Author: admin

Cycles of mind & matter

At times I can become quite philosophical here, wondering at what’s going on beneath the surface of life and our interactions with it (see Notes One). Because it seems to me that there is meaning behind how we’re living, there is something being ‘said’ by the picture we’re painting with our actions. And, often, money seems the point where that’s appearing most clearly.

The degree to which economic realities have always been part of life and ways our current take on that might actually be quite different may be questions for another day, but it’s interesting to think what these things ‘mean’ and what they create socially, personally or environmentally (Notes Two). We might tell ourselves it’s forever been this way, but arguably the scale and intensity of modern ways are something very unusual.

In those posts and others within the theme of Economy & Values, I’ve talked of economic activity claiming to meet needs while simultaneously acting to create such demand by tapping into the delicate realms of human psychology: our desire to belong, feel good about ourselves and also emotionally or socially secure apparently having become valuable assets within the field of marketing.

Across the whole of life, there’s now this constantly rolling narrative saying precisely why we’re never enough: age, gender, appearance, image, style, health, social connections, life choices, communication, relationships, views, interests, everything’s now repackaged into this commercial conversation about how best to be.

As humans we clearly live within that reality, attempting to find our bearings within it: looking around us then trying to make sense of the world, of society, of what all these symbols, codes and conventions mean in terms of status, approval, and so forth. We’re essentially – at least in part – social creatures who seek to participate within community, culture, and other shared constructs.

And there’s a certain logic, I suppose, to adverts fabricating needs to create demands and markets; a circular reasoning that ties up cause and effect, providing reasons for its own existence. It’s also an interesting picture in that it’s plugging the fathomless demands of the human psyche into the rather limited world of natural resources.

It seems cultural participation, social status and personal worth often now come down to this economic scenario we’ve created where everything deemed valuable has been given a price tag. This sense of markets needing to tap into human culture and psychology to fuel growth – our search for meaning and fundamental insecurities dovetailed neatly into economic thinking.

How can that be sustainable ecologically, or even socially? Will we ever be satisfied by the pursuit of ‘goods’ or just kept in this never-ending state of anxiety, where even our economic stability as a society is built upon foundations of human inadequacy or worthlessness? (Notes Three)

The sense of it all, and the surety of using this formula as the basis for society, seems so questionable; it’s appearing to be this convoluted consumption of self, meaning and natural resources almost entirely in the pursuit of wealth.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What is real?
Note 1: Power in what we believe
Note 2: Business defining human life
Note 2: Culture selling us meaning
Note 3: “Small is Beautiful”
Note 3: “Paradox of Choice”

Thinking more of ways forward from darker takes on life, Responsibility in shaping this reality looked at our roles in finding other paths.

Ways to share this:

What’s a reasonable response?

In terms of how we’re living and all the problems currently facing individual societies as much as the global community we’re all existing within, the sense of what might be realistic, practical, empowering responses is a question affecting us personally as much as systemically. Charting that powerful and emotive set of reactions, values and ideals in order to hopefully lead to lasting improvement seems this incredibly complex task.

Because we all have our sense of what’s normal, right, and expected. Everything we see and hear is presumably run past our own set of judgements, filters, and ideas as to what’s acceptable or would be better. So many conversations seem to run along that track of expressing our own opinions on what’s going on around us, whether we’re watching TV, absorbing news, or commenting upon the lives of others.

We’re often actively taught to approach life that way: forming our response, lining up arguments, and presenting them somewhat definitively to others (see Note One). As thinking creatures we’re being encouraged to pass everything through the reasoning of our own mind, with all its personal, cultural, social, moral conditioning of experience and affirmation. We’re shaped by our world, then pass judgement on that basis.

Which seems to have the effect of making everything quite personal: we feel things as an affront to our very existence and all we’ve been taught to see as right; we might expect our finest efforts at reasoning to meet with immediate agreement, approval and change; we may battle on, hoping to win people over, with our sense of self and what matters effectively on the line.

The idea of how best to apply our mind, our ideals, our words and actions in order to bring about greater awareness and constructive action isn’t easy to resolve. Then there’s the tools we’re using, the ways of going about things that we’ve inherited from the past and repurposed for new ends; including the voice, role and responsibility of modern media and the wider cultural conversations that all sits within (Notes Two).

With thought, we might expect our reasoned responses to be universal – we might think them compelling, obvious and beyond doubt – but, in reality, everyone else’s views are likely to be as firmly held as our own (Notes Three). Logic might be fairly neutral, but how we apply it, the meaning we assign to links in the chain, and the overall picture we see emerging does seem capable of varying for some reason.

So, given all we can now be aware of and the relentless pace of updates and trends appearing on a global scale, filtering all that down into actionable conclusions capable of keeping up with the waves of novelty must be almost verging on the impossible. And not adding fuel to the fires through potentially unhelpful responses stands apart from that as a quite separate challenge.

Somehow, though, we have to navigate this and find ways to communicate about collective courses of action we’re all inclined to sustain.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Pick a side, any side
Note 2: Apparent difficult in finding a voice
Note 2: Desensitised to all we’re told?
Note 2: Concerns over how we’re living
Note 3: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 3: The philosopher stance
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection

Ideas of imperfection, change, and the pursuit of ideals were considered in a slightly different light in Dystopia as a powerful ideal.

Ways to share this:

Business defining human life

Thinking about “life”, in a way it’s just this limited span of time filled with interests and activities; the choices we make, things we pursue, and relationships we form within the world around us. With that, we can go with the flow or decide to chart our own paths through the options available and what that journey might ultimately mean.

And, these days, those options and their meanings seem to be frequently shaped by business, money, and the economics of life. So much is framed in those terms: image, personal branding, industries we support, all we choose to put ourselves behind and construct our identities around. It seems to just be how things are, what modern life’s about, the form perennial human activities are now taking (see Notes One).

Which is what it is: humans have these basic needs for shelter, belonging, security, and whatever else for them is now seen as essential. We each live our lives as best we’re able, contributing towards and drawing from our communities in various ways. That’s simply life, as we make our way from youth through to older age.

Along that path we leave our mark, letting others know what they mean to us as we relate ourselves to them socially, emotionally, economically etc. We’re all leading these lives, this dance of interaction as we effectively communicate which people, opportunities, structures matter to us and how much we care about them. Choices that fit together into this complex, often slightly fractured, picture of life.

And, within that, there’s industry. All these commercial entities that take a look at society, decide what to offer it, then spin stories around how our lives will be better if we buy into what they’re saying. Often, stories that seek to undermine us so we feel that psychological need; chipping away at our humanity, in countless ways, until we’re increasingly dependent on products, services and brands to feel good about ourselves.

It’s strange how human industry and economic activity now seems to feed off us – creating addictions, imbalances, and insecurity – in order to secure a stable customer base. Also, how so many valuable and worthwhile areas of human society, civilisation and culture are apparently seen as fair game in that pursuit of profit (Notes Two).

Maybe modern society ‘is’ built on such things – the profits and companies this sustains fuelling employment and contributing funds through taxation – but at what cost? What does it mean for humanity if these are the activities, principles, values at its foundation? What does it mean if our lives are enveloped by products, the ways of thinking that accompany them, and social or environmental costs they entail? (Notes Three).

Of course, it’s how life is and large sections of our societies are organised around approaching the practical challenges of existence this way. But, surely, the question of what life’s really about and who should get to define, shape, and set the standards we wish to live by are slightly different – and essentially human – concerns.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Money as a pivot of matter & intention
Note 1: Can we overcome purely economic thinking?
Note 2: Privacy and our online existence
Note 2: Culture selling us meaning
Note 2: Language and values
Note 3: At what cost, for humans & for nature?
Note 3: Created a system we seek to escape?

Whether asking such questions might ever lead to meaningful change was explored in Right to question and decide.

Ways to share this:

Letting go of “who you are”

The question of identity is surely a fascinating one. Are we the product of our past, of the things we’ve done, opportunities we’ve had, people we’ve encountered? Are we as we appear on the outside, the image we’ve created over our natural genetic inheritance? Or the sum of our interests, abilities, and all those expressions of the personality that resides within?

It’s probably something we all think about, or have thought about, a great deal at some stage: this sense of who we are, how we compare, where we fit into society, and how much ‘worth’ we have for others (Notes One). This idea of crafting an identity – creating a personal brand, if you will – seems quite a powerful modern preoccupation; a strange concoction seemingly born out of technology, marketing and business.

The idea of our worth wasn’t something I’d planned to touch on here but, as it’s come up, hopefully it’s clear from my writing by now that I believe we are all, without a doubt, extremely valuable (Note Two). Much of what I’m often trying to do here is unravel all the ways that’s challenged, undermined, or covered up by other things within modern society.

Leaving that aside though, there is this sense in which we have a constructed identity: a self we’ve being building around us our whole lives out of our skills, interests, inclinations, and our place within the various systems and communities encompassing the globe. A self we’ve then built our life and relationships around; hopefully creating a degree of security socially, emotionally, psychologically, financially, and professionally.

But then, of course, we pass through life and things change. At this point, the ways Western society prizes youth and sees little value in other phases of life are fairly commonplace and often quite unchallenged; much as that sets us up to battle against the very nature of our existence and constantly casts into doubt our sense of personal, social or absolute worth.

Aside from that though, our sense of identity must almost inevitably be challenged by the very process of living. As we age our looks, interests, concerns, activities and energy levels often shift. It’s a physical thing, but also part of the paths we’ve chosen to walk in terms of family or career: choices we’ve made that mean we may not have the time or freedom to live as we once did.

If, in youth, we create a picture of ourselves and who we hope or expect to become, then we’re presumably carrying along with us all these hopes and expectations around ‘who we are’, what life’s about and what matters to us. This mental overlay – a narrative of identity and meaning – that forms the storyline we’re creating about our lives.

Some bodies of thought suggest detaching from the illusion of self as the purpose of life (Notes Three); but, even without going so far, loosening our grip on ideas of identity and true worth does indeed seem a very real challenge we all face.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 1: How it feels to be alive
Note 1: Masks we all wear
Note 2: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 3: Krishnamurti’s “Inward Revolution”
Note 3: Spiritually committed literature
Note 3: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle

Beyond this, what’s maybe really being highlighted is the need for independence; as in The idea of self reliance.

Ways to share this:

Will novelty ever wear off?

Thinking about novelty, it seems this strange notion of something being new but also not worth that much. Why those two things ‘go together’ is a question for another day, as presumably new things could also be valuable and have longevity. Anyway, for now I’m mainly concerned with how ‘novelty’ is apparently this endless stream of constant and fairly frivolous change.

In that light, it seems we might never get tired of it; this perpetual rippling of variations, slight differences, unusual combinations, provocative or impractical suggestions. Given the global resources we have in terms of cultural, historical, social, conceptual, artistic reference points there’s arguably a limitless pool of ideas we could draw from in fresh and ‘original’ ways. We’re creative creatures; all with our own unique views.

But then what might it mean for culture, society or economic activity to be built upon that sense of novelty? Where might it lead if we’re forever pumping out ‘something new’ and surrounding it with ‘industries’ that effectively feed off that process? What is that churning tide, and is there anything truly value-able within it? Those are completely open questions; as I really don’t know, but often like to ask.

It’s just interesting, in that it’s viewed as a ‘product’: a product of the human mind, of our desire to belong and create and celebrate the richness of life; but also a product within a marketplace of attention, commercialisation and profit. And it clearly applies on many levels, within technology, news, entertainment, culture, fashion (see Notes One).

And that is what it is really, it’s how modern life’s evolved and the forms things are currently taking. ‘Things’, in that context, being the function that human ingenuity, expressiveness, creativity, and originality have within our communities; the value all that might hold for the lives we share.

Maybe that’s a strange way of looking at things? Maybe we’re supposed to just accept novelty as a way of life and go with the flow. But, as I’ve said, I’m just wondering where it leads and if there’s an end in sight that’s worth pursuing. I wonder if it’s not a misappropriation of our creative and social instincts – diverting them towards endless novelty and the status we’re assigning it, rather than putting it to better use elsewhere.

To my mind, modern culture’s a little strange in that I don’t quite see the meaning or purpose within it all (Notes Two). I know, not everything has to have meaning and some things we just do for fun, to join in and be part of that conversation. But I’d have thought there must be some reason behind these things, some substance there, something we could be adding to the wealth of human civilisation beyond a trail of discarded artefacts.

I don’t know. It’s just a thought really, attempting to circle in on the value of what we’re doing. I might be wrong in looking for more; but it also might be worthwhile drawing things into question, just in case.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Fashion, self & environment
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 1: Living in luxury, on what grounds?
Note 1: Culture selling us meaning
Note 2: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 2: Cultural shifts & taking a backseat

In all of this – in the tone of my writing, the questions I raise, and topics I address – here, as anywhere else, there’s The need for discernment.

Ways to share this:

Pick a side, any side

As humans, why is it we argue quite so much? Maybe it’s simply because we’re thinking beings, wielding logic within the confines of our brains then drawing others into combat to test the strength of our ideas compared with theirs. That sort of competitive mindset of wanting to see if we’re right; which, of course, generally means having to make another person wrong on some count.

Whether it’s intrinsic to ‘thought’ that we would seek to argue, or whether our social or cultural lives have cultivated that tendency over the years is possibly too difficult a question to answer. Either way, it seems we have to live with it and make the best we can of the situation.

But it does seem we’re trained to think in terms of conflict: to pick a side, make it ours, defend it, and conquer the position others have taken up (see Notes One). It’s a contentious topic, but given its importance I do at times attempt to write about it as best I can. The nature of ‘truth’ and extent to which it might be bigger than any one person’s viewpoint seem such important things to consider.

Encouraging people to think, view situations, and approach them with this sense of a battle troubles me in many ways. If we’re tending to see conversations as arguments then our basic gesture’s quite aggressive I’d imagine? As if we’re trained to walk around looking for the next thing we might disagree with. As if others and their thoughts are adversaries more than friends or people we might learn from.

It’s this framework of argument where we’re taught to construct our line of reasoning, convey it in the most compelling manner, then attempt to somehow defeat our opponent so our ideas – we – emerge the winner. Conversations where we arrange all our thoughts, facts and opinions neatly along certain lines then see how well it all plays out.

Whether we particularly believe in our line of thought or choose our own side because it serves us some other way is another issue, of course. It seems some people like to make a sport of disagreeing as an intellectual, interpersonal or power-related activity; the satisfaction of victory, of having ‘won’ that human interaction.

Whatever the reason, the psychology, or the educational merit of this way of thinking, in practice it seems to cause these fracture lines between people and between the causes they care about. Conflict seems almost inevitable in a world where we’re taught to argue more than converse with one another (Notes Two).

And, to me, it’s also not quite realistic. I mean, are we applying our thoughts to people or to things? There’s surely a difference between reasoning on the level of ideas and observable realities, or talking about what they ‘mean’ within the intricacies of our social or personal lives. Making every topic a battleground for logic doesn’t seem very inclusive, very understanding of what might be working itself out in and through our lives.

Notes and References:

Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 1: Does truth speak for itself?
Note 2: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 2: Conversation as revelation
Note 2: Seeing, knowing and loving

Looking from another angle, there’s clearly great room for improvement in how we’re living, as explored in People wanting change.

Ways to share this:

What is economical

In some fairly obvious ways, money’s a powerful force in shaping our lives and reshaping the world we’re sharing: costs, prices, taxes all acting as incentives or deterrents, encouraging certain standards or behaviours within society and further afield. And with that, it must raise questions around whether those forces are ultimately serving our best interests.

Economic realities effectively create personal, social and business motivations that then appear to carry a moral weight; with choices being seen as praiseworthy, acceptable, or stupid purely based on the logic of money. It’s as if something being ‘economical’ is enough for it to be considered ‘wise’ and therefore a good course of action.

It’s an interesting idea, as it’s wandering into territory where we might try to make ‘other values’ stand up against that compelling logic of the marketplace (see Notes One). I’ve often ‘argued’ there’s more to life than money, that it shouldn’t be the standard against which all things are measured; it’s a way of reasoning that seems to lead us into no end of trouble in a lot of areas.

Because, when it comes down to it, where does it lead? If we’re looking mainly in terms of money, what might we not be taking fully into account? What gets pushed to the side lines, downplayed, disregarded, in the pursuit of profit or securing a market? What is ‘all the stuff’ on the other side of the scale while we’re just looking at the bottom line?

As an example, what does it mean if local government creates additional charges for the removal of green waste? From one side, it’s presumably an effort to cut costs by passing them onto citizens. Maybe gardeners have been identified as the kind of people who’d bear that burden out of devotion to nature. But then it must act as a driver, discouraging us from tending plants if there’s further cost and inconvenience attached.

It’s one, small example but surely it all counts if we’re thinking of the kind of world we’re trying to create, sustain and cultivate together? Budgets may be this way of identifying likely sources of revenue and encouraging the patterns of behaviour that are deemed ‘right’ in some sense, but how well does that integrate with the bigger picture?

In terms of how to motivate people one way or another, money’s often a popular or convenient option (Notes Two). Provided we’re creating some degree of systemic sustainability or predictability, that seems more important than the sense of what we’re actually rewarding or punishing on the level of individual or collective motivation to ‘do the right thing’ for environment or community (Notes Three).

Of course, it’s not simple at all: everything’s so interconnected and funds have to be found ‘somewhere’ to keep things running. But the question of the ‘right’ approach to such decisions and how that might best combine with human intentions and values is also important. If we accept money as this powerful reality, what’s the best way to approach it?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Language and values
Note 1: Does it all balance out?
Note 2: The motivation of money
Note 2: Fear or coercion as motivators
Note 2: Tell me why I should
Note 3: Life and money, seamlessly interwoven
Note 3: What we bring to life

Ways to share this:

Desensitised to all we’re told?

Now we’re told so much, all the time, it seems likely we exist somewhere between being overwhelmed by or desensitised to it all. The idea of being able to correctly interpret, weigh up, and respond to everything we’re seeing and hearing seems almost impossible in a way.

Human attention – where it’s focussed, how much we have, and whether there’s any to spare – is presumably a finite resource; a limited and valuable commodity within personal life, business, and social or cultural conversations. And, if we don’t have unlimited capacity, then filling that up with pointless, unsettling things could be seen as a little troubling.

The risks of that may become most apparent when we look to the needs of citizenship: those areas of life where we’re called upon to understand things, see what’s happening, and contribute to our common direction. The ability to read and respond to reality must largely depend on holding a balanced perspective of all that’s going on and what matters most within it (see Notes One).

Which, stepping away from the weighty responsibilities of democracy, highlights the need for a thorough understanding of all life throws at us through its various channels. So much in life is truly important, and we often only get one chance to do the right thing; yet all those choices add up into patterns of behaviour that become a thing in themselves: social or economic forces with their own momentum and expectations (Note Two).

Within all that, the question of how we’re using our minds seems an obvious yet possibly overlooked one (Notes Three). Do we just ‘switch on’ the channel that is the human mind – the transmitter, receiver, flashlight, or some other metaphor – and attempt to process all that crosses its path? Is everything to be given the same weight, the same consideration, or can there be some filtering process of active discernment?

I would’ve thought there’s a risk we’d burn out, either in the processing or filtering stages: that we’d stop listening, resign ourselves to the meaninglessness or indecipherability of many messages and our seeming incapacity to even make a difference once we’d managed to reach some degree of certainty (Note Four).

In that light, what are we doing? Why is the ‘modern environment’ so full of relatively unimportant messages that seek to distract, coerce and redirect the human mind? And does it matter if we’re simply letting our thoughts be absorbed and caught up in some quite frivolous, unproductive and unintelligent ways of relating to reality? Given we ‘know’ that stakes are high, it’s a bit mysterious to me.

If, picking up the words of Huxley, “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”, then where does this leave us? Socially speaking, can we afford to buy into ways of communicating about life that risk undermining our capacity to form a reasoned, comprehensive sense of where we might be headed?

Notes and References:

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

Note 1: “Brave New World Revisited”
Note 1: Media within democratic society
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 3: What are we thinking?
Note 3: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 4: Right to question and decide

Building on the idea of how we might respond to life, there’s Responsibility in shaping this reality.

Ways to share this:

How things change

Thinking of culture and its role in reflecting social standards, it’s clear things are changing fast: attitudes that were apparently commonplace and unchallenged quite recently now come across as problematic at least.

Not to tap the hornet’s nest too much, I’m thinking of issues such as age or gender. How phrases like “be a man” appear so stereotypical, limited and disempowering; then all the views around women that focus on appearance, downplaying other intellectual, social or emotional qualities (Notes One). As if it’s reasonable to simplify people that way, making light of certain things yet emphasising others.

But maybe it’s great things are now starting to seem so “wrong”, because it shows we’re changing. Of course, it’s also showing that, even recently, ideas like this were seeping into minds, attitudes and relationships without much awareness (Note Two). It’s confronting to think how many unexamined prejudices or patterns of behaving have been presented as socially acceptable, culturally approved, ways of being.

Given that seems the case though, how could we move forward? Do we somehow hold onto that jarring dissonance, refusing to admit we might’ve been mistaken; or is there some way to allow change to happen without it threatening our collective sense of self or moral foundation? Can a society admit mistakes without completely losing its footing?

At times it feels like this earthquake, this gentle or dramatic tearing away from how things have been: unchallenged, flawed, imperfect. This sense of how people’s lives, ideas, careers, identities, relationships, so many things, have been tied up in these ways of thinking that modern society has, to a large extent, been built upon.

How can we feel about a society or culture that sheltered or encouraged attitudes we’re beginning to see as unacceptable? As our moral, social or ethical compasses re-tune to this new awareness of what was or is happening, what’s the right way to relate ourselves to a past we may not have seen as we now do? How might we withstand that kind of ethical tremor?

It could be that moral understanding and social values are always ‘evolving’; with law and cultural dialogue tending to chart their course alongside that (Notes Three). But then it’s also likely many would’ve been quite seriously hurt as we ‘waited’ for our ideas to catch up and assume the correct relationship to reality.

Navigating shifting values, without unduly justifying things or crippling people with shame, can seem impossible to achieve. We may expect people to shift faster than they feel able, given the psychological foundation we might be insisting they reassess. It’s not easy to see you’ve been wrong, and these conversations must be some of the more complex ones our blended societies have recently faced (Note Four).

But, also, change is exciting: that it’s even possible on personal let alone collective levels. Things might be happening fast, fact and opinion flying in from all directions, but surely that means we have the chance to match our ideas up better to these realities.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Women who run with the wolves”
Note 1: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 2: Writings on Education
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: What is acceptable?
Note 4: Testing times

Talking more about the question of change, there’s Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

Ways to share this:

We’re all vulnerable

In youth and age vulnerability is obviously more apparent. They are times we might be unable to defend ourselves physically or psychologically from things we encounter, things that leave their mark. Times we’re much more reliant on those who happen to be around us. But maybe we’re always vulnerable – in our past, present, or some future moment – simply as part of being human?

That could be framed in terms of mortality: how physical existence is inherently precarious, susceptible as we are to illness or accident; but also those social, personal and interpersonal realities that can affect us deeply at any point in our lives.

Every stage of life presents us with differing needs and risks. In youth we’re so dependent on environment, on ideas and people we encounter; experiences which have power to shape us for life. Then, our strengths, weaknesses or wounds can become compounded by paths we take into adulthood: our relationships, patterns of behaviour, inner stability or worth. So much in life builds on what’s gone before.

So it could be reasoned we’re always, in a way, vulnerable. It seems many, if not most, people have areas of physical or psychological insecurity that could be exacerbated or shored up during the course of a lifetime. Much as we might like to insure against or push it from our minds, we all have that impactful past and live in anticipation of a more dependent future.

In many ways, our relationship with the world is slightly tenuous: we need to form social, emotional and practical ties within our environment to meet our needs for shelter, psychological security, and so forth. Our ability to understand how to do so – to recognise both our strength and vulnerability – might be the territory of education, therapy, or social networks.

In that light, how should we act? How should we treat others, and ourselves? Knowing we’ve all been influenced by the past and may bear some wounds as a result; knowing we can all be hurt now, by ourselves or by others; knowing that everyone’s just as vulnerable, much as we might seek to cover it up (Notes One). How we relate to others and deal with all that’s making its way into society are fascinating, if confronting, questions.

Because, arguably, dealing with vulnerability is the foundation of law, regulation and human rights: all the ways we expect and rely on such principles to underpin our shared existence by keeping everyone safe, ensuring that practices or people who pose a risk are ‘controlled’ somehow, and hopefully spreading social values that sustain ‘good’ ways of living alongside one another (Notes Two).

Dealing with human nature presumably comes down as much to relationships and attitudes as it does to social systems we may all turn to when needs arise. At times, we all need different levels of support, consideration or care. But the extent we may be able to contribute to the security, stability and strength of society through everyday actions might also be worth considering.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Living as an open wound
Note 1: Beauty in unexpected places
Note 1: Masks we all wear
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: Laws and lawlessness
Note 2: Dealing with imperfection

Parallel to this, some of Emerson’s thoughts around what it is to be human were explored in The idea of self reliance.

Ways to share this: