==
“We actually contain a built-in ability to rise above restriction, incapacity, or limitation and, as a result of this ability, possess a vital adaptive spirit that we have not yet fully accessed.”
Joseph Chilton Pearce
==
I have written about limitations as well as rules and breaking a rule before, but today this is just about potential and game theory (in a weird way). Game theory revolves around competition and objectives. Restrictions are less structured in that they are simply the things life offers up as suggestions of what is possible, not possible, safe, and unsafe (among other things). I tend to believe most people eye restrictions with a wary view. We are wary because restrictions suggest a lack of capacity to go farther than the restriction. That suggestion goes against the grain of how we feel about personal potential. We humans DO have a built-in ability to rise above limitations – given the right context that is.
Which leads me to suggest restrictions are rational things in an irrational world.
When restrictions are applied from a societal norm and community way, they actually encourage irrational consistencies. What I mean by that is if a restriction is rational simply by rising above a restriction is deemed irrational. To be fair. The rational consistencies within society demands that we review the idea of what is prescribed, the enforcement of those restrictions, and the rewards of rising above. Part of this rational assessment demands seeking some consistent demonstration of inferiority (below restriction outcomes) through some measurement. We also assess, subjectively, the cost to potential due to lack of deviation from the compulsory restrictions. But underneath it all, the part that chafes the most, is that most societal restrictions are crafted to mold people into what the existing system (power) machine needs. Yeah. Typically, the larger system is built to produce specific behavioral actions which can be measured so the restrictions can be held accountable (to the needs of the system, not human potential). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out then in an outcome of this is a version of pacification of people. The objectives, and mindsets, of community life and society is permeated by restriction measurement ultimately becoming the logic of society.
Which leads me to individual potential and society.
It was Margaret Thatcher who said “there is no such thing as society.” The Thatcher/Reagan era was almost the penultimate individual above all moment in history. That said. Thatcher stood for a particularly brutal version of individualism where there was no society just individuals competing. It was a warped view of progress where great things weren’t achieved collectively, but rather by looking within, grinding through life via will power and hard work to improve your own life (indifferent to everyone else attempting to do the same). It becomes a world of individuals, not a world of We. This is a form of restriction in and of itself and it has become the logic of society where individuals are society; not communities. This begets a society existing of relentless individualizing where the collective good, and progress, is renegotiated in a zero-sum fashion. To be clear. While society is, and always has been, a version of encouraging self reliance, society is not, in and of itself, of the individual, but the connection of individuals. In fact, extreme individualism crafts a restriction enhancing unhealthy reductionism of potential.
Which leads me to social capital.
Social capital is maybe the opposite of individualism (maybe not exactly). I would also suggest social capital is organic game theory. What I mean by that is social capital reflects the extent to which social networks embody norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation that facilitate collective action in the pursuit of shared goals. That pursuit of shared goals is where game theory comes in. people, naturally, like to win and, in particular, like to attain goals (shared or not). Social capital demands a willingness to cooperate with others; this includes a willingness to cooperate with strangers and without any clear potential for direct and indirect reciprocity. The goal, in this case, is some individualized vision of potential attained. But even social capital has boundaries it’s just that the restrictions, in this case, are a bit more vague and a lot more expansive than a reductionist individualistic view. That said. I have always found it a bit interesting that E.F. Schumacher wrote “Small is Beautiful: economics if people mattered” smack dab in the middle of the Reagan/Thatcher era. He posited all human activity is a striving after something thought of as good and, therefore, the question at hand becomes ‘good for whom?’ Unless that person has sorted out and coordinated his manifold urges, impulses, and desires, his strivings are likely to be confused, contradictory, self-defeating, and possibly highly destructive.” The restriction of individualism is that it inhibits the mobilization of a collective for a collective good. It is within a goal of collective good where any one individual may not achieve the highest material rewards and yet may achieve their highest potential. Therein lies individualism’s greatest lie – that material success is tied to potential. That narrative actually restricts potential, but also what we, people as humans, truly understand about life. The greatest potential in life is not found in the restriction of individualism, but rather rising above its restriction through collective action.
Which permits me to circle back to the beginning – most people are wary of restrictions; particularly ones that suggest radical individualism.
Humans are multidimensional constructs who thrive on irrational consistencies. Humans thrive in the connectivity with other humans. Radical individualism, even “self reliance,” inhibits connectivity. It does so because it restricts what one gives in a cooperative context. The individualism tugs people to hold back something, even just a bit, for their own good. It, well, restricts potential. It may not seem rational to give up something for yourself to get more back (at some point), but, irrationally, that’s the way the most effective world works. Ponder.
I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.
as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. 
undo. It’s about moving on.
networks are more often not symmetrical.
choice – see what we face or don’t see what we face. And if we refuse to face it we will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.
==
Prior to the invention of clocks time was mostly driven by light (sundials) and tasks (harvest). The work took as long as it took and what could be done was done when the sun was shining. We slept when it was dark and, uhm, when we were tired. Yeah. Our attitudes toward sleep is cultural. Naps, siestas, and breaks in the hottest part of days, are part of society unless, of course, if you are American, the land of the people who are always exhausted and unwilling to waste time napping. I say all that to suggest time and culture have a relationship. That said. What I do know is that uniform timekeeping is inextricably tied to industrialization. I’m not suggesting that we haven’t always sought better ways to assess time or even to make better clocks and time keepers, what I am suggesting is that timekeeping has become the default for society’s view of time. And therein lies an issue we have truly failed to grapple with as a society – and individually. By looking at clocks and the time keepers we’ve forgot to look at time itself. We have sought to try to discipline time using it to discipline us (humans). The problem is the time is elastic. Yeah. Time seems short in good time and bad times seem to last forever. Tahat happens despite the fact we clearly know that time never really slows down, it is more in how we remember events that make us believe that time has either sped up or slowed down. Uhm. This also suggests the brain itself is elastic. Or maybe I should say that the brain has some emergent characteristics in that our senses adapt to context.
What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
That means this is not about things you purposefully ‘don’t say’ … because that is about selective silence … this is more about regrets and missed moments and shit like that.
This is not navel gazing <of which I am not a huge fan of>, but rather an examination of your actions, or inactions, in assessing and improving. And maybe in the examination you will find yourself seeking an opportunity to say one of these things:
Acceptance is a small quiet room, no less than you want, no more than you need.
“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”
What they have in common is what someone once called “happiness hangovers.” I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’
I would suggest, in general, the Christmas gift we end up finding the most value in is hope.
