Protests and balls, left and right…
There are two sides to every story. We all know this, even if we choose to only see our side. Seeing the side of others takes empathy, a virtue that (unlike patience and many other virtues) I think I’m not half-bad at. Lucky so, given the nature of my recent social life.
On Friday night I updated my facebook status: Pro wikileaks rally outside town hall by day, dining inside town hall with army boys by night. Oh the irony!
The irony, in my mind, stemmed from the stark contrast in world-views between Peace and Security, between Left and Right. It’s a contrast that I find strange given both are ultimately (in my opinion) trying to achieve the same thing (improving the lives of themselves and the ones they love) – the difference being the way they believe this might be achieved.
The contrast was emphasised my a few of my friend’s friend’s friend (also an army boy) at a party the night before. In the span of 30-hours I went from left to right, back to left, back to right, finally returning to where I am now: relatively left with an appreciation for the right. Confused? That’s ok, so am I.
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I have a few friends from the Australian army which with my Peace Studies tends to make for interesting conversations. But my friend’s friend’s friend was a little different.
So this story begins on Thursday night at what was supposed to be some quiet farewell drinks.
“Have you ever killed someone?” my friend’s friend’s friend asked, the look of horror from his killings still in his eyes. “Then you don’t know anything.”
I didn’t know what to say.
“You peace people, you f’ing hippies, you protest against us, you spit on us during Anzac day parades,” He continued. “You live in Paddington with your straight white teeth… you don’t have a clue.”
Do I turn and leave? Cry? Or try to see what’s beneath his resentment? I chose the latter option, although after too many drinks I may later done a little of the second, and eventually a friend enforced the first option. But that’s beside the point.
“Ok, I agree – I don’t have a clue. I would never spit on you, I assure you of that.” I began diplomatically. “I might be a bit left but as you said, I live in Paddington and I do very much appreciate my way of life – and I know the connection between this and what you do. I may not agree with violence but I enjoy the economic and physical benefits of it – from oil to our relationships with the US.”
I think he was at least a little suprised by my honesty. I asked what motivates him to fight, and why he joined.
“My family. Protecting the people I love. Protecting my country.” he replied. “And I have to admit, I was pretty stoked when I bought my first Beemer.”
The conversation continued to deeper territories.
“We generally try not to kill women and children but if it’s a choice between them or me, I have done it. And once you do it, you can’t take it back.” It was plain to me the saddness and resentment that was attached. “I’ve fought in East Timor, in Afghanistan, in many other places. After a while you enjoy it. Do you hear me? I have enjoyed killing people.”
I knew he was trying to intimidate me.
“I hear you. And I also know that if I were born in your body and your situation, I’d be doing the exact same thing.” I shrugged.
I don’t take killing lightly, and I definitely don’t condone it, but my empathy does allow me to understand. I can hardly begin to imagine the psychological processes within one’s mind in order to deal with taking another’s life.
In the psychological drama of killing people and then operating in a society where no one knows what that’s like and people ignorantly criticise the war you fight, of course you would need to find stories that justify it; attaching confident feelings to the actions; and transform oneself into the hero of the story.
Are today’s soldiers heroes?
In the minds of many of the people of their country, yes they are.
Are they murderers?
In the minds of the victim’s family, yes they are.
Are they necessary?
In the global game of chess our politicians are currently playing, yes they are.
Ultimately our politicians play the game that supports the way the majority want them to play it. And at the moment our objective is security: economic security and physical security.
Peace activists might protest against soldiers, showing their dismay for the victims of war and displaying their disapproval for the way our politicians are playing the game, but until the game changes, our politicians choices are limited.
“We pay you to protect us, and that’s what you do. That’s also why people like me are of more value than you think. When we’re not spitting at you during parades… ” I laughed, “And when we’re finished making our daisy chains, we are analyzing the causes of the war in the first place. We are looking for non-violent ways to secure the same things you are trying to secure.”
If I had been referring to the chess game I might have said: we are questioning the game and trying to see if there’s another way we can play it.
At the end of that evening, when my friend told me to go home to bed, the army boy turned to me, looked me in the eyes and said, “Thank you…” he shook his head, “this has been a really good conversation, thank you.”
It was a pretty hard core conversation but it had been worthwhile. It had opened windows for understanding, on both sides.
While the above rant is just the beginning of my 30-hour Left vs Right epic, this entry is getting long so I’ll tell the rest of the story tomorrow.
Support Wikileaks Protest – Sydney Town Hall Tomorrow
I’ve never been much of a hands-on activist. While I support many causes, I tend to action my support in different ways. But tomorrow’s protest is different. Tomorrow is about making a stand for our fundamental freedoms, for democracy, free media and free speech. The more people who turn up the more this voice will be heard. So if you are in Sydney then come with me to the Support WikiLeaks Rally at 1pm at TOWN HALL tomorrow (Friday the 10th December). Otherwise sign the petition here – http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl
I haven’t got time to put the WikiLeaks situation into my own words so below are words taken from a Ricken Patel – Avaaz.org email and Antony Loewenstein’s Press Release.
“Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why – because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it’s up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.
Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world’s leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.
The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that’s exactly why it’s so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it’s partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that’s a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. BUT none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations.
The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression.” [1]
Sign the petition to stop the crackdown:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl
Forward this message to everyone — let’s get to 1 million voices!”
If you are in Sydney then show your support at the “Support WikiLeaks Rally” – TOMORROW (Friday the 10th December) at 1pm at TOWN HALL:
“MEDIA RELEASE — MEDIA RELEASE — MEDIA RELEASE — Support Wikileaks rally called
Supporters of the website Wikileaks will mobilise on Friday (10/12/10) to protest against the backlash it has faced for its release of more than 250,000 US government cables.
The protest will hear from independent journalist Antony Loewenstein, award-winning author of My Israel Question. Pirate Party spokesperson Simon Frew will also speak. Other speakers will be announced soon.
The rally date coincides with International Human Rights Day. Rally organisers say the Australian government has failed to uphold the human rights of Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange.
“The Australian government should be ashamed for its attacks on Wikileaks, which has been charged with no crime”, spokesperson Simon Butler said.
“Australia should not join the campaign to censor Wikileaks. Wikileaks has released evidence of government lies and duplicity — information that, as citizens, we have a right to know.
“We want the Gillard government to make sure Julian Assange has the same basic rights as every other Australian citizen. Threats have been made against Assange’s life, the Australian government has a duty to protect him, not threaten him.”
Butler said community support for Wikileaks was very high. “We expect a good turnout to the rally. There is a great deal of anger at what’s happening. The bid to silence Wikileaks threatens the rights of everyone.” [2]
The email from Ricken Patel – Avaaz.org includes these SOURCES:
Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm
WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html
Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5
Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon
“WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists” (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html
US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/
US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee
WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who’s next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next
Assange’s Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/
My sources:
[1]
Avaaz.org is a 6.4-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. To contact Avaaz, go to www.avaaz.org/en/contact.
[2]
Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based independent freelance journalist, author, documentarian, photographer and blogger.
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/12/07/wikileaks-support-protest-in-sydney-on-friday
The rally will take place at Sydney Town Hall @ 1pm, Friday December 10.
Rally information: Kylie Gilbert 0451 827 693
Media contact: Simon Butler 0421 231 011
Yoga – always a good decision
Tonight I had a decision to make: dinner with mum, PeaceBeliever Tribute to John Lennon at Oxford Arts Factory, bed (I was up late blogging last night), try to keep awake and study, or go to a yoga class. My body craved the hot room, long stretches, mental relaxation of yoga – but it would be at the cost of all the other options, and the bother of driving and parking. All of this I could be avoided if I just sit on my ass and don’t go. But I did. And I was reminded (once again) that yoga is always a good decision.
I don’t know how I let myself forget – how weeks go by with my prioritising social events or even whatever TV series I’m working through at the time – instead of making it to class.
This class – at Body Mind Life, in Surry Hills – is particularly great. To make things even better, tonight this amazing (and perfect bodied, dreadlocked) yoga dude brought a guitar and he and the female instructor sang some chants.
It is quite an incredible feeling to be in a room full of around 50 people humming “om” together (the vibration of the universe) and singing about “shanti” (which means peace). So I might not have made the Lennon Peace Tribute but I did I return home feeling once again “at peace”.
I had forgotten how great that feeling is.
To be honest I had been starting to wonder if “Peace” was an outdated word – with all the baggage that seems to be attached to it. Peace seemed to bring to mind fairly boring images of nothingness while and Conflict brought to mind images of adventure and excitement. The definition of Peace (or “Positive Peace” to be more exact) in Peace and Conflict Studies is a Peace that values Conflict but not at the expense of Violence or Injustice. So… in the pursuit of Peace by this definition, I was starting to think that maybe we needed a more exciting new term.
After tonight I see Peace differently.
Tonight I am reminded that while we need Conflict to have Peace, we also need Peace to have Conflict. We need BOTH. While Conflict can be great, it does need some moments of Peace to balance it out.
Tonight I feel calm but energised, alive without-a-worry-in-the-world. Feeling at peace with oneself is a very good feeling. So if your life is as fast-changing and competitive as mine then I recommend that an hour or two of pure nothingness (which is not the same as watching a tv show) is always a good decision.
Humanity: are we an empathic civilisation???
Something many of us probably do not know is that connected to our drive to survive, is an empathic disposition driving the evolution of “civilisation”. Humans have a long history of empathy that unfortunately our history books tend to forget about. The book The Empathic Civilisation – The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, by Jeremy Rifkin, tells another story.
As a commenter on Peace: How Do We Find It? said, “so now all we need to change, is the minds of the entire human population.” That sounds darn right impossible, doesn’t it. It doesn’t sound very promising, nor ethical, BUT if humans are empathic at their core then maybe we don’t have to change people minds – maybe we just have to REMEMBER a part of ourselves we often forget.
Rifkin writes about the change in people’s minds that led to the spread of Christianity around 1500 years ago.
“Cast adrift from their tribal bonds and thrown together with people of different cultures form around the empire, large numbers of individuals suddenly found themselves alone in dense urban environments and without a sense of identity… what was missing was a powerful new narrative that could put every single individual at the center of a compelling cosmic story of creation, tribulation, judgement, and redemption, and, by doing so, recast the very meaning of human existence… it would be a young sect calling itself Christians that would take Rome and the empire by storm with their story.” [1]
This video is not a replacement but it is a brilliant summary of the book:
Oh and this interview with the Rifkin is pretty cool too:
It seems to me that while conflict and competition play important (and positive) roles in life processes, if we have an empathic disposition then conflicts don’t need to have violent and destructive consequences.
Could small shift in the way we frame our story? Could books and clips such as this one contain the butterfly effect strong enough to realise our empathy and better the world for each other and future generations?
Or will it be a new cosmic narrative that addresses our own distorted sense of identity?
Rifkin describes three Industrial Revolutions, each based on a developments in energy/communications technologies:
1. coal/print
2. oil/radio-television
3. (maybe) the Internet/alternative energy
In order to avoid “planetary collapse” in the face of “a rapidly accelerating juggernaut” of climate change and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, (or, if you’re a climate change skeptic, then just exchange those two words for human population which is undeniably ridiculous and out of control) a revolution is necessary.
If this third revolution happens, Ruskin writes that it ‘will be marked by a “distributed” model of energy production (and use) that will rely on the new assumption that human nature is not inherently selfish, but rather that people ‘want to collaborate with others, often freely, for the sheer joy of contributing to the common good.‘[2]
How’s your empathic disposition as we come up to Christmas?
Do you think such a revolution is possible?
I do, but that might be summer and the fact that I just got my first scooter, bringing back my pre-India incurable optimism…
References
[1] The Empathic Civilization - The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, by Jeremy Rifkin.
[2] As summed in a review in ONE COUNTRY, Bahai Internationa Community New York, Ed. Brad Pokorny.
Jessica Jackley: Poverty, money and love
Just thought I’d share this inspiring story about Jessica Jackley who set up Kiva – the world’s first peer-to-peer online microlending service – which allows people in rich countries to lend small amounts of money directly to people in poor countries, and from this dramatically changing their lives.
While microfinance is not without criticism, it is nice to see at least the intentions behind it are pure. If I had money I’d lend it though them:
Mapping out religious beliefs and learning to think
I drew this up flowchart / map of religious beliefs about three years ago. I agree with this quote in part. Thinking can be terrifying. At the time I drew up this map I was at the beginning of an emotional process of learning to think – discovering where the worldview of my upbringing fit with the worldview of other people’s upbringing.
Can you see where your beliefs fit?
There seems to be an endless list of ism’s. Have I missed yours? If I’ve missed any to do with key categories of beliefs about the universe then please let me know so I can add it.
It was during this process of surfing wikipedia and exploring different ism’s that I first came across “Panentheism” (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all“; ἐν (en) “in“; and θεός (theós) “God“; “all-in-God”) – the idea that everything is in that which we call “God” is different from “Pantheism” (πᾶν (pân) “all“; θεός (theós) “God“; “all-is-God”) which equates The Universe or Nature to “God”.
I like the idea of Panentheism so much that I’m now writing a thesis on it.
I like of pantheism too but seeing as we will never know what lies beyond what we know (until we know it) I cannot see a reason to keep the doors of our imagination open for what might exist beyond our universe. For example, the energies/macrososm we call “God” could encompass a universe of universes, or even a universe of universes of universes… we will never know. Ok, now I’ve lost myself.
I guess this is flowchart is the basis of a number of entries that I will post as I research Panentheism and Process Theology (the idea that everything is a process, an event, that nothing (even “you”) is ever a static “thing”). And by combining these ideas with what I told you about the other day – Narratology (the study of narratives) – I hope to see where and how these different ism’s may actually meet, differing mainly in the historical context that the words, images and stories that describe their beliefs developed.
“ISM” means adherence to an ideology.
Ideology refers to ideas that constitute a person’s goals, expectations and actions – what makes up a person’s view of the world.
My hypothesis is that all the above ideologies might actually meet each other in the idea of Panentheism.
That is, I think that everyone – atheists, agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, new-age people, etc. etc. – are panentheists, they just don’t know it yet.
What would this mean? Well, maybe if we see that our ideologies are talking about the same thing, it will be harder for our identities to get caught up in them. And seeing as misuse of identity-driven ideologies is a major cause of violence, from terrorism to intolerance, maybe some forms of violence will discover a peaceful resolution.
Of course a lot of people will disagree – which is the fun of having a hypothesis and exploring it.
Maybe I will like my conclusions, maybe I won’t, but it is in the process of thinking and exploring that I expect I will learn and grow and get even just a little bit closer to “truth”.
So somewhere in the intersection of philosophy, religion, and science, I have over the last few blog entries, attempted to introduce the narrative-oriented research project that I suppose will (after many years, if not my entire life), be my magnum opus.
Anyway, I’ve spent enough entries telling you what I want to do… now I have to figure out how I’m going to do it.
Any research project (at least any academic research project), starts with a “literature review”. The objective is to learn who has had similar thoughts in the past, what influenced their ideas, how their ideas evolved, how their ideas influenced other people’s ideas, (and so on and so on), and observing what practical actions have come from it.
As a friend said to me the other day, “There are no new ideas… just new applications of old ones. It’s how ideas are used that matters.” Hopefully whether or not we like the conclusions of our thinking, our ideas will be used in ways we can be proud of.
Picture:
Taken at a cafe I often walk past on my way to work – it always has these cool little quotes so sometimes I stand there feeling a little silly taking a photo of it with my phone.
A deeper exploration of Resolution Theory
Following a question from someone who came across this blog, I was inspired to revisit Resolution Theory – Gregory David Roberts’ philosophical and cosmological model shared through Khader Bhai, the Mafia don, in Shantaram: The Novel.
Roberts writes:
“The whole universe is moving toward some ultimate complexity. This has been going on since the universe began, and physicists call it the tendency toward complexity. And… anything that kicks this along and helps it is good, and anything that hinders it is evil…
“And this final complexity… it can be called God or the Universal Spirit, or the Ultimate Complexity, as you please. For myself, there is no problem in calling it God. The whole universe is moving toward God, in a tendency toward the ultimate complexity that God is…
“In order to know about any act or intention or consequence, we must first ask two questions. One, what would happen if everyone did this thing? Two, would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?” (Roberts 2007:550-551.)
I think he makes a very good point when relating such philosophies to the various religious traditions:
“Every guru you meet and every teacher, every prophet and every philosopher should answer these two questions for you: What is an objective, universally acceptable definition of good and evil? And What is the relationship between consciousness and matter?… This is a test that you should apply to every man who tells you that he knows the meaning of life.” (Roberts 2007:708.)
Hmmm… I wonder:
1. How do the things I do in my life weigh up? What would happen if everyone lived like me? What impact would this have on our collective movement toward complexity?
As it stands my job is ok (at Sydney university whose mission is growth of knowledge) although when I make a mistake on the photocopier I cringe at the paper I wasted. And I cringe at the fact that my budget meant the other day I ordered Nescafe (definitely not fair trade coffee)… anyway, one step at a time.
My Western lifestyle needs to evolve into a sustainable cradle-to-cradle model (See: Where are we going? And how?) I do see a movement toward this, for example, with the occasional biodegradable plastic bag. It is encouraging to see the directions a growing collective care for our ecosystem is taking (while of course recognising we still have a long way to go).
2. How do I define good and evil? Is this an objective, universally acceptable definition? How do I deal with the relationship between consciousness and matter?
While Resolution Theory relates good and evil to the tendency to move toward or away from complexity, I like to think of it (which is for sure inspired by books I’ve read although I can’t remember which exact ones), as the tendency to be Creative or Destructive.
In the philosophical and cosmological model inside my head, good is defined as what is creative and evil what is destructive, which I suppose is somewhat similar to Gregory’s movement toward complexity model – as the more creative we get, the seemingly more complex we get (although sometimes the most creative solutions are the most simple)… anyway I think creativity and destruction are universal and objective definitions – a measure that can be applied to most ethical and moral dilemmas.
I think maybe inspired by Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle audio books, I imagine consciousness as inseparable from matter. I equate consciousness to the “soul”. I imagine our separate souls as being contained in the separate bodies we encompass and the collective soul (from the most macro-lens possible) as being the “soul of the universe” or if you like: “God”.
These personal answers are surely inspired by a number of books I have read and a basic understanding of different religious and philosophical traditions, which I once summarised in the post: Creativism-a-philosophy-for-life.
While recently I’ve felt like I’m drowning in the academic world, Steve’s reminder of Roberts’ theory has made me realise that my MPhil is largely aimed at providing historical religious and philosophical backing to support this philosophical and cosmological understanding of the world: What makes this understanding “true” from my perspective? and What does this understanding of the world mean for my life?
My hypothesis is that this worldview shared by Gregory Roberts, is actually already shared by the majority of the human population – just most don’t know it. It seems (to me) that this understanding underlies the major religious and scientific paradigms. It’s one thing to see this universal unity in my head, it’s another to communicate that unity with others… I know it will be a long journey. I have started and I will start sharing it with you starting next month (I want to finish the revising of peace and conflict studies first).
For a starting point of reference, I put Roberts’ questions to you:
1. Evaluating your life/choices:
a) What would happen if everyone acted the way you do – in lifestyle, job, investments etc.?
b) Would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?”
2. Your beliefs:
a) How do you define good and evil?
b) Is this an objective, universally acceptable definition?
c) How do you understand the relationship between consciousness and matter?
They are tough questions, but good ones… so enjoy the thinking process!!!
Credits:
Photo from my time in India – taken by my tour guide (like a Where’s Wally… can you spot the bridge pose?) – part of my “Bridge” series: Bridges in South America
If you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend:
Roberts, Gregory David, Shantaram : A Novel (Sydney: Picador, 2007). And more of his philosophies at: www.shantaram.com
Practicing what I preach
“It’s easier said than done.” I think we all have discovered this at some point or another. A couple of weeks ago I was struggling with a few big decisions and I punched the following rant into my phone on my way to work. In short, I consider the relationship between money, stories, optimal-trajectories, and the dynamics involved in putting these into practice. It’s not always easy to practice what you preach…
When you are happy, it’s easy to say that if you’re not happy you should change something. Figuring out what to change and actually changing it is another thing altogether.
When you have enough money to do the things you want to do, it’s easy to say you don’t care about money. It’s easy to say that you let creative passions & intuitions guide your life, and never money be a driver in your decisions.
When doors are opening as you approach, it’s easy to say it’s because you are “following the signs”, “listening to your intuition”, and “traveling along your optimal trajectory”.That’s easy when you feel like you’re in sync with the universe. During times where everything is falling into place without so much as a hiccup or a sneeze, it’s easy to preach about optimal trajectories. As long as the traffic lights are green, you can keep going. But what happens when you start to get caught at reds? Is this a sign that you’re going the wrong way?
Sometimes “the signs” are blurry. It can seem as though a sign is pointing in many directions, and there is no way to know which road you should take.
I have faced some roadblocks in this last couple of months.
First, I found out I not only missed out on the scholarship, but my grades were 1.5% too low, making me ineligible to even apply for it. Second, my iMac broke. Third, the editor I hired to give me feedback and correct the grammar on my book had been taking forever.
What was “the universe” trying to tell me?
“Maybe that door’s closing,” suggested my Dad. “Maybe it’s time for a career change.” Subtext: go and get a “real job” in the business world, enjoy the money and security it brings.
It did seem like my plans to do a PhD over the full-time for the next three years with a scholarship – was a door firmly closing on me. And how can I survive without income? A part-time PhD will take forever. If not a PhD, what was I supposed to do?
Like always, I gave the business option some thought… Is my dad right? I am 28 now… Does this mean it’s time for me to “settle down”, get married, get a proper job, a mortgage, and start having babies???
Suddenly I wanted to puke.
I hate that word: “settle”…
It implies compromise.
It implies giving up on dreams.
It implies letting fear lead you to live a life you don’t really want to live.
Life’s too short for that.
From these thoughts and feelings I concluded that the “settle down story” is not the optimal trajectory for me.
Is it a sign that I should pack up my apartment, downsize to a backpack, and travel the world some more? Maybe. But then what about the research I so much want to do? What’s more important for me to do at this stage of my life?
My research thus far into narratology led to some interesting self-reflections on these thoughts. I was clearly looking for a new story. I wanted a story that explained these mishaps and which would set me up on a new trajectory, preferably the one that is optimal for my life.
What was I doing even considering the settle down option? After all I write about on this blog: about not letting money guide my decisions; about how I’m happy to live without security or a fixed plan; and about how important it is to follow one’s dreams… and yet another part of me was saying, “it’s too hard, the door is closed, it’s not meant to be.” I guess yin and yang of life means that no matter how much you believe in freedom, the voice of fear will always creep up inside you.
Am I going to let fear guide my future? No-sir-ee I am not.
I observed as my mind processed the variables, and contemplated possible scenarios. I watched as my mind sought more signs, did more research and tried to connect with “that” feeling one gets inside – that feeling of intuitive satisfaction one feels when they imagine living out a particular future.
I observed as my mind selected one story:
I was “meant” to continue my research without a scholarship. I could start with the smaller research degree – a Master of Philosophy – and then, should I feel so inclined, I could use this degree to get a scholarship and do a PhD after that. Yes it means more work, but maybe is part of the journey I am supposed to take. Yes. I would continue. I love what I’m studying, so why should I let a money-related issue stop me from doing it?
After I had decided on this story I suddenly felt great.
I felt relaxed, and full of an energy I hadn’t remembered experiencing in a long while. The kind of energy that seems to appear when you are connected to the universe. It’s almost drug like – this energy that seems to enter you from no-where – similar to when you do lot of exercise, eat a lot of chocolate, or fall in love. It wouldn’t surprise me if when one feels they are on their optimal trajectory, the same happy buttons in our brains light up.
Observing this mental process, and the emotions and feelings that connected with different stories, got me wondering about self-determinism and predestination.
Is your optimal trajectory something that you choose, or something that chooses you?
This entry has gone long enough. So I’ll finish there and revisit this question tomorrow…
Photo credits
Photographer – Gilbert Rossi
Peace One Day
Have you heard of Peace Day? It’s the 21st of September, every year. Do you know the story behind it? Peace One Day is the story of one man trying to get the global community to establish the first ever annual day of global ceasefire and non-violence. For five years filmmaker Jeremy Gilley met with heads of states, freedom fighters, innocent victims, media representatives, aid agencies, and Noble Peace Laureates, in a quest for peace for just one day. Narrated by Jude Law.
This is the intro to the film:
Tomorrow we are screening the film at 10:30am at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Rm 107, Mackie Building, University of Sydney, Tuesday 21 September 2010. If you’re in Sydney please come along!
Are the laws of science and “God” the same thing?
”Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist… The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science?” that you could meet, and ask questions.” [1] he [Hawkings] said. ”I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God
This is a quote from Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design, quoted by Laura Roberts in today’s Sydney Morning Herald in an article entitled “God did not create universe: Hawking.”
While some of the commentary on this newsarticle focused on the lack of newsworthiness of the story (for example, “Shock, horror, leading scientist doesn’t believe in God…really, this non-story is a glib plug for a new book, well done to the publicisit who somehow got this treated as news.”) I still enjoyed the article. And it got me thinking…
I do align God with the laws of science, BUT I’m not so sure that the story begins or ends there…
I think it’s important to recognise the limitations of our knowledge, for example, that we can never know what lies outside the boundaries of our universe. There could be an entire universe of universes we are unaware of. Not to mention the universes within our universe that our senses may not have evolved to sense. Just because we can not see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. I’m thinking of the sounds that bats hear, the electrofields that the platypus beak senses, etc etc. We simply cannot know the things we do not yet have a means to sense.
So, while I know it may well be ridiculously arrogent to think I can criticise someone as smart as Hawkings, I do question his statement “you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions“.
When I think about the aligning of “God” with the laws of the universe and the idea of a “personal God” – I’m not so sure that the two concepts are incompatible.
In my mind, this aparent contradiction seems completely dependant on your language. It depends on your framing. It depends on your understanding of the universe, and of the connection between the macrocosms and microcosms that lay within it.
You can describe the awe-inspiring force of creative expansion of our universe using mathematical formula, chemistry, and universal laws; or, you can take the whole intricate system and personify it as “God”. And these two ways of describing the same thing, in my mind, are not mutually exclusive conceptions.
Just because you choose to personify the universe as “God”, and speak to it and (possibly) hear answers through your intuition and by reading the omens surrounding you… doesn’t mean that you can’t equate this peronified force “God” to the laws of the universe.
You may wonder: How can anyone feel comforted by a force that they are pretending to be a person? Why would anyone bother to personify it? And talk to it? How deluded! What a waste of time! …. Well I disagree.
Firstly, I don’t think anyone thinks God is actually a person. Even the most radical religious followers don’ think that – do they? I’m pretty sure that while groups may claim ownership of God, and may ascribe their own versions of historical or non-historical events to this God, I don’t believe any actually claim that God is a person. Religious believers (as far as I’m aware) would agree that the question of exactly WHAT is God, is beyond the limits of our knowledge; just as scientists (as far as I’m aware) would admit there are elements of the universe that they do not and may never come to know or understand.
Secondly, I do actually see some benefits of personifying it and talking to it. Largely due the connection that seems to appear between microcosm and macrocosm, there is a need for us to communicate with the whole that we are a part of.
Let me use an analogy:
When I twisted my ankle earlier this year, and ignored the injury for a week of waterskiing and partying, my brain decided to stop communicating with the spacial sensors located in the ligaments of my ankle. A few weeks later I twisted it again. And then again. And then again. It took a lot of time and money on physiotherapy to help reconnect my brain with my ankle, and even now every now and the communication channels are rusty and I almost go over on it.
So let’s apply this to our place within our universe, well to my limited understanding of my place within our universe…
From what I have learned in various books and lectures, every atom that exists as a vibration - electrons and protons moving at different speeds. Einstein showed us that matter IS energy (times the speed of light, squared)… what does this mean?
The line where our body appears to end and that which we sit on or touch seems to begin, is a boundary we perceive because our senses have evolved for us to see the world in this way. It’s like everything that exists is all part of the same piece of fabric, and the appearance of separateness is like a design weaved within it.
Our thoughts are not separate from this permeating fabric. From what I understand (yes it is probably due to books about The Law of Attraction and thought experiments), when we think the vibrations of our thoughts travel into the universe, and like an ankle talking to a brain, those thoughts play a role in the manifestation of the reality we experience. It seems that if you are “on the same wavelength” as someone else, so to say, if you are tuned in correctly you can pick up those vibrations and hear each other’s thoughts. Or maybe “hear” is not the right word. But you can sense them through an intuitive sense inside you – not in a sound, but in the mind.
Similarly if you “pray” to a God, or to The Universe, these thoughts connect to something that maybe similar to the “brain” of the macrocosm we are inside and generally acting within the laws of science, these thoughts attract your requests, your “prayers” are answered.
Maybe this doesn’t work for everyone, but it in an uncanny way it pretty much always works for me. Whether it’s putting in a request for a sunny winter’s day, or a rockstar carpark, and for much larger requests too. Ask and receive. Knock and the door will be opened.
Does this provide me comfort? Sure it does. It is rather like the analogy Christians give of a father’s loving embrace. When you don’t see yourself as separate from the universe, if there is no “other”, then you don’t fear it.
Does it matter whether or not you personify the macrocosm as “God”? I don’t think so really.
It helps me, but maybe that’s because I was conditioned this way since birth. Maybe it strengthens one’s relationship to the macrocosm, helps you sense vibrations at a different frequency, streamlining the communication channels amd making them more personal, or maybe it doesn’t, I’m not really sure.
I guess it’s not so different to an ankle ankleifying the brain. The ankle could say “Dear Mr Ankle that lives up top, there is a stone to the left that I need you to respond to”… or the ankle could try to communicate more abstractly with the Laws of the Body that it has experienced in the past. Maybe I’m taking my analogy too far…
Anyway, it seems that whether you are a theist or an atheist, whether you personify “god” or sciencify “the universe”, in my mind we are all referring to an ecosystem of macrocosms within macrocosms and microcosms within microcosms… we are all part of the repeating patterns that (including ourselves) are all expressions of some an energy that is both nothing and everything at the same time; we are all part of something that we will never fully be able to describe or understand.
Maybe anklifying the brain if you are ankle, or personifying the universe if you are person, is a useful tool for communicating with the whole… or maybe it’s not. What do you think???
- Is the idea of a divine force compatible with spontaneous creation?
- Might “God” refer to a personification of what scientific laws attempt to describe?
- Is it possible (and useful) to communicate with this “personal God”?
Is the question on the Sydney Morning Herald poll too limited? Should there be an option that reads:
“None of the above – spontaneous creation IS a divine force itself, whether or not that divine force extends beyond it.”
That’s the one I’d vote for.
References:
Laura Roberts, Sydney Morning Herald (3 Sept 2010) quoting from Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design – an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times.
Picture:
A Sydney Morning Herald poll – to vote go to this site:
The “PAPER ECONOMY” and the GFC
Why did the Global Financial Crisis actually happen? The best explanation I have come across was when about this time last year Canadian professor Jim Stanford came to speak at my uni – he tries to demystify the economy by explaining the concepts and jargon in a simple, easily understandable way.
What is the economy? It is WORK. ‘The total sum of work we do to meet our needs and wants.’ The economy is about meeting human needs.
Jim separates the economy into:
1. the “real economy” - that is, jobs that create physical value.
2. the “paper economy” -that is, jobs that trade paper. These jobs are based on speculating on the real economy, and make money from others’ debt.
In our present system, the paper traders are getting richer as the physical traders get poorer. For every $1 of real economy, $100 of paper economy is traded. That means $100 is circulated by people speculating on that $1, and essentially getting paid to do nothing of real value – just buying and selling financial assets.
It makes sense when you think about it. What jobs pay the most in our society? Stock traders. Finance. Bankers. Business. That’s why Dads like mine want me to study Business and work my way up the ladder of a big corporation – it equals money and security. But what else does it mean? What value am I adding to society if I do this?
Where do our foods, clothes, housing materials come from? Who gets paid the least down the chain of production? The people picking the raw ingredients that make these things, and the people that put the goods together. People getting paid almost nothing (if not completely nothing) for their work.
When you get a big profit from trading on the stock market – where is that money coming from? I’m not pointing fingers at those who trade or own shares, saying, “ooooo you’re such a bad person.” I have shares too. Actually any of us who have bank accounts or superannuation funds, have shares on the stock market. Our shares contribute to the problem but I am part of the 85% of the population of developed capitalist countries who is paid for my employment, more or less economic slaves to the system as I need to earn money to pay my rent, my credit card bill, and pay for my next holiday. It is logical that when we invest in shares, or play with shares on the stock market, we hope that we will gain the greatest possible profit from our investment of time and/or money. These are the rules of the game we presently play.
These rules also define the responsibilities of CEOs to make the most profit they can, without regard for people and our planet, and pay these big boys very big bucks to do so. The main problem with this system lies with the 2% of the population of developed capitalist countries who own large majorities of the paper wealth in the world, with banks at the top given their license to print money and lend it out in debt. (Side noting that the other 13% work as farmers or in their own small businesses).
Jim says it isn’t fair that the workers suffer every time the system collapses as we didn’t cause the problem. It was the rules of the system that caused it, and unless we change the rules, it will continue to happen again and again. Jim says we need to ‘hold the banking system accountable to meeting society’s need for steady credit, or step in and do it ourselves’ (we can print money too).
Solutions include:
1. Demystify economics - explain where the crisis came from and understand why something needs to change.
2. Redeem the value and legitimacy of real work and production – based on a new model of growth / stability.
3. Don’t let the bank make us pay for their mistakes:
- re-regulate finance
- socialise credit creation (ie learn to do it ourselves through public banks and credit unions)
- look for comprehensible credible alternatives that also address global problems of poverty and pollution
- get rid of useless industries
- stop making shit
Jim explains it far better than these rough notes I took from his lecture.
There are more of his lectures on youtube – well worth a watch. Or his book:
Also, although this wasn’t from my notes from Jim’s lecture, I think surely we need to do something about the tax havens. Did you know that half of all world trade currently passes through tax havens? Apparently they ‘allow rich people and corporations to stash trillions in assets that could provide governments with at least $250 billion a year in tax revenues.’[1]
Look, I don’t like paying tax, I believe I still own a few shares (while they’re probably not worth much any more) and I can’t complain that my job is based on processing information (I’m not really sure if universities count as paper economy or real economy…) but I do not like the fact that the richest pay the least tax and the poorest pay the most…
According to the book called Conspiracy of the Rich I’m listening to at the moment by Robert Kiyosaki (author of Rich Dad Poor Dad) if you can’t change the system, you can still opt out of playing their game.
“Is the love of money the root of all evil? Or, is it the ignorance of money? What did you learn about money in school? Have you ever wondered why our school systems do not teach us much—if anything—about money? Is the lack of financial education in our schools simply an oversight by our educational leaders? Or is it part of a larger conspiracy? Regardless, whether we are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, child or adult, retired or working, we all use money. Like it or not, money has a tremendous impact on our lives in today’s world.” [2]
ALSO SEE BLOG ENTRIES:
Preserving The Pyramid: why things are the way they are
Some great YouTube clips explaining our economic and political system
Where are we now, where are we going, and how?
[1] Susan George, ‘We Must Think Big’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 51.
[2] Robert Kiyosaki, www.conspiracyoftherich.com/ReadTheBook.aspx
Photo: Graffiti in the back streets of Sydney.
San Churro, gluttony and my fair trade chocolate question
San Churro, if you don’t know, make the best hot chocolate in the world. The Azteca is full of chili and very thick hot chocolate goodness. A few weeks ago after a session of indulgence, my friend asked me how my drinking chocolate fit into my chocolate slavery morals when it comes to eating chocolate? I hadn’t thought about it. But drinking it, or even cooking with cocoa – it’s all part of the same problem.
So… another letter, and another reply:
Dear Juliet,
Firstly, let me thank you for your enquiry and your concern for cocoa growers is most definitely noted. I want to assure you that we are very aware of the issues in producing cocoa around the world and we are working to bring in Fair Trade certified chocolate from Spain.
I think it is important that I clarify at the outset that we are not actually manufacturers of chocolate but rather importers. We source our chocolate from a boutique manufacturer in mainland Spain. We have been lobbying them to produce a Fair Trade line of chocolate for some time now but, because of their size, and the requirements of certification, it hasn’t been economically viable for them. Unfortunately, Fair Trade is not really as high profile issue in Spain as it is here and the UK. What we have been assured by them though is that they have visited the growers at the farms they purchase their cocoa from and made sure that the working conditions are of a Fair Trade standard.
I know this may sound a little hollow, and if it were coming from a larger company I would be more sceptical, but our CEO has met with the directors personally and they are genuine people and have their heart in the right place. We are endeavouring to get a Fair Trade bar on to our shelves to give people the choice, but there is literally no one in Spain offering this product. We sell ourselves as a Spanish chocolate option, so it’s a big decision for us to get our chocolate from sources outside Spain.
Having met with both Susan Mizrahi, the Head of Human Trafficking for World Vision, and Cameron Neil from Fair Trade Australia we have discussed this issue in great depth. They also understand the difficulty involved in producing this product at a commercially viable price at a standard that is acceptable for our consumer. With Cadbury finally committing to Fair Trade (on Dairy Milk bars), this will undoubtedly draw more attention to the cause and increase the availability of the Fair Trade bean for everyone. With Cadbury becoming part of Kraft foods, Kraft has now become the world’s largest purchaser of cocoa product.
As I touched on before, there is also the issue in finding any suppliers making a product that is of a high enough quality to sell in our shops. Our chocolate is a high grade couverture, the same as used in many top restaurants around the world, and to date we haven’t actually tasted anything Fair Trade that stands up to this. There is a major risk, that if we put an inferior product on our shelves, we would actually put people off the idea of Fair Trade altogether. Fair Trade has been fighting public perception about their quality since its inception and I’m very conscious of doing anything that may harm the brand. Once again, greater availability should also see more quality producers and a rise in standards of product.
Whilst we are actively working behind the scenes to get these changes through, what I am excited to say is that we will shortly be launching Fair Trade coffee in all our stores. We are aiming to have it rolled out by October/November so all our coffee will be 100% certified Fair Trade. Unlike many other companies that offer it only as an option or not at all, it will be our only choice. Whilst we are a chocolate shop, coffee actually makes up a significant part of our product mix, so I hope you see this as a step in the right direction. We are, as far as we know, the only chain that will be serving solely Fair Trade coffee in our stores.
We are comfortable with our suppliers assurance of their line of supply, and whilst certification would be fantastic, it’s simply not viable immediately with the additional costs and limitation it puts on their production ability. We will continue to lobby and raise awareness of the need for Fair Trade and over the coming months you should start to see some Fair Trade options on our shelves.
Once again, thank you for your email, it’s nice to know that there are consumers that think about what they buy. The more of you we have, the easier it becomes to make change happen.
Best Regards,
KYLIE BROWN
PHONE 03 9641 6888 | FAX 03 9640 0244
WWW.SANCHURRO.COM
SUITE 103, 425 DOCKLANDS DR, DOCKLANDS, VIC 3008
(Note: I have permission to publish this letter)
The whole fair trade situation really is difficult and complex.
I can’t stand that humans beings are treated so badly for something that I enjoy so much, but I am also aware of how limiting our system is… all we can do is try. I am happy to know the efforts companies like San Churro are making toward fair trade and the cessation of slavery. I think Kylie is right - the more people that become aware of the issues, the easier it will be for real change to occur.
The guilt I’ll feel next time I drink an Azteca will be more to do with the gluttony (there is A LOT of chocolate in one glass) than the slavery behind the beans. I trust the intentions of this company so I will continue to enjoy the luxury I have access to, without guilt but still with continuing concern. And I will continue to work within my means toward the structural changes in our system that may actually address the roots of the problem. As with all endeavors I think it’s important to keep motivated, to encourage one another, to share information, and to enjoy the process as we move (albeit slowly) to a better, fairer world.
Or… am I (like someone commented on another of my chocolate blog entries) being too relaxed about this issue?
Love to hear your thoughts…
Photo: my beautiful mum relaxing with my gluttonous dog Bella.
Why I don’t commit suicide
“Camus said there is only really one serious philosophical question which is whether or not to commit suicide,” said Alan Watts, quoting Albert Camus (going on to say he believes there are five serious philosophical questions… see audio book on you tube below)
It is a good question. If we are all going to die at one point or another, then why bother going on? Why not just do it now, get it over with?
What motivates you to get up in the morning, to do something rather than stay in bed all day?
Is it the people you love, or maybe the responsibility of looking after the family you were born into or the one you created, or maybe the desire to create your own? Is it your career, to own your own home, buy your dream boat, or some monetary goals; or maybe your religion, vocation, to help other people, the planet or to manifest some creative idea? Or is it for just to enjoy frivolous fun while it lasts?
What is it that motivates these sources of motivation? Is it for some kind of sense of fulfillment? Is this external or internally determined? That is, are you after some kind of social validation, popularity or acknowledgment from your peers? Or own inner sense of of self accomplishment, self-respect?
For me I think it’s my thirst for knowledge, the process of learning, the ongoing challenges, the brief moments of satisfaction, the creative potential I see around me… and maybe it’s a mix of all of these other things too.
All of these aspects of life seem to culminate into an inner monologue, into a story I narrate to myself, defined by the ups and the downs, and framed by my mind. As long as I can see my life having a purpose, I continue to go on. In sum, I don’t commit suicide because (referring to the ad printed on a car on the picture above) life is good, (even) when it sux.
BTW
Alan Watts is a philosopher / “spiritual entertainer”, who is well worth a listen… this first one where I got this quote:
And this is the intro to his lecture series “Out of Your Mind”
How good is his laugh!!! If you have seen me walking the streets of Sydney listening to my ipod and bursting into laughter, it’s most likely Alan’s laugh that is to blame…
Correction: Lindt DIDN’T lie. We can eat lindt chocolate in peace!
There are two parts to this entry. One that was posted earlier today, which I am redirecting to this one so to ensure I don’t communicate any misleading messages.
Lindt LIED. No more chocolate for me.
While about a year ago I posted the good news that Lindt chocolate was not slave trade chocolate after they responded to my email stating they do not buy beans form the Ivory Coast (see entry Lindt chocolate is NOT slave chocolate)
Now “L.S.”, a reader of this blog entry, has informed me that in fact over a third of their cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast (see the pie chart above which is sourced from here – http://irpages2.equitystory.com/lindt/pdf/Annual_Results_07.pdf)
The Ivory Coast is where 90% of the beans are harvested by slave labour – people brought there to work under physical force without pay…
I have replied to Lindt’s last email, attaching the above chart.
Dear Jane
Someone from my blog has brought to my attention to your annual report which says in fact you DO source your cocoa beans from the Ivory Coast. Why did you tell me you didn’t?
Thanks,
Juliet.
Will be interesting to see how they respond…
For now this means my favourite chocolate brand has gone out the window.
I can not enjoy something as great as chocolate when I know the physical violence to the lives of other human beings.
To make matters worse, Aldi has decided to stop stocking the Ecuador single-source chocolate – the only chocolate I figured I could safely buy as all its beans were sourced in Ecuador.
If anyone can tell me where I can get nice dark chocolate without the associated horror – please let me know. It might be radical to give up my favourite food, but right now I can’t enjoy it. Until something happens to stop slave trade, NO MORE CHOCOLATE FOR ME 
A few hours later, blog entry #2:
Correction: Lindt DIDN’T lie. We can eat Lindt chocolate in peace!
Incredible. I have a reply already!!!
Dear Juliet
I think there is a misunderstanding: The person from your blog has misinterpreted the attached graph referred to. If you look at the graph you will see that it shows the worldwide COCOA production, and has nothing to do with LINDT chocolate production. As a matter of fact, the concerned graph shows that Ivory Coast is the world’s biggest cocoa producer, Ghana the second biggest cocoa country.
We confirm once more that – SINCE 2005 - WE DO NOT PURCHASE OUR AFRICAN COCOA BEANS FROM IVORY COAST BUT FROM GHANA. We would very much appreciate if you could inform your blogger, that he/she is wrong and that such kind of uncorrect information does harm the reputation of our company!
Kind regards
Jane
So there you go. Jane, and Lindt, I apologize for my hasty accusations. Note to self: think, try to gather all details, before you act.
That pie chart from my last entry refers to the sources of cocoa beans worldwide – not Lindt chocolate. It was mine and Lan’s mistake.
As far as I’m aware, while Ghana is right next door, the slavery practices only occur in the Ivory Coast… that’s what a university colleague who is from Ghana told me anyway.
You know what this means? I’m back onto chocolate! (That was a very quick turn around).
I am going to buy a block of Lindt Sea Salt to celebrate!!! (Have you tried it yet? It sounds salt+bitter+sweet – it sounds interesting but it’s taste and texture is GREAT!!!)
FYI Previous email correspondence:
Subject: Cocoa Sourcing AU
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:56:54 +0200
From: S@lindt.com
To: julietbennett@hotmail.com
In a general way, as far as our sourcing of raw materials for all our group companies is concerned, we kindly ask you to notice the following points:
Lindt & Sprüngli is one of the few chocolate makers that have complete control over every step of the production chain starting with the precise selection of the finest cocoa varieties from the best growing areas in the world right on through the careful and expert processing until ending with the elegant packaging. To safeguard the uniform and consistently high quality of all our chocolate products, all ingredients are thoroughly tested in our own laboratories before and after purchase, so that we can be sure that their quality constantly meets the highest standards.
While cocoa is currently traded at the commodity stock exchanges, superior grade cocoa beans (so called flavor beans or fine grade cocoa), as we utilize to a great extent for the manufacturing of our premium products, are purchased through traders at a substantial premium price over ordinary bulk cocoa. These finest grade cocoa beans (also called “Criollo” cocoa) can only be grown in specific geographical areas (Central and South America, Caribbean Area). While the fine grade cocoa production is a very small part of the world’s supply, it is exactly those (together with the Trinitario cocoa which is also considered as fine grade cocoa) for which Lindt & Sprüngli’s demand is very high. The remaining part of cocoa beans used by our company mainly for fillings, so called “Forastero” cocoa, are not sourced from Ivory Coast where most of the allegations about child labour originate, but from Ghana, where one of the top quality Forastero beans come from and where a premium price is paid for.
Lindt & Sprüngli is extremely concerned about possible practices of child labour and can assure you that we condemn any abusive practices. This is one of the reasons why we do not source cocoa beans from Ivory Coast. Prudent and conscientious relations with the environment and with the communities in which we live and work are important to us and enshrined in our Company Credo. In the procurement of our raw materials, great importance is therefore attached to compliance with the rules of sustainable conduct. This includes respect for social and societal aspects, such as working conditions and incomes of farmers in the growing countries, support and promotion of environmentally friendly production conditions, and payment of fair prices for raw materials which satisfy our stringent quality criteria.
In our opinion and to our regret, the existing fair trade organizations cannot continually supply us with the essential quality or quantities required. That is the reason why we refrain from the purchasing of cocoas from such organizations and look for other means of advocating responsible and sustainable dealings with our most important raw material, cocoa. As a matter of fact, there are many ways to strive for sustainable and responsible cocoa sourcing practices. This can also include individual projects and purchasing methods.
May we in particular bring the following to your attention:
The control of the overall production process from the selection of the best cocoa beans to the ready-packed product is one of the important aspects for the guarantee of the reliable premium quality of LINDT products. Another very valuable aspect is the traceability of the processed cocoa beans. For this purpose Lindt & Sprüngli subscribed to a new sourcing model in Ghana. This new procurement system contains binding guidelines between local cocoa suppliers and Lindt & Sprüngli. Within the framework of this project, Lindt & Sprüngli not only guarantees stable prices for the farmers involved, but also best quality and traceability of cocoa beans sourced in Ghana. Furthermore, Lindt & Sprüngli pays an extra-fee for those beans, which is partly allocated in favour of a foundation in charge of target-oriented social projects, the development of regional infrastructure and the continuous improvement of cocoa quality (www.sourcetrust.org). The projects supported by this foundation will be controlled by an independent, international audit committee. Lindt & Sprüngli is convinced that this purchasing strategy is a crucial prerequisite to better control the buying process of cocoa beans while at the same time countervailing local grievances in producing regions such as child labour. With this self-contained purchasing concept, which will be fully effective from 2009 onwards, Lindt & Sprüngli makes a solid contribution to the promotion of social compatible and to fair economic conditions for the cocoa farmers in Ghana. Based on the first positive results from the Ghana project, Lindt & Sprüngli is considering to extend this purchasing concept to fine-flavour cocoa beans in Latin America.
Moreover, through membership and active participation in local branch associations or international non-profit organizations such as the WORLD COCOA FOUNDATION www.worldcocoafoundation.org we support the underlying idea of sustainable cocoa growing and provide financial contributions to that end. WCF is a partnership between the cocoa-processing industry and government agencies, international associations, trade organizations, and non-Governmental Organizations. The aim of this cooperation is to safeguard stable and secure cocoa supplies. This is done by taking measures to increase revenues and re-duce harvest losses, while also securing income conditions that enable cocoa farmers in Africa, Latin America, and Asia to lead a viable and worthwhile life.
But Lindt & Sprüngli’s commitment in the areas of cocoa production and sustainability is also strengthened by our direct support of other specific projects that bring direct benefits to the countries of origin. With that aim in mind, we support, for example, the Sustainable Tree Crop Program (STCP) in West Africa as well as research projects to secure and develop cocoa cultivation and processing with a view toward the supply of high-quality raw materials.
With a share of around 70% of world cocoa production, West Africa is the key region in this regard. Yields on the cultivation and sale of cocoa are the key to the survival of a high proportion of the local farming population. The STCP was started as a pilot project primarily to improve the cocoa economy, which is based on small farming structures in the West African countries of the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon. The aim of STCP is to improve the economic and social welfare of small farmers and their communities, accompanied by safeguards for ecological sustainability in agriculture. The main points of action are: promotion of production and distribution of high-quality cocoa, improvement of market access and of the incomes of the small producers, development of environmentally-friendly, socially responsible and economically sustainable systems of cocoa cultivation. The projects concentrate mainly on integrated cultivation and harvest management, control of insect damages, cocoa quality improvement, the development of organizational skills and tools and the awareness of social aspects, such as child labor and diseases like AIDS. This information is passed on to the cocoa farmers primarily at the “Farmer Field Schools”, a participative training and educational scheme.
Support for scientific projects in the area of external applied botanical research is another element in the promotion of a sustainable cocoa economy: Today, the collection of genotypes of the Trinitario plant population, which became known as the “Imperial College Selections”, is among the world’s most important reference collections of genetic cocoa resources. A systematic evaluation of quality features and sensory properties is now being conducted as part of a project of the “Cocoa Research Unit” at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad with a view to future cultivation projects. Lindt & Sprüngli supports this project. The group also participates in further projects concerning applied cocoa research in South America.
It is our hope that the foregoing answers your questions and emphasizes our commitment to help establish sustainable, long-term solutions for cocoa farmers.
Yours sincerely
Jane
Jane - Corporate Communications
Lindt & Sprüngli (International) AG | Seestrasse 204 | CH-8802 Kilchberg
tel +41 44 716 2456 | fax+41 44 716 2661 | skalin@lindt.com | www.lindt.com
From: Juliet Bennett [mailto:julietbennett@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 1:08 PM
To: Customer Service – AU
Subject: Your cocoa
Hello
Simple question from a devoted Lindt customer: where does Lindt get their cocoa beans from? Do any come from the Ivory Coast?
Thanks
Juliet
Note: I’m not sure about defamation laws so I have changed the name of the woman from Lindt who lied to me to Jane, just to be on the safe side.
Lindt LIED. No more chocolate for me.
SEE THIS ENTRY, AND IT’S CORRECTION, IN THE NEXT ENTRY
Inspiration: angels, devils, and suicidal ants.
While in the past I’ve aspired to balance, I’ve come to embrace the imbalance, accepting that balance is found in the wholeness of all that exists, and over time – it doesn’t have to exist in every moment I experience. The yin and yang – the mixture of cold and hot, of love and fear, of birth and death – provide a fertile ground for new ideas to be seeded and creative potentials to be discovered.
I see this dynamic in everything that surrounds me, in the death of stars above, and in the death of tiny ants that decided to share my bed. I don’t think I shared this story when I was away…
In Pokhara I unintentionally killed a few of ants who were on my bed. I spent the next half hour watching the survivors mourn and try to deal with the death of their loved ones:
First the deceased ant’s friend lay it’s head on top of the dead body.
Then it tried to put the carcass on its back and carry it.
When it was too difficult it rolled the body into a ball and tried again.
Then it started to pull and drag it behind.
I don’t know where it thought the nearest ant hospital or grave yard was located.
Eventually it gave up and curled itself into a ball.
I thought it had committed romantic Romeo-and-Juliet-suicide.
But, when I returned from a dinner, I discovered it had pulled itself together and left the bed.
(Lucky there were two beds in my room so I didn’t actually have to share my bed with the ant carcasses lol)
These ant observations left me thinking, not only about the human-likeness of even the littlest insects, but of life and death and where I draw a line between good and bad.
In India and Nepal I had met quite a few people who do not harm an ant or fly in order to prevent a future reincarnation as an ant or fly. Did I feel bad for killing the ant’s friend? No. Not only because it was an accident, and because I don’t believe in karmic reincarnation of individual souls (I do not fear I’ll now be returning as an ant), but because (as I’ve mentioned in other entries) I see death is an intrinsic part of life.
Some forms of life live long lives, others lead short ones, and that is that.
If the ants I killed had a lot to offer our world, then I would be sad. While collectively ants are an important component of Earth’s ecosystem, there are who-knows-how-many billion more ants who will continue this ant’s job. While his friend missed him dearly, the rest of the universe won’t. I guess that’s sad, but it’s the way the universe works, the way “God” works.
Systems on all levels of our reality are microcosms and macrocosms of the systems on other levels. Human society is no different. Killing cows to eat is a product of our present place in the food chain. 60 million years ago we were rodents being eaten by dinosaurs. Life goes on. Systems and species die and new systems and species arise and evolve.
The miracle of human consciousness is the creative choice that sits in our minds – we can actually contemplate, plan and co-create the future of our world. It gives us foresight, hindsight, guilt and conscience. We humans do seem to have the world, sitting in our palms. We humans, in this moment, have the power to create and to destroy.
As agents of “God” we have been given this choice: good or evil, with the definition of these loaded words constantly changing, but what at root appear to somewhat be connected to the harmony and disharmony of the universe as a whole.
The question we face (sorry if I come back to these points too much), is what and how: What do we want the world to look like, and how are we going to get there?
Or… am I giving the human intellect too much credit? Is global warming a sign that the universe, or “God”, has a plan of “his” own; that the laws of nature are more powerful than the laws of man?
Maybe the future of humanity lays in the hands of nature, and not the other way around. Maybe we will be a short-lived species, reaping the karmic consequences of our own neglect and making way for the rise of new species who are possibly a little more ant-like in their sustainable ecosystems and balanced metabolisms.
The future is uncertain. I guess the uncertainty and possibility is part of the fun of it.
Photo:
Photographer – Cade Turner www.cadeturner.com.au
Taken at a fancy-dress charity event I photographed on the weekend. I had to dress as “something or someone that inspires me”. I dressed as an angel AND a devil, with the philosophical justification that the existence of opposing forces keeps me challenged, engaged, and inspired.
It was a fundraiser for The Inspire Foundation – a charity established in direct response to Australia’s then escalating rates of youth suicide. www.inspire.org.au
More photos from the ‘To Be Inspired’ Laneway Ball are on facebook: Click Here
Nestle’s reply.
Of the emails I sent, Nestle was the first to reply. I didn’t realised that they purchase 11% of the global supply of cocoa-that’s massive! Read their correspondence for yourself below if you wish. While I haven’t heard of UTZ certification, I have to say at least they replied, and the site www.thecocoaplan.com clearly tells me one thing: CORPORATIONS DO HEAR US.
Of course, their care for the consumer comes only relative to the care for the shareholders – who in order to get profit require that the good be sold, but at least the message gets through even if just in part. Yet the question I have to ask is: how do I know that initiatives like this are more than a green-washing-like show. That is, how do I know it’s not all talk? I guess I can’t.
Since my last post my friend also recommended this ABC Four Corners article, that says even Fair Trade products are often not fairtrade – not because the company is being dishonest, but because the farmers and farm owners cheat the system.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2885745.htm
So now I reface the dilemma I faced a couple of years ago when I first saw the full-length documentary on chocolate slavery: can I still enjoy my chocolate if I know it is most likely connected to the physical slavery of africans? No. No I can’t.
I’m not the only one facing dilemmas. The discussion board shows other’s opinions on the matter:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=37&t=1&ps=20&dm=1&pd=2&am=9002
EG.
“The argument about the use of Fair Trade logos with Coffee and Cocoa trade has been going on for some years now, yet the status quo appears to remain static. In fact, I am surprised that it is taken the ABC this long to show the BBC’s Panarama exposé story on the inertia (or lack thereof) of “Fair Trade”, the organisation and their expoitive and cynical licencing of it’s trademark logo, whose motto should read, ïf you pay us more money, you will feel good”and be seen to be be doing something”. I have listened to both BBC World Service and other radio programmes who have covered the subject of child slavery and Fair Trade over the years and nothing has effectively changed. In fact I have an old VHS tape of a documentary presented by the British comedian, Alexei Sayle that was done some 20 years ago on this subject. I would be prepared to pay more for my coffee & chocolate, but only when I have confidence that the end producer receives those gains, and honours the agreements to produce the raw product fairly, including the cessation of child slave labour… I will remain patient and hopefully optimistic, but sadly, I fear that it may not happen during my remaining lifetime. I have long eshewed the practice of dropping bars of chocolate into my shopping trolley, and I suspect that unless consumers act with their conscience and act accordingly, the confectionary manufacturers will continue to look the other way, rather than act assertively, and will always put up the defence of “meeting their customers’ demands in the marketplace” or that other lame excuse ïf we don’t do it, our competitor’s will)… sad but true.”
And another comment:
My partner and I are feeling very frustrated at the lack of ‘bigger picture’ information provided in the chocolate story.
Whilst there was mention of poverty and even the admission of women who had no choice but to see their sons sold, the reporter didn’t do what was necessary in this story and detail the reality of these people’s existence.
We don’t accept that it’s ok for kids to be used in child labour but in many cases these kids have no better option in life. There isn’t a social security system in these countries – some will either work or starve to death. This side of the story was not detailed and these root issues are the real problem – not so much the actual kids or the people who’re bringing the kids to the farms.
In regards to Fair Trade, yes some truths were revealed however what about the issues around Fair Trade – like that only the richer farmers have the ability to get the fair trade certification and thus the cycle of poverty is exasperated - the rich get richer and the poor poorer.
I feel rather angry overall that this story was presented very much through Western eyes with Western standards. Asking the working kids ‘do you go to school’ as if that is our standard of whether something is ok or not. There are many millions of children in the world who do not have the privilege of attending school and this is a result of poverty. There needs to be an appreciation of the reality of the situation and that attending school for many is simply not an option, regardless of work.
It sucks… and it’s really difficult to evaluate. And like all forms of horrible structural violence, one feels hopeless in knowing what to do. One more comment from the ABC message board:
I fear there’s little anyone can do about child labour while corrupt governments hold sway in Ghana and Ivory Coast. What can we in Australia do to stop poverty in Africa? All strength to organisations like Fair Trade. Does anyone have any more ideas on what we can do from here in our comfortable country?
Hmmm Aldi has chocolate with single origin beans – Ecuador doesn’t use slave trade, does it?
…
NESTLE’S REPLY:
Hi Juliet,
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the cocoa we purchase.
In Australia and New Zealand, Nestle has been working to ensure a reliable supply of independently certified cocoa from West Africa, in the quality and quantity we need to use in the manufacture of our chocolate. We have now received the first shipments of UTZ certified cocoa into our factory at Campbellfield in Victoria and the first Kit Kat 4 Finger bars carrying the UTZ Certified label will be in store from later this year. UTZ Certified is a leading certification program similar to other programs such as Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade.
Please find attached some more detailed information about Nestle and the cocoa we purchase, and if you would like further information please visit our website www.thecocoaplan.com.
We thank you again for your contact.
ATTACHMENT:
Like you, we believe that cocoa must be grown responsibly and children must not be harmed. We purchase 11% of the global cocoa supply – a significant part of which is from West Africa. Therefore, we recognise that we must be exemplary in our actions supporting the cocoa industry.
Cocoa farmers in West Africa are battling aging, diseased plants and a lack of understanding of sustainable farming practices. In Côte d’Ivoire in particular there has been a history of political instability and the communities are very poor. It is normal in this environment for children to assist on the family cocoa plantation, as is the case in many other cultures. What is not acceptable is when children are forced against their will, are working in unsafe conditions or are not receiving adequate education as a result
So to help address the key economic, social and environmental issues facing the cocoa farming communities we work with, we have developed The Cocoa Plan.
The Cocoa Plan www.thecocoaplan.com brings together Nestlé’s activity to promote sustainable cocoa supply under one banner. Over the next ten years we will invest globally AUD$113 million in the Plan. This builds on the AUD$56 million invested in cocoa sustainability initiatives over the last 15 years.
The aim is to achieve higher quality and better supply of cocoa beans while making a positive difference in the lives of farmers, their families, communities and the cocoa industry. Importantly this plan is being developed in partnership with local communities, government and NGO’s who understand what will make a difference in the long term.
Whilst the Cocoa Plan is principally focused on Côte d’Ivoire, it also covers other global cocoa sourcing regions as we have significant agricultural programmes in Ecuador and Venezuela and a developing program in Indonesia. Below are some of our commitments:
Helping Farmers:
- Financing Farmer Field School training (directly and as part of wider industry programmes) for improved cocoa farming practices and yields.
Nurturing a long term sustainable future – we have recently opened a Research and Development Centre in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, complementing our facility at Tours in France from where we can provide cocoa farmers with a million higher-yielding, stronger, cocoa trees each year from 2012. Some details:
- We are also training plant scientists in other cocoa producing countries, such as Ecuador and Indonesia in accelerated cocoa trees propagation
- We work directly with cocoa cooperatives to help them and their farmers be more competitive and pay a premium for their higher quality cocoa
- Providing higher yielding stronger cocoa trees has a direct effect on the quality, yield and sustainability of farmers’ crops, and in turn their income and quality of their life.
The Cocoa Journey
- We’re reducing the complexity of the supply chain and speeding up the processing of raw cocoa beans from the farm to export by helping cooperatives directly
Better Social Conditions
- As part of the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI), we want to help ensure that children in cocoa growing communities are not exploited and have access to education
- Through partnerships such as with the Red Cross, we aim to deliver improvements in access to water and improved sanitation
Working with partners to improve social conditions and income
- In order to encourage safe and sustainable agricultural practices, Nestlé is a founding member of UTZ Certified Cocoa which aims to develop a large scale cocoa certification system
- We partner and assist government organisations such as the CNRA (Centre National Ivoirien de Recherche Agronomique), the partly state funded Ivorian Agricultural Research Centre that works on research in Côte d’Ivoire to improve the sustainability of cocoa farming
Our plan is clear with a “step by step” approach centred on our tree propagation programme, farmer assistance structure and the relationship with cooperatives.
In Australia and New Zealand, we have been working to ensure a reliable supply of independently certified cocoa from West Africa, in the quality and quantity we need to use in the manufacture of our chocolate. We have now received the first shipments of UTZ certified cocoa into our factory in Victoria and the first Kit Kat 4 Finger bars carrying the UTZ Certified label will be in store later this year. UTZ Certified is a leading certification program similar to other programs such as Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade.
If you would like further information please visit our website www.thecocoaplan.com
Picture:
Africa. No time to be more creative. And there’s no chocolate in my house (not in protest (at least not yet in protest) but because I buy it, and I eat it within a night. I’m an addict. That’s why I’m so passionate about this topic).
Chocolate slavery and the tragic flaw of humanity in the 21st century
Didn’t they abolish slavery a couple of hundred years ago? Well no – it continues… and it continues such to provide the “haves” with what (in my opinion) is the most delicious tasting delightful experience of all my being: chocolate.
In my opinion there is NOTHING worse than physical slavery and nothing better than chocolate, and so I face the greatest polarity in my world: the best and worse wrapped into a block of bitter sweetness.
Can you believe that in today’s day and age some humans are deceiving other humans into leaving their homes, friends and family, imposing work on them by force (including whips), and without payment? I guess sexual slavery is worse than chocolate slavery, but in my opinion neither forms of slavery should be happening in the 21st century.
Why is slavery allowed to exist? It’s quite simple. It’s all because of the stock market.
The stock market? Yes. Because through the stock exchange responsibility for the consequences of a company’s actions are diffused.
This brings me to what I see to be the tragic flaw of human society in the 21st century: the rules of this game we call business. The first thing I learned at UTS when doing my Bachelor of Business was:
1. Investors invest in shares to make profit on their investment. Many investors live off these rewards, and don’t have to work. Many other people have jobs as intermediaries, buying and selling paper, to make profit from paper. People are making money without adding any physical value to the world.
2. CEOs have one most-important responsibility: to make profits for shareholders. For this he or she receives generous financial rewards, even if it involves decreasing the quality of the product for customers, decreasing the pay or conditions for employees, or destroying the planet.
While shareholders most likely value the needs of fellow and future humans and life on earth, the rules of the game dictate that money invested into shares is done to receive that profit.
There is clearly a disconnection between shareholders and the non-monetary outcomes of their investment. Is this a connection we really want to own up to?
I have some shares, (although I think they aren’t worth anything anymore after the stock market collapsed)… I also have a little money in the bank and a little superannuation, so let’s take the scenario that all of this is actually a great investment of my time, and is something I am relying on for my future – would I really want these shares to earn less money? No, of course not. With the rules as they stand, I would want my shares to earn as much as they can or else I would invest my money somewhere else.
I have friends (mainly from my business degree) who work in finance. Would I really want to put my friends out of a job? No. No I wouldn’t. What if the consequence of their jobs, earning lots of money from trading paper, are part of the cause of the poverty of people producing the physical goods we enjoy? I still choose my friends over these people I don’t know.
What if the result of my shares and their finance jobs is human slavery? That is where I draw a thick black line.
That’s where I say to my friend that the unhappiness they are causing is not worth the happiness they gain. That’s where I remind my friend that there’s more to life than the long hours they work in front of a computer playing with numbers. Money isn’t everything. That’s where I advise my friend to get rid of their mortgage, quit their job, and live off their savings for the rest of their life in South America. If only it was that easy… it could be, although my friend may not agree.
The present state of affairs is not a pretty one. Changing the system might be messy, it might be hard for some to deal with. The truth may hurt, but it hurts more if laid untold.
This connection between Shareholders, CEOs, Employees and Customers already exists of course, however, it is hidden behind the guise of “The Corporation”. Whoever was the man (I’m pretty sure it would have been a male) who created and legalised corporations to be treated as their own separate entities, with their own identities, privileges and liabilities separate from their members – should be held accountable for the destruction this single rule has caused for the world’s present and future. Whoever has power to change this law… well, I plead that you do – for the sake of your children.
People are working on solutions. I guess part of the solution is to report to shareholders on the “3 P’s” : Profit, People and Planet - of course, this is easier said than done given the problematic nature of measuring one’s impact on the lives of people or the conditions of the planet. At the very least, even without this reporting structure, surely the rules of the game should reflect the wider values of society?
I guess this would involve:
1. Holding shareholders responsible for the non-monetary consequences of their investment. Eg if you invest in a company that buys their chocolate beans on the stock exchange, a third which come from the Ivory Coast of which 90% involve slave labour, you should feel responsible for this. Also, if the company you have money invested in spills oil in the ocean, you should feel responsible for all the fish, dolphins and animals that die as a result of your investment. Maybe it should go further than “feeling responsible” – if warned and company procedures are not changed, investors should feel obligated to withdraw their investment, or else suffer the legal consequences of the inhuman violence their money is causing.
2. Holding CEOs responsible for the non-monetary aspects of the company they are in charge of. At the very least, the company’s impact on people and the planet needs to be recognised as just as important, if not more important, than profit for shareholders.
The thing is, would this work? Would it make a difference?
It could end up just like the greenwashing that so many companies are into today (making out they are good for the environment when they are still the same product in the same plastic packaging, or donating a dollar and saying they are helping fix the problem). Still, even if it’s only in words I guess you have to start somewhere.
Anyway today I got off my ass and did something tangible about these thoughts. I sent the following letter to a few more of the places where I have indulged in chocolate without knowing whether or not this chocolate comes from the slave farms:
1. Max Brenner (who make incredible waffles)
2. San Churro (who make the best hot chocolates I’ve ever tasted – with chilli!)
3. Nestle (just because I haven’t sent them a letter in a while)
Also I looked at Cadbury: http://www.cadburyfairtrade.com.au/FAQs/FairtradeFAQs.aspx At least they seem to be trying.
If you feel like sending whoever your favourite chocolate companies are a letter, feel free to use my wording:
Dear Max Brenner,
I am a very big fan of your hot chocolates, and your extremely delicious chocolate covered waffles.
Unfortunately I recently saw a chocolate documentary exposing the slavery practices behind the cocoa bean industry on the Ivory Coast. And so I now I simply cannot justify buying chocolate from companies who buy their cocoa beans from the stock exchange (as these are most likely connected to the horrific slavery, which I believe should NOT be allowed in today’s day and age).
I am reviewing my favourite chocolate companies for my blog, so can you please tell me where you get your beans?
Are you moving toward some kind of a fair trade supply chain?
Thank you in advance for your time in replying to this email.
Sincerely,
Juliet.
Anyway, I’ll let you know if I hear back from any of them. If you have any thoughts on how the roles of The Corporation, The Shareholder and The CEO might be better defined, write a comment for me – or if you don’t agree with what I say at all… either way I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Photo:
My gorgeous sisters and cousins indulging in chocolate fondue Bennett-style. I think it was fairtrade chocolate, I hope…
Lifting the blinds, and curing PISD
My PISD – my Post-India Stress Disorder – has been cured!!! Well, at least for the most part, for now.
This post concludes over a month’s worth of writings on re-adjusting to life in Sydney post India’s turning my worldview up-side-down experience. I feel more humble – with a clearer understanding just how much I don’t know and how much I will probably never know. I realise that while I can make a positive impact on the state of our present and future worlds, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
I think have used my writing on this blog as a form of therapy to deal with what I saw to be massive issues : population, inequality, capitalism, and our global ecological crisis.
Out of this I have come to an understanding of my Capitalistic cynicism and my World Peace idealism, and I feel good about that.
I have come to realise that while I’ll always search for The Truth and strive to live The Truth, my truth will probably always be different from your truth, and that’s okay. No matter how similar or different our perceptions of Truth are, the best thing we can do is accept each other person’s right to that perception and not want to change it. No one’s perception is ever static anyway – The Truth, or at least one’s perception of The Truth, is a constantly changing conception.
Similar to this unobtainable truth, while “World Peace” appears to be further out of reach than ever before, I think it is still a worthwhile objective.
Never say never, and never say forever.
Peace may be possible, but as soon as it is reached it will surely disappear. This is the Yin and Yang. The Way of the universe. The way of my own mind, body and soul. The rollercoaster – that is life.
Life may seem more harsh from this perspective, but it also seems more authentic. And I’m ready for it. While fantasy and idealims are fun, at least for the moment I want something real.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks tell it like it is:
I guess now that I see both sides, and glimpse the dynamics that lay beyond, I just have to shrug my shoulders and say – peace may be an absolutely impossible objective but, like the pursuit for an unattainable Truth, I can enjoy the process of striving for it. While I’m sure these experiences and reflections will influence the rest my life, I’m now well and truly ready to start something new.
Microcosms and macrocosms – we are specks of dust in a giant’s eye
“India’s chaos was bigger than your ego,” said Farhad Azad. “You have to remember we are but drops in the ocean.” He was right, India’s incomprehensibility had put me back in my place. Somewhere along the line I came across this song, it’s pretty funny. By Kimya Dawson:
I like it. “I am a speck of dust inside a giant’s eye”
As you can see, over a few rounds of longneck Himalaya (Nepali beer) on two brief occasions, I learned a lot from Farhad. It’s amazing how when you are open to the universe, you meet the right people at the right time in the most random ways. Similarly, I find it amazing how sometimes I come across little you-tube clips like this one, or words or ideas, that stick with you for life. Coincidence? Synchronicity??
As a drop of water in a vast infinite ocean, I am starting to consceitize (as Lederach, a famous conflict specialist would say,) that is, I am becoming more and more aware of myself-in-context.
As I see it I am a microcosms of microcosms, inside macrocosms of macrocosms.
I am a seemingly insignificant yet an utmost essential piece of an infinitely expandable fractal pattern.
If that’s not a paradox, I don’t know what is.
Picture:
Just a photo of a cactus plant a friend gave me for Christmas… it’s still alive!!! (I don’t have a very good reputation when it comes to plants…) But in terms of fractal patterns it’s probably not the most appropriate shot. If I had a photo of a fern, I would have put that up… you’ll just have to use your imagination 
Leftist idealist or right-wing conservative?
Have you noticed the reoccurring pattern of almost hypocritical contradictions contained in my most recent entries? There seems to be a battle going on inside my mind:a battle between my leftist idealistic side (a perspective largely shared at the peace conference) that seems to abruptly clash with my more right-wing conservative side (a result of my experiences in India).
I care about people. I care about those who live in unsanitary conditions, those who suffer from war, from hunger, from all forms of slavery – be it economic slavery sitting in front of a sewing machine 12 hours a day, physical slavery forced and whipped to pick cocoa beans without a drop of pay, sexual slavery, or mental slavery.
I care about animals. I don’t like they are our slaves, pumping out our eggs, milk, and that they are bred and killed for my meat. Yet I am not a vegetarian.
I care about our planet. I don’t like that my car pollutes it. I don’t like that the plastic packaging of my products is toxic to it. I don’t like that humanity is chopping down its trees for my paper and digging up its insides for my electricity. Yet I still drive a car, buy too many products, use too much paper, and too much electricity.
I want every life-form to reach it’s full potential and yet I kill ants without a second thought and I am okay with abortion (believing the woman should have a choice over and above the not-yet-conscious entity forming inside her).
I believe in human rights yet I support population control – something has to be done.
I don’t think of different races as “better” or smarter than others, yet I don’t particularly want to see the whole world dominated by one or two of them.
I want to let all the asylum seekers into Australia, but I also don’t like feeling I’m a minority in my own city (the other day I swear I was the only caucasian-Australian walking down George Street in Sydney.)
I want Australia to pull troops out of the war, actually I want all the wars to end, but I don’t complain about the cheap oil and security that comes from their actions.
I am generous but I am greedy. I want everyone to have somewhere like Australia to live, but I don’t want everyone to live in Australia.
In short, I want my cake, and I want to eat it too. And I don’t quite know what to do about it.
Human rights or a collective future? The problem with definitions.
If the pursuit of peace is an attempt to rid the world of violence, we must ask ourselves – “violence” through the eyes of who? Defining violence from the perception of a collective-humanity, is very different form defining it from the perception of each individual:
- If we define violence from the perception of all-humans-together, then are we not opening the doors for evil dictator, idealistic warfare and other devastating forms of violence to be committed on individuals?
- But, if we define violence as purely from an individual perspective, eg broaching on a woman’s right to have as many children as she pleases, then are we not lending ourselves to neglect the big-picture?
If we prioritise individual human rights over the rights of all life collectively, might we not cause the greatest violence of all - the destruction of our planet - a violence against all humans and life of today and the future???
Oh woe woe: what confusion, what a predicament, what a trade off…
Does this mean peace is a vain pursuit? An idealist impossibility? An unattainable objective? Maybe.
But is, like the quest for Truth and Balance, the process of pursuing peace still a valuable one?
The last couple of years I have studied “Peace And Conflict Studies”, and while this has influenced many of my entries, I think it might be useful to outline some of the key terms and concepts. I guess where the idea of peace gets airy fairy is in it’s definition… what exactly are we talking about when we talk of “peace”?
First I wish to clarify that peace is NOT the absence of conflict.
Life is defined by dualisms, by the dynamic relationships between opposing forces, by conflict. Conflict leads to evolution, to growth, innovation and improvement. Conflict is good. Violence, however, is not. And violence need not be a part or a result of conflict.
Professor Galtung defines two categories of peace:
- Negative Peace - the elimination of war; and
- Positive Peace - the elimination of poverty and other forms of violence including Direct Violence (eg stop me from hitting you) and Indirect Violence (eg stop me from constraining your freedoms) and Structural Violence (a form of indirect violence that is concealed by a system structure).
Peace involves the resolution of conflict through non-violent means - something I think our schools could do better providing us the skills to put into practice. For example, the learning conflict resolution skills such as how to map out a conflict :
- how to define the central issue (in a blame-free language)
- identify the manifest and un-manifest pressures
- distinguish transitory interests from cultural values and unchanging needs
- as well as identifying the fears and concerns of the parties involved,
This framework allows common visions and strategies to be designed in a far more efficient and effective way. (See Burton (1990) and Tillet (1999) if you are interested in learning more.
Positive Peace is about JUSTICE…
Which brings me back to the problem with words and definition.
Whose justice are we talking about?
My idea of justice, or yours? What kind of justice? Economic? Social? Intellectual? All of the above? The problem with a definition like this is that my idea of justice might very well be your idea of oppression. Our means of evaluating is relative to our culture, education, and experience.
And I start to wonder: is the predicament between human rights and planetary rights, anything like the difference between capitalist mentalities and communist ones? How is can it be I feel I empathise with both?
What do YOU think?
Should we prioritise human rights at the expense of planetary ones?
What is more important, our individual present or our collective future?
Give me a shorter more fulfilling life over a long drawn out crappy one - in my mind quality trumps quantity, and planetary rights trump human ones – but maybe that’s just me.
References:
Barash, D.P. (1991) “The Meaning of Peace” & “The Debate Over Peace Studies” in Introduction to Peace Studies. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Burton, J. (1990a). Human Needs Theory. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. Macmillan. London, UK.
Galtung, J. (2000). TRANSCEND: 40 Years, 40 Conflicts. Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND. J. J. Galtung, C G. London, Pluto Press.
Tillett, G. and B. French (2006). Conflict and its Resolution. Resolving Conflict: A Practical Approach Melbourne, Oxford University Press. 3rd edn.
Photo:
A pile of rubbish in Kathmandu, Nepal. While the west buries their rubbish in the ground or out at sea, to me this site (and even more so the wretched smell) was a stark reminder of humanity’s impact. It was seriously grotesque, and if it’s avoidable I think it should be avoided.
Population Vs. luxury… QUALITY OR QUANTITY?
“On the technical side there is no limit to population,” said a scholar after talking about solving world hunger. “We just need more efficient systems, and for the rich to eat less.” This may be true, BUT the greater question (in my opinion) is: Do we want more people living “simply” in a crowded place, or less people living lives of luxury?
“The population of the poor isn’t the problem,” so the idealists (like I used to be) say… “We actually need less white people.”
Given the ecological footprint of the one billion in rich industrialised countries compared to the six billion in non-industrial countries, this statement speaks some truth. But I’m not so sure that decreasing the population of white people will solve our ecological predicament.
I realise the basic solution is suggested to be the connection between income, education and birthrates. The more money people have, the more educated people get, the less children women want… and this will (somehow magically) stop the population at around 10 billion… but will it?
Just because a majority of white people have chosen to have less children as they get richer, largely because we have fallen for consumerist ideals and the economic slave system that supports this, does not mean that people in other cultures are going to respond to wealth in the same way. I’m not an anthropologist but it seems rather presumptuous to think we can understand people of other cultures, and predict how these people will react to education and money.
In the last two hundred years we have allowed one billion people to be become almost seven billion, and almost six of those billion have not been educated or had money. What will they do when they are educated or have money? In China as they get more money, they build more, buy more cars and have more children, not less of them.
“Human rights are meaningless without ecological rights,” said another one of the speakers. This seems to be getting closer to the real issue. Surely there are limits??? EVENTUALLY, when the planet has 5 billion, or 50 billion, there’s going to have to be some sort of population controls implemented – so why not be proactive and do it NOW, before there are even more ridiculous numbers of us?
How? I don’t know… I guess through some kind of recognition of collective responsibility and gaining momentum in a collective desire to make the world the place we want it to be. Should that involve some legalities that compromise individualistic human rights? In my opinion, yes. I think the future of life-on-earth as a whole is more important than us as individual humans having a right to choose the number of children we are going to have.
What do you think?
What’s more important: quality of life, or quantity of lives?
Greed: the JOY of having more than you need… Taoism and more about that frickin elephant.
I used to think we could all be less greedy – that if we wanted less “stuff” we would be happier, and some of that wealth would be shared with the poor. Apparently this simple shift has the power to end world hunger – the rich do with less, so the poor can have more. More recently I have realised that when I contemplate greed I have been wondering if it is actually a human problem that we have the ability to change? Or is greed simple a part of all life’s struggle to survive?
In a universe that (at least at present) is constantly expanding, getting more and more complex, and consuming more and more space, could greed be a universal constant? Is greed embedded in our DNA?
Check out the monkey who found a bag of food in India…
Maybe greed is so deep in our nature, it’s not something that can be fought? Maybe we humans are just greedy monkeys, so we just have to accept ourselves and allow greed to be?
If we accept greed, and hence accept that humans will always want more and better, should we give up on dealing with this elephant? While reading a book on religions in Nepal, I noted a Taoist teaching: “DO NOT QUIT”. So let us take their advice, and continue.
Also in Nepal, I met some travelers who were happily living a nomadic non-attached way of life.
“Money will come when, and if, I need it,” the cool collected hippy explained. She had been traveling for over 15 years or more, living on nothing yet living in abundance. “When you are traveling cheap you really don’t need much.” At $3 a roof over your head, and $2 for a massive meal, you are talking $1500 a year, so if you spent a few years working to save up $100,000 you could retire for life. We really don’t need much to survive. Especially if, like this hippy’s neighbor, you paraglide from place to place! Now that’s seriously “following the wind”. And no footprint whatsoever.
“Desire nothing, enjoy everything.” I think there is something in this Buddhist-approach to life – I definitely prefer life when I’m not fussing over money.
But how about non-attachment to other things? Do we really want to give up our desires?
Isn’t some attachment is what life is all about? Isn’t it the desire for something we don’t have, what keeps us going?
Be it attachment to people you love, attachment to a job you enjoy, attachment to a computer that carries hours upon hours worth of writing on it, or attachment to life itself, I’m not so sure I want to let that part of life go… There is something to be said for life’s dynamism – for the highs and lows, for the enjoyment that comes from pain and fear that adjoins attachment – it keeps things interesting. A life lived completely without attachment may contain no suffering, but it also (in my opinion) doesn’t contain much joy.
Of this book on religion the Taoist philosophies really resonated with me, mainly because Taoism values the opposites, the ups and downs, the yin and yang, rather than wishing them away. Taoists describe“Ziran” – state of “self-so” which means living in a state of being that ‘allows things and circumstances to unfold’. I really like this idea – connecting to everything, and allowing the most desirable scenarios manifest in reality.
Taoists describe the universe as our body, and the universe our nature; and they recommend we ‘keep in mind both the manifested and the unrevealed sides of the ultimate reality’ – I like these ideas too. We know the many things we know, but we must never forget there is SO SO SOOOO MUCH THAT WE DO NOT, AND CANNOT KNOW.
According to the Taoists, ‘The Way” is found in balance, in knowing what is enough – and they say that learning to say “enough” is achieved through an ‘intuitive observation of oneself and the universe’.
Coming back to my question from yesterday: can Buddha help us deal with the elephant in the room? Can finding inner peace help us do something about the population problem? I guess feeling peaceful inside ourselves can open the channels to creative solutions (like that magic biodegradable bag they put my underwear in), so I wonder, if we combine this with the idea of learning how to say “enough”, can we start to shrink the elephant?
References on Taoism:
Bede Bidlock, Why I am a believer – edited by Aruino Sharma (2007) p.200.