Etenemistä perääntymisen sijaan

Kaikki puolueet ovat aloittaneet suuren vetäytymisen kärjessä Suomen uusi konservatismin nyrkki. Sen sijaan, että taistelusuunnitelmaa päivitettäisiin eteenpäin, ollaan vetäytymässä niistä etiikan ja yhteiskunnallisen kehityksen saavutuksista, joiden eteen Suomi on aikaisemmin sitoutunut.

Joskus taistelussa on viisasta vetäytyä. Silloin siihen kuitenkin aina liittyy suunnitelmallisuus ja välitavoitteet. Kun vetäytyminen tapahtuu paniikissa, muiden perässä juosten, ilman suunnitelmaa, on kyse pelosta ja pakokauhusta. Ei suunnitelmasta. Tuolloin on joukon edestä noustava ne, joilla on tarpeeksi tahtoa kirkastaa se päätavoite, mitä varten kentällä ollaan. Muistuttaa siitä, mikä on tärkeää. Muuten jätetään kaikki sattuman varaan.

Tärkeää ei ole montako ydinvoimalupaa myönnetään, montako laitosta lakkautetaan ja milloin. Tärkeää ei ole maahanmuuttajien määrä tai rajojen sulkeminen. Tärkeää ei ole se, missä olemme nyt, vaan se, mihin voimme päästä huomenna. 

Oikeudenmukainen ja tasa-arvoinen yhteiskunta. Korkea koulutus ja tasavertaiset mahdollisudet. Järkevä pohja yrittämiselle ja työnteolle. Keskinäinen kunnioitus ja suvaitsevaisuus. Kestävä ja turvallinen pohja tulevaisuutta ajatellen. En usko, että Suomesta löytyisi ketään, joka ei edellisiä allekirjoittaisi haluavansa. Onko päätavoite vaan hukassa?

Distracting information flow

Following the debate of Japanese catastrophe, I really have to think how could this happen? We have Facebook and Internet forums full of fully qualified nuclear physicists offering all their information for free!

Today the large amount of information creates the illusion that you should have equally as much opinions.

The real challenge is to let go, not to grab on everything in reach. In failing to let go, you usually send a message you really didn't intend to. Plus your valuable opinions become diluted by those of no real value. ...thank god we still have only one vote in elections...

Freedom of growing up - or the prison of safety? Part 2/2

In part 1 I said the prison guard of our intellectual freedom are we, ourselves. To be free, requires the tolerance of insecurity. If all we want is to be safe, we cannot be free, because out there - in the unknown - there is no safety. And this is why only few people are the carriers of light, the leaders and the ones taking the responsibility when others hesitate.

“When the old culture is dying, the new culture is created by people who are not afraid to be insecure.”  (Rudolf Bahro)

Ok, true, but what this has to do with the personal freedom and everyday life? Well, everything. Inside you, the definition of "big things" and "small things" are on a totally different scale you first might think.  And regardless the problem, there's usually just development or stagnation. Your problem might be that you're afraid telling your wife you love her so much the jealousy makes you act like you wouldn't love her. Or then you have to present claims on the behalf of the group of people who have chosen you, out of trust, to represent them. Which one is easier?

I'd say the last one is easier. The first one has too many choices, too many points to avoid the decision and too many possibilities to stick to old habits. "I am like this", "I wouldn't be myself if I'd act differently", "I am the one who needs to be understood". Bunch of lies you've told yourself many times? I recognize those. And many more. It's easier to choose safety, easier to do as you've always done when there's no one backing you up. Choosing something different, would be a jump to unknown. If you have but a few people to agree with you, it provides the necessary feeling of safety. When you have but yourself, you have nothing to create that safe feeling. Except choosing the option you know already, the safe one. And again you choose safety even though it means you hurt the people you didn't want to. And worse, that choice makes you go around that same circle you wanted to break.
 
Many too often behind the declarations "I am what I am" you can hear totally different message. What you really meant is "I have no courage to change." It is easier to stick to the last point where you were even close to happy and balanced person. Fine, you can furnish that little island too and build the walls around you, but you will always know you're on a lonely island. And the walls around your soul you're building do not keep the warmth inside.

...This requires the part 3. For breaking the circle of old habits, finding the personal power to do that and still be able to function normally, is no easy thing. There's also a lot of traps in personal transformation and development; for example once in a while you meet someone who tells you about the great change, but all you can see is the same person with new clothes. But since I've never been good in providing this kind of consultation, I cannot promise the third part to you. It would require me to change my aspects. But I promise to try. And when you find the third part from here, you will know the change is possible ;)

Freedom of growing up - or the prison of safety? Part 1/2

Freedom is usually seen through freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and through different kinds of civil rights. I think the most important freedom is the intellectual freedom. This is also the one most often forgotten, because the only limit to that freedom are we, ourselves. 

Most of our actions are guided by our needs, fears, dreams and thoughts inside us. No matter if they are provoked from the outside or not. For example, we've always had this public discussion of commercials and their effects on us. But I do not consider the outside influences worth more analyzing than we've already done. The inside influences are something we have totally forgotten. At least from public debate. This is usually the area that is connected for example to therapy. But working with this area usually keeps you out of the therapy.

What this has to do with freedom then? As much as outside provocation and influences guide us, as much our inner needs do that. The outside stimulation is usually easy to notice but the inner stimulation rises sometimes from the structures of our very personality. For example something that we've experienced as a child or more traumatizing event later on affects hugely on our choices in life. Many times unnoticed, this inner stimulation makes us choose something we really didn't want. In worst cases, we fail to see the crossroads and think we didn't even have the choice. This leaves us baffled what is wrong with our lives. Making us go the same circle, making those bad decisions one after the another, again and again.

This stimulation is especially hard to notice by oneself when it is already the part of our identity. This is why we often need the outside help - therapist, psychologist or spiritual advisor - to make these structures visible to ourselves. It is possible to work them out by oneself also. Either way, it is a long road and needs a lot of sacrifices.

Continues on part 2...

What's different about initiation nowadays?

In my last writing of concerning initiation (transition rites), I argued that large societies would produce more disconnected citizens. I was told that initiation rituals are just different than before, but we do have them anyway. And I agree. I wasn't worried about the lack of initiation rituals, but the nature of them.

I think in today's society model we have even more of the initiation rituals we've had before. This is mainly because the specialization of our society model. Our societies are diversified in smaller and smaller specialized, differentiated categories of for example professions. This requires more of the certain kind of initiations. Necessary schools, required studies, the social models of student organizations, and finally the work and the usual steps on personal career development all include initiation rituals. Whether it be approved application to school or joining the organization or union of one's profession.

But these rituals all require that you qualify the prerequisite criteria. And the more we have applicants, the more we have to raise the criteria. What is different nowadays is the lack of initiation rituals that ensure and secure everyone's participation to society. Most of the initiations are about qualifying and fighting of status. When we should be more concerned of everyone doing something for the common cause. Otherwise we do face the situation where one group's whole existence is to support or keep alive the rest of the people. And inevitably this leads to unequal distribution of wealth and resources.

The difference is that in history the societies were more dependent of everyone's contribution than nowadays. Today's different system is possible. That leaves a question: Even though it is possible, is it the good goal to aim to? And what is different in initiation to society nowadays is, that it no longer targets to attach all members equally connected to society. But to fight for the privilege to serve the ruling elite.