something is apparent, obvious, viewable, ...correct?

6th Sense..

Great Film...

Watched it with my boys the other evening.

We'd been discussing hidden (subliminal) messages within films.

K had a short film for me to watch and I listened carefully to what he wanted me to understand and notice when he replayed the film again.
(Initially I had been finding how distracting the subtitles were - when trying to listen to what was said in French - so hadn't watched the screen much).

We then had to make a choice about what film to watch next and the boys mentioned 6th Sense. I remembered the film and that there'd been additional footage about how it was made (on the DVD). I vaguely recalled that the Director had wanted to ensure that every scene contained a red item as an indication of when a Ghost was present. That also, as a ghost appeared, there would be some physical suggestion of a breeze (cold/shiver/something like that).

I was quite pleased with my recall when we watched the film a little while later.

I'd also mentioned to my boys that, when I first saw the film, I hadn't known that one of the main characters was himself a ghost. However, throughout the initial viewing, I felt some unease regarding their relationship - Something 'wasn't right'.

Watching the film again recently, I could see exactly what it was that had bothered me, though the red items and breeze were also interesting to spot too, albeit separately.

The Marathon Man (not Snickers)

One of my favourite films especially the scene where Dustin Hoffman is strapped to the chair and in so many ways he's asked a range of questions with one line repeated by Sir Laurence Olivier,

"Is it safe?".

Did we ever find out what he was asking about?

Was it Diamonds... in the film?

Some years later, I watched a documentary about Sir Laurence Olivier and this included some interviews with the Great Man himself.

I was particularly interested when he started to comment on this particular film - The Marathon Man, because it included two of my favourites.

Sir Laurence Olivier explained the differences between the two actors, Dustin Hoffman (if I remember rightly) he said, ".. is a method actor..." and he went on to explain what he meant by that. Also explaining the difficulties he had to overcome during that scene. He said, "I had to say that one line over 50 times, that's the way it's written in the book." I think he said, "How do you translate that into the screen, by repeating one line 50 times?"

And then we were shown how the scene was played in the film. The interview continued after that scene ended and so Sir Laurence Olivier was explaining all this with it fresh in our minds.

I Love All My Children...

... Equally, but for different reasons, because ... of course, they're all different and it's those very differences that make them special, wonderful and amazing to me, and a big part of why I love them so much.

For Example:

My Daughter, you know, the one who (when she wanted a cuddle) would say, "A-daughter-me Mummy".
Remember her?

Like the day I cried laughing after (without interruption) spending 5-10 minutes working out what 'cba' meant?

The Difference Between

Fact & Fiction



Fact: We've been making rhetorical comments about each for a long time (Established).

Fact: One of them is, "Real life is Stranger than Fiction!", (Agreed)

"In the words of Aristotle, in his essay Rhetoric, rhetoric is

"the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion".

According to Aristotle, this art of persuasion could be used in public settings in three different ways. He writes in Book I, Chapter III,

"A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers.

From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory-

(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display".

Fact : We have a huge number of famous celebrities, best known for their acting ability - We Admire this ability - Greatly. (Why is that.... do you think?).

Fact: We have a lot of Fiction.

Fact: A lot of Fiction includes Fact.

Fact: Somethings, once regarded, as Fiction, have been proven since to be Facts.

Fact: All things Fictitious have an element of truth -> it needs to be convincing.

Fact: A number of well known Facts have since proved to be Fiction.

Fact: Fact & Fiction are fluid and interchangeable (or did I mean interchangible?).

The Trouble With Being...

A Smart-Arse ... I mean, 'Clever' or ... well.. modest, er ... anyway...

Is realising, how uncomfortable, your own pleasure, in your ability, makes other, people feel.

Imagine being able to translate natural sign language (the unconcious code and expression).

Imagine being able to recognise unconcious displays of vital information in use, at the moment it's employed, how unconciously it was relayed, and how reliable that information is and the extent and value of the content (all potential rammifications in context and pertinent scenarios).

If you can imagine that, could You start 'reading' your unconcious self and (here's the potential) have a conversation, at least... ask questions?

Do you think you'd be impressed or disappointed with the responses?

Why do you think that?

How much do you trust your judgement, is there any corroboration (independent) to support this or is this an assumption?


If you're convinced that you can trust it, because you're not easily convinced, then how do you overcome the next obstacle and do you know what that is?

The Lasting Impressions...

As a young man

My Dad was a Merchant Sailor

So he walked with a 'rolling-gait'.

In his middle years,

On Thursdays (Pay Day)

My Brother, who was younger, and I, would wait..

In great anticipation because

That night, Dad's pockets had treats


We'd sit upon the  windowsill

Or on our garden gate

Or in the windowsill to watch

Until we'd see, the tall man with curls tousled in the breeze

(st)rolling around the corner at the top of the street



With glee... we'd leap from our seats

Running to our Dad who'd stop at the sight

Of us dashing, as fast as our little legs could

He'd lean down, arms outstretched and with such a grin

Catch us and twirl us around again and again

As we'd squeal with glee
We'd seek hidden treasures...

And find small paper cone twists filled with pleasures!


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


I recall,

When I was small

Sitting at my Dad's feet

Looking up with wonder at all

The stories he told of fish that leap

Of  Dolphins dancing upon water

And as he told his tales

In his face I could trace

The rippling light cast by shimmering, sparkling unpredictable seas



The ship's deck that he remembered

And as he talked of the salt laden breeze

Which (so it seemed) teased through his dark curls as I watched
Shimmering hues of watery blues

That took My Dad too

Where tea-sets of china caused smashing arrays

So many places of Far far away



*Hands Up* , "I admit it, I'm not a great poet, but these words above represent a great deal of the feelings I have along with the memories of my childhood and one of my greatest Hero's.


Much of who we are is what we learn through our parents. We could appear to inherit these, when you look at a new born child for example, they often exhibit prominent features that they've obviously got as a result of this being a physical aspect of one of their parents.

Both my parents had dark brown (almost black) naturally curly hair, like myself. Having sketched, studied and painted their faces, I can honestly say I recognise most of their features as one of my own.

I inherited the shape of my Mum's nose, but the length and proportion of my Dad's, though obviously narrower. I also inherited my Mum's teeth but my Dad's jawline - hence the refined cheek line, the dimples, the single chin and charming smile (like my Dad's) and the evident enjoyment in that (both parents).

Though I didn't hear my Dad laugh as much as I'd have liked, I think I inherited my belly laugh from him. The sound of my laughter has always been one of my most attractive features.

I was born during the baby boom, or it's immediate aftermath.

Listening to stories of their childhood, it seemed a lot had changed since they'd been little and I have wondered if that's the experience of every single generation we've ever had.

Certainly, as far as history permits me to research, it seems that the changes that my generation have grown through have been exponential by comparison to all our ancestors. Still, I might be completely wrong about that, I am only able to judge by my personal observations afterall, this means that I must make an allowance for personal bias and ignorance to be influencing (to some extent) my conclusions.

What does that mean in practice?

There's more than one concious state in play and action.

There are reasons we have cliches - they're unconcious reminders we create for ourselves.

Ask yourself, "Which ones do I repeat the most?" see if you're interested in the answer and to what extent that information informs you about yourself from a subliminal perspective and open honest (radical I know but absolutely necessary) multidisciplinarian perspective.

Not sure what I mean?

Okay....

Another example:

Sunday Mass

As a child of the 60s, I grew up in a community that was Catholic by title. All the surrounding streets were filled with people who attended the same parish church as myself and my family, school'friends', etc. Protestants lived a little bit outside, on the perimeter to the area where I lived. I'm not exactly sure to what that boundary line (for them) extended. Had I been told I may well have tested it, but it wasn't easy to be confident about the conclusions in this respect when I considered the question as a child.

My Parents, as children, had attended Mass once a week (at least). I grew up knowing it was on Television (Sunday Praise) so.... if I ever had the strange compulsion to watch it, instead of something else, it was available every Sunday evening (BBC 2 - I think).

Mum, as a child - I believe, was used to attending very often, possibly every mass held outside school hours - she didn't state this, but comments made and repeated over years suggest that this is accurate.

Their generation were the first to be able to afford to bring Television into the homes of the increasing majority.

Whereas, as children - my parents went to the Saturday Matinee for their weekly entertainment, the childhood they provided me almost discarded the cinema in favour of the little box in the corner of the living room (previously occupied by an old family favourite - the radio).

When it came to learning about interpersonal relationships, I didn't have to learn by being limited to the people immediately around me as I grew up.

I had Television.

I grew up watching how cinema changed - Black and White movies where families were happily united, fun loving and overcame problems - sometimes with the aid of a family pet (who they could apparently understand).

I grew up making associations with the shape of a window to the reveal on the other side - Play School. I also tried to predict which window by recalling the sequence preceding involved (to see if there was a definite pattern).

Children's television moved on as I grew up. From watching Gemima and the Oval Window, to one of my personal favourites, The Tomorrow People and Grange Hill.

Dr. Who has lasted really well. It's given a lot of people ideas about Time Travel and it's potential (in as far as we've imagined so far, or the scriptwriters, at least, are limited by their imaginations). Their audience were free to consider more.

Philosophical, scientific, intellectual debate, by the masses, has to some extent been a western cultural feature. Sure, it may have only been 6 year olds gathered on a corner in the street discussing the relative advantages of lazer beam guns and the limitations of the game that may have ensued,

"If we're in the 21st century, we CAN fly so I'm allowed to use a personal booster rocket that's attached to my back (backpack) and escape!"

"Er.... okay, but that means I have one too, in fact, no... I have a flying car (like the rockets in the Fun Fair) and it's much faster than your personal booster rocket so I'll be able to catch up and shoot at you with my lazer gun".

"No, you're not allowed to use lazer guns in a flying car, the windows have to be shut because otherwise you'd die."

- speed, rocket powered fuel attributes, velocity, cabin pressure = citations in 'child speak' used at this point to justify the limitation.

See what I mean?

Each child is inventing within known parameters, taking into consideration the associated terminology and complications.

How we've been able to successfully negotiate the limitations in aspects of these childhood games spills over into reality. Play is about practising, right?

It also provided the means to observe and note differences in response. For Example: Dr. Who wasn't that scary, it was interesting to me. I liked what it sometimes proposed though I could see there were disadvantages too.

The most powerful and influential stories, along with their associations (and implications), are formed in childhood.

I grew up reading books published by Ladybird, as one example. I was surprised to discover much later that the stories of Hans Christian Anderson and those of the Brothers Grimm had been read already, though much shorter versions and bolder print.

I was interested in the underlying morals and the intrinsic nature of those.

How these were explained to me and how to apply interpretation to gain a greater appreciation for the story.

How these rules apply and in what variety of scenarios, what key points to watch for (indicators).

Consider all the inherent code of films, for instance.

Good guys wear white and Bad guys wear Black.

Cowboys used to be promoted as the Good Guys, but I am glad that's changed. ?


I always thought the Native Americans were badly treated - for being such Noble and spiritual folk.


