Author: admin

How we feel about society

The idea of what society “is” and how best to view our roles within it seems a fascinating question: we all form part of these overlapping, reinforcing systems of how we relate to one another personally, socially, economically and so forth. It’s essentially this web of relationships that hopefully help sustain life, providing a degree of security and forward thinking.

Within all that, there’s obviously human beings in all our wonderful diversity and uniqueness: all having walked slightly different paths, forming slightly or dramatically different views of shared realities, picking up different ways of acting within and thinking about those systems. Experiences that surely matter, becoming the face we turn to the world in all the roles we play.

For each person, messages they receive about their worth matter: all the subtle ways we’re judged, encouraged, undermined, welcomed, listened to or disregarded. Because it does seem modern society judges more than anything else, conceiving of life as a fight for scarce resources with everyone in competition (see Notes One).

Approval is scarce as we constantly need “more” if we hope to keep up with others and the pace of change. This never-ending flow of innovation, improvement or novelty we must apparently chase in order to be considered a modern, progressive human. We’re invited to wage war on our natural selves in the name of beauty, fashion or eternal youth.

Of course, part of society is developing ideas and sharing in cultural products: finding solutions, different ways of doing things, new arrangements of colour or form that become the latest trend in our ongoing visual games. There’s wonderful creativity to the human mind and a beauty to how we make this communal life out of self-expression. But it’s also just business.

Our position within society – that conversation between self and community, where we fit, how we’re seen, whether it values who we are – now largely seems an economic question. We only choose from what’s offered, positioning ourselves one way or another in relation to the “standards” of culture and advertising (Notes Two).

So much in that comes down to money: a lot of what’s valued is stuff that can be bought, and to get money you must play the game. Yet the field’s been set and the outcome’s pretty clear from the start; the parameters of this conversation aren’t really up for discussion.

In that picture, human worth effectively comes down to narrowly defined windows of approval that, conveniently, serve various industries extremely well while keeping most of us in this perpetual state of anxiety as we battle to keep up in a world where each passing day arguably diminishes our value (Notes Three).

Does it need to be that way? Does it serve us? It might be a wonderful economic model – a captive audience seeking to belong – but it makes me wonder what life might be like if we were truly appreciated for all we’ve overcome, all we strive to bring to life through roles we all play within society.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The worth of each life
Note 1: Ways of living & those who suffer
Note 2: “Women who run with the wolves”
Note 2: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 2: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 3: Fashion, self & environment
Note 3: Culture, art & human activity

Shifting to a specific example, the idea of modern thinking impacting how we live together was explored in Real estate, rental and human nature.

Ways to share this:

Krishnamurti’s “Inward Revolution”

We live in times where many are calling for change, and maybe that’s always the case: this forward motion of civilisation as we seek forms that suit us better as individuals, collectively, and in our relationship to wider human and natural environments. This sense of the ideas, values and principles guiding society and personal existence is fascinating to consider, as surely so much in life comes from how we think about things?

In that context, “Inward Revolution” by Krishnamurti offers itself as a potentially valuable way of re-thinking how we stand within society. It’s a collection of talks around the nature of thought and how it relates to identity, conflict and reality itself; asking us to consider how we’re living and whether our patterns of thought might actually be creating quite considerable problems.

Ideas around how thought creates division between the observer and observed, representing reality in a way slightly removed from direct perception, and often tying us to past experiences are fundamental concerns reminiscent of other writers drawing on Eastern traditions (see Notes One). Questions of the mind and its relationship to the self seem just as relevant and problematic as ever.

And, similar to Eckhart Tolle, Krishnamurti can clearly come across as circular and somewhat evasive in his presentation. But, in both cases, it may well be that their conversational way of engaging with contemporary thinking serves a valuable purpose in challenging existing thought patterns, so we might come to see differently.

The central thread here is this sense of our thinking and identity being conditioned by society: how we’ve developed and sustain these systems, so “to change the structure of that culture you have to change yourself.” Which inevitably raises the question of whether the conditioned mind can ever become free of the environment, the conditioning structures, we’ve created and accepted.

