Month: June 2017

Need to stand alone & think for ourselves

This topic very much underpins all I talk about here and seems so fundamental to how we live our lives: we might need others, value their ideas, and enjoy their company but ultimately we must make our own decisions as we have to live by them.

These days so much effort is seemingly being made to shape our opinions and actions; whether in politics, lifestyle or consumer behaviour. There’s this flood of information, reaction, persuasion, and distraction that at times makes it hard to know which way to turn or what truly matters. But we do need to craft a response, because our words and actions impact all those around us.

And, in terms of winning people over, surely if certain views are correct then a conversation would be more respectful than an argument, as it leaves others free to assimilate a wider perspective that may then shift their conclusions (see Notes One). The idea of defeating someone with truth makes very little sense to me.

At some point, I encountered a definition of values that suggested they must be freely chosen, understood, cherished, defended, and acted upon. If that’s the level of inner engagement that leads to someone standing firmly with their ideas, then leaning on others or accepting their thoughts after having been beaten round the head with them doesn’t equate in my eyes.

We live in highly complicated and fast moving times where so much is shifting, so many ideas and ways of being are changing hands, and so much that offered stability or security is being stripped away. That flood of information mentioned earlier is now fairly constant, and also abstract: what can we do with these things we now know about?

Yet, in the face of all that – both the modern way of life and the waves of information accompanying it – we somehow have to find our way forwards. Do we think and act as those near us do? Do we argue with anyone who chose a different path? Or can we trust our own understanding, while retaining an open mind for the bigger picture?

For me, that last option seems strongest: to think for yourself, but listen to others. It really seems we need to find a degree of solid ground with regard to understanding the world, the information we’re presented, and the extent we can be sure of having reached our best estimation of the truth. Reality must be astoundingly complex, but I feel we can grasp enough of it to develop informed, independent ideas while bearing in mind they may not be completely right and we will likely need to alter them.

I’m not entirely convinced that’s currently being cultivated through our cultural life or social structures (Notes Two); but, given its importance for democratic and lifestyle choices, hopefully things can develop to the point where we’re all able to share our thoughts, change those we see as mistaken or incomplete, and base our lives on the firmest wisdom we can find.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Communication and the process of change
Note 1: Does truth speak for itself?
Note 2: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 2: Age, politics and human reasoning
Note 2: Media and responsibility
Note 2: Education’s place within society

The Change & Communication theme page also takes a broader overview of the ideas touched upon here.

Ways to share this:

History as a process of changes

In many ways, history is a vast and elusive subject: a seemingly endless flow of time we may try to come to grips with, drawing out the threads to understand how exactly we got to where we are; countless generations, cultures and individuals who made their way through life and left some kind of mark. Does that help us live our own lives?

With education, it seems it’s hard to do justice to history. How can vast arcs of time be conveyed to young minds so they become meaningful and alive? It’s easier to focus on a distinct period or key facts, but seeing how that sits and relates to everything around it is so much harder to get at. We might draw out a single thread and try to see how that’s woven through time, but doing so may distort its importance or oversimplify the paths toward change.

It takes imagination and effort to put ourselves in the shoes of other people in other times, to try and see how things looked through their eyes. And while modern historical retellings might help us visualise and relate in that way, can we be confident in the truth of these powerful and compelling stories? They often seem to place a modern way of being into a very different time, assuming the human mind itself hasn’t been changed by the process (see Note One).

It really does seem that we shape the world, which in turn shapes us by what’s been created: the ideas of individuals and civilisations serving those coming next (Notes Two). For me, history is very much this picture of a chain of events and discoveries that inform what follows; although sometimes lying dormant for a while, to be picked up again later. People living then must’ve been influenced by ideas and the systems they give rise to, all shaping what they then passed onto others.

Connecting all that with modern times: does it matter? Does it matter if we don’t fully understand our history, but focus instead on a few of the lessons it offers? Is it sufficient to detach ourselves from the weight of the past and self-confidently move forward with the ideas left in our hands and a loose sense of history as portrayed through modern culture or learning? Is that all we really need?

Personally, it seems important to understand what’s passed before and what we’re left with in order that we make wise choices about what comes next. History’s main teaching must be that things change, and we seem in the slightly unique position of being aware of that: we’ve conquered the world; connected its diverse cultures; explored its artefacts; and drawn together the vast wealth of history and the wisdom it offers.

That’s undoubtedly a lot of information to hold in mind, and a weighty inheritance in terms of the power now placed in our hands (Notes Three); which leaves us with the question of how we might best rise to the challenge.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Ecological Intelligence”
Note 2: Writings on Education
Note 2: Education’s place within society
Note 3: Trying to understand our times
Note 3: Globalised society finding its feet

Then there’s People wanting change which spoke a little of how we might place ourselves within the processes of change.

Ways to share this:

Anger as a voice

This post leads on from talk of activism and change, as well as forming part of a broader conversation around communication (see Notes One); essentially asking how valuable and productive anger is in the various areas of life.

Often these days it seems we revert to anger in personal, social or political relationships, seeing it as a valid response to the things that are happening. And, of course, there are many times that may very well be justified: people are often treated badly by others and by our collective attitudes and systems. But is it a good path? Does it achieve what we’d like it to, or could we reframe this and develop more helpful alternatives?

It’s a vast and fascinating topic: we could talk of personal anger when our values or rights aren’t respected; of collective anger at social trends and injustices; of anger as a way of communicating our standards and ideals; or as a general attitude in how we meet the world. I suppose anger tells us when something important to us has been trampled on or might be; we react to defend what we see as precious. So it’s a valuable emotion that must have its place in social dialogue.

But then it can also be a reaction that derails conversation by creating almost insurmountable obstacles. We might be completely justified in our anger from a certain perspective, but does expressing it actually serve our purposes? Anger shows we care, deeply, but also sends ripples through our social environment that can make difficult topics even harder to approach. Like a fiery wall of indignation that’s hard to work around.

Then there’s the question of where our anger should be directed. In terms of protest and social change, are we fighting one another; fighting those in positions of authority; or fighting systemic ideas we disagree with? I would’ve thought that focussing our emotions in slightly the wrong place might make enemies out of potential allies and leave respectful cooperation an even remoter possibility.

Whatever the scenario, we can draw on imagery of protest, activism and battlegrounds or look to the quieter resistance of various civil rights movements. But, beyond that, is there space for an articulate middle ground of conscious engagement and empowerment? Of being aware what battles we’re all fighting and where the true enemy lies? Rather than seeing almost everyone as an opponent, is there a space for calmer communication and cohesion?

So, going back to anger itself, it really seems such an important emotion on many levels: highlighting our boundaries and ideals with this powerful feeling for how things could and should be different. It tells us that these things matter; but does that also make it the best way to manage them? Is it an ideal and constructive response? Or might it be wiser to gain a fuller picture of what our anger is, where it should be directed, and at what point it risks pushing others away through unnecessary and avoidable conflict.

Notes and References:

Note 1: People wanting change
Note 1: Talking through difficult topics
Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 1: Does truth speak for itself?

The Change & Communication page also addresses these themes.

Ways to share this:

People wanting change

In many areas of life now people are trying to raise awareness and solve what they see to be the most pressing concerns of our times. Whether that’s environment, diet, health, capitalism and consumerism, inequality, intolerance, or whatever areas we’re recognising as problematic and trying to address. Which is great; but how’s it working out?

To jump right in, it often comes across as a battleground. I’ve heard talk of ‘expanding the bubble’: this picture of a bubble of awareness around an issue that can then be made to grow as we win people over. Which to my mind seems a little imperialistic; the idea of some people being right and others needing to be convinced they’re wrong. And the way it plays out often does seem combative in its language and tone (see Notes One).

Maybe it’s the right way to go about things, who’s to say really? It’s certainly a historical model for progress. And I’m pretty sure most people fighting for change truly believe in it and are acting of genuine concern for others and the wider world.

For me though, it risks being divisive and disempowering. Metaphors of battle surely lead us to view others as opponents whose ignorance we see as wilful rather than as people acting in ways that seem reasonable and acceptable given the ideas they’ve encountered in life (Notes Two). I honestly believe there’s more to human life than logic; as what appears right to us and paths that seem effective are often complex and deeply woven into our ways of being. Why should anger, logic and social coercion be able to dislodge that?

So I wonder if the picture’s not more one of ‘piercing the bubble’: of these centres of awareness being called upon to articulate themselves in a wider space; taking that existing strength of focus and modelling it freely and inclusively to others (Note Three). Because fighting and defeating people over ideas must leave them vanquished, rather than as people having realised something for themselves and come to believe in both the importance of their actions and the value of their involvement in the process of change.

I would’ve thought that offering up an experience of awareness and transformation leaves others free to listen, weigh things up and choose a similar path if they see the truth and value in it. And it may not be that these people form a frontline so much as intelligently, compassionately and humanly giving a voice to such ideas wherever they find themselves.

While it can seem we’re alone and facing an uphill struggle, I genuinely have faith that many others are also working to transform our systems into something more human. And – while I’m not interested in winning others over to my views – I do believe in the power of ideas and in empowering people to think for themselves; also that we do all want a more humane and fairer society, if we can only see a way to create it together.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Why seek a single truth?
Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 1: Talking through difficult topics
Note 2: Communication and the process of change
Note 2: Modern activism in practice
Note 3: Does truth speak for itself?

Also, Writings on Education which talks more widely about the path of humanity, the ideas we hold, and how that shapes things.

Ways to share this:

“Brave New World Revisited”

“However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation.” Instead, we might “learn to concentrate upon the essentials of a situation, but without ignoring too many of reality’s qualifying side-issues” so we “may be able to tell not indeed the whole truth … but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and half-truths which have always been the current coin of thought.”

There are relatively few books I consider as universally valuable as “Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley; possibly because, while an extremely astute observer of civilisation, he chose to offer up questions rather than neatly satisfying conclusions. His 1958 reflections on his 1932 dystopian fiction are fascinatingly insightful; but, then as now, solutions are up to us.

So much in this concise, intelligent, and beautifully readable text is incredibly pertinent to situations we’re now finding ourselves in: ideas on the health of society and its mental impacts; on methods of persuasion and social control; on lessons from history, crowd mentality and use of language; and on challenges to democracy.

That last point is something discussed elsewhere (Notes One), but worth revisiting. Huxley speaks of how logic serves us well in some areas but less so with politics, religion or ethics as the meaning of facts “depends upon the particular system of ideas in terms of which you choose to interpret them” (see also, Notes Two). Essentially, facts and truths are more interconnected and complicated than may appear on the surface; so “all that is in our power is to be as truthful and rational as circumstances permit us to be, and to respond as well as we can to the limited truth and imperfect reasonings offered for our consideration by others”.

Discussion then turns to knowledge as an important foundation for society as “only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures.” A difficult necessity in the face of “non-stop distractions which, in the West, are now threatening to drown in a sea of irrelevance the rational propaganda essential to the maintenance of individual liberty and the survival of democratic institutions”.

If our system “depends on the ability of large numbers of people to make realistic choices in the light of adequate information” then the ways our thinking and natural cultural rituals, symbols and meanings are undermined by media and advertising must surely weaken our ability to interact wisely with life. As “what is demonstrably good in the sphere of economics may be far from good for men and women as voters or even as human beings”.

The main signposts offered are “education for freedom” plus an increased awareness and organisation around what really matters. Many beautiful values underpin our way of life, one of the most significant possibly being freedom; so doing what’s needed to maintain and defend that seems a profound challenge for our times.

Notes and References:

“Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

Note 1: Media within democratic society
Note 1: “Manufacturing Consent”
Note 2: “Education’s End”
Note 2: Writings on Education

Ways to share this:

The business of spiritual ideas

With almost any area of human activity these days there’s a sense of “how can this be made profitable?” Maybe that’s because tech opens the doors to vast markets and opportunities, which business models and entrepreneurs then race to capitalise on. Or maybe there’s a natural logic of turning any given activity into a business. Whatever the causes, this commercialisation seems a particular challenge in the realm of spirituality.

Whereas economic interests used to be more centrally organised, now all we do can be monetised through advertising, paywalls, online sales, contributions, crowdfunding and the like. It’s something that’s affecting our lives in countless ways, as natural behaviours often get replaced by commercial enterprise (see Notes One).

It seems a natural progression: our tools change and we seek new ways to contribute and also turn things to our advantage. With an economy largely reshaped by technology, it makes sense for money as this unit of transaction to feature largely in evolving business models. But while it may be understandable for everything to come down to money, it’s not entirely neutral.

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the influence of money over artistic work (Note Two), which is another area where this seems problematic. Art, to my mind, serves an important human purpose as this act of reflection and meaning; yet when money gets involved that may subtly change the nature of what’s offered in that timeless cultural exchange.

Similarly, money can raise its head quite fiercely in spiritual endeavours. As those inclined to offer insight, encouragement or guidance seek a place in the modern economy there’s often a degree of resistance to individuals becoming wealthy or running businesses off the innate needs of others. It’s a problem with a history running all the way back to medieval indulgences, peppered in more recent times by self-help gurus.

That’s not to say this is always a problem: many people in this field seem to have something valuable to offer in helping others improve their lives. There’s clearly a desire for self-development and a genuine call for techniques to manage modern life, whether that’s the outlook suggested by Eckhart Tolle or recent trends towards mindfulness (Notes Three). But the dynamics of the marketplace must shape what’s offered, as well as effectively making certain insights unavailable to those without money to spare.

It’s more something that intrigues me: how, as human beings, we seek meaning whether that’s through art, spiritual development, or cultural experiences. These seem to be activities that can bind us together, lift us above our everyday lives, and make those lives worth living. The extent to which it’s acceptable to charge for that or set yourself apart as some kind of leader may be a perennial question.

Ultimately, we must all find our own way with such ethical decisions. It’s an imperfect system, but if people truly mean well in what they offer and how they do so then maybe their messages can stand the test and serve to meet this demand for meaning.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The challenge of community
Note 1: Values and the economic
Note 2: Art, collaboration & commodification
Note 3: Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being
Note 3: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle

Then there’s The motivation of money which looked more generally at money as a concept and an influence.

Ways to share this:

Fashion, self & environment

At times I’ve spoken about culture, economics, sustainability, social identity, and self-worth; about how the things we do impact our social and natural environment (see Notes One). The space where human ideas meets the realities we create together is fascinating; and fashion seems one of the places that more obviously happens.

Fundamentally, we need clothing and – being such a visual part of life – that becomes something to set us apart and provide identity; offering a chance to express who we feel ourselves to be and how we want to be seen. As social, creative beings wanting to communicate and move forward, it makes sense for fashion to become this focus of attention, status and innovation. That picture of a progressive yet tribal psychology guiding human society.

But this does have undeniable environmental, social, psychological and economic impacts. The very fact it has such a central role in our sense of culture and self-esteem must give it a certain business appeal: the constant desire for self-expression and creativity surely fuels large parts of the fashion and beauty industries.

With that almost insatiable demand come these realities of limited environmental resources; business models often involving a degree of exploitation; pollution and waste in both producer and consumer behaviour; the visual and psychological ripples felt from advertising; then the social realities of exclusivity, status, economic power, and cultural worth.

As with so much in life, simple human realities are creating massive impacts; especially now this ‘way of life’ has become extremely organised and profitable. All of that is hard to quantify and grasp, but projects such as “The True Cost” documentary serve to pull together many of these threads with the aim of creating the awareness to shift behaviour.

These areas of life where genuine and important impacts are largely invisible and the industries behind them seem to be meeting essential human needs are challenging to face up to. It takes effort, imagination, compassion and responsibility to “see” those impacts; and something even greater to then let that understanding alter our behaviour. In that regard, it’s akin to the food industry and, more widely, to our social constructs.

Image, fashion, diet, and lifestyle form part of our collective social and cultural lives; they’re the ways we seek to create meaning, share our everyday experiences, and forge social relationships. Which is maybe why such problems truly are challenging: these are important parts of life, but the way we’re going about things is causing pretty undeniable and serious consequences.

With any solutions in life, it seems we either wait for something to be imposed or we create change ourselves. It’s undoubtedly hard to step back, take the time to fully understand, and decide what to be a part of even when the weight of social pressure beckons us to go with the flow. As humans, we may naturally want to belong, participate, and not rock the boat; but we’re also capable of making up our own minds and, thereby, of serving to shape our future.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 1: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 1: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 1: How many things are cycles (we could break)

Ways to share this:

How well does art relate to life?

Previously, my thoughts on art have drifted towards concepts of meaning, cultural trends, and personal identity (see Notes One); which contains a certain truth, in that art’s hard to grasp yet also a central part of human existence. Here though I want to look more specifically at how this cultural conversation might help in how we live.

In many ways, art seems a luxury. Familiarity, appreciation and understanding of it usually stem from a certain background; and all that can appear a non-essential part of life. Discussions often become slightly inaccessible or exclusive; relying on an understanding of concepts, individuals, and historical trends. That sense of high culture, visiting galleries, or embracing artists as a statement of identity or rebellion.

The art world’s not the easiest to find your feet in, and the weight of its history and established conversations can deter many from seeking entry. But that’s more what art carries with it: accumulations of social history. As with so much in life, it’s a struggle to get past the traditions of any field of activity: certain people tend to occupy these pockets of ideas and experiences, and that largely defines the discussions that happen.

But I really feel such obstacles shouldn’t deter us from seeking an active participation in human culture, from going toward what we don’t yet know and having new conversations. Art itself is surely just a way of seeing, of creating meaning, or of balancing truth and beauty within our understanding of life. That might be a challenge to engage with, but it’s also part and parcel of human existence.

For me, art’s essentially about representing reality and thereby creating a new layer of meaning; which of course then changes that reality both through its visual presence and in the conversations it can ignite. Clearly there’s a backstory of conventions and techniques, those deeper levels of engagement that can be an obstacle but also lead to slightly different discussions; yet it’s also simply an act of perception and questioning.

Within modern society though, our visual spaces are populated by advertising, media, technology, innovation, and so on; an increased pace and volume of imagery as “art” becomes easier to produce and consume. All of which creates an additional overlay of distraction and a further need for discernment.

If we look at art as this layer of meaning, of human beings seeking to conceptualise existence and engage one another in conversation over it, then both the weight of the past and the overwhelm of the present seem to threaten that. The power of art in getting us to see differently must depend on us all looking at the same things, and on a shared sense of quality and intention.

So much works against that kind of meaningful collective conversation, whether we’re talking about art, politics or almost anything else. Modern life seems scattered, pulled back, and struggling to make connections of the intensity art genuinely seems capable of offering; which is hopefully something we can move beyond.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The value of art in society
Note 1: Art, collaboration & commodification
Note 1: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 1: Mirrors we offer one another

Also What makes a good life which, in a way, looked at life as art and at the beauty of balance.

Ways to share this:

Intrinsic worth over social identity

The idea of human value and self-worth is both fascinating and important: how we view our selves, our limitations, and the changing nature of our psychological and physical lives; and equally, how we see and relate to others.  In all of that, there’s the social side we weave together but also the inner journey we all take through life.

The tendency to judge one another based on physical, economic or social standards may be normal (see Notes One), but it’s also fairly meaningless and divisive. Given how so much is determined by birth and environment, what a person makes of ‘their lot in life’ must say infinitely more about who they truly are. And for society to place so much value on things that can be bought seems strange: these masks of perfection, power or privilege that impart identity and self-esteem.

But all that’s a part of life: how we fit in, what others see in us, the opportunities we have, and our relationships with those around us. That picture essentially gives us a sense of who we are and what we mean within society. And there are undoubtedly complex interconnections between self, society, and the storylines offered us by culture (Notes Two).

It just seems modern society pushes us towards human estimations based on external trappings that are largely beyond our control. Is it right to view people that way, based on where they happen to exist in the socio-economic pockets of a divided society? Are we right to socially and financially reward those who ‘win the hereditary lottery’? Is that what it is to be human?

Life seems to be this path of being born into a given situation; shaped by your physical, emotional and social environment; then by the wider influences of community, education, and prevailing sociocultural trends. The personal journey being that question of who we truly feel ourselves to be, how well our conditioning suits or serves us, what we wish to become, and how we feel about the society we find ourselves within.

For me, life is then this sense of working our way beyond both the gifts and limitations of our early existence. Making the effort to understand and accept who we are and how we came to be that way; to overcome that in whatever ways we see fit; and hopefully to become the best self we’re capable of. And alongside that, the idea of seeking to improve the society we’ve come to know: contributing in countless large and small ways to iron out problems and bring greater humanity to bear, whatever our station in life.

A culture based on a thorough knowledge and mastery of self and a conscious understanding of and contribution to society seems a beautiful picture of responsible humanity; and, in that light, a person’s worth becomes more a sense of how they’re managing to live their own unique life. That path is different for each and every one of us, but surely it’s always a worthwhile striving.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Value of each human being
Note 1: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 2: Relating to cultural benchmarks
Note 2: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another

Also What makes a good life, where I spoke briefly of the idea that life is what we make of it.

Ways to share this:

“New Renaissance”

The book “New Renaissance” by Maurice Ash – although slightly challenging to read – is interesting both in terms of its place within the national conversation of the 80s, as the UK struggled with ideas around growth, politics and social change, and in its relevance to our current predicaments.

Opening with a philosophical discussion over language and the certainty of knowledge as hallmarks of Western civilisation, Ash argues that while “knowledge demands this detachment, because certainty cannot be had without it” it was a path that separated us from nature and sent us down fragmented paths of specialisation. Leading to the question of whether the limitations of that Age of Knowledge might give way to one of Meaning: a greater sense of wholeness, bringing us into more meaningful relationships with one another and the world.

The guiding idea thus becomes how to move beyond the dualism of subject/object, human/nature to a broader way of seeing how things are connected and approaching that reality. It’s a theme that’s cropped up elsewhere in considering paths we’ve taken (see Notes One) and alternative models of thinking (Notes Two); and whether there’s a readiness to adopt such ideas was a question in the 80s that remains largely unanswered now.

Focussing on political ideals and their practical realities, there’s a sense of modern politics having grown out of that way of knowing: of misleading certainty leading to “social engineering which treats people as objects” and local governments serving as “administratively convenient technical agencies” measured by money, rather than as meaningful centres of power within our communities.

In terms of solutions, Ash rejected utopia as unrealistic (“the very certainty it presumes, and the detachment of the idealist from the actual world”); questioned socialism as being essentially a function of capitalism; and pointed towards the system itself being in need of fundamental reform. There’s a sense of society having lost its way and also a warning that, with the death of idealism, there’s a risk of alternatives stepping in to fill the void of meaningless knowledge (e.g. nihilism, extremism).

The revival of interest in progressive education, community and environmental concerns are evidently where Ash focussed his efforts as well as being thoroughly modern preoccupations. How people, having “experienced the plastic society, and the senselessness of what is expected of them in it”, looked for involvement in meaningful processes and transactions, for a “politics of community, of the patterns that hold people together”.

It’s a far-reaching collection of essays and a valuable attempt at pulling threads of philosophy and social reality into a purposeful body of thought. The idea of a necessary ‘social metamorphosis’ is intriguing; as is the affirmation of ‘Green politics’ as offering a sort of environmental metaphor to place humanity back within the world we stepped away from with our rational thinking. Surely we exist within our environment where all we do impacts both nature and humanity; so looking again at the forms and functions behind our ideas and actions still seems a wise if daunting prospect.

Notes and References:

“New Renaissance. Essays in Search of Wholeness” by Maurice Ash, (Green Books, Bideford, Devon), 1987.

Note 1: “Small is Beautiful”
Note 1: “Towards a New World View”
Note 1: “Education’s End”
Note 2: Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being
Note 2: Literature where West meets East
Note 2: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle

Also Writings on Education, which spoke of the importance of ideas in understanding and shaping our place in the world.

Ways to share this: