“We got greedy in the 1980s, grungy in the ’90s and geeky in the noughties. This decade, we’re eager to explore our potential.” [1]
On my flight home from Melbourne I read an article that excited me. It was called “Meet the Potentialists”. A movement I suppose we could label “Potentialism” is very much in line with what the approach to life I labeled “Creativism” – a life based on discovering and fulfilling one’s creative potential. I think potentialist and potentialism is probably better terminology than creativist and creativism – it’s broader and less close to “creationism”, bit less confusing. What do you think?
(To see entry “Creativism: a Philosophy of Life”, click here)
According to social researcher Mark McCrindle, “The ’90s were about buying bigger, better and more, and then it all ended with a crash… as a result, one in five Australians have decided to use the downturn as a catalyst to reorient their lives.” ONE IN FIVE! That’s a pretty good start!!! “Working from home is one of the key drivers of what we call the ‘hobby-preneurs,” said Mark McCrindle. “Turning a hobby into a business is a way of having it all – of fulfilling your potential and turning something you really enjoy doing into an income earner.” Potentialists are men and women, of all ages and incomes (although I must note Sydney ranked fourth after Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane – come on guys, pick up your act!) still that’s pretty incredible! [2]
Australia isn’t alone in this trend. A quick google searched identified Canadians as movers and shakers too. A survey showed that more than a third of Canadians (38%) actively have a Potential List, and nearly everyone in this group (94%) predicts they will accomplish all or some of the goals they have set out for themselves.’ (A “Potential List” is like a dream board.) “Topping the items included in Canadians’ Potential Lists are travel (77%), philanthropy (41%), learn a new language (32%) and living in a different country (32%) – all activities that align with priorities previously identified by Potentialists to actively live an enriching life.” [3]
I couldn’t find a definition so I thought I’d make up my own:
A “potentialist” is an alchemist of potential – someone who strives to achieve their mental, physical and spiritual potential.
And I’m going start a little Potentialism Blog Series based on some writings I did a couple of years ago when I started the search of my own potential (a search which is obviously still under way). I don’t know, but maybe it will help all you potentialists or potential-potentialists out there as you look for ways to realize your own potential.
Picture:
My mum and my friend looking at my artworks that I am both inside and (sort-of) behind the lens of (I framed the shot but obviously I couldn’t hit the button) that are on display in the Manning Building at Sydney Uni. I still get quite a buzz out of the fact that at school I was the non-creative pimple-faced mathematical/business-minded nerd and now I am on the path to discovering my true potential.
References:
[1] Virgin Blue (April 2010) pp. 34-38.
[2] Deborah Robinson, Australians leading the way in a return to Global Financial Optimism (November 2009) URL: http://www.australianwomenonline.com/australians-leading-the-way-in-a-return-to-global-financial-optimism/
[3] ‘Potentialist’ Group On The Rise As Canadian Optimism Improves’ URL:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/02/c5872.html
Based on online survey by Angus Reid Public Opinion on behalf of American Express January 21-25 2010.
Hey I liked this one i read a few of your posts today miss and they make good thinking material. I tried to call today but no answer I’ll give you a try tomorrow. Hope your well.
Craig
Thanks! Speak soon!!
Juliet,
In using Google to search for items related to the “Potentialist Movement,” my website and your website are number one and two respectively. It would appear that we share many of the same beliefs, values, and goals. I have read with interest your writings, and would invite you to review what is on my website —(www.potentialistmovement.com.) Based upon a mutual familiarity with both of our works — possibly we could have an interesting dialog and join forces in a collaborative way. There appears to be a growing interest in Australia, Canada, and the United States for people seeking to live more fulfilling lives by developing their potential to the fullest extent. (Easier said than done.) For that reason, my focus is on getting like-minded people to join forces and create a strong organization that helps people in that behalf. This requires a genuine “movement” or else not much will happen. If people such as you and I can begin to “synergize” our efforts, then something tangible may come out of our joint concerns — whether it be called “Potentialism” or the “Potentialist Movement.” Why don’t you check out the website and then be in touch. I suspect that we can have some very thought-provoking and productive conversations.
With best regards
Dr. Freeman Rader, Ph.D.
Dr Rader, or would you prefer me to call you Freeman? Nice work on the Potentialism site and books – I’d love to have a read! I must tell you that I am slightly concerned about turning philosophy into another religion. Isn’t it the separational identity-driven ideologies where many of the world’s problems start?
I think the power of ideas and philosophy, without an institutionalised religion, is stronger than you think – eg John Locke and the American and French revolutions; Karl Marx and the Chinese and Russian revolutions…
Wouldn’t it be better to look for the underlying unity of religions, cultures, peoples, and our planet, that the idea of potentialism seems to offer?
I hope you don’t mind my critical thoughts… and I do look forward to further discussion 🙂
Juliet
Thanks, Juliet, for your kind words regarding my website.
Because you asked some important questions, I will try to answer them.
You ask, “Isn’t it the separational identity-driven ideologies where many of the world’s problems start?”
My response is …. “No … that’s where the solutions start” — that’s when somebody starts to turn concepts into reality.”
The examples you cite (The American Revolution …. etc.) started with total chaos and gradually became successful as the concepts were fleshed out in detail (as with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and institutions were formed so that tangible implementation of concepts could be turned into reality. The easiest thing in the world to do is to talk in “generalities” and “platitudes.” The hardest thing to do is to get down to “specifics” and “implementation plans.” And just because concepts become specific doesn’t mean that “conflict” and “divisiveness” must result. Instead “options” and “choices” become available so that the competition of ideas can occur, the best ideas start to prevail, and the merits of concepts are demonstrated through “credibility by example.”
Everybody is seeking to discover their own sense of identity (and you, Juliet, are very much into that pursuit also). But doesn’t developing one’s “personal identity” require something that an individual can “identify with” ??? Identity-driven ideologies are essential, but just because they attempt to become clear and specific doesn’t mean that they should be labeled “separational” (as if they are “divisive”). The notion that everyone should share in some harmonious conforming universal ideology is much scarier than in enabling free thought and the development of various humanistic perspectives and alternatives — especially when nobody can be clear as to what some universal ideology might be — and those who would attempt to mandate such interpretation would be the worst type of demagogues possible (Dictators and religions have been the greatest perpetrators of this type of abuse).
What is dangerous is when identity driven ideologies are not based upon considerate well-thought-out beliefs, values, and behaviors that respect individual choice, but instead, try to impose beliefs, values, and behaviors through intimidations, fear, and force. Traditional religions have tended to be guilty of the latter and relied upon the use of mythical supernatural forces as the source of their power. But a new 21st Century humanistic religion that believes in “human potential” (rather than supernatural forces) doesn’t have to be abusive and can provide the type of strong organization that is needed to help people navigate through the dramatically changing conditions of existence of the 21st Century. The only problem is that nobody wants to articulate what may be appropriate and desirable beliefs, values, and behaviors that are “in sync” with 21st Century conditions of existence. (The philosophers of the past helped make sense out of the conditions of existence that existed 2000 to 4000 years ago — but where are the philosophers of the 21st Century ? — now that they are most needed.) Are there no contemporary human beings that have the courage or ability to try to make sense about of these markedly changing times?
In your reply, you also mentioned seeking the “underlying unity of religions.” One would have to look far and wide to find out what that “underlying unity” is, because the thousands of religions that have existed have been tremendously diverse, divisive, and often very abusive and destructive. Under the name of religion, whole cultures have been destroyed (as with the Spanish conquest of the new world and the crusades in the middle east). In addition, they have done everything imaginable to demean human potential (as with the Inquisitions and thwarting human discovery as was the case with Catholicism and its repressive treatment toward Galileo and Copernicus). Most religions have actually tried to subvert human potential under their will in an attempt to control mankind, rather than promote and unleash the potential of mankind. If anything, the Potentialist Movement — with it’s emphasis on promoting and unleashing human potential — IS the underlying foundation that brings out the best in people throughout the world. And it does so by offering a much needed alternative to traditional religion, rather than to homogenize all the religions that exist — the latter of which is impossible.
As is the case with “generalities,” the pursuit of “universalities” is fraught with problems. For some reason, the notion of “being one with the universe” (as is often implied by well intentioned people) seems to have a nice ring to it, but lacks the specifics in how to “get there.” And — as we are finding out with our efforts toward “globalization” — a great deal is getting lost as we trend in the direction of universalities. We in the United States started out with a “Declaration of Independence” and now find that we have lost our independence and that our fate is now very dependent upon what is happening everyplace else in the world. We depend upon China for most of our goods, have no jobs for great masses of people, and can’t do much about it because the operation of our society and government now depends upon money barrowed from China.
Instead of thinking in terms of being one with the universe, there is much to be said for starting out on a small scale and showing how something can be made to work really well. And if people can demonstrate “credibility by example” on a small scale, then an example will exist that can serve as model that other people can “choose” to emulate. (You’ll note that I use the word “choose” because the use of “force” is not only abusive but counterproductive.) But if there is no successful model, then what do people do ??? just talk in platitudes ??? There are currently religions that operate on the basis of acceptance of all religions (e.g. Unitarian/Universalists) and there are organizations that don’t like any religions (e.g. the Secular Humanists). And then there are the “anarchists” who extol personal freedom and don’t want to commit to anything. All these groups have extremely small followings — and none are having much of an impact on anything. So, where does that leave us ??? By default, the “extremists” prevail because no strong and viable alternatives are being offered.
If in fact we believe in “human potential” (as we contend) then I think it is up to us as human beings to start to assemble some sort of tangible beliefs, values, and behaviors that truly are humane and sensible — and offer a tangible “guide path” that causes people to want to follow upon that path (based upon “free choice” and “credibility by example”). If we as humans are afraid to develop any tangible guidelines (for fear that we are offering something specific and will be attacked for doing so) — then we in essence are displaying a lack of faith and belief in our human potential.
Juliet, I commend you for your sensibilities regarding the need for greater acceptance and a kinder and gentler world. At present we just perceive the path for getting there in different ways. Women, in general, are far ahead of men in realizing that cooperation and collaboration are what are needed in the 21st Century (rather than the “macho gamesmanship” that most men rely upon). But somehow, we have to figure out how to obtain desired results with “rational planning” rather than “wishful thinking.” Hopefully, the much needed nurturing qualities that women bring to the table can help us as humankind bring about the type of cooperation and collaboration that is needed in order for the humane and constructive side of human potential to be fully realized. (That’s what we’re both after, isn’t it ???)
Hopefully, the candid exchange of views that you provide on your blog will invite the type of thoughtful dialog that gets more people involved.