===

“Everything solid melts into air.”

Marx and Engels

We talk about uncertainty in a number of ways, but for most everyday people its experienced like quicksand – the ground you are standing on, solid, melts into air. It’s a shock to the system. It’s kind of like someone you trusted suddenly becomes untrustworthy or an institution, which has reliably met its responsibility, is suddenly unreliable and exploitive.

Anyway. So google uncertainty you will gets millions of hits with tips to deal with or coping with, but none on the moment in which solid melts into air. This is a really important point because, conceptually, ongoing certainty degrades thinking and while research suggests ongoing uncertainty upgrades thinking, there is the wretched space in-between. It is within this in-between answers are elusive, it is difficult to discern right from wrong and much of what was important has simply melted from solid to air.

Which leads me to society.

For a variety of reasons, a lot of what people deemed as part of ‘solid society’ has melted into air. As a consequence, we are seeing is the emergence of a new social configuration that may be at odds with the ideas that constituted the beginnings of the social life as they have developed up until now. This social transformation involves major efforts by individuals within that society to redefine their social places with the outcome of these efforts almost always being uncertain and, yet, driven by a certainty of some purpose. It is the odd conflict a feeling like their social identity has been uprooted and therefore attacking social configuration to actually uproot social identities as they are currently defined. What is at stake is certainly a new relationship between individual interests, social rights, and economic efficacy. But the outcome, in terms of a new solid fusion of all of these things, is uncertain. It is interesting that in this uprooting we are simultaneously seeking freedom for self and, yet, defining bounded social practices.

Which leads me to individualism as solidity.

Right or wrong, many people shrink back into individualism when faced with a moment of solid melting into air. This is important because virtually all the present major social issues focus on the individual right to self-define one’s situation and possibilities for action and on the definition of the boundaries and rights of the collective an individual is associated with. Much of this tension emerges from a foundational belief that human beings are not only enabled, but compelled to self-create their own rules of life. This is a semi-important thought because nobody ever creates rules from nothing in an empty space – context and history matters. It was Karl Marx who said “human beings make their history themselves but they do not do so voluntarily, not under circumstances of their own choosing, rather under immediately found given and transmitted circumstances.” I imagine my point here is that when something solid melts everyone struggles a bit to be able to proactively reflect on underlying assumptions. I believe it was Andrew Grove of Intel who used the term ‘learning to effectively worry.’ You worry, a bit, about some of the basic assumptions commonly made and whether they work within the situation at hand – or do they put a modeling constraint on which, in this situation, can be set aside.

This means, in the moment, someone needs to assess how the mood, or your mood, affects how you are addressing the situation. While this unique type of uncertainty tends to breed some aspect of fear (uncertainty itself), how you are framing the situation affects the mood – problems create anxiety (and desire for probabilities rises) and opportunities breed optimism (and increased risk acceptance).

Which leads me to recreating something solid.

The ability to regulate, and reshape, our own attitudes & behavior provides us the hope that melting is fleeting and navigating the sheer complexity of a seemingly simple moment between solid and melting is possible. The suddenness of solid melting into nothing does not, and should not, imply total destruction of all, and everything, that is solid. Most often when solid melts into air it is simply taking some time to reshape itself into something sold again. It may not be the same ‘solid’ as before, but it will end up just as solid. It is within that, well, where we escape the series of quicksand solid-to-air moments. Ponder.

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

“You’re not like other girls.”

“Shut the fuck up … don’t ever compliment me by insulting other women. That’s not a compliment; it’s a competition none of us agreed to.”

(via aussie-with-glasses)

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

This is about competitions we don’t agree to in Life, in a society that creates them and a sense of “self” in which we are constantly trying to find meaning in the competition of ‘doing’.

So. Most of us can go through life doing the best we can trying to get along and, in general, view most things in life as a journey and not some race and … well …, unfortunately, sometimes people, things and society have a different view.

What this means is you are demanded to compete in some competition you really never agreed to.

Let me explain. There are absolutely a bunch of people out there who define themselves by competition. They seek to find validation and actualization through some comparison versus what others are doing <this, basically, is competition>. And then there are people like me <I do not know how many there are of us but I imagine it is a fairly significant %>. While I like winning and, on occasion, a good competition gets the heart rate up and ‘ups my game’, the majority of the time I don’t view Life when I wake up and go to work as a competition with anyone and anything but myself. I simply want to do good things <epic shit if possible> do the best I can and better than I did yesterday. I guess my competition is my yesterday not other people. That said. I am not naïve. I know that everyday I wake up and go to work I am entering into ‘the Thunderdome’ and entering into some competition that I didn’t really agree to.

=========

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

Steve Maraboli

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

I don’t like it. But I recognize it. As often as I can, I avoid the competitions I don’t agree to.

By the way, if you google “how to deal with competitions you do not agree to” you will get zilch, zero, no results on that topic.

None.

Ponder that for a second.

All that said.

What this does mean is that you receive compliments, as well as criticisms, based on competitions you didn’t agree to.

And that is aggravating. Incredibly annoying in fact.

It is like you are being judged by the Race Walking Olympic judges, with scores you don’t really care about, because you were just out jogging that day. Day in and day out people who really do not want to compete, other than with their own standards, are faced with having to accommodate competition they didn’t agree to.

What a fucking pain in the ass. I would also point out it sounds incredibly inefficient and time wasting.

Look. I am not suggesting some competition isn’t bad. I am suggesting that we go fucking overboard with regard to ‘forcing competition’ into all threads of Life & society & culture.

I do believe it is healthy for young people to understand that in competition some people win and some people lose and that some people get trophies and not everyone gets one <although getting a trophy is not all there is to success & Life>.

I do believe it is healthy in youth to understand that some people are smarter than others, that some have skills you don’t have and that some people more easily learn some things than you do.

I do believe it is healthy for young people to learn how to compete and that competition can be healthy.

But at some point I think it would be good for society and culture to either turn that switch off or maybe learn how to turn on the dimmer switch because I think part of being an adult is knowing what you are good at and what you may not be good at and deciding for yourself <some would call that personal responsibility> how you want to achieve the best version of yourself.

I am not convinced that society, and business, creating some false versions of competition which almost encourages me to compete in some competition I really didn’t agree to, let alone really want to compete, is a good thing.

I tend to believe people like me think our competition is harsher and more challenging than any competition society can create for me and because of that I tend to want to dismiss outside competitions.

Yeah.

That choice is fraught with peril. Suffice it to say just knowing that there is peril in not wanting to compete in some competition I didn’t even agree to is aggravating. But that is the world we currently live in. We are asked to compete against other flowers when all most of us want to do is bloom.

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

“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 the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice.”

Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann (July 11, 1868)” from Karl Marx

=====

Contribution, associated with the work of an individual, contributes to meaning. Contribution, of a system of business, contributes to value. This means, indirectly, contribution of an individual not only is of value, but of value creation <and the looped affirmation feeds mattering and meaning>. I begin there because as someone who has embraced complexity and bought into system dynamics, I’ll admit, I have never understood “work the system, not the part” as if it is a binary choice. It’s a ‘work the system and the part” in my mind. The easiest way for me to make this point is to suggest any one individual can fuck up a system (here’s looking at you some C-level person or incompetent manager) just as a fragile part of a supply chain can muck up the entire system. In addition, if you believe individual meaning/mattering is possibly the most important part of leadership responsibility, as well as productivity, treating an individual as if they are part of a Borg doesn’t quite seem like the way to go about it.

That said.

You dance with systems and dance with people/individuals (bastardized Donella Meadows thought).

You help the system, and the individual, see itself.

You help make sense of what the company is doing, who is doing what and what we want to do.

There is a interconnectedness that can’t ever really be ‘learned’, but successful navigation/management demands one be aware of. This doesn’t mean we should be seeking some ‘solution’ for an individual or the system, but rather we should seek to shift individuals within the system and shift patterns OF the system.

At the same time, we need to see systems are not the same, albeit they can have some similarities, which means no business is the same. I would be remiss if I didn’t note this is why best practices are useless (or less than useful) and consultant-designed systems applied do not mesh particularly well (and I imagine the link between ‘failed change’ and consultant design has a high correlation).

*** note: I would argue a unique solution, or a customized/personalized systems solution, to a business, while non comparable, introduces a certain integrity to the system it engages with which, in turn, maintains the integrity of the system and business itself).

“What is the way of doing something? There are many, many ways of doing things that work in different environments. We have got to get to the point that we can understand complexity, and harness it, and not reject it.’

Elinor Ostrom

The features of successful systems, Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Laureate in Economics and her colleagues, found ‘include clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined); reliable monitoring of the shared resource; a reasonable balance of costs and benefits for participants; a predictable process for the fast and fair resolution of conflicts; an escalating series of punishments for cheaters; and good relationships between the community and other layers of authority, from household heads to international institutions.’

Which leads me to contribution and contributing. Contribution is both personal and collective (therefore meaning is found within both individual and collective); intertwined or even symbiotic. What it is not is causal. What I mean by that is individual’s behavior and collective behavior is like a spinning three-dimensional double helix — a personalized string of DNA constantly in motion – in which its configuration subtly adapts contextually based on need/want, functional, emotional & social.

Now. This configuration is a bit different than the individual Life contribution as noted at the front of the piece. An individual on their own, will optimize contribution and meaning in a more linear back-and-forth way (think of the eyes of a Cylon in Battlestar Galactica). Alternatively, in business because you are part of an organization the double helix spins like a top with contributions emerging outwards; and returning in response in the form of value accepted/achieved by the external market.

Systems and individuals and contribution is an infinite feedback loop. That said. Individual contribution WITHIN a system is rarely solely self interest. Circling back to my point on recognizing how one individual can impact a system, David Amerland, author of The Sniper Mind , reminded me of Stanislav Petrov. To summarize, in 1983 Soviet radar malfunctioned, sent data suggesting Soviet Union was being attacked with USA nuclear missiles, Petrov assessed the data, decided it was flawed (the system failed), and did not authorize a counter launch. On a surface level this is a fantastic example of how one person can navigate a system and, in this case, save the system from itself. But the deeper dimension of the story can actually be found in Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind . Stanislav Petrov was not just acting out of self-interest, but rather with the larger ‘collective’ interest in mind. He didn’t mindlessly follow orders, but rather saw the greater good in the consequences of simply following ‘the system.’ I mentioned Humankind because Bregman outlines a number of individual/group dynamics to support this premise. Now. Some complexity theory people are going to throw out some thoughts on enabling constraints, chaos, complication not complexity and a bunch of other intellectually insightful thoughts. I would argue Petrov is an example of self-interest being trumped by a desire for the greater good, i.e., contribution to the collective interest. Period.

** note: reminder that Adam Smith, the supposed father of self interest, actually stated in Moral Sentiments (his other book) that we are not, by nature, solely self interested but also naturally interested in others.

Anyway.

Circling back to dancing with a system, I do believe contribution can be ‘released’ within this double helix constantly moving (dynamic complexity) system. And while my suggestions appear to be focused on individual, I could argue they scale to a collective/group sense:

— Seamless

This is about fitting in to an existing double helix DNA behavioral map. Success, with this type of idea, more often than not, is not creating something new forcing people to do something different, but rather fitting in <in a new way> what they are currently doing. This idea is all about “persuasion versus accepting”. Persuading someone that they should do, or try, something versus having someone accept something as part of the natural flow of Life & what they do.

I will note this idea is tricky because while it CAN be about improvement, “broken connections” (fractals) fixed simply puts a system back to the normal complexity. You may be solving a specific complication but, in reality, it reverts back to a ‘comfortable complexity.” This may sound like semantics, but in an idea world in which we attempt to want to espouse “improvements bettering people’s lives” seamless ideas are actually more about “doing something that no one really notices.”

Ponder that.

— Nudge

There are a number of excellent books defining and discussing a “nudge” idea. Nudge (Thaler), Tipping Point (Gladwell), Herd (Earls), The Choice Factory (Shotton) all discuss aspects of nudging type thinking. That said. This type of participatory ‘dancing’ is carefully incongruent to the natural flow of things. Its comfortably uncomfortable (or uncomfortably comfortable). It nudges the entire rotating double helix of behavior so its axis shifts without discombobulating the entire flow of someone’s, or the collective’s, life. You fail if it shifts the ground people stand on and succeed if people feel like they remain on solid ground, but actually have eased into a parallel dimension. A nudge can change the entire system.

Ponder that.

— Rearrange

—

“So, the universe is not quite as you thought it was.

You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

—

You can’t rearrange someone’s universe. Well. Sometimes you can, not often, but the right idea with the right idea can get a person to rearrange their universe. The truth is, depending on what you are attempting to do <like change an entire enterprise model>, you can actually get the collective, or the entire system, to rearrange itself.  I imagine some people would call these disruptive ideas**, I will not. They are simply moments in time in which an idea aligns with a human idea which rearranges people’s behavioral universe (and even how they make think about themselves and the business in doing so).

This idea is tricky. While this one purposefully taps into the expansiveness of complexity and system dynamics and is a full on “possibilities”/future-looking idea, it can often look quite random. Rearranging often looks random in the moment and, of course, obvious*** in hindsight (which makes it difficult to convince people it is meaningful).

** instead of thinking of disruptive ideas possibly think about them as rearranging ideas. with a ‘re-arranging’ idea you really have two basic choices:

• • • • • Full newness
        • optimal newness

Full newness is always tempting. We like to call these disruptive ideas and they just may well be. Just be aware the majority of people do not like to be on the bleeding edge.

Optimal newness is art and science. Too new increases the risk assessment, too grounded it becomes a ‘so what’ idea. the best idea here is tightly tied to ‘contextual to the opportunity’.

*** obvious (def.): we neatly arrange things so things seem linear/causal in reflection.

Look. I don’t remember where I found this, but in 2017, there was a study that asked if people would rather be remembered for “the contribution they made to others/society” or “the amount of financial wealth they created.” 90% of respondents said they would rather be remembered for their contribution.  Another study following over 4,460 people over nine years found that those who were purpose-oriented (focused on meaning rather than achievements) had higher levels of income and net worth over time. My point is I think it’s silly to ignore the truth that work, where we spend over 1/3^rd of our lives doesn’t matter to who we are and how we make some meaning of our lives.

If work, businesses, help us contribute to others, and society, through our work it kind of seems like a win-win. But my real point is contribution, and systems dynamics, is about both the individual and the collective and if we want to find a better way of doing business, with a vision of creating a better world/society, I believe we would be better off thinking about this. I imagine my larger point is that systems and individuals are inextricably linked and if one desires to ‘work the system’ they will also need to ‘work the individual’ (I hate that phrase). Systems are people and people, inherently, are unique typically working in coherence to the benefit of a larger collective (or in other words … they work the system, and within the system, attempting to release potential to the benefit of something larger than the individual self-interest). Maybe to the point, systems are people. Ponder.

source: Zach Mercurio

———-

“Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn’t ask ourselves what it says but what it means.”

Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose

—–

“Treat all of your secondary characters like they think the book is about them.”

Jocelyn Hughes

——–

Purpose, to me, is an intrinsic energy and the moment someone, a business or a person, makes it an extrinsic objective/vision/”Why” I believe they have stepped on the slippery slope downwards to hollow, or hollowing, of behavior. What I mean by ‘hollow’ is as soon as Purpose becomes an extrinsic goal it encourages some aspect of ‘blindness’. It can be ethical blindness (which may seem weird to say assuming Purpose is good, but as Ann Tenbrunsel, Professor of Business Ethics says in this podcast, Overcoming our Ethical Blindspots , often the most altruistic organization can have the most ethically dubious behavior. It can simply be objective blindness (which all business deals with). It can just be an overall blindness toward a myriad of details under the guise of some laudable ‘purpose.’

That said.

In general, I wish all business people would put down the Purpose crack pipe and take a deep breath.

Purpose is an outcome, not an objective.

Purpose is certainly a higher order undertaking, but tying it specifically to business results is not only misguided but a dubious undertaking (Richard Shotton’s chapter in The Choice Factory is an excellent stripping of the Stengel Purpose argument).

Which leads me to books. Let’s say you are interested in business and Purpose and do not want to pay gobs of your hard earned money on some bullshit. Maybe start here. It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Stand For: Why Every Extraordinary Business Is Driven by Purpose by Roy M. Spence Jr. and Haley Rushing.

I have noted several times I don’t particularly like reading business books. And then you run across one like this one and it renews your faith in perusing the business book section seeking something to read. This book is chockfull of interesting anecdotes and sound bites. This book was written in 2009 and even by then the premise of ‘purpose driven’ had been talked about for years (don’t buy into the bs that it is some ‘new found soul of business’), but Roy Spence offers a really nice more pragmatic articulation. Much much better, more pragmatic, than Sinek’s “Why.”

Anyway. While I believe every business owner should read this (I believe it should be mandatory reading for every business class in universities) I hope that readers take to heart the individual message. The message that if you, as a person, can get a grip on the idea of individual purpose that you can truly live an extraordinary life. This is a good book. It communicates some great messages and gives you some excellent behind the scenes stories which are just plain fun to know about.

This next book may seem odd in talking about Purpose, but let me explain. The book is Technique for Producing Ideas by James Webb Young. This book (which was written in 1937 for advertising people) is relevant to anyone’s work. This little book is one of the simplest summaries of commonsense—and articulating common sense is this book’s greatest virtue. The book lays out a five-step process for generating novel and not-so-novel ideas, articulating them so that you can put to them to immediate use. It is a powerful guide for gathering information, stimulating imagination, and recombining old elements into meaningful new ideas. It is so simple you wonder why so many consultants make it so much more difficult. But the real point in bringing this up with regard to Purpose is ‘perspective.’ Purpose is all about having, and understanding, perspective and “we” not ‘me’. “How to Produce Ideas” may sound like its about ideas, but its not. its about social dynamics and understanding where you are in perspective to others and other things. I would argue, as does Zach Mercurio, you don’t ‘find your

source: Zach Mercurio

‘purpose’ it is simply there for you to see it.

 ** note: Zach’s book, The Invisible Leader, is actually one of the books specifically written about Purpose worth reading.

Anyway. “How to Produce Ideas” is about seeing and once you see than you, well, see how you can fit in and assist in the progress of things.

Beyond those books I would much prefer business people hunker down on Vision, Mission, Strategy & Tactics rather than Purpose.

Look. Let me try this as an explanation.

We often talk about IoT (internet of things). Internet of Things is about connectivity and platforms for making things happen and lifting all. Maybe we should be speaking of PoT – Purpose of Things. Look at Purpose as structural lift. If you just go about doing things to lift things, well, you have Purpose. You will have contributed. You will have meaning. This doesn’t have to be complicated or complex, simply try in each one of your 30,000 daily decisions to attempt to provide some ‘lift’. Lift the process, lift the system, lift the task, lift the moment and maybe even lift a person.

In the end.

I often find myself in an uncomfortable position. Uncomfortable in that I do not believe Purpose will ever be found by reading a book, but reading books will help you better understand Purpose. So maybe I end with where I began. Reading, with regard to Purpose, should be viewed as an intrinsic task, not an extrinsic – objective seeking – task. The more you read this way the more likely you will intrinsically embrace purposeful living. So don’t pick up book about Purpose, pick up books and read meaningful stories. I promise you that if you can find a meaningful story, somewhere within that story will be a person who purposefully did something that mattered – and it mattered.

Mike Walsh, The Algorithmic Leader

====

“Technology may have changed the hardware of your business, but culture is your true operating system.”

Mike Walsh

=====

I believe we typically discuss digital transformation in an inherently flawed way. We speak of it as a business objective and a business infrastructure. I know. I know. That sounds inherently reasonable. But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

Most often this business objective is all about maximizing what the business sees as ways to optimize specific business strategies, sometimes a mission. In doing so they then build a system and demand everyone to work the system and optimize the system. Once again, sounds reasonable, especially if a mission has already been defined and the people have bought into it. But. Yeah. This is a mistake.

It’s a mistake because nowhere in what I just stated is “optimizing people” (either in terms of the skills they already offer or potential they offer).

I’ll get back to that point but let me finish up on how basic digital transformation discussions are flawed.

Rarely does anyone point out, if every business approaches digital transformation as it is typically discussed, it becomes a race to “optimization commoditization” where the value can only be found in one of two places:

• Working the system better (kind of like training so you gain an extra .001 second in the 100 meter dash – this is actually a derivative of “differentiation through excellent execution” which is unsustainable as a differentiation point)
• The edges (continue to overdeliver against customers – which is a losing race because the expectations bar, and costs, continue to rise squeezing profitability more & more – or continue to squeeze production ‘inputs’ like suppliers, supply, etc)

Both of these minimize business potential to the narrowest in possibilities and possible results. In other words, approaching digital transformation in a flawed way makes the ‘differential potential’ minimal – progress & growth but restrained from full potential.

I do not mean to suggest there is no business value in digital transformation just that we approach it incorrectly. I believe the minimalist way, but an important way, to view digital transformation as offering structural value creation opportunity. It has the ability to lift the foundation of the business house so the people within it can “move on up” (to steal a Jeffersons phrase) within the same structure.

Where I believe most digital transformation experts miss an opportunity (beyond overselling a mis-defined structural value creation potential) is in how one should view digital transformation from a transactional value creation aspect. If you think through the transactional value opportunities, well, maximizing potential value has little to do with technology and the value potential resides more in people.

The reality is people represent the highest potential for business and highest differential (both of which optimize & maximize value potential).

Which leads me to –

People (the key to the transactional digital transformation value creation)

Technology should mold to the people, and their skills and potential and quirks, and not the reverse.

The pushback I get is “how can we do that, people come and go and I want to build the business for the future?”

First, I point out technology, or a digital infrastructure, is simply a means to an end. People are the future of any business, not technology.

Second. This question permits me to ask: “have you read Antifragile?” (my second favorite Taleb book after ‘Fooled by Randomness’). Your objective of a business digital infrastructure creates a fragile system. I should note this is similar to Goldratt’s principles that you should develop an infrastructure system flexible enough to adapt to changing context and dynamics in the marketplace.

A digital infrastructure should be flexible enough to adapt to changing people and the dynamics of individuals skills & potential. It should not be a ‘best practice system’ of which most of your people will use in a ‘less than best’ way.

Which leads me to –

Sensemaking and choice making

I can almost guarantee you that no one brings up sense making and choice making when discussing digital transformation which begs the question who will make sense of what digital offers and how will choices & decisions be made?

Far too often digital transformation experts will toss out “culture” and “skilling people” as a head nod to the role people play in the organizational success (and digital transformation), all the while suggesting the system is a “plug ‘n play” construct where people just plug into the system as if people are technology & technology is people. That sounds nuts to me.

What is really nuts is how no one seems to talk about how digital infrastructure can be used to increase better sense making and choice making. Basically, they talk about how people will learn to use the digital infrastructure instead of the infrastructure augmenting people. That seems ass backwards to me.

Maximizing business productivity, progress & profit resides in better sensemaking (ability to make sense of situation) and choice making (effective decisions within good sensemaking).

I mean, how do you use the benefits of a digital infrastructure if you cannot identify the right problem/opportunity (sensemaking)?

Oh. Digital infrastructure/transformation is going to do the sensemaking? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

If one cannot make sense of what is, or is not, happening then choice making is useless.

Oh. “Data” provided by the digital infrastructure will make the choices obvious? (insert me laughing so hard my sides hurt).

Data only informs, it doesn’t decide. Yeah. Some of those digital transformation people may say that, but it is most often said under their breath after showing a bunch of fancy dashboards showcasing how data can make the choice paths obvious.

It seems crazy to me to have to say this, but, digital infrastructure informs decision-making/choice making, data informs decision-making/choice making, AI informs decision-making/choice making and all simply inform context needed to make sense of what is happening (sensemaking). None make decisions. All offer possibilities with probabilities associated (assuming someone can assess the possibilities and apply some probabilistic thinking).

Most importantly, in the end, all will inform people. People will make sense of what they are informed by and inevitably make the most consequential decisions and choices. It seems like digital transformation people should be thinking about how people think. Maybe help them become digital/data/sensemaking literate (not experts, just literate).

But. That’s me. I think the purpose of business, and what you do to your business, is to benefit people. Yeah. And I think how digital transformation is discussed is inherently flawed.

——

Portuguese:

saudade

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable.   Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt. 

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? The world is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles.

And more tangibles.

And then more tangibles.

This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world and we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline.

Note: Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occurs WHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption is ubiquitous.

But.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison  helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time,  sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word:  saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

—-

 —————————-

“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—-
“I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

— 

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

— 

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Yup. Think about that. Passion is inextricably tied to ‘not sucking’ <or ‘being good at’>.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Yup <part 1>.

Incompetent assholes rarely know they are <a> incompetent & <b> assholes.

Yup <part2>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

–      The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

–      When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

–       Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

–       Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

–      Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something” 

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

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

“The talk you hear about adapting to change is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

The only way you can manage change is to create it.”

—–

Peter Drucker

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

“Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. You gave me a forever within the numbered days, and I’m grateful.”

———–
John Green

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

Ok. This is about Possibilities and infiniteness. A long time ago I wrote ‘multiple sized infinities’ where I attempt to debunk the “your possibilities are infinite” snake oil life coaching advice. But here I focus on the finiteness of infinite in business.

I will do so in 2 ways:

decision making mode. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encourage people who need to make A decision that the possibilities are limitless.

maximizing individual’s productivity. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encouraging a person who has a job to do, and desires to do it as well as they can, that their possibilities are infinite.

Decision making.

Oddly I will begin speaking about possibilities by talking about shaking the etch a sketch. I do that because any discussion about possibilities begins, and ends, with: “whatever got you to where you are today is not enough to keep you there.” This is where the etch a sketch comes in because that quote is right AND wrong.

Right in that you have to ditch maybe 80% of the thinking & ideas because they were building ideas and now you have to leverage velocity off of what you have. You need to shake the etch a sketch & redraw systems, process & ideas.

Wrong in that most likely your business is constructed around 4 cornerstones of principles. Or maybe it has some strong cultural boundaries.Both of those represent the good stuff that makes your business WHO it is not what it does. That’s the etch a sketch itself. The construct which holds what gets shaken. Without it the sand flies all over the place and you have … well … shit & you need to start all over (that’s bad).

This makes possibilities finite simply by the valuable boundaries of what makes a business a business. And before someone tosses out “outside the box” bullshit, these boundaries can be pushed out but stepping across means breaking principles which make your company. in other words. If this business finiteness doesn’t meet your needs don’t step out of the box, go to another company.  

Individual productivity.

Let me talk comfort zones here. Far too often infinite possibilities encourages people to look for shit outside their comfort zone or outside some box. As I pointed out in my comfort zone piece, that’s wrong. Individual productivity, individual meaning & individual purpose is generated by pushing OUT the boundaries of what you are currently capable of. This distinction is important because meaning shouldn’t be a onetime thing it should simply be an extension of who you are and what you do. Keep it within your zone just push the boundaries out.

Anyway. Infinite gives Possibilities a bad rap. What do I mean? Far <far> too often we talk about possibilities as “the possibilities are infinite.” We make them sound like they all reside somewhere ‘outside the box.’ From an organizational leadership standpoint this sounds quite inefficient. But the truth about possibilities are infinite is that it is bullshit. In fact. In all this bullshit we are screwing what is actually a good concept, or the possibilities truth. The future is NOT filled by infinite possibilities.  Now. We may have more possibilities than we think we do, but they are certainly not infinite.

In fact the possibilities in any given time and situation are quite finite in a variety of ways:

• Time inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into an almost suffocating finite space.
• Ability, or capabilities, inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into a fairly pragmatic sphere of finite space.
• Context, or the situation itself, squeezes your possibilities quite often into a less than infinite, or maybe better said “a variety of different sized infinities,” choice space.

We do possibilities a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite.’ Shit. We do ourselves a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite possibilities.’ At any given time you, and the organization, are absolutely surrounded by possibilities. But possibilities do not always lie directly ahead of you or in the direction you face. Possibilities swirl around you in a multi-dimensional fashion.

Therefore, possibilities can reside in any direction.

Therefore, in order to see all possibilities you may not be able to rely solely on peripheral vision, but to turn around and view in a 360degree fashion <and, yes, if you turn around I would note you are then looking forward just in a different direction>.

Therefore, progress can reside in any direction.

But this is not infinite. It just may feel like it is infinite simply because of the complexity associated with context and what your mind can realistically grasp. We would do better if we admitted infinities, in terms of possibility, reside in all directions – not just forward. We would be much better served if we admitted that not all infinities are same sized. I also believe we would be much better served to admit that possibilities are finite to any given individual. Possibilities which be much better served if we suggested the depth & breadth available within the finite space available to us.

The power of purposeful possibilities. Purposeful possibilities means you aren’t chasing possibilities, but rather seeking meaning. Meaning at work is relatively simple. Every job shouldn’t be a valuable job, it should be a valued job. Valued by the one doing it & by others around. If you find you are valued for what you do, you will inherently begin seeking to be better because we know we are contributing. That’s meaning.

Finding the “better” within what is, i.e., a better inside for a better outside.

The better inside is obvious. This is purposeful adaptation and a constant fine tuning of how things are done and products & services offered. But we cannot, and should not, forget that all of the ‘better inside’ feeds a ‘better desire’ outside.

Pragmatically, people desire something better than a good numbers report. Sure. That is the day-to-day ‘meet the needs state’ type stuff going on in their heads, but at some point they lean back in their chairs, either in the office or in the comfort of their home, and they desire … maybe even need … to see something better to validate themselves as human beings beyond simply ‘doing their job well.’ They want to feel they have done something better, offered something better or contributed something better. In my words, they’d like to be in touch with their “muchness.” I say that because it is clearly different than infinite, or the pursuit of, possibilities. It is simply expansion of who & what you are to its greatest size & ability.

In the end. Infinite possibilities are not infinite, they are finite. And I truly believe we would all be better off as we pursue creating a better business world, one in which purpose is embraced and people can find some meaning & value in what they do if we didn’t overwhelm people with infinite and tell everyone “finite is big enough for all the good things we want to happen to happen.”

 =====

“Each one of us, then, should speak of his roads, his crossroads, his roadside benches; each one of us should make a surveyor’s map of his lost fields and meadows.  

Thoreau said that he had a map of his fields engraved in his soul.  And Jean Wahl once wrote … [“] The frothing of the hedges / I keep deep inside me [“] … Thus we cover the universe with drawings we have lived.”

—

Gaston Bachelard

====

“You have to live a life to understand it. Tourists just pass through.”

—

Prince

====

Well. This is about Experiences and how each experience we have creates an imprint. In other words. Why experiencing things & experiences are important.

Let me give you a reason not only for living, but experiencing Life. And I don’t means “savoring Life” type trite bullshit. I mean experiencing what is going on around you and being aware, to participate in Life … and actually experience the realities of the here & now <and not divert your attention toward some imaginative “boy, I imagined something completely different than what is occurring”>. Nor am I going to hijack any of that nutjob Eckhardt Tolle’s “live in the now” nonsense.

All I will suggest is that each experience, especially when you pay some attention to it, etches something in us.

Think of it like acquiring a tattoo. If you do accept the tattoo metaphor <or is that an analogy?> it seems to me you should take some care with what gets engraved upon you.

Why care?

The fact is Life is in constant movement and it can become incredibly tiring trying to dance with it all day long. In addition, your dance partner, named either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, typically arrives without invitation. I would suggest more of us would be slightly more content if we didn’t focus on the fact our dance partner made us smile <lets assume that is “good”> or is a complete asshole <lets call that dance partner “bad”>, but instead focus on the dance itself.

That, my friends, is experiencing Life.

The steps, the movement, that path and arc of the dance and the fields upon which our feet are placed in their movement. Thoreau tells us ‘ he had the map of his fields engraved in his soul.’ That is because he not only walked them, but he saw and felt the steps as he placed them.

This is all about recognizing the value of being aware. And it is this perceptive appreciation of the time & place, past & present, permits us a healthy balance of reality and memory.

Even better?

This awareness actually permits us to embed the moments better in our heads. This isn’t to say we will remember it correctly <because psychologically we suck at correctly & accurately remembering things> but rather the moments themselves are engraved upon us.

To be clear. This ‘thing’ we embed is actually a reflection of the natural gap in our minds between the complexity of reality and our ability to experience the complexity. What I mean by that is we tend to view reality heuristically. Therefore we don’t truly see reality but rather a simplified translation. Unfortunately, this simplified version naturally builds in some blind spots.

Now. There is a whole bunch of psychological mumbo jumbo about ‘dimensions of recognition’ and ‘symbolic complementariness of the person’s first-hand life events/involvements’, but it is much easier for everyday schmucks like you and I to think of it in a linear fashion — any initial connective personal involvement in a moment begets some reflection <how it may relate to other moments> which inevitably creates some ongoing narrative in our head.

Aw. Forget all the psychological stuff. Simplistically, the map of our Life is engraved upon our minds (if not our soul) assuming we actually are aware enough to experience the map as we traverse it. That is why awareness matters — our universe deserves to be covered with our drawings.

I am fairly sure a lot of people will read this and be shaking their heads going “I have great memories … I could cover my universe with drawings, you aren’t telling me anything of value”.

And you may be right. Absolutely. You may be.

But I would suggest that most people would actually end up papering their universe with someone else’s drawings of their experience … like taping postcards on the wall of everywhere you have been. That is not covering your universe with drawings of what you have lived.

Those are simply superficial surface expressions of real actual experience.

Let me go back to my tattoo metaphor.

If I were to get a tattoo on my soul I imagine, at least me, I would not choose a tattoo of a postcard, but rather I would prefer choosing an expression of what I felt when I placed my feet where that postcard was. In other words, I don’t want my tattoo to be a tourist with Life, I want it to be an expression of how I lived it.

That’s all I’m sayin’.