Stop Just Looking For Happiness.

A stroll in the self-help section of any bookstore, electronic or otherwise, will offer a wide and varying selection on how to achieve the illusive state of "happiness".

"Happiness" seems to be a state to which we should aspire to achieve and embody.  However, this doesn't seem to answer all the questions.

if we are all trying so hard to be happy, to de-stress, de-clutter and distance ourselves from anything that brings us pain and difficulty, where are we collectively heading as a society?  Can we really achieve and progress if we are not interested in the meaningfulness of what we do and instead focus on our personal, individualhappiness?

In her recent article, Nancy Colier asks: Why do we expect ourselves to be happy all the time?  It is a pertinent question and challenges a concept that has been encouraged and celebrated strongly over the past couple of decades, particularly in the United States.  The article draws from The Atlantic's original article, which postulates that there is actually more to life that just being happy.

If life isn't about being happy, then what is it about?

Having grown up in a household with a strong Sudanese, community based culture, my younger brother and I were taught the importance of 'duty', and doing things with a purpose, something that offered meaning. 

This wasn't something we always understood or appreciated, as for young children and teenagers, the immediate payoff seems to be the most important thing.  As time has passed though, I have begun to appreciate the concept behind what my parents tried to teach us.

Meaning can bring happiness, but in of itself is much more profound and encompassing than just 'being happy'.

Meaning is about the concept of working for something larger than your individual person.  It is about, as the psychologists who wrote the book Man's Search for Meaning found, being a "giver" instead of a "taker".

It is a concept that implies a fulfilling life isn't one that is focused on personal contentment to the exclusion of any pain, suffering, or any struggle for a better situation. Rather, a fulfilling life is one that gives individuals a reason to be happy - or at the very least, content.

Meaning can come in any number of forms, but it is often related to what we as individuals and society value.

For those who value family, meaning and ensuing happiness can come from providing for the family.  For those who are more focused on their career, meaning may take the form of employment related activities.  For me personally, meaning comes from working with young people and the community to help empower them, individually and as a group.

Achieving or striving for these may not always be sunshine and roses, and may not always provide immediate happiness.  However, the long term strive for meaning gives depth to our lives, and value to what we contribute to in society.

It is that meaning that we can derive true happiness from, knowing that our time on this earth made an impact in some way, and that the world is a little better for us having been in it.

Source of photos: Tumblr

Selfish, or Noble? On Our Personal Legacies

 

I used to believe that being forgotten was the worst fate that could befall me. However, I have come to accept not only my mortality, but my insignificance in the story of our universe.

***

This is not to say that we are all ‘insignificant as individuals’, as we are extremely important to those who love us and the community we are a part of; to deny this would be unfair. In fact, it would be wasteful of the gift of our lives if we disregarded our importance as people and individuals.

However, notions of grandeur and of everlasting importance are fanciful and ultimately selfish, are they not? Think about the thousands of years of humankind and the billions of people who have gone before us, who each had stories; lives, loves, struggles and triumphs…how many of those have been remembered? How many empires, on the other hand, have fallen due to an individual’s obsession with power and immortality?

Why do we feel like we need to be remembered?

On the other hand though, shouldn’t we strive to create and leave a legacy?

Wanting to be remembered is one thing, leaving a legacy is quite another.

One is about the individual, craving attention and validation of their existence.  The other is selfless, about leaving the world a better place than when we joined.

It is up to you to decide what your legacy will be.  Utilise that gift, and shape one that you are proud of.

*Source of pictures? Tumblr.

Death, Spirituality and Why I Believe.

Spirituality and death are not light topics often spoken of, particularly in Australia.  Deeper questions on life, death, spirituality and meaning are often left untouched outside the circles of philosophy, religion and very close family and friends. Yet they lurk in the shadowy recesses of our minds, buried beneath the busy-ness and the whirlwind of daily life, emerging only when prompted and typically buried soon after.

Death seems to be the one thing that is a certainty, yet it manages to shock us. It is as if we know that it will eventually happen, but don’t believe it when it does, as it forces us to confront our own mortality, our own frailty.

It is fact.  You are going to die. A moving piece written on the NYT puts it well.

we don’t have a choice. You are older at this moment than you’ve ever been before, and it’s the youngest you’re ever going to get. The mortality rate is holding at a scandalous 100 percent. Pretending death can be indefinitely evaded with hot yoga or a gluten-free diet or antioxidants or just by refusing to look is craven denial.

Yet, that is what society does.  We deny it to ourselves.  We imagine that somehow, we will not fall prey to this fatal condition called life.  And yet, we do.  Inevitably.

And inevitably, we become simply another organism that has lived on this earth, and life moves on.  No matter what role we played on this earth – king, pauper, mother, villain – the planet keeps spinning, and eventually, save for a few, even the memory is forgotten.

***

Paraphrasing from R.Roberts, Islam (for me) is the wonderful belief that this life is not our whole story.

The fundamental belief in Islam, and indeed in many other religions, is that this life is merely a stage in the lives of our soul – that the time on this earth will be judged after we pass on, as we continue into the next life.

This is why death is something we are not taught to fear, but to prepare for.  That doesn’t always make it easier to deal with, but somehow easier accept, and it provides answers to questions no one living can definitely respond to.

I’ve grown into my religion and spirituality as I have aged.  It is a process, just like any thing else, and with this growth has come the realisation that belief in the afterlife changes the perspective and the attitude taken to life as a whole.

For example, people often ask about the difficulty in forgoing things in this world – alcohol, pork and promiscuity are the ones I get asked about the most – and find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would voluntarily put themselves through extra difficulty.  Once you understand that these actions are providing “brownie points” for a level of the game you haven’t reached yet, it begins to make some more sense.

If I have a medical problem, I’ll go to the experts – the doctors.  If I have a question on life, spirituality and what’s next, I live by what the experts in that industry say – the industry of spirituality if you will, is religion.

I don’t always understand the answers I am given, but I have faith. After all, we follow doctor’s orders don’t we?

***

Here are a two beautiful links that prompted me to write this piece.

Regrets of the dying.

You are going to die.

What do you do when the power goes out?

I'd just gotten back from working on the rigs, looking forward to a few days off with fast internet, unlimited downloads, nice cool weather, catch ups with friends and loads of sleep.

Exhausted, I collapsed into a deep sleep a few minutes before midnight, just after I arrived home.

On awakening, I was vaguely disconcerted by the stillness of the morning, but disregarded it as I sat up in my bed and began checking my social feeds, as I did every morning.  My phone's battery was at 80%.  Odd, I thought.  I was sure I left it charging...

It wasn't until I padded downstairs and found the family at the dining table did it dawn - the power had been cut!  Ah, this couldn't last for long, surely! We lived in Australia after all...

***

The first day of having no power (on holidays) wasn't terrible.   I took the opportunity to catch up on some reading and light housework...I still had charge on my phone and didn't have the good sense to conserve it, so texting and surfing Facebook was all go.

The first night, exciting.  We set up candles, told stories, ate the leftovers in the fridge and slept early.  It was a fun adventure, but I looked forward to being able to waking up to power.  The high voltage fault would be repaired in the morning, they said.

***

After 36 hours, the reality of the situation begins to sink in and you begin to realise how much you depend on electricity.

Automatically turning on lights as you walk into a dark room, followed by the brief moment of confusion before you remember and use the torch.

Planning to organise the cupboard and making a "washing" pile, and an "ironing" pile...before you realise you can't do either of those easily without the good ol' spark.

I am forced to scam power from the local shops.

"Can I charge my phone here?".  I feel dirty.

***

The silence.

No radio, no refrigerator hum and by this stage, no iPod or phone...

It broached on almost being uncomfortably quiet.  Are we scared of silence?

I felt my thoughts clamouring, grasping at the silence, in an attempt to fill the void.  Is this the normal state of affairs, usually subdued and suppressed by the constant audio-visual stimuli we expose ourselves to?  I wondered...

I take the time for extra prayers.

***

Day three.

Awake, again.  I switch my phone on.

20% battery remaining.  Darn.

"Would you like to connect to the wireless network?" the phone alert demands attention.

No, no, no...

I paused.  The modem was working!

I run downstairs and check the clocks.  The hum of the refrigerator is back.

I breathe a sigh of relief, force the questions about energy dependence from my mind.  Time to charge my phone, check my emails, watch the news...

***

Friends commiserated with an element of wistfulness.  It must have been great to take time off technology!

It was, to an extent.

How do we place being dependent on electricity? I didn't like to think that I couldn't live without it - and clearly, can survive without it without being overly bored or concerned...just uncomfortable?

If however, in this day and age, electricity is such an integral part of our lives, how important is it that we live without it? Is it a skill worth acquiring?

Perhaps we should become more comfortable with silence.  After all, when else are we forced to face our thoughts, without competing stimuli?

Shoot the Messenger?

"Everybody, at the end of the day wants to come back with the best shot." The Bang Bang Club.

Wow, does this film give some food for thought.

Where …are they getting the guns?

What …do you care man, it doesn’t matter. Just take the picture!

***

The movie, The Bang Bang Club, follows the lives of four war photographers during the apartheid in South Africa and their adventures while they attempted to record and broadcast the events of the conflict through image.

Although the film did capture part of the emotional journey, the film makers did not interrogate the moral and ethical dilemmas as deeply as they could have.  Instead, the film chooses to follow the stories of the men more generally and to refer to greater issue indirectly.

This doesn’t detract completely however from the question underlying the film: what is the role of photojournalist in a war zone, a person driven by humanity or by the passion and job description?

How then, does that fit in with moral and ethical expectations that we have as a society?

***

Kevin Carter, one of the four members of the club profiled in the film, committed suicide shortly after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for taking a photo of a starving child in Southern Sudan.

The guilt of not doing anything to save the child, and moreover being constantly asked and berated for his “inhumanity” was said to be his undoing.

…But who are we, as mere observers, to tell people like conflict photographers what they should and shouldn’t do in the line of duty?  How would we know what we would do in such a position?

The more important question is…Should they interfere? Are we allowed to judge them as we do if they do not?

It is interesting to read interviews with the journalists themselves, years after the fact.  For example Greg Marinovich speaks below about the piece “Mob Attack”.

***

…the door was flung open and this guy with a scarf tied like a turban around his head came dashing out. He looked me straight in the eyes, and then took off.

All these other men started chasing him, and he hadn't gone far when he was brought down. About 15 or 20 men were all around him, hitting and stabbing and clubbing. And I was right there, photographing it. On the one hand, I was horrified, and at the same time I was thinking: what should the exposure be?

It was the old days: analogue, manual focus, crappy cameras. I felt torn between the horror of what I was seeing and trying to capture it. I was also thinking, how am I going to survive this? Because sooner or later these people are going to say, "There's this guy taking pictures of us committing murder." I was 1km from my car and the nearest outsider.

They killed him. And then one of them turned and said, "The white guy's photographing." Everyone leapt away, and I said, "No, it's fine, it's fine. Why did you kill him? Who is he?"

It was my first exposure to such a thing. And although, as a journalist, my reaction was fine, as a human being I felt I'd really let myself down [emphasis added]. It wasn't how I'd expected I'd react – I thought I'd try to intervene, or do something more noble. Yet I hadn't. I was really quite torn up about that. I was gutted that I'd been such a coward. From that moment, I was determined that, no matter what, I'd try to intervene and save someone if I could.

***

Greg’s Photo

It cannot be easy, and it isn’t an area with black and white distinctions; war never is.  It is easy for those sitting in comfortable chairs at home to disparage decisions made in the heat of the moment of an intense conflict zone.  The fact of the matter remains that without photojournalists, journalists and the men and women who put themselves in the line of fire to report, we would never have records of the atrocities that occur around the world.

As a society, we send soldiers out to fight on behalf of our “freedom”, but then avoiding dealing with the effects of war on a conscious.  Similarly, I believe these photographers, and many journalists in similar situations around the world, sacrifice a part of themselves for what they believe is a greater cause.  It is a sacrifice they have volunteered, and sometimes, they pay the ultimate price.

Whether we agree with their actions in the heat of the moment is a speculative, and a question of morals and values based on the individual.  Either way, we as a society should be grateful.

***

Read more about this fascinating topic via the links below:

NPR Podcast

New York Times

Greg Marinovich

Joa Silvia

Movieline Review

We don't always need help being 'liberated'

Source

It’s a law that gives a whole new meaning to curves in the road.

In Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province, an Islamist government has put women on notice that female passengers cannot straddle motorbikes because the “curves of a woman’s body” are too alluring unless they sit sidesaddle.

“Muslim women are not allowed to show their curves; it’s against Islamic teachings,” the mayor of the Aceh city of Lhokseumawe told the Associated Press on Monday.

The energy-rich northern province adopted Sharia law in 2009, after it won autonomy from the Indonesian government in a bitter separatist war. It imposed strict morality laws that regulate women’s dress, require shops to close at prayer time and other measures

Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and some of its regions are increasingly stringent in applying religion-based laws. But it pales in comparison with Saudi Arabia, where women are lifelong dependants of men, must be covered in public from head to foot and cannot drive cars, let alone motorcycles.

…and so the article continues.

Reading the above article evokes sadness and frustration on behalf of the Indonesian women, yes.  This was most likely the aim of the article, but rather than focus on that topic alone, the article goes on to make links with the difficulty apparently all women face in Muslim countries around the world due to draconian regimes enforcing “Islamic” values.

What compounds the frustration however, is the fact that this is a trend in Western based media.  The news so regularly focuses on the 'terrible plight of women' in Islamic countries, blaming the “Islamic” regimes in power and in turn, blaming the belief system as if to say: 'Oh, these women need saving and liberating and freedom from their situations'.  This is done while completely neglecting to mention the opinions of the women themselves, the good work the women do in their own countries and fails to understand that there are different cultural expectations around the globe.  Often this is a result of culture, tradition and the patriarchal aspects of the society rather than the belief system.

Based on the article, one would think that women are desperately in need of liberating, but that is not always the case – or at least, not always Western society’s role to play.

For a more authentic view, here is an example of what Indonesian women are concerned about in terms of their welfare in their own country.

Yes, there are desperate inequality issues around the world, including in Muslim countries, there is no doubt about that at all.  However I grow weary of reading pieces that blame a belief system for the inequality and seek to “save women” (by Western standards) without any consideration of the women as people with a belief system they value rather than objects that fill a convenient role.

A fine case of orientalism indeed.

Brisbane Times: How Racist Are We?

I wrote this piece for the Brisbane Times... check the full article (and comments!!) out here. ***

In 2005, when news of the Cronulla riots spread, my family was inundated by calls from friends and family overseas asking if we were okay.

"We're fine!" we would say. "Queensland's different".

That's how I'd always seen it. Growing up in Brisbane in the 90s and 00s, I remember associating racially motivated violence with Sydney and Melbourne.

Although there were incidents in Queensland, it was never as common or visible. Even after 9/11, although our mosque was burnt down and there were incidents of racism, the community didn't experience the widespread and intense incidents of racial hatred as exhibited at the Cronulla riots or more recently, the attacks against Indian international students.

Advertisement

So why is Queensland different? Do the numbers support my anecdotal evidence? Are we more cohesive, or is it a case of luck and "it just hasn't happened yet"?

According to census data, New South Wales and Victoria have an over-representation of LOTE (Language Other Than English Spoken at Home) population, with Sydney and Melbourne's LOTE population at 37.8% and 33.7%, compared to Brisbane's 17.9% (ABS, 2011).

It is quite clear then, that the ethnic population density in Queensland is significantly less than those in the southern states, perhaps a reason for less racial violence.

Furthermore, the southern capital cities have more densely populated areas with particular groups of migrants that have been settled for longer, whereas Brisbane and Queensland's migrant populations are younger and less dense.  In 1996, Queensland had 29.7 % fewer LOTE speakers compared to NSW (ABS, 1996).

On the other hand, the Scanlon Foundation's "Mapping Social Cohesion" (2012) report states that Queenslanders are particularly likely to hold negative views on cultural diversity.

Numbers may not always tell the whole story.  As a lifetime Brisbanite, I don't think we have a widespread issue with racial violence as we are a little different to our southern neighbours.

Firstly, the settlement of racially diverse populations hasn't been in the dense concentrations of lengthy settlement as seen down south.  This has allowed ethnically diverse populations to better embed themselves into the fabric of the mainstream community.

With that familiarity comes understanding and the reduction of the likelihood of racial violence.

Secondly, as a society, we are now much more aware the needs of migrants and LOTE populations having learned from Sydney and Melbourne. As populations now settle in Queensland, the many support mechanisms available from government and organisations help alleviate many of the issues based around settlement that may provoke violence.

When my family moved to Australia almost 20 years ago, the level of support was essentially non-existent.  Now, there are extensive networks to help, and the positive impact this has cannot be understated.

However, it cannot be denied that there are negative - dare I say racist - views around the state. We've been lucky so far. I feel safe, accepted and don't find my race a major inhibitor in my ability to participate.

We shouldn't be complacent however, and as we become more racially diverse we must work together to ensure that our community isn't marred by the manifestation of negative views and the racially motivated violence that can truly damage the fabric of our society.

Read more here!

***

Thanks to the Brisbane Times for giving me the opportunity to contribute...

So what are your thoughts? I only had 500 words, there is plenty more to the discussion!

Operation: Internet Freedom

This is an archived post, originally written for Future Challenges.

The Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA.

The Protect Intellectual Property Act, PIPA.

The ISP based Australian Internet filter, the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

These are a few examples of many governments’ attempts, both within Australia and internationally, to fight what they see as “cyber crime” or ensure “cyber security”.  The question to ask however, is whether these attempts are true steps forward in fighting unlawful and harmful action, or whether they are misguided endeavours to control users, and how effective are they in reality at either of those roles?

We live in an increasingly online society; Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plays an intrinsic role in the daily lives of most Australians, so much so we almost no longer consciously realise it.  Like any tool however, ICT can be utilised for both lawful and unlawful pursuits and as such, “cyber crime” has become an issue of consideration for those concerned with the security of the nation, including the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

“High Tech Crime” is the purview of the AFP and is defined in Commonwealth legislation within Part 10.7 – Computer Offences of the Criminal Code Act 1995 .  This includes crimes that rely on the use of ICT, or which target ICT equipment, data and services. The Australian High Tech Crime Center (AHTCC) was formed in 2008 and looks after these types of attacks; intrusions, denial of service (DoS) attacks, destruction of data and distributing malicious software (AHTCC 2011).

The AFP’s role is relatively understood, they pursue individuals and groups who have broken the relevant legislation. To aid this, in November 2011 the Australian Government made movements towards joining an international treaty fighting internet crime.  This is hoped to reduce the estimated $1 billion in risk to Australian companies from cyber crime every year (The Australian, 2011).

Internet filters however, are a different beast and there are questions about their efficacy and the motivations behind them.

In 2009, the Australian Government began a campaign to introduce an ISP based internet filter to “block overseas sites which contain criminal content” (ABC News, 2009).  This would be done through the creation of a “blacklist”, which would be maintained by an independent body in order to “protect Australians from unsuitable material”.

The actions however, brought resounding criticism from a multitude of corners, including the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), who rightly posed the question:

“Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?”

The EFA’s Vice Chair Mr Jacobs suggested that “the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish” (ABC News, 2009).  This is perhaps the main issue with protection in the form of a filter or restriction; freedoms are reduced and controlled by a third party without any input from the public or the constituents.

Not only did the EFA raise concerns, but groups such as “No Clean Feed” erupted, encouraging users to take action against the Bill, and take action they did.

In August 2009, in response to the AFP breaking up an underground hacker’s forum, the AFP’s computer system was hacked and the individuals accessed both police evidence and intelligence about federal police systems such as its IP addresses (SMH, 2009).

The disruptions didn’t stop there; in 2010 hackers coordinated attacks on various government sites, debilitating the Australian Parliament House’s website and making Kevin Rudd’s website the home for “Operation: Titstorm”

This operation was conducted by the group “Anonymous”, the same group who have taken down Sony and attacked various government sites (such as Nigeria and Syria) in a form of “hacktivism” and are extremely vocal against all forms of internet censorship.

The bill hasn’t been passed completely, however it may no longer need to as four Australian ISP’s have now voluntarily blocked over 500 websites, setting an interesting precedent (Chalk, 2011).

So there is a lot happening; internet filters are imposed, hackers are accessing and committing “cyber crime” despite security measures, new types of crime are emerging as well as traditional crimes being aided by technology.  What does this mean for the future?  Where does this leave our global community?  Can we have our computer and internet freedoms and still expect to be safe and protected?

Currently we are in a period of transition. We deal with new forms of crime with traditional methods of crime fighting. We deal with the symptoms and attempt to stem the flow rather than deal with the source.

Information and Communication Technologies are a tool. In the same ways that cars and knives are tools than can be used for lawful and freeing activities as well as dangerous and deadly activities, technologies are a tool that can be used for great good and vice versa.

It should also be remembered that young people today are growing up in a society where ICT and the freedoms they provide are taken as the norm.  As such, removal of these freedoms is most likely going to be seen as a step backwards and will be fought vehemently.

In any society there is the requirement for some rules and legislation in order to prevent crime.  However, for crime fighting to be effective, the focus should be on the crime itself and not on restricting the medium by which the crime is being conducted, particularly when it can bring so much good.  The types of crimes are changing and perhaps that should be the focus of protection efforts.  It may also be worth thinking about looking at why these crimes are occurring and dealing with the causes rather than simply focusing on the symptoms.  Easier said than done definitely, but if we are to live in a truly global society, how can you have true and free global interaction if someone picks and chooses what you are free to access?  How is that freedom? Is it a case perhaps, of accepting the fact that no society can be as truly free as we want it to be?

Hypocrisy of the Hierarchy: "Islam" vs "Islamists"

Below is an excerpt from the blog of an activist currently in Sudan in reference to the NCP, the nation’s ruling party. He raises a poignant point; highlighting the Sudanese government's use of religion to justify their actions while simultaneously flying in the face of everything the religion stands for.

Far from a moral and legal compass, Shari’a has been nothing but a political tool used by the NCP to consolidate their hold on power. While some naively believed the rhetoric and rallied around ‘the Islamic State’, the majority has known that the regime’s founding ideology has long been perverted by power and greed. In the past, the NCP made an effort, however minimal, to cover up their religious merchandizing, if only as a courtesy. However, when CS gas is fired into a house of worship on specific orders, it seems evident that we are no longer dealing with a regime that can be bothered with even insincere courtesies.

This has been a cause of personal frustration for some time now.

Another example can be found in Timbuktu (yeh, it’s a place), Mali, where a group called the "Ansar Dine", control part of the country and destroy the nation's heritage and history in the name of "Sharia Law".

This band of terrorists has recently turned their guns and fanaticism against the historical shrines that had made the city of Timbuktu a beacon of learning through so many centuries. They have used pick-axes, shovels, hammers and guns to destroy earthen tombs and shrines of local saints in the desert city of Timbuktu, claiming that they are doing so to defend the purity of their faith against idol worship. They are behind the destruction of at least eight Timbuktu mausoleums and several tombs, centuries-old shrines in what is known as the ‘City of 333 Saints’.

***

My frustration is twofold.

Firstly, even though the actions are not aligned with Islamic values and principles, these groups will often claim their actions are in the name of the religion and then rub salt into the wound by denouncing anything or anyone they believe isn’t following Islam.

Secondly, by using Islam as a political tool, these groups taint the name of the religion itself.

Take the example of the the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Akhwan al-Muslimeen, the current Egyptian President’s party.  The organisation started as a religious social organisation, with stated aims to preach Islam.  With power usually comes political agendas however, and the Brotherhood is now one of the largest political movements in the Arab world.  The organisation (the political wing) operates under the banner of Islam, however throughout its history, its actions haven’t always been aligned with Islamic values.

Yet, because the Brotherhood as an organisation has an Islamic mandate, Muslim members and calls itself the “Muslim” Brotherhood, it’s actions are seen as representative of 'what is right under Islam'.

This is unfortunate as there is a difference between Islam and self proclaimed ‘Islamists’, or those who use religion as a mean to a political end.  This is not to say that all political Islamists are bad as such, things are much more nuanced than that. There is simply a difference between Islam and Islamists, and this should be recognised.

It is not the religion that should be judged by the people but the people whom should be judged by the religion.  After all, we are only human, and humans are fallible.  Such is the nature of our humanity.

***

This isn’t Islam’s problem alone, it has happened with Christians, Jews and numerous other religious groups.  Religion is an extremely effective and persuasive political tool, and unfortunately is often used to justify evil and undeniable atrocities.

However, when you look at it…

“Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first.” – The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) [Muslims]

“Love thy neighbor as thyself” – Jesus, quoting the Torah (New Testament) [Christians and Jews]

“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” – Buddha [Buddhists]

It would seems to me that mercy and love are what all religions preach and what we should focus on, regardless of denomination.

***

In all of this, it should be noted that Muslims have been not given a mandate on how to rule a nation.

There are detailed descriptions for many things in Islam, down to the very details of how to wash before you pray, but there is no description for the best “model of government”.

Yes, there is the concept of ‘Sharia’, however Sharia is not a book of law as Western civilisation would have it, rather it is the ‘path’ or the Islamic ‘way of life’ (read further here).

What there isn’t is a ruling on whether Muslims should be right wing, left wing, realist, socialist, communist (though that wouldn’t really work anyway), democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial…

Politics is one of the areas that Islam hasn’t mandated.  What does that tell you?

