Enlightened Conflict

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.

best of times

August 11th, 2012

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us ….”

- Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

This may be the most famous literary opening to a book of all time. Well. At least the first line.

I tend to believe everyone knows … it was the best of times … it was the worst of times.

But I also tend to believe most people don’t know the rest … and they should because the entire opening is incredible.

Especially … “we had everything before us … we had nothing before us …”

My belief?

The thought you can have everything and nothing at the same time is a Life truth.

Your experience of the moment depends on what you choose to focus on.

Dickens has done an amazingly simple job outlining the contradiction, and tension, life gives us.

And I think about how it sums up the contradictory nature of every year, and indeed every day, of our lives.

And how it suggests that good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle.

And that while we truly have everything ahead of us at any point in life … life is simply an empty vessel to be filled with whatever that ‘everything’ may be.

It reminds you of the ‘perfect’ day (it was the best of times).

It reminds you of the imperfect day (it was the worst of times).

It reminds you of having dreams and the faith and trust that it will work out and how you envision the outcome with all your heart and soul (it was the epoch of belief).

It reminds you of how fragile dreams as how often they can crumble before your eyes <and how you wonder why it happens to you> (it was the epoch of incredulity).

It reminds you of hope … hope for something good … or better than what is (it was the spring of hope).

It reminds you that sometimes hope is simply that … hope … and not a guarantee of reality or what will be (it was the winter of despair).

It is a reminder that while we may want to always live life ‘in the moment’ and in the ‘now’ in an attempt to maximize what is … lives and experiences and moments are built on duality.

If we don’t experience the moments of sorrow or despair we can’t fully appreciate the moments of hope attained and joy.

I believe people don’t have to revel in the duality but possibly find solace, if not hope, within the duality.

And possibly find joy in the contradiction rather than despair at the unevenness.

Failed dreams can beget new dreams.

New realities can lead to needed life changes.

Even in times of feeling like you have everything you desire <or at least a lot> you can still experience lack of something.

Regardless.

I really love this Charles Dickens quote.

Many people have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or maybe better said … a significantly higher % of highs than lows>. , Or that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt in order to be successful>. Or should focus on success without failure.

This is flawed thinking in my mind.

Frankly it sets us up for disappointment.

Worse?

It probably sucks the life out of … well … life. It attempts to take the duality, or the importance thereof, out of Life.

No matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of … the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

If you accept that fact, well, it is awful hard to plan a life if that is the case.

So maybe instead of planning we should just live it … and enjoy the duality and the contradictions.

That said.

“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.” ― Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

So.

Maybe being a hero is not living a cowardly life and accepting what is right, and wrong, about Life … oh … and doing the right thing <when you know it is right> and not doing the wrong thing <when you know it is wrong>.

Simple thought … but a difficult thought.

Well. Maybe just a thought.

playing for change

August 9th, 2012

So.

A good friend sent me a link to something from a group (foundation) called Playing for Change.

Their mission is excellent (I will get to it later in the post) but technologically they create music videos (and songs) piecing them together from around the world.

I love this kind of stuff.

The music. The instruments. The mission/vision. Here is the song & video that got me onboard with this whole thing:

Gimme Shelter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtq6OmD-_Y

Ok.

About Playing for Change … “we are dedicated to creating positive change through music & arts education.”

The Playing For Change Foundation is dedicated to connecting the world through music by providing resources to musicians and their communities around the world.

It started a decade ago.

A small group of documentary filmmakers set out with a dream to create a film rooted in the music of the streets. It has since blossomed into a global initiative touching the lives of millions of people around the world.

While traveling the world filming and recording musicians, the crew became intimately involved with the music and people of each community they visited. Although many of these communities had limited resources and a modest standard of living, the people in them were full of generosity, warmth, and above all they were connected to each other by a common thread: music.

Out of these discoveries, the Playing For Change Foundation was born and made its mission to ensure that anyone with the desire to receive a music education would have the opportunity to do so. The Playing For Change Foundation is dedicated to the fundamental idea that peace and change are possible through the universal language of music.

Here are 2 more great examples:

Chanda (which features an amazing Israeli singer): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIzddbBW8n0&feature=related

Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKoDGucPOWM&feature=related

There is also an incredible version of Bob Marley’s “War/No More Trouble.” It includes musicians from The Congo, Israel, India, Ireland, South Africa, the U.S., Zimbabwe and Ghana, along with Bono and Bob Marley.

They also do Marley’s “One Love” featuring Keb’ Mo’ singing with performers from India, Israel, Nepal, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Also. Beyond the initial venture, seeing great need in many of the locations where the crew filmed and recorded, inspired the Playing for Change folk to establish the Playing for Change Foundation, a distinct non-profit entity which provides resources – including facilities, technology, musical instruments and education – to musicians and their communities. The Foundation’s first project, the Ntonga Music School in South Africa, was completed in January 2009.

So.

Even if you don’t like music I tend to believe you don’t have a pulse, or a soul, if you aren’t touched in some way after you read this quote:

“Thanks to the amazing people we have met on our journey– people in the poorest towns and villages who still manage to find hope in the midst of their daily struggles– we believe now more than ever in the resiliency of the human spirit, and in music’s ability to transform a dire situation into a hopeful one.”

Look.

I love music but I don’t give a shit if it is music, reading, teaching, helping, whatever … if you have an idea or action that can “transform a dire situation into a hopeful one’ I believe it is worthwhile idea.

lack of global elders

August 7th, 2012

“We have a global village but we don’t have any global elders.” – Peter Gabriel

Ok.

There was a show discussing Peter Gabriel’s <with Richard Branson> foundation and, because I like Peter Gabriel’s music, I got sucked in and watched and caught this quote.

And it is an extremely insightful thought.

So often we talk about “the flattening of the world” and the fact the internet has created a global village. And I imagine most of us don’t debate that thought.

Yet.

Here is an interesting thought <if you believe the global village thing>. Who will lead us? Because … well … no one has the experience to guide is … like a village elder.

Ok.

Worse. Who IS leading us? <Let me answer that>

… people who are making it up as they go.

Whoa.

Say what?

Yup. Peter reminds us in the amazing thought of ‘global village’ that we are entering in that we have no global elders with which to sit and talk and learn what they know.

Now that, my friends, is a big thought.

Now that, my friends, is a scary big thought.

Now … I do not doubt that there are a shitload of really smart people telling us what will be, and what to do, but … well … they are making it up. Ok. To be fair … they are conceptualizing what will be and what should be based on what they know.

And I do not doubt that they know a lot about global issues and crap like that.

But. They are not “global elders.” They are simply smart folk who are trying to make sense of what is happening.

Think about that the next time you hear someone, or read some book, discussing the effects of globalization.

Look. I am not trying to suggest they do not know what they are talking about or that we should completely disregard what they say.

I am simply reminding us, as Peter Gabriel <a much more worldly guy than i> has also, that these people are not ‘global elders’ but rather simply smart people trying to make sense of what is happening … and guessing what they believe will happen.

songgaar and burungaar

July 31st, 2012

These two words are Tuvan.

songgaar means “go back” or “the future” in the tuvan language.

burungaar means “go forward” or “the past” in the tuvan langaue.

Yes.

I typed that correctly.

Tuvans believe the past is ahead of them while the future lies behind.

The thought? They constantly look to the future but it’s behind them … not yet seen.

To most of us this is confusing. Aw shit. Thinking about the past, present and future is confusing anyway.

We are told to not live in the past. Yet we are also told to learn from the past. We are told to treat the present, each moment, like it is the last. And yet we are told to plan for the future.

We save money for future needs while sacrificing some present needs <or wants>. We look to the past with an eye toward how we could improve ourselves in the future while doing things in the present that will inevitably confuse people around us, most likely have a number of people be hesitant to accept whatever changes we are attempting to sincerely attempt and ultimately make us unhappy, in some form or fashion, with ourselves in the present.

Well.

Now that I have typed that, frankly, I am not sure that we are ever going to be happy attempting to do all that we are supposed to do with regard to the past, present and future.

Heck. I am not sure if I am being selfish focusing on the present, dumb for ignoring the past and irresponsible for not investing energy planning for the future. In addition I fear that while I had a thought in the present by the time I typed it I had stepped into the future and the thought remained in the past.

Ok.

I do not know any Tuvans <the Republic of Tuva is located in southern Siberia on the edge of Mongolia>. So they can probably truly explain the thought. My attempt will be … well … mine.

I like the concept of what they believe.

I imagine, unlike many of us, the future to them doesn’t have all the trappings of ‘better’ and ‘more’ and ‘personal improvement.’ I hesitate to say that their view of life is simpler because it implies we have a more complicated life. And we do not. Nope. We only make it so … by worrying about status and how other people view us and what our title is and what type of car we drive. Oh. And retirement. I imagine they don’t worry about planning for their retirement.

Anyway. Maybe their lives are more focused on the present and doing the best that they can within some frame of time they call “now” <which may not be a speck of time but rather a longer living moment>. It permits them to say that their future needs, yes, needs to contain elements of the past. In addition … by focusing too much on the future they are sliding backwards.

Now. There is a thought, huh? Investing energy, or too much of it, on ‘future thinking’ could possibly be detrimental to moving forward?

Wow. Love it.

Ok.

Here is a thought.

Most of us are smarter than we think. Not maybe in terms of sheer brain power but rather with regard to “making decisions in the present that will benefit us in the future.” We spend so much time planning for the future and assessing decisions yet to be made that all that time <which I would suggest could be called ‘the present’> just slip on by. In general I tend to believe most of us know how to assess ‘now decisions’ and their possible effect on our future. That doesn’t mean we will always make the right decision. In addition some of us may get suckered into making similar wrong decisions more often than others <not having had that statistics class that taught us that each decision is mutually exclusive therefore the odds do not increase in your favor as time goes on>. Time teaches you that <by the way … that is called ‘the past”>.

Well. That was complicated.

So try this.

To move forward you must look to the past.

Simple as that.

No more. No less.

Chew on that thought.

Ok.

About Tuva.

The Republic of Tuva is the former Tannu Tuva, a country in south Siberia first annexed by Russia in 1914 and then absorbed by the former USSR in 1944.

Tuva extends from the coniferous forests of the taiga in the north to the rolling steppe of the south. 82% of the lands of the country is hilly and the rest 18% are covered with savannas. Tuva has a lot of variety within its geography containing grassy meadows, boundless steppe, medicinal springs, beautiful lakes, mountain rivers fed in spring by melting snows, dusty semi-deserts and snowy chains of mountains. Tuva is near the geographic center of Asia and Tuvans are historically nomadic herders, moving their aal—an encampment of yurts—and their sheep and cows and reindeer from pasture to pasture as the seasons progress.

Regardless.

When I saw these two words I wanted to share. Interesting how different cultures view different aspects of the past & future. And maybe we can learn something from their view.

the burden of good ideas

July 30th, 2012

“Good ideas come with a heavy burden; which is why so few people execute them. Few people can handle it.“ – Hugh MacLeod

I love this quote for a variety of reasons. Let me begin with the implied thought he shares. There are more good ideas than we know about.

He is correct.

Good ideas, or the nugget of a good idea or a derivative that could become a good idea are scattered everywhere. You just need to listen closely and you will find a good idea every day <assuming you isten to enough people>.

But. He is correct in that few people accept the burden that comes with a good idea.

Good ideas are tough in two ways <okay … more but I will focus on two> … first may seem contradictory to what I wrote at the beginning but I am really qualifying what I stated. There are a lot of good ideas but the really good ideas are rare. And by rare good ideas I mean the really meaningful ones. The ones that make an impact. The ones that make a difference. The ones that make people sit up and pay attention.

Oh. Which leads me to numero Two-o (or second).

Getting people to sit up and pay attention. Well. Paying attention is a double edged sword. And the dangerous edge of the sword is the fact that people challenge and debate and skewer <even if it doesn’t deserve skewering>.

Look.

The burden of a good idea is never in coming up with it.

this is just a guess but I bet there are more good ideas sitting in someone’s drawer <or a bunch of people’s drawers> then have ever been done let alone made public. There are more good ideas than we have time to actually do.

The real burden is in vocalizing, defending and figuring out how to implement. And Hugh suggests few people can handle it.

I tell kids all the time that they are our future … only if they actually accept the burden of our future.

So often those who are being asked to accept the responsibility of the future complain about those in the past ><or they even resent> with regard to shirking responsibility.

Well.

I have a bunch of things to say to that but suffice it to say I will simply say “nuts.”

Nuts to all that crap.

Ideas are of the present and the future. Lingering in the past is simply a way to avoid the burden that comes along with an idea.

If you have an idea … good … share it.

If you have an idea and you want it to actually happen … good … do it.

Good ideas are a burden.

And it is the people who do not recognize that which will consistently fall into the ‘dreamer’ category. Meandering through life coming up with ideas and wondering <and sometimes bitching> about why no one does these ideas they are thinking about and talking about.

And then there are the people who take on the burden. The ones who have ideas and actually scratch and claw and fight through all the negativity and doubters to make it happen.

Oh.

Here is the deal.

Not everyone who has an idea and fights for it has a good idea. If you can ever convince that person that their idea sucks <or is just not that good> but then you steer them towards a good idea you are gold.

Because the people who accept the burden are valuable commodities. It takes a special person. And it is foolish of us to simply disregard those who accept the burden and yet have a bad idea as fools or dreamers or … well … not worth paying attention to. Because they have a skill. They are strong enough for the burden. And let me tell ya folks … not everyone has the strength to do that. So when we chastise or joke about those people <simply because the idea maybe even be a little nutty rather than ‘not so good’> we shouldn’t. We should be seeking opportunities to utilize those people’s strengths.

Regardless.

I am 100% confident that there are a gazillion good ideas sitting out there in the homes of people who just do not want the burden of a good idea.

Hugh is correct. It is a separate post but a HUGE issue is the fact most people cannot tell the difference between a good idea and shitty idea or even a mediocre <already done> idea.

But. In the end? Hugh is correct.

Most people cannot handle the burden of a good idea.

what makes someone tick

July 29th, 2012

“I loathe the expression “what makes him tick.” It is the American mind, looking for simple and singular solution that uses the foolish expression. A person not only ticks, he also chimes and strikes the hour, falls and breaks and has to be put together again and sometimes stops like an electric clock in a thunderstorm.”

I have no idea who wrote/said this but if I did I would send an email and simply say “amen.”

In fact, if I actually had a file called “absurd thoughts” this thought would be in it right next to that other incredibly <relenat to this post> absurd thought “there are left brain & right brain people.”

I loathe the expression ‘what makes him tick.’

People are complex. Heck. Most of the people I personally know are. And I know I am. And I know I get aggravated when someone simplifies me into some soundbite ‘what makes him tick.’

And I cannot envision that I am that different than others in this regard.

I am going to use a harsh phrase to make a point but “dumbing down” a person in this way is … well … dumb if not completely absurd. Sure. I know people like something simple to hold onto but this is crazy.

I throw it into the same category as when someone says “what is it that you want?” <when discussing life>.

Shit.

How long do you have <when trying to answer that question>?

In a world that wants simplicity some things just are not that simple.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. All the ‘self help’ books outline goals and attainable milestones and all the steps you can take to be happier and successful and a better person and all that crap. And those same books are expounding on the fact that to be happier there are priorities. and, yes, I would agree on priorities I just hesitate a little <okay … a lot> when someone says “name one” or “the most important.”

Happiness is just not that simple.

Just as what makes someone tick is not simple.

Ok.

So the point behind this post – beyond the fact I loved the quote – is that we need to be careful when we try and encapsulate a person in a nutshell.

Ambitious.

Smart.

Right brain.

Extroverted.

Money.

Mean.

Kind.

They are all big powerful words that people like to attach to other people. And then they stop <at that word>. I have one word for that. No.

People, well, … just .. can .. not .. be .. summed .. up .. in .. one .. word.

Yup. People are much bigger than one word <sorry … that is an obvious thought>.

Regardless. Just be careful.

In a complex world it is easy to try and simplify things for selfish reasons <we only have so much space in our pea like brains>. But if there was one place I would suggest we would permit complexity to remain it would be with regard to how we assess, and ultimately judge <which we should all admit we do regardless of how bad it sounds> and treat people.

Simplicity certainly has its place in the world, and, in fact, I believe it should have a more important role in every day life <and business> … just not when it comes to the complexity of people, personalities & characterizing.

the eccentric

July 27th, 2012

Oh, no, this is not about electricity. This is about eccentricity. And … well … being eccentric.

And while I will have some fun highlighting some of the truly wackjob eccentrics of all time I will end up making a point about non conformity … and the fact that people exhibiting eccentric behavior are happier, less likely to succumb to vices <drinking & drugs> and live longer than ‘normal’ people <research not opinion>.

Anyway.

Here we go. The word ‘eccentric’ has a really broad spectrum … from wacky “makes me feel uncomfortable” to “quirky interesting.” Regardless of where you are on the spectrum we all have a point when a charming eccentric becomes a creepy weirdo <note: it’s usually around the time they start talking to their imaginary friend beside them while talking to you>.

Regardless.

I will admit … from my own little world … a surprisingly large group of the most delightful insightful people are a little quirky and eccentric.

And, no, those delightful ones are the unpretentious eccentric who I don’t think they mean to be so (unlike people who like to be weird just for weird sake) but rather their particular brilliance or their particular contribution/attitude to the world is tinged with some eccentricity.

It makes them charming without diminishing the oddly insightful perspective they seem to bring to bear.

I guess those people are just eccentric but have not attained “wackjob” status.

Anyway.

Before I get to the insightfully thoughtful part … let me discuss the wackjobs.

I almost have to begin with the Brits because for some reason they seem to have a full museum of the highest grade wackjobs we would call true eccentrics.

Here are some of the wackjob highlights:

- Francis Henry Egerton the 8th Earl of Bridgewater who organized banquets for dogs

- John Mytton an English squire who would ride a bear

- Lord Rokeby who wanted to be amphibious

- William John Cavendish Bentinck-Scott the 5th Duke of Portland, who liked to live underground, and preferred not to be seen … oh … and actually built an entire underground mansion, painted it pink, and filled it with brown wigs packed carefully in cardboard boxes <oh boy>.

Ah.

But I won’t let America off the hook.

Emperor Norton I. His “Reign” was unofficially from 1859-1880.

Yup.

In the 19th century, the United States was unofficially “ruled” by Emperor Norton I, a San Francisco native who declared himself “Emperor of the United States” and “Protector of Mexico.” Emperor Norton’s real name was Joshua Abraham Norton. Apparently he had some financial troubles which supposedly lead to him developing a number of eccentricities and delusions of grandeur, and in 1859 he officially declared himself the ruler of America.

Thankfully local newspapers originally published Norton’s claim as a joke.

Ok.

Here is where I begin easing into eccentricity and the occasional glimpses of brilliance.

For example.

Despite the seeming mental issues Norton often demonstrated remarkable foresight.

He proposed that a “League of Nations” be formed years before the U.S. government considered it.

He also decreed that a bridge be built linking Oakland and San Francisco, which also eventually became a reality.

Anyway.

Then there are the truly quirky semi-brilliant eccentrics. These are the eccentrics who get lost in their own little world in which they see shit we don’t see … and we benefit from it.

Some of the really wackjob people I am listing were also part genius.

I found a list of 4 brilliant examples who … seemingly over-revved the neurological engine, who watched as the gearbox and chassis of their brains flew off onto the roadside…and kept on accelerating.

Example 1 – Pythagoras The Genius:

This is the guy who came up with the Pythagorean theorem we all learned in school (“The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides”).

Apart from this pillar of trigonometry, Pythagoras was the first high-profile academic to insist that natural phenomena could be explained mathematically (paving the way for the study of Physics) and was even a major inspiration for Plato’s theories of democracy.

Basically that means we can thank him for maybe half of the good meaningful things ever invented.

Oh. But Pythagoras the nutjob:

Pythagoras founded his own religion. Pythagoras’ religion had two primary tenets: souls are reincarnated, and beans are evil. Not metaphorical beans, or metaphysical beans, but just plain, edible beans. Awesome.

Example 2 – Lord Byron The Genius:

Widely considered second only to Shakespeare in English poetry, Lord Byron published his first poetic work at 14 <the age when my most profound thought was that girls might possibly be more awesome than the new aerosmith record>. He was renowned for his wit and writing/thinking versatility. In fact, Byron’s Don Juan remains one of the few poems most guys can name when trying to seduce girls in a bar.

Oh. Byron the nutjob:

It began when Byron arrived at Cambridge, where he was ordered to send his dog back home as keeping one was against school rules. Desperate for a pet, Byron scoured college policies for an animal not expressly forbidden. He found no reference to bears.

The bear stayed with Byron in his dorm room. Being a responsible pet owner, Byron took it on regular leashed walks through the university, terrifying fellow students and lecturers. When asked by administration what purpose the bear served on campus, the poet tried in vain to get his beast a fellowship. And where most people mellow out after they leave school, Byron decided to take his crazy to a whole new level. We’ll let this quote from one of his friends tell the story:

“Lord B’s establishment consists, besides servants, of ten horses, eight enormous dogs, three monkeys, five cats, an eagle, a crow, and a falcon; and all of these, except the horses, walk about the house, which every now and then resounds with their unarbitrated quarrels, as if they were the masters of it.”

(later)

“…I find that my enumeration of the animals in this Circean Palace was defective, and that in a material point. I have just met on the grand staircase five peacocks, two guinea hens, and an Egyptian Crane” – Percy Shelley (poet and husband of Frankenstein author Mary Shelley).

Nuff said.

Example 3 – Tesla The Genius:

Nikola Tesla offered an astonishing number of contributions to science. Labeled by Robert Lomas as “the man who invented the 20th century”, Nikola Tesla played a major part in the discovery of:

-Radio

-A/C Electricity

-Computers

-Robotics

-Radar

-Ballistics

-Nuclear Physics

This guy was truly brilliant. And an innovative brilliant guy.

Oh. But. Tesla the nutjob:

Tesla suffered from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. So, for instance, where Michelangelo’s personal hygiene was appallingly bad, Tesla’s was appallingly good–cripplingly so. Tesla was a severe germophobe and refused to touch anything bearing the slightest hint of dirt.

Oh. In addition.

Tesla also refused to touch anything round, which makes some quite obvious hurdles for an engineer. Apart from dodging germs and round objects, Tesla’s OCD manifested itself in threes. Before entering a building, he would walk three times around the block. When staying in hotels, he insisted on a room number divisible by three. At each meal, he would use 18 napkins: three stacks of six.

<whew>

Example 4 – Empedocles The Genius:

Empedocles may have been among the most renowned geniuses in history if not for the fact that his stunning contributions to science are offset by his even more stunning contributions to eccentric absurdity.

Some 450 years before year one <sometimes called ‘the B.C. years> Empedocles discovered:

-That light travels at a speed

-That Earth is a sphere

-Centrifugal force

-That air is a substance, not an absence of substance.

-An (admittedly very crude) theory of evolution

-The Italian school of medicine

The dude was clearly ahead of his time mentally. Brilliant thinker.

Oh. Empedocles the nutjob:

Empedocles believed he was a god.

Ok. Not in a guitar rock band sense or the guy who can achieve some insane level of Doom in mere minutes sense, but in the literal thunderbolts-from-the-sky and immortality sense. To prove his immortality to his understandably skeptical peers, Empedocles announced that he would jump into a volcano <Mt Etna if you care> and pop back out unscathed.

Note: at least he wasn’t nutty enough to actually do it.

Anyway.

Some genius. Some crazy. All eccentric.

Moving on <although it is fun to write about the wacky stuff>.

Let’s get to the quirkiness and the value some eccentricity offers us (and society).

While I often joke about the fact there have been studies on some relatively absurd topics … there has been astonishingly little research on eccentrics and eccentricity.

In fact.

I could find the only person to have looked into eccentricity … David Weeks, an Edinburgh psychiatrist and co-author of the 1995 book Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness.

What he discovered during a ten-year study of 1,000 peculiar people < including a Chippewa Indian who walked everywhere backwards and two Californians who hypnotized frogs … no … I did not make that up> might surprise you.

While I believe popular wisdom suggests more extreme eccentricity is not far from mental disorder. But, in fact, Weeks’s subjects suffered less from mental illnesses such as depression than the majority of the population. Results information:

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers.

He also found that eccentrics visit the doctor 20 times less often than most of us and, on average, live slightly longer.

The study conclusion?

People benefited from non-conformity.

Simply put, those who don’t repress their inner nature in the struggle to conform suffer less stress. Consequently, they are happier and their immune systems work more efficiently.

Overall, Weeks found that eccentrics tend to be optimistic people with a highly developed, mischievous sense of humor, childlike curiosity and a drive to make the world a better place.

Well.

Kind of maybe makes you start thinking about envying eccentric people rather than laughing about them, huh?

Anyway.

Beyond happiness I tend to believe most of us think of eccentrics as also being highly creative.

I already brought up Tesla (an innovative creative) and Oscar Wilde … but how about Prince, who has been known to conduct interviews with a bag on his head, or the delectable fruitcakeyness of Kate Bush.

But I don’t believe eccentricity doesn’t have shit to do with smartness or creativity.

Because while history is chock full of insane geniuses it is more about people who mentally put the pedal to the metal <albeit sometimes through the floor>.

I believe eccentrics are the people who tend to see problems <and life> from new and unexpected angles. Their slightly odd, off kilter, perspective allows them to conjure up innovative solutions.

They are the visionaries, even within smaller individual life moments, who make giant imaginative leaps.

Weeks, in his study write up, suggested maybe that like the occasional mutations that drive evolution, eccentrics may provide the unusual, untried ideas that allow human societies to progress.

Awesome thought for all those folk who are very often dismissed as cranks and crazies and nutjobs.

Oh.

The bad news is that only about one person in every 5-10,000 is a “classic, full-time eccentric” and most are marked out at an early age as ‘off.’

Ok.

That was fun to write about.

But. All that fun stuff said.

Here is what I worry about in today’s business world.

Most large companies have abolished any type of eccentricity <or individuality>.

HR policies, which tend to dictate behaviors, and job expectations/competencies are designed to promote the rise of the ‘accepted’ corporate employee.

Think about that.

One can be fairly sure that you won’t find too many Teslas surfacing in the next few years as they are weeded out early by the application of standardized policies designed to produce standardized human beings.

When I was younger it seemed like businesses had their share of quirky slightly nutjob people … and they added color to the office. They added a dimension to the work, and workplace, which sometimes made a tough day better and a tough assignment less challenging. Not always but at minimum it made the experience more interesting by far.

I worry because it is a terrible time to want to have fun in the office.

And it is always tough, in the office and outside the office, to be ‘different’.

Anyway.

The point.

Look. I am not suggesting more people be eccentric … but maybe possibly less people find conforming as important as they do. That’s it. If for no other reason than a research study suggests you may be happier.

the b52’s

July 24th, 2012

So. Haven’t written about music in a while. Therefore I will offer something old first and then something new second.

The old.

B52s are celebrating 35 years. Think about it … the B-52s played their first show at a Valentine’s Day party in Athens, Ga. in 1977. Now. I didn’t see that show but I am fairly sure I saw them close to this time.

Greek theater in Los Angeles. They opened for the Talking Heads <and I have probably seen them 4 more times since then over the years>.

That was an awesomely weird show. Both bands musically quite talented. Both bands musically performed some quite different music then the music I heard the night before at the same theater (Christopher Cross opening for Fleetwood Mac).

Regardless. B52s are often underrated as a band because their music is so different and very quirky and awesomely weird. While it is easy to label it party music … it is kind of a quirky disciplined chaos.

Anyway. Here is my main example.

Rock Lobster, probably their best known – and possibly their best – song shouldn’t be measured by its awesomely quirky lyrics but rather the amazing guitar riff that carries it and makes up the really well done closing minute or so of the song.

They shouldn’t be measured by the fact the lead, Fred, couldn’t sing his way onto a deaf choir (although he may have been one of the first lyrical white rappers) but rather Kate Pierson’s melodic voice and Cindy Wilson’s lyrical delivery.

Sure. They are one of the best party bands of all time and their concerts rank up in my “best parties of all time” but their really good songs are just plain …well …good.

The secret in my eyes?

The guitar playing.

And that is/was primarily Ricky Wilson.

The original guitar player.

It is obvious to anyone who listens the stylistic playing aspect part of the songs … but there was something I just couldn’t quite put my finger on that made it sound unique. And <of course> I did some research to see if someone else had put their finger on it.

I will give you the salient points first <as the answer>.

1. Ricky didn’t know standard tuning on his guitar.

2. <and I had forgotten the first aspect> B52s didn’t have a lead & bass guitar players so Ricky, when he played, was covering both roles … and strung his guitar to both.

Ok.

I found someone who had played with Ricky:

i can tell you something about ricky’s “style.” i spent some time with ricky. we were playing different things and he kept trying different tunings. after a while i said, “well, why don’t you just try standard tuning and maybe we can come up with something interesting that way too?”

he said, “i don’t know standard tuning” so i said, “well, what tuning are you in, (G?, D?, etc…) and i can show you how to get to standard tuning from there” and he said, “i don’t know what tuning i am in.”

I said, “huh, you don’t know what tuning you are in? how do you write songs?” and he said, “i just tune the strings till i hear something i like and then something comes out.”

so i asked him, “well, how do you replay the songs you have written, like rock lobster? do you write down the tunings?” and he said, “no, i don’t write anything down, and i have no idea how the tunings go. i asked him, “how the hell do you play the songs again then”, and he said (in all seriousness), “i don’t know!” if you try to copy ricky’s style, you are in for a hell of a figure out.

So. He featured his own creation of his own open tunings. I also found it interesting that he grouped the strings of his guitar into a bass course (usually tuned to fifths for strumming) and a treble course (often tuned in unison). Technically speaking he removed the middle two strings from his playing entirely <although I read somewhere that he sometimes played with five strings>.

Anyway.

I love that their music has aspects of new wave, ‘60s rock and roll, post-punk, pop rock and what I call “white man’s hip hop” sound. If you have an opportunity to see them in concert it is fun, enthusiastic, slightly oddball, always a party.

And despite the fact they are probably best known for their album Roam. I like their earlier stuff the best. 52 girls, Dance this Mess Around, Planet Claire & Private Idaho <which may still be my favorite 52 song of all time>.

I could have provided a long list but I will try a top 5.

5. Dance this Mess Around – ok. I could summarize this with … “why won’t you dance with me? I am not no limburger.” This may be the original outrageous lyric song with amazing interplay vocals between Cindy & Fred driven by a relentless subtle tough riff guitar strung at some abnormal tuning.

(from SNL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K8jiFhmBAY&feature=related)

4. Planet Claire — over 2 minutes with no vocal and an amazingly cool I-Spy bass line to open the song. But. “she is from planet Claire and drives a Plymouth Satellite and no one has a head there.”

Awesome lyrics again with a guitar groove that any band would kill for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47YAcpCa5dM&feature=related

3. 52 Girls — The groove is impossibly sick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJwQuTqqPvo

2. Private Idaho — with a slashing guitar hook and a melody that won’t quit and the best of a Kate & Fred & Cindy lyrical interplay this song was almost my number 1.

(live) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7t7cGwN7_0

(album) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5URP6voCus&feature=related

1. Rock Lobster — a party classic. It is amazing for maybe the simple fact it has so many different distinct parts … and each one is so well crafted the song is seamlessly fun to listen to. By the time the song is over, you feel like you’ve listened to three different songs and been at one big insane funky cool party. All connected by Ricky Wilson’s oddly tuned <somewhere in the middle of a bass and a lead guitar> driving rolling chord driven riff.

Ok. This is the official video (which I do not believe many people have seen). As it is the B52s it is extremely odd … but at the 2:36 mark it shifts into live footage and you get to see Ricky doing his guitar thing, a young Fred showing why he was the perfect lead and the girls doing their thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkzvM7Skxg&feature=related

Oh.

But if I were to add in that one later album I wouldn’t add Roam or Love Shack … I would suggest Deadbeat Club as the ultimate reflective B52’s song. As they have suggested … “Deadbeat Club” evokes that sense of being young, acting crazy. That song is reflective of that earlier period, before the band began, when we were just kids running around this college town doing crazy things just for the hell of it, just for the sake of being outrageous and shocking. You just want to declare your difference, you know? But we were part of a much larger circle of friends who were very bohemian—artists, poets, we were the arty crowd.

Deadbeat Club: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KyhesAa-DA

There will always be quirky bands but there will always only be one B52s.

Oh. And a bonus for the guys.

Say you have a special evening lined up with that special lady. You have the perfect wine, the mood is good … the heck with Sade or Seal to seal the deal. Me? Strobe Light by B52s. I promise you it will make the evening special:

Strobe Light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-RS7c6TiOQ

Tr3s

July 24th, 2012

Ok. Now for the new on music.

Tr3s. Or “tres” in Spanish.

It’s a new music channel I stumbled across on one of the random number channels you get in the zillion channels available to all of us these days.

The channel is as much a bi-cultural entertainment destination as any station as there is.

It is rooted in a seamless fusion of Latin American and American music weaving through some interesting cultural aspects, and languages, bringing the biggest names in Latin American based music to the forefront. I like that it celebrates Latino culture, music and artists, and English-subtitled programming in Spanish imported from the MTV España and MTV Latin America channels.

While I don’t understand all the Spanish … good music is good music.

In addition it is slightly humbling to see the younger latino artists seamlessly shifting back and forth between Spanish & English as they talk about their music.

The station does a nice job of mixing in the truly well known international latino artists <there is a neat interview with Ricky Martin who speaks in Spanish and English where he is asked by Pitbull … who also asks the question weaving between Spanish & English … if he will rule the word again and Ricky responds “no, it is your turn my friend”> and the newer contemporary hip hop artists.

On a separate note.

This may be a naïve thing on my part as an observation but there seems to be a true, almost charming, camaraderie between the latino artists when they speak about each other, and with each other, that you certainly do not see within American artists. It could simply be editing in how they achieve that feeling but for now I will gladly dwell in my naiveté and enjoy the belief that there is some true affection, and respect, between the artists that is possibly a cultural thing.

Ok.

The music.

Let me begin with Juanes. He does an unplugged show that is frickin’ priceless. It is clearly latino musically but lyrically & melodically weaves in the best of pop. He kind of makes me think of a more pop oriented Rodrigo y Gabriela (who’s music I love). Regardless. The dude is good. The music better than good.

Juanes –‘ La Señal’ (MTV Unplugged): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez8vsao_Uik

Next.

I included this mostly because of the video <although the song is good>. It is a shame this is not more prevalent on American MTV/VH1. The message is internationally relevant and a strong messge for young people and their parents. Powerful powerful video and message.

Camila – ‘de que me sirve la vida’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YhoejhnW8w

Next.

A brother & sister. Nice songs. Charming team. Good sound. Listening to them you would tend to believe as they mature they should have some crossover songs.

Jesse & Joy – ¡Corre!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2hM9CLAMu4&feature=related

Jesse & Joy – La De La Mala Suerte: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0eIhlsks4s&feature=relmfu

Next.

I had to include this because it showcases the contemporary latino music. Oh. And it is good.

Gocho – Si Te Digo La Verdad (Mambo Mix): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuGWb6aQFZw

Next.

Ok. This kid must be like the Chris Brown of Latin America . He has the style, charisma, hooky upbeat sound … and attitude. He goes by Prince Royce.

Prince Royce – ‘Incondicional’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzT6Wq6pKY

Lastly.

I just included this because it is nice.

Julieta Venegas – ‘Mírame Bien’ (MTV Unplugged): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC_p0KJCNow&feature=related

Tr3s. I have no clue where it would be on your channel listing but if you like music and you want to hear something beyond the typical schlock we get to listen to check it out.