Coming to a clear understanding of the human condition, the influences of society, and the nature of thought itself certainly seems worthwhile in terms of overcoming problems that might stem from those realities (Notes Two). If we’re the result of environment, and if personally identifying with our thinking causes fragmentation and conflict, then it’s logical to conclude that inward change might be the key.

Finding a state of mind that sees beyond divisions and conditioning – seeing reality without prejudice or fixed ideas – presumably would reflect a mind “capable of a different kind of knowing”, a space of greater peace and harmony with the true nature of reality. The idea of stepping into more direct relationship with life, through perception rather than mental representation, is an intriguing idea of freedom.

So, while I don’t entirely share Krishnamurti’s views, it’s a book I find useful in terms of strengthening the mind: he saw life a certain way and set about articulating that for others, becoming this sparring dialogue that might help heighten our “sensitivity” to the world of thought. What we accept is down to us, but our personal inner journey surely contributes to the world we share.

Notes and References:

“Inward Revolution, Bringing About Radical Change in the World” by J. Krishnamurti, (Shambhala, Boston), 2005 (originally 1971)

Note 1: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle
Note 1: Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being
Note 1: The business of spiritual ideas
Note 2: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 2: The philosopher stance

Ways to share this:

Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

If we don’t like how things are, can we just change them? It seems, individually and collectively, we’re habitual creatures and also look for ideas we can “lock in”. But life flows and changes: growing, shifting direction, adapting to conditions or opportunities. If life’s responsive but we aren’t, how does that work?

Because human society’s this growing, evolving thing (see Notes One). Ideas emerge, some drifting into policy or strongly taking hold of culture, and how we live changes. People adapt, taking advantage of all they’re entitled to, and the fabric of society is altered.

One thing leads to another and ideas make their way into our lives, shifting relationships and maybe affecting the values that are placed at the forefront of our social systems. That must be this evolving reality too: the balance of what we’re “saying” through attitudes and policies. Over time the original impetus for society must drift, small changes adding up to paint quite different pictures.

Times change too: the world we live in now’s significantly altered from a hundred years ago, even twenty years ago; the pace and weight of change seem to really be shifting fast. How can habitual creatures keep up? Should we just let go, go with the flow, see where we end up, trusting in the wisdom of change or the wisdom of those “in charge” of it? Is the only alternative to dig in our heels?

Change is fascinating to contemplate, because it happens even if we do nothing. We might do the same as we’ve ever done, but if the situation’s different that may no longer be the best action. We might like how things were and try to cling to them, but holding onto something doesn’t change the fact its time might’ve passed. Changes can be incremental or dramatic, and they can happen without us realising.

Personally or socially, in every area of life time marches on and changes must catch up with us eventually. We might not have noticed; some might have happened while we were looking elsewhere; seemingly unrelated changes might suddenly converge into a pattern that holds greater significance; we might have trusted in certain things, not realising we shouldn’t.

In the face of all that, what can we do? We can’t go back. Most things cannot be undone, much as we might’ve learnt from them and now wish we could do differently. We might have been sorely mistaken, but we can only go forwards. We could beat ourselves up, hold ourselves hostage for not having seen things clearly or blame others for not telling us, but that would incapacitate us now.

As thinking beings, keeping track of all that’s going on and understanding what matters is a massive undertaking (Notes Two). Keeping pace with modern life without getting swept up or overwhelmed by it is an incredible challenge. Being responsive in our actions, admitting mistakes, trying to all get on the same page about where things stand? None of it’s easy; but it’s life.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Complexity of life
Note 1: The conversation of society
Note 2: The philosopher stance
Note 2: Dealing with imperfection
Note 2: Right to question and decide

Ways to share this:

Worthless, or priceless?

Fairly often my writing can drift, a little unexpectedly, into some quite weighty concerns about humanity and modern life. And while I generally try to lift things toward being slightly more optimistic, at times what’s emerged seems pretty valid. Like last week’s post on Value and worth in our relationships, asking about how we relate to others.

I’ve talked before about how modern society often equates our worth with financial considerations (see Notes One), which could be seen as almost undeniable at this point in time. But is it truly the case, or is such thinking merely the product of our social ideas and systems?

