You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'General' category.
Somebody just brought an interesting article to my attention: ”Sharing is Creepy” by Nicolas Carr. In a nutshell, in it Nicolas discusses the supposedly soon-to-be-recognised psychiatric syndrome ”avatar anxiety”, or the anxiety that sometimes people may experience if they:
- either refrain from behaving online under the form of twittering, posting information on their online profiles, and engaging in online discussions, or
- they overtly and abundantly engage in such online behaviours.
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/01/sharing_is_cree.php
Apparently, the fact that online behaviour is somewhat removed from the self and so does not let its genuine expression leads some people to experience anxiety to quite extreme degrees. In my opinion, this is not because there is something wrong with those people but rather because of the set-up in which they live or have created for themselves.
Twittering, posting on online profiles like Facebook and LinkedIn, sharing photos and engaging in online discussions can greatly optimise how we live life yet are not life, our life, ultimately. What motivates online behaviours of any sort is the desire to be with, communicate with, share things with people per se, in other words, desire to see and get to know people. In this sense being online can optimise our being ourselves, yet it can not be our being ourselves.
Online communication is limited in how much it can convey. Online communication only makes sense in the context of other forms of communication as the latter gives us references and clues with regards to how things stand between us and other people. The latter forms of communication tell us how much to give away and how much to not give away when we communicate online. I guess this may be something to not loose sight of when engaging in online behaviours.
In other words, ”avatar anxiety” has a solution called ‘’seeing the big picture”.
I was very pleased to hear today that SlumDog Millionnaire (the motion picture) has won the 2009 Oscar for best film. This is not because I do not like the other movies it was competing with. All are really excellent. Without being a close follower of the Oscars, however, I dare say it may be for the first time that a movie of this sort, the sort of SlumDog Millionnaire, wins an Oscar.
By a movie of this sort I mean one which has, intentionally or not, succeeded in bringing in ”development issues” such as poverty, slums, inequality, injustice, exploitation, crime, corruption, mafia, etc., plus the very values and cultures these development issues would rest on, as the very background from which the story unfolds. In this, though, these issues are not the story; they are, however, imbuing the story in its every aspect and by this creating an incredible awareness about them.
The story itself is a story about love and destiny, in fact a story about the love which is the destiny of the main character Jamal. Because of what I say in the above paragraph, you may think that the movie is incredibly depressing. Truth is though (according to me) that it is quite the opposite (not just because of the Bollywood ending!), it is one of the most positive movies I have seen, I guess precisely because of the completeness of what it shows and how it shows life can be beautiful. Other movies may tend to show that life is beautiful, too, however perhaps not showing life as it is, or rather as it is increasingly becoming nowadays, in terms of ”developing” and ”developed” being increasingly collided and super-imposed.
SlumDog Millionnaire does precisely that, it collides and superimposes ”developing” and ”developed”, this in a way as seamless and non-preaching as it can be. The purpose of the movie is not to tell you how little you know (about development), and give away messages already digested. In this sense, would you call this an example of socially responsible movie-making? I think yes. Why? Because by the story being as it is, and told as it is, it helps those seeing the movie to learn about it and the circumstances it may have been inspired by to their best.
”Development issues” are not the focus of the movie. SlumDog Millionnaire does not throw these into your face, almost as if blaming you for not knowing about them, not having experienced them, not being in them (which makes me think of another movie doing precisely that, i.e., Seven Pounds, and for which reason I find weak …). They are, however, presented in a way that creates the experience of these being precisely what life (our peoples’ life, on planet Earth, now) is made of. And if you were to think about it, this is that way. It is just that we (some of us, all of us, considering that ‘’development issues’’ are about both ends of the spectrum!) do not see it all at once as we can see it in that movie.
Hopefully more movies like this will be made, this without taking away the benefit of being touched and struck by what they show. The fact that a movie such as this ended up winning the Oscar is truly indicative of what the world is going through at the moment … A couple of years ago a movie of this sort would have gone much praised yet unnoticed.
Have not seen SlumDog Millionnaire yet? Go get your tickets.
As already mentioned in a previous post (in fact, my very first post on this blog), I love simple statements that are both rich and straightforward in ways that encapsulate a lot of meaning, meaning that is so true, and so vast, and general, that it is impossible to get one’s head around it in words alone. Such wholistic perspectives fascinate me which I think are crucial in understanding this world.
A wonderful chill-out piece, very ”leger” but still going deep down the surface of things, is ”Every Soul upon the Earth” by Space Brothers. It is a great example to illustrate what I mean. You can listen to the song on You Tube: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ude8PPV-jU
And here are just some of the lyrics: …
Every truth that’s ever spoken … Every voice that’s ever heard … You all share the same emotions …
Every soul upon the Earth …
Every man from your beginning … Every woman, every bird … You all share a common reason …
Every soul upon the Earth …
We can only love you … We can only love
Everybody says there’s danger … Everybody feels the hurt … You all share a common future …
Every soul upon the Earth …
Travel home to your self … Find your place in the world …
Every heart that’s ever broken … Every dream that’s ever cursed … You all share the same emotions … Every soul upon the Earth …
We can only love you … We can only love …
Travel home to yourself … Find your place in the world …
The song comes across a lot better than just the lyrics, and so I would encourage you to just listen to it. It is nice, no?
In terms of one travelling to their place in the world, things may not only seem too meaningful and so it is important to see beyond the words in order to know our journey. The good news is that there is a meaning. The not so good news is that it is sometimes difficult to see it. In order to see it, you need to have some emotional knowledge and poetry (and any other art that you like, or sport, even) can help you get that. Try it. It works.
And so, if the meaning is not there, it is important to search for it. And simple statements, and poems, of this kind, can provide some good guidance when one is looking into oneself. If it happens a lot to you, do not worry, just connect with your emotions instead of looking too much.
Another example of the power of poetry , or poetry in action, is the work of Drew Dellinger, a poet I found out about during my CSR Certificate studies. Check out some of his work under the links below – nice, no??
http://www.drewdellinger.org/llmw/hymn.php
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=XW63UUthwSg
Drew’s work I find saturated to the utmost with politics, concerns about the environment and sustainability, personal responsibility, collective responsibility, love, emotion, time and non-existence of time, urgency and buddhism. I find it a great example of how poetry can be that door, or just window, which enables one to look into themselves and understand things better. It works for me because I like it.
To conclude, at the very bottom of it, poetry is very emotional; yet unless there is emotion, there is no understanding, either. And so, if you are feeling lost, just read through a poem that makes you feel. That would bring key emotions into the picture which would enable you to understand what is going on, for you, in that picture.
As a friend once told me: rational thinking does not help you make sense of things; emotional thinking does.
I thought what the Economist published about Bulgaria last week is interesting … Have a look at this: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11751745&source=features_box3&mode=comment&intent=postTop
The Issue – Corruption in Bulgaria, and Other Countries
The Economist tells the story of Bulgaria who, together with Romania, became a member of the EU in January 2007. Despite this, the EU has just stopped some of the flow of EU money to Bulgaria because of repeated instances of corruption the Bulgarian government has failed to address. Such instances of corruption are said to go as far as controlling where EU money should go, in other words, directing it to where it should not necessarily go.
SAD. Why? Because, as much as this shows poor governance on behalf of the Bulgarian government, it also does so on behalf of the EU. Why is this happening? Can EU engagement with and in member countries be only at the level of government administration? … And, what is corruption …?
As it happens, you can learn just as much, if not more, from the comments on the article (what a great way of using online media). These tell you that Greece has been having corruption ever since it joined the EU (in 1981!!), that Italy who is one of founding members of the EU is notorious for its high levels of corruption, institutional nepotism and crime (comment by ”panathatube”), that Romania has corruption too, but, apparently, not as much … and seems like not going as far as meddling with EU money (and so, no sanctions …??).
What is Corruption …?
Corruption is not just people doing bad things. It goes very deep into relationships, values and corresponding behaviours, both at the level of governments and societies. For example, Del Monte and Papagni mention that corruption has sources that are, for sure, economic, but also cultural and political … It is an interplay of regulation, effectiveness of legal systems and social capital. The latter they define as:
”Social capital is embedded in primary social institutions which provide people with basic values, such as high levels of social trust, cohesion and participation.”
How Corruption Works – the Bulgaria Case
Based on my personal experience (I am Bulgarian), I know that corruption in Bulgaria is not JUST ABOUT the government doing bad things. No, it is also about Bulgarian society, in some ways, seeing this, and sometimes doing it, too. It is also about those who see it hating it, and not doing it, but not also not doing much to stop it, because they have no mechanisms and social support to do so!!
And so, this web of actions, thoughts, behaviours, and abuse, ends up being a tangle that Bulgaria, and Bulgarian society can not resolve by themselves, first and foremost because there is no good political leadership, as well as no such which would come from within society.
(In any case, this is why governance in Bulgaria is, for now, poor.)
The Importance of Leadership
Leadership would be very important to detangle the tight knots of corrupted practices and approaches in Bulgarian government and society. This would be leadership that would see through the knots and have the vision for how these would be transformed. It would also be leadership that would find ways in which to combine soft methods, tools and approaches (soft system methodologies) with, so to say, ”harder approaches”, such as instituting regulation and legal mechanisms and systems. Such leadership would be about managing, and influencing, in a way that would gradually enable the country to drift away from corruption.
An approach integrating soft system methodologies could also enable the Bulgarian government to shift from more to less (and much less!!) corruption without there being any conditions for an opposition, or else, to resort to violence … such is the nature of soft system methodologies. As I understand them, these are focused on changing approaches, feelings and thoughts first – and only then changing behaviours. (rather than the other way round, which is quite oppressive … for anybody)
… Such leadership could come from within the country … could also come from without.
… Such leadership could also come from those who have been entrusted to lead (and increasingly less doing it) … but could also come from those who have not been formally and institutionally entrusted to lead, but who have the power to do so.
It would emerge bottom-up from within the society, as participatory, or distributed leadership.
The EU and Leadership …?
I wonder whether the EU has ever looked at corruption, as a problem, in this way. They probably have, at least some of them. Bigger question is, though, have they ever also approached corruption in member countries in this way, and also tried to do something about it? They may have, then how …? Has there ever been capacity building in (new) member countries, i.e., seeking ways to engage with both (new) member countries’ governments and societies? Or, is it just about: we give you the money, you’d better do good things with it …
The ”we give you the money, you’d better do good things with it …” is an approach that is unfair and also implies inequality. It is, also, very immature. An administration, and a government, as high-level as the EU, should know better that they should engage with member countries and participate in how the EU money is used, and spent. They should also use opportunities along the way to enable changes, good changes, in governments and societies, by creating opportunities for local people to make those changes … Yep, this is very hard. So what? It is the right way to go. If you see it that way, you can also do it.
(This is why EU governance is poor, too.)
Conclusion
… To conclude, such reflections do not speak well on behalf of the EU … hopefully not so much so on behalf of Bulgaria. Participaroty leadership does not necessarily have to come from without the country, it can also come from within! So, brace yourself, Bulgaria, and start doing it, at last.
I like simple statements that communicate a lot of meaning. The other day, I thought about the distinction between these two:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Einstein)
We can know more than we can tell. (Polanyi)
There is actually no distinction. These two mean one and the same thing. They both refer to how people, if knowing what they know, can use this knowledge, for good or not so good things. Both of these refer to creativity that people are able to express through being in touch with their tacit knowledge.
People, all people, even the statisticians, the accountants, the programmers, i.e., all those who you would think are not creative (but this is just my presumption), ARE creative. YOU ARE CREATIVE. We are all able to connect experiences and memories in ways that are relevant to here and now. Some are doing it pretty well, others do not know how but are trying, others are just on different wavelenghts. The key is to see through complexity and reduce it to simplicity for everyone, or just those whom we are targeting, to understand.
Talking about creativity, I recently read in a book (”The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman) that in today’s increasing digitization and over-growing complexity of information, what truly matters, and increasingly so, is the ability to explain. ‘The Great Explainers’, I think this was the name of the chapter. Ability to see through the complexity and reduce it to simplicity. For me, this is creativity per se. Ability to pin it all down in a flash and then just let it all go. Ability to bring tacit and explicit together in an instant and then be the string of those or what you have chosen.
This is what I am trying to do in this blog. See through complexity and reduce to simplicity for the purpose of (hopefully) knowing more about how to be in the world where we are now and how to create conditions for us to live and work in a world more ethical, more participatory, more our own world and not somebody else’s.
What may not change, ever, is our need to communicate, relate to each other, to our world and environment, and keep things simple for quick and complelling communication. Simple in the sense of being focused on the issues and not on the process in order to enable the process to take the shape it needs to take. Simple in these sense of not thinking about ourselves but rather the people we want to address.
I guess this is a buddist way of looking at things?
Recent Comments