Working Notes: the moon in transition

Last night I stood at the front of the house and watched a red moon. This morning, after waking, I looked towards the bedroom mirror at the back and saw the full moon again, bright in the glass.

I don’t need the moon to issue instructions. I’ve spent enough years around symbols to know that they can become overbearing if you hand them too much authority. Still, an image can earn its place. The same moon appeared to me from two sides of the house: first as something outside, waiting at the threshold; then as a reflection in the room where I sleep.

It felt like a crossing.

Then the archive got involved.

In my blog feed, waiting on this date, was a post I wrote two years ago: “might as well jump right into the deep end”. I had been asking a question that now feels both familiar and young: what was I going to bring to the game of blogging?

I wanted to avoid the obvious routes. I didn’t want to be pulled into listicles, recycled content, borrowed niches, or the marketeer’s habit of turning a living interest into a sales funnel. I wanted to blog as a literary artist. I called myself a postmodern rogue philosopher-poet, which still makes me smile, but the impulse was true. I wanted the blog to hold intellect, feeling, dirt under the fingernails, odd books, daily life, and whatever I was trying to learn about being a person.

The blog was not supposed to be a publishing machine. It was supposed to be a place where I could find out what I thought by writing in public.

Two years later, the terms have changed and the work has acquired more rooms. There are Working Notes from the Textual Underground, Wisdom Walks, Narrative Alchemy, a vault full of old selves and unfinished sentences, and the strange new condition of thinking alongside textual familiars. The site has become less a place I post things to and more a field I think with.

Yet the old question remains recognisable. What do I bring? What am I willing to put into language? Which parts of my life and mind belong in the same room, and which parts have I kept separate because it felt safer that way?

The old post also contained a hope that blogging might document my evolution: that, by looking back, I could trace changes in voice and understanding. This is exactly what happened this morning. The archive returned a message from a former version of me. It did not arrive as a command from the past or proof that the universe had arranged an appointment. It arrived as an invitation to notice continuity.

The younger blogger was standing at the edge of the pool, talking himself into the jump. The blogger reading him today has been in the water for a while.

That matters because I have a habit, shared by many self-employed, self-authoring people, of treating the present body of work as preparation for the real work. Once the website is right. Once the offer is clear. Once the voice settles. Once I have earned the right to say I am what I have already spent years practising.

“Full potential” can easily become the voice of an internal assessor. It can turn into another way to stand over your own life with a clipboard. I don’t want that version of the phrase. I have enough experience of assessment culture to know how quickly it can steal the life from learning.

The version I want has more to do with integration. Let the blogger, the barefoot philosopher, the facilitator, the man with a notebook, the walker, the reader of strange books, the builder of textual environments, and the person still trying to work out how to live meet one another without requiring one of them to win.

That is a different kind of potential. Less a demand to become exceptional than permission to become whole enough to act from what is already here.

The image of the moon helps because it contains no productivity plan. It says nothing about targets. It only offers a piece of orientation: the same light can meet you in the world and come back through the mirror. There is encounter, and there is reflection. There is the threshold, and there is the room you have been living in all along.

Two years ago, I said I might as well jump into the deep end. Looking back now, I can see that I did, though not in one grand act of courage. I went in post by post, walk by walk, note by note. The work accumulated. The archive kept the trace. The blog learned how to speak back.

The question is no longer whether I have permission to enter the water. I am already wet. The question is whether I can trust the current body of work enough to swim from it.

The deep end was not a single jump. It was a practice of returning to the water.

I’ve been thinking about the difference between critical …

I’ve been thinking about the difference between critical thinking and the kind of intelligence that has to sit beside it.

Critical thinking gets a lot of the limelight. Fair enough. It is the part of the mind that asks for evidence, spots the loose plank in an argument, and refuses to be charmed by every shiny claim that comes down the road. In a culture thick with sales pitches, outrage machines, and synthetic certainty, we need it. It is the Yang move: active, discriminating, separating what holds up from what does not.

But I keep wondering what its Yin counterpart is.

My best name for it, today, is receptive thinking. It is not the same as switching your brain off. It is not believing everything you feel, or treating a hunch as a court ruling. It is the capacity to sit with something before you pull it apart. To listen before you judge. To notice tone, context, relationship, body language, the strange image that arrives while you are making coffee, and the fact that an idea may still be half-grown.

Critical thought asks: is this true? Receptive thought asks: what is this showing me?

One works by distinction. The other works by attunement. One tests the map. The other notices what the map has left out: the texture of the ground, the person standing beside you, the nagging feeling that the question itself has been framed too narrowly.

I recognise the Yang reflex in myself. It wants to get hold of a thought quickly, put it through its paces, and decide whether it deserves to stay. Useful reflex. It has saved many of us from bad arguments, dodgy gurus, and the kind of certainty that falls apart the moment you ask it a second question.

Yet an overworked critical faculty can become a little border guard behind the eyes. Every new thought has to produce a passport before it can enter. Some ideas need questioning; some need a little room. A walk. A notebook. A few days of being carried around in the body before language catches up.

The opposite trap is real too. Receptivity without discernment can turn into absorption, where every feeling becomes a fact and every coincidence becomes an instruction. That road can get very strange, very quickly.

So I am not looking for a winner. I am looking for a rhythm. Receive the signal. Let it form. Then test it. Put it into words. See what remains when it meets other people, actual life, and the awkward furniture of reality.

Maybe thinking well is less like holding court and more like a good conversation between two old friends. One says, “Hang on, does that really stand up?” The other says, “Yes, but have you properly listened yet?”

Thinking with my feet I have started calling …

Thinking with my feet

I have started calling them Wisdom Walks, which sounds a little grand for what usually begins with me putting on my shoes and trying to get out of the house before I disappear too far into the screen.

But the name has earned its keep. I go walking when something in me has become stuck: a question about work, a snag in a piece of writing, a feeling I have been carrying round without properly looking at it. I don’t go out with a plan to solve it. I take it with me and see what happens once it has to travel alongside the rest of life.

There’s a difference between sitting at a desk and trying to think your way through a problem and walking with it for an hour. At the desk, I can become a small committee meeting in my own head. I revisit the same argument, polish the same worry, and call it inquiry. On the road, the question has to make room for traffic, dogs, the weight of my rucksack, somebody mowing a lawn, and the stiffness in my legs on a hill. The world keeps interrupting. I think that is part of the point.

Walking puts a question back into proportion. It gets it out of the little sealed room behind my eyes. It does not make the question disappear, but it lets me come alongside it rather than stare at it from six inches away.

Some of my favourite philosophers were keen walkers. Thoreau made walking a way of refusing the narrowness of town life and other people’s expectations. Rousseau used his walks for memory, solitude, and self-examination. Nietzsche claimed that all truly great thoughts are conceived while walking. I do not need to borrow their coats to see the truth in it. A thought changes when the body has to carry it.

That is the bit I keep coming back to. I think better on the move because movement is not just the backdrop to the thinking. It is part of the apparatus. The rhythm of the feet, the changing ground, the simple fact of having somewhere to go: all of it gives the mind another way to work. Ideas arrive sideways. An old memory turns up because I pass a particular street. A sentence I could not finish at the desk finds its last few words when I am crossing the road.

Not every walk gives me a revelation. Some walks leave me with tired feet and less static in my head. That is enough. I do not want to turn walking into another self-improvement project with targets and outcomes. Sometimes the walk is simply a way of letting the mind compost. Sometimes it gives me a line for the notebook. Sometimes it shows me that I have been asking the wrong question.

For me, a Wisdom Walk is self-inquiry with the doors open. I take a question out into the world, let the road and the body have their say, and wait to see if a truer sentence catches up with me.