Another Spectrum

Personal ramblings and rants of a somewhat twisted mind


by Leave a comment

Being Seen, Being Understood

“Autism cannot be understood without relationships.
And representation without relationships is not representation at all.”

Those two sentences have been echoing in my mind ever since I first saw the announcement of Autistic Barbie. On the surface, she looks like a welcome step toward inclusion — a doll with averted eyes, sensory accessories, and a label that signals recognition. But as I sat with the idea, I found myself returning to the same question: what does representation mean when it arrives without a story, without context, without the relationships that give a person their shape in the world? Without those threads, even the most well‑intentioned gesture risks becoming a mirror that reflects only our assumptions. And that is where my unease begins.

Solitary Barry: a child without a story

Imagine, for a moment, a hypothetical doll called Solitary Barry. His eyes are always turned slightly away — not because he is shy or evasive, but because that is how he listens. Each leg bends a little differently, a quiet echo of childhood polio. His accessories are modest: a library card, a tiny toy railway, a drawing board. The packaging explains that Solitary Barry spends most of his days alone. It notes, almost clinically, that he has never been invited to a birthday party or a sleepover. It hints that other children find him strange.

What the packaging does not say is the truth: that Solitary Barry’s solitude was never his choice. It was the result of choices made about him, not with him. His difference was interpreted as disinterest. His quietness was mistaken for aloofness. His inner world — rich, absorbing, alive — was invisible to those who never thought to ask.

And so the doll stands there, traits on display, story withheld.

If all you had was the packaging, what would you assume about Solitary Barry?
Would you imagine a child who prefers to be alone?
A child who doesn’t like others?
A child who is difficult, or odd, or uninterested in friendship?

Without a narrative, the mind fills the gaps.
Without relationships, behaviour becomes personality.
Without context, difference becomes defect.

This is how misunderstanding takes root — not through malice, but through absence.
And if this is what an adult might assume, what story would a child create with no guidance at all?

Solitary Barry stands there on his imaginary shelf — a child reduced to traits, stripped of the relationships that would explain him. His story is missing, so the mind invents one. And if adults do this, children do it even more readily, because they have fewer tools for interpreting difference. That lingering question — what story would a child create with no guidance at all — is the doorway into the next part of this reflection.

Because Solitary Barry is not the only doll presented this way.

Autistic Barbie in a world without context

Mattel’s Autistic Barbie arrives in much the same narrative vacuum. She, too, is introduced through visible cues — averted eyes, sensory accessories, stimming‑friendly joints — and she, too, is offered without the relationships that would help a child understand what those cues mean. Her packaging tells us what she is, but not who she is, or how she moves through the world, or how others move with her.

And so the same mechanism that shaped Solitary Barry’s misinterpretation is now poised to shape hers.

Before we explore why this matters — and why it affects autistic and non‑autistic children differently — it’s worth pausing to acknowledge something important. For many autistic adults, the arrival of Autistic Barbie is deeply validating. After a lifetime of being misunderstood or dismissed, seeing a doll that even gestures toward their experience can feel like recognition. That validation is real, and it deserves respect.

But validation and understanding are not the same thing. One is inward‑facing; the other is relational.

And it is in that gap — between symbolic recognition and relational understanding — that Autistic Barbie begins to falter.

How children learn about difference

Children don’t learn about disability by reading labels or analysing traits. They learn through relationships — through watching how people interact, how misunderstandings unfold, how repairs are made, and how difference is woven into the social fabric around them. A doll presented without a social world leaves children with nothing to anchor their interpretations, so they reach for the tools they have: projection, assumption, and whatever fragments of cultural messaging they’ve absorbed.

For physical disabilities, children often have enough visible cues to form a basic understanding. A wheelchair signals mobility differences. A white cane signals blindness. These cues are concrete, and adults usually provide simple explanations that help children map what they see to what it means.

But social disabilities — autism, ADHD, trauma‑shaped behaviours — are different. Their cues are behavioural, ambiguous, and deeply context‑dependent. Averted eyes might mean listening. Silence might mean overwhelm. Repetitive movement might mean joy, or regulation, or focus. Without narrative, children interpret these behaviours through the only lens they have: their own experience.

And so behaviour becomes personality.
“Doesn’t look at me” becomes “rude.”
“Doesn’t join in” becomes “unfriendly.”
“Plays alone” becomes “doesn’t like people.”

None of these interpretations are malicious. They are simply what happens when a child is given traits without relationships, behaviour without context, difference without story.

This is why narrative scaffolding is essential. Children need to see how a character moves through the world, how others respond, how misunderstandings arise and are repaired. They need to see that difference is not a moral category but a relational one — something that makes sense only when held within a web of interactions.

And this is where Autistic Barbie, like Solitary Barry, begins to falter. She is presented as a set of traits, not as a person in relationship. Without that relational architecture, children are left to invent their own explanations. And as we’ve already seen, those explanations rarely lead to understanding.

Why symbols are not enough

Symbolic representation begins with good intentions. It offers visibility, a gesture toward inclusion, a sign that difference exists in the world of play. But symbols, by their nature, stand alone. They point to something without inhabiting it. And when it comes to autism — a social, relational, context‑dependent way of being — symbols can only ever tell part of the story.

A doll like Autistic Barbie is introduced through traits: averted eyes, sensory tools, stimming‑friendly joints. These cues are meant to signal autism, but without a narrative they become floating signifiers, disconnected from meaning. A child sees the traits but not the reasons behind them. They see the behaviour but not the sensory world that shapes it. They see the solitude but not the exclusion that preceded it.

And so the mind fills the gaps.

Children, especially, interpret behaviour through the lens of their own experience. If they avoid eye contact only when they’re upset, they assume the doll is upset. If they play alone only when they’re angry or shy, they assume the doll is angry or shy. If they’ve heard adults describe certain behaviours as “rude” or “odd,” those labels slip easily into place.

Symbolic representation doesn’t challenge these assumptions — it relies on them.
It hands the child a set of cues and asks them to invent the story.

But autism is not a set of cues.
It is a way of relating to the world.

And without relationships, symbolic representation collapses into stereotype.
It reduces a complex, dynamic, deeply human experience into a handful of visible markers that can be misread in a dozen different ways.

This is not a failure of intention.
It is a failure of architecture.

Symbols can raise awareness, but they cannot build understanding.
They can say “this exists,” but they cannot say “this is what it feels like,” or “this is how to respond,” or “this is how connection is possible.”

For that, you need narrative.
For that, you need relationships.

How story humanises difference

If symbolic representation leaves children holding a handful of traits and no way to interpret them, narrative representation does the opposite. It gives those traits a home — a place within a web of relationships where behaviour has meaning, where difference has context, and where a character becomes more than the sum of their cues.

Narrative is how children learn that people are not defined by what they look like or how they move, but by how they relate — how they feel, how they respond, how they connect and disconnect and reconnect again. It is through story that averted eyes become listening, solitude becomes exclusion or preference or overwhelm, and stimming becomes joy or regulation rather than “odd behaviour.”

Narrative representation humanises difference because it shows:

  • motives behind actions
  • emotions beneath behaviour
  • relationships that shape experience
  • misunderstandings that arise naturally
  • repairs that teach empathy
  • strengths that emerge through doing, not labelling

A child watching a character navigate the world with autism sees not just traits, but patterns of interaction. They see how sensory overload feels from the inside. They see how communication differences play out in real time. They see how friendships form, falter, and deepen. They see that difference is not a barrier to connection — it is simply one of the many ways humans move through the world.

Narrative also gives non‑autistic children something symbolic representation never can: a model for how to respond.

They learn:

  • how to recognise overwhelm
  • how to offer support
  • how to interpret silence
  • how to respect boundaries
  • how to include someone whose social rhythms differ from their own

These are relational skills, not diagnostic ones. They cannot be taught by a doll standing alone in a box.

And for autistic children, narrative representation offers something equally vital: recognition without reduction.

They see themselves not as a checklist of traits, but as a person with agency, humour, preferences, frustrations, and relationships that matter. They see that their way of being is not a problem to be solved, but a story to be understood.

This is what Autistic Barbie lacks.
Not intention.
Not visibility.
But story — the relational architecture that turns a symbol into a person.

Narrative is where difference becomes humanity. Narrative is where understanding begins.

Validation for autistic adults, understanding for children

For many autistic adults, the arrival of Autistic Barbie feels like a long‑overdue acknowledgment. After years — often decades — of being misunderstood, dismissed, or told that their experiences were wrong, exaggerated, or inconvenient, seeing a doll that even gestures toward their reality can feel like recognition. It is a symbolic moment, yes, but symbols can matter deeply when you have spent much of your life fighting to be believed.

For some, Autistic Barbie offers validation:
a quiet reassurance that their way of being is real, visible, and worthy of representation. It is not the doll itself that carries the emotional weight, but what it stands for — a cultural shift, however small, toward acknowledging autistic existence without shame.

But validation and understanding are not the same thing.

Validation is inward‑facing.
It speaks to the autistic child or adult who sees themselves reflected, however imperfectly, in the world of play. It says, “You exist. You are allowed to be here.”

Understanding is relational.
It requires context, story, and interaction. It teaches non‑autistic children how to interpret difference, how to respond to it, how to build connection across divergent ways of being.

And this is where Autistic Barbie falters.

A non‑autistic child encountering the doll receives traits without meaning — averted eyes, headphones, a fidget tool — but no narrative to explain what those traits signify. Without guidance, the child fills the gaps with their own assumptions, shaped by their limited experience and whatever cultural messages they’ve absorbed. The doll becomes a canvas for projection rather than a bridge to understanding.

Autistic children may feel seen.
Non‑autistic children may feel confused.
Neither group is given the relational scaffolding they need.

This is not a failure of intention.
It is a failure of architecture — the absence of story, of relationships, of the social world that gives autism its meaning.

Autistic Barbie can validate.
But without narrative, she cannot educate.

And representation that cannot educate risks reinforcing the very misunderstandings it hopes to dispel.

From awareness to appreciation

If symbolic representation offers visibility but not understanding, and narrative representation humanises difference through relationships, then the path forward for Mattel becomes clear. Moving from awareness to appreciation is not a matter of adding more accessories or refining the sculpt of a doll’s face. It is a matter of building the relational architecture that allows a child to understand autism as a way of being rather than a list of traits.

To do that, Mattel would need to create context — the social world in which Autistic Barbie lives, moves, and relates. Children learn through stories, not symbols, and stories require relationships. Without them, the doll remains a static figure, a prompt for projection rather than a guide toward understanding.

Mattel would also need to offer perspective — glimpses into Autistic Barbie’s inner world. What does sensory overload feel like for her? What brings her joy? How does she communicate when words are hard? These are not diagnostic details; they are human ones. They help children see autism not as a problem to decode but as a lived experience shaped by emotions, needs, and strengths.

Equally important is modelling interaction — showing how others respond to her, how misunderstandings arise, and how they are repaired. Children need to see that connection is possible across different ways of being, and that inclusion is not an abstract value but a set of relational skills they can learn.

Finally, Mattel would need to give Autistic Barbie agency — goals, preferences, humour, frustrations, and contributions that have nothing to do with autism. A character who exists only to represent a diagnosis is not a character at all. She becomes a teaching tool rather than a person. Appreciation requires seeing her as someone with a life, not a label.

In short, Mattel would need to move from presenting traits to presenting relationships.
From offering symbols to offering stories.
From saying “autistic people exist” to showing “autistic people belong.”

Awareness can be achieved with a box and a label.
Appreciation requires a world.

🌾 Closing Reflection

As I trace the path from Solitary Barry to Autistic Barbie, a single truth keeps returning: understanding is never built from traits alone. It grows in the spaces between people — in the relationships that give behaviour its meaning and difference its dignity. Without those relationships, even the most well‑intentioned representation becomes a hollow outline, a figure waiting for a story that never arrives.

Autistic Barbie offers visibility, and for many autistic adults that visibility carries real emotional weight. After years of being misread or dismissed, seeing even a symbolic gesture toward their experience can feel like a small but meaningful form of recognition. That validation matters. It deserves to be honoured.

But visibility is not the same as understanding.
Recognition is not the same as relationship.

For non‑autistic children, a doll presented through traits without context becomes a prompt for projection rather than a guide toward empathy. They see the averted eyes but not the listening. They see the solitude but not the exclusion. They see the sensory tools but not the sensory world. And so they invent explanations that make sense to them, not to the child the doll is meant to represent.

This is not a failure of intention.
It is a failure of relational architecture.

To move from awareness to appreciation, representation must offer more than symbols. It must offer stories — stories that show how a character moves through the world, how others move with her, how misunderstandings arise and are repaired, how connection is possible even when ways of being diverge.

Because autism is not a set of traits.
It is a way of relating.

And representation without relationships is not representation at all. It is a silhouette — recognisable, perhaps, but empty.

If Autistic Barbie is to become more than a symbol, she needs a world to belong to. She needs friends, context, agency, and a narrative that honours her inner life. She needs the same thing Solitary Barry needed, the same thing every child needs: to be understood not in isolation, but in relation.

Only then can representation move beyond awareness — beyond the simple fact of existence — and become appreciation, a deeper recognition that autistic lives are rich, complex, and woven into the fabric of our shared humanity.


by 7 Comments

Anendophasia and AI: Why Conversational Tools Work So Well for Me

Most people assume that thinking happens in words — that there’s a little narrator in the mind describing, debating, rehearsing, and reasoning. For many, that inner voice is so constant they can’t imagine life without it. But that’s not how my mind works at all.

I’m autistic, and I also live with alexithymia, prosopagnosia, dyschronometria, and anendophasia. To some people, that might look like a list of deficits. To me, it’s simply the shape of my mind — the way I perceive, process, and move through the world. These traits give me strengths I value deeply: clarity of pattern, intuitive leaps, a sense of systems rather than snapshots, and a way of seeing that feels uniquely my own. If any of these characteristics changed, I wouldn’t be me anymore, and I’m comfortable with who I am.

But one consequence of anendophasia — the absence of an inner voice — is that I don’t “think in words.” I don’t narrate problems to myself. I don’t rehearse conversations internally. I don’t talk things through in my head. When I need to work through something step by step, the process can feel slippery, because there’s no internal dialogue to hold the thread.

This is where conversational AI has become unexpectedly helpful.

How AI Supports a Mind Without an Inner Voice

People with an inner voice often solve problems by talking to themselves internally — posing questions, testing ideas, arguing with themselves, refining thoughts. I don’t have that channel. So when I use AI, I’m not outsourcing my thinking; I’m externalising the parts of cognition that don’t happen naturally for me.

AI becomes a kind of scaffold — a place where I can lay out steps, explore options, and follow threads without needing an internal narrator. It’s not a replacement for intuition; it’s a complement to it.

Some of the ways conversational AI helps me think include:

  • externalising step‑by‑step reasoning: turning intuitive insights into a sequence I can examine
  • holding the thread of a problem: keeping context steady when my thoughts move quickly
  • mirroring ideas back in language: helping me see what I already understand but don’t verbalise internally
  • providing a calm, non‑judgmental partner: no pressure to “think like everyone else”
  • expanding possibilities without overwhelming me: offering information without drowning me in noise

Used this way, AI becomes less like a search engine and more like a thinking companion — a partner in reasoning that adapts to my cognitive style rather than trying to reshape it.

Why This Matters for Neurodivergent People

Many neurodivergent people are used to being told, explicitly or implicitly, “you should think this way instead.” Even well‑meaning people often respond to differences by trying to correct them. AI doesn’t do that. It doesn’t judge, doesn’t push, doesn’t try to normalise. It simply meets me where I am and helps me understand myself more clearly.

That’s one of the reasons I find conversational AI so valuable. It supports the way I think rather than fighting it.

A Tool Is Only Useful When Used as a Tool

Like any tool, AI works well only when used for the purpose it’s suited to. A hammer is terrible for slicing onions, and a knife is terrible for driving nails. In the same way, AI isn’t a “supercharged search engine.” It’s not meant to replace human judgment or intuition. It’s a conversational partner — a way to explore ideas, clarify thinking, and externalise reasoning.

When used in that spirit, it becomes a remarkably powerful ally, especially for those of us whose minds don’t run on internal monologue.

P.S.
I know some of my regular readers are uneasy about AI, and that’s perfectly okay — no one should feel obliged to use tools that don’t sit comfortably with them. But for some of us, conversational AI isn’t a shortcut or a novelty. It’s a way of thinking out loud in a world where internal dialogue doesn’t come naturally. It helps me participate more fully in a society that wasn’t designed with my cognitive style in mind. If AI isn’t something you want to use, that’s entirely your choice — but please don’t wish it away for those of us who find it genuinely helpful.


by 6 Comments

Beyond Purity: The Search for Ethical Coherence

I used to drive past a particular paddock on my way into town. It grew some kind of grain — wheat, maize, something ordinary enough that I barely noticed it most days. After harvest, the field was left as stubble, a pale, brittle carpet across the soil. A few days later, the grass around the edges was ploughed back, leaving a ring of bare earth. Nothing unusual. Just farming.

One morning, I saw workers applying some kind of accelerant around the perimeter. I assumed it was simply part of preparing the soil — a way to return nutrients through ash, the way farmers have done for generations. But when I returned later that day, the paddock was burning. Not a dramatic blaze, but a slow, creeping fire that ate its way inward from the edges.

For a moment, the smoke lifted just enough for me to see into the centre. What I saw has stayed with me ever since. Rabbits and hares darting frantically. Rats and mice trapped in the shrinking circle of flame. A pair of pūkeko running in confused loops. Even a couple of hedgehogs, unable to outrun the fire, huddled against the heat.

It was horrific. Not intentional cruelty — just the collateral damage of a farming practice most of us never see. But in that moment, watching those animals die in fear and pain, something in me shifted. I realised that the stories we tell ourselves about ethical eating — whether omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan — often leave out the lives that don’t fit neatly into our chosen frameworks.

Only later did another detail surface in my memory. Months before the burn‑off, a sign had stood at the paddock’s edge declaring the crop “vegan friendly.” That detail didn’t make the suffering I witnessed any worse — but it did sharpen something for me. It reminded me how easily ethical labels can obscure the deeper ecological realities behind our food.

It also made me realise how tempting it is for any of us to believe we’ve found the ethical answer. When we’re certain we’re right, we stop asking uncomfortable questions. We stop looking closely at the systems we participate in. We stop noticing the lives that fall outside our chosen moral spotlight.

I’ve seen this pattern elsewhere too. Consider the thoughtful vegetarian who critiques meat‑eaters harshly, yet never once discusses the ethics of the eggs that go into their morning omelette or the cakes they bake. Perhaps they buy free‑range eggs. Perhaps they don’t. But the absence of the question itself is telling. Ethical certainty narrows our field of vision. It makes us confident in our conclusions and inattentive to the complexities beneath them.

That paddock — and the creatures trapped within it — taught me something important. Ethics are not fixed. They are not pure. They are not a badge we earn once and wear forever. They are provisional commitments — ways of living that must be continually examined, questioned, and reshaped as we learn more about the world we inhabit.

Whenever someone is absolutely confident they have the answer, I suspect they’ve stopped asking the right questions.

The more I’ve reflected on these experiences — the burning paddock, the unexamined ethics of everyday foods, the way certainty narrows our moral field — the more I’ve realised that what I’m seeking isn’t purity. It’s coherence. I want an ethical framework that acknowledges the complexity of the world rather than pretending it can be simplified into a single rule or dietary identity.

For me, regenerative farming offers that coherence. It treats the land not as a production unit but as a living ecosystem — a web of relationships between soil, plants, animals, water, microbes, and humans. It recognises that life and death are not opposites but partners in the ongoing renewal of the land. It accepts that harm cannot be eliminated, only shaped with care and awareness.

This way of thinking aligns closely with ecosystem thinking, where the focus is not on individual components but on the health of the whole. A regenerative farm is not a factory. It is a micro‑ecosystem — a place where plants and animals co‑create fertility, where soil is nourished rather than depleted, where biodiversity increases rather than collapses, and where humans participate as part of the system rather than standing above it.

It also resonates deeply with Māori relational ethics, which have profoundly influenced how I understand my place in the world. Concepts like whakapapa, mauri, and kaitiakitanga offer a way of seeing that feels both ancient and urgently relevant.

  • Whakapapa reminds me that all beings — humans, animals, plants, rivers, mountains — are kin, connected through layers of relationship.
  • Mauri teaches that every entity has its own vitality, integrity, and right to flourish.
  • Kaitiakitanga frames humans not as owners of the land but as guardians, responsible for maintaining balance and reciprocity.

Regenerative farming fits naturally within this worldview. It seeks to enhance the mauri of the land. It honours the whakapapa of all beings involved. It positions humans as kaitiaki — caretakers who work with natural processes rather than against them.

This is why regenerative farming feels ethically coherent to me. It doesn’t deny that animals die. It doesn’t pretend that harm can be avoided. Instead, it asks us to consider how harm is shaped, how relationships are honoured, and how ecosystems can be restored rather than depleted.

It offers a way of eating that is not about purity but about right relationship — with the land, with the animals, with the plants, and with the ecosystems that sustain us.

Regenerative Farming in Practice

Regenerative farming is best understood not as a single technique but as a philosophy of land stewardship. It begins with the recognition that soil is a living community — a complex web of microbes, fungi, insects, plants, and animals whose relationships determine the health of the land. Instead of treating soil as an inert medium to be mined for nutrients, regenerative farmers work to restore and enhance its vitality, allowing the land to become more fertile, more resilient, and more biodiverse over time. This approach stands in contrast to industrial agriculture, which tends to exhaust soil through monoculture, heavy tilling, and synthetic inputs.

In practice, regenerative farming uses a suite of complementary methods that mimic natural ecosystems. Holistic grazing moves livestock frequently across small paddocks, allowing grasses to recover and encouraging deep root growth. Cover cropping ensures that soil is never left bare, protecting it from erosion and feeding the microbial life beneath the surface. No‑till or low‑till cultivation preserves soil structure and reduces carbon loss. Multi‑species pastures replace single‑crop fields with diverse plant communities that support pollinators, birds, and beneficial insects. Each of these practices reinforces the others, creating a self‑renewing cycle of fertility.

Animals play a central role in regenerative systems. Rather than being confined or separated from plant production, they are integrated into the farm’s ecology. Their grazing stimulates plant regrowth, their manure feeds the soil, and their movement helps cycle nutrients. In this context, animals are not production units but ecological partners, contributing to the health of the land in ways machinery and synthetic fertilisers cannot replicate. Their lives — and eventually their deaths — are part of a cycle that maintains the mauri of the farm as a whole.

Regenerative farming also aligns naturally with Māori relational ethics, which emphasise whakapapa, mauri, and kaitiakitanga. A regenerative farm is not just a place where food is grown; it is a living entity with its own integrity and whakapapa. The goal is not to maximise yield but to maintain balance — to enhance the mauri of soil, water, plants, animals, and people alike. This worldview recognises that humans are part of the ecosystem, not outside it, and that ethical food production requires reciprocity rather than domination.

In broad strokes, regenerative farming offers a way of producing food that is ecologically restorative, ethically coherent, and grounded in relationship rather than extraction. It accepts that harm cannot be eliminated — plants are eaten, animals die, ecosystems shift — but it seeks to shape that harm in ways that honour the land and all its inhabitants. For me, this approach feels far more aligned with the complexity of the world than any attempt at dietary purity. It offers a path where humans can participate in ecosystems as caretakers, not conquerors.

The Limits of Regenerative Farming and the Larger Ecological Context

As appealing as regenerative farming is to me ethically, it’s important to acknowledge its limits. It cannot match the output volume per hectare of industrial agriculture. Regenerative systems prioritise soil health, biodiversity, and ecological balance — not maximum yield. They work with natural processes rather than overriding them, and that means production is inherently slower and less intensive.

This is not a flaw in regenerative farming. It’s a reflection of ecological reality. The truth is that even industrial farming — with all its machinery, fertilisers, pesticides, and monocultures — may not be sustainable in the long term. The current scale and intensity of human activity is pushing Earth’s systems toward thresholds they cannot easily recover from. Soil degradation, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, and climate instability are not abstract concerns. They are symptoms of a civilisation that has grown beyond the planet’s regenerative capacity.

This is why regenerative farming cannot be treated as a simple antidote to the burgeoning human population. Even if every farm on Earth adopted regenerative practices tomorrow, we would still face the deeper question: How many humans can the planet support without collapsing the ecosystems that sustain us? Industrial farming has allowed us to feed billions, but at the cost of degrading the very systems that make food production possible. Regenerative farming shows us a healthier way to live with the land, but it also reveals the uncomfortable truth that sustainability requires more than better farming methods. It requires rethinking our assumptions about growth, consumption, and what it means to flourish as a species.

Most of the environmental harm caused by industrial agriculture is hidden from everyday life. We don’t see the soil erosion, the dead zones in rivers, the loss of insect life, or the displacement of wildlife. We don’t see the long‑term consequences of treating land as a machine rather than a living system. Regenerative farming brings these realities into focus. It reminds us that food production is not just a technical problem to be solved but a relationship to be tended — one that requires humility, restraint, and a willingness to live within ecological limits.

Toward an Ethic of Coherence and Relationship

All of these reflections — the burning paddock, the hidden suffering in everyday farming practices, the unexamined ethics behind familiar foods, the limits of both industrial and regenerative systems — have led me to a simple but important realisation: ethical living is not about purity. It is about coherence.

Purity demands certainty. It asks us to draw hard lines, to divide the world into right and wrong, to believe that one dietary choice or one moral stance can absolve us of complicity. But the world is not built that way. Ecosystems are messy, interdependent, and full of unintended consequences. Every choice we make — whether we eat plants, animals, or both — touches the lives of other beings. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make us more ethical. It just makes us less aware.

Coherence, on the other hand, asks us to stay in relationship with the world. It asks us to pay attention to the ecosystems we depend on, to the animals whose lives intersect with ours, to the soil that feeds us, and to the land that holds us. It asks us to acknowledge that harm cannot be eliminated, only shaped with care. It invites us to live with humility, curiosity, and a willingness to revise our beliefs as we learn more.

This is why regenerative farming resonates with me. Not because it is perfect, or because it can feed an ever‑growing population, or because it offers a simple solution to complex problems. It resonates because it treats the land as a living entity, not a machine. It recognises that plants, animals, microbes, and humans are part of a shared whakapapa. It aligns with Māori relational ethics, where the goal is not domination but kaitiakitanga — guardianship, reciprocity, and balance.

Regenerative farming is not the answer. It is one part of a broader shift we need to make — a shift toward living within ecological limits, rethinking our assumptions about growth, and acknowledging that the Earth cannot sustain our current scale of extraction. But it offers a model of how humans might participate in ecosystems without overwhelming them. It offers a way of eating that honours the mauri of the land and the lives of the creatures within it.

Ultimately, what I am seeking — in food ethics, in culture, in spirituality, in my own neurodiverse way of moving through the world — is ethical coherence. A way of living that recognises complexity rather than denying it. A way of making choices that honour relationship rather than ideology. A way of being human that accepts our place in the web of life without pretending we can stand outside it.

If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: whenever we become absolutely certain that we have the answer, we have almost certainly stopped asking the right questions. And the world — the real, living, breathing world — deserves better from us than that.


by Leave a comment

Autistic Insight Doesn’t Start With Words — Ophelia Singing

I’ve been struck by how closely Ophelia’s words resonate with my own experience of autistic insight, even though she describes it through a very different lens. Where I tend to write in metaphor about the experience of insight — the shape, the pressure, the way ideas gather before they become language — she describes the process itself with clarity and precision. Together, our perspectives trace the same pattern from two angles. I’m sharing the opening of her piece here, and I encourage you to follow through to the full article on her “Ophelia Singing” site, where the depth of her framing really comes into view.

Autistic Insight Doesn’t Start With Words


by Leave a comment

Sitting With the Dream That Never Lived

I find myself thinking about the “American Dream” as though it were something we’ve just laid to rest — not with ceremony, but with the quiet sadness that comes when an idea slips away before we fully notice its leaving. I was never one of its devoted believers, yet I can still feel the ache of its passing. For all its contradictions, it once carried a kind of fragile hope: the sense that a nation might reach for something better, something more generous, something that honoured the dignity of every person. Now that hope feels dimmed, as if a light that once burned in the distance has finally gone out.

I keep coming back to the thought that the decline was not sudden. It didn’t arrive with a single moment or a single decision, but with a gradual thinning — the kind you only recognise in hindsight. For a long time, the Dream still looked intact from a distance, still carried the outline of something hopeful. But up close, the colours had already begun to fade. The stories people told themselves about who they were, and what their nation stood for, slowly shifted. Certainty crept in where humility once lived. Suspicion edged out curiosity. It was as though the light behind the Dream dimmed one watt at a time.

And as those small shifts accumulated, the larger patterns began to take shape. The Cold War’s stark binaries seeped into everyday thinking, turning national identity into something brittle and defensive. Faith and patriotism grew tangled together until it became difficult to tell where one ended and the other began. What might once have been a shared aspiration narrowed into a guarded posture, a habit of seeing threats where there were none. By the time the change became undeniable, the Dream had already been hollowed out from within. gone out.

Then came the rhetoric of invasion, and something in the national mood shifted again. People who had once been spoken of as neighbours or newcomers were suddenly described as threats, as though their very presence required vigilance. Words that might once have carried a sense of welcome or curiosity were replaced with language that narrowed the circle of belonging. It wasn’t always loud or dramatic; often it was just a change in emphasis, a tightening of tone, a story retold with a little more fear woven into it. But those small changes matter. They shape how a country sees itself, and how it sees those who arrive at its doors.

Over time, that rhetoric settled into the background like a low hum — easy to miss, but impossible to escape. It encouraged people to look at one another with a wary eye, to imagine danger where there was only difference. It made suspicion feel like common sense. And in that atmosphere, the Dream’s more generous possibilities grew harder to recognise. The idea that a nation could be strengthened by diversity, or enriched by the arrival of new voices, began to feel fragile, almost naïve. The Dream that once promised room for many kinds of flourishing slowly contracted, as though it could no longer bear the weight of its own ideals.

And now, in the present moment, it feels as though all those earlier shifts have settled into something heavier, something harder to ignore. The contrast in how people respond to the deaths of Kirk and Reiner has stayed with me — not because the tragedies themselves are comparable, but because the reactions reveal how deeply the old binaries have taken root. Two lives lost, two families grieving, yet the public response fractures along lines that have nothing to do with compassion. One death becomes a symbol to be wielded; the other is treated almost as an inconvenience, something to be explained away or folded into a narrative that demands certainty rather than empathy.

A Lament for What Might Have Been

It’s in moments like these that the absence of the Dream becomes unmistakable. The idea that every life carries inherent worth — that grief should draw people together rather than drive them apart — feels strangely distant now. Instead, sorrow is sorted into categories, weighed against political loyalties, filtered through assumptions about who is allowed to be mourned. The Dream’s moral centre, once spoken of with such confidence, seems to have collapsed into a kind of selective compassion. And standing here, looking at the present with all its fractures, it’s hard not to feel the ache of what has been lost.

Sitting with all of this, I find myself thinking not only about what has faded, but about what was never fully realised. The American Dream, for all its flaws and contradictions, once held a faint outline of something more generous — a possibility that different kinds of people, carrying different kinds of hopes, might still find room to flourish together. Even if that possibility was fragile, even if it was unevenly offered, it was there, shimmering at the edges.

And it’s here, in this quiet recognition, that the grief begins to shift. The sorrow is no longer just for the Dream that has died, but for the gentler vision that never quite found its footing. A vision that might have made space for inclusion, for humility, for a sense of community that didn’t depend on sameness. A vision that could have allowed many dreams to coexist without fear or suspicion. It’s the absence of that deeper promise — the one that never had the chance to grow — that lingers most heavily now.

What I grieve most now is not only the Dream that has faded, but the gentler vision that never had the chance to take root. For all its individualistic bravado, the American Dream carried within it a quieter possibility — the idea that a nation might make room for many kinds of flourishing, not just the kind measured by personal ascent. My own hopes have always leaned toward inclusion, empathy, and community, and while those values were never at the centre of the Dream’s mythology, they were not in conflict with it either. There was space, at least in theory, for a broader imagination.

But that broader imagination never found the nourishment it needed. Seeds of shared dignity were scattered across the country’s history, yet they were too often left untended, overshadowed by louder stories about competition and certainty. The soil that might have supported a more communal vision was repeatedly claimed by fear, by grievance, by the insistence that strength must be singular rather than shared. The light that could have nurtured a more generous civic life flickered at the margins, but it was never allowed to grow into something steady.

And so the lament settles in. I grieve the absence of the country that might have been — a country where humility was not mistaken for weakness, where difference was not treated as danger, where community was not an afterthought but a foundation. I grieve for the people who might have flourished under a wider, kinder vision. I grieve for the conversations that were never held, the bridges that were never built, the shared future that never found its footing. There is a particular ache in mourning something that never fully lived, a tenderness in recognising the shape of a possibility that remained just out of reach.

What remains is a quiet, unresolved sorrow — not dramatic, not despairing, but steady. A sorrow for the Dream’s unrealised potential, for the gentler path that lay open but was never taken. It lingers like a soft echo, a reminder of what could have been if the nation had chosen curiosity over certainty, welcome over fear, community over competition. And as I sit with that ache, I find myself mourning not only the end of an idea, but the loss of a future that was never allowed to grow.

Postscript — The Dream as a Responsibility, Not a Forecast

There are days when it feels as though the world is drawing inward, narrowing its sense of who belongs and who deserves to flourish. The retreat from diversity and inclusion is not confined to one nation; it is happening in many places at once, even in countries that once seemed committed to a broader vision. Here in Aotearoa, the shift is subtle but unmistakable — a quiet pulling back from partnership, from shared identity, from the courage it takes to honour more than one story at a time. And in other parts of the world, the narrowing is sharper, more punitive, more willing to turn difference into danger.

In moments like these, it is hard to speak of hope with any confidence. But perhaps hope was never meant to be a forecast. Perhaps it is something smaller and more human — a responsibility we carry, even when the world feels unready for it. The gentler Dream I’ve been mourning was never going to be realised by governments alone. It was always going to depend on ordinary people choosing curiosity over fear, generosity over suspicion, dignity over division. Those choices may feel fragile now, but they are still possible. They still matter.

So I hold to a quieter kind of hope — not the hope that nations will suddenly rediscover their better angels, but the hope that enough of us will keep tending the small, steady work of inclusion in our own lives. The hope that the Dream’s most generous promise can survive in the spaces between policies, in the relationships we build, in the stories we choose to tell about one another. The future is uncertain, and the present is troubling, but the responsibility to keep the Dream alive has always belonged to us. And as long as that responsibility remains, the possibility — however faint — remains with it.


by 3 Comments

Religion as a Mode of Living

When I speak of religion, I do not mean superstition, nor do I mean the rigid adherence to dogma that many assume defines faith. I find myself drawn to Sir Lloyd Geering’s description of religion as a “total mode of living.” This definition shifts the focus away from supernatural claims and toward the way we inhabit the world — the values we embody, the practices we sustain, and the relationships we nurture. Religion, in this sense, is not a matter of assent to doctrines but of living into ideals that make life more just, compassionate, and meaningful.

This broader view stands in sharp contrast to the belief‑centered definitions that dominate public debate. For many Christian fundamentalists, religion is primarily about affirming the existence of God and obeying scripture. For many atheists critical of religion, it is precisely this definition they reject, condemning it as irrational or oppressive. Though they reach opposite conclusions, both camps converge on a narrow framing: religion as belief in supernatural claims and submission to authority. Their arguments mirror one another, locked in a binary that leaves little room for the richness of lived practice.

Quaker spirituality offers a different witness. In the Religious Society of Friends, the “Kingdom of God” is not a distant realm but a present reality — something to be enacted through human responsibility, discernment, and care. Silence, community, and ethical commitment take precedence over creeds. Here religion is not about imposing belief but about striving together toward ideals that make the world more hospitable. It is a way of living that honors integrity, compassion, and truth, without demanding uniformity of thought.

Jesus himself chose parables rather than precise definitions, which suggests that certainty was never the goal. The Kingdom of God is better understood as a way of living that grows, nourishes, surprises, and welcomes — not a concept to be nailed down. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Kingdom is revealed in compassion across boundaries, where mercy overrides prejudice and care is offered to the stranger. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, it is revealed in forgiveness and reconciliation, where love triumphs over resentment and relationships are restored. In the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast, the Kingdom is revealed in growth and transformation from the smallest beginnings, hidden forces that reshape the whole. These stories remind us that religion is not about dogma, but about how we live together in mercy, grace, and hope.

This is why I resist the temptation to claim that my understanding of religion is the correct one. To be certain that one’s own perspective must be right, and that others must therefore be wrong, is divisive and harmful — irrespective of whether one stands in the camp of belief or disbelief. Religion, like philosophy, is diminished when it becomes a contest of certainties. It flourishes when it is understood as a human project of meaning, ethics, and community, open to many expressions and interpretations.

For me, Geering’s “mode of living” definition makes religion essential. It is not about defending a creed or winning an argument, but about inhabiting the world with care, responsibility, and hope. My perspective is only one among many, but it is the one that sustains me. The parables remind us that the Kingdom is enacted in compassion, forgiveness, and growth. Religion is not about dogma, but about how we live together in mercy and hope. And as the wisdom of Aotearoa reminds us:

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata.
What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.


by 4 Comments

The Ban They Couldn’t Break— A Tongue‑in‑Cheek Reflection

“December 14, 1994: After eight years of negotiations, the United States finally agreed to honor New Zealand’s ban on nuclear weapons in its territory. U.S. Navy ships armed with nuclear weapons no longer visited New Zealand’s ports.”

That neat summary, lifted from a ‘This day in history’ column, suggests a tidy resolution. But from a New Zealand vantage point, the word honor feels too generous.

What “Nuclear‑Free” Meant in 1987

In New Zealand, “nuclear‑free” was more than a slogan. The Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 banned both nuclear weapons and nuclear‑powered vessels from entering our territory. While the shorthand became part of our national identity, the law’s scope was broader than many international readers realise. It meant U.S. nuclear‑armed ships and submarines could not visit, but it also applied to civilian nuclear‑powered vessels — even though such visits were rare.

This distinction matters: the ban was comprehensive, and it was precisely that breadth which made accommodation difficult for allies who relied on nuclear propulsion as well as nuclear deterrence.

Why “Honour” Feels Too Generous

The United States did not embrace our nuclear‑free stance as a principled contribution to alliance policy. It accepted the ban only because it had no choice: the law was immovable, and public support in New Zealand was overwhelming. ANZUS obligations to New Zealand had already been suspended in 1986, and they were never fully restored. Even after 1994, our ships were treated differently in exercises, and our access to intelligence remained curtailed.

The Punishments Before 1994

When New Zealand declared itself nuclear‑free in 1987, the United States did not simply disagree — it retaliated. The suspension of ANZUS obligations was the most visible blow: Washington announced that it could no longer guarantee New Zealand’s defence under the treaty, effectively freezing us out of the alliance. Intelligence cooperation was sharply reduced, with New Zealand excluded from certain military‑related streams of the Five Eyes network.

Military sanctions followed quickly. Joint exercises were cancelled, U.S. advisers withdrawn, and our forces were denied access to training opportunities with American counterparts. Defence procurement was also restricted: contracts were cancelled, and technology transfers halted, leaving New Zealand’s armed forces struggling to modernise. Diplomatically, we were downgraded to the status of “friend, not ally.” High‑level visits dried up, and Wellington found itself isolated compared to Canberra, which remained firmly in Washington’s embrace.

There were even threats of economic punishment. While no formal trade sanctions were imposed, American politicians and commentators warned that New Zealand’s agricultural exports — particularly dairy and lamb — could be targeted. The threats were never carried out, but they were part of the pressure campaign, designed to remind us that defying a superpower carried risks.

These measures were not symbolic. They were intended to force compliance, to make New Zealand abandon its nuclear‑free law. Yet the effect was the opposite. The punishments deepened public resolve, turning the nuclear‑free stance into a cornerstone of national identity. By the time the United States finally ceased its campaign in 1994, the law was not only intact — it was untouchable.

The “Ceasing to Punish” Perspective

A more accurate description is that Washington ceased to punish us. In the late 1980s, punishment meant exclusion from military cooperation, the freezing of intelligence ties, and a deliberate cooling of diplomatic warmth. By the mid‑1990s, the U.S. shifted to a posture of passive disapproval: no nuclear‑armed ships would visit, but New Zealand would remain on the margins. It was less a gesture of respect than a grudging modus vivendi — a cold handshake rather than a warm embrace.

How This Perspective Is Reflected Today

The legacy of that reluctant acceptance still surfaces. New Zealand frigates have occasionally been required to dock at civilian ports during exercises near Hawai‘i, while other allies tied up at military facilities. American politicians, from time to time, urge us to reconsider our nuclear‑free law, as if it were a temporary aberration rather than a settled national identity. Yet domestically, the ban is celebrated as part of who we are: a small Pacific nation willing to assert values even when larger allies bristled.

International and NZ Lens

This is not a U.S. insider’s account. It is a New Zealand and international perspective, one that sees our nuclear‑free stance as a contribution to global ethics. We did not set out to embarrass Washington; we set out to define ourselves. The fact that the U.S. eventually ceased to punish us is less important than the fact that we held our ground.

Closing Reflection

Seen from this angle, December 1994 was not the day America honoured our choice. It was the day America stopped punishing us for it. And in that shadow lifting, New Zealand’s nuclear‑free stance became more than a policy: it became a lighthouse beam in the Pacific, guiding our identity and reminding the world that even small nations can insist on values larger than themselves.


by 10 Comments

Migraine Diptych: Cousin Catchup Interrupted

It was meant to be a simple Tuesday lunch. A potluck for cousins on my mother’s side of the whānau — those still living in the region. These gatherings have become fewer over the years. Some cousins now live overseas, others have passed on, and age or infirmity makes it harder for some to attend.

I had every intention of being there. But one of my too‑frequent migraines intervened.

This one began with intense visual auras: jagged zig‑zag striations, details slipping away. Not blurred exactly, more like the loss of peripheral vision — fewer pixels in the scene, as if the world had downgraded its resolution. Then came the unsteadiness, the inability to judge distances. At times this has been mistaken for drunkenness.

Soon my speech faltered. I struggled to shape sounds with mouth and tongue, and the words I wanted to say would not come. I realised I was having trouble understanding what my wife was saying. I knew the words themselves, but their meaning in a sentence escaped me.

There was a vague headache, though not the intense pain many migraine sufferers describe. Unusually, I felt no nausea when I lay down. That small mercy meant I could sleep the migraine off. By early evening I woke washed out, but with my faculties restored.

My sister later sent me a photograph of those who had gathered. I recognised her immediately — her unique dress sense always makes her stand out from the crowd. I guessed another was probably one of my brothers, sunglasses perched on his almost bald blond head. The rest were unknown to me. Prosopagnosia at work.

A few years ago, I would not have dared ask who the others were. I carried a sense of shame, as if failing to recognise faces was a personal weakness. Now I see it differently. Not as failure, but as difference — and not so rare as many believe. So I felt no shame in asking my sister to identify the other attendees.

I missed the cousin catchup, but the story remains. Migraine altered the day, prosopagnosia altered the photograph, yet both are part of how I move through the world.

This reflection pairs with Migraine Diptych: The Man in the Mirror Leans Left, a companion piece exploring the surreal disorientation of migraine from inside the mirror. Read it alongside this story to see how private perception and public belonging intertwine.


by 1 Comment

Migraine Diptych: The Man in the Mirror Leans Left

There’s a man looking at me. Stooped. Leaning to his right.
I wonder — does he lean right politically as well?
I lean left. So maybe I’m leaning left physically, too?

It’s a philosophical question that physically hurts to consider.
Behind my left eye, something pulses — a dull, insistent throb that feels like it’s trying to answer for me.

In that moment, I don’t realise I’m looking into a mirror. Not consciously.
The headache and the confusion about left and right seem causally linked, as if the pain itself is a protest against the contradiction.

His left shoulder (on my right) juts upward like it’s bracing for impact.
His right eye (on my left) is nearly closed.
His mouth is twisted in a way that suggests either pain or parody.

He sways forward, then back. Side to side.
A slow‑motion pendulum.

I wonder if he’s drunk. Or had a stroke. Or both.

I try to smile. He doesn’t.
I raise an eyebrow. He remains blank.
I attempt a wink. He offers nothing.

The man in the mirror is expressionless — not in a stoic way, but in a way that makes me question whether he’s capable of expression at all.

Behind my left eye, the migraine pulses.
A thumping, insistent ache. It’s the only thing that confirms I’m still inside this body.

That, and the faint smell of toothpaste.
And the distant sound of Frankie the cat scratching at the hallway carpet.

The world has shrunk.
It consists of four beings: myself, the man in the mirror, the wife somewhere in the house, and Frankie.

That’s it.

The idea of calling someone — a doctor, a friend, anyone — doesn’t occur.
Not because I wouldn’t know how, but because the concept of outside has vanished.

The house is the world.
The mirror is a border crossing.
And the man on the other side is not me.

I turn away. Then back.
He’s still there. Leaning. Blank. Crooked.

I reach for the toothbrush — left hand trembling, right eye watering.
The tremor makes the toothpaste smear awkwardly across the bristles.
I catch a glimpse of him again.

The lean. The eye. The mouth. The migraine. The man.

And I know.

He’s me.

This vignette is part of a two‑post anthology. Its companion, Migraine Diptych:Cousin Catchup Interrupted, tells of a family gathering missed due to migraine. Together they show how migraine reshapes both inner and outer worlds.


by Leave a comment

Fluid Words, Fluid Light

Reflection: Lava Lamps and Kupu

Reading Teddy’s kōrero on Takatāpuitanga, I was struck by his description of Māori words as “vast concepts and wide ideas that flow throughout time and connect us with each other.” He reminds us that kupu are not easily translated into English, because they carry meanings that shift and expand depending on context, whakapapa, and wairua.

Glossary

Some Te Reo words in this reflection carry meanings beyond English — here’s a guide to help you follow along.

kōrero — conversation, story, or reflection shared with others.

Takatāpuitanga / Takatāpui — Māori identity embracing fluid intersections of wairua, gender, and sexuality.

wairua — spirit, essence, the unseen dimension that connects people, place, and time.

kupu — words, but also concepts carrying ancestral echoes and layered meaning.

Pākehā — often used for New Zealanders of European descent; sometimes more broadly for non‑Māori, context matters.

taonga — treasure, something cherished and of deep cultural value.

That image resonates deeply with me. I often describe my own way of thinking as a lava lamp: ideas rising and falling, glowing differently depending on the moment, merging and separating in unpredictable rhythms. Where Western thought is often portrayed as precise, with words pinned down to fixed definitions, both Teddy’s Māori worldview and my lava lamp metaphor suggest something more fluid. Concepts are not static; they drift, reshape, and reveal new patterns depending on the situation.

Though Teddy and I walk different paths — his intersectionality as Māori and Takatāpui is not mine — we share the experience of being “othered” by dominant norms: Pākehā, cisgendered, heterosexual, neurotypical. That sense of being outside the accepted frame can be painful, but it also strengthens our resolve to be true to ourselves. For Teddy, that truth is expressed in the taonga of Takatāpui identity. For me, it is expressed in embracing neurodivergent rhythms and metaphors that resist confinement.

In both cases, difference becomes a source of creativity and resilience. To live authentically is to resist being flattened into categories that don’t fit. It is to honour the fluidity of thought, language, and identity — whether through kupu that carry ancestral echoes or through lava lamps that remind us ideas are always in motion.

Perhaps that is the gift of being “othered”: we learn to see beyond rigid definitions, and in doing so, we discover ways of being that are luminous, shifting, and true.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started