Introducing "Location"
. . . .
. seeing how Praxis can
help the way you and others live in the world
Praxis is all about discovering what truth
is for you; it is about learning a technique and more importantly,
applying
it. It is important to have destinations but Praxis is more focussed on the process rather
than the aim. Another way of putting it, Praxis helps you
find out who you are but it can also help you understand where
you are - hence the
name of this aspect, 'Location'. You are in
the world but
also of
the world. Location is the process of opening,
emotionally, to how the things you do in the world can be informed by the wellspring of
your deepest feelings.
Location raises questions, many of which involve
morality. Morality comes from many sources, religion, custom and practice,
formal laws and involves the intersection of self-interest and group
interest but is this all that is going on? Location is that part
of Praxis that reveals your own answer to that question. Morality
is not just social agreement - there is an emotional base to it. We
do not just live in the world and are made by
it, we also need to
change the world in order to survive; this usually involves
activity to make it better. What is better for some is less
good for others, so politics and morality go hand in hand but this relationship
is more than just a set of laws to live by -
how do we discover what is right? Sometimes there are no
easy answers; what is morality for some is cruelty for others.
" . . . . . .
informed by the wellspring of your deepest
feelings".
This is the key element of Location.
We are social beings but social beings with a purpose. The main
Kernel of Praxis indicates the role played by social forces :
"we wake up
and find we
want the truth, finding out about ourselves and finding truth are the same
thing, in presenting
ourselves to others we
put ourselves on the journey of finding out everything else". To this
we can add another Kernel, specific for
Location : "To all sufficiency, from all
sustainability". ( created by Jason Stoddard. You
can link to his work via this site :
http://www.strangeandhappy.com ).
This great little Kernel, can be unpacked to reveal many many aspects
but in summary, it is in all our interests, that all have sufficiency
but none of us will survive if we do not have sustainability
either. The two are linked at the most basic level.
To all sufficiency, from all sustainability - how is such a
Kernel arrived at? Kernels are only pointers, signposts, they are the basis from
which rules of living are made from. In
the past our morality was driven mostly by religion but if the religions
continue to decline where does our morality come from? The
momentum of the existing morality, both custom and enshrined in law,
continues but is that enough? Your Praxis will show you what
is in your own heart but what of all the collective hearts acting in
concert, or in conflict?
Imagine 12 people in a room.
They have been told that in order to get out, to be free, they have to
choose one of four doors and all 12 must go through it, they cannot go
through different doors. Each door looks different but there are
no obvious clues as to which door leads to freedom; there are no
windows in the bare room but each wall is painted a different colour and hanging
on it, a different framed picture. What would happen?
They would have to decide which door to all go through. Perhaps one
of more individual would dominate the issue by trying to go
through one door, thus forcing everyone else to follow. Maybe they
would sit and draw lots as to which door to open, or, examine the pictures
on the wall to see if there was a clue hidden in them, (why are
the pictures there, why are the walls different colours?) Perhaps some
of the people need to restrain an impetuous person from rushing
through the nearest door whilst others examine the pictures looking
for clues. There are lots of scenarios to consider, indeed, there is
a wonderful film dealing with a similar situation : "12 Angry Men"
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
The story is mentioned here to focus not on the doors or the outcomes
but on the need to not only decide, but to give thought as to
how a decision is made. (Did the
12 people get out of the room ok? What is the outcome that you
want? Why did you want that outcome? This is
one of many beginnings of Location, think about the answer to all three questions but it is
the last question that is special. When you have an answer
to the last one, "look" at your answer for a while and then
see what is "underneath". This technique is something you can often do with Constancy but it
is not analysing. You are not trying to work something out,
this is not about acquiring more knowledge, it is about using
Constancy to let your deeper feelings surface. Those deeper feelings may be
just about you but they may also be about
"where" you are.
How
do we make collective decisions? Mostly, they are made for
us. Remote important people in responsible positions make big
decisions that affect us all; for most of us,our sphere of actual
influence is small if not minute. But . . . .
. multiple, 'small spheres of influence' add up. It may
take a many many years for geological forces to create the conditions
for a landslide but that sudden force might be finally triggered by
one pebble, ( the scientific phrase for this, the "critical mass",
has made its way into popular speech). So we persist with
what we feel is "right" but what is that "right" based on?
If you take start using a technique like Praxis you can find out where you are, by revealing your feelings
of that "where". Those feelings show you what is right,
moving from what you 'hope' will be true, to what 'is'
true. This is not necessarily about certainty but is about
clarity, a clarity that informs the choices you make and the paths
you take, part of which will be how to persuade others to make the same
choices. Good luck
History, can be an important way
of gaining some persepctive. The following is a 'parable'
that appeared in England's Telegraph Newspaper early in 2011.
It was created by Max King, global asset
allocation strategist at Investec, which sets out to
explain the macroeconomics of tax and spend in terms we can all
understand.
"Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for
beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something
like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing. The fifth would pay £1.?The sixth would pay £3.?The seventh would pay £7.?The eighth would pay £12.?The ninth would pay £18.?And the tenth man (the richest) would pay
£59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men
drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement
until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are
all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just
£80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way
we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would
still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying
customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would
get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but
if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the
first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth
man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.?The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3
.?The seventh paid £5 instead of £7.?The eighth paid £9 instead of £12.?The ninth paid £14 instead of £18.?And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of
£59. ?Each of the last six was better off than before
with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to
compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared
the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I
only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than
me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why
should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the
breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in
unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the
poor!”
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat
him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t
show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without
him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they
discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between
all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That’s how our tax system works. The people who
already pay the highest taxes do tend to get the most benefit from tax
reliefs and reductions. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy
and they just might not show up anymore.
For those who understand, no explanation is
needed.?For those who do not understand, no explanation
is possible. Oh, and for those who have heard this one before,
please don’t write to Max or me to say so. But do try to remember that
it’s not always necessary to be solemn to make a serious
point’."
I feel it necessary to add an important missing
first part of this parable . . . . . . .
A long time ago, there were 10 men and they all got
the same resources from their work. But 2 men thought of a
different way of organising the work and they persuaded two other
men to support the new arrangement. The other 6 took some
persuading but they were trusting guys so they went along with
it. It worked, more resources for the same effort! But
the 2 originators said, this was our idea so we want more
resources. And the 2 supports said, hold up, we supported you so
we want more too. So the resources were divided unequally because
the 6 other guys wanted to be fair. Over time, more ideas came and
more resources were divided up unequally. Some of the 6 were not
so good at looking after their resources (now they had to look after
them differently) so the 2 originators lent them some of theirs and
demanded interest. Eventually, some of the 6 ended up owning
nothing. One of the 2 originators said to his colleague, it
is too difficult now to decide things altogether, so one of us should be
king. The other one immediately killed the one who spoke first and
became king because he was a frightening dude, he was already looking at
the ten men in the next valley. All the time this was going
on, the women were doing all the real work . . . . . . add
about 50,000 years and we have a situation, refined by blood and fear,
where we just accept that one mans idea is more important than another's
sweat. Well, it's natural isn't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Footnote
"Location" is
a term used in Orientations which is a structure of
Praxis, explained in "Clear 1", here. In summary, Orientations has
three core questions, the first of which is "Who am I ? " This
question is
described in a three-fold way : "
(1)
Inner : seeing the "you" inside, finding truth, you have
a "life" inside you - some feelings are just to do with that. Some
feelings mostly point to interior needs and expectations. (2)
Location : seeing
where this "you " lives. Nobody is really alone, the world changes you
and is changed by you. Some feelings mostly point to this
interaction. (3) Journey : Some feelings do
not sit comfortably with just "Inner" or "Location". Some feelings are
about where you have been and where you might be going, they are not to
do with needs, they will not change you or the world, they point to a
deeper treasure".
RETURN TO THE PRAXIS
HUB