The name of this blog, Rainbow Juice, is intentional.
The rainbow signifies unity from diversity. It is holistic. The arch suggests the idea of looking at the over-arching concepts: the big picture. To create a rainbow requires air, fire (the sun) and water (raindrops) and us to see it from the earth.
Juice suggests an extract; hence rainbow juice is extracting the elements from the rainbow, translating them and making them accessible to us. Juice also refreshes us and here it symbolises our nutritional quest for understanding, compassion and enlightenment.

Wednesday 6 November 2024

Too Late! ... But Wait

Climate change is coming. The Earth is warming, now about 1.3 degrees C above late 19th century average. It is getting closer to 2 degrees higher.

Scientists tell us we have to contain this warming, preferably below 1.5 degrees, certainly below 2 degrees.

Social and environmental collapse is predicted for later this century.

We have to do something.

The bad news is: It’s Too Late!

It all has to do with tipping points. A tipping point has been defined as when change in part of a system becomes self-perpetuating beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread, frequently abrupt and often irreversible impacts.’

There are some keywords in that definition.

·       Self-perpetuating tells us that the process has become runaway, and runs now under its own steam, without need for external force.

·       Threshold tells us that there is a point at which a system changes from one state to another state.

·       Substantial, widespread tells us that the new system that follows the threshold is nothing like the system that preceded it.

·       Frequently Abrupt tells us that the change will be catastrophic and will happen very quickly.

·       Often Irreversible tells us that we cannot go back to the previous state, no matter how much we would wish that were possible.

The Earth systems that control, moderate, and form our climate have been studied for many years. Meteorologists, Earth and Climate Scientists now have a very good understanding of how these systems work, and how they interact. At least 25 tipping points in Earth systems have been identified, with 9 of these being especially crucial.

A recent report (December 2023) identifies a number of these tipping points as likely to tip within the near future. At high risk of tipping the report identifies the Greenland Ice Sheet, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Amazon rainforest, low latitude coral reefs, Boreal permafrost, and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). All of these are likely to tip soon.

What makes things worse though, is that the Earth’s systems are inter-linked, so that if one point is tipped it is highly likely to trigger the tipping of other points – much like a row of dominoes.

However, climate it just one of Earth’s systems. The Stockholm Resilience Centre has been mapping what it has called “Planetary Boundaries” since 2009 (1). The Centre has identified nine of these – climate change being just one of them. In 2009 the Centre had assessed seven boundaries and found that three of them had been exceeded. Last year, the Centre released its latest report in which all nine boundaries had been assessed and found that six of the nine boundaries had been crossed.

None of this is good news.

It is too late to avert serious climate change. It is too late to pull back from social and environmental collapse.

The systems are now self-perpetuating (with or without human intervention), have exceeded some of the thresholds, and have become irreversible.

Too late, too late, too late!!!

But wait

It is not too late to act. Yes, it is too late to act to stop climate chaos and collapse. But it not too late to act in other ways. There is good news.

There is an old saying (it goes back to at least the early 1800s) and has been attributed to a variety of sources – Indian gurus, Chinese sages, the Roman poet Statius, and the French theologian Hyacinthe Loyson. No matter the sayings precise source, the sentiment expressed in it is of value to us at this time. The saying is often quoted thus:

‘Blessed is the person who plants trees under whose shade they will never sit.’

The nature of chaotic systems, tipping points, and social/environmental collapse is that we have no way of predicting the outcome ahead of time.

The best we can do going into the collapse is to plant the seeds for the trees that may be of use to any (if any) humans that get through to the other side of the collapse. Even though, we – acting today – will never experience the benefit of those trees.

We must be careful what trees we plant though. That means looking back over our history to identify the poisonous trees from which we have eaten, and not planning them. Rather we need to plant those trees that are healthy and provide good shelter.

Let me name some of these trees: kindness, compassion, love, sense of beauty, care, empathy, respect, connection, equity. These trees need to be made available to all humans. and to all the other creatures and plants that share this planet with us.

We must not plant the trees of: exploitation, hatred, narcissism, selfishness, hubris. Most of all we must not plant the tree of human exceptionalism.

Otherwise, any human society that does manage to get through to the other side of the collapse is doomed to simply repeat the same mistakes we made that have brought us to the point of social/environmental collapse.

Notes:

1. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html  accessed 6 November 2024

Tuesday 29 October 2024

History For Tomorrow (Book Review)

On page 2 of History For Tomorrow Roman Krznaric quotes the German philosopher and poet Goethe. ‘He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living hand to mouth,’ wrote Goethe in 1819.

Roman Krznaric’s book is certainly not written hand to mouth. It is meticulously researched and eloquently written.

Krznaric’s essential thesis in this book is to present ideas from the past that may hold keys to how we deal with issues in the present. The historical events that he chooses at first seem illogical and unconnected to the modern-day issue. His comparisons are reminiscent of one of Edward de Bono’s (the Father of Lateral Thinking) exercises in which two unrelated concepts are thrown together to see how they might inform each other.

For instance, the problem of social media might seem like an uniquely modern issue. Krznaric shows how an understanding of the history of the invention and production of the printing press is of benefit when attempting to tackle the myriad troubles of social media. The treatment of witches in the 16th and 17th centuries is also presented as having some lessons for 21st century social media. So too, does the coffeehouse culture in England from 1650 onwards. (England’s first coffeehouse is just down the road from where Krznaric live, in Oxford.)

On first glance, none of these – Gutenberg’s printing press, witch hunts, and coffeehouses – would seem to have much to offer methods to deal with the difficulties of social media. But Krznaric skilfully shows that they can.

History For Tomorrow tackles a number of modern-day issues, from water shortages to genetic modification, from inequality to artificial intelligence. How can we kick the consumer habit, or how do we restore faith in democracy? History, as Krznaric shows, is replete with possible remedies.

Reading this book I was often surprised, and then delighted, to read of the historical events that Krznaric laid in front of a present-day issue.

Towards the end of the book Krznaric quotes another writer, the American author Mark Twain. Twain is often noted for some of his pithy sayings. In Chapter 9 (of 10) one of those sayings is quoted: ‘History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.’

Roman Krznaric has done an excellent job of discovering and presenting to us the rhymes of history.

Note:

1. Roman Krznaric, History for Tomorrow: Inspiration from the past for the future of humanity, W H Allen, London, 2024

Wednesday 23 October 2024

Two Arrows

Most of the world’s great spiritual teachers have used metaphors, parables, and allegories to convey their teachings. The use of such devices usually allows sometimes complex concepts to be more easily understood by the listener or reader.

One of the Buddha’s allegories helps to explain how we can often get into self-perpetuating and repeating cycles of pain, harm, and suffering. The Buddha has often been known as the Great Physician because his primary teaching was to teach the mechanisms of suffering: how suffering arises, and how we might heal ourselves of suffering. Indeed, his first Noble Truth tells us that ‘suffering exists.’

Before continuing it is worth taking a closer read of the word that has been translated as suffering in the English language.

Suffering, in the language of the Buddha, does not simply mean the same as pain. It can be better translated as a mixture of English words such as: discontent, dis-ease, dissatisfaction, unhappiness, or restlessness.

The Buddha distinguishes between pain and suffering. One of the best known of his allegories to illustrate the difference is that of the Two Arrows.

Imagine that you have been struck by an arrow. It is painful. The pain may be physical, such as a wound to your leg or arm. It may be emotional, perhaps a loss of someone close to you. It may be psychological, for example, becoming depressed or anxious. In each case the pain of the arrow is real and something we feel.

The key insight of the Buddha was that, having been shot by the first arrow of pain, we then react and shoot a second arrow. This arrow may be directed at someone else, whom we blame for shooting the first arrow. In many cases, too, we shoot this arrow at ourselves. We blame ourselves for being foolish, stupid, or simply careless.

This second arrow is the arrow of suffering.

By taking this second arrow out of our quiver and shooting it we trap ourselves in a snare of which there seems no way out. Shooting this arrow we believe to be capable of relieving us of our pain.

Yet, most often, instead of relief from pain, shooting this second arrow only results in further pain, to ourselves or others. Sadly, all too often when we shoot the second arrow at someone else, the other person (unless they have learnt the lesson of the two arrows) is likely to fire yet another arrow back. The arrows then begin to fly back and forth, inflicting further, and greater pain, with each shot.

The allegory of the two arrows does not try to teach us how to not shoot the first arrow. Nor is it attempting to educate us on how to dodge the first arrow.

The first arrow is inevitable. Being human places us in situations which are painful or hurtful.

The second arrow, however, is not inevitable. This is the teaching the Buddha is trying to make; How to not shoot that second arrow.

Because the first arrow is unavoidable, then we can learn to accept the pain, be open to what it is telling us. Most pain - whether physical, emotional, or psychological – has a message for us.

By shooting the second arrow we do not allow ourselves to hear the message.

Although the Buddha when speaking this allegory was talking about our individual lives, we can clearly identify the shooting of the second arrow also in our collective lives.

The lesson in our collective, social, and global lives is no different.

We must learn to not shoot the second arrow.

Leave that second arrow in the quiver.


Wednesday 16 October 2024

Forgotten Forgetting

Every so often I come across two prevailing beliefs in conversations. One is that humans are innately selfish, prone to violence, and/or nasty. The other is that our hunter-gatherer ancestors often beat each other up to steal scarce resources. The two beliefs are linked. They are both highly debatable, and most likely false.

The common imagery associated with the second of these beliefs is that of opposing groups of hunter-gatherers coming into contact and, using clubs, spears, and other weapons, attacking one another. Such imagery supposes that one group may have just killed a deer, and the other group wishes to steal the deer for their own use.

A further image of hunter-gatherers is that of the males going off and taking a woman of another group by force and dragging her (many images show by the hair) back to his own cave.

These images are palpably untrue.

Yet, these images, and the beliefs themselves, are likely to be the source of the first belief – that humans are inherently malicious and horrible creatures - or perhaps stem from that belief themselves.

Over the years these images and beliefs have had their adherents, sometimes advanced by high profile, and influential people. One of the most notable was the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In his book, Leviathan,1 Hobbes curtly and bluntly summed up the belief that humans are innately unpleasant by stating that the ‘life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutal, and short.’

Hobbes’ solution to this condition was to enter into a social contract by which citizens give up their freedoms to powerful individuals and/or parliaments in exchange for safety. By expanding upon this notion Hobbes became known as the father of political philosophy.

Hobbes’ summary is a very bleak assessment of the nature of humanity, isn’t it?

Yet, I hear and read versions of this assessment constantly from many people; from esteemed authors to those I share a coffee with. Our culture seems to have adopted this view uncritically. Perhaps, more likely, we have simply forgotten how things were before we took to agriculture in a big way. Daniel Quinn calls this The Great Forgetting; the ‘fact that before the advent of agriculture and village life, humans had lived in a profoundly different way.’2

Over the past 10,000 years or so, not only have we forgotten how things were, but we have also even forgotten that we have forgotten. So that nowadays we assume that our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutal, and short’ lives, because that was the way Hobbes and others saw the world of their time. This judgment by Hobbes and others has entered our cultural belief system and worldview, so much so that it goes unquestioned.

Yet, research by palaeontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists challenges the belief. This research shows that our ancestors roamed over large expanses, yet when they encountered other groups, the contact was not one of distrust or aggression. More often it was to trade, to re-acquaint with friends or relatives, to find mates (outside of one’s own clan), to learn new skills, and to participate in ceremonies and rituals. As the authors of one review paper claim, hunter-gatherers ‘moved because they were part of a mobile society that was large, complex, and distributed.’3

Our hunter-gather ancestors did not live in isolated small groups according to these researchers. Hunter-gather society was complex and interrelated. This is what we have forgotten.

During Hobbes’ time the research techniques of palaeontologists and anthropologists were not available to him; consequently, he was unable to remember life thousands of years before. He most likely assumed that what he saw of British society of his time was how things had always been. His words became explanations without evidence. Today, as I hear and see these same images and beliefs repeated, they sound and look more and more like justification, rather than simply explanation. If not outright justification, then at least tolerant credibility.

Today, we try to find ways to overcome aggression, violence, poverty, and harshness, because we think these arise from our innate human nature. But, if we have forgotten our state of nature as it was for 95% of our human existence, then we do not need to find ways to overcome our nature: we simply need to stop forgetting.

Notes:

1. To give its full title: Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. First published in 1651. (They were prone to protracted book titles at that time.)

2. Daniel Quinn, Have You Heard of the Great Forgetting? An excerpt from his book The Story of B. It used to be on his Ishmael.com website, but with the shift to Ishmael.org it has disappeared. However, the article is still available on the Films for Action website - https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-great-forgetting/  accessed 16 October 2024

3. Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias, Why do hunter-gatherers refuse to be sedentary? University of ZÅ«rich, March 2024 https://aeon.co/essays/the-hunter-gatherers-of-the-21st-century-who-live-on-the-move  accessed 16 October 2024

Wednesday 9 October 2024

Wisdom Overshoot

On the front cover of his masterful book Overshoot1 William Catton succinctly defines overshoot as ‘growth beyond an area’s carrying capacity.’  Carrying capacity, he defines as the ‘maximum permanently supportable load.’

William Catton made a coherent and irresistible case for overshoot being at the heart of our present-day environmental disasters. In attempting, via technology, to use our ingenuity and innovative powers to increase the Earth’s carrying capacity we have succeeded only in reducing it. We have way overshot the Earth’s carrying capacity, manifesting that in species extinction, climate chaos, and air, land, and sea pollution as just a few examples.

Behind the technological reasons for overshoot we can also identify another category of overshoot.

Our collective ability to innovate, invent, and fabricate systems, technology, and facilities has overshot our wisdom. What do I mean by this?

When we innovate, invent, and fabricate we ask ourselves questions such as: How can we make this happen? What resources do we need for this?

These are questions that call on our intelligence and our knowledge. These questions are framed within paradigms of progress and human exceptionalism.

They are not questions that ask us to reflect upon the consequences of our innovations, inventions, and fabrications.

They are not questions that call upon our wisdom.

Wisdom would ask, in each and every case: Should we do this?

There are innumerable instances in our past where we have not asked this question, or if we have, have ignored the answers. In just the past 200 years, we have failed to ask such a question of innovations such as: the internal combustion engine, atomic fission, weapons development, artificial intelligence, mobile phone systems, monocultural agriculture, “green” energy, the private automobile, …

Yet, if we were to honestly and robustly look into the outcomes of each of these, we would find disastrous effects and results.

Towards the end of his book, William Catton asks: ‘What must we avoid doing to keep from making a bad situation unnecessarily worse?’

His question has to be answered with – avoid our desire to continuously innovate, invent, and fabricate.

In the place of these we must give greater emphasis upon wisdom and the willingness to seriously consider the consequences of our actions, not just for ourselves, but primarily for future generations. Furthermore, within those future generations must be included birds, fish, mammals, insects, trees, fungi, ferns, rivers, mountains, sierras, and all the other phenomena that go together to make up the natural world.

We cannot afford for our intelligence to continually overshoot our carrying capacity of wisdom.

Notes

1. William R Catton, Jr., Overshoot, University of Illinois Press, Urbana & Chicago, 1982

Wednesday 2 October 2024

Magic Wand

At the end of his interviews with guests, one of my favourite podcasters1 asks of them each the same question: ‘If you could wave a magic wand and there was no personal recourse to your decision, what is one thing you would do to improve human and planetary futures?’

As I listen to his guests’ replies I sometimes wonder how I would answer that question.

I’ve come up with an answer.

Get rid of mobile phones. And all the surrounding paraphernalia that goes with them.

The label phone is out-of-date these days. For sure, the very first ones were phones, but nowadays they are also, inter alia; a camera, a news service, a video recorder, an entertainment centre (movies and music for example), a dictionary and encyclopedia, a calculator, a calendar and appointments diary, and ….

Getting rid of mobile phones, to my mind, could significantly improve human and planetary futures. Consider a few of the issues that would derive from a world without mobile phones.

There would be less anxiety and depression in the world. Research indicates that mobile phone use can become addictive (it even has a name – nomophobia) which in turn leads to greater levels of anxiety and depression.

Excessive use of mobile phones has been shown to result in eye swelling and other eyesight problems.

The “blue” light of mobile phones interferes with the ability to fall asleep and increases the chances of insomnia.

Many people use earplugs with their mobile phones. Excessive use of these has been shown to cause ear problems.

Ironically, since phones are supposed to be communication devices, mobile phone use leads to less communication between people. In turn this leads to greater levels of social isolation.

Cyberbullying is a term that has had to be invented to describe the bullying that becomes possible with mobile phones and other electronic media. A Headspace2 survey in Australia in 2019 found that well over 50% of young Australians experienced cyberbullying.

Mobile phone use contributes to less physical activity, resulting in a number of health issues.

There is some (albeit inconclusive) research indicating a connection between mobile phone use and cancer.

The use of mobile phones whilst driving increases the risk of an accident by four times.

More than 5.3 billion (yes – billion) mobile phones were thrown away in 2022. Stacked flat these would form a pile that would rise 1/8th of the way to the moon – further out into space than the orbit of the International Space Station.

Mobile phones get replaced once every 18 months, on average globally. Only 12.5% of these are recycled to some extent.

E-waste (of which mobile phones are a significant quantity) contribute 70% of all global toxic waste. 80% of the e-waste produce in the US gets exported to Asia, where workers (many of them children) get exposed to the toxic fumes when the waste is burnt following the extraction of the precious metals.

Between 400 litres and 2 million litres of water is required to produce just 1 kg of lithium, and essential mineral in making mobile phones. And that is just one of the many minerals required.

Having a mobile phone continuously at hand dumbs us down. The convenience of looking up information requires much less thinking than does undertaking honest and sincere fact finding. Those that would manipulate our minds know this well, and hence we become exposed to false news, misinformation, and downright lies.

What if mobile phones did disappear? Would that improve human and planetary futures? Maybe.

The mental health of young people might improve, or at least not get worse.

Our sense of community might return.

We might find a renaissance in the pleasures of one-to-one conversation and the return of the art of letter writing.

The Earth would be less exploited and may be able to cope better with the amount of waste we produce.

The health of workers in Asia (and elsewhere) might increase.

We might start to enjoy simple pleasures of outdoor activity again.

Does anyone have a magic wand?

Notes

1. Nate Hagens, https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/

2. Headspace is a non-profit organisation dealing with the health and wellbeing of young people in Australia.

Tuesday 24 September 2024

Voting: Same As It Ever Was

Where I live has recently had elections for its city council. People have voted for one mayor and eight Councillors. The people have spoken. Or have they?

These nine members of the Council will be making decisions for the almost 80,000 people that live within the city’s boundaries.

They will be doing that in their first week.

But, here’s the rub. There will be 156 weeks of decision making before the next election. It will be the same nine people in the first week as it will be in the final week. The same nine!

Yet, we call this representative democracy.

It is one of the biggest falsehoods we tell ourselves. It defies reason to suggest that the word “representative” can be applied to a system whereby 0.01% of the people in an area make decisions for the other 99.99%, every week for 156 weeks (3 years) on end.

The pattern gets repeated in the more than 500 districts in this country. The pattern is repeated in other so-called representative democracy countries throughout the world.

But, here’s a further rub. At the end of that 3-year term (or whatever length it is) many of those nine will put themselves up for election again. And most will get re-elected. Representation from the 99.99% is highly unlikely.

If the word democratic comes from the Greek word meaning common people, and the word representative derives from the Latin word for to show, exhibit, set in view, then our modern concept of representative democracy is a cover-up of its essential meaning – to set the common people in view. And what is a cover-up? A sham.

Let us be honest. Let us name it for what it truly is. Representative democracy is a sham.

So, what then?

Winston Churchill is reputed to have said that ‘democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.’ Perhaps Churchill had not studied in depth the democracy of ancient Athens.

Ancient Athens used a system that selected their decision-makers via sortition – essentially by lot. Thus, the chances of anyone (whether from the 0.01% of the population or from the 99.99%) had an equal chance of being selected. Plus, having been selected once did not give that person a greater chance of being selected next time.

I will not cover sortition any further here. I have written extensively about sortition in this blog. In the topics section on the right side of this blog can be found the entry “Sortition” Clicking on that will show numerous items.

‘But, but,’ I can hear the objections. “But, we need the best to represent us. Voting is the best way to get the best representatives.”

We must ask: what is best? Who are the best? The best decision-makers? If getting the best decision-makers is our objective then surely, voting is not going to do that. Unless. Unless the best decision-makers are the voters. Citizens must be the best decision-makers if it is they who we trust to make the best decision (via voting) as to who are to be the representatives. So, why not simply trust citizens right from the start and do away with voting altogether.

Sortition is simple and a lot more representative.

Wednesday 18 September 2024

Women Who Run With The Wolves: A male reading

Occasionally within a group of men I hear the plea of ‘I don’t understand women.’ Sometimes plaintive, sometimes angry, and just about always perplexed.

Reading Women Who Run With The Wolves1 may help. But, before I suggest how, there are a couple of caveats.

Caveat 1: The desire to understand is complicit in the not understanding. To understand means to fully grasp the meaning, significance, or nature of something. It means to be able to explain it and categorise it. Understanding is inherently a mechanistic perception. Women (and men for that matter) do not conform to such classifications. The desire to understand is (if I may be so bold) a male notion.

Caveat 2: Because of caveat 1 there are no answers, for men, to the appeal to understand women. Hence, this book can help but it cannot answer.

Having outlined these two caveats, let me delve into (at least some of) the book through a male reading. Although the book is now more than thirty years old, and although I have come across reference to it dozens of times during those 30 years, I have only recently read it.

Men – do not be put off by the title. It can look as though Clarissa Pinkola Estés intends the book solely for women; much of its contents apply to men also.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés is a storyteller and tells stories in groups and gatherings in many parts of the world. In this book she recounts numerous stories from various regions of the world. These stories are mythological and the characters in them are archetypes. This is important to note. The characters point to parts of our internal psyche, they are not identifiable people in our outer world. Furthermore, our internal psyche is shaped, in part, by cultural archetypes.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés explores these archetypes, dismantles them, pulls them apart, and then gently puts them all back together again. Her insight in doing so is extraordinary.

Let us return to the plea that began this blog – men unable to understand women.

As I read through Women Who Run With The Wolves one thing is very clearly articulated. Women contain at least two natures, and most likely, many more. Men do too, by the way, and I will come back to this later. But first – the dual nature of women.

As well as being an author, Clarissa Pinkola Estés is a Jungian psychologist, and as such alludes to the Jungian concept of animus. She defines animus as a woman’s ‘internal masculine energy’ and notes that, ‘This psychic figure is particularly valuable because it is invested with qualities which are traditionally bred out of women, aggression being one of the more common.’

Her aim in narrating and examining these stories is to enable women to discover and connect with their inner beings (archetypes) particularly the archetype of the Wild Woman (the wolf.) For the male reader, this aspect of women’s psyche may be hard to appreciate. Even the thought of a wild woman is dangerous, and even frightening. It is there though, and Esté suggests it is present in all women.

In her book Esté does not refer to the other Jungian concept of anima – a man’s internal feminine energy. Yet, reading Women Who Run With The Wolves from a male perspective, this concept is always present. Indeed, within many of the stories it is possible to glimpse the anima.

Women’s animus is an inner energy, and unless overtly displayed, remains hidden in our patriarchal society. As such, it can also be hidden from their male partners who wish to understand women.

There is one story in the book that is worth considering a little further, as it is a story that addresses exactly these matters. The story is called Manawee and is of African-American origin.

In the story Manawee is keen to court twin sisters. The father of the twins will only allow Manawee to do so if Manawee can guess the names of his daughters. Manawee tries and tries, but always fails. He goes away. Later he returns to try guessing again, this time bringing his little dog with him. Again he fails, and again he skulks off home. But his dog goes back to the sister’s hut and overhears the two of them talking about Manawee and calling each other by their names.

The little dog runs off to tell Manawee. On the way he smells a juicy bone and goes searching for it and chews it up. By the time he has finished he has forgotten the twins names. The dog goes back again, and from outside again hears the sisters’ names. He runs off again, and again is waylaid by the sumptuous smell of nutmeg. He forgets the names again and goes back to sleep at Manawee’s hut for the night.

The next morning, the little dog trots off to the sister’s hut and spies them getting ready to be wed. “Oh no!” he thinks, “I have to tell Manawee their names.” He hears their names and this time, even though accosted by a nasty stranger, he doggedly returns to Manawee and tells him the names of the twins. Manawee sprints off to the village where the twins and their father live. He tells the father their true names. The father blesses the marriage, and the twins tell Manawee that they have been waiting for him for a long time.

There is much archetypically in this story. Let me mention just a couple briefly.

·       The twin daughters refer to the dualism within women. In this story, one twin exemplifies the outer woman, the other the inner energy. Manawee is not marrying two women but is marrying ‘one who lives in the topside world, one who lives in the world not so easily seen,’ as Esté expresses it. He must accept both (i.e. be able to name each of them) before he can be wed. (Remember, the twins are archetypes. The story is not to be read as referring to polygamy.)

·       The little dog is what Esté calls Manawee’s dog nature. The little dog shows that Manawee (and all men) have a dual nature: Esté tells it thus: ‘His human nature, while sweet and loving, is not enough to win the courtship. It is his dog nature, his instinctual nature, that has the ability to creep near the wildish women and with his keen listening hear their names.’

Dogs, as we know, have a keen sense of sight, smell, and hearing. With that in mind, the little dog in this story is the perfect archetype for Manawee’s instinctual nature.

Thus, for men who bemoan being unable to understand women, there are some valuable lessons in Women Who Run With The Wolves.

The first lesson is to recognise that women have a dual nature. Perhaps more importantly, it is to recognise that men do also.

The second lesson is to let go the desire to understand. Instead, men must access their dog nature and learn to listen. Not just hear, but truly, deeply listen, and not be distracted from that attention.

Reading the book reveals many other lessons. Any man who wishes to discover them is recommended to read this important book.

Notes:

1. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, Women Who Run With The Wolves: Contacting the Power of the Wild Woman, Rider, London, Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg, 1992.

Wednesday 11 September 2024

Going With The Flow

Every so often we might be given the advice to ‘just go with the flow.’ 

How useful is this counsel?

As is, the analogy is only partially complete. It must be extended. ‘Going with the flow’ could suggest a ‘she’s right’, laissez faire, casual, or lackadaisical approach to life.

It can even be interpreted as advocating fatalism.

A kayaker will tell you otherwise.

A kayaker knows the principle of going with the flow well. It is far easier to use the flow of a river to your advantage than it is to battle against the current.  However, the kayaker is not inactive in this endeavour. If the kayak is not actively kept in the flow of the current then the kayak can very easily end up sidelong to the flow, often resulting in the kayaker going for a swim (unless they are adept at the Eskimo Roll technique) or the kayak getting smashed into rocks.

Often an inexperienced kayaker, when first encountering rapids, will stop paddling.  They then find that the river has taken control, forced them sideways and suddenly they are upside down. An experienced kayaker, however, when entering a section of rapids, will maintain their paddle stroke, sometimes even upping the tempo. They know that by maintaining the momentum of the kayak they can remain upright and in the flow of the river.

When a kayaker enters a river, they usually have a goal of some sort. It may be getting to a point further down the river. Although a kayaker has this future goal, they must bring themselves to the present moment in the flow of the river and be aware of their paddle technique and body posture. They need to watch out for the tell-tale signs of rocks, look out for eddies and check the actions and manoeuvres of any other kayakers around them. They may have goals, but to get to them they must concentrate on the flow they are in at the present time. There is no sitting back and just drifting, that would have them upside down or smashed against a rock before going too far.

A kayaker uses the flow, they don’t allow it to use them, nor do they try to control the flow.

This extended analogy has application in our own lives. To remain with the flow we must give up one of our most cherished yearnings – the yearning for control. We must learn to use the flow. We must learn techniques to remain upright and not get smashed against the rocks. We must be on the alert for whirlpools, eddies, cataracts, and other potential dangers.

Occasionally we will get caught up in these eddies, whirlpools, or cataracts.  Fighting these, any kayaker will tell you, spells disaster.

Eddies, whirlpools, and cataracts may turn out to be signs that we need to slow down, be more alert, move to another part of the river, or maybe even get off the river and portage around a particularly nasty obstacle.

When we do get ‘in the flow’ we find a sense of freedom, a sense that everything is just right, that we don’t have to expend too much energy.  When we get those feelings then we can be assured that we may be on the right track, that what we are doing is correct, appropriate and effective.

 

 

Tuesday 3 September 2024

No Answers Are Better Than Simplistic Answers

What is the answer to the question of life?

There are no answers to that question. Or, if there is an answer, then the answer is in the question itself.

If there are no answers, then does that mean there are no questions?

Not at all. There are many questions. There are probably more questions than there are grains of sand on a beach.

It is the question that is important, not the answer.

Albert Einstein, one of the foremost questioners of our time, made this clear when he advised; ‘Don’t listen to the person who has the answers, listen to the person who has the questions.’

Our world is huge. Our galaxy is enormous. Our cosmos is vast. Coming up with answers for just our world minimises and constricts our sense of wonder, let alone our galaxy and the cosmos.

Answers contain, enclose, and limit us. Questions open up, expand, and amplify our appreciation and awe.

Questioning in Turbulent Times

It is difficult to claim anything but that we are living in turbulent times. Environmentally we are witnessing cascading disasters – e.g. species extinction, turbulent weather systems, toxic waste pollution … Socially our political systems are increasingly polarising people. Wars seem continuous, shifting from one geopolitical hot-spot to another every few years. Individually we are suffering more and more from anxiety, depression, obesity, isolation, and bullying. All these examples are only a few of the plethora of examples that could be given.

In the various conversations around this topic can be heard the optimistic contention that when people are faced with increased severity and personal harm from disaster that they will ask questions of the systems from within which the problems emerge.

However, history and psychology suggest that instead of people asking questions around these plights, most often simplistic answers are sought instead.

And, where do we find simplistic answers? Amongst the socio-political extremes; where to question is out-of-the-question (if you’ll excuse the quip.)

This, in turn, leads to greater polarisation. Then, sadly, the answers proclaimed by each side morph into righteousness. One side claims to have the right answers and that the other side has the wrong answers. Of course, the other side claims the exact opposite.

In the ensuing shouting match, the ability to question gets tossed aside.

All this leads inevitably to …

… greater turbulence.

What can we do in the face of all this?

Keep questioning, especially questions that open our eyes, ears, and hearts to the wonder and mystery of the cosmos and our world. Yet, understand too, that each question only leads to further questions, not to simplistic answers.

Wednesday 28 August 2024

Living In Luxury

We live in luxury, don’t we?

What’s wrong with that sentence?

First, define luxury. Second, who is we?

Most dictionaries will define luxury as something involving comfort and/or elegance, and being expensive to obtain.

The luxury of comfort then could include: a home that is able to be heated in winter and cooled in summer; readily obtainable meals that are nutritious and tasty; a car fitted out with surround sound, Bluetooth, and push-button adjustable seats; holidays once, twice, or more times per year in a location of choice reachable by international flights; a large-screen television; comfortable and stylish clothing; a washing machine, dishwasher, clothes dryer. microwave oven, an air fryer; an outdoor pool with an electronic BBQ nearby; an investment property or two; a share portfolio providing passive growth and/or income ….

In short – all the mod cons. It’s a comfortable life.

It may be argued that only a few of these are expensive. Then wait. There’s more to come.

Before going further, who is we?

A question? In what income decile of the population would you have to be to afford these luxuries? Let’s say the top decile – i.e. the top 10% of income earners.

Now, here’s the rub. What income does someone need to be in the world’s top decile of income earners?

It turns out to be just US$20,400 per year (A$30,000 if you live in Australia for comparison.)

Doesn’t sound like a lot does it. It would be easy to look around and point out that “I’m not as well off as that person, or that person, or that person…”

Easy to say if our vision is restricted to our cohorts, our peer group, or the society we happen to live in. But, if our perspective is broadened out to encompass the whole world, then US$20,400 is a high income. Let me say too, before the objections come, this figure is adjusted for cost of living from one country to another.

Now, it is possible to answer the question of who is ‘we’? ‘We’ are the citizens of the wealthy, rich nations of the world. Of the 20 richest nations per capita, 10 are in Europe, 5 in Arabia, 3 in Asia, plus the USA and Australia. The highest ranking South American nation is Guyana at 44th. The highest African nation is South Africa at 92nd. Of the 176 nations with identifiable income levels, 18 of the bottom 20 are African nations.

Furthermore, that US$20,400 is thirty-eight (38) times the income level of the bottom 50% of the world’s population. Thirty-eight times!

The we identified above are living in luxury. Two groups of people are paying for this luxury. One group are all those living at poverty levels; levels that are way way less than US$20,400.

The other group, ironically, are the we. We are paying for it with high rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases of luxuriousness.

Additionally, there is a third player that is paying the cost of our living in luxury – the planet itself. The planet is suffering from our disease of consumption.

On the first page of their ground-breaking book on inequality epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett warn that ‘… the truth is that the luxury and extravagance of our lives is so great that it threatens the planet.’1

Luxury – An earlier definition

It is time for us to remind ourselves of what the word luxury originally meant. In the Old French language, the word luxurie had connotations of debauchery, dissoluteness, and lust. Prior to that, the Latin word luxuria meant excess and profusion.

Isn’t this exactly what our living in luxury has brought us to? Excessive and profuse consumption leading to debauchery (doing too much of something that is not good for us, or for the planet) and dissoluteness (acting without moral – or even material – constraint.)

By the 14th century the word luxury had taken on association with lasciviousness and sinful self-indulgence.

Are these historical and etymological meanings of luxury closer to a proper denotation of living in luxury today?

Notes:

1. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone, Penguin Books, London, 2009.

Wednesday 21 August 2024

Learning From Cousin Bonobo

All our siblings have died. Homo erectus – dead. Homo habilis -dead. Homo neanderthalensis  - dead. All our evolutionary brothers and sisters are dead and extinct. Only us – Homo sapiens – are left alive from our immediate family.

But we do have a couple of cousins. Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus. More commonly these two cousins are known as chimpanzees and bonobos. They are the closest to us in the evolutionary family. We share 98.7% of our genes with these other two primates.

Our common ancestor lived some 6 million years ago, at which point our immediate families diverged. Then the families of bonobos and chimpanzees further split around 2 million years ago.

Using corridors across the river that no longer exist, one family, the chimpanzees, settled north of the Congo River. The other, the bonobos, made their home south of the Congo River. Neither chimpanzees nor bonobos have learnt to swim, and so the two species live separated today by the mighty Congo River. Hence, they learnt to adapt to their unique environments and learnt differing behaviours.

When Jane Goodall began studying chimpanzees in their natural habitat in the 1960s she thought that if the behaviour of chimpanzees was similar to that of humans, then the behaviour of our common ancestor (the one that lived 6 million years ago) was probably also similar.

Soon after she began her research one of the big debates in the scientific world was that of nature versus nurture. This debate centred around the question; Is a baby born with a clean slate, and will only experience make that child aggressive or kind? Jane Goodall thought she could answer this question through her studies. In a 2021 interview in response to a question about this debate, Jane Goodall replies that, ‘When I said no, there’s an instinctive element to it, I was heavily criticised. But I think it makes sense. How can you possibly look around the world and say that there is not an innate aggressive tendency in humans?’1

Goodall’s reply is based upon the recognition that within chimpanzee society males show a tendency to use violence and to dominate female chimpanzees. This portrayal of chimpanzee behaviour has been tempered slightly in recent times, with the co-director of the Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, in the US, saying that aggression ‘only makes up a very small part of their daily activity,’ and that the trait has been overemphasised.

But what of the other cousins – the bonobos?

Research on bonobos living in their natural state has not been as long as that for chimpanzees. Bonobos tend to live in less accessible forest than do chimpanzees, plus their numbers are much less, making study of bonobos less easy than the study of chimpanzees.2 However, we are able to discern differing behaviour between these two primates.

Bonobos tend to display contrasting behaviours to that of chimpanzees. They are less aggressive and females are the leaders of bonobo groups. It needs to be noted however, that (as with chimpanzees) this portrayal is also simplistic. Bonobos can be aggressive.

The aggressive behaviours of chimpanzees and bonobos, though, are markedly dissimilar. Chimpanzees show a proclivity towards ganging up on an opponent, whereas bonobo aggression is displayed in one-to-one combat. Significantly, chimpanzees will kill (murder) their opponent, whereas bonobos do not.  

Learning from Cousins

We might ask ourselves: Can Jane Goodall’s wondering about whether the behaviour of chimpanzees and that of our common ancestor suggest an innate tendency towards aggression in humans?

The answer has to be: not necessarily. The answer is nuanced and ambiguous.

When our cousins diverged from each other 2 million years ago, with one going north of the Congo River and the other heading south of it, then, presumably, they took with them the innate tendencies of the common ancestor of them and us from 6 million years ago.

Yet, their behaviours in natural settings today are very different, albeit (as noted above) their behaviours are not clear-cut. We have to conclude that chimpanzees and bonobos learnt differing behaviours. This suggests that they each adopted dissimilar cultures.

Since chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest cousins we could learn something from them.

If we could listen to Cousin Bonobo we might learn how to get along with each other without resorting to murder or warfare. We might also learn how to live in a more egalitarian society in which women bring their nurturing skills and values into the communal setting.

For us to listen to Cousin Bonobo however would mean we would need to give up our belief that we are superior to the “animals” and have nothing to learn from them

Au contraire. We have much to learn.

Notes:

1. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22585935/jane-goodall-chimpanzees-animal-intelligence-human-nature  accessed 20 August 2024.

2. Both chimpanzees and bonobos are endangered. Estimates for chimpanzee numbers in the wild vary from 170,000 to 300,000. Bonobo numbers are much less, estimated at between 30,000 and 50,000