Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: what is the place of words

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

Well.murphys stupid

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.

 

interviewing jonny_asking_questions_2Professionals 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.mustache reindeer

 

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 3rd 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.

 

corporate cultureCreativity 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 Marquisinstinct collective_unconsciouness

 

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 <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

 

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

 

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

instinct good or badNow.

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.

let the clocks stop

April 6th, 2013

April is national poetry month. The concept of a month for poetry seems almost silly to me.Stop All The Clocks paper tree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe better said … bring moments in Life alive.

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

 

“The poet begins where the man ends.

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

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

 

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

Poetry brings out the moment within the Life moments.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

—–

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

 

Well.

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

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

I write <bad amateurish> poetry.

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

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 <I know from experience>. 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.

do your best boyAnd 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.thoughts and thinking dog

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:

indecision coin tossEVERY 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.

<note from me: Emerson was a wonderful writer … wasn’t he?>

 

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. deep thoughts que saisje_inv1But 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.

MontaigneMy 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.

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.

conscience & psychopaths & cynicism … or naiveté

November 5th, 2012

Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

So.

This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles … oh … and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained  in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>. That relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant.

But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’ but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree … but I was in a minority.

And until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself <now … there is an interesting thought to ponder as I look in the mirror>.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

-          It is most often not any predator trait but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

-          Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

-          Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved but I did know one thing … that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). Just as an organism metaphor can be used … the organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own.

Regardless.

About dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest … the true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less greed. In fact, when interviewed most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear …

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens? As good managers do … they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find>.

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure. I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words … one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies but you gotta start somewhere.

But. The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of other’s mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities.

-          Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought.

Research has shown us several things.

-          All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

-          And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” – Professor Bloom

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical … and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.”

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

-          At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

now. I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So.

Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk.

Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong.

Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non psychopaths would regard as the correct answer. <by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong?

It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

- “Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members.  Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.  And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.  Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs.  Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.  You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness.  The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.” – Martha Stout Ph.D.

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience.  You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.  This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy.  Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said … do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company? Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has? Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths … ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between. As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? once again … I doubt it.

So what happens? Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>.

Let me be clear. The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So.

If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law <I did not make this up>.

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded.

Any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Think about it.

Because you almost have to believe that … or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true Pyschopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.

1855 and 2012 (or … an Open Letter to My Generation)

September 19th, 2012

Dear My Generation <us older folk>,

Ok. I feel like we need to have a talk. Not just a talk but maybe a ‘talk talk.’ You know what I mean. Now. I am going to avoid the “am I better off today” topic but suggest in an open letter to my generation that we may not be in an economic crisis but rather a cultural crossroads. And I may suggest that we need to quit complaining and/or blaming and step up to the plate. Anyway. It seems like we get so caught up in ‘how bad – we feel/perceive – it is today versus yesterday” we overlook this period in time may simply be an example of painful well-needed progress <oh, isn’t all progress painful?>.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.” – Immanuel Kant

Note #1: Versions of this thought were recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Note #2: The idea that we are bad, and getting worse, feels remarkably comfortable across cultures.

Note #3: My generation seems to be crying loudly at this time.

This thought is also true for each generation’s belief, or nonbelief, with regard to our views on human nature and its prospects. Most cultures have a myth of a golden age from which we are in decline, but in the absence of evidence on whether the state of nature was violent or utopian or truly golden or gold plated.

Note #4 <or rather a question>: so … is much of our current angst about the world simply a reflection of the fact attitudinally we change, progress, is painful … as well as difficult to see while within the moment?

Ok.

What made me think about all of this?

I had some beers the other night with a bunch of guys in my generation <old white guys … I am also an old white guy>. Prior to beer I was fairly optimistic with regard to the world and when I left I had a sense of several of the following:

-          Armageddon is upon us <at least the old white guys>

-          The world is crumbling around us <and it is mostly Obama’s fault>

-          America is a pansy in foreign policy <we should be killing, crushing, smothering someone … yet to be identified but it should have already been done>

-          The Islam slur video on youtube is simply an expression of freedom of speech

-          Cats & dogs are living together <but cannot be married>

-          We are doing nothing but complaining, bickering and blaming someone else

Personally I find it difficult to discuss progress when most people I hear think we are headed to hell <in a hand basket> and want to complain someone should do something about it or just blame someone for it.

Regardless. I am gonna try. Because I need to tell some things that are on my mind to my generation <us older folk>.

The truth is that all times are changing times. Times of moral and mental transformation whether we like it, or want it, or not. When what is viewed as simplicity by looking in a rear view mirror looks like chaos when viewing through the front windshield. What everyone knows is true becomes only wht some people used to think.

In the end? It is unsettling. For all our delight in innovations and impermanence we also long for the unalterable. We cherish old stories for their changelessness.

Oh. And media is doing its part to feed this frenzy. As retired General Wesley Clark said on a Sunday interview … “isolated multiple incidents involving the few being highlighted by the media creates perceptions of overall chaos.”

But the media is a different post for another day.

Now, I am not suggesting we shouldn’t look around with concern … albeit I would rather call it a ‘crossroads’ rather than the more popular ‘C’” word … a crisis. Because, yes, things are changing, but, yes, they are always changing.

That said … I am reminded by Rousseau: “let us begin by setting aside all the facts for they do not affect the questions.”

The question is why we are so certain the world is going into a shithole <or into chaos … or … in a crisis … pick your poison>.

Attitudinally I suggest this is partially what Gregg Easterbrook calls “the progress paradox.”

It suggests that frustrations rise with our expectations, and make us feel worse while we are actually getting better. Political interests, and media, deliberately exaggerate bad things. But it doesn’t explain the joy we seem to gain from seeing our glasses as half empty.

It is difficult to explain but I am not writing to do so … only to make the point that while we gnash our teeth about what is going on today … we have this in common with any culture and any generation you would like to query <you may need a medium and a crystal ball to ask some>. Every age produces prognosticators who declare it is worse than what came before. They might turn out to be true but within the moment it is always difficult to say whether one is declining or progressing.

It is a see saw of challenges and new innovations.

Robert Bork suggested <in an otherwise unreadable book of despair>: “every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized.”

Despite being poetic he has a point. We learn from history and we ignore history.

Each generation wants to create a unique identity … which means you begrudgingly assume things from past generations /history. All that said the true thought is there to be found … for moral clarity for each generation we need to conserve the bits of decency left. For it is within a sense of decency we can see the progress within the seeming chaos.

Part of the difficulty in doing so in times like these is that we tend to feel better when we assume the worst.

Huh?  Yeah, But It would be too easy to suggest optimists may spend their lives being disappointed while pessimists spend theirs being pleasantly surprised <although I do believe there is an element of this>. Plus. If you buy this then it suggests my generation is simply a generation of pessimists … and I refuse to believe that.

Optimists or pessimists, good or evil … frustrated or just simply believe “these are the worst of times” I will take a minute to let my generation read two items from the mid 1800’s. I included these thoughts to show some words that I believe resonate today. In fact, take the dates off and they could appear in NY Times next week:

“The dream that this young land, fresh from the hands of its Creator, unpolluted by the stains of time, should be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven  … has passed away from the most of us , as nothing but a dream. We yield ourselves, instead, to calculation, money making, and moral indifference.” – 1855 magazine writer

“it is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was o no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers.  The interlocutions from quiet looking citizens are of an energy of which I had no knowledge. How long men can keep a secret! i will never speak lightly of a crowd. We are wafted into a revolution which, though at first sight a calamity of the human race, finds all men in good heart, in courage, in a generosity of mutual and patriotic support. .  We have been homeless, some of us, for some years past … but now we have a country again. This affronting of the common sense of mankind, this defiance and cursing of friends as well as foes, has hurled us, willing or unwilling, into opposition.” Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

The late 1850’s into the 60’s was a time when the men and women, an extraordinary cast of characters in leadership & influencer roles, find themselves at a crossroad of new ideas–about medicine, commerce, economics, technology and justice. It was a time in the world where proponents of the old ways fiercely battled those with progressive minds.

A time when the intrigue, the ideas, the questioning and tension raise the level of global change.

Sound familiar?

So.

A couple of points here:

Every generation feels like it is worse than it was before.

Every generation struggles to link past analogies to the present <because we inevitably always err on the side of thinking today is significantly different than yesterday because of ‘progress’ innovations>.

All that said let me share some bigger overarching thoughts relevant to the overall angst I believe my generation is feeling … because our beer conversation reminded me of several things:

-          In America, in particular, we constantly struggle in the hollow space that lies between a self-interest mission and an idealism mission. Kissinger suggested America will always be tugged in 2 directions with its foreign policy.

1. Domestic ideals: A strong sense of what is best for America (within its boundaries as primary focus and secondarily its actions outside its border).

2. Mission of ideals: A strong belief that part of our mission is to encourage and support our “freedom of choice” ideals (regardless whether there may not be a direct self-interest reward). How about calling this ‘supporting the progress of our ideals internationally.’

A thought for my generation. These two things are not always aligned and yet our actions may still be right. Regardless. We are a country with a strong set of ideals of which are not defined by dollars and cents. The dollars and cents have always been defined by the ideals. Yes. Let me say that again to my generation … the dollars and cents have always been defined by ideals.

There is good well earned money and then there is … well … money. Notice the people who stretched the rules to make their money defend it as “money is money.” They are wrong. It may all look the same but it doesn’t feel the same. I say that because it is up to my generation to remember the ideals … and the fact we are NOT the world’s peacekeeper … we are the world’s ideal protector. Inside and outside our borders we stand up for the little guy <or gal>, the medium sized guy and the big guy wherever and whoever they are to protect the ideals. And I mean wherever and whoever. We refuse to let ideals be bullied.

I am a business guy. So let me try this on for size. If it isn’t about ideals then aren’t we just a commodity? My generation needs to put their wallets and any bias toward some religion in the drawer for a minute or two and check their ideal pulse. Cause if there is no pulse we are doomed.

-          We constantly struggle with the perception reality gap of minority actions and majority truths (and I have a longer post coming up on this). Despite how it sometimes feels we are not driven by the lunatic fringe which is in the minority. The minority…the radicals, the psychopaths, the greedy, the morally inept … is just that … a minority. As a subset of the minority/majority paradox we constantly struggle with discerning the lunatic fringe from the voice of progress in the fringe. And the lunatic fringe is often sneaky making it difficult to discern. Think about Ron Paul or even Jesse Ventura. Or almost any radio talk show host (right or left). One moment lucidly insightful next moment loony crackpots.

Regardless I would suggest to my generation that we get our heads out of our collective asses and realize we are smart enough to not be fooled by some sound bite or inflammatory statement as some foolhardy fact but rather think … yes … think. Progress takes work and thinking. Therefore, the foolish voices of rage within some silly minority faction nor the silent majority of the sheep are relevant to us because in thinking our way through it ultimately we will be able to offer a clear voice of reason.

-          We constantly struggle with immediacy and patient thoughtfulness. We burst into a desire for immediacy and decisiveness (which we sometimes confuse with immediacy) to right a wrong or to get something done. And yet we are unforgiving in the retrospective “blame game.”. We seek to blame. We seek the quick response. We seek self-interest. We seek hope. We seek dignity and decisiveness in our actions. We want decisive quick leaders in a complex (sometimes confounding in our attempts to unravel it all to find truth).

I would suggest to my generation we are of an age where we have run the gauntlet of hasty foolish decisions and wasted opportunities dithering over this & that. In our wisdom we should realize that while our leaders may be ‘better’ than we in some form or fashion they are also derivatives of us … having run the same gauntlet. We are smart enough to know that some decisions should be made quickly and some should be made patiently and that typically the person who knows the most <which would not be us by the way … it is them> will make the best decision possible. Will it always be right? Of course not. But the blame game is wasted energy … for us & them.

-          We constantly struggle, morally, between how to act on what is versus how we believe it ought to be (I have an upcoming post on this called redefining mortal clarity). I am not really sure it was that much better when we were young but I sense things were fairer … people played by the rules more often and people did the ‘right thing’ more often. Regardless of what I sense, or don’t sense, what I do know is the foundation of a moral clarity is “we” … not I. Because at the heart of moral clarity is some decision of self sacrifice, i.e., what I am I willing to sacrifice <a me thing/benefit> in this situation so that I honor the “we” <either in ideal or actual benefit>.

I could have suggested to my generation that the struggle is between I and we but instead I took it to a higher level and suggested we explore our collective moral navels <please remove lint> and decide what we want to be teaching our future generations.

-          We constantly struggle with looking backwards and forward progress. We are at an age where it is sometimes simpler to look back than look forward. We assess all the progress that has been done in our lifetimes (and desire to maximize it in some ways) rather than dream of the unseen progress to come.

I suggest to my generation that no matter how fond you are of some memory or ‘how it was’ or ‘how we did it’ you cannot go back. Ok. You can … but you ain’t gonna get anyone else other than some old folk to join you. Progress is forward. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater <I just wanted to type that> but we need to stop slowing everyone down looking backwards. It’s done. Move on. Help progress or just get the hell out of the way.

Ok.

Interestingly all of what I typed <aspects of it> may be why every generation believes it is not as good as what was before. In reaction we seek the decisions made and not the process that led to it.

So, my generation, we need to take a step back and quit whining for someone to show up and magically clean our house <assuming you actually own one> for us.

We may prefer clean <and clarity> but the world is a messy place. It always has been.

My dear generation … regardless of how you feel on this topic <we are going to hell or every generation has felt like they were going to hell> we ultimately are forced to focus on progress and moving forward. It is inevitable. And all this blaming and dickering silly backwards gilded age gazing is irrelevant. In fact it is wasting not only energy but also what we actually have to offer to progress. We are the Prophet (Idealism) archetype <Straus/Howe archetype> generation of wisdom to future generations.

the caption is not mine but the future is in the picture

Yup. Future generations. Sorry, my generation … but, no matter how narcissistic we may be, our reward, and the inevitableness of progress, is not self-interest.

It is our Children.

Practically speaking children give us a stake in the future <and a desire to see it doesn’t end up in hell>. Whether we want to believe progress is possible … in the end … you cannot possibly raise, or educate, children if you believe it is not possible.

So, my generation, maybe it is time to grow up.

It is time to battle calculation, money making, and moral indifference.

It is time to remember that which we desire … be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven.

It is time to insure we do not regress but rather progress.

Please.

Sincerely,

One of the <older folk> Generation.

intelligere

August 20th, 2012

Do you know the origin of the word ‘intelligence’? <because I did not>

Well. It’s derived from the latin verb intelligere … which actually means “to choose among.’

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … so that means an intelligent person isn’t a smart <high iq> person or one who has reams and reams of knowledge and factoids stored away in their pea-like brains <although I envision it could increase the likelihood of actually being intelligere>.

It actually suggests that the ‘intelligent’ are those who can discriminate fact from fiction, truth from lies, which half of a half-truth is the important half … and I imagine those who can discriminate … even if only between the bad and the worse.

Oh.

And, of course, that means intelligere is founded upon the concept of choice.

The character, and fortitude, and smarts … to actually make choices.

The curiosity to have at hand that which is needed to actually create, and have, ‘the among’ available.

Uhm. The ability to ‘choose among.’

I don’t know that I really have a point to make here today. I simply found this interesting. It made me think about what I perceive as ‘intelligence’ in people.

I know I had always simply thought people who were smart were intelligent. And frankly I didn’t think much beyond that.

But.

Assessing intelligence not just as being smart but rather what you do with those smarts? I like that.

Enlightened Conflict