Not wanting to get drawn into political issues, I’m simply asking about the worth of a human life: is our value as a person in any way to be equated with money? Money being a system for valuing goods, property, assets – does that have any place in estimations of humanity? It might be quantifiable, it might be how we’ve come to manage society, but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Of course, practically speaking, money does shape our lives: our opportunities and difficulties; goods and services we have access to; how others tend to treat us and the power we have as a result. All of that’s “true”. Within our societies and between them, money carries weight and influence people won’t want to relinquish. But beyond understanding “how things are”, are we really evaluating people on this basis?

I get that we need ways of relating, of differentiating our positions within society. Human community is clearly a set of relationships and a way of coordinating our activities to support the needs of that collective entity. Historically, social structures have reflected the power individuals have had in controlling key aspects of that system, guiding or dictating how people related to one another within it.

My question, if I’m allowed to ask it, is whether we might be sorely mistaken in thinking this way. It’s not an easy question. My writing here’s always most difficult when touching on modern attitudes that seem to be passing unchallenged (Notes Two). It’s hard to write when my point seems to be that “the elderly are still people, deserving of respect”. Surely such things shouldn’t need to be said?

But apparently we live in a world where we can talk of people “adding value”, “being a drain on society”, “costing others dearly” or not being “worthwhile” in various ways. Can we apply maths to humanity in this way, or are we crossing a line when we do so?

When my thoughts amble in this direction I find myself wondering if I should pursue them or cut them short. Is that even a valid question? Can such concerns be left unraised or, as a human, would I be inhuman to not consider them worthwhile? We, as people, live in a world of things and, therefore, money; but surely we’re wrong to think a human life is anything less than invaluable.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The value of each human being
Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 1: I am not just a sum
Note 2: What inspires all of this
Note 2: Morality and modern thought
Note 2: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman

Looking to how we might respond differently in life, see: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves, The idea of self reliance, or The human spirit.

Ways to share this:

Value and worth in our relationships

When we look at one another, do we automatically seek to define our relationship? Assessing to what degree they might be a threat or an ally: a rival in how we wish to be regarded or the power we want to hold, or someone who might bolster our status and develop us in areas we may feel we are lacking. But, beyond that, could there be another way of valuing human existence?

Often it seems we’re encouraged to view others somewhat strategically, in terms of how we compare and how that might impact us. I’m not really sure why, but it’s arguably woven through how we learn to relate from school and ways we’re taught to approach the social world of work, status and security. Modern culture’s peppered with ways to judge, compare, label, and differentiate ourselves through the process.

This way of approaching one another must’ve come from somewhere, but it’s quite combative. It’s essentially viewing human society as a competition wherein we must seek strategic advantage; reading our social world, positioning ourselves “wisely” and making sure we get ahead. It seems to mainly view others to the extent they serve your purposes.

That kind of social or psychological reasoning doesn’t sit well with me, but it seems to play a big part in how the world’s working. It’s beginning to seem “normal” that we might assess friendships in terms of how much they support us, our ideas on life, and where we want to be heading: creating a brand, an image, a tribe, and allowing yourself to be drawn into their orbit, absorbing their talents or outlook.

I’m not sure humans have always approached social relationships that way; although we might believe that to be the case. Is it right to view others strategically? Might their life not have value beyond how it can serve others? Might treating people like resources, stepping stones, supporting characters in our own drama be downplaying the worth of our existence?

It’s strange to me how we’re constantly evaluating others: casting an eye over them to see how pretty, young, stylish they might be; deciding what labels best fit and how they stack up to us in whatever competition we feel ourselves a part of (see Notes One). It seems we make all these subtle judgements then relate accordingly, adopting tones of condescension or confidence depending on the conclusions we’ve drawn.

Is that normal? Is it normal to see people so transactionally, rating them against whatever standards we decided to apply then relating to them on that basis? Is there no longer a baseline of respect, courtesy, interest, understanding, or recognition of the unwavering value of each human life? Modern life might have a pace that threatens to overwhelm our capacity to care, but being human can’t have changed that much (Notes Two).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s completely fine and without consequence to relate to other people in this way; but it might be worthwhile being sure on the matter (Notes Three).

