Observations of The Little Prince

First translated into English in 1943 The Little Prince¹ has been a firm favourite for all ages of reader. With more than 300 translations into other languages (including that of Klingon – the fictional Star Trek language) this small book is the most translated non-religious boo in the world.

The Little Prince tells of a meeting between an airman who has landed in the Sahara Desert with a damaged engine. The author of the book, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, is himself an airman, serving with the French during WW2. Whilst attempting to repair his plane the airman meets an extraordinary young traveller known only as the Little Prince.

The Little Prince comes from another planet (de Saint-Exupéry calls it asteroid B-612) on which there are three tiny volcanoes, a flower, and baobab bushes. The Little Prince must continuously uproot the baobabs for fear that they will take over his entire planet.

During his interplanetary travels and his time on Earth the Little Prince meets a number of characters. What he observes about each of them tells us something of the mindsets of grown-ups (as the Little Prince refers to them.)

After meeting each of these characters the Little Prince is left concluding that, ‘Grown-ups are very odd/strange’.

How does the Little Prince come to this conclusion? Let us look at some of his meetings and we might understand.

On one planet the Little Prince meets a king and notes that ‘to them, all men/women are subjects.’ In this encounter the Little Prince observes the need to reign supreme and without question so often displayed by rulers and leaders of countries.

On another he meets a conceited man and observes that this man never hears anything but praise. The conceited man shows the hallmarks of narcissism and listens only to those willing to heap admiration upon him.

Travelling further, the Little Prince meets a businessman for whom riches and ownership are all that matters. When the Little Prince asks the businessman, What good does it do to own so much?’ the businessman answers that ‘it makes me rich.’  The Little Prince pursues this with, ‘What good does it do you to be rich?’ A fair question you may agree. The businessman though, has an answer, ‘It makes it possible for me to buy more.’  In this encounter the Little Prince exposes the greed, and the circular arguments made for ever increasing wealth and riches.

One of the planets the Little Prince lands upon is so small that there is only room upon it for a single streetlamp and a lamplighter. The lamplighter’s job is to light and extinguish the lamp. When the Little Prince asks him why he is doing this, the lamplighter replies, ‘Orders are orders.’ Indeed, how often do we follow orders simply because they are orders?

Landing upon one planet the Little Prince meets a man who is poring over a book. The Little Prince queries him and is told that this man is a geographer. When asked to tell the Little Prince about his planet, the geographer says that he cannot do that, because I am not an explorer.’  Furthermore, when the Little Prince mentions the flower that exists upon his planet, the geographer informs him that ‘we do not record flowers.’ The Little Prince his aghast at this reply. But ‘the flower is the most beautiful thing on my planet!’ he exclaims. Beauty, to the geographer, is dismissed as ‘ephemeral.’ Welcome to a world where beauty is of little worth Little Prince.

Just one more example.

On one of the planets the Little Prince visits is a railway switchman. During the conversation between the Little Prince and the switchman we discover that the switchman has the job of shifting trains from one line to another, and then back again. When asked about this coming and going the switchman answers that ‘No one is ever satisfied with where he is.’ He further reveals that all the adults are asleep in the railway carriages and that ‘only the children are flattening their noses against the window-panes.’

With this observation the Little Prince then declares that ‘Only the children know what they are looking for.’ The switchman agrees. ‘They are lucky’ he states.

This small, allegorical tale is worth reading over and over and taking note of the Little Prince’s observations.

Certainly, the grown-ups are very odd and strange.

Note:

1. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1974

Questions Science Cannot Answer (and Nor Can Religion)

For science to progress it must first ask questions. Many times the answer can be found, albeit sometimes after years, perhaps decades or even centuries, of searching.

Gravity is a good example. The Greek philosophers pondered why it was that things fall naturally. Aristotle, for example, postulated that the reason for this was that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that therefore all objects fell towards it. Plutarch, on the other hand, claimed that gravity was not unique to the Earth.

