Author: Allan Johnson

The Way We Live Matters More Than The Way We Think

Posted on by Allan Johnson in habits, Observations

It’s easy to forget that philosophy was never meant to be a spectator sport.

Long before it became something we studied, it was something people did. Philosophy began as a way of arranging a day, training attention, shaping character, and orienting oneself toward what mattered in life. It didn’t live in texts, but in habits: how one woke, walked, ate, spoke, listened, and rested.

In other words, philosophy was practical.

This has been on my mind a lot recently, perhaps unsurprisingly. I’ve just come to the end of my sabbatical and I’m now taking on responsibility for running the MA in English Literature and the MA in Creative Writing at the University of Surrey. This transition made me acutely aware of how much of our thinking is shaped not by what we claim to believe, but by what we repeatedly do.

One of the great misunderstandings of modern intellectual life is the assumption that clarity comes first, and practice follows: if only we had the right theory, the right worldview, the right explanation, then our lives would fall into place.

But lived experience tends to run the other way around.

As Pierre Hadot points out in Philosophy as a Way of Life, ancient philosophy was grounded in spiritual exercises, that is, concrete practices designed to transform perception and conduct. Stoicism wasn’t a set of ideas about fate or reason; it was a disciplined training of attention. Epicureanism wasn’t a theory of pleasure, but a daily practice of simplicity, friendship, and fear reduction. Even Plato’s dialogues, for all their abstraction, were designed to do something to the reader: to unsettle, provoke, and reorient.

Closer to our own time, thinkers as varied as Simone Weil, Iris Murdoch, and Michel de Certeau have reminded us that attention, habit, and repetition shape the moral and imaginative texture of a life long before explicit reflection enters the scene. We do not first decide what matters and then act accordingly; rather, what we attend to, rehearse, and ritualise slowly teaches us what matters.

This is why everyday rituals are philosophical, whether we acknowledge them as such or not.

By “rituals,” I don’t mean anything grand or mystical—though they can be. I mean the small, repeated actions that quietly structure our inner lives: how we begin the morning, how we transition into work, how we respond to resistance, how we close a day. These acts rarely feel important, but they are formative.

A life without intentional ritual isn’t neutral; it is simply shaped by default rituals of the world outside: algorithms, inboxes, urgency, comparison, and distraction.

During my sabbatical, this became unavoidably clear. Writing a book is less an act of inspiration than one of sustained fidelity: returning to the page when enthusiasm fades, when doubts arise, when the work resists being done. What carried me through wasn’t motivation, but a set of simple, repeatable practices and routines that made thinking possible at all. A system.

This is where much contemporary advice culture goes astray. We are encouraged to optimise outputs while leaving the deeper structure of our lives untouched. But philosophy—real philosophy—asks a more demanding question: What kind of person is this way of living making me into?

This is also why I’m increasingly wary of purely instrumental approaches to creativity. Writing, thinking, and teaching are not just tasks to be managed; they are forms of life. How we organise our time, relate to resistance, and hold ourselves in periods of uncertainty is not secondary to the work—it is the work.

Much of my recent teaching, coaching, and writing has been circling this insight from different angles: that sustainable creativity requires a different relationship to time, effort, and selfhood than the one most of us have inherited.

This integrative dimension is central to my current work, including the practices I’ll be sharing in upcoming sessions. Whether through meditation, reflective co-working, or rethinking how we organise creative labour, the aim is the same: to help people cultivate forms of attention that make meaningful work—and a more humane life—possible.

