Enlightened Conflict

echoes of all the footsteps

May 21st, 2013

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: At the time, no one knew what was coming.” ― Haruki Murakami

Well.

Looking back is a timeless tradition in second guessing and seeking blame … okay … okay … as well as even some forward thinking.

But the opening quote is a humdinger of a Life truth … at that time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can plan incessantly … and smartly <and the plans can work perfectly … or go awry>.

You can make it up as you go <and it works perfectly … or all goes wrong>.

But in general … you are guessing.

Sure.

You can make an educated guess … and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do … but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way.”

They did not know.

They guessed <and possibly guessed well>.

Here is a ponderable factoid.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’ <Hank Kissinger … Hank to me>

Analogy is … well … not a blueprint of what will be. People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come. They are often sorely proven wrong. And, in fact, those proven right have the benefit of going backwards and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best> to prove why they were right.

Hmmmm … once again. A reminder. “No one knew what was coming.” <corollary?: sure is easier to know what came>

Regardless <here is the entire thought from Hank>.

History teaches by analogy, not identity.

This means that the lessons of history are never automatic, that they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

No profound conclusions were drawn in the natural sciences before the significance of sensory experience was admitted by what was essentially a moral act.

No significant conclusions are possible … without an awareness of the historical context.

For societies exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a state is but a collection of individuals, as positivist scholars have never wearied of pointing out.

But it achieves identity through the consciousness of a common history. This is the only “experience” nations have, their only possibility of learning from themselves.

History is the memory of states.

To be sure, states tend to be forgetful.

It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it. For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations. – Henry Kissinger

What a powerful thought.

… teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Once again … cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

I love it.

So often we suggest ‘this has happened before’ and … well … yeah … kind of. Close. But close only counts with hand grenades <and horse shoes>. Ultimately you are simply assessing the echoes of history.

You may listen to the echoes of history … but until they walk in to your life … you will not truly recognize who and what they are.

“I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.” - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Studying history is just like Dickens says.

You are inevitably sitting alone listening … listening to the echoes of the footsteps of those who have walked before and envisioning, from those echoes, who may be coming into your life.

That is it. No more. No less.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future. To better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can … and most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future … trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made.

The intent is good … and true.

However.

We should never confuse honest good intent … with ‘what is right’ or even worse ‘what will be.’

The echoes of footsteps are context. But they are simply echoes.

And as for the future?

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’

Oh.

And at each point in time … no one knew what was coming.

A Life truth for all to remember.

the strongest bridge

May 20th, 2013

So.

hope bridge by michael underwood

Several of my friends give me crap because of some of the obscure things I have stored away in my pea like brain <because I tend to read random obscure things and store it all away>. Therefore they ask me random obscure questions to see what I have stored away.

The random question this time?

What is the strongest bridge in the world?

My random answer?

Hope.

Hope is the strongest bridge in the world.

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” - Winston Churchill

Well.

It was a flippant response on my part … but it kind of made everyone at the table sit back and hesitate … because it is one of those rare insightful non-smartass flippant responses.

Ok. First.

To be clear.

I am not a psychologist <nor psychiatrist … I get them mixed up> nor am I a behavioral scientist <possible a mad scientist though … a childhood goal>. I say that because I may just not know jackshit. But here’s what I think.

Lots of discussions about the strongest motivators/demotivators on human behavior seem to revolve around fear, love, self esteem, hate , etc. <Maslow created that excellent chart which I have used so often and adhere to> … however … I tend to believe that all these experts overlook hope.

Research digs deep down into the moments of minutiae with regard to why we do the things we do.

Heck.

That is how the best companies in the world attempt to derive strategies to make their companies <and products & services> a success in people’s heads, hearts & wallets.

In my own pea–like brain something shadows each response found in research … hope.

“The present is the ever moving shadow that divides yesterday from tomorrow. In that lies hope.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

I imagine it is so often overlooked as something impactful or something we should pay attention to because it is stealthily present in everything. Yup. Everything. Attitudes & behaviors. Thoughts & actions. And because of its omnipresence it gets overlooked as “non differentiator.”

Silly thinking.

Because it is everything.

It is what someone called “the well of self” which can permit you to begin again … and again.