In the 7^th century CE, an Indian mathematician and astronomer suggested that gravity was a force. One thousand years later, in 1687 Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in which he described what we now know as the Laws of Gravity. It took more than 2,000 years to answer the question. Even so, science did manage to answer it.

But, what of those questions that science cannot answer? How do we answer them? Indeed, do we even want answers to them?

These are the sort of questions that occur to us when we smell a flower, look up at the night sky, or kiss another human being. Why is this flower so beautiful? How big is the Universe? What is this feeling inside?

We answer these questions with words and expressions of awe, magnificence, wonder, love, and mystery.

And, as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry answered in The Little Prince¹ what is important and what is of consequence is invisible.

It is not knowing, not having an answer, which speaks to our heart, soul, and humanity most exquisitely.

Science cannot answer such questions. Nor should we expect science to do so.

We should not expect religion to do so either. That science cannot answer some questions does not mean that God (or some other deity) must be enlisted to fill the gap.

Gaps in knowledge do not need to be filled. Indeed, it is in the gaps that we find ourselves face-to-face with our insignificance and our magnificence at the same time.

Gaps allow us to notice the beauty of a flower. Gaps allow us to contemplate, yet never fully appreciate, the sheer immensity of the cosmos.

Gaps allow us to feel the love in a kiss.

Addendum: Nothing in the above should be read as a refutation of either science or religion. Simply, that we need not look for answers where we do not need answers – we simply need to seek the wonder in the mystery.

Note:

1. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1974. First published 1945

One Second

When you are counting down to a catastrophe, or collapse, or a nuclear explosion, there is little difference between the second that separates 9 seconds and 10 seconds to go from the second that separates 89 seconds and 90 seconds to go. The ticking continues. The countdown goes on.

Anyone hearing that another second has ticked down towards doomsday should be concerned.

And that is what happened this week when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists¹ revealed how close to midnight the Doomsday Clock now is. (Midnight is the metaphorical time at which doomsday occurs.)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been using the Doomsday Clock as a graphical way to illustrate how close the world is to doomsday since 1945. That is eighty years’ worth of watching the state of the world and how perilous it is, or isn’t.

This year (2025) they moved the clock from 90 seconds (one and a half minutes) before midnight to 89 seconds before midnight. A shift of just one second.

But, that one second is significant.

89 seconds is the closest the Doomsday Clock has ever been to midnight. The closest in eighty years!

In 2023 the hands of the clock were moved to 90 seconds before midnight; then, the closest ever to midnight. In 2024 the time remained at 90 seconds to midnight. Then this year, in a move of just one second, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have shown just how concerned they are.

Amongst the reasons for the shift of that one second are:

·       Continued failure by national leaders and countries to address the issues raised by scientists over the past year.

·       The war in Ukraine

·       Conflict in the Middle East

·       Increasing size of nuclear arsenals

·       Rise in global temperature leading to increased climate impacts

·       Climate change given low priority by world leaders

·       Rapid advances in AI increasing the risk of terrorism

Any one of these threats is reason for concern. Lumped together we should be greatly concerned, for the threats do not function in isolation from each other. They interact and mutually enhance the dangers of each other.

One second may not sound like much. But when we are running out of time each second counts.

Notes:

1. https://thebulletin.org/

Machiavelli’s Legacy: Deserved or Not?

Niccolò Machiavelli

What other personal name could be more associated with many of the nasty sides of human behaviour than that of Niccolò Machiavelli. His name is synonymous with traits such as ruthlessness, cruelty, manipulation, deceit, despotism, and fear. Indeed, the word machiavellian has now become a synonym for these traits.

A diplomat, philosopher, author, and historian, Machiavelli lived during the Italian Renaissance and is best known as the author of The Prince.¹

In that book, Machiavelli enunciated his ideas about what it takes to be a ruler and/or leader in those times. He has been called the ‘Father of political philosophy.’ His writings, especially The Prince, became foundation stones of politics from his time onwards. We still see his ideas played out in the actions of rulers all around the world today.

Male leaders in particular aim to be seen as tough, uncompromising, and decisive. All qualities that Machiavelli would have admired. Of course, female leaders have also attempted to rule in likewise manners. The UK’s Margaret Thatcher comes to mind; she wasn’t nicknamed the Iron Lady for nothing.

When Machiavelli was writing The Prince sometime around 1513 (although not published until 1532 – 5 years after his death) Italy was divided into a number of kingdoms, duchies, republics, and states – notably the Kingdom of Naples, the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Florence, the Papal States, and the Kingdom of Sicily. These various regions were constantly forming and unforming alliances and attacking one another.

Machiavelli’s attempts then to summarise and define the qualities of a leader under those circumstances becomes obvious. His intention was to provide leaders with means by which they could maintain their position of authority.

When viewed at from this distance, five centuries later, Machiavelli may not deserve his legacy,

However, as with so much, context is everything.

Let us consider a few of Machiavelli’s statements. The best-known Machiavellian maxim is the end justifies the means. For centuries this statement has enjoyed an almost self-obvious truthfulness about it. Yet, it is unhelpful and flawed. A whole systems understanding of the world and how it works recognises that ends and means are not discrete events but, rather, describe portions of the same continuous whole. Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, asserts that ‘means are ends in the making.’

In today’s highly connected, and increasingly polarised, this Machiavellian axiom is extremely unhelpful.

Some lesser-known statements from The Prince include: 1. ‘A leader mustn’t worry about being labelled cruel when it is a question of keeping his subjects loyal and united.’ 2. ‘It is a natural and ordinary desire to acquire.’ 3. ‘Is it better to be loved rather than feared?... since they don’t go together easily, if you have to choose, it’s much safer to be feared than loved.’ 4. ‘…fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust.’

Each of these statements, when applied in today’s world, tend only to exacerbate polarisation, violence, and hatred. The fourth of these statements, although Machiavelli was using it metaphorically (applying his comment to fortune) it does display the manner in which women were treated at that time. Today this would be outright misogyny.

Within our cultural psyche we tend to pay more attention to negative thoughts than towards positive ones. This negativity bias is an evolutionary adaptation. Our survival once was more guaranteed if we paid greater attention to perceived threats than if we ignored them (and even more so if we paid attention to the juicy fruit hanging from the tree instead!)

Thus it is with Machiavelli’s writings. We pay more attention to his negative expressions, even though circumstances have changed.

Consequently, with Machiavelli’s writing being still quoted and applied to positions of leadership today, we must view Machiavelli’s negative legacy as deserving.

In other words, the word machiavellian remains a synonym for cruelty, misogyny, deceit, manipulation, despotism, violence, and fear.

Sadly, leaders and rulers of today keep listening to the advice of Machiavelli.

Notes:

1. Quotations taken from the Penguin Classics edition of Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, UK, 2014.

Castles, Forts, and Walled Cities

Imagine you were set down in a region of the world where you had no idea where you were, no idea of which country or indeed even which continent. As you wander about you notice that there are many castles, forts, and walled cities dotted throughout the countryside.

What would you deduce from this about the occupants of this region?

One thing that you might infer is that warfare is a recurrent activity.

Such a situation is the reality for one specific part of the world.

A plot of the world’s castles, forts, and walled cities is a graphic illustration. Around 98% of all the castles, forts, and walled cities of the world are located in the region of the world to the west of the two big rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates, and to the north of the Mediterranean Sea. Many of the remaining 2%, although located in other parts of the world, were built following European/western colonisation of these areas. For example, USA has more than 300 castles, all of them built since the first European colonisers arrived.

This is the region of the world in which warfare took hold in a significant and meaningful manner.

It is often claimed that warfare is an innate human trait. Humanity has been engaged in warfare since time began it is said. If not that long ago, then at least over the past 15,000 to 20,000 years.

Yet, such an assertion is a Eurocentric one. There remains an assumption that because something has been experienced by, and applied by, those of European descent then it must relate to the whole of humanity.

But, as the example above shows, this is clearly not the case. Indeed, Europe is atypical in the building of castles, forts, and walled cities. Europe is also atypically warlike.

So, what was going on in the hearts and minds of Europeans – especially the males of that region?

Native Americans have an answer. They call it wetiko¹ which Jack Forbes² defines as the disease of cannibalism without any sacredness and no respect for the cycle of life and death.

Paul Levy, in his book simply titled Wetiko³, describes wetiko as, ‘A contagious psycho-spiritual disease of the soul, a parasite of the mind… (that) covertly operates through the unconscious blind spots in the human psyche, rendering people oblivious to their own madness and compelling them to act against their own best interests.’

Locating the emergence of warfare within western culture does not mean that violence did not occur in other parts of the world. However, as Jack Forbes points out, ‘Non-wetikos may, at times, be cruel, but their cruelty is individual and sporadic, not part of a system of cruelty.’⁴ Furthermore, Jack Forbes recognises that not all Europeans show wetiko tendencies, but that European culture is the major carrier of the wetiko disease.

That wetiko is a systematic psycho-spiritual disease and is unconsciously carried by one identifiable culture is what makes it so pernicious. It seeps and creeps into the psyche and belief systems of individuals and societies within that culture. Wetiko manifests, as Paul Levy notes, ‘as a cannibalising force driven by insatiable greed, appetite without satisfaction, consumption as an end in itself, and war for its own sake, against other tribes, species, and nature, and even against the individual’s own humanity.’

Wetiko, as Forbes and Levy describe it, is a major contributor to warfare.

And, castles, forts, and walled cities illustrate graphically where it originated.

Notes:

1. The word appears in many native North American languages, for example: wendigo, windego, windago, windiga, wentiko, wijigo, windagoo, and many others, indicating that the concept was widely known throughout the continent.

2. Jack Forbes was a prominent author, activist, and historian. Although identifying as of Powhatan-Renapé and Lenape descent he did not enrol in any native American nation.

3. Paul Levy, Wetiko: Healing the Mind-Virus that Plagues Our World, Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, 2021

4. Jack D. Forbes, Columbus and other Cannibals: The Wetiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, and Terrorism, Seven Stories Press, New York, London, Melbourne, Toronto, Revised Edition, 2008. First published 1992.

Fragments and Parts

David Bohm

In May 1984 a group of forty people of varying age, nationality, and professions met with Professor David Bohm to converse with him about his theories of the implicate and explicate order of the universe. Over the course of a weekend, this ground-breaking conversation was recorded, then transcribed, and published as the book Unfolding Meaning.¹

David Bohm (1917 – 1992) is one of many distinguished theoretical physicists that emerged between the late 19^th century and the middle of the 20^th century. Along with such well-known physicists as Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, and others, Bohm helped pioneer concepts in quantum physics, relativity, and the wave-particle duality.

Together these theoretical physicists also began to recognise, and explain, that things were not always as they seem. Bohm, as with others, also recognised that attempting to discover the workings of the cosmos (and the human mind in Bohm’s case) could not be done by looking at the world piece by piece. Things were much more intricately linked, and entangled, than a mechanistic worldview could explain.

Early in the dialogues Bohm noted that too often the world was viewed through a mechanistic lens. In expanding upon this he stated that there was a ‘…far reaching and pervasive fragmentation that arises out of the mechanistic world view.’ He went on to distinguish between a fragment and a part.

He used a metaphor to do so. ‘To hit a watch with a hammer would not produce parts, but fragments that are separated in ways that are not significantly related to the structure of the watch.’²

Indeed, as Bohm noted, the words fragment and part both come to us from Latin. The Latin word fragmentum means a piece broken off. The Latin word partum, however, means a portion of a whole. Quite different meanings and consequences.

After many centuries of breaking up phenomena and trying to explain the resultant mess, at least some sectors of the scientific world are realising that phenomena cannot be broken; a holistic, systems view, must be adopted.

The next step must be for other fields of human endeavour (e.g. economics, politics, business, education, and health) to recognise this as well.

The step after that is to remove the splitting of human endeavours into fragments and realise that humanity is part of this wonderful body called nature.

Notes:

1. David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning, A Weekend of Dialogue with David Bohm, Ark Paperbacks, London & New York, 1987

2. p.23

Fear of the Present

Some people suffer from anxiety. Amongst the different anxieties is anticipatory anxiety. Anticipatory anxiety is excessive worry about a future event. We could label this as mellophobia – a fear of the future; from μέλλο (mello) meaning future and Φόβος (phobos) meaning fear.

Although individuals in our society suffer from this fear of the future; rather, our culture seems to suffer from a fear of the past and/or a fear of the present. If not a fear of the present and past, then certainly an addiction to the future.

Indeed, we are about to celebrate this addiction with New Years Day. New Years Day: a day on which we resolve to make changes (for the better) in our lives, a day on which last year’s calendar is taken down and a new one hung up, a day on which we look to new beginnings and anticipate the good things to come.

Our culture is almost predicated on the future. It’s called progress. And progress we must. Progress is good, progress is the epitome of modernity. Progress proves the worth of our society and culture. We measure it with growth. Growth in the economy primarily; growth in prosperity, growth in technology, growth in the GDP.

‘Grow, grow, grow’ is the rallying call of progress and our addiction to the future.

But, what are we running from? What are we running towards? Why is the future more important than the past, let alone the present?

Originally progress simply meant to take a forward step. Since the 1600s it has come to attain the sense of moving towards something better.

We must ask though, better than what? Importantly too, we must ask, better for whom?

Our (westernised) sense of time with a past, present, and future is moulded on a seamless, linear concept. Non-westernised cultures, however, conceive time in more circular, or spiral, ways.

Vanessa Machado de Oliviera notes that this seamless, linear concept of time is one of the promises of modernity. But, there is a violence in this promise. It is, states Oliviera, ‘resting on the delegitimation and elimination of other knowledge systems.’ ¹

Our (westernised) concept of time and the notion of progress underpins European colonisation as well as exploitation of nature. Our (westernised) notion of progress too often includes the ideology of defeating nature; the conquest of nature as it has been labelled.

Ironically, our addiction to the future ensures that we are unable to recognise the harms that are done to other people and to nature. We are so focussed on looking to the future that we fail to notice the harms that become manifest in our wake.

Furthermore, our addiction to the future can stymie our individual human development. The human development journey consists of various stages. At each stage there are lessons to learn, skills to be acquired, and concepts to be incorporated into our growing understanding of ourselves and the world.

One psychologist who has mapped this developmental journey very well is the eco-psychologist Bill Plotkin.² Without going into details of his map, Plotkin does note that of the eight stages, most westernised people get stuck in what he calls patho-adolescence. However. Plotkin, and other similar psychologists claim that it is always possible to re-visit earlier stages (even in later life) to learn and incorporate the lessons from earlier stages.

But, our future-addiction inhibits this. The future, in modernity, is always better than the past, it always brings with it improvement. Returning to an earlier time, or stage, is an admission of failure and a worsening of circumstances.

Such future-oriented thinking is a mistake. Ironically, being focussed on the future prevents us from growing as a human.

So, as we acknowledge the New Year let us begin the process of overcoming our fear of the past and present. Let us start to overcome our addiction to the future.

Notes:

1. Vanessa Machado de Oliviera, Hospicing Modernity, North Atlantic Books, Berkely, California, 2021

2. See especially, Bill Plotkin, Nature and the Human Soul, New World Library, Novato, California, 2008