If this resonates, you might be interested in the following upcoming offerings:

Integrative Meditation
2 February | 7.30–8.30 PM GMT | £4
A guided session focused on attention, integration, and gentle inner alignment.
Register here:
https://www.meetup.com/the-art-of-creative-practice/events/312077761/

Creative Flow Co-Working Session: Reframing Resistance
9 February | 10 AM–12 PM GMT | FREE
A shared, reflective working space for engaging resistance as information rather than failure.
Register here:
https://www.meetup.com/the-art-of-creative-practice/events/312151261/

Beyond Time Management: A More Natural Way to Organise Creative Work
24 February | 7.30–9.00 PM GMT | £12
An exploration of rhythms, seasons, and structures for sustained creative practice.
Register here:
https://www.meetup.com/the-art-of-creative-practice/events/313062163/

Perhaps the most important thing philosophy can do for us now is remind us that a life is not shaped primarily by what we profess, but by what we practice. Everyday rituals—chosen with care—become a quiet form of resistance against fragmentation, haste, and superficiality.

And in a culture saturated with noise and abstraction, this return to lived, embodied wisdom may be one of the most radical gestures still available to us.

How to Carry Inner Stillness into Outer Action

Posted on by Allan Johnson in Observations
Photo by Aron Visuals on Pexels.com

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the word ‘equinamity’: what it really means, why we use it so infrequently, and how we can translate the inner stillness of equinamity into outer action.

It’s an old question, of course. The contemplative traditions are full of cautions against mistaking withdrawal for wisdom, or serenity for disengagement. And yet, in many contemporary spiritual and creative cultures, stillness is subtly framed as an end in itself, or something to be achieved, protected, even defended against the messiness of life.

My own experience suggests something more demanding, and ultimately more generous: stillness is not a place we go, but a quality we carry. Its real test is not how calm we feel on the cushion, but how we move when the world asks something of us.

Equanimity is often misunderstood as emotional neutrality or the ability to remain unruffled, untouched. But in its deeper sense (and here the Stoics, Buddhist psychology, and contemporary contemplative science quietly agree), equanimity is not about less feeling. It’s about more capacity. As William James observed in The Varieties of Religious Experience, maturity of spirit does not erase emotion; it reorganises it. Similarly, in Buddhist psychology, upekkhā (equanimity) is not indifference but balance—the ability to stay present without being commandeered by reactivity.

What matters, then, is not whether we feel disturbance, but whether disturbance determines our next move.

This distinction has felt particularly alive to me recently as I return to university teaching after a sabbatical and time away from campus to focus on my thinking and writing. Much of that time was spent working on my latest book, a project that demanded long stretches of solitude, patience, and sustained inward listening. Sabbaticals are often imagined as pauses from “real work,” but for me this one clarified something essential: inner stillness only becomes trustworthy when it is tested by responsibility.

There is a moment in many contemplative narratives that matters more than the awakening itself: the return. The Buddha leaves the Bodhi tree. Dante descends the mountain of Purgatory. The mystic goes back to the village.

For me, that return has taken the form of stepping into a new academic role at my university, taking over the MA programmes in English Literature and Creative Writing. I feel a genuine sense of excitement about this transition because it asks for a different quality of presence.

Teaching, at its best, is a relational practice. It requires attunement, adaptability, and a willingness to meet uncertainty without control. In that sense, it is one of the most honest laboratories for equanimity I know. You cannot curate the room. You cannot pre-empt every emotional current. You can only show up with clarity, boundaries, and a willingness to respond rather than react.

In my coaching and teaching work, I often encounter the fear that: If I slow down, I’ll lose momentum. If I soften, I’ll stop functioning. But stillness, when cultivated well, does not reduce effectiveness but it refines it.

Contemporary neuroscience supports this. Practices that strengthen interoceptive awareness and emotional regulation do not dampen motivation; they improve decision-making under pressure. This is where equanimity becomes practical. It shows up as:

  • the ability to pause before replying to a difficult email
  • the capacity to hold creative uncertainty without collapsing into self-judgement
  • the willingness to set boundaries without aggression or apology

These are not abstract ideals. They are trainable skills—and they matter enormously for creatives, academics, and highly sensitive people navigating complex systems.

Writers and artists, in particular, are vulnerable to confusing intensity with truth. We can mistake emotional activation for insight, urgency for necessity. Yet some of the most durable work I know emerges from a place of deep inner steadiness. Equanimity allows us to stay with the work long enough for it to become true, not just expressive.

This insight informs much of what I explore in my current writing and teaching: how attachment dynamics, attention, and inner regulation shape not only what we create, but how we live alongside our creations. Creative formation, like spiritual formation, is less about transcendence than about reliability—becoming someone who can be trusted with complexity.

If stillness is to move with us, it must be practiced in motion. This is why I’m increasingly interested in integrative approaches that bridge meditation, creative rhythm, and everyday action.

Over the coming weeks, I’m hosting a small number of workshops through The Art of Creative Practice that explore exactly this terrain:

For those seeking more sustained, individual support, my 1-1 creativity coaching spaces are currently fully booked until March. If you’d like to join the waiting list, you’re very welcome to get in touch at allan_johnson@mac.com.

Equanimity is not a spiritual personality trait. It is a practice of continuity: learning how to carry what we touch in silence into the noise of relationship, work, and responsibility.

As I step back into the classroom, into institutional life, and into new forms of creative leadership, I’m reminded that the real measure of stillness is not how protected it feels—but how generously it participates.

Stillness that cannot move will eventually calcify. But stillness that walks with us becomes wisdom.

And wisdom, as ever, is something we learn in company.

What Bookbinding Taught Me About Patience and Care

Posted on by Allan Johnson in Observations
Photo by Antoni Shkraba Studio on Pexels.com

There is something about the craft of bookbinding. It re-educates the hands, and through them, the nervous system. It returns time to its proper scale.

I’ve been thinking about this more since settling into my new flat, which—by a small but meaningful stroke of grace—includes a dedicated studio space. For the first time in years, my tools don’t need to be packed away between sessions. Paper can sit under weights overnight without being disturbed, and work can pause without being dismantled.

Already this matters more than I expected. Bookbinding, after all, resists the logic of efficiency. Adhesive must dry. Grain direction must be respected. Linen thread must be drawn tight but not too tight. You cannot rush a spine without paying for it later. The work teaches you—firmly but kindly—that attention cannot be compressed.

Simone Weil famously wrote that “attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” Bookbinding operationalises this insight. You can’t bind a book while thinking three steps ahead. If your attention wanders while folding signatures, the error will propagate. If you rush the punching of sewing stations, the whole text block will pull askew. You can’t persuade paper fibres to behave differently through force of will; you must cooperate with them.

In this sense, bookbinding has become a counter-practice to much of contemporary creative life. Online, speed is rewarded. Visibility is currency. Iteration is encouraged, but only when it looks like momentum. The slowness of binding—a practice that may take days or weeks before anything finished appears—feels almost monastic by comparison.

And yet, paradoxically, it has made me more productive, not less.

One of the biggest misconceptions about patience is that it means waiting. In practice, patience is active–it’s a verb (metaphorically at least) because you are always doing something: sharpening a blade, squaring a stack, testing tension, laying out the next stage so it will be ready when the moment comes.

This mirrors something I see repeatedly in coaching work, particularly with highly sensitive or intellectually driven creatives. There is often an underlying anxiety that if one is not producing, one is stagnating. But many forms of growth happen beneath the threshold of visible output.

Since moving into the new flat and setting up the studio, I’ve noticed a subtle shift in how I approach my other work—writing, teaching, contemplative practice. I’m more willing to let something rest unfinished.

There is also, I think, an ethical dimension to working with materials in this way. Richard Sennett, in The Craftsman, describes craftsmanship as a dialogue between hand and material, where resistance becomes instructive rather than frustrating. This is not mastery-as-domination, but mastery-as-listening.

In bookbinding, materials remember what you do to them. Paper creased carelessly will never quite forgive you. Cloth stretched unevenly will telegraph the mistake forever. This permanence sharpens responsibility. You learn to slow down not because slowness is virtuous, but because it is necessary.

This has felt especially grounding during a period of personal transition. A new home, even a welcome one, requires recalibration. New light patterns. New noises. New routines. The studio has become a place where that recalibration can happen somatically, not just cognitively. Through repeated, careful gestures, the body relearns safety.

It’s hard not to notice the symbolic resonance here. Books are already threshold objects—containers of thought, memory, and voice. Binding them by hand heightens this awareness. You become acutely conscious of the labour that precedes reading, of the infrastructure that makes inwardness portable.

All of this feeds into a broader theme that’s been shaping my work lately: the power of small, well-held experiments. Not performative reinventions, but modest shifts in practice that reorient attention.

Perhaps the deepest lesson bookbinding has taught me is that care compounds. What feels like slowness at the outset becomes reliability later. Structures hold. Work lasts. You spend less time repairing what was rushed.

This is true of creative practice, of relationships, of inner life. Patience is not something we adopt once and for all; it is something we rehearse through forms that demand it of us.

For now, I’m grateful for a studio that allows this rehearsal to continue—quietly, materially, without display. And I’m grateful, too, for the conversations that extend from it: in workshops, in coaching, in shared spaces of attention.

Upcoming Events

Integrative Meditation

  • 19 January | 7.30-8.30 PM GMT | £4

Creative Flow Co-Working Session: The Power of Tiny Experiments

Highly Sensitive Creatives: Energy, Boundaries, and Creative Rhythm

More to Explore

Four Dimensions of Stillness for Creatives

Posted on by Allan Johnson in Observations

Living in a city like London trains the nervous system in a particular way. Even when we love urban life—its density, its cultural richness, its chance encounters—it asks us to metabolise a constant low-level stimulation: noise, movement, decision-making, comparison.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been thinking about this more deliberately. I’ve recently moved into a flat in a beautiful 1920s building. It’s filled with heaps of character, and I know that I’ll be very happy here, but it’s also a significant change.I’ve spent the past decade living in new-build flats, the kind with sleek appliances, underfloor heating, and a comforting sameness to all the others. But my new flat, even before my furniture was moved in and the boxes filled every spare corner, was noticeably maximalist: crown moulding, dado rails, radiators, and, perhaps most notably, the constant sounds of neighbours on all sides.

This move has coincided with a renewed reflection on minimalism as a practice of attention, that is less about owning fewer objects (though that can help), and more about creating pockets of stillness within environments that are, by default, overstimulating.

Minimalism has been thoroughly Instagrammed. White walls, pale wood, a single ceramic cup placed just so. There is nothing wrong with this, but it risks missing the deeper point. And my old flat was certainly minimalist in the aesthetic sense.

Writers like Cal Newport in Digital Minimalism and Jenny Odell in How to Do Nothing have both argued, in different ways, that minimalism is not about subtraction for its own sake, but about protecting what matters in a culture designed to fragment attention. Similarly, the Japanese concept of ma—often translated as ‘negative space’—suggests that meaning arises not from what is present alone, but from the intervals of emptiness around it that give it shape.

Big cities are where this discernment is most tested. Urban life rewards responsiveness: quick replies, constant availability, social agility. For many creatives and sensitive thinkers, this can become exhausting. We learn to override subtle signals—fatigue, saturation, the need for withdrawal—because the environment rarely validates them.

Over the years—through my own practice, teaching, and coaching—I’ve noticed that these pockets of stillness tend to form around four dimensions:

  • Spatial stillness: a chair by a window, a desk cleared of visual noise, a room that signals ‘nothing is required of you here.’
  • Temporal stillness: protected times in the week that are not optimised, monetised, or rushed.
  • Relational stillness: fewer, deeper conversations; rhythms of contact that don’t require constant performance.
  • Inner stillness: practices that allow attention to settle without forcing it: meditation, journalling, slow reading.

One theme that runs through my recent work is the idea that many creatives are finely tuned. They notice more. They process more. They feel more. Without the right structures, this depth becomes a liability. This is why I resist advice that tells people simply to “push through” or “build resilience.” Resilience matters, but so do the structures of support and nurturance around you.

A few practical reflections that may be useful:

  • Reduce friction at points of transition. The moments between activities are where overstimulation accumulates. Even five minutes of pause between tasks can change the tone of a day.
  • Let one room be functionally “unproductive.” A space that is not for work, storage, or optimisation becomes a psychological refuge.
  • Limit inputs before increasing outputs. Reading less, scrolling less, listening less can paradoxically make creative work richer.
  • Choose rhythms over goals. A daily walk, a weekly reflective session, a regular co-working rhythm—these stabilise attention over time.

None of this requires perfection. It requires kindness toward your own nervous system.

If this resonates, there are several ways to explore these ideas in a supported, communal way over the coming weeks.

For those wanting more personalised support, I also offer 1-1 coaching, focused on helping creatives and thinkers build sustainable structures for meaningful work and life. You’re welcome to book a free 15-minute clarity call here: https://allanjohnson.co.uk/coaching/

Pockets of stillness don’t remove us from life; they allow us to participate more fully, with less quiet self-erasure. In a culture that rewards constant motion, stillness becomes a form of discernment. And discernment, I increasingly believe, is one of the most important creative capacities we have.

More to Explore

Fifteen Minutes a Day in 2026: Reading for Breadth and Lifelong Learning

Posted on by Allan Johnson in Observations

In 2026, I’ll be undertaking a deliberately anachronistic experiment.

Each day for the coming year, I’ll be reading for around fifteen minutes from the so-called ‘Five-Foot Shelf’, the early twentieth-century Harvard Classics series assembled by Charles W. Eliot and promoted as a complete liberal education for the working adult. I’ll be following Eliot’s original prescription closely: not bingeing, not accelerating, not ‘optimising’, but reading at the pace he proposed, in the order he set out, according to the widely circulated ‘fifteen minutes a day’ schedule that accompanied the series.

What interests me is not whether Eliot’s claim still holds in any literal sense, but what happens when such a rhythm is taken seriously now, by someone already saturated in reading, already professionally formed, and already deeply aware of the limits of any canon.

Because I read constantly for my day job.

As an English literature professor, reading in depth is not optional; it is the ground of the work. I read intensively, repeatedly, and often narrowly. I return to the same texts across years and decades. I read them historically, theoretically, critically. I annotate, teach, publish, and argue with them. Some of the works on the Five-Foot Shelf fall squarely into this category: texts I’ve read many times, taught in multiple contexts, or written about in peer-reviewed research.

Others, however, are unfamiliar, sometimes embarrassingly so. Texts I’ve skimmed but never lived with, heard cited but never read end-to-end, or vaguely assumed I would ‘get to’ one day. Encountering these side by side, under the same modest daily constraint, is part of the experiment.

It’s probably worth saying, explicitly, that this project is not an attempt to resurrect a Great Books curriculum or to smuggle the ‘canon’ back in through the side door. I am well aware of the canon wars, and sympathetic to many of the critiques: the exclusions they exposed were real, consequential, and long overdue. The idea that a single, authoritative list of texts could stand in for ‘universal’ culture is no longer tenable, and nor should it be.

What interests me, then, is not the Five-Foot Shelf as a claim to authority, but as a historical artefact and a formative device. It is a record of how liberal education was once imagined, packaged, and sold to hard-working, well-meaning people for whom formal education was not a practical reality. Reading it now allows us to ask not ‘Is this the canon and is it good or right?’ but ‘What did this structure think reading was for?’ What habits of mind did it privilege? What kinds of judgment did it aim to produce?

There is also value—both intellectual and ethical—in encountering texts that do not immediately affirm our assumptions or reflect our intellectual formation. Not because they are beyond critique, but because critique itself is deepened by sustained engagement rather than dismissal at first contact. The fifteen-minutes-a-day format matters here. It resists both reverence and rejection, asking instead for patience, repetition, and the willingness to let one’s responses evolve over time.

In that sense, the project is as much about format as it is about content. A fixed sequence, a modest daily commitment, and a year-long horizon create conditions that are increasingly rare in contemporary reading life. What emerges under those conditions—agreement, resistance, boredom, insight, irritation—tells us something not only about the texts, but about ourselves as adult readers navigating a fractured, accelerated intellectual landscape.

This project is about breadth, deliberately undertaken alongside a professional life structured around depth.

In contemporary intellectual culture, depth is rightly prized. It is associated with rigour, expertise, and responsibility. Breadth, by contrast, is often treated with suspicion: dilettantism, surface knowledge, or the scattered attention of the generalist.

Liberal education, as it was originally imagined, did not ask readers to choose between breadth and depth. It assumed that serious engagement required both: immersion in particular problems and exposure to forms of thought beyond one’s immediate specialism. Breadth was not a substitute for depth; it was a condition for judgment.

The Five-Foot Shelf was an attempt—flawed, exclusionary, ambitious, and yet sincere—to provide such breadth to adults who were already working, already formed, already busy. Its claim was not that fifteen minutes a day would make one an expert, but that it could sustain a relationship with the wider inheritance of thought, language, and ethical imagination.

Depth sharpens tools. Breadth calibrates them.

Depth teaches us how to see clearly within a frame. Breadth reminds us that frames exist.

As someone whose professional life is structured around long reading days, sustained writing periods, and deep immersion, this constraint feels oddly corrective. It returns reading to a scale that is neither performative nor instrumental.

What matters is not how much ground is covered, but the continuity of attention. This is one of the lessons adulthood keeps teaching us: formation happens not through intensity alone, but through return.

One of the persistent myths of academic life is that learning culminates in mastery. That once one has specialised, published, and secured a position, one’s relationship to knowledge stabilises.

In practice, the opposite is often true. Expertise narrows responsibility. It brings obligations: to texts, methods, and debates that demand constant upkeep. Over time, this can subtly crowd out curiosity—the kind not immediately justified by relevance or outcome.

Some of the most important intellectual experiences of adulthood occur not when we deepen what we already know, but when we allow ourselves to become beginners again, within a structure that does not require us to justify that choice.

This is lifelong learning in its older, less marketable sense: not continuous upskilling, but sustained openness. I am an academic, and I will always read for work. But I also read for pleasure, understanding, and character development. The distinction matters.

One of the things institutions once did—however imperfectly—was structure intellectual aspiration. They told us what counted, what came next, and what completion looked like. As those structures loosen or disappear, the burden of decision shifts inward.

What do I want to know?
What deserves my attention now?
What kind of reader—and thinker—am I still becoming?

The Five-Foot Shelf functions here not as an authority, but as a scaffold. It provides a sequence that frees me from constant choice, while still leaving me responsible for the meaning I make of it.

This is why setting personal educational goals matters so much in adulthood. Without them, learning becomes reactive, fragmented, or indefinitely deferred. With them, even modest commitments—like fifteen minutes a day—can accumulate surprising force.

An Invitation

If this project speaks to you, it’s likely because you’re someone who thinks carefully about how ideas, attention, and intention interact. You may have more ideas than hours, more commitments than containers, and a sense that what’s missing is not motivation but shape.

That is exactly what Reflect & Reset: Quarterly Planning Workshop (R&R Q1) is designed to provide.

This 90-minute online workshop, taking place on Monday 5 January 2026 (7:30–9:00pm GMT), offers a structured, spacious way to step back from the rush of the new year and decide—deliberately—what the next three months are for. It’s for creatives, thinkers, and reflective practitioners who value depth, but know that depth needs rhythm if it’s going to survive contact with real life.

During the session, I’ll guide you through my Reflect & Reset Map system: an evidence-based framework that combines reflection, prioritisation, and light structure. Together, we’ll clarify what genuinely matters to you in January, February, and March, translate that into a small number of meaningful commitments, and shape a plan that respects both your inner life and your outer responsibilities.

If you’re starting 2026 with questions about focus, learning, creative work, or how to hold serious intentions without burning out, this workshop is an ideal place to begin. Bring your journal and your favourite hot drink. I look forward to seeing you there!