a space for
free thinking_

Following on from my post, The spaces we keep open, I want to address a potentially false dichotomy (or at least a gross oversimplification) in my question-statement schema. In that post, I failed to acknowledge certain categories of questions that are sometimes intentionally asked in bad faith (e.g. leading, rhetorical, interrogative), logically flawed), deployed to deceive or derail conversations. The classic example of, ‘tell me — yes, or no — do you still beat your mother?!’ serves us well. The question itself is inherently disingenuous and defies a simple yes/no answer (presuming you haven’t or aren’t beating your mum).

So, demonising statements and deifying questions seems too simplistic schema to hold true. I now suspect the better distinction might be centred more around motive than method. My imprecise question-assertion formulation assumed too much of the questioner’s sincere motivation to learn and create room for others. In that sense, we can see how some questions can close spaces while some statements can keep them open (e.g. ‘I don’t think it is that black and white.’)

Still, with all that said, there is something I quite like about questions when trying to create safe spaces to explore belief. I can’t help but wonder whether my initial question-comment observation, nonetheless, holds when questions are asked in good faith? Is an altruistic motive the only qualifier we need (that was missing earlier) to prefer the power of questions over assertions, or is there more to generously holding space open to explore belief?

— Zero

Comments on The spaces we keep closed

ThirdSpace is a place for ideas. Some ideas are dangerous, especially to those who hold them. So, to avoid, or at least mitigate, some of that danger, anonymity, and pseudonymity can be a powerful tool. On ThirdSpace,

• Anonymity is given. Make a comment, and it is published as ‘Anonymous.’
• Pseudonymity is golden. Consistently posting with a fictitious name grants you a consistent voice, and is shareable with those for whom you’d like to know it is you. Pseudonymity, therefore, can be helpful to everyone, but especially those in your circle.

As ThirdSpace is a public website, it is open to anyone. We start with just a small group of around six, and it may remain a relatively tight circle, or not. Either way, you chose your circle, regardless of whether you know me, or anyone else, or not.

The principle is freedom of thought. A space to explore and express what you believe; to feel free to fight for your beliefs, or change them. It doesn’t need to cost anyone ‘face’ to do so. Your right to be wrong is respectfully retained, though not necessarily remain unchallenged. The opportunities for learning are becoming are rich.

So, pick a pseudonym (or two, or three, if you’d like to explore more than one persona, or create more than once circle of people to post among). Remember, you decide who is in and not in your circle. Plus, you can always publish anonymously too. Let me encourage epistemic humility while being true to yourself. Enjoy the journey and happy posting!

— Zero

Comments on Pseudonymity and self-defined circles

Many of us think a little more highly of ourselves than we ought in some ways.¹ Maybe that’s ego-driven, or insecurity speaking, or something else. One very unsettling aspect of this phenomenon reveals we are not the rational creatures we like to imagine we are, typically preferring comfort and familiarity over the discomfort of new truth.

Certainty feels good, and ‘right,’ but it appears it might be the greatest enemy of truth. This is because it closes questions (and questioning). Certainty, it turns out, is usually belief masquerading as knowledge. So we move on with unfounded confidence and comfort, soothed and feeling safe, with our fears of the unknown vanquished.

It takes real courage to remain open to the idea we may be wrong. True confidence in what we believe (or think to know) should be able to tolerate the openness of uncertainty. I suspect this open posture of epistemic humility might be one of the few signs a person prefers truth over the comfort of certainty and is willing to pay the price for truth, whatever that cost might be.

Good spiritual leadership bears the dual responsibility of:

1. holding a faith responsibly — developing beliefs and practices that are justified and reasonable; not merely informed by unqualified acceptance of all previous ‘input.’
2. helping others to do likewise.

It is difficult to do the second well if the first has not been seriously undertaken.

Holistic spiritual formation provides a privileged opportunity to do the first well and begin on the second — to grow in faith; to learn (and unlearn, where necessary); to determine what is solid, and build upon it, but to also deconstruct and rebuild where necessary; this is the nature of the wrestle. To resolve, and unresolve, and resolve again.

Yes, it does take courage. It is hard work. It will certainly be the more difficult path. But we see, time and time again, that it does produce a quality and depth that is not otherwise realised.

So, the question I am pondering is this,

How do formation program leaders create an environment and culture where people feel safe enough to courageously embrace the hard work of becoming more than they are?

With too much challenge seeing people retreat to the safety of the familiar, and not enough challenge failing to challenge false certainties, it is a delicate balance.

What does a safe yet challenging spiritual formation program look and feel like?

— Zero

Comments on The courageous world of becoming

No philosophers have I feared more than Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. They have pressed my theistic worldview to its limits and beyond. This (slightly massaged version of a) Schopenhauer quote below is as good an example as any:

If [a] God made this world, then I would not want to be [that] God. It is so full of misery and distress that it breaks my heart.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Oddly, few things have ultimately brought me more peace than relinquishing the need to see this world as created by a God that I am supposed to ‘believe in.’

Such cognitive contraband would be easier left alone by those tied to creedal formulas. But my curious mind makes a simple faith rather impossible. If I am to have any faith, it must be robust enough to face my fears and stand. To reference Nietzsche, I needed to look into the abyss, knowing it would look back, and be okay with that. Doing so was freeing.

What fears stop you from being honest with yourself (or God, if you ‘believe in’ God?) Which of your theological beliefs, if any, might be better off dead?

— Zero

Comments on The beliefs that bind us

An idea is not always just a idea. Some thoughts carry real-world consequences! That is what makes the pen mightier than the sword — ideas can be dangerous. ‘Dangerous’ thoughts aren’t necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and one person’s ‘good’ idea will fit another’s definition of ‘bad.’ We live in dangerous times that have bad outcomes for good people. I think these dangerous times for the many require dangerous ideas for the few; ideas that disrupt how the wealth gap is growing, for example. Or how the powerful cement inequity and make life miserable for many.

We need ideas that spark that fire within; that drive real-world change that rights wrongs, and shines new light into old darkness. This is change that I want to be part of.

So, what are the right questions to ask? Which pains press upon the poor most persistently? What threatens tomorrow and needs discussing today?! This post is a first call for dangerous ideas. We might have a while together here. What should we talk about?

— Zero

Comments on The ideas that disrupt evil

A question is an invitation to respond. (Does that mean a rhetorical question is really just a statement in disguise; an invitation to yourself to continue speaking; or, perhaps more generously, an invitation for others to think?). Questions contrasts sharply with statements, which are a requests for others to listen; for you to be heard.

How questions are answered can determine whether the invitation remains open or closed (or at least reveal how those answering the question wish that to be). Appeals to authority; ‘factual’ statement (as answer); absolutes; false binaries; and other controlling power plays close questions.

A question can be reopened when someone seeks to close it. Here are a few examples:

• ‘That is one way of seeing it!’
• ‘What do others think?’
• ‘Hmmm. I wonder whether [insert qualifying remark]…’

Having such a ‘go to’ response ready ‘bookmarks’ the moment before it passes. It creates room to reopen questions or respond to statements, either immediately or later).

Reacting in this way (rather than with stunned silence having been caught off guard by shock or offence) can be learned. Even a stunned/shocked sound is often enough.

It’d be great to hear any experiences of this being done well in the comments below.

— Zero

Comments on The spaces we keep open

Seeming stupid or ignorant is a near paralysing fear for me. So much so that sometimes I choose to remain silent even when I think I should say something. We should feel free to say something and retract convinced otherwise, even if that is immediately.

Sharing our thoughts displays our knowledge and ignorance. I am very willing to admit my knowledge and intelligence is limited. Decoupling my worth and self-image from ‘being right,’ however, has never come easily.

So… here’s to ignorance being unveiled; to stupidity being embraced and transformed into potential; to fear being overcome; and a new freedom to speak and become more than we are.

— Zero

Comments on The fear of being wrong

Who benefits from our silence? Sometimes I like to hold my voice to allow others to speak; other times it is cowardice that’s got my tongue. This is typically self-serving behaviour, either to save face or not face the consequences of speaking up. Other times it is laziness, or less judgementally, feeling overwhelmed or too exhausted to fight. More often than not, I am probably just ignorant of the issue.

This creates a vacuum into which other voices speak, for better or worse. The same thing can be said for leadership. More often than not, the two go together, where the stupidest, loudest voices drown out the silence of more considered voices.

If/when I have anything worth saying, how often would anyone know?! How/when will I ever find my voice, and stand up for what I believe in. If I was to do this effectively, what would it look like?

— Zero

Comments on The benefactors of our silence

Having a voice is a human right and responsibility to be taken seriously. It is also a right the many find suppressed through various means. Speaking up on behalf of ‘the voiceless’ is a responsibility that often carries undesirable consequences and therefore requires careful management.

I have created this space to speak openly and honestly, without the socio-political consequences that may reasonably come if I didn’t do so anonymously. A privacy managed in public, perhaps!? My hope is this may allow me to learn and grow as a person alongside anyone willing to engage with me here.

Uncensored. Unrestrained, maybe?! Free to speak my mind; my truth, but willing to listen, learn, and change too. I aim to allow others the same freedoms, without the space devolving into unjustified hate-speech. I hope some helpful conversations follow.

— Zero

Comments on The voice of the voiceless