It's hard to stay on track.
First of all, you have to have a track. That's not so easy. You've got to figure out what animates you, makes your heart sing. Basically, you've got to find your soul. Having found it, you need to figure out how to create a life around it. How to spend your time. With whom to associate. How to earn a living...
BTW, I'm not saying you ought to pick a track and stick with it forever. You should always re-assess what you're all about. As Emerson famously said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Your track needn't have been foolish from inception but as times change (and as you change), it may become foolish and obsolete. So no, don't pick a path and stubbornly follow it forever. But you should always be on some path. Know who and what you are and have a plan for being that. [Similar to Gretchen Rubin's "Be Gretchen" rule.]
And then you have to stay on track. And staying on track is really hard. Much like holding reservations after you've taken them.
You see, shiny objects are going to appear as you move through life attempting to manifest your soul in all that you do. Those shiny objects can be large and very shiny such as beautiful women or men that look so delicious but are all wrong for you, financial opportunities or jobs that can be lucrative but which will take you further from your soul... Or, they can be small and just sparkle a little bit when you're at a moment of weakness. A brief opportunity to say something hurtful to someone you'd really like to hurt, a chance to not tell someone something they ought to hear but which will be difficult to say, even parking in a handicapped spot for just 2 minutes.
But you've got to ignore the shiny objects. They aren't good for you. They will destroy your life. Because your life is entirely about your soul. The rest of it is all about enabling the soul. And the problem is that the soul is not subject to apprehension by the senses while all of the other stuff looks so vivid, smells so delicious, tastes...oh man how it tastes! But those things are not real the way your soul is.
So find a way. Muster the courage to ignore the shiny object in an effort to burnish your soul.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Stick with your ends
Everybody I know that works at a large company decries the bureaucracy that inhibits progress. And yet it continues. The system has a life of its own. It wants. It needs. It is jealous. And it protects its own interests by torturing and killing anyone who threatens its continuity.
Let's remember how it all started. Someone had an idea. A way to help people and earn money for it. At some point he needed help. So he got some of his buddies to join him. They worked together. They had some success. The rented office space. They got a few phones and some chairs. They printed business cards. They had some more success. They hired a few more people. At some point, someone asked for their policy on bringing dogs to work. Someone else wanted to know whether they had a company holiday on Arbor Day. So they realized they needed policies. They created an HR department and hired Lucinda the HR lady. They hired a law firm to review their HR policies. They indeed decided to hold a company holiday on Arbor Day and they instituted the annual company 'visit the local forest and bang drums' event.
And so it went. One day, the founders woke up and realized they had a culture. They had an organization. It had rules. There were forms to fill out. In quadruplicate. Their efficiency consultant told them quadruplicate was 327% more effective than triplicate. Oh, they had an efficiency consultant.
And when they beheld what they had wrought, they realized it sucked. People were doing things not because they were the right things to do. Not because they would advance the company, generate the greatest benefit for its customers or community. Employees - oh yeah, now they were called employees - did things because that's just the way it was done around there. The system was in control. Not reason. Not passion. Not the human soul and its constant yearning to improve itself and its environment. No, the system was hegemon.
But wait, we're just a couple of buddies with a great idea. We wanted to help people and make some money doing what we love. We are thinkers. We are entrepreneurial. We're against everything that the "system" stands for!
No. You are the system.
We build these systems because they provide a benefit. It actually isn't smart not to know the right way to do something. Society would not advance if we didn't figure things out and keep improving. And yeah, we do need Lucinda the HR lady.
But these are all means. They are tools for translating our passion into success on a bigger scale. If we just want to make 10 widgets per year by hand and sell them at local craft fairs, we don't need a system. But if we want to expand, we do. The danger lies in letting the means become ends to themselves. And this is the natural way for things to develop. We must fight this. The means cannot be allowed to exert their own sense of destiny to become ends. As long as the benefits they deliver outweigh their costs, they should be allowed to survive. But we must be constantly vigilant to insure we always keep their natural lust for power in check.
Otherwise we will wake up and realize that we serve the system rather than ensuring that the system serves us.
Let's remember how it all started. Someone had an idea. A way to help people and earn money for it. At some point he needed help. So he got some of his buddies to join him. They worked together. They had some success. The rented office space. They got a few phones and some chairs. They printed business cards. They had some more success. They hired a few more people. At some point, someone asked for their policy on bringing dogs to work. Someone else wanted to know whether they had a company holiday on Arbor Day. So they realized they needed policies. They created an HR department and hired Lucinda the HR lady. They hired a law firm to review their HR policies. They indeed decided to hold a company holiday on Arbor Day and they instituted the annual company 'visit the local forest and bang drums' event.
And so it went. One day, the founders woke up and realized they had a culture. They had an organization. It had rules. There were forms to fill out. In quadruplicate. Their efficiency consultant told them quadruplicate was 327% more effective than triplicate. Oh, they had an efficiency consultant.
And when they beheld what they had wrought, they realized it sucked. People were doing things not because they were the right things to do. Not because they would advance the company, generate the greatest benefit for its customers or community. Employees - oh yeah, now they were called employees - did things because that's just the way it was done around there. The system was in control. Not reason. Not passion. Not the human soul and its constant yearning to improve itself and its environment. No, the system was hegemon.
But wait, we're just a couple of buddies with a great idea. We wanted to help people and make some money doing what we love. We are thinkers. We are entrepreneurial. We're against everything that the "system" stands for!
No. You are the system.
We build these systems because they provide a benefit. It actually isn't smart not to know the right way to do something. Society would not advance if we didn't figure things out and keep improving. And yeah, we do need Lucinda the HR lady.
But these are all means. They are tools for translating our passion into success on a bigger scale. If we just want to make 10 widgets per year by hand and sell them at local craft fairs, we don't need a system. But if we want to expand, we do. The danger lies in letting the means become ends to themselves. And this is the natural way for things to develop. We must fight this. The means cannot be allowed to exert their own sense of destiny to become ends. As long as the benefits they deliver outweigh their costs, they should be allowed to survive. But we must be constantly vigilant to insure we always keep their natural lust for power in check.
Otherwise we will wake up and realize that we serve the system rather than ensuring that the system serves us.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Where are you hiding yourself?
There are so many interesting people out there. People who don't seem like other people. Who are just themselves. I'm not talking about wacky nutjobs who look like Jesus or wear hats made of tinfoil to prevent the aliens from recording their thoughts. I'm talking about "mainstream" people who are just themselves. Who bring a twist to whatever they do that comes from within and reflects what and who they are.
And then there are so many others - most people - who seem so desperate to prove that they are not themselves. These people want to be the average of everyone else. They won't use the word "average" to describe their aspirations. They'll tell you they want to be the best. They want to win. But they behave in ways guaranteed to snuff out anything interesting or novel.
These conformists are human. They have a soul, an essence. Try as they might to cram it down deep beneath their skin, I know it is there.
Let it out people. Please. You're not helping anybody - including yourself - by filing down every interesting facet of your personality. You're just making the world dull and less capable of producing the diverse ideas that we all need to thrive.
And then there are so many others - most people - who seem so desperate to prove that they are not themselves. These people want to be the average of everyone else. They won't use the word "average" to describe their aspirations. They'll tell you they want to be the best. They want to win. But they behave in ways guaranteed to snuff out anything interesting or novel.
These conformists are human. They have a soul, an essence. Try as they might to cram it down deep beneath their skin, I know it is there.
Let it out people. Please. You're not helping anybody - including yourself - by filing down every interesting facet of your personality. You're just making the world dull and less capable of producing the diverse ideas that we all need to thrive.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Are you an 80 year old virgin?
If you've had some success in your life, you've probably built a good reputation in one or more areas and acquired for yourself some measure of influence. Influence is the ability to get other people to do things that they would not do in the absence of your actions.
This is good right?
Well, it can be. But too often I see people with influence using it to maintain the status quo. This is really nothing other than an effort to maintain the world in which their influence was grown so that it might continue to survive in the only petri dish it has ever known. This is hoarding influence rather than using it to effect positive change in the world.
But why hoard it? Why try to hold on to influence? Like any other asset, it only has value if it is used.
What are you saving yourself for? At some point you will have squandered your opportunities for improving the world. If you've already got influence, use it. It isn't going to get any better than it is right now.
In the end, you are going to be a dried up old hag. There's no avoiding that. The only question is whether you will look back with fondness on your struggles and successes as you tried to make your mark on the world or with regret at your having waited for just the right time.
Now is the right time. Don't let it pass you by. We need you!
This is good right?
Well, it can be. But too often I see people with influence using it to maintain the status quo. This is really nothing other than an effort to maintain the world in which their influence was grown so that it might continue to survive in the only petri dish it has ever known. This is hoarding influence rather than using it to effect positive change in the world.
But why hoard it? Why try to hold on to influence? Like any other asset, it only has value if it is used.
What are you saving yourself for? At some point you will have squandered your opportunities for improving the world. If you've already got influence, use it. It isn't going to get any better than it is right now.
In the end, you are going to be a dried up old hag. There's no avoiding that. The only question is whether you will look back with fondness on your struggles and successes as you tried to make your mark on the world or with regret at your having waited for just the right time.
Now is the right time. Don't let it pass you by. We need you!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Of souls and society
How does one reconcile the need for the soul to find its purest expression with the need for society to effectively function? This is perhaps the most difficult question for one who places unlimited value on the beauty and nobility of the human soul but who also admits of the need for people to assemble and march forward together.
