February 2017 – EbbSpark

What makes a good life

This blog, these writings, are my way of trying to express how I see things. Sometimes that’s quite complex, it can also be feisty or a little blunt, and at times it’s more poetic or nebulous. This post is probably the latter. It’s not a recipe for a good life, but an idea as to what a good life may be.

Life for me can be seen as an interplay of light and dark, good and bad, as in art: the line taken between these elements, the tension and its resolution. So we are all these unique actors dealing with our own mix of the dark and the light, trying to find the dance, the way of moving between and resolving this tension of opposites. Clearly there are as many dances as there are people, but the creative activity of “finding our way” and turning it for good seems to be one way of looking at life.

Ways to share this:

Why seek a single truth?

This has been bothering me a while, in various settings, so here’s my shot at articulating it. In many areas of life we look for a “winner” – to win arguments, conversations, so many things. It’s an attitude that seems embedded within many principles of Western society.

Our model of communicating is often this combative one of debating and defeating: that the individual must be able to assert their views and overpower the other. As an example, take the mention of rainbows in my post Natural World – are they beautiful and magical, or simply the refraction of light? Does one truth negate the other? Wonder or appreciation fight a strange battle with rationalism.

As to where this comes from, it’s hard to say conclusively. In education we’re taught to argue, debate, persuade – maybe this is an executive decision regarding communication; or arises out of these being some of the functions of language; or, more pragmatically, because that way ‘success’ becomes measurable.

Culturally it seems a legacy of ancient Greek wisdom; although it’s my understanding they used this more to explore the world of ideas than the material world of humans and things. Is this where we’re going wrong, in applying reasoning from the idealistic world of concepts onto the everyday realities of life? Because ‘reality’ to my mind is much more complex and interwoven, there may not be a single cause or a definitive right/wrong judgement that can be universally applied to any situation.

Looking for a single truth (and insisting you’re the one holding it) seems to avoid the possibility of finding greater truths that lie in the much greyer spaces. As I said in Communication and the process of change individual views surely arise out of our experiences and understandings, and likely appear correct in that context. We all see things from our personal perspective in most cases, or from the high mountain of ideals, so while there may be principles that can very much apply, we can’t just ignore another’s reality.

What I’m essentially trying to say is that in seeking single truths we seem to be running roughshod over the fact that our experiences, our perspectives and therefore our personal truths are different. Not to say “this is my truth” works either – that’s holding to your own perspective and not acknowledging the other in a different way.

The answer seems to be a third way – between attack and defence, right and wrong, black and white – a dialogue, a listening, an understanding, a transcending, a new reality that emerges out of recognition of differences and can contain them in an ethical framework of ideals that doesn’t undermine the individuals concerned. I see this as “both/and” – often two or more things can be true or valid.

I just think that all the time we keep relating in this way we’re exacerbating differences, undermining the realities of others by judging them from the abstract realm of thought. We might hold to certain ideals we believe to be right, true, beyond question, but I’m not sure I know of many people who live completely in line with ideals. I suspect much of what we do is pretty far from ideal if we were fully aware of the ‘realities’ behind things.

Ways to share this:

Modern activism in practice

With this post I’m equal parts relieved and challenged by the fact I decided my topics last year – I wouldn’t have chosen to tackle such a topic at this time, but won’t change things to avoid it either. And to be clear, I’m writing here about ways we communicate and try to convince others rather than about specific causes or the use of opposition within politics, as these may well be correct courses of action.

Recent years have led to the branding of self as a modern way to be: using your presence as consumer, citizen, social entity to influence others in directions you choose; becoming conscious of roles we play and doing so more knowingly. There’s a positive side to that: we’re increasingly aware of ways we’re interconnected and opportunities to demonstrate our values and how we choose to act for others to see. And the internet offers the chance to broadcast this in a way that hadn’t been possible, but also risks setting us against one another as we act to persuade and to defend our crafted selves.

There’s also a certain “because we can” tendency toward leveraging the platform technology offers us. As mentioned in Globalised society finding its feet and Media and responsibility we seem to be in this era of repurposing existing ways of thinking and relating, a sort of ‘coming of age’ of technology, as we direct these tools more deliberately within modern life. What I’m trying to say is that maybe this is still maturing and I wonder if we’re not rushing into it without a robust philosophy as to our intentions. Is there room to re-evaluate the principles behind how we communicate and relate to one another?

