Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Here we go again...
All things that start, end. All cycles are repeated - big and small. The inevitable is inevitable and known from the start. Everything is.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Douglas Bader on Rules
The World War 2 ace said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
I think I said something similar (see here). Obviously I'm not the first to think such thoughts...
I think I said something similar (see here). Obviously I'm not the first to think such thoughts...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The power of smiling
This is an amazing video. It describes all the amazing things that smiling can do...for you and others around you... Brilliant!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Timshel - thou mayest
From 'East of Eden' by Jonh Steinbeck
“Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?”
“I do indeed. And that’s a long time ago.”
“Ten years nearly,” said Lee. “Well, the story bit deeply into me and I went into it word for word. The more I thought about the story, the more profound it became to me. Then I compared the translations we have—and they were fairly close. There was only one place that bothered me. The King James version says this—it is when Jehovah has asked Cain why he is angry. Jehovah says, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’ It was the ‘thou shalt’ that struck me, because it was a promise that Cain would conquer sin.”
Samuel nodded. “And his children didn’t do it entirely,” he said.
Lee sipped his coffee. “Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, ‘Do thou rule over him.’ Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made.”
Samuel put his palms down on the table and leaned forward and the old young light came into his eyes. “Lee,” he said, “don’t tell me you studied Hebrew!”
Lee said, “I’m going to tell you. And it’s a fairly long story. Will you have a touch of ng-ka-py?”
“You mean the drink that tastes of good rotten apples?”
“Yes. I can talk better with it.”
“Maybe I can listen better,” said Samuel.
While Lee went to the kitchen Samuel asked, “Adam, did you know about this?”
“No,” said Adam. “He didn’t tell me. Maybe I wasn’t listening.”
Lee came back with his stone bottle and three little porcelain cups so thin and delicate that the light shone through them. “Dlinkee Chinee fashion,” he said and poured the almost black liquor. “There’s a lot of wormwood in this. It’s quite a drink,” he said. “Has about the same effect as absinthe if you drink enough of it.”
Samuel sipped the drink. “I want to know why you were so interested,” he said.
“Well, it seemed to me that the man who could conceive this great story would know exactly what he wanted to say and there would be no confusion in his statement.”
“You say ‘the man.’ Do you then not think this is a divine book written by the inky finger of God?”
“I think the mind that could think this story was a curiously divine mind. We have had a few such minds in China too.”
“I just wanted to know,” said Samuel. “You’re not a Presbyterian after all.”
“I told you I was getting more Chinese. Well, to go on, I went to San Francisco to the headquarters of our family association. Do you know about them? Our great families have centers where any member can get help or give it. The Lee family is very large. It takes care of its own.”
“I have heard of them,” said Samuel.
“You mean Chinee hatchet man fightee Tong war over slave girl?”
“I guess so.”
“It’s a little different from that, really,” said Lee. “I went there because in our family there are a number of ancient reverend gentlemen who are great scholars. They are thinkers in exactness. A man may spend many years pondering a sentence of the scholar you call Confucius. I thought there might be experts in meaning who could advise me.
“They are fine old men. They smoke their two pipes of opium in the afternoon and it rests and sharpens them, and they sit through the night and their minds are wonderful. I guess no other people have been able to use opium well.”
Lee dampened his tongue in the black brew. “I respectfully submitted my problem to one of these sages, read him the story, and told him what I understood from it. The next night four of them met and called me in. We discussed the story all night long.”
Lee laughed. “I guess it’s funny,” he said. “I know I wouldn’t dare tell it to many people. Can you imagine four old gentlemen, the youngest is over ninety now, taking on the study of Hebrew? They engaged a learned rabbi. They took to the study as though they were children. Exercise books, grammar, vocabulary, simple sentences. You should see Hebrew written in Chinese ink with a brush! The right to left didn’t bother them as much as it would you, since we write up to down. Oh, they were perfectionists! They went to the root of the matter.”
“And you?” said Samuel.
“I went along with them, marveling at the beauty of their proud clean brains. I began to love my race, and for the first time I wanted to be Chinese. Every two weeks I went to a meeting with them, and in my room here I covered pages with writing. I bought every known Hebrew dictionary. But the old gentlemen were always ahead of me. It wasn’t long before they were ahead of our rabbi; he brought a colleague in. Mr. Hamilton, you should have sat through some of those nights of argument and discussion. The questions, the inspection, oh, the lovely thinking—the beautiful thinking.
“After two years we felt that we could approach your sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis. My old gentlemen felt that these words were very important too—‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Do thou.’ And this was the gold from our mining: ‘Thou mayest.’ ‘Thou mayest rule over sin.’ The old gentlemen smiled and nodded and felt the years were well spent. It brought them out of their Chinese shells too, and right now they are studying Greek.”
Samuel said, “It’s a fantastic story. And I’ve tried to follow and maybe I’ve missed somewhere. Why is this word so important?”
Lee’s hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. “Don’t you see?” he cried. “The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
“Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?”
“Ah!” said Lee. “I’ve wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, ‘Do thou,’ and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in ‘Thou shalt.’ Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But ‘Thou mayest’! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.” Lee’s voice was a chant of triumph.
Adam said, “Do you believe that, Lee?”
“Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, ‘I couldn’t help it; the way was set.’ But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There’s no godliness there. And do you know, those old gentlemen who were sliding gently down to death are too interested to die now?”
Adam said, “Do you mean these Chinese men believe the Old Testament?”
Lee said, “These old men believe a true story, and they know a true story when they hear it. They are critics of truth. They know that these sixteen verses are a history of humankind in any age or culture or race. They do not believe a man writes fifteen and three-quarter verses of truth and tells a lie with one verb. Confucius tells men how they should live to have good and successful lives. But this—this is a ladder to climb to the stars.” Lee’s eyes shone. “You can never lose that. It cuts the feet from under weakness and cowardliness and laziness.”
Adam said, “I don’t see how you could cook and raise the boys and take care of me and still do all this.”
“Neither do I,” said Lee. “But I take my two pipes in the afternoon, no more and no less, like the elders. And I feel that I am a man. And I feel that a man is a very important thing—maybe more important than a star. This is not theology. I have no bent toward gods. But I have a new love for that glittering instrument, the human soul. It is a lovely and unique thing in the universe. It is always attacked and never destroyed— because ‘Thou mayest.’”
“Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?”
“I do indeed. And that’s a long time ago.”
“Ten years nearly,” said Lee. “Well, the story bit deeply into me and I went into it word for word. The more I thought about the story, the more profound it became to me. Then I compared the translations we have—and they were fairly close. There was only one place that bothered me. The King James version says this—it is when Jehovah has asked Cain why he is angry. Jehovah says, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’ It was the ‘thou shalt’ that struck me, because it was a promise that Cain would conquer sin.”
Samuel nodded. “And his children didn’t do it entirely,” he said.
Lee sipped his coffee. “Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, ‘Do thou rule over him.’ Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made.”
Samuel put his palms down on the table and leaned forward and the old young light came into his eyes. “Lee,” he said, “don’t tell me you studied Hebrew!”
Lee said, “I’m going to tell you. And it’s a fairly long story. Will you have a touch of ng-ka-py?”
“You mean the drink that tastes of good rotten apples?”
“Yes. I can talk better with it.”
“Maybe I can listen better,” said Samuel.
While Lee went to the kitchen Samuel asked, “Adam, did you know about this?”
“No,” said Adam. “He didn’t tell me. Maybe I wasn’t listening.”
Lee came back with his stone bottle and three little porcelain cups so thin and delicate that the light shone through them. “Dlinkee Chinee fashion,” he said and poured the almost black liquor. “There’s a lot of wormwood in this. It’s quite a drink,” he said. “Has about the same effect as absinthe if you drink enough of it.”
Samuel sipped the drink. “I want to know why you were so interested,” he said.
“Well, it seemed to me that the man who could conceive this great story would know exactly what he wanted to say and there would be no confusion in his statement.”
“You say ‘the man.’ Do you then not think this is a divine book written by the inky finger of God?”
“I think the mind that could think this story was a curiously divine mind. We have had a few such minds in China too.”
“I just wanted to know,” said Samuel. “You’re not a Presbyterian after all.”
“I told you I was getting more Chinese. Well, to go on, I went to San Francisco to the headquarters of our family association. Do you know about them? Our great families have centers where any member can get help or give it. The Lee family is very large. It takes care of its own.”
“I have heard of them,” said Samuel.
“You mean Chinee hatchet man fightee Tong war over slave girl?”
“I guess so.”
“It’s a little different from that, really,” said Lee. “I went there because in our family there are a number of ancient reverend gentlemen who are great scholars. They are thinkers in exactness. A man may spend many years pondering a sentence of the scholar you call Confucius. I thought there might be experts in meaning who could advise me.
“They are fine old men. They smoke their two pipes of opium in the afternoon and it rests and sharpens them, and they sit through the night and their minds are wonderful. I guess no other people have been able to use opium well.”
Lee dampened his tongue in the black brew. “I respectfully submitted my problem to one of these sages, read him the story, and told him what I understood from it. The next night four of them met and called me in. We discussed the story all night long.”
Lee laughed. “I guess it’s funny,” he said. “I know I wouldn’t dare tell it to many people. Can you imagine four old gentlemen, the youngest is over ninety now, taking on the study of Hebrew? They engaged a learned rabbi. They took to the study as though they were children. Exercise books, grammar, vocabulary, simple sentences. You should see Hebrew written in Chinese ink with a brush! The right to left didn’t bother them as much as it would you, since we write up to down. Oh, they were perfectionists! They went to the root of the matter.”
“And you?” said Samuel.
“I went along with them, marveling at the beauty of their proud clean brains. I began to love my race, and for the first time I wanted to be Chinese. Every two weeks I went to a meeting with them, and in my room here I covered pages with writing. I bought every known Hebrew dictionary. But the old gentlemen were always ahead of me. It wasn’t long before they were ahead of our rabbi; he brought a colleague in. Mr. Hamilton, you should have sat through some of those nights of argument and discussion. The questions, the inspection, oh, the lovely thinking—the beautiful thinking.
“After two years we felt that we could approach your sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis. My old gentlemen felt that these words were very important too—‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Do thou.’ And this was the gold from our mining: ‘Thou mayest.’ ‘Thou mayest rule over sin.’ The old gentlemen smiled and nodded and felt the years were well spent. It brought them out of their Chinese shells too, and right now they are studying Greek.”
Samuel said, “It’s a fantastic story. And I’ve tried to follow and maybe I’ve missed somewhere. Why is this word so important?”
Lee’s hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. “Don’t you see?” he cried. “The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
“Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?”
“Ah!” said Lee. “I’ve wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, ‘Do thou,’ and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in ‘Thou shalt.’ Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But ‘Thou mayest’! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.” Lee’s voice was a chant of triumph.
Adam said, “Do you believe that, Lee?”
“Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, ‘I couldn’t help it; the way was set.’ But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There’s no godliness there. And do you know, those old gentlemen who were sliding gently down to death are too interested to die now?”
Adam said, “Do you mean these Chinese men believe the Old Testament?”
Lee said, “These old men believe a true story, and they know a true story when they hear it. They are critics of truth. They know that these sixteen verses are a history of humankind in any age or culture or race. They do not believe a man writes fifteen and three-quarter verses of truth and tells a lie with one verb. Confucius tells men how they should live to have good and successful lives. But this—this is a ladder to climb to the stars.” Lee’s eyes shone. “You can never lose that. It cuts the feet from under weakness and cowardliness and laziness.”
Adam said, “I don’t see how you could cook and raise the boys and take care of me and still do all this.”
“Neither do I,” said Lee. “But I take my two pipes in the afternoon, no more and no less, like the elders. And I feel that I am a man. And I feel that a man is a very important thing—maybe more important than a star. This is not theology. I have no bent toward gods. But I have a new love for that glittering instrument, the human soul. It is a lovely and unique thing in the universe. It is always attacked and never destroyed— because ‘Thou mayest.’”
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Entirely by Louis MacNeice
If we could get the hang of it entirely
It would take too long;
All we know is the splash of words in passing
And falling twigs of song,
And when we eavesdrop on the great
Presences it is rarely
That by a stroke of luck we can appropriate
Even a phrase entirely.
If we could find our happiness entirely
In somebody else’s arms
We should not fear the spears of spring nor the city’s
Yammering fire alarms
But, as it is, the spears each year go through
Our flesh and almost hourly
Bell or siren banishes the blue
Eyes of love entirely.
And if the world were black and white entirely
And all the charts were plain
Instead of a mad weir of tigerish waters,
A prism of delight and pain,
We might be surer where we wished to go
Or again we might be merely
Bored but in brute reality there is no
Road that is right entirely.
It would take too long;
All we know is the splash of words in passing
And falling twigs of song,
And when we eavesdrop on the great
Presences it is rarely
That by a stroke of luck we can appropriate
Even a phrase entirely.
If we could find our happiness entirely
In somebody else’s arms
We should not fear the spears of spring nor the city’s
Yammering fire alarms
But, as it is, the spears each year go through
Our flesh and almost hourly
Bell or siren banishes the blue
Eyes of love entirely.
And if the world were black and white entirely
And all the charts were plain
Instead of a mad weir of tigerish waters,
A prism of delight and pain,
We might be surer where we wished to go
Or again we might be merely
Bored but in brute reality there is no
Road that is right entirely.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Earl Spencer speech in memory of Princess Diana 1997
If you can get past the first 90 seconds of Elton John (sorry Elton), you will see one of the most tragic and stirring speeches from recent history. The profundity of the situation, from Earl Spencer’s perspective, is so clear. The societal significance of Princess Diana’s death is secondary to the death of his sister and he opens himself up. It is rare that such honesty is seen on such a public stage.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Neil Pasricha: The 3 A's of awesome
Neil's life went bad. But he got on with it and made a conscious effort to find the good things in life rather than dwell on the bad (why oh why don't more people do this rather than loaf around in self centred, self inflicted, self perpetuating misery). This is Neil's story and his insights. It's touching, simple and so damn obvious! Many people go through ordeals like this but he deals with the matter so personally and delicately (and even thanks his parents). It is from the heart. He got his platform at TED because he helped change the world. Respect. Thanks for having a bad spell :-)
Friday, August 27, 2010
When losing is winning
He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again.
-Tacitus
-Tacitus
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Rules
This is something I have been thinking about recently. People who follow rules to the letter do not understand what they (themselves or the rules) are there to achieve.
Monday, May 31, 2010
The paradox of choice
I have talked about the anxiety we feel through being overwhelmed by too much choice (see here). The last decade, driven from consumers' needs for instant gratification, on demand services and personalised products, has created a culture of anxiety full of ephemeral relationships with people and brands. Finally the corporate world has woken up and taking a stand against the world of excess.
Wal-Mart in Canada has started to drop the number of product lines it holds on its shelves. Sales of these product lines has not been affected ie. people still buy the product and and are less wedded to the brand than we may think (see here). Duncan Mac Naughton, chief merchandising officer at Wal-Mart in Mississauga says, “Folks can get overwhelmed with too much variety. With too many choices, they actually don’t buy.”
Regardless of the intent, the outcome clearly does not impact the corporate bottom line. What, though, is the impact on the shoppers' experience? Are they grateful for less choice, are they less anxious or do they feel defeated that their preferred brand is not present so they have to go for brand x? The main thing is that the customer is not always right...and it takes someone brave to put that knowledge into action.
So what does this mean? I believe that we have entered a period of reconcilliation, rationalisation and retrenchment to meet basic needs. We are living in a period of personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the corporate world to remove choice to help the psychology of society.
Wal-Mart in Canada has started to drop the number of product lines it holds on its shelves. Sales of these product lines has not been affected ie. people still buy the product and and are less wedded to the brand than we may think (see here). Duncan Mac Naughton, chief merchandising officer at Wal-Mart in Mississauga says, “Folks can get overwhelmed with too much variety. With too many choices, they actually don’t buy.”
Regardless of the intent, the outcome clearly does not impact the corporate bottom line. What, though, is the impact on the shoppers' experience? Are they grateful for less choice, are they less anxious or do they feel defeated that their preferred brand is not present so they have to go for brand x? The main thing is that the customer is not always right...and it takes someone brave to put that knowledge into action.
So what does this mean? I believe that we have entered a period of reconcilliation, rationalisation and retrenchment to meet basic needs. We are living in a period of personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the corporate world to remove choice to help the psychology of society.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Watch 'Pay It Forward' Streaming
I've talked about "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks". For those that don't know, "Pay it Forward" is an outstanding movie from 2000 that sees the theme in practice.
Here is the movie. Click on the red arrow - when it turns green, click on the green arrow. Then click on the screen and it will open in a new window so you can enjoy the full screen. The video, as posted here, is too wide for the posting space.
Here's a link to the movie on Tudou: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/KfuiMUDLv4s/
Here is the movie. Click on the red arrow - when it turns green, click on the green arrow. Then click on the screen and it will open in a new window so you can enjoy the full screen. The video, as posted here, is too wide for the posting space.
Here's a link to the movie on Tudou: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/KfuiMUDLv4s/
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Be a 'good' leader
A recent study by James Fowler, at the University of California, demonstrates that a single good action is amplified through our networks of friends and colleagues - in fact, everyone we encounter. The article "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks" was published this month in a leading academic journal. He demonstrates something intuitively obvious - if we do something 'good' to someone they are more inclined to do something 'good' to other people with whom they interact...and so the web of positivity is cast.
Here is his website: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/
We are responsible for our actions and always have a choice. So the key lesson from Fowler's paper is that we can, individually, play a role in benefiting our communities. We must all take responsibility for our value systems and these are manifested through our actions. We must all be leaders and demonstrate our beliefs through our actions at every opportunity. We must all respond to challenges through actions that are balanced, just, inclusive and benefit our communities. We must remove our egos and selfishness to ensure that our actions exist with the single objective of benefiting our communities. Fowler's paper demonstrates that we, as individuals, can help change the world for the better. We must all be 'good' leaders.
Here is his website: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/
We are responsible for our actions and always have a choice. So the key lesson from Fowler's paper is that we can, individually, play a role in benefiting our communities. We must all take responsibility for our value systems and these are manifested through our actions. We must all be leaders and demonstrate our beliefs through our actions at every opportunity. We must all respond to challenges through actions that are balanced, just, inclusive and benefit our communities. We must remove our egos and selfishness to ensure that our actions exist with the single objective of benefiting our communities. Fowler's paper demonstrates that we, as individuals, can help change the world for the better. We must all be 'good' leaders.
Friday, February 26, 2010
God for the weekend
Ever wanted to try god for a no-purchase-necessary, no-strings-attached weekend? Well, now you can. In Austria, a monastery is offering men the chance to be a monk for a weekend - for absolutely free! It's part of a recruitment drive to offer up a 'try before you buy' opportunity to people interested in monkism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8525741.stm
Absolutely brilliant! It's putting religion up there with Easy Jet, Starbucks and McDonalds. I'm not religious but I say BOGOF. Do the monks get loyalty points or bonus prayer time if they recommend a friend?
Becomming a monk - a pretty fundamental life changing event - should really be handled more responsibly. Think of all the depressed people looking for meaning in their lifes - a quick weekend introduction to god in a peaceful, calm sanctuary will naturally appeal. These people could be making impulsive, life changing decisions while in a weakened mental state. This seems more like a tactic used by a religious cult than one of the major, venerable, global religions. It also seems a bit desperate. A quick, accessible fix.
If a religion wants to earn respect and include the 'right' people into its community, there has to be a more responsible way. This is the blatant commoditisation of god.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8525741.stm
Absolutely brilliant! It's putting religion up there with Easy Jet, Starbucks and McDonalds. I'm not religious but I say BOGOF. Do the monks get loyalty points or bonus prayer time if they recommend a friend?
Becomming a monk - a pretty fundamental life changing event - should really be handled more responsibly. Think of all the depressed people looking for meaning in their lifes - a quick weekend introduction to god in a peaceful, calm sanctuary will naturally appeal. These people could be making impulsive, life changing decisions while in a weakened mental state. This seems more like a tactic used by a religious cult than one of the major, venerable, global religions. It also seems a bit desperate. A quick, accessible fix.
If a religion wants to earn respect and include the 'right' people into its community, there has to be a more responsible way. This is the blatant commoditisation of god.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Freedom of speech
"How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is regarded as the Father of Existentialism. In this quote he talks about our lack of self awareness and inability to use what we have to hand - on both practical and profound levels. Interestingly, he talks about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that the democratic Nations laud as a defining feature of their governance. Yet are we not often constrained when faced with disagreement? Politically, in the work place, in all forms of relationship? The internet has helped give a billion people a voice but still we are constrained.
So how can freedom of thought be turned into actionable outcomes that change our surroundings? Do we have a responsibility to notice situations where speaking is not proper then take action in an appropriate way? Should we always mitigate our language and style? Alternatively, should we search for an outlet where we are joined by people with a common understanding, where our speech - the articulation of our thoughts - is acceptable and catalyses progressive thinking?
Sadly, Kierkegaard's edict is all too intrinsic to human nature and the structures that confine acceptable behaviour. But we have a responsibility to ourselves - to take a stance and be consistent to our beliefs. His declaration relates to people oppressed by a situation yet modern idealism teaches us to express ourselves. We therefore have a choice and it seems that it comes down to our desire for freedom. If we remain in our boxes, the air will fester and we will suffocate. If we are brave we will be free but we must be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences thereof. Maybe bravery is absurd. Then sensible is inert.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is regarded as the Father of Existentialism. In this quote he talks about our lack of self awareness and inability to use what we have to hand - on both practical and profound levels. Interestingly, he talks about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that the democratic Nations laud as a defining feature of their governance. Yet are we not often constrained when faced with disagreement? Politically, in the work place, in all forms of relationship? The internet has helped give a billion people a voice but still we are constrained.
So how can freedom of thought be turned into actionable outcomes that change our surroundings? Do we have a responsibility to notice situations where speaking is not proper then take action in an appropriate way? Should we always mitigate our language and style? Alternatively, should we search for an outlet where we are joined by people with a common understanding, where our speech - the articulation of our thoughts - is acceptable and catalyses progressive thinking?
Sadly, Kierkegaard's edict is all too intrinsic to human nature and the structures that confine acceptable behaviour. But we have a responsibility to ourselves - to take a stance and be consistent to our beliefs. His declaration relates to people oppressed by a situation yet modern idealism teaches us to express ourselves. We therefore have a choice and it seems that it comes down to our desire for freedom. If we remain in our boxes, the air will fester and we will suffocate. If we are brave we will be free but we must be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences thereof. Maybe bravery is absurd. Then sensible is inert.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Guns and alcohol
A new law has been passed to allow people in Arizona to bring their guns into bars and restaurants. The new law is supported, as you would expect, by the NRA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33074414/ns/us_news-life/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/ns/us_news-life/
While people carrying guns are not allowed to drink alcohol in these bars, there is surely something wrong here?
The American attitude to guns is what it is - people demand the right to carry / own a gun to protect themselves. This is a cultural thing, most prominent in certain areas - and whether you agree or disagree, it's a fact - much like the English like to play cricket and lose and the French like to write philosophy and be depressed. American politicians will naturally support the right to carry guns because they, as American citizens, will also share the desire. OK - agree or disagree it's a fact. But surely allowing guns to be carried in places where the social facilitator leads, in excess, to bad judgement, emotional inconsistency and physical impairment, this new law is surely insane.
I believe in the right to choose but politicians are there to help ensure our choices fall within a responsible framework. Do these politicians know nothing? Have these politicians not seen Bowling for Columbine?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33074414/ns/us_news-life/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/ns/us_news-life/
While people carrying guns are not allowed to drink alcohol in these bars, there is surely something wrong here?
The American attitude to guns is what it is - people demand the right to carry / own a gun to protect themselves. This is a cultural thing, most prominent in certain areas - and whether you agree or disagree, it's a fact - much like the English like to play cricket and lose and the French like to write philosophy and be depressed. American politicians will naturally support the right to carry guns because they, as American citizens, will also share the desire. OK - agree or disagree it's a fact. But surely allowing guns to be carried in places where the social facilitator leads, in excess, to bad judgement, emotional inconsistency and physical impairment, this new law is surely insane.
I believe in the right to choose but politicians are there to help ensure our choices fall within a responsible framework. Do these politicians know nothing? Have these politicians not seen Bowling for Columbine?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Can we have too much choice?
A few years old now and we still haven't learned anything... In this video psychologist Barry Schwartz says we have all become so anxious due to the amount of choice we have now. In the old days, there was coffee or tea... Now, well, there's no such thing... Because of this, we have no idea what we want anymore so we become disoriented, frustrated, unsettled, perplexed and, most importantly, anxious. We have a responsibility to make things simple for people. Simplicity leads to understanding whereas complexity leads to confusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
