About "What Do I No?"
Thinking about the mundane can make a difference - let alone the profound.
One of the many things which interest me is backpacking. (But no, this is not about backpacking). If you are walking on, say, The Pacific Crest Trail for months, carrying everything you need on your back, then weight matters. Not only should everything you take be as light as possible, but preferably serve more than one function. This “concentrates the mind wonderfully” on how to do things effectively with as little as possible. And it’s just the basics of life that you’re doing — eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, defecating, keeping warm and comfortable … all outdoors in all weathers. This prompts one to think creatively about how to go about these things; and improvements you come up with may even get incorporated into life at home.
Thinking is important; and improves with practice, in my opinion. In searching for a theme for my blog, I thought it could be a worthwhile challenge to think up improvements in the way mundane things are done. Surely, the more common the practice, the harder it is to find improvements. But worthwhile: if there are things you do every day, then even a very small improvement can add up to something significant over a lifetime.
But I’m not excluding the profound! If I can contribute something that makes a huge difference immediately, then I’ll have a go at it.
This is the point at which I should tell you all the qualifications that make me an authority worth listening to - my degrees in philosophy, virology, nutrition, meterology and literature, not to mention my years in the Special Forces, and playing guitar with The Beatles. I’m not going to do that though, for two reasons.
First - as people knew a couple of thousand years ago (and I wish more people knew nowadays) sometimes a fool is right, and wise men do stupid things and are wrong all the time. So you should not judge what people say by their credentials or status, but by the quality of what they said. Is it true? Useful? Interesting? Amusing? Wise? This is the (fairly) well known ad hominem logical fallacy.
And second - I don’t have any. That’s also a factor.
I’m not telling anyone what to do or think. I’m not even necessarily saying what I do or think. I’m just setting out ideas on a table before you, and if there are any that catch your eye then you can pick them up, try them out, show them to other people, throw them away if you don’t like them - or keep them close to your heart forever - just as you like.
The closest thing I have to a real qualification is simply surviving for nearly seven decades. As the end looms, it tends to prompt you to think “What have I contributed?” “Is there anything else I can offer?” And “hey - that’s a really good way to do this: it would be a shame if I didn’t at least give people the opportunity to learn these little (or even big) things I’ve learned.” Older and wiser? Or just older? We’ll see.
This could turn out to be an old man’s self-indulgence, or it could be useful or profound. Who knows? I don’t. Which brings me to the working title of this substack - “What do I No?” Don’t interpret this as “what is this wonderful and secret insight that I’m privy to”? Rather - it’s in the sense “I thought XYZ. But what do I know? You decide”. The mis-spelling of “know” is a reminder that one gets things wrong ALL the time.1
To make a blog successful, one factor is continuing to contribute on the same area of interest, so people with that interest know they are going to get something they’ll like. But I won’t be doing that, but talking about an eclectic mix of things that interest me. I’m not expecting this to be popular, but I’d feel bad on my deathbed if I hadn’t at least given people the opportunity. And - I warn you - I’m somebody who finds EVERYTHING interesting! The other things that makes blogs attractive is telling people things that are novel: the “news” is called that for a reason. But my interests are the long-term, things that are ALWAYS true.
Another reason I won’t be making a fortune from this is that my intention is that all posts will be free. I’m completely new to Substack, so if it transpires that for some technical reason it would be helpful to have a charge, it would be nominal, like $1.
I had anticipated warming up for this novel enterprise with a few simple tips that would interest those with an interest in EDC or hammock camping or something. But my first real blog will in fact be about the most important thing in the world at the moment. No really — that’s not hyperbole: it really is my comments on something I view as the most important thing, and pretty urgent at that. Perhaps it had to be — to make me get off my backside and start!
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas 1914 - ‘53
It’s FREE to subscribe, and stays that way. It’s just an offering.
And I find I need to apologise to Sean Doherty, the writer of a blog with a similar title: “But What Do I Know?” subtitled “Thoughts from a 22 year old cancer survivor in an uncertain world”, who clearly has the same mindset; and is someone else for whom “the end loomed”. I recommend his substack. The least I can do is subscribe to it, which I have. And I’m very glad I did. Unfortunately “What Do I No?” is how it has been in my mind for a long time, and it will stay that way till I think of an alternative. Other candidates were “Thinking Allowed” - already pinched by the BBC; “Thinking, clearly” sounds too full of hubris; asking to be taken down by the fatal flaw in one’s argument being pointed out. I hope Sean will forgive me.