And it is a thornier issue than some might think. This is not simply the conflict between individual and society. It is that and more. Sure, we can point to the importance for the individual of having the opportunity to self-express, an opportunity without which there might not be anything to express. But one can make a case that the needs of the soul are also the needs of society. That society cannot function without the robust and diverse development and expression of individual human souls. Much as we require biological diversity on our planet, we require the diversity of thought and behavior to help us refine our knowledge and our methods of living. John Stuart Mill expressed this same position in On Liberty:
"In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so?... Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind."
This is as true for the small adjustments we must make to move from legitimate expertise to even greater levels of accuracy and Truth as it is for the major leaps forward that require truly divergent thinking.
So if both individuals and societies need a diversity of expression of the soul, how can we insure this diversity while also respecting the more mundane needs of society?
I'm not going to offer any good answers here. I don't have any yet. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts that may prove useful.
To start with, I think it important to acknowledge that some souls are just screwed up. Whether nature created them that way or they became so by dint of a malformed nurture, some people have evil at their core. Allowing them an opportunity to explore, develop and express their souls will accord them and society no benefit. They must, somehow, be prevented from doing so. And whether we conceptualize this as a necessary infringement on the rights of the soul based on Mill's greatest liberty formula or we argue that an evil soul is really no soul at all and that its restraint is actually a nod of respect to the human soul, most reasonable people agree that the restraint of an evil soul is good.
But this is almost easy. What of souls that are not evil but which are only non-conformist? The most extreme case might be where an individual rejects formal laws on moral grounds. The American Revolution would be one such example. Socrates' behavior in Athens another. The recent Iranian demonstrations another. And so on. What behavior should we support? In this case it seems hard to me to support maintaining the formal law and looking down on an individual that follows his soul in an effort to dismantle an unjust law. On the other hand, what if he is wrong? Do we want anarchy?
A less extreme case would be where an individual, in the search for a pure expression of soul, violates not a formal legal rule but an informal social more. Say he burps at a table where such behavior is considered impolite. In this case, it seems difficult to argue that individuals should restrain themselves. Sure, a loud burp might be unpleasant, but would we really want to stifle all thought and behavior that upsets social mores and prevailing opinions?
So it seems to me that there is a continuum along which we can place the various types of situations. At one end, lie situations where the pursuit of individual aims and the expression of the soul can only damage society. This is the case of the evil person bent on wreaking havoc. At the other end lie cases where the individual cannot meaningfully damage society. In the middle lie the difficult cases. The violation of law on purportedly moral grounds. The extreme business risk in pursuit of success. And the like.
From the perspective of society, I suppose we can talk about the expected value to society of pursuing the individual expression of the soul versus blindly maintaining the prevailing system. At least here we have a grounds for comparison in the common unit of value (though in practice it may be difficult or, even, impossible to measure).
But how can we ever decide between the value of letting souls pursue their beauty and nobility and the need to maintain societal harmony?
Which brings me back to my opening question. None the wiser but considerably more tired!
And it is a thornier issue than some might think. This is not simply the conflict between individual and society. It is that and more. Sure, we can point to the importance for the individual of having the opportunity to self-express, an opportunity without which there might not be anything to express. But one can make a case that the needs of the soul are also the needs of society. That society cannot function without the robust and diverse development and expression of individual human souls. Much as we require biological diversity on our planet, we require the diversity of thought and behavior to help us refine our knowledge and our methods of living. John Stuart Mill expressed this same position in On Liberty:
"In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so?... Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind."
This is as true for the small adjustments we must make to move from legitimate expertise to even greater levels of accuracy and Truth as it is for the major leaps forward that require truly divergent thinking.
So if both individuals and societies need a diversity of expression of the soul, how can we insure this diversity while also respecting the more mundane needs of society?
I'm not going to offer any good answers here. I don't have any yet. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts that may prove useful.
To start with, I think it important to acknowledge that some souls are just screwed up. Whether nature created them that way or they became so by dint of a malformed nurture, some people have evil at their core. Allowing them an opportunity to explore, develop and express their souls will accord them and society no benefit. They must, somehow, be prevented from doing so. And whether we conceptualize this as a necessary infringement on the rights of the soul based on Mill's greatest liberty formula or we argue that an evil soul is really no soul at all and that its restraint is actually a nod of respect to the human soul, most reasonable people agree that the restraint of an evil soul is good.
But this is almost easy. What of souls that are not evil but which are only non-conformist? The most extreme case might be where an individual rejects formal laws on moral grounds. The American Revolution would be one such example. Socrates' behavior in Athens another. The recent Iranian demonstrations another. And so on. What behavior should we support? In this case it seems hard to me to support maintaining the formal law and looking down on an individual that follows his soul in an effort to dismantle an unjust law. On the other hand, what if he is wrong? Do we want anarchy?
A less extreme case would be where an individual, in the search for a pure expression of soul, violates not a formal legal rule but an informal social more. Say he burps at a table where such behavior is considered impolite. In this case, it seems difficult to argue that individuals should restrain themselves. Sure, a loud burp might be unpleasant, but would we really want to stifle all thought and behavior that upsets social mores and prevailing opinions?
So it seems to me that there is a continuum along which we can place the various types of situations. At one end, lie situations where the pursuit of individual aims and the expression of the soul can only damage society. This is the case of the evil person bent on wreaking havoc. At the other end lie cases where the individual cannot meaningfully damage society. In the middle lie the difficult cases. The violation of law on purportedly moral grounds. The extreme business risk in pursuit of success. And the like.
From the perspective of society, I suppose we can talk about the expected value to society of pursuing the individual expression of the soul versus blindly maintaining the prevailing system. At least here we have a grounds for comparison in the common unit of value (though in practice it may be difficult or, even, impossible to measure).
But how can we ever decide between the value of letting souls pursue their beauty and nobility and the need to maintain societal harmony?
Which brings me back to my opening question. None the wiser but considerably more tired!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Yeah, it's that fast
I got a message from Twitter on Sunday at 12:15AM that some entity was now following me (I'll leave the name out but it sounded like some marketing agency). Ten seconds ago (so that's almost 24 hours to the minute), I got a direct message from them with a "special offer" to their new "Twitter friends" for their internet marketing training program.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Is courage worth it?
WARNING: For this post, I am going to conflate non-conformity and courage. I recognize that they are not the same thing. But they do share certain features and I am in the mood to conflate. If you are allergic to conflation, please consult your philosophy professional before reading this post.
The question posed in the title of this post is something I have been grappling with personally and professionally for some months now. In my life I have seen ample evidence of Emerson's comment that "for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." I have felt the sting of that whip many times. And lately it has got me wondering whether it's worth it.
After my two recent posts about change (see the most recent one here), I wanted to write about courage. Specifically, I wanted to exhort and encourage my tiny readership to act with courage in their lives.
But now I'm not so sure. I wonder if it's worth it.
On the one hand, courage is so badly needed in order to produce the revolutionary change I discussed in my last post on change. Someone must have the ability and willingness to challenge the prevailing order and produce the ideas that will illuminate the future.
On the other hand, there is that whipping.
So I don't know.
But it seems to me that those who are non-conformists, who are courageous just don't have a choice. I would imagine that the soldier that jumps on a grenade does so not out of a careful consideration of the relative merits of maintaining his own life versus preserving the lives of others, but simply because he cannot help himself. The thought of not saving the lives of his comrades is just not part of the package for him.
In a much smaller way, I think about myself. I feel that my life would be so much easier if I just went along. If I thought as others did, felt what they felt and acted as they act. But then I think about that life. It feels very much akin to what Thoreau meant when he wrote that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I cannot really imagine living that life. I cannot imagine being happy without the ability to imagine a different world and attempting to bring it into existence.
What scares me about that is that I see a lifetime of whipping. It was much easier to take as a 20 year old. It's starting to hurt as a soon to be 40 year old.
The question posed in the title of this post is something I have been grappling with personally and professionally for some months now. In my life I have seen ample evidence of Emerson's comment that "for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." I have felt the sting of that whip many times. And lately it has got me wondering whether it's worth it.
After my two recent posts about change (see the most recent one here), I wanted to write about courage. Specifically, I wanted to exhort and encourage my tiny readership to act with courage in their lives.
But now I'm not so sure. I wonder if it's worth it.
On the one hand, courage is so badly needed in order to produce the revolutionary change I discussed in my last post on change. Someone must have the ability and willingness to challenge the prevailing order and produce the ideas that will illuminate the future.
On the other hand, there is that whipping.
So I don't know.
But it seems to me that those who are non-conformists, who are courageous just don't have a choice. I would imagine that the soldier that jumps on a grenade does so not out of a careful consideration of the relative merits of maintaining his own life versus preserving the lives of others, but simply because he cannot help himself. The thought of not saving the lives of his comrades is just not part of the package for him.
In a much smaller way, I think about myself. I feel that my life would be so much easier if I just went along. If I thought as others did, felt what they felt and acted as they act. But then I think about that life. It feels very much akin to what Thoreau meant when he wrote that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I cannot really imagine living that life. I cannot imagine being happy without the ability to imagine a different world and attempting to bring it into existence.
What scares me about that is that I see a lifetime of whipping. It was much easier to take as a 20 year old. It's starting to hurt as a soon to be 40 year old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)