Well.

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

- Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

- Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

- Friendly fire … isn’t.

- Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

- The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

When they are ready
When you are not

- If the enemy is within range … so are you.

- Mines are equal opportunity weapons

- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

- When in doubt, empty your magazine.

- Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

- If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well. Never assume you are out of range.

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves. Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3^rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

Creativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

- “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

- “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

- “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

- “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

- “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

- “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

- “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure .

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

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.

nothing beats flying

February 1st, 2013

“Come to the edge,” he said.

“We are afraid,” they said.

“Come to the edge,” he said.

They came and he pushed.

And they flew.

- Appollainare

Ah.

The edge.

There is a lightning rod word.

Edge is … risky … dangerous … uncertain … for the fearless … <insert your own word here>

Because of all those words … some people fear nearing the edge.

Oh.

Of anything.

They like to remain solidly in the middle. Some call it ‘the safe ground.’ On the other hand … other people don’t consider it safe but rather they simply want to keep their feet on the ground. It is nice and solid. It is a place where even if a stiff wind catches you unaware you do not even come close to teetering near the edge.

Now.

Some people like living near the edge. Of everything.

They dance on the balance beam of life. They are really only safe when not moving and steadying themselves but never stopping any longer than to contemplate the next move on the balance beam … the edge … of life. They find comfort in the instability offered by the edge.

Regardless of how you may feel about the edge … to fly you must not only near the edge … you must step off the edge.

Now.

Some people fear flying.

Some people want to fly.

Ok.

Let me take that last one back. I guess I know that all people want to fly <in some way even if it is just in their dreams or ‘what ifs’>.

It’s just that some people are better than others at getting near the edge.

And an even fewer ‘some people’ are better at actually taking that step over the edge.

Now.

To give people a break … stepping off the edge is a big step.

That big scary step … the one where you not only go to the edge … but you step off.

It is truly one small step for a person and one giant leap for who you will be as a person (sorry Neil … I paraphrased ya …).

Some truths about this whole edge and flying thing.

Truth <part 1>?

Sometimes you do not fly … you fall. And you … well … crash. And it sucks <and hurts really really bad>. Yup. Not everyone flies when they go to the edge and take that step.

That is Life.

Just don’t beat yourself up if you fall instead of flying. The fall hurts enough . But … just because you crashed that time doesn’t mean you can’t eventually learn to fly.

Which leads me to Truth part 2.

Truth <part 2>?

In order to learn to fly you need to overcome fear.

Let’s face it. That first step with just about everything in life contains, at minimum, a sliver of fear and, at maximum, crushing fear.

That’s not bad … in fact it has a natural characteristic of caution … but fear can also be debilitating.

And fear can also create stagnancy.

And fear can exponentially increase in size if you actually crash.

Truth <part 3>?

Please note that I believe flying, or learning to fly, is not about living Life without regrets. While I am a big ‘no regret’ guy this is not about regrets. Because Life is tricky in that it is rarely a straight line. It zigs & zags and whether you have chosen to stand as far away from an edge as you can in Life or you choose to dangle your mind off the edge … Life will place an edge in front of you whether you chose it or not.

I believe the edge is not about regrets but rather the battle between Fear and Curiosity. Because we have both in all of us. And I suggest this is not about regrets because … well … regrets can reside in both Fear & Curiosity therefore simply a derivative of your choice between Fear & Curiosity.

So. All that said.

Here is what Life forces you to balance out.

The dichotomy.

Fear versus Curiosity.

Curiosity stimulates the energy to move. Curiosity, when outweighing Fear, can not only wrestle Fear out of the way to get you to the edge … but actually get you to step off even if you cannot see a landing place. Curiosity is a pretty powerful energy.

And it is powerful because Curiosity offers a prize <where Fear doesn’t really offer any added value … at best Fear offers ‘maintained value’>.

Knowledge <or ‘what is not known’> … that is the tantalizing prize.

So what do I say?

Keep your eye on the prize.

And step off the edge <or at least an edge … or 2 … in your lifetime>.

You may fly.

You may not <this time>.

Scary?

Sure.

But, let me tell you, once you have done it … nothing beats flying.

“Que scais je?” (What do I know?)

January 30th, 2013

Montaigne ended his life by saying “Que scais je?” <what do I know?> on his deathbed.

Montaigne. A man who probably spent more time thinking and searching for answers than anyone else in history. And he ends his life asking “what do I know?”

And thinking was his life.

“ … a man of thought must feel the thought that is parent to the universe.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson on Montaigne <from Representative Men>

As I sifted through some boxes of books the other day I came across my beautiful 1946 edition of The Essays of Montaigne. A wonderful book which explores thought on an astounding array of topics <cannibalism to idleness to imagination to friendship to the custom of wearing clothes>. When reading it one truly understands when Emerson says “he is never dull, never insincere, and has the genius to make the reader care for all that he cares for.”

I love it because Montaigne is this everyday person <the way he writes> … and the ultimate thoughtful thinker.

Reading his essays is like having a conversation with a casual acquaintance on a variety of topics … skipping from thought to thought like children exploring the old forest in the backyard with a new friend.

He makes you think of little things … in big ways.

Auguste Collignon’s grave in the Pere Lachaise cemetery reads … “lived to do right, and had formed himself to virtue on the Essays of Montaigne.”

True then <late 1800’s>.

True now.

The essays of Montaigne provide context to thinking <even today>. And frankly we could do a lot worse than living a Life formed on the virtue of Montaigne’s Essays.

And I believe that is what Ralph was trying to tell us.

Thinking, in general, is cheap.

Easily done and easily wasted.

Individual thoughts can roam aimlessly without any direction and without regard for any repercussions they may reap as they leave those, who actually think about those thoughts, behind.

But.

The real thinkers?

The real thought?

At some point to be ‘real’ it must explore the foundation …seek the roots of individual ideas and thoughts. Something to provide context and ground the thought in something meaningful beyond ‘I think.’.

Without feeling the ‘thought that is parent to the universe’ you may find your thinking, and thoughts, comfortable in the mind … you may even find you are even pretty satisfied with yourself … yet you have simply reached a place where thoughts can vanish … untraceable and undiscovered.

They are thoughts floating at the mercy of Life’s breeze.

At its worst it is lazy thinking. At its best it is simply mental masturbation.

Thoughts are truly invisible until they meet its parents … and look at each other eye to eye. That is what I believe Emerson was asking us to think about. It is a fair request.

As Emerson stated:

EVERY FACT is related on one side to sensation, and on the other to morals. The game of thought is, on the appearance of one of these two sides, to find the other: given the upper, to find the under side. Nothing so thin but has these two faces, and when the observer has seen the obverse, he turns it over to see the reverse. Life is a pitching of this penny,- heads or tails. We never tire of this game, because there is still a slight shudder of astonishment at the exhibition of the other face, at the contrast of the two faces. A man is flushed with success, and bethinks himself what this good luck signifies. He drives his bargain in the street; but it occurs that he also is bought and sold. He sees the beauty of a human face, and searches the cause of that beauty, which must be more beautiful. He builds his fortunes, maintains the laws, cherishes his children; but he asks himself, Why? and whereto? This head and this tail are called, in the language of philosophy, Infinite and Finite; Relative and Absolute; Apparent and Real; and many fine names beside.

Emerson called Montaigne a skeptic. With all due respect I am not sure I agree. Montaigne was a pragmatic thinker. He avoided the extreme <even found extreme ‘wrong’>. As Emerson did suggest … “He labors to plant his feet, to be the beam of the balance.” I do not believe that is a skeptic. I find that pragmatic. I find that using a good dose of common sense. And I even find that for a true deep thinker he had the ability to make the thinking non-complicated.

As all thinkers should … he believed in all and believed in nothing. He took scraps of truth found in everything and pieced them together as if building a puzzle.

“ … not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of universal doubting. He is the considerer, the prudent, taking in sail, counting stock, husbanding his means, believing that a man has too many enemies than that he can afford to be his own foe.” – Emerson on Montaigne

We cannot be all like Montaigne. He was a special man … with a special mind. But we can all be better thinkers … better considerers … better at husbanding our thoughts.

I will end with 2 thoughts <hopefully deep thoughtful thoughts>:

First.

Here is Emerson’s full quote reference.

The final solution in which skepticism is lost, is in the moral sentiment, which never forfeits its supremacy. All moods may be safely tried, and their weight allowed to all objections: the moral sentiment as easily outweighs them all, as any one. This is the drop which balances the sea. I play with the miscellany of facts, and take those superficial views which we call skepticism; but I know that they will presently appear to me in that order which makes skepticism impossible. A man of thought must feel the thought that is parent of the universe; that the masses of nature do undulate and flow.

Reason, the prized reality, the Law, is apprehended, now and then, for a serene and profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares and works which have no direct bearing on it;- is then lost for months or years, and again found for an interval, to be lost again. If we compute it in time, we may, in fifty years, have half a dozen reasonable hours.- Emerson

Whew.

‘… Reason is apprehended now and then for a profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares … we may in 5o years have a half dozen reasonable hours.’

And that, my friends, is stated by one of the greatest thinkers of that generation discussing one of the greatest thinkers of another generation..

Bigger thoughts, big ideas and deep thinking, are exceptions rather than the rule.

True deep thought has its rare victories.

We may feel reasonable in how we think and when we think … and how often we think deeply about things … but the profound moments of reason are fleeting and rare.

Why do I say that?

For perspective.

I don’t say it to discourage anyone from deep thinking <because frankly all of us should do so more often> but rather simply to give perspective.

It is a good reminder to keep those of us who like to think … well … humble.

Second.

Deep thought comes at a price. Or maybe better said … deep thinking does not increase the value of self worth <or ego>.

Montaigne said: “There is no man, in his opinion, who has not deserved hanging five or six times; and he pretends no exception in his own behalf. Five or six as ridiculous stories,”too, he says, can be told of me, as of any man living.”

So not only is clarity of Reason few within a life time … but it is combined with the fact we, probably in the same quantity as the few victories, connect thought to action in a way that “we deserve hanging.”

Deep thought’s price is few victories and a few, possibly mortal, mistakes.

Deep thought is not for the faint of heart or for those who need ‘wins’ to feel good about themselves or find self actualization <or self esteem>.

Deep thought is not always ‘reasonable’ nor even right all the time. So what does that mean? Deep thought is that, and only that … deep. Being thoughtful does not mean being right.

Why do I say that?

Once again not to discourage deep thinking but rather to suggest deep thinking is a journey in which you will find scattered right and wrong thoughts as way stations along the way. And you will most likely stop at a number of both types of stations to rest your thinking.

