I once spent a summer at a Zen monastery in California, and while I was there, I asked all the monks and students for their thoughts on hope. The consensus was that hope is not very useful because it shifts our focus from the present to the future.
But when hope becomes action, when it becomes doing something because it is the right thing to do, when hope becomes the work of justice or of compassion, then I don’t think there is anything more useful than that, except maybe love, and isn’t hope an act of love too?
A detail that stuck with me is how your GP’s words had impact whether you liked them or not. They went to work. I like the idea that managing exposure to words - content and dosage - matters. Also, where you focus. Today I’m gathering data that I am loved: the coffee my husband made for my early flight, the luggage tag my friend gave me, the TSA agent who showed up for work despite more pay problems and chatted so pleasantly.
I think my GP's words had an impact because there was a part of me that knew it was a good question, useful for disrupting very long-held narratives about how to evaluate a body.
I should say, as I know I gave the wrong idea to at least one reader, that my GP is a (peri-)menopause expert, very supportive, and asked that question as part of a larger conversation managing my expectations about what synthetic hormones can do.
But I also like what you're suggesting about managing exposure to words -- content and dosage. I think that's one of the things those of us who limit (or try to limit) our intake of 'news' are trying to do, whether we articulate it that way or not.
Such a useful reminder (as always) Laura, thank you. Reminds me of Joanna Macy’s hope as a verb, regardless of outcome.
Absolutely.
I once spent a summer at a Zen monastery in California, and while I was there, I asked all the monks and students for their thoughts on hope. The consensus was that hope is not very useful because it shifts our focus from the present to the future.
But when hope becomes action, when it becomes doing something because it is the right thing to do, when hope becomes the work of justice or of compassion, then I don’t think there is anything more useful than that, except maybe love, and isn’t hope an act of love too?
A detail that stuck with me is how your GP’s words had impact whether you liked them or not. They went to work. I like the idea that managing exposure to words - content and dosage - matters. Also, where you focus. Today I’m gathering data that I am loved: the coffee my husband made for my early flight, the luggage tag my friend gave me, the TSA agent who showed up for work despite more pay problems and chatted so pleasantly.
I think my GP's words had an impact because there was a part of me that knew it was a good question, useful for disrupting very long-held narratives about how to evaluate a body.
I should say, as I know I gave the wrong idea to at least one reader, that my GP is a (peri-)menopause expert, very supportive, and asked that question as part of a larger conversation managing my expectations about what synthetic hormones can do.
But I also like what you're suggesting about managing exposure to words -- content and dosage. I think that's one of the things those of us who limit (or try to limit) our intake of 'news' are trying to do, whether we articulate it that way or not.