American films usually cast the Bad Guy with an English accent. Darth Vader isn't an exception, though the voice is an African American, there are strongly associated terminology indicative of an English speaking person. (also suggested by slight accent).

However far you test Positive and Negative, their presence is always confirmed, eventually.


For (yet another) Example:

I have been approached for a charitable donation.

I have agreed to provide an oil painting of mine and I have the address, packaging and postage all prepared.

I've been agonising over which of my paintings to send, considering this an opportunity to self-promote and make a personal contribution to a worthwhile collection.

(I have very strong thoughts about charitable organisations, having previously worked for the Inland Revenues Charitable Claims Branch).

So, I have very strict criteria to be met before I consider any charitable event to have genuine merit.

The One I'm Involved With Does.

Still, it's been very difficult choosing what painting to send. Obviously I want it to be one of the better paintings, but to be fair to myself, they're all good and I have spent hours looking at them.

Some paintings have taken me months to complete.

Some have taken a few hours.

While there is such a big difference in the time taken to complete each painting varies so hugely, I do not think there's less merit in either as a result.

If anything, those paintings that took a couple of hours to finish, actually were planned for years in advance. I just let myself free with the brushes and paint and loved the results to the point where... I was amazed with how great it was so soon.

Or, to put it another way, "Some things are just easier to say than others".

Or, "Prepared"

When we speak, most of the time we don't think about it. We just say what we're thinking immediately. Sometimes we spend time thinking as we form a comment of any kind. Sometimes we repeat ourselves (we all do). We don't think about those occasions after the first couple of times, we just automatically use them when the associations are made by context/situation.

Know what I mean?

See?

It's almost as if you're forcing....

"....... me into someone else's arms!"




When a husbands advances for intimacy result in, yet another, rejection from the wife he's been married to for almost 16 years, and he makes this comment, you don't need to be clairvoyant to realise that he's either seriously considering, or already involved with someone else.

Do you?

However, if the wife responds by asking specifically, "Are you having an affair?", would that husband say, "Yes," if that were true?

It wouldn't be too difficult to imagine, at least, "I'm considering it!" in reply, if only to justify the previous comment.



Either way, they are both (in part) admitting a problem, and that opens the doorway to the range of probable solutions and their consequences.


There are some things that people will never want to admit, it takes unusual circumstances to combine together to provide sufficient reason for 'that kind of' admission. That doesn't mean to say that there are no admissions of that nature, perhaps they're just less obvious?

We also make decisions in how much attention we give them, how we interpret, whether we question and how much as well as what we accept in replies. We might choose to dismiss, for example, maybe we don't want to know, or we don't want to invest that amount of time or deal with the possible implications. Many admissions are 'open' to interpretation and deniable, depending on the consequences, or potential for these as suggested from the response.

Simple example:

New member of office staff arrives late (everyone else is in the office where she works between 9am - 9:20am). When asked why, they explain that they've had difficulty with traffic, so an alternative route is provided. Still, they arrive late, several times over the next few weeks (although they work later to compensate) the issue is again discussed.

They explain further:

They're a single mother, the youngest (of their four children) is just 9 years old and the last to leave in the morning (School starts at 8:45am and students are not permitted into the grounds before 8:30am). The 9 year old leaves the house between 8:15 and 8:30am. The journey to work takes 45 minutes, but the route to work involves a road notorious for heavy traffic and congestion and travelling to work may regularly take over an hour.

This workplace involves flexible working hours.
(Core hours are 10am - 4pm)

In addition, as a result of this further explanation, an agreed time 'window' is made between the employee and her superior officer. This is also agreed with their superiors. Colleagues are also informed by both the employee and her superiors (so that there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about why this arrangement or 'special agreement' has been made)in part due to this particular instance.

By agreement, the employee (and Mother (who has the 'strange' idea that children are the more important consideration in her list of daily priorities) ) is allowed to arrive between 9:15 and 9:30am and will ring the office if she's delayed en route to work.

Everything sound reasonable to you so far?

Does this seem an unusual problem/solution or does it seem fairly familiar/obvious to you?

Are you considering how the other employees are feeling?

Are you sure that you've given them enough thought?

Maybe you think this employee is expecting too much?

'Bigging-up' the issues of being a single parent/child care/home security/distance/travel?
even if  you knew they were the victims of theft?
(you might not know but there could be some history of being the victims of violent crime?)



Okay,

maybe mistakenly,

I thought that was a good way of resolving the problem.

I soon found out that I was mistaken.

Someone wasn't happy about it, someone I clearly hadn't considered.

Maybe it was wrong of me to take the job given that they obviously wanted someone there before 9am. I was probably wrong for keeping the job in view of the fact that I so frequently didn't manage to get there before 9:15am. 

I made the mistake, and I am guilty, of :-

a) Needing the job
b) Thinking I could probably be ready to leave the house before 8:30am and managing to get into the office by 9am, or very soon after - I did actually manage to do that, though no-one was standing at the door cheering and there were definitely no marching bands with "Hoorah!" banners in the car-park when I did..... afterall.... I felt I deserved that on each occasion - Still, I'm the one that got this wrong, so I was clearly in the wrong for feeling I deserved praise or nice comments for having overcome (what I considered) so many obstacles.
c) Having no idea  also that this would continue to be an issue, that would keep rising up and haunting me, throughout the time of my employment with this organisation (3.5 years).
d) Not being sufficiently organised to ensure that the youngest child had, everything that he required, prepared for school the night before. And was always prompt leaving the house for school at 8:15am, never forgot anything and was never late i.e.: getting out of bed/eating breakfast/ bathed and dressed.etc) Not admitting I frequently had little or broken sleep the night before and had overslept.
f) Having slept through various alarm noises intended to wake me up Mon-Fri. i.e.:- radio/phone/children knocking and calling to me. (although I did mention all of these on various occasions - that were made opportunities - due to being late).
g) Was finding the workplace so stressful that I was often drinking in the evenings during the week now.
h) Imagining that working with so many managers and colleagues (all of which were women and predominantly parents) they'd appreciate how difficult it was for me, (especially because I was the only single mother amongst them - with school aged children) and not add to the burden i.e. - treat me like a criminal.