The real moral? Keep moving. Stay on the journey <and avoid getting hanged>.

Keep thinking.

Thinking is good.

Deep thoughts and thinking is even gooder.

So.

My deep thought ends like this.

Montaigne ended his life on his deathbed saying “Que scais je?” <What do I know?>

Not everyone can live that kind of life … but if you can? Whew. What a Life.

Would not that more of us said this to ourselves every day … what do I know?

In closing.

Emerson … “Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

Good advice for anyone.

imagination defined

January 18th, 2013

So.

I struggle to find a more important attribute in a happy & healthy person than a good imagination.

Yeah.

Maybe more important than good nutrition.

Maybe I am naïve but I tend to believe a happy mind tends to guide one to a healthier body & lifestyle. And imagination feeds a happy mind .

Simplistic? Sure. But you gotta start somewhere.

And I also believe all those people who starve themselves or become fitness nuts or feed themselves to attain some absurd body proportions should skip the ‘meal plans’ and ‘counting whatever you want to count’ and ‘tracking plans’ and begin with what is going on in the mind <but I imagine that is a different post>.

Regardless.

Imagination is a powerful thing to create a healthy mind <let me just focus on that aspect>. I found some guy named Murray Hunter who must feel the same way I do because he invested a shitload of energy analyzing imagination and different types of imagination and the components of a good imagination. In fact Murray defines different imaginations <which I will outline later in the post>.

I think it is helpful to state a reminder that imagination is thinking.

Sound obvious? Maybe. But I tend to believe we don’t … well … often think this way about imagination … or maybe not enough. I tend to believe imagination has some abstract reputation that makes it elusive to the many. It sometimes becomes a characteristic of a select few rather than an aspect of all of us. In fact … I believe we herd the idea of a ‘good imagination’ into fewer and fewer people the older we get. For some reason we attribute imagination to tangible output and create imagination scorecards for people therefore leading to people who have high scores versus people who have low scores <people with good imaginations versus bad, or no, imagination>. And … well … that is kind of crazy. Mainly because that means we have evaluated an intangible <imagination> with the tangible <results>.

To me? That is nuts.

We all have imagination.

We all portray imaginative thinking.

We all may use imagination differently.

Imaginative thinking provides the ability to travel a variety of roads as we move toward some point on the horizon <in a tangible sense that would be called strategies & objectives>. By the way … that thought is relevant to Life as well as business.

Imagination simply provides us with the ability to be more divergent, or random, than logical thought. In addition imagination permits us to move more freely across different fields of thought and constructs of organized ‘attitudes & beliefs’ while logical thinking is more orientated to a narrowly focused path.

Now. Good ole Murray suggested that imagination is probably more important than knowledge <as knowledge without application is useless>. I don’t agree with that. Mostly because I do not believe you can have imagination, or at least a productive imagination, without some knowledge. Or maybe better said … more knowledge leads to more imagination. But. Rather than invest a lot of energy debating that knowledge/imagination conundrum … I will simply suggest this is the infamous chicken or egg discussion. It is simultaneous and circular. You cannot have one without the other.

Anyway.

Most of the following words are his and I apologize to him if, as I edited his words <to shape my own thoughts>, I have changed his intent in anyway.

Suffice it to say that imagination has multiple dimensions <too many if you actually buy everything Murray is trying to sell us>. But I do believe it is helpful to analyze the different aspects of the imagination rather than simply suggest someone is ‘using their imagination’ or ‘has a good imagination’ because … well … as with most things in life … not all imagination is created equal.

So. If the topic is not only of interest to you but also important to you then understanding some of the aspects may assist in how you approach enhancing a healthy productive imagination. Here is how Murray breaks it all down <note – I am including all his categories but I do believe he dances on the head of a pin on some aspects>:

- Effectuative imagination.

Let’s call this random imagination. Effectuative combines information together to synergize new concepts and ideas. The ideas tend to be ‘visionary’ and are often incomplete. This type of imagination needs to be enhanced, modified, and/or elaborated upon as more information from the environment comes to attention and is reflected upon.

Effectuative imagination can be either guided or triggered by random thoughts, usually stimulated by what a person experiences within the framework of their past experience. These people may also be maddening because they incubate <pondering a specific problem> by leaving the problem alone … the occasional attention lets the mind wander possibilities … or nothing … and randomly imagines a solution.

Effectuative imagination is extremely flexible and allows for continuous change. This is an important ingredient in entrepreneurial planning, strategy development, particularly in opportunity construction, development, and assembling all the necessary resources required to exploit any opportunity.

I would suggest we hate and love these people and their imaginations. In our process driven world we want to give a deadline and specific objective and milestones … and these people go to the beat of their own drum.

Here is an even crazier thought. Everyone can do this. Crazy, huh? If you buy into the randomness then some people will portray this random imagination weekly … and some once a decade. The really sad part? The once in a decade person is screwed in today’s world. If they do not deliver today they get put in a ‘non-imagination box’ and we ignore them.

Too bad <for the rest of us>. Because, frankly. an effectuative imaginative idea is an effectuative imaginative idea. One is not any better or worse than another. Quality is an independent variable where each is discrete in its value. These people, to me, are builders. Often they are building something that has never been built before <these people are often miserable because they see shit other people do not see … and, as we know, most people are resistant to the truly ‘new’>.

- Intellectual imagination.

Intellectual is utilized when considering and developing hypotheses from different pieces of information or pondering over various issues of meaning say in the areas of philosophy, management, or politics, etc. Intellectual imagination originates from a definite idea or plan and thus is guided imagination as it has a distinct purpose which in the end must be articulated after a period of painstaking and sometimes meticulous endeavor. Murray used Charles Darwin as a prime example. Intellectual imagination <the ability to imagine that which seemed semi-unimaginable> developed his hypothesis leading to The Origin of Species which took almost two decades to gestate and complete. Darwin collected information, analyzed it, evaluated and criticized the findings, and then reorganized all the information into new knowledge in the form of a hypothesis . Intellectual imagination is a very conscious process.

Personally I put this in the ‘renovation’ category. These people use their imagination to take that which is, break it apart and ultimately imagine it all in a new configuration. These people are less miserable than the miserable Effectuative people mostly because at least their imaginations are using mostly existing pieces to suggest change and new.

- Imaginative fantasy.

Fantasy creates and develops stories, pictures, poems, stage-plays, and the building of the esoteric. This form of imagination may be based upon the inspiration of some fact or semi-autobiographical experiences, extrapolated or analogized into new persona and events that conform to or stretch the realms of reality into some magical alternative option. Imaginative fantasy may be very tangible in its construct … very structural <people in real world settings, past, present, or future … or with real people in mythical settings>. Fantasy may totally disregard the rules of society, science and nature, or extrapolate them into a created future. Fantasy can also be based upon human emotions, distorted historical facts, historical times and political issues, take a theme and fantasize it, encapsulate dark fantasy, or evoke urban legend. Imaginative fantasy can be a mixture of guided and unguided imagination and appears to be important to artists, writers, dancers, and musicians, etc.

These people are extremely happy people … but this imagination lives in an alternative world <which means they may not fit in with the rest of mainstream very easily>. This imagination seamlessly eases its way into the world because most people clearly identify it as ‘not change’ but rather ‘not real.’ We love these people because on occasion in their ‘non-real’ imagination they figure out a way to articulate something real in our own lives. We rarely judge them on everything they do and say but rather on those magical moments when they reach inside us and show us something about the way we think or feel.

- Empathy Imagination

Empathy tied to Imagination is an interesting category. It suggests a capacity to connect to others and feel what they are feeling. Empathy imagination helps someone put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Let someone know emotionally what others are experiencing from their frame and reference. Empathy allows our mind ‘to detach itself from one’s self’ and see the world from someone else’s feelings, emotions, pain, and reasoning. Empathy links us to the larger community and thus important to human survival in enabling us to understand what is required to socially coexist with others.

Interestingly, this type of imagination, besides being extremely important in Life, can be an important characteristic in Business. It enables one to think about how competition thinks and reacts and what they would do. I guess branding can also be considered a result of empathy as marketers try and capture connections with potential customers by appealing to their emotions, self identity and aspirations.

- Strategic imagination

While Murray didn’t suggest this … I will … this type of imagination to me is very specific. Strategic is concerned about vision of ‘what could be’, the ability to recognize and evaluate opportunities by turning them into mental scenarios, seeing the benefits, identifying the types and quantities of resources required for taking particular actions, and the ability to weigh up all the issues in a strategic manner. This type of ‘imagining what could be’ helps a person focus upon the types of opportunities suited to them <their personal motivations being the main driver>.

I tend to believe that strategic imagination translates into what we everyday schmucks would call “wise people” <not wise asses>.

- Emotional Imagination

I call this “imagining how I may feel” imagination. This is concerned with manifesting emotional dispositions and extending them into emotional scenarios. Without any imagination, emotion would not be able to emerge from our psych and manifest as feelings, moods, and dispositions. Fear requires the imagination of what is fearful, hate requires imagination about what is repulsive, and worry requires the imaginative generation of scenarios that make one anxious. Through emotional imagination, beliefs are developed through giving weight to imaginative scenarios that generate further sets of higher order emotions. Emotional imagination operates at the unconscious and semi-unconscious level. Emotional imagination a very powerful type of imagination and can easily dominate the thinking processes.

By the way … I tend to believe people who have a vivid emotional imagination are typically emotional wrecks. These are the people who constantly swing between envisioning what would make them happy and living through ‘what if’ misery . These people are almost the exact opposite of what Eckhart Tolle would call “living in the now.” They live in the ‘what if.’ Me? I would shoot myself. What a waste of a good imagination.

- Dreams.

I was surprised Murray threw dreams into Imagination but I included it because I included everything else he dreamed up <sorry for that>. He suggests that dreams are an unconscious form of imagination made up of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations … just that this imagination occurs while you sleep rather than when you are awake. An interesting thought. Dreams show that every concept in our mind has its own psychic associations and that ideas we deal with in everyday life are by no means as precise as we think. Our experiences imprint our memory passing into the subconscious where the factual characteristics can be reacquired or be revised at some point. Regardless … we are not in control of our dreams … this is completely unfettered imagination <an interesting idea in its own right>.

I will admit that I mostly left this in my post because I have a pen & paper next to my own bed. I am not sure I would call what I do when I sleep as “dreaming” but I certainly think. And it helps if I wake up to write down what I thought <before the ‘brilliance’ slips away>. I hesitate to call this ‘dreaming’ because I think of words, business & ideas … not unicorns, angels and stepping through rings of fire to save some damsel in distress. Regardless … this is an interesting aspect I am glad good ole Murray thought about.

