The wolf we feed

They say that inside all of us, we carry with us two wolves who fight each other. One represents negative things such as anger, envy, sorrow, regret, arrogance, self pity, guilt, hatred, lies, doubt and egoism, whereas the other represents positive things such as faith, hope, love, peach, humility, friendliness, empathy, generosity and truth.
And the question, which wolf will win the fight, is quite easily answered - so easily that it requires no further explanation. The wolf you feed will win.
So let this be a call to action for all of us. Let's feed our positive wolf. Make room for and nurture faith, hope, love, peach, humility, friendliness, empathy, generosity and truth.
Because all of us benefit from other people feeding their positive wolf.
And because we to our surroundings are a part of all of those, who should feed the positive wolf for other people to benefit from it.
(Translated from Den ulv, vi fodrer, originally published May 31st, 2017)

What would I do?

Some time ago, I encountered the idea that it is advantageous to be able to form a fictitious "advisory board" for oneself: a panel of advisors that one respects and would like to be able to ask for advice in case of existential doubt.
The beauty of it is that since it is a fictitious panel, which one only keeps and asks for advice in one's own mind, it is possible to pick and choose between the living and the dead, or even between real and fictional people. Grundtvig, Einstein, Newton; even Sherlock Holmes and Jesus, if so desired. The idea is that in these cases of existential doubt, one should ask the advisory panel for advice, in order to set a clear path through the doubt.
It is not dramatically different from the people who have a single person to take into consideration, as in: "What would Jesus do?" - And basically it's just a matter of that one seeks connection to the side of one's own personality that one's perception of the advisor represents - it's all just something going on in the head of the seeker of advice.
To believe that it is possible to get an answer without introspection, without first seeking deeply within oneself, is simply to deceive oneself. Basically, there is only one person on the panel - the seeking person itself.
(Translated from Hvad ville jeg selv gøre?, originally published January 29th, 2011)

Who are we?

The headline became a bit more catchy than it ought to have been - it should rather have been "Who are 'we'?", as it is a question of correct language rather than of actual identity, I want to touch upon. But the headline still reflects the almost existential doubt that caused it in the first place.
I think most people have experienced it: standing in a situation where someone presents a message to them, repeatedly using the word "we" in the flow of words.
And then the uncomfortable doubt rises: who are "we" after all?
Could it be everyone assembled?
Could it - as it is often heard in a work context - be the entire company? the entire department? the entire company and its partners? Or maybe just the person talking and the person listening? Not to mention the really uncomfortable situations where the listener has to ask herself the question "Who are 'you'?" - because the listener does not feel included in the "we" at all.
Some might find that if people can ask this type of question, it is because they do not get the big picture. But communication problems should be resolved just as must by adjustments in the speaker as by adjustments in the listener.
(Translated from Hvem er vi?, originally published February 13, 2014)