Category: Self

With modern life, is it that we now have endless amounts to do in the same, finite amount of time? There seem no limits to all we could pursue as, potentially, we could be talking to every single person or showing interest in whatever it is they’ve decided to put out into the world. With all technology’s offering, there effectively seem to be no boundaries between us and all we could concern ourselves with.

In the past, there was presumably hardly any opportunity to do that? People might’ve been interested in a great many things, but those interests were probably curtailed by limited access to sources of information or means of communication. Perhaps those interests just dwelt in their hearts as impossible dreams and questions about life? This unrequited longing to know more, meet more people, and stretch beyond those limits.

It’s strange to think how much our lives have changed over the last century, in particular (Notes One). All the ways small scale, meaningful communities have branched out into this new, rather different set of realities. It sometimes seems the past’s a blissful place, simply for the fact most people didn’t bear this burden of choice – not being free to do more, you’d probably commit to working with what’s actually around you.

These days, by comparison, the horizon of our opportunities is so much wider. It must be hard to choose, to commit to any one thing, if doing so curtails the chance of choosing countless others. Almost paralysing, perhaps? If every step you take is echoed by thousands of others you therefore couldn’t, it’s almost as if we’re haunted by the very notion of choosing anything from the options we’re surrounded with.

How are we to focus if, every moment, there is so much we could be doing? So many conversations we could be having; choices we could be considering; situations we could be learning about; areas of knowledge we could be deepening or broadening out. The internet must be this completely limitless place being filled, moment by moment, with countless valuable perspectives and pieces of information.

Little wonder we’re so interested in multi-tasking, increasing efficiency, and ruthlessly cutting things out to make space for whatever our chosen focus is. Attention seems a naturally limited capacity, so “modern life” conceivably demands that we choose some things and ignore others – we simply cannot do it all or we’ll be spreading ourselves too thin.

That said, doesn’t all of it matter? We’re not, perhaps, saying, that whatever we don’t have time for isn’t important; just that we’re not prioritising it over and above whatever else has captured our interest. We’re simply recalibrating our concerns based around all these new things the world’s inserting into the basic format of “daily life”.

Couldn’t a lot of things easily get left out, though? All these pressing issues and entertaining voices drowning out other, quieter, more unassuming ideas, people or activities that, truly, might not deserve to be cut out of the modern conversation.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Things change, over time
Note 1: Detaching from the world around us
Note 1: Making things up as we go along
Note 1: What’s not essential
Note 1: Social starting points for modern ways
Note 1: Information as a thing, endlessly growing
Note 1: Life’s never been simpler…

Talking about life and how we’re living it, the concept of responsibility comes up fairly often (Notes One), alongside that of freedom. What are we to make of all the freedom, all the choices, modern life’s laying at our feet? How much do we understand the meaning of each decision we’re faced with – where they may lead; all the social or environmental ramifications we’re setting in motion; the bigger picture everyone’s part of?

But then, is life now too overwhelming to be thinking that way? Between the relentless, often quite meaningless, demands for attention that form this constant tide of all that’s seeking to undermine our worth, agency or focus while locking us into predictable patterns of consumption, where are we to start exercising the responsibility of freedom? Maybe this much freedom’s simply too much to manage, in a way (Notes Two).

Much as we might care about all our disparate, important concerns, it also seems the paths for dealing with them aren’t quite there – that there’s simply not space, agreement or certainty over how best to address what we’re facing (Notes Three). Without tried and trusted courses of action, we presumably also carry the daunting burden of needing to “create” solutions.

How can we handle that level of freedom or responsibility? Who are we to turn to for wisdom, insight or guidance in charting a path through this modern landscape? So many of the voices speaking into our uncertainty seem to have other agendas nestled somewhere between the front and back of their minds about where things are headed or how they might benefit (Notes Four). Behind it all, where is reliable support to be found?

And, even if we were to become convinced of another way, can we just “drop” all this and do differently? Maybe we can. There’s certainly power to collective action; to ideas whose time has come and the people prepared to act in bringing them to life. Being sure of those ideas and the paths to their realisation seems so important, however. Choosing the right battles, the right stances to achieve our ends, doesn’t seem easy.

Sometimes it really just seems the responsibility of a modern life is potentially “too much” – that there’s too much wrong, too much that matters, too much well-meant advice for us to gain the focus needed to resolve it all. Simultaneously, that there’s too little time, space or clarity to pull all our many, valid concerns into any concerted form of response. Perhaps also, that we risk doing much harm while trying to do the right thing.

Is the challenge here to understand what it is to be human? The worth of all our lives, the value of our cooperation, and how that’s working itself out globally (Notes Five). Rising above ourselves to make good choices across the board, how much might the world change? In which case, once we’re convinced what we’re doing matters – holds value – maybe we’re simply right to persist until others can appreciate it too.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 1: Passivity, or responsibility
Note 1: Questions around choice
Note 2: Life’s never been simpler…
Note 2: Making ends meet
Note 2: Is this the ultimate test?
Note 2: Things with life have to be maintained
Note 3: The value of a questioning attitude?
Note 3: Problems & the thought that created them
Note 3: What if solutions aren’t solutions?
Note 3: And, how much can we care?
Note 4: Trust within modern society
Note 4: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 4: Which voice can we trust?
Note 4: Knowing who to trust
Note 5: Losing the sense of meaning
Note 5: Whether we make a difference
Note 5: Living as a form of art

How much in life are we essentially now just making up to suit ourselves? Deciding which beliefs, which attitudes, values and practices we’ll adopt in our lives and how closely we’ll adhere to them. This mini culture-of-self that might easily expand into a group culture or various conflicting group cultures. It’s fascinating how something once so tightly regulated became so individual, so unregulated.

Isn’t it that patterns of belief used to bind communities together in common feeling, celebration and attitudes toward one another? Knowing how to read things, how to judge them and how to respond must’ve made society so predictable and reassuring. Also, of course, limiting and subject to the wisdom or otherwise of those charged with establishing or maintaining such systems.

But all those little conventions surely helped soften the edges of social coexistence – everyone knowing how to act, what it meant, and why it mattered (Notes One). As if life were an opus and people, having all been distributed their parts, were able to come together as a harmonious whole. Don’t agreed-upon rules allow for that? Language, etiquette, driving all rely on shared terms, meanings, expectations and interpretations.

Now, it seems any notion of wholeness has been shattered into a billion little self-directed pieces. Each taking it upon themselves to be the decider, the judge, the actor in their own little dramas. All coming up against each other with perhaps very little understanding, interest or tolerance for how we might choose to live differently.

Some might be holding firmly to the ideas received from family or community; others, rebelling against any sense of being told what to do; many perhaps stand in the middle pulling different pieces together and striving to improve any perceived shortcomings. Everyone making things up for themselves and those around them, aren’t we all crafting our own responses to existence?

Which just seems amazing – that freedom, the responsibility of it all. Holding to received thought, you’re perhaps not quite responsible for what you’re part of; as if it’s an umbrella you’re simply standing under. Rejecting things on principle, to me, seems a strange method of finding wisdom in that you’re presumably just as likely to reject the perfect as the flawed. Maybe deciding for ourselves “is” the best path (Notes Two).

But it surely places us all in a strange situation where nothing around us is entirely clear. How can we know where we stand, individually and collectively? How are we to speak if our words might hold different meanings in another’s eyes? How should we act if we’re interpreted through others’ frames of reference with no opportunity to explain our beliefs or expectation they’ll be tolerant of our choices?

If shared culture and convention gave us the code for understanding one another and, therefore, the confidence of being understood, where are we now? If we’re all reinventing the wheel, mixing it up, and expressing individuality using those terms, what will it take for us to come together into something slightly more harmonious?

Notes and References:

Note 1: What keeps us in check
Note 1: The power of convention
Note 1: If society’s straining apart, what do we do?
Note 1: Culture as a conversation across time
Note 1: What really matters
Note 1: Invisible ties
Note 2: The need for discernment
Note 2: Passivity, or responsibility
Note 2: True relationship within society?
Note 2: Thoughts of idealism and intolerance
Note 2: Education as a breaking away?
Note 2: Ideas of agreement & mastery

In life, do we see “meaning” as something to be given, found or created? What difference does it make? Is there any need for meaning at all? It generally does seem we look for it on some level – asking what things say about us or what matters within the bigger picture. Maybe, because we “can” think, we naturally seek to piece our perceptions together in meaningful ways?

And, in that, are we seeing this meaning as coming from the top down or bottom up? Don’t our actions hold meaning? Looking to the everyday, if we’re treating all people – all life – with respect then doesn’t that come to mean that all life’s worthy of respect? It’s like our actions speak for themselves, declaring what we consider valuable, admirable or otherwise deserving (Notes One).

In a way, we perhaps create meaning by upholding it: bringing values to life because, looking objectively, we feel they should be there. Otherwise, are we just waiting for it to be confirmed? For an external belief system to be proved “right” so we have grounds for confident action. If we’re not deciding for ourselves what’s meaningful, what’s capable of telling us how to think?

Maybe, somewhere, there “is” a sense of meaningful truth – a perceivable values-based reality we could accept as valid. As if values themselves might help us find their true state and right form. Perhaps honesty, kindness, love, patience, compassion, understanding and courage “are” their own kind of truth? A faithful acceptance, adherence and belief in the value of life.

Thinking about it, those qualities all tend to serve others and wider realities; guiding us to extend ourselves truthfully and gently into those spaces beyond the self. Rather than act out of personal interest, such “virtues” are pointing us outward into our relationship with the world. Is that where meaning lies: in the balance between the self and the world?

Until recently, values seemed to come from the top down – from the constriction of tradition or other belief. People being firmly held in place by commonly held notions of right and wrong in every area of life. As a gesture, it’s perhaps as reassuring as it is limiting? Knowing so clearly “what (not) to do” takes a weight off; but it’s tying you into this rigid, prescriptive, overarching structure.

Finding a system that can offer individual freedom plus adequate preparation for the responsibility that entails could well “be” a description of “Western society”. If we’re taking the edges off every area of life to leave it up to each of us to judge, can we be sure where that’ll lead? How well instinctive self-interest can blend into a world that includes everyone is a daunting question (Notes Two).

Effectively, it now seems down to us to create meaning out of our lives. Is it possible to find all these delicate lines between us and others – the past, present and future – to ensure the ideas we’re bringing to life are true reflections of its actual worth?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Do we need meaning?
Note 1: What keeps us in check
Note 1: Thoughts of idealism and intolerance
Note 1: Any such thing as normal?
Note 1: This thing called love
Note 1: Invisible ties
Note 2: Authenticity & writing our own story
Note 2: True relationship within society?
Note 2: Mastering life’s invisible realities
Note 2: “Quest for a Moral Compass”
Note 2: Questions around choice

Offering something of a parallel, The power of convention looked at what carries meaning and how we position ourselves in relation to others.

When I first came across the idea of authenticity it was in the context of states having freedom to decide their own form. Since then, it’s more often cropped up in fields of self-development and the like: that we should be free to become the person we wish to be. Not dissimilar, but not entirely the same either.

It sometimes now seems an overused word, with this sense of having become a mask for individualism: we can all do as we wish, no one can stop us, if it’s a problem it’s their problem etc. And, while I truly believe we all carry within us unique and important gifts to develop, work through and share with the world, mainly looking out for ourselves doesn’t seem quite right (Notes One).

It’s appealing philosophy, though, this idea that we should all unravel our perspective on life and express it unhindered. Letting the beauty of each individual inch out from underneath the blanket of collective thinking seems important – we’re much more than the roles we play and labels that might’ve been stuck to us (Notes Two).

Authenticity in the sense of everyone illuminating their own, overlapping section of reality seems beautiful. All doing our best to respond well to whatever touches our little patch of earth – all we’re born into, all we’ve met along the path, all that reaches the edges of our tiny island. If we’re all bringing things to light, resolving them, and not contributing to anything unhelpful then isn’t the world equally better off?

Don’t each of us experience part of our one, collective reality? We all have a story to tell and they all matter. Doesn’t what happens to one happen to all? Maybe authenticity’s each of us dealing skilfully with social manifestations as they appear in our presence? Us all being these pieces of the puzzle where darkness can be brought to light and things can start becoming better for everyone (Notes Three).

Because the idea of how best to “apply” the concept of freedom to the realities of life is fascinating. We might say individuals should be free to do as they please – that wonderful premise behind the West and these markets we so happily turn to – but it’s seeming quite problematic in practice (Notes Four).

If we all do as we please, where does that lead? Surely, we need some sense of commonality, mutuality, and holding ourselves back for the needs of others and the community. Otherwise, doesn’t this inevitably lead to conflict? If no one’s giving an inch and the other’s always to blame, society seems to risk gridlock.

Maybe collective needs must be as much on our minds as our own? Each having freedom to be plus an equal obligation to let others be. Everyone truly understanding the complex nature of society and where their decisions, words and actions are creating problems to be resolved. If writing our own story also means writing a coherent story for society, perhaps authenticity’s constructive for us all.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Right to look out for ourselves?
Note 1: Common sense as a rare & essential quality
Note 1: Tempting justifications of self
Note 1: What keeps us in check
Note 2: Complication of being human
Note 2: All we want to do passes through community
Note 2: People, roles, reading that rightly
Note 3: “The Measure of a Man”
Note 3: The power of understanding
Note 3: What it is to be human
Note 4: Obligations and contributions
Note 4: Any escape from cause & consequence?
Note 4: What we create by patterns of behaviour
Note 4: Social starting points for modern ways

Is there something to the human perspective, to human psychology, that makes us choose and defend our own stance in life? As if, seeing things through our own eyes and making sense of them with our own brain, it’s a flow of thought we can’t have broken.

Maybe we need the psychological security of feeling our perception and logic to be flawless? The fundamental reassurance of not bringing ourselves into question or admitting any errors. It seems “reasonable” the mind would like to know it can trust itself; that our view of life and what we take things to mean is something we can rely upon (Notes One).

In terms of the self, don’t we seek similar security? The recollection of our past and the plans that carried us through it “needing” to be this coherent, unbroken, upward arc of our growth, agency and wisdom. Don’t we rely on our storyline plus the accompanying narration of our thinking, conclusions and interpretation of meaning to feel good about ourselves?

The mind seems funny like that: seeking to place ground beneath our feet. Ways of thinking surely reinforced by modern culture’s emphasis on evidence-based assessment: we “are” what we’ve done and what we say we’ve learnt from it. The spin we put on life is powerful (Notes Two), as we strive to turn everything to our advantage and shift focus until we’re somehow the key actor and star of the show.

Especially in today’s “cancel culture” where making a mistake can see people’s “existence” effectively wiped out. Isn’t that a kind of “death”? This ostracisation of shame, labels and blame, where we assume a mistaken word or action speaks “the truth” of a person. Condemning people without allowing them the grace of emerging with deeper understanding seems problematic in a fast-moving, blended culture.

Doesn’t social judgement create personal insecurity similar to before? That risk of losing ground and feeling our sense of self is on shaky terms with our community. As individuals, our standing in relation to others could be akin to that inward feeling we have about the integrity of our experience and what it “says” about us: if our storyline’s compromised, who are we? (Notes Three)

How human is all this, though? To expect or claim perfection. To contort situations so we emerge victorious regardless of truth or consideration for others. What are we pushing aside or pushing under with this way of thinking? Is it self at the cost of truth, of others, of everything? How far can we go in justifying our behaviour simply because it’s ours? Does our culture even let us do otherwise?

It’s just a strange situation when identity, self-worth and social standing are tied to this thinking. Defending or rationalising ourselves, our conditioning, seems an odd way to go about living: aligning thought – truth – to our own, necessarily limited experience. Could we not, somehow, shift to a place of allowing humans to be flawed? Learning, evolving, moving beyond a simply personal understanding of life.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The value of a questioning attitude?
Note 1: Caught in these thoughts
Note 1: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 1: The sense of having a worldview
Note 2: Ways thought adds spin to life
Note 2: Complication of being human
Note 2: The struggle with being alive
Note 2: Letting people change
Note 3: Problems & the thought that created them
Note 3: Humans, judgement & shutting down
Note 3: The way to be
Note 3: All we want to do passes through community

When we’re communicating, what thoughts do we have in mind about it? How consciously are we thinking of the fact we’re taking the fruits of our experience and sending that out to others through the medium of words, asking or expecting them to accept our conclusions? Isn’t that what this is: life and our understanding of it gave rise to the thoughts we hold so firmly; talking, we impart those ideas and hope others will share them.

Of all the experiences life could’ve given us and any number of differing priorities, interests or perspectives we might have, it’s amazing to think of all we might talk about. Especially these days, when paths can diverge in so many new ways within, between and across our distinct geographical communities. Trying to create a single, limited agenda of what we care most about is pretty difficult to imagine.

It’s truly incredible that we might attempt a “single conversation” across the multiplicity of our experiences. But that seems what technology’s offering and perhaps even demanding of us: one, open, universal conversation (Notes One). Yet it’s not like communication, tolerance and mutual understanding have “ever” been humanity’s strong suit.

Aren’t we being asked to do more than has ever been expected? To understand the nature of the modern systems encompassing the world and reconfiguring its workings in intensely speedy yet largely invisible ways. To skilfully communicate with people from all walks of life at any time, day or night, despite rarely meeting them or knowing anything of their firmly held beliefs and assumptions.

What is it we’re now a part of, every one of our choices feeding into this complex reworking of “life”? How are we ever to understand, let alone navigate, this ever-changing landscape of how the world works? It’s a strange sort of wave we’re all riding: everything taking on new forms around us as we hope or trust that those in charge care enough about how it’s going to play out (Notes Two).

In this context, isn’t communication going to be taxed in completely new ways? Also, cooperation – the idea that we might agree on both the need for and execution of any form of action. Given the complexity of our different experiences in the past as much as the present, how are we ever to get on the same page? How are we to find adequate time to hear, understand and acknowledge everyone’s background and concerns?

There’s perhaps not time to listen. But, if that’s true, how do we move forward? Do we just disregard others’ perspectives and push a certain set of ideas and conclusions into that space we’ve carved out? Do we angrily fight one another’s conclusions without seeing the circumstances that gave rise to them? (Notes Three)

Taking a slightly convoluted path to get here, my question’s really whether anger ever actually helps our cause. I understand it’s a natural response, both personally and idealistically – ideas and courses of action matter a great deal – but, at what cost?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Social starting points for modern ways
Note 1: Can we manage all-inclusive honesty?
Note 1: Ideas that tie things together
Note 1: Interdependency
Note 2: What we create by patterns of behaviour
Note 2: What would life be if we could trust?
Note 2: Complication of being human
Note 2: Life’s never been simpler…
Note 3: Frameworks of how we relate
Note 3: Thoughts of idealism and intolerance
Note 3: Overwhelm and resignation
Note 3: The world we’re living in

Anger or humour as options for how we respond were the focus of True words spoken in jest and Anger as a voice.

Is it true that we need some kind of material compulsion to act, some threat or promise to motivate our engagement? It seems to be pretty commonplace thinking – as if it’s this incontrovertible fact of human nature – but is it really a sensible premise to be building our lives upon?

I suppose the reason for its prevalence is that it works? We “are” motivated by threats and promises, moving toward that which we want and away from that which we don’t. Based on that evidence, it’s a powerful means for shepherding or herding us in any given direction. So, we end up in a world of incentives and punitive sanctions, thinking it’s the way things have to be.

Just because we are influenced by such things though, does that mean it’s wise or necessary? What does it mean if, instead of being ruled and guided by reason, we’re responding on this other level of twinkly prizes or undesirable consequences? Is this an image of dangling strings in front of kittens or scaring the life out of people with urban legends?

It certainly seems to tap into our more subconscious, emotive, social sense of reasoning – our basic desires for recognition, belonging and safety; our visceral fear of being isolated, punished or left behind. It’s behavioural thinking, I’d imagine? That these are our fundamental motivators and the power of social approval or psychological reward is a useful “tool” in training the human mind, its choices and actions.

With studies into psychology, though, it seems strangely common for revelations of the human mind to be used against us more than anything else. Perhaps people are mainly interested in understanding something in order to then master it for their own ends? That’s probably not entirely true – knowledge itself is arguably neutral, it’s the motivation of those employing it for specific purposes that’s more questionable.

Unfortunately, it seems we’re living in a world where our own nature’s being turned against us. Insights from psychology or behavioural analysis seem most generally applied in the fields of marketing, spin, sales, technology, and other attempts at changing our habits, votes, actions, beliefs or interests. Isn’t it a picture of people using the latest understanding of the human mind to bend us to their idea of what’s best? (Notes One)

If that’s the scenario, what does it mean if all these other methods are being used instead of having that idea rationally explained to us? Are we, to some extent, abandoning reason when we perhaps need it most; letting ourselves be persuaded by all the tangible or intangible promises offered in its place?

It just seems that if we’re always looking for “what’s in it for me” then we’re potentially quite controllable – thinking there has to be some kind of reward or we’re not doing it right. Might it not be better to act based on the certainty of our convictions and a thorough understanding of what’s actually going on? Isn’t that a firmer foundation than our wavering psyche?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Fear or coercion as motivators
Note 1: Points of sale as powerful moments
Note 1: Attempts to influence
Note 1: What would life be if we could trust?
Note 1: The insatiable desire for more
Note 1: Questions around choice
Note 1: What’s neutral?

Approaching similar ideas from a different direction is Doing the right thing, we erase consequences.

Does normal mean something that’s commonplace or something that’s healthy? In terms of personal or social development, it could be said that “normal” represents what’s wholesome, ordered, leading in a wise direction. But if we’re taking the word to mean that which is fairly widespread and therefore considered normal, it could mean something unwise becomes the norm sheerly due to numbers.

As a question, it’s surely tapping into whether “acceptable” is determined from the top down or the bottom up? Normal in the sense of being “correct” seems handed down from the world of thought or tradition: certainty in a specific course of action. The other meaning’s perhaps more democratic in that if we all decide for ourselves then whatever emerges, statistically, becomes a new norm.

And, these days, it seems everything’s getting pulled apart this way – tradition and reasoning torn down by personal choice. In a world of free thinking and free will, we effectively all choose how we’re going to live. The very idea of “normal” must now be this constantly fluctuating commodity as influencers and marketers forever seek the next trend that’ll reshape our collective landscapes.

With the pace of that, it’s almost as if normal doesn’t even exist. As soon as anything’s solid enough to become a reality it’s then a label we perhaps don’t want to wear – who wants to be defined, pinned down, hemmed in by those kinds of commitments? The way we’re now using the self, the brand, is fascinating if not slightly surreal.

Modern life is strangely “knowing” – we’re so aware of what we’re doing and all these theories of personal identity and influence. It’s a strange way to be human, curating yourself from the outside in (or, the inside out). And it clearly fits well with consumerism, with this idea of what we buy and own defining us.

Aren’t we being actively encouraged to live this way? To present an image of who we are, where we stand, what we have to say. From the wealth of human civilisation, we dip into those things we feel suit us to create our own individual response. It’s this sense of a personal culture: our own self-defining statement about how we, uniquely, see and experience this world.

It’s intriguing really, given how much commonality seemingly used to bind people together: shared experiences, beliefs and lifestyles helping forge the bonds of identity and feeling that defined communities. Orienting ourselves around the same basic structures, people knew what they had in common. Lives following similar arcs must offer people plenty to bond over; as opposed to the division of endless choice (Notes One).

In a way, though, belief in normality is perhaps an illusion? All we’re doing is living, relating to what surrounds us, and charting our paths within it. Society, culture or advertising might inundate us with countless options to keep redefining ourselves but, within it all, we’re all just seeking ways to express who we are and find a place in this crazy world.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What is acceptable?
Note 1: Letting go of “who you are”
Note 1: “Paradox of Choice”
Note 1: What does art have to say about life?
Note 1: All we want to do passes through community
Note 1: Definition, expression & interpretation
Note 1: Ways thought adds spin to life

Looking at the substance beneath constant change was also the focus of Patience with the pace of change & Meaning in a world of novelty.

It’s interesting to think how much we’re valuing youth – the innocent potential, perhaps, of a fresh start and a future. How greatly we’re prizing those attributes when, really, it’s only a matter of time before youth becomes age and those qualities fade. As if life itself is a process of waiting for our value to lose currency, to trickle away or drop off a cliff to the point where society is no longer interested in our existence.

What is that? Because, surely, it doesn’t make much sense to not value human life in all its forms (Notes One). Why are we casting such a strong spotlight onto youth when, inevitably, it’ll then turn to those who follow shortly after, leaving everyone else in the dark?

It just seems a funny way to be living – valuing intrinsic, unearned qualities rather than the experience, effort and insight we all gain in life. Why are we tolerating a system that diminishes each person’s worth simply because of the time we’ve been alive? Value apparently being assigned to the fresh, new, untrammelled state of humanity rather than the difficult process of life itself (Notes Two).

Of course, there is great potential in youth: any direction can be chosen, any dream pursued, any mistake hopefully avoided. It is like a fresh chance to do differently, fix what we feel was mistaken and set others on better paths. At a time where Western society seems to be going off the rails – idealism falling by the wayside of sorely tested social values – it’s perhaps only natural we focus on setting things straight for those coming after.

But life’s surely a path of choices, limiting our options, pouring our energy into those things that matter to us and learning as we go. Is there no perceived value to that actual journey? Are we all living in shadows cast by the loss of youth? Having prepared ourselves and chosen our path, are we settling in to become increasingly irrelevant and devalued with each passing day? Is that what life is? Diminishing worth.

It’s bizarre to me that we would value the preparation stage over the life itself. Life makes us who we are with all we have to offer: the character we’ve developed, knowledge we’ve refined, relationships we’ve forged, things we’ve built, strength and perspective we’ve gained. Isn’t each stage of life something to be valued? Each person’s journey from dreams and potential through to the reality of bringing things to life (Notes Three).

I’m not sure what the myth of youth is trying to achieve, but it seems to be setting us all up for a strange sort of life. At what point is anyone going to be happy to be deemed irrelevant, worthless, a burden? It must all come down to the question of how much we value one another or the fact of life itself. Could it not be that a more inclusive, realistic attitude to human existence might serve us all a whole lot better?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Old meets new, sharing insight
Note 1: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 1: Age, image & self worth
Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 2: Culture as what we relate to
Note 2: Language and values
Note 2: What you’re left with
Note 3: What it is to be human
Note 3: The struggle with being alive
Note 3: Absolute or relative value
Note 3: The worth of each life

Related to all this, Plato & “The Republic” talked further about the importance of youth as a foundation for society.