Stupid ... eh?


Still, I was new and, having asked during the interview what the anticipated 'settling-in' period was, I was aware that the managers who had interviewed me for the job of PA to them  (The Clinical Director and Business Manager) were realistically expecting something in the region of 6 - 12 months before I would start to feel like I knew what I was doing for most (if not all) of the job.

They were more confident than I was, but then, I'd never been a P.A before.
This had also been discussed during the interview ( along with the huge range of experience I had gained within various other large and high profile organisations) so they were fully aware of what skills I had and those I wanted to develop within the role of PA.

On accepting the job, I contacted everyone else (who'd offered me an interview) and explained why I would not be attending.

I was shocked when the paperwork, detailing the appointment I accepted, finally arrived. The role of PA to the Clinical Director had changed from Band 5 (stated at the end of the interview by the Business Manager in the presence of the Clinical Director - twice, and confirmed over the phone a week later, on offer of the appointment) to the starting point of Band 4. Five thousand pounds, per annum, less than I'd accepted when I was offered the job.

They had mentioned the band and pay were subject to Agenda For Change, but that hadn't been applied at this point.

As I'd already cancelled every other job interview, and I needed the income, I decided to take it on the chin... at least, initially.







This situation between a couple is not unique, although it's not supposed to happen. Married couples have, after all, made a commitment through a series of promises to each other - wedding vows form a contract.

While there are couples who have various forms of open relationships, they are not (to my knowledge) the majority. They have, like every couple, discussed and agreed what is permitted within their relationship. However, most couples still want or expect a monogamous, mutually exclusive relationship. Both situations involve contracts by consentual agreement and the problems arise where some alteration is made without agreement, breach of contract.

Don't they?

Further questioning is most probably going to result in an argument.

Like any job or position, there exists the possibility that the current roles/status may change radically.

i.e.:

Married (or otherwise) couples may become Divorced - Single people/parents.

Employer and Employee may become Past employer and Previous employee.




There is always a clear point of choice.


What follows is not always due to the choice you made.

By obvious connection, there are multiple choices available, and you don't get to make them all by yourself.

Your choice can only influence to an extent, and that extent is pre-determined as much by those others involved and, whether or not they support your choice.

With me?

Happy Holidays

& Festive Cheer


Good Will and Wishes to all Good readers and


A Great New Year

What ....strategies?

"... a quiet, shy, polite little girl".


That comment was frequently made on my school reports.

Quiet = Listened carefully, attentive.

Shy = Didn't talk in class, limited circle of friends

Polite = Well spoken, established and practised good manners, i.e: says, "Please", "Thank You", and "Sorry", more than most


Outside of school, however, I was more often told that I am a chatterbox.

I was also a very sociable child, I didn't have any significant problems making friends. Although, it is also true to say I became more discerning as I grew up. Few children seemed to share my developing interests. While I wanted to incorporate aspects of myths and legends into imaginative game playing, the other kids had scant understanding or knowledge of what these actually were.

I was also developing an interest in the differences and interaction between people, the complexities of relationships, interpersonal politics and observable machinations.

At school I was achieving high grades in English, Maths, Art, the Sciences and the majority of additional curricula, with the notable exception being; anything sport orientated. I found the History of the Royal Family to be more arduous than interesting. While other children could reel off the order of generations, I was perplexed as to how they could do that. The same was true of the Times Table - something which I've never mastered.

I don't learn that way.

Billy Connelly, the comedien, once described it....

"I was the kid who knew the tune, but not the words."

Learning Maths was a problem with not knowing the times table off by heart, as all the other children seemed to.

(I was later amazed to find in High School that I was not only in the Top Set, but amongst the Top 5 - possibly this was because, unlike the majority of students, I demonstrated every calculation - I had to calculate each step as a result of not knowing the times table).

Any taught subject that involved the Teacher facing the blackboard whilst adding verbal comment in addition, to explain further what they had wrote, was difficult.

In effect, large portions of the specific area they were teaching were told, not written. While they faced a wall or board. In other words, while they turned away I couldn't see their faces. Could not rely on what I could hear, and audible components could be completely lost to me as a result of not being able to lip read. Although I could note emphasis by body language, as often this was a point when the Teacher would turn to the class and point while making additional comment.

I may have been trying to write this all down and watch both the teacher and associate what was said with what was written on the board (filling in gaps where possible) and note emphasis. If there was a long and detailed explanation provided with the written example, I could be left completely bewildered and confused, not to mention - none the wiser.

Suppose you're in a class, lecture, meeting room and the Teacher/Lecturer/Chair is writing or referring to something on a board or flip chart. They're looking at the board/chart and mostly have their back to their audience. Whilst writing or pointing, they're gesturing and talking. Saying 'something', 'anything'.

You may or may not have notes to accompany this.

Imagine you Hear the following:

Example:

"Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics (xxxOLs) is an xxxxxx inxxxxxtional academic conference on the topic of automated rxxxxxing in higher-order logics. The first TPHOLs was held in xxxxxxxxxxxx in 1xx7, but in the early years was an informal gathering of researchers interested in the HOL system and had no formal proceedings. Since 19x0 TPHOLs has published formal xxxxxxxxxxxxx proceedings, published by Springer's LNCS series.
TPHOLs brings together the communities using many xxxxxxx based on higher-order logic such as Coq, Isabelle, NuPRL, PVS, and Twelf. Individual xxxxxxxxxxxx meetings devoted to individual systems are usually xxxxxxxncurrently with the conference.
Together with CADE and TABLEAUX, TPHOLs is usually one of the three main xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxthe International xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAutomated Reasoning (IJCAR) whenever it convenes,
In 2006, TPHOLs was part of the Federated Logic Conference (FLoC) held in Seattle, USA.
TPHOLs is superseded by the international conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP), which combines the old TPHOLs with the xxxx Workshop series. The first ITP meeting was in 2010, held as part of FLoC in Edinburgh, Scotland.

In mathematics and logic, a higherxxxxxxxlogic is distinguished from first-order logic in a number of ways. One of these is the type of variables appearing in quantifications; in first-order logic, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, it is forbidden to quantifxxxxxxx predicates. See second-order logic for systems in which xxxxxxxxxxxmitted. Another way in which higher-order logic differs from first-order logic is in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxg type theory. A higher-order predicate is a predicate that xxxxxx one or more other predicates xxxxxxuments. In general, a higher-order predicate of order n takes one or more predicates of order n − 1 as arguments, where n > 1. A similar remark holds for higher-order functions.
Higher-order logic, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHOL, is also commonly used to mean higher order simple predicate logic, that is the underlying type theory is simple, not polymorphic or dependent.^[1]
Higher-order logics are mxxxxxxxxxssive, but their properties, in particular with respect to model theory, make them less well-behaved for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxcations. By a result of Gödel, classical higher-order logic does not admit a (recursively axiomatized) sound and complete proof calculus; however, such a proof calculus does exist which is xxxxxxxxxxxxx complete with respect to Henkin models.
Examples of higher order logics include Church's Simple Theory of Types, Thierry Coquand's calculus of constructions, which allows for both dependent and polymorphic types, and of course HOL."


Imagine that's what You heard.

Did you read all of the example, or did you lose interest?

(A frequent complaint made by my teachers was that I was inclined to 'day-dream'. Given the above example, it should be obvious why).


Now the Teacher/Lecturer/Chair asks, whilst looking at their text book or notes, "Turn to page One hundred and xxxxxxxxxxx"

Remember, you're not supposed to talk

(If you're in any formal education setting - that means you'll be told off as a potential cheat if, at any time, you're spotted asking another student, "What did they say?").

Just Looking at another students desk could also be construed as cheating (another form of communicating).

So you'd have to be very careful if you were attempting to see what page in the text book They turn to.

There are a range of strategies that you'd automatically apply.

You may not have heard distinct words, but you'll have heard some sound. I would try to figure out what words those sounds were most likely to be in the context of the sentence.

In a face to face conversation, I could repeat what was said in a variety of ways for clarification/confirmation, and so avoid admitting I did not hear, or that I'm not sure of, everything that was said.

Underlying all of that is motive, and correspondingly, the judgement. In school/college/university etc, you're supposed to learn, failure to do so could be construed as bad teaching (but everyone else learnt), or evidence of your lack of intelligence.

You don't have to be a teacher to arrive at one of these conclusions. You don't have to be a Genius to spot implications, but it would probably help to overcome them.

Outside of school I was noted for being a particularly fast runner, though I never successfully accomplished a cartwheel or handstand. I was more competent than my peers in hoola-hooping, juggling, balance (walking the gate), skipping, and hand clapping games. When my legs had grown long enough to use my sisters bicycle, I was allowed to go out by myself and would explore the neighbourhoods further afield and the local countryside that lay beyond. In the 70s you could go and play out all day, as long as you weren't late for dinner.

Associated problems with APD and the truth....

Being Different


Is never easy, ask anyone with ginger hair who attended school where they were the only one (or part of a minority group), what their experience of school life was like. They were probably the one remembered within any group of children misbehaving and most likely the easiest target of their peers. Though that's not always an absolute, it will generally be the case.

My first experience of school was traumatic. The level of noise within the classroom itself was overwhelming, not to mention the fact that I could not distinguish enough of what the teacher was saying to respond in the manner she was expecting, simply because I could not hear her. This also meant that initial impressions were not good on either side.

I was also upset, never having been parted from my Mother before.

The huge number of (over 20) children I'd not met before and having no concept of what I was expected to do in this new situation added to the distress. It didn't help that the teacher (Mrs Rose) decided that I should occupy the corner of the classroom because I was crying.

No doubt things have changed considerably since then?

Early school reports frequently commented, "Barbara is a very quiet, shy, polite little girl".

I didn't just have good manners, by the age of four (pre-school) I also had a well formed vocabulary and used it without being aware how extensive it was in comparison to my peers. Although I too had a local accent, mine was much softer and considerably less obvious by comparison. My Mum was a snob.

I was also highly selective and learnt the value of being observant.

I began to appreciate that what was said was often very different from what was seen to be said and furthermore, what was understood by those around me.

Mum and her friends often talked about other families. I knew them by surnames: The Brannigans, The Bloods, The Balls, and the frequency with which these surnames were mentioned and the associated reasons. I went to school with kids with these surnames. A few times I asked my Mum where these people, she and her friends talked about, actually lived. I also knew roughly in which direction these kids lived and Mum referred to the same areas.

I didn't like some of the children. There was something about them that I didn't want to associate myself with. I don't remember being forbidden from playing with them, but I didn't want to be their friend, consequently, I was bullied by them. My best friend in Infants was Marie Oak. She too was targeted by the bullies, simply because she was my friend. I also remember the names of the bullies.

My Mum made numerous visits to the school regarding this. The advice she gave me remained the same, "Ignore them and they'll go away".

They didn't.

Mrs Rose had a daughter, who she introduced to the class after a lesson where she'd explained about beauty. During this class she told us that the most common physical aspects were less attractive than the unusual, she explained this with example, stating that a combination of blonde hair and brown eyes was the most visually attractive.

My hair is a shade of brown that's almost black and I have hazel coloured eyes (i.e: blue/green/brown).

Mrs Rose's daughter had blonde hair and brown eyes.

It was also about this time that I overheard Mum and her friends discussing a neighbours habit of bleaching her daughter's hair. The girl, at the time, was about 10 years old. When I asked my Mum about it (not understanding what bleaching meant apart from household cleaning) I was told that this was not to be mentioned outside the home.

Mrs. ........... also had a son, who was younger and brown haired, who played with my brother and I, along with the other kids in our neighbourhood - outside school hours.

Mrs.......... was also discussed because she had a medical encyclopedia and often complained of strange ailments. When I asked my Mum about this she told me about hypochondria and how this was evident if someone, who'd never been abroad, claimed to have exotic illnesses such as malaria, as an example.

Our family were unusual, in that, though we were Catholics, we didn't go to Mass on Sundays. I began to experience problems at school as a result. Mrs. Rose also didn't seem to like me. When her daughter came to our school 'on a temporary basis' (which lasted for a few months), she told me I was not allowed to play with her, but no explanation was given.

One summer's day, during the afternoon 'break', after watching everyone else playing 'tic' with Mrs Rose's daughter on the school yard, I wandered onto the school field. I sat down on the warm grass and started to create a chain of daisies while watching the other kids playing together. Mrs Rose's daughter followed me and asked if she could help. I was pleased because I'd thought perhaps she didn't like me and that was why her Mum had said I couldn't play with her.

Other kids followed and joined in, but one complained to Mrs Rose and I was sent inside and reminded that I was not to play with Mrs Rose's daughter - ever.

I learnt to play alone, though I welcomed other kids who wanted to join in with my imaginative games, it was with some trepidation.

I was glad to go to Juniors, our school had a brand new building, just completed. There was a much bigger field too.

Somethings didn't change, Marie still sat on the floor behind me during morning assembly. She still liked to play with my hair, often undoing my plaits and re-plaiting. Other girls noticed this and sometimes there were arguments over who got to sit behind me and play with my hair during assembly. Mum also started to complain about the occasions she'd find gum in my hair, and I learnt about head lice, and why to trust only Marie.

I didn't like P.E. or Swimming.

Apart from the fact that the other kids seemed to use this time to attack me under the guise of 'sport', items of clothing would always disappear. I rarely found my underskirt, and any part of my uniform was subject to change.

I was called a 'Liar' by other girls who were wearing my skirt, blouse, and cardigan. The Teacher would tell me to "Get dressed and stop crying!" and to wear whatever was in the pile where I had left my clothes. Trying hard not to cry, I'd be forced to put on old, torn and dirty clothing. Mum started writing my name on every item of uniform and underwear. That should have helped but, the teacher refused to check labels herself, she'd send 'notes' home instead.

I was confused, we had so many lessons when we were taught about the "Christian Ethos", yet while there were opportunities for this to be exemplified, the actions of adults in authority didn't match what they taught.


Since 1999 there has been the following statement from the CES (Catholic Education Service) in relation to Ethos.

"Each Catholic school has its own distinctive mission statement which expresses its shared sense of purpose. Fundamental to that purpose is the belief that every person is made in the image and likeness of God and finds fulfilment in God alone. The mission of the Catholic school is to seek the ongoing development of every pupil and young person and to promote their well-being and freedom. This vision shapes the daily life of the Catholic school as a community in which faith is expressed and shared through every aspect of its activity. Through the pattern of daily prayer, through the celebration of the sacraments of the Church, through works of charity, through a striving for justice in all it does, a Catholic school seeks to be a catechetical community in which the content of the life of faith is shared.

In these ways, the meaning of life, as proclaimed in the Catholic faith, is explored and experienced by all those taking part in the life of the school, whether they are baptised Catholics or not, practising their faith in their own parish or not, or members of other faith communities or not".

Mum took me to our Doctor (Rivelin) when I continued to refuse food and complained of nausea along with frequent headaches.

She took his advice and insisted I go to school dinners. She spoke to the dinner ladies who agreed to ensure I did not leave the dining hall without having ate every meal.

During the first week, I learnt to leave class with haste to get in the queue (first sitting) in order to have any genuine choice in the main meal provided. That if I didn't eat the main course I was not allowed dessert. To check out the dessert available when selecting the main course and not worry so much if this was semolina.

I was allowed to go back to packed lunches after the Dinner Ladies insisted I have Liver, served with onion gravy, boiled potatoes, carrots and sprouts. Dessert that day was my favourite, jam sponge pudding with custard.

I sat through two sittings, with my plate of liver in front of me. I ate everything around it, I even tried to eat the liver, in the hopes they'd let me have my favourite dessert. I returned to the dinner ladies several times, to check how much of the jam sponge pudding was left and if they'd finally permit me to have any.