We have a natural inclination to embrace trends and make the most of them, but it does seem tech is shifting us towards a life of instant reactions which – while often valid and valuable in many ways – may also exacerbate fear and push people toward harsh judgements. If the internet makes instantaneous interactions possible, does that mean we let that define our way of being? Do we get in quick before the story moves on, often with a cheap shot or a simplified, out-of-context opinion? Where’s the considered dialogue?

And in bringing these activities into social media channels – where before activism and protest sat further apart from personal connections – we avail ourselves of opportunity but also bring confrontation. There seems to be this push to merge all our social roles into this single voice, making mutual understanding more difficult. When does attacking others ever really help? Often it may undermine the very values we’re advocating.

These are complicated times and issues people rightly feel deeply about; and modern life’s given us these tools which may be creating as many problems and challenges as they’re solving at this point. Are we causing unnecessary division through attitudes we bring into tech? Could we find another way of communicating, a more inclusive dialogue where progress is possible? Because I worry we risk much harm in our desire to do good.

Ways to share this:

Podcasts as conversation

In this Culture post I want to take quite a broad look at podcasts and what they have to offer. And when I talk of podcasts, I’m naturally thinking of those I choose to listen to (Rich Roll, Tim Ferriss, and On Being mainly) but I imagine similar things can be said of others.

I think what I like most about them is how it’s listening to the art of conversation and to a fuller expression of human nature than many forms of modern media afford us. There’s something very human about hearing people speak together – their language, tone, pace, humour, and the conversational gestures and interactions that emerge. Even when things veer off track or the people themselves seem to not quite connect, there’s a truth in what’s created. And, without the visual distractions of an image, we’re called on to tune in more to that.

All this seems to revive the world of technology by allowing the conversational human element, rather than the echo chamber of our perceptions. As mentioned in Reality as a sense check, when we’re dealing only with written text I feel there’s a tendency to “hear things with our own voice” – for our ideas, tone, moods and so on to shroud the words with our own preferred meanings. In podcasts you get to hear the other, the nuances and intentions they bring to their words, and the values or attitudes that shine through them.

As discussed in “Towards a New World View” there’s also something beautiful about hearing mutual understanding emerge, as people share their humanity and seek to move common understanding forward through exploring interests and experiences. This links in a way to my thoughts on Communication and the process of change, Value of each human being, and Community – what it was, what we lost in that we all have something to offer and much to learn from one another and the truth of personal experience.

Connecting into Tech as an evolving second life, there also seems something valuable in receiving information and ideas through the eyes and words of human beings. It seems a refreshing return of the purely spoken word and to what is added through bringing our humanity into modern culture, where trends often seem inclined more towards novelty and superficiality. In hearing what people are passionate about, the lessons they’re learning in life, and the messages they wish to impart there seems a sense of community emerging across it all.

Maybe that’s a little idealistic; I can be guilty of focussing more on the possibility rather than the reality of situations. Clearly personal inclinations factor in the choice of material we listen to, and the choices those creating this content make in terms of who they work with and the questions they ask – as ever, there’s a need for discernment. But generally it seems quite democratic, quite laid bare for us to take in as we will rather than overly crafted and controlled – the human voice can be heard.

Ways to share this:

Media and responsibility

My ideas have shifted a little from when I chose the topic last year. Originally, I approached it as the responsibility of the media in imparting opinion or information, and for the waves that creates within society. I’d thought of discussing where the line fell between media and readership, distribution and consumption; with the share of responsibility that falls on the consumer – on the reader, the watcher, the sharer – highlighting the importance of education.

It seems to me lately that the media stands somewhat at the crossroads between state and citizen; between those who determine political, diplomatic and economic relations, and the mass of the population. Maybe that’s obvious, or maybe it’s just been highlighted more of late.

