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

“Besides, it doesn’t matter if it’s real.  It never does with dreams.

They aren’t anything anyway but lifesavers to cling to so you don’t drown.  Life is an ocean, and most everyone’s hanging on to some kind of dream to keep afloat.”

Tim Tharp

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

Well. Today is for the dreamers.

Let me begin by saying it’s kind of a tough world out there today for dreamers and dreaming living in a world where pragmatism, outcomes and measurement are put on the pedestal of Life.

In fact.

I could argue that today’s world not only discourages thinking about dreams, but it screws up how we do think about dreams when we actually think about them. Dreams used to be … well … dreams. Ok. Bear with me because sometimes it is difficult for me to find the right words on this.

Dreams, in the past, seemed to be more about wishes and desires and imagining what could be in some intangible sense. I don’t mean unicorns or rainbows type stuff and it also wasn’t always pot of gold at the end of some rainbow, but it had a sense of something better.

Today?

In today’s world dreams are more often about something tangible.

I dream of winning something.

I dream about having gobs of money.

I dream about some outcome or something received.

I dream of an award.

I dream of achieving something (specific).

It is no longer dreaming something intangible.

Like.

I dream of being an Olympian <not winning something>.

I dream of being on the front cover of Time magazine <not gobs of money>.

I dream about being the best I can be <no reward or award attached>.

Look. I actually believe I am on to something <for once>. I believe this is a “thing”. That said I started thinking about dreams and dreaming and went out and I researched exactly what a dream is:

=======

Dreams (imaginings, desires) are the potentials that are too intense to be imperceptible. Having intensified to the objective reduction threshold, a desire collapses into an action.

The nobler an individual, the higher the objective reduction threshold and the more organizedly complex the imagination.

Wikiquotes

========

Step one:

‘potentials too intense to be imperceptible.’

Step two:

‘a desire collapses into an action.”

I point that out because in our outcome driven world inevitably a dream is pushed into a corner being bludgeoned with “what are you going to do to attain that dream !!??!!”

Look. I am all for taking steps to attain your dream, but the definition suggests that the intense dreams <think the ones that are truly worth paying attention to> inevitably collapse into an action.

In other words.

I don’t make a plan, the dream begets a plan.

In other words.

Reality is shaped by a dream <we don’t shape reality to ‘force’ a dream into being>.

=======

“That’s the problem with dreams” he said, “Reality just can’t compete.”

e.m.b

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

Life, and reality, pushes and pulls us in many directions.

And, more often than not, Life, and reality, places more stop signs in front of us then ‘this way to your dream’ signs. That means to have a dream that is big enough to reshape reality is … well … uhm … means that the potentials that are too intense to be imperceptible.

It isn’t about money.

It isn’t about some sating some ego driven idea.

It is about having intensified to the objective reduction threshold, a desire collapses into an action.

And that is where dreamers know something that non dreamers do <part 1> … nowhere in this definition or Life equation is ‘fear.’

Far too many times dreams get attached to thoughts like ‘not pursued due to fear …”

And that is where dreamers know something that non dreamers do <part 2> … nowhere in this definition or Life equation is ‘courage.’

Far too many times dreams get attached to “people who had the courage to pursue …”

Dreams have nothing to do with fear or courage. In fact dreams, the real meaningful ones, are out of our conscious control. They are a force in and of themselves. They beget the action by sheer force of intensity. Big, small or in between dreams, the meaningful ones, may have more power than anything else in the world. And while much of the world looks at dreamers as wistfully delusional … it is more likely than not purposeful willfully delusional.

We dreamers dream with purpose. Not for outcome, but of what can be. And when we get a dream right, or maybe better said, when the dream is right for us … well … there is no obstacle too big, no fear too great and no courage is needed, because the dream itself is the energy forward.

=========

“Well, maybe it started that way. As a dream, but doesn’t everything. Those buildings. These lights. This whole city.

Somebody had to dream about it first. And maybe that is what I did. I dreamed about coming here, but then I did it.”

James and the Giant Peach

======

This is really hard to explain to non-dreamers. But. It doesn’t really matter <it never really does with dreams>.

======

The dreamer dies, but never dies the dream,

Though Death shall call the whirlwind to his aid,

Enlist men’s passions, trick their hearts with hate,

Still shall the Vision live! Say never more

That dreams are fragile things. What else endures

Of all this broken world save only dreams!

Dana Burnet

—

=====

“Once you see the boundaries of your environment, they are no longer the boundaries of your environment.”

Marshall McLuhan

=====

“You are not a Gadget” by Jaron Lanier is chockfull of useful thoughts for anyone interested in social media and how technology shapes us. Tucked within it is the idea of “fighting being designed by software.” Basically in 2010 (and even earlier) Lanier warned us how technology influences not just our behavior, but our psychological makeup. In today’s world that torch is being held by Tristan Harris and Daniel Schmachtenberger and a number of other people.

Which leads me to suggest that I don’t follow the traditional social media rules and, well, I am fighting back.

Hugh McLeod

So, let’s talk about the fight. Basically, anyone who knows anything about how software is constructed, especially within social media, suggests stepping away and increasing human interaction (dialogue and debate). Jaron tosses in a twist by simply suggesting if you are going to be involved on social media you should ‘resist the groove or risk being entrapped’ by the software (algorithms). This comes to life by being intentional you can at least partially escape the traps the algorithms set for us. The easiest way is to make your social identity less easily identifiable. What I mean by that is engage in ways that doesn’t fit into easily identifiable templates available on social networking sites. Put some effort into expressing your voice & expression outside of typical topics to attract people outside typical topics. Post blog posts on a variety of topics with different views. In other words, don’t give software an easy way to design you which makes it more difficult for them to groove a design FOR you. Make “yourself fragments” difficult to be painted a simplistic whole, and, make your fragments difficult to be exploited. By broadening who and what you are, algorithms will struggle to ‘binary you.’

It is nice to remind yourself on occasion that the true whole of you cannot be defined by some simplistic description and, therefore, no specific topic should define you.

** note: that idea is actually contrary to what most ‘career advisors’ or ‘personal branding’ experts espouse. Traditional thinking is focus on a single topic and become known for it. Generally speaking that advice doesn’t suck but with everything we know about algorithms and social media it is also fraught with peril.

In addition, we should all remind ourselves that the true nature of the internet is one of good and possibilities. If we do that, we realize that it is the algorithms constantly nudging us to be lesser versions of who we are, and could be, that is the enemy.

Which leads me to self-awareness.

Social media has possibly been one of the most destructive weapons of self-awareness. This may seem weird because social media is possibly one of the most public tools of ‘self’ in existence. But it has prompted us to:

• • Make the ‘keeping up with the Jones’ 1950’s mentality look quaint. It is true before social media people compared themselves to others, but that circle of comparisons was finite (magazines, community, family). Social media is infinite in comparisons. It is easy to lose yourself when wandering in the infinite.
  • Divide ourselves into fragments, put those fragments under microscopes, and parse out everything bad within that fragment. In other words, it is difficult to apply an 80/20 rule to oneself, I am 80% good & 20% bad/working on it when social media is encouraging you to believe even your 80% has a healthy bad thread interwoven. It is easy to lose sight of your good, let alone good in general, when wherever you turn someone is suggesting something either unrealistic or something bad.

I don’t care how resilient and self aware you are, any sustained stream of negativity, or doubt inducing interactions, can immerses one enough that you can drown. I’d be remiss if I didn’t circle back to my “not defined by one topic” thought to point out while ‘more than one topic’ battles algorithms it also opens you up to more attacks. All I can say is if you elect to play the internet social media game, play it well or die.

Anyway. You can’t abdicate self to the social media.

Which leads me back to intentionality.

You cannot be intentional on this topic without self-awareness and self-awareness demands you recognize how social media, software and algorithms not only can influence you, but do influence you. This is an issue. To be fair, the majority of people do not think they can be influenced by any communications let alone social media. “Advertising doesn’t work on me; it works on other people.” Shit. I even know people in advertising who don’t believe Facebook can influence people <exhibit A would be the 2016 election>. If you do not believe you are being influenced, you will not intentionally do anything to stop being influenced.

====

“When we don’t notice we are being influenced, we cannot argue back.”

Paul Feldwick

====

Simplistically, you cannot escape a trap unless you see you are in a trap. I believe what I am suggesting here is that even before you become intentional, you have to believe you can be trapped. I say that because if you do not, then your intentionality will most likely be misguided or maybe better said – not aggressive enough. You will be intentional, but intentionally passive. If you see, and agree, there are things out there intentionally trying to influence you – and that on THEIR good days they win – then maybe your intentionality will have the appropriate focus and commitment.

And that is where social media algorithms hate me.

I aggressively, intentionally, fight social media algorithms.

I aggressively, intentionally, make my ‘whole self’ difficult to pin down by algorithms.

I aggressively, intentionally, interact with ideas, opinions and people who by any definition do not espouse my beliefs.

Algorithms do not know what to do with me, and I am okay with that. In the end I have seen the boundaries and, therefore, they are no longer boundaries.  I imagine my larger point is if everyone fought a bit more on social media maybe the algorithms would stop sucking all the good out of social media. Ponder.

—

“Sometimes one just gets tired of fleeing.

The world’s very small when you don’t have anywhere to go.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

———

Fujhi, poudes; escapa, non.

<flee, you may; escape, you cannot.>

——————

So. Meta and the metaverse is now upon us.
Let’s be clear. The main lure of the ‘metaverse’ will be escapism – escape from decisions, reality, uncertainty. People seem to increasingly seek to throw up their hands and step back as they increasingly feel like the world is in more turmoil than ever (it’s not, that’s perception, not reality). And in doing so more people will increasingly seek escapism – from accountability in business decision-making as well as accountability for dealing with Life. So let’s maybe call the Metaverse a fleeing destination.

But. “Fujhi, poudes; escapa, non <flee, you may; escape, you cannot>.” I say that because in today’s world fleeing anything, in life or business, is tough. While it may seem like a great big expansive world, the shit that we have a tendency to flee either has some special ray gun that shrinks the world or it is so much faster than we are that it can appear before us no matter where we flee.

Which leads me to fleeing the stuff that matters.

There’s a lot of navel-gazing these days. I mention navel gazing because I often think navel gazing is simply a version of fleeing. It often constitutes too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do, in other words, fleeing the shit that matters. The metaverse now offers us an opportunity to step into some alternative universe where the stuff that really matters just doesn’t exist. Id be remiss if I didn’t point out that isn’t reality – it’s a metaverse; a fake reality.

What the metaverse, at its worst, offers is an escape when time should be spent spending precious attention, energy, and innovative idea skills solving meaningful problems in the reality.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t engage in thoughtful circumspective dialogue about shit, but the shit we discuss should be the shit that matters.

It often feels like we flee the stuff that matters only to run toward the shit that doesn’t. I get frustrated because it often feels like we flee the hard stuff and use the easy stuff as an easy target. I mostly get frustrated because even if someone does this … well … escapa, non.  You cannot flee. You cannot escape the stuff that matters. The metaverse does not slow down stuff that matters while you escape, in fact, I would imagine it keeps going so when you come back from the metaverse it has all just gained more velocity or more power.

I imagine the next aspect of stuff that matters is decision-making. Its not a big stretch to think that people will use the metaverse to pose questions and seek answers. Kind of like a high technology version of dashboard decision-making. What I mean by this is that business, and life, will only get more complex therefore decisions will become a bit more elusive AND businesses will be most likely encouraging more autonomy. In order to flee increased personal decision making responsibilities within seemingly unsolvable situations, we will use the metaverse to play out scenarios and use it to make decisions. To be clear. Scenario thinking or contextual thinking is good – to inform decisions and choices, not make them. What will happen is far too many people in escaping the work of choicemaking will use metaverse to make sense of things only to find that Reality is a different version of Metaverse and the decision will always be slightly off or misguided. I imagine I am suggesting the stuff that matters in the metaverse will never be exactly what the stuff that matters in reality is.

Ponder.

Which leads me to perception versus reality.

Well. If you are on Facebook or watch any of the 24/7 news channels, you would be relatively sure Armageddon was upon us. Apparently, everyone you have a different opinion with is evil and intent on destroying the world. Algorithms purposefully drive us to the extreme messaging and every headline suggests we are more stressed, more overwhelmed, more depressed, and, well, more of everything bad.

Its not that people become imprisoned by fear, but rather people just decide they cannot cope with all the forces swirling around the world. Reality becomes not just a bummer, but un-navigable.

Let me be clear on this one, fleeing something or ‘things’ <in today’s world> or even ‘reality’ is a common thought for the common person. Its not that we seek to avoid accountability or responsibility, but rather we seek to avoid the, well, lack of boundaries. What I mean by that is reality used to have some boundaries, not so much these days. Raise your hand if you have a smartphone <about 80% of you between 12 and 54 just raised your hand>. Over 90% of us have some handheld technology which permits texting, calling, scrolling, or emailing on a whim. Huge changes in technology and in society in recent years have blurred many of the old, familiar, reassuring boundaries.

Uhm.

Without boundaries where does one flee?

Where does work stop and life begin?

Where does my time stop and your time begin?

In less turbulent times the boundaries were very clear. And this is where the “metaverse” enters into the discussion. In the metaverse I can not only avoid reality, but I can actually craft the boundaries in my imaginary universe.  This is dangerous. These boundaries are actually some aura shell around “metaself”. By the way, no one can see this boundary but yourself – this means you are screwed.

You may think with this invisible force field around you that you may be able to flee the things swirling around you … uhm … escapa, non.  “The things” are better and faster and more resilient and, well, more <as in sheer quantity> than you. Fleeing simply means you will get smothered from behind. You may as well stand there and face ‘things’ and strengthen your own personal boundaries. You can never escape things, but you certainly can deflect things if you stand there and see them coming.

Which leads me to fleeing yourself.

——–

“People are running, running, but there is no place in the world to which they can flee to escape themselves. Ultimately, each one must face himself. “

Paramahansa Yogananda

——–

While I do worry that this metaverse will encourage people to flee reality, I worry a bit more that it will become some false haven to flee yourself. What I mean by that is in the metaverse you can, conceptually, create the “perfect version you seek” in yourself – as a person and in some context. It is not difficult to see people running to the metaverse as it almost seems like today’s world, reality as it were, the self help people and the advertising and the futuristic blowhards, encourages us to think there is something wrong with us. That we aren’t ‘enough’ or passionate or focused or … well … we are lacking in some form or fashion.

Add in the fact that today’s complex issues facing us have no clear right or wrong answers and Life has become a contentious blend of flexible and inflexible boundaries.  Because of that individuals and societies will try to organize all their own personal chaos with boundaries with some intent to keep out all the external chaos. Here is where the Metaverse gets tricky. Whatever ‘metaself’ you create within this Meta universe actually means you will inevitably have to face yourself … uhm … the same self that society & all the expert shit is suggesting doesn’t have its shit together. I imagine what I am suggesting is in Reality or in Metaverse at some point you will create a boundary and reflect upon what is “inside” that boundary. In other words, escapa, non. Whether inside some finite space boundary or wandering aimlessly outside the boundary in some seemingly infinite space, fleeing yourself just doesn’t work. Mostly because where you are, well, you are there. Now. This is what the metaverse promises you – a different place to be where you are. This is a Faustian bargain with reality.

We may not always like what we see when we look in the mirror, but I can guarantee one thing – external critics will ALWAYS find something they don’t like. Fuck ‘em. Don’t flee them just ignore them. And don’t flee yourself, just remember that perfection is mostly found in glorious imperfections.

Don’t flee your imperfections, they make you who you are. And don’t flee to the Metaverse to flee yourself because, inevitably, reality holds all the mirrors.

Look.

I see the potential for good with the metaverse – conceptual thinking, spatial thinking, contextual thinking – opportunities abound to help hone thinking – for Life as well in business. Where my concern resides is most likely with Meta, itself, and how the world is currently arcing – increased ambiguity with perceptions skewed by loud voices suggesting Armageddon. That combination creates a scenario in which even if the metaverse were Utopia, there would be a bunch of doors available for escapism and a bunch of asshats writing algorithms and such encouraging you to go thru those doors.

As Jaron Lanier said: “no matter how petty a flaw might be in utopia, that flaw will be where the full fury of the power seeking will be focused.”

In the end. You cannot escape whatever you are fleeing.

Period.

No debate.

Doesn’t matter what it is or where you are.

Mainly because whatever you think you are fleeing doesn’t reside only in the place you are running from. Those things you elect to flee are the things that most often live in a variety of different places and spaces.

In other words, the world is a very small place when you have no place to go. I say that to suggest even by building an alternative universe, a Metaverse, doesn’t make reality go away. It is there. It exists. And it awaits your return. And, for the most part, it will do anything in its power to remind you reality is reality and the Metaverse is the Metaverse. Ponder, but, escapa non.

====

Sometimes I wish I could fly

Like a bird up in the sky

Closer to my home

 

Sometimes I feel like freedom is near

Sometimes I feel like freedom is here

Sometimes I feel like freedom is so near

But we’re so far from home

Van Morrison< Sometimes I feel like a motherless child>

====

Both home and freedom are tricky topics to discuss even though they seem like they should be relatively simple. Freedom to one person is an infringement on another’s and home is where I say it is, not what you may suggest it is. That said. Let me try this. Home is where you find true freedom. It is where you can be free to be you and do what you want. I have stated in the past (a) the world is thy ship and not thy home and (b) I am a nomad and ‘home’ to me is wherever I have my books (I did so under the guise of this is what offers me stability). But that was a bit shallow of me to suggest because the truth is home is where your genuine self resides. The ‘you’ that exists without any veneer that the external world demands. My books are, at its shallowest, escapism. It permits me to escape the external world’s demands and maybe, at its best, lets me navigate who I am and who I want to be. But this isn’t about me, this is about self, home and freedom.

In my mind, here is where home and freedom has become a trickier proposition for us – the disparity between who we really like to be and who we are in some situations has widened and increased. Here is what I mean. If we are honest, work (business) has always encouraged some specific characteristics whether they be genuine to who we are at our core or not. Tt encourages some ruthless competitiveness (on occasion at minimum) and identifiable confidence (discernable to others) and certainly a large emphasis, continuously, on results and even each business ‘culture’ demands some aspects just in how they suggest going about the business of doing business (and this varies by business). Its kind of the game, and games, one plays to fit in within a business. They are not always the things we naturally would be, or do, when we have the freedom to relax at home. But then, in addition, there is social media. Social media, for most people, is an asymmetrical ‘non relax’ game. What I mean by that is while someone certainly will have some consistency between a Facebook, Instagram, tiktok, whatever, the truth is that the ‘public game’ is played a bit differently on each platform. Each platform, and each ‘tribe’ you interact with on social media tugs at, and out, a specific part of you. It makes who you are when you are free to relax uneven. And this is where I go back to ‘trickier proposition’ thought. Who we are is being constantly pulled at by the environments within which we reside. And I mean constantly. Work is discussing bringing ‘your whole self’ (which is ludicrous), social media discusses things in a brutally one-dimensional context and even social community discusses community cohesiveness in some very ‘us versus them’ narratives. I would suggest before social media having a ‘self-narrative’ that was a bit easier to narrate was, well, a bit easier and home, as I am discussing it, was a bit easier to have.

In part I think I am discussing a bastardized psychological version of “the mirroring hypothesis.” The mirroring hypothesis is that an organization will correspond to the technical patterns of dependency in the work being performed. In other words, for today’s piece, you will begin to mirror the patterns of dependency your ‘self’ is delivering here, there and everywhere. This is also a derivative of McLuhan’s “we shape the tools and the tools shape us.” Let me be clearer. Your home becomes unrecognizable as you are being reshaped by mirroring everything you are doing everywhere.

All of this to circle back to home is where you can be free to be you and do what you want. Given everything I have just written I imagine I would have to suggest home is not a place, but a space in time. What I mean by that is there are moments (or spaces) in time – they can be shorter or longer – in which you are at home with yourself and you have the freedom to be who you are. This is kind of an important thought (I think) because home can be fleeting and in today’s world it can seem incredibly far away sometimes. The world can make our ‘home’, well, less identifiable if we are not careful. We can even kind of forget what that freedom really is and lose sight of what our home truly is. That is, if we are not careful. And I believe having a home, in some sense, is really really important.

Look. Go online and you will have access to, simultaneously, gobs of pieces on personal branding and exactly at the same time gobs of pieces on loss of sense of self (depression, esteem, purpose, etc.). It is like the former is being offered as a solution to the latter. And its not. Home is the solution. We all need a home. A home in which we know who we are, what we are, and can relax and bit all of it and, at its best, with someone who accepts it all. People will suggest authenticity of self, others will speak of being genuine, heck, Shakespeare suggests “be true to thineself”, all I suggest is home. Find your moments of home and visit home as often as you can. The world demands you leave home and even encourages you to stay away from home, I will not suggest you can never leave your home, the world doesn’t work that way, all I suggest is make sure you have a home and know it is your home. Because, in the end, that is where your truest freedom not only resides but offers your touchstone to freedom when you are away. Ponder.

================= 

“Authenticity will be the buzzword of the twenty-first century. And what is authentic? Anything that is not devised and structured to make a profit. Anything that is not controlled by corporations. Anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape. But of course nothing in the modern world is allowed to assume its own shape. The modern world is the corporate equivalent of a formal garden, where everything is planted and arranged for effect. Where nothing is untouched, where nothing is authentic. 

“Where, then, will people turn for the rare and desirable experience of authenticity? They will turn to the past.

“The past is unarguably authentic. The past is a world that already existed before all the other shapers of the present day shaped today’s world. The past was here before they were. The past rose and fell before their intrusion and molding and selling. The past is real. It’s authentic. And this will make the past unbelievably attractive.”

Michael Crichton

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

Well.

I am not a past guy and I believe “authentic” is one of those words that is currently being abused in a variety of definition-type ways, but, I would offer a reminder to everyone that if you want something authentic it is actually the past <I will expound on that in a minute>.

Let’s just say that it always surprises me a little when people start bitching about the other people who seem to be yearning for the past. While I am certainly not a past-yearner lets’ see what a past yearner sees:

Everything is uncertain in today’s world.

You have no idea who to trust.

There is a struggle to trust anything.

Facts seem to no longer be black & white

Truth now has an alternative version.

Common sense doesn’t seem common.

Opinions look much like facts & facts get confused with opinions.

Simple, or simplification, doesn’t seem that simple anymore.

Add in that all of those things are occurring in a world in which we are increasingly encouraging people to think of everything as “all or nothing” <a zero-sum world>.

This all drives a lot of people to find any fucking semi-solid lily pad to stand on that they can find. And what seems solid, seems certain, and seems authentic, well, is the past.

Ok. That said. On to my ‘expounding’ comment.

No. We may not remember the past well or correctly. In fact <research> we typically do not remember it correctly <choosing to remember the things we like & discarding the things we don’t want to remember>. Yet, in our minds, how we do remember it is as certain as anything can be in this world.

*** note: Daniel Kahneman discusses this in “the riddle of experience versus memory.”

And, yeah, aspects of this can be skewed into a generational/age thing if you wanted. In a world of increasing uncertainty the young, who have less to hold on to with ragged claws & look forward to ditching a lot of the existing shit so they can develop their own shit, leave the past behind <sometimes flippantly> .

In a world of increasing uncertainty the old, well, they hang on with ragged claws to the only thing they know to be true, certain & authentic. i.e., the past.

But, suffice it to say, how we view the past goes beyond age <although age can exacerbate the issue>.

There is seeing and … well … seeing. And there is a vast difference between the two. Frederick Franck in “Zen Seeing/Zen Drawing” argues:

“The glaring contrast between seeing and looking-at the world around us is immense; it is fateful. Everything in our society seems to conspire against our inborn human gift of seeing. We have become addicted to merely looking-at things and beings. The more we regress from seeing to looking at the world — through the ever-more-perfected machinery of viewfinders, TV tubes, VCRs, microscopes, spectroscopes — the less we see. The less we see, the more numbed we become to the joy and the pain of being alive, and the further estranged we become from ourselves and all others.”

Well.

That is a discouraging thought. He is basically suggesting that once we get on the slippery slope of ‘not seeing’ we very quickly enter, and stay, in this miserable abyss of blindness.

He may be right. But I would rather believe he is not. I would prefer to believe seeing, really seeing, is a discriminating decision made by you and not the world around you. I would like to believe if we chose we could see the past with open eyes, open mind, open heart, with open to unapologetic attention.

This is about not really looking for something in particular just being ready and receptive to whatever happens around you and in front of you. And by not seeking anything in particular <because that inhibits true seeing> you end up, as someone wrote somewhere ‘… by your own eyes you will see, and there will be a conclusion.’ What that means is you don’t see based on your own ideas <or belief system>, but rather you see based on … well … what you see.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is easy. I am simply suggesting that you can do it if you elect to. If it helps, we partially have evolution to blame on why I can say what I am saying to you:

…. evolution’s problem-solving left us modern humans with two kinds of attention: vigilance, which allows us to have a quick and life-saving fight-or-flight response to an immediate threat, be it a leaping lion or a deranged boss, and selective attention, which unconsciously curates the few stimuli to attend to amidst the flurry bombarding us, enabling us to block out everything except what we’re interested in ingesting. (Selective attention, of course, can mutate to dangerous degrees, producing such cultural atrocities as the filter bubble.)

Ah. The ‘filter bubble.’

the filter bubble — by definition, it’s populated by the things that most compel you to click. But it’s also a real problem: the set of things we’re likely to click on (sex, gossip, things that are highly personally relevant) isn’t the same as the set of things we need to know. – Eli Pariser

Evolution and Life experience has created this filter bubble for each of us. And, by the way, each of our filter bubbles are different <because our Life experiences have been different in creating it>.

This filter bubble idea also suggests that you can manage, if not actually change your filter bubble.

Yup. You can change the way you see things.

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

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

I love that one thought: ‘allow things to come to it.’ Allow what you see to come to your eye and ultimately your mind. In other words, seeing is in the mind; not in the eyes. Mentally we need to stop focusing on a specific destination, but rather watch during the journey.

All that said.

While the past may be authentic it may not be truthful <or a reflection of truth>. There are certainly some problems with the past ‘truth.’  We are really sure about how we remember the past “… to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.”

 And maybe that is the most important is lesson that lies within.

We say all the correct things … but aren’t really correct. Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth” and Truth, with regard to the past, is the sum of accurate information; not just some of the accurate information.

Now.

More research.

Just to make everyone feel better, beyond evolution, there is a real reason we do this. It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’ This is no excuse and this ‘adaptive ignorance’ gets driven by an out of whack barometer of what is important <kind of> to us crazy people, but at least there is a psychological reason:

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that. But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

Not only does Life make ‘seeing’ difficult, our minds do. Our minds adapt more and more <which ultimately constrains seeing> because of a couple of things:

• • productivity <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

  • the ways we learn to see the world

All this adaptation <or I imagine we can call it ‘coping’> creates something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately, this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for.

And that, my friends, is ultimately the point about seeing — and really seeing.

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

“… more is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas McCrae

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

We don’t see because we don’t “look.” What a shame. Because by not looking … really looking … we miss seeing some really valuable things, like, what is authentic.

We all need truth goggles. Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear & see what we want to see & remember what we want to remember.

But all truth, even “the past,” takes a discerning mind.

Because what happens when the past says all the correct things, but is not correct? <i.e., you have a misguided view of what is true>

Truth takes work.

Shit.

Seeing things as they truly are takes work.

And that which appears authentic is often not what it appears to be. Just think about this whenever someone seems to be longing for the past. They are partially correct and partially not correct. Be careful with what you believe you see.

====

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

Albert Einstein.

====

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active. The conditions upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”

John Philpot Curran

====

On page 5 of The Cluetrain Manifesto tucked down at the bottom of the page you will see these words written by Christopher Locke: “As would soon become obvious, the Net was a powerful multiplier for intellectual capital.” Not long after he follows it with its uncomfortable partner, “voice”, in that the other thing the Net did was give voice to anyone, intellectual or not.

And therein lies the wretched hollow we live in within this world of 24/7 internet access.

And therein lies our eternal vigilance – our vigilant pursuit of information.

I suggest vigilance because no matter how siloed your ‘tribe’ is there is no way that you will ever know everything that everyone knows even in your tribe/group/connections/etc. Just think about that for a second. And I choose a second because if everyone in your circle googles something they will get over a million responses in one second and the odds they will choose different things than you to read has an extremely high probability. You cannot chase all the information available and even if you have some excellent parameters on how you filter your intake you will not know as much about any individual topic as someone you are talking with.

To maintain some sanity, we are all a bit purposefully ignorant.

Technically, purposeful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth, but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge.

According to the Urban Dictionary willful ignorance is: “the practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.”

But, to me, there are four levels of purposeful ignorance:

• accepted ignorance: I have an attitude, perception or belief and I go about my life doing nothing to engage my thinking and expand what I know <unlearning avoidance is what I call this>

• confirmed ignorance: with the intent to show everyone that I am not ignorant I actually proactively engage in news & opinion offerors … uhm … but I only do so with those who have the same attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that I do <learning how to better articulate what I already think is what I call this>.

• ignorant ignorance: I actively engage with people who have different views and maybe even have some discussions and give the impression I am open minded, but even while nodding my head sagely I am simply building additional walls around what I already believe and think <listening without listening is what I call this>

• selective ignorance: I only have so much time in a day and so much brain space and I will actively attempt to be smart on some things at the expense of being ignorant on others

The third of those three is the most heinous type of ignorance. You actually have the opportunity to learn and you choose to not learn diddleysquat. It is heinous to me because there are gobs of well-intended people who are smart, but just don’t actively engage in learning new shit because, well, they prioritize other shit. In other words, they have time, but don’t learn. Useless dangerous people.

So. Let me get to the ‘selective ignorant.’

The truth is almost every single one of us have moments of purposeful ignorance. At its worst it is a conscious choice to be ignorant rather than challenge our own thinking and acknowledge a truth about reality. At its best we have simply bucketed some things in our minds as ‘decided’ in order to short cut some things and invest energy in others <and we all do the latter>.

And I even give some people a break on this topic.

Psychological research tells us that some people are cognitively complex while others prefer cognitive simplicity, in other words, some people are open to experience while other are closed minded.  Some people are cognitively flexible while others are cognitively rigid.

I could suggest that those who are cognitively simple, closed minded and/or rigid are much more likely to engage in the ‘accepted ignorance’ level of purposeful ignorance that I noted earlier, but they are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. They most certainly have the ability to be ‘smart’ <or broader in thinking>, they are simply people who would rather be comfortably ignorant rather than ‘intellectually smart’.

In addition, Urban Dictionary suggests that some people are “cognitive misers”, i.e., they do not to examine things intellectually if they don’t feel they have to. Let’s call them lazy.

And another valid reason is, well, conformity. While this sounds ‘sheeplike’, it is not always. We all engage in some aspects of conformity because it helps us not only fit in, but provide us with some daily stability which permits us to engage our energy elsewhere. That is why a shitload of people tend to believe what those around them believe because questioning those beliefs would lead to conflict, possibly rejection and, well, energy investment.

And, look, there are some nice benefits to conforming. Conformists have the greater potential to find a mate, or mates, to climb the social ladder of “success,” to have others speak well of them and to enjoy the benefits of a social support system.

And, with all that said, you know what? I can live with that.

As much as a curious, always seeking truth, person like me finds purposeful ignorance to be an egregious and utter lack of responsibility to living Life to its fullest and being engaged in Life, in general, I accept that there are some acceptable versions of purposeful ignorance <and, yet, I will do anything I can to break thru to these people and engage in some thoughtful thinking>.

I absolutely believe that learning and unlearning, is a lifelong process and ultimately leads to a fuller, richer Life <and society> I will participate in learning/unlearning through my own discussions and I will engage with anyone, anywhere, on any topic, at any time. But I am clearly in the fourth group, albeit grudgingly so.

Let me end by saying I am an “anti-ignorance optimist.” I understand that deeply ingrained purposeful ignorance is incredibly difficult to change, but I also never, ever, underestimate people’s capacity for change. I will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where I disagree with them, and I will always be interested in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

I think this is a healthy way to approach things because, to me, this is the ultimate negotiation of ‘what will be.’ In other words, how we, as people, achieve the best possible outcomes for ourselves and society. Yeah. 99% of the time better thinking will lead to better doing.

“The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which it may be optimistic about the future of mankind, but in itself it signifies not a little.”

Sigmund Freud

Anyway. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that anyone can change the world – even if it is only the small part of the big world that you can control. And maybe the point of this rambling post isn’t that anyone can change the world just by thinking and speaking the truth, they need to be able to close the deal. While we are all a bit purposefully ignorant that’s no excuse for not attempting to change whatever ignorance exists. Maybe it is within our vigilance we can make a dent in ignorance and nudge the world toward a better place.  What I do know is one who seeks vitality against decay, one who struggles against indolence with relentless energy, one who understands the journey to enlightenment is one that never ends, is the one who never has stagnant ignorance. And maybe that is what we should all purposefully attempt – a lack of stagnant ignorance. Ponder.

“Life is a struggle between vitality and decay, energy and indolence”

Winston Churchill

====

“It is pretty to be in love. It’s magical, I’m sure. But it’s also wonderful to stop for ice cream in your prom dress with six other girls. It’s also wonderful to go visit the world with nothing but a bunch of buddies who are really excited about learning. The problem is: we’ve made everything about “the one”.

But maybe “the one” is just you, loving yourself, having fun, and being happy. Maybe instead of looking for our other halves, we should be piecing ourselves together.

Maybe I wasn’t born unfinished. Maybe I am the one who makes myself better.”

===

This piece today isn’t about love, it about:

“maybe I wasn’t born unfinished”

When I read that line I stopped. Reread it. And challenged almost everything I have ever written and said about self and sense of self.

I love the thought.

I do think far far too often we find ourselves through others. It is kind of natural because comparisons tend to offer some outlines. It’s not that we shouldn’t look around us and find things we like, and dislike, and assess, but emulate? Yikes. I hesitate. At least a little.

I would much rather we see, think and assess and rather than simply emulate we evaluate who and what we are already. Maybe use the external to invigorate and energize the internal.

And maybe I suggest this because far far too often we think we are a reflection of our experiences rather than a reflection of who we are simply coming to life.

Is this a chicken or egg discussion? Maybe. But in one aspect you can suggest you are built by the external and in another aspect you can be suggesting you are simply blooming as you weather life.

Semantics? Sure. But an important one in my eyes.

Look.

I don’t want this to sound like it is an either or discussion. But I do love the thought of believing you are not born unfinished. I love the thought that everything you need resides within and all you need to do is figure out how to let it out, and shine, and grow.   It is kind of like the latin thought of “luctor et emergo” <I struggle and emerge>.

I do love the thought that maybe it is not who you are that could hold you back from what you could be ,but more often than not the challenge is who you think you are not. Ponder that for a second or two.

I say that because if you focus on the ‘think’ aspect you end up seeking external to validate, or as a corollary the external invalidates <voids, annuls>, that which resides within you and who you are.

That is a very very dangerous Life game.

It is dangerous because instead of piecing yourself together you steal or borrow pieces from others to shape yourself and you become, well, a Frankenstein <maybe not that bad but you get the point>. Or maybe you end up sacrificing parts of yourself to please the external.

All that said. I am sure the reality of a healthy self is somewhere in between. Sometimes uncovering that which exists within and sometimes finding a piece you see and borrowing it as you piece yourself together <although I could argue that any piece you see, and borrow, more often than not is something you already have within and that external piece simply brought your own finished, but unseen, piece to the forefront>.

Anyway.

I am a huge hope guy. I believe the biggest hope of all is the one we all carry within us, a hope we are born with, the one which is a hope to be the best person we can be.

====

“I hoped for nothing. And yet I lived in expectation.”

Stanislaw Lem

====

It is a hope of all that can be and, yet, ‘nothing’ in that it has yet to be.

It is a hopeful contradiction — to live in expectation of something and yet tempered with aspects of nothing. I love the hope found in the thought of being born finished and we don’t need others to piece us together and that each of us is strong enough, and born good enough. The thought that all we have is within us.

I certainly believe, and know, Life is significantly better not lived alone. But what an incredibly empowering thought … “maybe I wasn’t born unfinished and I am the one who makes me better.”

But maybe “the one” is just you.

What a fucking beautiful thought.

I wish I had written it.

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

“Her sentences were icebergs, with just the tip of her thought coming out of her mouth, and the rest kept up in her head.”

Gregory Galloway

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

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

Ok. I can honestly say that I have few friends who I know the full thinking, i.e., everything they truly think, about a thought.

Very few.

This includes even my best friends.

Uhm.

I don’t think this is unusual.

More often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Some words to open a thought.

A sentence or two which offer a preface to a bigger story.

The rest is kept up in their heads.

The ones we know the best may give us some cues, assuming we are paying attention enough, as to where to go next.

The ones we know the least may give us only the tip of the iceberg thinking we may not deserve the rest or maybe the rest is none of our business.

Not to mix metaphors <but I will> but people are like books we peruse at a bookstore. We scan the covers, maybe read the back and sometimes even open it up and read the inside sleeve to get a sense of what is inside. 90% of the time that is what we end up knowing about the book.

<kind of the same as an iceberg … just inside instead>

Now.

In business this is a little different.

In business, assuming you ever want to get some decisions and get something done, far more often you are exposed to a full iceberg, with regard to a thought, because business demands it. About the only way you can ever get an idea from insight to real action is to figure out a way to lift the bottom of the iceberg up & out from the ocean of ignorance and into the conference room light. And even then the business world does everything it can to encourage you to only show “what is important” … as in … “just show me the tops of the icebergs … that is all I have time for”. The misguided assumption being (1) that is all that really matters & (2) if you are good enough you will show the tip of the iceberg well enough we will get a sense of what is under the water>.

That last thought is kind of bullshit and why this iceberg metaphor is so appropriate. The majority of any idea and thought is found below water, not above, and 99% of the time what is above water gives very little indication of what is truly below the water.

Compounding this issue is, well, more often than not if you bring an iceberg into a meeting you will have to discuss the fact there are a bunch of other icebergs, also with tips people can see and bottoms one can only imagine, floating around the iceberg you are discussing.

The shallowest of people in the room will scan the tips floating around and assess that way.

The more thoughtful want to know at least something about the parts they cannot obviously see.

The most thoughtful are interested in everything they cannot see even if it takes a lot of time and it is less than simple.

All that said.

I could argue that in Life or in business what is important is the part most often not seen or heard.

I could argue that in Life or in business what we actually do is spend a shitload of time focused solely on the tips of icebergs.

I could argue that the latter point is the foolish consistency of the hobgoblin of foolish little minds.

To be clear, you cannot chase all icebergs. Attitudinally you would benefit by always being curious with regard to what you can’t see, but behaviorally there is just not enough time to chase down everything beneath the surface if you ever want to get anything done. All this to say chasing icebergs is not easy.

Look.

I could conclude my thought today pounding away on the importance of using curiosity to avoid bad business decisions, but I will not.

Instead I will use a personal thought to make a business point.

If you think about the moments you took a moment and stopped after hearing a sentence from a friend, the tip of an iceberg as it were, and followed up with some curiosity with regard the rest of the thought that you assume was kept in the mind and how much you were rewarded in terms of enlightenment by doing so, well, I kind of think that makes my point. It is typically a rewarding effort in terms of your friendship and connection.

We can spend our lives skating along the icy surface of irrelevance focused on the tips of icebergs or we can decide to dive down and see the larger portions of thoughts, ideas and minds hidden from sight.

That is your choice. Choose wisely.

—

“I could say that her eyes were as blue as the sea, but that would be an understatement.

Her eyes were more like mirrors to a raging ocean of melancholy and despair, and for some reason, all I wanted to do was go for a swim. “

Noah Geffroyd

==

“A grey curtain unfolded from the clouds and came galloping towards them like a herd of horses.”

Cicada by Moira McKinnon

==

Ok. Colors and black & white. Or. Maybe colors versus black & white.

What do I mean? Try thinking about this.

Who doesn’t like black & white things in their lives?

Who doesn’t like color in their lives?

Yikes. We like them both, but, colors and black & white seem to have an adversarial role in today’s world.
We put an extremely high value on ‘black & white’ things and thoughts <when most things actually reside in the gray> and … uh oh … we also put an extremely high value on ‘color’ — being colorful, having a colorful personality or even standing out in some colored way in a metaphorically dreary gray world.

This clashing can be quite uncomfortable.

– Be too black & white and you are stubborn & uncompromising and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too colorful and you are overbearing & unstable and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too on either end of the spectrum and you will always be too much of something for someone: too big, too loud, too soft, too edgy.

But here’s the deal <part 1>.

If you are gray, there is no edge.

<note: and edges define shit>

But here’s the deal <part 2>.

Black, white or color … choose one or all … in doing so you will always be too much of something for someone.

 <note: yikes … what if you want to be just the right amount?>

Suffice it to say that Life doesn’t make it easy for you with this whole color & black & white thing..

Shit.

We don’t make it easy on ourselves.

We seek both black & white and color.

We naturally want some things to be clear cut – black & white. We naturally dislike ambiguity. We naturally like certainty. We naturally are uncomfortable with certainty.

And yet we enjoy colors.

Uhm. And yet each of us has a different ‘liked’ color palette. There are those who love fire engine red, those who love pink and those who love scarlet. And those are only the ones who like versions of red for god’s sake.

I imagine we sense we just cannot win.

I imagine we covet both and in coveting both, and having everyone covet both, we end up owning not enough black & white OR color.

Well. How maddening does that make life?

In fact, conversely, how brave does that make someone who chooses black & white … versus choosing some color?

Shit.

I don’t know.

What I do know is we are in a tug of war daily between black & white and color. And I do know that when faced with a tug a war of choice, it ain’t no place for a coward.

That may sound harsh.

—–

“I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

—

But it also sounds … well … true.

Facing some version of a Life harsh truth I sense.

Facing some version of a character choice and standing by that choice.

Yikes. That’s the hard choice isn’t it? A character choice. Because it is not really an accomplishment, well, at least in a tangible way.

Do we stand with black & white or do we stand with color?

The outcome of the choice is obvious — standing there is more a reflection of character.

Ok. Let me make a point on black & white and color and character and the fact it really has nothing to do with smarts <or intelligence>, but rather resiliency. I could have called it ‘conviction of self’ but instead I think I’ll focus on resiliency.

There is a book <“How Children Succeed — Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character” by Paul Tough > that argues what actually matters most with success is character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, optimism and self-control. In David Amerland’s book, Intentional, he speaks of grit.

I bring up both of those because that means success may not be dictated by just intelligence <or ‘learning’>.

Yikes. So this may mean that ability to cognitively learn and intelligence, which has been the prize and what we measure the most, doesn’t cultivate the most productive person. Instead it appears that molding, early on, a generation with a backbone, with dedication, with tenacity, with resilience, with grit, forms a person who is more likely to keep working, keep pushing, keep failing, and learning to get back up again and just keep moving <not quitting>.

Well. That certainly sounds like someone who is more likely to be successful in and with Life. And it certainly sounds like someone who can not only choose between black & white and color, but have the fortitude to stand by it and adapt when appropriate.

Look. The reality in life is we are always choosing between black & white things and color things — while we covet both. We covet the “and”.

*** note: it was Donella Meadows who suggested in “Thinking in Systems” that understanding the ‘and’ is more important than knowing what ‘one’ means. She suggests that if you understand the ‘and’ it is possible 1 and 1 could equal more than 2. Uhm. And isn’t that what colors and black & white is all about?

I imagine that is one of the fortunate, and unfortunate, aspects of life.

And reality is also that in an ever-changing world and continuously evolving world what was black & white may become a color, conversely, some color becomes black & white.

And, yet, while we covet both we would be amazingly frickin’ happy if that which was black & white remained black and white … and color stayed color.

But, shit, that’s not the way the world works.

—

“Color can do anything that black-and-white can.”

Vincente Minnelli

—

I don’t really have a point today other than to point out:

<a> we all covet black & white things – and value them

<b> we all covet color things – and value them

<c> we are rarely aligned on either what is black & white, or appropriate colored, nor aligned on the appropriate value.

—

And, while this drives us all nuts, we are resilient enough to not only to continue to covet both, value both and hold on to both as tight as we can when we find one pleasing to our mind’s eye. Ponder.

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

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

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

“At any given point you have the power to say, this is not how the story is going to end.”

Anonymous

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

Well. I sometimes believe one of the toughest games we play in life is the tug of war between reaching and settling.

Ponder. We do it in business all the time.

“What is our reach goal? … okay … let’s make it a little more realistic.”

Uhm. Is that a reach goal … or a settling goal?

Every day and in almost every situation not only are you mentally, as an individual, assessing ‘reach’ versus ‘more certain attainment’ <which is an evil version of settling>, but everyone around you is sending conflicting signals – “we want to reach a little farther than we think we are capable of … oh … but not too far“.

WTF. This is enough to confuse anyone.

You either reach far or you don’t.

You either set a settling goal or you don’t.

But, for fuck’s sake, don’t make my head hurt more than it has to on some decisions and choices because you want to feel like ‘we have pushed the limits’ in some false way.

Look. I’m not suggesting this is easy. Our natural temptation is to settle for a little less than a true reach because then we are more likely to meet expectations and less likely to be disappointed. I would guess <no research to back this up> we settle in some form or fashion 90% of the time. I really cannot argue with doing shit this way.

It is simply a tactic to maintain our sanity as we attempt, in reaching our desires & dreams, to limit the roll of the dice between chance & choice. We do so because we know disappointment lurks around every corner of every choice we ever make. And, let’s be honest, the disappointment can show up in so many frickin’ ways it almost seems like meeting a reach expectation comes only in black & white … while disappointments can show up in a myriad of colors <a reverse of how it should and actually is>.

I would like to note here that it really doesn’t help that we constantly get crap advice like this: ‘I encourage people to create something that ONLY you understand. That ONLY you get, because that can make you feel like you have some sort of purpose.’ Look. I absolutely buy the fact a reach goal should be personal or at least contain some aspect of personal so that it just isn’t some bland milestone objective someone else has pointed you at.

But. Well. If you are gonna reach for something, truly reach, part of the prize at the end of the reaching isn’t holding something that only you ‘get’, but rather something you gain that others also see value in. In poetic terms, you want something that covers you in colors that others can see. 

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

“And now I’m covered in the colors”

Halsey

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

And maybe that is where settling really screws us.

We don’t reach far enough to access the true colors to cover our achievements in to make it worth looking at over and over again.

Regardless. We live in a black & white achievement and outcomes world, not a color world.

While we talk a good game with regard to good character and humanity and ‘purpose driven’ passions almost within the first 5 minutes of any discussion you are gonna get “what do you do” and “what have you done.” If all you can do is talk about “reaching shit” then … well … you are useless as a non-achieving dreamer.

But.

If you can point out a string of specific outcomes and achievements most people don’t ask or wonder if they were easily attainable or the fact you attained them was because you had ‘settled for something less than a reach’, all they do is think of you as a useful achieving productive person.

And therein lies the horrible fate of ‘reaching.’ While we hate the fact that meeting the expectations of others means something, well, it means something. We can try to live a Life not worrying about other people and their expectations but unless our ‘doing compass’ miraculously always points us in the right direction and unless our ‘reach’ is impeccably judged correctly every time and unless the cat’s cradle web of choice & chance happens to fall into perfect symmetry we are doomed to have to face someone’s expectations at some point.

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

“It’s time for you to live your own life without worrying about the expectations of others.”

Unknown

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

Every day we get tugged side to side … reach or settle.

Every.

Frickin.

Day.

Here is what I know. If you settle for everything, your story will be illustrated in the blacks & whites of certainties, achievements and outcomes. You will try and color the black & whites in some odd colors to spruce them up, but (sigh), they are black & white.

If you never reach for anything, you will end you story with chapters of regrets and ‘’what ifs.’ You will have touched only grays and your access to ‘colors’ will be limited. If you reach for something and fall short, your story will have two key chapters:

the first is one filled with the failure to reach & the disappointments

the second is written by how you react to the reach disappointment – avoid future disappointment or seek to try & do better.

If you reach for something, and get it, you will never be the same again. You will have touched colors and seen that life is much more than black and white.

Please. Don’t anyone read anything too much into the ‘what I know’ portion because while the last one I wrote sounds exactly like what everyone wants, there are no guarantees in Life.

Reaching comes with a cost.

Settling comes with a cost.

And sometimes the cost is not dictated by you but rather by some choice & chance metric <which you have little control over>. And sometimes the prize, the benefit, can only be seen by you <a different version of cost>.

I imagine all I really know for sure is that, in general, we settle for far too little far too often. Ponder.