Eventually, I was the sole figure left amongst the (by now gleaming) tables in the dinning hall, after having been the first 'customer' in there that day. The dinner ladies had told me, "You are Not to move until that dinner has been Ate!" and no one at my table had wanted to swap.

The Headmaster, Mr. Gregg, came searching and found me in the dining hall.

He told me off too.

My Mum had, from the first instance, explained the problems I had been encountering.

When I arrived in class I was generally told that one of three girls (part of a group of friends) was intending to 'get' me that day.

Advice from my Mum was to ignore them and these threats - but how does that work in reality?

The Teachers (including the Head Teacher) recommended reporting these threats to them.

However, when I did, I was told I was being silly and, "Don't make things up, sit down and get on with your work!"

This is after the children involved had Admitted to making threats in the first instances.

Right, so... not only were the responsible adults pretending there wasn't a problem, I was supposed to pretend too?

That works... how?

Are we all pretending there are no criminals too?

I suppose victims of murder are 'pretending' to be dead?

Still, it does explain to me why everyone 'ACTS' surprised and say things like, "Who knew?!"

I could tell you Who Knew!

So don't tell me that bullying isn't an institution, it begins in the home environment and is actively encouraged within schools. Failure to acknowledge it is lying - by Omission.

Teachers and 'other staff' co-ordinated scenarios I did not want or invent.

I wasn't the first child to be subjected to these issues, and those children (or adults) in places where there's willful ignorance will continue to be victims.

Though let's not pretend no one knows how or why!

In reality.....

People don't want problems, if they can justify doing nothing, that's exactly what they'll do - Nothing.

Or worse, once it's established that a particular child or individual is considered to be the problem (victim and consequently the smallest minority) it's fairly easy to then contribute to the issue.

The only question is, why?

Why did my Teacher, who was fully aware of the situation, insist I remained at my desk until everyone else had left the cloak room. She knew that, as a habit (associated), I would usually be the first to leave the class, get my coat and leave the school premises.

She knew why.

She wasn't left to guess, she'd asked me and I told her.

Simple

You'd think!

One afternoon, in autumn, when I was 8 years old.

I sat at my desk - as requested. While the rest of the class went into the cloakroom.

I paid close attention to the gates of the school.

I knew that at least 4 girls from my class had not left the school premises.

Eventually the Teacher, as she fastened her own coat, told me to fetch mine.

I left my seat and went to the window,

sitting on the bench beneath were these four girls

I pleaded with my Teacher,

"Please Miss... those girls... " and I pointed to them.... "... are waiting for me."

The Teacher said, "Well don't  leave them waiting, go fetch your coat and go!"

I looked up in horror.

Was she pretending not to know?

".. but Miss, they're waiting to get me"

"Are they... let's just see about that shall we?"

She opened the window and spoke to the girls, "You're not waiting for Barbara are you?"

They replied in unison, "No Miss"

Seriously, did she imagine for one moment their answer might be, "Yes" ?

She turned to me and said, "Off you go then Barbara"

The window remained open, I knew they were able to hear what was said within the class room and that I would shortly be leaving the classroom.

".. but... but... Miss..."

"No buts, I've had just about enough of this nonsense Barbara. Go fetch your coat and leave immediately!"

I went into the cloakroom,

I took my time.

My Teacher came in and told me not to run when leaving.

I knew two things;

What it was to despise someone, and that I had no intention of walking.

Some truths about lies...and Christmas..

Basics:


In order to begin to explain any truths about lies, we must first accept the initial premise, that - in the first instance, before a lie is told, there's a reason and/or cause.

There are considered to be acceptable forms of lies, the use of tact or diplomatic misinformation. Such as when someone (often female) asks, "Does my bum look big in this?". Most would consider it acceptable to tell an untruth if they feel the reaction to the truth is likely to cause distress or upset.

However, when referring to lies, I am specifically referring to the deliberate employment of misleading comments, misinformation or lack of truth for the sole purpose of concealing it for personal reasons. By doing so, avoiding the known or probable consequences.

In effect, these lies are for personal benefit or protection at the cost to someone else.

So if we were to agree that there are white lies, I'm talking about those that are of a much darker, and perhaps, sinister nature. Accepting that there must also be every shade of grey between Black and White.

White lies being harmless in most circumstances and Black invariably inclusive of harm to some measurable extent.


Starting with the primary experience of deceit, during childhood, an example.

Generally, it will be a Mother who discovers some discrepancy with her child, whether that involves an item or behaviour.

Following this will be a comment and/or question,

"How did this happen?"

"Who did this?"

"Did you do this!?"

"You did this!"

The situation, people and ages of those involved along with the question(s) and the perceived implications (though they may vary considerably), remain fundamentally the same. Although the intention may change as demonstrated by the initially query.

The choice and tone of the query invokes various responses.

In this scenario, the child will understand there is something (potentially or inherently) about the matter in question, whether they've done this or not, which indicates some punishment or reprimand. To avoid this, or delay (in order to understand the implications better) they may elect to deny knowledge and/or involvement.

So in answer to the question, the most probable answer will be either, "No" or "I don't know".

Any exchange involves emotional responses to some degree.

This includes the Mother (in this instance) in her choice of question, objective, critical assessment of reactions to the question, whilst waiting for an answer, and ultimate decision.



As a 47 year old Mother of four children, I have answered or asked these questions a great number of times.

The situation also involves a weight of responsibility for the parent(s) as well as the child(ren).

Nobody wants a problem.

However, society places the responsibility for teaching children how to behave appropriately with the parent(s), whether they accept it, apply it, deal with it appropriately, and (to some extent) also award the credit or blame for the outcome.

If the question, "Who ate the chocolate?" is asked of a three year old child (who has chocolate smudges around their mouth, the open wrapper beside them and is trying to hide their hands - which also happen to be covered in chocolate). In addition, there's no one else in the house or has access to the chocolate since it was last seen and the absence noted. It's fairly safe to assume the three year old knows something about what happened and can answer this question honestly.

There's various ways of looking at this one situation.

How the relationship between the adult asking the question (the way they phrase it, the intonation and underlying motivation and implication) shapes the response, for example.

Who's chocolate is it, was it left unattended and within the reach of the child. Responsibility for this is not questioned but is also a factor.

A three year old child is fairly simple in comparison, without going into any deep psychological characteristics, we can safely appreciate there was a temptation, an opportunity which was taken and now there's potential consequences.

Regardless of these, the circumstances provide indicators/evidence. However complex a three year old is (and they are) they're comparatively easy to understand i.e. their motivations and  responses are readily recognisable/appreciated.

If we change the situation slightly, by adding siblings and increase the age of this child by two years, and they become the middle child, we increase their complexity and opportunities to mask the truth. The relationship between the adult (parent) and the child has also changed dynamically. There are additional sources of confirmation/denial along with motives, increasing additional opportunity.

Still the situation, however complicated, is not major. We're talking about chocolate and who ate it. In terms of family life, this is a relatively minor (but not insignificant) problem.



When my children were small, (and frequently co-operating with each other) they have asked me, "But, how did you know?"

It was too complicated (in the explanation) to give them the details and also counterproductive for me. So, rather than list the pattern of behaviour and obvious evidence, I told them I had eyes in the back of my head. For a number of years this explanation satisfied them, if proving difficult for them to overcome.



Auditory Processing 'Disorder', how is this relevant?

First of all, it underlines or highlights that there is a fundamental difference in how I think compared to the majority.

In effect, I have greater recall - improved perception (by comparison) or better. Although this condition suggests I am frequently forgetful. In reality, I am processing a greater volume of information and, as a consequence, this can create loss of short term (or working) memory.  However, those occasions also include rapid and applied strategic (albeit apparently confused - at the time) assessment and long term associations.

Experience is the background of information which we, as individuals, utilise to make sense of any situation.



So, when someone tells a lie, how do you know the truth?


Well, sometimes it's obvious, like when a child denies all knowledge of a chocolate bar that is missing, whilst covered in chocolate themselves.


But what if it's not obvious?

How could you know that something has happened, or happening?

Do you need or would you like to know?
(How does this affect the result?)

How would you get to know?

What if you're not told?

What if the pertinent information is witheld?

How would you know if information is being witheld?



Lies, by definition, include omission .



The other side involves knowledge, which if you've gained without direct evidence to support it, is likely to be (at best) misunderstood and not appreciated, especially by the person or persons involved. Even the suspicion of a lie will be dismissed, discredited and/or disregarded.

Isn't it?



Lies, I believe, usually involve concious and deliberate fabrication and displacement of responsibility, and by their nature, require an audience.



For example, Rhetoric was suggested, by Plato, as a means to conceal for political reasons.

However, I like the way that Aristotle describes rhetoric, for public audience in 3 different ways:

"the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion

Book I, Chapter III, "A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory- (1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display". '

1) Political
2) Forensic
3) Ceremonial oratory

On acceptance of the above premises, it's also true to say that most lies go undetected and remain accepted. Unless, there's some reason for questioning what was said or potentially unsaid.

The better practised lie is harder to identify, or is it?

Trust is, of course, fundamental and the foundation of any relationship.

Consider a relationship where one or both partners are involved in an affair outside of that relationship.

When strange or new routines, which coincidentally offer opportunity and aren't sufficiently explained, prompt further questions, denial/confirmation and/or potential investigation.

From the start, as any newly married (or otherwise) couple establishes their routine and pattern of behaviour, this could incorporate additional and/or secretive activity of one or both partners. Consequently, duplicity is harder to recognise and identify as such because (unless it's considered odd immediately) it is more probably integrated and accepted as the normal pattern of behaviour within the frame of that relationship.

There will be signals, even within those relationships that have established routines that have always been secretly inclusive of undesired activity. They may simply not be recognised as such, or it could be that they're ignored, conciously or subconciously, because it's easier to do so.

It's often regarded as preferable to accept a lie as truth. Perhaps it's more flattering, means life is less complicated, or simply removes the need for immediate action with associated short and/or long term implications which are less favourable.

So the boundaries of vice and virtue, in relation to the truth, become blurred by preference and a lie is told to a receptive audience. Benefits are mutual if not entirely reciprocal.

Unless, of course, the benefits are not mutual and however receptive the audience is, credibility has been lost along with trust. In which case, the truth remains an outstanding prerequisite.

We also agree to lie to each other and ourselves, take Christmas as an example.

In the Western world today, it seems to me, there are relatively few that have faith in any God. Yet the majority still celebrate the 'birth' of Jesus Christ and encourage young children to believe stories of Father Christmas, Santa Claus, or whatever name is appropriate to their country, custom etc.

We justify the continuation of these stories, by merit - the end result should include well behaved children (if only during the days/weeks preceding).

We also teach our children that those who they love and trust most can not always be trusted
(because they tell lies). This is an important lesson, one which children need to learn. Not least because it establishes an understanding in experience which includes association with patterns of behaviour, expression and appreciation of underlying motives. Children will, through this experience, recall clues and, with hindsight, better understand the associated causes. Methods of detection should also improve for future practical application.