So ... what's your book about?
I was at a party at the weekend and got talking to someone new, answering questions about my life, when suddenly I dropped it into the conversation that I had once taken some time out to write a book. This is unusual for me these days. So, the normal questions immediately followed, to which I answered, "Yes, it was published", and "Right ... what is it about indeed ... hmm ... that's actually quite difficult ... umm". Well, I blew it! Fluffed my non-existent lines. To be fair to myself, there were extenuating circumstances in that I was tired after working virtually all weekend, and it was very noisy, and I'd also had a bit to drink, but that's no excuse really. I do have to be able to answer this question. It's becoming embarassing.
Before writing any kind of review then I think it makes sense that I'm able to come up with a good response, and I'm going to blog here my efforts. It should help serve to focus the mind. Here goes ...
Earthdream is my account of a search for a new mythology, a new way of looking at the world that might ultimately lead humankind toward maintaining a sustainable presence on our planet. Modern society is informed by a strange and incoherent mix of mythologies, a blend of both old and new. They no longer serve us particularly well. I ask the reader to follow me as I try to dismantle the foundations of our existing mythologies, before tracing an outline of what I hope might appear in their place. It can only be a sketch because a new mythology has to be lived, acted out, experienced, made real in the world collectively by people working together, sharing a common set of values. In this sense, Earthdream is a kind of call to arms, challenging the reader to help create this new mythology.
There are not even a handful of people finding their way here to this blog at the moment, but I still feel a considerable sense of trepidation about this post. How does that sound? Rather pretentious? Too idealistic? Does it make any sense? I honestly don't know. I really would like some feedback!
Before writing any kind of review then I think it makes sense that I'm able to come up with a good response, and I'm going to blog here my efforts. It should help serve to focus the mind. Here goes ...
Earthdream is my account of a search for a new mythology, a new way of looking at the world that might ultimately lead humankind toward maintaining a sustainable presence on our planet. Modern society is informed by a strange and incoherent mix of mythologies, a blend of both old and new. They no longer serve us particularly well. I ask the reader to follow me as I try to dismantle the foundations of our existing mythologies, before tracing an outline of what I hope might appear in their place. It can only be a sketch because a new mythology has to be lived, acted out, experienced, made real in the world collectively by people working together, sharing a common set of values. In this sense, Earthdream is a kind of call to arms, challenging the reader to help create this new mythology.
There are not even a handful of people finding their way here to this blog at the moment, but I still feel a considerable sense of trepidation about this post. How does that sound? Rather pretentious? Too idealistic? Does it make any sense? I honestly don't know. I really would like some feedback!
date
newest »
newest »
That's a wonderfully provocative comment! I've never really thought of it quite so precisely in those terms, but, yes, much of the book is concerned with perception, and how our prevailing mythologies reinforce our individual separation from the world, subject divided against object.I think "teach" is possibly the wrong word to use. I'm aiming, in a number of different ways, to show the reader alternative perspectives, to encourage a different kind of perception. The best analogy are those optical illusions where you stare at a picture and then a sudden shift in your internal frame of reference allows you to see a completely different image. Take a look at this example. I'm sure you'll have seen it before.
This analogy also serves to illustrate the point that you cannot be didactic in respect to the kind of philosophy of perception we're discussing here. The reader has to experience that shift in perception for themselves. In a way I'm trying to retrace the steps that led me there myself, and hope that the reader experiences the same kinds of shift along the way. I think that's why I lack confidence at the moment. There are many readers who simply may not "get it", as such, although I do know that some have, and that is actually what is inspiring me at the moment.
Finally, yes, you're so completely right. To be idealistic is the point. How can we not be idealistic? It's at the very heart of our humanity. It's sad that it's become almost a habit of mind in today's world to be apologetic for idealism. I felt that comment as quite the kick up the backside! I possibly needed that!! Thanks.
I often times find myself as well, apologetic for my ideas. I guess because everything in life teaches us not to stand up to the majority. I wonder why it is, the best man doesn't always win the election? The majority dictates the outcome, right or wrong, considering only who was more persuasive. I have found the best ideas are generally not to persuasive in the beginning because there is no instant gratification to be visualized. Why is there more power in the mob than in a single idea? It seems the minority, in their ways of thinking, come to feel outcast at the very least. Is this the reason for so much subtlety when it comes to new ideas or being an "idealistic" person, because as humans, we fear persecution? Just as the questions on this subject are infinite, so are the answers. Every perception has a different philosophy supporting it.
You said "show", and that is funny because that was the first word I used to describe what you were doing and after reading over it, I changed it to "teach", but now I see the proper word should probably be "lead". The very definition of lead (from Webster) is: to guide on a way especially by going in advance, or to direct on a course or in a direction. For leading only points in a direction, it is up to the individual to come up with a conclusion of their own.
I am enjoying where these discussions of yours are leading, its like watching an idea for one thread at a time.
It is hard being a single voice in a noisy crowd. It is easy to make yourself heard when you can take a simple position, expressed in simple statements. It's altogether much harder when your position is more naturally complex, when it is open to the full ambiguous wonder of the world, and can only really be hinted at through normal language, metaphor being the only true way of expressing what we think and, more importantly, feel. That's too subtle to be communicated to a mob ... so we 'outsiders' tend to stay quiet.There may be more power in the mob than in a single idea, but that idea can have more strength . Ultimately, the strength of an idea can win out over the power of a mob if the idea is right for its time. Now, there's my idealism shining through!
To put that last comment in proper perspective it would help to make clearer the distinction I make between power and strength. This is not my own, but comes courtesy of James P. Carse from his remarkable book, Finite and Infinite Games. I quote ...Power is finite in amount. Strength cannot be measured, because it is an opening and not a closing act. Power refers to the freedom persons have within limits, strength to the freedom persons have with limits.
Power will always be restricted to a relatively small number of selected persons. Anyone can be strong.
I've just written a very short review and placed the book on a new shelf of most influential books. It's looking a bit lonely there at the moment. I should starting adding to this on a regular basis - although the task is a little daunting. There are so many.
I like this idea of power, strength, and metaphors you have painted. One of my all time favorite metaphorical ideas is the one Ayn Rand suggests in her novel Atlas Shrugged where she uses Atlas the titan as a metaphor for those people in society who tend to "hold up the world," those people out there who continue to contribute to the power of society long after the power of society has stopped listening to them. This takes great strength and will.
I would chose strength over power any day, but I have to admit that like the metaphorical Atlas, some days I wish I could just shrug. It is very frustrating waiting on the world's time. But in the same sense I know that no one can comprehend what they can't understand and timing is one of the philosophy of perception's greatest and worst allies.
I'd never come across this book before you mentioned it, but see that it is very influential and being read by an amazing number of people on this site. I suspect it's far more well known in the States than here in England. And it certainly polarises opinion. I'm intrigued.Without fully understanding the metaphor I think it is perfectly ok to shrug occasionally. We all have days when we have less energy than others. The important thing perhaps is to not beat yourself up about it, and not let it become a habit of mind. That's the danger I guess.
Now this I have to comment on. One of those strange and surreal synchronicities that just ... well, kind of makes you wonder. I was going to add one of my very favourite quotes from Finite and Infinite Games, found the right page, and was just about to enter it when I saw that the exact same quote had already been referenced. Remarkably, it's the only one that's been chosen from the book. That was really quite bizarre to have those words in my head and suddenly see them on the page before typing anything! "Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish as a result of my play with them, but because I can allow them to do what they wish in the course of my play with them."
Earthdreaming
To have no dream is to have no vision. And to have no vision is to have no future.
- Bob Hamilton's profile
- 17 followers
If what you say is true about your book, and you are not only showing what is now and why it isn't working, but also how to adapt and create new then I would consider that more of a philosophy of perception rather than complete idealism. To me, philosophy of perception is more of a way of showing contrast between realism and idealism. You are trying to teach the reader both what is and what could be.
Idealistic? Yes, but isn't that the point?