***

So, what are your thoughts? For me personally, I think religion and politics are different realms and should be kept separate. That is how I will keep it at any rate.

Be Prepared: Unlikely Inspiration

“You must know that in any moment a decision you make can change the course of your life forever: the very next person stand behind in line or sit next to on an airplane, the very next phone call you make or receive, the very next movie you see or book you read or page you turn could be the one single thing that causes the floodgates to open, and all of the things that you’ve been waiting for to fall into place.”  - Anthony Robbins

Some of the biggest changes in my life have occurred after the most unlikely inspiration. 

My love of cars and motorsport?  From watching a movie when I was 13.

My current job? From chatting to a lady at a jobs stall when I was in first year uni and thinking 'I would love to do that one day'.

Deciding to start an organisation? From attending a conference I applied to late, and a conversation I had with my mum late that night...

Keep an open mind. 

You never know when the inspiration will strike, or when your life will change...

External Essay: The “IRL” Fetish

Hanging out with friends and family increasingly means also hanging out with their technology. While eating, defecating, or resting in our beds, we are rubbing on our glowing rectangles, seemingly lost within the infostream.

I came across a great essay on the false separation between what we see as offline and online and the fetishisation of the offline…read on for more.

Facebook doesn’t curtail the offline but depends on it. What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media. The photos posted, the opinions expressed, the check-ins that fill our streams are often anchored by what happens when disconnected and logged-off. The Web has everything to do with reality; it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics. It is the fetish objects of the offline and the disconnected that are not real.

Those who mourn the loss of the offline are blind to its prominence online. When Turkle was walking Cape Cod, she breathed in the air, felt the breeze, and watched the waves with Facebook in mind. The appreciation of this moment of so-called disconnection was, in part, a product of online connection. The stroll ultimately was understood as and came to be fodder for her op-ed, just as our own time spent not looking at Facebook becomes the status updates and photos we will post later.

The clear distinction between the on and offline, between human and technology, is queered beyond tenability. It’s not real unless it’s on Google; pics or it didn’t happen. We aren’t friends until we are Facebook friends. We have come to understand more and more of our lives through the logic of digital connection. Social media is more than something we log into; it is something we carry within us. We can’t log off.

Solving this digital dualism also solves the contradiction: We may never fully log off, but this in no way implies the loss of the face-to-face, the slow, the analog, the deep introspection, the long walks, or the subtle appreciation of life sans screen. We enjoy all of this more than ever before. Let’s not pretend we are in some special, elite group with access to the pure offline, turning the real into a fetish and regarding everyone else as a little less real and a little less human.

Read the article here: The IRL Fetish: Published at The New Inquiry, NATHAN JURGENSON, 28th June

***

We’re not friends until we are Facebook friends…

Isn’t that the truth these days? We speak about our “online” lives as if they are a different life but in reality, it is nothing more than an carefully curated extension of ourselves. 

Online cannot exist in a vacuum, and Nathan highlights this in his piece.  The internet and “social media” (as if it is a “thing” that can be defined), is only another tool for us to interact with as we see fit.  In the same way that the clothes we choose to wear are an outward reflection of our beliefs or the image we wish to project, the parts of our lives we choose to share speak volumes about how we wish to be seen. 

However…

I can’t stop myself from thinking about how everything I say and write on the internet is there forever, which at times (quite often, in fact), makes me hesitate. That permanence makes me apprehensive. Makes me think twice, three times, four even, before choosing to share something.  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of our oversharing culture? Doesn’t it fly in the face of presenting the “raw” individual?  Isn’t that why we follow celebrities and athletes on facebook and twitter, to get a glimpse behind the polished curtain of their presentation and see the person underneath?

***

Perhaps I am a little old fashioned and believe that not everyone has the equal right to access all parts of me.  Some parts should still be earned. I still believe in the concept of privacy, however laughable that may be in the 21st century.  There is still a space in society for the private and the public sphere, and you can choose to erase the line between the two or keep them completely delineated… that is still a personal choice that exists.

After all, Facebook, Google, Amazon and every damn Silicon Valley company may be able to track every move online, bank details, movements and purchases… but they still have no idea what we are thinking.  We still have the power to buck our supposed trends and preferences, be erratic, unpredictable and unplug.

That is the beauty of being human. 

The Problem with ‘Following your Passion’?

Source

I came across a curious article a little while ago that got me thinking about the tried and true adage of ‘following your passion’.

The early stages of a fantastic career might not feel fantastic at all, a reality that clashes with the fantasy world implied by the advice to "follow your passion" — an alternate universe where there's a perfect job waiting for you, one that you'll love right away once you discover it. It shouldn't be surprising that members of Generation Y demand a lot from their working life right away and are frequently disappointed about what they experience instead.

Written on the blog of the ever trusted Harvard Business Review by the author Cal Newport, the article points out that the concept of “following your passion” is essentially made synonymous with loving every second of your job and never settling for anything less.  Such a perception, it is argued, is inherently problematic due to a number of reasons, including the false promises it holds and perpetuates.

I am not going to deny that I am through and through Gen-Y and am proudly guilty of repeatedly telling people to follow their dreams, pursue their passion and find something they care about. 

I do see the point of Newport’s argument though, and he again highlights his point in this Forbes’ article.

Trying to determine your passion and follow it…can be dangerous and lead to chronic job-hopping. You’d be much better off…improving and stretching your “rare and valuable” skills to become a “craftsman.” That will make you a stronger job candidate and help you have a successful career.

It is an interesting perspective.  My father is incidentally a strong believer of the same concept: working on finding skills that are transferrable and get you employed rather than simply “for enjoyment”.  Doing your duty, fulfilling your responsibilities.  There are a couple of points I think this line of thinking poses. It should be noted that I am referring explicitly to career options and not general interests and hobbies.

I definitely think there is immeasurable value in enjoying what you do.  There is no point hating your job or role and being dissatisfied with your existence…after all, YOLO.  However I think it important that a distinction be made between blindly following a passion and forever having good and easy times. When framed like that, the important message of hard work is left out.

For example, no one can say to you engineering is an easy degree.  If they can, either they are a genius or they did it wrong. However, many engineers love engineering. 

How is that possible?

Through the realisation that perhaps loving something doesn’t instantly make it effortless (I understand that this is the same case in marriage, although I can’t speak with authority on that yet).

Whether or not everyone has a ‘calling’ is perhaps disputed, however there are definitely things people enjoy doing more than others.  Whether you find something you love first and try find the job to match it…or find something you don’t mind and learn to enjoy and appreciate it, both are equally valid ways of following a passion.  Sometimes the passion may come not from the industry itself but in mastering the challenge and becoming good at what you do.

Is the latter a “compromise”? If you had asked me a year ago, I may have said yes.  Now, having entered the working world, I am less adamant.

After all, Steve Jobs did the same thing.  The technology re-imaginer started as a barefoot liberal arts student and ended up the face of technological reinvention…through a series of serendipitous occurrences as well as becoming extremely passionate about what he was doing.

If a young Steve Jobs had taken his own advice and decided to only pursue work he loved, we would probably find him today as one of the Los Altos Zen Center's most popular teachers. But he didn't follow this simple advice. Apple Computer was decidedly not born out of passion, but instead was the result of a lucky break--a "small-time" scheme that unexpectedly took off.

Excerpted from So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport. © 2012 by Calvin C. Newport.

Not everyone is a Steve Jobs in the making, but his example is instructive.  The way in which we find a passion may vary.  Some are fortunate enough to know what they want to do their whole lives, others are less sure but that shouldn’t be derided.  I know I fell in love with motorsport and cars after watching a movie in grade 9…so sometimes inspiration strikes in the strangest of places.

At the end of the day, I am not going to stop telling people to follow their dreams and passions.  We are human beings, passion is a unique gift.  I personally think it is important to care; caring and passion often come hand in hand.  I am finding that over time, my focus of passion is shifting from particular ‘issues’ to more about values that the issues embody, such as empowerment and equality (and in the case of racing cars, pure speeeeeed). 

However, in doing so, I will suffix the message with a disclaimer that simply because it is a passion, it won’t always be sunshine and rainbows.  Hard yards are required, although isn’t that what makes an outcome worthwhile?

…and those who haven’t found a passion yet, don’t despair.  It is not always a lightening bolt that strikes overnight; sometimes passion comes in the form of stalactites and stalagmites – they never really mean to grow, but grow they do; ever so slowly, drip by drip just doing their thing, until one day someone visits and the realisation dawns that something truly beautiful has been created.

Source