Skip to main content

Have you met TED? Introducing “Narratology”

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Which Ted? Ted from How I Met Your Mother, or Ted-Talks? While both are wonderful sources of inspiration, today I will using the former to introduce “Narratology”.

Narratology is the study of narratives, the stories lived and the stories told. The stories in one’s head, and the stories that become one’s reality. The story of you, the story of your people, your culture, your religion, the story of humanity, the story of the universe… stories surround us.

Roland Bathes,  sums up narrative better than I ever could:

The narratives of the world are numberless. …  Able to be carried by articulated language, spoken or written, fixed or moving images, gestures, and the ordered mixture of all these substances; narrative is present in myth, legend, fable, tale, novella, epic, history, tragedy, drama, comedy, mime, painting, stained glass windows, cinema, comics, news times, conversation … [and] narrative is present in every age, in every place, in every society… Caring nothing for the division between good and bad literature, narrative is international, transhistorical, transcultural. It is simply there, like life itself. [1]

Narrative is, in the words of another great narratologist Theodore R. Sarbin, our “root metaphor.” [2]

How I Met Your Mother has some of the cleverest scripting ever. Besides the fact that it has me laughing, and that it has even had me in tears (when Ted got hit by the car), my favourite thing about this show is the way they play with narrative.

In case you haven’t seen it, every episode is told from told from the viewpoint of a father in 2030 telling his children “how he met their mother”, recollecting his friends’ stories from and seemingly never getting to the part where he actually meets their mother. Episodes don’t always follow exactly on from one another and stories are played out as they would be told – with parts forgotten, exaggerated and imagined. Stories within stories within stories are told from individual people’s different perspectives, capturing many truths about our culture, social nuances, fantasies and life issues.

This is one of my favourite examples… “Blah Blah” and the hot-crazy scale!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zADosF3XoQ[/youtube]

Ok, so if you are a keen follower of this blog, you will notice that (once again) I am jumping eclectically from one topic to another. The other day I introduced my plans for studying philosophy, and now I’m talking narratology. Where is my structure? My staged methodolic organised research? It might make no sense to anyone else but it is there, somewhere in my unconscious and subconscious mind, I just haven’t identified it yet.

My approach to research is more intuitively led – and I like it this way, it keeps things fun. I’m also interested the application of the concepts I’m studying – rather than just the theory. The different theories I’m reading about seem to overlap and shine lights on each other.

What does narratology mean for philosophy and religion and big history? What does Social Construction Theory have to do with Faucault’s Discipline and Punish, with power, structure and agency? What does this have to do with our ecological trajectories? What does this mean for me, and the life I am living? These are the sort of questions going through my head.

It might seem mind-boggling, with complicated topics layered upon one another, but I get bored easily, and this keeps me entertained. I would much prefer move organically through the literature, reading whatever topic makes me excited in a moment, rather than over-indulging in one of them and moving sloggishly onto the next. How this pans out in pulling together a large body of academic work… I suppose I’ll just have to wait and see.

As I learn about these very interesting mind-twisting concepts, I will share them. If you get lost in my brain, in the hopping from one topic to another, then I appologise – it probably means I’m just as lost as you!

Long story short – if you haven’t met Ted then you should meet him soon!

References:

[1] Barthes 1966 essay Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives, quoted in Michael J Toolan, Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (London: Routledge, 1988). p. 6.

[2] Theodore R. Sarbin, ‘The Narrative as a Root Metaphor for Psychology’, in Sarbin ed., Narrative Psychology : The Storied Nature of Human Conduct (New York: Praeger, 1986b).

Academic, Truth, ,

Don’t be so hard on yourself… sometimes its soft

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

“Don’t be so hard on yourself,” said one of my friends over coffee today. “Sometimes it’s hard, sometimes it’s soft,” he laughed.

“It’s important to have goals and dreams and expectations, but it’s more important to have a sense of humour about them.”

I can expect a lot of myself. If I don’t feel I have got enough boxes ticked – be it my short-term or long-term work or study or sporting or social or financial objectives – it is easy to feel frustrated. I don’t think I’m alone in this.

