Mudita - the antonym of schadenfraude

 

 

 

Recently I wrote a small blog about the word schadenfraude, the German word which means to take pleasure from the misfortune of another. I was so arrogant as to declare it the greatest word in the English language, despite it being a German word.  I still love the word schadenfraude, but I recognise that it is not an altogether pleasant human trait which it describes.  Incidentally the Germans do not have an antonym of schadenfraude: I wonder why that is?

Somewhere in recent memory I read one of those short Q&A type pieces in a magazine or on-line where a celebrity/author/musician (whatever) answers a series of questions put to them by a journalist.  Maybe half a page in length and appearing in the back pages, they seem to be the kind of thing organised by a publicist and completed via email rather in person.  The subject has time to choose their thoughts and words and usually comes out looking erudite, rationale and just plain lovely.  In other words nothing like a person in real life!

My silliness aside, there was one piece of knowledge I did pick up from this piece which stuck with me.  The celebrity/author/musician (whatever) was asked their favourite word to which they replied; mudita, a Sanskrit word which means joy and happiness at the good fortune of another person.  The precise opposite of schadenfraude.  The world is a better place for the existence mudita and I hope that we all get to experience a little more of it in 2021.

So there we are dear reader (of one when I last checked the blog stats).  A new word for you and me.  Or perhaps you knew of the existence of mudita already.  In which case I think you are a fine person indeed.

Until next time, peace and love.

What we can learn from forests

 

From the New York Times - The Social Life of Forests

In the New York Times Magazine this weekend is a beautifully presented piece on how trees communicate and more through a subterranean network called mycorrhiza. Called The Social Life of Forests the article explains this phenomena.  Not only do trees communicate signs like danger through these networks, but they also exchange nutrients with other trees over the seasons or in response to other stimuli.  The article is a fascinating read.

A lot of this information is based on the work of a scientist named Suzanne Simard.  Her early work was initially dismissed as the idea of trees forming these complex networks of co-dependence did not sit with the Darwinian view, which posited that each tree acts individually in a struggle for survival.  Simard's work is now much more accepted in her field.

As I was reading this article it reminded me of a great book I read a couple of years ago called The Overstory by Richard Powers.  One of the characters in the book shares a similar story to Simard's in being ignored at first for her findings and then lauded by later scholars.  Sure enough as I read the NYT article Powers' book is mentioned and that the character in the novel is based on Suzanne Simard.

I had just assumed the theory of subterranean networks in forests was a fictional device for Powers' novel.  So I was pleasantly surprised that in fact it was based in science and that these networks actually exist.

It also made me think a little about the great lie we are told about how competition and individualism is the natural state of humanity and the basis for human progress.  If 2020 has taught us anything it's that we absolutely rely on one another and cooperation and collaboration are key to our survival.  That is something we can also learn from forests.

Until next time, peace and love.