Now, this is a little more like it.  LOADS of time and expense certainly went into this display of art - but for what purpose?  Hopefully none at all.  I hope to see it this weekend.  Enjoy! 

Damn!  I just read my posts over the past few months.  How serious am I?  Looks like there's some desparate need to be seen as important and intelligent.

Significant correction is needed.  Am I alone in this little game of "life is serious!"?

I recently had a further breakthrough with failure – in the gym!

In the past month I hired a personal trainer. He's training me in general fitness and upper body development. For those not familiar with weight training, in lifting weights for the purpose of building muscle, it's important to get to the point of failure in lifting the weight. From my trainer's perspective, full failure in each exercise is an excellent workout!

ahem – not for my traditional and well ingrained relationship to failure!! Failure for me has been the "final judgement". Definitely no chance for another attempt. Failure always results in humiliating personal rejection – not only being alone, but ridiculed by those who have witnessed my failure.

Now add to this spicy mix the fact that I'm gay and I'm working out in gym in Central London full of male models, professional dancers and a good sprinkling of celebrities. Hmm… personal, physical, public failure every 5 minutes or so…. (it's bad enough working out in the middle of this physical manifestation of "Men's Health" magazine!)

Well, it just kinda happened. In no small measure as a result of the support of my trainer, I now am free with failure in the gym! I grunt and groan and give it my all until I fail – and then my trainer asks for more and I give it – even when I have absolutely nothing left. What a liberating experience. It no longer matter who's there, what the weights are, how many reps I actually accomplished. I'm free and accepting that the point of the work is to fail completely.

Imagine the freedom. Imagine the effectiveness.

Love is Extremely Painful, but will never harm you.

People seem to be confused about the whole notion of love. Love seems to be a dangerous topic for most people – especially single people. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what love actually is.

Mostly people confuse love with a specific type of relationship most closely associated with marriage or someone's 'life partner'. The notion is that love is given to this person to some sort of exclusion of others.

I think they confuse love for some notion of exclusivity. There seems to be some danger in allowing oneself to experience love for one other than your "one and only". If you love another, you are indulging in infidelity! If you allow this, you are certainly destroying your relationship with your partner and risk throwing your lot in with someone who might NOT be your "true love". This notion of a "one true love" is nonsense. Love here is confused with relationship.

Relationship is difference from love. There are infinite kinds of relationships – friendship, brotherhood, motherhood, comradeship, business alliances, intimate personal partnerships of all shapes and sizes. Love is something else. Love is that which calls for deep and personal relationships (with another or even yourself). Love calls for the wellbeing, self-expression and development of all concerned.

I wholeheartedly encourage all to fall as deeply in love with as much of life as you can stand (people, things, ideas, yourself) – and then stretch yourself a bit – to the point of pain. Love will never harm you – although it is certainly extremely painful. Its crushes, its passions, devotions and heart break. These are signs of love truly expressed – relish them.

Love is not scarce. Love is infinitely abundant and available. There is no need to withhold love for fear of there not being enough to go around. Over time love deepens in intimacy and complexion. Over time relationships change as well. What is there to fear from this? Authentic love always calls for the care for all concerned – there is no risk of an inappropriate relationship within authentic love.

A friend of mine bought me A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins. I'm not liking how it started…

After reading the first essay "A Devil's Chaplain", I found myself disagreeing with much of the basic thinking of the author.

T. H. Huxley's statement:

'Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but combating it.'

He says

'(man is) the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.'

There are four reasons why this is preposterous.

First is that the declaration of something as cruel is a moral one. It is an assigned opinion of 'good' or 'bad' about something. Dawkins can have a view about the nature of evolution, but cruelty isn't a true nature. Evolution's nature includes this assessment but also includes all other opinions (like beautiful, engenius, and loving). In this Dawkins confuses opinions with reality of nature.

Second is that 'clumsy', 'blundering' and 'waste' are all comparisons to some standard. Some sort of 'right way'. Against what standard is Dawkins comparing evolution? A separate standard can't exist as everything is involved in evolution. It reaks of an assumed standard of perfection, which itself is an opinion.

Third is that Dawkins seems to assign levels of consciousness inappropriately. 'Cruel', 'clumsy', 'blundering' and 'wasteful' are all creations in human thinking. This does not exist in living things that do not have the same level of consciousness that humans do.

A bit of evolution needs to be discussed in explanation. After creation developed the physical world to stability, life emerged in a delicately balanced environment. After creation developed the biological world to stability, thinking emerged. These eras have been called (by Wilber and others) as physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere. Dawkins essay is a noosphere argument which doesn't exist in biological evolution.

This misplacement is similar to someone trying to discuss sexual reproductive behaviour in molecules. Sex is a reality that exists only for that part of creation that is part of the biosphere. Thinking and morality (which give rise to 'cruelty', and other judgements) is a reality that only exists in that part of creation that is part of the noosphere.

Fourth and finally (at the moment) is the ridiculous separation of man from 'the cosmic process'. Man is one and the same as 'the cosmic process.' Man is an expression of this process, not an external observer. Man cannot 'imitate', 'run away from' or 'combat' the 'cosmic process' any more than he can combat the fact that he is made of molecules, is a living thing and thinks.

So, biological evolution is NOT a cruel clumsy blundering waste – it most certainly is SOMETHING. But the something that somebody says evolution is says more about the sayer than what it REALLY is. The truth is that evolution unquestionably happening and it's dynamics inspire us.

Thank you England! Thanks for giving us London – an international city for the world. Its majesty, its history, its beauty, it's convenience for world travel. You've selflessly (unwittingly?) donated this great city to all global citizens to call home.

Sorry for the persistent and increasingly effective cleansing of all things particularly English from London; It's necessary you see. We're defining a new homeland here, as well as in other international capitals; An international metropolis has to have a certain standard of convenience, modernity, and style; We'll keep the English bits as a unique colour and flair! (Please note the English spelling of color).

Some lament that London, England is dead. I doubt it; however, I'm not English. For English London to be dead is to say that the English have been too weak to establish a permanent and unique character to the place. I don't think so. London has a civility, intelligence, pride, history and openness that other world capitals don't have. It is true that this is invisible to many proud English people; alas what is most truly yourself is invisible to yourself; what is invisible is no less real.

• Thank you for the theatre
• Thank you for Buckingham Palace
• Thank you for Covent Garden
• Thank you for The Tower
• Thank you for The City
• Thank you for Soho
• Thank you for fashion
• Thank you for Bobbies without guns
• Thank you for the best taxis in the world
• Thank you for double decker busses (but not for those bendy things..)
• Thanks for fixing a lot of the rolling stock on the rails
• Thanks for St. Pauls
• Thanks for having Parliament here
• Thanks for Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus
• Thanks for getting rid of the pigeons in Trafalgar Square
• Thanks for all the great parks and heaths
• Thanks for Portobello Road
• Thank you for Heathrow airport
• Thank you for Eurostar to Paris
• Thank you for welcoming other nationalities in a way that has people from all over the world aspire to move here
• Thanks for your brave response to the bombings on 7th July 2005. I've never noticed such a coming together of citizens in London in my 13 years here.

So celebrate London!

Celebrate London England!

Celebrate London Great Britain.

Celebrate London in Europe and the World.

As a Swiss friend points out to me, London is the current capital of the world. Be proud.

With love,

A world-travelling thirty-something dual citizen metrosexual expat executive visionary entrepreneur

Last night Russell and I were watching a movie that my brother and father recommended over Christmas.  I loved the film.  Sideways is really interesting mix of beautiful, artsy cinematography, hilarious comedy, love and misadventure. 

I thought it was simply going to be a comedy.  This is certainly how my brother Brian described it to us. “I am NOT drinking any f***ing merlot!!” was the memorable phrase, followed by chuckles…

As I was enjoying the show, I had a thought that maybe Russell wouldn’t like it.  I always imagined him NOT liking “artsy” movies – this one certainly was on the artsy side.  When I asked him, he said of course he liked it – he likes any movie with a good story. 

He reminded me of a recent long haul flight to the states when he saw a movie (I don’t even remember which one it was).  He joked with me that I shouldn’t watch the movie because it would be “too intellectually stimulating for me”.  He joked about this several times in the trip.  I put it down to sarcasm, assumed it was some sort of trashy adventure film and went back to “Batman Begins”.  Apparently this was one of those “artsy” movies that I assumed he wouldn’t like.

Well now, let’s be honest.  I assumed that he wouldn’t like these kinds of films because they would be too intellectually stimulating for him.  Given that most of the music he enjoys I assign as “trash” and a lot of the reading too, I put myself above him in the intellectual / cultural side of life.  I've "known" this for almost 10 years. Damn what an idiot I am!

…and what a wonderful discovery of a more accurate side of Russell

I’m looking forward to seeing a lot more movies with great stories with him.

I mean a different thing than most people when I say wellbeing.  I see wellbeing as something more profound than the absence of physical illness.  I see it as an integrity of the whole of someone.  

I also believe that wellbeing is cumulative and expands naturally. 

It's cumulative in that there are basic foundations of wellbeing that are necessary to take care of before higher levels can be addressed.  Like if you have a broken leg, you really should have it splinted and go to the hospital before you look at your mental health. 

It's expanding because people expand as they take care of their wellbeing.  What I mean by this is that as people are well personally in terms of physical health, mental and emotional health and financial health, they always expand to be concerned about the wellbeing of others.  I have always seen this to be the case.  

I can write forever on this idea but will pause.  What do you think?