“I just don’t know what I’m doing,” I complained, going on to list some of the random things bouncing around on my mind: “I have about a twenty library books waiting for me to read and haven’t touched any of them this week; I want to send my book proposal to publishers but I’m afraid they won’t like it; I have been walking to work all week and don’t feel I’ve lost a pound off my winter belly; I don’t want to get old; I want to pack my bags and run away; Last night I wore my favourite shorts from Peru even though the fly is basically broken and they are almost falling apart; I don’t think I want to let go of the past… ” The list went on. Oh woe is me.

Lucky for me this particular friend has written books and done presentations with children about self-esteem, and our morning coffee evolved into a little session of psychoanalysis.

“Are you breathing?” he said, “Yes. Well then you are ok. You should feel good that you are breathing, and accept anything more than that as bonus. And everyone gets attached to their favourite clothes…”

I laughed – maybe I was blowing a few things out of proportion.

He went on to tell me how all these goals we make for ourselves – these stories we tell ourselves that we think we should live up to – are not something that we should not connect with a sense of how good or bad we feel about ourselves. From looking tight in our bikinis, to getting good grades on an essay.

Apparently there’s a line of psychological thought that says that self-esteem is self-defeating. The idea of self-esteem separates you from your self, making you stand outside yourself like a judge with a score card.

Instead we need to appreciate the incredible expression of life we are a part of, which has nothing to do with anything we do. We breath and our hearts beat without us thinking or doing anything. It seems so easy, but it’s actually pretty incredible simply to be an expression of life. We should be happy about this, and while we can have goals we shouldn’t let the consequences of our goals make us feel better or worse about ourselves. All we have to do is be.

“It’s about unconditional self-acceptance,” He concluded. “Accept yourself, because you can breath. And whether your goals are attained or not, whether its hard or soft, don’t forget to laugh.”

Photo: In my opinion the best statue at this year’s Bondi Statues by the Sea.

Truth

Mastering Philosophy: A Love of Wisdom

Written by Juliet Bennett
2 Comments

Before I even properly knew what philosophy was, I knew I wanted to study it. I remember being drawn to it and religion when I first finished school, but my UAI and father’s advice lead me to study Business. I know the world in the 21st century is dominated by business… but is that really what life is about???

Well as you know I’ve moved on from a marketing-money dominated paradigm, and eventually to a situation where here I am blogging my “search for truth”. And would you know it, searching for “truth” is exactly what philosophy is all about!!!

“Don’t go killing yourself,” my dad laughed when I told him now I am studying philosophy. “All the philosophers go around and round in circles, and eventually they kill themselves to put themselves out of the misery.”

I wiki’d it and suffice to say the odds aren’t so bad. Only six high profile philosophers have suicide in the last 30 years, and one (Foucault) died of aids. Before that majority of the deaths of philosophers were from treason, murder or the Inquisition. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_philosophers)

Anyway I don’t plan to get too deep into the linguistic word plays so hopefully I will deepen my understanding of the meaning of life, and not lose a sense of the worth of it all. The thing is, I have to study philosophy, I mean, how a “search for truth” not include at least a peak at the great minds of the last few thousand years?

The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”.  Philosophy is ‘the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. [1]

If you have been following the journey you have over the last month caught up on some insights from peace and conflict studies. Now I invite you join me as I try to “master” philosophy – something that’s not exactly going to be so easy for someone who has NEVER studied philosophy…

But heck, throwing oneself in the deep-end and forcing yourself to swim (generally) won’t kill you, so porque no?! (Why not?!)

Today just a very quick overview, so you can have some idea of the journey ahead. I’m not going to study all of these categories, or at least I don’t plan to, but it’s good to know what’s out there.

There seems to be an infinite number of branches and types and schools of philosophical thought. Thanks to the web, summaries are easy to find. These (according to wikipedia) are the main branches:

  • Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.
  • Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. Among its central concerns has been the challenge posed by skepticism and the relationships between truth, belief, and justification.
  • Ethics, or “moral philosophy”, is concerned with questions of how persons ought to act or if such questions are answerable. Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality. Plato’s early dialogues include a search for definitions of virtue.
  • Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals and communities to the state. It includes questions about justice, the good, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen.
  • Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
  • Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.
  • Philosophy of mind deals with the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science.
  • Philosophy of language is inquiry into the nature, origins, and usage of language.
  • Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that asks questions about religion.

Also, most academic subjects have a philosophy, for example the philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics the , the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of history.

Then there’s a range of newer subjects that historically were the subject of philosophy. These include science, anthropology, and psychology.

Then philosophy divides into Western and Eastern, each with their own periodic and geographical categories, and then some main theories including:

  • Realism is the doctrine that abstract entities corresponding to universal terms like “man” or “table” or “red” actually exist outside the mind.
  • Rationalism is any view emphasizing the role or importance of human reason. Extreme rationalism tries to base all knowledge on reason alone. Rationalism typically starts from premises that cannot coherently be denied, then attempts by logical steps to deduce every possible object of knowledge.
  • Empiricism downplays or dismisses the ability of reason alone to yield knowledge of the world, preferring to base any knowledge we have on our senses.
  • Skepticism is a philosophical attitude that, in its most extreme form, questions the possibility of obtaining any sort of knowledge.
  • Idealism is the epistemological doctrine that nothing can be directly known outside of the minds of thinking beings. Or in an alternative stronger form, it is the metaphysical doctrine that nothing exists apart from minds and the “contents” of minds.
  • Pragmatism was founded in the spirit of finding a scientific concept of truth that does not depend on personal insight (revelation) or reference to some metaphysical realm. The truth of a statement should be judged by the effect it has on our actions, and truth should be seen as what the whole of scientific enquiry ultimately agrees on
  • Phenomenology was Edmund Husserl’s ambitious attempt to lay the foundations for an account of the structure of conscious experience in general. An important part of Husserl’s phenomenological project was to show that all conscious acts are directed at or about objective content, a feature that Husserl called intentionality.
  • Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the acting, feeling, living human individual.
  • Structuralism sought to clarify systems of signs through analyzing the discourses they both limit and make possible. Saussure conceived of the sign as being delimited by all the other signs in the system, and ideas as being incapable of existence prior to linguistic structure, which articulates thought – that language is no longer spoken by man to express a true inner self, but language speaks man. Structuralists believed they could analyze systems from an external, objective standing.
  • Poststructuralists argued that this is incorrect, that one cannot transcend structures and thus analysis is itself determined by what it examines – hence every attempt to grasp the signified results in more signifiers, so meaning is always in a state of being deferred, making an ultimate interpretation impossible.

Then there’s key philosophers to which the list is endless and debatable… a few can be seen on the map above. This map comes from www.philosophybasics.com which also has details on all of these theories and philosophers and more. Also an amazing resource for comparing similarities and differences and time lines of thought I discovered this one: http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/special_features/timeline/timeline.html# And of course there’s youtube!

I’m going to leave it there for today. If you are at my level of philosophical training most of these category titles won’t mean so much, but it’s nice to know they are there.

The lines of philosophical thought I will research will be far more narrow than this – my main interests seem to be basics of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of mind, history and science; and then in more detail something called Process Philosophy and the intersections between Modernism and Post-modernism.

While all this jargon can seem scary (at least it is for me), please don’t let this turn you off – I plan to keep it as practical as possible, applying the lines of thought to everyday life, and (hopefully) avoid a lot of those (almost unavoidable) word games 🙂

Note:

For anyone who is interested in academic formalities, I should tell you that a MPhil or “Master of Philosophy” is pretty much half of a PhD or “Doctor of Philosophy” which is not restricted to the discipline of philosophy but is a philosophical argument based on research. So, the MPhil I will write will still be in the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies. It is for my own personal integrity, if I am going to carry the label “master of philosophy”, I want to know the basics.

References:

[1] Wikipedia – “Philosophy” (Apologies to academics)

Picture credit:

www.philosophybasics.com

Academic, Truth

Farewell Superstitions

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

I like experimenting, trying things I’ve never tried, testing one thing against the other – whether it be conducting little social experiments, buying the strange looking packet of dry fish from the Asian section of the supermarket, or giving the superstitious options on society’s menu a really good shot. But in my mind, three strikes and you are out, and I’ve now done three pretty long experiments with fortune tellers and “make a wish” superstitions. In each of these experiments I gave the superstition the benefit of the doubt and gave it a full go, yet not even the placebo effect brought an ounce of truth from these experiments.

One was an old fortune teller on the streets of Amsterdam, “Baba”, who in 2006 sat me on a park bench and he told me I was having dilemmas about two men and gave me dates for marriage and children. At the time I thought I was having dilemmas only about one guy, but my imagination stretched it to include another guy I was traveling with. I can’t remember all the details but I’m pretty sure those dates included marriage at 28, and kids at 29, and… (thankfully) NOTHING! Even if I only recently turned 28 I think I’m safe to say Baba was wrong.

The second was an “intuitive life guidance” chick in Sydney who among many career and life projections about marriage to a human rights lawyer when I’m 33, and kids at 34, said I’d have a summer romance in Bondi that would start in September with someone just a couple of years older than me. It’s now November and… nope – NOTHING! Well, nothing of the nature she described.

The third strike happened yesterday. I have been wearing one of the “Fita do Senhor do Bonfim” ribbons (in photo above) since a friend wrapped it around my wrist in Brazil in February 2009. “Three ties and three wishes – when the ribbon comes of you wishes come true…”

The ribbon after almost two years:

For almost two years the ribbon on my wrist got thinner and thinner, uglier and uglier. I covered it up for photoshoots and weddings, playing out this superstition (of course for the fun of it more than anything else). Granted I made some pretty big wishes (that I still think will come true) but the ribbon fell of yesterday, and… NOTHING!

That’s three strikes.

So while I still have my own slightly superstitious beliefs about how personal intuition can sometimes be connected to some universally connected source of intuition (through “the power of intention” or “law of attraction” or “prayer”), I will definitely think twice before bothering with another experiment that something kinda annoying like a ribbon, or paying someone else for their “intuitive” time…

Goodbye superstition, hello personal agency.

While there are some societal structural limits on what I’ll do with my life, these little experiments have reminded me that most human-created superstitions are bull****.

No one can know your future better then you do.

Random Life Stuff

Ikigai – a reason to wake up in the morning

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Why do you get up in the morning? Does an answer come into your mind straight away? It does for the people in Okinawa, and it thought to be one of the key factors in their longevity – estimated to lengthen the lives of the people by 7 years!  Ikigai is kind of like the French raison d’etre – ‘a reason for being’. It could be a creative passion, your relationships, your job…  Everyone has a ikigai, even if you don’t know it yet.

In Okinawa they do that thing they love until they die. Why do we focus so much on retirement? If we were doing jobs that we enjoyed, if we were living our life for a purpose other than money, one would think that we would never want to finish. According to the TED Talks that inspired this entry, the most dangerous years of your life are the year you are born (because of infant mortality) and the year you retire. People die after all those years of working something they hate, because after all that they don’t know what they love! That’s how important a sense of purpose is…

Does anyone else think it’s strange that there is no simple English word for ikigai? Do you think this is intentional… assisting the transition from people into “human capital”/money-making machines?

Another couple of good tips for a long life as enjoyed by the people of Okinawa included:

– hara hachi bu – eating until your stomach is 80% full

– eating lots of plant products

– your choice in friends (friends who lead healthier lifestyles will see you lead a healthier lifestyle)

– NO exercise – well at least no gyms (walking and activities for enjoyment are much better than segmenting and separating the different needs of our body)

I recommend checking out the full TED Talks with Dan Buettner “How to live to be 100+” – he also goes to Sardinia http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html and this article too http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/200809/ikigai-and-mortality

Personal side note – I’ve come down with a head cold so if this things I write don’t flow very well that is why. Maybe expect a couple more short entries like this while I can’t think straight enough to finish up that October Peace & Conflict Studies blog series, or to start the philosophy series I promised. I’m good at starting things and not finishing them (I think I started a “Big History” series quite a while back too). Anyway, I guess mixing it up keeps things interesting.

Hearing about Okinawa got me reminiscing so I thought I’d post a few photos of foods from Japan. Seeing as some of the other photos had me falling off my chair I might have to put them up soon too. Unfortunately I wasn’t into photography back then – so they are just point & shoot or keitei (mobile phone) shots. Man this feels like a life time ago…

Peace, Random Life Stuff, ,

Population Growth and Climate Change – A Debate

Written by Juliet Bennett
2 Comments

Last night I went to Population Growth and Climate Change – A Debate at Politics in the Pub at the Gaelic Club in Surry Hills. I had had a long day at a Post-Graduate Law Conference where I presented my paper A Breach of Child Rights? Fundamentalist Christian Schools in Australia (preparation for which has deferred my recent attention from this blog).

Although I was exhausted I pushed through to have a beer and check out this great debate staring:

Ben Spies Butcher, Sociology Macquarie University, argued that Australia should not limit its population growth and intake of immigrants as this will not help slow down climate change and might even be detrimental to that cause.

Mark Diesendorf – Professor, institute for Environmental Studies, author of Climate Action – A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions argued that population growth is completely related to climate change and Australia must put down some number restrictions.

Both put through incredibly convincing arguments.

Ben’s concern was global population – to which limiting Australian populations he argued would be counter productive given that when people move to Australia they have less children than they would in their own country. (Given a higher education and the higher costs related to a higher standard of living reduces population growth.)

He said we need to engage in a collective global process. The political implications of restricting Australia’s population would be to negate our credibility when it comes to global cooperation and negotiations. Not wanting more people to come to Australia is like saying you don’t want to increase people’s standard of living.

It’s our consuming lifestyles that increase carbon omissions – dealing with what we omit, not preventing more people from having better lives. Hence, we should NOT restrict Australia’s population growth.

I was convinced. But then Mark took to the podium…

He provided a formula for climate change levels:

“Number of people” X “Energy per person” x “CO2 per unit of Energy”

Great formula hey!!! So there are three issues that need to be addressed:

1. Population

2. Consumption

3. Technology

And he later said in response to an audience member’s question, that underlying this equation comes the influence of issues like our values, culture, greed, and education.

Let me pause for a moment and consider this formula with some examples:

Australia = 20m x LOTS x LOTS                                 = LOTS

Africa = LOTS x ZERO x LOTS                                    = ZERO

So if we decrease populations, we decrease climate change.

If we decrease consumption (energy per person), we decrease climate change.

If we find technologies that allow us to consume energy at zero CO2, we decrease climate change.

If a population is in massive but the people live in the jungle or in poverty with an energy per person at 0, their impact on climate change = 0. Does this mean we should all move to Sub-Saharan Africa?

I understand why the most appealing solution is the technology one – but if we don’t find such solutions are we be doomed?

Back to Mark.

Mark said Australia’s population has doubled in 30 years – one of the highest in the OECD. Most of the increase is due to immigration of skilled middle class or rich people from other countries – which in turn impoverishes their own countries both materially and intellectually.

A tiny fraction of the world’s population Australia can go unnoticed in graphs of carbon omission, but Australia is the biggest per capita emitter – so we have to take the lead. China has said they are watching us, and as they suffer the poisons that result from our demand for Plasma TVs all they see is that we are doing fuck all about our consumption and omission levels (he didn’t use that language, but I’m pretty sure he wanted to).

Given I was going to buy a plasma last month, and instead I chose a massive new iMac, I definitely don’t separate myself from this enjoyment-through-consumption society. I don’t particularly want to think about the consequences of this lifestyle – and give the consequences are easy to close one’s eyes to it’s easy to do. But is that right?

Mark addressed some of what he saw to be fallacies and myths surrounding population restrictions in Australia:

a.     That it makes you racist

b.     No it doesn’t – we talking NUMBERS NOT RACE

a.     That it’s anti-multicultural

b.     No it’s not – for the same reason as above

a.     Aging population (that we need more immigrants to support the high numbers of retirement)

b.     This is a Ponzi scheme driven by greed, not a good argument

a.     We have lots of land, the population of Taiwan could fit in Tasmania

b.     Would you really want to take the moist lands that are left and turn them into a concrete suburban jungle? Most of our land is inhabitable now anyway – thanks to the European invasion and the desert.

Regarding global population, what is better: to help people in over-crowded countries come here, or to help them where they are?

I agree with Mark’s argument – it does seems far better to help people to live higher quality lives in their own country, rather than over-crowding our own. This can be done, as one of the later questioners suggested, through family planning and abortion law reform – both of which could be (and should be) provided to over-crowded countries as a form of aid.

But then, is it fair to not let the skilled people of other countries who want to come to Australia into our country, and let refugees in instead?

Another questioner from the audience mentioned that any over-population is bad for the planet. Planetary issues are not only about carbon emissions, but the diversity and continuance of all our planetary resources, and the lives of over species. As means of survival for the poor can often cause other animals to become extinct, eg if they burn the only wood available to keep them warm through the winter, a forest and all the life it enfolds may be gone forever.

Another questioner asked when it comes to the three elements of Mark’s equation, where our priorities should lie? What will make population stabilize?

If we are all entitled to the same living standard then what will happen when the poor start consume more?

Shouldn’t we therefore focus on technology and decreasing consumption, rather than restricting population?

I personally think we need to focus on all three elements, on quality of lives not the quantity of lives lived, and on creating a life style that is sustainable and desirable for all.

The question that wasn’t raised was in regards to the “pyramid” structure society and civilisation is based on. But I might leave that for another day.

Photo:

I recently took pile of cool close-up fire shots of a massive bonfire – they’re pretty psychedelic. Any one have an opinion on whether should I should blow some up and display in an exhibition somewhere?

Truth,

A deeper exploration of Resolution Theory

Written by Juliet Bennett
2 Comments

Following a question from someone who came across this blog, I was inspired to revisit Resolution Theory – Gregory David Roberts’ philosophical and cosmological model shared through Khader Bhai, the Mafia don, in Shantaram: The Novel.

Roberts writes:

“The whole universe is moving toward some ultimate complexity. This has been going on since the universe began, and physicists call it the tendency toward complexity. And… anything that kicks this along and helps it is good, and anything that hinders it is evil…

“And this final complexity… it can be called God or the Universal Spirit, or the Ultimate Complexity, as you please. For myself, there is no problem in calling it God. The whole universe is moving toward God, in a tendency toward the ultimate complexity that God is…

“In order to know about any act or intention or consequence, we must first ask two questions. One, what would happen if everyone did this thing? Two, would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?” (Roberts 2007:550-551.)

I think he makes a very good point when relating such philosophies to the various religious traditions:

“Every guru you meet and every teacher, every prophet and every philosopher should answer these two questions for you: What is an objective, universally acceptable definition of good and evil? And What is the relationship between consciousness and matter?… This is a test that you should apply to every man who tells you that he knows the meaning of life.” (Roberts 2007:708.)

Hmmm… I wonder:

1. How do the things I do in my life weigh up? What would happen if everyone lived like me? What impact would this have on our collective movement toward complexity?

As it stands my job is ok (at Sydney university whose mission is growth of knowledge) although when I make a mistake on the photocopier I cringe at the paper I wasted. And I cringe at the fact that my budget meant the other day I ordered Nescafe (definitely not fair trade coffee)… anyway, one step at a time.

My Western lifestyle needs to evolve into a sustainable cradle-to-cradle model (See: Where are we going? And how?) I do see a movement toward this, for example, with the occasional biodegradable plastic bag. It is encouraging to see the directions a growing collective care for our ecosystem is taking (while of course recognising we still have a long way to go).

2. How do I define good and evil? Is this an objective, universally acceptable definition? How do I deal with the relationship between consciousness and matter?

While Resolution Theory relates good and evil to the tendency to move toward or away from complexity, I like to think of it (which is for sure  inspired by books I’ve read although I can’t remember which exact ones), as the tendency to be Creative or Destructive.

In the philosophical and cosmological model inside my head, good is defined as what is creative and evil what is destructive, which I suppose is somewhat similar to Gregory’s movement toward complexity model – as the more creative we get, the seemingly more complex we get (although sometimes the most creative solutions are the most simple)… anyway I think creativity and destruction are universal and objective definitions – a measure that can be applied to most ethical and moral dilemmas.

I think maybe inspired by Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle audio books, I imagine consciousness as inseparable from matter. I equate consciousness to the “soul”. I imagine our separate souls as being contained in the separate bodies we encompass and the collective soul (from the most macro-lens possible) as being the “soul of the universe” or if you like: “God”.

These personal answers are surely inspired by a number of books I have read and a basic understanding of different religious and philosophical traditions, which I once summarised in the post: Creativism-a-philosophy-for-life.

While recently I’ve felt like I’m drowning in the academic world, Steve’s reminder of Roberts’ theory has made me realise that my MPhil is largely aimed at providing historical religious and philosophical backing to support this philosophical and cosmological understanding of the world: What makes this understanding “true” from my perspective? and What does this understanding of the world mean for my life?

My hypothesis is that this worldview shared by Gregory Roberts, is actually already shared by the majority of the human population – just most don’t know it. It seems (to me) that this understanding underlies the major religious and scientific paradigms. It’s one thing to see this universal unity in my head, it’s another to communicate that unity with others… I know it will be a long journey. I have started and I will start sharing it with you starting next month (I want to finish the revising of peace and conflict studies first).

For a starting point of reference, I put Roberts’ questions to you:

1. Evaluating your life/choices:

a) What would happen if everyone acted the way you do – in lifestyle, job, investments etc.?

b) Would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?”

2. Your beliefs:

a) How do you define good and evil?

b) Is this an objective, universally acceptable definition?

c) How do you understand the relationship between consciousness and matter?

They are tough questions, but good ones… so enjoy the thinking process!!!

Credits:

Photo from my time in India – taken by my tour guide (like a Where’s Wally… can you spot the bridge pose?) – part of my “Bridge” series: Bridges in South America

If you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend:

Roberts, Gregory David, Shantaram : A Novel (Sydney: Picador, 2007). And more of his philosophies at: www.shantaram.com

Truth,

How my day got better.

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

After facing rejection and depression that followed some emails and the lecture on Palestine and Israel, I went to the library and found myself inside my own little metaphoric story:

I was looking for a book but I couldn’t find it. The number system can be confusing in Fisher library (which is MASSIVE) but I thought I had it mastered. I checked the shelves where books that had just been returned go, then I checked the front desk, then I rechecked the computer, then I decided to go up the six flights of stairs for one final look.

I still couldn’t find it.

Then, just before giving up, I had a look one more time at the stacking shelves. I realised that the books on these shelves were not in order – searching through title by title I finally found the book I was looking for. It had taken almost an hour, and had sent me around and around in like circles, but eventually I succeeded.

If you fail then try and try again I advised myself, applying it to my previous nihilism, even if you feel you are going around in circles, you will soon realise it’s a spiral, and you are closer to your objective.

Leaving the library I met a friend to try a new yoga studio. Meeting my friend my mind was still a bad place, complaining about all that had happened. Then, in a room heated to around 30 degrees but doing a lighter yoga than bikram, I found my peace. It was intermittent – moments in the relaxation and meditation time and when the entire room of around 50 people were humming ‘Om’ coordinated only by our different breathing lengths. Here I felt my mind and body unified as one. Even if it only lasted a few minutes, this sense of peace reminded me of two things: peace might not last forever, but it is possible, and peace starts within.

This feeling of peace inside me may not last forever, but some remanence of this feeling is still with me now, some two and a half hours later. And I’m sure I’ll continue to reap the benefits of the feeling of balance as I go to sleep and maybe even tomorrow. Yoga helped me deal with my day. Hopefully the destructive part of my mind will allow this constructive practice to spiral me upward – inspiring me to go to more yoga classes and furthering this feeling of united mind and body. It really feels great!

If this scenario plays out I might look forward to reaping the corresponding mental and bodily health benefits and the compounding life benefits that come with that. Fingers crossed this is my new story – but you never know what tomorrow will bring.

Random Life Stuff,

The day everything went wrong

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Today I got my first rejection from an academic journal I submitted a paper too.

Today I was reminded of my lack of knowledge and lack of experience.

Today I stressed about whether I would have to do jury duty.

Today I worried about a presentation I haven’t yet practiced.

Today I felt like I was stuck in a war zone inside my own head.

Today I was reminded that nothing comes easy.

Today I was reminded that I will never have all the answers.

And today I was reminded that while it may take a few tries, and involve going around in circles, eventually you realise that the circles are actually spirals and that you have arrived at your destination.

Let me tell you about my day…

At midday, before I started work, a Jewish American author and activist lectured about her experiences in Palestine and Israel. It left me confused and depressed. There are just so many issues intertwined: identity battles, discrimination against race or religion, about land and resources, weapons and violence, and cycles of oppressor and oppressed. Anna Baltzer spoke about the horror stories of the Palestinians, and thought about the horror stories I have also heard from the other side.

Anna’s stories made me think not only about Israel, but of the colonialisation of the rest of the world. There are two (or more) sides to every story. And each version of the story is passionate, emotional, and fully true in the eyes of the beholder.

I know from deep in the eyes of my Israeli friends the hurt they carry from the Holocaust, and the connection between the harm others have caused them and their desire to have their own nation state. And I, a white Australian, am the last person in the world who can point a finger and judge the occupation of land that is not rightfully theirs. Of course there are always stories within stories. There are stories that go back thousands of years and there are stories that go back millions. Depending on how you choose to frame your story will change the implications of the story you tell.

“Jews are rightful owners of the land – God promised it to them,” some say, quoting the Bible.

“No they’re not,” others say, “God banished them from it.”

Some extreme Fundamentalist Christian groups want the Jews to reclaim the land, hoping it will fasten the coming of the Armageddon.

Other Christians are Palestinians who suffer in poverty and oppression no thanks to their brothers.

Religion is (ab)used by humans to justify one thing or another, and an important point Anna made was distinguishing between:

–         an Israeli (someone who lives in Israel, which includes Palestinians – Jew, Christian, and Muslim),

–         a Zionist (someone who wants Israel to be a Jewish state which can include Christians),

–         a Jew (which might be by bloodline or/and by religious belief – noting that many Jews are secular).

These can all meet together in one person, but can also be separate, as seen in Anna who was an American-Jew who is not a Zionist or an Israeli.

This map above is a tough reality. What would a map of Australia before 1700, then 1800, 1900, 2000 – look like? Probably pretty much the same. At the end of the day, the horrors that the Palestinians live through every day appear, to me, as unacceptable. Yet so do the conditions that Aboriginal Australians live in – although this is not intentional – but does that mean it’s ok?

These are horrible predicaments. I was born in Australia and this is my beloved country. Am I an occupier or indigenous to this land? Where do I belong?

My Israeli friends born in Israel, who are forced to spend two or three years of their youth in the army, who stand at borders and follow orders and put their lives on the line for their people and their beloved country… where do they belong?

The world sucks in so many ways.

The world is a living hell for so many people. And for those who appear to be living in heaven, our minds are still tormented by the gross disparity and by the fear caught up in protection measures required to maintain our luxuries. No wonder I was depressed by the end of today. The events in the world seemed utterly hopeless.

It left me thinking that maybe I should give up on searching for truth. Maybe I don’t even want to know the truth – it’s too horrible and seems to be situations that are impossible to solve. Maybe I should give up on writing and academia, and go get a paper job that earns good money – close my eyes and ears, and pretend the world doesn’t happen like this? Luckily my day didn’t end on this nihilistic note. But this entry is long enough so I’ll tell you more about that tomorrow.

Truth