Month: May 2017

The motivation of money

It’s pretty undeniable that money is a force which strongly influences modern society, shaping much of what is happening as well as the life being created for us all. Maybe that’s another case of me stating the obvious; but it’s an interesting situation.

Looking at the nature of money itself, it seems to seek or demand a certain consistency which, in turn, must limit our freedom to act. Money and business – with their notions of property, scalability, projections, and growth – seem to be systems that inherently try to control markets and resources, often manufacturing those needs through advertising or culture. And while with any given decision the ‘costs’ of our choices can be calculated; prioritising such considerations over other values must lead us down different paths (see Notes One).

From the human perspective, money clearly motivates us in a very practical sense; representing freedom and status as much as security. So much of our social and cultural ‘worth’ is now largely defined by money, in that most of what we’re told to value or admire can be bought (Notes Two). We essentially exist within this economic model that shapes our ideas, activities and lives in many ways: we work to gain money in order to survive and have social value in the eyes of others, and preferably to become free of that very system.

That last point I find intriguing: how many people say that if they became independently wealthy they wouldn’t work, but would travel and enjoy life. Because to me that implies we’re not truly invested in the societies and lives we’re creating; it’s all just a means to an end. Which seems true, but what does it mean if we’re existing in that way? Is our collective existence meaningless beyond the pursuit of wealth?

Practically speaking, money is this ‘carrot and stick’ that draws us in with certain promises while also creating corresponding fears and uncertainties. Business acts to fulfil our ‘needs’ and provide opportunities to earn an income; and our very existence forms the essential market for the goods, services and so on. On both the human and systemic side we’re then seeking a degree of security within that: trying to build a stable economy, society, or personal existence.

For me, this raises so many questions and it’s something I’ll come back to over the course of this year. Because ultimately these systems seem to be struggling in many ways: in terms of environmental resources and impacts most tangibly, but also in the sense of what it all means and where it’s leading. What has money come to represent, and what does it truly mean in both a practical and a human sense? How is it shaping the lives we are creating and the meaning we assign to one another and the world around us?

The economy seems to be this complicated system sitting at the core of our lives, and it would be wonderful if that could become much more human and much more meaningful.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Values and the economic
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 2: Relating to cultural benchmarks
Note 2: How many things are cycles (we could break)

This also relates to Laws and lawlessness, in the sense of the systems we’re a part of and the deeper meaning of our participation in them.

Ways to share this:

Laws and lawlessness

The idea of law and how it works itself out in practice intrigues me: we’re raised into society which in a certain sense is built upon and sustained by laws and lawful behaviour; yet it seems rare for all that to be directly explained and laid out for us. Our entire lives are regulated, but we might be unaware of how unless we inadvertently or more deliberately step over a line. And that seems quite important.

Some laws are communicated more explicitly, like those around driving or money; but there must be many we exist in ignorance of. Short of pursuing a career within the field of law it seems we’re limited to the awareness evident in those around us, infringements we stumble across, or what we absorb through entertainment and the media. Then there are things like local bylaws, social and environmental practices, and contractual obligations in work or home life. How conscious are we of all that, and how much does it matter?

The very notion of law is simply interesting: how it relates to human behaviour and the ways it shapes society. Do we need the threat of punishment in order to regulate our actions, or are there natural social ethics to draw upon? Are laws there to limit our darkness, to protect the disadvantaged, or more an elevation of those values we aspire to?

Reflecting on how laws changed in response to historical realities such as slavery, we can see how that mirrors the development of moral standards and commonly held beliefs. Law – and the politics surrounding it – became a battleground for improving society; the history of our laws and societies running parallel, as collective awareness grew.

With our situation now, it often appears the law is something to toy with and stretch. Maybe that’s partly because there’s a perceived lack of accountability in the anonymity and overwhelm of how we live: if our actions and their consequences are largely unseen, is there any reason to comply? Does the idea of law begin to seem meaningless in a society that often doesn’t notice or care? Ways that actions are increasingly invisible certainly seems one of the challenges we’re facing (see Notes One).

But in terms of this relationship between law, human behaviour, and social reality what does a noticeable disregard for laws and conventions mean? Does it matter if people begin acting out of a sense that “we may as well, others do, no one really cares, and what are they going to do about it”?

For me, it matters to the extent that living in light of the law reflects a deeper understanding of society: the idea of making the world safe, enjoyable and reliable for others. While it may serve us personally to cut some corners, these principles are essentially there to maintain society. And all our actions surely have a social aspect to them, in that they demonstrate for others our social values and how important we feel all of that to be.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Reality as a sense check
Note 1: Antisocial behaviour & the young
Note 1: The challenge of community
Note 1: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 1: Empathy in a world that happily destroys

Also, Media and responsibility which spoke in similar terms of systems we’re a part of and the vital social function they have.

Ways to share this:

Individual responsibility, collective standards

Having written lately about moral standards and collective patterns of behaviour (see Notes One), the question of how actions add up and ways of working more constructively with that seems a natural next step. I mean, we can complain about lack of accountability online and the trends that’s giving rise to; but what can really be done about it?

As discussed in those posts, there are countless occasions where ideas, assumptions, and reactions are voiced online and seemingly merge together into this self-defining reality. Trains of thought get laid out for us and we take them in, share them, or argue against them. People communicate in certain ways and – with no system for redressing it – that creeps into our lives and becomes normal.

Maybe there’s little to be done about that. Systems for regulating online life bubble up every now and again or the businesses running certain sites are called upon to lift the bar in terms of what’s acceptable; but essentially it’s so fast moving and on such a vast scale that any human-based policy or systemic algorithm seems destined to fall short of what we feel is needed.

That might be met with resignation about ‘how things are’, or maybe indignation as we try to reason within that slightly abstract and lawless space. Broadly speaking, the emotions there being apathy or anger: apathy in overlooking problems or withdrawing from them; anger in a raw sense or as a more articulated response.

Which is what it is: we’re right to be upset at these collective spaces being filled with abuse, carelessness, anger, disrespect, and lies; and we’re right to feel slightly powerless in how best to address or engage with that. And all of that impacts us in a very real way, as we’re constantly being exposed to this highly emotive, unregulated content.

And sometimes I wonder whether – rather than waiting for the system to change – the answer lies in each of us: if we might be better off honing our personal sense of ethics and accountability, rather than waiting for an effective regulatory response to appear.

Headlines may pique our curiosity; tempt our desire to judge, to revel in our good fortune; or offer an affirmation of our views and identity. Other stories might gleefully depict another’s misfortune or share titbits about their lives. And there seems a certain satisfaction in fighting your corner and taking others down in that public sphere. Humans are clearly complex psychological creatures and our motivations online are fascinating, if often dark, reading.

But all these individual actions add up and might even be fuelling the fire: demonstrating both the market for that content and our incapacity to regulate ourselves. Modern times are presenting us with considerable challenges to our ways of being and relating (Notes Two); and we could wait for others to start policing our darker sides, or begin holding ourselves more accountable. Maybe there’s an attitude between apathy and anger capable of calmly, consistently, and compassionately articulating our own ideals.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Morality and modern thought
Note 1: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 1: Privacy and our online existence
Note 2: Globalised society finding its feet
Note 2: Tech as an evolving second life

Also Trying to understand our times which spoke in a general sense about slowing down to understand our paths.

Ways to share this:

“Manufacturing Consent”

Having addressed the notion of propaganda in Media within democratic society, here I will focus more on qualities of modern journalism as characterised by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in “Manufacturing Consent”. It’s a fascinating book that, despite having been written in the late Eighties, still seems remarkably relevant and insightful in terms of understanding society and the challenges we’re currently facing in the search for reliable information (see Note One).

Their analysis of the practical impacts of business, consumerism, and revenue demonstrates how such concerns became increasingly influential over time. These days there’s often a slightly resigned acceptance of the power money has over various aspects of our lives: commerce is this undeniable force, and we’re now so inundated with direct or covert attempts to influence our views that it can seem futile to resist. But surely it’s an important reality to remain aware of, as various parties seek to shape public opinion and behaviour through reporting and advertising.

Because the information we receive and how it’s presented to us must to a large extent dictate the collective conversations we’re able to have and the situations we’re most aware of. The ways advertising weakens the perceived importance of information and challenges our ability to engage intelligently with life seems to be a genuine problem. And while our confusion, apathy or despair in the face of complex realities may be useful to some, it seems troubling for society. As is the fact our very awareness is informed by those events or topics we’re offered, and the standards we’re effectively made to accept (Note Two). If political and economic entities were truly acting in our best interests, it might be reasonable to trust in what we read; but that’s a questionable assumption and the stakes seem increasingly high.

Another interesting aspect of the book is the consideration of language and tone in how stories are delivered: the ways subtle shifts in vocabulary or inferred significance serve to inform our attitudes, often below the threshold of our conscious knowledge. It’s not something I’d given much thought to directly, but it’s clearly true that the terms employed would guide our feelings of compassion, disregard or indignation towards the human situations happening across the globe. How we view others and the importance we’re encouraged to give to certain sufferings seems crucially important, especially when such sentiments essentially come to validate or justify specific courses of action.

And while all that could be taken in the direction of ‘conspiracy theories,’ my conclusions were more around the responsibility of fully understanding the systems we’re a part of (Note Three). For me, it’s not so much a question of rebelling against these things but of handling information with that knowledge in mind: it seems wise to have a healthy distrust of concealed agendas and an increased awareness around the content that we allow to influence us. It’s unquestionably a book that’s acutely relevant to our times when, above all, it’s important to be clear on these matters.

Notes and References:

“Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky, (Random House, London), 2008 (originally 1988).

Note 1: Trying to understand our times
Note 2: Privacy and our online existence
Note 3: Media and responsibility

Ways to share this:

Age, politics and human reasoning

Taking a social situation as a starting point, recent assertions around age and economic or political value have been quite unsettling. That certain underlying assumptions aren’t being challenged seems concerning, as it implies these are seen as acceptable ways of thinking that will lead to reasonable conclusions.

For example, financial reasoning has been commonplace as many concluded some groups “cost” others dearly. As if calculations of life expectancy and anticipated earnings or opportunities are certainties we should bank on. Where does it lead if we think that way? At what age are we happy for our social relevance or democratic weight to diminish? Human life is inherently without guarantee so these hardly seem calculations to place at society’s core, yet they are apparently valid ways to be thinking.

This seems to come down to how we view reality and weigh up our choices; with figures offering us a sense of certainty and measurable impacts. I just feel it might be wise to re-evaluate the weight we give to that in what is ultimately a human society (see Notes One).

With politics, incorporating the views of all members of society seems a valuable idea. The wisdom of age, practical confidence of mid-life, and idealism of youth all combine to hopefully chart a sensible course. Every part of society has a voice to be heard, because society affects us all. Although all that does depend very much on the quality of information we receive; on education and our ability to evaluate all we’re told (Notes Two); and preferably on a sense of responsibility toward the whole rather than just the self.

Yet it’s still worrying to argue that outcomes would be different in a year or two “because a million or so people would no longer be here”. It may be ‘true’, but is it meaningful or humane to make such arguments?

To take a different manifestation of similar reasoning, a recent Guardian article on the social “cost” of individuals spoke of how foreseeable costs were from a young age. And of course it seems likely that both costs and needs would be greater for those born into situations containing obstacles they may well wish to overcome. Surely our social systems exist to support those genuinely needing assistance. And while the researchers pointed out the responsibility of applying the results compassionately, it still seems a risky train of thought.

Where do statistics lead? While such findings are famously ‘neutral’, we must undoubtedly be very careful in the conclusions we draw and the arguments we weave around them (Note Three). Reasoning based on calculations and projections often risks forgetting the human face of the data, as logic may dictate “certain people should be left out in the cold”.

At the end of the day, what is society about? Are we talking simply in terms of economic viability, or is there a sense of social cohesion and pulling together? Because it seems we still need to be careful that our thinking retains its humanity.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Values and the economic
Note 1: Economics and the task of education
Note 2: Education’s place within Society
Note 2: Media within democratic society
Note 3: Morality and modern thought

Ways to share this:

Privacy and our online existence

It’s interesting to think how businesses essentially decided to put an end to the idea of privacy. That until fairly recently there was a concept, with its attendant conventions, that we now generally accept as unrealistic or antiquated.

Much that takes place online now comes with this ‘entry fee’ of monitoring, access to personal information and indelible marks in a public space. In a way, it’s a fascinating turn of events: how quickly we loosened the reins on our lives in the face of opportunities offered. It’s also fairly daunting, in the sense of how fast that escalated and matured into systems now being developed for advertising and the like.

All this has become an unavoidable aspect of modern life (see Note One), as things move so much faster in the world of technology and it seems unthinkable – or at least economically and socially inadvisable – to fall behind where others are willing to dive straight in and get ahead. But are we wise to simply accept the options presented and go with the flow? Is it ‘right’ to waive our rights to certain things in order not to miss the boat?

These days we’re expected to be online, and if you choose not to or attempt to define your own engagement with it then you’re often judged by others’ standards. Behaviour seems very much guided by tech companies and evolving social codes (Notes Two), with a slight overtone of coercion as we naturally don’t want to miss out or be seen as unduly cautious or old-fashioned in our ways of being.

But it’s a strange situation when you’re constantly shown personal pictures of almost complete strangers, or recommended products and services based on comments you made during ‘private’ conversations. It’s strange to think how much data is being analysed on behalf of hidden interest groups; people apparently planning to capitalise in some way off our lives. It’s also strange, as intelligent and social beings, to be presented with so much information, opinion and emotion that we must mentally filter out for it to become manageable. All of which feeds our personal curiosity, judgement, and disconnection.

Where are our boundaries now? Those boundaries of convention that once separated our private and public lives, the people we know from those we would never meet; the visible or knowable lines of connection and consequence (Note Three). Now, private comments or actions can take on a life of their own, shared beyond all sense of what is ‘normal’. How do we decide what to pass on or pass over, given it’s out there now so we ‘may as well’ look?

It’s true in a way that there’s little possibility for avoiding the loss of privacy: so much happens through technology, and anything that does can be argued as meriting observation. But, in the light of that, do we simply relinquish the notion of privacy and embrace the new standards offered? Or could inner boundaries and conventions still bring force to bear in these spaces?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Tech as an evolving second life
Note 2: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 2: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 3: Reality as a sense check

Also Morality and modern thought, which takes a broader look at the place of morality and ethics in our times.

Ways to share this:

Complicity and cultural attitudes

I hesitated over my choice of title here as “complicity” is a fairly loaded word, but it more or less fits: notions of associates or allies, things we do alongside others, also of ‘folding together’ and the sense of individual actions forming part of a complex whole. Because what I want to talk about is how our personal choices and the attitudes that often accompany them serve to create a shared cultural reality.

Here I’m meaning things like beauty, age, appearance, or other benchmarks against which we judge others (see Notes One). It seems we maintain certain standards with our actions, our communication, and our subtle estimations of one another. And, to my mind, that all carries with it a structure of thought around human worth and acceptable ways to view people (one way of understanding culture).

For example, we could talk of conventions around what’s fashionable in clothing, values and interests; or generally adhered to practices of colouring hair or creating illusions of youth. The ways we cast an eye over others, seeing how they compare; and how it’s apparently increasingly normal to assign status in this way.

Which is what it is; a society’s cultural life can be seen as comprising of such ideas, customs, and social behaviour. But, for a term originating in the Latin for growing, tending and cultivation, I wonder how much modern culture serves us and where things might lead.

It seems cultural practices traditionally arose to bind people together with meaning, whereby we knew where we stood. These days, many of our standards have surely arisen out of commerce – whether that’s beauty and lifestyle industries, entertainment and fashion circles, or a combination thereof. Many aspects of life seem to have stepped into these commodified forms, where products and services are presented as modern cultural life.

My concern with that is how our sense of human worth is then defined in large part by industry, by people seeking to sell and to create a market. So something essentially human becomes something commercial, run with very different ideas in mind. Which is a slightly different topic, but it’s relevant in the sense of whether we’re going along with something natural that is in our best interests.

Looking at the social principles accompanying modern cultural ideals, they seem quite divisive. We’re inundated with images and language asserting that we’re worth less if we don’t have certain things or adhere to these ideas (see Notes Two). But are young people really more relevant or interesting than older ones? Is grey hair or a lack of makeup genuinely a cause for despair? Does beauty or the pursuit of fashion honestly set us apart from others in a meaningful way?

Humans are surely social creatures, and our shared cultural life forms a large part of that. It just seems much of modern culture essentially attacks and sets us against one another, with often impossible and self-defeating ideas of what’s worthwhile. And it’s something we all form a part of.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 1: Relating to cultural benchmarks
Note 2: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 2: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 2: How many things are cycles (we could break)

Also Mirrors we offer one another, which considered the complex interrelationships between self and society.

Ways to share this:

Economics and the task of education

The challenge of education can clearly be seen in many different lights. There’s the root of the word itself, to lead out; with its sense of those able to bring others from one state to another. Then there’s the question of competing priorities and agendas, based on our own differing ideas of what’s important (see Education’s place within Society). Education also highlights and embodies a lot of the struggles we’re now facing; many of which seem to come down to money.

In this day and age so much is defined by money: home, security, health, appearance, social worth, opportunities, career prospects, influence. It often seems the less money you have the more invisible you are, which I find strange (see Note One). But, while I might disagree with it in terms of wisdom and ethics (Notes Two), it’s undoubtedly the society and world we’re creating.

But how much influence should economics have in shaping education systems? Is learning to be co-opted into the economy itself, seen increasingly as a preparatory workshop of sorts where businesses and employers dictate what they think they’re looking for? Are schools the places governments and industries start planning what they want to create?

It seems we’ve largely accepted the view that education arose as a way of creating a workforce and building a stable society. That’s certainly one way of looking at history, and may well be true to some degree; but does that define forever the nature of these relationships? Widespread education may have begun in response to industrialisation and, at that time, it may have been seen as a way to harmonise society and strengthen the economy; but does that make it right to embrace the concept of social engineering to the extent we do?

As suggested in the post linked above, it could be that a different conceptualisation of education might lead to greater freedom and possibly even a truer and more responsive economy. Surely, if people are informed and strengthened to truly understand the world around them, free of any agenda or prescriptive path, then they would be able to meet the challenges of reality and decide how to engage constructively with that.

What I’m trying to get at is that there is a relationship between economics and education, but is it the right one? Should current economic operators be guiding what comes next or should our activities simply be guided by intelligent, independent minds? One of those paths seeks to perpetuate its own ideas, while the other encourages people to think for themselves. That second path might seem less stable, but it may be wiser in many ways.

Of course, practical realities arise out of our current systems and the necessities created by them: industries exist and have plans, and ends must be met one way or another. But what I’m saying is that maybe this is a relationship we could challenge to some degree by having a slightly different conversation about human society, shared priorities, and possible ways forward.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Value of each human being
Note 2: Morality and modern thought
Note 2: Values and the economic

Also Writings on Education, which explores the path we’ve taken into modern times and how education strives to meet that.

Ways to share this:

“Spiritual Emergency”

A while back, I wrote about the spiritual threads running through history and how they seemingly got swept away (Spirituality since the 80s). And, in that context, I want to talk about the book “Spiritual Emergency” which draws together contributions from the fields of psychology and spirituality to address what are essentially questions of the mind.

The main premise is that mental episodes, at times, might be moments of potential transformation: “a play on words, suggesting both a crisis and an opportunity of rising to a new level of awareness”. Of course, the writers are very careful to state this is “not to be confused with diseases that have a biological cause and necessitate medical treatment”. But, with that in mind, it’s interesting to consider if certain experiences categorised as mental illness could be something more.

Describing modern society as having arisen out of various revolutions and revelations whereby “rationality became the ultimate measure of all things”; the authors ask if we might’ve been slightly mistaken in discarding spiritual belief as incompatible, and thereby losing its ability to give a firm and meaningful foundation to our lives. Because if our civilisation lacks deeper meaning, and if “sanity today appears to rest very largely on a capacity to adapt to the external world”, then maybe some of our battles arise because we look for or see meaning within a world that denies it?

It’s a similar line of inquiry as forms part of “Towards a New World View” which looked at how engaging with alternative perspectives might assist us in overcoming our own imminent challenges (see also, Note One). Not that I necessarily advocate all modern spiritual paths (see Notes Two), but there certainly seems to be a market for metaphysics and a demand for greater meaning and purpose in life than is habitually offered or accepted (see Note Three).

The bulk of the book then covers ideas around shifts of consciousness; the therapeutic value of archetypes and myths; cultural traditions such as shamanism; Maslow’s study of “peak experiences”; past life or near death experiences; and notions of the psyche and the higher self. It’s a pretty comprehensive exploration of alternative ideas from various sources; focussing on how to safely guide people through such processes. Essentially, ways to “untangle and undo the knot of self” and let images of chaos or destruction give way to new forms of being.

It’s a worldview that risks getting a little dark (Note Four), but it still seems worthwhile contemplating. With the prevalence of conditions such as depression and anxiety, it’s timely to ask to what extent such difficulties arise from self, from society, or from thought itself. Because, in a way, our sense of self and our thoughts on life seem to arise and exist in relationship to the world around us (Note Five). If we look at the mind and the self as reflections of external reality, it could be that the shifts and struggles of the inner life might become more meaningful.

Notes and References:

“Spiritual Emergency. When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis” edited by Stanislav Grof, M.D., and Christina Grof, (Penguin Putnam, New York), 1989.

Note 1: Literature where West meets East
Note 2: Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being
Note 2: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle
Note 3: Writings on Education
Note 4: Mental health relative to modern times
Note 5: Mirrors we offer one another

Also, “Education’s End” on the importance of knowing the path we’ve taken and the value of belief.

Ways to share this:

Morality and modern thought

In looking at life, I’ve realised I tend to view things over a foundation of social morality or individual ethics. My concerns – as explored in The value of each human being or How many aren’t well-represented? – lean toward an affirmation of human worth alongside a desire to understand what lies beneath our shared systems and values. My other guiding principle being truth: wanting to see the reasons behind things, and be sure they’re wise. That’s just me, in a way, but I mention it here as it’s something I truly struggle with in the world around me.

Within modern life, an intrinsic sense of morality doesn’t seem that evident in the face of scientific or economic modes of thinking. More often I notice a “because we can” mentality of doing what’s broadly tolerated or encouraged socially and legally; or a “looking out for yourself” attitude that presumably arises from Darwinian notions of individual advancement. Although, at times, a new moral conversation seems to be seeking a voice, as in Empathy in a world that happily destroys.

It’s an interesting question: what is right or wrong, both in principle and in action? How do our intentions, thoughts, words, and behaviours impact others and shape things around us?

In that light, I read an article recently that essentially recast our evolution from the perspective of economics, power and human utility; concluding that scientific advancements might render most of us “useless”. It painted a bleak picture of a future to be feared, where survival hinged on the goodwill of a few. Another article suggested that as science and statistics make correlations between lifestyle and health clearer, people may come to judge those not embracing wellness industries; that collective systems of care may be resented by those making larger contributions.

Both looked at collective human existence, contributions we make, and how we are valued; and, in both, ‘reason’ overshadowed other ways of seeing. The past can surely be seen in terms of money and power, but is it right to completely delete social morality from the equation? Are human ideals truly only now seen as a veneer for material, selfish desires? And, because logical evidence exists, does that mean we’re right to condemn those who don’t heed logic over the psychological or socioeconomic conditioning of their personal lives?

I could talk of how these trends of thought turn us against one another; using our social and cultural inclinations, such as our innate desire to belong and our fear of being deemed a burden, in a way that supports certain systems. I could speak of humanity as a whole, and our responsibility to act based on mutual concern within the societies we sustain.

Because ideas matter, and so does the thinking behind them (as argued in Writings on Education, a post very relevant here). And, to my mind, logical thought may well pose the greater risk for our future, in that it often seems to undermine what indeed sets us apart from machines: our humanity.

Ways to share this: