Category: Change

In life it seems we can flit between ‘reality’ and that which we think, hope or imagine could happen. Yet, reality also being that place where problems exist and change needs to begin, there clearly has to be some overlap if we’re to attempt bringing better ideas into practice.

We almost undeniably live in an imperfect world: despite our intelligence, experience and often fine intentions, problematic behaviours and systems still persist and maybe even compound themselves. After all, if problems go unchecked – actions and attitudes having few apparent consequences – then what is there to prompt improvement? (see Notes One).

In that context, those seeking change may well get disheartened, angry, bitter. I mean, if you see problems, care deeply, and know enough to suspect it may become a far, far bigger cause for concern, then you’ll likely want to do something about it. Although others might attempt to discredit you, criticise your reasoning or dismiss it as idealism, you may also be right and speaking only out of concern for where things might lead.

And that seems to come down to the relationships between thought and reality, action and consequence, responsibility and agency (Notes Two). We may be habitually behaving in ways that don’t ultimately serve us well, but understanding reality thoroughly enough to see, in thought, the better path isn’t simple. And believing your ideas, intentions and actions matter is both incredibly powerful and confronting.

It takes confidence to change course; it may seem ‘safer’ to continue as you were rather than make changes and thereby become responsible for them. And all the while you’re doing as you were told, you can lay blame elsewhere. However I don’t think we can simply blame those who don’t realise their importance in the scheme of things either, as it’s not something we’re often told or given much time to contemplate.

Hopefully then, those able to see pressing problems and anticipate where it might all lead will push for the changes needed to avert disaster. And they may, quite rationally, conclude that the potential for transformation only exists in the present moment: that change only happens naturally if we can either understand its necessity or trust in those who tell us of it. Who to trust is a big question.

But believing in your responsibility, understanding your power, and trusting your ideas despite what’s going on around you are those remarkable qualities most often praised in figures such as Gandhi, Mandela, Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King. Having clarity of insight, courage in your convictions and persistence in following them through aren’t really commonplace human attributes, much as we might need and admire them.

Essentially, navigating flawed realities, acting wisely, finding the right places to stand, and respectfully convincing others of their importance are all tricky. Without foresight, vision and willingness, life is more than a little daunting; yet the paths towards effective communication and cooperation are also far from clear. But when has anything worthwhile ever really come without great effort?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Tell me why I should
Note 1: Fear or coercion as motivators
Note 2: The philosopher stance
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 2: What is real?

Looking more at the time it takes to make things happen, there’s Patience with the pace of change.

Ideas around knowing what to do in life, where we stand, what it means, where we want to be headed, and whether we’re on the right track with it all often preoccupy me (see Notes One). This sense of seeing the possibilities, sifting through them, and deciding what to do for the best.

It’s the undercurrent of this writing, and something I’ve struggled with from the outset: not wanting to limit my scope too much, I created a structure where I could talk about anything. But then, clearly, you need to be a little selective. How do you create a system that balances freedom with necessary constraint?

You might flit around in endless novelty, following whatever idea takes your fancy and ending up on strange paths leading to stranger places. You might impose a fairly rigid system to ensure that kind of thing doesn’t happen and everything proceeds steadily; but then you might end up in an equally strange place, bogged down by prescriptive detail.

Thought’s an interesting one, as it can often take on a life of its own and lead to such outcomes. It’s like it has this intrinsic sense of where to go next, this logical train of ideas that draw you down such pathways. Then the ability to see connections sneaks in and suddenly you’re caught in a web that’s pulling you down by the sheer weight of its implications.

All that’s as true of this writing as it is of mind, society, technology and modern life in general (Notes Two). We have these connections: all this knowledge, these complex relationships we may or may not see, and the sense of each thing leading to countless others. It can easily seem like too much and, in the face of that, we might turn back to the lighter frivolous path or cling to systems we once established.

And that, for me, is where discernment really needs to step in: that we somehow find the means to hold our ground, see what matters, and decide to let go of some things. This idea of all that we might choose to leave undone; letting perfectly good options fall by the wayside. Then, what might prompt us to change, be that threats, promises or honest insight into where we might be going wrong.

Because there’s so much choice in life: as consumers, with friendships, or in terms of what we do, how we are, ways we present ourselves to the world, thoughts we think and words we might say. Without a clearer sense of what we’re doing, what’s valuable and what’s more of a hindrance to us or to others, then it seems we risk going nowhere fast.

I’m talking on a lot of levels here, as is my way, but mainly just acknowledging a shift from the contracted path this writing had drifted onto. As it seems I’m the kind of person who likes things to be stated, recognised, honestly released, even if nobody knew there was a problem.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The philosopher stance
Note 1: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 2: Mental health as a truth to be heard?
Note 2: The web and the wider world

It seems there’s a fairly common assumption that we, as humans, need to be made to change our behaviour: that threats or promises are normal tools for enticing us to leave our habitual comfort zones and do what is expected of us. But surely this raises a great deal of questions, not least of which being ‘where does it lead?’

By my understanding, it’s a view of human nature that emphasises the power of psychological and social factors in driving changes: that we respond fairly ‘well’ to the carrot and the stick, as our desire to belong makes rejection or pain the perfect leverage. And it’s clearly pretty widespread thinking, with incentives and punishments forming core principles within education, taxation, social provision and so on.

My concern though is with how it seems to oversimplify and underplay our capacity for understanding, turning instead to our more sub-conscious tendencies. Are we creatures to be tricked behind our own backs, or beings that can be treated with respect and encouraged to think for ourselves? That, of course, may not be the easiest of questions to answer (see Notes One).

Having a sense of what keeps society together and serves us all best is obviously an incredibly important thing to hold in mind, but it certainly doesn’t seem straightforward (Notes Two). Yet these very direct attempts to motivate our behaviour in given directions surely imply a clear idea on where we’re headed, how, and why. Whether we’re talking about social or economic realities, there appear to be strategies at play.

And that’s not necessarily to judge, as all these things need to be organised somehow. It’s just that the lack of clarity and therefore freedom around some of the ‘choices’ we’re presented with also seems worth keeping in mind.

Because it’s certainly insightful to consider the weight such influences can have over our actions in life (Notes Three). I can see why governments, businesses and people in general would want to understand human psychology then use it for their own ends. After all, this knowledge is a tool at everyone’s disposal, and much of life can be seen as using our resources to meet genuine or manufactured needs.

But, in that, I would’ve thought responsibility, transparency and respect are paramount. If we are to use social or psychological means for influencing others to act in accordance with what we deem to be their (or our) best interests, surely we need to be quite careful? And if we are to entrust important aspects of our decisions in life to such guidance, it might be good to be clear on that too.

Personally, I’ve never been keen on being directed beyond my conscious awareness; although obviously it takes some weight off decision-making (Notes Four). As an alternative, educating people so they’re capable of handling complex realities and interrelationships, aware of the deeper significance of their roles and responsibilities, and freely able to shift course as their understanding broadens might be a brighter path to follow.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: Zimbardo & the problem of evil
Note 1: The human spirit
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 2: Human nature and community life
Note 3: Tell me why I should
Note 3: The motivation of money
Note 3: Age, politics and human reasoning
Note 3: Need to suffer in order to change?
Note 4: “Paradox of Choice”
Note 4: “The Tipping Point”

There’s often this idea that difficulty inspires us to make changes; the notion that to motivate self-development we might make our discomfort greater in order to spur us on. Which makes sense in a way: to strip away our avoidance and force ourselves to really experience certain things so we’re more likely to address them. But is it the only way?

It’s an interesting question, as there’s certainly a lot of suffering on both the individual and social scale (see Notes One). Is the thinking that psychological or socio-economic suffering will motivate people to change their ways to align more with a specific model? That’s a completely exploratory question, as I genuinely find the psychology of the modern world baffling!

Of course, beliefs around the value of suffering have been around a long time: moral, spiritual or religious reflections as to the ultimate meaning and worth of struggles within the frame of human life. Maybe it’s just that those conversations now happen most in the light of social policy, health care, and the regulation of global systems.

Suffering, I imagine, could be considered as inward or outward: inner battles with mental, psychological or physical realities that might make life challenging; then those more systemic limitations of social division, geography or opportunity that effectively serve to make life difficult and, in a certain sense, unequal.

And, given how external life must shape our understanding (Notes Two), I’d also imagine there’s a fair amount of crossover between inner difficulties and outer realities. That clearly has sweeping implications, encompassing a vast array of intensely lived and felt human experiences, and I’m often hesitant over how far to reach with my thinking from my inevitably limited perspective; but my overriding hope or intention here is to find ground where inclusive and powerful conversation can take place (Notes Three).

Returning closer to the topic, is it true we see suffering as justifiable? Is discomfort really a driver that motivates us to release ourselves from its grip and move toward something better? And, what is that ‘something’– what vision do we have on a social, personal or economic level that we feel will resolve all our woes? I’m not quite sure what the vision of the Western world is, beyond this idea of freedom from suffering.

This has once again become much vaster than anticipated, but maybe it’s worth it. Because surely an alternative would be to change based on the understanding and conviction of its necessity. Rather than tolerate suffering, sweep it away or lay blame elsewhere, could we come to see the full implications of how we’re living within the realm of thought then commit to change based on that level of insight?

I don’t know. Maybe we need to live it out, see the consequences and have them articulated with a human voice for us to hear. Unfortunately the conclusion seems likely to be that it was foreseeable and our reasoning questionable, but maybe harsh realities might serve us in the long run?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 1: Ways of living and those who suffer
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 2: Mental health as a truth to be heard?
Note 2: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 3: Things we can’t talk about
Note 3: How do we find a collective vision?

For a more philosophical take on the challenges arising from thought, there’s David Bohm, thoughts on life and What is real?

With everything I’ve written about here this year, plus all those things I’ve not touched upon, there’s always the question of whether there’s much hope to be found within it all. In many ways that’s the central concern of all my writing, and it seems a reasonable endpoint for this year.

For me, there’s this sense that we’re being shaped and our lives informed by the systems we inhabit: all the ways this influences us and creates the realities we then have to live through, justify, or make our peace with (see Notes One). We might trust those systems as being the best that’s possible; grounded in a history of deep thought and moral struggle; ultimately in all our best interests; and peopled by those who respect certain principles, standards, and the need for ethical and responsible behaviour. We might believe there’s wisdom there, and that if we walk the paths we’re shown then it will work out well in the end; that its ideas and recommendations are based on an unshakeable understanding of human nature, countless variables, and all possible consequences for our collective futures.

But then, clearly, it’s becoming quite problematic in practice as we see flaws in how things are being run and undesirable impacts it’s having on our lives (Notes Two). We seem to be struggling in so many areas: effective communication; balanced and responsible economic realities that respect the dignity and value of life; inclusive and compassionate social structures and attitudes; personal or collective peace and wellbeing; this list could continue, with each word a portal into a whole world of our hopes, fears, wounds, and efforts. Understanding society, the importance of our roles within it, and the best ways to engage with that is extremely challenging and also tends to come up against efforts to guide or control us, however mistaken that may be.

Within all of that, is there cause for hope that we might be able to improve or redevelop these realities? It seems to me that people are ultimately well-meaning and generally concerned with the bigger picture of others’ suffering and expectation of happiness for now and for the future. That those values originally underpinning modern society could be reinvigorated and find stronger expression through the practicalities of everyday life. While it might be in human nature to exploit and serve our own interests, I see it’s also in the human spirit to be resilient, determined and insist that our shared way of life more accurately reflect our values and principles (Notes Three).

Of course that’s idealistic in a way, although arguably also grounded in practical realism. After all, what choice do we have? It could be that society is best seen as an ongoing project, based on a thorough understanding of what’s most important in life, and requiring our active and constructive involvement in upholding, maintaining and improving the implementation of those values. The idea of that kind of deliberate engagement seems to me where hope might still be found.

Notes and References:

Note 1: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 1: Created a system we seek to escape?
Note 1: Culture selling us meaning
Note 1: Ways of living & those who suffer
Note 2: The web and the wider world
Note 2: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 2: Nature speaks in many ways, do we listen?
Note 2: Education with the future in mind
Note 3: Hope as a force to lead us onward
Note 3: Intrinsic values on the paths for change?
Note 3: The worth of each life

For a more creative take on this, Thoughts on art & on life explored ways we might look at how the world’s changing.

What is it to have vision? Ideas on what it’s all about and how things could be. Is that even what life’s about anymore, or are we more or less going with the flow? And is it even possible to reach an all-encompassing sense of where we want to be headed? It’s interesting to consider, and surely quite important in many ways (see Notes One).

I’ve talked occasionally about the flow of time (Notes Two), essentially toying with thoughts about the ‘weight’ of the past and whether it’s possible to grasp a true understanding of it. We stand at the end of a long chain of experiences and ways of being that have handed us the tools and outlooks at our disposal, and where to go from there seems a valid question.

I mean, we have knowledge on a level never before experienced: knowledge of the material world around us and also of the diverse societies making up the globe, currently and historically. That’s an immense body of information, possibly bottomless, even before looking at the volume of ideas now being churned out each day.

Trying to fathom that and gain a full picture of everything we can know seems to border on the impossible. Of course, the information is there and almost everything can be considered valuable, with a lesson to teach and a human reality to appreciate. But where can we draw the line? Do we have the capacity to gain a truly global perspective, and how much does it ultimately help us to do so?

That’s one part of my question here: can we gain a clear view of the past, the pathway to current realities. Then, beyond that, there’s the issue of what happens next. If we manage to form a sense of ‘where we stand’, does it lead to understanding what should be done for the best?

Which I guess is politics: the ideas we have or defend, the principles we feel we can afford to stand behind, the options we’re offered for society. Whether or not politics can deliver what might be necessary is a completely different question, as is its complex relationships with other areas of social and economic life. But it does seem ‘vision’ finds a home of sorts within politics.

Beyond that though, how does our understanding or worldview shape our personal and interpersonal realities? And where do we get these ideas from? What we think about life and the importance of our roles within it must have a profound impact on our daily decisions and their inevitable consequences (Notes Three).

I suppose what I’m wanting here is to push things back and create a clearer space to work with; to find the essential framework for understanding where we are and what it all means. As thinking beings, surely our ideas on life and the wisdom of our actions matter a great deal. Finding ways to grasp it all, make sense of it, and move forward seems a uniquely modern challenge.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Towards a New World View”
Note 1: Where’s the right place to talk?
Note 2: History as a process of changes
Note 2: Culture and the passing of time
Note 3: Media within democratic society
Note 3: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 3: People, rules & social cohesion

Many times here I find myself asking questions that seem to have no place; they might be important but they’re diverse and tend to cross over established boundaries into a sort of middle ground (see Notes One). I often wonder what it is that prevents this conversation from happening, and how far we can get without it.

It seems at times that we’re all simply talking at once, shouting one another down or refusing to listen to others’ concerns until we’ve addressed our own. Leading to conversations that never quite get started, as one topic stands against another in a sort of stalemate: if time’s tight we won’t cover both, so we discuss neither. As if ideas cannot co-exist and one has to emerge the winner, the most important.

And many issues are interconnected, so where do you start? Social cohesion is linked to education but also to media, to culture, to home life, to technology, to tradition and belief. Mental health may be connected with internet use and concerns over empathy and powerlessness in that sphere, but also with uncertainty over the future, seismic social shifts, and the psychological difficulty of finding your feet in it all.

Can a conversation begin to encompass these divergent aspects of modern life, or do we make a start but soon encounter a seemingly impassable bridge into a completely different area of expertise we feel unqualified to enter? In an era of specialisation, can we develop the oversight to confidently address all that needs to be talked about and drawn into a suitably cohesive solution?

And if reality is peopled with divergent paths, histories, experiences, and wounds are we only allowed to speak of our own (Note Two), or is there a way to respectfully rise above our differences and have those conversations that seem so urgent and important? Can we afford not to?

In a way, every topic and path is both important and challenging to understand: specialisation and personal experience matter in that they shape us and, in grappling with them, we develop greater knowledge and hopefully wisdom. But learning and experience take time, so pursuing one path comes at the cost of others; in which case, we need to be able to communicate in order to benefit from the wisdom others are offering.

Yet modern life moves at this pace where you have to react immediately, ride the wave of whatever conversation or trend you wish to be part of as yesterday’s conversation is already over. So many different threads, subcultures, generations apparently struggle to find points of common interest and respect; ploughing ahead with their interrelated, but unfortunately unrelated, concerns.

Can we rise above that resulting isolation and find ways to genuinely and powerfully connect? If modern communication stumbles at these divisive roadblocks, unable to sustain conversations that bridge the divides to speak out of a coherent enough sense of ‘the bigger picture’ to understand and judge what experts are able to offer us, then where are we headed?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Privacy and our online existence
Note 1: Anti-social behaviour & the young
Note 1: Media and responsibility
Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 1: Learning to be human
Note 2: Talking through difficult topics

Related to this, Need to stand alone & think for ourselves spoke of the importance of finding our own feet.

With change, things seem to be moving so quickly; and in a way they are. But then there’s the time it takes to achieve deep and lasting change, which I suppose is harder to see and be sure of.

Technology opens up conversations on a scale never before conceivable, raising our awareness along with an expectation that knowledge will bring immediate transformation. But does it? Does knowing something lead to change, or do we still have to work through our resistance, our patterns, our old ideas, and our capacity to make changes on all those levels? Knowledge seems but one part of the ingrained and often unexamined layers we all seem to carry.

So maybe our increased awareness might lead instead to greater challenges as we know so much but struggle with how to wisely integrate and act upon it, let alone form a coherent picture as to the ultimate meaning of all that we do.

These days so much happens so instantly, where a while back change often took a lifetime. And maybe that very process was valuable in strengthening resolve and fostering the commitment and perseverance required to uphold changes. Maybe the conviction of dedicating your life to something brought about what’s necessary for real change to take place both individually and as a society.

Compared with that, technology seems in a way to diffuse focus: a relatively small action can cause an instantaneous ripple of response, but does that actually lead to significant change? All these ripples can take up time and give the illusion of a global conversation, but the extent to which it’s simply the flexing of intellectual muscles rather than achieving results remains to be seen.

The question of effecting change is fascinating, as clearly it’s needed in many areas yet often struggles to shift beyond argument, division and identity (see Notes One). We have these models and tools for change, applying them to modern scenarios; but are they truly scalable and effective or are we dealing with something new requiring a fresher approach?

As ever, I’m asking a lot of questions. It just seems the world has fundamentally changed; and we’re trying to grasp that and steer it, possibly with contorted ideas from the past.

Technology, after all, is a system: a crystallised way of understanding how things work, how human society can be both served and shaped by the capacities we’re developing. In a way it’s neutral and it’s up to us how we use it; but not entirely so, as it surely influences our understanding and the kinds of interactions we’re having (Note Two).

Modern life largely takes place through that veil of technology; with its fidgety, compulsive sense of novelty giving an impression of ever-changing realities. Whether that’s the case, or if lasting change takes as much effort as it ever did seems an important question. Maybe there’s a way of looking beyond that fast-paced surface to see the depth of resolve still needed to bring worthwhile changes to life.

Notes and References:

Note 1: History as a process of changes
Note 1: People wanting change
Note 1: Modern activism in practice
Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 2: “Response-Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 2: “Education’s End”

The themes of Communication and Change also pick up many of these ideas more generally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes and References:

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

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

Looking at modern life, it seems unquestionable that technology informs much of what we’re doing (as explored in Tech as an evolving second life and Reality as a sense check). My question here is how that serves human social community, how it’s impacting us, and how well we’re overcoming the challenges to make the most of opportunities.

Those are vast, unanswerable questions in a way; countless communities exist, with the platforms hosting them shifting all the time as tech companies draw up manifestos for their borderline utopian future societies. If communities arise naturally, it must make sense for business to capitalise on that. But what are we trying to attain, to what extent is it achievable, how should it be shaped, and what’s in our best interests?

As discussed in Globalised society finding its feet, life is changing at an unprecedented rate; and many shifts brought by technology happen regardless of our conscious involvement. Surely there’s an agenda behind all that we’re offered and an impact to all we do: systems shape our behaviour and our outcomes. Technology being a tool designed with a purpose in mind; our ability to use it knowingly, within context, and in full awareness of its advantages and limitations is down to us (as grappled with in “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher). So are we right to leave the reshaping of our social existence largely in the hands of tech companies?

Humans are evidently social creatures: we exist in communities; cooperating and creating meaning with one another (see Mirrors we offer one another). That shared existence giving rise to the habits of communication, organisation, social identity, economic activity, and cultural conversation that have lately become enshrined online. But should we happily replace real world relationships with streamlined virtual communities? Do we know enough of community to confidently pull them apart on the ground, and replicate our understanding of them online?

At times I must come across as anti-tech, which truly isn’t the case. It’s just that with human nature, inner life, and social realities I find myself genuinely concerned that we’re stumbling blindly into a world of opportunity and placing our faith in the hands of business.

Looking back, communities seemingly arose naturally, often shaped by local figures or forces. Groupings of affinity, necessity, proximity, or common interest evolved into a society where meaning was held, people belonged, and impacts were felt (as in Community – what it was, what we lost). In contrast, we’re now offered a limitless window to know and connect; but does this spread us thinly, drawing us away from our immediate realities where we display less interest or tolerance for those nearby?

Getting back to the point, humans now live in this global society with communities both online and within our environments; with participation in one often at the cost of the other. Companies may have pretty ambitious, fine-sounding ideas for reshaping the social fabric of the world; but I’d have thought human society might be better placed in our hands.