At end of years, such as it is as well with 2021, many reflect and exchange heartwarming messages.
Messages can uplift, and make one look up; stare into the distance of any (imagined) positive potential to come. It is understandable and inviting, at the least, to wish people on this planet prosperity.
This purely positively-sounding thought-process, attitude and experience, combined as one’s messaging act, during these times of artificial round-up, might be similarly blinded, to some, by (unwittingly) ignoring the entirety of life’s complexities and paradoxes, and within it human experiences, interactions, frailties and consequences.
Isn’t in the act of offering a message — personally catered or mass distributed, alike— that one might unveil the state of the (proverbial and intersubjective) “nation”?
Though, may one etymologically clean-up the latter and realize its roots of “birth”? Therein, perhaps, might lie implied “People”.
Therein, one might aspire, does not have to lie the selective, bitter tasting “Birth of a Nation” but, rather, a Birth as a transformation of People; with “all” indeed meaning *all*; rather than some not —hidden or shunned within. That must then be *People*.
If one repackages the word, “nation”, to be embedded into its meaning as fairly galvanized today, one might read it as meaning a “large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”
While the aim of an end-of-year message is perhaps partly relflective of past, as it is with the father of the first month, Janus, such message is surely faced towards impacting the nascent future: 2022 and beyond.
Mapping this back to that one handpicked definition of “nation”: its meaning might seem acceptable to many People. It might seem acceptable if such rooting-into-a-common-past —rather than into one’s (not so) inevitably-shared futures— were to be accepted as the norm for all: the Past of this group of People, the past of their Planet, the past of their Prosperity.
This might be the case, while the same many People seem to resonate with the definition’s words of “particular country” and that perhaps louder than the rest of the definition of “nation” as one might know it today.
In the periphery of this, some within that many a People, would even claim their territory as if every man is his own island and in doing so perhaps ignoring a large portion of People: i.e. he himself as his people, his prosperity, his world as if his Planet; only right here where he stands his ground, and only right now where he speaks authoritatively.
However…
In its definition, of “nation”, if ever weighted less on particularities of “country” and perhaps less on “past” —and rather on its other attributes and thus more on potentially positive futures— lies the potential realism, with a hint of optimism and positivity, which an uplifting message might hint of; at least ephemerally, in one’s reading of it, in a moment, on the “land” one resides upon. That “land” might be difficult to deny:
Planet…
Dear Planet: if one shall label you as one nation and if one sees you as a future and not merely past; shall you be of lesser status?
Isn’t it “but “ a message, a story we tell ourselves? (spoiler alert: no, to many more than some it surely isn’t “but” a message).
A Planet as a nation of future life rather than a planet of nations of segregated and segregating peoples of past. No, that message is not evident to every single individual on this one planet eager for their version of prosperity.
One can see within the definition of “nation” the word “territory”. One might define it in “nation”, as that which we, People, have territorialized, deterritorialized and reterritorialized: a terrifyingly-dizzying trinity of taking, designing, gaining, and… losing. Herein lies a to-be-hinted at: Profit.
To some, a hopeful message, in support of People and Planet, might imply “Profit” in abstentia. is there something better? I think one might want to contemplate answering: “yes”. It was mentioned earlier.
Can we redefine stories (and thus messages of “Profit”) to take a turn for the better? Let us assume for a moment that the answer were “Yes I can”.
This “Yes, I can” can creatively co-exist while, indeed, one could decide (or perhaps for many an individual among the People, less so decided and rather sensed as out of one’s control) “Profit” not to turn for the better …who’s “better,” after all…?
Wouldn’t that be a gift, if our species were to be enabled to sublimate out of that cacophony of what is better for “People” and “Planet” without reverting to “absolute solutions…” — ah, one can imagine a pop song now or far more gruesome exploitations.
So “yes”, indeed, one might want to try, and try again toward turning “Profit” to “Prosperity”. However, what could “Prosperity” mean if not as “shallow” as “Profit”?
Prosperity as much as GDP could include “Well-being,” if one were open to consider such message. The former, “GDP”, a terminology which its inventor actually warned for it not to be misused, in the opening pages of his writing; … seems unheard by many a People on the Planet; reduced to nations of Profit.
Rather than uplifted to shared Prosperity for all-meaning-all —that could be: all life, all environment, all forms, all functions, all aesthetics, all ethics, all futures now: all— we, the People (as in: “we the human species”) decide to bicker or Pester (there is another “P”- word).
People, Planet, Prosperity need a willingness to listen and a willingness to try and understand; in confident modesty, confident humbleness, in confident carrying doubt while “Persisting” to co-creatively “Prevail” (two more P’s).
The euphemisms or optimisms any exciting message might mention, of our exciting times, which People tend to (not want to) live in, are not misplaced. Such messages do not have to imply to ignore the challenges and hurdles of having to “Patiently” listen to and consider “Pushy Postulations,” of a diversity of the many, many, other messages, perhaps only challenged by “Plurality” found among bacteria, viruses, fungi and the likes.
Though, it is not only euphemistic when stating we live in exciting times as ripples from nations’ pasts, chained to how we define People, Prosperity and Planet.
Rather then a ( end-of-year) message only being euphemistic, it might also be a positive catalyst toward positive human discernment; ever so tryingly.
That stated, these, as any human time, are times that can allow to excite or that can allow to exit. Shall we as People exit (our pasts) into birth from our womb of ignorance, into our own discernment? Or shall we excite, with a message of words heard as being no more than “Perceivably Pedantic” of an old year’s period soon to pass?
Is an end-of-year message heard in the ecosystem of Ps: a not-so-new but, still potent, proverbial soil for the collective well-being of and on Earth? The Prevailing of Peace, People, Planet, Prosperity, Plurality, Patience, Persistence; or, …shall some now have stated: “oh P***-off!”, and retract to the bunkers of their respective islands?
To transmute Profit to Prosperity or to Please People in general, are we to look at more socially-responsible initiatives preceded by looking to investors or those who have (financial and Power) stakes in the idea of Profit (and People and Planet)? One might think of transnationally-operating banks, venture capital firms, hedge funds, stockholders, … Indeed one might want to look (up) and be considering their businesses & investments through their lenses of “Planet, People, Profit-transformed-into-Prosperity”.
This too is listening in patience. What is their “end-game”? With the end being the end of their accounting year, their calendar year, their end of their life aim? Which lenses does one who operates within these realms of human activity apply to look upon People, Planet and Persistence? Would one in such realms ever consider transitioning Profit into the implications of People’s and Planet’s Prosperity, unless finding the motivators one calculates one can advantageously embrace?
Just as with the weighing of attributes in the definition of “nation” and how one there looks upon People, Prosperity and Planet, how are these lenses (or attributes) applied & comparatively weighted?
How are these attributes then mapped with those affected across complex, dynamic, interconnected networks; human *and* other?
Then there is the global challenge of the environmental problems which People *and* other life forms are faced with (i.e. biodiversity) . These challenges affect us *Personally*; they are *Perceptible*; or are they? Are they learned by each individual within the People (i.e. human species) to be personal and perceptible?
These global challenges, which can use Processes of sustainable transformation, have themselves Practical effects. Perhaps more importantly, the implementation of solutions against such challenges should have *Practical* (measurable, evidentiary, experiential?) effects.
Is the issue consciously Perceptible? Is it sufficiently (perceived as) Personal? Are the solutions (sufficiently understood to be) Practical? Are they scaled & scaleable? For these P’s one can refer to Dr. Susan Solomon.
Are 3, 6 and more P’s progressing palpably, post-pollution or, am I (perhaps you too) more so alliteratively spewing playful poetry; peri-perceptively?”
Perceptible Personalized People:
should be inclusively-all and not merely affected by “its nothing personal, it’s only business” nor “business as usual”;
Perceptible Personalized Planet:
should be inclusively all of it;
Perceptible Practical Personalized Prosperity:
should, indeed —as a positive end-of-year message motivates— be more than merry messages alone. They might best be practically practiced.
The ethic of this implies an ethos and aesthetic in the diversity of the Peoples on the Planet. This takes effort and open-mindedness (and connectedness) even when a message claims attention to other important and urgent matters. It takes one to think (upward) and look (up) beyond fear and beyond negative narration of the other as if one is 1 who stands one’s ground outside of all other (as if disconnected and solidly closed).
If such openness —which implies persistent dialog and patient listening— could commence and for an increasing many, increase, then perhaps the practice of perception of the personal planet can prosper and bloom humanity to People with co-creative consciousness and discernment.
With respect and care to you personally:
be well.
With a special thanks and respectful kindness to Mr. Jef Teugels for catalyzing the above thinking and writing