=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts. We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center. So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

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

I do know we certainly talk about it this way. Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth” on this semi-linear journey.

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

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

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

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level. And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around, because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones,’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right. The nucleus holds it all together. However. What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other.

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

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

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais. Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

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

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center it’s just that sometimes we lose sight of it. Or we just cannot hear it on occasion.

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

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

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center. The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 8 billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right and what is wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

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

But we never lose it.

Which leads me to losing sight of the center.

Society is an abstract idea grounded in concrete norms, principles and beliefs. The problem is that the world has become less and less concrete and more and more abstract. This creates a societal shift in which structures that bound some individual choices, institutions and guard the valuable repetitions of routines and patterns of acceptable behavior struggle to maintain their shape long enough to let society gain some shape and structure. The cacophony of the world, and some of the tools bludgeoning society, deconstruct time and space so nothing can settle. Open societies have always been vulnerable to those in power (hands of fate), but in today’s world, a globalized world with a myriad of conflicting ‘hands of power’, many of the past certainties just can’t be obtained. So society and social life retracts not to some ‘center’, but rather to safety (they are often not the same). People hide within tribes, live behind walls, carry guns, and start embracing a number of activities and habits which simply increase the sense of disorder in the world through the paradox that the individual feels they are building order. The problem is all of these actions and activities are a function of the fact that a sense of fear is embedded within, stifling our ‘center,’ and, simultaneously, permeating daily routines, attitudes and mindsets. Circling back to fate, this gives us a sense fate will always strike without warning and is indifferent to not only us, but the order and certainty we are trying to construct for ourselves individually. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that infinite progress becomes unattainable in this situation as we substitute an uninterrupted game of finite objectives and tactics and our dreams get smaller and smaller. This all gets compounded by a governing elite which encourages us to believe there is no possibility of existential security through larger collective actions and shared interests. Instead, they encourage everyone to focus on individual survival, i.e., everyone for themselves, all cloaked in self-responsibility and individual expression. All this does is increase fragmentation and continue to tear apart the basic principles of collective action and shared interests and that tears apart our natural, human, center. Paradoxically, this creates some significant issues for governance. By encouraging all of this, society no longer believes they can be protected by the state or, at minimum, they are unlikely to trust the protection offered by those governing. As a consequence, the citizenry will encourage lashing out with military force or simplistic things like tariffs or isolationism as a reflection of an acceptance that there are certain forces that they cannot control and even worse there are no longer any hopes to be able to subdue the forces which could infringe upon individual survival. This is a negative mindset, negative against globalization, negativity against collective interest, negative against interdependence, basically negative against anything that optimizes or maximizes potential progress and prosperity and certainly negative against our ‘center.’ This is a world of despair. As Oscar Wilde said: “a map of the world that does not include utopia is not worth even glancing at for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there, it looks out and seeing a better country, sets sail.” Progress always resides in the chase of utopias never the realization. A utopia is always simply just an image of another universe different from the existing universe we know, or know of. What does this have to do with a quest for center? Well. The center of our being, collectively and individually, relentlessly anticipates a universe originated entirely through human imagination and human betterment. If you seek to leave a universe of grindingly monotonous life, you must imagine another world. It is at our center in which this imagination resides. Ponder.

Thinking of everything in business, planning and ideas and, well, anything is a fallacy. Okay. It is impossible. Yet. Day in, day out, we run into people who manage business, projects & people with ‘think of everything’ as their behavioral compass. Note. I said “behavioral”, not thinking. Far too often this topic gets slotted into overthinking, perfection and intellectual masturbation. It is not. Thinking of everything is all about behavior or behavior avoidance.

thinking of everything is a procrastination method. “we cannot start until we are sure we have thought of everything.”

thinking of everything is a fear of responsibility method. “i am going to get blamed if we didn’t think of ‘x’, so let’s make sure we thinking thru everything.”

Once again. this is simply behavior stuff cloaked in thinking.

This issue gets compounded because many people in the business world have a very focused linear horizontal ‘think of everything’ on a topic. Unfortunately <part 1>, inherent in that type of thinking is invariably you haven’t thought of everything <because most business things are not linear and one dimensional but rather multi dimensional and complex>. Unfortunately <part 2>, far too many people force fit linear into a multidimensional world because the business world prefers tidiness, ‘this leads to that’ and certainty.

And then there is the ‘multi tangential double helix all over the place thinking’ methodology <I made that up> which is like trying to be prepared for “what happens if they ask us about how an atom is split” and, yet, all the meeting really is about … well … how to drive foot traffic into a store thinking.  Inherent in that thought methodology is that you haven’t thought of everything because there is not enough time in the world to fulfill this methodology <… plus most people cannot do a multi tangential double helix>.

And then. Despite your methodology and all the preparation and things you have thought of you will always have some senior person, who has only been peripherally involved, turning to the team at the last minute and adamantly stating: “have we thought of everything?”

That is why I would have this illustration I opened with. When asked that question <by said wise senior person> this is the picture to whip out of my case to prove “yes, we have.”

It’s perfect. It showcases the often randomness of all the factoids and trivial and important stuff you … well … stuff into your head for a meeting to explain how you have thought of everything and how ‘the plan’ just is never going to be a nice, neat, tidy, linear plan.

<note: plan on getting fired if you pull this illustration out in response to a senior person question>

That said. Sure. I have certainly been accused of over thinking things on occasion, okay, maybe just over preparing for meeting questions. I would like to think that I spared everyone <slightly> except when we really had a good idea <cause good ideas are different>.

No, I don’t believe anything can be perfect, but with good ideas the closest you can come to perfectly protecting it and thinking of ‘everything’ from day one is a good idea. It at least gives you some hope for implementing the idea you want to implement.

Bottom line? When you think you have thought of everything something will not be thought of.

<that is a postulate I believe>

Oh.

Thinking is messy.

Shit.

Plans are often messy.

Suffice it say that no matter how linear you want to make thinking, inevitably the best thinking has some aspect of randomness to it. Which leads me back to where I opened this piece.

Randomness decreases uncertainty of outcomes when actually doing something. This inherently encourages one to use their procrastination muscles as well as encourages anxiety over accountability & responsibility once one actually does do something.

That said. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. So you may as well do.

Go think.

Go be messy.

And, as Dr. Jason Fox says, “take strong tentative steps” because no matter how much you think about everything, you will never think about everything. Ah. Therein lies the fallacy.

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

updated April 2010 post

====

“When I talk to audiences about the size and age of the cosmos, people often say “it makes me feel so insignificant, I answer,” the bigger and more impersonal the universe is, the more meaningful you are, because in this vast, impersonal place needs something significant to fill it up.” We’ve abandoned the old belief that humanity is at the physical center of the universe but must come back to believing we are at the centre of meaning.”

Alan Dressler

====

“If you think you’re too small to make a difference, try falling asleep with a mosquito in your room.”

The Dalai Lama

====

‘7 billion people experienced this day in a different way’

====

Feeling insignificant.

I tend to believe all of us, in a variety of situations, have felt insignificant or actually feel insignificant.

Shit.

In a world of 8 billion people, it can be fairly easy to feel insignificant. Conversely, by ignoring the other 7.99999999 billion people it can be fairly easy to feel pretty significant.

Sure, they may not care about you, but you sure as hell better care about them because you, well, if you don’t, someone is going to significantly try and impact you (and they may not care about you).

That said. How do I feel comfortable saying this?

If you believe in something, it matters … it is important.

If you stand for something, it matters … it is important.

And, if it is important, it is, well, significant.

I imagine the biggest question one has if it is significant to me, and speak out, does it matter? Will anyone listen to one person (me)?

Well.

Social contagion is an interesting thing. It is never top down; it is within-to-out. People’s attitudes and behaviors are contagious and it is people who get ‘copied’ which is, at its core, what the stickiness of attitudes and behavior is grounded upon.

Why shouldn’t you be the one who gets copied?

Why shouldn’t what you say or do be significant enough that you create the ‘contagion’?

What this means is if you have proximity to others and if you have something to say that is significant and it has some ‘contagious DNA’, it spreads. Significance is measured by meaning something enough to someone that it gets passed along as meaningful. This isn’t news or anything insightful. Study after study shows if you vote, and tell people you know you are going to vote, people around you are more likely to vote. Same goes with what you are reading, what you find interesting, even what you may eat. At the core of what I am saying is that a crowd is made up of individuals, some of whom create the ‘crowd cohesiveness’ and some are ‘copiers’, but all in that ‘crowd’ find something that when viewed from any angle you want, suggests everyone ‘belongs’ for some reason (that is almost the definition of ‘crowd’). My point? You may be the shaper of an idea, creator of a combination of words or just the last needed leverage point for someone else and someone else’s idea.

Yeah. Things cascade and you do not know if you are the drop that creates the waterfall. Therein lies “significance.”

I would argue most social ‘logic’ is crafted person by person, through connections and conversations (until it hits enough mass to create crowd-like emulation), so why could you not be the one to spark it?

All that said.

I could easily argue we are all significant and our significance increases the larger the universe. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out significance takes some work.

The truth is that anything significant, i.e., any ‘non airheady argument’, i.e., something knowledgeable, takes work. And that is where significance most often goes to die. If you don’t work at being knowledgeable, the winner is not really ignorance; it is skepticism & cynicism.

Neither of those two things is conducive to persuasion and neither of those two things is conducive to effective listening and neither of them are conducive to being contagious and neither of them are conducive to energizing anything significant.

My last point is really important <and we should, in general, discuss more often>.

People, in general, are not stupid nor are people, in general, ignorant, they have mostly just given up. If they believe if they put in the work, become more knowledgeable and more enlightened, and, yet, believe what they have to say or show will not matter … uhm … then what is the incentive to put in the work? Yeah. That “takes work’ thing I mentioned. Significance demands you decide you have not given up.

In the end.

The larger the universe the more meaningful you are to the arc of the universe. Period.

That means everyone is significant. Period.

So maybe my point is, don’t waste your significance. Period.

Ponder.

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

“insignificant”

——–

insignificant

things

that was and were

propose to prove what once

will be

significant

again.

 

insignificant

things

rise again

to the fall of your voice

out of a scene

which takes in

to give

all words not equal

to one

or none.

 

insignificant

things

said so long ago

and now

until now

nothing to hear

anything at all

are heard

and

the insignificant

melts

the soul

to significance.

==

“Sometimes, the hand that feeds you is also holding you captive.”

Ben Irvine

==

“Beneath the incessant parade of images, nothing.”

Magnificent Ruin

==

We are all captive of something. And often that ‘something’ is tangible, yet has the ultimate value of nothing. That is why progress can be elusive and self identity can become a bit of a tug of war between the “I compass” and the external world. That said, today is actually about being captive of something specific – nothing. I will define ‘nothing’ as things that (a) don’t really have an impact beyond individual satisfaction and (b) don’t really contribute to personal meaning beyond productivity.

The sheer numbers of data, wealth, images, memes, production of stuff, that bludgeon us and our senses on a daily basis only suggest we measure our lives by accumulating some of those things – theoretically by choosing one we give them the meaning of something – rather than what we actually may choose to be measured by absent of these choices. In doing so we become occupants of a space designed by the system, captives of nothing. Yet, this nothing is defined, or bounded, by what is deemed ‘reason’, common sense or, at minimum, reasonable. Yes. The world convinces us it is reasonable to be measured by things with a ‘nothing value.’ And by defining these numbers, or these ‘somethings’, as a measure it will invariably constrain focus toward the present (the now) with critique centered on either the past (kind of a warped assessment versus ‘then’) or against others within the Now defined space (competition within the present). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if your concern is having “something” at the end of life, judging oneself, consistently, in the present doesn’t guarantee that.

“Everything seems simpler than it truly is, when you are not the one working on it”

Look. The truth is results in Life are tricky things. This is why gamification was/is so appealing. But we know from research that finite progress (milestones, sprints, etc.) are a doom loop of chasing things in which people get trained to chase output instead of outcomes and items instead of impact. People inherently gain greater satisfaction if they show progress – better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today – so why don’t more people do so?

Well, first, what the emphasis on this type of measurement does is to heighten the discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is”, i.e., some certainty, and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness. This is where “if you cannot measure it, how do you know you were successful” falls. So we twist ourselves into pretzels turning thoughts of plausibility into images of possibility, then images of probability, ultimately shaping/morph itself into a perception of “is”. We move the uncertainty ball into the certainty space not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty found in plausibility and probability. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of these things, you worry you may actually end up with nothing. Yeah. The truth is while business and society use “somethings” to make us captive of what are actually ‘nothings’, nothing is personal. What I mean by that is even though we may not view the world in a zero-sum way we fear having nothing at the end of the race. We show up to our meeting with Death with no answers for ‘did you have a successful life.’ By becoming a captive to a fear of nothing we jump onboard the ‘something train’ and hope even if we don’t do anything meaningful (however that could actually be assessed) we will have something; rather than nothing. And maybe that is the weird (awful) thing. In our successful pursuit of these things, we actually still end up with nothing. I tend to believe far too many people are currently captives of nothing. My reasoning? Well. I tend to believe we are having an existential “meaning”, or “how do I matter”, societal crisis and what I have just written could very well be part of the reason why. Ponder.

A house and its arguments mold to each other.

===

“It is fashionable to talk about changing man. A communicator must be concerned with unchanging man, with his obsessive drive to survive, to be admired, to succeed, to love, to take care of his own.” Bill Bernbach

===

Bernbach is right; and wrong. From a broad perspective, this is true. But when you get down to the nuts & bolts of it, people are constantly changing and the environment in which a person exists (stuff, time, space, society, community, etc.) exerts changes upon the ‘unchanging person.’

Which leads me to buildings.

When I say buildings, I mean Stewart Brand’s “How Buildings Learn.” There is a lot to be learned when thinking about buildings and people; at least from Brand’s viewpoint. Almost no buildings adapt well because they’re actually designed not to adapt. This doesn’t mean they don’t, just not in obvious ways; just like people.

• Buildings, when built, would prefer to remain just as they are and hold out against the times; just like most people.
• When we deal with buildings, we deal with decisions taken long ago for remote reasons.; just like people.
• All buildings adapt anyway, in good ways and not as good ways, because the usages in and around them are changing constantly; just like people.
• The fact is buildings are constantly impacted by 3 forces: technology, money, and fashion; just like people.

The truth is businesses have integrity and maintain some sustainable values (discussed later on) and enduring value; just like people. That integrity and sustaining aspects, in combination with the adaptation features, can be found in Brand’s layers of buildings (which certainly reflect aspects of the individual):

• Site. this is the geographical setting of the location, the defined lot whose boundaries and context outlast generations of buildings. Site is eternal. Sure. The foundation and load bearing elements are perilous and expensive to change so people typically don’t, but they can. Sites are unmoveable.

Personally, this is where we have elected to stand, live or build our careers.

• Skin. Surfaces now change every 20 years or so to keep up with the fashion or technology or for repair. Recent focus on energy costs has led to reengineered skins that are airtight and better insulated.

Personally, this is what we choose our appearance to be and what we deem important to how we are viewed.

• Services are the working guts of a building: communications wiring, electrical wiring, plumbing, sprinkler system, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and any moving parts like elevators and escalators. They wear out or become obsolete every 7 to 15 years.

Personally, these are the things we have chosen to incorporate into our lives in terms of ongoing maintenance.

• Space. Plans and where walls, ceilings, floors, and doors go.

Personally, this is how we use our time (time is our space).

• Stuff. Chairs, tables, phones, pictures, rugs, kitchen appliances, lamps, even hair brushes, all the things that twitch around daily to monthly. Furniture is called ‘mobilia’ in Italian for good reason.

Personally, this is the ‘stuff’ (the shiny objects, widgets, technology, useful things) we use and bring into our lives.

The dynamics of the tug of war between sustaining and changing are clearly dominated by the slow parts with the speeding aspects often simply following along. As Brand suggests: ‘slow constraints quick; slow controls quick.’ Buildings, or people, this is generally true. Unchanging is still changing. To be clear. In our current view of the world as a madcap, speedy, chaotic place, we ignore almost everything I just shared.

I would suggest thinking about buildings, and people, in this pacing way is practical, pragmatic, and enhances thinking of possibilities. The pacing clearly defines how a building relates to people and how people relate to the world around them. Levels of accountability match pace levels as an adaptive building has to allow slippage between the differently paced systems of site, structure, skin, services, space, plan, and stuff. Lack of accountability, or recognition of, to the different paces means the slow systems block the flow of the quick ones and the quick ones tear up the slow ones with their constant change. When working this way its supposed to make the ‘unchanging’ parts adapt just enough and the changing parts are tied to progress, rather than uselessness.

Which leads me to the pursuit of success, thriving, admiration and taking care of one’s own.

Gallup conducted research in the early 2000’s to determine the conditions that create loyal and productive employees which, in turn, create higher performing companies. The study identified 12 core elements that need to be present to create a ‘highly engaged employee.’ About half the elements deal with management style and the other half have to do with an employee’s sense of belonging. As the study stated: “a uniquely human twist occurs after the basic needs are fulfilled. The employee searches for meaning in her vocation. For reasons that transcend the physical needs fulfilled by earning a living, she looks for contribution to a higher purpose. Something within her looks for something in which to believe.” It is always more rewarding, in totality, to work with and for someone who is trying to make a difference rather than just try to sell more stuff. That decisions for ‘something to believe in’ is unchanging, yet, what thriving means can change (or adapt, i.e., has some emergent characteristics). That said. That sense of thriving demands some sense of shared, sustainable, values. Let’s call it ‘values integrity.’ And that is where the changing person is having some issues.

“Our motivation/focus/attention/behaviour will naturally gravitate to things that provide the richest sense of progress.”

Dr Jason Fox

A decline in shared values undermines our ability to address our greatest challenges. A fragmentation of individual values hinders our ability to common sense making. It’s like we have forgotten the collective action on behalf of the public good has actually been necessary for our survival up to this point as well as general societal thriving and progress. We have forgotten by doing things together that we can achieve remarkable success AND have a sense of shared admiration. I will not suggest we have become more selfish but I would suggest we’ve become more irresponsible even while believing we have increased our responsibility itself. It’s possible we have misconstrued what true sacrifice is as the larger narrative bludgeons us with a belief that maybe we are sacrificing more than ever. I will say that we are encouraged to embrace short-term thinking and too short a sense of history both of which dimmish the larger sense of collective good and heighten the sense of importance of ‘saving the self Life’ which, in turn, encourages us to cocoon ourselves in individual values. A well-functioning system must be rooted in something deeper than some unchanging person dedicated to oneself. To be clear. In today’s world the unchanged desires of thriving, admiration, taking care of one’s own, has become grounded in some fairly unhealthy thinking:

• We have forgotten long term investment and delayed gratification and embraced short term gratification and ‘get it now while you can’
• We have accepted an extreme loss of confidence in our institutions and the authority of the leaders across society; instead embracing individual opinions speaking in confidence.
• We’ve shifted from a healthy skepticism to cynical suspicion of everything and everyone.

All of that makes an unhealthy unchanging person almost incapable of adapting to (a) a changing world and (b) progress.

Which leads me to the real values crisis.

Unchanging and adapting is a nuanced discussion especially when it comes to values. But the discussion of values is imperative when we discuss what should be unchanging with regard to an individual in a world swirling with different layers of things affecting that individual’s behaviors and encouraging some unhealthy change. It was Dov Seidman in the book How who suggested that there are two competing kinds of values that drive business, government, leadership, individual behavior, and relationships. He calls them situational values and sustainable values.

• Situational values involve calculations about what is available in the here and now. They’re all about exploiting short-term opportunities rather than consistently living the principles that create long term success. They are all about what we can and cannot do in any given situation.
• Sustainable values are focused on what we should and should not do in all situations. As such they literally sustain relationships over the long term. Sustainable values are the values that connect us deeply as humans such as transparency integrity honesty truth shared responsibility and hope. They are all therefore all about how not how much.

“Situational values push us toward added toward the strategy of becoming too big to fail.

Sustainable values inspire us to pursue the strategy of becoming too sustainable to fail by building enduring relationships. What makes an institution sustainable is not the scale and size it reaches, but how it does its business and how it relates to its employees, customers, suppliers, the environment, society, and future generations.”

Dov Siedman

The point here is while the world has clearly drifted from sustainable to situational values, the unchanging person somehow keeps a grip, albeit tenuous on occasion, on sustainable values. This is important because sustainable values, and sustainable thinking, lead to not only creating sustainable work, but building a sustainable society (by any definition of sustainable). Sustainable values offer the individual flexibility of intellect and of will to successfully thrive, gain admiration, and ‘take care of his own.’ And maybe that is my pointy. We have inverted the overall importance of unchanging and change. In other words, we are unchanging on the wrong things and changing on the wrong things and emphasizing change over unchange. That said. Many things have changed, many things are changing, even ‘the unchanging man,’ but it’s a bit more complex, and complicated, than just an “unchanging man.”

Which leads me to speed and opposing forces.

Living in today’s world one could easily believe everything is moving faster and as such if you are not running fast enough you are falling behind. This has an insidious effect because buried somewhere in our brains is the ‘survival of the fittest’ belief in that if you are behind, you will be the first eaten. Metaphorically, this is a mindset which creates anxiety and some unhealthy other beliefs. We compensate in a variety of ways of which if we were just a bit more reflective would actually identify some interesting things to ground ourselves in.

The first is that the more we think things are fast the more we will seek out some slow, or even unmoving, components in our lives. This becomes important because not all slow and unmoving parts are created equal and if we choose them well, well, we ground ourselves in sustainable values and a mental construct which provides some framework within which we can adapt and move stuff in and out of. Yeah. Just like; ’how buildings learn.’ If we view ourselves as houses, we learn, adapt, absorb ‘stuff’, all without losing the solid architecture.

The speed swirls around the house from light winds to hurricanes and we stand. Speed expends its energy on us externally while, internally, if we have invested in a solid structure, stand on a considered site, and have thoughtfully crafted our space, we not only withstand the efforts of speed, but absorb the changes and aspects we purposefully select with which to adapt.

The second is, well, festina lente. If we become reflective about speed and the illusion of the benefits of ‘moving fast’, most likely festina lente comes into sight – ‘make haste slowly.’ Once we get past a fear-of-missing-out or maybe accept that grabbing onto the newest shiny object doesn’t appear to be benefiting our personal progress, we begin to grasp the concept of ‘slow down to speed up.’ We begin to ground ourselves is more solid decision-making, more solid conceptual & critical thinking and more solid energy against things that actually have progress as an outcome.

In the end.

There are surely some speedy things happening in the world and there are surely some times when things happen speedier than others, but nature is nature and culture is culture and self is self and, well, they are all purposefully constructed to be just a bit slower in pace and more contemplative of change. Not unchanging, but just a bit more thoughtful about whether to run or not, when to be speedier and when not, and when to change, and when to not. In the end, let me circle back to the beginning quote: a house and its arguments mold to each other. We people, houses of values and beliefs and attitudes and what we seek important to ‘hold on to,’ argue with ourselves constantly with regard to what we want to change what we don’t. What we argue about, how we argue, molds our house to us. Ponder.

“I’m not responsible for fixing all the world’s problems. I’m responsible for doing my part.”

Jess Morales Rocketto

===

“Life is like a library owned by the author.  In it are a few books which he wrote himself, but most of them were written for him.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick

===

Many people suggest “knowing yourself” is the key to, well, everything. It suggests that you kind of write your own book and live it, live by it, and add chapters as life goes on. The problem is people do not live their lives in silo-like ways. Our physical and mental self doesn’t exist in the absence of the interaction with other people and society. The brain and the body and the external world all shape one another in fluid dynamic ways. To truly understand ourselves, or people in general I imagine, we must not focus on what’s happening with one of part, but on the interactions between the parts. In fact, I would suggest there is a partnership between the brain and society and it is somewhere within this alliance (or battle) between the body (experience), the mind and society as a mutually informing and codependent entity that society changes as well as the individual. That said. Our brain has limits and existing thought systems can accommodate change up to a point. Of course, overstimulation (overload), causes us to ‘shut down’ if not retreat into our most comfortable beliefs. But more when enough new insights and changes in our thinking accumulate, the resulting strain almost demands our brain to consider a paradigm shift. It is conceptual thinking in action. New assumptions create new expectations and even some new choicemaking rules emerge like a phoenix from the fire. The reality is knowing yourself is kind of like the gradual twisting of a kaleidoscope wherein a large number of small modifications eventually yields a substantially different picture.

Which leads me to how to know better.

I am not sure ‘how to know better’ is really grammatically correct, but let’s get to constructs. We all have a construct for how we do and think about everything. The problem is that construct does not exist in isolation.

In fact, an isolated construct has little meaning on its own. It has meaning only through its conversations and interactions with other constructs. Every person changes in some way depending on an interaction the more people we interact with and the more diverse that they are the more complex our own behavior becomes. The same is true of constructs. A construct becomes more multifaceted the more it interacts with other constructs. Associations among constructs not constructs in isolation drive behavior. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out you can think of constructs as people.

Which leads me to say constructs only get you so far.

Many of our constructs reside in the subconscious. What this means is that the brain does a lot of talking amongst itself. In fact, most of the brain spends its time communicating with itself and only infrequently do we consciously get to take part in these conversations. What I mean by that is that the neurons, and groups of neurons, are having conversations among themselves with regard to what we are seeing, hearing, feeling in our interactions and creating ‘constructs’. Occasionally the results of their conversations bubble up into our consciousness and we become aware of them as ‘constructed thoughts’ which appear as a form of reasoning (making sense of the world). Here is an unfortunate truth. Much of the time what the neurons tell us are constructed stories. What I mean by that is some of those stories, just from a sanity standpoint because we just do not have time to know or experience everything, add things to create it and subtract other things to be able to create the story. What I mean by that is that oftentimes we get an incomplete data input and our brain completes the data and then gives us back the story; constructed.

Which leads me to say knowing yourself better does not always lead to doing better.

“Human nature and human life are wide subjects”

John Stuart Mill

Yeah. Knowing better does not automatically lead to doing better. That’s a tough nut to swallow, isn’t it. By the way, this is true also of knowledge. Knowing more knowledge does not automatically lead us to being wiser in our decision making. The reality is knowledge can create what is called “accepted theory” (I believe this to be true), but the rubber hits the road on ‘applied theory’ (as in what is actually done). To be clear, I am not suggesting ‘applied theory’ is hypocritical because, as I noted in the opening, even accepted theories are contingent to interactions, i.e., reality. Excessively following accepted theory actually lacks rationality in that it ignores context. There is nothing we do that doesn’t exist in the absence of the interaction with other people and society. So you can know better but that knowledge is constantly placed at the intersection of a shitload of things and, yes, sometimes your ‘know better’ just gets run over by reality. But you know what? You get back up, dust yourself off, maybe know a bit better, and try to do better.

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

“When you’re young you feel like you have to prove a point, and you scream it if you have to.”

Miranda Lambert

——-

Whew.

It is a wacky world we live in. It is one huge cacophony of “squeaky wheels” squeaking over what is important to themselves. Clearly some people are squeaking about the larger collective issues, but there appears to be an inordinate amount of people squeaking about conspiracies, personal opinions and false narratives. the former have the larger interests in mind and the latter seem to be a bit more of ‘self’ in mind. I blame my generation for propagating the ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’ mentality but, that said, it makes those of us who prefer ‘speak softly, speak confidently, speak meaningfully’, well, want to scream.

I believe people are getting tired of all the squeaking.

This doesn’t mean the pendulum will swing back to sanity at rocket speed, or even fast at all, in fact it will move more slowly than people like I want mostly because people my age will continue squeaking <the squeaky wheel was their generational wisdom> and espousing the merits of being squeaky.

Suffice it to say this will be another one of those generational tectonic shift things which older people will espouse some wisdom <squeak> and younger people will chafe at the wisdom believing squeaking is just noise and that real issues need meaningful discussions.

The real issues mean you still have to pick your battles, but you still have to speak out when speaking out matters. And, yeah, you gotta scream if you have to.

Basically the desire to scream something is a formula:

having a feeling that something is important

+

frustration

=

the possibility to desire to scream

Many times this desire to scream from young people is driven by wanting to find answers rather than just fucking squeak about shit. We older folk can be quite frustrating at times for young people with our disregard for their questions. Far too often we brush them off as naive or lean back in our comfortable chairs and sagely say “… just wait … you will see and understand” .

But the impatience of youth wants answers now mostly because they struggle to not only see the importance of the squeakiness, but they struggle to see the present as indicative of a better future they want. They know they deserve some answers because they understand that finding some enlightenment, some understanding, permits them to progress a little better off intellectually or knowledge wise to address the next thing in life and shape the future rather than squeak about the present.

It gets frustrating because without some answers the obstacle remains (or remains in some vague outlines) and, well, it makes you want to scream.

I am fairly sure most of us older folk do not address their impatience with any ill intent; we just see impatience and we want to teach patience. I guess the odd thing to me is that we older folk espouse this whole squeaky wheel thing <which is kind of absurd advice in the first place> and then when someone cares enough to squeak and, just like that nagging noise under the hood every time we start our car, we ignore it <until some light pops up on our dashboard>.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that for older folk the desire to scream is … well … shit … almost the same as a younger person <go figure>.

Desire to scream is mostly not about some bravado or self righteousness; it is more about demanding that there are answers to important fundamental issues or demanding to be heard ON the real issues instead of all the squeaky shit.

And maybe that is what screaming is all about. Demanding. Maybe it is about kicking some damn doors down because the damn door needs to be kicked. Sometimes life, and business, gets so frustrating you just wanna start kicking down doors.

And you do.

Well.

Sort of.

Lets say … you try and kick down the doors but at minimum you scream and kick.

Why?

Because it matters. Really matters.

And it matters to you that other people should think it matters to THEIR OWN interests. It is not an “I” things, its a “we” thing.

Now.

I wrote awhile back about ‘protesting for yourself.’ Today’s thought is a slightly different version in that you are protesting for knowledge & progress.

Sure.

It is about yourself, but it is more about going on the offensive rather than defensively protecting yourself against the squeaking issues.

In this case you scream to be heard. You scream because you gotta try. You scream because while things happen that doesn’t mean silence is that answer.

——————–

Rule 1. bad things happen.

Rule 2. You cant change rule number one.

Rule 3. You still gotta try. Even though bad things happen and you cant change that you gotta try.

 Even with all the anger, violence, stupidity & senseless waste … you gotta try.

Wayne Arthurson

——————————–

Anyway. I am clearly in the ‘speak softly, speak confidently, speak meaningfully’ camp.

I believe the whole ‘squeaky wheel’ advice simply encourages nonsensical and less than important squeaking. I believe it encourages noise just for noise sake. I believe it encourages morons to be more loudly moronic.

But maybe that is my point today. You gotta do one things to get to do what you think is the right thing to do. Yeah. In order to effectively ‘speak softly, speak confidently, speak meaningfully’ you also gotta pick your battles, i.e., when to scream.

Because in a world in which we receive 100’s of texts, 100’s of emails, face 100’s of squeaking people all in a matter of 100 minute increments, sometimes you have to just stand there and scream.

And while it is partially to prove a point it is more about a point needs to be made.

Pick your battles wisely and when you do, scream.

But when you do pick a battle … don’t be afraid to scream.

===

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

===

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

Little Crow

===

Suffice it to say, 24/7 technology has challenged most of what we thought about our self-identity. In the good old days self identity was a bit easier because we had a fairly limited exposure, neighborhood/school/work/community, to images and shared experiences which led to shaping what we saw as “self”. In today’s world we are faced with an onslaught of information which we are, frankly, incapable of assimilating within our cognitive scope. And while many people discuss this in terms of stress, knowledge, decision making, today I discuss it in terms of self identity.

It was actually Toffler, in The Third Wave, who warned us of some of the self-identity challenges in a small section called “warehouse of images.” He described being connected to the

worldwide web would be an information bomb exploding in our midst showering us with a shrapnel of images and drastically changing the way each of us perceives and acts upon our private world and, ultimately, what we view as ‘self.’ The outcome of that was a transformation of our psyches and identities. This transformation naturally occurs as each of us mentally creates a model of reality through this ever increasing warehouse of images. To be clear. Some of what we are calling “images” are visual, others are auditory and some even tactile. All of which craft some precepts crafted from some somewhat-tenuous traces to “our environment” (note: technology can suggest an environment which isn’t really practically what our true environment is, i.e., if I live in Cherkassy Ukraine I don’t really share much of the environment found in Ibiza Instagram). But all of this, practical or not, creates linkages that define relationships with our own self identity. Some are simple, others are complex, some even conceptual, but together these images add up to our picture of the world and allow us to locate our self identity in times, spaces and the network of connections around us.

Which leads me to make a point about now versus then.

These images do not spring from nowhere. They are formed out of the signals or information we interact with from our environment, neighborhood, jobs, homes, churches, schools and even politics. What mass media did was create some standard parts of a universal image file. This centrally produced imagery helps produce the standardization of behavior and ‘identity’ which permitted many of us to choose between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ (or something in between). Technology drastically altered all of this. Standard was no longer standard and non-standard almost doesn’t exist. There is a lack of clarity with regard to cultural identity and because we have lost that grander narrative everything falls down to ‘individual choice’ which sounds good; but truly only increases stress. So as we are bombarded with an accelerated amount of images, it forces a parallel acceleration of change and doubt as we create and recreate in an attempt to sync up to an everchanging onslaught of context. New information reaches us and we are forced to revise our image file continuously at a faster and faster rate. Older images based on past reality must be replaced unless we update them our actions become divorced from reality. We not only find it impossible to cope with assimilating all the new images but also it challenges us to understand our own identity because we struggle to put our identity in a static context. In other words, we are constantly facing a self-identity crisis simply by existing in this environment.

Which leads me to make a point about ‘standardized view of identity.’

The distinguishing feature of conformity is that it is in implicit and it feels voluntary. No one tells us what to do or choose and no one offers a legitimate or formal reason to do so. Because of that, just as we prefer to spend time with people like ourselves, we like to fit in and our ‘identity’ arcs to some normative/median identity. And when we find that we don’t fit in, we can change or not. Conforming is the choice, sometimes conscious sometimes not, to change ourselves. Most conformity is familiarity and familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds comfort. I say this not to suggest self-identity is about being like everyone else, but rather to suggest today’s 24/7 technology doesn’t really offer us a ‘median identity.’ Something to measure our identity on an I, We, World view. Its one big swirling moshpit of identity fragments so even if you wanted to be ‘normal’ you may not really be sure what normal is.

Which leads me to identity within a moshpit world.

Knowing the hard limits to our cognitive capacity and the huge cost of working long meaningless hours to ‘fit into a 24/7 world’ should not be an intractable problem to address. We have gobs of data and information showing the disastrous consequences on the individual. Despite that people continue to ignore the cognitive truths and believe they can somehow stretch the cognitive limits of their minds. This all has consequences for our self-identity. The ubiquitous world of technology allows us to connect with more people more ideas more information than ever before. All beyond the limits of our cognitive capacity which traps us in this horrible doom loop of where does our self begin and where does it end. Hanzi Freinacht is the one who suggests the idea of transvidualism where the self actually contains part of the whole which while most likely true only leads us to even more anxiety-driven questions: what does the self hold on to? Who are you? Is your reality yourself? is your identity ever just one thing but in constant motion and morphing with each interaction? I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all these questions suggest opportunities to accept our self-limitations and purposefully seek out, within the collective, ways to be part of things that are bigger than ourselves without losing are self-identity. To be sure, it is always easier to envision the negative scenarios within what I’m saying, but I believe the way of navigating the moshpit is to instead imagine the positive ways in which technology might help us create, shape and control our own identities and our own potential. We should be imagining the positive ways which this technology world allows us to apply a ‘new me’ within changing contexts and molding ourself to a changing world WHILE holding onto the center of who and what we are. It is possible the technology world will not only be able to better show us who we are, but also visions of who we want to be and who we could be.

“Be true to thineself.”

Shakespeare

—

We could use technology to help us understand why things are as they are as well as envision ways of what we could do with our lives. But here’s the deal. The struggle ultimately resides in ‘self.’ What I mean by that is ‘the core or the center of who and what we are.’ We all strive after something which we deem good or better sort of our personal version of progress. But if we are not careful this becomes good for the self and not the greater good as in not taking into consideration the larger whole. So, unless we as individuals sort out our center, our urges, impulses, and desires in a coordinated way we are doomed to constant confusion living in a contradictory identity state. This could quite possibly be self-destructive in a technological world which is constantly trying to attack us within its own coordinated, orderly system of ideas of what it thinks we should be and who we should be. To be clear.

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”

Yeats

Even if you do not think about your centre, I can guarantee it will never be empty in a 24/7 technological world in which everything is connected the outside world because it will connect with whatever you leave empty and fill it with what it wants.

** note: even if you ‘cut-yourself-off’ from 24/7 technology on occasion, this is a battle you cannot avoid. Technology is ubiquitous. Take care of your center or technology will take care of it for you.

Everything I am discussing falls within a technological world which has all the appearances of structureless; as in chaos. But its not. Any group of people, of whatever nature, that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time, but it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. Certainly the looseness and informality of the construct encourages participation in discussion and its often-supportive atmosphere, but always connective, elicits some personal insight. It within this that our identities are shaped and formed. Structureless gains structure then gains identity, a ‘personalized’ identity despite any pre-identified ‘centralized purpose’ suggesting what it should be. This last point is significant because this group identity shaping can either be of the people, or of the technology/algorithms. The latter happens more often than we would like to believe.

If a self-identity seeks to grow and thrive as it itself, it will often have to disabuse itself of some of the prejudices of the organization and structure of the things it attaches itself to. To be clear. There is no such thing as a laissez faire group in the internet, it is simply a smokescreen for either technology manipulation or someone seeking power.

Where we go from here.

Hanzi Freinacht said “the new game of life looks a lot like this: whoever has mastered the most perspectives when she dies, wins.” That’s the self-identity game. It used to be a more simplistic “what I believe represents what I am” but with today’s technology world who I am, if you seek to have a center that holds within multiple contexts, is an accumulation of perspectives. If the industrial age encouraged a standardization of identity, technology is ripping us apart. Overcome by details and information we have become almost incapable of conceptualizing anything – including our own identity. Consequently, we have begun crafting the details of who we want to be seen as to compete in a world in which other’s identities flash before us detail by detail. Detail by detail we push out into the world and before you know it you are no longer a self – as a solid concept – but rather a bunch of details and pieces you think have some value. And this is where stories come in. Thinking conceptually may be too much of a mind bender, but having a story, or stories, is not as tough. Good stories and well-maintained identities embracing stories endure. This is actually part of the Third Wave Toffler mentioned. 2^nd Wave media tightly reinforced, within stable distribution structures (major TV networks & major papers/magazines) shared world views and some semblance of common sensemaking within which an identity could comfortably reside (or, conversely, create a counter culture identity). In today’s environment worlds are created through our digital connection points, perspectives are gained through many interactions, and we need to become more comfortable projecting our identity, all facets, through this digital connectivity of almost infinite networks of other humans. The reality is technology is getting better; and worse. Technology is becoming easier to craft the identity we would like to project, but it is getting worse in that if you are not careful algorithms pick at the little gaps seeking to exploit with fear, doubt, and victimhood. Clearly, the lines have been erased between what we would have considered our self-identity and the digital worlds that represent our identity. The technological world has forced us to think of ourselves, in many ways, as content. And in some ways that is good. If our identities are content and useful content should have some substance, maybe, just maybe, by treating it like content we will make sure it is worthy of our self. Ponder.

=====

Everyone was born with a limited amount of fucks to give.

During your teenage years you give a ton and slowly give less and less from there.

just shower thoughts

=====

When I saw this quote had to sit back and think.

Why?

Because I could read it two ways.

First.

As you get older you just get worn down and just stop giving a fuck about a lot of things.

Second.

As you get older you learn that not everything deserves ‘giving a fuck’ and you give less, but, you should give more of a fuck when you do.

I pondered this a little.

And then I got curious and found that if you type “give a fuck” in google search you will get about 4,610,000 results (0.38 seconds), but … here is the interesting thing  … you get page after page on ‘philosophy <or ‘the art’> of not giving a fuck.’

Basically the internet is strewn with articles and advice on how to not give a fuck. How crazy is that? It is almost like the google world is attempting to offer some extraordinary justification for being indifferent, to actually practice being indifferent, which, in my mind, is maybe a different slant on how to be a complete moron.

I mean, c’mon, if we really only have a limited amount of fucks to give, well, wouldn’t you expect some really good advice on how to prioritize and parse them out? I say that because it seems like we could all use some good advice with regard to knowing when to give a fuck and when not to give a fuck.

I will say one thing about giving a fuck. Caring about shit is the essence of Life.

Ok. Maybe two things.

Caring and actively engaging in shit is the essence of Life <I actually called it RSVP and Life once>.

But. The moment you become indifferent, the moment you just don’t give a fuck, well, there is no Life. There is no heartbeat. Life is dead.

I am certainly not going to suggest you care about everything. I will not because I agree that we do not have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. But it just doesn’t make sense to not care.

Now. Life does a fairly good job of suggesting not giving a fuck is a much easier way of living Life.

Life is full of a lot of shit we don’t understand.

Life is full of a lot of things that just do not seem to make sense.

Life is full of a lot of things that just doesn’t seem logical.

Life is full of a lot of things that seem different than what you want or think about.

Life is full of a lot of questions and a lot fewer answers than we want.

Life is full of a lot of answers that don’t really solve anything.

Life is full of a lot of things that make you scratch your head and say “I never understood why.”

All of those things seem like “slow” as in “a lot of shit that will slow me down from getting to where I want to go and getting what I want to get.”

I imagine after reading that list and my last sentence many people may think “then why give a fuck.”

Well. Because none of those things make Life any ‘less’ or any less meaningful. They just make it a little less certain. They just make things a little more risky. They just make it all a little less straightforward.

In fact I could suggest that almost all Life throws at you could fall into the “WTF category”. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give a fuck.

Anyway. I agree with the opening quote. I don’t believe we have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. That doesn’t mean we only have one or two just that they are not unlimited.

But that doesn’t mean you should embrace the thought “well, I have no more fucks to give … so … I just don’t give a fuck about anything anymore.” Nor should it mean you should start seeking opportunities to not give a fuck under the belief it will help you get what you want and where you want to be faster.

Look. Here is what I know about giving a fuck.

If you give enough of a fuck about your life, and trust it to give a fuck about you on occasion, well, a fuck of a lot of good things can happen if you just fucking go out and work hard. Ponder.

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

“The world’s thy ship and not thy home.”

Thérèse de Lisieux

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

“All of life is a coming home.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us.  All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.”

Patch Adams 

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

Well. I had all these quotes and I didn’t know what to do with them until I saw the image at the opening of this post: “They say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I’m not leaving maybe I’m going home.”

I have often wondered why many of us are so restless. We seek things, and travel places looking for ‘something’ and dream dreams. This doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy what we have nor does it mean we don’t accept reality. It just means that there is always an undercurrent of change or “what ifs” or “what could be’s” underneath the surface of our Life. At the same time we are sailing through Life seeking some place we can land which we can not only call home, but actually feels like home.

And maybe that is where the line “home is where you hang your hat’ comes into play. In its simplicity it is actually suggesting that it really isn’t your hat that matters it is when you accept that you can be who you are and that ‘who’ is all you can be that you have found home. And while Thérèse was really suggesting that the material world was simply your journey and heaven, or God, is your destination, the overall thought is truer than true.

Whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you, you should seek the stars within you to guide you to it all — not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

Your dreams, wishes and … yes … the starlight to guide you in the darkness of not knowing what to do, where to go and how to get thru whatever it is you are going thru is all within you.

Your home resides within you.

You are simply looking for a place to, well, place your home that feels right and true.

That place is unseen.

That place is not really one place <it can actually be many places>.

Here comes the hard part.

Life will not give you any signposts and most of Life will constantly change your direction unseen in the undercurrents of Life.

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

“In the short voyage of a lifetime, we can see the eddies and ripples on the surface, but not the undercurrents changing the main channel of the stream. “

Thomas Mellon

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

This all suggests you are in control and you are not in control.

Just ponder the fact we often stand upon the deck of our ship admiring the horizon and enjoying the travel & journey only to have some Life undercurrent disrupt our complacency and some version of ‘living Life laziness’ <i.e., if you’re not careful and become actively involved in Life, Life will actively involve itself in your Life>.

This simply reminds us that circumstances beyond our control often disrupt the illusion of what we have, who we are and where we are.

The unseen undercurrent constantly nudges our mind with questions:

What is our purpose?

How can we take control of so many things out of our control?

How do we reconcile the vastness Life offers us … reconcile the bigness that can often appear within reach … and reconcile our desire to be worthy of Life … reconcile it all against the smallness that is us in the roiling sea on which our ship sails?

Will we ever satisfy our dreams for what could be & what we could be?

Meaningful or meaningless?

We struggle with these questions. And all the while we avoid the questions under the guise of “seeking home.’

Ah. Shit.

Suffice it to say, home is not anything physical, it actually resides in the infinite. As a corollary, this would presume if you accept its infiniteness you should be able to see it also has the potential to be infinitely good.

I believe we inherently know this and inherently know that only ‘home’ will truly satisfy us. And that search, that journey, is the satisfaction. I imagine the unfortunate, uncomfortable, truth is the odds are we will never truly find some ‘home’ in which we can live our entire lives.

The world is our ship.

Life is our ship.

Our home, our stars, reside within us.

Ponder.