WHAT IS MEDITATION?

Meditation, at its most basic, is the simple art of taking time to contemplate.  Contemplation, in turn, is a kind of relaxed, controlled thinking, which lets the mind rest on its object of focus.  So, if you sometimes find yourself looking at a leaf or a tree, or even a person's face, and dwelling peacefully on its features and nature, then you meditate, whether you are aware of it or not.

THE OPPOSITE OF MEDITATION

One way of thinking about meditation, is to consider what would be its opposite.  Have you ever seen a person in the middle of road rage, spitting with anger at something another driver has done?  Have you ever been in the middle of an argument with someone close, and said a lot of things that you later regret?  These things are the opposite of meditation.  When you have road rage, or when you shout at someone else in anger, then you are showing three things:

1. You are not in control of yourself.  Your mind and body seem to take on a life of their own, not listening to anyone or anything.  You, literally, 'lose it'... 'it' being the ability to master your actions.
2. You are not aware of your surroundings.  You may notice, when in a rage, that the world reduces to the size of a pinhead.  Some people call it tunnel vision.  You are so incensed, that you have no resources left to observe, as if from a distance, what is happening.
3. You are selfish.  That is to say your own needs in the particular situation outweigh everything and everyone.  That is why we do so much damage when we are in a temper - because we have become so afraid of what we might lose, that we cannot bend to the perspective of others.

MEDITATION AND RELIGION

Meditation is often associated with Buddhism, but contemplation has a long tradition in most religions.  Islam relates that the Prophet Mohammed often withdrew to a cave to meditate and pray.  In the Hindu tradition, meditation is a practice of self-awareness whereby a wise person comes to understand their relationship with others, and with reality.  In Judaism, an individual may set themselves apart to contemplate, either intellectually or intuitively, bringing greater insight.  The Christian tradition uses meditation as a time of reflective study and focus.  Buddhists meditate to develop mindfulness, concentration, peace and insight.  And so on.

A BASIC PRACTICE

Common to almost all types of meditation are a few basic steps, which can be the background to any meditation practice.

1. Preparation - make sure you are settled in an environment which enables you to focus, and be sure that you yourself have established an intent to take time to contemplate.
2. Bodily alignment - you can adopt a comfortable sitting position, or lie down, or kneel, or even stand or walk slowly; the important thing is that your body is aligned, or arranged, in a way that enables you to focus.
3. Focus your attention on a single object of contemplation.  It may be your own breath; you could listen to it enter and exit your body.  It may be an external object, such as a sunset, or a candle, or a tree.  Or it could be a particular piece of wisdom or scripture that means something to you.
4. When you sense your attention disappearing (perhaps your usual worries and distractions begin to reappear in your mind), then gently realign your focus onto the object of your meditation.
5. Remain in that contemplative state for a period of time, returning your mind to the object of meditation whenever you sense it straying.

WHY IS MEDITATION SO POWERFUL

What is the power of meditation?  Remember the list above, of things that are the opposite of meditation.

1. You are not in control
2. You are not aware of what is going on around you
3. You are obsessed by your own needs

You may notice that these three symptoms are characteristic of a lot of mental illnesses, and certainly of a lot of distress.  Meditation, on the contrary, seeks to establish three opposite things:

1. Control - learning to focus in a peaceful state brings you the ability to control your thoughts, and ultimately your feelings.
2. Awareness - learning to observe and contemplate, and to apply this to yourself and others, gives you greater awareness, as you are less distracted, and therefore make fewer mistakes of observation.  You see more clearly.
3. Kindness - learning to set your own worries and internal chatter aside, makes you better able to listen and attend to others.  Because you are not attached to any one outcome, you can more easily flex your perspective and see life how others see it.  Therefore, you will be better able to match your actions to the wider context, and should experience greater flow in your movement and thinking.

There are many cognitive reasons why meditation works, but perhaps they can all be summed up in the above.  If you wanted to drive someone mad, you would make them lose their sense of control, blur their sense of focus, and make them fear for their own safety.  In contrast, then, if you want to bring yourself peace, then to practice mastery over your thoughts, to enhance your awareness, and to widen your perspective beyond your own attachments, seem entirely logical.

WHAT IS MINDFULNESS, AND HOW IS IT RELATED?

Mindfulness usually refers to a state of enhanced awareness, in which you observe and accept your own feelings.  A state of mindfulness contains all the things we have talked about above: self-mastery (so that you have not 'lost your mind' any more), awareness (so that you are not 'driven to distraction' any more), and kindness (so that you are not obsessed with your own needs any more).

Mindfulness, therefore, is pretty much the name we could give the meditative state.  In an argument, a mindful person would be one who showed their ability to keep control of themselves, to see the whole context clearly, and to act without self-obsession.

THE BENEFITS OF MEDITATION

Setting aside time each day to meditate has a number of benefits.  In particular, do you notice how, in the course of a normal day, you are subject to aggravations, distractions, frustrations, difficulties?  A bit like a computer, you need time to get your house in order, and regain your focus.  You need to clear up loose ends, let go of what is bothering you, and return to 'place zero', a place of rest from which you can face the world again.

Using another analogy, imagine you are a Formula 1 driver.  Would you be a good driver if you spent all your time racing round a track at breakneck speed?  No.  You need rest, you need recuperation, you need focus.  Nature is full of rhythms to be wisely respected: there are day and night; there is activity and reflection; there is expenditure of energy and regathering of energy.  In the same way, part of your daily practice is to take time to regain your control, awareness, and perspective.  To refocus.  Otherwise you will be good for nothing, a bedraggled wreck.

There are wider benefits too.  We have focused on the individual.  But wider societies and ecologies can benefit from mutual self-mastery, awareness and selflessness.  An ability to take different perspectives, and not just act out of fearful self-defence, is sorely needed in the political and environmental world today.

A SUMMARY

Meditation is the practice of taking time out to focus peacefully.  It enhances self-control, awareness, and kindness.  Daily meditation sets an example to everyone that you are prepared to calm your own 'road rage', to see the other side, to take account of the whole picture, to take responsibility.  If you learn the art, then eventually it will become part of your normal behaviour.  You will find life easier, and others may find you more helpful and companionable.  Moreover, you may find your mental health improving, as you attend to the wonderful being that is you, and let it accept its wider place in the universe.

WHY DO I GET SO EASILY DISTRACTED?

We live in a world that is forever trying to grab our attention.  That's what advertising is.  Literally.  Ad=to, vert=turn.  People and things are trying to turn your head.  The outside world, full of advertisers, is trying to get hold of your attention, and keep it.  It would be a mistake to think of advertising as a recent invention.  Watch nature.  Birds are the epitome of advertisers, always tweeting this and that, making sure that they are noticed.

But it's distressing to many, all this advertising.  It clouds our heads.  Advertisers give us shorter and shorter time spans, firing images at us every second.  We end up punch drunk, unable to take much in consciously, but with a constant stream of images feeding us from our eyes.  We lose control of our lives, and become information feeders, turning to Facebook or Instagram or YouTube, or some other screenbased distraction, to provide our eyes with images-without-thought. 

We don't notice our distress immediately.  We only notice that we are becoming less and less able to stand on our own two feet.  Silence without a screen becomes difficult, hard to bear.  Nothing happening threatens us with an unnameable fear.  We turn back to our screens for comfort - at least something is happening there; at least the screens want to talk to us.  But the screens are feeding us the same thing as millions of others are receiving: the information equivalent of sweets, designed to keep us hapy for a while, and then to crave more.

DISTRACTION TRAINING

We are being trained to be distracted.  Advertising, after all, feeds on distraction: it is essentially the same thing.  If we could not be distracted, then we could not be successfully subjected to advertising.  Commercial forces have a vested interested in enhancing our ability to passively receive images from the world around us; and they also have an investment in making us fearful when those images are absent.

THE RESULTANT HUMANS

The result is the creation of a generation of humans that does little except watch screens passively.  When we are not doing that, we are worrying about the silence.  So we go back to the screens.  And so on.  We are deceived into thinking that we are doing something.  What did you do today?  Oh, this and that.  Actually, I watched some screens.  But I don't want to admit that.  So I will make up some things.  This and that, I will say.  But I wont say 'I did nothing but watch screens.'

THE RESULTING ATTENTIONAL ISSUES

Let's think what we are creating.  We are becoming beings who cannot exist without something to grab our attention.  Our mobile computing devices are becoming our carers, effectively screening us out of the world around us, and into the world that they create.  Developers are constantly creating pathways which they believe we can easily travel down.  Places they can make us go in our minds.  Until, before we know it, we have given in to all the tunnels and roads that the internet leads us down, and forgotten the real world we live in.  Even better, we have compromised our idea of real, so that we see these offered screen-realities as just as real as our lives outside them.

WHY WE ARE SO EASILY DISTRACTED

To summarise the above, we are being trained by the modern comercial world to be easily distracted, and unthinking.  That's what advertisers are aiming for. Imagine a consumer whom it was impossible to distract, and hard to persuade.  That consumer would cost you a lot of money.  Instead, you want a population that has the attention span of a gnat, and few powers of steady rational thought.  The fact that we are easily distracted, is a result of our training.  By television, by a world of screens.

AN ANTIDOTE

I was wondering what the opposite to all this distraction would be.  And I thought, maybe it is a mind that is so well-mastered that it is not amenable to being distracted.  And so I began to try the opposite of the distraction.  I imagined to myself that nothing in my environment could attract or engage my attention.  I used a lot of the techniques I had gained through years of meditation.  I noticed distractions fleetingly, and I let them go.  Noticed another one, and let it go.  Noticed another, and let it go.  Soon I could bypass the noticing and letting go.  The distractions started to become fewer, to lose interest in me.

DEVELOPING SELF

I went for a walk.  Even though the basic distractions had disappeared, some old distractions came to take their place.  It is as though we have a working memory space where thoughts and sensations come to offer themselves.  Imagine a glade in your mind, in the middle of the forest of your self, where available thoughts, feelings and sensations come to gain your attention.  If you tend to them, they stay.  If you ignore them, they go.

OLD PROBLEMS RETURN

I found that some old, rather magnetic thoughts entered my glade.  A few family problems, for instance.  I found myself tending to them, forgetting myself.  Then I noticed, remembered myself, and let them go.  More and more, deeper and deeper thoughts came and went, now not stopping in the glade to check for my attention, but simply wandering across and out of the other side.  I realised that, once normal distractions were removed, old problems came into the space made available and tried to gain traction, attention.  I didn't give them the time of day, and they went away.

BIGGER PROBLEMS

After that, some really enormous problems came into the glade of my imagination.  Death, love, things like that.  World-defining issues that, they argued, really couldn't be ignored.  'Look at us,' they said.  'We are the really BIG problems of the world, able to speak to you now that you have dispensed with the smaller issues.  You absolutely HAVE to attend to us.'  But I didn't.  I ignored them, and let them go, and left myself alone.

A DEEP COLD

Soon, I felt very cold.  Nothing was around me, just infinite space.  All the problems and issues that normally flooded my brain had left me.  It was just me, and an infinite expanse of what felt like darkness.  I wondered whether I could cope with this cold, this alone-ness.  Nothing seemed to flourish there.  It was like being trapped in a big underground cave with no escape.

WARMER

But soon, a little warmth came back.  A sun shone onto my skin, and I felt it.  I realised I did not need to notice it for it to have its effect.  Then I saw some plants.  Then I knew again the space in the forest, the place where I had had all my thoughts in the past.  It was the same place, but it felt less fussed.  And nothing in there was trying to gain my attention.  Everything was flowing through me as though I wasn't there.  But I felt as though I were a part of everything.  I didn't really mind being absent.  Ironically, I was present, too.   The closest analogy I can think of is the air in a balloon.  I was the air in the balloon.  You couldn't see me.  But the balloon would not be the balloon without me.  I was the space in the middle of everything.

BEING SPACE

I guess what I am trying to say is, today I left behind all my worries and distractions for a while.  I found a way to just be, and let the world go on around me.  I didn't need to be needed.  I didn't need to grab hold of anything and make it my own.  Philosophically, I guess you could say I became space.  Like the air in the balloon.  Mystically, one could say I lost myself, and became one with everything.  Casually, one could say I dropped my selfishness and became a quiet watcher.

THE RELEVANCE TO DISTRACTION

I tell this story because I want to talk about how we might deal with distraction.  I tell it as a story because, in many ways, it is a circular journey.  You drop your usual worries; you drop the bigger worries that then invade; you drop the biggest worries you can think of, like death and relationship.  Then you just sit.  And the world comes back.  Everything that you had before comes back.  But your relationship with it is different.  Now, you are not distracted by any one part of it all.  You are identified with the all, and so the parts cannot affect you.

Thing of being a parent at a children's party.  The party is full of little stories, of little Jill being mean to little Jack, of little Jimmy losing his presents, of little Jane losing her friends.  But you are outside all of that.  You care, but it is not a caring that is obsessive, or controlled by events.  It is a caring that sees the whole picture, and therefore finds it hard to be discombobulated by any one part of it.

AN IDEA FOR YOU

I have an idea for you, a little project.  Set aside a day, not so long in the future, just for you.  On that day, pretend you are a new kind of human being, one that cannot be distracted by internet, by screen, by person, by situation, by drama, by problem.  You are just you.  Imagine in your mind a forest glade, which is your space.  Watch the thoughts come and go in that space.  Eventually, lose your connection to them, so that the whole forest dissolves into itself, and runs without you.  Now you have your own dispensability, your own redundancy.  Your redundancy is your greatest weapon.  

Now sit with it, with your redundancy, your absence, and enjoy it.  It will feel cold and lonely for a while, but in the end you may feel warmth returning.  You may be able to re-engage with the world in a different way, still seeing everything, but not controlled by it.  You will have become a quiet watcher.  That is meditation.  That is pretty much it.  You'll be able to smile.  In fact, you'll want to smile; because you now know that nothing matters, so everything matters; that nothing needs your attention, so everything can have your attention; that nothing is, so everything is.  It's quite relaxing.

SUMMARY

We live in a world where everything is striving to grab our attention.  It is exhausting.  It makes screen addicts of us all.  So find some time, perhaps a day, for yourself.  Go for a walk, or sit, or do something else relaxing.  Learn to detach from any problems that arise in your mind.  First the little problems.  Then the bigger ones that take their place.  Finally, let yourself sit in complete, empty space.  You will find you slowly become a part of the world, but in a different way.  You will not be attached to any one thing, but you will be all-present.  It will be very relaxing.  You will have arrived.

Or, if this all means nothing to you, you have just read something you disagree with.  But that's fine.

DOES TALKING HELP?

Many people are suspicious of the talking therapies.  Some mock the standard therapist's phrase 'And how does that make you feel?'  Counsellors are sometimes derided for offering their services to healthy people in difficult situations; some say that people should just be strong and get on with life, that we are all going soft.  

They have a point.  It can be quite annoying to sit with a counsellor or therapist who adopts an over-precious voice, a patronising tone, and an automatic manner.  Some therapists do seem to think that counselling can be done by numbers; that, as long as they enforce clear boundaries, do nothing unexpected, and say 'I'm afraid that's all we've got time for this week', their job is done.  That stereotype is alive and well, and often thoroughly respected.  It is sometimes born of the need to make an artificial profession out of  something humans have been doing for thousands of years: talking with, and being with, each other in a healthy way.

DISCLOSURE

Even so, there are great benefits in having a profession dedicated to talking (counselling and psychotherapy are often, rightly or wrongly, nicknamed the talking therapies).  Some people have deep secrets that they need to disclose, and that requires trust.  An easy way to create basic trust is to create a profession with rules of confidentiality.  A therapist is likely to keep your secrets, where a friend may not be.  A therapist will generally not be part of your usual social groups, and so is less likely to disrupt your position and comfort in the community with what they know.

KNOWING YOU

Many therapies limit initial intervention to six sessions, often through resource limitations.  It's debatable whether this is long enough to get to know a person in depth, and one limitation of talking therapies is that it is pot luck whether you get a therapist who is caring and understanding enough to get to know you within a shortish space of time.  Also, backgrounds differ, and if your character or environment has differed greatly from the therapist's, you may find yourself battling to be heard through their prejudices.  A good therapist should have some kind of supervision, which is designed to make them self-reflexive and keep them unprejudiced... but there are no guarantees.  Sometimes therapist and supervisor will together create a myth about you which you can't shake, because you're not privy to their conversations.  So while talking may help, it is worth investing in a therapeutic relationship over time, so that you can get to know each other.  After all, friendships work that way: good relationships often need time, ups and downs, and hard work, to be fruitful in the long term.

COUNSELLING V FRIENDSHIP

I believe that a therapeutic relationship is a human relationship like any other, and need not be put in a separate box.  However, it usually has a particular character, borne of the fact that the understanding is that counsellor A is there to help person B, not the other way round.  In other words, therapeutic relationships are deliberately one-sided, so that a person in need of help can receive it from a person prepared to offer it.

That said, different therapists have different approaches to.. well... approachability.  I have known some who believe that the therapist is there not to be a friend, but to perform a different kind of interaction: some think it's a bit like surgery, a clinical operation; some think that to be too friendly gets in the way of some types of relationship that it may be necessary for the client to work through... there are almost as many types of therapist as there are types of relationship.

DEPTH AND FLEXIBILITY OF RELATIONSHIP

However, I personally don't see why a counselling relationship shouldn't have many of the attributes of a friendship.  After all, the social skills and techniques that we use as collaborative  humans have evolved over a long time, and there is a lot of wisdom in them.  And friendships contain periodic problems and even enmity... so the whole range of human interaction could be available in a counselling relationship.  Obviously, a wise counsellor will flex their approach to the needs and limitations of the client.  But this, I think, is sometimes overplayed.  Many times, a client will find themselves flexing to apparent limitations in the counsellor... and unless the counsellor is prepared to invest in the relationship, with humility and openness, the client can spend their time effectively carrying the therapist through narrowly-focused sessions, because the counsellor is not showing themselves able to invest in a rich variety of interaction.

I'd use the analogy of a walk through a wood.  A narrow-band therapist will treat it like a guided tour, stick to the paths, and keep the relationship rather formal and inhibited.  A wide-band therapist will be able, if warranted, to allow the walk to become an exploration that includes bushes and undergrowth, and even climbing trees.

CHOOSING A RELATIONSHIP THAT WORKS

So, if you are going for counselling, take an interest in the counsellor's own unique approach to the relationship, and don't be afraid to ask them how they see counselling relationships.  They may be prepared to tell you a bit about their approach.  Though a warning here: I have met several therapists who are weirdly secretive with clients about their methods.  This, too, has its reasons: it may be that their method involves not telling the client their method!  but, in general, don't be afraid to quiz the therapist.  And if you feel uncomfortable, tell them, or change to another counsellor.

WHY SHOULD TALKING HELP?

Whether a friend or a counsellor, why does talking help?  A few reasons:

1. You can disclose things that have been bottling up.  This provides release.  For many clients, this is the main benefit: being able to give your 'shit', as it were, to someone who can take it!

2. You get a different perspective.  Many mental illnesses are exacerbated by loneliness and solitude.  Solitude often magnifies suffering, because all you have is your own mind to work with.  Talking enable you to borrow aspects of someone else's perspective for a while, and release yourself from the oppression of yours.  Or, more importantly, to gently explore your own perspective, but with some reflective help, in supportive company.

3. You have a foil to work things through.  Counselling relationships are often dyadic - in other words, one-to-one.  This is restrictive, but has some benefits.  For instance, the counsellor can hold a thought for you while you step up to another thought; or hold a feeling with you while you get used to it; a bit like using a ladder to climb.  A counsellor can remind you of things you have said that seem inconsistent, or unusual, or interesting.  Two heads are sometimes better than one.

4. You are in company.  If you are lonely or alone in some way, being in company can in itself be a benefit, and bring health.

5. You have a routine of sorts.  Usually, counselling has a routine and a rhythm to it.  If you meet weekly, it can help make your week bearable, because you know you are visiting a trusted person one every seven days.  It can become a little landmark in your schedule, and give you comfort.

6. You can escape your own network for a while.  If you are oppressed or abused in your domestic or work environment, then you have a chance to escape that, and be with someone different.  Many clients find this a distinct advantage, enabling them to get respite.

So there you go, a few reasons to try counselling if you want to.  Talking is something we've all been doing for thousands if not millions of years.  A healthy talking relationship can be a way of creating health in difficult circumstances.

Just make sure, though, that you use judgement in choosing a therapist who is right for you.  Go with your gut feel.  Sometimes it's worth persisting, but if you really feel you don't trust your therapist, don't be afraid to change to a different one.  That's what you'd do with friendships; therapeutic relationships can be similar.

SUMMARY

Talking therapies can be useful, especially if you need to disclose or work through something which it's harder to talk about with your usual social circle.  But make sure you feel the therapist is taking the trouble to get to know you, and that the relationship has enough 'bandwidth' for you to feel that it is rich, supportive and helpful.  Dig a bit to get to know your therapist's method.  Counselling is worth a try... but don't be afraid to change your counsellor if you feel that they have not earned your trust.

WHY DO I HATE MY JOB?

A lot of people are unhappy with their jobs.  A lot.  Many articles are written about how to make a life you love, one that goes beyond the apparent slavery of our commercial world.  But why is it so difficult to make that escape?

ECONOMIES ARE DESIGNED TO ROPE YOU IN

The main trend, over the centuries, has been a move from the self-reliant community to the interactive market.  In a self-reliant community, you are born into a family, and that family is aware of its position in the local tribe.  As long as you play a role that is expected of you, in terms of food gathering or other maintenance, then you are rewarded with a sense of stability and food on your plate.  In contrast, in an interactive market, you are born into a family, but you are expected to leave that family and make your own way in a bigger society.  That society is composed of millions of individuals, and you are expected to find a role for yourself using your own initiative and creativity.

FROM COPYING TO CREATING

Essentially, the old way simply involved copying.  You did what you were born into, and you learned your habits from your immediate family.  You can see this behaviour in animal communities.  Habits and rituals are enforced by default.  There is very little reason to misbehave, as quiet compliance rewards you with your meals and a support system.  The new way is more difficult.  To live, you have to be proactive.  And there are so many choices.  Instead of just being a person, you have to try to define yourself as a lawyer, an accountant, a secretary, a teacher, a driver... society will not let you settle until you have told it your function.

KNOWING YOUR FUNCTION

The trouble is that these functions we all have to name are specialised.  And performing each function involves sacrificing or suppressing all the natural activity that is not contained within that function.  Thus, for example, a politician is generally required to be secretive and evasive, suppressing their natural desire to communicate freely.  Part of the attraction of Donald Trump, America's outspoken president, to his support base, is his unwillingness to perform in accordance with these expectations.  Doctors are required to suppress expressions of discontent; they have to be friendly to every patient.  Models are often required to suppress their desire to eat normally.  And so on.  Sportsmen, coal miners, taxi drivers, therapists... all have to suppress their whole selves, and only express a part.

THE ILLNESS THAT RESULTS

Much mental illness is borne of attempts to fit oneself into these stereotypes of specialists.  A politician may become depressed when forced to remain secretive about the government's ethical misdemeanours.  A sports person may break down when required to ignore their home and domestic life.  Think of the jobs you have had... you will, I'm sure, be able to point to ways in which each job forced you to suppress your natural responses.

STRESS

Stress, as well as depression, happens when we force ourselves into wrong-shaped holes.  Stress, in a way, is the short-term response to pressure in reaction to the environment... depression can evolve when our bodies get fed up with constantly mounting the short-term stress response, and slump away from confrontation.

MODERN JOBS CAUSE ILLNESS

I guess you could say that modern jobs cause illness.  They tend to be specialised, and those specialisms force us to narrow ourselves and our personalties into prescribed behaviours, and away from proscribed behaviours.  Some are lucky enough to find jobs that somehow suit them, that don't affront their nature.  But many find themselves playing the dangerous game of square-peg-in-round-hole.

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

In a world where economies are pushing us into narrow, specialised roles and behaviours, what's the answer?  How can we regain our mental equilibrium?  Here are a few suggestions:

1. If you are an employer, ask yourself: 'Am I creating an environment in which my employees can be themselves?'  Are your employees forced to hide their true feelings in order to toe the line?  Are they forced to compromise their eating and sleeping patterns to ensure their work is done?

2. If you are an employee, ask yourself: 'Where and when do I feel my most natural self?  How can I best recreate that during a typical week?'  You may be able to create small wins, such as getting the right to eat when and how you want; creating forums at work where colleagues can be themselves for a while; giving yourself balancing activities to blow off steam.  If not, you may be able to move to a job where you feel less stressed, and more your natural self.

3. If you are not traditionally employed, you may be able to create a daily structure which matches what your body wants to do.  If you feel unnaturally lonely, then you may want to join support or activity groups; if you feel dominated by customers, or by the benefits office, then you may want to create 'safe havens' for yourself away from those pressures.

TREATING TIME, NOT MONEY, AS THE KEY

Let me ask you something.  I'm going to offer you two extreme scenarios, and I'd like you to imagine them:

Scenario 1: A life with no minutes at all in it, but with plenty of money.

Scenario 2: A life with no money at all in it, but with plenty of time.

Which would you choose?  Scenario 1, you may have noticed, is non-viable.  Quite literally.  You can't exist at all unless you are around for a period of time.  If you choose that option, you are like an Egyptian Pharaoh in a pyramid, dead already!  Scenario 2, you were built for.  In case you didn't know it, for millions of years, animals like you have been living lives with no money.  It's actually your naural state!  All this money stuff is a recent invention, a creator and a product of the economic age.

So try treating time as your currency.  What are you going to do today?  What wealth of experience are you going to discover in this waking time?  Never mind what you earn.  Just for a while, treat your time as the most important thing you have, and spend it in a way that feels natural to you, and that does kindness, not harm, to your body.

BREAKING THE RULES

In order to live more freely, you may have to say goodbye to promotions, pay rises, awards, that kind of thing.  But remember, these are the things your society has invented to trap you in the circle of wealth.  I am encouraging you to break the rules, and see what happens.  You will find that many of the rules are things you've absorbed and never questioned.  Here are a few rules I'd like you to think about breaking:

Rule 1: You have to start and finish your work at specific times.

Rule 2: You have to aim for advancement and promotion.

Rule 3: You have to use traditional job names to describe what you do in life.

Rule 4: You have to wait for orders in order to do your next thing.

Rule 5: You have to subordinate your natural self to the weird demands of your regulated environment.

RULES FOR A FEW DAYS

Put the other way round, and phrased positively, I am encouraging you to:

Invitation 1: Pay more attention to your natural rhythms, and take care of your body and mind.

Invitation 2: Pay more attention to your priorities, and let others own theirs.

Invitation 3: Be a whole person, rather than a narrow job description.

Invitation 4: Do some things because you feel moved to - follow your inner promptings rather than others' orders or requirements.

Invitation 5: Respect your natural self.  Nature's spent millions of years evolving you.  Use that inner wisdom.  See what it says.

A WARNING ABOUT GUILT

You will sometimes feel guilty.  That's how modern society works - it is designed to make you feel guilty if you depart from the behavioural norms it has created.  As soon as you drop a quest for status, you will be flooded with feature films in which the hero says 'never give up'.  That's partly because Hollywood and other film communities are encouraged to be thought-leaders: they are sometimes funded to produce stories which make you behave.  At other times they produce escapist stories to give you a second life on screen; so that you don't live that second life in reality.  But try abandoning the need to look to films for messages.  Try just listening to what your own body and mind are saying.  You may be surprised at how coherent, helpful and inspiring your own self is.  You just have to let yourself have enough space, so that your oppressive environment can't drown you out any more.  Nothing annoys supporters of social norms more than people who refuse to behave.  But I am asking you to give it a go.  So let the loud voice fall away.  And let your own quiet voice grow.

  

A NOTE ABOUT REGULATION

In paying attention to your own rhythms and priorities, it is often a mistake to ignore other people.  Many of your natural rhythms and behaviours are social ones, so experiment with what works for you.  Try to find communities which feel comfortable for you.  That kind of external regulation is a great comfort.  So when you find an environment in which you are happy to follow wise instructions, healthy timetables, good routines... then great.  This article is an encouragement to question whether your existing environment is right for you.  I'm not inviting you to leave all regulation; but I am encouraging you to look again at any blind obedience of regulations that are not in harmony with your natural self.

A FINAL NOTE ABOUT NATURE

I use the word natural quite loosely in this article.  Just to clarify a bit: I am offering encouragement to pay respect to our own being, and to the millions of years of past experiences which have gone into the formation of that evolved being.  If you feel an urge to do something different, then I wouldn't stand in your way.  But sooner or later, I suggest, your long-term, evolved being will have something wise to say; and when it speaks, maybe we can be polite enough to listen, to comprehend, to take it into account!

DO PAST LIVES EXIST?

It is a common part of Buddhist belief that we have past lives.  I don't want to focus so much on the truth of this, in an objective, testable sense; but on the philosophical senses in which the idea of past lives may help us.

WHAT MANY BUDDHISTS BELIEVE

Much Buddhism is based around a concept that we are always learning lessons.  This learning, goes the story, extends across different lifetimes, so that we are always trying to learn enough to get out of one kind of life, and into another.  If we learn enough to achieve great insight, and if we manage to gain mastery over ourselves by learning to manage our own desires, then we become free of the need to re-live lives in which lack of insight, and unmanaged desire, cause so much suffering.

If you think of your life as a chance to learn a lesson, I bet you'll be able to think of some stories you are endlessly repeating.  It might be the constant re-living of one type of love affair; or the constant succumbing to addiction; or a constant tendency to become angry and take it out on others, thereby ruining your own life as well as theirs.  These are the kinds of stories that many Buddhists believe started long before you were born, and will go on long after you are dead.  In that sense, your life is simply a station along the path, a place where the old battles can be re-fought.  Until the lesson is learned, the suffering will continue.

KARMA

Furthermore, some of your suffering, so the story goes, is because of things done wrong in lives before your own.  So some things that you suffer are not, in an individualistic sense, your own fault; they are the consequence of bad actions done before the 'you' you know came into existence.

From an individualistic point of view (the Western world tends to like to seal cause and consequence inside the life of a single individual), this is anathema.  Our version of 'karma' is the kind of justice that is served during one lifetime.  We have lost, perhaps, the sense that consequences linger.  You can find it in some places - for instance, in the view that white people should be aware of the legacy of slavery; and in the view that men should be aware of the legacy of the suppression of women's rights.  But even here, many counter with the view that the past is the past.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE LITERAL CONCEPT OF PAST LIVES

There are a few intellectual problems arising, if one is tempted to think of reincarnation as a kind of unbroken chain of past lives.  The two main ones perhaps, are represented by the two questions:

1. How do we deal with overlaps?  Are we seriously saying that exactly when one death happens, a corresponding birth happens?

2. How do we deal with population numbers?  If there were once only a few people, then how can we handle multiplication?

This type of problem tends to arise whenever a religion asserts a truth that conflicts with an intuitive understanding of nature.  Theological tracts then get written retrospectively justifying the assertion, which I don't plan to get into here.  I am more interested in the benefits of an idea of past lives.

A POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF PAST-LIFE-STYLE THINKING

I would like to suggest we redefine our terminology, and talk in terms of STORIES.  And I would like to make a suggestion.  The next time you find yourself suffering, particularly in a relationship, I would like you to ask yourself what story it is that you are repeating.  My intention is that, by seeing a story we are repeating, we can gain insight, and therefore free ourselves from the need to repeat.  It is a similar concept to that used by many psychodynamic counselling practitioners, who would hold that we repeat stories unless and until until we find a way to 'break the chains', as it were.

THE IMPORTANCE OF MYTH

I would also like you to enlist your creativity.  Many Buddhist texts have Buddha and others coming up with a story about past lives, to provide information about a current piece of suffering.  In this way, someone might present with a problem, and a wise person might use a past story to explain what is being re-lived, using characters recognisable to the listener.

So here's an exercise:

1. Think of something that is causing you pain at the moment.  A person, a relationship, a situation.

2. Try to imagine what kind of story, set in the past, you might be re-living.

3. Flesh it out.  Name the characters.  Give them personalities, virtues and faults.

AN EXAMPLE

To offer an example from my own life.  I was thinking the other day, of a situation I often find myself in.  Without going into detail, I realised that a lot of suffering was caused by my impatient inability to listen to others.  So I might have ideas as follows:

1. I am causing pain to others because of my inability to listen without interrupting and shaping what the other person is saying.

2. Maybe, once upon a time, there was a bird who lived by a tree full of berries.  The problem was, the berries had thorns protecting them, and the bird could not reach the berries to eat.  Whenever other birds came by, he would chase them away, saying 'I'm the owner of this tree!  I'm the one who has a right to eat the berries!  Go away and leave it to me!'  Eventually, the bird died of starvation.  Once he was dead, the other birds learned collaboration, letting the smaller ones go in among the thorns, and pass the berries to the larger birds outside.

3. In this way, I might come to realise that I am living out this myth.  I am a 'reincarnation' of the big bird who has not learned his lesson, and thinks that he alone can find truth, or food, or whatever.  I am chasing away those who could help me, constantly interrupting them in their bids to discover things that would actually help me, if I just let them investigate and collaborate.

Now that I have fleshed out the story, I am able to imagine how I could behave differently, and literally save my life.  I can work to allow others, with different characters and abilities to my own, to show me collaboration and difference, so that, together, we can achieve what I alone cannot.  What a great lesson!  And by fleshing out the story, I have made for myself a myth it is hard to forget.  You never know, I might even learn the lesson that needs learning.  I might see these situations coming, and learn the habit of backing off and letting others speak and act.

SUMMARY

The idea of past lives is rejected by many as silly.  But perhaps, if we take a creative approach to the idea of cause and consequence in our lives, then we can accelerate our learning, and our ability to master ourselves and our behaviour.  Maybe if we observe some suffering, we can let our imagination come to an understanding of a past life in which that story happened in relatable form.  If so, it can become a myth, or a kind of 'morality tale', which we can invest in, and use to prevent ourselves falling into the same old traps.

What stories of suffering are you repeating?  How would you name and flesh out the characters involved?  How might you respond differently, given your new knowledge of yourself?

WHAT IS COMPASSION?

Compassion is an interesting virtue.  Many religions cite it as among the most important, being an ability to extend oneself beyond oneself, and therefore to escape the hell of selfishness.

But what if compassion were not so straightforward?  What if compassion itself, that great among greats, was subject to some of the same complications that beset other virtues: the same hypocrisies, the same logical conundrums, the same self-defeating questions?

A QUESTION OF NUMBERS

One challenge facing the concept of compassion, is what we might call a question of numbers.  It is familiar to philosophers, and probably most famous in the form of some of the ideas within utilitarianism - the avowed aim that as many people as possible be rendered happy.  So, in simple form, if we temporarily define help as assisting a person to happiness, then to help a hundred people would be considered better than helping one.

But compassion is often defined as the feeling of wishing to help alleviate others' suffering.  As a feeling, it will not necessarily be numbers-savvy.  So we would not usually describe someone as less compassionate if they focus their assistance on just one person.  Nor more compassionate if they focus their assistance on a thousand.  In fact, in literature and film, it can often go the other way, and we can find ourselves preferring the compassion that is closer to home, or small enough to be seen and understood easily.

Compassion, in other words, is not easily wedged into a philosophy of numbers.  Someone who helps many other to be happy might do so by virtue of mechanical skill, rather than by the exercise of more compassion.  There is not, in mathematical terms, a proportionate relationship between compassion and total happiness.

A QUESTION OF INTENTION

The above problem highlights that compassion is usually defined as a kind of intention, rather than as a consequence.  Someone with great compassion would be thought of as having a great wish or intention to help all beings.  Irrespective of immediate consequence, the compassionate person is seen as always ready to exercise concern for others.

But even the restriction of compassion to an intention puts it up against some difficult questions.

THE PROBLEM OF DEGREES OF DIFFERENCE

Imagine two compassionate people.  One lends their compassion to a human; the other to a dog.  Is the first more compassionate?  Many would answer no, and are happy with the idea that compassion is either there or not, and it does not matter too much to what or whom it is applied.  But let's change the game.  One person lends their compassion to a human; the other to a rock.  Now most people find themselves instinctively relegating the second person to a mad person.  Who would wish to look after a rock?

The latter example shows that we often apply degrees of difference, or at least definitions, to the act of deciding what compassion, to be compassion, should treat as its object.  We are often happy with people showing compassion to animals, but much less so with people showing compassion to inanimate objects.  An interesting exception, by the way, is dolls and toys, which perhaps we consider worthy objects of a child's compassion, because they act as practice objects of compassion, and will in future, as a kind of transitional object, allow a growing person to be more compassionate.  An adult showing compassion to inanimate objects... we tend to be less forgiving here.  Nevertheless, the film industry is founded, in part, on a social belief that practice compassion can be exercised as adults; we all understand that the acting 'is not real', and yet we value compassion evoked in the audience.

To sum up this section: we seem to have limits as to what we think of as a suitable object of compassion.  Generally, we seem to consider compassion virtuous if it is applied to animate objects.  I would say living beings, except that plant life is considered somewhat geeky, in itself, as an object of compassion.  We stop on the theoretical edge of animal life, even though animal life itself is not well defined, and has blurry edges.  Compassion for algae and fungi?  I'll let you decide.

So where are we so far?  We have described compassion as an intention rather than a consequence; as not therefore a question of numbers; but as an intention that has reasonable limits to its application (i.e. should be applied to the animal kingdom).

COMPASSION: AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE

Just here, I would like to stop and consider where compassion sits in an evolutionary understanding of human behaviour.  Fortunately, evolutionary science is moving beyond the idea of selfishness as a dominating force.  There is enough evidence of compassion-like behaviour in other animals for scientists to spend several decades mulling the place of this virtue in all sorts of animals' lives.

Probably, we will come to the conclusion that compassion and empathy are linked, and we will focus on animals that, as we would define it, seem motivated to act to alleviate the suffering of other animals, whether of their own species or not.  Empathy would be linked, because we like to think of compassion as involving fellow-feeling, conceiving of the self and the other as part of a shared system, whether that is a system of feeling or of identity.  

So, our test of compassion in animals, might be something like: 1. Does this being show evidence of an intention to relieve the suffering of another? 2. Does this being seem to do this even when their own interests may be seriously compromised? 3. Does this being show evidence of an ability to imagine themselves into a common feeling of identity with the other?

We will probably discover that some social beings with the ability to do this have developed complex ecosystems involving the objects of their compassion - that their ecological worlds have grown greater and more fertile, because of the ability of individuals to sacrifice their personal and immediate interests in favour of an appreciated other.

So, I think, compassion will find its place in the encyclopaedia of animal behaviour, and evolutionary bases will be found for its existence and continuation.

COMPLEXITY

The above evolutionary discussion shows how we might choose to apply a kind of de minimis complexity to compassion.  We might decide that a rock's version of 'live and let live' is mere stupidity, rather than compassion; but that a human's idea of 'live and let live' is complex, sophisticated, and worthy of recognition as a virtue.

A FINAL CHALLENGE

Whilst I can see all the above arguments as sensible and reasonable, I wish to question them in their entirety as unnecessarily human-centred, system-biased, and narrow minded.

From the discussion above, we end up with a view of compassion as an intention, borne of a sense of shared feeling or identity, to alleviate the suffering of other animal beings.

EXTENDING COMPASSION'S BOUNDARIES

I would like to argue that it is only our narrow-mindedness that limits compassion in this way.  We could just as well extend it, for instance, to the plant kingdom, and beyond to the world of inanimate objects.  A key objection by 'animalists' would be that we would lose the required sense of shared feeling; psychologists, for instance, tend to cite 'theory of mind' (the ability to put yourself into the mind of another) as important.  But a counter-argument is that we really must learn to get outside our animal-centred view of the universe; we must lose our sense that things only have value if they are subjected to animal-style understanding.  A person can extend themselves so far, I would argue, that they can move into an appreciation of how trees are; how rock is; how planets are.  Furthermore, I would argue that it does not need a person to do this.  That rock understands rock; that tree understands tree.  That tree, even, comprehends much of rock.

For those of you who think I have gone quite barmy, let me try to clarify.  I think our current definition of compassion includes three unnecessary things: 1. Intention; 2. Shared feeling; 3. The alleviation of suffering.

For those of you who still think I have gone barmy, let me try to clarify that.

MOVING BEYOND INTENTION

We are quite familiar with moving beyond intention in the world of love.  Many memes express the idea that a loving person should be known by their acts and not by their intentions.  Pour half of one glass of water into another half-full glass.  I would argue that you are seeing an example of compassion in action.  The new water 'appreciates' the old, and they meld together just as compassionate groups of people would.  Water does not need to show a wish in order to show compassion.

MOVING BEYOND SHARED FEELING

Using the example above, the merged water did not need one bit of water to empathise with the other in our limited human sense.  It just moves with the other bit of water, and it was done.  In the same way, compassion does not need some kind of sophisticated understanding to exist.

MOVING BEYOND THE ALLEVIATION OF SUFFERING

Also using the example above, neither part of water was motivated by the desire to end the suffering of the other.  The first glass did no need to post a crowdfunding campaign on social media in order to effect the merging.  It just happened.

MOVING BEYOND A HUMAN-CENTRIC VIEW

Overall, what I am suggesting is that our philosophy of compassion needs to move beyond the human-centric idea that we need to intend, to imagine, and to alleviate one particular piece of suffering.  We have designed our current society around very narrow definitions of compassion.  Whilst they have some success in reducing some suffering, they are strangely over-targeted as fashion dictates.  Thus, we only make social progress in compassion in certain areas.  We fail to see that compassion is deeper, more mysterious, and less complex, than we make it.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

I guess this article came to be because I have been troubled by the very narrow concepts of compassion exercised in many of the things I read and see.  It seems that, for every prejudice we reduce, another prejudice rises.  In fighting against sexism, we alienate sexists.  In fighting for animal welfare, we forget plants, or rocks, and we alienate animal-eaters.  I think a wider view of compassion would mean that we were more tolerant of difference, and more in harmony with our surroundings, at one and the same time.

THE PROBLEM OF INACTION

One problem that arises from a wider definition of compassion, is the appearance of a problem of inaction.  There really seems to be very little we can do to effect this kind of compassion.  This is true.  It is more, perhaps, a matter of unlearning.  Compassion ceases to be a virtue born of sharp definition, and becomes a virtue born of losing all the prejudices that we have developed, and which get in the way of seeing how things really are.

It may be that the truly compassionate person is able to sit, with or without doing anything.  It may even be that suffering takes on another definition entirely; that what we think of as suffering is simply the inevitable consequence of existing.  Unless we are compassionate enough to see that suffering as it is, and live with it.

It may be that you are thinking 'what the hell is he talking about?'.  I wouldn't blame you.

SUMMARY

Compassion, as we currently think of it, seems quite narrow-minded, in that it is often thought of as one animal's intent, by an act of imagination, to alleviate particular kinds of suffering in fellow animals.  Perhaps a future definition of compassion might involve a wider circle; it might involve unlearning prejudice, and going so far that there need be nothing we can do.

In the meantime, at the very least, there will be some interesting work done finding out how animals show old-style compassion to each other.  But it will probably be done in quite a human-centric way.

WHAT IS IDENTITY?

In 2019 or thereabouts, the UK is exiting the European Union.  Those who do not wish to leave sometimes mock the fact that some on the opposing side celebrate identity.  An example is the government's recent announcement that we will have a blue passport on exit.  This is welcomed by some as a renewed statement of separate identity, and dismissed by others as an irrelevance.  Furthermore, those dismissing the new colour say it will confer fewer, not more, benefits, since we are losing the rights that go along with community membership.

Let's pick apart some of the arguments on both sides.  Firstly, let's look at an implicit assumption of the latter argument above: that identity is worthless unless it confers special benefits.  This argument sets up some scales, and puts the nebulous concept of identity on one side; it then places rights to travel on the other side, and finds this side to be heavier, because it holds more tangible benefit.  What it fails to do, is acknowledge that, for some, symbols of separate identity can hold very large value for some.

Look at the behaviour of many religions.  The word holy has a meaning that includes separateness.  Holy objects, whilst arguably conferring no benefit on the worshipper, are highly prized.  In fact, even when such objects are held by enemies as incriminating, and therefore worthy of censure, the respecter of such objects hangs on to them as dear.  Equally, look at the behaviour of the North Korean leader towards his weaponry.  Even when the holding of such weapons, and the firing of his rockets, renders no benefit on the world stage; even when it causes sanctions against his country; he continues the same behaviour, convinced that he is demonstrating something valuable.  Finally, look at followers of unusual fashions.  They know that their habits may exclude them from selection for certain jobs; and yet they prefer to continue their individualistic behaviour rather than gain the apparent benefit of going along with the crowd.

The roots of such behaviour might be sought in attempts by tribes and species to distinguish themselves from those they might be mistaken for: attempts to create in-group rules which mark them as separate, and therefore worthy of special protection.  Imagine a species that could not recognise its own.  It would be much harder to mate, to reproduce, and to keep track of its young.  In the same way, modern identity-touting might be seen as a similar attempt to create an identifiable home group worthy of protection.  A necessary result of this is that other beings are excluded, and not considered so worthy of protection.

TRIBALISM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Applying this back to the European Union, we see an argument between identities.  It is not that one side sees the benefits of identity, and the other doesn't.  It is that remainers focus on the benefits of the European group identity (i.e. the protection afforded by membership of THAT exclusive club); and leavers focus on the the benefits of the UK group identity (i.e. the protection afforded by membership of a smaller, but equally exclusive, club).

Now, any club tends, by force of its existence, to encourage its members to be rather irrationally convinced of the benefits of membership.  Watch the behaviour of football supporters, and you will see what I mean.  A lot of behaviour seems designed around not rational support, but precisely the opposite: irrational support, against the demands of logic.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IRRATIONAL

Looking again at Europe, we must surely acknowledge that irrational support of the home team is behind a lot of the behaviour of both camps, nationalists and EU supporters alike.  After all, the EU is smaller than many alliances that could take place, and yet insists on the value of its own existence as a home team.  And looking again at our evolutionary roots, we can see families surviving by dint of an irrational preference for supporting each other over others.  Where we draw the line is likely to be a matter of chance: where we were born, and which communities we have been close to.  It is a blunt instrument, this kind of loyalty; but it dominates much of our behaviour.

IS IDENTITY NECESSARILY IRRATIONAL?

I am using a particular definition of irrational above.  I am taking rather an economist's view of the subject, and describing as 'rational' those behaviours which are explainable in terms of rules of benefit to an individual or group, and as 'irrational' those behaviours which are perpetuated even though they seem to result in no easily identifiable benefit to an individual or group.

A DUAL APPROACH TO RISK

However, we might explain different approaches to identity and groups, by seeing that different people attach different values to different kinds of risk.  Take Israel as an example.  One could describe Israel's international policy as 'brittle' - prepared to risk extreme loss at extremes of behaviour, in return for limiting loss within norms of behaviour.  Therefore, it doesn't care if it gets bad international press in the course of a normal day; but it cares deeply if someone suggests its very borders should change.  It is like a walled garden: doesn't care who it hurts building the wall, then focuses on building its own garden within its bounds.  Conversely, one could describe Palestine's international policy as 'soft':  It cares deeply about gaining international support; but it has less investment in a defined map of borders.  It is like an open garden: is used to living without boundaries, so seeks to minimise risk in a constant flux of extremes.  These behaviours are historically caused by an artificially set up situation.  One side is given privilege; the other is left to fight for what it can find.  It is similar to the position of the rich and poor in the UK, which is why, often, the left sides with Palestine and the poor, and the right sides with Israel and the rich.

A REVISED APPROACH TO RATIONALITY

Using the above model, one can see how a 'rational' wish to minimise loss causes different behaviours in different communities.  Both Israel and Palestine are being rational in context; it's just that Israel finds more benefit in hard macro boundaries (because they are what it is founded on), and Palestine finds more benefit in fluid macro boundaries (because they are all that it has got).

Applying this to rich and poor, we can see the same approach to risk.  The rich, having secured land, will wish to live in gated developments.  The poor, having none, will wish to flow across boundaries; they have less investment in them, after all.  Both sides are being rational.

BACK TO THE BLUE PASSPORT

Let's look again at the argument between those who want the UK to leave the EU, and those who don't.  It's interesting, because here, the leavers have voted for a smaller boundary.  This is unusual, in that we have got used to expansionism.  Israel, for example, pushes beyond its boundaries in order to protect them.  Why on earth should so many UK citizens have decided to buck this trend, and go smaller?

Well, a good analogy might be the creation of ghettoes.  Sooner or later, in any community, an area develops with a distinct character of its own.  And that area, like an evolving species in times millions of years past, wants to create its own distinctness, to ensure its own survival.

THE GHETTO AS THE ICON OF INDEPENDENCE

Ghettos dont mind being poor.  In fact, they take it for granted that, outside the ghetto, they may be reviled and disadvantaged.  That's not what drives its members.  For them, they are seeking to create what security they can in a smaller space.  They get an enormous amount of security from looking inward, to their own peculiar traditions and symbols.

BACK TO EVOLUTION

I guess, in the end, it boils down to an argument between two forces of evolution.  On the one hand, there is expansionism, the wish to gain ground by pushing borders outwards, to encompass more of the world.  On the other, there is ghettoism, the wish to protect those closest to you in difficult circumstances by making your nearby ground rich in culture and symbolism.  The latter can create highly individualistic and creative cultures, as they are often found in highly hostile conditions, and forced into poverty by difference and circumstance.

Neither force is either rational or irrational.  In the UK, remainers have tended to celebrate their own rationality, and mock their opponents' irrationality.  But this is only true from the narrow perspective of immediate benefit.  From the perspective of the ghetto approach to UK independence, symbols such as a distinct passport have a value well in excess of material gain, because they create a sense of home in adverse conditions, and enrich the distinctness which ensures the continuation of a subculture.

For either side, understanding the other involves seeing why the other approach makes sense.

SUMMARY

Some people mock nationalists for apparently losing the functional benefits of internationalism.  And yet, looking at our evolutionary past, we can see situations where smaller entities have developed their own symbolic micro-benefits, little reminders of home, that can be felt as more valuable than international compromise.  Under stress from expanding macro-borders, micro-cultures can develop a ghetto-like way of reinforcing their own separateness and resourcefulness.  This ghetto mentality is not focused on benefit as an economist would define it.  Benefit here can only be understood if we realise that, to many, symbols of home in a hostile world are worth far more than tokens of wealth.