Everyday Idealism

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

[...] health is produced by establishing a natural relation of control and subordination among the constituents of the body, disease by establishing an unnatural relation.

[Plato] 
The Republic (Penguin Classics Edition), p.154

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

Idealism                   <------------>             Pragmatism
Long-sighted            <------------>            Short-sighted
Imaginative              <------------>             Realistic
What can be             <------------>             What is
Generalities              <------------>             Details
Thought                    <------------>             Action
Radiation                 <------------>              Gravity
Inflation                    <------------>             Deflation
Breathe In                 <------------>             Breathe Out
Diffuse                     <------------>              Pointed

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

The pendulum swings equally both ways
Day follows night
Each complements the other, as dark complements light.
As a whole, we need an equal amount of each, for balance, for health.
But which side do we collectively place emphasis upon? And which do we turn our backs upon?

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

Diagnosis
We are ill.
What are the symptoms? What are the causes? What are the remedies?


We identify the problems because the solutions lie in their opposites. Symptoms are simply imbalances. To address symptoms is to even up the scales. When we identify problems clearly, we also identify their solutions.

--

Q. Who are we?

We are all born somewhere between the two poles of pragmatism and idealism. None of us is entirely one or the other. We each contain a unique mix of both. Some will be more idealist than pragmatist, some more pragmatist than idealist. Those nearer to the middle of the scale will not readily identify themselves as either, and to them such labeling may seem unhelpful or untrue. They may say they are both, and it depends on the situation. This is because, being nearer to the middle, they cannot readily identify themselves as being nearer to either pole. They are lukewarm. Sometimes they think they're hot, sometimes cold. It depends. This is natural and normal.

It is those nearer to the extremes - pragmatism on one side, and idealism on the other - that will find truth in these labels. They feel the difference more readily.

We must understand our nature - and, importantly, understand that it is not only valid, but vital to the wider scene.

From there, we work to understand everyone's nature; and see how all fit into and complete a jigsaw.

--

Q. Why are we ill?
A. Our climate is toxic. In other words, it is critically imbalanced.

First we must understand that we are in a climate that is biased towards pragmatism. Commerce is a system predicated upon pragmatism. Not only that, but idealism is actually a threat towards its existence. People can think idealistically - they may even be able to act idealistically within certain carefully defined parameters - but Idealism cannot be given an equal placing at the table. It is a threatening substance and must be carefully controlled. When people think too idealistically they are unable to act as pragmatically - one negates the other. In the eyes of commerce, idealists think too much. Doing is better than thinking.

When the system that surrounds us - which dictates how we should act and think - is geared towards the pragmatic mentality, those of us that err more towards idealism will suffer many a blow at its hands. We will be continuously persecuted: misunderstood, overlooked, belittled, humiliated, bullied. Various words will be chucked our way in a general effort to get us to fit the status quo: naive, dreamer, unrealistic, vague, etc.

Unfortunately, many of us will not have the perspective or the tools to defend ourselves from this onslaught, and we may give in to the pressure to conform, learning to quiet a fundamental part of ourselves in the process. This is a travesty because in surpressing our idealism we are going against our nature.

In an environment of stifling pragmatism we - as idealists - are not only entitled, but obligated to demand more idealism from life. This is our message for the world, the one we were born to carry, and it is especially vital as remedy to the toxic imbalance of commerce. Commerce at its height is nothing more than rampant pragmatism: the short view carried to its lethal extreme. We are, as a whole, gagging for the long view. That is where idealism comes in.

The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Things are too flat, too crushing, too dead. We need more magic, more intensity, more peaks, more spirit, more romance. And not in the lives of characters in films or books; or celebrities - not second hand. In our lives. We are entitled to these things; more than that, we are ill through lack of them.

--

Q. How do we get better?
A. Look after - defend - yourself. Once you are healthy, help bring balance to the wider scene. In other words, allow your idealism to flourish and to reinvigorate your environment. 


The pragmatic environment is one that works to ground things, to deflate and anchor them. In such a climate, the idealist - whose nature is inflation - must be very careful to conserve and to restore his energy, otherwise he risks becoming as deflated as the world that surrounds him. A measure of pragmatism is healthy for us - it stops us from drifting too far, from becoming lost in the clouds - but too much is toxic. 

We need restorative baths of idealism. Currently we may get these through watching certain films or reading certain books. In surrounding ourselves with characters that reflect this aspect of ourselves, and situations that allow it to flourish, we recharge our batteries. The danger here is that idealism becomes confined to fiction; a nice dream. We must restore ourselves in other ways, in ways that allow idealism to flow within our own - real - lives. This may mean orchestrating situations that kindle the flame. These can, and have, taken many forms: a Sun Dance, a Vision Quest, a sit around the campfire, a sweat-lodge, sharing a pipe, star-gazing, meditation, silent contemplation, silent non-contemplation, dancing, fighting, making love, being creative, storytelling, dreaming, creating, communing, questing, adventuring. Call them 'rituals', or 'ceremonies'. These are just words, for important things.

The first step is in understanding that idealism is not something to be ashamed of; or to grow out of. It is not something that only exists in films or books. Idealism has always flourished in fiction - but our age has made the mistake of severing the link between fiction and reality.  Whereas in bygone times fiction would have flowed into reality - informing thought and action -  now it serves as little more than a novelty: as way to pass time until we die. Messages no longer pass through the cell wall of culture and into the body of the collective. The walls have closed up: cultural forms have become prisons. But the natural home of idealism is where it has always been: within our day to day lives. We must make room for it.

Do not be afraid to be laughed at, or vilified. To offer an analogy: in an environment of hatred, those who express Love will be seen and treated as oddities; this does not make Love something to be ashamed of; and it certainly should not discourage us from expressing something that we know in our hearts to be good. It says more about the toxic nature of the environment than it does about the validity of Love. The same applies to Idealism. It is a necessary and important aspect of being human. Let it flow.

If you are an idealist and any of this resonates with you, then you with have an inkling yourself of how to give life to that important aspect of yourself. It starts in self-defence; in sticking up for your idealism and not allowing it to be crushed. Let them sneer. Become a laughing stock. But know that there are many others like you. And that your candle, as insignificant as it may seem when surrounded by such overwhelming darkness, is part of a dawning light. It will grow. Trust yourself, and believe in yourself.

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

Related posts:-
The Colour Wheel
A Healthy Body
Get Real
You ought to be more like me 
The Right Match 
The Devil is in the Details (and God is in the Generalities)
Life Support 
Small Mind/Large Mind
Part of a System
Know Your Place 

Let It Flow

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


The road system is a lot like our circulatory system. It has red blood cells, and white; platelets and plasma; each with their individual characteristics and modes of behaviour.

For our body to be healthy, things must flow smoothly, free of disputes and blockages. Each part works together, to create a harmonious whole.


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


We all like surprises, or so the saying goes. But on the roads, surprises lose their appeal.

Broadly speaking, motorists know what other motorists are going to do, thanks to universal rules that govern their behaviour. Inasmuch as everyone sticks to these rules then a critical amount of order is maintained. We all make mistakes - and occasionally someone will be wantonly reckless - but by and large we strive to follow the rules and be transparent to one another.

Can the same be said for cyclists?

There are many instances in which cyclists' behaviour becomes largely unpredictable. Certain situations provoke this more than others, chief among them being whenever a cyclist sees slow moving or static traffic.

As cyclists, we have the option to 'filter' whenever we see traffic ahead. This is in essence a pass to the front of the queue, presumably awarded as either a congratulatory or condolatory pat on the back, depending on your point of view: either 'good on you for choosing to cycle instead of drive' or 'we know you keep getting overtaken by everyone else, but you can get your own back now.'

Filtering creates confusion and anxiety because it is risky and unpredictable. Motorists cannot anticipate when we are going to move up their left side, or their right; or cut in front of them. They do not know what we are going to do when the traffic starts moving and we are stranded on either side of them; whether we will attempt to speed up or slow down. They are surprised as we spring from one blind-spot to the next. They do not know whether we will even choose to filter at all.

Not only do they not know how we will behave, they also do not know what we expect from them.

There are a great many unknowns when it comes to cyclists. And this is because we currently have a great deal of freedom. There are no laws that say we must or must not filter; or that dictate how we must filter if we choose to do so.

Filtering - or queue-dodging as it is known to other road-users - is tacitly encouraged by the presence of advance stop lines, which entice the cyclist to assume pole position. Whilst these measures have been put in place to help cyclists, it is my view that, in encouraging unpredictable and risky behaviour - that zig-zag squeeze to the front - they are a detriment to all road users.

Cyclists frequently cite the ability to queue-dodge as one of the benefits of cycling; yet if we are honest with ourselves, we know that cycling has much else to advertise it besides the opportunity to act like prima-donna VIPs whenever we see a line of traffic.

We have great freedom, and yet we, as a community, continually abuse it. We run red lights; we hop from pavement to road to cycle lane as and when it suits us; we ride two - or more - abreast, holding a conversation on the road; we flagrantly queue dodge. We ask to be treated like a car, and in the next moment take advantage of the fact that we are not.

We are a schizophrenic presence. We make people nervous.

As cyclists we generally do not see the turmoil we cause; partly because we are concerned with our own plight; and partly because such turmoil may often play itself out in undetectable and subtle ways. We do not know how disgruntled we have made someone; or whether we have added another black mark in someone's mental logbook, another straw that may one day break some cyclist's back.

We may think that filtering is 'fine', that no damage is done; but even a cursory survey of a handful of motorists would lead us to see otherwise.

Motorists want from us what all road users want from each other: predictability.

Filtering is an inherently unpredictable activity - now I'm here, now I'm there; now you see me, now you don't - and is fraught with uncertainties. It is that point at which the friction between cyclists and other road users becomes especially intense.

We may protest that cycling takes longer and that car drivers are able to get to where they are going quicker, therefore why shouldn't we be allowed the odd advantage? But this is an argument that uses sleight of hand to convince. It would have us believe that by filtering through slow-moving traffic we are, to some extent, readressing the balance between cyclists and motorists. It is a position that has at its heart a division - cyclists on one side, and motorists on the other.

If we want an equal place on the road, then we must accept this equality in all of its implications, good or bad. If motorists are to treat us as equals then we must behave as equals. This means queueing in traffic, and waiting our turn like everyone else.

A cyclist with a short-view argues that the traffic is caused by motor-vehicles, and so is the motorist's concern, not his; the long-sighted view shows that traffic is caused by road-users, of which he is one. Like it or not there are a lot of cars right now: all the more reason to endear ourselves as cyclists and to act against the unhelpful antagonisms that cause schisms on the road.

With the benefit of the long-view we do not act opportunistically, using our size to our advantage. We do not say "treat me like a car" at one moment, the next moment adding the caveat "only not right now."

We must act honorably. We must resist the urge to queue dodge. We must not filter. We must never undertake.

When we see traffic ahead, we must move into primary position and wait in the traffic. Through moving into primary we will be seen and will make clear our intention to move with the traffic. There is a beautiful simplicity in this stance: it is clear and it is safe. And more than that, it is honourable. The more we do this, the more it will become clear to cars what they can expect from us; and the more they will respect us for it.

If we, as a community, do not discipline ourselves - act responsibly, and honorably; with the well-being of all road users in mind - then we will be disciplined. A tipping point will be reached. Laws will tighten and our freedoms - those priviledges we currently have a tendency to flaunt - will be stripped from us.

It is my belief that all motorists should be educated about cyclists, so that they know what to expect from us and how to treat us. This could be introduced as part of the driving test, but I believe it would be much more effective to introduce it as a mandatory cycle-training programme for all teenagers, run via high-schools.

This way, we all start with the bicycle. It becomes our launching pad to the road. From this we graduate - if we wish - to the car. From having been introduced to the road as cyclists, we will subsequently be able to anticipate cyclists behaviour and act accordingly, and will be more inclined to treat them with respect. It will not be a cure-all solution to the kind of antagonisms we see on the roads at the minute, but it is a fine place to start.

To conclude:

Motorists must know more about cyclists; must understand what we do, and what they are expected to do around us.

Cyclists must act more honorably and with the good of all road users in mind; not just themselves or other cyclists. They must curb some of their more schizophrenic tendencies, including the urge to filter.

In essence, what we are suggesting is a coming together; a crossing of the divide between us and them. We must remember that beneath our labels of 'cyclists' or 'motorists', we are all road-users.

We must keep that image of the circulatory system in mind; and remember that for a healthy body, traffic must flow smoothly, with as few disputes or blockages as possible. But importantly, white cell or red, we are all part of the same body.

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

Related posts:-
Everything is Connected
A Healthy Body
A Higher Power 

Forecast

The only place where perfection can exist is in virtual reality - in other words, in those artificial realities created by us. Inasmuch as we are chasing perfection (and a wide glance at modern trends would suggest that we are), then we should not be surprised by where our quest will inevitably lead us ...

Currently we are still attempting to perfect the real world. We iron out our creases through cosmetic surgery, creams and potions. We are becoming ever more afraid of imperfection, and thus of things that cause imperfections. We deny Nature, that place of messiness, and create sanitised environments that prevent us from having to experience too much imperfection. Surfaces are smoothed, corners rounded off. 

Alongside this we are creating ever more immersive virtual worlds, worlds in which we no longer need to struggle to perfect ourselves or the world around us. These worlds can be as we want them to be; and in them we can be who we want to be. We don't need things like insurance, or cosmetic surgery.

Inasmuch as we remain obsessed with perfection, then eventually we will give up our struggle to perfect the real world, and will give in to the allure of the virtual world.

It is natural that we should try and make things better. But we do not know where to draw the line. It is crucial that we find this line.
 
--

Grand Theft Auto will gradually assimilate many other models of video games within itself, and become an all encompassing game - 'The Game.' Games of all types - driving games, first person shooters - and all themes - supernatural, realistic, ultraviolent, historic - will all be woven into its structure. It will also become more 'open-source' - much like Minecraft - allowing users to design their own experiences. As this happens it will become ever more engrossing to the gamer. Gamers will spend more and more time within it, and technological advances will make it more and more immersive.

The dreams that are given to us by films - those unattainable aspirations that work their way within us from an early age - will be given an outlet in The Game. It will become a place where our ever more unsustainable lifestyles can be safely housed. A place where a garage full of sports cars and a house full of trinkets can be entirely disconnected from unfortunate truths like dwindling natural resources and unseen ultra-violence.

Essentially, Grand Theft Auto will become The Matrix. It is happening already.

--

The balance of power between companies and consumers will swing ever more rapidly toward the former. Consumer rights will become a thing of the past. Companies will care less and less about complaints. Those companies that have a monopoly or near-monopoly on certain markets will not even have to make a show of responding to consumer concerns. The consumer will be treat with growing disdain.

--

Science will become ever more like a religion; it will have stories that must be subscribed to. Alternate voices will be vilified as heretics and burnt at the stake. It will attract followers looking for the comforting certainty of dogma.

--

Professionals will become more and more limited in what they can do, due to increasing red tape as a consequence of litigation. In response to this a countercurrent will grow, based on friendship relationships i.e. informal, non-professional, ad-hoc arrangements. More and more people will begin to abandon professional institutions as they become ever more rigid. This applies to all institutions.

In order to help each other - truly help each other - more often than not we have to be non-professional - in other words, go outside of the bounds which our professions lay down. This will become ever more true the more the boundaries of professionalism close in; the more 'professional' we become.

--

New insights will come more and more from 'enthusiastic amateurs' i.e. those on the outside of institutions, the non-professionals. This is because institutions, as they grow and become more solid, will find it harder to incorporate new information, especially when it flies in the face of current paradigms.

The emphasis, then, is on those 'free radicals' who act independently of institutions.

--

We will come to accept that there is great wisdom and understanding in ancient knowledge traditions, and that we weren't able to see this because of our current limited perspective. Things we once dismissed as unscientific and superstitious will be seen in a new light, through new knowledge and understanding.

Twisted out of Shape

One of the biggest questions for our time is this:

How far can human nature be moulded by culture?

In other words; how far can we bend the branch before it either springs back or breaks?

A tree can be manipulated into all manner of distorted shapes through repeated slight adjustments. An individual, and a society, can be manipulated in much the same way. With the former, the moulding force is the human hand; with the latter, is is culture.

As each generation dies, they take with them the lived experience of how things were. All that remains of their time are memories; tall tales that spring from mouths, books or screens. But their experience dies with them; successive generations cannot know what it was like to live then. They can imagine, but they cannot know - smell, taste, touch ... experience.

We can lament a time gone by, but all we can know is our own time. All that is normal to us - all of our measurements, regrets, dreams - are born from within our own time.

An idea of a time gone by will only take root with us if it can connect to something similar in our own time. We lament the simplicity of a bygone era, because we ourselves remember such simplicity in our own lives. If we have nothing to equate it to, then it will not take root. It will remain abstract, a funny story.

The time we grow up in, no matter how distorted it may appear to the ghosts of times gone by, cannot be anything other than normal to us. We have no other frame of reference. If we are (un)lucky we can imagine something different. But generally speaking we will be discouraged from doing this. 

Can a tree forget its shape? It seems that this is what is happening to us. Our society changes incrementally, and each change is normalised by each successive generation. Before you know it, the tree is bent and twisted; and yet it feels no loss, sees no damage. Because to it - its memory of times gone by erased with age - this shape is normal.

And if it knows no different, then where is the harm?
As long as it can sustain itself in such a shape, then there is no harm.

Is there?

So why is it that we protest change? That we lament times gone by? Because when we are dead, there will be no-one to know what they are missing out on. The mass of those left living will experience a world perfectly normal and acceptable to them. At the fringes there will be those who can imagine something different - haunted by a picture of a tall healthy tree - but these voices are marginalized, branded 'luddites',  'unrealistic' or 'hopeless dreamers'. To imagine something else is unrealistic because it does not accept what is real - in other words, things as they currently are.

So to return to the question:

How far can human nature be moulded by culture?

How far can the tree be bent before it springs back or dies?

Related posts:-
A Healthy Body
Guiding Fiction
Re-write It

Human Nature