In recent years I’ve felt the media largely presented opinion as fact, clinging to old divisions and maybe reinforcing them, often speaking provocatively and possibly irresponsibly for profit, rather than being a responsible voice within a public dialogue seeking truth. Ultimately though, these institutions are charting the waters of social media and technology in redefining that dialogue for modern times as much as we are.

So, the role the media plays and the responsibilities of that are seeming more complex. We’ve seen lately the potential of the media voice in shaping democratic outcomes, and also the important role it has in challenging events in the public sphere. With both of those functions there must be a weighty responsibility to the utmost honesty and transparency, as any falsehood risks undermining your voice.

On the other hand, through revenue and readership reaction, it seems the media has become accountable to the masses: there seems to be a demand for the media to reiterate the public voice and legitimise it in the sphere of politics. This is interesting and also concerning, as while democracy is a part of politics it’s my understanding that it is limited to certain aspects of those processes in order to preserve social stability as “if taken alone and as a matter of principle, it is the destruction of politics” (see Bernard Crick’s book “In Defence of Politics”).

In times such as these, it seems destabilising to politics and diplomacy for vocal elements of society to demand democratic control through media coverage and coercion. Surely we elect people with the attributes and experience to be able to navigate the world of politics; drawing on their personal understanding and also the added insights they presumably have through their roles within government or other structures.

Going back to my initial view of production and consumption, this may simply be a slightly more nuanced take on that. The media clearly has important roles to play for society and politics, and needs to be responsible in how it does so in order to retain credibility and not unduly destabilise society. And we as citizens surely need to be suitably informed so as to understand that function, to be able to interpret their meaning, and to allow them a degree of independence and impartiality in their reporting and the demands they feel obliged to make on political figures.

In all of this, and in so many other ways, it seems so important that we understand the systems we are a part of and the roles we play within them. For me this sheds fresh light on the importance of education, as I said, and also highlights the risks of economic or other factors unduly influencing freedom of speech.

Ways to share this:

Living the dream

It seems to me that we’ve been placed in, or exist within, quite an incredibly harmonious set of self-regulating relationships. These often beautiful landscapes of rolling hills, dramatic mountains, exquisite lakes, dense forest ecosystems, or vast expanses of wilderness. All spun round in these gentle rhythms of night and day, winter and summer, warm and cold, and the varying climates that embrace the globe. All of which brings forth this abundance of plant life that sustains us with nutrients, shelter, clothing, air, and beauty. Then the intriguing variety of animals that seem to work together to regulate these environments, co-existing creatively and wisely in the balance of the natural world.

Within all this, humanity appears as this strangely independent creature who is nevertheless quite dependent upon it all. I suppose it’s hard to receive something so beautiful and complex that you have not earned and cannot claim to control – hence perhaps our desire to master it, to assert our independence and understanding.

So far the natural world seems to have been fairly resilient in the face of our actions, although we are seeming quite out of balance compared with the example set by nature itself. It’s fair enough I think to seek to understand, to try to get involved and maybe tweak things a bit. Hopefully that’s done with a sense of balance, reflection, and duty of care.

I mean, we could take what we’ve found, run it into the ground for the sake of displaying our capacity and freedom, cash it all in for one big party while we’re here. I just feel there’s greater wisdom, greater strength in self-restraint; in knowing that we could do that, but deciding not to. For me, “because we can” was never a compelling reason; although it seems to be one that holds sway in many quarters.

It’d be nice if humanity could open its eyes just a little more to the amazing gift we have in life and the immense responsibility and beauty of learning to work together in overcoming this desire to dominate purely for the sake of it. The sense of logic and power may be prevailing at times, but I feel that in the human heart the inclination towards greater harmony and collective restraint could still win out.

Ways to share this:

Reality as a sense check

With this post, I want to consider the idea of reality serving as a sense check for what we might experience in a more abstract or virtual way online or in other activities.

In making that distinction about what’s virtual both online and in other ways, I’m thinking of questions raised in my posts on “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher and also in Tech as an evolving second life: ways that technology or machine-thinking spills over into other more human or environmental aspects of life. It may seem at times that tech is all there is, given that it’s made its way into so many areas of our lives, but here I want to think again about what is real, what’s actually happening behind all this in the real world, and what we’re creating there.

