Roger Waters and The Scary Potential of Professionalism

When Pink Floyd first released The Wall in 1979 it drew a lot of criticism from some of the more radical critics of the time for being 'self-indulgent' grammar school angst, and so on at a time when progressive rock was seen as not politically correct, to say the least!Needless to say, while The Wall has now become established as a major achievement in rock history, the critics that hated it have been all but forgotten. In the new film release of The Wall performed live by Roger Waters and his band, we get a superb demonstration of how professionalism can push creative ventures way beyond expected levels of satisfaction into truly remarkable territory.

Heroes and performers can disappoint of course. The sports stars that fail to turn in a world class showing on the day that it matters are a good example.But professionalism when taken to its height can result in a level of consistency that almost defies belief. The Wall starts with a dramatic crescendo and builds from there, in a display of audacity and imagination on a scale very few artists can contemplate. As the concert progresses, interspersed with the narrative of Waters himself driving down to southern Italy to discover his father's war memorial, one wonders how such a down-to-earth seeming guy could pull off such a spectacle. Back in the stadium, the imagery becomes more potent, symbols overlaying symbols as we are taken further into the existential battle zone of Pink, the rock star protagonist's tortured world. Grandiose, yes. Subtle, no! Just when you think things can't get any more intense, we are taken to a new level. Waters clearly having the time of his life while turning in a performance of measured perfection.

Should we care about the fate of a successful rock star that has made a mess of his life? The Wall as a symbol takes us deeper, as Liam Neeson points out in the tribute/ introduction to this spectacle. For him, it represents the barrier he built between himself and the world, freezing out the possibility of a meaningful connection with existence. The Wall is an inner wall that we build as protection from a threatening and unmanageable world, between what we see as our vulnerable selves and a world that we must at all costs keep excluded. When seen in this way, Water's exaggerated characters, including the protagonist, fall into place as archetypal rather than specific. At the same time, the connection with Water's own circumstances are made ambiguous by the parallel story line, the loss of father and grandfather in two world wars and his obsession with wartime imagery.

The concert finale of The Trial brings us the magnificent animations of Gerald Scarfe's wife, mother and judge projected in monstrous proportions on a wall that covers the entire stage. Waters holds his nerve flawlessly to the end with the excellent back up musicians going with him the whole distance.

If you haven't acquainted yourself with the phenomenon that is Roger Water's The Wall, this new release is the perfect opportunity. War, loss, Oedipus, isolation, mental disintegration, neo-fascism, drug addiction, oppression, dictators, despair. It's all here. What more could you ask for?
     

Rihanna comes out for the gentleman!

Respect to Rihanna for her recent statements on men. In an interview with the Evening Standard she describes her personal malaise in the area of relationships with guys, and wonders despairingly why they/we are not gentlemen anymore. "They think that...." she says, "if you take a chair out for a lady, or you're nice or even affectionate to your girl in front of your boys, you're less of a man. It's so sick. They won't be a gentleman because that makes them appear soft."

Leaving aside the discussion as to whether Rihanna is actually 'a lady', she does make a significant point which, when we follow its train of thought seems to lead us into a quagmire of gender-based contradictions.
Young men, like young women, are at the receiving end of a tidal wave of images that suggest, if not actually dictate, the way they should 'be' and what is acceptable, desirable and undesirable for a man to strive for in these times. One of the first to be accused and held responsible must surely be the Hollywood film industry which produces extremely potent role models and stories that undoubtedly leave a hefty imprint on the collective psyche. If we look at those Hollywood heroes we see that, since the time of the first Rocky movies, the male blueprint laid down by the industry has become increasingly tough, macho, pumped up, violent etc. Hugh Jackman, for example does not strike one as much of a book-reading man of sophistication. We also note that unmasculine men are often portrayed as suspicious and untrustworthy in these genres. There are exceptions of course, but on the whole it is muscle that seems to win out as the number one quality for a man to possess, just like for women it is a slim waistline and an inflatable chest. Englishmen are usually portrayed as villains with suspect sexual tendencies in the Hollywood genre too, which further compounds the suggestion that sophistication in a man is not to be pursued.

Such stereotypes are swallowed whole, and to some extent we participate in their propagation when we pay to see such movies. Young guys get the message that ruggedness, not sensitivity is to be cultivated. Male rap stars write ludicrous lyrics that are insulting to women and carry violent implications. Such 'music' is pumped across the globe, the rap stars are seen to become conspicuously wealthy and then we wonder why our young men are growing up with misogynist tendencies! We can begin to see how crazy and out-of-whack the whole picture actually is.

In the 1970's things were different. The cult of the hippy made it cool for men to show their sensitivity towards nature and to openly express their spiritual leanings, but all that changed in the 80's when inner searching gave way to materialism and it's attendant hubris. To display one's wealth rather than one's earth-consciousness became the preferred magnet for female attention, and of course most women participated (and still participate) in this by declaring themselves 'material girls'. Repulsed by male arrogance and violent tendencies, many women continue to hold out an immature longing for the strong armed hero to sweep them off their feet. But if brutishness is what you want, brutishness is what you will get, especially if you are a beautiful woman!

To further complicate matters there is the argument that women are actually far more attracted to husky-voiced hunks than they are to men of learning and sensitivity. After all, we're talking polar attraction here, aren't we? If men and women become more like each other, won't we lose the polarity that makes.....well, the world go round? Possibly not. Surely we have come further than such primitive imperatives would suggest and must affirm a more refined definition of positive gender identity.

Rihanna's statement that she's holding out for a gentleman rather than a hero is a positive and sensible one from an unexpected quarter. Let's hope that more prominent females have the good sense to lead men away from dysfunctional role templates and towards a more mature aspiration, even if it does sound a bit old fashioned.

So you wanna be an innovator?

The idea of being an innovator may sound very nice or appealing, but what does it really take to be an innovator and how do we know if we are on the right track?

One way of testing whether or not your ideas are truly penetrating is to, obviously share them with others. Some people will probably find them 'interesting', some will become converts almost immediately, but the real test is whether or not your ideas seem to cause offence among the 'business as usual' thinkers that carry on their lives as if the answer to everything is obvious and plain common sense! You'll know if you are onto something interesting when these types not only oppose your ideas, but seem to take them as personal affronts. In time, you'll come to recognise the peculiar quality of this type of resistance because it has a particularly nasty undertone. When you first start to innovate freely and experience this phenomenon, you may find it disturbing and want to retreat or even feel as if you should apologise. You may even decide that innovation is simply too much grief and go back to doing things 'their' way or continue your work in secret. On the other hand, if you persist, you'll come to understand that such reactions are a sure sign that you've hit on something meaningful and that they are just part of the package. I'm not talking here about trying to offend people by making gratuitously extreme statements.I mean that when you start asking certain questions about how things are done, and why they are done this way, you will see how threatened some people apparently feel by the implications of your sincere desire to push forward into new territory. The solution? Just understand, and appreciate what you're getting yourself into.

The Prosperity Mindset

    An American author and speaker by the name of Randy Gage is a specialist on the subject of prosperity and the prosperity mindset. His compelling claim is that prosperity is a state of mind that goes beyond how you see issues relating to wealth and money. In his definition, prosperity is a lifestyle and concerns your health and diet, exercise, friends and associates, beliefs, activities, habits etc etc.

   We all want to prosper, but according to Randy Gage, most of us have thought patterns, or 'mind-viruses' that prevent or obstruct us from doing so. These can manifest in many different ways. For example, there's the 'victim mentality' where we see ourselves as forlorn but heroic individuals struggling against the big corporation, our employer, the politicians etc. Another damaging idea that many people hold is 'the entitlement mentality' where we affirm our right to a free education, healthcare, public services etc without necessarily giving back very much to society. Another idea that is perhaps more controversial is the question of who gets to benefit from our ability to add value and solve problems in society. Randy Gage's libertarian point of view is that we are entitled to receive in proportion to the value we create in society, an idea which is antithetical, for example to socialism where the spoils of enterprise and innovation are forcibly redistributed.

Have you ever felt resentment towards that big, pinstripe suited guy gliding past behind the wheel of his Rolls Royce while you stand at the curb waiting to cross the road in the rain? If the answer is 'Yes' even for a split second, then you are infected with limiting and anti-prosperity memes, or thought patterns. You might not go so far as to run your key down the side of his vehicle when you see it parked, but you are only two or three steps removed from this point of view. You might catch yourself thinking, for example something cynical that suggests the rich guy must have done something dishonest to get where he is today.Behind such thoughts lurk anti-prosperity patterns that can sabotage your ability to create prosperity in your life.

A person's ability to be wealthy, according to the prosperity mindset, depends not on their background, education, work ethic or ability to save but on their values and relationship with principles of prosperity. Thus, a person born into a rich family will not remain so if they acquire anti-prosperity patterns as they grow up. The fact that most children of wealthy people remain wealthy is due to their inheritance of a prosperity mindset and growing up in a an environment where prosperity is a fact of life. For these people, there is often no need to adjust their patterns. But for most of us, there is work to be done in analyzing truthfully and courageously our REAL relationship with prosperity, asking where our ideas came from and whether or not they support us in having a shot of living happy and complete lives.

If you're interested in finding our more about the prosperity mindset, a recommended book is Randy Gage's "Why You're Poor Sick Dumb and Broke and How to get Healthy, Wealthy and Wise."

What is it about management speak ?

Most of us have our pet-cringes when it comes to management speak. The ones that really get to me personally are ring-fenced and skill set. The second of these in particular is enough to make me break off a potential working relationship with anyone that uses it. But what is it exactly about this type of language that can be so grating? Is it that there's something very bland about the thinking behind the terminology? Something so very uninspiring? Is it the pall of standardization that hangs around these terms like a shroud around the hope we all had for a lively, fulfilling career? Do we accept that work is basically an onerous but necessary chore that has to be got out of the way before we can have fun? Maybe it's that these 'management' terms somehow remind us of this troubling question.
Language has the potential to inspire us, to describe possibilities that don't yet exist. Such language can be called 'declarative' as it declares into existence something that comes from the power of human vision and imagination. When language fails to do this and falls into the 'business as usual' pattern of describing procedures, it loses its potential and becomes deadening, sapping our enthusiasm and energy. Perhaps this is the echo that reverberates through a lot of management speak, and which so many people find annoying?

One thing that turns people off about politicians...

Listening to 'experts' and politicians defending their positions on Radio 4's Today program is a case study in what good communication isn't. These professional opinion makers have chugged along into the studio to toe the party line or defend their viewpoint or in some cases justify their jobs. The format is usually two parties of opposing views in the studio, so we may get say, a eurosceptic UKIP member versus a euro-apologist of one stripe or another going head-to-head, neither of which has any intention of actually listening to the other side.

This is the prevalent pattern of what is called 'discussion' or debate in the media and we see it everywhere. Someone has a position to defend that they identify with. The exchanges soon deteriorate into prepared arguments, both sides come out of it sounding boorish, arrogant, blinkered and pushy.The public shake their heads and say they can't trust politicians.

What would it actually be like, for example if on one of these media debates, they actually listened to each other and considered changing their minds? Unlikely to happen of course, because in most cases their jobs depend on taking up a particular position. Is this a kind of corruption?

Why the mind is designed to stop us growing.

Most people in western society would probably describe themselves as open-minded. However, it doesn't take much testing to discover that this claim is often made falsely. There is a good reason for this being the case and it lies in the nature of the mind itself.

We can think of the mind as being like a machine or a computational device. It produces thoughts, feelings and images in response to incoming data or stimuli. It works automatically, driven purely by the incoming stimuli, giving out results in the form of judgement, words, concepts and emotions that can be experienced as waves of varying intensity. For the most part, such responses from the mind go unchallenged. In other words we tend to accept these mind-responses as true, as real and as 'us'.

In addition to this machine-like modus operandi, another characteristic of  the mind is the impulse to defend itself, and what it sees as its integrity in response to new stimuli. The mind knows itself very well, although it tries to conceal this fact from all of us. It knows that its foundations, its principles and beliefs are in fact very shaky and it needs to keep this fact away from our consciousness as much as possible by putting on a good show of being confident or sure of its opinions. Notice that this is a characteristic that tends to strengthen with age.

 In this way, when something threatens the minds' integrity by introducing a radically new idea, the mind's instinct is to close ranks and defend against such an invasion. It also needs to produce a justification for doing this in the form of a belief, facts, data and opinions.  This is one of the characteristics of the mind that keeps people stuck in life patterns that don't work, that bring harmful or damaging results, and that allow them to cede responsibility for their own existence.

We can also think of the mind as a system. A system is something that works with an integrity, or completeness that allows it to function. Closed systems have the characteristic of running down over time in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, an open system that has the capacity to exchange energy with the environment has the potential to expand by 'escaping into a higher order' . this can occur when the system interacts with the environment to the degree that it is sufficiently destabilized that its whole integrity is threatened. When this process is pushed beyond the tipping point, the system either collapses altogether or re-arranges itself in a new and superior pattern that has the capacity to incorporate and make use of the new level of interaction with the external environment. 

When we apply this principle to the mind we see that before expanding into a higher order, the mind's integrity must be threatened to the extent that it is destabilized and this would involve challenging and undermining the core principles and beliefs that keep the mind locked in a set of limiting patterns.

Unfortunately, the mind itself is structured to exclude and avoid such experiences. This is partly due to a cultural meme that says something like 'It's bad to be uncertain, destabilized and have our views undermined'.

In order to expand our mind, our view of the world and our possibilities, we must open to new ideas and remain open. Understanding that a period of mild or extreme destabilization is part of this process can help us to engage more productively and grow as we expand our view of the world on an ongoing basis.

Michael Brooman June 2015