“Hope arouses, as nothing else can arouse, a passion for the possible.” – William Sloane Coffin

Everyone wants to be aroused by the possible.

And I am not even talking about this in the grandiose abstract <dreams and such> but even in the drivel of the day.

A grocery shopper has the simple hope that everything will be found as quickly as possible.

A coffee drinker hopes that the first sip is everything they expected <and desired>.

A father hopes his daughter has a good day at school.

You get it.

Hope isn’t often the really big things … it is in the gazillion little things that happen in everyday life as well as the big “I want a better life” type things.

And maybe that is why I flippantly suggested it is the strongest bridge in the world.

It is strong enough to span generations of years.

Strong enough to span yesterday to tomorrow.

Strong enough to span the micro-second subconscious thought.

So. I say all that maybe to suggest that losing hope deprives someone of an essential structure in Life. The bridge to … well … make it in Life.

To be able to get from here to there.

Now. That said.

I do believe more of those who actually have hope to share … should share it <pragmatically> with those who struggle to reach that bridge.

Yes.

I do believe professionally I am a ‘dealer of hope.’

Yes.

I do believe all forms of hope, realistic and unrealistic, are better than no hope at all.

Yes.

I do believe the moment you have lost sight of how to see, or reach out and touch, hope you have entered some version of Hell.

Sure. Life offers a multitude of disappointments. Life is not easy. But I fear it becomes unliveable without hope because then disappointment becomes infinite in a finite Life.

That, my friends, sounds overwhelming distressing even as I type it.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

John Lennon suggested people like me … believers in hope … are dreamers.

Well.

Maybe.

But Martin Luther King also said this …

“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to …”

In a way … a secure livable world lies with those dreamers. We disciplined nonconformists. Or maybe more pragmatically … bridge builders.

The resilience of Hope lies in we happy few … we happy disciplined nonconformists … we happy believers in hope despite what appears to be an infinite disappointment.

We happy few who have bridges to share.

We happy few who constantly drink from the well of self and … well … know how to begin again.

So, yes, the strongest bridge in the world is Hope.

let the clocks stop

April 6th, 2013

April is national poetry month. The concept of a month for poetry seems almost silly to me.

Well. I would imagine it would be silly to Plath, Browning, Longfellow and maybe even Frost.

Poetry is not a month. It is of a moment.

Time is, and always has been, the judge of poetry.

Time will sift the good stuff from the bad. Time will sift so you & I don’t have to.

You have to believe this … because in the here and now?

Writing poetry guarantees a poet one thing in Life … death by neglect.

But I believe poets write to insure feelings do not get neglected. They do one thing in Life … keep feelings alive.

Maybe better said … bring moments in Life alive.

Moments that only exist in the intangible … what you feel.

“The poet begins where the man ends.

The man’s lot is to live his human life,

the poet’s to invent what is nonexistent.” ― José Ortega y Gasset

Wystan Hugh Auden <W.H. Auden> pointed out that poetry is a way of happening.

Poetry brings out the moment within the Life moments.

But it is when I think of Auden I always remember the words … stop all the clocks … <most people will remember it from 4 Weddings & a Funeral>.

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public
doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

—–

note: Like many of Auden’s works it is most recognized by the first line “Stop All the Clocks”. It is actually called “Funeral Blues” and is the first poem in a duo titled “Two Songs for Hedli Anderson. It was first published in its final, familiar form in 1938, but based on an earlier version published in 1936.

Well.

I imagine writing poetry is not for the faint of heart or the thin of skin.

But I also imagine that a true poet seeks not a month for recognizing poetry but rather seeks to share a moment that makes someone feel something … if but for a moment.

I write <bad amateurish> poetry.

Regardless … I, just as any poet , amateur or published, probably hopes that some words we dare to put on paper stops all the clocks if but for a moment.

wisdom

March 18th, 2013

The word wisdom is such a lofty word.

It is such a broad term. It embraces a rare combination of discretion, maturity, keenness of intellect, broad experience, extensive earning, profound thought and compassionate understanding. It outranks all synonyms. And in its fullest most robust sense it is noble in its morality as well as intellect.

And, yet, wisdom is attainable to any and all. Higher educated people do not have the corner on the wisdom market.

Why?

Because at its core wisdom is about simplicity. Stripping away the theoretical mumbo jumbo and all the high falutin’ philosophical meanderings some people get all trapped up in.

“Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop than when we soar.” – William Wordsworth

Wisdom is actually more about the ability to discern what is important from what is unimportant … and making a decision, or conclusion or judgment, based on that which is the simplest and most important.

Does that mean everyone is wise? Nope.

Does that mean anyone is capable of making a wise decision? Yup.

I tend to believe the wisest among us are the happy few who understand ‘it is what it is’ and nothing more … nor anything less. That truth doesn’t reside in the wretched hollow of guessed intentions or ‘what ifs’ but rather in things as they are.

“More wisdom is latent in things as they are … than in all the words men use.” – Antoine De Saint-Exupery

Look.

I am not suggesting making wise decisions is easy and that everyone is good at making them. Nor am I suggesting wise, or wisdom, shouldn’t be a compliment to the few who deserve it.

Having the ability to understand situations … anticipate consequences … and make sound decisions is a great and honorable <and enviable> aptitude.

But wise isn’t all about fancy words or lofty philosophical platitudes.

Wise is often stooping to simplicity rather than stretching for the complex.

Wise is often simply in what is … not in what it could be.

Wise is often in the guy schlepping in the mail room.

Wise is often in the mother who insures her kids get a square meal every day.

Wise people, and wisdom, is often found in the neighborhood park rather than at some podium or in some talking head on TV.

I say this because we all have it within us … we often know what is right … and the best … and we don’t need some supposedly wise people spewing forth supposed wisdom to tell us what to do and what to think.

We all have wisdom. And we would be wise to ponder that.

morons

March 16th, 2013

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” - Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>

Ok.

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept …but let’s face it … most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept … or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone … and not only can they not grasp it but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of <1> facts, <2> truth, or maybe even <3> common sense.

In fact … during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end … sometimes we succeed … mostly we fail … and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First. Just to set the groundwork … most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90.

Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit.

The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second. I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency … but not a mental one.

Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

The deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most have IQs at or above 90 .

Let me take it one step further. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent.

Because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it.

Either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup. Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said … it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason … a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but they somewhere within they understand> … they are intelligent enough to understand … and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ … they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

Very very dangerous.

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.” – Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>.

I fully understand that this fanaticism and ignorance is impossible to extinguish. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance is an acceptance of the morons.

And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm.

Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress … harm in marching us backwards.

Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads … ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man>.

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge.

This is tiring to deal with.

In fact … if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>.

And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right … and wrong is wrong … and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

And here is where morons really thrive.

Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid.

Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it.

One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting … they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything.

I say that because it seems like we find comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’.

All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic. A random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique. How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic … but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons … first is a well intentioned but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. Secondly … ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion … therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>.

And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought … that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

Morons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them … you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs … because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you. What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless. I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But. In the end … morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job. But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron.

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.” – William James

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

It really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

The difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

marginalia and raucous conversations

March 6th, 2013

“Reading a book should not be a passive exercise, but rather a raucous conversation.” - Studs Terkel, Pulitzer Prize author, historian, actor, and broadcaster, was known to admonish friends who would read his books but leave them free of markings.

Marginalia is the study of things scribbled in margins of books.

Well.

I am a book margin scribbler myself <although I doubt my scribbled-in books will make anyone any money someday>.

I call them marks of affection. Indicators of my relationship with the words I found within. Sometimes they are notes of inspiration … for new thoughts, ideas, things I will write in the future, things I may speak in the future … or simply admiration for wording.

My margins are a reflection of the immediate me. am I scarring a book or simply etching my appreciation for a stunning glimpse of clarity?

My To Kill a Mockingbird <albeit not my 1^st edition copy> tends to highlight Scout’s wisdom.

The Eight by Katherine Neville <a 1^st edition I have read and reread> is strewn with notes regarding history and thoughts.

And many many other nondescript books which may have had only one truly memorable literary moment <most published books have at least one incredibly well crafted thought>.

Oh.

I also admit I love collecting older books with notes in the margins thumbing through dusty yellow paged books in random corners of used bookstores seeking scribbled margins.

I think the notes represent a book within a book.

A glimpse into what some stranger sees or feels.

I believe how I feel about marginalia puts me in a minority. Scribbling in margins just seems like something polite readers do not do.

A guy named Paul F. Gehl blames generations of librarians and teachers for “inflicting us with the idea” that writing in books makes them “spoiled or damaged.”

I agree.

And I would add in my parents and all the other adults around me.

Marginalia was more common in the 1800s.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a prolific margin writer, as were William Blake and Charles Darwin.

“In getting my books I have always been solicitous of an ample margin; this is not so much through any love of the thing in itself, however agreeable, as for the facility it affords me of penciling in suggested thoughts, agreements, and differences of opinion, or brief critical comments in general.” – Edgar Allan Poe

I imagine it is a certain type of reader who might be inclined to underlining, noting things or even scribbling notes & comments in the margin.

Speaking as one myself I know I am giving a book my complete attention as i hover over the pages with a pencil nearby when words inspire me to do so. I also believe it is a commitment to return. To regather those comments and thoughts another day.

“… quite simply, a human being who has a pencil in his or her hand when reading a book.” – George Steiner <defining an intellectual>

So.

I am not an intellectual … but I do tend to read with a pencil nearby, scribble notes or circle phrases or turn down the corner of pages if I find something I want to reread.

All of those things I just stated about the margins of books?

Uh oh.

I hear a chorus of librarians <and my mother and sister> groaning about the sanctity of the book.

But I have Mark Twain, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Coleridge and Studs Terkel on my side.

All were proponents of this nefarious deed.

Mark Twain left a comment about “Huckleberry Finn,” in his copy of “The Pen and the Book” by Walter Besant.

The book, about making a profit in publishing, scarcely qualifies as a literary masterpiece. It is highly valuable, instead, because Mark Twain penciled, among other observations, a one-way argument with the author, Walter Besant, that “nothing could be stupider” than using advertising to sell books as if they were “essential goods” like “salt” or “tobacco.” On another page, Twain made some snide remarks about the big sums being paid to another author of his era, Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science.

Twain was engaging in marginalia.

And despite the fact the only thing I share with Twain is having a mustache … I also engage in marginalia.

Look.

Despite the fact everyone will be skewering me for marking up books … marginalia has a rich literary history <sometimes regarded as literary archaeology as I try and explain my modern graffiti in the classics>.

Part of the history?

Some examples, like Fermat’s Last Theorem, are of the most desperate importance.

Others, like an early medieval monk writing ‘My hand is so cold I can hardly hold the quill’, are utterly unimportant but immediate.

In some cases, there is art work – Nabokov sketching a beetle in his copy of Metamorphis.

In other cases, there is an absence of anything intelligible: Churchill’s poignant red crayon marks on German decrypts detailing their murdering ways on the Eastern Front.

There is stupid marginalia: a student copy of Wilfred Owen’s collected poems where the word ‘futile’ had been written in big block capitals next to that poet’s Futility.

There is irrelevant marginalia by important people: Lincoln’s attempts to learn legal Latin in his law books.

Then there is important marginalia by irrelevant people. The first evidence of Hamlet being performed in a Chaucer belonging to one Gabriel Harvey: ‘The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece, and his Hamlet Prince of Denmark have it in them to please the wiser sort’.

There is stolen marginalia – the ‘precious’ early Welsh stanzas from the Juvencus manuscript were cut from their place and hoarded away by a scholar.

There is posthumous marginalia – medieval glosses copied out as a text in manuscripts where we’ve lost the original margins: for example, the Greek words taught to Anglo-Saxon students in the seventh-century by Theodore of Canterbury.

There is even – in homage to Invisible Libraries – Invisible Marginalia: in Wuthering Heights, for example, there is a reference to Catherine’s pen portrayal of Joseph in a margin of a book.

There is even’ notes to friends’ marginalia: Coleridge in a borrowed book of Charles Lamb: ‘I will not be long here, Charles!—& gone, you will not mind my having spoiled a book in order to leave a Relic.’

But.

As I noted earlier … sometimes when you read you are inspired by how something is articulated.

Therefore Marginalia can reflect history … as in the fact one book can create a source of inspiration <for another book>.

Like this.

A copy of Thoreau’s “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers” <which had been borrowed by Jack Kerouac from a local library in 1949 and never to be returned> has on page 227 a short sentence Kerouac had underlined in pencil with a “small, neat check mark beside it.”

The sentence: “The traveler must be born again on the road.”

Anyway.

I found a relatively bad overall poem about marginalia which has a couple of very good stanzas:

From Billy Collins’ poem ‘Marginalia’:

Sometimes the notes are ferocious,
skirmishes against the author
raging along the borders of every page
in tiny black script.

We have all seized the white perimeter as our own
and reached for a pen if only to show
we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages;
we pressed a thought into the wayside,
planted an impression along the verge.

Well … I have always been a book giver … but maybe I should become a book lender … and encourage people to write in the margins when inspired. Mostly because I am relatively sure I have never had a bad discussion when discussing a book … even a raucous discussion.

Am I speaking heresy <to the sanctity of published literature>?

Aw. Who knows.

To me?

We should all at some point “seize the white perimeter as our own.”

Read.

Make notes.

Think.

Make more notes.

Books are made to create a raucous conversation … whether it be with others … or in your own head.

impatience and choices

March 5th, 2013

“Impatience kills quickly.” – Katerina Stoykova Klemer

“Mental clarity ain’t for the faint of heart.”- Katerina Stoykova Klemer

Well.

I believe we could all become more adept at making choices. Because, if anything, we seem to have become worse at making thoughtful choices. Heck. Maybe even ANY choices.

Now.

I am all for, and a huge proponent of not dicking around <the technical term for ‘wasting time overthinking’> when a choice needs to be made.

But there is a difference between making speedy decisions and making a decision because speed is the main criteria.

Of course … this is festina lente.

Make haste slowly.

And it is becoming more important to think this way because the fear of choices … leading to making the most obvious or most popular or the most expedient <speediest> … is plaguing not only our personal lives but more importantly the business world.

Fortunately there are scientists at work trying to figure out why.

In the meantime Psychologist Barry Schwartz has put forward an interesting (and slightly disturbing) theory about choices and happiness.

“The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.” – Barry Schwartz

Mr. Schwartz calls it the paradox of choice.

It seems the more choices we have, the less likely we are to make a decision, which ultimately makes us unhappy. Schwartz suggests that choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed and, ultimately, not happier but more dissatisfied.

Barry Schwartz studies the link between economics and psychology.

I found it interesting because he actually suggests <kind of> that having more options doesn’t increase our overall satisfaction <benefit + happiness>.

Here is his talk on Ted:

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

Making choices … having the mental clarity to do so in a typically impatient world is made more difficult by the fact many of us begin by thinking of regret. Yup. The fear of choosing one thing before you even choose the other. All of this being tempered by the “now factor” .

I call this the internalization of opportunities/costs/loss. Or maybe it is simply dwelling on the benefits of the next best options that have been forgone by a choice <losing something, albeit even speculatively, that you never had>.

Every choice has opportunity costs.

And since we live in a world of infinite possibilities, it’s so hard to figure out what to do, when, and where.

If you start thinking this way … well … you begin living in a world strewn with hypotheticals.

If I do A, then this will happen.

But what if I do B?

Will I be happier? Will I get back more? Will everyone around me be more satisfied?

Or what about C? That looks good.

But someone suggested D.

You get it. There are 26 letters in the alphabet and while most of us stop way before Z … even getting to D can be maddening.

It seems like the world is your oyster … everything is possible … but you don’t take advantage of any opportunities because you’re not sure of what’s best.

To make matters worse, more choices tend to raise our expectations: we think more choice = better quality.

Anyway.

I use scientific advice to suggest that there are some happy few people who look at each choice discreetly. More choices do not equal better quality to them. They do not need the ‘more’ they simply need the context. These people drive us crazy because they do not typically offer us choices <we may like ‘more’ but they offer ‘less’> but rather they offer us ‘the’ choice.

And it is often a good choice.

The best? Shit. Is there really a best? There are most often better choices than others … and they identify the better of the better.

This is typically where we end up screwing up the value of these people. Because we want ‘more choice’ and they want ‘right choice’ <and move along>.

We are impatient humans … yet we always want more … and we seem to always want it all in less time.

It is an ongoing daily struggle.

Let’s get personal first. Daily Life.

This is about how most of us are not good at assessing ROC <return on choice> the return on whatever we have invested in making the choice as well as once the choice is made.

We suck at this.

There is the investment in developing the choices <and however many we need to feel like we have enough to assess … assuming that is a finite number>.

There is the investment in actually assessing the choices <better, betterest & best … assuming a best can be actually identified>.

There is the investment in the actual choice.

Oh.

And there is investment post-choice. Yup. Even if we choose the rightest choice we either have angst over whether it was the best or we have angst hangover from the choice process.

Ok.

Let’s go business next.

I call this the paradox of organizational choice.

The end result is the same as Schwartz’s <too many choices creates diminished value>. But the path to the result is different <if not just as paradoxical>.

Here is that paradoxical business organization logic path.

Faster good choices are better.

Few good “choicers” <people who can do the first thought> available.

Many within organization believes they are good ‘choicers’ <and permitting them to make choices has a paradox effect of building their personal self-esteem as ‘good choicers’ while actually implementing less than optimal choices thereby encouraging poor choice making>.

Organizations, to be more efficient & effective, should drive choices <all> to the select few good ‘choicers’

Unselected majority ultimately grumpy <but organization actually benefits>.

Wow.

That is not only a paradox but a Gordian knot <or in layman’s terms … ‘playing Twister with your organization’>.

Look.

All I am suggesting is that some people are really good at making ‘impatient choices.’ They have that mental clarity that actually improves in impatient moments … and the maturity to slow down the moment and say ‘let’s not be so quick to make haste’ <and actually be right about it>.

But not everyone is like this.

And, in fact, they are a minority.

I imagine the optimal world would be to funnel all choices through this minority.

Imagine being the key word … because that is an imaginary world. We couldn’t do it.

If your life, or your business, has one or two … use them, preserve them, foster them … and trust them <you will go farther than you ever imagined>.

If you do not have the luxury of having one of them around <which by the way … is an entire article on how most of us suck at accepting someone is better at this than we are> you have to learn to manage impatience. Yeah. Easier said than done.

I imagine the point here is by acknowledging and accepting the issue gives you the opportunity to actually deal with the issue.

And in the end … organizational impatience leads to the permitting of poor choices <and a quicker death of a thousand cuts>.

Personal impatience in choice making probably just leads to general unhappiness <kind of a different thousand little cuts>.

Dealing with impatience … and balancing impatience & patience ? … well … it ain’t for the faint of heart.

leaf without a tree

March 4th, 2013

So.

Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions> but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” - Henry Kissinger

—–

Henry <or Hank to his friends> also said …

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Now.

Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>.

How you use what you learned studying history is always a challenge <that is a Life truth and an ongoing Life debate>.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now <or in the future>.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot .

Hank, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. In addition … we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable .

In the end? We wonder what happened <and why we didn’t learn from history>.

Well.

As Kissinger states … history teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatic.

That they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now.

I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning.

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences> but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time>.

The only possibility of learning is studying history within the collective memory.

It is not often that we actually learn something from the past. And it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions … but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well.

That is a BIG thought right there.

One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors … and to make it exponentially more difficult … contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is … well … pretty much impossible.

The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>.

And … well … gosh … doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that … history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>.

Therefore … change is not only the constant but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress.

I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’

If we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history.

If we truly seek to be better than what we already are … we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

But all we really feel most comfortable with is remaking things in the image of historical learning.

Well.

I guess that means to remake things better we have to be … oops … uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable <assuming anyone understands what I wrote>. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy … particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables … and can draw a correlation to the current situation … draw some conclusive conclusions … and isolate the best plan of action.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision” but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.” – Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on.

valentines day 2013

February 14th, 2013

“Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love, flower and fade, and follow the natural curve, which flows on, pointless.” – d. h. Lawrence

So.

First. Happy Valentine ’s Day.

Second. Thank you D.H.

Valentine’s Day should never have a point. It is simply a moment in a natural curve which flows on … pointless. It seems we put so much meaning into everything these days … I kind of think of all the days in the year VDay should simply ‘live and let live’ and ‘love and let love.’

Third. That said. I will make a point on valentine’s day … in fact … a bunch of points <you certainly didn’t think I wouldn’t, did you?>.

I am not sure I will ever best my first valentine’s day post where I applied business acumen to the male thought process on valentine’s day < http://brucemctague.com/a-strategic-look-at-valentines-day > or last year’s thoughtful thought on togetherness < http://brucemctague.com/life-love-alone-and-togetherness … or even my favorite love songs post http://brucemctague.com/6-love-songs-for-valentines-day >but I am gonna try.

This thought for valentines day is not actually mine. Well. Most of it is not mine <because I will add in some of my own point of view>. I was cleaning out a box and I found a column from a late 1980’s Dallas Morning News that for some reason I had stashed in a folder – 10 Romance Myths.

Parts are funny.

Parts are absurd.

But all parts got published in a credible newspaper so I have to think there is some merit <original column in italics … my thoughts are not>.

Here you go.

Myth 1: when its love, you know it.

Not true. One partner may know it; the other may be out to lunch. That’s what happened when one of our correspondents, Didi, met Brad. She knew it was love … not right away. It took her about an hour … but Brad was marching to the beat of a different drummer. One that was banging verrrrrrrrry slowly.

After their first date Brad said, “I’ll call you soon.” And then he fell off the face of the earth for 5 weeks. It took a note under his windshield to get him to pick up the phone.

Well.

I agree with the ‘not true.’ Falling in love, oddly enough, has an individual drummer. And just like snowflakes … each drummer is different. I say oddly because unless you are a narcissist it takes two to fall in love. Yet … you don’t know it until you know it <no matter how fast one wants the other to know something>.

Myth 2: when it’s right, it’s easy.

Well. Sometimes it’s so hard it makes ditch digging seem like fun. For two years Jill said, “I love you” and Randy, her boyfriend, said “thank you.” It took the threat of another man to choke out those three little words. It took her threat to move out of town to get him to propose. But that was 14 years ago and now Jill swears Randy says “I love you” every single day.

Well.

I absolutely agree with the ‘so hard it can make ditch digging seem fun.’ I just hate the example the author made. Threats do not typically make a great basis for a long term relationship. I agree that sometimes a crossroads moment clarifies feelings … but threats are bad when it comes to love.

Myth 3: dating is fun.

If you are 16 and a Brad Pitt look-a-like takes you to the prom, it’s fun. But somewhere into the second or third decade of dating it can get old. The feeling is best summed up by the woman who told us, “I have spent so many Saturday nights sitting in some restaurant looking across the table thinking ‘I wish I were at home watching Love Boat’.”

Well.

Dating sucks. So did Love Boat. There is a happy medium. Good dates are great. Bad dates are whatever the opposite of great is. But you know what? You gotta find the fun in it because you gotta do the dating to actually get to the next phase .

Myth 4: stick to your own kind

There’s nothing cupid loves more than a good laugh. That’s why he introduced Alex and Sue. She is a big city girl; he’s a small town boy. She reads romance novels and he reads computer magazines. They don’t even sleep the same way. She likes to burrow in and he likes the sheets loose.

How does their marriage work? Great.

Well.

I agree. For every ‘two peas in a pod’ great love example I can find a ‘live on different planets’ great love example. I imagine the real point here is that despite what Cosmopolitan may advise … there is no formula.

Myth 5: don’t play games; they don’t work

Oops. Apparently some do. A correspondent named Victoria explained why: “some people need drama in romance and drama is built on conflict. If you’re nice all the time, you’re predictable and that’s boring. It’s okay to do something nasty once in a while. In fact it’s necessary.”

That’s her advice, mind you, not mine. Just sharing advice not giving it.

Well.

This may be the crappiest romance advice I have ever seen. Drama? Ok. Some conflict? Sure. Be nice all the time? No human actually can be. Predictable? Maybe the most overlooked great quality in a relationship. It is not boring … it provides some steady to what can be an emotional earthquake of worry if it isn’t there. Doing something nasty every once in awhile? Oh my. Now that is some good input <not>.

Myth 6: if there’s no chemistry, forget it.

Some relationships actually do start with a sizzle. Mallory and Ted blossomed over a checkbook.

They were friends. Neither of them expected to fall in love. Both got tired of paying rent and realized neither could afford a house on their own. They decided to move in together … split a mortgage … oh, and while they were at it, get married.

Year one was fine. They had a house and a dual income. But something funny happened in the second or third year of marriage. They fell in love.

Well.

Chemistry is a funny thing <with feelings not in the classroom>. There are so many frickin’ ingredients to mix up that I think part of chemistry is simply discerning which ingredients belong in the relationship test tube to make it work. If you put the wrong ingredients in <the ones that are inconsequential but steal the necessary molecules from the consequential ingredients> the test tube breaks or simply doesn’t create the desired formula. Ok. Now that I have flogged that metaphor to death … the only thing I would really change is “at first” … if there is no chemistry at first, don’t panic … sometimes chemistry takes a whole semester to solve.

Myth 7: guys have got it made.

You’ve seen the statistics. You’re tired of statistics. Were smack in the middle of the Great American Male Shortage. Which means that any man who is presentable and self-supporting has it made. Oops. But somehow it just doesn’t work that way.

Take William. He’s young, single and has a good job. You’d think the only thing on his mind would be whether to get racing stripes on his new car. But You would be wrong. From the minute the date starts he worries about how it is going to end. Should he kiss her? Should he say he’ll call if he knows he won’t?

And if a woman asks him in should he sit on the couch? On the chair? How long should he stay?

All the statistics in the world do not make it easier … on anyone <male or female>.

Well.

I am a guy. And I imagine I am a statistic. And I can clearly say I do not have it made. I don’t worry like the bonehead outlined in the example <he is a frickin’ freak who SHOULD remain single for the rest of his life> but dating and relationships and all that stuff is not simple … for women or men. No one has it made <or easy>. Well. That is until you actually latch on to ‘the one’ … then you fall into the ‘have it made’ category.

Myth 8: “all I want is a nice guy.”

This may be the biggest myth of all. Every woman says she wants a nice guy. No one really does. Over and over again the nice guys tell us “I got dumped for a jerk.”

Kevin is a nice guy. “a handsome, loving and sensitive person with a bright future.” Three times he has been in love … and three times he has been dumped. Once he was dumped for a tattoo artist. Once he was dumped for a drug addict. Most recently he was dumped for a young unemployed guy. He wonders if all women are crazy or just the ones he runs into.

Well.

First. I would suggest to Kevin that he may be a nice guy but he is crappy at selecting women to date.

Second. All women want a nice guy <at his core>. That doesn’t mean they want a spineless jelly fish who does everything he is told to do <even clean the toilets> but they wish for some balance. A manly man with some intelligence and niceness and respect and some individuality <even if it has some not so nice characteristics>. Basically? Women want it all. Oh. A funny thing? So do men.

Myth 9: there is no such thing as a good blind date.

Well. Sometimes they work like magic. There was Eloise. She opened her door to a man dressed in a blue stocking cap, black slacks, white shirt, brown sweater and red polyester jacket. He was short and substantially overweight. Not a great start. Yet … as the evening wore on Eloise found him to be honest, fun, smart, warm and easy to be with. In a word … wonderful. She said yes to a second date and, when he asked her to marry him … she said yes <again>.

Well.

Having been on numerous blind dates and even had a couple friend set up a blind date program for me to set me up over a 13 week period I can safely say that there is such a thing as a good blind date. As with anything you do blindly … there is good and bad. The bad may seem badder because being blind means you aren’t prepared … but the good is gooder because you are surprised. I wouldn’t suggest the 13 week program but I do believe blind dates can be a fun supplement to your everyday life.

Myth 10: when you’re ready, it’ll happen.

Unfortunately, no. There are thousands of ready men and women out there. In fact … men and women who have been ready for a while … if not years. But there is an upside to the myth as well. It may not happen when you are ready, but it will happen. It will take its own sweet time but it will happen.

Well.

They are correct … no. In fact … I would be tempted to suggest that it is a rarity in Life, in general, on anything … that when you are ready it will happen … given that thought … why would anyone think love would be any different? But. I do agree. If it is what you want … even though Life is relatively indifferent to the fate of your love life … and cupid has a warped sense of humor … if you care it will happen.

Enjoy the day.