Month: August 2020

Is there any end to the power of thought?

Sometimes it seems, if all thought’s doing is running alongside our view of reality, we might spend forever simply churning through all its possible iterations. As if, having explored our own perspective, we might then explore those of any other, identifying every divergence and source of difference before going onto the next… Presumably, that might never end? These constantly shifting reflections of reality in thought.

Can’t almost anything be made “reasonable” by someone having strung it together in terms of causality and logic? Any individual perspective being something we might set against another and argue over. Conceivably, “meaning” and “relative significance” can be viewed any number of ways or stacked up in different orders to reach different conclusions. Anything, perhaps, seems reasonable if you accept its worldview (Notes One).

As if there’s not an objective reality or agreed way of looking at it – a common set of meanings – so we’re no longer speaking the same language or having the same conversation about it. As if we might spend all our time disputing personal assessments or interpretations, talking at crossed purposes and never quite touching on the truth of any given situation.

Doesn’t lack of agreement propel us away from conversation? This sense in which, not agreeing on simple terms, we can’t move beyond them to discuss the complexity of how things come together. And, whether it’s modernity’s pace of change or the ways technology propels us all forward in rapidly-evolving worlds of our own choosing, aren’t we increasingly far apart in how we see things?

If we’re each tending to experience our version of reality as the only one – having that belief constantly reinforced as we forge ahead in our own direction – how are we to speak to others? Surely, we’ll all be out on the extremes, fired up by our own concerns, struggling to understand how anyone else might see things differently.

It’s hard to talk when we’re all on such different pages. As if each person’s now living in their own mind, their thoughts fuelled and amplified by unknown sources. As if the words we share increasingly fly in from left field; leaving you wondering where the person’s coming from and how exactly they got there. Not having the time – or, inclination – to unravel the details, we perhaps drift apart further.

What, then, is the value of thought? Of reflecting reality in our minds, coating it in words, and seeking common ground over how we need to be seeing things (Notes Two). Isn’t there value in being on the same page? Somehow fleshing out our perspectives into a purposeful sense of what’s happening, what it means, and how best to respond.

If “to be human” is to rightly grasp complex realities in thought and make the best of them, where are we to find time to achieve that? Without a common sense of life’s meaning and the roles we’re playing to bringing that about, might “thought” not just isolate us all in angry realities of our own making?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Power in what we believe
Note 1: The sense of having a worldview
Note 1: Where do we get our ideas from?
Note 1: Systems, their power, whose hands?
Note 1: The stories that we hear
Note 1: Belief in what we cannot see
Note 2: The thought surrounding us
Note 2: Understanding & staying informed
Note 2: Learning from the past, looking to the future
Note 2: Connecting truthfully with life

Ways to share this:

These ideas we have of one another

When it comes to other people, which version of who they are gets to live? Don’t we all have quite different ways of being human? Different attributes, priorities or interests in terms of what matters most and what life is “for us”. We’re all so unique, so unprecedented in the experiences that’ve formed us and conclusions they’ve led us towards (Notes One). Yet, don’t we tend to judge one another on quite simple terms?

For some, it seems “life” is relationship: all we can create, tend or support in the ties we forge with others. As if “that’s” where life happens and one of the most important areas to focus our efforts. For others, action in the world seems more pressing: the roles we play and changes we help bring about in our surroundings. Others, perhaps, live more in life’s meaning and understanding the nature of existence.

Aren’t there many ways to be human? We might focus on what’s inside or outside: the qualities of our personality or the nature of our external appearance. We might be more concerned by the systemic, the conceptual, the ethical, the economic or the personal. We might be burdened by personal experiences and perspectives or freely give ourselves over to the lives and interests of others.

How, then, are we to relate to anyone else? Are we to evaluate their lives against our own ideas of it? Comparing “who they are” to “who we are”, noting all the differences, and feeling we can’t get along. Almost as if different ways of being human might make us incompatible – intolerant of the idea that anyone might live in the world differently. Anybody not reflecting “our” choices, we perhaps reject or attempt to change. (Notes Two)

Alternatively, do we suspend the self and allow this other version of “human” to come to life in our mind? Taking the time to listen; to hear how they see things; to appreciate all the endless differences in how we might live. Rather than compete and compare, might we not simply allow? Let go of our own ideas or assumptions to imagine life through the lens of another brain, another heart, another being.

What would it mean to do that? To suspend judgement and allow others to be, not our version of them, but theirs. Wouldn’t that light of non-judgemental interest and acceptance be nice? Especially if it were mutual. If, instead of competing for the chance to talk or be heard, we gave each other the space to be who or how “they” are. Even if that’s flawed, imperfect, struggling or stuck. (Notes Three)

Sometimes it just seems “a shame” that we don’t have the time to get to know all these different ways of being. That life’s so pressured we, perhaps naturally, drift towards those “like us” and set up self-reflexive camp “there”. What are we missing out on when we see others mainly through our eyes and never theirs? Why is it we’re tending to insist on ourselves?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Complication of being human
Note 1: Joining the dots
Note 1: The way to be
Note 1: Seeing, knowing and loving
Note 1: Tempting justifications of self
Note 2: Modern challenges to relationship
Note 2: Humans, judgement & shutting down
Note 2: Absolute or relative value
Note 2: Treading carefully in the lives of others
Note 2: Frameworks of how we relate
Note 3: Conversation as revelation
Note 3: This thing called love
Note 3: Can there be beauty in communication?
Note 3: Places of belonging & acceptance
Note 3: Going towards the unknown

Ways to share this:

All we’re expected to understand

Within our lives, aren’t we expected to understand quite a lot? For example, all the ways those lives intersect: our choices and actions rippling out from us into the collective systems and realities effectively governing everyone’s lives. If everything we’re doing forms part of this world we’re all sharing, creating consequences all round us, what difference does it make if we understand that or not?

It seems amazing how much and how quickly our lives have changed from relatively small-scale communities to large and inscrutable ones. Didn’t it used to be that people “would” understand their world? Systems and groupings having been small and transparent enough that those living within them would, naturally, “know” how things worked, who was involved and where impacts were felt. (Notes One)

Now, it seems so much is hidden from sight. Don’t we really have to “look” to wrap our head around how this modern world’s actually working? To see who owns what, how they’re operating, whose lives are affected, and the forces being unsettled or unleashed within the delicate fabric of each individual society or life.

Sometimes it seems impossible to understand; especially given all we have to deal with (Notes Two). Almost as if life’s become too complicated – on both systemic and practical levels – for people to find the time, mental bandwidth or courage to dig into the realities rapidly taking shape around them. Isn’t it easier and, perhaps, more pressing to simply get on with our lives and make the best of them?

Is it “enough” to go along with things, though? To resign ourselves to living lives we don’t quite understand; creating consequences we never imagined; playing parts in situations beyond our awareness. Can we really hope to claim we’re not responsible for all our lives are setting in motion? As if “they” are responsible by having presented us with the options. (Notes Three)

Within the marketplaces of modern life, however, aren’t “we” the ones bearing the burden of choice? Isn’t it for us to understand, see how it all comes together, and ensure our choices are the best they could be? This sense in which we have to keep pace with what’s going on – constantly stretching out our grasp of reality and where life’s heading – if we’re to hope to make the kinds of choices we’re prepared to stand by.

How are we to do that? How, in every possible area, are we to understand enough to make fully-informed, responsible decisions? If it’s not possible, are we to defer to others? Shifting responsibility for our choices onto the heads of experts, advisers or public opinion, as we go along with what we’re told or what everyone else seems to be doing.

Is that enough? Not to understand, but to be guided. If we’re not able to find the time or information needed to gain enough clarity to decide for ourselves which paths in life we want to put the weight of our participation behind, where’s all this likely to lead?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Connecting truthfully with life
Note 1: Understanding what we’re all part of
Note 1: Humans, tangled in these systems
Note 1: What does community mean?
Note 2: Life’s never been simpler…
Note 2: Overwhelm and resignation
Note 2: Understanding & staying informed
Note 2: “Paradox of Choice”
Note 3: Systems, their power, whose hands?
Note 3: All we concern ourselves with & encourage
Note 3: Will things change if we don’t make them?
Note 3: What we create by our presence

In all of this, aren’t we generally always facing up to The incredible responsibility of freedom?

Ways to share this:

Lacking the human side of community?

When we think of “community”, what do we have in mind? Is it the affirmation of feeling we belong; the structure it gives to our lives; the logistical support it offers; the sense of meaning or purpose it imparts; or something more? As humans, it seems we “must” live in community – and, that it benefits us in countless ways we mightn’t truly imagine – but do we really understand all it “means” within our lives? (Notes One)

These days, it often feels we’re pulling apart traditional communities and reconfiguring them in virtual ways. As if the ties between us, once tangible, are shifting into this other place where they exist mainly in our minds, while, in reality, we’re more atomised than ever. Choosing our own affinities – those who confirm us – and disconnecting from those around us, aren’t we almost now living in versions of reality that suit “us”?

Does it matter if we disconnect from one another that way? Living alongside complete strangers – whose lives, nevertheless, are joined to ours and impact each other in various ways – while our hearts, minds and allegiances are elsewhere. As if we don’t really care what surrounds us; provided it’s “managed” in ways we don’t find troubling. What does it mean for society if we’re not concerning ourselves with its humanity?

It seems quite an abstract way to live: as if people aren’t “real” so much as obstacles, types or representatives within the greater reality of “our existence”. As if we’re each living in our own worlds; seeing things from our perspective; casting everyone else in light of how well they serve our interests or further our aims. Isn’t it a strange sort of community? Heavy on “the self” and light on “others”.

Living that way, aren’t we also trusting that “others” are taking care of things? That “the system” or those at its helm are ensuring all members of our communities are well-treated and living the best lives they might imagine for themselves. While, face to face, we treat people as if they’re nothing to us – not knowing who they are or understanding where they stand in our world. It seems an unusual way to live (Notes Two).

I mean, as humans, don’t we reflect everything in thought? Reading our environment and representing it with ideas as to its meaning, significance or worth (both relative to us and in the more absolute sense). As if we stand within reality and make sense of it: knowing what each aspect means, where it fits, and why it matters. Responding, then, with an informed sense of each thing’s importance. (Notes Three)

Does this abstract version of community risk making us less human, then? As if, not grasping the reality of our lives, we’re perhaps not treating everything with the respect it deserves (Notes Four). If, despite our capacity for thought, we’re not extending ourselves to understand and appreciate all that stands before us and how it relates to ourselves, what does that mean about how we’re living?

Notes and References:

Note 1: What does community mean?
Note 1: True relationship within society?
Note 1: Can “how we relate” really change?
Note 1: Shopping around for a society
Note 1: What inspires collective endeavours
Note 2: Might we lose our social muscles?
Note 2: Integrity and integration
Note 2: Community as an answer
Note 3: Reading into social realities?
Note 3: All we concern ourselves with & encourage
Note 3: What we create by our presence
Note 3: Losing the sense of meaning
Note 4: All we want to do passes through community
Note 4: Picking up after one another
Note 4: Common sense as a rare & essential quality
Note 4: Detaching from the world around us
Note 4: What if solutions aren’t solutions?

Ways to share this:

Detaching ourselves from the past

As humans, personally as much as collectively, isn’t “growth” generally some form of movement out of limitation into a place of greater awareness? This archetypal path from ignorance to enlightenment as we discover all those things we didn’t yet understand or know how to master. Almost as if we’re growing “into” our environment, learning more about it, then hopefully living well within it.

Ideally, I’d imagine we’d “meet” everything we need to know in youth: all the principles that would enable us to rightly interpret, evaluate and respond to everything we’d meet in life. That we emerge into the world with comprehensive grasps on reality, our worth, and the value of all we do. Realistically, responsibly integrated into life with a balanced sense of where we stand. (Notes One)

What if that doesn’t happen, though? Or, if the world’s changing and coming together so fast that any “preparation” one group of people offers is incomplete: the knowledge “we” might hope to impart not necessarily working well alongside the priorities or experiences of all the “others” we’re now almost inevitably going to come across in life. Hasn’t the time of a single voice, interpretation or “truth” come to an end? (Notes Two)

When we meet things we don’t know or understand, though, what are we to do? As competent, capable adults, do we plough confidently through our ignorance or tread carefully and continue that stance of “learning”? At some point, it seems the need for admiration demands we conceal any uncertainty for fear of losing ground. But, where does that lead?

Looking back, we might see many things we’d do differently – judging with the eyes which experience and growth have given us. Isn’t it good we change? That we realise things that weren’t clear to us, we’d not met before or had never managed successfully. This sense in which “life” tends to expose shortcomings and challenge us to overcome them. (Notes Three)

Almost as if life “is” that path of expanding awareness as our capacities lead us into situations that ask us to lift our minds to new levels. As if, rather than performance, life’s more our engagement with the task of being human within this environment we’re creating. Perhaps it’s “better” we reach more tentatively into areas of the unknown? (Notes Four)

It seems, though, that we want our “path” to be perfect: unerring arcs of humans conquering the world, displaying our brilliance and being proved right. Yet, won’t we almost always be defending ideas we no longer hold? Twisting narratives to look good and conceal any misjudgements what might well have littered our path.

If our knowledge – regrettably – is limited, isn’t our task to grow beyond that to the point of judging ourselves? Life, perhaps, being this path of assimilating the lessons of any mistakes to broaden our understanding enough to help prepare others. The “right” ideas might be all around us, but don’t we still have to reach the point of recognising them and, somehow, correcting our own?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Connecting truthfully with life
Note 1: Knowledge, capacity & understanding
Note 1: Integrity and integration
Note 2: Understanding & staying informed
Note 2: Seeing where others are coming from
Note 2: Making things up as we go along
Note 2: On whose terms?
Note 3: The struggle with being alive
Note 3: Problems & the thought that created them
Note 3: Ideals & the pursuit of them
Note 3: Where’s the reset button & can we press it?
Note 3: Desire to retreat, need to engage
Note 4: Tempting justifications of self
Note 4: Appreciating other ways of being
Note 4: Going towards the unknown

Ways to share this:

What should be leading us?

Of all the qualities that “live” within human society, which “should” be leading us towards our future? Should it be profit or growth – progress at almost any cost – or are there other things that could stand against such imperatives? Should it be the stronger or the weaker who are our greatest concern? Can we call ourselves “successful” as humans if we’re destroying our security or allowing our own to fall behind?

Is there just “one way” that should dominate? A sort of “survival of the fittest” mindset where one particular view of what it is to be human – what our choices, priorities or values should be – inevitably comes to drive all others from the field. As if, logically, one set of ideas must defeat all others and emerge victorious as the only way to live. Sometimes it seems to be what we’re aiming for; limiting as any such vision might be.

Almost as if all we’re really doing here is arguing over what that “way” should be: picking at all the areas “this” isn’t working, isn’t bringing our finest values to life or creating a future many of us want to be living with. That, facing such a huge disparity between our ideals and realities, we struggle to understand where others are coming from or where the right paths are toward creating better solutions down the line. (Notes One)

As if “life” is always about seeking this balance between the “top down” idealism of concepts and the “bottom up” realities of the lives we lead and ways they affect us. Isn’t there often a vast dissonance between the two? Between the values we might hold dear and the evidence presented by the world around us – all the ways we’re treating our surroundings and all that’s saying about our true priorities, concerns or beliefs.

Doesn’t it matter how our lives make us feel? This question of how well our systems work “from the inside” (Notes Two). If society’s not working from the human perspective – the perspective of all people living within it – what are we to make of that? If structures or assumptions are making anyone feel their lives aren’t worth living, how well can such a social system truly be said to be functioning?

Don’t both sides – the ideals and realities, top and bottom – form part of the one reality? Those living “within” these systems perhaps even being better placed to speak of their understanding than those at some distant, shielded “helm” where realities barely touch them. Isn’t there pragmatic wisdom to living life, knowing it, and seeing exactly how problems arise? (Notes Three)

Maybe, then, the best leadership comes from us all? Those aware of the long, convoluted philosophical conversations that led us here. Those living with the realities that conversation produced. Those imparting understanding of it through education, culture or the media. And, more generally, those upholding it all in countless big and little ways as citizens. Doesn’t society rest on the dialogue of everyone playing our parts?

Notes and References:

Note 1: One thing leads to another
Note 1: Caught in these thoughts
Note 1: Where do ideas of evolution leave us?
Note 1: Seeing where others are coming from
Note 1: What if solutions aren’t solutions?
Note 2: Shaping the buildings that shape us
Note 2: Values & what’s in evidence
Note 2: Truth, behind art and tradition
Note 2: What it is to be human
Note 2: “The way things should be” as an add-on
Note 3: Those who are leading us
Note 3: Treating people like sims?
Note 3: Humans, tangled in these systems
Note 3: Problems & the thought that created them
Note 3: Value and meaning in our lives

Ways to share this:

“The way things should be” as an add-on

How much of life has now been taken apart and put back together in a different format? Almost as if, these last few decades or so, people have simply been analysing and breaking down life’s component parts to rearrange them all in new ways. As if modern life “is” this act of deconstruction as we reimagine what life could be and how things could work differently.

Maybe that’s part of what technology’s given us: the power to reconstruct society. This sense in which we “can” now gather enough data to fairly confidently reconfigure our lives in dramatically altered ways – we have enough insight into “how things are” to design “how they could be” and make sure almost all life’s loose ends get tied up in these neatly designed new systems.

Isn’t it fascinating, that we’re living in a time where a relatively small group of people can develop their vision and put it in place all around and throughout our lives? That “how things have always been done” – the slowly developed, long-held traditions of every corner of the globe – could so easily come up against this strong surge of disruption that can sweep away centuries or millennia of human development. (Notes One)

And disruption seems great in that it’s hard to imagine how the long-established “grip” of tradition could ever have been shaken loose without it (Notes Two), but how much “better” are the solutions being put in their place? How much more harmonious, inclusive or sustainable are the ideas these small groups have for our lives? How accountable or transparent are those people and their visions for our future?

Sometimes it just seems a lot is being trimmed out and cast aside during this reinvention process – a lot of things we might’ve hoped to keep, if given the choice. I mean, might it not turn out that important elements of “our lives” were deemed irrelevant by those at the helm of this “new world” being ushered in around us? That seemingly insignificant, inconvenient values, principles or activities might casually be omitted.

Things like community; empathy; genuine human connection; meaning; honesty; privacy; compassion; freedom; standards; respect; security; infrastructure; the ability to communicate; truthful relationships with reality; or understanding our value in the flow of time. Not to say modern technology’s solely responsible for any such difficulties we might be having, but it doesn’t always seem to be helping (Notes Three).

It just seems that, in this grand project of reimagining “life”, a lot of things that we might take for granted and/or truly rely upon as we attempt to live sustainably, harmoniously and responsibly alongside others don’t necessarily seem to be high priorities in the eyes of those redesigning how our lives are going to be.

If there’s not comprehensive, inclusive wisdom behind how we’re living, how can we hope the systems set in motion around us will lead to a place where we can happily call ourselves human and feel comfortable with how we’re treating all that’s surrounding us?

Notes and References:

Note 1: The self within society
Note 1: The picture data paints of us
Note 1: Pace of change & getting nowhere fast
Note 1: Learning from the past, looking to the future
Note 1: Everything culture used to be
Note 2: How quickly things can change
Note 2: Tools
Note 2: Ideas that tie things together
Note 2: Solving all the problems we’re creating
Note 2: Where’s the reset button & can we press it?
Note 3: Modern challenges to relationship
Note 3: Connecting truthfully with life
Note 3: Humans, tangled in these systems
Note 3: Situations which ask us to trust
Note 3: Value and meaning in our lives

Ways to share this:

Truth, behind art and tradition

With culture, aren’t we worlds apart? Even within our own, some of us living this highbrow life while others face quite a different set of reference points, imagery and aspirations (Notes One). As if we’re all seeing life different ways; having such different values and interpretations of “reality” displayed and played out before us. Are those worlds something that can even “connect” in conversation?

It just seems, in almost every area of life, that there are very different conversations going on. One using the language of aesthetics, colour, form and gesture; speaking of power, tradition and classical education. The other, more pragmatic, raw and rooted in society’s everyday realities. One, perhaps, echoing from the remoteness of ivory towers while the other speaks directly from the streets of daily life.

Maybe that’s just what life is? We speak out of the rarefied world of ideals or the, often much bleaker, realities surrounding us. As if we’re always “somewhere” between idealism and reality as we seek paths between the two. Yet, isn’t there an insurmountable elitism to the first voice? This sense in which it’s a conversation few are privileged enough to have the time and opportunity to partake in.

Almost as if we “are” living in two worlds: that exclusive one with pretentious overtones and this more accessible one of clamouring, potentially less well-informed voices. Don’t we have to be “trained” into that earlier conversation? Fully acquainted with its terms, history, trends and developments if we’re to hope to speak without revealing some degree of ignorance that’ll undermine our words.

By its nature, though, does it “have” to be an exclusive conversation? Something few can have the “luxury” of studying, given how removed it essentially is from the practical realities of “life”. As if that highbrow conversation is simply an elevated reflection on the ideals behind our human condition; something so distantly related to the everyday that few can hope to make a living from it.

In any area of life – cooking, drama, fashion, gardening, art – do we “have” to either go high or low? Talking of plants in terms of form, palette, gesture, associations and effect, or looking more to the “truth” behind nature’s forms and how they relate to both us and the cosmic reality of our planetary existence. Is there more universal truth to be found behind all this? (Notes Two)

It’s just strange to think that culture’s conversations should be so remote, so divisive along the lines of inherited class distinctions. As if, in almost every aspect of life, we’re separated by conditions outside our control into having either idealistic conversations or ones that might just be poorly-executed reflections of those elevated ideals.

Maybe that’s simply life, though? That this one, idealistic world sheered off at some point to have its own self-reflexive conversation while almost everyone else was left dealing with the fractured realities of how well those ideals are working out each day. Is there any chance the two can join in one, meaningful conversation?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Culture as information
Note 1: Visual language and spaces
Note 1: The stories that we hear
Note 1: Observing life & stepping outside of reality
Note 1: Everything culture used to be
Note 2: Appreciating other ways of being
Note 2: Understanding what we’re all part of
Note 2: Learning from the past, looking to the future
Note 2: Can there be beauty in communication?
Note 2: Shaping the buildings that shape us

Somewhere alongside this, there perhaps stands Dystopia as a powerful ideal.

Ways to share this:

How much is in the hands of the market

Is it true that the future we’re walking into is largely in the hands of the market? As if almost every area of our lives has now been entrusted to the tender or forceful grasp of those forces – all subject to the push or pull of demand, availability, and the sense of what people can be persuaded, coerced or tempted into buying. Everything having been placed in the lap of this rather specific form of democratic choice.

And, beyond just the procurance of essential goods and services, aren’t our beliefs and ideas treated similarly? As if “all of life” has been carved up, rethought in terms of market share, and packaged to appeal to certain segments of society. Cultural consumption, appearance and attitudes now separating us into tribes as we express ourselves – or, create our identity – from the options available. (Notes One)

Aren’t there other ways to be thinking about life? Not just in terms of economic power and where it places us with regard to social identity or cultural worth, but – somehow – separating the idea of personal value from any sort of financial analysis (Notes Two). Almost as if “to be human” isn’t simply a question of how much money we’re born into or are likely in the position to make.

Haven’t we, however, placed everything in the market’s hands? Life, increasingly, coming down to this rational assessment of what we can afford and whether we think something’s worthwhile investing in for “where it will get us” in terms of status or opportunity. As if the purpose of life is the accumulation of money; our personal worth so closely tangled up with it.

Isn’t it interesting that we’ve placed “ideas” and “beliefs” in such hands? As if “how we use our minds” is now subject to whatever notions we buy into from all that’s convincingly, persistently or strategically placed before us – all these carrots and sticks, subtle inducements, or promises of social acceptance if we’ll concede to walk certain paths with the precious footsteps of our thinking.

It seems such a powerful thing: for human belief to be determined by market offerings or compelling arguments (Notes Three). Aren’t our minds where we make our choices and maintain our understanding of life? The place we weigh up our options; test them against our grasp of reality’s delicate balances; and decide which things we want to support, sustain and bring into existence. Isn’t it where “our” power lies? (Notes Four)

Yet it’s so often seeming pulled down to the level of calculation: ideas surreptitiously hidden within the subtext of media, culture or advertising to shift our thinking, undermine our worth, lead us step-by-step onto paths that may not be in our best interests. Isn’t thought a slippery slope? One move, combined with other, potentially trapping us in a tangle of contradictory premises we can’t find our way between.

If the future’s being determined by the quality of choices we’re able to make in these marketplaces, where we’re headed must be questionable.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Markets, and what they might mean
Note 1: Economics & the realm of culture
Note 1: The business of spiritual ideas
Note 1: Making ends meet
Note 2: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 2: Solving all the problems we’re creating
Note 2: Society that doesn’t deal with the soul
Note 3: Who gets to define us
Note 3: The relationship between statistics & reality
Note 3: How quickly things can change
Note 3: Attention as a resource
Note 4: What we create by our presence
Note 4: Being trusted to use our discernment…
Note 4: Freedom, responsibility & choice

With all of this, there’s always the question of Having confidence in complex systems.

Ways to share this:

Is the West carelessly disrespectful?

In a fairly neutral way, is the West quite careless and disrespectful around others’ beliefs and opinions? This sense in which everything’s seen as fair game in our world of thought; nothing’s sacred or off-limits. As if we wander the world – through the lives and ideas of others – casually picking apart, criticising and passing judgement on all we find. As if that’s what the world’s there for. (Notes One)

Aren’t we raised that way? To scrutinise as we send the tendrils of our minds out into the world to return victorious with our conclusions about the value and significance of it all. As if we’re here to cast judgement: life passing before our eyes for us to decide what we think of it. Maybe it’s intrinsic to the nature of thought? That we learn, observe, weigh up, assess, and draw conclusions. It’s what the brain can do.

Yet, isn’t it strangely disrespectful? If all humans have minds, ideas and beliefs, why are we to wander into their world and judge? As if there’s only one possible train of thought to be found in life – one “right answer” everyone should accept. Aren’t we all emerging from different backgrounds, with different belief systems emerging from different cultures? Don’t humans have the right to believe as they choose?

The idea of respecting that right and giving people space to think as they’ve chosen seems important. Isn’t the mind a sort of sacred space? The place each person’s been storing up all the insight and capacity their life has given them. The place each one of us experiences our lives, reflects on things, and determines what we feel, think or believe. Isn’t that delicate space quite uniquely what makes us human?

For some reason, though, the boundaries of “respect” seem to have fallen away in the West. As if we no longer have that concept of separation, individual sanctity and stepping back. Isn’t it an essential principle between the people of any culture? This idea of the estimation in which others, their thoughts and beliefs, are held. That there might be lines we shouldn’t cross in how we approach one another. (Notes Two)

Not suggesting it’s the only reason, but perhaps technology has something to do with it? This anonymising, democratising tool that’s shifted so many of us into a rather “flat” global reality where we don’t know the backgrounds, identities or situations of anyone. Doesn’t it make it so much easier to cast judgements and push our views over those of others? Although, maybe it’s the mindset that created the tool. (Notes Three)

Isn’t it interesting that – as with resources and trade – we seem so happy to trample over the world with our ways of thinking about things? Why would be so confident with our perspectives, conclusions or value systems? Why so withering about the fact others could believe anything other than science? Sometimes it seems we couldn’t care any less – as if, in our hands, thought’s simply a cold and brutal weapon.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The thought surrounding us
Note 1: Belief in what we cannot see
Note 1: The value & cost of our words
Note 1: All that we add to neutrality
Note 2: Mutual awareness and accommodation?
Note 2: Is cultural sensitivity still a thing?
Note 2: True relationship within society?
Note 3: Pace of change & getting nowhere fast
Note 3: Does being alone amplify things?
Note 3: Power and potential
Note 3: The difference humanity makes

As an alternative, Can there be beauty in communication?

Ways to share this: