Selfish communication

Recently, I've been pondering on the inherent selfishness of communication. The basic problem is that every time you tell someone something, the reason for telling that something is completely egoistic. You either 1) put on a show, you entertain your companion, or 2) you tell something in order to get your companion to tell you something in a tit for tat manner. In the first case the objective is then that you want to appear favorably in your companions eyes. In other words, in both cases you tell stories in order to get something, information, recognition, favors, or something similar.

That this egoism would be a problem, is an illusion easily solved. After all, is there anything that we do, that does not rise from our egoism? We work for money and to gain recognition. We eat an sleep to satisfy our needs. We love to be loved. Even altruistic actions such as helping the elderly, giving money to charity, loving someone without response, they all give us a good feeling. The reward from a altruistic deed is that we feel good, like a better person. In this sense, communication is no different. It is an egoistic process to gain something we want. If nothing else, we want to feel good.

However, the more interesting problems arise in a more advanced case. Some feel that in communicating with others, especially in light conversation, they are in fact entertaining, putting on a show and at the same time loosing themselves. As if they were not truthful to the others, trying to be something that they, in fact, are not. The simplistic answer would be to say that if the person does not feel comfortable with the communication, he should not communicate. But from personal experience, I know that it is not always that easy. Often, you feel external pressure to be social. For example, your friends ridicule you if you want to go the sleep when everyone else is going to the pub. "Oh come on!" Like choosing to be alone (=choosing not to communicate) would automatically be an inferior choice (hint: it is not!). Again, a simple answer is to insist on doing your own choices and not to surrender to coercion. While that is easier to say than to do, especially without hurting the feelings of your friends, still, this is not the complete answer. I have a faint feeling that there is something about the concept of "putting on a show" that I do not yet fully understand.

Putting on a show implicitly indicates that your are dishonest, acting untruthfully, or that you are faking something. The main problem is then not that you would be dishonest to your audience, they love your show (at least to some extent), but that you are dishonest to yourself. You're doing something that does not match your feelings. Or, perhaps, are your feelings about what you are doing mixed. You gain immediate satisfaction from putting on the show, while simultaneously knowing that it does not provide lasting gratification. I feel like I am approaching the essence of the problem. Perhaps it is the superficial nature of putting up a show that is the problem. Entertainment over a pint of beer does not leave a lasting impression. It just does not feel important. And participating in something less than important is, well, superficial.

What should one then do? Like always, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of awareness. Realizing the reason for the uneasy feeling takes you more than half the way to the solution. Mostly it is a question of braking the habit of putting up a show. Realizing that your at it again, is, like I said, half the solution. The complete solution, however, escapes me.

Desires

After an all-too-long break, I'm here, writing again. I do have a lot of things to write about, but somehow I've gotten out of the habit of writing. Got to get back in there again!

Anyway, recently, I've thought a lot of about desires in the sense of "I want X". Two specific cues got me thinking about this:

1. While visiting a friend, he asked me: "Would you like to have something? Tea, coffee, juice...?" Usually, I don't have strong desires and I would go something like "Yeah, um-h, sure, I don't know, whatever." Some argue that an offer like that is literally an offer and a sign of the hospitality of the host. Therefore I can and should choose whatever I feel like, without consideration of the cost or practicality for the host.
   Personally, I would prefer more a dialog, with an answer like "Sure. What do you recommend?" or "Sure. I'll have what the other's are having." Such answers give the host more room to serve what is practical or especially good.
2. Another friend, a female, stated that she wants that the man takes the initiative, that the man should "make the move" so to speak. In that particular moment, I have to admit that I had no idea whether she implied that I should make a move (which was a tempting thought), or that men in general should make the move. This confusion originates from the fact that she did not give any indication whether she was interested in me or not. While this puts a lot of pressure on the man (me), it is also in contradiction with well-researched facts about human courtship. It is true that it is generally the men who "make the move", but generally "the move" is successful only if the female has first given a sign that she is interested, that she would like the man to make a move.
   

In my mind, these two examples demonstrate problems with stereotypical concepts of desire. I would argue that trying to force out statements of preference (or desire) squeezes out flexibility. When a host asks "Tea, coffee, beer or champagne, perhaps?" merely answering "Champagne", might be impractical if you are the only one drinking and the host has to open a bottle just for you. Or perhaps all the other guests are driving and cannot drink alcohol. "I would feel like champagne, but only if others join me", would state the preference, but gives the host as well as the other guests the option of nudging you to a more practical choice when needed. In this sense, in my opinion, forcing choices, or forcing statements of preference, makes the situation too black and white.

A second argument is that the "I want" attitude is an egoistic one. It excludes social interaction. "I want champagne." Period. Personally I feel that drinking champagne with a friend, let along a female friend, is doubly as pleasant as drinking it alone. Although I really, really like champagne, sometimes I would rather not drink champagne, then drink it alone. In the courtship context, I feel that it is perfectly ok that a man makes the moves in a context where the man and the female do not know each other from before, such as a bar. I would even see that as the preferred way of action. However, if the man and female know each other from before, if they are even friends, then the stakes are higher. To interpret the situation wrong, to make moves when the female is not interested, can incur serious damage to a friendship. An interaction will then probably lead to a more "mutually fulfilling" (pardon the pun) sequence of events. Thus the social interaction often gives a better result than just blurting out your own preference.

The other side of the coin is that persons without definite opinions are often perceived as weak, as if they were incapable of making a choice. Paradoxically, I do agree with this argument as well. Inability to choose is lame. It is a serious handicap. Paralysis before a menu in a restaurant is really annoying for the others in a group. To this problem I would offer a simple trick. Instead of the two opposite alternatives 1. "I choose X" and 2. "I'm unable to choose", I would suggest a third alternative 3. "I do not have a preference". In the original host/guest scenario we could then proceed with

• (Host) "Would you like some tea, coffee or juice?"
• (You) "I don't know", meaning, "I don't have a preference", and then continue "What are the others having?"
• (Host) "We're all drinking tea."
• (You) "I'll have one, too."

Note that, in addition to being practical for the host, this kind of conformity to the group standard will unify the group and build sense of community, instead of "He's the (different) one who drinks coffee."

In a situation where we really do have to make a choice, such as when eating in a restaurant, I would offer the no-preference case two different solutions.

1. Again, interact. For example, ask the waiter "What would you recommend?" if he did not already offer his opinion (they often have something ready). Say, the specials of the day are often something that the restaurant bought in a big quantity, whereby you'd get better quality for a cheaper price. Perfect.
   
2. The advanced technique: If you don't know what you prefer, then all the available options must be more or less of equal preference to you. Therefore, pick one at random. Number 3 is as good a choice as any. I've tried that a lot of times. In all parts of the world, it always works. Easy.
   

Suomalaiset, itsetunto ja empatia

Klassinen mielikuva joka suomalaisilla on itsestään, väittää että suomalaisilla on huono itsetunto. Suomalaismediat toistavat ja jalostavat tätä mielikuvaa toistamalla sitä säännöllisesti sen eri muodoissa. Minulla on tähän asiaan kuitenkin vaihtoehtoinen perspektiivi, joka perustuu ahaa-elämykseen jonka koin muutamia viikkoja sitten.

Jos pohdimme tuota huonoa itsetuntoa, mitä se oikein tarkoittaa? Suomalaiset vertailevat itseään toisiin ihmisiin, erityisesti ulkomaisiin ihmisiin ja kantavat huolta siitä mitä nämä toiset ajattelevat meistä, suomalaisista. Suomalaiset ovat siis huolissaan siitä mitä toiset ihmiset ajattelevat. Suomalaiset siis välittävät siitä mitä muun maalaiset ihmiset ajattelevat. Suomalaiset välittävät toisista ihmisistä.

Järisyttävää. Suomalaisten muka niin huono itsetunto onkin osoitus positiivisesta piirteestä, välittämisestä!

Myönnettäköön että perusteluni ei ole aivan aukoton, mutta minulla on riittämiin poliittisesti inkorrektia empiiristä aineistoa (listan voi ottaa huumorilla):
- Baijerin alueella Saksassa ihmiset eivät keskimäärin pode huonoa itsetuntoa, mutta he eivät myöskään ole vieraanvaraisia. Heitä voisi jopa kutsua tylyiksi.
- Ranskalaiset pitävät stereotypian mukaan ranskan kieltä ja ranskalaisia muita parempana. Se tekee heistä itseriittoisia.
- Hollantilaiset ovat itsekkäitä ja välinpitämättömiä.
- Italialaiset miehet ovat egoisteja ja naiset diivoja.
- Jenkit eivät edes tiedä mitä heidän rajojensa ulkopuolella tapahtuu.
...

Tästä perspektiivistä kannustaisin suomalaisia pitämään kiinni huonosta itsetunnostaan ja jalostamaan sitä. Mikäli se on keino pitää kiinni empatiasta ja välittämisestä, en näe siinä mitään pahaa.

Curing a besserwisser

Recently, a person said that I am a selfish and like that wouldn't be enough, that I am a besserwisser. Uh, ok, I thought. A bit later, another person said the same thing. Somewhat too much for a coincidence, so I asked some friends I trust of their opinion. They answered very politely, but did not immediately shoot down the idea as absurd, which confirms my concern. I guess I am selfish and a besserwisser. These attributes are not directly flattering, whereby I would like to try to improve my habits. Let us thus think the besserwisser thing through.

Firstly, there are three different perspectives to being a besserwisser. 1) A person might actually know better than another in an objective sense. 2) A person might think that he knows better than another person in an subjective sense. 3) A person might be perceived as if he knows better. It is immediately clear that how one is perceived is the key here. Irrespective if one objectively knows more or not, one can be perceived as a besserwisser. Likewise, even if one doesn't self believe to know better, one can still be perceived as a besserwisser (although this is probably less likely).
I would therefore claim that being a besserwisser is essentially a problem in communications alone. Still I have to quickly add that attitude also plays an important role; for a person that honestly believes that he knows better (however true or false that is), it will be very difficult to not communicate it. On the other hand, a deeply respected person could say the same things, be a besserwisser best he can, but he will not be perceived as a besserwisser since it is well known that he knows better. Curious, isn't it?

From my own perspective this clearly means that I am not a deeply respected person, at least in the eyes of these persons. I can live with that. It follows that I must improve my communication to avoid being perceived as a besserwisser. That is kind of obvious, don't you think?

Friends, fear and failures

During the last year, I have met three very different people with one common feature: they all choose to hide their private life from their colleagues at work. Each time I discovered this feature I was equally dumbfounded and shocked. I just don't seem to understand.

In an effort to understand these people, I'll first try to look at my own attitude. Why do I find it desirable to tell my colleagues of my private life? I come to two distinct conclusions:

1. First the utilitarian finding: I find that telling people what I like, what I do and what I value, makes them understand me better. It is easier to communicate with people whom I understand. I prefer to co-operate with people whom I understand and I feel that the results are better with such people. Therefore, communicating with people about private matters improves my performance at work.
2. Then the romantic finding: I enjoy the company of friends. Quite simply, I love my friends. The more friends I have, that much better. Then if I can make friends with my colleagues at work, then why should I not do it?

Making friends with everyone is naturally not possible, but I feel that trying to become/be friends is better than not trying. The few times you loose on the bet are by far outweighed by the numerous and rich wins.

Then what motivates hiding one's private life from colleagues? I'm assuming that the motivation is a fear of some sort. The only two fears I manage to conjure are:

1. A fear that one's colleagues will abuse the information from the private life. In other words, the fear would include a possibility that the colleagues use information to their own advantage, either by exposing one's secrets to a third party or by threatening to expose those secretes. However, there are several logical fallacies in this argument. First of all, if you'd already told about your private life to others, then there would be nothing left to expose. Secondly, do you really, really have secrets worth hiding? (It would perhaps be helpful to list those secrets and contemplate the exact consequence of each and the probability of that actually happening?) If your colleagues really know you, they understand you and they understand why you do/have done things as you did and they will see now fault in your actions. Thirdly, if you entrust your colleagues with details about your private life, you will also gain their respect and trust. Betraying someone you respect is indeed unlikely. In conclusion, I find it rather improbable that colleagues will abuse information about your private life.
2. A fear that one's superiors or the company abuses information about your private life. Such an abuse would of course be illegal in many cases, but let us assume that that abuse happens in a legal way or that they are not punished. Still, when it comes to superiors, all the fallacies explained above still hold. When it comes to the company in it self, we must remember that a company is run by people, and the above explanations hold for any people with whom you come in contact. Thus the only fear would concern people in parts of the company that you have no personal contact with. That fear I cannot circumvent right now.

Whatever the reason is for non-communication of the private life, I believe that concentrating on merely fears is contra-productive. We should look at the balance. How probable are the abuses and the benefits and what are their consequences? In my book, the certain great benefits by far outweigh the tiny risks of abuse.

Observing my three friends, I am saddened to find evidence that supports my claims. Two of them have recently experienced terrible hardships at work, explicitly, they have gone through quite a lot of fighting at work. Note, however, that I do not claim that they are responsible for causing the fighting. My claim is that obtaining understanding between colleagues is both a preventive and mitigating measure to fights. In other words, fighting is less likely and the possible fights are milder between people that understand each other.

This is a typical self-reinforcing evil spiral. Secrets undermine mutual understanding, increasing the probability of problems, thereby increasing the need for secrecy. This imminent failure can be turned to self-reinforcing positive spiral by realising that an open attitude increases mutual understanding, diminishing the probability of problems, thereby diminishing the need for secrets. Remember, the responsibility of this re-framing of the situation lies on your shoulders.

It's not the others, it's you

I was reading de Mello again, when I rediscovered something important. When facing problems in life, we have the tendency to blame someone else. For example, someone might feel that his or her relationship is not working because the partner always does this or that. Someone else might not like her or his job because it is too demanding, not demanding enough, it has a bad atmosphere or this and that.
No. The job does not have a problem, you have a problem. Your partner in the relationship does not have a problem, you have a problem. It's you. You have a problem. You are the reason for your problems. It is painful to admit that you are guilty, but the pain exist just because it is true.
You can hardly expect everybody else to change to suit your particular preferences. You must change. You must change your attitude or you must change your habits.

EDIT: You can change your habits.

Happiness traps

Learning to be happy is an uphill struggle, but the efforts are deeply rewarding.

I've recently occupied a lot of my private time to observing phenomenon that I would call happiness traps. I have not coined the term, but I find it very useful. A happiness trap is a mechanism that at first glance seems logical, but produces unhappiness in the long run. Often, happiness traps are also self-amplifying, they lead to vicious spirals of unhappiness.

Let us look at a simple example. A friend of me recently said to me "I need to improve my performance in X." Ok. That seems reasonable enough, perhaps even noble. But the happiness trap is obvious. The keyword here is "need". "I need to improve." As if improving performance would be essential for survival. As if failure to improve would lead to a disaster. I can assure you that his performance in X is already excellent, so the desire to improve is only inside his mind. Failure would only hurt his ego.

Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to say, "I want to improve"? Indeed, this is a better approach, acknowledging that it is a desire, a "want". This way the requirement of reaching the objective is removed or at least diminished. It is a big step from need to desire, a big improvement in my opinion. But still only half way. It still connects improvement to the self. If the goal is not 100% met, it is a failure to fulfil the desire. It is a failure. It makes him unhappy.

My proposal would be to say "My objective is to improve in X." Then success is more detached from the self. An objective is not a performance requirement. It specifies a direction. Concentrating on direction rather than a performance level, makes the effort or the process the goal rather than the performance level. That enables us to become happy from a good effort, even though we fail to reach the ultimate goal.

Now I have caught myself talking about failure repeatedly. Failure is not something that a happy person ponders upon. The emphasis of a happy person is always on a good effort rather than a success or failure. If you only require success, you will sooner or later face failure. You will become unhappy. If you emphasise good efforts, you don't need to fail. You can have difficult days, where good efforts are difficult, but because it is difficult, it is still a good effort.

I am afraid that I am over-analysing this simple sentence. But I feel like it demonstrates a pattern. To use thinking patterns of needs, lays the way for unhappiness. Failure becomes imminent. Concentrating on the process, goals and directions, builds a sustainable happiness.

Some claim that such detachment of desires means that you detach from your feelings. If that only were possible! Acknowledging your desires actually makes you more aware of your feelings. You become aware of how your desires control you. Awareness, in turn, gives you the opportunity to reflect if that desire is something that you really want, or is it just something superficial, and it gives you the opportunity to choose if you want to follow that desire.

Humility and Envy

Today I'll write in English again, as my topic was inspired by an international crowd. I'll start off with a hypothesis: If there were no envy, there would not be a need for humility.

Clearly, at least, humility is tool against envy. A humble man does not raise envy among his peers. If you are humble and do not brag about your new car, obviously that diminishes your friends envy.

The really interesting question is, however, more subtle. Does humility have a purpose also if there were no envy? Is humility a virtue also in a world without envy?

I don't know. But let us imagine a world without envy. My friend comes to show off his new car. It is a cool car. Expensive. Practical. Beautiful. Still, I do not get the negative feeling of envy, since there exist no envy, but what would I feel then?

One possibility is that I would feel excited. My friend is excited. What a day! He has a new super car! I am empathetic to his excitement, I get enthusiastic. Wow! What a car! I almost feel like I would have got a new car. Excellent! A great day! We enjoy the new car together. What better than a day like this when you can enjoy it with a good friend. Can you feel the excitement, too?

So, what is it with humility? In this utopian world we clearly could enjoy life more if there were no humility. But how is it in our world, our real world? Would we here enjoy life more if we could, without envy and without humility, get excited about our peers success? I dare to claim that we would and we can enjoy life more if we can throw away envy and humility.

The final question is then, can we throw away envy and humility, and should we throw them away? I am of the positive type, I would say yes, although I am not sure if I can argue it solidly. Basically, I would argue that I have faith in people. If I show my faith in them, I have noticed that they live up to my faith. They simply become better if I believe them to be good.
Therefore my claim is that if I throw away extra humility, I can get my friends excited about those successes I might have.

Now, as a final note, I must take a little back and emphasise that I claim only that humility is not necessarily only a virtue. It should be used with moderation. Envy exists in our world and although I do believe that we should fight it by having faith in people (that they do not fall for it), we shouldn't over-do it. Perhaps awareness of the relationship between envy and humility is alone enough?

Niin monia, niin tyytymättömiä

Välillä melkein harmittaa, mutta sitten oikeastaan en voi olla kuin vain murheellinen. Niin moni on niin tyytymätön. Tänään on kaikki asiat niin paljon paremmin kuin vaikkapa 100 vuotta sitten, että tämän ymmärtäminen on vaikeaa. Miksi kaikki ovat niin tyytymättömiä?
Sadan vuoden takaiseen verrattuna meillä on kaikkea enemmän, kaikkea paitsi aikaa, kaikkea on enemmän. Luulen, että ratkaiseva ero on kuitenkin valinnanvaran lisääntyminen. Ei riitä, että valinnanvaraa on enemmän, olemme lisäksi tietoisia kaikista valinnan mahdollisuuksista. Voimme mennä uimaan, valita työpaikan mainosalalla, lähteä lomalle Karibialle, kuunnella Pavarottia tai juoda shampanjaa. Kun kaikki on mahdollista, miten valitsemme? Mitä valitsemme?
Yksi seurauksista on annoskateus. Kaverin tilaama annos näyttääkin paljon paremmalta kuin oma valinta. Toki valitsin juuri sen annoksen joka kuulosti parhaalta, mutta kun se viimein tuotiin eteeni, olikin kaverin valitsema paljon parempi. Miksi? Koska minäkin olisin voinut valita saman annoksen. Valinnat jotka olisimme voineet tehdä, mutta joita emme tehneet, aiheuttavat ahdistusta. Jos valintoja olisi vähemmän, olisi todennäköistä, että muut valinnat ovat niin selkeästi huonompia ettei katumus pääsisi iskemään.
Toinen seurauksista on mahdollisuuden muuttuminen vaatimukseksi. Kun näemme mahdollisuuksia ja tiedämme, että voisimme valita ne, on helppo vajota illuusioon että kaikki nämä valinnat olisivat mahdollisia. Illuusio on sama kuin mitä tv-show Idols hyödyntää; kuka vain voi osallistua, kuka vain voi voittaa. Se tuo toiveita. Minäkin voisin voittaa! Se tuo odotuksia, minäkin voin pärjätä! Minun pitää pärjätä! Illuusio on kuitenkin ilmeinen - kaikki eivät voi voittaa, vain yksi. Kaikki muut kokevat pettymyksen. Ja tämä on olennainen havainto. Lähes kaikki kokevat pettymyksen. Idols-show on pettymysgeneraattori. Se luo unelmia, jotka kaikki, yhtä lukuunottamatta luovat pettymyksiä. Sinäkään et päässyt jatkoon. Samalla väitetään että unelmat auttavat jaksamaan. Mahdottomaan uskominen luo pohjan varmalle pettymykselle.
Kolmas ongelma on huomion keskittyminen niihin mahdollisuuksiin mitä olisi voinut tehdä ja tehtyjen valintojen "unohtaminen". Elämä jatkuu. Ne valinnat jotka olet tehnyt, ovat sinun valintojasi. Sinun on elettävä niiden kanssa. Riippumatta siitä mitä valintoja olet tehnyt, olivatko ne hyviä vai huonoja, kannattaa sinun yrittää viihtyä nykyisessä elämässäsi. Jos voit tehdä jotain tilanteesi parantamiseksi, tee se. Jos et voi tehdä mitään jonkun asian suhteen, ei sille kannata uhrata paljoa energiaa. Se on turhaa. Keskity siis niihin asioihin joihin voit vaikuttaa. Keskity niihin asioihin jotka tekevät sinut onnelliseksi.
Tämä ei tarkoita sitä että häiritsevät asiat jäisivät unohduksiin, mutta keskittämällä huomio positiivisiin asioihin on helpompi pysyä hyvällä tuulella. Se on itse asiassa yksi onnellisuuden avainhuomioista. Keskitä huomiosi niihin asioihin jotka tekevät sinut onnelliseksi.

Utopia 2

Näin jälkeenpäin ajatellen se tuntuu ilmiselvältä. Sellainen elämäntapa ei vain voinut jatkua ikuisesti. Ja kuitenkaan en voi syyttää ketään yksittäistä ihmistä. Me olimme kaikki siellä. Me kaikki tiesimme että näin emme voisi jatkaa, mutta kukaan ei nähnyt vaihtoehtoja. Kenenkään yksittäisen ihmisen oli mahdoton muuttaa mitään.
Ajattelepa vaikka luonnonsuojelua. Me käytimme kaikki polttomoottoreita siihen aikaan. Koko yhteiskuntarakenne perustui autoilla liikkumiseen. Tiesimme tuhoavamme luontoa, mutta vaihtoehtoja ei ollut. Joko olit tekemättä mitään, tai sitten ajoimme autolla. Joskus olen ajatellut että tilanne Natsi-Saksassa oli varmaan samanlainen. Koko kulttuuri perustui tuhoamiseen. Mutta yksittäisten ihmisten ponnistelut koneistoa vastaan olivat vaikutukseltaan aika vähäisiä. Vaikutukseltaan samanlaista kuin sinisilmäinen tuulimyllyjä vastaan taistelu.

Haastattelijan kynä käy kuumana, vaikka jokainen sana tallentuu nauhalle. Hän taitaa tuntea hetkessä jotain erityistä, jotain joka ei tallenteesta välity, jonka hän haluaa muistaa ja kirjoittaa siksi kaiken ylös. Hymähdän. Hän ei kuitenkaan tee elettäkään tehdäkseen uusia kysymyksiä, ollen liian syvällä omissa muistiinpanoissaan, joten jatkan tajunnanvirran suoltamista.

Kuten tiedämme, samoin kuin Natsi-Saksa, sen ajan elintavat loppuivat aikamoisella rysäyksellä. Ei sitä mitenkään muuten voi niin suuria muutoksia toteuttaa. Tuntuu niin kylmältä sanoa se ääneen, mutta mielestäni se muutos kosketti kaikkia maailman osia yhtä lailla, se aiheutti yhtä lailla kärsimystä. Tietysti sen aikaiset nk. köyhät maat maksoivat suuren hinnan ihmishengillä mitattuna, mutta länsimaissa muutos oli elämäntapojen osalta paljon suurempi. Miten näitä sitten mitataan? Jonkun Lontoossa asuneen pankkiirin koko elämältä romahti pohja. Kaikki hänen arvonsa osoittautuivat pohjautuvansa kestämättömään illuusioon, eikä vanha elämäntyyli koskaan palautunut. Köyhien maiden ihmisten saivat kärsiä aikansa, moni kuoli, jos ei levottomuuksissa, niin nälkään, mutta näiden vaikeiden aikojen jälkeen oli elämä kuitenkin likipitäen samanlaista kuin ennenkin.
Ehkä me näiden aikojen myötä löysimme aikaisempaa luonnollisemman suhtautumiseen elämään ja kuolemaan. Kun niinkin suuri osa maapallon väestöstä, lähes joka viides ihminen, menettää henkensä vuosikymmenessä, oli kuolema osana jokapäiväistä elämää. Sitä te nuoret ette ehkä niin huomaakaan, mutta aiemmin, 1900-luvun loppupuolella, kuolema häivytettiin jonnekin marginaaliin. Siitä muodostui tabu, siitä ei puhuttu, kuolema oli elämässä epäonnistumista. Vanhukset vietiin laitoksiin "saattohoitoon". Epäinhimillistä nyky-yhteiskunnan näkökulmasta, mutta aivan normaalia siihen elämän aikaan. Kyllä senkin järjestelmän ongelmat tiedostettiin, mutta minkäs teet jos et näe mitään vaihtoehtoa? Jos yhteiskunta ei tarjoa vaihtoehtoisia toimintatapoja?

(jatkuu...)

Utopia

Vaalea, varsin viehättävä nainen istuutuu vinosti eteeni. Kaksi viikkoa aiemmin hän oli soittanut minulle ja pyytänyt lupaa haastatteluun. Nyt hän saapui kotiini sormeillen muistiinpanovälineitään hermostuneesti. Edellisestä haastattelusta on jo pitkä aika, aiemmin niitä olisi saanut antaa jatkuvasti. Kyllästyin niihin, enkä pitkään aikaan antanut yhtään haastattelua. Vanhemmiten olen kai hieman pehmittynyt. Tai sitten tämä neitonen onnistui sopivasti pönkittämään itsetuntoani, edellisestä haastattelupyynnöstä kun on jo vierähtänyt jonkin verran aikaa.

- "Miltä se tuntuu," hän kysyy, "muuttaa koko maailma?", mennen suoraan asiaan, ilman lämmittelyä.
- "En tiedä," vastaan, "koska minä en sitä tehnyt. Olin vain muutoksen todistaja, sivustakatsoja, niin kuin me kaikki."
Olin harjoitellut tämän vastauksen jo ennalta vuosia sitten ja toimitan sen ilmeettömästi, vaikka joudun pidättelemään nauruani. Sitten jatkan vakavissani, "Jouduin ehkä maskotin rooliin, mutta itse muutos oli monen osan summa. Oikeastaan muutos oli minusta vääjäämätön. Se ei ollut kenenkään ansiota, koska se oli tulossa joka tapauksessa. Saatoin ehkä auttaa sitä hieman alkuun, käynnistää jonkun osan prosessia, mutta varsinaisen työn tekivät aivan muut ihmiset."

(jatkuu...)

Challenges

Every ones in a while, you've got to take a pause and look at the big picture and in that purpose, I decided to make an overall analysis of my climbing performance. Here are my observations of the current status:
- My most important challenge is the mental side. I do have good focus, but fears override the intelligence. This results in 1) over-gripping and excessive use of power, 2) slowing down and extra load on endurance.
- On the physical side I believe my shoulder/arm power is in relatively good shape. Core muscles are also ok. My weakness is finger power, partly due to over-gripping, but also poor endurance.

Short term to-do's:
- I need to relax. I need to learn how to relax. This should be my first priority in all climbing. Confidence. Deep breathing.
- I have to step up my fingerboard training to gain especially endurance but also a higher maximum force.
- Climb hard routes more through repetitions until they go instead of only on-sighting.

Longer term to-do's:
- Revisit the book "Mental Athlete" and search for improved technique for mental training.
- Keep up with supporting training; Pilates, hiking, jogging, biking, fingerboard, Bachar-ladder.
- Do bouldering a bit more often to increase variation and for strength.
- Try to find a climbing partner with similar level of commitment and goals.

Haaveita ja valheita

Haaveet ovat ennenkin olleet minulle ongelma. Suurin ongelma jonka niihin olen yleensä liittänyt on niihin liittyvä pettymys. Suurin osa haaveista ei koskaan toteudu, mutta jos niihin haaveisiin liittyy toive niiden toteutumisesta, saadaan pian helposti mukaan myös odotus toteutumisesta. Odotettu haave joka ei toteudu tuo mukanaan pettymyksen. Ja se on tämä pettymys joka on minun mielestä turha. Ketjun katkaisee joko haaveilun välttäminen tai odotusten välttäminen.

Äskettäin ymmärsin toisenkin ongelmaisen näkökulman. Haave ei nimittäin ole totta. Haave on valhe. Se voisi olla totta, mutta se ei ainakaan vielä ole totta. Haaveissa eläminen on siis valheessa elämistä.

Tämä on tietysti kärjistetty näkökulma, mutta kärjistämällä pyrin löytämään vastaväitteitä. Vielä en ole sellaisia löytänyt.

Speaking of Fear

Climbers are a curious lot. They have a lot of peculiarities, lots of things that were new to me. One of these things were speaking about fear. In no other community have I observed such open discussion about personal fears, but for climbers it is an everyday topic. Fear of falling is a primal instinct and an inherent part of climbing. It is something you must overcome on order to thrive. Indeed, fear management is a central part of climbing technique. Where else would people, especially men, talk about their fears without being labeled as sissy?
On the other hand, most often when climbers talk about some specific route, they would say that it is scary. In other words, the climber is not saying that he is scared, but that the route is scary. Initially, that would seem like he is not admitting to being afraid, in order to so to say, save face. But this is not the complete truth. It is also a way of coping with fear. By moving focus away from "I am scared" to "the route is scary", the climber can make the fear an objective issue instead of a subjective issue. The fear is associated with the route and it is thus not a personal feature of the climber. An objective fear is much better than a subjective one, since it can be handled on the rational plane instead of emotional plane and the climber can thus retain much more control of the situation.
This brings us to climbing terminology; In their terminology, climbers have even separated dangers (i.e. fears) into objective and subjective dangers. An objective danger is the actual level of danger, for example, the level of risk of serious injury or death related to a fall at some spot. The subjective danger is the perception of fear, the emotional feeling of fear. Subjective fears are often not directly commented, but they are attached to a specific spot; besides to being scary, we could specify that a route is exposed (i.e. climber is exposed to large elevations), badly protected (i.e. it is difficult to attach equipment to the rock to protect falls), or run-out (i.e. distance between fixed points of protection is large whereby the length of potential falls is large).
Making fears objective is thus a technique of climbers. Generating vocabulary for different kinds of fears as well as associating fears with routes make them more concrete and controlling them is therefore easier.
Another fear management technique is more personal. This technique is known and employed also among performing artists. It is based on turning fear into an advantage. Fear brings a tremendous source of energy into a person. Usually that energy is a negative energy, but by choice, he can turn it into positive energy. Turning fear into energy can enhance the power to focus on the current task. It makes the climber and the performer stronger. A climber without fear is reckless and as such, not a very long-lived climber. A performer without fear of performance, is a performer who does not care much about the audience and thus cannot be much of a performer. Fear is thus an essential part of and necessary for both climbing and for performing.

What I find interesting is that everybody, climbers but especially non-climbers, associate climbing with danger. After all, climbing is in comparison to, for example, motorbiking, a relatively safe sport. According to insurance statistics (citing from my memory), out of 100.000 climbers, about 2 will die during an average year from climbing related accidents, while out of 100.000 motorcyclists, 8 will die. Still, according to my experience, people associate climbing much more with danger than motorcycling. My theory is that the fear of falling is such a primal instinct that we instinctively associate climbing with danger. The fears of high speeds or collision is not nearly as deeply rooted in our system, since high speeds is a new feature for humans on the evolutionary time scale.
It is also interesting how our capabilities in fear management is influenced by our overall mental state. Sometimes, when I have had some personal problems, such as, say, love worries, I've lost my confidence, which seriously deterred my climbing abilities. On the other hand, a seriously broken heart could make me reckless, completely demolish my fear of dying, since "nothing matters anymore". However, the best mental state for climbing is a peaceful state, where confidence is a based on awareness of ones' own abilities, where unnecessary risk is avoided, but irrational fears are "objectified" and used as a source of mental energy. This is probably the reason why so many climbers are attracted to things like yoga. If that gets them into a peaceful state, good for them, but personally I attempt to find mental stability through introspective observation, or in other words, by finding mental health.

Faith vs. intelligence

I've been reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and I must say that Dawkins makes quite a few good arguments. For me, the ultimate question is, should we trust faith or intelligence? The more I think about it, the deeper this question becomes. In fact, I would claim that this is, overall, one of the most fundamental questions of philosophy. After all, philosophy attempts to explain the world through logical arguments, and logic is by definition intelligence and thus the complement of faith. We begin to understand the gravity of this question when we realise that we are essentially using logic to determine if logic or faith is the better solution. It is therefore an intrisically self-referencing question (Gödel would like this, wouldn't he?). In other words, we are trying to use logic to find out if logic is applicable to all question.
From a logical point of view, my reference to Gödel is not at all arbitrary. The current question lies close to the issues Gödel considered. For example, one of Gödel's question was "Can we find a logical proof for all true arguments?", that is, is logic an answer to everything?
However, from a holistic view point this is not the right question. We cannot answer a question on the validity of logic with a logical argument. The implicit (or, actually, the rather obvious) self-reference might short circuit any argument. On the other hand, to dismis logic on the base of such a self-reference is similarly a flawed conclusion. Ultimately, I cannot see any way around this logical short circuit. Quite simply, without logic, we cannot argue that logic is the answer.
The only remaining option, for me, is to have faith in logic. I cannot but believe that logic is the only way to go. This is an inherently contradictory statement. To put it in a more obvious form, "I have faith in that faith is not the answer".
The arguments of Dawkins, that clearly must remain within logic, might thus not be applicable. Interesting. Any teoist arguing against Dawkins, would thus not be able to provide anything of significance, since he would be forced to either use logic in order to prove something or, express his faith which would not convince anyone who doesn't already share that same faith.
Now I seem to be going in circles. This is a clear indication of the logical short circuit.
Finally, I would argue that human culture is based on logic, languages are based on logic and the only way for us to intrepret reality is through logic. Therefore, I see now alternative but to trust logic. I have faith in logic.