“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

===

This is about culture even though it is not about culture. What I mean by that is I saw for the billionth time “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” something Drucker never said, most likely would have never said, and is kinda nuts to say. Ironically, Purpose is more likely to eat strategies then culture. Anyway. Let me talk about what that statement really says and what it should say: “systems eat misguided strategy.” What I mean by that is culture is what people do together and what they do together is usually reflective of the system in place. But it gets a bit worse. The truth is the Will of the Institution eats culture and strategy is simply actions a business takes to feed the Will of the Institution.

Look. The reality is that most employees, including managers and leaders, are rationalizing animals. What I mean by that is most people, within an organization or institution, will use the system as it exists to, well, exist/thrive in the role they are in. that includes strategies. Most rationalizing sane people simply seek to optimize what exists. That’s kind of what most C-level people do. They may not like the system, but it is what it is, the competition is most likely optimizing a very similar system, so you gotta do what you do so the business survives. Maybe that is culture, maybe it is not, but it is 100% a description of a system.

Which leads me to the conflict between the system and the people.

This is a piece in and of itself, but for today let’s talk about angst and anxiety. What the typical business system, under the guise of culture, has done, as a mechanism of growth at all costs, is actually to stifle the future. What I mean by that is business system growth is not the same as personal human growth. Therein lies the most basic conflict and the one which creates the most angst and anxiety. This conflict may certainly lead to disengagement, but I think that word is too sweeping. Someone may disengage mentally, but will be fully engaged with the system. That is actually what many institutions encourage; work the process and the process will reward you. Pretty simple. So simple, in fact, most employees line up and embrace this, or, what I call “the Will of the Institution.” They do so not because they like it, but it’s the system in which they are placed. Strategies may be defined and implemented with the best of the intentions, but if they do not match the Will of the Institution, well, it will get eaten – not by culture but by the Institution itself. By the way, that’s where most radical thinking goes to die. Regardless. There is almost always conflict between individuals and the institution where the institution seeks to impose some “will.” To be sure, the systems produce profits so there is no apparent rationale from leadership perspective to attack the system, but individuals are nibbling away at the system trying to make it (a) possibly reach higher value creation potential or (b) possibly make it more palatable to the potential of the people. Within these institutions, if enough people are nibbling away (because there needs to be enough movement in order to stop inertia) a shift will occur. Once again, this isn’t culture, this is just people fighting within a system and strategy is typically not the weapon they use.

Which leads me to point out that behavior is an outcome of system design choices.

Institutions are infamous for talking about ‘culture’ when they really mean systems and process. Goals and accountability are outcomes of the system. The system is always designed to shape an operating model systematically encouraging a range of choices, often very bounded, designed to shape desired performance and whatever the Institution perceives is the value that should be delivered to generate the profit/financial performance desired. And while it is true an individual can shape the system just as a system shapes the individual, the power is not equal. Individuals nudge systems, systems bludgeon individuals. This means, by default, the system inevitably shapes the social aspects of the institution. I guess that is ‘culture,’ but it is actually a system strategy that eats any positive organizational culture.

Which leads me to machines and people.

Systems, as the Will of an Institution, are basically an attempt to make the entire business, and all its pieces – including humans, into some type of replicating machine; a production line as it were. Technology has only encouraged institutions to think this way. Machines and technology have augmented our ability to ‘distribute’ thoughts, ideas, social connections and a variety of things that add value in the marketplace of people and business. This is captured in Metcalfe’s Law: as the number of people involved in any communications technology increases, there is exponential growth in the amount of communication paths. This is known as the network effect and it has both good and bad properties. I imagine my point here is as connections and connectivity expands, Institutions will seek to create stronger and higher border walls. The main ‘wall’ they build, within some twisted culture worldview, is objective setting. For example, ROI. Or. Profit. Some simplistic stripped-down objective which can be wielded as a dull axe to the culture and systems analysis. It matters because ‘maximize the return on investment’ tends to encourage ignoring the things not so good for society so an ROI-focus meets some specific business objectives. Sure. Sometimes a business will pony up some higher Purpose, or some  societal-focused objectives, but most are just a sub-objective meant as a ‘culture importance’ head nod. Anyway. ROI, or things like that, absolve the Institution, and the system, of anything but that objective. Yeah. A system is less than careful in discussing humans and humanity because it simply views humans and connectivity as ‘social machines’ to be built and optimized of, and by, the system. As a corollary, the builders of systems, i.e., the Institutions, use technology and to a lesser extent machines, to create and use people, as passive recipients with aggressive intent – to produce specific results. People become part of the machine simply by being part of the system and an Institution will gladly step forward and call it ‘our culture.’ It is a reinforcing system in that individuals act both in, and upon, institutions and they embody, realize, and reproduce those institutions through their daily activity. This does not make technology and the machines dependent variables within the system, but tools with which to craft social behavior and dynamics and culture. I would be remiss if i didn’t point out much of what happens in today’s technological world, and culture building, occurs independent of human awareness, yet, humans are still accountable for much of the system itself.

• ** note: as an aside, if this piece makes you grumpy, you have a responsibility to reflect upon your actions/thoughts even though technology may have encouraged the action/thought.

So, while business models are the structures and systems of a business which creates value to offer to a marketplace, it is the business systems which make people subservient to some process and incentivize them to the will of the institution so that while being paid as an individual, they must worship the institutional process/structure/system/culture to do so. Strategy gets eaten at the altar of this.

Which leads me to culture’s relationship with a system.

Business lives in a world of relations, connectivity and connections, i.e., business is not performed in a void. An enlightened business, one which accepts being accountable beyond simplistic profit self-interest, needs to understand how dynamic systems work, social relations work and how everything they do is connected to the community and, ultimately, society. They need to understand that business is not just a sum of its relations, but also the people that stand in between, or intersect, are just as important. The reality is that systems, even when focused on the greater good, tend to never be totally successful because they ignore, well, people.  What I mean is that while we talk about technology/machines to help us better manage value, the economy, and society, we should also, simultaneously, talk about how humans can better manage value, economy, and society. People are only scratching at their potential and systems are not crafted to enable potential maximization – of individual, companies, society, or the economy.  People can babble all they want about culture eating strategy all they want, but the real issue is the way business is used to running is mismatched against an increasingly dynamic, complex, business world and the existing systems, for the most part, reflect that mismatch. Progress is almost always defined in additive, multiplicative or exponential terms. The reality of humans is that they have exponential potential, but current systems arc toward additive results and subtractive meaning. Therein lies the conflict business must resolve for a better future. So maybe stop talking about culture eating anything and start investing energy in systems development so your strategies are effective. Ponder.

=====================

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

–

Albert Einstein

=========================

“We need timeless principles to steer by in running our organizations and building our personal careers. We need high standards — the ethics of excellence.”

 –

Price Pritchett

=======================

Ethics are our morals in action. Ethical behavior is the system we develop framed within our moral code. Our moral code, or our morals, are a system of beliefs emergent from our values. Values are the foundation of our ‘right/wrong judgement’ which create some belief system. This is personal, an individual decision, not universally accepted.

“values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments about right and wrong”

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

It may seem like I am parsing thought here, however, in the business world all the words get tossed around flippantly (interchangeably) – particularly when it comes to culture. It is important because culture is emergent, not dictated. Culture is a collection of individuals, with individual values, who act in a coherent behavioral fashion, within an organization (where the systems enable or suffocate the individual behavior). I say this because this is when “principles” comes into play. Principles encourage a specific coherence not by dictating but rather by establishing some common agreement. In other words, despite each person having their own value prioritization, the organization establishes its value prioritization (establishing not what to do, but what not to do).

Look. Here is a truth.

We don’t really like to admit it but Life, in general, more resembles a constant teetering on the edge of a slippery slope than anything else (especially with regard to ethics, i.e., “doing the right thing.”). Life, and business, constantly, relentlessly forces you to make, well, ethical choices. Now. They may not look like ethical choices, but if you look real closely you will see the face of ‘right or wrong’ staring at you wagging its finger. We don’t look that closely because it would force us to admit:

• Right & wrong is often contextual
• Right & wrong is often not a clear black or white
• Right & wrong is often measured, ultimately, in consequences not actions, yet, we are demanded to choose right or wrong and act now

You will most associate this constant teetering (also a recognition of being on the slippery slope of fading ethics) as “just this once” behavior. We don’t really like to admit it because ‘just this once’ tends to be used to explain away some of our more dubious behavior and decisions.

This ‘dubiousness’ gets couched in a variety of ways. Safety. Utility. Benefits (functional and ‘to me’). We find a lot of ways to justify our behavior, decisions and attitudes before we ladder up to ethics. As my friend Faris Yakob (see image) suggests it is almost a Maslow-ian decision model. Its not that we ignore ethics or even not care about ethics its just we prioritize a number of things before we get to ethics. This suggests ethics is not a foundation from which decisions emerge, but rather are a final, fairly wide, box in which a decision has to be checked against.

source: Faris Yakob

If that is true, then ethical fading is commonplace, yet, justified by ‘pragmatism’ criteria. I bring up pragmatism because, whether we admit it or not, unless you actually think about ethics, morals and values (in a non-meta philosophical way) then it becomes a little more difficult to understand how principles can play a fairly important pragmatic guardrail role. The truth is that ethics are constantly challenged, in context, by safety and utility. For example, would we steal to feed our children or lie to keep us safe.

Sound moral judgment is rooted in strong values and acted upon by our ethics. An organizational judgement, a collection of these individuals, is herded in common principles.

Principles, yes, before you despair, principles guard against ethical fading. Principles are the cornerstones of your ethical building. Without principles you have no solid ground to stand on in a world constantly trying to tip you over into a variety of holes, slippery slopes and dead-end tunnels.

‘Principle’ is defined in Nuttall’s Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, “n. the source or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet or doctrine; a settled law or rule of action; to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind.”

Principles protect, in a very fragile way, against ethical fading.

They do so in a number of ways

1. They establish a foundation, or a moral filter, for ethical behavior. Maybe call them the ground rules of how you assess what is right versus wrong
2. Unfortunately, the foundation is a framework not a “how to do” manual. Therefore upfront they help define exceptions to the ground rules and, yes, we will always find some exceptions. Some ‘blurring’ of the guardrails as it were.
3. Unfortunately (part 2), this blurring, while not always creating ‘just this once’ behavior, it CAN create just this once behavior which is, well, the slippery slope of ethical fading. In this situation principles can actually be the solid lily pads of ‘no more’ certainty from which one can stop the slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading.
4. Unfortunately (part 3), principles, while resilient, are not immortal. Facing the onslaught of ethical fading they can, well, fade and once they have made their last stand you are screwed. You are on the slope and the only question left to answer is how far down the slope you end up.

So, despite their fragility, let me talk about principles.

“The most important ingredient we put into any relationship is not what we say or what we do, but what we are. And if our words and our actions come from superficial human relations techniques (the Personality Ethic) rather than from our own inner core (the Character Ethic), others will sense that duplicity. We simply won’t be able to create and sustain the foundation necessary for effective interdependence.”

Stephen R. Covey

To me principles revolve around a discussion of soul (selling your soul ). Some people may disagree with me but, to me, soul represents the intersection of I & We. It gives us life energy (call it our subconscious passion). It what joins us together with an external shared common vision – kind of our common value proposition for Life. It creates a connective tissue for, well, acting in a humane fashion with other humans. It is within this intersection in which we seek the common ground between morals, ethics and value and arrive at a coherent principled behavior as a community or business organization.

Let me suggest 4 cornerstone principles (not ranked, just foundational):

• Inviting culture premised on affection for humanity. Lives are to be lived for others (therein lies where we gain meaning), not just for our own success and advancement. We must model lives that matter if we want to nurture into living lives that matter. We believe that we are not islands unto ourselves but social beings who need community to flourish and become our best selves. Believing you are in, and of, community.
• Commitment to character demands involving oneself into multiple traditions and frameworks for what makes up a good life (contextually expanding your view). This means accepting a responsibility to pose questions which introduce one to a variety of cultures and contextual questioning.

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

• Be curious about everyone and everything. Keep your head in a swivel as context changes. Exhibit a dedication, imagination and commitment to context as the fertile ground for intellectual growth, knowledge and ethical resilience. Ethical resilience is NOT rigid ethics, but rather strongly held principles which can accommodate the nuances of cultural context (reflective of cultures surrounding the person and decision). This principle, in particular, does not dictate character, but is intended to provide a compass to help each person find their own path and to grow in their awareness of self (and others).

Believing principles are not steadfast and unmoving but rather depending on adapting to new learning.

I will note that all the Principles are solid in belief but adaptable to time, knowledge and context. This is a recognition that we, humans, are not of self but rather of something bigger – society, community, connectivity.

Yes. This suggests Principles are not simple, but complex.

This leads me to leadership.

Leadership can be of one’s own life or it can be in combination with other people. Regardless, someone must develop some skills for successful leadership – for self or for group.

The first is the mindset that leaders see leadership as a skill that needs to be continually developed and improved (active listening, giving feedback, talking to people).

The second is a recognition that certain things happen under the surface and have a significant impact on the performance of the team, such as interpersonal dynamics, the way individuals work, disputes and tension between people (typically originating from the past). Leaders have to have the skills to bring these things to the surface and resolve them.

** note: this is also true of self and inner conflict

The third is power and inclusion. Power dynamics effect any social structure (you are misguided if you don’t believe this). You have to recognize, and acknowledge, power dynamics in order to be inclusive, empathetic and create complete connections. If you elect to ignore the relationship between power and ethical behavior, i.e., how power stresses individual values prioritization and behavior toward goals, you will ignore the truth that the more power you need, the more likely ethical fading is to occur.

That said. In old structures (hierarchy) power can be directed, but in future organizations power emerges (networks evolve) and leadership is expanding potential from emergent power dynamics. This will demand a different type of character. This type of character navigates the I, we, larger We dynamics of an interconnected life, business & society.

“Character, like oxygen, is most noticeable when it is missing.”

Richard Reeves

The new powerful leadership will not lead with power, but rather principled driven energy and instead of just accumulating wealth/profits/achievements, seek to accumulate outcomes to be proud of.

Look.

These are very strange times. I would not say it’s the worst of times, but it seems to be a world that demands binary, black & white stances despite the fact navigating ambiguity and uncertainty is the path to not only success, but progress. What I can say is that holding onto something in a black and white way in a world of swirling colors, and grays, creates an ongoing sense of uncomfortableness. Maybe worse is attempting to hold onto binaries you will slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading without even noticing until its too late.

And maybe that is where I will end. You would think ethical fading would be associated with gray and the graying of morals and choices, but its not. Ethical fading occurs one black & white step at a time.

In the end.

We often speak of “principled leadership” or desiring leaders to have principles. I would argue each of us, to be successful, need to grapple with our own relationship between values, ethics and principles. Because, in the end, while we may be grounded in our values and measured by our ethical behavior what will matter will be the principles which make all of these decisions coherent to our Life – what we will, or will not, do. Yes. Refusal of “ethical fading” suggests “we are what we refuse to do” or, as Paul Chippendale stated, “we are what we refuse to adapt to.”

===

“a series of steps, each building on the last, but without a predetermined plan. We did what was necessary and as we made progress or ran into problems it became obvious what needed doing next. It wasn’t a straight line. We made mistakes and not everything worked. But we realized we were learning by doing.”

===

“The devil isn’t just in the details. He’s in the definitions. And, most of all, he’s in the analytical distinctions: in the ability to tell one thing from another. To not mix things up.”

Hanzi Freinacht

===

Where does all our crappy behavior and crappy perceptions of the world come from?

Like most things, it’s mainly the product of learned behavior. That may sound horrible, but we humans are imitation machines. Our subconscious minds constantly take in signals from the environment and integrate them into our mindsets, attitudes and, yeah, even behaviors, all of which end up guiding our perceptions and our actions. And while we want to blame social media, and media in general, the most influential part of any environment is the people in it.

Which leads me to a Toffler, Future Shock, thought.

….. impact of Warehouse of Images (before Instagram existed) …..

Pre-internet we were exposed to a fairly finite, and fairly rigid, sample of the human population to ‘imitate’ or judge our perceptions and behaviors. The people in our neighborhood. In our schools and libraries and community gathering places. At the grocery store. In our office. On the street. On the bus. We lived in smaller community echo chambers, where signals were fewer, and meanings/cues were clearer or, at least, more well defined. The internet exponentially expanded our universes wherein the number of signals we receive has increased exponentially and meanings/cues became scrambled into a moshpit of signals. Our common, well, any commonality, and agreed upon sensemaking lost clarity and gained some fairly vague outlines. In other words, social coherence lost accepted boundaries. Our imitation muscles were overworked as we attempted to learn behavior from a seemingly limitless onslaught of cues of which it became almost impossible to discern the majority from the minority.

Which leads me to the danger and opportunity.

We simultaneously see more crappy behavior than ever before, which creates a perception that everyone is crappy, and, yet, we see more kind and moral behavior than ever before (maybe just not from what we would have easily accepted as an established traditional local influencer in the past) which creates a perception that not everyone is crappy. Generally speaking, it is confusing. Are people good or bad? What that means is because we see more information about other people than ever before we need to be very, very, careful what we normalize because while we may not exactly imitate – we may simply begin accepting some version of crappy behavior. We see videos of crappy behavior of kids in schools, crappy crazy drivers, crappy acting adults arguing in grocery stores, let alone the insane amount of insane self made crappy video rants. All of these things we already knew happened occasionally, but virality implies it isn’t confined to the occasional.  And, well, what a culture sees, is what a culture becomes. The more a person sees something, especially another person’s actions, the more they will either gravitate toward it or simply accept it as “how we are” as people (whether we like it or not). It creates the message that “this is how society is.” Even if it is really not.

Which leads me to what we see (and what we become).

In the wayback machine, we had more control over what we would see. Plus. A smaller community controlled what we saw (in some form or fashion). Simplistically, we had to work harder to see the less-than-normal shit. The problem in today’s world is what we are ‘shown’ doesn’t care about proportionality so the ‘less-than-normal shit’ takes on an oversized shitstorm feeling of everywhere all the time. All this to say we get caught in the wretched inbetween of knowing that access to all this information makes us smarter, can make us safer, and actually can create a more equitable (accountable) society AND knowing that a consistent onslaught, or drip-by-drip, of exposure to crappy behavior, well, suggests we begin imitating some of that behavior in order to be ‘competitive’ in today’s crappy society/world. It’s kind of like the tragedy of commons just with behavior. This all breeds a sense of what is called ‘learned helplessness’. This is where we become conditioned to believe that a bad situation is unchangeable, resulting in an unrealistically negative view of the world and a sense of permanent crisis. Ultimately this eliminates hope, or diminishes it (through crappy perceptions), and we either disengage or assume some crappy behavior aspects.

Which leads me to creating a culture which we want people to see so it can become a better culture.

I have written far too often about how algorithms shape what we see and, therefore, shape culture (at least by my measure). But humans are smarter than algorithms, humans create algorithms, and algorithms do not have culture, do not understand culture nor do they even care about culture – algorithms feed people what they ‘say’ they want. Period. So, we can choose to spread the good stories and starve the bad ones of attention. Period. End of story. The stories we tell and we share, becomes what a culture sees and, ultimately, what it becomes.

By assuming this responsibility, hopefully, we learn something new, good; and we change course.

In the end.

Everyone should think about this a bit because the basic premise I offer is the thought if we continuously see crappy behavior, we will start doing some crappy behavior. A lot of people will balk at that. They will believe they can recognize crappy behavior as unacceptable and will never do it. Uhm. I am not so sure about that. I think it becomes just a bit easier to do some crappy things, on occasion, if you have a crappy perception of the context and think everyone else is going to be crappy. Shit. Think about how business culture works (and doesn’t). That said. Ponder. It feels important.

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

============

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

==============

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

============

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

=============

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

======

“The combination of technology and capitalism has given us a world that really feels out of control.”

Jonathon Franzen

=====

 “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis.”

Martin Luther King 1967

====

Why am I writing my umpteenth article on capitalism?

I keep seeing research in the United States that says something like 50% of people under the age of 30 do not believe in capitalism.

Ok. Let’s get this out of the way:

Capitalism is good.

Capitalism is not bad.

But that does not mean there isn’t always a tension between good and bad in the soul and system of capitalism. It is an incredible wealth-creating & life bettering mechanism and, yet, left to its own devices can run off the tracks <morally and financially>. Capitalism needs guard rails or, as some smart guy called it,“embedded countervailing power.” It needs guard rails because humans will be humans.

When business is good, human beings become greedy.

When business is bad, human beings become fearful.

And I would like to remind everyone that culture is created by, uhm, human beings. I say that not to be a smart ass but to suggest there is a real culture war in America, maybe the world, and it is occurring in the business world. I purposefully use ‘culture’ because it has to do with some ethics or moral fortitude, some personal responsibility and some pragmatic hope for the future. In fact, if we fix how capitalism works <systemic & infrastructure aspects>, the net result is addressing income inequality, wage stagnation and overall economic prosperity as well as some individual “self-stuff” like meaning and mattering <kind of all the big societal issues we tend to discuss>.

Anyway.

A moment on the role of government.

It is both a fallacy to believe Government is not the problem nor believe they are the solution. We have a mixed economy < I stole that term from Foreign Policy magazine>.

Capitalism is not supposed to be a system which is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the citizenry. Therefore, effective governance curbs greed objectives & regulates capitalism so that it bends the arc of the system to encourage the good things it is supposed to do <innovate & bring prosperity to many> and doesn’t do the bad things <be driven solely by greed & self interest>.

Let’s be clear.

America is not based on an unfettered capitalism nor has it ever been <nor was it ever meant to be by the founding fathers>. It is a managed capitalism system <always has been — I say that to head off any of the ‘government is too involved’ today talking heads>.

Government attempts, sometimes better than other times, to put reins on humans within a capitalistic society.  Let’s say it’s something like giving enough range for wild horses to run free, but not to trample the gardens and lawns of the surrounding areas. This ‘fettered’ managed capitalism idea is not perfect. It ebbs and flows and morphs into different shapes as time passes, but it IS an effective economic and political system.

I would suggest that, while polarizing, capitalism is balanced – when balanced.

That said. A better version of capitalism really is not dependent upon governance and laws <and putting banks out of business>, but rather personal decisions, choices & responsibility.  Yes. I just suggested <again> that people, not the system, will define the better version of capitalism. Adam Smith suggested the three pillars of a society are: prudence, looking after oneself as best as one is able; justice, keeping the law of the land; and beneficence, caring for others and society where there is need. Yeah. Adam Smith deceived in the collective interest beyond self interest.

Clearly our main issue is not how to survive on true scarcity <that is not a perceived scarcity or a “less than” scarcity> but rather how to live well with plenty.

To date we have chased double digit growth and higher GDP all the while seeking higher material happiness <sometimes confused with higher standard of living>.

We have become societally insatiable. In other words, we cannot have enough and are reaching what Hirsch called “the social limits of growth“.

This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs <which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities>.  Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty <but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind>. This is also called ‘hedonic adaptation.’

Yes. Capitalism has certainly vastly improved our lives and our means to live. But it has also fed this insatiability.

Some guy named Sandel wrote in “what money can’t buy … the moral limits of markets:”

• the more things money can buy the more the lack of it hurts.
• buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived (he used “giving children money as incentive to read a book may make reading a chore rather than a simple pleasure”).

This all leads to an overall attitude that endless <and double digit> growth is essential to maintain and improve our quality of life. While I will not go into the detailed debate … that is simply not true <this is the typical efficiency versus effectiveness argument>.

Now. All that said. The issue is really about the attitudes & attributes we are attaching to capitalism.

As I share some thoughts to try and address the young’s lack of belief in capitalism I will lead with two things:

• Communism promises to make everyone equally rich and instead makes everyone equally poor.
  

• Youth thinks it invents the world. Maturity respects the world it finds.

Suffice it to say that Capitalism is becoming some evil entity in the minds of many young people. In addition, aspects of other ideologies <communism being one> are being used relatively flippantly as ‘better than’ what is occurring within capitalism. I actually believe it is a lack of understanding, but it is also quite possible there is a deeper lack of faith with capitalism.

If you step back you can see why the young <and the shallow thinkers> feel this way:

• Real unemployment is nearly in double digits and young people are struggling to gain a positive financial foothold.
• On average, according to Gallup, Americans believe that 50 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is wasted. Democrats, who are supposed to believe in big government, guess that 41 cents of every federal dollar is wasted. Republicans think it is 54 cents, and independents put the number at 55 cents in the dollar.
• A poll found that most Americans would rather their government did less. Some 57% said it was doing too many things that were better left to individuals and businesses. Only 38% thought it should do more.

And many people have genuine complaints. Many working-class men have lost their jobs. Those who are still employed have seen their wages stagnate/decrease. And overall they don’t trust government not to make it worse.

This is a sad state of affairs <for government who CAN make shit happen> because regulations can positively address stagnation & inequality without intervening in entrepreneurial decisions or in the price/profit mechanism. The harsh black & white truth no one wants to say is that regulation is what makes free markets, well, free <free markets cannot sustain themselves and constraints actually benefit fresh ideas>.

Anyway.

I have been thinking about capitalism for a while nudging my mind toward discussing morals and character <society & culture>. In doing so I found it interesting to think about Schumpeter when addressing the youth capitalism challenge.

• what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘the cultural contradictions’ of Capitalism

One of the cultural contradictions <I believe he outlined 5> was Rationality. In that Capitalism encourages rationality in behavior and that culture creates, and demands, a natural conflict by insisting on some ‘irrational’ behavior. Rationality comes to life as the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups. This same rationalization concept then bleeds into both personal lives <family & home> and ultimately becomes embodied in some form or fashion into cultural forms. Children become quasi economic assets <or their rearing incorporates rational ‘maximization’ theory embedded in capitalism>. At its extreme, maximization bleeds into soulless wealth and extreme consumption thereby substituting saving and societal salvation. Oddly, but fairly, Schumpeter suggests consumption wins against accumulation. This leads to a certain diminishing of the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail <called the sophrosyne: Greek philosophical term meaning healthy-mindedness and from there self-control or moderation guided by knowledge and balance. Roman poet Juvenal later interpreted sophrosyne as “mens sana in corpore sano” – “a healthy mind in a healthy body”> individuals and groups come into natural conflict with capitalism. The basic human instinct is one of core values <in some degree within everyone> and therefore the natural contradiction forces some balance within capitalism.

This means that the irrational components of behavior are critical for capitalism to emerge and withstand rational arguments especially when based on long term considerations.

But. That said.

===

“This is the genius and the Achilles’ heel of American culture. We … have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality,”

Katherine Newman, who studies social mobility

====

Capitalism in America is not functioning efficiently for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t make it bad.

Which leads me to the issue of Confused capitalism … or being confused by capitalism.

No matter how altruistic and non-materialistic you may be the psychological issue is simple — as we sit perched on a stool at the bar of society where we can scan the room and see the danger of those who have nothing or little … as well as those who have the most <and lots of most>.

If the majority of us begin to look like we are either nearing the dangerously ‘nothing people’ or, contrarily, appear to be too distant from those who ‘have the most’ <no matter what your exact status is> we get nervous if not angry. Materialism, culturally, is therefore naturally cyclical in that it will always seek to balance itself or find some equilibrium. For we always ‘want’, but most of us want it to be within the realm of ‘hopeful that we can get more’ … without appearing too greedy. Hence that is fairness <in an irrational sense>.

In other words.

Give me a chance for something more than I have and give me more and I won’t be too greedy.

While everyone can debate the role of money with regard to people’s happiness it is true that economic health does make people happier <more secure, more comfortable, more sustenance>.

This actually means that free-market capitalism is not devoted to integrity and a reliance on trust but rather economic growth. And this suggests the people need to be regulated.

Why do we balk at regulation?

The US has always been a wide-open, free-wheeling country, with a high tolerance for big winners and big losers as the price of equal opportunity in a dynamic society. Even though the US brand of capitalism has rougher edges than other democracies, most citizens inherently believe it is worth the trade-off for growth and mobility. Yet, at the same time, while we like the free wheeling we also recognize that we are going through some type of crisis, therefore, it just becomes a discussion on what type of crisis.

Some think it is a crisis of capitalism. <I don’t>

Others think the crisis is moral. <I do>

====

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

Bertrand Russell

====

First there is attitude. What is maybe a disregard for societal fairness versus what could be construed as individual ‘winning’ or ‘what I deserve.’ A lot has been written about the effects of globalization during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that globalization enabled. Many people, particularly people in power positions, took the vast transformation of the economy as an excuse to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behavior. I say that because while there will always be isolated small groups of lawbreakers in high places what truly destroys morale is a systemic corner-cutting, rule-bending, self interest behavior type of construct.

I have thought about how and why this happens.

It starts early.

As young children we start off with a healthy core of greatness, but before long it gets covered in layers of doubt, fear and guilt. Often this is caused by people we trust most like parents, teachers and managers who put us down in subtle and less subtle ways. It’s as though people were flicking bits of mud at us until our core of greatness is totally covered. Even worse, we flick mud at ourselves by accepting smaller versions of ourselves through negative self-talk and poor thinking; and we become a tiny fraction of the potential that once existed.

Once potential is curbed we seek to find success in other ways sometimes circumventing “what is right” to make small excusable steps in our behavior to attain ‘small personal successes.”

Second is our propensity to consume <and its self perpetuation>.

Our propensity to consume without thought for the planet, the poor or even the person next door is a sign that greed and fear are the motives of the moment <or self interest trump collective interest in a zero sum world>. Freedom certainly creates problems (inequalities most notably), but it also solves them.

But the central aspect of freedom advanced by these thinkers was the market, or what Adam Smith had described as the propensity to truck, barter and exchange. In this area, freedom allowed dispersed individuals—disposing of their own resources and choosing for themselves what they want to buy—to generate a level of prosperity that has had no precedent in human history. And the pricing system that emerges from the market—that is, from the push and pull of supply and demand—provides the indispensable knowledge needed to guide the economy.

So. All that said.

I would tell young people that Capitalism is not the issue.

It is the people within the system <and young people can fix that by entering the system>. The system can work just fine it is simply being abused at the moment. Capitalism needs to be managed to be more oriented to the long term and socially more responsible.

Interestingly, Richard Branson has formed an initiative to do just this. I found it amusing that initially he sought to have a board of Business Elders — but there were too few candidates from the business world of sufficiently unimpeachable character to staff it <insert ‘oh my’ here>.

Anyway <to conclude part 1>.

Since World War II in particular, America has been on a consumption surge/binge. While wages have certainly stagnated, family disposable income has grown, life standards have improved, health has improved and overall quality of life has improved <and showed a continuous growth>. Unfortunately, at the same time, while families busily lived their lives they also had access to the finest inventory of toys capitalism could provide. Each generation was doing better than the one before, life was good and standard of living acquired a layer of ‘non essentials’ as part of how the people lived a successful & happy life.

At the same time. Televisions starting bringing news, influential people talking and capitalism toys into the family living room. Television allowed busy families the opportunity to be exposed to complex issues through professionally crafted sound bites and talking points. People were now becoming more informed from a larger perspective, not just local perspective, and we ushered in the inevitable “keeping up with the Joneses” aspect.

What we face is the natural rising tide of ‘better than before’ facing the ebb and flow of time. The ebbing waters are not appreciated by those who drink from the current place. Is it greed for most people? No. It is simply a desire for the status quo – “better is a right not a privilege.” Therein lies the social & cultural task at hand. Ponder.

Anyway <to conclude part 2>.

Doing something.

Me? I write and post on my blog. And speak about it wherever and whenever I can <especially to young people>.

It is easy to talk about it because it seems like if we take a moment and reflect on the problems in the world today we might easily come to the conclusion that it is mainly due to deterioration of our morality compass.

It seems like everywhere we see people filled with greed and intent on self-gratification. It seems like people are always willing to compromise on values/morality to make personal gains. That means we need to start talking about values and create some sort of awakening in the minds of people.

Will everyone do it? Of course not. But someone has to go first. Someone has to become the catalyst for change.

Why not the youth? We should encourage them to enter the system and build what they desire from the inside out rather than simply breaking the system as unfixable. Ponder.

=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts.

We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center.

So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

====

I used to think society’s, or civilization’s, journey could be followed left to right, maybe not on a horizontal line and more like a roller coaster, but definitely like a timeline of sorts. I imagine I thought of it a bit like continuous improvement even if it had some fits and starts.

I do know we certainly talk about it this way.

Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth.”

But I think I was wrong. Heck. I think everyone was wrong.

I actually think the better mapping of society and civilization is viewed like an atom.

Different cultures and people and ‘civilizations’ zooming around like electrons circling the nucleus.

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level.

And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around … because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right.

The nucleus holds it all together.

However.

What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other. 

And exactly the same time there are media channels and advertising and movies and magazines all screaming at the top of their lungs trying to distract us from our center with slivers of less then meaningful distractions. Distractions that make us question our center or maybe what we think is important <which can be very different from our center>.

Let’s face it. some of the people circling the center can be real noisy shits. In addition, the shit that circles our centers can be noisy sonuvabitchs. All so noisy that … well … it can be the only thing you hear.

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais.

Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

Because the ‘ones’, the billions of electrons themselves, never lose their center.

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center and have to refind it.

We just cannot hear it on occasion.

Or maybe we just don’t listen to it hard enough.

Or … well … maybe it whispers to make it more meaningful for us.

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center.

The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 7+ billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right & what I wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

We may just not be able to hear it over the cacophony of Life.

But, we never lose it.

===============

“Like the Easter egg, the Easter hare, now an accepted part of the Easter story, came to Christianity from antiquity. The hare is associated with the moon in the legends of ancient Egypt and other peoples. It belongs to the night, since it comes out only then to feed. It is born with its eyes open and, like the moon, is the ‘open-eyed watcher of the skies.’”

Britannica

===========================

Ok. Happy Easter.

The big question of the day.

Why do we believe these slightly absurd  stories of a mysterious Easter Bunny that delivers colored eggs <sometimes really well designed which implies it takes more than one night to do> in the night so that people can find them by scrounging around outside the next morning?

I think I have to start with rabbits.

Mostly because every Easter we have a bunch of pissed off rabbits hopping around on three legs watching as we eat all the eggs they spent a shitload of time coloring.

Rabbits have always been considered lucky because they were associated with spring and the return of flowers and other plants. Spring is also a time of fertility <and god knows … rabbits are certainly ‘fertile’> therefore rabbits were considered good luck to be seen running through the fields.

In Western Europe during the ‘B.C. years’ people considered rabbits to be sacred partly because of the belief that spirits inhabited the bodies of animals. Later ancient European Celts adopted portions of the older belief, that rabbits were sacred, and that spirits inhabited their bodies.

Interestingly, because rabbits spent an inordinate amount of time in their underground burrows combined with the belief that the rabbits’ bodies were inhabited by numina <underground spirits with whom they communicated>, people believed they were even more sacred because of their close proximity to the spirits. Another reason the Celts held the rabbit to be sacred was because of their prowess in the field of reproduction. They believed that the numina intended for rabbits to be put upon pedestals and revered as symbols of procreation, reproduction with a high turnover rate, of health, and of prosperity.

Ok.

The foot thing.

Since the rabbit itself was considered to be lucky I imagine it is not a huge leap to believe that any of its body parts would also be considered lucky. Ah. It is actually the way rabbits run which gave birth to the superstition about rabbit’s feet. Apparently their unusual stride makes the back feet touch the ground ahead of their front feet and so the back feet were considered especially lucky <I do not really understand this logic but it is in print so it must be true>.

For some odd reason <which I cannot discover any reason why> it was actually only the left hind foot of the rabbit that was considered lucky. And if you were lucky enough to have a left hind foot you had to rub it to activate the luck believing  it was a source of protective magic in addition to bringing good fortune. People started carrying the rabbit’s foot around for good luck … because of its capacity to dry quickly, its small size, and the fact that it made a great key chain.

Ah.

But luck didn’t come without some stipulations. For luck to occur the original owner must give their rabbit’s foot away and it would be the receiver of the gift that would also be the recipient of the good fortune. If the owner kept the foot for himself, he would be visited by bad luck. In addition … if the recipient of the rabbit’s foot lost his lucky charm he would also be visited with bad luck.

Now.

The eggs. What’s up with eggs and rabbits?

<because I, personally, tend to associate carrots with rabbits>

All I really know is that ancient Egyptians, in one of their creation myths, believed the universe was created from an enormous egg <oh … those wacky Egyptians>.

Here is a thought. Maybe rabbits are really ancient Egyptians and they deliver their universe to us every Easter? That’s the best I can come up with.

It also makes me think of this.

If you are a romantic, maybe give your loved one a hard boiled egg and say ‘you are my universe’.

Anyway. She/he will either adore you for the rest of your life or you will end up with an egg shoved up your ass.

Ah. But better to have some response than none at all I say.

Lastly.

Other superstitions for Rabbits <which …after you read … will encourage you to simply avoid rabbits>:

I will begin with the good ones:

• • • It is good luck for a rabbit to cross your path

• • • Saying “white rabbits” on the first of each month or on the first day of a new moon will bring good luck

• • • Wearing rabbit-skin socks protects against pleurisy
    • A child who eats rabbit brains will improve his or her behavior <insert “yikes” here>

Good being relative as you can see. And the bad:

• • • Seeing a white rabbit is a death omen
    • Seeing a black rabbit is unlucky
    • Seeing a rabbit on the way to work is unlucky
    • If you dream about a rabbit it means you will be visited by misfortune
    • Seeing a rabbit cross behind you means bad luck is on its way
    • A rabbit running down the street means there will be a fire in the neighborhood

And, finally, the randomly useful camping tip — when sitting around a campfire, saying “white rabbit” will make the smoke go in another direction

Regardless.

Let me end with some curmudgeonly Christian with far too much time on his hands who wrote a fairly long detailed <but interesting> diatribe, using far far too many exclamation points, on why he doesn’t celebrate Easter as a Christian calling it a  “Whitewashed Pagan Celebration.” While I could argue that he misses the real point of Easter, it does make for interesting reading.

Happy Easter.

===

“Let your hopes, not your hurts, shape your future.”

Robert H. Schuller

===

Well. Happy Easter <if you celebrate it> tomorrow.

By no stretch of the imagination am I religious, however, I think it is silly to simply regard religion & religious believers as ‘followers of fantasy. Faith, in and of itself, is a strong complex concept. Inevitably a strong faith is grounded in two things – faith in oneself and faith in some external beliefs <be they something specific , like God or Allah, or something less tangible, like morals & an ethical compass – all of which can also be intertwined>. I say the two things because just faith in oneself is … well … narcissistic, and, just faith in something external … well … most likely absolves you of any self will or individual thought.

Anyway.

My apologies to my religious friends because I tend to believe I am going to bastardize the true concept of Easter to make a couple of points.

If you want to be successful in business, you learn very quickly the balance between confidence & humility as well as understand its affect on uniting & dividing.

All you need to do is to change jobs once in your career and face a new organization and new community of employees as a stranger that you need to earn trust & confidence & respect  & ‘likeability’ <assuming that last one is important to you>.

You need to prove your competence and trustworthiness and ability to work within a team <or manage a team>, therefore, you must demonstrate dedication and commitment to hard work and some empathy toward the existing community of workers & working and the way things are done.

Trust precedes any change. And that includes progress & outcomes. Trust is typically slow to build and it seems like a ceaseless struggle especially if you truly are trustworthy and have the best intentions.

Now.

Humility can be a tricky word.

Tricky in that in some case it can connote some meekness or ‘lack of leadership skills.’ But it can also refer to a willingness to self assess, recognize self limitations, recognize gaps in knowledge, recognize that ideas can come from anywhere and anyone and an ability to recognize good advice.

Humility, when genuine and when tied to a good self esteem & confidence in one’s beliefs & skills, unites. It unites people to a way of doing things and a way of thinking about things. Most importantly, it doesn’t dictate specifics but rather establishes a framework for accepted protocol. If you are in a leader position assuming a new position in a new organization this is the true way to impact existing behavior & attitudes.

And you know what?

That is what Easter reminds me of.

We are all shaped by the cultures in which we were raised. And change is difficult. And, yet, change is our constant companion. The other constant companion we have is unrest somewhere in the world at any time. The world, heck, the universe, is never totally calm.

Far too often we bluster our way thru change and transition & unrest trying to convince everyone we not only know what the hell we are doing, but also we know where the hell we are going and that we know where the hell a ‘calm place’ resides.

** note: we don’t.

The fact we really don’t know what the hell we are doing or even where the hell a calm place is creates a general fear of failing or not being good enough <in the moment or in totality> which makes us say and do things we may not really want to say or do in our heart of hearts.

It is only being centered on humility which permits us to forge thru the change & transition ceaselessly and arrive out the other side not only better, but having made those around us better — and while there is no guarantee of ‘no unrest or turmoil’ we all end up a little better able to face it.

Humility permitted Jesus Christ to unite people behind an idea and a way of doing things and saying things.

And he did so by never standing at a podium and boasting about his beliefs, he didn’t do this by making non-believers the enemy or suggesting anyone should be shut out <in fact he welcomed non-believers to hear his message in the hope they would … well … believe>, he never sought endorsements, he never built an election headquarters, he never solicited an endorsement, he spent more time among the working people than anyone else and he explained ideas that were complex and simple at exactly the same time.

This Easter?

Almost 1/3^rd of the world’s population will gather somewhere to remember not only the person called Jesus, but ponder the words & thoughts.

Portions of the other 2/3^rd will look on and think “I don’t believe in this resurrection thing … but … I do wish I had some sense of what those people have and I like the hope aspect.”

That is the power of humility.

That is the power of building change not thru violence or bombastic rhetoric or even false promises, but rather thru words & thoughts of love, caring and hope.

Look. I get grumpy with the people who say that “today’s world demands you to shout to be heard & noticed.”

That’s bullshit.

A voice that has something meaningful to say will be heard whether it is whispered, written or done in sign language.

I would also suggest that “hope” need not be shouted for, even when whispered, it echoes throughout every corner of the world.

Hope unites any and all.

And I know I learned that from changing jobs.

People do not want for kings or people to simply tell them what to do or who to hate or even where to hide <or how to shut out ‘those driven to destroy us’>.

People want one who believes ‘people don’t want to destroy us … they just do not understand our way, our words and our beliefs’ all the while protecting us, all people, along the way.

People want one who protects my freedom and my rights.

People want one who doesn’t sacrifice morals under the guise of ‘it is good for us to do so’ or ‘we have to in order to be successful.’

People want one who believes in my dreams, defends my dreams and doesn’t permit my dreams to slip down the slope of mediocrity.

People want one who creates an environment for me to rise, stand or fall on my own merit all the while not blaming anyone, and not permitting me to blame anyone, should I fall and equally insure I have a fair chance to receive what is due me for my successes.

People want one who is inclusive not exclusive and one who unites and not divides.

I know I learned all that by assuming a leadership title in a new organization <and having to earn the leadership mantle to match the title>.

Maybe if I were more religious I wouldn’t have had to learn it that way.

Maybe that is part of what Easter does for me. It reminds me of great lessons and lessons learned in a variety of ways.

And maybe Easter also reminds me that Hope & Faith never truly dies.

Change, and big transitions, can often look like the death of something … and, yet, in the end … something new is never really born … something, more often than not, is simply reborn.

And maybe, just maybe, that is why we should let our Hopes and not our hurts define our future.

Ok.

Once again.

I apologize to my religious friends because I would be willing to bet I got a shitload wrong from a religion standpoint. But, in my defense, I think Easter made me think about some important things and share some thoughtful thoughts and I hope that is part of what God would hope for everyone.

This Easter just take a moment and think a bit. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity, just think.

 << ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 10, 2016 and PAINFUL REMINDER >>

=============

“There is an ancient Greek legend about harpies,” she told me. “They are shadows that can come to life only if they drink human blood.

The life of a scholar is the life of a shadow. When one participates in making the future happen, even a small part of the future—and this is what politics is about—that is when one who was a shadow can come to life.

But for that, one has to drink blood, including one’s own.”

=======

“I am not one and simple, but complex and many”

Virginia Woolf

=================

Ok. I am tired of talking about the presidential election. Shit. I was tired of the election itself before it ended. But I have been asked so many times about the result I am going to roll out one last final enlightened conflict thought on the election because yesterday I was mostly discussing the global repercussions, security/financial/nationalism, of the election choice.

I will begin with 62,984,828 popular votes. That is how many Trump received <give or take>.

That is 19.5% of the total US population <321,418,820>.

That is 25% of the total adult US population <247,813,910>.

That is about 31% of the total registered voter US population <a little over 200 million I believe>.

<just a note: about 72,000,000 votes, 29% of the adult population, actually did not vote for Trump>

Yeah. A minority just chose the most powerful position in the world. A minority just put possibly the most incompetent unqualified person to the most powerful position in the world.

But, most importantly, a majority did nothing to stop this from happening.

This is not an ‘anti-establishment movement.’

This is not a ‘reestablishment of conservative values.’

Nor is this a rejection of current policies.

This is nothing more than a large indifference to involvement with a sliver minority voice being pissed enough to push one candidate over the finish line.

Ah. That ‘sliver voice.’

Trump won Pennsylvania <+68,236>, Michigan <+11,837> and Wisconsin <+27,257> by 107,330 votes. Ironically … that is almost the same as the capacity seating for Michigan Stadium the home of the Michigan Wolverines.

Florida and North Carolina by less than 200,000 each.

With voter turnout so low <historically low in America compared to other democracies> the actual ‘difference’ is relatively easy to identify.

Trump’s campaign fully admitted that they had “major voter suppression operations” all with the overall intent to create and encourage a sense of disillusionment <whether it is truly fact or fiction> thereby encouraging an overall lack of enthusiasm to show up at all. Their campaign created one of the most negative ‘hollow of policy’ public discussions of all time.

And.

Well.

It worked.

Despite the fact that 87% of Congress was up for reelection and there were a number of state by state initiatives which will have a direct effect on the people living there and the fact the least qualified candidate of all time was in position to take the most powerful position in the free world … only one significant voting block segment really showed up <Latinos showed up, but represented too small a segment to overcome a significantly larger white voting block>.

White rural Americans.

Life, just as in this election, is filled with winners and losers. And no one likes to lose. And, to me, that is what this election revolved around. Rural America and working white people feeling like losers or they are losing … even when we all know they are not losers and many of them really are not losing <even though we most likely do not publicly verbalize that enough>.

Ah. But this all feeds into a perilous topic … white people and their identity.

Far too often when this topic comes up it is cloaked in white supremacy or simple racism … in this case it is not. In fact many people have researched some of the isolation populist thinking working its way through the Western world and consistently identify ‘a crisis of white identity’ as a common thread.

In this case it is more revolving around what does it mean to be part of this country, what is my role and what is ‘our nation anymore’ as well as “what should this nation be”.

As for identity … experts typically define it in two categories –

• “achieved” identity derived from personal effort
• “ascribed” identity based on innate characteristics.

Jessica Nagy

I bring that up to make the point that this election was not an indicator, for the most part, of any real pain, but rather of perceived pain and identity.

Please do not read that as any indication I am diminishing areas that have lost jobs and lost opportunities. I am simply making the point that, in general, lives are lived in relative comfort, people have jobs <even if they may not be the ones they really want>, the economy is growing and culturally we are as open as any country in the world. I am simply pointing out that many white people feel like it should be better than it is <even though what is ain’t that bad>. Therefore, if they feel like their role in the nation’s achievements is diminishing <perception wise>, they believe that it would be better if they had a larger voice.

I have purposefully worded it this way, as I did yesterday to a consulting firm, because this is not racism — this is ‘doing and fixing’ at its core. It is achieving and ascribing.

White rural people, hard working Americans, believe they offer the solutions to achieve as well as they ascribe themselves to the solutions. And you know what? The other 25% of non whites who voted for Trump most likely also would throw their achieving & ascribing hats into the same ring.

We cannot get around the fact that older white people were the reason Trump will be our next president.

We cannot ignore the truth that a portion of that older white people segment are racist and xenophobes.

But we cannot ignore the larger truth that this segment believes their white identity, as achievers & ascribers, actually reflects a larger identity of what makes America great.

And, on that? They are correct.

Anyway.

Hillary did not lose the other night.

Working class America did not win the other night.

White identity did not win the other night.

America lost the other night.

I am not suggesting having Hillary Clinton as our president would have been a resounding win for America all I am suggesting is that Trump, an asshat incompetent narcissist who I am hoping with my deepest hopes will actually rise to the occasion, is a resounding loss for America. And our citizenry lack of involvement and how we have elected to voice any displeasure we may have with the status quo was a losing tactic.

Lastly. I do have a piece of advice to the politicians who are now forced to work with Trump <and, on a side note, this drew some chuckles as I stated this yesterday>.

Trump is not a Republican nor is he a Democrat, nor is he a thinker, he is a tactical doer <with an eye toward how those tactics “look”>.

That means <part 1> … you would be foolish to believe that there is now a “dictate for Republican ideology as spoken by the people” and start believing you have a president who will ‘do shit’ <and, as note earlier, only 24% of adults ‘mandated’ that>. You may get some of the stuff done you want, but only if it meets the Trump “doer” filter.

That means <part 2> … well … those of us in the business management world are quite familiar with the incompetent ego driven leader focused on doing shit. They aren’t smart enough or skilled enough to recognize the true ‘good doing’ versus the ‘not-so-good’ doing. Their natural instinct is to just do. You would be foolish to try and block the doing. It is wasted energy <and I have the scars to prove it>. You have to learn to maximize the good and minimize the bad.

All that said. With an incompetent ego-driven leader in charge America will have some wins and some losses as he forges ahead with doing shit. It would be foolish of us to assume we are destined for the shithole. We will be forced to do shit and manage the shit he starts making us do. Frankly … the success of America resides less on Trump than it does on the people surrounding him. I have worked with shithole leaders before who surrounded themselves with good people who herded the leader’s doing stupidity into meaningful pastures of profitable use of time, energy and resources.

As I told someone yesterday, there will be costs <protectionism comes with an expense> and there will be profits <doing inevitably creates something>. There will be winners and there will be losers <both of which are yet to be identified>.

Sigh.

I am done with writing about Trump until he does his next anti-American buffoonish maneuver.

What I do know, for sure, being a business guy, what this election has done is permit me to see the problem to be solved. That is what a business leader dreams of.

The worst problem is the one you cannot see.

We can now see this one – identity (real or ascribed). Trump is not the leader to solve it … yea … he may make some decisions that will help business (most likely at the expense of morals), but he has no clue on how to solve the dividing thoughts of America and Americans. His role in this tragic comedy was to give voice to it.

It is now up to others to see it and solve it.

I end as I opened … when one participates in making the future happen, even a small part of the future that is when one who was a shadow can come to life. But for that, one has to drink blood, including one’s own.”

Participate in the future.

Remember.

That I was yesterday, this I am today and what I will be tomorrow is up to me.