- Memory reconstruction.

This type of imagination is the process of retrieving our memory of people, objects, and events. Our memory is made up of prior knowledge consisting of a mix of truth and belief, influenced by emotion. Recurring memory therefore carries attitudes, values, and identity as most of our memory is within the “I” or “me” paradigm. Memory is also reconstructed to fit into our current view of the world, so is very selective.

If you are truly interested in this delineation please do not hesitate to pick up Clotaire Rapaille’s The Culture Code. You will be interested because this type of imagination has to be consciously redirected because Clotaire does a fabulous job in suggesting some of the memory imprints we have are solidly imprinted in our subconscious … therefore dictating a thought platform from which our imagination leverages from. An interesting paradox if you believe imagination is a blank slate.

Done.

Whew.

this has turned out to be a bear of a post to write & edit … which is a shame because it is on a topic I truly enjoy … imagination and knowledge.

In the end I wanted to break down imagination into these somewhat absurd delineations to make a point. Knowledge <and curiosity I imagine> have almost always been discussed in infinite terms. While, oddly, imagination has been discussed as finite <as in some people do not have it>.

The relationship between knowledge and imagination is inextricably tied. And both are expanding geometrically. Murray suggested somewhere in something he wrote that this exponential growth is devaluing knowledge <but not imagination>. I disagree. Adamantly disagree.

I believe the value of knowledge, in particular, is increasing exponentially … because the game of Life has raised its competitive bar. Therefore people need to be able to use all their tools, imagination included, to be more competitive with Life <not other people>. Developing capabilities to investigate and assimilate information and inventing new ways of looking at it is becoming increasingly important. Honestly that thought is at the core of Enlightened Conflict. It is the next step from encouraging curiosity <and actually acting upon your curiosity>.

To end this whole post & thought.

Seeking knowledge and using your imagination is certainly something internally driven. However … to fully prosper it needs to be nurtured … given the space and environment to be successful.

That will not happen until everyone … well … at least the everyones who can crush the potential … recognize everyone has a vivid imagination when given the opportunity. And maybe that is why I went into such excruciating detail on differentiating imagination. Maybe somewhere in the excruciating detail some anal retentive manager/leader will latch on to a reason to give someone a chance to use their imagination.

more truth in it than you wish

January 14th, 2013

“Isn’t it because there’s more truth in it than you might wish? … I told him. This brought the conversation to an end and we walked along side by side in silence.” <from ‘A hero of our time’ by Lermontov>

Before I begin … Russian writer Lermontov. One of the most underrated & overlooked/unknown writers of all time. Anton Chekhov once said of him … “I know of no language better than that of Lermontov.” Even with some of the struggles in translation I believe few people have ever had his gift with words. By 18 he had written more than 300 poems, 3 plays, a book and an unknown amount of unfinished work. Pick up something he has written.

Most of us can only dream of using words like he did.

Now. About some of his words …

Truth is a tricky thing.

Not only is it difficult to discern.

It is also difficult to “find” … definitively define.

And difficult to speak to someone.

And it is also incredibly difficult to hear … and as Lermontov writes …

“… more truth in it than you may wish.”

Sharing the truth with someone is difficult. Not just because it is sometimes difficult to find the strength of character to step up to the plate and speak … but it also takes a true measure of your character in dealing with the response. I have found that in most cases … truth, when spoken, has more truth in it than someone wishes to hear.

Does that make it wrong? Not always. But truth is not a light nor sharp weapon, it is more likely a blunt edged bludgeon.

“… we walked along side by side in silence” may actually reflect a ‘good response’ situation for it means at least you are still side by side.

As for the silence part? Truth can often be a silence generator.

Now … it is almost always also a thinking generator.

In addition, most oddly, truth seems to also often generate doubt … not agreement or something good … just doubt. Doubt in the words. Doubt in the intent. Doubt in the genuineness. Doubt in the deliverer.

And in that we go to another Lermontov thought:

“I spoke the truth, but no one believed me, so I took to deceit.” – Lermontov

And he also wrote this:

I prefer to doubt everything. Such an attitude makes no difference to a man’s determination – on the contrary, as far as I‘m concerned, I always go more boldly forward when I know nothing of what lies ahead. After all, the worst you can do is die, you’ve got to die sometime. <Pechorin in Hero of our Time>

I do not subscribe to this belief … but I do believe attitudinally Truth Tellers run a gauntlet of doubt and desire to quit when it comes to actually telling the truth … and are often tempted to ‘take to deceit’ instead.

William James said:

“The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths.”

With all due respect to William James … the true greatest enemy of any one of our truths is ourselves.

It takes a shitload of fortitude to tell truths of the depth & breadth of ‘more than you may wish.’ It takes strength of character. It takes a strong sense of ‘doing what is right.’

Truth probably has more enemies with more weapons than any superpower in the world.

And there are probably fewer defenders of Truth than ever before … and they are armed with … well … no weapons but Truth itself.

Oh. And a belief in self.

Anyway.

Maybe I should have included this post in my Texas Ranger post … because the few keepers of Truth have to believe that it is ‘hard to stop someone a’comin who is in the right’ or they will fall prey to deceit & doubt.

In the end?

Truth tellers are hard to stop. Thank god for that. But it is too bad they remain as few as the Texas Rangers I wrote about before. We need more of them today than ever before.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting. I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

13 and new year predictions

December 31st, 2012

I am not superstitious. I have worn 13 <although 15 or 5 seemed to be what I wore all the time> and I seem no worse for the wear.

But we now enter a 13.

2013.

Here is the good news.

The ancient Egyptians believed that, on the last rung of a 13 step ladder to eternity, the soul would find everlasting life.

I like that.

And I personally believe this 13 will be a lucky year globally <especially now that we have resolved the whole Mayan calendar issue>.

I believe several things but mostly despite the fact there will be some disgruntling issues <slower economy than people really want, unresolved issues in the Middle East … crap like that>, that globally we will take a step up on the ladder to an everlasting soul.

We maybe even take a couple steps up.

Here are my 2013 predictions … or maybe better said … my thoughts for 2013. There are only 11 but that leaves room for 2 more to be added at a later date.

Let me begin with where I believe we will really need to step up <but probably will not>:

1. Youth unemployment

This is about hiring as well as what we do with them when we do hire them. The young are getting screwed in a number of ways. And while being unemployed seems like the biggest it is actually only the first domino in what we need to be sure we address. By being unemployed there are 3 key issues we need to be prepared to deal with:

- Lack of training: typically as we hire young people we have lower expectations for what they are capable of doing. We permit them some time for ‘on the ground training’ as they gain experience. The longer they stay unemployed the longer they miss out on this practical training. Now. Most unemployed youth are not remaining mentally idle … they are thinking, observing & improving personally. This translates into a new, different type of entering workforce. Existing management needs to think about that … very carefully. It represents a challenge … and an opportunity.

My main prediction? Existing management will fuck this up. They will remain with status quo thinking and get poor results … but most importantly … we will miss an opportunity with this generation of youth.

- Lack of earnings: studies have shown the longer you wait to begin your earning history the less you earn in your lifetime <for a variety of reasons>. Short term this may not mean a lot but long term there is a huge issue with regards to earning history, savings and lifetime net worth.

My main prediction? Existing management will fuck this up. Mainly because they will only see the short term as an opportunity to get an older, more mature, cheaper employee and not recognize the longer term issues that will arise.

- Lack of ROY <return on youth>: youth and young people are the cheapest innovation engine in any organization. While typically overlooked in an innovation model their innate ability to provide a fresh perspective through fresh eyes is invaluable. Organizations may not recognize their current loss with the ‘lack of youth’ within their organizations but it is having an impact. It has a domino effect within an organization. Without the ‘hidden youth engine’ more pressure will fall on older employees for innovative ideas … and these employees are more focused on ‘safe behavior to maintain employment” and … well … you can see where this ends up.

I have a much longer article coming up on this but suffice it to say this will be a big issue in 2013 … and it will be one I am not confident we will manage well.

2. Education

I call this the hollowing of education. And I believe it is the most overlooked issue with regard to education today. Everyone seems to be focused on “average scores” in assessing education. Silly. Education’s issue is actually the increasing hollow between the haves and the have nots. Richer kids are getting better educations. Poorer kids are getting worse educations. Richer kids are getting better scores and stack up well versus the best of the best everywhere. Poorer kids are getting worse scores and stack up poorly versus even the middle of the rest of the world. The average score looks worse because more kids are getting worse scores than the kids who are getting great scores.

My prediction is that we will continue to focus on the wrong things and the bulk of kids will continue getting a shitty education.

Okay.

Here is where I think we will step up to the plate, the good things, and actually do in 2013.

- Global economy

I admit that I have a different perspective on this. Mainly because I believe the past double digit growth was not normal but rather simply just a “good run” economically. In addition I also believe structurally the global economy is going through a renovation as emerging countries gain an economic foothold and the larger economies are subsequently playing a smaller role. I believe Fareed Zakaria calls this ‘the rise of the rest.’ Western economies need to recognize not that they are smaller but that smaller players have become bigger. People may be disappointed by what is perceived as smaller growth numbers but, globally, individual country’s economies will restructure to become more profitable & efficient and be in a position to have another ‘good economic run’ in maybe 3 to 5 years. Yes. I am suggesting 2013 will be a good year for global economy because it will pay off in the long term rather than short term.

I know … crazy thinking.

- China & US

A lot has been made about the upcoming struggle between China & US for global leadership as well as some relatively wacky diatribes on the US dependence upon China fiscally.

In general I think 2013 will be a good year for this relationship. The truth is that each country needs the other economically. China has been a major funder of US innovation & infrastructural spending and US has been the number one consumer of China productivity. This mutual dependence may create some issues but I also believe it will create some good programs as each country tries to limit their dependence on each other. By the way … that interdependence also assists in foreign policy discussions. We should worry when neither is dependent upon the other … and 2013 is not that time.

- Global poverty

Mostly because I am too lazy to look up the specific numbers I won’t quote specifics. But my memory suggests we made some significant inroads to reducing global poverty in 2012. And I envision that we will have another very good year in 2013 in addressing global poverty.

Poverty is attacked through education and ‘survival infrastructure’ <access to clean water & proper nutrients>. We seem to finally be taking steps to build the foundation globally so that people can lift themselves out of poverty.

And, while the media seems to suggest that the world is in turmoil, they are actually wrong. Poverty is being eliminated mainly because of stability & lack of turmoil. Many of the emerging countries are more stable <economically & politically> than ever before and that permits their population to survive <and be productive> rather than be transient & at war. So I imagine a secondary prediction to poverty reduction is increased peace globally.

- Someone will break a meaningful sports record <and Messi will solidify his legacy>

2012 was a spectacular sports year … in fact … almost unprecedented.

Usain Bolt at the Olympics? A Brit in the Wimbledon finals? A baseball triple crown winner? A running back coming with 9 yards of a single season rushing record <and one year after tearing his knee to shreds>? Messi scoring more goals in one year than anyone else?

Records were broken. Things were done that hadn’t been done in decades.

So for 2013 I will begin with Messi. Scoring records are tricky things because most people just look at it as a “quantity record” and there will always be someone figuring out a way to diminish quantity. But every once in a while a superior athlete in their sport comes along and breaks a scoring record with quality. Wayne Gretzky did it in hockey. Messi just did it in soccer. In 2013 he will be recognized not for his quantity of goals but rather his wizardry on the pitch. His legacy will be solidified in 2013.

And someone will break some sports record we cannot imagine ever being broken. I will not even attempt to guess what it will be mostly because who would have ever predicted a guy who tore his anterior cruciate would actually get back on the football field the following season and run for over 2000 yards? That is why predicting record breaking is almost next to impossible. We are talking about sports freaks of nature.

- Diplomacy will reign in foreign policy

War and death is at an all-time low globally. And yet it seems like we constantly teeter on the edge of war & death. I won’t comment on how media skews our perspective here but I will suggest that in 2013 global foreign policy will re-establish diplomacy as the key action to a productive interlocking global community in 2013.

I believe more soldiers in more countries will remain in their homes in 2013 than in previous years.

I believe foreign policy leaders <who will avoid politics> will rise above the din of the hawks & doves clamoring for ‘here is what you should do’ and collectively find diplomatic solutions for the globe’s most unsettled situations. Will it last? Geez. Skip down to the second prediction from here and you will see ‘power of the people.’ Foreign policy diplomats can only set up a successful infrastructure but it is the people who end up having the responsibility to make it work. I cannot predict people’s <populations> actions.

But I can predict foreign policy and I think it will be a very good year for foreign policy diplomats. In a government universe that often looks like a huge village of idiots they will rise above the incompetence and be incredibly competent on the world stage.

- USA will begin believing in itself again.

We are a stubborn egotistical nation … but magnificently resilient. At some point we will remember what made US great wasn’t being number one … it was being number 2 … and trying harder. Frankly we are better as a country when we are competing and not being the prohibitive favorite to win. I think in 2013 <maybe later in the year rather than the beginning> the US will quit whining about what was and will get on with “what will be.” And they will begin believing in itself again. And it will start competing again.

I am not suggesting infrastructural issues will be resolved … but I do believe that people will begin believing they can beat the infrastructure. Beat the system. And you know what? The system can be beat. It is absolutely not a fair system in the US at the moment <the USA has a depressingly low score on social mobility … the ability to shift economic status upwards> but I believe people will just say ‘fuck it … if I wait for the system to get fixed I may as well wait until a woman wins the Masters golf tournament.’

The people will take matters into their own hands and begin believing in whatever it is that US believes in <just do it, do it myself, whatever you want to call it>.

The economy will improve not because of more government or less government … in fact the government & taxes & stimulus is irrelevant … it will be because people’s attitudes will change. They will just believe it should be better and will set out to make it better … regardless of the system they are asked to operate within.

Which leads me to the next … power of the people.

- Power of the people

There are 2 aspects to this belief for 2013.

People themselves and the impact of the people.

First. People.

Western countries have the non-humble belief they are constantly teaching every one else … well … everything. I actually believe western countries will be applying learning from others in 2013. In fact they will learn from the Middle East. We watched the past several years as people in countries began standing up and topping their leadership. Now. I believe we are less focused on the toppling and more focused on the fact people are standing up and speaking out for their beliefs … and getting some traction and action. Therefore more and more people will be less silent and more active.

This will obviously create some issues because most existing countries populations are not aligned and therefore it could end up being more divisive … but in the end people will become less ‘silent majority’ and more ‘speaking majority.’ It will not all be productive but it will certainly produce some action.

Second. The impact.

I almost created a separate prediction called “the continued rise of the nation state” but realized that this is but a subset of the power of the people. If you haven’t been paying attention there is an increasing trend of devolving larger nation states to smaller nation states. This is a natural evolution of countries but it is also a reflection of a more vocal ‘people.’ Sudan splitting. Yugoslavia splitting. Catalonia discussing splitting from Spain. States with secession petitions in the US. Regardless … as people step up and speak out they also think more ‘nationalized’ in a smaller tighter way. It is natural. We tend to forget that Germany as it exists has only existed since 1871 <not counting the split between East & West after WW2>. Italy has only existed since 1861. USA in its current 50 state form since 1959. Heck. Poland didn’t exist for 100 years in the 1800s when it was part of Germany/Austria/Russia. Countries evolve and devolve. I believe we are in a devolution phase. Where will it happen next? I do not know. But I predict it will <or begin to> in 2013.

- Purge of the politicians

I believe it is going to be a very bad year to be a politician in a western country in 2013. Mostly because of what I just wrote <power of the people> and also because … well … they have shown no indication they can do what is right to date. And with pressure from people? I cannot envision their lives getting any easier. From Argentina to the US to Germany to Spain … people are sick of politicians and their ineffectiveness. At some point politicians will have to step up and explain to people why they are worthy of representing people … or they will be purged … or just become irrelevant.

Which leads me to my last prediction … about a new breed of leaders.

- The rise of leaders

I do believe it is going to be a great, not good, year for new leaders. Now. We may not recognize them as true leaders in 2013 but I envision 2013 as the year our next generation of great leaders will arise from the turmoil.

I believe I will call this new leadership group … the sifters. They will have the ability to sift through the loud voices, the silent voices and their peer’s voices … and decide what is right … and do it <whether it is ‘popular’ or not>. For example … in the USA it is going to be the ones who stand up and go “we need to raise taxes <on everyone not just the wealthy> and we need to make spending cuts and we need to revamp entitlement programs and we need to regulate businesses until they can prove they can be trustworthy and we need to make government departments accountable … or we eliminate them.” Basically we will find a new group of young leaders who will explain common sense … even if it is some unpopular common sense … and tell people the truth … and do what needs to be done.

This is going to happen not only in the USA but also France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and a number of other ‘developed countries.’

This is one prediction I will put money on.

We may not reap the full benefits of this group for another 5 to 10 years but I believe we will look back on 2013 as the year of the rise of the great leaders.

I purposefully ended my 2013 predictions with that last one on leaders. And I did so as I circle back to how I started this post … globally we will take a step up on the ladder to an everlasting soul.

I believe 2013 will be a very good year for our global soul. Will it be easy? Nope. Because nothing as important as this ever is. But collectively we are grasping the concept of global citizenship. That doesn’t mean we will think less ‘nationally’ but rather we are beginning to understand the fact our individual actions impact the global community more and more.

When we speak there is someone miles and miles away who hears.

When we act our actions echo in far corners of places we cannot even pronounce the name of.

When we listen we hear wisdom from places we never knew had wise people.

We have a ways to go but I do believe we will take a step up on that ladder in 2013.

indifference

December 28th, 2012

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.” ― Elie Wiesel

Ok.

While I believe life, in general, is indifferent to our fate in life … I believe we should not be indifferent to our fate.

In other words … because Life is indifferent to us … it is up to us to actually make something happen … to not be indifferent.

In other words …

If you do nothing … you will gain nothing.

Well.

Actually. If you do nothing you will get less than nothing. Mostly because life is … well … indifferent. It will not pay attention to you unless you pay attention to it.

I say that because I think some people believe if they knew there would be no consequences for their actions they would lead a fuller life. They would have the courage to do more and take some chances.

Maybe have the courage to let themselves go forward. Maybe take some more risks <risks sometimes simply being things that move you even slightly out of your comfort zone … not big hairy audacious actions>.

And those people do nothing because they fear the consequences.

They have forgotten that Life is indifferent.

Here is the tricky thing about life.

It is kind of a trap.

Doing more, taking some chances, means more responsibility for actions.

It is simple math.

The more you ‘do’ the more shit you can be blamed for … or … given credit for <that is a Life formula I believe>.

Life is built to be stimulated. If you do not stimulate it … it is indifferent to you.

By the way.

Elie didn’t mean that when he said this.

While I may have made some valid life points … he was speaking about standing off to the side in Life and allowing bad to succeed over good.

And while being indifferent with regard to ourselves is a shame. In general it is harmless to anyone excepting ourselves.

But. If we are indifferent to life outside of us … and what is happening … you should be aware that bad, or evil, is not indifferent.

It is always active.

It is always opportunistic.

And in the end maybe that last point really is the big point about our Life.

Indifference permits that which is bad, which is always active, to win.

If you are indifferent hate, ugliness, heresy and despair … it will run your life. It will win.

Doing nothing means you lose.

That means that doing nothing, being indifferent, is not really taking the safe path … although it may feel so at the time. By being indifferent you permit all that is ‘not good’ to surround you … and smother you.

My point?
If we all did this, be indifferent, evil wins.

Heck.

If the majority of us did that, bad wins <in the bigger scheme of things>.

Frankly, I believe many of us think we are not indifferent … and yet we are.

Ok. Maybe selectively indifferent … but indifferent nonetheless.

I know I am <when I don’t pay attention>.

We should all pay a little more attention to indifference.

I know … I know. It can be difficult. Rightfully so we tend to focus on our lives and what is happening day to day. And I am not suggesting we shouldn’t. Because most of that is important.

But that may mean we become indifferent to other, pretty important things, swirling around us.

And maybe we do so assuming someone else is not indifferent.

And that is where I believe “bad” <ugliness, heresy, evil, etc.> is crafty. I believe they whisper in our selective indifferent ears suggesting “don’t worry, you don’t have time but someone else is not indifferent … THEY will make time.”

Bad is good at this. Bad is good at convincing us to let some responsibility slip to others.

Evil is everywhere and sly and relentless.

Sure.

It may seem tiring to know you cannot be indifferent … but for what is right, what is good, to win … we cannot let down our guard and be indifferent.

Even if you are indifferent personally you need to recognize Life needs people who are actively involved.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: to slay a dragon you need to believe in dragons

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

imagination defined

more truth in it than you wish

indifference

Enlightened Conflict