Bad Ideas

In Liberal Democracies, we have way better tools to build the world we want than waiting on hand and foot for a benevolent Government. People are in charge. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, you don't even need to change other people's minds. Just find enough people who already agree with you. And do what you need to do. I truly believe in Free Speech. I want to know where the Crazies are. I want them to speak. To speak to them. They are OUR crazies. Knowing where the bad ideas are, allows us to engage with them. As bad ideas, rather than essentially bad people. Outside the courts. Of course, words have consequences and people should be held responsible for those consequences. Like vaccines, it is best to have some exposure to the hint of the diseases to strengthen the immune system. But once it is a disease, you take more drastic action. Prevention is better than a cure, but prevention isn't pretending something doesn't exist.

The first Polio vaccine

Gender Wars

Traditional Western Gender roles can be oversimplified as an exchange of money, muscles and sperm for a home, a family and food. In very conservative households, that can make life incredibly simple. Everyone knows their role and does it. A lot of the time consensually. When there is confusion, you go to an elder and they tell you what the expectations are. No discussion. In a Liberal world, all bets are off. Every expectation needs to be discussed, unraveled and rebuilt. You aren't a category, you are a person. There are no elders to turn to. It is confusing. I believe in a liberal world. I am prepared to wrestle with each decision to come up with something that works. I can fully understand why people would consensually opt in to just doing what they are told. I can't. I am a Donkey. I need to believe in what I am doing wholeheartedly, and if someone pulls too hard... I just stand still even harder.

Different Beauty

The beauty of conservatism lies in protecting the things we love. In keeping them holy. With less questioning, and more trust, we can build. Lean in. Go deep. Rather than poking and prodding the foundations to find weaknesses, we can refine the structures. By trusting what has come before, we can move forward. The constraints allow for creativity by cutting off the stress of which path to choose. There is one path. Continue.

The beauty of change lies in the new. In possibility. In multiple paths. In keeping life holey. In tearing down the structures that had held us back, and starting again. Choosing new constraints, or throwing constraints away altogether. Rather than building consensus, change can empower us to strike out on our own. To make decisions without permission. To redefine the impossible. To run. To scream. To cry. Start.

15-hour Work Week

"In the 21st century a 15-hour work week will suffice, as we turn instead to "how to use freedom from pressing economic cares."

John Maynard Keynes (1930)

Constraints are powerful. Liberty isn't the lack of constraints and rules, it is consent. More than consent, it is willing and enthusiastic participation. Liberty is belief and participation in the social contract you have with others. I love the idea of working towards a 15-hour constraint on the work week. Not on 'work' in the sense of doing something fulfilling, but work in the sense of doing an activity that can be monetised. The best chess players are neither people, nor computers. They are people using computers. Technology can play a part in freeing up our capacity to think about other things, because we have done the bits we have to, faster. I would love to get to the point where I can allocate just 3 hours a day to the stuff that meets the rules of money. Where the people I love also have lots of 'free time'. 3 focused, productive hours on stuff we can count, so we can spend the rest of the day on stuff that counts (but can't be counted).

15-hours

Not About You

I have had a couple of attempts at becoming a Vegetarian. I am completely convinced that we need to dramatically reduced our meat consumption. The two most compelling reasons for me are environmental sustainability, (the amount of food needed to produce meat) and the horrors of factory farming. I am not vegetarian.

The push back I have is that it is not that relevant if I, Trevor Black, am a vegetarian. It is very relevant if the 7.5 Billion people on the planet are eating too much meat. The minute I put myself on the moral high ground and start preaching to others that they too should do what I am doing, my experience has been that defence mechanisms kick in. Whatever the issue.

We are nudged. We move from where we are, not from where others want us to be. The best form of judgement, in my experience, is when someone who likes me and is on my side says, 'do you think we are doing this wrong?'

The same is true of the other messy issues we are working on. I am not a fan of pitch fork attacks on individuals who get it wrong. If someone gets it wrong, we have gotten it wrong. Whether the issues is racism, privilege, sexism, homophobia, intolerance or any of the other ills we perceive in others. It is amazing, for example, how in South Africa (which is fundamentally a very religious, conservative society) someone who is very aware of race and gender issues can still be homophobic. Someone who is liberal can still be unaware of their privilege. A feminist can still be racist.

There is a push for 'personal' experience and to speak from your perspective. From your 'lived experience'. While we can only see things from our perspective, we would do well to own all our challenges.

If you live in a racist society, and you are not racist, well... it's not about you. 

Voting Away

I am a Soutie. There were 48 people from all over the world at the ceremony when I became a British Citizen. It was a beautiful thing. The speech spoke of Britain as an idea, like Marcus Aurelius spoke of Rome in The Gladiator, 'There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile.  And I fear that it will not survive the winter.' This is not the story of Britain I grew up with in South Africa. It is not the way Britain is viewed around the world. It was something that was worth believing in. When the Referendum came, I was gutted. My European Citizenship was voted away. A brutal reminder that we aren't essentially anything. Anything temporary can't be who we are. So I am not South African. Not British. Not a Soutie. I am the relationships I have with people. No one can vote those away. Today, I voted. I voted Liberal Democrats because I believe in a world where we don't convince people. We empower people. 

Faith

Constraint has value. Escape hatches have real costs. I value change, and critique, more than I value faith, but I see the value in faith. It can be beautiful. I can't sufficiently contain my curiosity in some areas to sustain faith without challenge. In other areas I have forced myself. Built trust in others. Choice can be as much of an impediment to understanding as blind faith. To go deeper, at some point you have to accept an end to going wider. Call that faith. Call that trust. We will always be ignorant. All we can do is choose our basket of ignorance. Strong relationships, founded on trust, let us go further as we expand our idea of who we are. Placing faith in those relationships, and making the choice to work at never letting them break is the choice I make.

Divided Individual

Positive goals can have unintended consequences. One push back on liberalism is a push back on individualism and selfishness. A suggested answer is to create bigger groups. This allows us to focus on something bigger than ourselves. If that group is defined by its differences from others, even though that difference is common ground within the ingroup, it leads to the same negative effects that repulse us from selfishness. Thomas Leonard tells of the progressive movements push to give moral gravity to bigger groups of the individual. To focus on the 'nation, state, society, commonwealth, public, people, race, and, especially, the social organism'. If the story we use to build our confidence is a story that pushes us above others, by finding strength in others like us, that isn't a push back on individualism. That is just redefining the divided individual.

 

Human Rights

Rights are a story. Good people can disagree on what they should be, and there is no objective way of showing one to be correct. The only basis for creating a set of stories, and an underlying common story we can all share is to start by listening. Ideological arguments are fairly pointless if there isn't a set of shared facts and shared assumptions. The more global you get, the less agreement there will be. The more local, you get the more agreement there can be. We know from personal relationships, and breakups, that even at the ultra local level it is brutally difficult. Pillow politics is perhaps the hardest. Family tensions are something that unites almost everyone I know. The starting point for consensus has to be finding what we have in common. What it is we are fighting for together.

Constitutional Liberal Democracy

Democracy is not majority rules. Some choices should be made by individuals. Some choice affect others, and so should be consensual. A constitution can provide the boundaries of what they are consenting to. Without those limits, and the freedom of movement of people to leave if they remove their consent, there is no social contract. Very few decisions should be forced on people. Raw, messy, emotional decisions should be as small as possible and made amongst people who have done the hard work to develop relationships. A liberal world is a tolerant one, that allows people to make choices and puts in the time to develop a supporting community. To lift each other when we fall, and empower each other when we stand. To see each other. To walk with each other.

Democracy isn't about Majorities or Powerful Minorities

Order v Movement

If the world is divided simplistically into Conservatives (Order) and Liberals (Movement), I would normally fall towards the choice of movement. In truth though, I am actually quite a rule abiding guy. I drive like Miss Daisy, more keen on getting myself and my passengers to the destination alive than fast. I am very punctual, not wanting to waste other people's time by being late. I don't swear in front of friends who don't swear. I adjust my behaviour to be polite to whoever I am with. 

A great example of where I see value in Conservatism is the choice of Yoga I do. Sivananda Yoga is very traditional. Loose fitting clothing covering shoulders and ankles. The room is not heated. The 12 core postures practised in the Asana classes are simple and the same as have been done for thousands of years. They aren't looking to change. The lessons are the lessons that have been built up slowly and patiently. The only concession the Swami who brought the style of Yoga to Europe and North America made was to shift the breathing exercises from the end of the standard class to the beginning. This was because too many students who were just keen on the 'physical exercises' would get up and leave.

The most difficult students to teach are the ones who have learnt other styles of Yoga and come in very resistant to any correction. Unless they are disrupting a class, there is no real point in trying to teach them anything else. It is best to just let them be. There is no attempt to say 'this is a superior way'. It is just the way things are done at the Sivananda centres. It is a beautiful way. If however, you choose another way and you aren't hurting anybody... it's all good.

I do like the fact that there is a place I can go to practise my yoga where there is no alcohol, no meat, no loud music, no sexy clothing and a sense of pervading calm. I do drink. I do eat meat. I like music. I love sexy clothing. The reality is that some things are best kept holy. I don't think holy has to be synonymous with true. I think it is a form of consistency. A form of value. Like we don't mix all our favourite foods in a bucket with a wafer thin mint.

Yummy Meat Free Food

Order and movement don't need to be in opposition. It shouldn't be a simplistic either or. The world is more grey than that. They world is more beautiful than that. Somehow we need to find a way to listen to each other and build a world that considers us all. Not a world where we impose ourselves on each other when we are positioned to dominate.

A world where we empower each other.

Confidently Achilles

We don't like to think of ourselves as the bad guy. I am trying to read more about Cecil John Rhodes as a way of understanding the obstacles liberalism finds itself facing. Rhodes wasn't the arch-villain we have in Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. He would have been considered liberal. Even Stalin, Hitler and Mao wouldn't have been the arch-villains we think of now if we had met them in person. If we had been in and of their time and culture. I can imagine Rhodes as having been an awesome person to meet. He sounds like he had incredible empathetic skill. An ability to listen to people. An ability to engage with people from other cultures and understand what was important to them. Then bend them to his will.

Rhodes had a deep belief in and pride in the ideas behind Imperialism. He was a believer in the 'Civilising Mission'. He would have been passionate in his grand schemes. He would have been convincing. Laced in among all this ability was an underlying superiority complex that was the achilles heal. I get more worried about the people who are 'mostly trying' than I do about the people who don't care at all. Casual racism. Casual busyness. Casual anger. Casual tribalism. Casual barriers that stop us from building a really great society.

Confidence is infectious. Missions provide something to aspire to. Confident Missions don't provide lots of space for listening unless they are shared. I prefer small ideas. I prefer conversation. I prefer relationships. Finding small achievable goals to chip away at in partnership.

Civilising Missions Miss Civility

Armenia was the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as its official state religion. From the 12th to the 17th century, there was a legendary land of Prester John. A Christian kingdom cut off from the Christians of the West by the Muslim world. The Portuguese believed they had discovered this legendary land in Ethiopia in the late 15th century. Christianity became an official Roman doctrine only under Constantine in 313. He set his capital up in Constantinople (originally the Greek colony Byzantium) which then became the stronghold of the Muslim Caliphate in 1453 as Istanbul. From 661-1492, Spain was part of the Muslim World. Things change. Ideas change. Cultures change.

Armenia

When we think of the world, the only way we can think of it is as we see it now. It is ridiculously difficult to think of a world with hardly any people and no concept of a nation. That is the normal state of affairs. The world population only hit 1 billion in about 1804. Most people were illiterate. Stories from elsewhere spread slowly. Any fighting they did was with people largely similar to themselves. And fighting leads to itchy feet and migration.

When colonies were set up by adventurous Phoenicians, Greeks or the slow migrations to America, Australia and the Polynesian Islands... it wasn't the same as us hoping on planes to the opposite side of the world. People got cut off from each other. They developed new solutions to new problems. We are a creative bunch. We grew apart.

Polynesian Migration

We recently ran out of space to run from problems. We lost the escape hatch. Our various attempts at living in bigger groups connected through religion or nations are stabs at figuring it out. 

Feudalism, Mercantilism, Nationalism, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Self-Determination, Apartheid, and Global Citizenship are experiments. The first written constitution in the world was the one put together in Medina. A group of tribes who had been warring invited Muhammad to become a mediating authority. The writing of the Quran as I have heard it explained seems similar to the writing of the constitution of America. One of the reasons the idea of separating Islam from the state doesn't make much sense to Muslims is that is what Islam is all about. Islam was founded as a way of creating a harmonious society for people of the book. Christianity was far more interested in Orthodoxy... the details of what you believed. Islam was more interested in Orthopraxy... the details of what you did. I believe we all believe in a more harmonious world, we just disagree on the how.

 

Why then was modern colonialism different? The thing I struggle to understand is how the dividing up of Africa, the Americas and Australia was compatible with the period of time I had known as the birth of Liberalism. A time that saw the start of the fight against slavery. A time that saw the birth of the belief in Natural Rights of all men. The fight against hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. How did the birth of Liberalism happen to be at the same time that intellectualised racism using scientific language and justification arose? How was a man like Rhodes both a liberal and a poster boy white supremacist? The men at the forefront of drawing maps of large areas to conquer and subjugate changed the idea of colonies from small fortifications that gradually grew, to dominating the whole area. Genghis Kahn also dominated areas, but even that form of 'colonisation' seems different. The stories are of him seeming to try and learn from the best bits of the cultures he conquered (admittedly after the customary genocide).

Even Adam Smith, who seems very liberal for the time, still writes in tones that leave me feeling deeply uncomfortable despite his belief in the Natural Rights of man. The problem as I see it, lies in the idea of the 'Civilising Mission'. The belief that there are stages of development from barbarous to civilised. That there is one type of civilisation. It is deeply patronising and I recognise the emotional response in my abhorrence to being told what to do. I work well with people, but I wouldn't want to be my boss if I had to tell me what to do. I absolutely loathe involuntary hierarchy. Imposed respect. If I am working for you, it is a gift. A partnership. An exchange. Not an obligation. I can suck it up and follow instructions for a while, but eventually this Donkey will rise. Kick. Fight. The assumption in a civilising mission is that you are better. That the Civiliser has absolutely nothing to learn. That the boss is teaching. That the boss has nothing to learn. Rubbish. Always rubbish.

'The Civilising Mission'

The project of decolonisation is not one of stripping out one identity. Of changing who is in charge. The project of decolonisation is breaking down the idea of a hierarchy of ideas that are tied to one group of people. Of investing in a better society. No one has a monopoly on solutions. Science has moved on from the terrible ideas that institutionalised racism. Race is no longer a scientific concept. The lingering thing that is a deeply rooted concept, and the thing we all have to fight, is the idea of superiority.

Race as a Scientific Theory is Dead

Even the idea of 'Social Mobility' bothers me. It implies people need to be enabled to 'move up'. Development implies help is required to move from barbarism and savagery up to civilisation. It doesn't see the strength, power, energy, and social wealth that lies in communities that do things differently with less. What is needed is the killing of the idea of archy. We don't need instruction or permission. We need community. From the various options of constitutions that are being built up around the world, I think we can build institutions and laws that can build the parameters for how we agree to treat each other. That allow us to learn from each other rather than control each other.

'I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him' Galileo Galilei

From that point we can build relationships of respect. We can listen to each other. We can learn from each other. We can build on the best bits. We can choose the flavours we like. People have always moved. Things have always changed. We are just learning to do it together as partners rather than imposing our ideas on each other.

Having Power

Once upon a time when we mostly looked the same, smelt the same, and wanted the same things stories tell us we liked the idea of a King. In a very complicated world which we did not understand, this King would be delivered to us by God to make decisions on our behalf. If we were lucky, we got a Philosopher Warrior Poet Servant King. Good or bad, the King decides.

At the opposite extreme is a world where we all make our own decision. The Governments role is simply to ensure that we are safe and assist with dispute resolution by adjudicating law where decisions clash. Good or bad, you decide.

As tribes have gotten bigger, the difference between the life of the decision maker and the life of each decision receiver has gotten huge. Even if we elect a leader, she is unlikely to be able to represent all our views. We have definitely favoured moving to a world of more liberty. The challenge is what happens when we feel people are making decisions about their health, wealth and happiness which we don't think are in their best interests? We can't believe these decisions are made consciously. Making decisions for people is at best parental, and at worst very condescending. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein suggest the idea of a 'Nudge'. The way decisions are framed or given to us affects us. It is almost impossible to frame things neutrally. If that is true, they argue that choosing to favour the 'better' choice isn't being condescending or parental and benefits society.

An example they give is on opting in and opting out of organ donation. The difference between consent rates in countries which require you to choose to be an organ donor are remarkably lower than those which ask you to choose whether not to be an organ donor. Most of us go with the default. It seems we are making our own decisions, but we are really following the path of least resistance. Even where we 'have the power', those setting the path have a very powerful role. 

Source: Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein

Even then, there is more power over future little changes than over the current way we do things. Another powerful idea is the 'save more later' principle. It is well known that people don't save or invest enough. Most live hand to mouth and so never build up enough capital to work for them so they don't have to. It is hard to cut back your spending. With 'Save More Later', you commit to saving a bigger proportion of any increases you receive. You commit in advance. Like saying you will go to gym tomorrow. Like saying you will wake up early tomorrow. We are good at that. Unlike going to gym or waking up, saving more can be a default. You can set up a debit order and the money gets taken off your account immediately as it comes in. Your stronger self can make good decisions for your weaker self.

People have far more power than they think they do in liberal democracies. But it is true that our decisions can be impacted by those who understand how we tick better than we do. Having power is one thing. Knowing you have power and making decisions consciously is another.

Get On With It

When I was at university, most of the students were pretty apathetic about politics. This was the same campus that was known as 'Little Moscow on the Hill' during the 70s and 80s because of the support that was given to the anti-Apartheid movement. This was because the Apartheid struggle was partly a proxy battlefield for the west supporting the white majority government against those struggling for freedom who found support from Communist revolutionaries. Anyone against the Government was labeled a communist. There were stories of police coming into the library with sjamboks. By the time I got there, Apartheid had ended and most students were far keener on getting involved in drinking games and testing boundaries given the absence of parents. In one of our Student Representative Council elections, the most votes was gained by someone who didn't even know he was running till he found out his digsmates' had played a practical joke on him. Shirtless posters with a catch phrase along the lines of 'Cause you know you want to' were pasted all over campus. He won a landslide but obviously honourably withdrew. There just weren't any real issues that people cared enough about to pull them away from the beer.

The University of Cape Town during student protests

I don't know much at all about British politics. It feels a little like a debating contest amongst classmates from the same school. I put my hand up in terms of ignorance. When there are big ticket dividing issues like a racist, oppressive, undemocratic government, it becomes easy (though dangerous) for people to gather around an issue. When people are living in a wealthy, awesome, liberal country like Britain, there are issues but they are just harder to get as excited about. People like a good moan, but they are actually pretty content. You get pockets of people caring deeply about specific issues but rallying support becomes tougher. Noise doesn't necessarily signal a consensus view. On top of that, the more subtle issues become the harder it is to have an educated, informed view. I mentioned in 'Empathy Armoury' how I had enjoyed listening to Russell Brand's 'Revolution'. Stuart pointed to a scathing attack of the book in The Daily Beast by Michael Moynihan. Brand didn't study politics. He isn't a trained writer. He is a comedian. A very rich comedian who feels guilty about being ridiculously wealthy, and has a platform. As far as I know he studied drama - not philosophy, law, history, politics, economics and the various other things I would look for from a professional politician. Probably my favourite comedian ever, Eddie Izzard, is also rumoured to be thinking of running for mayor of London and getting more involved in politics. Comedian Beppe Grillo has been involved in Italian politics since 2009 having started the Five Star Movement. Rigour isn't always the same as being able to connect with people. 

I am not going to defend the holes in Revolution. There are lots of things I disagree with. One thing I do like though is the idea of not relying on politicians. Perhaps politics breaks once the big issues have been conquered. This is not Russell's argument. He thinks there are big problems. I agree that there are problems too, but I am less conspiracy orientated and think we need to take more responsibility for sorting out our own collective lot. So our conclusions are similar. Power gets extracted from despotic kings and entrenched majorities. Then there is the risk of either indistinguishable parties or parties that are different because it is politicians job to be different. Then they have to spend a lot of time just staying in 'power'. There comes a time for the liberated to take responsibility for prosperity. In my Utopia, we will have come to a consensus about basic constitutional rights and laws and unglamorous but efficient people will get on with the administration of government - it won't be sexy and there won't be any need for loud hailers and arm-in-arm marches.

I still think there are lots of big issues to conquer. Once you have empowered citizens, I don't think we should look to governments to solve them. Ballot boxes don't solve problems. People solve problems. Get on with it.

We need to talk about Charlie (by Megan Butler)

Guest Post: Megan Butler

Megan is braver than me. So are Dean, Brett and Shingai. When it comes to the really sensitive topics, I always feel very aware of how little I know, or how badly placed I am to have a view, and do some reading but try not to grate anyone too badly. Perhaps I am still shaking off corporate sensitivities where your voice is constrained since employees become brand ambassadors even once they take off their suits. I am also aware of how bad people are at stomaching disagreement. We form tribes and ooze vitriol at those who disagree with us. I don't like being oozed on. I am busy watching the Borgias and I am certainly very glad that incidents like Paris are rarer than they were in 1495. In free societies you should be able to express your opinions and be mocked for them... but not killed. In her second guest post, Megan looks at the Free Speech in the context of recent events and asks some good questions about the consistency of our criticism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to talk about Charlie

by Megan Butler

On 12 November 2014, scientists landed a spacecraft on a comet hurtling through space. It was a project 10 years in the making and an incredible scientific achievement. The next day, Dr Matt Taylor gave a press conference. It's almost impossible to find out what Taylor actually said because subsequent media reports focussed on only one thing: his shirt.

The shirt featured scantily-clad gun-toting women and two days later Taylor was forced to give a grovelling apology for his "sexist" shirt. His defenders were thin on the ground.

In contrast, three million people marched on Saturday for freedom of speech. Apparently, we are all for the publication of pictures of the Prophet as a gay porn star but not for ugly shirts to be portrayed in the media. The distinction boggles the mind. Free speech is always a vast, grey, uncomfortable area. We are quick to rally to the banner of freedom of speech when it supports messages we want disseminated. But would we be so quick to defend the publication of the Pegida manifesto? Or the Kouchi brothers' diaries? Or Mein Kampf? Supporting free speech does not mean supporting hate speech but this can be very much in the eye of the beholder.

In the hype around the Charlie Hebdo killings, it is easy to disregard the very uncomfortable questions we all need to ask ourselves about three important freedoms: expression, religion and speech.

Carol Rossetti, a Brazilian graphic designer, has produced a brilliant set of cartoons on gender discrimination issues. Here's a sample:

It's somewhat ironic that it is Susan who represents an idea that makes a huge number of liberals extremely uncomfortable. In France, all religious symbols including headscarves, veils, crucifixes and yarmulkes are banned in public institutions. The burqa is completely outlawed in public places. Apparently, it is completely okay to publish pictures likening burqa-wearing women to sacks of potatoes but it is not okay for a woman to wear one. As far as the world is concerned, if you want to sketch a nude caricature of the First Lady, you can go right ahead but please keep nudity off your clothing.

I need to point out that I think both Taylor's shirt and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are awful. But freedom means that people are free to choose well as well as to choose badly. I'm Catholic and have very limited experience in the headscarf-wearing department. However, for me, supporting free speech and freedom of expression means supporting more than the right to publish drawings; it means supporting the right for people to wear what they choose even if it isn't what I would choose.

So, while "Je suis Charlie" is the campaign gathering the media attention, we need to be able to say "Je suis Susan" or "Je suis Matt" with as much conviction.

Megan (and the headscarf) visiting Smolnyy Convent, St Petersburg.

Megan lives in Johannesburg where she can wear what she likes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Megan's first guest post was on 'The Art of Non-Choosing'. While we are programmed to look for options, there is some evidence that we may be happier if some choices are taken were taken out of our hands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In writing a blog about several topics in which I admit to being a complete beginner, I am going to have to rely heavily on the people I am writing for who cumulatively know most of what I am likely to learn already. I would love it if some of you found the time to write a guest post on the subject of happiness or learning. The framework I use for thinking about these things is what I call the '5 + 2 points' which includes proper (1) exercise, (2) breathing, (3) diet, (4) relaxation, (5) positive thinking & meditation, (+1) relationships, (+2) flow. Naturally if you would like to write about something that you think I have missed, I would love to include that too. If you are up to doing something more practical, it would be awesome if you did a 100 hour project and I am happy to do the writing based on our chats if that is how you roll. Email me at trevorjohnblack@gmail.com