One to One

[...] I find this law of one to one peremptory for conversation, which is the practice and consummation of friendship. Do not mix waters too much. The best mix as ill as good and bad.

You shall have very useful and cheering discourse at several times with two several men, but let all three of you come together, and you shall not have one new and hearty word.

Two may talk and one may hear, but three cannot take part in a conversation of the most sincere and searching sort. In good company there is never such discourse between two, across the table, as takes place when you leave them alone.

In good company, the individuals merge their egotism into a social soul exactly co-extensive with the several consciousnesses there present. No partialities of friend to friend, no fondnesses of brother to sister, of wife to husband, are there pertinent, but quite otherwise. Only he may then speak who can sail on the common thought of the party, and not poorly limited to his own.

Now this convention, which good sense demands, destroys the high freedom of great conversation, which requires an absolute running of two souls into one.

[Ralph Waldo Emerson]
'Friendship', Self-Reliance and other essays, pg 46

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Small Scale/Large Scale 
The Right Match

A Healthy Body

................................................................................................................................................................................

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

[Harold Pinter]
Nobel Lecture, 'Art, Truth & Politics'

................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 1
Cell and Body
PART & WHOLE

First of all we must understand that we are a collective. We must remember that together we make up a body. A body has an order to it; ways in which its parts must interact. If its parts do not interact properly then it goes wrong.

We live in an age of individualism. Each cell of the body has been, and is being, reprogrammed. Each cell is being given a new script. It says "the important thing is not that you are part of a body - that you, along with all these other cells make up a bigger part. The important thing is that you are an individual cell. You are unique! You are unlike all other cells."

The cells that best express their individuality are promoted, and thought of as better. Over time each cell begins to lose sight of the fact that it is within a body. All it can see is its own borders.

Some cells become rampant. Obsessed with their own image they multiply rapidly, producing copy after copy of themselves. They do not see the affect that this is having on the body. So in love are they with their own image that they forget they are part of a body at all. Occasionally another cell will remember, and will try to make others remember; but they are dismissed as 'old fashioned' and told to 'move with the times.'

It isn't long before the body becomes ill, and dies. In its last moments each cell remembers what it had long ago forgotten: that no matter how hard they try and think of themselves as individuals separate from all others, they are, in the last, a part of something bigger. And that in order to preserve themselves, they must always keep one eye on that bigger thing.

We see this interdependence in the fragile balance of eco-systems. How the extinction of one species will have a knock-on effect on everything around it. We catch a potent whiff upon hearing that "if the bees become extinct then we will too.'

So this is where we start. This is what every cell must remember. Like it or not, it is part of something greater.

Each of us, then, is a citizen as well as an individual. The citizen is the side of us that remembers the body, and always keeps it in mind. We walk a line between the two.


................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 2
Rules of the body
ORDER OF PARTS

So what are the rules of our body? What does it need in order to stay balanced and healthy?

The rules of our collective body are much the same as the rules of our physical body. Both systems work in roughly the same way.

A physical body is made up of lots of parts that are all different.  Each has its role to play in the working of the body. When every part fulfills its function effectively then the body is balanced and healthy.

The body becomes unhealthy when it becomes imbalanced. This can happen in a number of ways. Two examples:

1. Outside influences lead to bad habits. A badly designed chair encourages a poor posture. Certain muscles become weak and other muscles are required to take over their job. One muscle is underused whilst another is overused; and importantly, used in ways in which it wasn't designed for. This leads to stresses and strains and further imbalances.

2. Outside influences cause a cell to forget its original programming. Like a derailed train, it slips free of its natural borders and runs riot, causing havoc. It multiplies excessively. It does not know when to stop. The body becomes critically imbalanced; it 'gets cancer.'

Each of these imbalances has its counterpart in our collective body:

1. We underuse and devalue people with certain skills, whilst placing undue emphasis on those with other skills.

2. In a general sense we can see cancer as unchecked expansiveness; growth without limits. Sound familiar?

The most important thing for us to recognise is that a healthy body needs a set of rules and meanings that is shared by all of its parts. Each must, in the last, always work for the good of the whole.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 3
The Role of Culture
MAINTAINING ORDER

We can call these rules and meanings 'culture.' Culture is the invisible mesh that keeps the whole thing in place. It tells each what to do, and why. It places importance on some things over others. It says 'go this way, not that way.' It is the sense that guides each and every part of the body.

Every part is programmed with its own set of rules and meanings - its own instinctive culture. However, these can sometimes be overruled by those imposed by the brain. We can describe instinctive programming as intuitive - a knowing without learning - with the impositions of the brain being rational; based, in other words, on external experience.

When a body forgets its instinctive culture it is at risk of becoming unbalanced.

We can reprogramme our physical bodies in many ways. For example, if someone with two fully functioning legs were to decide to sit in a wheelchair and avoid standing he would begin reprogramming, by sending the following message to his legs: "you two aren't needed anymore." His legs would begin to feel left out, unwanted, useless. They would lose all respect for themselves. Their muscles would weaken, their vitality drain away. If he stayed in the chair long enough he may lose the use of his legs completely.

Culture is, then, of great importance to the functioning of the body. It is the way in which we programme ourselves.

How, then, do we currently use culture? Which ways does it tell us to go? What does it tell us to do? What does it place importance on? And is what it tells us good for our collective body?

................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 4
Body in Chaos
DISORDER

In recent times we have placed such emphasis on the individual - on cell over body, part over whole - that we have lost sight of the connection between culture and the body. Instead of serving to preserve a harmony of parts, it mostly focusses on the needs and desires of the individual cell.

We know from both objective and subjective experience (from experimental research along with our own day-to-day observations) that the images that surround us (both moving and still) can affect us deeply. We take in influences consciously and unconsciously. When we see a film we may be so taken with a certain character that we seek to model ourselves upon them. But our thoughts and actions may also be influenced in ways that we are unaware of. This is why advertisers pay so much for relatively miniscule timeslots; they know all-too-well the power of subconscious influence. And if a 5 second advert can alter our thought patterns, imagine what a 2 hour film can do.

Yet we exist in a society that largely refuses to acknowledge the connection between culture and programming. Such is the breakdown between cell and body  - part and whole - that we can view the merit of our cultural objects independently of the affect they may have upon us as a whole. This is akin to body urging its cells into anarchy - "reproduce like mad! Kill each other! Its all great entertainment!" - whilst believing that it will remain healthy and balanced.

So whilst a film may glorify dysfunctional ways of thinking and behaving, we focus on its merits as a film. Yes, its characters may be horrific; and the way of life it promotes unhealthy - but it is a good film. We talk about how good its actors were; how convincing its effects; how well written it is; how well shot; and so on.  Taste takes precedence over nutrition. In seeing films this way, we see them through the eyes of the individual and we forget our duty as citizens; we forget the body.

We must never lose sight of the vital role that culture plays in the well-being of the body. We must always look to see what messages it is sending out; which directions it is telling us to go; what it is telling us to do; who it lifts up; who it runs down. And we must always ask: is this good for us?

In enjoying the selfish pursuits of the individual, we have fooled ourselves into thinking that our actions have no consequences. We have untethered culture from its traditional restraints and have let it drift off; its ascendency a tribute to individuality.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Three things we must remember:

1. We are part of a something larger, a collective body.
2. A body must have order.
3. Order is maintained through shared meaning i.e. culture.

And so the first and last thing we must ask of any cultural object is:

Is this good for my community, my society - my body?

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Everything is Connected
A Higher Power 
You or The Work
The Real Thing
The Tyranny of Novelty
Life Amongst the Rubble
Post-modernist Soup
The Perils of Radical Subjectivity 
Guiding Fiction
Twisted out of Shape
Let It Flow
 

Welcome to La-la Land

We are lost in images.

Prom night. These girls are in love - obsessed, consumed - by an image. The image is of the fantasy prom, or a disney princess. The most likely source of this image is a film.

We make the mistake of thinking that our fantasy images can be real. We seek to bring them over into the real world, blurring the line between fantasy and reality.

For these girls the dress, the makeup - the 'prettifying' or 'slutifying' - are not about wanting to appeal to boys; even if from the outside it would appear so. Boys have nothing to do with it. It is about realising the fantasy image. The real world signifiers (short skirt =  male attention) become insignificant next to the fantasy signifiers (short skirt = what the fantasy person wears, i.e. fulfilment of image). Meaning is lost in a world of cut-out fantasy images.

The reality of the situation (the actual prom) threatens to bring the person back down to earth, because reality cannot compare to fantasy. But instead of realising our mistake and relinquishing our images, we attempt to twist reality to fit our fantasies. We dismiss what is real, making everything unreal.

On this charge, film has a lot to answer for.

Films sell us fantasies that get lodged in our brains. They give us images that we are compelled to realise - make us chase apparitions - and they do it without us even realising. Their images filter into our subconscious, sneaking in through the back door. Before we know it we have built layer upon layer on top of them. We have based our hopes and dreams - our lives - upon them. They become near impossible to dislodge without risking a total breakdown.

And often all of this happens whilst we are young. Their images become so ingrained and prevalent that we may even think that they are part of the natural order; that human beings naturally desire these things and that, importantly, there is no viable alternative. Once you've built a skyscraper it seems like madness to knock it down to check its foundations.

Films are not the only culprit; and the symptoms of our 2D culture are not just confined to young girls who want to be princesses.

When an image - the short skirt, the revealed leg - becomes detached from its real world signifier - male attention - meaning gets lost. When this happens over and over again, it becomes the norm.

We are in a culture that encourages us to lose sight of reality. One thing can mean a million things. Play around, be creative. It needn't mean that. It needn't mean anything. Eveything is unanchored.

From a narrow perspective this all seems like good fun. Life is short, so play around while you can. But there are severe consequences.

Through repetition of this pattern, we are becoming more and more conditioned to only look for the image, and not for the truth that lies underneath it. As long as you say you're sorry convincingly enough then I don't care whether you actually are or not. I'm only interested in the speech, the sensation: not the reality.

We are becoming conditioned to stop short at the surface, and to not look beyond it. Ours is a superficial culture, in most senses of the word.

In some contexts we may be able to convince ourselves that this is a harmless development. But in others we cannot.

Politicians need no longer even make a show of sticking to their word. They can say one thing whilst openly doing another, just as long as the way in which they said it is convincing enough; that it sounded right, good, strong. They can be as dishonest as they like, as long as they have the right stuff; a winning smile, an air of heroism, a good marketing campaign.

Politics, as with so many things, has become unanchored. We need only look at the majority of our media coverage to see that it is almost entirely show. Journalists - by name only - touch every superficial detail whilst circumventing the mundane and often inconvenient reality. 

When a person loses sight of what is real and what is fantasy we generally seem to consider them a bit barmy. If we can, we try and bring them back to the real world, remind them of what is true and what is false.

Collectively we are going barmy. Can we bring ourselves back to the real world?

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
The Real Thing
The Tyranny of Novelty
Life Amongst the Rubble
Post-modernist Soup
The Perils of Radical Subjectivity 
Information and Knowledge
Tasteful Distance
Arrows pointing at Arrows
Leaving the Vessel
Only Playing

The Earth's the Limit

................................................................................................................................................................................

The oft-repeated doctrine of a progressive development of mankind to an ever higher perfection [...] is opposed to the a priori view that, up to any given point of time, an infinite time has already elapsed, and consequently that all that is supposed to come with time is bound to have existed already.

[Arthur Schopenhauer]
The World as Will and Representation, Volume II, p.172-7, 184

................................................................................................................................................................................

1. Living between extremes

We always exist between a pair of opposites.

Think about the temperature of the room you are in. How would you describe it? Hot? Cold? Warm? Whatever word you come up with to describe it, your description will always fall between two points:

1. The hottest temperature
2. The coldest temperature

Let's visualise them differently:

1 < ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 2

The temperature in your room must fall somewhere between these two points. It cannot fall anywhere outside of them, because they represent the limits of temperature, the most extreme possible. Whatever is the hottest or coldest thing you can think of, then they are it.

In truth, these "hottest" and "coldest" temperatures don't really exist. They are just ideas inside our heads. Someone will have recorded the hottest and coldest temperatures, but one day somebody else may record a hotter or a colder one.

To give another example. Take a look outside the window and pick an object. How would you describe its size?

Small?
Large?
Somewhere in between?

Again, your description is always going to fall between two points:-

1. The smallest thing
2. The largest thing

or..

1 < ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 2

And again, whatever you see cannot fall outside of these two points. In reality these limits are only defined by the tools that we use to measure them. So right now the smallest object may be a quark, but when we develop more sophisticated microscopes we will probably discover smaller objects. And then we'll develop even more sophisticated microscopes and see even smaller things. And so on. Into infinity. So in reality our two boundaries are always shifting.

But however you think about these extremes, we always exist between them.

This is the way our minds experience the world - by placing everything between two opposites - and it applies to every area of our life. 

................................................................................................................................................................................

2. Line and Circle

It is on one such pair of opposites that we will focus.

1. Expansiveness

and its opposite:

2. Limitation

Sometimes it is helpful to visualise these ideas as images.




Number one, expansiveness, can be represented by the image of an arrow travelling in a straight line. The line is infinite: it has no beginning and no end, it just keeps travelling onwards into space, forever.






Number two, limitation, can be represented by an arrow travelling in a circle. Instead of travelling forward into space, the arrow goes round and round, following the same circular path forever.




We can see these opposites at work in many different places.

Lets imagine two musicians. They have equal talent, but very different ambitions.

1.The first has modest ambitions. He just wants to make music for the people he knows and if he achieves fame locally then this is good enough for him. He does not desire fame beyond this.

2. The second has grand ambitions. He wants to use his music to become as famous as possible. He hopes that there will be no limits to his fame. His name must ring out across the country, the planet, the galaxy!

When it comes to the fame that they desire, our musicians have different ways of thinking. We can describe our first musician as having a limited mindset. Whilst he recognises that his talent could make him very famous, he does not want to maximise his fame. He is happy with being appreciated at a local level, and it is here that he draws his boundaries.

Our second musician has an expansive mindset. He wants to be as famous as possible (and then even more famous!). He does not place any limits on his fame. The only limits are those applied by his environment, not those applied by himself.

Another example is the way we think about time. In our culture we tend to think of it as linear - as progressing in a straight line, ever onwards. In other cultures, time is thought of as cyclical; as ever-repeating. Thus 'progress' for us is a voyage into the unknown; it involves improving and building upon the past. To them it may be more about re-treading familiar territory and repeating familiar patterns.

I'm sure you can think of many other day to day examples of these two ways of thinking.

Here are some other words that are associated with expansive, along with their opposites:

Expansive                                     Limited
Global                                           Local
Infinite                                          Finite
Deregulated                                 Regulated
Undefined                                     Defined
Novel                                            Familiar
Unpredictable                               Predictable


................................................................................................................................................................................


3. Wisdom of Commerce

As a society it seems that we are collectively in the grip of an expansive mindset. This is because we view most things through the eyes of our economic system (through commerce). Where once our values may have been determined by religious standards, now they are determined by economic standards. "Good" has become synonymous with "good for the economy." Something is worth doing if it promises to bring material gains. Success is generally defined by abundance; in other words, by having a lot of something (be it fame, property or money).

Commerce demands expansiveness. It is embodied by the image of the line, continually travelling onwards and upwards, tearing up new ground and seeking new frontiers. For commerce to prosper, there must always be growth. How often do we hear politicians talking about "growing the economy" as if it were the meaning of life?

This is because most of our politicians are caught in the grip of the expansive mindset. They are guided by the wisdom of commerce, which is to expand at all costs. This is at odds with true wisdom, which recognises the necessity of limitations. It knows when enough is enough. It knows that constant growth without end, and without any thought to the preservation of resources, is simply and wholly unsustainable.

If we were to let the wisdom of commerce rule our bodies, for example, then they would not last long:

Our body is a balanced system. Generally speaking, it strives to keep itself this way. If we get too hot then we sweat. If we get too cold then we shiver. We have all sorts of ingenious systems in place to keep us balanced and healthy. There is a wisdom written into our body. This wisdom combines many ways of thinking - both expansiveness and limitation - into a very well balanced whole. If we somehow managed to overthrow it, replacing it with some other system that we thought was better - a system that was based on a very singular way of thinking - then we would soon start seeing problems.

If the expansive mindset ruled our bodies then what would happen?

We would begin to maximise everything that we did. We would eat too much, drink too much, sleep too much, stay awake for too long, run for too long. We would get too hot, too cold, too alert, too tired, too happy, too depressed.

In short, our bodies just wouldn't know when to stop. Everything would be done to excess.

Unchecked expansiveness is the hallmark of cancer. Is it a coincidence that a society caught in the grip of an expansive mindset is beset by such a disease?

Clearly our bodies would not stay healthy for long if ruled by this kind of "wisdom". Thankfully they frequently ignore the short-sighted demands of our minds, and take their guidance from their own inbuilt wisdom.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our society. We are not guided by a timeless and balanced wisdom. Like the dysfunctional body described above, we have reprogrammed ourselves to be ruled by a singular way of thinking.

When we are in a society that is guided by the wisdom of commerce then true wisdom necessarily suffers.

Inasmuch as it is short sighted, and centred around limitless growth, the wisdom of commerce can be described as a youthful wisdom. In this sense is not really "wisdom" at all. Traditionally within a society it would be the elders - those who have seen and lived - who would advocate limitations. Their conservative influence would temper the youthful spirit, which naturally seeks to explore, push boundaries and challenge limitations. It is a timeless balance.

Now that we have fallen collectively under the wisdom of commerce - synonymous with the influence of the youth - we find ourselves in an unhealthy imbalance. The youthful - expansive - mindset rules, and is no longer tempered by a mature influence.

As a society we have become immature.

We have only to look around to see manifestations of this epidemic.  We are afraid of aging. Maturity has lost its place and value. We no longer see the point in it. Our old people are now striving to be young, abandoning their roles as elders. Many are carted off to homes where they can trundle about without bothering the rest of us. Instead of being wise they frequently become selfish, vain and obsolete. Any wisdom they do have to offer rarely gets to see the light of day, and it is even rarer that such wisdom makes it into the public domain where it may be able to guide us collectively. 


................................................................................................................................................................................


4. Global vs Local

Remember our two musicians from before? Which one would you class as the more successful? We generally seem to measure success by how expansive something is.  The most successful musician is the one that either sells the most records or achieves the greatest fame. Likewise, the successful artist is the one that sells their work for the most money, or, again, has the most fame.

The local artist - the one that achieves limited reknown - is generally thought of in lesser terms than one who has international fame. It may be that there is little or no difference in their talent. Fame separates the two, elevating one in the eyes of society (i.e. the eyes of commerce).

"Local" has become synonymous with inferior. This is a natural and predictable outcome of our current way of thinking. Viewed through the eyes of an expansive mindset, local is defective. It is not expansive enough.

The local business suffers in the face of the multinational. The local hero suffers in the face of the international superstar. Both pale in comparison to their expansive counterpart.

A world of novelties has been laid before us - distant lands, novel experiences, exotic people - diverting our sights away from our immediate surroundings. We are persuaded to look outwards and upwards - for inspiration, for sustenance - and lose belief in our ability to sustain ourselves. We think we need things from outside, that outside - far away - is somehow better. The grass is always greener elsewhere.

Where once we may have sung our own songs and told our own stories, we now have world-reknowned singers and high budget films. These things rob us of our self-sufficiency, yet we are drawn to them like moths to a flame. 

We forget that our community can produce its own heroes, who are just as worthy as those from afar. If a community does produce internationally reknowned talent, this talent will generally abandon the community in favour of somewhere "better" (i.e. not local), thereby reinforcing the idea that local = inferior.

Large chains - supermarkets, fast food restaurants, clothes shops, and so on - dispossess us of ownership, the ability to craft our own locality. We no longer have any say in what our surroundings look like. They end up looking like every other "local area", with the same shops selling the same things.

Local character is disappearing.

At one time, to travel to a different part of the country would have been like travelling to a different country altogether. Each area would have its own character and traditions that would bind the locals together and create meaning in their lives. These are now dying out, to be replaced with a more generalised - globalised - sense of self.

We no longer have a strong sense of identity. We don't really know who we are.

When we are encouraged to think expansively, as we currently are, then the idea of "local" is bound to suffer. In becoming global citizens, we risk forgetting how to be local citizens.

When "local" suffers like this, we necessarily become disenfranchised. We lose our independence, our ability to look after ourselves. 

If people stop believing in themselves they crumble. It is the same for communities.


................................................................................................................................................................................


5. Heroes

Our heroes are distanced from us. 

They do not live where we live, and they are not like us. They are somehow special. Where once the best singer you knew may live on the next street, he or she now lives in a far away world of celebrity; a world unlike our own. The importance of local heroes is that they are attainable; we can talk to them, ask them questions, socialise with them, get to know them. Understand them. We may even take over from them one day. Global heroes generally appear to be unreachable, untouchable. Their distance makes them appear unearthly. We have a sense that we will never reach them, let alone become one of them. They tower above us and exert a form of tyranny.

Our heroes have become heroes of commerce, rather than heroes of morals.

We look up to them because they best embody the goals of our commercial culture; not because they best represent universal and timeless moral standards.

We admire them despite the fact that they often reflect the worst in us, not the best.

Our youthful mindset produces immature leaders.

Imagine you are stuck on a desert island with a group of people. They vary in age, from very young to very old. You must all work together in order to survive. Who will your group take direction from?

For some reason you decide to take your lead from a seven year old.

Being immature and unwise, the directions of your leader are frequently based on shallow thinking and selfishness. Because he is your leader, you begin to unconsciously elevate the values that he embodies. Childishness, selfishness, and youthful hedonism reign. You all become like children. It is fun for a time. You enjoy the lack of responsibility. The fun, the games.

You forget that you are on a desert island, and that you must do what it takes to survive. Your long term survival does not fit into your leaders short-term way of thinking. He rapidly leads you to ruin.

Would it have been a different story if you had taken your directions from someone more mature? Someone who had an eye on the long-term welfare of the group. Someone wise?

A leader should be elected to lead because he or she is fit for the role. They should act with the best interests of the collective in mind, and put their own interest to one side. They should embody the best in their people, and should strive to be the best they can be in order to inspire those around them. In short, they lead. And they lead in a positive direction.

Can we say this about any of our current leaders? How did they get to where they are? Are they in it for us, or for themselves? Can they show us the way? Do they inspire us?

We must think about who we are looking up to - who we are elevating - and for what reasons.
  
................................................................................................................................................................................


6. Uses of Limitations

As a very modern development, the internet is a vivid embodiment of the expansive mindset. There are few borders on the web. When we open our browser we literally have the world at our fingertips. We can find out just about anything, and see things from all corners of the world. It is easy to access - many of us can now log on in the comfort of our own home - and is always there, whenever we want it. There are clearly great benefits from the kind of freedom that the internet offers. When we have a wide spread of information at our disposal we are less susceptible to one sided propaganda and manipulation.

But there is another side to this freedom, that is easy to overlook. When we are faced with a never ending world of information and possibilities it can easily become overwhelming. In times gone by we would have used libraries, newspapers and word of mouth to find out about our community and the world at large. These sources have their limitations - libraries shut at certain times, have a limited catalogue; newspapers have a limited number of pages - and so our borders were drawn for us.

The internet does not have a limited number of pages, or a closing time. The limitations that our environment once imposed on us have been defeated by this triumphant technology. We no longer have to travel to access our information. We no longer have to wait for books to be ordered, or papers to arrive. But when we look at the bigger picture, could it be that these limitations were actually good for us?

Where once we would have had limitations imposed upon us - decisions made for us - it is now up to us to decide when enough is enough.

The internet can seem overwhelming because it is a world with few limitations. It is an extreme product of a mindset taken to an extreme. It is expansiveness without its opposite, limitation, to balance it. It is up to us to apply this balance, for our own health.

Some of us may be good at this. We may only visit certain sites at certain times, and know our limits. But some of us may not be. When faced with limitless possibilities it is easy to get carried away and to lose sight of how much is too much. We become like kids in an overstocked sweetshop.

We limit ourselves every day. We stop when we have eaten enough. We do not drink too much. We know when we are exhausted, when our body needs to rest. Limitations keep us healthy, stop us from doing things from excess. But when we are caught in the expansive mindset we naturally begin to lose sight of their value.

This is when we eat too much, drink too much, work too hard, consume too much. We do so because we are unable to limit ourselves, or we have lost sight of the value of doing so. We need to ask: are we, as a society, beginning to lose sight of the value of limitations?

It may be that a lot of the "problems" that we are trying to find solutions for - the limitations that we are currently trying to overcome - are only problems because they are being viewed through the lens of expansiveness. When we remove this filter we may well see that a lot of our problems are in fact blessings in disguise. The anchors that we are continually trying to slip are there to keep us grounded. Without them we will drift off into space and lose ourselves completely.
  
................................................................................................................................................................................


7. Restoring balance

If we allow the expansive mindset to take over completely then we will be collectively throwing ourselves into a very unhealthy imbalance. Traditional societies knew that the youthful spirit must always be tempered by the wisdom of age. This is why they valued their young and old equally, because both had vital contributions to make. We seem to have lost sight of this balance.

We must remember, what is good for the economy - for commerce - is not necessarily what is good for us as human beings. The two things do not go hand in hand. And it could well be that what is good for the economy is what is bad for us. We are human beings, not numbers and commodities.

We created the system of commerce to serve us. And now we serve it. It is not human, and its wisdom is not human. In living by the standards of an inhuman system, we are ourselves becoming inhuman.

It is time we began to look once more within our society and within ourselves to rediscover our humanity.

So what can we do?

We must first recognise the deeper causes of our problems. We are in an imbalance:

Limited < ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Expansive
                                                                                      ^

The solution is to shift our point of balance.

Practically this means looking at the ways in which the expansive mindset is manifesting in our lives and our society. It means moving away from 'global' toward 'local'; from 'youth' toward 'elder'; from 'excess' toward 'restraint.' It doesn't mean throwing ourselves into an opposite imbalance. Our task is to find a healthy equilibrium, tempering one with the other.

Let's look at how we are treating our old people. Are we involving them in our lives? Are we keeping them alert and vital by giving them their place within society?

Let's look at our own approach to aging. Are we going to become wise old people who have something to offer as old people? Or are we going to become young people in old bodies, striving to cling on to something that we should have relinquished long ago? Are we going to accept that society needs its old people to be old, and to give all of the gifts that only the old can give - wisdom, maturity - and are we going to look forward to being able to one day give these gifts ourselves? Or are we going to live in denial and become old people who have nothing to offer but a creaky immaturity that they should have long since outgrown?

Let's look at the people we place on pedestals - our heroes - and ask why we have put them there. Do they represent the best in us? Are they heroes of commerce, or heroes of humanity?

Q. How do we revive "local"?
A. By setting limitations 

Whilst it is tempting to look outside and to be caught up in all of the exotic distractions that the rest of the world has to offer, we must always balance this fascination with an equal interest in what surrounds us. In fact, if we care about our surroundings then they must always take priority over anywhere else. Local must come first.

For this to happen we must be prepared to tear our gaze away from the heavens. The view may not be quite as exotic, but once we readjust the rewards will be great.

Local celebrities in favour of national or international. Local artists in favour of international artists. Local shops rather than multinational superstores. Local musicians. Local farmers. Local bakers. Local butchers. And so on.

Let's think about how we view our local area. Are we proud of it? Let's encourage those that make it big to stay in the community and to invest their talents in it, to help it grow and regain its sense of worth. We do this by instilling value and respect for their locality into the hearts of our young people. Because it is they who will grow up to be the heroes of the future. 

Don't move, stay where you are. Find value in your local area, and send the message that it is worth valuing by staying put. Have you ever had someone believe in you? Often, when someone believes in us we are much more motivated to be the best we can be. Their belief gives us the power to grow. It is the same with our local areas. Without our belief they will deteriorate and become shadows of what they could be. They need us to believe in them.

Investigate the riches that surround you. Build your heaven right here, instead of looking for it elsewhere. It may not be much now - we may find it a depressing place to be - but we put the work in so that those that follow us, our children, don't have to put up with the same conditions.

Act with local in mind. Ask, how can I be of benefit to my local community? Am I currently adding to it, or taking away from it?

The first step is to change the way we think, and the way we talk. When we begin to think of limitation in a more positive light - and when this thought is translated into the things that we are saying - then we can begin to affect change on a wider scale.

As always, we begin with ourselves. 

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Maintaining the Balance
Revolution Begins at Home
Small Scale/Large Scale
Lost Tribe
Lines and Circles
Masters of the Universe
Per-fiction
Information and Knowledge
The Tyranny of Novelty 
A Healthy Environment
Addiction: the long and short of it 
Live Forever? 

Stand Tall

Contrary to what people might think, Nuts was staffed by left-leaning middle-class family men (and women) who were smart, funny and talented. The office would usually be found picking apart last night's Newsnight, rowing about politics or discussing house prices.

 [...] They were the funniest, brightest group of people I'd ever had the pleasure of working with.

[Terri White]
"My success was built on other women's boobs", Observer Magazine

................................................................................................................................................................................


The people who can lead must lead.

The people who know better must act better.

There is a tendency in our culture for those of us who know better to indulge in things that we do not truly like or believe in whilst justifying our actions through irony.

We stand at the threshold of some sinful place and delight in its sights, whilst assuring anyone that passes by that we think it is terrible and depraved.

Yet we stay and watch.

We can see this clearly in the overarching nature of popular culture. There are those of us who may not see any problems in a programme like Jeremy Kyle for instance. We may see it as harmless entertainment, and may even think of it in a positive light.

But there are those of us who, if we think deeply enough, will find many things about it problematic. Yet we continue to watch it regardless of our reservations.

We watch with two sets of eyes. We delight in its base appeal - its cheap thrills and cheap laughs. Yet we also see beyond these shallow attractions. We see its problems, and the problems that it poses and reflects on a larger scale.

Irony is often a refuge for those of us who know better, because it allows us to have our cake and eat it. It allows us to split in two; to speak of principles, whilst acting in a manner that is contrary to them. It is a form of detachment; part of us breaks off and floats free above us, able to see and comment upon what we are doing without being tied down to our body and our acts.

Whilst irony may distance us from the consequences of our actions, it does not protect us from them. It is like a painkiller: we may not feel the pain but it is still there.

Irony finds its natural home in a culture of appearances; in a culture where we are judged by what we seem to do, rather than what we actually do. By what we seem to believe in, rather than what we actually believe in.

Our free floating culture has floated far enough. We are in danger of becoming entirely detached from what is real. We are losing sight of the consequences of our actions. We are getting lost in the fantasy world of words and images that we have spun around ourselves and have started to believe that it is real; that our dreamworld can replace the real world, if only we believe in it enough. We tell ourselves that there is no such thing as real, and are led to the conclusion that if there is no real then there is only what we imagine there is. And so we float further into the clouds; further away from the ground.

We are like a person who imagines themselves to be a bird. They may be able to maintain the fantasy for a while but eventually, and inevitably, they will find themselves on a rooftop ready to fly toward the heavens. Soon enough their body - that undeniable anchor - will remind them of who they are; and soon enough they will come crashing back to earth.

There is only so long that this kind of fantasy can continue before we come collectively crashing downwards; before reality begins to assert itself upon us, regardless of our posturing.

That time is now.

These times demand an end to irony. They demand that we become attached. That we become reconciled to what is real, and that we become responsible for it.

We can no longer afford to shelter within irony in order to avoid the reality of our actions. The only way we can create a more balanced and healthy environment is to be led towards it by those who are able to lead. If our leaders shrug their duty, then what hope do we have?

It is acts that convince, not words.

In any collective, there are those who have the strength and vision to lead the way. But it seems that our current culture is so unhealthy and unbalanced that even these people - our guiding spirits - have lost their way. By indulging in cheap and unhealthy habits they make themselves cheap and unhealthy. Instead of leading us to great things, they lead us further and further into an abyss.

Base culture has become so pervasive that it has become acceptable for anyone to indulge. Taken with a pinch of irony, anything becomes acceptable. Where do we draw the line? How much of ourselves are we willing to let go of? How low are we all willing to sink?

There will always be those who live in holes, who see only darkness and depravity. But these people must be balanced by their opposite. If, as we are doing more and more, we all decide to crawl down into these holes, then what hope can we have for our future?

Base culture is like junk food. We know it is bad for us, but it offers a quick and temporary appeal. It does not nourish us, but it tastes good whilst it lasts. It stimulates our taste buds with exaggerated flavours, giving us an instant hit.

Indulging in base culture ironically - with a degree of self-awareness and separation; with conflicted intent - is akin to eating junk food ironically. Regardless of your stance, it is going into your system and wreaking the same havoc as it is with anyone else.

The pattern of indulging in something that we know is bad for us is one of addiction.

The things that we are addicted to will ruin us in the end. The things that our society is addicted to will ruin us all if we are not careful.

If you can do better then you must.

Be honest about your dependencies.
Be strong.
Fight your addictions.

Just as those who are tall must stand tall and avoid slouching or stooping lest they risk problems in later life; those who are morally tall must also strive to stand at their full height.

Our culture vulgarizes us and encourages us all to stoop down. We must fight against its influence and stand at our true height, whatever it may be.

We must stop pandering to a culture that is beneath us. By engaging in it, even if only ironically, we are propping it up and ensuring its existence.

Do it not only for yourself, but for those who are relying on you to show them the way.

Do what you can.

Those who know better must act better.

................................................................................................................................................................................

In the Mysteries, celibacy is reserved for those who have reached a certain degree of spiritual unfoldment. When advocated for the mass of unenlightened humanity, however, it becomes a dangerous heresy, fatal alike to both religion and philosophy.

[Manly P. Hall]
'Qabbalistic Keys to the Creation of Man', The Secret Teachings of All Ages, p.378

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Sailing the Turbulent Seas
Only Playing
You or The Work
Sell Out
Perils of Radical Subjectivity
Life Amongst the Rubble

Sentencing Circles

In traditional court procedures, the accused is brought before a judge, possibly a jury, and legal counsel seeks to establish guilt or innocence and the appropriate remedy.

More recently, the victim or the victim's family has been allowed to offer "victim impact statements", describing the ways in which the crime has affected the individual and his or her relatives.

Traditional courts maintain distance and hierarchy. 

In a sentencing circle, the offender, his or her victims, the victim's family, peers, elders and other community members sit down together in a circle and work together to understand what has led to the crime and to negotiate appropriate redress.

Rather than being purely punitive, the circle promotes healing.

Instead of removing the offender from the community and isolating him or her, the circle affirms the essential goodness of the offender, attempting to restore and re-build the offender, the victim, and the community to which they all belong.

Circles: It's about Justice. It's about Healing.

................................................................................................................................................................................

The sentencing circle is about “community building,” he says; it is about “healing” those affected by crime, and those who committed it. It is repairing relations; making victims and perpetrators “feel better” with the outcome of a criminal incident.

[...] “What social scientist in the last 100 years has said, ‘Gee, punishment changes behaviour’?” Mr. Stuart asks.

Much better, he says, is for criminals to feel their community’s “love.”

[...] “If the judge were to effectively ignore the circle that would be sending a message that we don’t want your opinion on justice matters or that somehow punishment is more important than building community,”

[...] “There’s a basic philosophical question that has to be engaged before you even get involved in sentencing circles and that is what are your primary goals or objectives in sentencing,” says David Paciocco, a law professor at the university of Ottawa.

“It all depends on your perspective on what we’re trying to accomplish when we sentence.”

Sentencing circles appeal to those wanting primarily to reintegrate criminals into their offended community, he says. “If on the other hand you believe that sentencing is a principled exercise designed to express societal revulsion at criminal conduct, or if you believe that proportionality is the underlying consideration in sentencing, then you’re probably going to feel uncomfortable with a regime that’s designed to see how we can move forward rather than respond to what’s happened in the past.”

[...] Supporters of the circles say their strength is that the process reflects a more time-honoured form of justice; it is, Mr. Stuart points out, a community choosing to “roll up its sleeves” in the grandest traditions of civil society, to solve its own problems.

“We’re living now in this la-la land where nobody really participates,” he says. “It’s all done by professionals . . . we’ve outsourced everything.”

'Sentencing circles for aboriginals: Good justice?'
 
................................................................................................................................................................................

We believe that the penal code of the old covenant - an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth - has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that that under the new convenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever.

To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.

[Leo Tolstoy]
The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 4-5

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Everything is Connected
Carry Each Other
Evil and Us
Projecting a Shadow
Negative Space
Full Spectrum

A Circle of Gifts

When we get together to consume – food, drink, or entertainment – do we really draw on the gifts of anyone present? 

Anyone can consume. Intimacy comes from co-creation, not co-consumption, as anyone in a band can tell you, and it is different from liking or disliking someone.

But in a monetized society, our creativity happens in specialized domains, for money.

To forge community then, we must do more than simply get people together. While that is a start, soon we get tired of just talking, and we want to do something, to create something.

It is a very tepid community indeed, when the only need being met is the need to air opinions and feel that we are right, that we get it, and isn't it too bad that other people don't ... hey, I know! Let's collect each others' email addresses and start a listserv!

Community is woven from gifts. Unlike today's market system, whose built-in scarcity compels competition in which more for me is less for you, in a gift economy the opposite holds. Because people in gift culture pass on their surplus rather than accumulating it, your good fortune is my good fortune: more for you is more for me. Wealth circulates, gravitating toward the greatest need. In a gift community, people know that their gifts will eventually come back to them, albeit often in a new form.

Such a community might be called a "circle of the gift."

Fortunately, the monetization of life has reached its peak in our time, and is beginning a long and permanent receding (of which economic "recession" is an aspect). Both out of desire and necessity, we are poised at a critical moment of opportunity to reclaim gift culture, and therefore to build true community.

The reclamation is part of a larger shift of human consciousness, a larger reunion with nature, earth, each other, and lost parts of ourselves. Our alienation from gift culture is an aberration and our independence an illusion. We are not actually independent or "financially secure" – we are just as dependent as before, only on strangers and impersonal institutions, and, as we are likely to soon discover, these institutions are quite fragile.

[Charles Eisenstein]
'A Circle of Gifts'

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Creative Living
Go Your Own Way 
Lost Tribe
Communal Benefits
Community Service
Carry Each Other
Know your place 
Life Support
Un-professional

Firm Foundations

Those with an insecure sense of self inhabit houses with poor foundations. They live in constant fear that their home could at any moment crack and crumble. Because the self is in constant danger of falling apart, they will not risk anything that may pose a challenge to its integrity. Harsh weather and heavy blows are avoided.

These people will often be turned inwards, constantly checking for cracks and frantically applying cement, gaffa tape, or elastoplasts to whatever wounds appear. Every blow becomes magnified.

They look for constant reassurance - yes, your house is good (so, no, it won't fall down) - but all reassurance amounts to little more than a superficial and temporary remedy. They've seen the cracks in the basement, and they know how serious things really are.

A secure sense of self rests upon firm foundations, which are, according to some thinkers, put in place during the early years of a person's life. If a healthy relationship is not established with primary care-givers (most especially the mother) then whatever is built subsequently will rest upon an infirm sense of self. A bad start can, according to some, affect everything that follows.

Inflation of the self (self aggrandisement, narcissism, etc) can be a distraction from the worrying reality that remains to be confronted, down in the basement. Make enough noise about your wallpaper and maybe nobody will notice that your house is subsiding (not even you).

If we feel insecure about our foundations, then we may be adverse to leaving our house, lest it should fall over whilst we're gone. We don't believe that it will stay standing without us there to hold it all together. A firm sense of self, on the other hand, allows us to leave home and travel to new, and perhaps unfamiliar, surroundings. We're able to sample foreign customs, and try new ways of being; safe in the knowledge that our home will still be there when we return.

When we have a firm sense of self we're more able to look outwards, and what we see becomes less coloured by our own viewpoint: we project less of ourselves onto things. We stop taking things so personally, and realise that everything isn't about us. Maybe that person spoke to you sharply because you're inherently bad - or maybe they were just having a bad day. We're more inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt. As more colours are allowed into the picture, a more balanced view emerges.

Before feeling my way into Ladakhi culture, I had thought that leaving home was part of growing up, a necessary step toward becoming an adult.

I now believe that large extended families and small intimate communities form a better foundation for the creation of mature, balanced individuals.

A healthy society is one that encourages close social ties and mutual interdepedence, granting each individual a net of unconditional emotional support. Within this nurturing framework, individuals feel secure enough to become quite free and independent.

Paradoxically, I have found the Ladakhis less emotionally dependent than we are in industrial society. There is love and friendship, but it is not intense or grasping - not a possession of one person by another.

I once saw a mother greeting her eighteen-year-old son when he returned home after being away for a year. She seemed surprisingly calm, as though she had not missed him. It took me a long time to understand this behaviour.

I thought my Ladakhi friends reacted strangely when I arrived back after being away for the winter. I had brought presents I knew they would like. I expected them to be pleased to see me and happy at the gifts. But to them it was as if I had not been gone. They thanked me for the presents, but not in the way that I was hoping. I was wanting them to look excited and confirm our special friendship. I was disappointed. Whether I had been away for six months or a day, they treated me in the same way.

I came to realize, however, that the ability to adjust to any situation, to feel happy regardless of the circumstances, was a tremendous strength.

I came to appreciate the easy, relaxed attitude of my Ladakhi friends and to like being treated as though I had never been away.

Ladakhis do not seem to be as attached to anything as we are. 

Most of them are, of course, not completely without the attachments that so affect our lives. But again, there is a difference - an all pervasive difference - in degree. One may be unhappy to see a friend leave or to lose something, but not that unhappy.

[Helena Norberg-Hodge]
Ancient Futures: Learning From Ladakh, p.86-7

The infant moves slowly out from the mother, but it "can do this fully and sucessfully only to the extent that the mother is his absolutely unquestioned safe place to which he can always instantly return and be nurtured.

Only when the infant knows that the mother matrix will not abandon him can that infant move into childhood with confidence and power [...]

[...] The physical mother remains the primary matrix even though we separate from her and move into larger matrices [...]"

[Marion Woodman, quoting Joseph Chilton Pearce]
Addiction to Perfection, p. 18

Task performances sometimes are a means by which children hold onto self-esteem. This is particularly clear in the group Dweck and her colleagues term "helpless" children. These children hold performance goals (goals of demonstrating they have skill) and are experiencing failure.

They aren't able to maintain self-esteem with good performances, so they engage in self-inflating verbalizations: talking about skills in domains other than the one pertaining to this task, or boasting of wealth and possessions.

Such behaviours seem to reflect a desire to regain threatened self-esteem in domains other than the one that's responsible for the threat.

[Charles S. Carver & Michael Scheier]
On the Self-Regulation of Behavior, p. 79-80

Once adequate support is developed within the individual and/or in the environment, greater awareness and new ways of being in the world are possible.

[Herb Stevenson]
'Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change'

[When something anamalous occurs] how do we construe the occurence? Is it a major event, or a minor event?

And my advice would be, unless there’s strong reason, presume its a minor event and start operating at that level, because otherwise every argument becomes a catastrophe. And if that’s the case you actually can’t solve any problems - you won’t be able to discuss anything - because as soon as you bring up an anomaly - something unpleasant - the other person will assume that everything’s over and get so shorted out that you won’t be able to talk with them.

Those are the sort of people who will cry if you bring up anything negative - their value structure is so fragilely constructed that anything you toss at them - that’s a question - is enough to shake the entire structure to its foundations.

[Jordan Peterson]
‘2017 Maps of Meaning 7: Images of Story & MetaStory’

Related posts:-
Knowing Your Place
Growing Down
Maturity 
Life Support
Lost Tribe
A Safe Space
Love Your Self 
Forget Your Self
Communal Benefits
Community Service
Alone Together
Rooted in blood and soil
Carry Each Other
What are the people saying?
One Love?

Set It Free

A three year old child has just finished a drawing that she has spent the last few hours meticulously composing. In her opinion, it is the best drawing she has ever done, and she can't wait to show her mother, who she knows will be overjoyed to see it. She runs to her, shouting "Mummy, Mummy, I've done a drawing for you!"

"Wow!" exclaims her mother, "let me see!"

"Here!" she shouts, and thrusts the drawing into her mother's hands. "That'll be three pounds please!"

This situation may seem a little absurd, but each of us encounter a similar scenario on a near daily basis, whenever we pay for a song, a film, a theatre performance, or any other cultural creation; or whenever we, as creators ourselves, charge money for our creations. We are the excited child, enthused about our creations and eager to share them with others; it seems perverse for the child to demand money for her creation, and yet much of the time we may not give a second thought in issuing the same demand.

In charging for her art, our three-year-old is placing limitations upon it. Her mother can have it, but at a price. A hurdle has been erected, and it must be jumped before the goal is reached. For a child to place these limitations is absurd, precisely because the child could not conceive of any reason to do so. Unaffected by the necessities of commerce, her logic is of a different variety to ours. She sees only how proud she is of her creation, and imagines only the joy that it will bring someone else. Her logic exists between these points, and works to connect them. Like her, it is uncomplicated, naïve, and pure.

Our creations are our children, and we have a responsibility to them; if we truly believe in them - that they are ready to go out into the world and do good - then we must think carefully about every barrier we place in their path. Money can be one such barrier. In placing a price upon something we proclaim, "I will free you so that you can enter the world, but I must get something in return." This is the logic of exchange: if we spent so long raising this child, then surely our efforts must be compensated.

Copyright is another barrier. We tell our creation, "I think you are ready to leave my house and go out there, but you must remain under my watchful eye." We allow it a facsimile of freedom; it can roam, but only if we know its whereabouts - who it is with, what it is doing. We retain our parental presence, but in doing so may stunt its growth. It shows us that it is ready to go out there, to mingle and explore, but we are unable to relinquish our control. After all, we spent so much time and effort bringing it to this point, surely we are entitled to a few ownership rights?

The logic is as before. We have fooled ourselves into thinking that, because we created this thing, we must own it. It seems logical, but perhaps only because this is the brand of logic that our society surrounds us with on a daily basis: the logic of commerce. "Ownership" oils its gears; is vital to the smooth running of the system. But there are other ways of thinking, other brands of logic that may not place so much emphasis upon this idea. We must consider what happens when we apply the logic of commerce - with its rules; its favouring of certain values over others - to the world of creativity. Is it a good fit? Or is it a constraint, inhibiting possibilities of movement?

When we jettison the idea of ownership, the creative product can be seen in a new light. We may be proud of it - it may be handsome, or intelligent - but we understand that its greatness is its own, and not a reflection or a comment upon us. We may have raised it well - said the right things at the right time; doted and nurtured - but we did so for its benefit, not in order to reap rewards for exceptional parentage. Our joy is in seeing it take flight, wherever its wings may take it, and whomever it shall meet. Our joy is in knowing that it is out there, flourishing and, hopefully, doing good. Whilst it may be our child, we understand that it has a life within the community, and a duty herein.

It is all too easy to slip into becoming the controlling parent, especially when common logic urges us to think in terms of ownership and parental rights. But we mustn't forget our parental responsibilities; our duty to our creation, and to the community that is ready to accept and celebrate it. As the good parent we must give it all the freedom that it asks for, and allow it its encounters and escapades.

Commerce may wish to elbow its way into our lives at every opportunity, but we needn't let its rules and limitations colour all aspects of our existence. We have to make a living; this much is unavoidable. But the choice is ours as to whether we involve what is most precious to us in this struggle; whether we exploit its beauty, its greatness, in order to keep ourselves afloat. With the greater good in mind, it may be that we must do our best to protect the things that we truly care about from the corruptive imperatives of commerce, so that they can flourish uninhibited.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Charging money for something suppresses the material or service by restricting or deterring people from using it.

A very small percentage will buy something as opposed to using it for free, because it is unaffordable for most of the world's population, requires carrying money or having credit cards and wastes time for bookwork and transactions. Also it discriminates against the needy.

Instead people who can afford it should offer to donate, even if they are not asked for money. Would you be reading this information if you initially had to pay for it?

Here: http://www.trueconspiracies.com/

................................................................................................................................................................................

[On Balinese village life]

It is common to find that activity [...] rather than being purposive, i.e., aimed at some deferred goal, is valued for itself. The artist, the dancer, the musician, and the priest may receive a pecuniary reward for their professional activity, but only in rare cases is this reward adequate to recompense the artist for even his time and materials.

The reward is a token of appreciation, it is a definition of the context in which the theatrical company performs, but it is not the economic mainstay of the troupe. The earnings of the troupe may be saved up to enable them to buy new costumes, but when finally the costumes are bought it is usually necessary for every member to make a considerable contribution to the common fund in order to pay for them.

Similarly, in regard to the offerings which are taken to every temple feast, there is no purpose in this enormous expenditure of artistic work and real wealth. The god will not bring any benefit because you made a beautiful structure of flowers and fruit for the calendric feast in his temple, not will he avenge your abstention.

Instead of deferred purpose there is an immediate and immanent satisfaction in performing beautifully, with everybody else, that which it is correct to perform in each particular context.

[Gregory Bateson]
Steps to an Ecology of Mind ('Bali: The Value System of a Steady State'), p.117-8

................................................................................................................................................................................

You don't need to ask me permission to quote something I have written or said. We are both doing the work of the Creator. Our responsibility is to get the information out there. Use whatever you like.

This answer was given to me by Don Coyhis, president of the White Bison Society, when I asked him if I might use some words from his wonderful new meditation book based on the Medicine Wheel and Native American spirituality.

[...] Most Native people I know are like Don. They realize that possession - of anything, and especially of words - is an illusion. Once we put them out there, they belong to the universe. If we are all, to the best of our ability, doing the work of the Creator, there is no possession.

I assured Don that I felt the same way about his using my material. Our interaction felt so sane, so truly human.

When I am doing the work of the Creator, possession is an illusion.

[Anne Wilson Schaef]
"January 3rd", Native Wisdom for White Minds

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Open Source Approaches
Walter
[Anonymous]
Sell Out
Karma Yoga 
Un-professional