Princess Diana’s death and the backfiring feature

I noticed the sacrificed son feature in this case a while back: the ruthless self-made social climber Mohamed Al Fayed lost his son Dodi in the crash that killed Princess Diana.

I have noticed another familiar element: the backfiring. This is where not only do some people not get what they want and think they are about to get, but they also lose what they already had. Everything goes horribly wrong. Their hopes and ambitions are raised sky high only to be shattered. They start by being elated, they end up devastated.

This is what happened to Mohamed Al Fayed. He may have been delusional or indulging in wishful thinking, but he thought that his son Dodi was going to marry Princess Diana. Not only did this not happen, not only did he not get any of the associated attention, publicity, respect and acceptance that he counted on, not to mention the opportunity to live in reflected glory and ‘show’ everyone that he confidently expected, but he also lost his son.

I know that many people believe that Diana had no intention of marrying Dodi, saying that she just liked free holidays on the yacht and wanted to get attention and make Hasnat Khan jealous, but Dodi’s father did everything he could to further the relationship. He ordered Dodi to leave the model he was engaged to and give attention to Diana and ensure that she had a good time.

It is putting it mildly to say that all his wishes, plans and actions backfired.

It is said that by wanting something very much, we may attract forces that prevent us from getting it.

It is possible that uncontrolled ambition is both caused and thwarted in disconnected, unprotected people by some sadistic and evil force.

As always, identifying a feature is one thing; understanding the mechanics behind it is something else.

Planning the glorious future:

At Princess Diana's funeral:

Karmic retribution and sugar in the tea

A very minor incident has provided the material for an article about how the punishment sometimes fits the crime.

I visited some people a few days ago and was offered tea. When asked if I wanted any sugar in it, for some strange reason I said I would have a small spoonful. I don’t know what came over me to make me say that: I never ever take sugar with tea as I think it ruins the taste. I drank it without much enjoyment.

When something unpleasant happens, I have learned to work backwards to find the cause. There is almost always some connection between the incident and one of the items on my checklist. For example, it could be that I had been in the company of an energy vampire or had a horrible jarring shock.

It is worth making similar checks if I make a mistake or act out of character, even in very minor matters. In all cases, one possibility to consider is that I am getting back what I sent out and the chickens are coming home to roost.

By coincidence, two days earlier someone had visited me and asked for a little sugar in his tea. We were talking a lot about databases and work and I forgot to put any in; he didn’t say anything and I only realised my mistake a few hours after he had gone!

It may be a relevant factor that my resistance is very low at the moment. Not only does a tiny task seem like a huge project and a small setback like a big disaster, but a minor mistake also seems like a major crime and I feel guilty as hell. When I suddenly remembered that he had asked for sugar, my automatic reaction was, “Oh no, how awful of me to forget!”

Even in the case of very trivial incidents, it is always worth trying to find a possible cause.

Perhaps I transmitted some signal and it was picked up and interpreted as a desire to be punished for my crime! In other words, it was my reaction to what I did - or rather forgot to do - and not the crime itself that triggered the fitting punishment.

Connecting cause and effect is one thing; trying to understand the mechanics behind it all is something else.