Notes and References:

Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 1: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 2: The worth of each life
Note 2: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 3: Zimbardo & the problem of evil
Note 3: What if it all means something?

Ways to share this:

Conversation as revelation

What’s happening when we talk to one another? In putting our ideas, experiences or hopes into words are we simply drawing on memory and filling time, or also bringing something new to life?

At times we might be sharing ourselves: offering our ideas and happenings up for discussion, scrutiny and, possibly, correction. We might be letting others into how we see life, its challenges and opportunities; seeking in return their insight, the perspectives they are able to contribute through their own experiences of life (see Notes One). This pooling of understanding and social creation of meaning can be so fascinating.

And maybe, through casting the light of our mind over our experiences in order to express them to another, we might also be transforming them: seeing new patterns, drawing memories into new relationships, observing our thoughts and their meanings differently. We might begin to understand our role as agent, our position in social life, and our connections with the world in new ways.

From the wealth of personal experiences plus all those thoughts, ideas and storylines we encounter in life, we could arguably create any number of differing interpretations about what it all means, what matters most, and where to focus our attention (Note Two). The arc, the spin, the weight we give to the various elements of our story could easily lead us to vastly different conclusions.

If our minds are open and alert, conversations must have the power to lead to deeper understanding or greater confusion. We might circle for ever, caught in old patterns, unable to break the spell of interpretations we once accepted wholeheartedly. Or we might, through the involvement of others, begin to reassess our ideas and apply new thinking in that realm. The mind could well become a prison or a liberation (Notes Three).

And then, sometimes, we might even find ourselves walking into completely new territory: learning even as you hear yourself speaking. One thought leading to another, we might take steps into the unknown and seek understanding where previously our mind hadn’t thought or dared to set foot. We might utter words in a different formula, break all our patterns, and suddenly see things in a new light.

It’s an interesting thought, the extent to which expressing our ideas might influence our lives: reinforcing those walls that might be limiting us, allowing others to broaden our horizons, or approaching it all as a voyage of discovery. Without communication, it might be that we’re largely trapped by our own thinking, unable to inject fresh reasoning or re-evaluate how we’ve been seeing things.

In all these ways, conversation might serve us well by bringing in insight we didn’t hold before. Our shared words could become a journey, forming a path from our past, through our present and on into our future. The act of opening up our inner world to others, seeking a way to bridge that gap and make our ideas more commonly known, could then become quite a constructive yet beautiful thing.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Counselling, listening & social identity
Note 1: “People Skills”
Note 2: What are we thinking?
Note 3: Podcasts as models of transformation
Note 3: Spiritually committed literature

Ways to share this:

The idea of self reliance

Emerson’s ideas around what it might mean to be human are easily as beautiful as they are challenging: we are what life has made us, but what we make of that is down to us.

Our experiences, insights and understanding are unique to each person: “The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray.” We’ve all lived our own lives, meeting those who happened to cross our paths, drawing conclusions from all we’ve done and the lessons we’ve learnt about life, society and human nature.

Out of that, we have our understanding. We’ve reached a certain level of comprehension about how the world works, how we got here, and how best to act within that picture. Life gave us these ideas, and “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Surely we can only know what we have encountered, what we’ve understood and seen to be important (see Note One).

Where do we go from there? Should we simply go along with others, conforming in order to belong, or do as Emerson concluded: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.” Everyone thinking, speaking and acting confidently from experience yet inclusively of others is a powerful idea, although not without challenges (Notes Two).

In terms of human society we may wish for an easy life with little conflict, but where does it lead? Unless there truly are no problems to resolve – no differences or disparities to be acknowledged and respectfully incorporated – then we must need to have difficult conversations. Going along with things out of a desire for ease, enjoyment or company may also mean being slightly less than true.

Rather than avoid things, we could say “I will stand here for humanity, and though I would make it kind, I would make it true.” We could draw on our experience, explore that of others, and attempt to find real understanding there. We could also accept that people change and make mistakes, that who they once were may not be who they now are, that life changes us and we might do well to take that into account (Notes Three).

The idea that “Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation” seems a far more beautiful approach to life: that we all carry the fruit of our existence, with much to offer through our insight and presence. To be true to ourselves – accountable to our ideals, beliefs or principles, but acting free from the opinion of others – is an exciting idea of what being human could mean.

Finding the centre of our being, the truth of our experiences, and the courage to bring something new to life out of the path we’ve taken is, to me, such a powerful view of life. Because, at the end of the day, we have ourselves: our minds, our wealth of insights, and our agency for change.

Notes and References:

“Essays” by Ralph Waldo Emerson (Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, Bungay, Suffolk) originally published in 1841.

Note 1: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 2: Communicating divergent experiences
Note 2: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 3: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 3: Intrinsic worth over society identity

Ways to share this:

Counselling, listening & social identity

When we communicate, we share our selves: our view on life; our beliefs, concerns and priorities; what matters most to us at that moment. And, doing so, we’re probably also highlighting our blind spots, struggles and fundamental assumptions about existence. Surely when we speak, in putting our thoughts into words, we are revealing how we see things and where we stand.

But current frameworks of communication often present this as a forum for self-expression, for insisting others share your views, for establishing a brand or tribe. All that, to me, seems destined for conflict and division: it’s using that space of communality for spotlighting the self, waging battle in the realm of ideas, and strengthening some while excluding others (see Notes One).

It’s undoubtedly a different way of approaching people. Are conversations places to be heard, to share thoughts, broaden awareness and learn about those things we may not yet have encountered; or places to be feared where we must protect ourselves from judgements, attacks and attempts to reshape us?

I guess it boils down to ways knowledge tends to be limited, partial and imperfect. By the fact of our existence we’ve grown up within a culture, a family, a society; absorbing their lessons, drawing our own conclusions, choosing a path within what’s presented to us. Of course, that experience will be limited and our understanding likely to contain many unexamined, possibly mistaken, attitudes we’ve not yet brought under scrutiny.

Within that, does it help if we cannot use communication to expand our awareness? If our understanding’s pretty much guaranteed to be limited, while society itself is becoming this incredibly rich place where all the diversity of life can now rub shoulders and pool insights, then surely having the right model for relating to one another emerges as something quite important (Notes Two).

Listening and offering feedback have presumably always been personally and socially valuable. How else are we going to understand fully if we cannot run our ideas past others and receive respectful, considerate correction should it be required? If we just hold to our ideas, defending but refusing to examine them, where does that leave us?

Because the way experiences inform ideas, both those essentially shaping our identity – that sense of self we then defend and build our social life around – raises interesting questions around the value of communication and how we might ‘help each other out’ of whatever limitations we may have (Notes Three).

Notions of counsel, consulting others and seeking advice, then present themselves in a new light. The authority of cultural tradition may once have served to guide people, offering a clear voice and standards for living. Now, we might have little more than complete freedom, resistance to anyone limiting it, and the desire only for a reasonably coherent inner storyline to live by.

And, having only managed to sketch out these ideas, I’ll likely revisit this at some point; because it seems questions of communication, healing and understanding might well be fruitful to re-examine.

Notes and References:

Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 1: The way to be
Note 2: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 2: “People Skills”
Note 3: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection

Ways to share this:

Why are we like this about the weather?

Likely my most ‘British’ topic so far, but it intrigues me how much weather and climate might shape our outlook on life and day to day moods. How we respond to and live within our environment seems so important if we’re to create harmony within ourselves and in the world at large.

Whether surroundings leave us feeling relaxed and warm, or lead us to ‘battle’ against heat or cold could presumably impact our basic psychological makeup: how at ease, vigilant or protective we are. Maybe that might even foster tendencies toward optimism or pessimism, as we feel ‘welcomed’ by the world around us or uncomfortable within it.

Anecdotally, people generally seem happier, more outgoing and open to others on sunny days – as if the soul soars and we’re all happy to be alive. Persistently cold or wet weather might leave us frustrated, inward, starved of sunlight. But then unusual events such as snow or storms more often seem to bring out community spirit and childlike appreciation of the power of nature.

And I suppose it’s difficult to gain a real sense of the extent to which all this influences us as people, because differences in climate and culture must almost go hand in hand: geographical locations having shaped agriculture, seasonal patterns of work and cultural traditions throughout the year (see Notes One). Culture and nature must be quite closely interwoven, I would’ve thought.

These days we may have the ‘luxury’ of shopping around or opting out of seasonal realities – travelling further afield to ensure we have a reasonable summer holiday, possibly moving country if that climate and lifestyle suit us better, or just generally working and living more independently of nature’s moods – but it’s arguably not a relationship we can or should forget about entirely (Notes Two).

Whether we still live in close connection with it or not, nature undeniably continues to sustain us in countless incredible and unfathomable ways. How could we exist without an environment to live in, and what would such a life be like? So much of value seems to come from experiencing the joy, wonder and variety of nature.

Slightly paradoxically, it appears we’re both losing touch with and becoming overly sensitive to nature. Life now tends to take us a step or two away from engaging with our environment: work and culture not being so tied to the rhythms of nature, it can be more an inconvenience than a reality. And alongside that – possibly partly because of it – nature itself seems to be struggling, adapting to all we’re throwing at it.

Maybe that’s the thing: having detached ourselves from nature’s realities we’re not acting so much in harmony with it, not actively tending it or considering our impacts, while also having these artificially heightened reactions to events which are now communicated in sensationally dramatic tones (Notes Three).

Ultimately, maybe all this really signals is the need to re-create more meaningful relationships with our environment, to treat it with understanding rather than intolerance or indifference?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Culture and the passing of time
Note 1: Aesthetic value of nature
Note 2: Nature speaks in many ways, do we listen?
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 3: We may as well laugh
Note 3: Anger as a voice

Ways to share this:

What is acceptable?

The sense of what’s OK and what isn’t makes an interesting conversation. After all, who’s to say what matters and what standards should or can be applied within a collective setting? Obviously there’s law which is reasonably well-defined, but also evolving; then our strongly held but strangely formed beliefs or conventions around how to live. Between all that, where do we stand?

Looking at it traditionally there are those stories we tell or are told that serve to justify, explain or sustain society and foster the attitudes seen as necessary within it: the narratives of history, culture or belief that shape our sense of identity, belonging and commitment to a common path.

Within that, certain characteristics, qualities or values might stand out as prized by any given society: ways of being that are encouraged and socially validated as admirable. A country’s traditions, celebrations and conversations effectively becoming this process of reinforcement as citizens are reminded of their past, the events and people who made it what it is.

While ‘all that’ may have been strongly felt even into recent generations however, it seems to be fading somewhat. National storylines that, by default, seek to make themselves right and others wrong are hard to maintain alongside the internet, where multiple perspectives are far more present and narratives harder to control. We now know that single truths are only part of a story.

In that world, what’s the right way to be? These days law itself is more often seeming a battleground where economic or social interests fight for rights, recognition or vindication on a playing field where money tends to win. But, even without that, is the legal system ever a starting point for social standards or simply the last recourse for proving a point?

Beyond what’s covered by law, there’s clearly a vast territory of social behaviour that also needs some regulation (see Notes One). Without the strongly held reins of tradition, education or religion, what guides us? While in the past there may’ve been greater respect for authority and received wisdom, we’re now seeming more fiercely individualistic as we reject, question and disdain much we might be told.

We might all have our own sense of right and wrong – the outcome of praise, punishment or environment teaching us what society values so we adjust ourselves accordingly – which we may see as beyond question, but much of it surely arises from a subjective experience of social pressures and personal desires (Notes Two). Do we truly know what’s best, beyond that process of social approximation?

It’s interesting to consider, as in many ways the fabric of society seems to have been deconstructed in a fairly small period of time. Shared ideas of how to be and why, once quite clear, now appear almost non-existent. Behind that though, ideas of morality or ethics based upon the worth of human life, the impact we have, and how that forms realities we all have to reckon with are presumably just as important as ever.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 1: Antisocial behaviour & the young
Note 1: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 2: Human nature and community life
Note 2: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 2: “The Spirit of Community”

In terms of how we practically manage our lives together, all of this weaves into the theme of Community.

Ways to share this: