Shopping around for a society

How are we approaching society? Is it with a sense of, “What suits me? What kind of lifestyle do I want to lead?” As if society’s simply the “setting” for our lives and we’re free to seek out that balance in the configuration of values which we, personally, prefer? Choosing, then, the society that best fits our personality and aspirations so we’re able to create our dream life against its backdrop.

Presumably, that would lead to communities of people who are alike, sharing similar values and outlooks. Perhaps, also, to a more peaceful, harmonious life from each person’s perspective? Given they’d largely agree with what was going on around them, or at least be inclined to tolerate it for the overall balance of what that society’s offering.

I suppose we seek a peaceful life? To live with those who share our ideas and want to live a similar way. I’m not sure anyone really seeks out conflict. But is there truly “peace” in grouping together around personal affinities, or are we simply shifting conflict to the boundaries and dialling it up through the power of numbers? Might we not, in reality, be escalating conflict and intolerance by living this way?

It’s like the thinking behind nation states: this drawing of lines where more fluid identities previously existed. It’s perhaps a logical outcome? That we, in the past, sought to define units of operation that could then cooperate with one another. Legal definitions of identity then carving up the globe.

Definition gives power, I suppose? Common identity, unity, belief in an idea, feelings of belonging that inspire us toward any course of action. As with personal identity, it’s creating a narrative we’re inclined to defend and perpetuate: a “self” we see as better, the best, or perhaps just best for us. Ways we express identity within a world of differences are fascinating (Notes One).

But, back to the point, what does it mean to seek a society that suits you? To feel less at home in one place or more drawn toward the characteristics of another place? Drawn, perhaps, to the stereotypes of national identity: work/life balance, leisure pursuits, cuisine, culture, social attitudes, landscape, language, history.

Societies sitting, as they do, somewhere on the sides of history, we’re perhaps choosing the expression of values we feel most affinity for personally, intellectually, socially, physically? Effectively, an expression of our interest in other ways of living, different ways of being human and solving the challenges thrown up by life, or ways the basic building blocks of “society” have been configured elsewhere.

Sometimes I’m unsure what thought my mind’s circling in on, and here I think it’s the idea of tolerance. Is society – and, the community it contains – to be a homogeneous reality or a place that embraces the diversity of human experience? If we all live through society differently, experiencing its different sides through faces it turns toward us, is this not all part of “one” conversation we should all be part of?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Having boundaries
Note 1: What inspires collective endeavours
Note 1: Different places, different ways
Note 1: Right to look out for ourselves?
Note 1: Finding flaws

Ways to share this:

What inspires collective endeavours

When it comes to society, how is it that we’re grouping ourselves together and relating to one another? European history paints a picture of divisions formed along lines of broad similarity and difference, the simplest number of groups that might provide manageable cohesion. In reality that’s been far from simple, but where are the alternatives?

We’re just so diverse, so different from each another. Especially now we’re increasingly looking to the level of “the individual” with their own, personal identity and experience. The idea of having anything “in common” almost seems a stretch of the imagination as our ideas of who we are, what’s important, and the life we’re hoping to create diverge so greatly (Notes One).

Personal interests that are then spanning the globe, forming communities that seemingly have very little geographical reality. It’s fascinating how identity and belonging have been drawn into this virtual world, often sucking us away from those nearby with whom we nonetheless stand in tangible relationship (Notes Two).

Humans have surely always existed within relationships? Groupings with expectations, standards, ideas on what it means to be both human and a valuable member of that community (Notes Three). Different forms that social groups have taken – and, the thinking behind them – are so interesting to consider. As are the reasons one form might give way to another.

Generally, though, it seems we need some sort of compelling reason or narrative that inspires participation; an idea that grasps our imagination, vision, and sense of what’s collectively desirable.

What is it, then, that’s inspiring us? A personal vision or communal one? Are we thinking of how “our” life might be or everyone else’s? It’s interesting to think how modern life has become so intensely personal yet, simultaneously, so universal and abstract. We might act based on personal interest but consequences are felt the world over. We perhaps can’t really detach from other people.

Then there’s this tendency toward “tribes” – new groupings that span borders to join us together with those “like us”, those we feel most connected to. Like nations without boundaries. It’s clearly natural to seek belonging, recognition and the peace that comes from acceptance by others. But does it risk intolerance?

If we choose, again, to form divisions based on similarity, to create identity out of difference and conflict out of defeating other experiences or perspectives within our one reality, how’s that different from the geographical divisions of nation states? Aren’t we still reinforcing rather than accepting differences? Can we really only be “in community” with those like us?

As elsewhere (Notes Four), maybe it comes down to ideas and realities? We all have beliefs, hopes, experiences, and conclusions – this whole inner world of thought that matters greatly in both personal and absolute ways – yet, naturally, “others” have similarly-held ideas. We certainly need to eradicate mistaken or incomplete understanding, but never the people themselves.

Is there not anything that can unite us beyond personal thinking, bringing us into full community rather than scattered, divisive ones?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Convergence and divergence
Note 1: At what point are we just humans?
Note 1: Would we be right to insist?
Note 2: In the deep end…
Note 2: Trust in technology?
Note 3: Having boundaries
Note 3: Invisible ties
Note 3: Absolute or relative value
Note 4: If society’s straining apart, what do we do?
Note 4: Making adjustments
Note 4: The power of understanding

Very much related to this, And, how much can we care? looked at the place for feeling in how we view the world.

Ways to share this:

Living your life through a song

Music, obviously, can be seen as the soundtrack to our lives. Personally and collectively, it can be a force that unites us through the expression, exploration or creation of shared experiences (Notes One). It’s strange – this mysterious activity whereby sound connects with emotion, effectively drawing us out of ourselves and into this slightly different space – but quite beautiful in its potential.

It’s something that often comes to define us. Music tending to be a bridge whereby we uncover affinity with others, sharing our love of bands or genres, bonding ourselves to that group and all that comes with it. Also, more personally, shaping our inner lives by way of songs that resonate: speaking to our emotions, reaching in to echo our experiences or validate our sense of self, becoming part of who we are.

Perhaps, then, becoming the tracks our lives take as we make our way through whatever we’re dealing with toward what we’ve fixed our heart upon. Songs we might return to over the years that chart the landscape of our lives, evoking the depths of our being – who we were, are, hoped to become. Social and emotional reflections of paths we’ve walked, the arc of our development, our soul and all that’s marked it.

Is this wise? Are these songs serving as poetry – complex, true, trustworthy containers of human experience that help us in processing a delicate soul life? Where do these paths lead us? Into dead ends, wallowing pools of self-validation that seek to make an identity of suffering, leaving us trapped in the prisons carved around us? Routes for integrating and releasing our experiences? Is music therapeutic or pathological?

And this isn’t intending to be critical, simply exploratory: what is it we’re doing here? If we were to see music as medicine for the soul, what approach are we taking? On a personal level or the social one, are we reinforcing wounds or healing them? What is this process of reflection, resonance, identity that we’re getting from culture? Are our cultural reference points signs of sickness or of healing?

As with any discussion of culture, I tend toward thinking it’s a question of how we approach things – whether we accept them as they appear on the surface or dig a little deeper for what’s going on underneath (Notes Two).

We unquestionably live in an imperfect world but, that being the case, do we embrace the dark or the light? Do we go into the darkness, indulge it, make ourselves a home there? Or might we seek to counteract it with light somehow? Does this become some form of reconciliation, reworking, release? Maybe culture either tends toward the light or the dark? Burrowing into our difficulties or seeking to bring them out to the light of day.

And listening to Elliott Smith, Karma Chameleon or Morcheeba must make quite a difference. If the tracks we’re selecting might be serving us this way, it seems to become a question of how we’re then navigating our inner lives.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Music and its power to inspire
Note 1: Busking as a gift
Note 2: Culture as reflection
Note 2: It resonates, but should it be amplified
Note 2: Reference points for how we’re living
Note 2: Do we know what we’re doing?
Note 2: Playing with fire?

Ways to share this:

The value of a questioning attitude?

Where do we go to with thinking? How far do we go into the nature of thought, the content and origin of our own thinking, or the paths thought’s taken over the years and into modern life?

Often it seems we’re thinking with thought as it’s handed down to us – picking up the ideas immediate or more distant generations and thinkers have handed over (Notes One). That flow of evaluation, judgement and conclusion that leads people to present certain ideas or trains of thought as definitive, unquestionable, worthwhile accepting pretty much on face value and building our lives around.

Which is what it is. This ongoing “game” of passing things down the line, casting some aside while placing others on pedestals. That perpetual conversation of society, civilisation, humanity, as we hope we’re choosing wisely and creating something that’ll be valuable, sturdy, and stand the test of time. Thought, effectively, building its structures into our lives by way of politics, education, culture, and other public voices (Notes Two).

