The Power to Change

The Austrian psychologist and Holocaust survivor, Victor Frankl, once wrote, "Man does not simply exist, but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at every instant."

Which I find profoundly reassuring, yet also challenging. Reassuring, in that it means each of us has the power to choose how we react to the situations we find ourselves in; challenging, in that it is often so difficult to rise above hurt feelings and hurt ego and let things go.

Because the only thing we are truly in control of is how we respond to experiences and other people. We cannot change how other people act (although we can try to influence them) nor can we often change the circumstances we find ourselves in. Yet inside our heads, we have complete freedom. We can choose how we will respond. Refuse to allow our internal buttons to be pushed. 

It takes a large amount of self-awareness in the moment, to become cognisant that our buttons are being pushed, and not react in our customary negative ways. It can take a lot of self-restraint not to lash out, to hurt the other person as we have been hurt by them. Yet ultimately, it is a much happier, more peaceful way to live.

It also means we have the freedom to choose a different path, to choose to stand up against what we perceive to be wrong, to stand by our principles. In other words, it's a fine balancing act. It is a more challenging way of living. But so worthwhile. 

Imagine how different our world would be, if all the leaders paused to think, "Are my buttons being pushed here? How should I respond to this?" rather than going off pop and charging out with violence...

Equal Justice for All

I found this week's quotation, by the 20th century American political philosopher, John Rawls, somewhat opaque. It read, "Every person possesses an inviolability founded on justice, that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override."

So I decided to google it, to see whether it was part of a longer, clearer quote. And it was. It continues, "For this reason, justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled."

Which has left me wondering about whether there actually is a "just society", anywhere in the world... Certainly not in the UK, where rich companies and people manage to evade paying little if any tax at all, while the "cost of living crisis" continues to grind the poorer sections of society down. Far too many people will not be having a very "Merry Christmas" this year - the food banks have never been so busy, and many folk will not be able to afford to heat their homes adequately (or indeed at all) during the cold winter months. 

Where is the justice in that? We must continue to campaign for a more equal distribution of resources, for the closing of tax loopholes which enable the very rich to get even richer, and to do what we can, where we are, to help those who, for no fault of their own, have fallen through the cracks.

Wisdom of the Tao

This week's quote is allegedly by Lao Tse: "In the pursuit of knowledge, something is added every day. During the practice in the Tao, something is dropped every day."

I find that so counter-intuitive. I think I was born curious - I love acquiring new knowledge, discovering new things, having new experiences. So yes, every day, I'm adding something new. Is that really so bad? Then I remembered that bit in Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories when Watson tells Sherlock that the earth goes round the sun, and he is annoyed, arguing that there is only so much room for knowledge in one person's brain, and that he chooses to remember only the things which are useful to him in his profession as consulting detective.

And I thought to myself, "Hmm, maybe he has a point." Because much of the knowledge stored in my brain only ever comes in useful on a Monday evening, when we watch Mastermind  and University Challenge. Should I be curating the facts, the knowledge I choose to retain? And how would I do that, anyway?

For us in the West, letting go is one of the hardest things to do. And I believe there is much wisdom to be found in the simple, minimalistic Taoist approach to life. I have blogged about it here. My two favourite books about Taoism are The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet by Benjamin Hoff, in which he uses the characters from Winnie the Pooh to explain the principles of Taoism. 

In Chapter 67 of the Tao Te Ching, Leo Tse explains, "“I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures – simple in actions and in thoughts, you return to the source of being. Patient with both friends and enemies, you accord with the way things are. Compassionate towards yourself, you reconcile all beings in the world.”

This is a very different approach to life, letting things be as they are, rather than constantly trying to change them, improve them. And alongside this is the principle of Wu Wei, the way of water. As I wrote in my other blogpost, "The trick of Wu Wei is that you don’t try to make things work out; you just let them. And somehow, things just happen in the right way, at the right time. Put another way, Wu Wei is the art of being. It is the art of being in such harmony with the Tao that everything happens as it should – not forced, not sought after, not planned, not bought, not desired – it just happens."

Again, so counter-intuitive. But so very wise.

Striving for Objectivity

It is very easy to fall into judgement when we read in the news of the words or actions of someone we do not agree with. It is much harder to appreciate that they, too, have their story. They, too, have come to believe what they do through the sum of their own life's experiences. 

So I was interested to read Peter Singer's words this morning. He wrote, "By accepting that moral judgements must be made from a universal standpoint, I accept that my own interests do not count more than anyone else's interests, simply because they are mine."

I believe that that kind of objectivity is something we should all strive for, even though it's so hard. It involves the practice of empathic compassion, the ability to put yourself in the other person's shoes without judgement in an attempt to understand where they are coming from. It means walking alongside them in the darkness and making the hard decision not to flip on the light, to interfere.

We live in a very adversarial world - if you're not for us, you're against us. And the go-to response when we don't agree with someone else seems to be violence, whether it is verbal, physical or psychological. I wonder how different things would be, if we (whether as individuals and governments and pressure groups) all took time out to try to see whatever the issue is from the other person's point of view?

You may think I'm wrong - that there are certain things which are always wrong - war, exploitation of the planet, violence towards other living beings. And I would have to say I agree. Yet I still believe that returning violence with violence, trying to bludgeon the other viewpoint into submission, does not - cannot - lead to peace and restoration in the long run. We need to find another way.

Defend Your Right to Think

 The 4th century Greek Neoplatonist philosopher and astronomer, Hypatia of Alexandria, once wrote, "Defend your right to think. Thinking and being wrong is better than not thinking."

She was a prominent philosopher and teacher of astronomy in 4th century Alexandria, who was eventually murdered by a Christian mob, who believed she was preventing the Roman prefect, Orestes, from reconciling with the new Christian bishop, Cyril. She has become a feminist icon.

I totally agree with her belief that "thinking and being wrong is better than not thinking." It is when we don't stop and think about what is going on, in our lives and in the world, when we act without thinking, incited by fear, anger and other negative emotions, that bad things happen. Even if our thinking leads to the wrong conclusion, at least we have paused for thought before leaping into action. Which may stop our action being extreme.

And the right to think is fundamental to human existence. It is the one thing that no-one can take away from us (unless they fry our brains with electric shock). The body can be starved, beaten, tortured, but the mind inside the body cannot be touched.... Except, through persuasion, misdirection, propaganda. Which is why it is so important that we do think about what we read and hear, rather than accepting it uncritically, that we question what others say and write, and bring our own faculties of thought and reason to bear on those statements.

As a Unitarian, I believe this also applies to religious belief. We were originally called 'Rational Dissenters', because of the emphasis we place on applying our reason to what we read in the Bible, hear from the pulpit, read in the newspaper or social media, rather than accepting it uncritically. We also refuse to have any kind of creed, which people must assent to, before being able to name themselves "Unitarian", believing rather that we are all spiritual seekers on a journey, and that questioning and doubts are part of that journey. The only authorities we accept are those of our reason and conscience. So we would absolutely defend anyone's right to think, as Hypatia suggests. Otherwise, how are we going to learn, and to grow into our best selves?

Our Senses as Touchstones of Reality

The Italian Renaissance polymath, Leonardo da Vinci, once wrote, "The spiritual things which have not passed through the senses are vain, and they produce no truth except harmful ones."

Which takes a bit of thinking about... I think he means that our senses provide a kind of touchstone of reality, against which to measure spiritual truths. Ideas are infinite and can be quite nebulous, coming out of who knows where, and striking us with their brilliance. Yet we should not follow them blindly, without testing their truth against the wisdom of our senses. Do our senses include common sense? In which case, I would agree with him.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines common sense as "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way." Which is another way of describing the Unitarian tenet of reason. I think that most Unitarians would agree that our beliefs evolve, and are tested, through a process of rational enquiry, rather than relying on any external authority to tell us what we should believe. We accept that these beliefs may change over time, in the light of new understandings and insights, and that the best tools for formulating our beliefs are our own reason, conscience, intuitions and life experiences.

Nevertheless, we also accept that some beliefs are not susceptible to rational thought, that there are limits to how far reason can take us on our spiritual journeys. So it is up to each of us to decide what we believe about such mysteries as life after death, the existence (or not) of any divine being, or the nature of good and evil.

So while in most cases, our senses, including common sense and reason, are incredibly useful tools for discerning spiritual truths, they are not always enough. And the truths we perceive through means other than rational thought can sometimes be helpful, not harmful. It is vital that we bounce these new ideas off other people, to provide some checks or balances, but in the end, they can sometimes ring true. 

So, sorry, Leonardo... I have to disagree with you, at least partly.

Wanting What We Don't Have

I believe that this week's quote, by 17th century French writer and moralist, Francois de la Rochefoucauld, is advice which, if taken by the world's governments, by all of us, would transform the world for the better. It reads, "Before you ardently desire something, you should check the happiness of the one who already owns it."

We seem to be driven by a base desire for wanting more - more of everything. I have blogged before about the wonderful concept of Enoughness - of recognising that (at least in the West) we already have more than enough of everything. As John Naish wrote, "There is no 'more'. We have to learn to live 'post-more'."

So why this seemingly bottomless desire to have what the other person has? Perhaps if we learned to pause, and to check "the happiness of the one who already owns it", we might realise that actually, they are not that much better off than we are. And, perhaps more importantly, if we only paid attention to what we already have, we would be far more content, far less acquisitive.

It's hard - we live in a world in which the advertising and marketing industries batter our minds ceaselessly - "You need this", "Your life will be incomplete without that", and, worst of all, the more subliminal, nasty message, "Everyone else is having a better time than you are." I am already weary of the wall-to-wall Christmas adverts on Channel 4 - painting a picture of the "perfect Christmas", which is ours for the getting, so long as we lay out our hard-earned cash on X, Y, and Z. Top of my "non-essentials" list this year is a cocktail-making machine (£100 off!!) and the ubiquitous Quooker. 

This year, our immediate family (me, my husband, my son and his partner, and my daughter and her partner) have decided to do a Secret Santa between us, and only get presents for the children. Which we've done in the wider Ellis family for years, thanks to the wisdom of my sister. Because Christmas is (or should be) about giving pleasure, rather than driving ourselves into debt to buy presents they don't really want for people we only see a couple of times a year. We are opting out of the Christmas rat race and concentrating on spending quality time together instead. Which I believe is far more conducive to long-term happiness than that cocktail maker.

On a national level, the "ardent desire" for something is driven by lust for power and land, and fear of the other. But wouldn't it be wonderful if governments said to themselves, "Are we really going to be happier if we destroy the lives of the people of this other nation? Should we stand back a little before jumping into the familiar pattern of violence, and really think about other ways we could improve the qualities of our own lives, here in our country?" 

Which I'm sure are questions which are never, ever asked. Sadly...