Imagine a good society, it's easy if you try......

John Lennon, rose from obscurity to become a powerful voice for peace.

With his music and lyrics he encourages us to focus on peace and harmony, to imagine a world "as one".

If anyone had told him, "what's the use, "they" have all the power", I guess he simply ignored it and did what he could, using his talents to urge mankind to at least imagine the possibility of a better world.

Although he was brutally slain by a bullet, no bullet could ever kill his legacy of music and lyrics, it lives with us still.

To stand up for a better society, necessitates courage, tenacity and conviction, and perhaps also the vision for the possibility of a "good" society.

Watching a heated debate on TV, a very smart woman suggested that perhaps it is time for us to be less preoccupied with budgets and other economical issues, and instead focus more of our intentions on building a "good society". (Which obviously includes the economical)

A "good society"? Could this mean: An aggregate of people living together in a harmonious

 community with common values and customs?

Or: A good society is a set of institutions (bodies/establishments) that enable its members/citizens to live in peace together. Or: A good society is one in which inequality within each community among them is being significantly reduced. 

And so forth......I guess perhaps it is possible to conclude that a "good society" takes care and cares for its members regardless of status, race, religions or other belief systems. A good society takes care of its most vulnerable, its disenfranchised.

Imagine with me a globe, close your eyes and spin it. Now put your finger anywhere......would you call the nation where your finger landed; a good society?

Ok, so now.....scan the globe slowly with eyes wide open, can you find a country you would classify as a "good society", bearing in mind the definitions presented earlier.

 Aristotle has been quoted as saying: "You can judge a nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens", and Gandhi said: "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members",.... Should we use these words to measure nations by, where do we find a "good society"?

"What's the point, they have all the power,"  I have heard many say. "There's no such thing as a good society, that's just an illusion", some say. "What do you mean, good society,...what's wrong with this one?" "Hey, democracy and meritocracy works, people get what they deserve......"

For a brief moment I tried to imagine what it would be like to live in a "bad society".

I imagined a totally corrupt government, institutions who use coercive powers to enrich itself and influential interest groups, who infringe on the freedom of others to choose how they live, who promote conflict between individuals and groups with differing interests, a society with no degree of security against threats such as natural disasters, an no institutions to cater for financial support or emergency accommodation for disaster affected citizens. I imagined a nation who goes to war in order to manage its population growth and unemployment, who silences all voices of discontent, and who ignores the suffering because of the financial stress it places on the economy.

Sad to say, for some, this my be how they view their reality, not their imagination.

But mankind can do better. If we can split the atom and land ourselves on the moon, surely we can overcome our indifference and taste for narcissistic pursuits?

John Lennon encourages us to:

"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too,

        Imagine all the people, living life in peace...

        Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, no greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man,

        Imagine all the people, sharing all the world....."

Change begins with an idea,

an idea that something can be different,

the idea then inspire us to action,

which in turn promotes change.

 

We can do better, but "we can't solve our problems using the same thinking we used when creating them" said Einstein.

Thinking, is hard work.....and according to Henry Ford, a reason why so many avoid it, Plato reckons that thinking is the soul talking. Perhaps it is time for us to start thinking more about lives of value and meaning, of equality and liberty for all,

of support and encouragement for those who struggle,

of how to be less judgemental and more compassionate.

We can do better.

Why not imagine a "good society", it is easy if we try

 no more inhumanity, no more senseless crime,

Imagine all the people, living life in peace...

We can do better.

 

How to be a candle........

 

"What do you mean?" he asks.

"Well, I agree that there are many things that humans do that may invoke feelings of despair and helplessness, but I still have to contend, I rather be a candle than curse the darkness" she answers.

"We live perhaps in an age of absurdity....and there remains an eminent risk that we may extinguish "the candle" rather than face our illusions, I however, believe in the evanescent tendrils of love," she continues.

"Now, who is the one with the illusions?" he says as he shakes his head in dismay and continues, "Would anyone but a fool believe that mankind is not eventually going to destroy this blue planet of ours?"

"It is a possibility, and I recognise that there are some indicators for a less than bright future for the planet, but might not the fact that mankind is aware of such being the case, also be its redemption?" she retorts.

"See, there is another illusion, you think somehow people are going to change, and to start caring about what happens to earth, its nature, its inhabitants and its future....Ha!" he snorts.

"Yes," she answers, "People change all the time, change is consistent, continuous and consequential".

"Change, you say,.......so you believe that mankind is going to change in time to prevent us from destroying everything around us?" he asks while shrugging his shoulders.

"That is one of the wonderful aspects of having a belief in something; time passes regardless of whether we regard ourselves as "doomed" or not. If we throw our hands in the air and say "nothing can be done", are we not already doomed? If we entertain the possibility of a positive outcome, do we not position ourselves to instill in others hope, which in turn multiplies and encourage a notion of confidence rather than a sense of doom for the future?" she responds.

"Oh, I see...that old chestnut,....religion," the words hang like icicles in the air as he speaks them.

"I guess," he says, "religion can be defined as 'A Grand Theory of Everything', but for me, I prefer something less ready-made, no disrespect to Einstein".

"Do you have to be religious to believe in hope?" curiosity colouring the tone of her voice.

"Hope," he sneers, "is dangerous if not mixed with a healthy dose of reality."

"No," he continues, "but it seems to me that religion peddles hope more than many other belief systems."

Not considering herself religious in any way, she decides to not venture any further with the subject but to only respond to the question of hope.

"What do you hope for?" she asks.

"How are we to sustain hope when the reality of mankind's inhumanity stares us down be it in real life or through some interface?," he asks. He is still for a few minutes the continues "I guess you can say I hope for hope," he says in a barely audible tone of voice.

She considers his words carefully then responds: "I too have moments when I find it difficult to discover reasons for being hopeful in the midst of mankind's blundering efforts at progress, but I try to steady my pessimism by reminding myself of the many inventions, ideas, cures, etc.etc. also in the offering.  The same mankind who exploit and conquer, also heal and defend. I find at times that it is a matter of focus, so in order as to not become despondent, I balance my thoughts of pessimism with injections of optimism."

"You deem hope an issue for the will?", he asks bewildered.

"Yes, to a certain extent I do," she answers. If I conclude that mankind is on a downward spiral into the abyss, and perhaps some say that is the truth of the matter, then my emotions are bound to follow suit and life nothing more than an absurd and painful passing of time. If on the other hand I perceive mankind as a curious child on a continuous journey of discovery, then just as there will be dangerous, and perilous passages, there will be moments of wonderment and joy, and thus my emotions an assortment of both hope and despair. Darkness is no match even for the smallest of lights; even the open flame of a single candle can dispel it, and that is why I said "I rather be a candle than curse the darkness". Hope is my candle."

The train stops and the man stands up to leave. He removes his glasses and after gently folding them, slips them into his shirt pocket. "Thank you for the chat, I have enjoyed it very much", the man says as he hurries out through the closing doors. The woman nods a farewell. As the train pulls out from the station she slips her left hand under her coat and tenderly stroke a small silver cross pinned to her blouse.

 

 There is no medicine like hope, no incentive so great, and no tonic so powerful as expectation of something tomorrow.”

- Orison Swett Marden

 

“Hope is important because it can make the present moment less difficult to bear. If we believe that tomorrow will be better, we can bear a hardship today.”

- Thich Nhat Hanh

 

 

How to find a hero........if there is such a thing.

 

Blazoning across the TV-screen: "Bladerunner accused of murder, Olympic champion charged with the cold blooded murder of his girlfriend".

 

Another hero bites the dust. Another "angel" has had his wings clipped. Another disappointment for his adoring supporters.

The unanswered question:  How does a person overcome a life with no legs, to become an inspiration for a nation, achieve and overcome insurmountable obstacles, a life of extra ordinary tenacity and strength, to end up on the front page as just an ordinary person, overcome by ordinary emotions; the birth of the human ordinary and the death of a hero.

So what is a hero? It begins in Greece.....A hero was a mortal who managed to do something beyond the normal scope(ordinary)that left such an imprint it stayed in people's memory long after they died.

Originally, heroes were not always "good", but they were always extraordinary, so heroes allowed people to expand on the sense of what is possible for a human being.

A human being managing to achieve the impossible; is extraordinary, something to strive for, to respect and live up to. "We don't need another Hero" sings Tina Turner, "I need a Hero" sings Bonnie Rait, "I'll do anything to be your hero" sings Steps.

For the Greeks, morality was not at the core of a hero, extraordinary human feat was; but today, it seems morality is very central to the concept of heroism. If a person achieves amazing things, extraordinary, outstanding, but has a nasty temper, selfish behaviours and/or a foul mouth, can such a person still be a hero?  Do we define a hero by the ideals we aspire to ourselves such as honour, courage, compassion, etc.etc, i.e. qualities and ambitions perhaps we would like to posses ourselves?

The ideals which we aspire to live up to, affects and determines the ways in which we behave.

Our choices of who our heroes are, reveal something about who we are.

In the early hours of the morning, two friends under the influence of too much alcohol, start a brawl. Another friend tries to intervene but is held back by the bartender saying: "Don't be a hero, let them sort it out, you'll just get hurt".

In the schoolyard the big girl picks on the little girl, you decide to intervene but someone pulls you back and says:"Don't be a hero".

Driving home from work you see a bewildered, limping, injured dog in the middle of the highway trying to get away. Stopping in peak hour traffic may be dangerous, should you stop, be a hero and try to rescue the dog?

Do you have posters on your walls? Photos? Paintings?

Who's images are they? What do they depict?

With the help of media, are we confusing celebrity with excellence, notoriety with achievement?

O.J Simpson, a football hero who fell to earth when he was accused of murdering his partner.

Jimmy Swaggart, the evangelist preaching morality, had his wings clipped when discovered having had relations with prostitutes.

Princess Diana, a most beloved heroine and angel, tragically "mortalised" when it was discovered that the driver of the car was under the influence when driving; should she have known better?

Clinton, the commander and chief, just another guy who couldn't keep it in the pocket.

If heroes are just as fallible and gullible as the rest of us, are they still heroes?

Where can we find a "true" hero, and is there such?

Have we become so cynical and skeptical that we now are impervious to the heroes among us?

The Catholic church is still searching for "saints", society for the uncorrupted politician, sports fans for the altruistic athlete, business for the righteous entrepreneur, etc.etc.

Are we sure we are not using cynicism as an excuse for just not trying, for not investing precious tendrils of hope for fear of disappointment? Access to information at macro-level cuts both ways, and is there anyone among us who still believes that heroes (=humans of extraordinary abilities, potentials and moral fibre) exist?

"He is a hero you say? Let me Google him".

Do we have a certain amount of schadenfreude in play; "See, told ya he wasn't as good as he seemed". Perhaps we may overcome this cynicism by separating the aspects that makes our heroes noteworthy, and forgive them for their ordinary human weaknesses and not "throw out the baby with the bathwater"?

Contrary to what Tina Turner sang; "We don't need another hero", is it not possible we need more heroes and less cynicism, and can we not perhaps begin with a redefinition of what constitutes being a hero? Could we not define a hero as person who in spite of human flaws manages to achieve extraordinary feats? May I suggest that character is no less important than intellect, idealism more contributory than cynicism, wisdom more compassionate than pure information, and dreamers and realists both necessary so that we may be able to view life not only as it is but also as it could be.

For me Vincent Van Gogh is a hero; in spite of his many shortcomings and great personal pain, he managed to paint images that inspire, energise, tantalise, intrigue, provoke deep felt emotions, and much, much more.   JFK, in spite of his flaws, stirred a nation into hope and great anticipation for the future.

We need heroes to help us expand on what is possible for a human, to help us rise above our flaws,

to strive for what is beneficial for others, and to instill hope in potentials and possibilities no matter what obstacles.

 

"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost."
(Arthur Ashe)

“Heroes are ordinary people who make themselves extraordinary.” 
(Gerard Way)

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts; to believe in the heroic makes heroes."

(Benjamin Disraeli)

 



Illusions can be elusive.........

Some time ago, I watched a movie titled "Instinct" with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr.

Anthony Hopkins, anthropologist, is accused of murdering two poachers in a Gorilla habitat, Gooding Jr., a psychiatrist, is employed to find out why the renown professor suddenly acts so out of character.

Through much negotiation and patience, Gooding Jr. is introduced to the anthropologist world; a world beyond common human comprehension; The true nature of being. One by one the illusions of mankind are stripped away and a deeper understanding is gained by the psychiatrist when the anthropologist shows him that the true values of existence are not easily found.

The word "illusions" was used over and over and the moment when Gooding Jr. finally grasps the implicatiopns of the concept, a mammoth moment. Which it also was for me.

Have you ever really looked at yourself in the mirror? It dawned on me one day that the face, which is our most recognisable feature, is a part of us we will only ever see reflected.

What about photos, you may ask?

That's the thing with illusions, we only ever see what we see through our internal filters.

A person suffering with Anorexia standing in front of a mirror will see how much more weight they need to loose, while someone else may see that same person as someone who can't afford to loose any more weight. And vice versa, an obese person may see how he/she looked years ago and not identify the size they are currently.

A person reaches for a beer first thing in the morning; he/she calls it "hair of the dog" a friend may call it alcoholism. A father/mother slaps the excited child on the cheek; he/she calls it discipline, a grandparent may call it abuse. A person spends hours on end on the net watching porno's; he/she calls it normal appetite, the partner may call it an addiction.

We filter what we see/perceive through our internal filters, our belief systems, our moral, and ethical, values. Just like we don't engage in a conscious effort every time we need to take a breath, we are mostly unaware of when we apply our filters of perception.

Back to the mirror.....have you ever watched yourself in the mirror and asked it: Who and what are you?

Are other people "living" mirrors? Does your image of yourself harmonise with others?

Illusions;  perhaps it's time for a definition: an erroneous perception of reality, an erroneous concept of belief...(from the Free dictionary) an erroneous mental representation.

Waiting in line for your morning coffee, someone taps you on the shoulder.

"-Wow, long time no see, how are you?", your friend asks. As you chat away while waiting in the line you notice that your friend looks drawn, his/her clothes somewhat scruffy and there is an air of restlessness about him/her. "-You have time for a chat?", your friend asks you.

You glance at your watch and wonder if you have the time while simultaneously thinking: Man, he/she has really let him/herself go, do I really want to know what kind of issues he/she may be dealing with?

Meanwhile your friend is watching you and asking him/herself the same question and regretting asking for a chat.

"-Sorry", you say, "-I'm real busy, but some other time perhaps?" as you pay for your coffee and hurry away thinking how fortunate you are to be as together as you are.

Your friend smiles, grabs his/her coffee, sits down at a nearby table and thinks to him/herself: "Sheeesh, I really need to get the washing machine fixed, doing the laundry in laundrymats is taking far too much of my time not to mention ending up having to wear my old clothes between washes."

Illusions appear to be real, and good illusionists can tempt us to believe that anything is possible; such as make jumbo jets vanish, people hovering in the air, people be sawn in half, etc.etc.

A good illusion has us convinced that it is real, which is why illusions work; we want it to be real.

And that's a positive aspect of illusion, it can encourage hope, wonderment, and imagination.

Research suggests that "positive illusions" are useful in helping people get through major stressful events i.e.serious illnesses, traumas, accidents. People who who are able to maintain a positive outlook in the face of difficulties, tend to cope better.

Back to the mirror......so here you are, looking at yourself in the mirror.

What do you see?  If you see a trim, slim terrific person while the scales says XXXL kilos, then perhaps illusions are in play. If you see a virile, strong, young stag, but your razor gets stuck in your wrinkles, then perhaps illusions are in play. If you see a happy go lucky person, but your nails are bitten down to the quick's, then perhaps illusions are in play.

Often we only see what we want to see, and at times what we see may be illusions, but if you want the truth, ask a child what they see,(and think).

They are oddly "illusion free"........

 

“How often, you wonder, has the direction of your life been shaped by such misunderstandings? How many opportunities have you been denied--or, for that matter, awarded--because someone failed to see you properly? How many friends have you lost, how many have you gained, because they glimpsed some element of your personality that shone through for only an instant, and in circumstances you could never reproduce? An illusion of water shimmering at the far bend of a highway.”  (Kevin Brookmeier)

 

"Illusion is Reality's coy lover who cheers him when he is grim. Illusion is cunning to his wisdom of ages, weet oblivion to his knowledge. A bounty to his lack." (Kresley Cole)

 

"Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces." (Sigmund Freud)

 

Arts? Isn't that just indulgence...?

"-What do you wanna be when you grow up then?" the grand-mother asks the grand-child.

"-I wanna be a ballerina, Nanna" answers the grand daughter.

"-So, you gonna follow in your dad's footsteps and sell insurance?" the uncle asks his nephew.

"-Nah", answers the nephew, "I'm gonna be a rock musician".

"-What are your plans for the future now that you have finished college?" the aunt asks her niece.

"I am going to travel Auntie, and then write down my experiences in a diary. I want to go where Hemingway went, have coffee in a bistro at Montmartre, feed the doves in the San Marco piazza in Venice, I want to experience it all. I want to be a writer," the niece explains.

What about those who say they want to be painters, sculptors, designers, computer game makers, architects, etc.etc. ?

More often than not it seems, these professions are often dismissed as "indulgences" and not "real" professions.

So what is an indulgence? According to Collins Thesaurus: treat, extravagance, privilege, favour.

After a thorough investigation of the word, it appears to me that it has undertones of moral impropriety, especially so if the word "self" is attached, as in "self-indulgent".

I asked a friend to come and paint(paintings) with me one afternoon, and was given the answer that "to paint is indulgent". Perplexed I asked: "Indulgent? How is it indulgent?"

"Because there are more important and "real" things one could do," was the answer, "you know, being useful".

(Useful=the quality of being of practical use) Is usefulness more important than beauty, ornamentation, imagination, intuition, etc.etc.? Is it not possible that there is usefulness in being able to outwardly express an inner experience? "Perhaps, but how can that be applied practically?" you may ask.  Allow me to make a few suggestions:

Speaking with people who enjoy heavy metal(music) I found a general consensus suggesting that attending a live concert aided in the release of frustrations and emotions, but also in feeling re-energised.

Speaking with people who enjoy visiting galleries, I found a general consensus suggesting that viewing works of art was stimulating, probing, confounding, and re-energising by engaging the emotions pertaining to beauty, amazement and wonder.

There are people who will attest to their lives changing due to having read a specific book, viewed a specific movie, documentary, walked the Via Dolorosa, stood in the Grand Canyon, sat in the pews of the Sistine Chapel, touched the wall of fallen soldiers, walked the Chinese wall, listend to the Tibetan Monks chant, etc.etc.

Is there any moral impropriety in a person seeking to understand or be understood, in expressing externally what goes on internally?

Should we really choose between being practical/useful OR indulgent, is it not possible to enjoy both states?

Is it useful to label creative/artistic professions as "indulgent", is it not possible to appreciate all types of professions equally?

When I was working as a professional musician, I used to go to work when people who had "real" jobs had clocked off for the day. My job basically started when others had finished theirs and were relaxing with a chilled drink and conversation with friends. To become a professional musician, takes hours and hours on end of hard work, of rehearsals, of carrying heavy equipment through throngs of inebriated people, of driving all hours, sometimes for hours on end, it's a very "real" job indeed.

Not much indulgence involved I can assure you...:)

If a nurse enjoys her work, is it an indulgence? If an accountant loves his job, is it an indulgence?

If the pizza maker whistles while he makes the pizzas because he likes his job, is he indulgent?

If the janitor jumps out of bed in the morning because he looks forward to doing his job, is he being indulgent?

If doing what you do for a living brings you joy and satisfaction, are you indulgent?

Do we equate "real" jobs with doing something for a living we don't enjoy doing?

Some surveys suggest that a "real" job is synonymous with a stable income, and if that is the case, then what we do is inconsequential. It is no more indulgent to earn an income from playing the violin, painting pictures, designing computer games, writing books, etc.etc. than building houses, reading spreadsheets, digging ditches, driving trucks, being a lawyer, dentist, doctor, etc.etc.

The fact that mankind is so diverse, is that not a strength?

Isn't it wonderful that there are people who can write music, poetry, lyrics, that speak straight to the heart, just like there are doctors who can heal hearts not functioning properly?

Isn't it amazing that there are people who can make sculptures, installations, figurines, that entice our imagination just like there are builders who make constructions of many varieties to be utilised for a myriad of functions?

Isn't it brilliant that there are people who can write stories that take us to foreign and fantastical destinations just like there are writers who compose manuals, instructions, dictionaries, and spreadsheets?

Today's indulgence may very well be tomorrow's reality.

 

“In my own philanthropy and business endeavors, I have seen the critical role that the arts play in stimulating creativity and in developing vital communities….the arts have a crucial impact on our economy and are an important catalyst for learning, discovery, and achievement in our country.”

–Paul G. Allen, Co-Founder, Microsoft

 

"The rapidly evolving global economy demands a dynamic and creative workforce. The arts and its related businesses are responsible for billions of dollars in cultural exports for this country. It is imperative that we continue to support the arts and arts education both on the national and local levels. The strength of every democracy is measured by its commitment to the arts.”
–Charles Segars, CEO of Ovation

 

Tough Love.......say what????

 

 

There is a term often used that tend to confuse me: "Tough Love".

Can love be tough? What on earth is tough love exactly?

According to Wikipedia:

In a book titled "Tough Love" written by Bill Milliken in the 1960's, Bill coined the phrase "tough love" and many have used it since. If I understand it correctly, "tough love" means to treat someone we care for in a harsh/stern manner in order to help them see the errors of their ways. We are to show a tough exterior to assist someone to find their own inner strength, to find their self-esteem and dignity.

Although I can see the logic to a certain extent, I do have questions: how will someone with a fragile

self-esteem build their self-esteem when the people closest to them withdraw?

If a person is involved in risky behaviour because of lack of attention, how will withdrawing all attention help?

How can we be sure that we are exercising "tough love" and not just giving up?

How can we be sure that we are not playing judge and jury all at once?

(There are statistics that support favourable outcomes for using "tough love" in connection with addictions, but at this point I am leaving the very complex issue of drug addiction out of the post.)

Dealing with troubled people are for many people; difficult. Depressed people can be difficult. Hyper-active people are often considered difficult. Really, really, smart people are difficult, etc.etc. Balanced/stable/what we deem "normal" people on the other hand, many of us find easy to get along with, which also goes for happy, contented, satisfied people.
 "Easy" people are easier to love? No tough love necessary?

According to British research, there is some evidence that suggest that "tough love" can be beneficial in the development of certain preferred character traits in children up to five years old, "tough love" used in the British sense as "authoritative parenting" visa vie the American version, "authoritarian parenting", which has been linked with negative outcomes in other research.

Whats the difference?, you may ask.

Authoritative parenting, is a child-centred approach teaching children how to regulate and understand their feelings, to help the children become independent, find their own appropriate solutions to problems, but the parents still place control/limits on the child's actions.

Authoritarian parenting/strict parenting, is a restrictive, punitive approach, expecting conformity and compliance to rules and directions, commonly without explanations for the boundaries, although adherence by the child to the boundaries, often is meet with respect and approval. 

When I was studying to become a crisis counsellor, one of the issues many of us had difficulties with grasping /accepting was to not give/offer advise. Rather than advising people what to do, we were taught to help the client find their own solutions.

To just listen without injections other than "uhu", "I see", "so what I am hearing you say is...." was problematic for a number of us. Listening to someone expressing their pain, confusion, anger, etc. and not be able to tell them how to "fix" it or at least offer a few suggestions, caused many heated discussions, and in my case (thankfully!), also light bulb moments.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", says an old Chinese proverb.

Although we may care deeply, helping someone to find their own answers/solutions, assists them in becoming independent, and trusting in themselves as problem solvers.

My understanding so far of "tough love" is that we apply it when we have run out of advise, patience and solutions, and feel the only option left for us is to remove ourselves/input/support/ and leave the other to go it alone.

"He/she is just wanting attention".....maybe, but why?

"He/she is just not trying hard enough".......how much is hard enough, and who decides?

"He/she is just seeking sympathy".........don't we all need sympathy at times, and is there a cut-off  of how much sympathy each individual needs?

"I have heard his/her story too many times"........if you heard it, why does he/she keep repeating it?

Manning the phones at the crisis centre, eventually I learned to recognise some of the callers voices.

They were the "frequent callers",  they usually called late at night, often somewhat inebriated and hard to understand, presented the same issues, expressed the same level of pain, confusion (according to themselves), bewilderment and sense of helplessness.  Driving home in the early hours of the morning after a night shift, ears red-hot from having a phone almost glued to them for eight hours on end, throat dry, and the mind teetering on total shut-down, one solitary question persistently kept buzzing in my mind like a tsetse fly; "Why are they so stuck in the same problem, why can't they find a solution?"

How does one help someone who doesn't seem to want to help themselves? Some suggestions:

Listen. Listen properly. Listen attentively. Make it clear that you are hearing what they are saying by reflecting; "So what I heard you say is.......is that correct?"

Resist the temptation of pep-talk, platitudes such as: "Well, life's tough", or throw-away lines such as: "Maybe you just haven't tried hard enough". There may be times when offering some compassionate silence speaks volumes, and inserting an occasional  "I don't know", enough "advise" for the suffering person to feel validated, and attended to.

Is there a "statue of limitations" on how much love we give so that when we have reached the limit, we then evoke "tough love"?
Is love not unconditional, long suffering, enduring, hoping all things? Is love not patient, kind, without envy, it does not boast, it is not proud?
When did love become "tough"?
When we say "it's time for tough love", do we not perhaps mean: "I have reached my limit."
There may be times in our lives when we feel we have reached our limit of patience, kindness, hope, and feel we must withdraw our association from someone dear to us, but should that be called "tough love"? Is the action of withdrawing not our own choice and for our own benefit, rather than our love for the other? Why not call it for what it is? It's our love for ourselves, our self preservation, our own well being that urge us to withdraw, so is there any shame in saying so?
"I love you dearly, but at this stage I have to respectfully distance myself from you because I feel I have nothing further to contribute to our relationship."
To chose to walk away from a difficult relationship may be tough, especially if love is a big part of it, but to call it "tough love" sounds to me as: "You're wrong/impossible/difficult/etc.etc, and as a punishment I will now withdraw my love for you", and that, in my estimation is the very antithesis of love.
To love, can be tough, but for a moment, .......consider the alternative.
“Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have loved at all.” (Alfred Tennyson)

"If you judge someone, you have no time to love them."
(Mother Teresa)
“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.”
(Robert A Heinlein)
 



Freedom in no yawn.........

 

Like monoliths, the buildings tower against the backdrop of a peach coloured sky. 

In the distance, sounds of a city waking up, on deck, a sombre hush.

With eyes eagerly searching, bodies worn from the long voyage, the new arrivals patiently await the go-ahead to disembark.

Left behind are famines, poverty, wars, broken dreams and broken hearts. For weeks on end a new dream has sustained; the dream of a life of freedom, the dream of a better life.

Freedom for many of us, is being free from slavery, oppression, to have political independence, to choose who we call our friends, to affect outcomes of the society in which we live, to voice our opinions, to choose where we live, to seek education in any area we choose, and so much more.

Is freedom the same as liberty?

Liberty relates to the idea of an individuals right to do what he/she wants, freedom on the other hand contains inbuilt restrictions. I am at liberty to start my lawn mover at three am, but my neighbour is also at liberty to disagree with me doing so; a free society contains individuals who are free to do what they do whilst respecting the freedoms of others.

As an individual I am at liberty to do what law and social customs do not forbid.

What differentiates a free society from other societies, is the extent of the legal and customary restrictions on freedom.

(It can be difficult to define freedom without acknowledging the restrictions placed on it, because freedom without restrictions, is that not better defined as chaos? )

When we claim we have the "right" to....xyz, where does this "right" come from?

 Speaking only for Western Democratic Tradition, a suggestion:

Common law of England, developed by the judges, was developed in accordance with basic moral principles; basically the moral code of Christianity but similar in other religions. These morals formed the basis of English common law and  include: honesty, duty, responsibility, fairness, the pursuit of truth, keeping promises and ones word, to mention a few. Emphasis is placed with the individual to do their duty and to be responsible. Can a society function humanely without these values? If there is no good, is bad possible?

People will risk their lives in bathtub sized vessels on open oceans in the hope of finding freedom.

People will work day and night years on end to save money to book passage on a plane in the hope of finding freedom.

People will risk their lives on the front line of wars, in the pursuit of freedom for those who are oppressed.

People will endure torture, all manners of excruciating pain, all in the fight for freedom.

What does freedom mean to you?

Is it a freedom to or a freedom from, or perhaps both?

"For me freedom means I can do what I want, when I want."

"For me freedom means I can say what I want, write what I want, print what I want."

"For me freedom means I can think what I want."

"For me freedom means I can vote for whoever I want."

"For me freedom means freedom from an authority dictating how I should live my life."

"For me freedom means freedom from food stamps, rations and starvation."

For many of us, perhaps we take freedom for granted.

If we have the freedom to speak our mind, does that exclude doing so responsibly?

Does there not have to be a balance between liberty and order, between the role of the individual and the government, between liberty and licence, liberty and responsibility?

Perhaps self expression plays a part.

Self-expression is a collection of values that include social toleration, the individuals life satisfaction, public expression and an aspiration to liberty.

We have the freedom to shoulder our individual responsibilities, our personal integrity and honesty,

our self-discipline, all in line with the customary and legal restraints of the society in which we live.

We may have the freedom to speak our mind, but so do others

we may have the freedom to cast our vote, but so do others,

we may have the freedom to the pursuit of happiness, but so do others.

 

“Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life.”

(Bob Marley)

 

                      “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

                                                                       (Abraham Lincoln)

 

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” (Thomas Jefferson)

 

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” (Nelson Mandela)