When you lie in bed, alone, late at night, contemplating your own mortality, as the Grim Reaper grins at you, what face do you see?

I frequently suggest both in my posts and to those I work with personally, the importance of facing up to the reality of death. To face the fact that you are not immortal. That the candle flame of your life will be blown out one day by the unfeeling and unrelenting wind of time.

This fundamental truth has to be understood and come to terms with, by anyone wanting to get to grips with the basic coordinates of human existence. No spiritual system or teacher is worth its mustard unless it can deal with this awkward reality. I would hardly call myself a Buddhist but one story attributed to the Buddha stays with me.

Walking with his disciples they came across a human skeleton at the side of the road. Buddha told his disciples to look carefully at it and to know that soon they too would assume just such a form.

The reason it is worth placing such emphasis on this unpleasant truth is because its recognition is frequently essential to engender a sense of urgency for, i.e. to live, an authentic life.

There are two competing myths about death. Of which, most of mankind have bought into one or the other.

Continue reading →

Anja was listening to radio 702 the other day (isn’t she always). Anyway she told me about a caller to the show, who said, the problem with the youth today is that they no longer have role models. Or, if they do, their role models are less than ‘ideal’.

The caller went on to say that in yesteryear the ideal profession was to become a doctor or a lawyer (I would add chartered accountant to that list), but these lofty professions no longer hold the same appeal for the kids of today.

The imagery of the youth today is principally based on MTV and was perfectly summed up by Robbie Williams a few years ago, when he received the coveted ‘Moon-Man’. Robbie said something along these lines:

‘I have mansions in LA and London, drive a million dollar sports car and have a supermodel girlfriend. Thank you MTV- I am living the dream!‘

Then beyond the kids themselves, even their parent’s aspirations for them have changed. Whereas before the dream of every parent was for their kid to grow up and become a professional in one of these classical genres medicine, law, finance or a little further down the ladder, possibly, an engineer or architect. That no longer seems to be the case. Parents have changed their dreams for their kids as well.

Something has shifted. We no longer want the same things we wanted a generation ago.

Okay so far so good. The question is what is ideal today? What constitutes:

the ‘perfect life’,

the ‘perfect job’

and the ‘perfect relationship’?

What has changed? What do we value today higher than social, financial and professional status? Or is it not the desire for status that has changed but rather that which confers status?

Well the truth is it is probably a little of both. Status itself, in the traditional sense, is no longer the holy grail of yesteryear and that which confers status has shifted as well. But I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the real shift is from wanting status to wanting something fundamentally different.

What do we want today if not status?

Today everyone wants meaning.

This is the new ideal.

To lead a meaningful life, to make a meaningful contribution to others, to have meaningful experiences, to go on meaningful holidays, have meaningful relationships, and possibly even to understand the very meaning of life itself.

Today meaning is more important than status.

The bloody thing of it though is that meaning is no gimme, no patsy, no glass jawed opponent. Trying to lead a meaningful life is tough.

Status itself was never easy. Some had it, some were born into it and some fought tooth and nail for it. Not everyone achieved it of course, if it was open to all it would negate itself. To mean something it necessarily had to be an exclusive club. Still I would wager those that achieved it knew they had, and far more importantly others recognised it. One could say it was the very recognition of the other that constituted the sought for status.

Not so with meaning. Meaning is not something that can be conferred by another upon you. That is more of a problem than maybe it appears at first. You see naturally we are social beings and in being social beings we develop our sense of identity through our interaction with others. Others tell us who we are much more than we come to that idea through any inner process. Even when we introspect on who we are, we are thinking about who we are in relation to other people.

How do other people treat me? How do they make me feel? Who do others think I am?

These are the kinds of questions that go through our minds when we look ‘inside’ and ask the question- who am I? Think about it next time you reflect on your sense of identity and I bet you’ll notice just what I have suggested.

You are who you are because I tell you who you are. You didn’t come up with your sense of identity on your own!

But here’s the kicker…

Is your life meaningful because someone tells you it is?

It may make you feel a sense of wellbeing when I, or someone else, tells you your life is meaningful. But that is not sufficient to truly make your life meaningful.

Think about it for a moment. Meaning, real meaning, is something that of necessity:

• Can only emerge from within in you.
• Can only be experienced by you

Meaning is an inner value judgement, much as status is an external one. That is to say I can confer status on you but not meaning. Only you can confer meaning upon yourself. Only the meaning you find in your life matters, not the meaning someone else sees for you.

So how do you access this meaning?

I’m not sure. I think it’s a tricky question. I have a few ideas I will share with you ‘ but for God’s sake don’t confuse these for the roil hoil truth.

It may be easier to approach this question by considering what doesn’t confer meaning; that which is often mistakenly believed to confer meaning. Well here are some obvious candidates:

• Possessions.
• Wealth
• Professional or social status

Remember these confer status not meaning .

What about:

• Having a good time.
• Enjoying life.
• Taking it easy
• Going on holiday.
• Living a life in service of the great me!

Or

• Being a ‘good person’.
• Helping others.
• Doing charitable work.
• An important job for the community at large.

Or

• Your talents.
• What you know.
• What you have done, what you have experienced?

Still not convinced (!)….okay what about:

• Becoming a member of the New Age!
• Joining a mediation group.
• Doing yoga.
• Use alternative medicine.
• Hydroponic farming.
• Going to an Ashram in India, or even better buying a book on Osho from Exclusive Books .
• Becoming a vegetarian.
• Building or converting your house into an echo friendly house. Going green as they say, come on, going green! That surely has got to be meaningful!

What do you think? Do these confer meaning?

I would wager that quite a few on that last list constitute what is considered ideal today. The ideal person today, as we said, leads a ‘meaningful life’.

But what the hell does ‘meaningful’ mean?

We could say that the zeitgeist today suggests being an androgynous, vegan, conscientious abstainer from political activity or traditional religion, non sexist, non racist, non fascist, spiritually enlightened, Tantric practitioner, pseudo easterner, non materialist of moderate habits who consciously works at saving the planet whilst still looking good in the process- may not be too far from the mark.

Still the problem remains that may be what ‘meaningful’ looks like in the world, but is it actually meaningful for those that are living one or other version of that contemporary ideal type?

I come back to the point; meaning is an experience not a badge. Looking like you are leading a meaningful life is not the same as actually living one. It’s easy to get confused on this point but try not to. It’s important; this is your life we’re talking about here after all.

Giegerich suggests that the very search for meaning is of necessity doomed to failure. That to search for meaning is not to find meaning. That our removal from meaning, our disenchantment in modernity is what has led to the ‘search for meaning’.

The very essence of modernity is meaninglessness. A meaninglessness that is expressed in the search for and aspiration to meaning. I suspect that Giegerich is onto something (he usually is ). But one must look not only at what he is saying but what he is not saying.

What is the meaning of meaninglessness? Where does the search for meaning lead us to if not meaning itself?

What is the true ideal we are all in search of?

Well as I said earlier I don’t know but I think it is a worthwhile question. One worth considering in the personal sense.

What is the true ideal you are in search of?

It is the kind of question that has the potential to lead you away from ignorance and unconsciousness into a more conscious way of being. You have based your life on certain ideals whether or not you are consciousness of this. Becoming conscious of these ideals offers liberation from the bondage of unconscious compulsion.

Until we talk again,

Stephen

After Stephen wrote his blog The birth of self, I felt compelled to add my 2 cents worth to the topic. It is quite a hard one to understand, yet very interesting and we have discussed it many times over the years.

Is there really Free Will?

Philosophers have been debating the concept of free will for centuries.

The main question is, do we have free will? This may sound ridiculous, but let’s use the simple example of you deciding to drink a cup of coffee. Are you really making a choice here, or is it just your body needing a caffeine lift or perhaps your psyche needing some ‘time out’ from what you are doing. It has been scientifically proven, the fact that you have already ‘decided’ on an unconscious level, before you make the conscious decision.

You can apply this to almost everything that you do. Your partner and you want to go out tonight and now you are discussion where to go. Movies? Dinner? Club? Artshow? Is this really a choice? You feel like it, you want to, you would like to ‘ are any of these really conscious choices, or are you just following a predetermined outcome welling up from your body or subconscious or such.

Free Will in action

But there are REAL choices that we face. BallyHoo brought out a song in the 70′s that captures this very well. Man on the moon, is the dilemma of a man who is in love with 2 women. He says that if he is with one, he thinks about the other. And this is an example of a real situation where free choice is required. Which one will he choose?

We all face these types of decisions at some point in our lives. The problem with these decisions is that the 2 options weigh the same. If you imagine a scale, with weights on it, the 2 choices are completely balanced. To you it may seem that one is better than the other, but yet you cannot make the decision. That is because unconscious weight is attached to it. There are unconscious issues that are weighing it down.

Of course what do you do? You are faced with this dilemma; you have no idea what to do. Most of us start hoping that the choice will be made for us. In Man on the moon, he is asking the man in the moon to tell him what to do. We start praying, hoping that God will send us a sign. Or we just hang in limbo until something happens which forces the choice. Or we expect other parties who are involved in this dilemma to choose for us. That is what we do. Centuries of philosophising over the gift of conscious choice, but we don’t want to take it.

The burden of Free Will.

It may sound as if I am judging, but believe me I have ‘made’ many choices based on that approach. I think that it is an approach for cowards, because, if the choice is made for you, or God sends a sign that you must take that road, then you don’t have to carry the responsibility or repercussions of your choice! It is easier to hurt others or make a choice which you believe is supported by God. The omnipotent must know better than you what is right for you, right? Yes, perhaps, but this does not take away the fact that you are able to and should make choices out of free will. From a Christian point of view, this is what God gave us after all, Free choice. So is it not your responsibility then to make choices when required? After all, they will be far and few between.

But what if you make that choice and choose A over B. Then forever onwards, you will carry the knowledge that you gave up on a choice B. And that choice might have been the correct one. And if the outcome of your choice turns out to be less than ideal, how will you cope with that. Are you ready to take on this burden?

Makes you wonder if free choice is a gift after all. Perhaps we are not quite ready for this burden.

What does it mean?

But let’s look at what it means for us to be free and to be able to make conscious choice. Now we are entering deeply philosophical territory so bear with me.
Within all of us live an ‘I’. The one who we call me, myself and I. The ‘I’ is an observer. It observes everything that happens to us and that we experience. It is unfalteringly always the I. You are certainly not the same person now than you were when you were a child or a teenager or a young adult. So who is the ‘I’ that have been so constant and infallible all these years? The ‘I’ one can say is our spirit. And in a sense when you make a free choice, it is the ‘I’ that makes that choice. There was a philosopher called Kierkegaard who wrote volumes about this.

The point being, that we all go with the flow, so to speak for most of our lives, just like an animal. We live and breath and work and love. We are anguised and happy. But when do we truly become ‘human’. It is at this point, of making a conscious choice and committing to that choice, that you attain ‘selfhood’.

It is only by making a free choice, that the ‘I’ becomes manifest. Observation alone is not enough to attain selfhood. Only when the ‘I’ must make a choice and manifest its will, do you truly embrace your humanity. It is carrying the burden of doubt and standing for something.

But don’t panic, that is way beyond me as well! Good stuff to think about though.

I leave you with a quote from Charles Dickens (A Christmas Carol) : “I wear the chain I forged in life….I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.”

Until next time
Anja

What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die - S’ren Kierkegaard.

There is little doubt that this is the central existential question. That my life should be lived in service of a purpose seems intuitively true and to require very little further consideration. Kierkegaard described this as the birth of a Self. As he put it a Self is a very subtle thing, not everyone has it and many that do loose it on the path.

What does this mean?

Simply that a Self in this sense is a consciously constructed self, it is not given, it is not our birthright, it emerges through education, culture, and conscious choice. As long as any one of us lives a purely natural instinctive life we cannot be said to possess a Self in this sense. Living instinctively is bliss it is akin in many ways to living in the original Garden of Eden ‘ or at least that was my experience, of course I sampled much of the fruit which was memorably sweet to taste, fragrant to smell and firm to touch.

This instinctive world though is generally the province of the young, stupid and those rare individuals touched by the Grace of God, the pure bliss of unconscious instinctive existence. However for those cast out of paradise into the fullness of adulthood we have two choices:

To cling to the instinctive imperatives which will be there as long as we are alive, although diminishing with time; or

To consciously choose who we are, and what purpose our existence is to have.

It is in the second of these two choices that the Self, in the sense that Kierkegaard intended it, is born. I make a choice about not so much who I am- although this is not unimportant psychologically, but rather about who I am to be. Once I make this choice a Self is born, and as long as I hold to that choice the Self remains alive.

This is not to say different choices can’t be made along the way, they can, but if they are too frequently changed than one might suspect expedience rather than a conscious ethic as the determining factor.

3 considerations in becoming a Self

Ego consciousness: it is in this sense that we speak of the essential nature of the ego in the Western Mystery Tradition. When we talk here of a conscious Self it is built on and relies on a highly differentiated ego, this is not about universal consciousness it is about personal consciousness.

Ethics vs. morality: the distinction here is about making a personal moral choice which we then call a personal ethic, as opposed to the unconscious adoption of a collective system of morality, such as you were taught by your parents, peers, and various institutions who make it there business to relieve you of the burden of becoming a Self. This does not mean you need to be an anarchist (although the world could probably do with more of those), but that you need to interrogate what you have been taught and decide if it is valid for you.

Conscious choice: the devil is always in the details isn’t it ? It is very easy to bandy about the term consciousness, or conscious choice, but what does a conscious choice look like? Does making a conscious choice involve:

• Asking your aunty?
• Asking your wife? (This is what I usually do, keeps the peace at home I’ll tell you that much )
• Consulting the local gypsy?
• Asking the fairies?
• Waiting for a sign?
• Consulting the Cosmopolitan magazine?
• Hoping for an inspiration?
• Doing nothing?
• Waiting for a dream? (We Jungians love this one)

Probably not….

but what about prayer?

Now you don’t need to religious in the traditional sense to pray; it doesn’t matter what you call it, meditation, consulting your higher self, praying, consulting the unconscious etc. what matters is the idea of consulting something, be it God, your higher self, the cosmos, or providence, that is higher/ outside/ above/ greater than/ or simply beyond you.

Well to be 100% honest with you I don’t know the answer to this last question, does prayer mean you are acting consciously or not? In the quote Kierkegaard seems to suggest it is, he speaks of the will of God. Either case can be argued. However after much prayer, meditation, contemplation and so on, you get the idea, I am starting to suspect not. I am more inclined than ever before to suspect this is a way of shifting the responsibility, which let’s face it is bloody well understandable, God knows the choices we face in today’s world are not simple.

But I think true conscious choice takes an additional step where by the choice made is made in full consciousness ‘and without resort to either passivity, providence, or a higher power.

Meister Eckhart, the catholic mystic, said God is happiest when he lives in your soul, now interpret that as you chose, but my suspicion is that it means you choose, your bear the consequences, and you don’t shift the responsibility.

Either way, however you arrive at the ethical stance, once you have made that step: conscious choice means ensuring that every other choice you make post this initial choice serves it- the conscious ethic you have chosen, and that is what it means to possess a Self.

Until we meet again,

Stephen

‘”Well,” said Pooh, “what I like best,” and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn’t know what it was called.

What a lovely piece of writing. It fills me with happiness just to read it.

And yes I am capable of these types of feelings of happiness, fleeting as they are, they are wonderful. Playing scrabble with my daughter, or my little one telling me he loves me, or my husband convincing me to go out for a quick coffee, even though we both have lots of work to do. It all makes me very happy. And it all adds meaning to my life. This is something to practice and aspire to, this type of happiness that is extracted from the smallest little things that happen to you on a daily basis.

There are thousands of quotes on happiness and loads of blogs, articles and books written on it. They all seem to say that being happy and making it a goal, is something we should all strive towards. I have very little to add to it, except to suggest that happiness as a goal is for children and fools.

Gosh, a bit harsh? Maybe, but hear me out.

A dangerous goal.

I think that making happiness a goal is childish, because it is ignoring the real. It is an ‘airy fairy’ goal, driven by the desire or need not to suffer. Nobody wants to suffer after all. And if you say that I am happy all the time, you live in a world where dilemmas and resistance do not affect you.

Now that can mean 2 things. Either you really don’t care and obstacles flow past you like water off a duck’s back, in which case you must be enlightened, or you repress it straight away, in which case I can guarantee you it will express itself as dis-ease in your physical body at some point.

And if you don’t react that way and get upset, you probably say to yourself: ‘Why do I get so upset about these things? Next year, or when I am 80, this stuff will be amusing memories.’ But you battle to get out of bed in the morning because your back is out, because deep down inside, you can’t control the reaction of anger and distress in relation to your problems.

When you are a child, you live in a fantasy world, filled with dragons and princesses and knights. And the knight always wins (or the cowboy or the policeman ‘ you get the idea). But when you grow up, you realise that sometimes the baddies win and there is no happy ending.

If you hold onto the dream of happiness, you will say that the baddies will be punished and righteousness will overcome and triumph. And you move through your dilemma holding onto this goal. Ok, this is an approach for sure, but is it a realistic or appropriate response?

What do you do then? How do process and accept these problems without sticking your head into the sand like an ostrich. Is it possible to go through all life’s obstacles with an approach that will make it bearable and meaningful without hoping that there is a happy ending at the end of the road?

What if there is a way to process upsets, work through them and move on without being paralysed in some way.

A possible solution.

What about the possibility of using humour? Humour is a conscious approach to view resistance or suffering. I am not talking about sarcasm, where you diminish yourself or the other person, but true humour which highlights the ridiculousness of your situation.

Usually what we do when we find ourselves in a dilemma, is that our ego becomes totally obsessed with the issue and all our thoughts exacerbate and inflate the issue and we get more and more upset.

I think humour is the key to a conscious approach to all the resistance life throws at us. So I propose a different goal, one which includes a good dose of consciousness. A conscious approach to dilemmas and obstacles, processed with humour.

Humour changes your perception of events and opens you up and allows you to breathe again. It puts the issue at arm’s length and creates a healthy dose of objectivity, by pointing out the ridiculous and incongruence’s of your situation. It allows the psyche to function normally again. With humour you can bring your situation into consciousness and digest it without it possessing you.

Humour is said to be inseparable from spiritual development. In fact, the French word spirituel means both spiritual and witty. The German word geist means spiritual and wit as well. If we say that someone has spirit, we imply that they are lively, not boring or serious. Don’t ever trust the spiritual guru or priest who does not have a sense of humour!

The Jewish holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl wrote about the importance of humour to create meaning from suffering. This meaning was what gave them the spiritual strength to survive their ordeal.

Humour is also a defining character of intellect. You can’t be witty and poke fun at your situation unless you are intelligent.

The best medicine.

And just to give you some practical reasons for practicing humour, I would like to point out the real health benefits of laughter.

• It increases antibodies in saliva that combats upper respiratory infections.
• Secretes an enzyme that protects the stomach from forming ulcers.
• Conditions the abdominal muscles.
• Relaxes muscles throughout the body.
• Aids in reducing symptoms of neuralgia and rheumatism.
• Changes perspective.
• Has positive benefits on mental functions.
• Reduces blood pressure and heart-rate.
• Helps the body fight infection.
• Releases endorphins which provide natural pain relief.
• Tightens stomach muscles.
• Helps move nutrients and oxygen to body tissues.
• AND, it makes you feel good!’.

So for the sake of your health, start practicing humour today!

And the final thought on the matter:

‘Angels fly because they take themselves lightly’

Anja

Love is not abstract it is particular. I hate to shatter your illusions, but when Michael Jackson shouted out I LOVE YOU on stage, as he was want to do, he wasn’t referring to you in particular, so I hope you didn’t take it too seriously

Love is not something you give to your community, it is not something you give to mankind, it is not something for the poor, or even for God.

This is an illusion perpetrated by Holy Men and Conmen alike. Love does not generalise, it singles out. Love differentiates; love loves you or me, love is not generic.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The Archetype of Love

C. G. Jung’s archetypal theory states that all forms in the known universe are particular instances of abstract ideas or archetypes.

‘An archetype is a universally understood symbol or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated,’ (Wikipedia).

The idea (or archetype) of a rose is not based on any particular rose, it is rather an abstraction of every rose past, present, and future.

Love is an archetypal idea. It has been with us as far back in time as history takes us, and extends as far into the future as our vision allows. When Oedipus slay his father Laius and married his mother Jocasta, he did so because he loved her. And so it is with you. Growing up you loved your mother, not mothers in general, and so it will be with you children, and your children’s children.

That there exists love between mother and child is archetypal, it is a universal human truth. But this unfeeling abstraction only comes to life in your actual love of your mother. It is not the idea of love which launched a thousand ships and unleashed the Trojan War, it was the actual love that Paris had for Helen.

To say you love mankind does not impress me. Who of mankind do you love, and how is it that you love them? To say you love God is the same thing. God is an idea, not a person or a thing. God is the ultimate archetype, the most abstract of abstractions. It is sometimes said that God is love. Well if this is true who do you love, and how do you love them?

It is in the particular instance of you love for another human being that you know God and love God.

God is not your Father in Heaven. God is simply your father- whether he is heaven, hell, or on earth. In knowing your father you know God. In loving your father you know love.

Knowing love is not in loving the idea of love, but in actually loving.

It is amusing to observe the New Age and their declarations of love. They love the planet, they love mankind, they love goodwill etc.

But who is it they really love? In my experience no one. The sensation of being amongst a group of New Agers and a den of vipers is not dissimilar. It is the depersonalisation of love. No actual person, god, system, belief, is loved; it is the idea only of love that is held aloft. This is the reason for the weekend workshop syndrome, I don’t actually love you, all I’m looking for is the next high of feeling love.

Love becomes a medium of remaining self absorbed, self centred and unchanged. In other words it is basically bullshit. True love is an alchemical agent, it changes the status quo. Sometimes it creates, sometimes it destroys but nothing is the same after it, as before it arrived.

Types of Love

Let us consider the three classic forms agape, eros, and philia.

Agape; (spiritual love), the love between a parent and child, brother and sister, or husband and wife. For whom do you experience the deepest and most profound sense of spiritual love? Who is it that defines your soul life and your image of the divine?

Eros; (passionate love), the love between lovers. For Freud of course this was the true source of all love, the unsublimated, raw, instinctive libido. Certainly a defining characteristic of your humanity. Even the spiritual love of the saints for God when intense enough could take on the erotic form. Think of the Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, or even of the image of Mary Magdalene washing Christ’s feet. It is in the passionate embrace that you commune with the divine, that the mass in its purest form is celebrated. But once again I stress, it is only in the embrace with your lover- that you know the lover.

Philia; (friendship, brotherly love), in a sense the purest form of love, because it is not based on the satisfaction of your sexual desires or the perpetuation of your genes. Although I have noticed that frequently the best friendships are a form of narcissism. We tend to love the friends that are most like us best.

The Alchemy of Love

What does this love move you to do?

Love is not passive; it is an agent of radical change.

What do you do for the one you love? How does this love affect you? How far are you willing to go for someone that you truly love?

Are you willing to change?

Are you willing to live with courage?

Are you willing to learn more about life, about being human?

Are you willing to be the best person you can be? And I don’t mean the best person you can pretend to be- I mean the best person you can be.

Are you willing to love yourself? For surely you cannot love another more than you love yourself.

Are you willing to live a life which is an example to the one you love, which will make them proud to say they were loved by you?

These are a few of the questions which I think gauge how real your love is. How deep it is. For to say you love another, and not be profoundly changed and challenged by that love…well I’m not too sure its love then. Love is an alchemical process, taking you from the dark night of the soul to the realisation of your own divinity.

Love challenges, love refines, and love transforms.

With that I leave you, hopeful that you love and are loved.

And that you live a life of love.

Until we meet again.

Stephen.

This is a guest post by Ryan Parker.

I was recently privileged enough to spend two weeks on holiday in the UK, in part visiting Stephen, during his marathon sabbatical, and in part simply spending time in London visiting as many places of personal interest as time and money would allow.

Naturally, being a competitive Jo’burger I couldn’t help comparing life in London with life in Johannesburg and actively seeking out the positives and negatives of both places.

In the course of which it struck me just how ordered, controlled, and rule bound Londoners seemingly prefer to live. Johannesburg by comparison seemed a little wilder .

At first, especially as a tourist, this was a real boon and I’m guessing here, but I’m sure that if any Jo’burger were stopped in the street and asked whether he/she would prefer a more governed society, the majority would loudly proclaim, yes! After all, if you are not in the business of crime, what have you got to hide?

Yet as I spent more time on London’s streets I imagined living a whole life under such nanny like strictures.

There are, by way of example, no less than 57 CCTV cameras, as you walk from the underground platform of Liverpool station to street level. This is a distance of no more 300 metres and is already well policed. Of course if one walks the streets of the Johannesburg CBD, one can be safe in the knowledge that only half the cameras work half the time.

There are also constant ‘Received Pronunciation’ verbal warnings on the station’s P.A. warning travellers to ‘Mind the gap’, ‘Step away from the closing doors’, ‘Have your tickets ready’, ‘consider X number of stairs in this station’ watch out for ‘broken glass on such and such platform’. At times it seemed as if there was an omnipresent, omniscient strictly obeyed, ‘Voice Of Authority’ looking over every person’s right shoulder.

Stephen and I discussed my observations in some detail, if I recall correctly it at 3:00 am in the morning after we had just spent a rather rough night in Soho and were now on some random bus heading in the absolutely wrong direction. (That’s another story altogether.)

Notwithstanding our situation, Stephen still had the good grace and presence of mind to ask me to write a guest blog exploring why we as human beings long for the pseudo safety of Nanny State type controls.

The question in essence that we asked was; what are we so scared of losing, that we feel so strong a desire to subject ourselves to nihilistic procedures, processes, and prescriptions, rather than to soar slightly wild after birth.

Are all our seemingly benign rules and regulations perhaps artefacts of a deeper desire, a socially contracted craving to restrain the ‘Devil Inside’.

Shadow

Carl Gustav Jung stressed that our modern world does not give enough opportunity to experience the archetype of the Shadow. So for example when a child expresses his/her animal instincts, he or she is often punished. Of course such punishment does not lead to the extinction of the Shadow, which is impossible, but it leads to the suppression of this archetype.

The Shadow retreats to an unconscious state, primitive and undifferentiated. And perhaps then, when the Shadow does finally breaks through the repressive barrier, and this does happen once in a while, it manifests itself in a sinister, pathological way.

Now admittedly the process of individuation is not something that comes from the ‘outside’ of a person, but rather is an inborn internal natural process.

Notwithstanding this fact, I think we must for the sake of argument accept that external forces, socialisations and experiences influence the manner and rate of each our own personal process of individuation.

In which case then is it not just possible that the social restrictions we place on ourselves to behave ourselves, to repress our animal instincts and punish our shadow side are also just the things preventing us from reaching any form of individuated earthbound freedom?

A freedom which is in part denied us, when we hand all responsibility over to a government, no matter how caring and benign it may be.

Romantic Barbarian Freedom VS Idealised Roman Law

I am, of course, afraid at this point that you might jump to the conclusion that I am foolishly promoting social disorder and chaos as some sort of romanticised freedom for all humanity.

In the ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire’ (1788) Edward Gibbon derogates, at some length the romantic idea of ‘Barbarian Freedom’, noting with authority, that the Barbarian men were languid, lazy, and lethargic for most of their days, only rising to action to gamble, drink or fight. The Romans by comparison were a disciplined, determined lot, albeit devolving over four centuries into more barbarian modes.

By the way let’s not make the mistake of equating the Roman Empire with the modern Nanny State. In fact not by a long shot can we even begin to compare the two. The Roman authorities did maintain a legalised tyranny over subjects, slaves and strangers but certainly did not endeavour to worry and care for their citizens to the extent of telling them how to cross the road safely.

Roman citizens, at the height of their power, were aware of the reality of their responsibility

Reality

It may seem rather redundant to make the statement that we cannot escape reality, since reality by definition is all encompassing, and leaves us nowhere to escape to.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder if our desire for a prescriptive society, as strong here in South Africa as it is accomplished in England, is an attempt hopelessly and rather bleakly, to escape, ignore or even rebel against reality.

Is it perhaps a fear of the reality of taking adult responsibility and individuated accountability for ones actions, knowing full well that really free men take huge risks and fail, and so rather choose to contract in with one another so that no-one ‘breaks the rules’.

In this rather subtle and almost unconscious manner we can all licence each other to avoid the extreme, powerful, life making or taking decisions pregnant with consequence.

Is it perhaps the case that humanity, under the ever present spectre of global nuclear Armageddon, is aiming toward a more robotic state?

A state not unlike the world ruled by robots in the film ‘The Matrix‘, a world where there appears to be free choice, but where in reality there isn’t.

Is it that our post-modern preference is now to leaning toward a retreat back into Plato’s cave?

The only difference being that there is now a sign ‘Mind The Gap’ above the cave entrance?

Ryan is South African by birth, Lebanese by constitution, a poet and scholar in orientation, a business and communications skills trainer by profession- he is founder and director of Parker and Associates. His passions include history, classical music and his family.

A friend of mine Simon Tzu (also known as Simon Anderson- long story ) recently posted on face book, what he referred to as the:

World religions leader board.

The numbers are (in millions):

Christianity: 2100

Islam: 1500

Chinese traditional religion: 394

Buddhism: 376

Sikhism: 23

Spiritism: 15

Judaism: 14

Baha’i: 7

Jainism: 4.2

Shinto: 4

Cao Dai: 4; Zoroastrianism: 2.6; Tenrikyo: 2; Neo-Paganism: 1; Unitarian-Universalism: 0.8; Rastafarianism: 0.6; Scientology: 0.5.

The most remarkable figure is the numbers of Jews, (that there are more Spiritists than Jews!) considering the pivotal role the Jews play in global politics today and the cultural impact they have had on the world.

Then by simple arithmetic we can deduce from the above that there are about 2 000 (million) people remaining on the planet (current world population is 6 700 million) that do not fall into any of the classification above. So these we will assign to secularism which is in effect a modern religion.

What I want to bring to your attention though, in which ever of the groups (above) you place yourself, is:

This is not really your religion it is rather, your creed.

I am of course making a generalisation, as needs must, and there are always exceptions to a generalisation. Maybe your religion truly is synonymous with one of the traditional creeds, however if this is the case you are in a very, very small minority.

Let me explain.

On the nature of religion

The word religion has in roots in the Latin words:

religio: to study carefully

religare: to bind together

So religion in this sense is the careful study of that which binds together. It is that which gives purpose to your life, the centre point from which everything else radiates out. Religion, true religion, is that which makes your life meaningful, which you strive towards and that by which you make sense of your existence.

Your real religion is not that which you claim to be it is that which you are, that which you spend your time on, that which you love, that which you perceive as sacred. It is the place where you see God, if you let go of God as a metaphysical being (a kind of Father Christmas on steroids) and understand God as something more subtle, more mysterious.

God is the centre point of your real religion.

Whatever you hold closest to your heart, whatever you devote yourself to, in the dead centre of that God exists. God by his (her) very nature is not reducible to a thing; God is the irreducible essence of what makes your religion meaningful. God cannot be grasped directly; rather God is what breathes life into your life and your religion.

Admittedly some people are more religious than others, but I would say all of us subscribe to one religion or another and all have a relationship with God in this sense. Some closer than others maybe.

So the question to ask is what is it that gives your life meaning?

What is it you strive towards really?

What do you spend your days doing and your nights dreaming about?

Where does your energy go?

To put it in psychological terms in what direction does your libido flow?

Well with that in mind let’s consider what the real religions of the world are, not the creeds mind you, but the true religions.

True global religions

The list that follows is necessarily speculative. I will try and list the religious drives in their hierarchical order but even if I get this wrong you will get the general idea.

Sex, all things considered I think this is the number one global religion. If we include in sex the desire to procreate it takes the first position without doubt. But I suspect even removing the procreative element, it may still be the single greatest aspiration in the world today, and probably always has been.

Power, more power equals more and better sex, it also is a goal in and of itself, the drive for power, to posses it, to be close to it, to submit others to it, to use it to protect and favour you and yours, everyone wants it, and if they don’t have it they either try and align themselves with those that do and/or they resent those that have it.

Money, hardly needs to be elaborated it is so obviously the current global religion, except maybe to state the obvious, witness the classic line from Tony Montana in Scarface ,

In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

Money more than anything else is so obviously the global religion. Sex and power whilst clearly embedded as must haves in the social framework are slightly more subtle. But you cannot switch on the TV, go to the movies, open a newspaper or magazine, or go out socially without being exposed to the materialism of the age.

Those are the big three. But let’s consider some of the others, and now of course the ordering becomes a little less certain.

Information/knowledge/education

Scientific enlightenment (reason and rationality), long believed to be our salvation, a little less certain today with current world affairs, but still a beacon of hope for many.

Hedonism, this comes in many varied forms but I’m thinking of the love of sensory pleasure across the wide spectrum from creature comforts, wining and dining, holidays to exotic beach locations that kind of thing.

Addictions, narcotics, alcohol, food, sex, gambling etc.

Politics

Entertainment, movies, gaming, concerts, TV, magazines, novels, expos, fairs etc.

The Arts

Society, socializing, friendships, your community etc.

Humanitarian goals

The World Wide Web

Sport

Love of nature

And the list could goes on.

However I only mention the above by way of example of the kinds of containers into which we, as a community of man, pour our souls into. Maybe you can identify with one or two of the items on the list above, maybe not (although I doubt it ), as your true religion.

What about your personal religion

So far I have mentioned the traditional religions or creeds, as well as what I believe are the real religions of the 21^st century. There is one very important category, perhaps the most important, that we haven’t discussed yet.

Your personal religion; and your personal relationship with God.

But firstly it is important that your understand the nature of what I am asking, so before we consider this last and most critical question I want to share something with you which will put some perspective on the question.

Jung and God

I am a student of the father of analytical psychology Carl Gustav Jung. In an interview with John Freeman from the BBC, Jung was surprised by a question from Freeman about whether he believed in God; this is an extract of the interview:

Freeman: What sort of religious upbringing did your father give you?

Jung: Oh we were Swiss Reformed.

Freeman And did he make you attend church regularly?

Jung: Oh well that was quite natural. Everybody went to church on a Sunday.

Freeman: And did you believe in God?

Jung: Oh yes.

Freeman: Do you now believe in God?

Jung: Now? (Pause) Difficult to answer. I know. I don’t need to believe. I know.

This interview took place in 1959, two years before Jung died. Jung who died at the ripe old age of eighty six spent practically his entire life considering this question- the nature of God. He had become bitterly disillusioned with institutionalized region, in particular Protestantism. His father was a minister in the Swiss reformed church and it had injured Jung to see his father’s lack of a truly meaningful relationship with God.

So began a lifetime’s journey into exploring the human psyche or soul, not least of which was the question of man’s relationship with the God. Jung’s work, contained in the twenty volumes of the Collected Works, was definitive for psychology and redefined mans’ relationship with the divine in the age of modernity, where scientific materialism and secular values were rapidly replacing mans’ prior relationship to a transcendental authority.

Jung came to understand that although God in the sense of a metaphysical authority independent of man may or may not exist, (this is a question which naturally is unanswerable). What most definitely does exist is the image of God in the human soul. Furthermore whilst this image has a universal, or what Jung called archetypal, essence, it also has a personal character in each human being.

Think about it like this. God exists for all of us, we all participate in his presence, even those who deny his existence- the experience of God is simply transposed. A good current example of this is Richard Dawkins of The God Delusion. The fact that Dawkins holds scientific atheism as the highest possible value does not mean that Dawkins desn’t have a God, and a relationship with God, but only that his God is called scientific atheism, and he is a fervent missionary of his religion.

Your relationship with God

So with the above in mind I would like you to consider what your true religion is. How is the image of God mediated in your psyche? What does (your) God look like, feel like, what values does God have? Is God cruel or kind, just or unjust, does God have a purpose, filled with love or hate, passion or indifference?

This is what the great catholic mystic Meister Eckhart understood, that God lives in your soul.

Now whether or not you are religious in the traditional sense it would not be a bad investment of your time to consider some of these questions. What is your religion (or equivalent) and where do you find God (or equivalent) in your life? What question could possibly be more important, for if it is mammon you serve then at least make it conscious!

In understanding and relating to God as he appears to you, you are able to truly relate to that which is most important, in effect to know the will of God.

Where do you encounter God?

Is it in love, in money, in your job, with your friends, at church, listening to music, having sex, getting drunk, at the gym, shopping, meditating, cooking, eating, with your children or parents, is it when reading a good book or watching a great play that you encounter God, in nature or in the city?

Wherever and however you meet God it is worthwhile doing, and worthwhile reflecting on. It is after all your central defining characteristic, it is that to which you have come here to serve and to love.

God can be your greatest friend or your worst enemy, and sometimes both simultaneously. You already have a relationship with God, we all do. Conversely the more conscious you make that relationship the more human you will become.

With blessings,

Stephen

As people we always want to know things. We are incurably curious you might say.

We want to know about what the neighbours are doing, what the latest celebrity gossip is, what the headlines are, who won the presidential election, when does the newest TV show start, who won the soccer, what time will they be here and so on.

The list is endless:

Who

What

Where

When

Why

How

How much

With whom

What for

Now in that spirit let’s ask another question, a question about the nature of curiosity itself. Why are we curious? What is at the heart of our curiosity? Why are some of us more curious than others, and is curiosity itself a good thing?

Lets begin with the last question…. Is curiosity a good thing?

Well I suppose generally speaking it is. It is the basis of all theoretical science, of philosophy and of religion possibly. Any discipline that pursues knowledge for its own sake is a very pure expression of human curiosity. As opposed to other fields of study which are more pragmatically motivated such as medicine, law, engineering, applied science etc.

In this then we have to affirm our curiosity, it is no small part of our technological and cultural progress. Certainly we wouldn’t be where we are without it. It is arguably the cornerstone of civilisation.

Nevertheless it can be quite destructive as well. Without it we would never have built the atomic bomb and we wouldn’t posses the know how to destroy the world with the push of a button. Which if you think about it is a lot of responsibility, maybe more than we can bear.

Let’s look at some examples of curiosity in action which are not very encouraging:

Mmm… I wonder what she would be like in bed. (Not good when she is your boss’s wife)

If we sail across this ocean I wonder what we’ll find, not sure but let’s take lots of weapons so can kill anyone who resists us when we get there and dominate everyone left alive.

Is my husband/wife being faithful to me?

Does he/she really love me?

Wouldn’t it be great to see some pics of Dodi and Dianne together, maybe see them kissing?

How many of these pills can I take and still live to talk about it?

What would he look like naked?

Just how fast can this car go?

I’m sure you get the idea.

Anyway psychoanalysis has got some very interesting ideas on this subject, which I’d like to explore. What Freud posited was that basically every child asks itself one burning question where do babies come from? Now this could be in relation to a new born baby, say a sibling for example. And behind this question lies a terrifying numinous truth…

Babies are born because their parents (often my parents in the case of a sibling) had sex. What psychoanalysts refer to as the primal act or primal scene (the act of sex). Can you remember the first time you became consciously aware of that knowledge, that you were conceived by virtue of your parents having sex? It was pretty shocking wasn’t it? Or can you not remember that moment, that moment of illumination?

Assuming you do remember, it wasn’t fun finding that out was it? (Or maybe it wasn’t for you, but I guess that would place you in a very small minority).

For most people it is a fall from grace, an eviction from the garden of paradise. Going a step further in depth psychology we talk about an unconscious psyche, meaning an activity of mind that is present and purposeful but not immediately (and sometimes never) accessible to consciousness. In this unconscious state the knowledge of the primal act is present before our finding out consciously and is more terrifying for being unconscious.

Allowing for a moment Freud’s’ idea to stand (admittedly it is a radical, if not new, idea and is open to debate), the first thing we are curious about is where babies come from, and at first we suspect and then later confirm that there is a terrible secret behind this mystery. That how we come into contact with that experience, that knowledge, and how it affects us shapes our curiosity for the rest of our lives.

We are either so repulsed by this knowledge, so overwhelmed, that we determine that curiosity and what it reveals is not something we should pursue. We turn our backs on the project of curiosity and foreswear all but the most essential knowledge. This is in psychoanalytic terms repression.

A quote from one of my favourite movies, Angel Heart, occurs to me in this regard, What good is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise?

The other side of the spectrum is that we determine we need to know everything, or as much as is humanly possible. We want to get rid of the bogey man by checking under every bed in the world. This is compensation.

Both extremes show an unresolved trauma to the initial project of our curiosity and its shocking conclusion. Most of us probably lie somewhere in between these two poles. Here are a few questions you can consider in figuring out where you can place yourself on that continuum:

1. How curious are you in relation to those around you (not about them mind you but compared to them )?
2. How far will you go to find an answer to your questions?
3. What are the limits of your curiosity, do you have any limit?
4. Is there a point where you will not go beyond in the quest to find out?
5. Do you have to finish a book that you start?
6. Can you walk out of a movie or switch off the TV before the conclusion i.e. at the point of the cliff hanger, just prior to big finale?
7. If you were obliged to do this (stop watching at a critical point), e.g. there is a power failure, how would you feel?
8. How frequently do you try new things?
9. Do you consider the outcome of curiosity prior to embarking on the quest for truth? Do you consider that you may not like what you’ll find and that it is possibly better not to find out, or are you relentless in your pursuit of knowledge.
10. What is your relationship to knowledge? Do you seek to own it like a commodity to penetrate it to conquer the mystery and to be in control? Or is it more a sense of contemplative wonder?
11. How central is the pursuit of knowledge in your life?
12. How often do you travel a different route, eat a new dish, go somewhere different, talk to strangers, spend your leisure time doing something you haven’t done before? Frequently or do you find yourself mainly repeating old patterns?
13. Does the different or the new scare or excite you?
14. Has your curiosity project been put on hold, do you believe you know what there is to know or is it very much alive?
15. Would your experience of life be enriched by greater curiosity or is possibly fragmented from an excess of curiosity?

The above is a very provisional list but if you carefully consider the questions It should give you some idea of your relationship to curiosity and knowledge.

Finally let me leave you with some concluding thoughts. And I must give credit to my friend and colleague Ricardo Meira in suggesting the one and stimulating the others, through his line of thinking. I think our project of curiosity is well described by Freud, but in an existential and Jungian sense we can take a few more steps. At the heart of our curiosity lie the following questions:

Where do babies come from?

Where does the other come from? (I.e. the other who I can see exists but is not I)

Where do I come from?

Why am I here?

Where am I going?

With that I’ll leave you, curious I hope, about the nature of curiosity. About the role of curiosity in your life, what you want to know, why you want to know it and just how important that knowing is to you? In particular you may want to reflect on how through your knowledge project you are trying to answer one or more of the questions listed above.

Until next time go in peace,

Stephen

I have been wondering recently what the ideal man looks like today. In a broader sense what does the ideal person look like? But in terms of applying Jungian theory it may be easier to look at the question from the perspective of a single gender, in this case a man. And possibly we can infer something about the ideal woman from there.

Firstly let’s contextualise the question. When I talk of an ideal man (today) what I am referring to is what do we as a society living in the early 21^st century, in the post modern world consider as the ideal man. Naturally as a westerner and a European any attempt at creating such a model will be influenced by these personal prejudices.

It may be a good starting point in attempting to consider such a question to ask what the ideal (European) man was conceived of previously. And here we have some reliable historical material to support such a question.

Let us briefly consider four historical periods and how they conceived of the ideal man the renaissance, baroque, enlightenment and romantic cultural movements.

The Renaissance Man

‘The renaissance strove toward the ideal of perfect proportion in its static form…It’s ideal type of man was described by Baldassare Castiglione as being of noble birth, versed in bodily exercise, of a refined education including art, music and literature, combining dignity with spontaneity and grace in manners, and being little concerned with religion. The renaissance also exalted the shrewd politician, the mighty genius and the great scholar….it was considered a matter of course that an educated person should posses an excellent knowledge of Latin and Greek and their literatures as well as of the modern classics in their national languages.’

(Ellenberger, H. The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry, London, Penguin Press, 1970, p. 194)

The archetypal example, naturally, being Leonardo de Vinci .

The Baroque Man

‘The models of life were no longer sought in Greek and Roman antiquity, but around the idealised figures of the great monarchs…in great empires, involving elaborate ceremonials, costumes and furnishings…the Baroque sought movement, change and growth. It often had a predilection for the boundless, the colossal, the disproportionate and exaggerated ornamentation.

Its ideal man was depicted by Baltasar Gracian as a man of noble birth and fine education, to whom religion and honour were sacred; he was striving above all to inner greatness though with ostentation, ‘the man of majestic qualities and achievements’…heroes who faced indescribable obstacles and were the pawns of fate’ (ibid, p.194-195).

A good example of the ideal Baroque man would be Claudio Monteverdi .

The Enlightened Man

‘Enlightenment has been described by Troeltsch as ‘the spiritual movement which led to the secularisation of thought and State’…everywhere the conviction reigned that mankind had finally come of an age after an extremely long period of ignorance and servitude, and could now under the control of reason, steer towards a future of unlimited progress…the cult of reason, considered to be a universal entity, which was the same for all men of all ages and all countries.

The ideal type of man belonged to the aristocracy or to the bourgeoisie, and his life was directed in accordance with the requirements of reason and of society. In France he was represented by the honnete homme , a sociable figure. In England he was more public minded and concerned with economic problems…optimistic and practical and proclaimed that science had to be applied for the welfare of mankind’ (ibid, p. 195-196).

A good example of a typical gentleman of the enlightenment would be Bertrand Russel .

The Romantic Man

‘Romanticism had the cult of the irrational and of the individual. Mystical tendencies, which had been pushed into the background by Enlightenment, were now released.’

The Romantic exhibited six significant tendencies:

1. A deep feeling for nature.
2. Behind visible nature the Romantic sought to penetrate the secrets of nature.
3. A feeling for ‘becoming’ (what Jung would later call individuation).
4. Concern with National Identity.
5. A new feeling for history, striving to conjure up the spirit of past centuries, as it were.
6. A strong emphasis on the notion of the individual. (ibid, p. 200-201)

A good example of a Romantic is William Blake .

So to our question of the Ideal Contemporary Man…

With that context in mind let’s consider what the archetype of the Ideal Man looks like now, at the end of the first decade of the 21^st century.

To do this lets consider a few categories within which we might better locate him:

Profession:

Well he’s not doing anything traditional that’s for sure; he’s not a banker (god forbid), a financier or a traditional corporate executive. He’s probably not a politician either.

More promising professions are: an information or technology specialist or anything related to the web (he could actually be a blogger come to think of it ) but more likely he started Facebook or is working on the next big thing on the web. Other promising professions are something related to the environment, ecology champion, Green Peace that kind of thing, an entertainer or artist or involved in some humanitarian initiative.

Religious views:

Are you kidding!

Political:

Love conquers all. This man has turned his back on politics in the traditional sense, the 20^th century cured him of any political idealism, and he is focused on personal and community development.

Philosophical:

Post modern, post new age, relativist. Waiting for the next wave, not sure what it is but will be the first to know and will you know when he finds out. Watch this space…

Cultural/social:

Unpretentious, hedonist, enjoys good music, modern art, outdoor festivals, intimate socials, believes in transparency and integrity, but (still) strives to look good and in control, he probably cooks if not well at least enthusiastically, loves children and animals, doesn’t try too hard to impress.

Status Symbols:

Hey man get a life , that’s so 20^th century! He is an ascetic and lives below his means, which probably are quite comfortable (he’s modelled himself on Steve Jobs). His few status symbols include a seriously good laptop, mobile phone and a kindle, a few items of designer clothing and a vintage motorcycle.

Sexuality and sexual politics:

Woman on top so to speak, he’s in awe of the feminine and in touch with his own femininity. He adores woman but can relate warmly to other men. His sexuality is slightly ambivalent, probably just this side of hetro and he is something of a metro-sexual although that’s a little tired. So he’s probably quite subtle about it.

His list of favourites:

Movie: enjoys anything from Tim Burton, but his top three movies are Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, Fight Club and The Matrix.

Music: Usher occassionaly, otherwise acid jazz or just some good laid back trip hop.

TV show: Lost the complete series, 2^nd choice Sopranos.

Book: The Lord of the Rings and Catcher in the Rye.

Actor: Johnny Depp

Actress: Uma Thurman

Holiday Destination: Thailand

Meal: Anything really as long as it’s organically grown not too heavy and he’s got you for company.

Way to spend an evening: Alone with you on a deserted beach with a bottle of local red wine, waking home to your small beach cottage, where he will cook for you and regale you with stories about the wonders of the cosmos, as you sip wine and watch the night ocean until dawn when he will make passionate love to you as the sun rises. (Sometimes the best things don’t change )

What do you think, am I in the ballpark? Hard to say because these things are culturally conditioned but if you reading my blog then I guess we’re probably not that different you and I. Whilst this is really meant more to stimulate your own thinking about your unconscious (or our unconscious in this case) ideals, I’m guessing that my Ideal Man is not too far from the collective ideal.

Until next time,

Stephen.