Conscious Simplicity

 As much as I've enjoyed seeing various minds reflecting upon these concepts all week--the more I think about it, the more flippant and unhelpful this except seems. It does not seem that the "crude" and the "superficial" sections were discussed consciously...they lack nuance and promote "one right way" of thinking about conscious simplicity when in truth, there can be multiple ways that will absolutely contain elements of both the crude and the superficial (because we live in a complex world with many unsupportive policies currently instated).

If someone chooses to buy recycled paper rather than virgin paper, it may not address the root problem (too many resources exploited to make paper) but it may be a conscious choice that mitigates the harm created (it is only superficial if the person sees the mere act of buying paper marked "recycled" as "enough" rather than considering personal and societal impact upon the planet). Similarly, if somebody chooses to give up a phone or a car or live more naturalistically and it is a conscious choice, why is that labeled "crude" and "regressive"? Is it assumed that people who are not living exactly like mainstream, urban people in industrialized nations are incapable of nuance and integration as they move towards living in a more connective manner "off the land"? Or that people who have always lived this way are "backwards" and not part of the "21st Century"? The author may attempt to attain a state of "conscious simplicity" while continuing to have a phone or to drive, but that in itself does not make such a path superior. I comprehend the vision of the final section, but we live in a paradoxical world with increased social stratification, unsustainable policies, and more and more humans throwing ecosystems off balance. How is writing off choices that don't meet a particular aesthetic a creative or synergistic act?

 As much as I've enjoyed seeing various minds reflecting upon these concepts all week--the more I think about it, the more flippant and unhelpful this except seems. It does not seem that the "crude" and the "superficial" sections were discussed consciously...they lack nuance and promote "one right way" of thinking about conscious simplicity when in truth, there can be multiple ways that will absolutely contain elements of both the crude and the superficial (because we live in a complex world with many unsupportive policies currently instated).

If someone chooses to buy recycled paper rather than virgin paper, it may not address the root problem (too many resources exploited to make paper) but it may be a conscious choice that mitigates the harm created (it is only superficial if the person sees the mere act of buying paper marked "recycled" as "enough" rather than considering personal and societal impact upon the planet). Similarly, if somebody chooses to give up a phone or a car or live more naturalistically and it is a conscious choice, why is that labeled "crude" and "regressive"? Is it assumed that people who are not living exactly like mainstream, urban people in industrialized nations are incapable of nuance and integration as they move towards living in a more connective manner "off the land"? Or that people who have always lived this way are "backwards" and not part of the "21st Century"? The author may attempt to attain a state of "conscious simplicity" while continuing to have a phone or to drive, but that in itself does not make such a path superior. I comprehend the vision of the final section, but we live in a paradoxical world with increased social stratification, unsustainable policies, and more and more humans throwing ecosystems off balance. How is writing off choices that don't meet a particular aesthetic a creative or synergistic act?

 To me, conscious simplicity means to be conscious of the simple basic fact that each of us, our earth, and all that is are manifestations of One Infinite Sacred Being.  We are of one another and all that is, not separate from, so it follows that we be compassionate and respectful with one another and take care of our planet.  To abide in that consciousness is to live compassionately ongoingly.  It is a transformation.  I don't know when I first became aware of this conscious simplicity.  I do know that it has become a much more ongoing awareness that results in my being more compassionate in general, toward others and toward our environment.  When I harm the environment, I harm everyone and everything, including myself.  When I am kind to the environment, I am kind to everyone and everything, including to myself.  That awareness has made my living deeper, which I appreciate.  That deeper feeling is a test for me as to the kind of simplicity I am facing.  That is, when I engage in or face regressive simplicity, I feel nostalgic at best; when I engage in or face cosmetic simplicity, I feel cosmetic, fake, shallow; when I engage in conscious simplicity, I feel a depth and connection with all that is. 

Category 3, the so-termed Deep and Conscious Simplicity, if it has to be achieved, must have its origins in the status quo (we cannot launch it from Mars). And in the transition period, it will contain all kinds of experiments, crude and superficial included. So it does not do good to belittle the experiments because there is no way to evolve a Deep and Conscious Simplicity that is cut off from the current reality. Any sophisticated and sustainable lifestyle must be conceived and executed from the current cities, factories, farms and boats. From wherever they are conceived, they will have the limitations of their source. What is Mr.Elgin doing now for food, transportation, clothing, energy, communication etc when the Deep and Conscious Simplicity is not yet a reality?  A person working in a CF bulb factory or renewable energy company is well aware of his or her limitation (where else will he or she go?) but is making an experimental response to the status quo. Mr.Elgin has the gift of intelligence and elegant expression and has done a lot to respond to the status quo. Are all those responses Deep and Conscious? None of them crude and superficial? I don't know. There is great value in studying and analyzing the benefits and limitations of an experiment but it is a disservice to arbitrarily categorize experiments in a negatively critical manner. With true and deep respect to Mr.Elgin, I'd say he is just being glib in this piece.

Short answer: by being present and living deeply, especially during daily hikes in wild spaces.

I also need to say that conscious simplicity would force us all to re-examine the definitions of "crude" and "cosmetic" and see whether they ring true. Part of conscious simplicity has to be cosmetic (because carpooling may still use fossil fuels, but at least it uses less) and part has to be crude (already, people are finding that relearning traditional skills increases their quality of life and reduces harmful impacts). The danger is in becoming self-aggrandizing for doing these things--because no, simply driving a hybrid car doesn't mean that the environment is being restored, and it's true that if people who live simply in a "crude" manner are isolated, they aren't affecting change in the mainstream--which is why articles like this can be written without accurately representing the diversity of back-to-landers.

The manner in which people marginalize and typecast a seemingly "crude" simplicity negates the beauty, innovation, and depth of all the people I know who choose to relearn how to live in "primitive" spaces. Additionally, such a scornful dismissal ignores the fact that many back-to-landers actually incorporate the experiences, technologies, and paradoxes of modern times. My neighbors who live in the woods in wood-and-earth structures they've built  have set up solar power and internet access and running water. It's possible to continue to learn and grow and participate in greater planetary discourse without needing to live in cities.

For that matter, there is nothing wrong with people who choose to live even more radically simple lives without technologies and in rhythm with one another and the land. They are not less conscious than people who choose to embrace the mainstream and may arguably be more so.

What, exactly, is "21st Century living"? While there are marvelous innovations and cross-cultural exchanges, there are also areas of the world where there are people at war, living feudally, without access to clean water, or endangered by nuclear meltdowns. All of this is part of the 21st century living, and so is an infrastructure that is largely unsustainable (which may demand crude changes sooner than people expect). What about the rest of the planet? Whether I want to or not, I am benefiting from the resources taken from other places and brought to where I live. For instance, I cringe at the amount of waste in schools (from paper and food waste to plastics that are routinely and cheaply bought that will never, ever decompose...all for the sake of "education").

My only response to this--the only thing that keeps me sane--is to attempt to live more simply myself. I've chosen to live on a 300-acre ranch/forest, and I hike in wild areas daily. I know the farmers who grow the majority of the produce I eat, I happily choose not to own a TV (although I love internet access and do occasionally join friends for movies or shows), and I can travel easily to cities around me. I dance to eclectic music (and I mean REALLY eclectic--the full spectrum) while washing my dishes. Right now, I have an indoor toilet, but I really enjoyed when I had access to an outdoor composting toilet instead.

I'm saying these things to contextualize my experience, which I consider middle-ground rather than marginal. Like others, I embrace paradox. I use far too many fossil fuels. I can also say that my experiences living close to the land have impacted me profoundly, and I would recommend that others do whatever they can to consciously reconnect with the earth.

 Well I think as you rightly said. The key is conscious simplicity .... But it's a journey and process..... And we will get there.... With baby steps..... As of now I think being mindful is the first step.... Atleast that's what I am trying..... And doing whatever little one can sitting in the space where one is currently...... Instead of having big ideals or talks I think starting small helps..... And to me more feasible.... So I started by sorting my trash and making that little effort to go to the recycle centre..... Always carry shopping bags......Try and reduce consumption..... Recyle as much as possible.... Learn from kids as they learn from school...... Use newspaper for gift wrapping..... Upcycle products and give them a new lease of life..... Get things and gadgets fixed instead of buying new..... Teach kids through example..... Trust me this is quite difficult in a consumerist Dubai..... But small and steady steps really work!,...... Focus on self and not being preachy also has helped me a lot!!.... 
Second step is compassion when we fail..... Once guilt is gone then one cane aisle refocus one's energies back into what els can be done and in a better way!,...... 

Thank you for inspiring !!..... 

 Conscious simplicity is living in such a way as to do the least harm to the planet, yourself and others. Example, I was living in a home that I felt was too big for one person. When I bought it very cheaply in 1997 I rescued greyhounds, thought i might have a family, hosted many gatherings so it was a perfect space. Then in September 2005, I was single, no longer rescuing or fostering dogs, had left my fulltime job to become a fullt-time Cause Focused Storyteller devoted to connecting cultures and peoples through Story, was divorced and knew I was not having a family. So I sold my house and gave away (or sold) most of my possessions (furniture, books, artwork, kitchen stuff, etc) I then started a volunteer literacy project in Central America (through an invitation). I lived in an 8X10 room (like most of the rest of the world) and it was Liberating!! Question to ask oneself: am I doing more harm than good with my actions/choices. Question 2: do I really this item? What damage might it do to the planet. Example, I had my flip cell phone for 7 years and only purchased a new phone when the other one completely died and could not be repaired. Best wishes to all of us working to live simply.