For example, within the realms of communication, relationships and interpersonal interest; our actions there have a counterpart in real world. Increasingly that is becoming quite detached from reality – we may click Like or send a sequence of messages, which are then received by the other out of context within their quite separate reality. So much of communication – tone, body language, intention – seems lost in the ether, as we must in a way ‘hear’ these messages through the lens of our own perception and voice. It seems to me that much of the reality of the other can be lost, if we are not careful.

And looking at the business world: what’s behind purchases and purchasing systems in terms of human and environmental costs and also market influences? Everything we repeatedly or occasionally buy sits within these realities of its impacts on nature in terms of resources and waste; then within the human or business realities of those people involved in its production and how that company operates relative to others in the commercial world. To my mind, all of that creates real world impacts and perpetuates systems and standards we may or may not be so aware of.

So, going back to the Frank Fisher post, his concern seemed to be that tech distances us from real world consequences, depriving us of important feedback or information about ourselves and our relationships to the world around us. Could that be a valid concern? In doing so much through a user-friendly interface are we living in our own little bubbles, happily distanced from what goes on behind the screens?

Surely every action we take, every word we cast out there has an impact both on others and in how we are choosing to be and to relate ourselves to the world that surrounds us. Are we more careless than we once might have been because these impacts are virtual, invisible to us, out of sight? Maybe taking the time to imagine those impacts might actually have a huge impact on the world.

Ways to share this:

The value of art in society

Building on How many aren’t well represented? (which considered culture as creation of meaning, and our engagement with this as a society and as individuals seeking identity), this post looks more towards the world of art.

Defining what we’re talking about in terms of art can be tricky: is it self-expression, purely subjective, or is it a way of seeing and representing realities and relationships that seeks more objective meaning? It seems in some ways society has commodified and co-opted artistic creativity into economic activity, either as branding and lifestyle or within the lucrative entertainment industry. But does art itself still have intrinsic value?

In modern cultural life economic considerations seem to seek recipes, possibly at the cost of other options (see Values and the economic for more thoughts on principles underlying human activity). So is art an ongoing flow of forms and interests as society explores itself and creates meaning, or a commercial concern trading on audience behaviour? There seems a tendency to play it safe and capitalise on trends, possibly artificially amplifying certain interests rather than cultivating new ones. I question if economics should have any say in cultural life; whether money muddies the waters of what’s happening there.

With the relationship of art to society more widely, it draws on images and ideas within society but does it do so to shock, to inform, to reinforce, to challenge, to offer meaning or alternatives, or to drive certain industries and conversations? Should art ‘say anything’ in politics or social life, or is it there to reflect reality back to us in a way we may judge with fresh eyes? In seeking to say something, I feel it lose some of its power; that it might be better leaving us free to interpret and decide for ourselves.

People seem to be identifying more – and more closely – with cultural forms such as films, books and artists in attempting to create their own sense of self. Which is interesting, and possibly concerning: maybe it’s always been the case, but maybe cultural institutions held different values and intentions in the past, and maybe people did so with a different awareness as well. Is the self holding an interest, or are we creating a self out of these things?

Who’s to say the meaning of art in society, and within education it seems Arts are still at risk of falling by the wayside – nice added extras that might serve a creative career or a well-rounded personality but a less ‘sensible’ choice for today’s economic realities. It seems society generally is struggling to relate to art, as discussed in this Guardian article on the future of Art History studies.

As with so many things, it’s hard to grasp what’s really going on and what it’s all about in terms of how we live. And, as with a few posts so far, this one is attempting to explore the topic for future consideration more than to definitively master these questions.

Ways to share this:

“Ecological Intelligence”

Here I’ll be talking about the book “Ecological Intelligence: Rediscovering Ourselves in Nature” by Ian McCallum (as opposed to many others of a similar name). It’s not a book that seems to have a large following, but its premise and the converging interests and expertise of the author make for an interesting and insightful read.

The author draws on his own personal and professional experiences in the fields of psychology, poetry and nature to weave together science, language and mythology in a consideration of what it means to be human and what we are facing up to in the world around us.

Charting the course of evolution, humanity is placed within the context of the natural environment, both scientifically and poetically, bringing us to consider self-consciousness and the human ego: “like the conductor of an orchestra, it has an orientating function … as well as acting as a point of reference as to who we are and what we might become”. McCallum highlights the intricacies of our psychological existence and the challenges of truly knowing ourselves as human beings – of coming to terms with our shadow or dark side. Notions of repression, projection, and the psychological journey to wholeness are framed as part of an archetypal struggle as well as a personal and environmental one.

The author talks of our psychological interaction with our surroundings and the role this plays in cognition and our sense of self; how “The mind, which includes a tiny, conscious portion known as the ego, has evolved not only to reach out into the world but to be receptive to that which is reaching for us”. As in “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher, the view here is that our consciousness or mind is formed in a way by our environment; and, building on this, that the extent we now shape that environment ourselves will “acquire central importance in the environment to which we then have to adapt ourselves”.

It’s really a very ambitious book that seeks meaning between divergent ideas; talking on one side from a highly scientific and psychological perspective, then on the other with an imaginative, poetic voice. In concluding, McCallum speaks of the need to live within our environment rather than attempt or pretend to control it; drawing together the threads and looking for ways of reconciling them through the worlds of science, poetry, ecology, religion, psychology, and nature.

While I may not agree with all the premises and conclusions of the book, I love the way the diverse ideas and insights are drawn into a fascinating and informed dialogue that seeks to bridge the chasm between science and poetry quite beautifully: “The paired words ‘yes’ and ‘no’ … convey a simple wisdom: everything is in process … every idea, every interpretation and every strategy has at least two sides … yes and no are the two most powerful words in the vocabulary of a species that has become capable of deciding what to do about its future.”

Reference: “Ecological Intelligence: Rediscovering Ourselves in Nature” by Ian McCallum, (Africa Geographic, Cape Town), 2005.

Ways to share this:

Tech as an evolving second life

It’s interesting how society is grappling with technology and social media in terms of how we live, what it means, and in what respects it’s a good thing or needs adjustment.

Now and again videos, articles or artworks appear that spark concern over the implications of technology and how it’s changing us (for example, the videos “I Forgot My Phone” by Charlene deGuzman, “Look Up” by Gary Turk, or Moby’s recent animation for “Are you lost in the world like me”). Themes of loneliness, human relationship and happiness are regularly worked upon by psychologists, journalists and artists as we try to understand all this.

Then there’s the discussions around changes to our thinking (such as the BBC’s “Digital dependence ‘eroding human memory’” among many) looking at how we no longer prioritise knowledge and developing our mind, given we ‘know’ where to find information. Likewise, another recent BBC article questioned the value of face-to-face contact in learning (“Shouldn’t lectures be obsolete by now?”), suggesting it’s ineffective in the face of technology.

Questions around causality and human nature arise in response: Is thinking changing as a result of technology, so people are now more suited to that than to listening to someone? Are people forgetting how to remember now it seems an old-fashioned necessity? Are principles of education and of knowledge being asked to change in light of technology? And is there any deeper social or personal value in being present and working to relate yourself to traditional bodies of knowledge? In doing so, are we recreating realities within ourselves?

My main question with all this though is that surely we’re making ourselves very dependent upon something outside of ourselves. If all knowledge, relationship, psychological security, meaning comes through technology then we seem to have leveraged ourselves almost completely. What do we know or hold within ourselves and our environment after that? Do ‘we’ know or understand anything?

Looking back at the videos mentioned before, there seem to be social, psychological and emotional consequences arising from the spread of technology which are concerning on a purely human level. (On that note, see my recent post on “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher which takes these questions further).

Essentially though, tech is now a core part of our lives and dictates a lot of what we do and how we do so: communication, cultural consumption, everyday logistics, personal habits and lifestyles are all being shaped by it. We can look at all this as creating networks of a virtual world, layered over our existence – a second life woven above and beyond our immediate realities, and maybe replacing them.

It seems constructive, if slightly overwhelming, that these issues are being written about and addressed as much as they are. I just wonder at what point talk leads to understanding and onto change – are we going to be forever circling in these debates and the flood of data, or will we be able to form decisive conclusions on the paths to take?

Ways to share this: