Some time ago I read in Paolo Coelho’s blog about Jante’s law ( http://bit.ly/zPKn5j ) I have to admit I hadn’t heard of it before but it does resonate with me when I think back of my Dutch background. Especially in the part above the rivers splitting the country in two  (as if Holland were so big that one could speak of different and distinctive parts! ) I found it to be rather present in daily life and hence a part of the culture.

Just to freshen your memory: here they are, the 10 (well now 11) commandments:

1. Don’t think you’re something
2. Don’t think you are worth the same as us
3. Don’t think you’re smarter than us
4. Don’t think you’re better than us
5. Don’t think you’re wiser than us
6. Don’t think you’re more than us
7. Don’t think you’re good at anything
8. Don’t laugh at us
9. Don’t think anyone cares about you
10. Don’t think you have anything to teach us
11. Don’t think that there is something we don’t know about you.

It may be true that long ago these rules had some relevance in the scandinavian countries and Finland. But I take the liberty to assess them at face value here and now. And I want to share my thoughts with you.

1) Don’t think you’re something

Why not? How would that help any kind of personal development? One of the thing I teach people in my work is to start loving themselves because they’re the most important person in their life.

2)Don’t think you are worth the same as us

That is nonsense in its purest form. We all have equal “worth”, that is if “worth” is the word to be used here.

3) Don’t think you’re smarter than us

Well I might be but that doesn’t make be better than the rest, now does it?

4) Don’t think you’re better than us

Indeed, there’s no point in that. Although I get the feeling that “they” mean to say that “they” are better than “you”.

5) Don’t think you’re wiser than us

Again, probably true: all men are equally wise, well potentially they are. It’s their behavior that causes me to doubt man’s wisdom from time to time.

6) Don’t think you’re more than us

Again a huge chunk of fear seems to permeate this. No I’m not. Neither are you. Could we just leave it like that and not wage war on that one?

7) Don’t think you’re good at anything

What on earth could be the benefit of thinking this? Great: let’s all tell each other we’re fish that try to climb trees. Double loop failure guaranteed: no fish will manage and we will all feel miserable about it. Gosh!

8) Don’t laugh at us

Why not? Laughing is very healthy as I heard on many occasions. If it helps: you can laugh at me (and I’ll probably wave and laugh back at you)

9) Don’t think anyone cares about you

Although a lot of non-caring seems to be going on: if it helps: I Care About You!

10) Don’t think you have anything to teach us

How can I tell if we don’t talk because of rules 1-9? You probably have something you can teach me and the same may be true for me.

11) Don’t think that there is something we don’t know about you.

Ah, the ultimate blackmail. Shut up or else. It’s what tabloids are good at, right? I remember this BA pilot landing his Boeing 777 safely after the engines failed to respond.  Although he landed short of the runway, only 3 people suffered minor injuries. Job well done, I thought. To my surprise some tabloid reported that the pilot liked women to lick chocolate off his body. Indeed: just in case he might have thought to be someone special (which he is like all of us), we’ll show you just how sick he actually is.  And that is the real sick part of it.

So in summary: as far as I’m concerned most rules of Jante’s law can go right into the trash bin as they deliberately fail to recognise each person’s unique value and worth and the fact that we all have a destiny on the basis of whcih we want to (and need to) make our contribution to the world.

See ya,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

Back in 2009 I attended Alan Seale’s workshop The Manifestation Wheel. During one of the sessions Alan explained four different ways of looking ourselves interacting with others. With each step there’s a higher level of awareness required.

1. The Situation/The Drama
2. The Facts and Figures
3. Alternative Modes of Responding
4. What Wants to Happen?

The Drama

I guess it’s fair to assume we all know this one from our own experience. When you’re fighting with your partner over something there’s an inclination to join the shouting and yelling. For example: you have agreed to clean up the kitchen and you don’t feel like it hence you won’t do it. Your partner hates this and may react in a deeply irritated way. Which then may push some buttons on your emotional switchboard. Being in the drama doesn’t necessarily have to be all bad –  provided it doesn’t derail of course. It could be like a thunderstorm on a warm and heavy summer night: afterwards the air is crisp and fresh. But as long as you are staying in this space none of the other three ways of looking at the situation become available. And you may end up in the same fight every day.

The Facts and Figures

This is about looking at what is happening and why. In this example it may be the agreement that you’ve made to clean up the kitchen and to which you didn’t stick. The fact that you don’t feel like it does not invalidate the agreement. But of course trying to make the discussion more objective you may say that you realise that you’ve agreed but that you have been cleaning it by yourself for the last three weeks. And that another agreement was about you and your partner doing this on a 50-50 basis.

Alternative Response modes

Often this comes at the stage when the fight is over. It requires a certain stage of your awareness to realise in the moment of the drama that you have different possibilities to respond to the situation. Realising that makes it possible for you to choose a response mode that serves you best. It might be the drama or a more neutral stance, in any case it requires you to have more overview of the situation including your own emotional state and the changes therein.

What Wants to Happen

This is yet a further step in your awareness. When you arrive at this stage you ask yourself: why did this situation in its entirety take place? What wants to be seen here that we couldn’t see before and may not be able to see yet. What wants to show itself to me, to us? It invites you to take a step back, maybe retreat to your point of stillness to address this question. And it is not unlikely that you open your eyes to something you weren’t able to see prior to this. Through this experience totally new insights may become available. In any case will you no longer be the victim of some limbic semi-autonomous processes.

Personally I have some great experiences with this. But also a question surfaces. Perhaps you would like to help us all to answer it. When I look at the drama taking place in politics I see politicians polarising, shouting, deceiving, playing games, using pressure on their opponents (domestic or foreign), playing power games, digging themselves in the trenches and what not. Specifically with the nuclear crisis concerning Iran I ask myself: why does this take place? What wants to make itself visible? What wants to make itself heard? What would like to manifest? What is the real potential of the situation?

Any ideas?

Love,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

These are interesting and turbulent times! We’ve seen quite some big things happening in 2011: just think of the earthquake in Japan with its devastating effects, the Arab spring, which is anything but over, countries battling bankruptcy, the Eurozone frantically trying to survive and it was a close call (as it will be soon again) for the management of the world’s largest economy. Failing to come up with a quick-fix solution for its liquidity problems would have led to it being declared out of business. Add to this the countless riots (with increasing intensity) and attacks of heavily armed individuals on innocent civilians and it is clear that this is a period of unprecedented turbulence. Well, in recent history that is. I choose to believe that we as mankind are on the brink of a dramatic transformation, that announces itself with unknown dynamics and which offers unknown possibilities at the same time. A while ago, former Dutch Rabobank CEO Herman Wijffels told me that society is being turned upside down and if that is true, literally nothing will remain the same and the methods we could use until recently to set out our course will prove to be of limited use. One of the many interesting questions surfacing is how leadership can be expected to develop and what the implications may be for leaders.

When looking at this year’s developments, one thing is very clear to me and that is that we’re past the era of one leader for all. The notion that the CEO (or Prime Minister of President) should have the answers to all questions all of the time has no relevance any longer. It is not sustainable to hold one person accountable for the entire system. Leaders under pressure, e.g. when they’ve failed to deliver what they had promised,  hardly show any capability to respond, especially when things have turned out quite different than expected. They are simply not respons-able. They look for excuses and try to hide behind external circumstances not under their control. Pretty pathetic if you’d ask me. Abundant severance packages because of non-performance are no longer acceptable. Partially this can be attributed to their personal functioning but it’s more important to see that the system mo longer supports this type of behavior and that therefore it will end ‘automatically’.  More and more ‘ordinary’ people will assume real responsibility for their work, their careers, their personal lives, their well-being.

By definition, people fulfilling a leadership role will do so temporarily and as long as their contribution based on their authentic talents is required. Hanging on to a position for ever is over, although the aberrations in the recent past seem to indicate the contrary. Leadership is rapidly turning into a distributed function, strongly facilitated by technological developments. I know of one example (of a German company) where the board of directors is no longer located in one location: two of the five members work from their offices in different countries!

A leader no longer automatically has a mandate to lead because of her being appointed in the role. From the very first until the very last moment she will be judged on the basis of her contribution. When this contribution is no longer adequate (as may be expected in these turbulent times) the person can no longer fulfill the leadership role and the legitimacy of it will cease to exist. Contrary to past and current practices, occupying a leadership role as well as stepping away from it will take place with much less friction. No outrageous remuneration packages, no generous severance packages or other forms of compensation that cannot be accounted for.

Leadership will have much less the glamorous aura of status associated with it. Ending up in a leadership role is not the final reward of a life of sacrifice. It’s a functional request made of you. The boss is not higher or a better person than his staff members. He will make a functional contribution as long as he can and this simple fact puts him on the same level as all of his staff members, his normal colleagues so to speak. This will only become clearer in the period ahead of us.

Automatically following a leader by submitting oneself to a system is becoming a thing of the past. I’m pretty sure that also the last dictatorships will subside to self-development by free individuals based on self-determination.

The Leader

It is clear that these developments will require different competencies of leaders than before. One could add to this an ever-increasing transparency, leading to a growing around the clock visibility of the leader and what she does. Trying to be a leader, e.g. in order to exclusively serve personal ambitions, will no longer lead to acceptance. The followers will notice right away that the person’s authenticity and the sincere connection with the organisation are missing and will stop following such a would-be leader without any hesitation. And indeed, a leader with nobody following him is as impressive as a king without land. More than before a leader must be able to identify with the organisation’s cause (as opposed to flying in to do the trick as a separated entity), to connect, to forge meaningful relationships in every direction, both within the organisation and with the various stakeholders in the world surrounding it. And she should be less worried about being ‘the’ leader than about serving the organisation’s continuity by facilitating a continuous process of co-creation in ever-changing forms of co-operation. It is about allowing people to find their own strength, their calling, on the basis of which they can contribute, whether they operate within  or without the blurring boundaries of the organisation (or community for that matter). Leading by controlling and limiting creative processes has become obsolete. Allowing flow is the key word for the time to come.

Authenticity

When you look at the etymology of the word ‘authenticity’ it gets clear that it is related to ‘original’ or ‘genuine’. This implies that an authentic leader is someone who she has always been. Funny enough, that’s a qualification we reserve for only a few people, especially when it comes down to leaders. Ever since Machiavelli has taught us that we should be most pragmatic in achieving our goals, an enormous boost has been given to forget ourselves in the process and to direct our efforts at something of which others tell us that it really matters (and what we believe of course). But intuitively, we all recognise a truly authentic person right away, in spite of the stories our thinking mind may create about that person.

Authenticity is about knowing who you are and probably to the same extent why you are here in this life. The Bhagavad Gita learns that spiritual freedom is the result of disciplined action based om self-knowledge without attaching too much importance to the outcome of those actions. So accepting who you are and what really matters to you is vital. Otherwise you will be trying to live someone else’s life and that cannot lead to sustainable results.

Maybe I can end this by quoting Steve Jobs from his by now famous 2005 Stanford speech.

You’ve got to find what you love.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary

Here’s wishing us all authenticity in embracing our personal destiny.

Happy 2012 to all of you out there!

Love,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

How are you all doing? Yesterday (Sunday Dec 11th) I was invited to a lecture by a wise old man, my friend Hans Leewens (http://nl.linkedin.com/pub/h-a-j-leewens/13/42b/268) at De Kapel in the Dutch town of Bloemendaal (not far from Amsterdam). Somewhere at the start of his lecture we were told that we were all aristocrats and that it was clear we don’t know we are. OK, that was a clear message and got me focussed right away. Looking at more than just a few flabbergasted faces he went on to explain that ‘aristocrats’ means ‘the best’; it stems from the Greek root ‘aristos’, meaning ‘the best’ or ‘most fitting’. And rather than expecting us to start behaving like how most of us probably refer to aristocrats, Hans made clear that we become the best once we can listen to our innermost voice, our heart, our soul that already knows where it wants to go. As long as we’re approaching this question what to do with our lives from our thinking mind, we run the risk of not becoming the best. Listening to Hans, my thoughts went back to this book on Flow by Jan Bommerez (twitter: @janbommerez or http://www.the-tao-of-flow.com/) Jan states: ‘we are all princes but we prefer to live as frogs’. I agree and find it ultimately fascinating – and frustrating at the same time. Are we perhaps waiting for something or someone to kiss us awake? Are we comfortable by living a life which is not ours? Are we afraid to show up to the life we are actually called to? Does it feel more comfortable to fit in? And to not stick out our neck? Why is it that people who lived through a serious crisis feel much freer to do so? Weird, isn’t it?  My friend Alan Seale (http://www.transformationalpresence.org/) makes this distinction between the Ego and the Soul. The Ego is all about survival and will immediately talk us out of anything which has to do with doing things differently or different things with our life. It will be quick to point out the foolishness of our dreams and plans and tell us to forget about them and to get back to business as usual. These are all just stories we’re continuously telling ourselves. Of course the Soul and the Ego should partner, if we choose to live as the aristocrats that we essentially are. I totally like this metaphor where Alan compares the Ego to the deck hands of a giant bulk carrier and the Soul as the captain of the ship. The deck hands take care of a multitude of necessary tasks the captain simply can’t do all by himself. The captain is about setting out the ship’s course. unfortunately, the deck hands are so concerned with preserving the captain’s health that they will go about setting out the ship’s course instead of him. I guess you get a picture now how the outcome will be different from if the captain sets out the course.

All of the above most definitely applies – or at least has applied for an extended period of time – to me. How about you? Who is setting out the course in your life? Give it a thought for a few moments. Since I allowed to manifest in my life what wanted to manifest and got my first novel published (http://www.geerthofman.com/glass-dome) things have started getting more and more in flow. Of course I get myself out of it on a regular basis but increasingly I find myself in The Zone, in flow so to speak.

OK, back to Hans Leewens and the title of this post. After labelling us ‘aristocrats’ he asked us if we knew how to get there, how to actually become aristocrats. Normally people think you need to become very good at the work you do. Becoming the best (aristos) will give you more and more self-confidence. And once you’re self-confident you become happy. Makes sense in a way, right? Now what he suggested is that this order be reversed. Yes that’s right: reversed! So FIRST you make sure you’re happy. This will grow your self-confidence and then your talents will flow to that place where they are needed (most fitting? ) and you become the best. And mind you: the best has nothing to do with competing with others who also want to be the best. It is about becoming the best you can be, i.e. unfolding all of your talents in the life you are called to live.

Could I check just one thing with you? What happened when you read ‘FIRST you make sure you’re happy’? Can you remember? What kind of thoughts came up? How many of those told you this is ridiculous? Stupid? Foolish? How angry did you get? OK… So how happy are you? Really? What is it depending on? What outside factors do you hold accountable? Suppose to reverse order is valid in that it allows us to see what wants to manifest in our lives. Suppose it would make it easier to see where we experience flow, meaningfulness, significance. And let the captain set out the course of our life. Just a few thoughts. I’m not here to convert you into believing something you don’t want to (well what part of you is that then anyway?). Honestly it’s intended as an invitation. An invitation only, for you to experience all the flow you are entitled to. And believe me: that’s a lot!

Love,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

“More fundamental than religion is our basic human spirituality. We have a basic human disposition towards love, kindness and affection, irrespective of whether we have a religious framework or not. When we nurture this most basic human resource – when we set about cultivating those basic inner values which we all appreciate in others, then we start to live spiritually.”

I don’t know what it means to you (perhaps you want to share?) but for me it gets down to the essence. Following the french philosopher Pierre Teilhard the Chardin (We are not a human beings in search of a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings immersed in a human experience) I too choose to believe that we as humans carry this basic human spirituality with us. It shows itself in this willingness to help others or in this sense of curiosity when we meet each other. The systems we have been creating over the past centuries lead to different outcomes and often take us away from our very nature: the desire to connect and share in freedom.

In my view religion invariably becomes dogmatic and filled with people, who are leading and managing the organisation that gets built around it by sticking to and expanding the dogma. Where for some dogma may have some advantages, I see four major disadvantages:

1) to quote the famous 2005 speech by Steve Jobs: dogma is the result of other people’ s thinking. It blocks a flow of energy that is needed to keep the essence and the connection to it organic and alive. It tends to make interpretations of accounts of historic events fixed, not leaving room for more accurate interpretations, based on scientific research for instance.

2) religious dogma forms a disconnect from the original essence. For instance in my novel “The Glass Dome” this is illustrated by the catholic priest telling the main character during a dinner party that nowadays the catholic church preaches love and talks about it whereas the essence is being love. And that contact with that essence has been lost. Quite a difference. Oh, and of course ‘being love’, does not require to be talked about as it just is.

3) because religious dogma tends to be fixed, leaving no room for different interpretations (or to put it differently: it’s not open to change) it gets intolerant with the risk of becoming fundamental and (extremely) violent. This is the stage where even groups of people of different factions of the same religion start waging war on each other because of the differing interpretation of a written document for example.

4) it enhances the illusion of separation as the dogmatic communities are exclusive. It introduces right and wrong (based on dogma that is) which means that we and those who are with us are right and all the others are wrong (and should be stopped from promoting their viewpoints; see pt 3 above)

What might be the way forward? Well, it won’t come as a surprise when I tell you that in my view ideally all religious dogmatism would be reevaluated and judged on its connection with the original essence. In order for the original essential energy to surface again. How different would it be when we all allow our own individual spiritual experiences to be what they are: our own individual spiritual experiences, still knowing that we are connected of course. I would enjoy my experiences and you would enjoy yours. Of course we could share them but preferably without one trying to convince the other of the supposed superiority of his experience. Learning from your experience could possibly enrich mine and vice versa. As long as we present our spiritual experiences as our own and merely as an invitation to observe and learn if we want to. Our experiences are different but they stem from the same source. As we do. What a peaceful world would result, or?

All is one. We’re all God’s children and no one is a child of a lesser God.

Namaste,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

“Quand je m’endors contre ton corps alors je n’ai plus de doute l’amour existe encore”. When I fall asleep against your body, I no longer doubt that Love still exists.

Today, the song came to mind as I got blown away by the story of the passing away of Gordon and Norma Yeager from Des Moines, Iowa that landed on my desktop. They were an elderly couple (94 and 90), together for 72 years, that died several days ago in a car accident.

From the article (full version http://bit.ly/noQslr)  I quote:

“Gordon died at 3:38 p.m. surrounded by his family and holding hands with his beloved wife Norma.

“It was really strange, they were holding hands, and dad stopped breathing but I couldn’t figure out what was going on because the heart monitor was still going,” said Dennis Yeager.

“But we were like, he isn’t breathing. How does he still have a heart beat? The nurse checked and said that’s because they were holding hands and it’s going through them. Her heart was beating through him and picking it up.”

Norma died one hour and 10 minutes later at 4:48 p.m., according to ketv.com.”

I felt and still feel overwhelmed by the beauty of this, well aware of course that I don’t know anything about them. But the fact that the ICU personnel knew not to separate them and put their beds together so they could hold hands in their final moments in this life…..that actually brought tears to my eyes. This natural desire to seek and give closeness, shelter, comfort even or especially in the final hour.. I don’t know about you but that touches me. Profoundly so. I’m deeply moved by this demonstration of the power of our hearts, the power of our love, the power to connect beyond any boundaries.

I wish to be moved much more often by this…. I wish we all could experience this love we all hold in our hearts. And not just occasionally.

Love and Blessings,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

This is the slightly paraphrased title of a booklet the Dutch journalist Jurriaan Kamp wrote back in the year 2000. (Because People Matter, Jurriaan Kamp, Lemniscaat 2000). After all these years I still consider it a good read. Or perhaps: especially now, given the turmoil our economies find themselves in. Somehow it all seems to be about the money.

Of course, this thing about people matter is not really new. For instance, from a speech by Robert F. Kennedy on March 18th, 1968 at the University of Kansas (http://bit.ly/h8iqzH) it can be read:

” But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction – purpose and dignity – that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product – if we judge the United States of America by that – that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of
carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

So he speaks of the poverty of satisfaction. Interesting! That doesn’t seem to have lost any of its relevance today. It’s all about money. Money, which according to Carl Johan Calleman are only numbers behind someone’s name on a computer at a bank (http://bit.ly/qMu4VF), has become ultimately abstract and yet dominates our thinking, well our entire existence,  all of the time. And we get proof of the reality of that all of the time. As the volatility of stock markets has risen sharply one can read every other day that billions of euros of value have been destroyed. Or created. Where in actual fact only some number on some kind of information bearer has changed.  But as we all believe that money exists and that we all need to try to get as much of it as we possibly can, e.g. to ensure we can retire from working at a chosen age or we can pay money to doctors to cure us from whatever disease I would like to point to a potentially destabilising effect on our societies. For that I would like to look at the distribution of income among a population, using the Lorenz curve.

The diagram is pretty much self-explanatory. On the X-axis is depicted the cumulative percentage of a population; on the Y-axis the cumulative percentage of income. Any point on one of the two lines reads: X percent of the population has Y percent of the income. In the case of the 45 deg line the distribution is completely even. Every single individual has exactly as much income as every other individual. When the curve starts bending, the distribution starts becoming more and more uneven. Right away there are a few interesting questions that spring to mind. E.g.: what level of inequality are we willing to have? Do we feel that all are equal and hence should have an equal share of the pie? Or are we OK with some – for whatever reason - having a bigger slice? It is clear that no country around the world has a perfect 45 deg Lorenz curve and that seems to be just fine. In any case it keeps the political and economic systems, as we know them, working. But what would happen if the curve bends further down? What would happen if, let’s say 90% of a population would have 10% of the income and 10% would have 90%? How sustainable would that be? How long would those in the 90% of the population support those having the big chunk? How long would they be OK with not being able to afford medical assistance? How long would they cheer about not being able to afford adequate housing? What about nourishment? Education for their children? How long would they go along playing a game according to rules that increasingly bring them poverty, that increasingly exclude them from the party, that no longer tell them they matter just because they are people too. A game that makes them lose. A while ago John Renesh wrote about how growing income inequality might spark off our own Tarhir Squares around the “civilised” world (http://bit.ly/fSzMs5)  Have a look at this story, it’s a good read!

So what is the way forward here? It’s clearly not sticking exclusively to the money game. That’s an obvious dead-end street. First of all by the growing gap between haves and have-nots (“even” in the “civilised” western world) and secondly because the planet won’t be able to provide enough matter to satisfy the endless material needs as a substitute for real happiness. In my view the way out of this destructive dead-end street is to start to become open to a global consciousness, which opens up the possibility for all of us to actually start having the lives we are called to. Referring to my earlier blog (The Very Reason): how would that feel for you? How would you see yourself being and acting in a world in which all know they’re connected. In which all know they contribute to an expanded consciousness. In which each and everyone knows we all matter.

Leaving behind a paradigm, this complex set of beliefs in which we have been living for decades for sure is not be an easy thing, as much as it is needed. It calls for transformation into something which is radically new and for which no single person holds the key to success. But together, we do. Each and every one of us. Because we really matter.

Give it a thought share your insights!

Many blessings.

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

Today I came across a blog by Umair Haque on HBR Blog Network (http://bit.ly/on7eEo) about the question if America is giving up on its future.  As he states:

“Washington’s bogged down in games of brinksmanship instead of practicing the art of leadership. Hell-bent on running each other into the ground — instead of running the nation — America’s so-called leaders are sending us into what wonks are calling a “policy-induced recession.”", Mr Haque continues and quotes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (http://read.bi/nP5JvF).

In his Liberty Medal acceptance speech at the National Constitution Center on September 22, 2011, Dr Gates says:

“I do believe that we are now in uncharted waters when it comes to the dysfunction in our political system — and it is no longer a joking matter…we have lost the ability to execute even the basic functions of government, much less solve the most difficult and divisive problems facing the country. Thus, I am more concerned than I have ever been about the state of American governance.” (you can read the entire speech at http://bit.ly/nBH4ig)

To me that is spot on and I’m pleasantly surprised in a way to hear this from a leader from the establishment. And this process of political leaders being hell-bent running each other down is not only taking place in the USA of course. In many countries around the world that have some kind of democratically chosen government the same process takes place. Whether it’s Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, UK, France, just to name a few. Polarisation seems to be the only possible way forward, obviously not for the nations the politicians are supposed to serve but at least for the contenders for political leadership functions themselves. Political discourse has degenerated in a superficial and course debate with the sole aim of slandering the opponents. A different view is not only different; it is bad as is the person expressing that view and all those who agree to that. And yes indeed, I covered the theme in my novel The Glass Dome as well. I choose to believe that the challenges we are facing are from a different order. To me it seems as if something rather large is happening and is inviting us to take a step back, try to see what wants to manifest and gain a different understanding. Indeed: finding solutions on a different level than where the current problems have been created. And yes, sure, that will lead to a radically different outcome. It looks to me as if the political system as we know it in our democracies is starting to come apart. (For dictators there’s even less hope as the Arab Spring has demonstrated.) I do not know exactly how the new leadership will look like but I would imagine it being non-hierarchical and distributed with those individuals meaningfully contributing to that based on the temporary match between what any given situation requires and the talents they have. And that would be a radical change from where we are now.

But it also seems that pressure needs to rise more on us before a critical mass wakes up and has the courage to start living that in-radix change, which in my view will be a step in the direction of the destiny of mankind. From our current political leaders no such thing can be expected, trapped as they are in their fixed scenarios. Focused on trying to keep the current system in tact, while at the same time accelerating its decline. Victims of their own roleplay which should make all of us careful not to become victims of that as well. I don’t hold all the answers and I choose to believe that no single person does. We’re past that era. Collectively we do, however and I’m very interested in seeing how we can connect and mobilise that hidden, yet unmanifest intelligence and wisdom we all carry, while ensuring each individual’s freedom.

Let’s wake up to a meaningful way forward! There’s interesting work to do.

Many blessings,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

Of course.

We wouldn’t want to waste time in our lives that are governed by the back-to-back appointments in our diaries. We only take the shortest and fastest way forward to serve out goals. In my naivety I used to say when I started working with this concept that there is no such thing as a quick, three-step approach to finding and living one’s destiny. I believed that one had to suffer and work hard in order to get connected to it. Nowadays I see that a bit differently. I still choose to believe that there is no way to living the life you are called to without actually embracing it. Yes, I too can see this is an obvious statement. Nevertheless I consider it to be true. What I no longer believe is that it requires suffering and hard work to get there. Well, in most instances, that is. There’s hard work involved when you get to recognise you are your beliefs. Not only do we have beliefs, we are the stories we have created about ourselves and the world we live in. And keep creating for that matter. It may take a while before you’re comfortable with that and that’s perfectly alright. It may then take some more time to work on those as you sometimes need to get over a certain threshold to start engaging yourself in a conversation with your beliefs.

But that’s not for now; back to the question: how do you connect with your personal destiny?

The first thing I would consider is that you need to get out of your normal routine and to find some silence. In his book,  ‘Soul Mission, Life Vision’, Alan Seale calls this finding your point of stillness. Personally, I like that description. There are probably a great many ways of finding that. I would like to share a way that seems to work pretty well for most people I have worked with, as it does for myself. First of all: find a chair on which you can sit comfortably, preferably with your back straightened. Make sure you put both your feet  stable on the ground. Your hands go where they are comfortable, probably in your lap. Now close your eyes and focus on your breathing. Most of the time our breathing is rather superficial and fast, preparing our body for action. That’s not what we’re looking for here. So start breathing calmly through your diaphragm. When you use your diaphragm (as babies naturally do) your belly moves out a bit when you inhale. That’s because the lungs push the diaphragm downward. So calmly take a deep breath and try to have your lungs push the diaphragm downward a bit. When you exhale, the opposite happens: your diaphragm will gently push upward, pushing the air out of your lungs. Why don’t you try this for a bit? And please, don’t panic if it doesn’t seem to work right away. When you’re very busy at work your mind may fire all kinds of thoughts relating to your busy schedule. That’s fine. Let it do so. Just maintain your position in the chair as described and return to the ‘belly’- breathing. On the one hand it is a simple exercise, which you can do everywhere, anytime. On the other hand it’s difficult because you’re not used to it. It probably will take a bit of practice to get accustomed to it, but, hey, that’s where the saying ‘practice makes perfect comes from. A singing teacher once told me that when adults join her classes they are so not accustomed to using their diaphragm that the first few lessons, much attention is given to this as it is a prerequisite for singers. Just allow yourself the time to get used to this rhythm. It’s up to you how long you wish to continue this exercise but once you’re getting into the rhythm, you may notice some effects other than feeling awkward. Perhaps you will start noticing the silence as it is. Perhaps you find this relaxing. I would be very curious to learn what thoughts start surfacing and how they’re different from your ‘normal’ day-to-day thoughts. It may seem as if something else is trying to speak to you: your intuition. Once you get to this stage, you’re getting in the district of finding your calling. It’s the first step, albeit a valuable one.

Good luck trying it!

Many blessings,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com

Almost every time I bring this up during a lecture or a workshop, I ask the participants if they agree to this and if so if they could come up with the names of a few people who live their calling. Typically they will come up with names like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela. Obviously these were and are great people, influencing a great many of us around the globe. What I find peculiar is that hardly anyone of the participants really believes he or she has one too. They may have a mental understanding of the concept which leads them to think “Yeah, right, makes sense to me. Sure, I have one too”. But they can’t imagine ever having a life based on this. It’s impossible for them to conceive a life where their higher purpose is the guiding theme for them in whatever they do. Dealing with the daily exigencies of modern life they hardly find the time to ponder on this thought let alone to explore the route to connecting with their calling. So they choose to believe that having a life based on your personal destiny is a privilege for a few great minds. And for the rest it is probably a luxury to which one can put one’s attention after the more basic needs in life are met.

However, it is the principal reason for our very existence. Our personal destiny is about what our soul wants to express and therewith allow to manifest that which wants to manifest in our life, contributing to our life and to our environment at large. When you look at it from this angle, you may wonder why only a few people have a clear understanding of their personal destiny.

Now suppose it would be the other way around. Instead of telling yourself you have no time for this, or that this doesn’t seem to be serving your immediate needs, suppose you could listen to your innermost voice that expresses this calling. Suppose you would. How would that affect your life? What would be different from the life you’re having now? What would you be doing? Why would you be doing that? What would you have stopped doing? Why? I would like to invite you to stay with this for a bit and play with these thoughts.

How do you like that outcome? How does imagining a life based on your personal destiny make you feel? Most people would state they kind of like the picture of how their life looks like and how it makes them feel. Many of us will refer to this as a state of peacefulness. But also ‘happiness’ is often heard, as are terms like ‘fulfillment’, ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘joy’. It has something to do with knowing who you are and with being happy with that (as opposed to fighting this by wanting to be somebody else).

Now let’s take this a step up. Suppose an important part of all men and women on our planet would live their calling. Let’s be bold and say that we’re talking about the majority of all people. One of the first things to observe is that none of our individual callings are conflicting with another. None is better or worse, they each have their own contribution to make. People living their calling often tell me it feels so natural to them that it almost feels as if they have no other choice. Obviously they do have one but it shows how powerful connecting to your life purpose is. They tell me they feel they are connected to something which is bigger than just themselves and their personal, short-term often material desires. Without feeling they are making a sacrifice, they contribute to making the world a better place for all, however small their contribution might seem. So they most definitely don’t retreat to some far away desolate corner of the planet. They don’t seclude themselves from the rest of us. On the contrary, they choose to engage and co-create the future with others in an ever-changing universe. Without proselytizing, without preaching, without imposing their ideas on others.

Without knowing exactly how our planet would look like if the majority of its inhabitants would follow their calling, I know for sure that the outcomes of that would be different from what we have now. With no need for judging others, fearing others or fearing having not enough for oneself it is fair to assume that there would be more room for sharing what is available, more caring for all on the planet, more freedom, more space for a shared, global consciousness. A growing awareness that indeed we are all one and that separation is an illusion.  A wise old
friend once told me that people who live their personal destiny bring peace. I love this statement and it resonates deeply with me.

What about you? How do you think the world would look like when more and more people start living? Let me know! Post a comment and let’s get a conversation started. Let all of us know how you would see the world different than it is now.

Thank you! Many blessings,

Geert

www.geerthofman.com