The Storm (Errol Gray)

"Endurance, Resilience and Creativity can be observed in behaviour and outcomes, but their well-spring lies within us. These virtues are high value because they do not manifest in behaviour without a struggle. They struggle most commonly against a welter of misinformed anxiety and fear. Anxiety is usually misinformed – what it imagines seldom happens, but in the meantime it diminishes our capacity for Endurance, Resilience and Creativity. Though inner calm is required, it’s elusive. Without it things fly apart. “The wise man in a storm prays not for deliverance from danger, but for deliverance from fear. The storm within endangers us more than the storm without.” Ralph Waldo Emerson. The antidote to fear is love more than courage. Love is not a “selfie.” Love is “we” not “me.” Endurance, Resilience and Creativity are endemic to calm hearts in cultures of inclusive community."

Errol Gray

Shelter in Community

Defining Hate Speech (Stuart Torr)

Guest Post: Stuart Torr

There are many people from vulnerable sections of the intersection matrix who do defend Freedom of Speech, like MLK as a tool in the Civil Rights Movement. Freedom of Speech as an issue in the first place is precisely to protect vulnerable from the powerful. Oppressive governments are very resistant to Free Speech, because it hinders their repressive efforts. Plenty of Jewish people are opposed to laws banning Holocaust denial (this opens a new fork in the road where members of these vulnerable groups can get vilified by other members of "their group" for not adopting the "correct" line. This is quite common and is very unpleasant). Of course, things get into weird territory pretty quickly when it comes to antisemitism. So, the example of Jeremy Corbyn objecting to an antisemitic mural being wiped. Would that mural have been illegal, or are Jewish people now too powerful to be included in the vulnerable category even when the past stuff is being referenced?

Freedom through Free Speech

One way I've seen Free Speech defended is something like this. Suzie doesn't care about Free Speech but has a pet issue she cares deeply about that's not socially acceptable (like she lives in the 30s and is in favour of interracial marriage). Bob doesn't care about Free Speech but cares deeply about his theory that Israel arranged 9/11. They both would be happy for other people's pet issues to be constrained but they feel more strongly about advocating for their pet issue. If you feel confident enough that you can get your way, then maybe you're happy to restrict speech. The less confident you are that the restrictions will go your way, maybe the more willing you'll be to accept a deal where they can say their crazy shit so long as you can say yours. This is a 2nd best (you'd rather say your stuff and stop other people from saying theirs) but the more niche your views are and the more you care about it, the better deal it becomes. 

Trans issues are a good current case study, because unlike many issues to do with racism and sexism I don't believe that all right-thinking, even "woke" people are on the same page on this. Like if a 12-year-old "assigned female" has gender dysphoria and wants to transition, maybe right-thinking people agree that he can choose a name, clothes pronouns etc for himself. But then what about hormone therapy, top surgery and then bottom surgery? The clock is ticking puberty-wise, but a 12-year-old is a child and this surgery is a big deal. There are (few) instances where young people get surgery and then regret it and detransition. Some of these people wish they hadn't gotten surgery. 

Ok, so is the paragraph above Hate Speech? I don't think so personally, but some Trans people would think it is. How about allowing Trans women who have not had surgery but who feel vulnerable and try to go to a shelter for abused women. Some Feminists don't think it's a no-brainer that this should be allowed, is it Hate Speech to argue this? This is also (often quite hectically) contested. 

To me, it seems like these issues are difficult and need to be debated etc, but it also seems like the freedom to debate them is exactly what is at issue. I think Free Speech very neatly cuts the Gordian knot of how to proceed in discussing difficult issues where it would otherwise be impossibly difficult.

Hate Speech v Free Speech

Cutting the Gordian Knot

Stuart and I have been friends for almost two decades. He has changed my views on some pretty significant topics. I have a lot of fun spending time with him. He teaches Mathematics at the University of Cape Town.

Other posts by Stuart Torr

Nationalism v Globalism; To Ooze; Admiration and Reward; My Fellow Americans; The Revolution

Trying Hard (with Brett)

(1/10) Trev:

Brett, you and I both come from incredibly similar backgrounds. We are also both extroverts and very keen to have a positive impact on the world. Then come the demons to wrestle. Poems like 'White Man's Burden' by the author of the Jungle Book, Rudyard Kipling. Cringe. The History of the 'Civilising Missions' of Colonialism as a modern version of the failed Crusades. I look around the world and see deep structural challenges and pain. In my core, I feel compelled to do something about. Yet something shouts back. White, English-speaking, Men like you and I have a lot to answer for. Is it our place to be at the front of discussions? 

Even Rudyard Kipling #Awkward

Cartoon from 1899

(2/10) Brett:

Great question, Trevor and i think this is one of those very thin lines we need to tread carefully. White people doing nothing is problematic for sure. White people trying to do everything or feeling like they need to swoop in and save the day [white saviour complex is a term for a reason] is seriously unhelpful too. So what's a white middle-aged guy to do? i think, at the very least, that our role is to do the work that needs to be done with white middle-aged men. Call our own to action and to change and where necessary help explain concepts like white privilege and being an ally and sharing some of the lessons we have hopefully been learning as we have started to change. It is a sad reality that many white men will only listen to white men and so another place where we possibly have positive influence is to be able to draw that crowd and then hand over the mic to a black/coloured/indian person. How best do we leverage the white male privilege and influence we have without it being a power move is something to wrestle with i believe?

 

(3/10) Trev:

I am busy reading a book called 'Factfulness' by Han Rosling. It is a really powerful reminder of how much the world has changed in our lifetimes. It talks about the Drama Instinct, and our need to divide things into categories (Rich/Poor, Developing/Developed, Racist/Not Racist, Us/Them) and create a gap. I worry that in our atonement, we end up focussing on and highlighting real, but increasingly extreme, problems. We feed them. We (cough) elect them. Partnered with that, I am reading 'Trying not to Try' by Edward Slingerland on the Chinese idea of Wu Wei - action through inaction. I have always been what we called at Westville Boys' High a 'Try Hard'. Sometimes I think we end up falling over ourselves in our desperation to be agents of change. To hold that mic in the first place to be able to hand over.

(4/10) Brett:

i think in South Africa we have had too long a time of white people on the whole not contributing much to the betterment of our country. i don't think it takes any action or effort to locate the privilege we have or the mic - i think what is key is what we do with what we have. i also believe that most significant change will come through relationships and if we all just focused on developing deeper authentic relationships with people who didn't look like us then the majority of that other stuff will naturally be taken care of from the foundation or platform of friendship and family. i think i disagree with you on the not-trying part - i don't think white people in South Africa right now need to be given more license to not do stuff.

(5/10) Trev:

Yes, the stuff I am reading about certainly doesn't sit well with how we were brought up. We are wired on action and rolling your sleeves up. On 'doing stuff'. It is interesting watching the miracle happening around the world, but particularly in China and India, over the last 30 years. As people are empowered through the removal of obstacles. The type of action I am suggesting isn't doing nothing. It is more opening our eyes and curiosity to the things that are going well, and feeding them. Often 'giving back' from a Privileged position feels hierarchical and condescending. I will include the cartoon you shared, which you then asked for a discussion around, which led to this exchange. I 100% agree it starts with developing more relationships. Most relationships I have seen that thrive have a degree of peer-to-peer respect and (wink, wink) Common Change. The irony implicit in Wu Wei is that 'not trying' opens up spontaneity and more effective action, because of the natural flow of things. Instead of fighting.

(6/10) Brett:

i completely agree that developing more relationships is the way to go and if the focus is on that then you can probably eliminate a lot of the trying. The white people i think of when i talk about those who have not made effort have particularly not made it in the area of relationships and so they tend to live in largely white bubbles and black/coloured/indian people tend to be the people who serve them [be it homes or petrol or groceries] which is problematic if that is the only narrative because then you don't have to teach your children how to be prejudiced at all because the lesson is being modelled day in and day out. i do still think because of the extent of the inequality in South Africa that action has to be a part of moving forwards even beyond relationships [or around the foundation of relationships]. It is not enough to say let's be better from now when the difference it still so glaringly stark. How does your thinking relate to this aspect of life? 

(7/10) Trev:

I just think we end up focusing on the dramatic and missing the miraculous shift of the normal. So the Purple Cow gets the attention. The type of situation you describe was absolutely normal growing up. I had no people who weren't Germanic in my class until I was 12. I was lucky to have parents who taught me about what was going on, and to live in a relatively liberal place. Even then, Westville was by no means an exception to the Apartheid Bubble in terms of prejudice. Westville today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is not the same place. The 'gap' between Black and White has disappeared, and there are now heaps and heaps of positive examples of the kinds of conversations that need having. There is still a gap between the averages, but not a hole without real people. Just think of the variety of views in our Social Media conversations. I am not saying the example you highlight is okay. It isn't. I am not asking you to change what you are doing (I got in trouble after our last conversation on anger). I still do a lot of fighting and focusing on the things that aren't right. I just think perhaps we need to be pausing, celebrating, and remembering just what a miracle we have born witness to over the course of our lives.

We focus on the Remarkable, not the average

(8/10) Brett

Well, that is where i would strongly suggest we inject the Both/And over the Either/Or which if i have learned anything over the last four years - and hopefully i have - is the biggest of them all. We tend towards extremes or to putting up boundaries or insisting on labels and so much of that stuff is problematic. Yes, in many cases the gap between black and white has disappeared but also in many cases it hasn't [maybe particularly in Cape Town where we have a bad rep for that sort of thing and well earned] and so we need to celebrate the victories and continue to shout the stories of those doing incredible things [people, communities, organisations] and this i feel could use way more airplay. But at the same time, we need to continue to hold the light in front of those who haven't seen it yet and continue to call them to the table. Have we strayed a little bit from our starting point which seemed to be an acknowledgment that there is work to be done, but when it needs to be done, where is our place as white people in that? What is the Both/And to that question i wonder?

(9/10) Trev
I think we can BOTH recognise that there is work to be done AND celebrate the progress that has been made. We can BOTH have a positive impact AND not fall to our 'gap instinct' of having to create an us and them to understand things. As the walls of Apartheid have fallen, perhaps our eyes need updating from 1994 to 2018. Much like the Africa of the 'Do they know it's Christmas time at all' from 1984 needs updating in the minds of those in the United Kingdom. I don't think we need to be panicking and shouting to make real change. That can be true at the same time as not believing that the extremes are justified. To return to the start... I think the lessons of 'Civilising Missions' of the past and unintended consequences mean we should always be armed with a mirror, a feedback loop, and the knowledge that we are probably wrong in the way we see things. We don't need to be passive. Curiosity and love aren't passive... and we both know a dude who lived 2000 years ago who was both.

(10/10) Brett:

i really just wanted to say 'Yes!' as my final comment but people would suspect it wasn't me. i love the idea of being "armed with a mirror, a feedback loop, and the knowledge that we are probably wrong in the way we see things" and also that "curiosity and love aren't passive". i have the strongest belief that whether people believe Jesus was God or not, we can learn so very much from the way He lived and the things He said. If there was ever someone who so completely got it. But He was known to shout and throw things when necessary and so again i will invoke the Both/And and suggest that perhaps one of the biggest challenges we face is figuring out the timing and audience for both. Jesus tended to humble [humiliate?] those who felt like they had it or knew it or were it. The woke crowd of His day perhaps? So maybe the biggest lesson out of all this is that we can leave the Saviouring to Jesus and seek to live out our curiosity and love unashamedly, while not giving in to who the world suggests should and shouldn't be loved. 

Righteous Anger

--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---

See Change Piles of Money

Growing Roots  #NotOnOurWatch  Listening Better  

Finding the Words  Words to Life  Hearing the Listeners  

Breaking Bread  Learning and Relearning

See Change (with Brett)

Derek

I really enjoyed the conversation you had with Trevor, very nice format for debate! Seems to be a recurring theme in socio-political debates these days where the one side raises the very real problems of the world, and the other side attempts to defend the status quo, and so it goes. I would love for you and Trevor to consider an alternative to this where you, Brett, instead suggest the the specific political/economic/legislative changes that you would like to see carried out in South Africa in order to resolve the issues you raised, and then to open the floor up to Trevor for analysis and criticism. It is certainly not difficult to poke holes in the excesses of the capitalist economic model, however I would suggest that it is equally, if not more, difficult to suggest a realistic alternative that ticks all the boxes. Could be an interesting twist on your previous discussion. 

Ground Up

Brett

What a great question although probably much huger than ten comments but let's jump in at economic. For me creative community ideas such as Common Change which is a collaborative giving group are one exciting way to move forward. People growing their own food in smaller and bigger spaces - like the Ujamaa collective in Khayelitsha for examples [https://www.groundup.org.za/article/meet-khayelitshas-guerilla-gardeners/] feels like it might have a lot of potential both for reducing costs as well as creating some money from the sale of excess. Linked to education it would be great to see some of the wealthier schools partnered with a school in a poor or marginalised area but in significant ways of resource sharing [from staff to money to experiences to peer-learning activities] and mutual development. Instead of the embarrassment of the CEO sleepout which i think is a colossal waste of time and money and energy, to have those CEO's invited to partner in projects with smaller companies and perhaps some entrepreneurial endeavours that will assist the unemployed who are wanting to find meaningful work. We have so much creativity in South Africa [see our advertising industry for example] which i would love to see harnessed more towards coming up with truly transformational changes for the country.

Common Change

Trev

Yes! Sometimes I think we misunderstand the ideological clash of the last century, and create false enemies of people who actually agree. Communism v Capitalism was not Poor v Rich, it was about centrally made decision v pushing decisions down to the front line. I think supporters of both groups wanted, in theory, to empower creativity. I also like what I have heard about Common Change (Valerie and I had a chat about it). It is similar to the project I am working on to build a Community Wealth Fund which funds a Universal Basic Income. Let's touch on Collaborative Giving Groups first, and park the Local Food, and the Business and School partnerships (which I also like) for a second. Derek asks for analysis & criticism. My primary concern is my allergy to hierarchy. Ironically, my challenge to big corporates is the internal decision making processes and lack of internal free markets. Too many committees. Why does Common Change not just collect and distribute the cash? My understanding is that a 'connected need' of someone close to the group is presented, discussed and potentially supported. I like the support, but wonder if there is an additional disempowering step that most privileged people don't have to overcome to meet their needs.

Brett
In terms of your 'allergy to hierarchy' [which i will hold alongside my 'people tend towards stupid' philosophy and so having some people considered better to lead to help out there not being the worst thing] that's where Common Change does well i think. Each group decides how they want to gather the money [whether it is a set donation or a percentage of salary or give what you can] and no-one actually knows who gives what beyond that. One of the mindshifts being challenged in a percentage giving group for example is that the person who gives R1000 per month and the person who gives R10 per month have the same vote and therefore the same power and say. So that is one way of dismantling the hierarchy. The group conversation is held from the perspective of 'How best can we meet this need?' which might be the money, but it might also be a skill within the group or a connection someone has and so encourages us to think beyond just rushing to the easy money option. So beyond simply giving in community, the deeper idea behind Common Change groups is wrestling with how we can give more creatively and thinking about the way we relate to money in general.

Trev
I like the adjustment of vote because of source of cash. I also have issue with 'Circle of Competence' - just because you are really good at acting, doesn't mean your political views count more; just because you are a world class X doesn't meant your view on Y counts more. Your 'people tend toward stupid' view holds most closely in my mind when we are dealing with other people's problems. As long as the discussion doesn't disempower people, or open them to scrutiny privileged people don't face, then it seems a good way of teaching us to be better at asking and offering help. The 'considered better to lead' worries me. The working together excites me. On the second point - local farming. There are bits I like - simply from a 'it's nice to grow what you eat' point of view. From an economic point of view, I have more concerns. I would rather come at it from a very individualised support of individuals strengths. Not all good ideas are good business ideas.

Circle of Competence

Brett

Maybe it's more a 'some people are considered less good to lead' thing with Donald Trump being a great example of not being a great example. My dad's church model operated on a congregational model which is the kind of everyone is equal, everyone gets to vote vibe, but the problem i found with that is that one person can slow down the whole decision-making process so much that nothing ever gets done. So for me, choose a group of people [i don't like the one person on top model - accountability needs to be huge] who the group recognises as good to lead and then entrust them with decisions while putting things in place to hold them accountable from the bottom as well. Anything less than that feels like anarchy and as much as i like the idea of me being able to do whatever i want to, i don't like that idea so much for anyone else, except maybe Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt should be able to do what he wants to do. In the absence of any kind of tiered leadership approach, what kind of system would you propose in its place?

Trev

The model I propose is... (Trev reaches for his drum)... Universal Basic Income. Having sufficient cash to make our own decisions about our basic needs isn't anarchy in my mind. It is the lowest bar for people being sufficiently able to participate in society. I have no issue with voluntary pools of money above that, with collective decision making. I imagine the groups need to be small enough, with full transparency, so that accountability doesn't become abstract. What I struggle with is the idea that a committee should discuss allocation of resources that strips someone of their own agency. Donald Trump is a fantastic example of the danger of creating positions of power. From now till our dying day, voters should assume when giving ANY person power - what if this same power was given to Trump. That feels far more scary to me than anarchy - which within the confines of Rule of Law, I actually support. Any positions of power should be consensual.

Give Directly - Universal Basic Income

Brett

i don't really know a lot about Universal Basic Income but even the name sells it for me. The idea of everyone having the basics and yes if that ever happened i imagine i would be a lot more okay with some having more than others. My issues with the rich generally lie through the lens of viewing them through the absolute nothing that so many of the poor have. If everyone had enough to eat and live and the basic necessities, then some people being able to work harder to make better experiences for themselves would not seem quite so disgusting. Going back to the allocation of resources, it is typically done in the face of a need [new tyres needed for car] and so i don't think agency is lost in terms of the group deciding collectively that money can be given but also realising that Joe's uncle owns a tyre business and can get great tyres for 15% cheaper than you will find elsewhere. The collective input is more to broaden the scope of ideas and opportunities available than to be overly specific on how the money is spent. Do you honestly see any future where Universal Basic Income is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next steps for us to get there. Or do you see it working maybe in smaller groups of people who combine resources and work a Small Group Basic Income in their community as a first baby step?

Trev
I love the question, 'Do you honestly see any future where.... is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next step to get it there'. I feel like I have hijacked the conversation, but vehicles like Common Change seem a perfect next step. I do think Policy level change is possible. The Finance Minister in India, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton etc. are all part of the conversation, but I think we are in a 'big change' rut. We are better at creating sides then working together. Bottom up excites me more. Micro-ambition. For me, that starts with paying myself, and one other person one, and setting up a structure for that to grow. I like the 'collective care' aspect of what you mention. Helping get people good deals. As businesses get too big, and too abstract, and lose those relationships - that can fail. Empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities. It is where attacks on 'Capital'ism confuse me, if we can build capital... that capital should *free* labour to do the things related to love. Like Community Farming (cause it is cool... even if it isn't profitable) and Business & School partnerships (because beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding). As Einstein said, 'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts'.

Brett
When people attack capitalism I think they are generally [I know I am] attacking the exploitational links that capitalism tends to have. You see it all over South Africa where a CEO is getting a million rand plus plus payout for being fired for doing a bad job and the employees on the ground are barely able to pay rent and eat with what they get. So if we could sort out those kinds of discrepancies or if there is a capitalism that can exist without those, then I'd be all ears but people tend towards being greedy little buggers and so I don't know that we ever will. I like the idea of 'beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding' but i don't think that is the reality we live with. I think I would definitely go with the Both/And'ness of what you are saying. That for me it will be great if it starts with me plus one and then later let that snowball. While at the same time we are looking to hold the heads of companies and way business is generally done and rewards are handed out to account. Yeah i totally buy into the idea of 'empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities'. But again, greed.

Trev

I haven't heard of a system that doesn't have exploitational links. That is the privilege, prejudice, racism and other relational issues you also fight so hard to tear down. That's not the system. That's us! I believe we still have a hangover from the Cold War ideological battle, and the Rich v Poor distraction stops us from understanding which things work, and which don't. Some things work better with markets and monetisation. Some things work better freed from the constraints of scarcity and countability. As soon as we have 'enough' - we can deal with the new rules of abundance. A great starting point for change is where we are. One relationship at a time. We need to build capital - social capital, financial capital, Community Wealth Funds - to ensure everyone has the financial security they need for true freedom to seek fulfilment and meaning.

--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---

Piles of Money

Growing Roots  #NotOnOurWatch  Listening Better  

Finding the Words  Words to Life  Hearing the Listeners  

Breaking Bread  Learning and Relearning

Piles of Money (with Brett)

Trev

One of my frustrations is that early on we get cast into 'lefties' and 'righties'. There is a saying that if you aren't on the left when you are young, you have no heart, and if you aren't on the right when you have grown up, you have no head. The truth is money isn't actually a thing. It is an agreement. An abstract idea that helps us count things and get things done. When we were mostly farmers, we probably understood each others' worlds. Now, what you understand depends on the path you have taken, and our lives can be very different. The left/right fight descends into a rich/poor fight. I have no problem with people being very rich. Someone with very little can be rich in my mind (A Swami in an Ashram). Someone with 'piles of money' can live a relatively simple life with that money working for other people. I have a problem with poverty. I am much more concerned about people not having the basics than inequality. I am much more concerned with conspicuous hoarding than conspicuous consumption (which I think of as a stupidity tax). How do we shift the conversation from a fight to increased understanding?

A Rich Swami

Brett

i have never been a huge fan of labels, because like you, i find them so limiting and inadequate in terms of what they are trying to describe or box in. Also because people tend to view them as all-encompassing so if you are 'left' you are everything every 'left' person has ever been and so on. In terms of rich and poor i have huge problems with the disparity between them, the idea that someone is rich because they 'earned it' [which can play out on so many levels of privilege and how that money was really obtained but usually by some form of oppression to someone along the line] and the reality of someone being okay with drinking a R 750,000 bottle of champagne while someone else is forced to defecate in a bucket in the same room they sleep in. i think i can agree with you on the basics vs equality thing but because there is such a huge lack of basics for an overwhelming percentage of people the out-of-control affluence of the some sickens me to my very core in the face of the rampant inequality and lack of basics. If everyone had enough i think i would be a lot more okay with some people having more. But we are so far from there. Is it even right to ask about increased understanding while so many belly's scream out with malnutrition?

Trev

Less a case of 'is it even right to ask', and more a case of what is the best next step. There is a lot of evidence that we are making incredible process in destroying extreme poverty. Max Roser does some great work illustrating this at 'Our World in Data' (https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/). Hans Rosling, who sadly passed recently, did a wonderful TED talk on 'how not to be ignorant' which talks about our inability to see where we are making progress. As a Soutie, I get torn between a Rich Country and a 'Two World' Country in terms of seeing this play out. Putting aside your R 750,000 bottle of champagne, I struggle buying cups of coffee and movie tickets in the UK when I know that money could go so much further in South Africa... let along Uganda, Kenya, Sudan or the Central African Republic. I think the 'R750,000' bottle is a stupidity tax from the person spending it to the person receiving it. This is the 'understanding' bit I think is NB. Hoarding food, accommodation, water, or actual stuff should get a huge stigma. We should cheer on Rich people spending stupid money on things that you can get much cheaper. My point is the appropriate allocation of our anger and effort.

Brett

If the stupid money rich people spend on things that you can get much cheaper went to help the poor i would be first in line with the cheering, but it doesn't. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and a system that continues to largely favour those on the top remains pretty much intact. i don't know what an alternative system would look like without either [A] buy in from the rich to really distribute their wealth [not going to happen] or [B] the mob with pitchforks finally deciding they have had enough [a terrifying possibility] and while too many futuristic Mad Max/Waterworld strongest-of-the-strong survive movies have no doubt influenced my thinking in that regard, the possibilities are there. In Cape Town we are literally running out of water and if there does come a time when there is no water and people need water to live, well then shit's gonna get real, right? In terms of hoarding i absolutely agree with you. In fact there was a guy who said something about not storing up treasures on earth where moth and rust can get to them but invest in treasures above and the picture i have of the 'above' is a place where only people count - all of our stuff will eventually rot and so my driving question becomes, 'how am I investing in people down here?'

After Water

Trev

My point about 'Money is not actually a thing' is worth diving into. Someone buying a R750,000 bottle of Champagne is an idiot. Part of why they do that is to show they can. The mere fact that they do results in some tax... the more stupid the figure, the higher the tax. Same is true of the competitive pricing in paying the most for Art that results in breaking records for paying the most ever. Nothing is actually lost here. This is fundamentally different from the Conspicuous Hoarding I mentioned. Keeping rooms free in places where there isn't enough housing. Watering your garden when there isn't enough water. I disagree that the current system has resulted in the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer - if you look on a global scale. I agree that that is the case if you look on a national scale (i.e. through a global apartheid lense). The Global poor have been massively and miraculously pulled out of poverty over the last few decades. This has been politically awkward in rich countries as the 'Poor Rich' have seen wages stagnate... while the 'Poor Poor' and 'Rich Poor' have done well. Branko Milanovic's 'Elephant Chart' is relevant here. I am not saying there aren't lessons to learn and we can't tweak the system. Corruption and dysfunctional politics are enemy number one in my view, and a Universal Basic Income is the best tweak I can think of.

'The Elephant Chart'

Brett

i think for me it's the idea of someone who has the capacity to spend R750 000 on a bottle of alcohol which could literally provide food for 750 households for a week or maybe more. That is obscene. It is more obscene to me that people are totally okay that someone can have the capacity to do that while others are starving as if the two are not connected in any way. It metaphorically blows my mind that people don't have a moral issue with that [cue rant about football player's salaries and then actors, singers, politicians, CEOs etc]. The Universal Basic Income to me feels like a major push in the right direction. i also very much like the idea of a Maximum wage but also for us to progress in any helpful direction with these conversations i think we seriously need to find some way of moving away from a me-based society to a we-focused one. The Ubuntu idea of being a person through people, if we tilt the lens just a little bit and see it as 'i hurt because you hurt' wow then maybe we could get somewhere. Most people would do that if it was family or a close friend, but how do we stretch that line to include neighbour, stranger and refugee?

Trev

I agree that the difference in spending power does bring a little vomit to the mouth, but I think the expensive bottle should be very low on our anger priority list. I also don't get bothered by maximum wages. It is the 'fundamental investor' in me that thinks that what something actually does matters more than the smoke and mirrors of the price tag. The R750,000 bottle of champagne is still just a bottle of champagne. The price tag is just a fancy story. I feel the same about footballer's salaries etc. The idea that a salary is equal to what something is worth is wrong. Salary is not value in the same way as price is not value. Water is MUCH more valuable than champagne, but only a complete fool spends R750,000 to show off. Why UBI is powerful is it shifts the focus to what really matters. Empowerment rather than comparison with someone else. *Universal* empowerment without judgement. Maximums & Minimum wages have a gazillion ways to get around. The really rich don't earn the majority of their money through wages so maximums struggle. Minimums shift the burden to employers rather than society. I am 100% with you on the community building and poverty destruction. Expanded empathy and communication. I just worry people think people like Warren Buffett literally have Scrooge McDuck pools of money to swim in. He doesn't. He lives a comparatively simple life with most of his money invested in companies that do stuff. I am completely cool with that. Capping the amount those kinds of rich people 'have' is not the way forward.

Brett

Ja, i just don't see that. i think it's way more than showing off - it's a sign of the fact that that particular person has the ability to do that kind of thing without even thinking about it while another family is struggling and being torn apart [by 3am departures for three modes of transport for work] and still just scraping by. The entitlement that goes alongside those kind of opportunities [and R750 000 champagne is maybe a smoke screen so R40 coffee then] and the idea that 'I am worth this and someone else is somehow worth nothing' is what makes it a moral conversation for me. The philosophical viewpoint that one human is somehow [usually though no particular skill or achievement of their own although often with some kind of hard work somewhere along the way] worth THAT MUCH more than another is disgusting to me. i think for it not to be disgusting or not to be even considered problematic helps a lot of people sleep at night but i think this is where i see the major problem - not so much the money and the stuff but the 'i am worth something and you're not' of it all. That feels undeniable to me. As opposed to the realisation at some stage that i have this stuff [t might be money, opportunity, network, stuff, skills] and you don't and i can share it with you so that none of us has to suffer needlessly. The fact that this isn't an option for so many people - pleasure over shared upliftment - is a sad state of affairs in the world. 

Trev

It is definitely a moral conversation. I don't deny that. I am just a deep pragmatist preferring, 'what is the best next step' to Pyrrhic victories and circular ideological arguments. In liberal democracy, we don't need everyone to buy in to fix things. It is way more important to me that the 'base problem' is solved, and we destroy poverty, than that we cap what people earn. I just don't get that worked up about numb nuts spending extravagantly and stupidly. It shifts more wealth away from them. I also agree that Privilege is just accumulated entitlement. Just watch a toddler's reaction to a competitive helicopter parent, and repeat that little emperor behaviour till they feel their social capital is their merit. I am all on board for getting upset about actual stuff that is being withheld, e.g. water, housing, food etc. I am all on board for solving financial poverty. I am just saying, the idea that Mark Zuckerberg could take his $70 billion wealth and give 7 million people $10,000 is wrong. He doesn't have that money in a pile. It's a made up guess of what he owns is 'worth'. It isn't a physical thing that can be given away. Understanding the physical things behind the money is way more important than getting distracted by the big numbers. Let the stupid rich be stupid. Let the naked emperor wear his imaginary suit. Solve the problems that matter.

Brett

I agree with you in terms of the problem-solving needing to happen on the ground and in and through relationships - that for me is the key to ending all the big ones [poverty, racism, war etc] because once the issue moves to a person you get more invested in terms of making a difference. Shane Claiborne has this quote in 'The Irresistible Revolution' that goes something along the lines of, 'For poverty to end the rich need to meet the poor, not simply give to them.' So the question would be how can we get creative about bringing rich and poor to the dinner table [and sticking the rich with the bill! Or maybe humbling them by letting the poor pick up the tab?] and fostering relationships. So the action happens on the ground but i still think there is a place for critiquing big money although perhaps with the understanding/expectation that that is unlikely to bring change. But for one person it could and then perhaps spark some kind of domino effect so we need to keep the message of "How you live is not okay" being broadcast while our focus is real tangible on-the-ground community and relationship building.

--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---

Growing Roots  #NotOnOurWatch  Listening Better  
Finding the Words  Words to Life  Hearing the Listeners  

Breaking Bread  Learning and Relearning

The Benefits of Melancholy (Tim)

As I write this, I’m listening to the Smiths’ “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now”. It’s perfect for an overcast Sunday morning. “Why do I give valuable time to people who don’t care if I live or die?” croons Morrissey, at once sad and ironic. It’s a morbid and amusing mix of self absorbed and self-effacing. It’s certainly melancholy, but is it depressing? Funny how this miserable music is actually making me feel better.

Depression and melancholy are two very different things, and I think recognizing the difference can do us the world of good. Depression is characterized by a loss of interest in life and an overwhelming sense of helplessness. Being told to ‘cheer up’ or ‘snap out of it’ doesn’t help in the least. It is a destructive state in that it harms both the sufferer and his loved ones. Often, clinical intervention is the only option.

By contrast, melancholy is a potentially creative state. It is a state of quiet reflection on the generally tragic nature of life. But where depressive thoughts lead only to a sense of helplessness, melancholy can be constructive, resulting in personal growth and wisdom. It’s okay to sink a little deeper into that black pool of dark thoughts because we may well come out with a little more fortitude and a little more inner strength.

Nowadays, we tend to think that melancholy is only de rigueur for anxious spotty-faced teens with long fringes, but it actually has a long and venerable history. The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes begins with a line that would make Morrissey proud, “’Meaningless! Meaningless!’ Says the Teacher. ‘Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!’” This is the author’s conclusion about the futility of human life, “The Race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong...but time and chance happen to them all.” It’s a bit reminiscent of Leonard Cohen, “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded. Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed.”

Leonard Cohen

And yet, if you read the whole of Ecclesiastes (or Leonard Cohen for that matter), you’ll see that the author isn’t resigned to depression. He concludes that while life is inscrutable, the best response is not to stay in bed, but go on with your life, to cultivate wisdom and fortitude, and to enjoy what simple pleasures you can.

A big part of this newfound wisdom is the insight that it’s not all about you. You may start off all mopey because you’re the victim of some perceived slight. But, by delving deeper, you may broaden your view a little, and with a little humour, you may come to see how absurd your victim complex is. Perhaps self-absorbed bitterness isn’t the right response in a world full of innocent victims. Sometimes to get to this point, we just need a little melancholy.

So next time you’re feeling a melancholy, it might be a good idea to roll with it. Put on ‘Everybody Hurts’ by REM, or ‘Helpless’ by Neil Young, or anything by Leonard Cohen or The Smiths. Let yourself sink into that melancholy funk for a while and see what wisdom comes up. 

Other posts by Tim Casteling

Old Friends; Equality; Sharper Stones; Free Speech; Advice Free Listening