Keeping it Human and humane.
The questions before us all as we move into 2015, unexplored
time as yet, a future we have some plans for, a future that is certain to
contain challenges, set-backs, discoveries, new experiential learning’s,
insight and much else besides that is the stuff of life, will remain questions
that are largely concerned with optimal human biological health.
Be it ‘the Economy’, ‘The War Against Terror’, ‘Austerity’, The Environment, or any number of other serious problems current in today’s world, there are two generalised approaches open as we seek the answers to the problems facing ‘ordinary’ human well being.
The first approach, which currently dominates the way Governments and other power Institutions behave, which is associated with adversarial political alliances and far right/religious based political action and mainstream media is largely ideological – that is to say it is coming at the problems with a sense of ‘destiny’ that seeks to impose a certain value system upon the people, irrespective of the adverse outcomes for many people, and as such is void of the concept of optimal human biological health, which is quite willful.
It is the systems ‘health’ that dominates this discourse. And by this I mean to say that it is the status, power and ability of the system of power to project itself into every area of our lives that is considered the ‘health’ of the system. If a majority appear to do ok, and a minority are oppressed, that’s the ‘price’ that power deems acceptable.
In as much as this approach reflects systemic thinking and tends to ignore, deny, dismiss, misinterpret or obfuscate on any area that exposes the ideological values as being hypocritical whereas the lived experience tells the truth, this approach tends to compound pre-existing problems, thus making matters worse. Lacking empathy it tends to make things worse as it shores up the failings of Power as a modality for human relationships and a caring community.
The second approach, which is emergent from peoples lived experience and it’s meanings, is empathic – in that we seek to understand a problem at it’s true roots, from inside the lived experience, taking into consideration what it is like to be that person or community going through that experience and clearly identify that which is truly unacceptable and to confront Society with that as the basis of it’s challenge.
“Enough! This (whatever experience is being described) must cease because the pain in the lived experience is unacceptable. It cannot be called a ‘price’ for some which then assumes a ‘gain’ that has value for others.
When the peoples trauma, pain and distress is so intense, that in and of itself ought to be enough reason to cease whatever it is that is causing that trauma and pain, immediately. No ifs or buts.
The second approach takes optimal biological human health as its base, because that speaks to the lived experience, the ‘real’ real world.
The second approach allows that resolution of that confrontation will be a matter that develops, once the abuse of power has been stopped in it’s tracks, that cannot be imposed or predicated by ideology, because it is a response to an immediate situation that will also clear a learning ground that comes from each of us, as individuals and as communities as we tell our stories in all honesty and gain insight.
The material answers will emerge from honesty, and nothing else, because it is through acknowledging the truth we will set ourselves free to act as humane beings in a difficult situation, and this process will be all the more creative in the sense that the drivers of the solutions will be the people ourselves, and our own emergent sense of who we are, what we share, as we acknowledge an awakened sense of each other as people.
Whilst recognising who we are as people in experience will be a commonality, I expect to see a natural diversity that fine tunes solutions to local conditions.
That way the differences of Religion, language, currency, typography become irrelevant because they are not the problem.
The problem is abuse of Power: within that the co-opting of natural differences, natural cultural variations and so on by power in order to generate oppositional, adversarial behaviours at the grass roots, and the horrific outcomes for those people who are most adversely affected by such division and other abuses of power that are amongst the symptoms.
Charity aimed at symptoms is no longer a valid response on its own.
This must be articulated, again and again, in clear terms.
Irrespective of creed, ideology, skin colour, language we all bleed red. We all hurt in pretty much the same manner. And the solutions to the problems we face must reflect that understanding above all else. That must be at the very core of our activism.
Be it ‘the Economy’, ‘The War Against Terror’, ‘Austerity’, The Environment, or any number of other serious problems current in today’s world, there are two generalised approaches open as we seek the answers to the problems facing ‘ordinary’ human well being.
The first approach, which currently dominates the way Governments and other power Institutions behave, which is associated with adversarial political alliances and far right/religious based political action and mainstream media is largely ideological – that is to say it is coming at the problems with a sense of ‘destiny’ that seeks to impose a certain value system upon the people, irrespective of the adverse outcomes for many people, and as such is void of the concept of optimal human biological health, which is quite willful.
It is the systems ‘health’ that dominates this discourse. And by this I mean to say that it is the status, power and ability of the system of power to project itself into every area of our lives that is considered the ‘health’ of the system. If a majority appear to do ok, and a minority are oppressed, that’s the ‘price’ that power deems acceptable.
In as much as this approach reflects systemic thinking and tends to ignore, deny, dismiss, misinterpret or obfuscate on any area that exposes the ideological values as being hypocritical whereas the lived experience tells the truth, this approach tends to compound pre-existing problems, thus making matters worse. Lacking empathy it tends to make things worse as it shores up the failings of Power as a modality for human relationships and a caring community.
The second approach, which is emergent from peoples lived experience and it’s meanings, is empathic – in that we seek to understand a problem at it’s true roots, from inside the lived experience, taking into consideration what it is like to be that person or community going through that experience and clearly identify that which is truly unacceptable and to confront Society with that as the basis of it’s challenge.
“Enough! This (whatever experience is being described) must cease because the pain in the lived experience is unacceptable. It cannot be called a ‘price’ for some which then assumes a ‘gain’ that has value for others.
When the peoples trauma, pain and distress is so intense, that in and of itself ought to be enough reason to cease whatever it is that is causing that trauma and pain, immediately. No ifs or buts.
The second approach takes optimal biological human health as its base, because that speaks to the lived experience, the ‘real’ real world.
The second approach allows that resolution of that confrontation will be a matter that develops, once the abuse of power has been stopped in it’s tracks, that cannot be imposed or predicated by ideology, because it is a response to an immediate situation that will also clear a learning ground that comes from each of us, as individuals and as communities as we tell our stories in all honesty and gain insight.
The material answers will emerge from honesty, and nothing else, because it is through acknowledging the truth we will set ourselves free to act as humane beings in a difficult situation, and this process will be all the more creative in the sense that the drivers of the solutions will be the people ourselves, and our own emergent sense of who we are, what we share, as we acknowledge an awakened sense of each other as people.
Whilst recognising who we are as people in experience will be a commonality, I expect to see a natural diversity that fine tunes solutions to local conditions.
That way the differences of Religion, language, currency, typography become irrelevant because they are not the problem.
The problem is abuse of Power: within that the co-opting of natural differences, natural cultural variations and so on by power in order to generate oppositional, adversarial behaviours at the grass roots, and the horrific outcomes for those people who are most adversely affected by such division and other abuses of power that are amongst the symptoms.
Charity aimed at symptoms is no longer a valid response on its own.
This must be articulated, again and again, in clear terms.
Irrespective of creed, ideology, skin colour, language we all bleed red. We all hurt in pretty much the same manner. And the solutions to the problems we face must reflect that understanding above all else. That must be at the very core of our activism.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe