The World of And

The World is beautiful, or, is it ugly?

Is the world full of plenty, or is it a place of scarcity?

Can we look forward to a world of optimistic hope, or is the future one of pessimistic despair?

Are people good or evil?

Many of us do look at the world, and approach life, as if the world was one or the other. 

The world however, is not a world of ors, it is a world of ands.

The world is beautiful, and it is ugly.
The world is a place of plenty, and scarcity.
The future is hopeful, and it is despairing.
People are good, and evil.

When we come to understand the simple truth of and then we come to a fuller, more complete understanding of the world and how every phenomenon in it connect.

Everything is connected.  This is the first lesson Nature teaches us.  There is no either/or.  The world is beautiful, because it is ugly.  It is plentiful, because of scarcity.

This all sounds a little crazy doesn’t it?

A few weeks ago parts of Australia were in the grip of severe drought – a water scarcity.  Today, many of those same regions are suffering with floods – plenty of water.

So the second lesson Nature teaches us is that nothing remains the same.  Everything changes.  This too shall pass, as the sages have told us repeatedly.

When we have learnt these two lessons we can approach the world with compassion, equanimity, and patience.

We can have compassion for those who are suffering scarcity. 

We can listen to political pomposity with equanimity.

We can patiently allow our mood of sadness to pass.

These two lessons (inter-connection and impermanence) also allow us to act now.  We do not have to be trapped in a debate as to whether the future is hopeful or despairing.  Like Schrodinger’s Cat, the future is both optimistic and pessimistic.  Being both, we can act now for the betterment of the present moment.  We do not need to encumber our actions with what we think the outcome will be.

We just need to act with what we have – the Here and the Now. 

The Danger Of Not Seeing The Forest For The Trees

Climate change is here.  It has arrived.  Massive bushfires in Australia, the Amazon, and the Taiga.  Floods in Europe and Asia.  Heatwaves across Europe and North America.  Superstorms, tearing across the planet more and more often.

Yes, it’s here.

We are being forced to answer the question, “what do we do?” much sooner than we thought we may have to.

Solutions are being presented to us.  Almost every day I see a “new” or “innovative” fix.  Ways to draw down carbon.  Ways to mitigate the risk.  Ways to create alternative energy.

Exciting isn’t it!  We’ve got this thing beat.  We’ve got the answers.  We know how to solve it.  Simple really.  Here are some of the ways how:

• We all drive electric cars,
• We cover acres of land with photo-electric panels,
• We obtain all the electricity we want from solar, wind, and/or hydro,
• We inject the earth with tree seed-pellets from the air,
• We build our houses, factories, and offices from living concrete.

What do you notice about each of these?  Three things come to my mind.

First, they all address the question of supply.  Supplying our energy needs, our building needs, or our need to get rid of the carbon we emit into the atmosphere.

None of them answer our consumption, let alone ask the question.  None of them ask, “are we consuming too much?”

Second, because of the failure to ask the question about consumption, each of them still makes it possible for us to:

• travel wherever and whenever we like,
• power our TVs, dishwashers, clothes-dryers, lights and the many other electronic gadgets of daily (consumptive) life.

In fact, some of these may even make it possible for us to do more of it. 

Have you ever noticed that when something becomes more efficient, we don’t just continue at the same rate of use, we often increase our use?  This is known as the Jevons Effect (also known as the Rebound Effect). 

British economist William Jevons described this effect in 1865 when he noticed that an increase in the efficiency of the use of coal led to an increase in consumption of coal.

So too, as the price of solar energy comes down the use of that energy source is also likely to increase. 

The third (and to my mind most potent) thing is that each of these treats the Earth as if she is simply a resource.

We can still mine for lithium to power electric vehicles, in the process damaging environments and disrupting the lifestyles of indigenous communities.

We can still cover tracts of land for solar panels, irrespective of whether those lands are breeding grounds, hunting grounds, or travel routes for various other life forms. 

We can still think that all a tree (and its forest) is good for is to soak up carbon dioxide.  We see the tree, and not the forest.

In short, we look upon the Earth as simply earth, or rocks, or water, or flora and fauna.

We are losing touch with the Soul of the Earth.

Let’s be careful what we advocate for. Let’s ensure that we see the forest, not simply the trees.

Tactical Mistake Made By Change Activists

Following on from last weeks blog post about tactics, there arises the question of what tactic to use with those groups who are directly opposed to your standpoint?

This post discusses one of the common tactics used, and suggests that the tactic is a big mistake.

The tactic?  Re-posting, or sharing a YouTube clip, a Facebook post etc., by your opponent in order to then discredit it.

Before explaining why this is a mistake, I’ll expand upon this tactic a little more so that it is clear what I mean.

Recently I came across an example of this.  A clip of a out-and-out climate denier was posted to a Facebook page.  From there, that clip was shared by other users.  Some of those who shared the clip did so because they disagreed with the climate denier, and made that clear in their re-posting or in their comments.

At first glance this may seem an appropriate tactic, or at least a benign one.  After all, climate denial is a position that is damaging to the planet, so needs to be challenged – doesn’t it?

Well, yes it does, but this particular tactic is a mistake.  Not only does it not change the attitude of the denier, it may intensify the denial, and may even spread the misinformation and lies to more deniers and potential deniers.

How so?

Most of us will have heard that Facebook and YouTube use algorithms for ranking content and that this then informs which posts people will see in their news feed, and in what order.

The Facebook algorithm uses various elements, one of which is the popularity of the post.

Guess how the “popularity” of the post is determined? 

Exactly: by the number of likes, comments, and shares that it gets.

So, each time a Facebook post is shared, its ranking goes up.

What’s more, once a post has been shared, the sharer has no control over who then re-shares that post nor how many times it is re-shared.

Returning to the example given earlier.  I went back to the original post about two weeks after it had been first put up.  The post had over 100 shares, and in the order of 300 likes.

There is no telling how many of those 100+ shares were then re-shared.

Hence, that post by a climate denier now has a higher ranking than when it was first posted.

D’uh!

Re-posting and sharing a post that we wish to criticise may assuage our anger, and may make it look as if we are promoting a different perspective, but tactically it often works to the benefit of the opponent.

Repeating a bad idea, even if to critique it, still shares the bad idea.

What Tactic Is Better?

Silence. 

We all know that silence is death for an idea.  If no-one is discussing an idea, then the idea goes no-where, it gains no traction, it has no chance to add to prejudice, misinformation or ignorance.

Hence, in our example, the best tactic of those who wish to diminish the idea of climate denial would be to completely ignore the climate denier.

The author of a book on building good habits has coined a law that summarises this idea very well.

“The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year – even if the idea is false.”¹

Let me emphasise those final six words – "even if the idea is false.”

In the area of social change tactics, we are far better employed disseminating good ideas rather than repeating bad ones.

Note:
1. James Clear, Atomic Habits, RockyHouse Publishing, 2018.  James Clear called this law after himself: Clear’s Law of Recurrence.

Less Noisy Tactics

In a recent blog post I quoted Lao Tzu as saying,

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

That blog post also suggested a social change strategy based on Buckminster Fuller’s observation that,

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

What might less noisy tactics that help build a new model look like?

First, let me suggest an (admittedly simplified) model of the “existing reality” as it pertains to social change tactics.

In the diagram below, we can position allies, opponents, neutrals etc on the chart depending upon whether a group fully supports our position (+++), is completely opposed (- - -) or somewhere between.

Tactically, how do we get more people to recognise, understand, and actively engage with our position?

The first thing to recognise is that is nigh on impossible to get those of the - - - persuasion to leap across the chasm and join the +++. 

Even getting those in the middle (0) to suddenly join the +++ would require an enormous amount of effort to climb the gap.

However, getting people or groups to shift a small way on the pendulum (say from – to 0) may be possible.

Facts Don’t Cut It

The second thing to recognise is that, generally speaking, people do not change their views or beliefs because of facts.  Indeed, the more the “facts” conflict with the views and beliefs of their circle of friends, acquaintances (or “tribe”) the less likely it is that facts will have any chance to persuade.
James Clear¹ noted that

“…social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea.”

Hence, tactically, if we want to “persuade” someone or a group to shift their views or beliefs closer to our own then we need to “engage” rather than “convince.”

This also means that we need to think of what tactics may elicit small shifts on the pendulum.

Assisting a group (or individual) to move from say a 0 to a + is more likely than getting them to shift from 0 to +++.  This is indicated visually by the arrows in the diagram below.

This suggests that the most effective tactics are those that engage with people at a companionable, friendly, and mutually respectful level.

This may mean that we need to shift our own “staunchness” a little, perhaps shifting from a ++ position to a + and hence a little closer to someone at 0.

One of the best ways to do this is over a meal.  The philosopher Alain de Botton summarised this approach in his book Religion for Atheists²;

“Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity.”

Engaging Tactics

So, tactics are all about engagement.

There is much more that could be said about social change tactics, but this brief look suggests a way to think about tactics.

Of course, the tactics chosen need to always be aware of your overall strategy.  Remember, I am suggesting a strategy of building a new model, rather than tinkering with the existing (a la Bucky Fuller.)

Finally, a word of warning.  When entering into an engagement with someone or a group about shifting views and/or beliefs, always be open to shifting your own views and/or beliefs.

Notes:
1. James Clear is the author of Atomic Habits (pub. Penguin, New York, 2018), a guide to building good habits and breaking bad ones. 
2. Alain de Botton, Religion for Atheists, Penguin, London, 2012.

Rescuing The Damsel Within

One of the most enduring of myths in western culture is that of the damsel in distress. 

Perhaps the earliest such example of the myth is that of Andromeda tied to a rock guarded by a sea monster, and rescued by Perseus.  Ovid (43 BC – 17/18 AD) records this myth for us.

The most common modern-day interpretation of this myth is that men have to save women, and to do so, must display their strength (in order to overcome the monster.)

Although this interpretation has been challenged, it still persists and indeed, is glorified, within the film industry.  Modern day examples include; Ann Darrow in King Kong, Elizabeth Swan in Pirates of the Caribbean, and Princess Leia in Star Wars.

This interpretation feeds the (undeveloped) male ego and continues the dominance of the patriarchal system in western-styled societies.

However, what if there is another way to think of this myth?

The Damsel Within

Before proceeding further, I should lay out three premises (that do have some justification):

1. Prior to about week 7 of pregnancy, all human babies are destined to become female.  Around week 7 the Y chromosome begins signalling the start of testosterone production and hence the development of a male child.

2. Myths and dreams are related.  Myths are how we culturally dream.  Joseph Campbell¹ noted that,

“the myth is the public dream, and the dream is the private myth.”

3. Carl Jung pointed out that the characters (elements) of dreams arise from within the dreamer’s own psyche.  They are not usually associated with something or someone outside of the dreamer’s own psyche.

It was Jung, also, who introduced the concept of the anima and animus.  The Jungian psychologist, Dr Marie-Louise von Franz,² described the anima as,

“a personification of all feminine psychological tendencies in a man’s psyche, such as vague feelings and moods, prophetic hunches, receptiveness to the irrational, capacity for personal love, feeling for nature, and…his relation to the unconscious.”³

Using this concept and the three premises above, we can take another look at the damsel in distress myth.

The damsel is no longer a woman separate to, or distinct from, the male – the damsel is the feminine within the male.

And, that feminine aspect is trapped, bound, and unable to be released.

Part of the male must save his own damsel within. 

Unfortunately, a large percentage of the male population are unaware of the anima – the damsel within.  Most men, if aware of this myth at all, continue to see it as big, powerful, macho men rescuing weak, powerless, women.

Yet, as Premise 1 notes, it is only from week 7 of pregnancy that the male begins to be formed.  Hence, a large part of a male remains female.

By not accepting the damsel within, a man is not accepting his full self.

Something Must Die

So, how do men rescue their damsel within?  How do men gain access to their anima?

Let’s go back to the myth.  The myth tells us that the damsel is guarded by something – usually a monster, a dragon (remember St George and the Dragon), or (as in the case of King Kong) a large beast.

How does the hero of the myth get past this guardian?  Usually by killing it. 

In dreams, and myths, killing often signifies something other than a literal death.  Often it signifies that something must be discarded, put down, left behind.  Some part of the dreamer must die in order for the new, more fully-fledged, mature male to emerge.

What does the monster, beast, or dragon, in this myth signify?  What aspect of a male must die so that the feminine can emerge?

I'm not going to answer that question here.  I will attempt to do so in a later post.  At this stage, it may be worth the reader pondering the question themselves, as the monster may represent something different in each man.

Who is the Hero?

What of the hero in the myth?  What aspect of the male psyche does the hero represent?
Another Jungian analyst, Dr Joseph Henderson, noted that,

“…the need for hero symbols arises when the ego needs strengthening – when…the conscious mind needs assistance in some task that it cannot accomplish unaided or without drawing on the resources of strength that lie in the unconscious mind.”⁴

This tells us that the task of killing the monster is not an easy one, nor is it readily apparent, at least not to the conscious mind.

The heroes in these myths do give us some clues as to what heroic traits are necessary: resilience (they don’t give up); the acceptance of mentors, tutors, or elders; an awareness of strengths and weaknesses (often after facing earlier trials); a willingness to learn on the journey towards the encounter with the monster.

A Rescued Myth

What if this interpretation of the damsel in distress myth is more accurate?

Maybe more men would discover their anima, their inner feminine, and in doing so discover the tendencies alluded to by Dr Marie-Louise von Franz above.

Maybe too, Mother Earth would gain from men becoming less inclined to approach her from a macho point-of-view and treat her as another aspect of themselves; the capacity for personal love, and feeling for nature.

Any thoughts?

Notes:
1. Joseph Campbell has possibly done more to bring our modern attention to the role of myths in society.  He is the author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces, The Power of Myth, and other works.
2. Dr Marie-Louise von Franz (1915-1998) met Carl Jung when she was 18 and it was a “decisive encounter in her life” (as she described it.)  She went on to become a Jungian psychologist known for her psychological interpretations of fairy tales.
3. Dr Marie-Louise van Franz in Carl Jung (ed.) Man and His Symbols, p 186.  Note: The animus is the masculine psychological tendencies in a woman’s psyche.
4. Dr Joseph L Henderson, ibid. p114.

Elder Water and Youthful Fire

Image: Rosewilliams at https://favpng.com/

I write this against the backdrop of the devastating bushfires in Australia.  In the state I live in (New South Wales) these fires began in September 2019, and are still raging.

Over one billion (yes, you read that correct – one billion) animals have been killed.  The fires have burnt through 11 million hectares.

Although there have been denialists, experts (ranging from Fire and Rescue Commissioners, to scientists, to foresters) all say that climate change is creating the conditions in which fire is more likely, more frequent, and more intense. 

Climate change is also making it less possible to prevent fires, and less possible to deal with them once ablaze.

Around the world there have been other major climatic events over the past year: second warmest year on record, near record Arctic sea-ice melt, second strongest Atlantic hurricane on record (Dorian), wettest year in US history leading to $15 billion worth of flood damage.

We are living in troubled times.

And many people are recognising that, not the least the youth of the world.  The Student Climate Strike of September 2019 saw over 4 million people take part, spread across 150 countries.

Young people are frustrated, young people are angry.  Young people are raising their voices.

How Does An Elder Act?

As a Baby Boomer (born in the 1950s) I ask myself: how should an elder act in these troubled times?
I have emphasised the word “elder” here, so as to distinguish from the question: how does an older person act?

The distinction is important, because an elder does not become an elder simply by surviving the ravages or comforts of time. 

Elder Water and Youthful Fire

Before returning to my question, a quick diversion.

A healthy human development journey could be characterised as moving through the four elements (Air, Fire, Earth, Water) of life.  Childhood is the time of Air: new breath, breeziness, wonder, imagination.  The teenage and young adult time is that of Fire: passion, energy, love, anger, strength, dynamism.  The years of Adulthood are the Earth years: stability, groundedness, fertility, security, prosperity.  Then the Elder can be represented by Water: cleansing, healing, fluid flow, purification, receptivity, unconditional love.¹

Back to my question: how should an elder act in these troubled times?²

I must admit to struggling to find an adequate answer, although the question itself is worth repeating over and over again.  Because it is not a question that often gets asked.

Even in the company of older people it is an uncomfortable question to raise.  There are so few true elders in western-styled culture that there are little or no examples to learn from, or to follow.  It is an uncomfortable question too, because it calls into question as to what has been done in our lives to warrant the role of elderhood?

Returning to the Water/Fire symbolism, I can suggest some answers about what an elder does not do.

Being Water, an elder does not use that water to douse the Fire of youth.  An elder does not dampen the spirits of young people.  An elder listens to the anger of young people with compassion.  An elder in troubled times (times in which young people are fearful for the future) does not tell young people to “shut up, go to school, get a job.”

Also, an Elder does not use the Fire of youth to boil the Water of old age.  To do so is a form of stealing from the young.  It is a form of saying “look at me, I’m just as mad as you.”  Hearing, and witnessing that, a young person has every right to turn around and say “OK Boomer!”

So, how does an elder act?  What does an elder do?  What does an elder say?  How does an elder be?

I’m grappling with answers to these questions, so if there are any thoughts from readers, then I would love to hear them.

The answers may lie in the qualities/traits of Water: cleansing, healing, fluid flow, purification, stability, strength, change, devotion, receptivity, impermanence, unconditional love.

Another blog beckons.

Notes:
1. The Four Element conception of the human development journey is my own, although highly influenced by eco-psychologist Bill Plotkin.  Along with Plotkin I suggest that a large percentage of individuals in western-styled societies and western culture itself are stuck in what Plotkin calls “patho-adolescence.”  Thus, very few arrive at the Waters of Elderhood.  See Bill Plotkin, Nature and the Human Soul, New World Library, California, 2008.
2.  “Elders in troubled times” is a reference to: Stephen Jenkinson, Come of Age: The Case for Elderhood in a Time of Trouble, North Atlantic Books, California, 2018.

Vision

It’s here – 2020.  I know its a cliché but I can’t help it.  Will we collectively gain some 20/20 vision this year?

2019 saw devastating (some call them “unprecedented”) bushfires in Australia, the Amazon, California and Russia.

The streets of Hong Kong, Paris, and other major capitals were continuously rocked with protest.

New Zealand and Sri Lanka were the targets of mass shooting and bombing.

Intense hurricanes in the Caribbean and the US caused massive damage.

The world’s wealth was concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

The leader of the world’s most powerful nation faced impeachment.

Nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsular rose, fell, and rose back again.

Amidst all this almost the only ones voicing a vision for the future were the youth of the world.  By now Greta Thunberg’s name will be a household one.  There are many others: advocating for climate action, water rights, anti-gun lobbyists, the rights of girls and women.

So, will 2020 bring us 20/20 vision?

20/20 vision is defined as normal visual acuity and means that you can see clearly from 20 feet what should normally be able to be seen at 20 feet.

If, however, you have 20/100 vision it means that you have to be as close as 20 feet to an object that others would be able to see from 100 feet away.

Metaphorically then, it would seem that young people are able to clearly see 100 feet into the future.  Meanwhile the partial blindness of many of the world’s leaders makes them unwilling to take the steps that would bring them within 20 feet of that future.

More To Vision

There is more to vision than 20/20 though.  If I may be permitted to extend the metaphor a bit further; vision is also characterised by peripheral awareness, depth perception, colour, and the ability to focus.

A vision for the future then could include the ability to:

• recognise how things are inter-connected (peripheral awareness)
• understand the many layers of cause and effect, rather than one-dimensional linearity (depth perception)
• not become distracted by false news, political red-herrings, name calling, blaming and shaming (focus)
• make discerning and considered judgements, not based on prejudice (colour recognition).

There didn’t seem to be a lot of these features of vision on offer in 2019.

Will 2020 be the year that humans arrive at a shared vision?