Everything is Connected Part 4 - Ten Questions
Weekly Writing Prompt No. 72
Hello lovely people and thank you for a. opening this email and b. joining me for my weekly writing prompt. For those new to The Writing Shed, the weekly writing prompt is the core of my activity here on Substack. Paid members can also find an archive of courses I’ve created and access all past writing prompts, flash fiction, writing hints and tips, articles and essays in The Index.
So have fun, and enjoy your reading and writing and if you find my newsletters helpful why not …
I have thought long and hard about publishing this particular prompt, it’s been several months in cogitation and reflection wondering how to write it, or even if I should write it. Ultimately, I decided I would; not because I want to start an argument, but because I believe that critical thinking is one of the skills we seem to have laid by the wayside of life in recent years.
Originally, I was going to write it as an essay but then figured it might be better as a series of questions framed in such a way as to suggest there may be different answers, depending on which side of the fence you prefer. These are questions I find myself considering a lot, and I confess that whilst I don’t have an answer to any of them I do have an opinion about all of them. Bear in mind, I have worded these carefully and with intent so it’s harder to infer my own opinion or thoughts, so here goes:
In whose interest is it to build new homes, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to focus on health, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to enable migration, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to expand the production of green energy, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to commodify food production, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to control freedom of movement, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to move away from cash, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to say ‘we are all one’, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to engage in war, and in whose is it not?
In whose interest is it to emphasise our differences, and in whose is it not?
There is no right answer to any of these questions and all can be answered in different ways. Each answer though, will always be an opinion based on personal perspectives and this is the problem at the heart of the increasing polarity we see in the world today.
It may initially appear that there can only ever be two perspectives, those for and those against each question, but this reductionist approach ignores the complexity inherent in each argument. As a tiny example for just one question according to the ONS 2022 dataset there are just over 30 million dwellings in the UK1. At the same time, the ONS reports that there are just over 28 million households2. These two datasets add valuable nuance that is not immediately apparent thereby inviting speculation and further discussion, perhaps informing other questions too.
At the same time, I have found to my cost, it is not always helpful to settle on one specific answer to anything, because there is always another side to the story, another way to view events and circumstances surrounding the seemingly simple questions such as those I posed above. To exist in a world using critical thinking, it is helpful to acknowledge that an answer always has dependencies, it is to realise that the best we can do is be open to the inevitable change that occurs when more information is added to the picture.
I find this both soothing and challenging and increasingly rely on the still small voice inside for guidance about when to pay attention, or whether it’s better to look away.
Three previous essays touched on some of the questions above. If you are interested, you can find the essays here:
Everything is Connected Part 1 - Physically
Everything is Connected Part 2 - “You push an ecological system too far and suddenly all the rules change”
Everything is Connected Part 3 - The more beautiful world we all know is possible
The Prompt
Complex characters are said to be more interesting to readers. Today, create a character wrestling with a ‘should I, shouldn’t I’ moment that requires critical thinking. Any topic that invites polarity is a good fit for this particular exercise.
Please share your work in the comments below. Remember, you never know where today’s prompt may take you in the future!
Reflect
I include a reflection opportunity with every writing prompt because our writing always wells up from our inner landscape.
Our opinions are often shaped by external forces, parents and playmates when we are young, colleagues and friends as we age. Are you aware of changing your opinion questions such as those above over time, and if so how and why did the change occur?
If you’re a writer who wants to manifest your writing hopes and dreams from the practical and pragmatic to the esoteric and spiritual, or who would like to clear any subconscious self-sabotage you may be experiencing, why not work with me? To find out more head over to my website by clicking the button below.
Missing in Action
This new section of the weekly newsletter is dedicated to all the words removed from dictionaries over the years. Words that define and describe our world, but which are deemed no longer necessary.
This edition is dedicated to the word Supererogation.
The Weekly Soulshine
Something to reflect on …
The Weekly Writing Competition
This week’s contest is the Val Wood Prize. The theme is ‘Letters to My Love’ for entrants over 16. With a word limit of 1,500 words, it should meet the following criteria: Authenticity and Emotion, Creativity and Originality, Strong Writing and Structure, Diverse Perspective, Engagement and Impact. It is free to enter and you can find out more on Val’s website: https://www.valwood.co.uk/val-wood-prize
My new book The Music Master is currently on sale in the BIG Smashwords Summer Sale at just $1.25 use the code C59T9 at the checkout to benefit:
With love, light, and laughter
Linda
x
(Image by Aurelie Luylier from Pixabay)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/dwellingstockbytenureuk
https://www.statista.com/statistics/961002/households-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-type/
Jim stared at me and muttered. "Why won't you buy an electric car. You could save on fuel."
" It's not much of a saving, when my old car is still ok" I replied.
"It's unreliable uncle. You could buy a second hand all electric car. Charge it at home and know there is nothing to go wrong."
"My old diesel car has done 100 thousand miles and most people know that a diesel engine is good for about 200 thousand. Can you tell me how many miles will be left in the battery of a second hand electric car?"
"What if we have a power cut and I can't charge it."
"If there is a power cut, you won't be able to buy diesel for your car either." Jim laughed.
"That's where you are wrong Jim. I have cash in the house and if the internet goes down I can still buy fuel and of course food."
"That's a very old way of thinking Uncle" said Jim begrudgingly.
"Jim. I have been around a long time. We had power cuts in the 70s and lost power on a rotation basis.
The thing is that back then computers didn't control anything much. Now that they do. If we all just use credit cards and electric cars. When the power goes off. We can't go anywhere, buy anything or even call anyone. It would be too late to go to the bank and withdraw money if they haven't got power either. Don't you realise without cash. The state can control what you have and where you go. For every pound you spend on your card. The shop pays a fee to the bank for the machine. It is in the banks interest to get rid of cash."
"I think you are a paranoid old man" laughed Jim. "We will see"
Last week I went to see a wildlife film at the Kinema in the Woods (Woodhall Spa, Lincs.), “Heart of an Oak”, a French film by Laurent Chabonnier and Michel Seydoux. It was beautiful, moving and in places quite exciting, though I did wonder about the film makers and the dilemmas they must have faced during production. Should they be true to nature or true to their narrative? Is it more important to educate or entertain? Can you do both when your subject is reality and the world contains prey as well as predators?
There were several sequences where smaller animals fled from larger ones, including an amazing chase where a tiny jay fled from a goshawk. The audience were all on the same side: we had lived through this little one’s romance, nest building and sitting with his mate in the pouring rain. Had the goshawk caught him… Well, would the truth have got in the way of the audience’s appreciation? Could it have cost the cinematographers in terms of repeat viewings and recommendations?
Yet… I sit here thinking we saw the squirrel but not her young. Was that because something went wrong? We saw field mice rescuing each other out of tunnels between roots flooded in a storm. Did none of them drown? The goshawk, the owl, the fox, the wild boar… Did they and their young all go hungry?
It seems to me avoiding facing the truth, taking the “popular”, “easy” way out of every dilemma on every occasion can in the end lead to a feeling of there being something missing.
A taste of saccharine instead of honey?