But it also seems many thoughts are so close to us that we don’t see them as such, instead taking them as facts or parts of our identity in some way. Those ways of thinking we don’t question, accepting them as a given when, really, they’re already a substantial body of thought packed full of assumptions, attitudes, premises and conclusions all nestled right in there.

It’s interesting, because thought’s such a powerful instrument (Notes Three). It’s capable of cutting through centuries of ideas and customs to draw penetrating or dismissive conclusions. It can cast aside countless personal experiences and, in their place, offer compelling or impressive statements others might embrace as true. In the West, it seems we can think what we like, much as that’s impacting the world around us.

How disciplined we are in the use of thought then seems fascinating to question. When you place the proliferation of facts, perspectives and opinions the internet’s offering on top of that freedom to think as we please it seems as much an impressive recipe for disaster as it is a chance at progress, awareness or resolution.

In all that, where do we draw the line? How far should we explore the nature of thought and cast its penetrative gaze? Do we stop at the foundations that society tells us are the ground under our feet, or should we also draw all that into question? How much time or effort will we dedicate to gaining a firm sense of exactly where we stand and why, before we’re confidently striding forth to make changes?

Can we find the intellectual certainty to question the very ground we’re standing on? If it can’t withstand questioning, are we even that secure? Or, if it’s not essential to fully understand thought’s foundations, how certain can we ever be in chains of reasoning? If life’s too distracting to consider the bigger picture, where does that leave us? Does it even matter? Given understanding informs our actions, surely it must.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Caught in these thoughts
Note 1: The sense of having a worldview
Note 2: What you’re left with
Note 2: Do we know what we’re doing?
Note 2: Who should we trust?
Note 3: Strange arrogance of thought
Note 3: The philosopher stance

Ways to share this:

Right to look out for ourselves?

Are we mistaken, thinking mainly of ourselves? We live in a time of such great individualism and independence – personal experiences, feelings, desires, interests, concerns all vying for attention on our new global stage – but there’s still this collective side to existence, where nobody ever exists in isolation.

And I wasn’t being facetious about personal freedom being “great” as it truly is, in many ways (Notes One). So much good seems able to come from the individualism of the West: possibilities for overcoming limitations and finding new ways, ironing out problems, acknowledging mistakes, then having frank conversations about how best to resolve things and bring these valuable ideals to greater effect in our lives.

But, all that aside, there’s surely a point where thinking of yourself is problematic? Where does it lead if we continue thinking that way? Where will it leave society, its relationships, or the systems we all exist within? It really seems this personal freedom can be a blessing or a curse: we might use it wisely, considerately, constructively; or we might pull against things, creating problems now or storing them up down the line.

It’s as if we’ve really embraced this idea of being an island: each person the ruler of their own domain, free to do as we will, setting our own rules, refusing any notion of guidance, tradition or external constraint. But we still share space. We obviously share physical space – geographically, environmentally – where choices and behaviours have noticeable impacts, but also social space in all those ways our lives intersect.

What does it mean if we’re each insisting on operating independently? Acting, perhaps, out of imperfect understanding or personal woundedness? I honestly doubt anyone truly has a full understanding of everything that’s going on in our world, much as we might confidently act as if we do. Presumably, then, it’s a world filled with flawed but generally well-meaning activities? (Notes Two)

And, as with almost anything, there’s a circularity here that makes answers difficult to find and questions hard to articulate. How should we best manage our independence? What’s the right relationship to form with the various collective systems we also undeniably form part of? What personal choices are we making that might be more problematic than they’re worth? Are we only valuing life now, or also into the future?

Parts of our shared social systems being there to look out for us in that future, acting in ways that’ll create difficulties there might wisely be viewed as problems “now”. Similarly, all the ways our choices feed into or touch upon wider global situations – remote conflicts, socio-economic realities, environmental or climatic concerns – might well be creating imbalances that’ll almost inevitably play out at some future point.

Understanding the complexity of what humans have spun over the planet seems so important if we’re to operate well within it (Notes Three). And we can, of course, choose to focus on our own interests, but I wonder whether people down the line will still have that luxury.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 2: In the deep end…
Note 2: Living as an open wound
Note 2: Making adjustments
Note 3: Does anything exist in isolation?
Note 3: If society’s straining apart, what do we do?
Note 3: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 3: We’re all vulnerable
Note 3: Interdependency

Ways to share this:

Absolute or relative value

Is our value absolute or relative? Is it a constant, despite our flaws and struggles, or something we have to work ourselves up to? And, does that value only lie in other people recognising it, understanding us, seeing our worth, and making space for us within their own existence? If others don’t appreciate who we are, does that mean our value’s not then a reality?

