The capitalist system is based on the ideas of growth and continuously increasing output. Link that to the idea of creativity and the common understanding that being creative usually means giving birth to something NEW.

Of course you can also be creative by re-thinking/re-doing “old” ideas & things but what I’m referring to here is creativity in the shaping, tangible sense, e.g. construction, architecture, fashion, art, lifestyle and the list goes on.

In my ideal world however, growth does not constitute the main pillar of our economic system, maintenance does.

In that world the economic system is built around the real & natural needs of human beings as opposed to forcing humans to adapt to the unreal & unnatural needs of the system. Consequentially, we would not focus on putting out more for the sake of bigger/faster/better but putting in more (into ourselves) for the sake of managing and improving what we’ve already got.

My question now is – how would our creative abilities be affected by this? In practice that means we’re not using say finite natural resources to create another “thing” just for the sake of creating, e.g. a modern-day building or a clothing design item.

How can we be/think/act creative in a world where we REALLY are limited by natural resources, i.e. the raw materials for tangible creation?

Is multifunctional/-use fashion enough? Are refitting buildings and recycling furniture going to satisfy the insatiable appetite of creative people?

I’m curious as to what tangible creation might look like if you ad real awareness and responsibility to it.

And from an intangible, parallel universe of creation comes this fresh and to-me-very-new-and-hot sound…human creativity is definitely reason enough to be alive!

Have you ever thought about knowledge as being something limiting? I suppose not and neither did I.

Francis Bacon said “Knowledge is power” and in our part of the world we take pride in having a lot of options to chose from; the more we know the more free and invincible we believe ourselves to be. As I write this I hear my grandmother in the back of my mind saying “Knowledge, knowledge, knowledge my dear. Keeping yourself well-informed is crucial in today’s world.”

It seems I don’t agree with granny anymore.

In her book and in a similar context, Hermodsson quotes an author by the name of Gerholm.

“Planet Neptune didn’t exist pre Copernican revolution because there was no room for invisible planets in the geocentric system.”

In other words, in medieval times and before Galileo Galilei came along to place the world on its head (or more specifically out of the spotlight), we believed Planet Earth was the centre of the universe and that all other planets, including the sun circled around us (Geocentric or Ptolemaic system). With that way of looking at the world came a way of looking at life and the acknowledgement of an according truth.

Once the Copernican view of the universe (Sun being in the centre) had been established, the reality and therefore the truth changed. Suddenly there was a Planet Neptune on the map, which had previously gone unnoticed.

Nevertheless, it’s always been there. Conclusion: Because we didn’t see it, it didn’t exist.

What fascinates me here is how we relate to knowledge and everything we believe to know about our world. We make decisions based on everything we know assuming we know everything there is to know. And how else would we proceed, right? Still, I think it’s worth a thought.

Science as our acclaimed provider of truth could come along with a theory tomorrow “proving” that everything we’ve believed to be true so far is actually not.

How does that influence our decision-making? Should we continue assuming that we know everything there is to know? What about that which exists but can’t be measured nor discovered? Finally, how does this affect future generations?

It seems as though the knowledge of today does indeed limit us in light of the knowledge of tomorrow.

Well, reading E.F. Schumacher’s “A Guide for the Perplexed” (thanks to a great Eco Philosophy class I’m currently taking) did just that. Bless education and all the marvellous wisdom available to us in the form of almighty books. (Side note: Books used to bore THE LIFE outta me. There’s hope for everybody out there.)

On to the story – why saving the world will never work.

There have been many great individuals out there who have been saying it all along.

“Be the change you want to be in the world.” (Ghandi) / “Start with the Man in the Mirror…” (M.J.)

Schumacher has elaborated some more on the topic and provided some indispensable insights, which I’d like to share. I’m going to refrain from writing a summary on the book to focus on the essentials that had a big impact on me (having said that I can HIGHLY recommend you to read it yourself).

In his book, the author establishes the idea that there are “Four Levels of Being” – ranging from the mineral and plant to the animal and human life forms (I don’t quite agree with the hierarchical point of view but Schumacher has a good reason for seeing it this way). With every life form, complexity and awareness increases resulting in the human being at the top of the pyramid with unique abilities of developing self-awareness, becoming fully human in the process.

Now Schumacher argues that through modern science our world has been occupying itself with and operating from a very basic Level of Being (figure plant/animal level) where things can be measured and are easily predictable. In other words we haven’t been behaving (nor have we been treated) as proper human beings. There’s a bunch of potential circling around, hanging in the air…turns out most of us don’t have the faith to believe we can achieve this kind of existence par excellence. (Remember Brene Brown’s presentation – “The people who have a strong sense of love & belonging BELIEVE they’re WORTHY of love & belonging.”)

Another important thing to know about these Levels of Being (I’ll be getting to the point soon!) is that at the lower levels, given that we’re not living at full potential, we’re seeing the world in limited, finite ways. The more we flourish into true humanity, the more infinite and unlimited the world will become because of higher forces like love and compassion entering the stage.

NOW (Tadaaaa!) the point I’m trying to make here is that going out there and saving the world won’t do the job, a saved world is more likely to be the consequence of us picking ourselves up and literally lifting ourselves higher, transcending the logical mind to a state of self-awareness where higher unifying forces reign and opposites seize to exist. It’s not about the doing, it’s about the being.

“The idea of making people better belongs to the (low) level of manipulation (as opposed to the high level of understanding), the same level at which opposites exist and at which their reconciliation is impossible.”

I think the recipe for World Peace has never been so clear.

Shall we folks?

I see how that makes sense in theory and proverbs, but I feel the practical affair is a very different one.

In recent weeks the idea of perfection has frequently crossed my mind, served as the topic of discussions amongst friends and in one way or another been a point of focus with some of my favourite TED speakers (Beware – TEDmania coming up).

The problem I realize lies not so much in the acknowledgment that I’m not perfect, but more in my obsession with it – it seems I constantly strive towards an imaginary perfect state of being. It takes a couple of dear friends to break through the shell and remind me of the fact that being imperfect is ok; that having flaws is only human.

So how come that being reminded of my imperfections is such a devastating experience? I fall apart and look around anxiously to pick up the pieces – the pieces that are supposed to be me. But are they?

Thandie Newton and her TED presentation came to the rescue some weeks back. In the most heartfelt and sincere manner, she reminds us that the Self (or Ego) only has a function…and shouldn’t be mistaken for who we really are. Our essence, she says, is experienced in the absence of Self – this is where connection can be found. Being nobody (as opposed to somebody) means being alive, truly alive.

Sigh – turns out I don’t need to chase perfection after all. To the contrary, I better run from it as fast as I can.

It happens every now and then, to all of us…when we have to ditch the pride and take responsibility for (false) actions.

In my previous post (Part I) I talked about my/our difficulty to deal with imperfection. This doesn’t feel much different – how come “I’m wrong” is such a hard thing to say?

At TEDGlobal 2011, Tim Harford spoke of the God Complex:

“In my own little world, I am a god, I understand everything. I don’t want to have my opinions challenged, my conclusions tested…it feels so much more comfortable to lay down the law.”

Only problem with that frame of mind is that we live in an incredibly complex world today. According to Harford, the notion that regardless of how complicated the problem may be, you still have an overwhelming belief that you’re infallibly right is something we as individuals and as a collective need to abandon.

He stresses the need for trial and error procedures and the importance of making mistakes – good mistakes. Our evolution is proof of this kind of procedure, yet still we walk around believing that the power lies in having the answers, as opposed to asking questions.

What really resonates with me in Harford’s presentation is his plea for us to develop a genuine sense of humility.

To value the wrong-doings as a part of the process.

Therefore let us ditch the race for perfection and honour the road of mistakes, to be more humble towards ourselves and life.

The wholehearted life according to Brene Brown:

*

To let ourselves be seen, deeply seen.

To love with our whole hearts even though there is no guarantee.

To practice gratitude and joy, because to feel this vulnerable means we’re alive.

To believe we’re enough because when we do so we stop screaming and start listening.

 *

Watch her beautiful talk:

So what does a world look like where we’re not obsessed with perfection, where we honour the mistakes we make and where we embrace vulnerability?

I’ll betcha it’s Heaven on Earth.

What is life all about…really?

Why do we go out every day, year in, year out doing what we do? If you gather life is nothing more than a series of coincidences and a bunch of randomness, then you and I disagree. Because I believe in a purpose-filled life and after a lot of thinking/feeling back and forth I’ve started to look at life and everything we fill it with as a method (and ultimate aim) for better understanding ourselves. Let me elaborate.

Whether we’re speaking about education, your work profession or social engagements involving people – it doesn’t matter. The classroom teaches you how to think differently about yourself, e.g. in linear terms and along the lines of cause and effect – subjects like Maths show you 1+1=2. Your job in the finance sector might teach you something about the roll you play in the bigger (economic) system and your value as a market player. And if it weren’t for friends and family who know just how to push our buttons, self-insight would be hard to gain.

The consequence of doing stuff is self-knowledge. The more you “do” of life, the better will you understand yourself and what you’re all about…

So what would happen if rather than letting self-understanding be a mere side product, we placed it at the centre of our attention? If we actively pursued the nature of our Selves?

Raising the appropriate questions in our every day school/work/social/love life would allow us to get to the root of things and ourselves, enabling us to approach life itself in a more conscious and responsible way. Knowing who we are and how we work, first individually and then collectively would allow us to avoid undesired outcomes on every level – from the personal to the global (realizing that the individual players are what make up the bigger whole).

A few years ago Martin Lindstrom, author of “Buyology” performed the largest NeuroMarketing study in history to discover how advertising affects our brains and buying behaviour. Amongst many other things, he found out that emotions are the way in which our brain encodes things of value, e.g. an emotionally engaging brand will win over one that is more rational in its communication. The conclusion was that instant gratification comes with a greater emotional response, hence more successful. What I understood from that finding was that our brain is wired for short-term pleasures. Long-term thinking and behaving (which is very relevant when we get into environment-themed discussions) in the purely biological sense faces severe restrictions.

HOWEVER – and this is where the self-knowledge thang comes in – WE KNOW we’re not only our brains, our body or emotions. We are that and so much more when we turn off Auto-Pilot and switch to Awake Mode.

Adding awareness to how we approach life means operating from a higher self – it’s the same us, but with a better view of what’s really going on. Why bother? Because it’s fundamental to creating (i.e. US creating) better futures as opposed to thinking we are merely victims of our minds/bodies/emotions.

This reminds me of Prof. Tim Jackson’s fantastic “Economic Reality Check” presentation delivered at TED Global 2010. He makes one very interesting point that really struck a chord with me then and fits in well with the theme of this post now. The picture below is what Jackson calls the “Human Soul” – with self(ish) regarding behaviours that stand in opposition to other regarding behaviours (apparently essential to our evolution), as well as traditionally rooted behaviours opposing behaviours driven by a urge for novelty.

We are all of those things.

The problem is that so far the system has been at odds with who we are as people by feeding us one narrow quadrant – we’ve been sold an image about ourselves that tells us we are only selfish and are constantly on the hunt for new (things). Anyone surprised the consumer culture is slowly killing us?

My urge for increased self-knowledge is rooted in that same notion, i.e. that we don’t forget who we really are (and how much more there is to us). And the best thing about all of this – as Jackson so eloquently put it…

“It’s not about changing human nature, it is about opening up…allowing ourselves the freedom to become fully human, recognizing the depth and breadth of the human psyche.”

Enough to give you goosebumps, right?

Finally, as an all-time Spice Girls loyalist I just can’t resist!

They’re all dense and concentrated structures – kind of like nuclei. It doesn’t matter what defines or makes up these different institutions and concepts; be it city inhabitants, a family father or a soya bean plant.

The similarity lies in the notion that from the outside these entities are compact, exclusive and therefore, to a certain extent separated from their surroundings.

In light of recent riot turbulence in London, it struck me how exposed a city is to social turmoil or any crisis for that matter. Because of its size and compact structure, a city (as opposed to say, a smaller village consisting of a more spread out/random structure) will suffer more from any bigger threat imposed on it – high density means stronger impacts and therefore harder shocks. Also, the sheer size of the periphery needed to support a big city creates friction because of the vast differences – economic, political and social concentration acting like a magnet in the centre and the surrounding boroughs “hanging on” to support and provide for it.

Another good example is the classical family unit, i.e. when it’s at its smallest and simplest – a father, mother and children. Imagine the family goes through a major change, e.g. a death in the family, a divorce etc. Because of its concentrated format (in this case, few family members), the impact is harder. In contrast to this stands a bigger family (think commune), where the  biological parents are not the only child-raisers, where there is a support network or “extended family” acting as a buffer, thereby letting off some of the steam.

The third example is monoculture – when a disease hits a monoculture, the result is devastation for all plants – the lack of diversity means it is exposed and therefore fragile. Any natural eco-system that can boast with a high level of biodiversity (e.g. forest consisting of a variety of plant species), is also the most resilient. Because when one component, i.e. in this case a specific plant, is knocked out of the local eco-system (for whatever reason) it can be replaced by another green friend with similar functions.

Therefore, as opposed to a big city we should be looking to construct less dense and smaller living spaces. Instead of being dependent on your immediate family for back up, the idea is to expand your support network. Rather than growing food monoculture style, we should be focusing on increasing biodiversity – if not for the resilience aspect then for the sake of quality and better lifestyles!

This is my plea for us to increase diversification as opposed to specialization. Of course, we will always need experts, too but in this day and age we find ourselves in a situation where the predominant reductionist approach has cornered us and is preventing us from seeing the bigger picture – the ultimate goal is balance, always balance.

I love the image below (and the story behind it!). Creators Brian and Denise Herrick took on the challenge of turning a former garbage dump into a field of wild flowers in Somerset, UK…and see how it’s thriving!

Besides the memory of a beautiful setting, the truly kind-hearted individuals that crossed my path during this stay, I take with me a slightly renewed and more profound understanding of what the word “being” really means.

Many times before I’ve heard about living in the now…being in the present…but Beshara managed to add a new twist to the whole concept.

You know how more and more you hear people speak of an inner and outer world, of the “true” answers lying within and the “distorted” reality outside? Meaning that when the going gets rough in your life, e.g. you go through some kind of change/crisis and there exists a notion that you need to look within to find peace, harmony…that whole shebang?

I’m not saying one shouldn’t do that – balance is vital to a healthy life – but my recent experience at Beshara’s made me realize that peace is not to be found inside of you, nor is it found outside of you…but rather in the in-between.

Peace is a state of being, it is HOW you relate to your surroundings, it is the point of connection between the inside and the outside that can bring about the tranquility so many of us seem to seek (well, at least I do).

And it’s not one of those easier-said-than-done’s. It doesn’t matter what you’re doing right now, just look around and be.

Don’t judge, don’t value, don’t evaluate, don’t think…just be.

The cool thing about this is that you can only BE in the moment. Yesterday and tomorrow are irrelevant to BEING.

And even if you can’t ignore thoughts on a life that appears as sh*t, remind yourself of the fact (!) that sh*t is just one side of the coin, heaven is on the other side – and when you go into “being”- mode you’ll see life is the whole coin itself.

Nature knows how to simply BE.

It doesn’t doubt or fear life, judge or evaluate. However unlike nature, humans are aware of their own being…peaceful stuff huh?

As opposed to fiction movies like ‘Armageddon’ or ’2012′ this actually has a beauty and dare I say reality factor to it. Be it that our existence on this planet ends due to an unexpected collision with a larger object in space or because our planet Earth simply can’t handle us humans treating it like sh*t anymore…there were moments when I let go of my awareness as an observer and slipped into the plot on the screen. It really scared the living bejesus out of me.  My mother, who sat next to me – one of the coolest, least emotionally-affected people I know – started cold-sweating at one point and later admitted that she had felt close to fainting while in the theatre.

Why is it that the idea of death scares us so much? Throughout my life, when I’ve heard the news about the death of someone – be it that the person was closely related to me or not – I’ve always reacted in an undisturbed way, never shedding tears or being really sad, which was and still is surprising to me at times. The only way I can justify that behaviour is that, in theory, I’ve always looked at death as something natural and nothing I could ever prevent from happening. To the contrary, if someone – on a very deep level – felt they had to go and leave life on plane earth then I could only respect that choice.

‘Melancholia’ got me thinking about our attitude towards life and death, about how much we take for granted and how we think we’ll be around for eternity – it most certainly got me into “Carpe Diem” mode – reminding me of how I need to live life to the fullest and be grateful, for all of it. The movie touches upon other very interesting issues, like our over-reliance on science and rational thinking (interesting given the current predictions for environmental destruction) and how a “sick” person (Kirsten Dunst’s character in the movie suffers from depression) has an easier time coping with the end of the world than her supposedly sane sister – it adds a clever twist as to who’s really the (in)sane one.

Going back to the topic of life and death, I can’t help but acknowledge that I seem to be suffering from a type ‘human hubris’ syndrome. The idea of human civilization on Earth being wiped out one day makes me…sad. Yes, I’m incredibly saddened by the mere thought of not being able to be alive.
At this stage however I’m going to cut myself some slack. After all, fear of death (especially my own) is only natural. In theory and when looking at the BIG picture I know death is part of the cycle of life.

Speaking of cycles and life, I came to think of something I learned about in one of my classes on sustainable development at the Stockholm University. Crawford Holling is considered to be one of the conceptual founders of ecological economics and after doing research on ecological systems he came up with something called ‘The Adaptive Cycle’, a model to explain complex systems – be it the cells of a plant or the nature of society’s development. The different phases depicted in this adaptive cycle show the course of every natural system – take a look at the image below and you’ll notice it’s the same as the infinity sign, hence an ongoing process. One could, for instance, apply the idea of the adaptive cycle to the financial system, which is fundamentally made up of a series of cycles – starting out with growth/accumulation, moving into a phase of conservation/maintenance to a bubble burst resulting in a release/crash and ending with the necessary need for reorganization (on a side note and with regards to the last financial crash, I believe we’ve done a lousy job in reorganizing!).

Holling's 'Adaptive Cycle'

Concluding, if you mess with the dynamics of the system (any system), you’re f*cked.

Trying to prevent any of these stages from happening, e.g. the release (same as destruction) is working against the flow…the flow that is life itself…and linking this notion to my original question of life and death and our relation to it, there is no point in us withstanding the flow – death is part of the natural cycle of life.

Finally and most importantly, remember that when something dies (be it a part of ourselves, a plant or a stock market crashing), the system reorganizes and gives rise to a new and healthier reality.

Now imagine how our behaviours and consequentially our systems would change if we incorporated this type of thinking into our daily lives…