I have a negative view of hope because I have such a positive view of purpose. A key reason I invented a new version of minimalism is that it places an emphasis on purpose not on hope.
The difference between purpose and hope is that the former is unique and the latter is universal. For example, it is easy to instil hope into a group, collective, or team. This hope might be to win a championship, a boat race, a greater marketshare, etc. And so a paradox emerges as one's hope is not realised and yet not dimmed by that fact [see photo].
The "hope paradox" is based on the contemporary importance of collective wants. These wants expand, and expand, and expand to a point that is way beyond the reach of each member of the collective. And as these wants grow in volume and stature the collective develops a common bond based on failure. Their frustration mounts and so their wants become more and more extreme. They enter into hostile competition with others who have curated opposing sets of wants. At this point the "hope paradox" develops a transparent internal contradiction because the prevailing "one think" or "group think" within each collective draws them into smaller and smaller challenges. Perhaps the ultimate irony here is that as these wants-based challenges become smaller and smaller the social order that the collectives seek to curate becomes more and more similar. In effect this means that sameness prevails where difference once flourished.
To escape the "hope paradox" I invented a process that has me eliminate most collective wants so I can focus in on individual needs. And as luck would have it: whereas collective wants are many the truth is that individual needs are few.
Richard.
Eliminate wants, automate habits, and recreate beliefs and become a Newminimalist. For more about this process please go to the homepage of my website at minimal-you.com
Comments