It’s something I find intriguing because, theoretically, someone could be bringing something immensely valuable to life while all those around them see it as nothing. If we only see, recognise or appreciate that which we know and understand (Notes One), then it’s entirely possible that many excessively worthwhile things might simply be passing us by.

And, finding this in equal parts fascinating and fundamental, it’s something I’ve already touched upon a few times (Notes Two): these ideas of human worth, social relationships, communication, and the attitudes with which we approach other people. Do we value people rightly? Are we viewing others mainly in terms of how they compare to us, ways they might assist us, and so forth? Does it matter how we view other people?

Surely, it’s fundamental to life? How we relate to one another, the worth we assign each human life, “is” this foundation on which both society and personal existence are built: this world of meaning that, hopefully, guides our behaviour and gives our lives purpose (Notes Three). To me, everything in life holds meaning and all our actions are “saying something” on that level about the value of what we see around us.

Often, though, it seems we’re tending to view things in that relative sense of “what things mean to or about us” rather than looking to the absolute meaning of any given thing, then relating ourselves to that. Is it an important distinction? That’s perhaps for us to decide.

It must make a difference? If we’re using ourselves as the benchmark – evaluating everything against our own experiences, identity and choices – then we’re presumably judging many things, criticising, labelling as wrong, or perhaps attacking in the hope they’ll come around to our way of thinking. What does that create socially or in terms of communication? What’s the interpersonal atmosphere that’s creating?

This post is seeming more exploratory than some, perhaps because I’m unsure what exactly I’m grasping for. Is it this sense of judgement? The ways we’re evaluating one other and seeing difference as something to be conquered? Is the concept of “overcoming” our differences a picture of “one viewpoint eliminating the other” or a picture of expanded awareness where differences all have their place?

As ever, there aren’t easy answers: life’s complex with much to be resolved (Notes Four). It’s just that, for me, part of that seems to lie in acknowledging the complicated truth of our personal and collective lives. Things impact us all, imperfection’s pretty much baked in at this point, yet somehow it seems important to see how, beneath that, there might be absolute value.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Seeing, knowing and loving
Note 1: Counselling, listening & social identity
Note 1: The way to be
Note 2: Relating to one another
Note 2: Value and worth in our relationships
Note 3: The power of understanding
Note 3: Do we need meaning?
Note 3: This thing called love
Note 4: The dignity & power of a human life
Note 4: Dealing with imperfection

Other ideas about the worth of life and the challenges we face were the focus of both “The Measure of a Man” and Finding flaws.

Ways to share this:

Different places, different ways

Is it possible to mix up our countries’ educational methods? As if all that’s going on in that realm is in some way separate from the rest of society, something that can be lifted up and transposed elsewhere as with other products and services.

I’ve talked before about education growing out of and within the history, customs and practices of any given society (Notes One). How the task of educating sits within its community, drawing upon the attitudes, knowledge and outlooks surrounding it to form the foundation on which understanding is built and the environment into which that understanding then finds its way.

Any process of education must serve its community: helping people to see where they stand, what’s expected of them, how we came to this point, and the main challenges that society’s facing. It’s perhaps a process of acclimatisation or enlightenment where we’re revealing what’s going on and all that’s gone into it? Handing over that social, cultural and human insight to those who need it.

But then, every community’s experiences and lessons are presumably different? Even within fairly homogeneous societies there must be countless perspectives, interpretations and agendas at work: different ideas around what things mean, how we should act, or what ultimately matters most within our world (Notes Two).

That relationship between what’s taught and the world we’re living in must matter. As do the attitudes with which we approach the task of education and the authority of those imparting it. Do we trust what we hear? Do we respect those within society who’ve decided to spend their lives bringing knowledge and awakening understanding in coming generations? Do we feel that’s an important and worthwhile endeavour?

We seem to live in a time where there’s not a great deal of respect for authority or the opinions of others, which must be problematic for both education and society as a whole. If we don’t trust those handing down humanity’s lessons or value that process of social, generational interchange, where does that leave us as people?

Of course, times change. And I suspect there’s a certain wisdom to the doubt and questioning of authority that’s been seeping into Western society (Notes Three). But still, it’s reshaping things: what does it now mean to step into community and relate yourself to what’s gone before? It often seems we’re losing the capacity or inclination to really listen, to relate respectfully to others.

Back to the point, though. Surely educational systems from, say, Finland or China cannot just be placed into another location. If teaching grows out of social attitudes, realities and experiences then all the countless assumptions and principles underpinning those methods “must” build on the world those involved are living within. Taking aspects elsewhere, inevitably, places them out of context.

Not to say there’s not a great deal we can learn from one another, just that this must be more complicated than simply adopting particular techniques. As with any cross-cultural pollination, understanding how everything relates seems so incredibly important.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The social metaphor of education
Note 1: Respect, rebellion & renovation
Note 1: What we know to pass on
Note 1: Meaning within it all
Note 1: Can we manage all-inclusive honesty?
Note 2: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 2: Things change, over time
Note 2: What really matters
Note 3: How important is real life?
Note 3: Interdependency
Note 3: Right to question & decide
Note 3: Making adjustments

Ways to share this:

Do we know what we’re doing?

When it comes to culture – all the ideas, images, thoughts we’re entertaining in our minds – I often find myself wondering if we really know what we’re doing. I mean, we can think and watch all manner of things, but where does it lead us and is that wise?

I suppose it comes down to the significance of what we have in mind. Does it matter? Are our heads simply these filters, these torchlights or screens where it’s really not important what’s passing in front of or through them? If something’s “out there”, are we right to take it all in and reflect upon it or is there some need for discernment in how we’re directing our thoughts? (Notes One)

It seems important to question how we’re using our minds. Clearly, they’re there. Like it or not, they’re constantly absorbing and processing all that’s going on around us – drawing conclusions, forming opinions, having reactions, awakening memories, all these often-subconscious internal processes whereby “the mind” apparently seeks to help us make sense of life.

Within all that, we then have “culture” which seems to be this more intentional collective process of reflection that’s, in some way, seen to serve society as well as individuals (Notes Two). It’s seemingly this place where we mull over all that’s gone before and all that might follow; pulling together all these ideas from society, different times and places, and arranging them differently to see what meaning might emerge.

It’s perhaps this space where people with a degree of vision identify those issues concerning society, placing them into some form of relief so we’re better able to notice their significance and how they relate to what’s around them. It’s a strange process, in many ways, and hard to pin down. But it’s surely some form of thought, as we attempt to make sense of and respond to our world.

And maybe its value then lies in those responses? That added layer of interpretation, awareness or conversation that serves to mitigate or mediate its influence? Almost a process of digestion, whereby we reflect upon what’s actually being said about society and what our response to that should actually be. This potentially highly significant additional stage of mental processing (Notes Three).

Otherwise, what exactly are we allowing into our minds? All these images of society’s problems, risks, challenges, and so forth? So many depictions of disaster, evil, conflict or disregard for the value of life. Of course, that’s not all that’s there, but it certainly seems to form an increasingly large proportion of what’s offered within modern culture.

What does it mean to see such images and entertain such thoughts? Is it priming us with fear, readying us to see society’s ideals falling further into disrepair, or calling up in us a sense of awareness and commitment that might lead us to defend such principles? If our minds are the places we make sense of life and decide on our courses of action, are we truly using them wisely?

Notes and References:

Note 1: What are we thinking?
Note 1: Who should we trust?
Note 1: What’s neutral?
Note 2: Culture as reflection
Note 2: It resonates, but should it be amplified
Note 2: Reference points for how we’re living
Note 2: Truth, illusion & cultural life
Note 2: Playing with fire?
Note 3: Do we need meaning?
Note 3: The sense of having a worldview
Note 3: Ideas the tie things together

Going even further back, Plato & “The Republic” held some interesting thoughts about the power of ideas.

Ways to share this:

This thing called love

Love really seems this fundamental force, driving so much of what we do in life. And, obviously, that can get played upon, confused with other things and twisted into many contorted versions of itself – as any force can be, if misdirected. Beyond that, though, there’s clearly a very human need to love and be loved, whatever that might mean.

To a large extent, aren’t we all driven by love? By the desire for understanding, acceptance, recognition. By the hope of belonging: a place we feel at peace, free to be ourselves, completely at home. That space we can trust, open up without fear, and have all our dreams and difficulties acknowledged while we’re working our way through them.

At its core, love seems this powerful, complete acceptance and appreciation of who we are as people on our journeys: a recognition of where we’ve come from, ways that shaped us, the things we hope to bring into life and those we’re struggling to leave behind. Humans truly seem more works in progress than finished products, much as modern society might try to tell us differently (Notes One).

And, pushing the boundaries of that, might the challenge of life itself be in extending that courtesy of love to all humanity? Past, present, future, near or far. This sense of treating everyone with loving respect, concern and consideration so we’re all able to offer what we can while fulfilling our needs and overcoming our inevitable obstacles. We’re all human, all essentially the same, all seeking that recognition from others of our kind.

We might hope we’ll find such acceptance within family, friendships, romance, community or society more broadly: that we’ll be seen for who we truly are and what we’d like to make of ourselves; valued for our presence and all we have to offer by way of unique talents, insights or strengths; and allowed to be the flawed, wounded, learning people we almost inevitably are (Notes Two). If we’re all the same, how could we act otherwise?

When people don’t feel loved, deserving of love or capable of expressing it, that evidently causes serious problems for them, those around them, and society as a whole. So, rather than schmaltzy, sentimental, self-serving notions of love or coldly psychological assessments of someone’s “need for validation”, might love not be an eminently practical and essential foundation for healthy human coexistence? (Notes Three)

Often though, this very human need for recognition seems to be played upon or made light of as a means for personal, commercial or societal control: natural insecurities around our worth, value, and place within social relationships dovetailing into various industries that, at times, seem to be feeding or capitalising on all this. It’s clearly an effective button to press.

Is it possible to act only out of love? Globally as much as personally, how might that change things? Instead of this being misdirected down ultimately unfulfilling and often circular avenues, could it actually become an incredibly beautiful and potent force for change?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 1: The dignity & power of a human life
Note 1: Cycles of mind & matter
Note 1: Culture as reflection
Note 2: Starting over in life
Note 2: Letting go of “who you are”
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: We’re all vulnerable
Note 2: Masks we all wear
Note 3: And, how much can we care?
Note 3: Seeing, knowing and loving
Note 3: Love of self

Ways to share this:

The difference humanity makes

When humans are involved in something, it’s different. It might still be either good or bad, but it’s always different from when we’re not directly present or involved. It’s true of technology, of culture, of relationships in general: we bring something different, something unique, something perhaps unquantifiable to whatever it is we’re doing.

With live music, it’s a human being who’s brought themselves to that particular place to perform from the depths of their own being for those who are also physically present in that moment. It’s a human with all that they are: all the discipline, talent, belief and effort needed to personally be there and deliver what they have to offer. It’s a sound that’s emerging from a human reality, from within a complex personal journey.

And that’s just not the same as flipping a switch, clicking on a track, or having something queued up from goodness knows where. Not to sound archaic or overly nostalgic, it’s simply another level of intention and presence that goes into those two extremes of musical experience. When a human soul is present, singing out of the richness of experience, offering up hard-won insights, it’s just different (Notes One).

Much the same as a human delivering the news is fundamentally different from an artificial simulation of one. The human, hopefully, feels and cares about the meaning, significance and consequences of the words they’re having to say. It’s communication: conveying information, facts and sentiment to others. It’s a social reality, emerging from our human realities, being spoken into that community by one of its members.

Words originating from humans must be essentially different from those emerging from technology, and that seems important: what we add to mere sound, mere language. These days, so much is already mediated through text, through naked words we must then imbue with our own sense of meaning, feeling and interpretation – this veritable echo chamber of cold, hard, disembodied language (Notes Two).

Technology, artificial intelligence, all these things might be able to offer “more” than us in some ways, but can never truly replace us. It’s different when a human listens: contextualising your words and tone against the shared background of human experiences, struggles and dreams. Perhaps it’s the fact another person’s simply present, letting your reality into their space and, hopefully, responding with compassion and belief.

So, while so much in our lives is being stripped back – social infrastructure, traditions, patterns of relationship and communication being just some of them – it’s surely important to remember what it is to be human (Notes Three). Some of that might be “easily” replicable by technology and maybe we’re at the point where we barely notice what’s lacking, but might we be mistaken in discounting our own worth so easily?

The struggle to find the right place, balance and role for technology within human society is a fascinating and dark reality; but I would’ve thought that valuing the depth, complexity and feeling contained within us all might be worth keeping in mind.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Busking as a gift
Note 1: Music and its power to inspire
Note 2: Tone in public dialogue
Note 2: What’s neutral?
Note 2: Value in being informed
Note 3: Cutting corners
Note 3: All that’s going on around us
Note 3: How important is real life?
Note 3: Conversation as revelation
Note 3: Having boundaries
Note 3: The human spirit

For a different set of ideas about how we, as humans, might make peace with technology, there’s Matt Haig’s “Notes on a Nervous Planet”.

Ways to share this: