====

“It’s hard to be always the same person.”

Dorothea Tanning

====

the epigraph for ‘A Table of Content’ Dorothea Tanning’s first book of poems

—

A friend, W. S. Merwin, said of Tanning: “She goes out of the room, comes back, and she’s someone else.”

======

Consistency of character.

Consistency in actions & behavior.

Consistency in thinking & opinions.

Consistency of … well … self.

Well. These are things that are much much harder than one would think.

In fact , with all the talk about how hard change is <I really don’t believe it is>, we never talk about how hard staying the same is.

Whew. When I first wrote that last sentence I had to sit back and make sure I got it right. I have written about change so much it seemed strange to me to suggest that staying the same may be as, or even more, difficult. And, you know what? I think I am right.

Change is most often something with a specific destination in mind. Leaving something behind and gaining something, or going somewhere, ahead and something better. It’s difficult, but at least you are aiming for something which you assume is better.

Staying the same is actually a battle against the natural & unnatural elements.

It’s kind of like the shore refusing to change or erode despite the constant attacks from the ebb & flow of an ocean intent on stealing something from the shore. There is no destination, you are defending your home. I would argue what makes it REALLY hard is that you are actually defending your ‘best you’ in a world in which is constantly whispering “is that your best?“

Anyway.

I knew what I wanted to write today on this topic, but I googled “hard to be always the same person” just to see if I could dig up any research or some factoid to throw in so this wouldn’t just be an opinion piece.

There are no articles on this topic. Zero. Nada. None.

And, yes, that surprised me.

There were gazillions of articles on “changing to improve” and “how to manage change” and … well … let’s just say that change is a pretty popular topic online.

Now, as for staying the same, philosophy has addressed something similar to this topic in something they discuss as Personal Identity.

The interesting thing to me that I dug out of that was something called “psychological continuity.” Without boring you with details it basically suggests that we psychologically evolve experience by experience through overlapping chains of direct psychological connections, as those causal and cognitive connections between beliefs, desires, intentions, experiential memories, character traits, and so forth. And while this suggests we evolve, what about remaining true to our self? How do we do that with all these ‘overlapping chains of direct psychological connections’ constantly bombarding our true self?

Why is there no advice on how hard it is to maintain our identity?

Everyone, experts included, must believe that once you have landed on some person who you actually want to be & like that it must be easy to maintain.

Well.

That is nuts.

Let me explain why it is nuts <and why it is so hard to always be the same person day in and day out>. Practically speaking the difficulty actually resides with … well … us. You & me.

Every day we act, albeit mostly unconsciously, to recreate the day before and the person we were before.

With the same habits, routine, and daily rituals always attempting to replicate the ‘same’ which makes up the same person we kind of liked the day before but, uh oh, all those little pieces actually all adds up to something new — sometimes a small new and sometimes a big new.

Go figure. Despite all our effort to replicate shit and enjoy consistent rituals the truth is that no matter how hard we try our days are always a bit different and put a slightly different imprint upon us.

Try this thought on for size.

This means in a world striving for repetition all we actually achieve is change.

Reality is messy, complex and a fairly fragile web of repetition and change. Therefore if reality is messy that means always being the same person is a big mess day in and day out. Now. Here is where ‘self’ runs into some issues. If we are not careful, a little of us gets chipped away simply by attempting to handle all the everyday messiness.

Look. I am not suggesting that daily we don’t learn a little something new and that every day we slightly evolve, change, as a person. Most of us do. But as we change based on experience and the context of our lives change that is where it gets hard to always be the same person.  All that experiential change starts easing its way inside you trying to pry away little bits of who you are.

Experience can be very demanding of us.

Anyway. Our attempt to maintain some sameness as a person is not only about character, but you probably realize that consistency is important for making progress, doing better work, being efficient and ultimately achieving some level of success in most areas of life.

The power of consistency is that repetition is actually more important than perfection. And that ‘sameness’, while often associated with ruts & boredom, actually represent small gains which inevitably add up to bigger results.

The challenge, of course, is balance <or equilibrium>. You cannot be “all consistent” just as you cannot be “all change.”

I could argue that the success of balance resides in whether you can always be the same person. Because, if you can, it provides a solid fulcrum as Life naturally see saws between consistent repetition and change.

I tend to believe this solid foundation permits you to go forth into Life everyday trying to always be the same person and meet each new challenge represented by each situation, moment or experience which seem intent on forcing change to ‘being the same person.’

I imagine I am partially talking about “being true to thineself.” I once discussed this challenge as the “just this once” justification. Because the world & Life is so messy it is fairly easy to make an excuse for not always staying the same person you want to be. But that just makes it easy to step onto that slippery slope which can slide you much farther, and faster, away from who you are than you can imagine. Life make it far too easy to leave a room and come back a different person.

I also sometimes think this is why so many of us hate, or just get grumpy, with Life. It is easy to hate something that makes it easy for you to lose sight of the ‘same person’ you liked when you began.

But you know what?

Always being the same person is hard, but doable. Ultimately it is about choices. Choices on what you will and will not do and choices of who you want to be as a person. And I actually believe once you find your space & place in Life as a person you actually come to love the world a little more.

For, well, as Tanning says …

=======

He told us, with the years, you will come

To love the world.

And we sat there with our souls in our laps,

And comforted them.

Dorothea Tanning

========

We all change.

That is what experiences do. We simply become a little wiser with regard to the realities of Life. And in our wisdom we tend to watch & participate in experiences without changing.

We don’t permit those experiences to change the character and soul we each have inside us and permits us to sit there and comfort our souls and be comforted, in turn, by them.

All that said.

“It’s hard to be always the same person.”

====

“There’s always a strange feeling you get when you come across one particular line by chance.

It feels somehow significant.

That’s irrational of course, but humans are irrational creatures.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH. “

Mark Forsyth

======

Survival is a great motivator.

Suffice it to say there is pretty much nothing like feeling like ‘prepare to meet thy death’ is imminent to create a sense of urgency in your actions. I believe this is true in your personal life as well as in your business life.

But.

Let’s be clear.

Up until that “death scenario” point most of us swing back & forth between a general sense of lack of urgency and just getting all the shit done you need to get done <no urgency nor laziness just doing and checking shit off your list>.

It is a fairly practical approach to approaching Life <and business life>.

Looking at Life objectively, Life is almost always a balance of pacing yourself so that you don’t burn out <and have the energy when you actually do need it> and a sense of urgency to ‘do’ when the situation dictates.

And, yet … we almost seem irrational when it comes to this balance. We run, and run, and run and then all of a sudden schedule some forced ‘stop’ under the guise of ‘re-energizing’ or recharging our batteries.

This is kind of nuts.

This actually implies we can control what we face and when we face it.

Let me explain what I really mean.

Well.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH.

So let’s say your idea of balance is a simple “go” or “stop” — either 100% of one or 100% of the other.

So let’s say you have been running and running and running with your planned “stop” imminent.

Uh oh.

Life stands in front of you with some situation and places the words is ‘prepare to meet thy death’ squarely in front of you.

You pale.

Shit.

We all pale in  moment like that.

It is ‘survival time.’ What many crappy bosses flippantly call “an all hands on deck” moment.

Well.

You are fucked.

Just when you need the energy the most you are most likely at your most depleted.

Suffice it to say the ‘100% stop or go’ Life strategy is not the most practical or efficient living Life model. And, yet, that is exactly the model most of us use.

Our reason <excuse>?

This is what Life demands of us.

Well.

I could argue that Life may certainly pressure us to live life this way, but it certainly doesn’t demand us to live it this way.

We get lots of choices in Life and one of them is how we live it.

Even with all the “survive must do’s” we get a lot of room on how we conduct our lives.

Death or survival moments reminds us of this. It is in these moments in which our survival mode kicks in, i.e., “I am not prepared to meet my death … if at all possible”.

Most of us figure we may as well go out fighting … hence the urgency.

“Better it is to die as a soldier since die we must.

And though the man who dies hath pain – to all his house accrues praise and pride. “

Euripedes

Now.

I will admit.

I hated the false ‘prepare to meet thy death’ moments a shitload of managers create in business.

Well. I really believe most of them do not create them, but rather they simply cannot discern between a true “meet thy death” scenario versus a “a calculated action is called for here.”

In addition.

I admit.

I found it incredibly frustrating to have a “prepare to meet thy death” scenario rear its monstrous head and any and all resources became available. Not because I begrudged the resources needed to meet the situation, but because months before you had asked for the same resources <maybe even a lesser degree> and, if invested then <as asked>, this particular ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenario most likely would have never occurred.

But that is why I said what I said upfront — most of us grind our way through life, business & personal, with a general lack of urgency. The uncomfortable truth is that creating urgency without a ‘prepare to meet thy death’ situation is difficult. And because it is difficult and because there is a mostly lack of urgency general attitude, managers almost get trained to inspire urgency with ‘death-like scenarios. This is the truly evil business version of “false sense of urgency.”

It is a mind numbingly stupid situation we have created for ourselves.

I, personally as a manager, do not know if I was particularly good at heading off ‘prepare for thy death’ situations and I don’t know if I was particularly good at recognizing real ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenarios <because sometimes they actually can be slightly sneaky>, but I do tend to believe I erred on the side of treating almost all scenarios initially as ‘non urgent’ believing more often than not if we didn’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off and didn’t invest a shitload of extra resources we could most likely handle it fairly efficiently.

My only proof to back up what I just wrote?

I am not dead.

Regardless.

I do wish more of us, in Life and in business, could cut back on the “go 100%” and “stop 100%” interval living. I don’t think it is particularly healthy nor particularly effective in the long run.

Death comes to all of us soon enough … no reason to seek it out.

=====

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Albert Einstein

—————

Well. Who would have thought the guy who figured out e=mcsquared would actually say something so simple even someone who doesn’t have a physics PhD can understand it.

I am gonna dumb this down even more.

People in business who manage by milestones and aren’t satisfied unless they have “milestones” to measure and  lean in on “how do we make people accountable” drive me crazy.

Why?

Because they are always seeking something to count.

And what is worse?  That is where they stop.

They stop there because if they can’t count it, it doesn’t count.

Drives.

Me.

Fucking.

Nuts.

Look. Setting clear objectives and maybe some goals is always useful. But not to inspire work. It should be done to guide workers toward something. That said. The entire thought of “because you cannot count something that it doesn’t count” is … well … absurd.

It is absurd because the best people I have ever worked with, or even just glanced off of, had an intangible that made everyone around them be better. Yeah. Often they ‘hit’ numbers but they were also the ones most likely to hit numbers you never even imagined if you didn’t give them a frickin’ number to ‘hit.’  And maybe that is my point. The space between hitting a designated number and a realized number is uncountable upfront. Yeah.  I don’t know how you count that. I can’t even count the intangibles that go into creating a predictive uncountable number.

And trying to figure out how to make an intangible tangible just so you can figure out a way to measure or count it seems to be an incredible waste of time and effort. Let me explain just so you don’t think I am being silly. In most businesses if you leave people alone and let them create business and they generate some number bigger than what was expected <or forecasted> some numbnut will come along and analyze every aspect of what happened and who did what so that they can ‘count it’ into their next forecast. Its absurd.

(but that is something you can count on)

Numbers, in and of themselves, are not accountable. They are simply a reflection of some “cause” <and ’cause’ can be accountable>. More likely numbers are a refection of that wacky thing called “people working together.”

Numbers, in and of themselves, are less facts and more reflections of a mosaic from which you need to build facts. Even more importantly numbers are more a reflection of the intangible aspect of

What you can also count on is Albert was smarter than he looked.

===

“You try to be greedy when others are fearful.

And you try to be fearful when others are greedy.”

Warren Buffett

===

Well. I have been involved in several “stop spending money on those things because it is a waste of money” and “stop parsing out money in nickels & dimes and spend some hundred dollar bills for gods sake” business discussions throughout my career.

Suffice it to say, one of the most challenging aspects of being in business is managing money and how & when you spend your money.

That said. This discussion rears its ugliest head when … uh oh … you can see you are running out of money.

Let me be clear. Businesses rarely actually run out of money completely. More often than not it is “I don’t have enough money to spend after “x” date.”

This is called ‘spending over time’ budgeting.

This is called ‘wrong way to budget.’

Budgeting should always be based on ‘spend money to make money’ running parallel to the unfortunate business truth  that “you actually have to spend money to make money.”

** note: when I say spend money to make money I am not just referring to direct marketing or simple ’cause & effect’ advertising, but rather even if your objective is brand awareness your ultimate objective is to sell shit, i.e., having everyone know you and not buy anything is a non-business model.

I am tempted to refer to my ‘no formula’ post here because I believe every business has an edge just as they <assuming it is actually a good idea> always have an opportunity or opportunities. Using formulas when budgeting expenditures typically does not translate to edges, maximizing the edge nor offer real solutions to drive & create business. Formulas tend to say what has worked in the past which doesn’t often offer real solutions when discussing ‘we are going to run out of money.’

Suffice it to say that when budgets get limited <or you can see a zero balance on the horizon> and when a business comes to grips with the fact it is going to run out of money there are some hard choices to make.

The easy choice? Stretch it out and hope <the business is maintained or some additional funds come your way>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out hoping is never a good strategy.

The difficult choice? How do I spend it now <or within a specific window of time> to drive up awareness/sales/connections so that I make an impact.

While it sounds flippant to say you have to spend money to make money and it is even more difficult to explain “there is something worse than not having any more money to spend.”

Uhm. What is worse?

Spending the money you did have … poorly.

There may be nothing worse in business than wasting money. And I don’t mean on frivolous expenditures <which is wasteful & stupid> or on ‘legacy programs’ <which is usually wasteful or at minimum ‘less than efficient’>, but actual well intended planning and wasting the money in doing so.

That said. The most common poor budgeting strategy is time based.

“If I don’t budget wisely I will use up my money by <insert some date>.”

Well. That is actually “how can I spread my money out for as long as I can” budgeting. I don’t have enough time to list how many things are wrong, and will go wrong, spending your money this way.

Basically you run the risk of spreading yourself so thin you don’t make any impact which defeats the purpose of spending money.

The purpose of spending money in business? <just as a reminder>

To make money.

But, remember, you have to pull the trigger on spending – having money does you no good if you do not actually spend it. A business should demand money spent to show how it creates money <some high falutin’ marketing experts will toss around “ROI” here>.

In startups it is to receive additional funding.

In some businesses it is that your budget is based on % of sales.

In other businesses it is simply that the business has some financial objective <sales, profit, widgets, etc.> and you are spending to meet and/or exceed it.

And while everyone in business knows this, for some reason, time takes on an extraordinarily high importance in planning. It becomes “I have 12 months to use this money” rather than “how do I spend the money to make the most money.”

Yes.

Sometimes those things coincide.

But more often than not, under the scrutiny of truth, they do not.

I got very lucky early in my career in that I was mentored and worked with some excellent ‘difficult money decision’ business people.

For example. An early difficult money decision.

It was a national brand with a long purchase cycle product <think maybe once every two years for the bulk of their purchasers>and a pretty high seasonal purchase skew where a high % of sales occurred in a three month period and a budget that didn’t support an annual national effort.

The senior brand manager decided to split the country into thirds and only provide significant support to one of the thirds each year <rolling through the nation over a three year period and then starting over>.

<note: there were some promotions and store support aspects and a couple of national cable events to maintain the other regional thirds while the other third’s effort was in place>

Yes. The initial presentation to senior management and sales was harrowing & painful. But we got research onboard and we had a sales projection team and we showed everyone how this would actually increase sales on an annual basis and how much it would net out for the company at the end of the three years and how it would provide a national foundation from which the following three years should see even higher growth projections <it would actually flatten out in years 7, 8 & 9>.

Without going into details the decisions were made to sacrifice inefficient ‘throwing money away spending’ for more impactful ‘spend to make money’ strategy & tactics. It was creative spending to create sales.

Not popular. It looked risky.

And it worked – better than even planned.

From that point on in my career I continued to propose & debate some fairly unpopular expenditure strategies because I was focused on spending money to make money.

Look.

I am not suggesting this is easy. Money & budget decisions can make or break a career. Shit. They can make or break a business.

You get judged on how a budget is spent. And you should. But the judge is often harsh and the verdict can be damning. Because of that judgement, money, and the judgement that comes along with it, can make even the most even keeled business person … well … lose sight of reality and enter into some imaginative world in which dollars get spread out in a way that appears to cover time and yet, in its worst form, does nothing over time or, in its least harmful form, does less than it could over time.

To be clear. A spending over time planning process takes incredible imagination.

To be clear. A spending money to make money is all about reality <sometimes harsh>.

Again.

I am not suggesting this is easy.

It is incredibly hard to have a start up business spend all their discretionary money in a two month period <to get results to point to>.

It is incredibly hard to have a business stop doing all the small efforts for 6 months and do one bigger effort in month 7 & 8.

It is incredibly hard to have a business “go dark” for any stretch of time.

Deciding when to spend and what to spend and face the fact that your plan means you will have used up your money <so there is nothing to use in case it doesn’t work> is incredibly hard.

That said.

I am a business guy.

And I like to increase business <to maintain it>.

And I have a nasty habit of wanting to do the right thing and not the popular thing or the thing that would ‘make the sales people happy’ or ‘look good to the board.’

I like to spend money to make money.

=====

“Our civilization is founded on the shambles, and every individual existence goes out in a lonely spasm of helpless agony.”

William James

======

“When I was in grade school, they told me to write down what I wanted to be when I grew up.

I wrote down happy.

They told me I didn’t understand the assignment,

I told them they didn’t understand life.”

Unknown <too often incorrectly attributed to John Lennon>

==========

William James is a quote machine, but I sometimes think he had a ‘glass is half full’ view of Life and living Life. And, yet, he has a point here.

Whether you are happy now or not, almost everything we do is built on the shambles of something. Or maybe it is just that life is really messy and we have to build our happiness out of this mess.

Regardless, it would seem our existence is challenged by the threat of some helpless agony in our pursuit of being happy.

Speaking of happy.

Go online and over half the time you see the second quote it is attributed to Poor John Lennon. I doubt it is his quote because it is one of those saccharine snippets you expect to read in self-help books and not from the ever-pretentious Lennon <a pretentious person would never create a quasi-cheesy pretentious quote>. I am not sure he would be happy with it all.

However. The sentiment? The sentiment is pretty spot on.

Is the purpose of life to do something of some purpose and therefore be happy?

Or is it simply to seek happiness and therefore our purpose is derived from our happiness?

Aw.

Who the hell knows.

And who the hell cares? <okay … a shitload of pop psychologists and maybe some philosophers care>.

I, personally, believe making happiness an objective is misguided. It should be an outcome of things you do and think. That said. Desiring happiness is a good things. As Hanzi Freinacht says in The Listening Society, “the fact happiness isn’t everything, doesn’t make it into nothing.”

The Listening Society: Hanzi Freinacht

Anyway. Here is what I know.

We all seek to make some positive impact on the world whether that world be our immediate circle or some grand global circle. And I read somewhere that to live nobly is to avert one’s eyes from the bad and seek that which can be found in the light of good. And I think that is what James hints at. That averting one’s eyes is, well, not easy.

Tell someone to not look at something and the temptation to look increases exponentially.

It is not that we seek the agony and sadness of Life, it is just there to be seen.

Part of it is driven by expectations drummed into our heads which isn’t really about seeking happiness or purpose, but rather we are constantly pushed & encouraged to be better than the person next to us. We are taught almost from day one to cram stuff into our heads not to learn but to be tested against some standardized standard and measured against everyone else. We are taught almost from day one everything is a competition (which suggests if you do not win you are a loser).

In other words the agony is all about competing against what is considered ‘success’ and whether we meet those standards instead of a more positive agony of “I am learning but have yet so much to learn” or progress (rather than success).

In addition.

We are taught almost from day one that planning, and a plan, is the key to success and happiness. In other words this suggests we can … uhm … plan to be happy and planning leads to success.

That seems kinda crazy. It really does seem kind of a nuts fantasy to suggest you can map out something that doesn’t even exist.

Shit.

It sounds like agony.

In fact.

It sounds like we are constantly sifting through the shambles of plans made and broken as we seek to make some progress <difficult to define without some plan I guess> in Life.

But you know what true agony is?

Either having no clue what you want to do with your life or encountering the emptiness of uncertainty with regard to your Life. I would suggest that in some ways they are two sides of the same coin and if you have this coin in your pocket you are carrying at least a small burden of this agony wherever you go.

In a world in which someone’s strive for success is most typically defined in some form or fashion as wealth, power or some measured result <test score, material example, IQ, title, etc.> it becomes very difficult to sit back … examine your agony … and seek to better define success thru some emotional perspective and progress.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. In many ways they are inextricably linked … I get that.

But in the absence of wealth or power or some high falutin’ title … it sure would be nice to have some emotional happiness & purpose stored up in some mental bank account to counter it.

I am not one of those people who shout “you need to do what you love to be happy.” I actually believe to be happy you should love, or find extreme comfort, that you fulfill some purpose in Life. And that purpose doesn’t even have to be in the here & now … because depending on where you are in Life an what your situation is … it may simply be a strong thread of hope that you will reach the place where you can be “the noblest version of I” and serve the purpose which gives you some happiness & meaning beyond that high falutin’ title and that large bank account and fancy car.

In the end.

As a business guy who focuses a lot on how to communicate things to people I would suggest that everything I have written is a perfect rationale for what I always talk about the fact a business needs to be grounded in ‘selling hope.’ It is a perfect rationale for how I always talk about ‘progress’ rather than success.

Hope, in combination with Progress, to me, is the ultimate salve to the agony one faces in Life.

But, hey, that’s me.

“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”

André Gide

—-

Ok. I am always wary of those who come out blazing by claiming to speak “the truth” mostly because I believe rarely are things black & white or that truth is easy. This wariness of mine means I am optimistically cynical.

This can sometimes be construed as a contrarian <with some clear pragmatic boundaries>, but, it is not. Truth is hard and having a fact, or even some facts, on your side doesn’t guarantee you are holding the Truth card.

All this leads me to say that in today’s world I see too much lazy thinking <or possibly lazy sloppy communication>. This is most typically fund in people quick to select the facts they want to use and ignore others and then pontificate on “the truth.”

Anyway. My inherent cynicism makes me question everything upfront <or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront>. I actually believe this is good use of cynicism. Instead of cynicism dragging things down it is used to structurally build UP, brick by brick, fact by fact, the truth.

In old times <like really really old> this questioning would be a version of Socratic questioning <but I am not as smart as good ole Socrates>. Socratic questioning focuses on the importance of questioning in learning <Socrates actually thought that questioning was the only real form of teaching>. Simplistically, Socratic questioning highlights the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking.

It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of ideas.

It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning.

So. I imagine my point is that questioning <a version of conflict> actually helps us get closer to the truth. In a way, despite the fact ‘debating’ sounds glamorous, it is actually what I would call ‘the grinding of truth.’ You grind your way through the fragments until you have uncovered the truth.

The art of Socratic questioning is tightly aligned to the idea of critical thinking mostly because it ties the art of questioning to excellence of thought. To summarize this thought “Socratic” means a systematic approach in the interest in assessing truth or plausibility of things.

Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end — seeking meaning and truth.

Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions in its pursuit of meaning and truth.

Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth.

The beauty of critical thinking skills is that it establishes an additional level of thinking to our thinking, an inner voice of reason, that monitors, assesses, and reforms our ideas/opinions/thoughts <in a more rational direction> and affects our feelings and actions. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on using the “outer voice” with directed, disciplined questioning. This becomes important because everyone has biases and some heauristic thinkng embedded so introducuing external/outer voice increases the likelihood you will not be blinded by your bias or beliefs.

So. What this means is that a shitload of the people adamantly stating ‘the truth’ (and we seem to hear a lot of these people on radio shows and talk shows and “advocates” of some special interest) are actually lying.

Ok. That lying thought. Maybe I could better say that they aren’t stating truth, but rather opinion under the guise of truth <and duping a significant amount of people along the way>. Yeah. Some of them are quite crafty in that they will sprinkle a fact or two into their opinion in the attempt to buttress up the opinion. Now, most are smart enough to know they are cherry-picking a fact or tow and assembling them in a way that looks impenetrable (but its actually flimsy), but they have made a choice. A choice to state truth when it is simply opinion <and shame on them for that … particularly if they do it under the ‘freedom of speech’ heading as well as if they have some ability to impact people>.

The truth behind the truth is that it does come with choice.

Try this on for size.

With awareness of some truths comes choice, and, with choice, freedom or chaos or crisis. This comes from 19th Century philosopher G. W. F. Hegel.

Discarding an absolute notion of truth, he saw today’s “truth” merely as a passing “bloom” in an evolving process of new “blooms”.

<let’s just call these stupid blooms … ‘ideas’>

Ideas and truth advance, he believed, only as ideas come into conflict.

This occurs when a counter idea <the antithesis> arises to challenge the status quo <the thesis>. It was this “conflict” or “crisis” which brought about the “higher idea” <the synthesis>.

Now.

Let me be clear.

The Hegelian Dialectic is more of an observation of the way thought systems evolve than it is a suggestion on how systems themselves evolve <so crisis is not an action, but part of thought>. Think of it as maybe a Plato would – someone states a belief or ‘perceived truth’ and the debate is the ‘crisis’ – or when an antithesis point of view is articulated- of which synthesis occurs and, hopefully, truth emerges. I invested some energy explaining that so no one starts running around being crazy trying to drive “crisis” into every frickin’ conversation we have.

That said. Marx and Darwin applied this notion to the social and biological realm. Marx and Communism stood on a pillar of crisis <just called revolution>. The higher social order could only arise from the “crisis” of conflict—the proletariat arising to battle the bourgeoisie. Darwin and Neo-Darwinian theory see the higher biological order arising only from a life and death struggle—survival of the fittest.

So. What this suggests is that truth can only arise from crisis <or in a dialectic world> through debate and discussion.

I know I do not dislike this thought.

As long as we don’t start thinking there is something “magical” in a crisis and see the debate as the synthesis necessary to cultivate truth this is not only healthy but creates some healthy truths.

Anyway.

Crisis is a big word. And easily misunderstood <at least by someone with a pea like brain like me>. I don’t believe we need crisis to create change. Simply some conflict. Simply some debate for god’s sake.

Maybe some questioning of people who state “the truth.”

<then that debate within conflicting point of views could be construed as a ‘crisis’ and Hegel can sleep at night>

All that said I imagine a legitimate concern one could have in reading this is that I am suggesting never ending debate. Or maybe even “unresolved conflict” because diametrically opposed opinions are locked in “absolute truths” and are unwilling to accept anything otherwise.

In other words, we never leave “crisis” mode.

I am not. That is bad. And useless. And dangerous.

But.

The entire idea of “thought” to ‘crisis in debate’ to ‘a clearer truth’ is a viable thought. And maybe that is the immost important truth – it is really really rare to reach an unequivocal truth, we more often simply have a clearer view of truth as it exists within a context, time and place.

So when someone states “absolute truth’ without debate or discussion I think its kinda nuts. Heck. I often think its nuts even after debate or discussion.

Oh.

One last important thought <a REALLY important one in this entire discussion>.

We are as much at fault as the “liar” if we remain silent when facing lies, partial truths or opinions masking as truth.

Silence is the death of debate.

The death of the search for truth. No questioning = no truth.

Think about that the next time you hear something that sounds … well … wrong.

And you remain silent. Your silence is killing truth.

Anyway.

Optimistically cynical in pursuit of truth.  Maybe Dill said it best:

——

“I ain’t cynical, Miss Alexandra. Tellin’ the truth’s not cynical, is it?”

=

Dill, To Kill a Mockingbird

—–

Do not remain silent in the search as an optimistically cynical view of truth.

=========

“They can betray me, but I choose not to betray my peace of mind.”

Dodinsky

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

I can honestly say I have never been betrayed by anyone.

Well.     Okay.     Maybe.

Sure.

Some people have disappointed me in their choices & actions … but … either I have never done anything bad enough that was worth being betrayed for <… uhm … I am fairly sure I have some betrayable items I have done strewn throughout my past so that’s not it> or I haven’t considered what someone has done as ‘betrayal’ or worthy enough to be truly deemed “betrayal worthy.”

Now.

It is quite possible I define betrayal differently than a lot of other people.

Because <part 1> I would guess I could go back to high school and examine some ‘friendship betrayal’ thing … which … well … in viewing as an adult would probably look fairly absurd <even though it may have felt like betrayal at the time>.

Because <part 2> I imagine I could examine some past relationship and assess “betrayal” upon it … which … well … in viewing honestly & realistically was simply an act within a relationship that wasn’t what it was cracked up to be anyway <and inevitably doomed regardless>.

Because <part 3> maybe I refuse to hold a grudge, if even for a short amount of time, because someone has disappointed me.

====

    “I’m all about unforgiving and hating and holding grudges because it keeps me safe and mentally healthy and I don’t care about your stupid feel-good quotes about forgiving everyone everywhere always so you can take your feel-good emotionally manipulative apologist bullshit and shove it”

(via sailingaugust)

=====

This isn’t because I believe in any of the stupid feel good quotes <because I have gone on record publicly on my blog that I believe it is mostly bullshit>.

This isn’t because I believe in any feel good emotionally manipulative apologist bullshit <also have gone on record publicly about this>.

It is because … well … people are people, people are human, and there are two sides to any story.

Here is what I know for sure.

If you give anyone ample opportunity they will sometimes disappoint you.

If you give anyone ample opportunity they will sometimes surprise you.

Suffice it to say people, in your Life, are no better or any worse than people somewhere in someone else’s life.

And, to me, betrayal is tossed around far too flippantly.

People are not monsters nor do they constantly seek to disappoint or ‘betray.’

I could argue that if you stopped for just one second, and maybe think about the fact that each and every one of those same people you are disappointed in are all heroes in their own story – a story that they write every day – well, it’s kind of hard to attach “betray” on someone unless you are pretty selfish.

Selfish in that your story is more important than their story.

And, yet, we all see betrayal come to Life in a variety of ways dependent upon our age and where we are in life.

High school in friends we trusted.

Business in coworkers we trusted.

Relationships in partners we trusted.

Betrayal, in almost all forms or fashion, seems to reside in some unstated contract – a contract with Life.

Think about it. Almost everyone wakes up every day with a contract with the day in front of them. The contract consists of being concerned about their own drama Life and their own ‘things’ rather than whether they should become involved, or not involved, in anything else.

Does that make them someone a betrayer because in doing so they disappoint you?

Well.

Yes and no.

Yes in that people do have contracts with other people. It is not solely an “I” world.

And, yet, no. No in that even at their worst of worst “I” behavior even the monsters don’t see monsters reflected in the mirror.

I try and remember all of that every day.

In my mind betrayal is inevitably a very personal thing. Personal in that it is about having a piece of you either broken or sliced away.

Yeah. It can sting a little.

But it is just a piece and the piece does not define the whole.

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

“I decided, enough pain …. I was not the woman who breaks into pieces under the blows of abandonment and absence, who goes mad, who dies.

Only a few fragments had splintered off, for the rest I was well. I was whole, whole I would remain. To those who hurt me, I react giving back in kind.

I am the queen of spades, I am the wasp that stings, I am the dark serpent. I am the invulnerable animal who passes through fire and is not burned.”

Elena Ferrante

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

Yeah.

Maybe someone has betrayed me at some point in my Life.

Maybe I would see it as such if I viewed it as many people would traditionally view betrayed and betrayal.

But maybe people would be better served by viewing betrayal as I do because, well, let me go back to where I began and my 1^st sentence: I can honestly say I have never been betrayed by anyone.

That is my peace of mind.

I have passed through any and all fires of betrayal and not been burned.

Sure seems like a shitload of people would be happier in Life if they could say that.

But that’s me.

Ponder.

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

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

–

Sherlock Holmes

<The Adventure of the Speckled Band>

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

“When we get better understanding or the facts or evidence don’t agree with the theory we must change the theory and change course.””

–

Sherlock Holmes

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

“… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

–

proverb

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

So. “I believe” may be two of the most dreaded word you can hear in today’s world. Those two words may be this century’s version of throwing down a gauntlet or challenging someone to a duel.

“I believe” has been bastardized in today’s world to actually mean “I know” <but people have convinced themselves if they soften it with ‘I believe’ people will think they are more open to listening and true discussion>.

Facts matter. And they matter a shitload not only with truth but in the battle between I know and I believe. The problem is that while facts are facts — two facts can coexist in the pursuit of “I know.”

Shit.

The truth is that truth, the unequivocal kind, is most likely borne of let’s say 8 facts <I made that number up>, coexisting, which when arranged into a pattern make up an unequivocal truth. This means unequivocal truth, or let’s call it good solid “I know”, is made up of a puzzle of facts and not just one fact or even two.

The practice of Truth is actually a profession of facts.

Using legalese for binding of contracts “by means of facts, truths are created and beliefs come into existence.” Yet, in spite of all good intentions, the meanings of individual facts are not always clear and unequivocal. They may be capable of being understood in more ways than one, they may be doubtful or uncertain, and they may lend themselves to various interpretations by different individuals.

Following that thought, this means, when differences in understanding are not resolvable, divides in “beliefs” occur and dysfunction, in terms of lack of progress, occurs.

Once again, in legal terms, this is called “ambiguity.”

Paradoxically enough, the word ambiguity itself has more than one interpretation. The general meaning has to do with how things are said, the words that are used, by someone and how those words are understood. Ambiguity occurs where the two are not in alignment. The lack of alignment actually springs back upon the facts themselves in a vicious way — the fact itself comes into doubt.

Sigh.

But facts are facts. The problem isn’t about the fact, but rather most truths are more complex than equating it with one fact. Unequivocal truth is grounded in … well … 8 facts <once again, I picked 8 out of the air but you get the point>. This problem gets compounded by how people elect to actually use facts.

Using my 8 let me tell you what I mean. The expert, the most knowledgeable, will stack up the 8 facts from top to bottom in order of priority, but all relevant to making and truth unequivocal.

Then we, the non-experts, get in the game.

Some of us use the highest priority fact, say #1, and that is all.

Some grab the facts we want, in the order we want, and create the truth we want.

Some may actually use the 8, but decided to prioritize them in a different order <which may net out to a slightly different ‘truth’ conclusion than the expert who lined them up properly>.

All are using facts. Most are using them improperly or in an incomplete way. And, inevitably, 90%+ end up with an “I believe” and not an “I know” stand.

I know. I know. We all wish truth could be easier and, in fact, many people flippantly suggest truth is simple <or simpler than we make it out to be>. Here is what I know about that. Using the thought I used upfront in this piece “… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

Well. An expert, maybe a horse trainer, could hear the hoof beats and tell you with 95% confidence the breed, the weight and the type of horse coming up behind you. The dreamer will suggest it could be a unicorn. The pragmatic will narrow it down to a horse, zebra, antelope or some 4 hoofed animal.

Truth is less than simple and more in need of facts than we like to admit.

Yes.

The trouble with unequivocal truth is that it usually takes ‘one more step than you think’ to get there. Unfortunately, the truth about this is most of us don’t make it there.

We stop short.

And I tend to believe most of us know we are stopping short. We like the facts that we have but we, at the same time, know there are most likely some more out there that could be useful. We have 3 or 4 and decide the remaining 4 or 5 are just not that necessary. I guess we bank on the fact, if we stop short, we have at least grabbed the top 3 or 4 most important facts in an unequivocal truth. Good enough or enough to make it ‘sensible.’

Yikes. Dangerous thought.

It’s dangerous in believing we have the most important ones of the ones we decided is enough, but possibly even more dangerous is that we confuse an unequivocal truth for a simple “I believe” thought.

It is dangerous because “I believes” tend to reside in the negative space. Huh? If you only snag 4 of the 8 necessary facts the debate can never be resolved as the back & forth ends up in the blank spaces around the discussion. Truth is constructed more often by what was not found than what was found <look at what I didn’t point out versus what I did point out> – that is negative space truth.

Uhm. That is not unequivocal truth.

In fact … it poisons the unequivocal truths in a misdirection of specious comparisons.

I would suggest that more of us should pay attention to negative space.

Why? Negative space is usually indicative that a fact is missing. 99% of negative space can be filled with a fact <if only we looked hard enough for it>.

All that said. Truth is the axis munid … the dead center of the earth.

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

“the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain. The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth.

When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate. Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go.

Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.” 

Jacque Silette 

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

 I believe, no, I know the world would be a better place if more of us took that thought seriously. Because if we did than maybe we wouldn’t stop short of the unequivocal truth destination. Maybe we wouldn’t settle for an “I believe” thought and confuse it with a real “I know” thought. And maybe if we did there would be less discussion of alternative facts and more discussion about unequivocal truths on which we could center ourselves on.

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

Geez. If Sherlock Holmes says that sure as shit more of us should be saying it <and I don’t think we are>.

Unequivocal truth exists.

They exist as surely as Santa Claus <yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus >.

We just have to want to get there and not be satisfied by stopping short and feeling good about the facts we gathered … short of the ones we need to reach unequivocal.  I don’t know that 8 facts create an unequivocal truth is the right formula, but I sure as shit believe it is on the right path to getting there. 

—

“You cannot run away from a weakness; you must sometimes fight it out or perish. And if that be so, why not now, and where you stand?”

Robert Louis Stevenson

—

So. We always talk about how, every once in a while, people step up. Its the idea that someone seeming to rising above not only what you expected, but maybe what they expected of themselves. In general, stepping up is tied to a meaningful moment. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that all of us face meaningful moments, therefore, we all face this opportunity we call ‘stepping up’ at least once in our lives (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually dozens).

Life is funny that way. It can push pretty hard. And most times it will try and push you down or back.  And, in fact, sometimes it pushes so hard it is quite tempting to lose hope you can deal with ‘the pushing.’

This is where we find some personal, internal, traction.

When the world is pushing you sometimes if you look close enough you find hope, in order to push back, in the words of children, some song, a friend or in something your parents may have told you. Yeah. I just listed a shitload of external stimuli. Yeah. I’m suggesting that your internal fortitude often needs some external help.

I tend to believe hope is an intricate mix of internal and external and, in particular, you need to find this type of hope if you desire to push back.

And when you do, you push back.

Yeah. I guess I am questioning ‘stepping up’.

Stepping up seems inarguable and a seems a simple concept. It would seem to mean to rise above yourself. Maybe to do a little more or to show something special. It is often a moment in which people need more so you give more.

See.

That’s why I am not sure it is stepping up.

I think its finding something that already exists within yourself and you use it not to step up but rather push back on what Life is pushing you on.

Look. We all know life can be challenging and can push pretty damn hard sometimes and I believe we decide, or not, to push back.

Because when life wants to push you down or off the path you want to be on, well, then I guess we learn to push back.

Just ponder.

Maybe instead of thinking about a need to step up, the next time Life pushes you, push back.

Going back into the ‘wayback machine’ because Trump never really seems to go away – he is kind of like ‘the gift that keeps giving’ (gonorrhea). Here is the quote of the day from 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump:

“What do I know?” Trump replied. “All I know is what’s on the internet.”

Well.

This actually explains a lot.

Credible sources track Trump comments/claims he made in 2015/16 running at about 75% false (it never stopped for 5 years). But maybe we know why. He clicks on Wikipedia or urban dictionary or instagram <scanning an image with some quote or factoid> or Fox or Newsmaxx and then tweets it out or parrots it in on-air interviews.

He has no credible sources, he never has, and he just makes shit up or maybe even worse, he doesn’t truly think about what he believes.

Ok.

Now ponder this Trump wisdom oldie, but goodie.

 

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. My primary consultant is myself and I have – you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.”

Well, Donald, that sounds quite reasonable. It’s not as if the world, let alone the Middle East, Ukraine, the South China Sea, is particularly complex or that there are nuanced delicate diplomatic situations or even that it is important to get it right. I imagine just going on instinct makes sense. Or maybe go on the internet because there you will surely find all the answers you will need.

<note some heavy sarcasm there>

When I read what he said at that time I thought of a Samuel Adams quote:

—-

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Samuel Adams

——

With Trump we faced a vain man, maybe the vainest of vain, maybe even one with Narcissistic Disorder, and an aspiring man – one who aspires with no rules, no boundaries, seemingly no moral imperative, or any trivial nuisance that could get in the way of a win.

Back in March 2016 I stated it this way:

He appears, alarmingly so, to be free of any actual solutions.

He appears to be free, alarmingly so, of any real policy <beyond his ‘good instincts for this stuff.”

He appears to be free,  alarmingly so, to offer frighteningly hollow rhetoric.

He is the ruin, not of the country <we will still be standing despite him>, but he is the ruin of what makes the country great <which is not simply ‘winning’ as he suggests it is>.

In my little corner of the world I did everything in my power to convince everyone of the sham Trump is and what he offered.

Why?

I will refer to Samuel Adams again <and let everyone who has not spoken out yet think about these words>:

—

“… the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

Samuel Adams in The Boston Gazette 14 October 1771

—

Speak out now. For what we say, and do, today has an impact, an impact that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.

We seek to circumvent the miserableness for the millions yet unborn.

Well. I wrote the original of this in March 2016. One could suggest, given Trump’s resilient fan base, that I failed in my efforts to make people understand what a sham he is, and was. I say that because while I had hoped the exhausting 5 year Trump episode of stupid West Wing was cancelled, it has not and I forge on discussing Trump, trying to make people understand one by one, and walking people through how a grifter is not only what they want but what America needs. I share this today because silence is not an option and simply ignoring him will not make him, or his believers, go away. Festering wounds do not go away on their own. I am not asking everyone to walk the same path I am, just ponder.

========

Toby Ziegler <West Wing>:

“We don’t know what the next president is going to face. If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who’s connected to other people’s lives and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us then we’ll be able to face what comes our way and achieve things we can’t imagine yet.”

———-