=====

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

Marshall McLuhan

=====

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

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

Hugh McLeod

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

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

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

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

Which leads me to self-awareness.

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

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

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

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

Which leads me back to intentionality.

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

====

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

Paul Feldwick

====

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

And that is where social media algorithms hate me.

I aggressively, intentionally, fight social media algorithms.

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

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

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

====

Sometimes I wish I could fly

Like a bird up in the sky

Closer to my home

 

Sometimes I feel like freedom is near

Sometimes I feel like freedom is here

Sometimes I feel like freedom is so near

But we’re so far from home

Van Morrison< Sometimes I feel like a motherless child>

====

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

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

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

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

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

—

“If you’re dealing with pressure that means you’re good enough for people to expect something out of you.”

Andy Roddick

<retired US tennis player, 1 grand slam, 3-21 against Federer>

—

So.  I tend to believe everyone knows there is a relationship between pressure and expectations. For the most part I think we view those expectations in a negative way <assuming you are the one feeling the pressure>. Yeah. Pressure can make you feel squeezed. That’s why it is called “pressure.” But, generally speaking, pressure is not an internally generated function, it is an externally given function – people expect something of you, life expects something of you, the situation expects something of you, and on and on and on. You get it.

But let’s flip the thought from “they do it because they are jerks” to “they do it because they think you are good enough.” Well. Pressure looks a bit different, doesn’t it? no longer is it “am I good enough” it becomes more “I am good enough if I can get my shit together <or keep my shit together>.

And maybe that is where dealing with pressure resides – that nuanced battle in the mind. Attitude.

Maybe that attitude just gives you that extra little bit of grit & no quit that permits your ‘good enough’ to get enough traction within the situation and get you over the hump.

Well.

Let’s be clear.

Grit & no quit does not mean winning or success in terms of achievement or actual tangible outcomes. Shit. Just ask Andy Roddick. 3-21 against Roger Federer. Multiple times in grand slam finals and semi finals – and one grand slam title. Or the fact he never quit going back out day after day during the French Open <just as an example> regardless of the pressure to win and consistently dying a slow death on the terre battue.

He found the gap between “you are good enough to win” and “my game is incredibly ill-suited to win here” and year in and year out tried to figure out how to win the stupid tournament simply because of his no quit kind of bad ass attitude.

He didn’t shirk pressure.

He didn’t shirk the limelight.

He took the cost of pressure not as a burden, but the price one paid when people felt like he was good enough.

Look. This piece isn’t about tennis or even about Andy Roddick, it is about understanding there is a responsibility that comes along with talent. It’s about understanding your own talent and in that understanding know that people also see it and also will expect something. It’s about being okay with all that.

People can sit around and quibble over what talent is or is not. people can quibble over what is good enough and what is not. but it is difficult to quibble with pressure. It just is. And in its existence resides a little, or sometimes big & glaring, spotlight on an understanding, or a belief, that people expect things of you. It is within that spotlight one should be able to see ‘good enough’ instead of ‘am I good enough’ and understand the talent exists to do whatever needs to be done. And in that situation, and in that time, it is quite possible you are uniquely qualified to do whatever it is that needs to be done.

Yeah.

Go ahead and quibble with me about talent, good enough, not all pressure is created equal and even whether pressure is intrinsic or extrinsic, but if you do so you are simply dancing on the head of a pin.  

Having talent is a gift. And I would argue everyone has a ‘gift’ in this sense. So. Stop looking at it as a burden. Yeah. Sure. With talent certainly comes some not so great aspects but, c’mon, whatever talent you have means you are in the game for god’s sake.

A lot of people would kill for the talent you may have (and I don’t care if it’s C-level talent or simply a talent for putting things together in your garage).

Quit whining.

Quit bitching.

Quit shirking the responsibilities that come along with whatever your gift or talent is.

Sure.

There may be someone out there with more talent.

But.

So what.

That doesn’t diminish your talent. And it certainly won’t diminish the pressures associated with what you can do and what people expect you to keep striving for.

But, in the end, pressure is no more, or no less, than simply a reflection of the fact you must be good at something for people to want to put pressure on you. Ponder.

====

====

“I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable.”

—

Alex Elle

===

So. Being yourself is a tricky topic. In business, Life & deciding what you want to do.

I know <I know>.

Seems like “being yourself” should be simple. Like ‘breathing’ type simple.

But it’s not. It’s not because there is a constant struggle between an internal part <’who am I’ type shit> and external <figuring out how ‘who am I’ should actually act in public>.

For example, one of my favorite young writers, Jamie, describes herself this way:

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

I’m a writer, pretty much by process of elimination. I am also a professional aspirationalist.

That’s not a word, but I’ve made it into one, since there was nothing that could quite describe me because I didn’t want to say I’m a “professional dreamer” because that sounds like some hippie shit.

I have aspirations, like, lots of them. If you’d like me to create a TV show, get in touch with me. How about publishing my memoir? Get in touch. If you are from The Ellen Show, I will, of course, accept your interview and would be delighted to dance it out with my girl, so long as she doesn’t prank me by making me eat cilantro. In fact, I want no cilantro in anything.

<Jamie Varon>

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

Professional aspirationalist. Not ‘professional dreamer’ nor ‘professional pragmatist.’

Ok.

Professional aspirationalist is just awesome.

If I could ever vote for a new term, that would be it. It’s fucking awesome. It captures the essence of restlessness & hope & striving & unlearning &, well, all the things I believe are good and healthy with a person seeking to be better tomorrow than they are today.

What I truly love about it is that she came up with a term to capture her “self.” I love it because being yourself, and even recognizing who ‘yourself’ is, is hard. And when I say hard think even harder than maybe becoming a Navy Seal type hard.

……….. self …….. an entanglement of nuances ………….

It is incredibly hard because the truth is that ‘my truth’ , more often than not, is most likely an evolving tangled web of characteristics which, as it evolves, simply becomes more tangled <rather than untangled>.

Yourself is constantly adapting to new learning, new learning about things and new learning, and unlearning <changed beliefs, opinions, attitudes, perspectives>, about oneself.

That’s why I love professional aspirationalist.

True north on Jamie’s compass is defined. And its not a destination, but rather it is a direction.

Aspirationalist is a moving target. It is restless and unmoving at exactly the same time. It is an adventurer with some pragmatism. It’s not being on Ellen <although she would be delighted to do so> because once that happens there will always be something else.

Being an aspirationalist means not only having dreams, but dreaming … oh … and doing.

Yeah.

Doing. As in doing lots of different shit.

Uh oh.

That also means … well … increasingly more and different dreams <and aspirations>. And increasingly doing more and different shit. Dreaming and doing. Lots of different dreaming and doing.

In the end <to me> being a professional aspirationalist means being a restless soul. Restlessly seeking, traveling, doing, thinking. Professionally constantly in motion <mentally or physically>.

I love it because it captures my personal belief that becoming ‘better’ as a person is experiential rather than tangible <although tangible ‘doing stuff’ is certainly a component>.

I love it because it isn’t for the faint of heart.

And isn’t what truly being yourself is all about? Having some courage to even suggest ‘I will not omit things just to make you comfortable.’

Professional aspirationalist reminded me of this other quote:

 ==

“I am a world that cannot be explored in one day. I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

==

Yes.

Being a professional aspirationalist means you are not a place for cowards.

Anyway.

I wish I had come up with this word, but I am not as talented a writer as Jamie.

I like it for its sense of Life’s paradox. Paradox in that it is independent and dependent at the same time.

I like it for it’s sense of Business’s paradox. Paradox in that success in business is a combination of stillness, at the right times, and movement/restlessness at all times.

I like it because at its core it doesn’t mean shunning the world and simply being a dreamer. It has rich & royal hues of reality threading its way through its fabric.

I would like to believe I am also a professional aspirationalist.

Now.

To be clear <because Jamie is correct the word selection was thoughtful to avoid the ‘hippie shit’>. Pragmatically, we aspirationalists do seek <some> approval and acceptance <ohhhhhhhhhhhh shit>.

Accept what I just wrote <that last sentence>. Don’t fight it <even if you are one of those who say ‘I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks”>.

Because you do care.

Whether you like it or not, whether you think it is right or wrong, whether you think it is a good thing or bad in that it makes you ‘weak’ in some way, just get it set in your head – in some form or fashion – we care.

Don’t worry … we all care <not just aspirationalists>. We all care what the people around us think about us. And by ‘people’ I mean everyone from those closest to you <who would most likely accept you in any shape and form you ended up in … but you don’t want to disappoint them> to society overall <there is some value in gaining credit for who you are and what you do>.

Some acceptance from others feeds our self-esteem & self-worth <and all that Maslow stuff>.

Ah.

Please note I used the word “feeds.” Approval and acceptance is not the only nutrition necessary for a healthy esteem and worth.

It is simply one part of the diet.

Even we aspirationalists need a balanced ‘self diet’. We do not seek sole value from proving ourselves to others. And we don’t accept sole value in and of ourselves.

Being an aspirationalist is … well … the paradox. Independent dreamer with some dependence on external cues as to the value of our aspirations.

We want to fit into the world on our own terms.

Regardless.

What a description:

                       Professional aspirationalist:      I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable. I am a world that cannot be explored in one day. I am not a place for cowards.

We need more of these people in our world — in Life & in business.

Me? I will continue living life, trying to do good shit in Life & business, as a Professional Aspirationalist.

====

“The most interesting villains are the ones who make us uncomfortable because we look at them and we recognize ourselves.”

—

Kevin Durand

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

Well. I imagine all of us have some ‘villain’ inside us. Ok. That it is an uncomfortable thought. Ok. Maybe it is a confusing thought also.

Darth out for a drink at local bar

Here is what I mean.

This villain inside us scares, and confuses us, because we like to think we are good and not capable of doing bad villain-like things and, yet (if we are honest with our selves) we like to believe we COULD be capable of bad things.

This contradictory thinking confuses us. Especially those of us who desire to not only live a good life, but be ‘good’ and do what is right.

We tend to view villains as living in a different world with different rules than we do and, yet, we could somehow almost envision how we, if placed in a different world with different rules, could be something like the villains.

I don’t know. Maybe that is our way of justifying the bad within what we want to be good?

Anyway. I tend to believe we worry a little about whether environment, or context, absolves us of any moral responsibilities. ‘Power, or money, corrupts’ is the most often ‘context’ we toss around as the one that steers us away from being heroic (note: this is quite the personal responsibility sleight of hand).

Now, on the other hand, we do like that a villain could … well … be on our side (even the one within us). In fact. We like the thought we have something inside us to take on the responsibility for what we know is right, but wrong.

I think we make a mistake when we look at villains in movies and in books and resolve our ‘I like aspect’ as “well, it is just a book” or “it is environmental/contextual.’ I think its a mistake because I actually believe we should embrace the aspects of the villain within us. It doesn’t make us a bad person nor does it suggest we will go out and do some nefarious villain-like activity as soon as we have the opportunity.

All it suggests is that we are winning the war within ourselves with regard to good versus bad.

It suggests we have the capability to be bad (and certainly Life offers a shitload of opportunities to be or do bad things) and, yet, despite some inner urge <on occasion> and opportunity we do not actually use our capability to be bad (we remain good).

Look.

Villains remind us we are not always good and that maybe we don’t always think good things.

Villains remind us we are not perfect morally or behavior wise.

Villains remind us of the inexactness of good and bad.

Villains remind us to … well … appreciate the light rather than the dark while still appreciating aspects of the dark.

===

“Forget your perfect offering.

There is a crack in everything.

That’s how the light gets in.”

Leonard Cohen

===

Yeah. Villains can excite us and make us uncomfortable, but, mostly, villains remind us we are not perfect offerings. We have cracks and dark parts and light parts.

And, yet, I would remind everyone that there are almost 7 and ½ billion people in the world and for the most part the majority of us wake up every day facing the overall grind of Life, get along relatively well and go to sleep at night without having been a villain, done any villain like activity or had to face down a villain.

Yes, there are villains in the world and there is most likely an aspect or two of a villain within us, but for the most part good wins out.

It ain’t perfect, but for the most part its good.

In fact. We ain’t perfect, we all have some villain in us, but for the most part we are good.

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

“We’re just a bubble in a boiling pot.”

———–

Jack Johnson

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

“There’s an inherent limit to the stress that any material can bear. Water has its boiling point, metals their melting points. The elements of the spirit behave the same way. “

———–

Stefan Zweig

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

Every once in awhile you find that someone has articulated an idea in such a simple wonderful way you have to stand and applaud. 212 is an example. While 212 is a marketing agency’s name it is the actual number and what it means that speaks volumes.

212 degrees is water’s boiling point.

The agency creative director (one of my best friends) of the agency I referenced earlier states it perfectly:

“we can be the difference between 211 degrees, when all you’ve got is water, and 212,or between something happening or not happening.”

That, my friends, says it all. Not just for a business, but pretty much frickin’ everything. This also has everything to do with the difference between speed & velocity.

You can spend your time and life sitting around somewhere between 0 and 211 degrees.  And it doesn’t really matter if you are freezing your ass off at 3 degrees or be hotter than shit at 198 degrees — nothing is happening (other than you are uncomfortable or maybe fooling yourself into believing something is happening). Shit ain’t happening until you reach out and figure out a way of getting to 212.

That, in a nutshell, is speed.

Then something truly happens.

Life boils. Action happens.

That, in a nutshell, is Velocity. A real change happens in that you have shifted from speed activity to velocity activity. All in one measly little degree.

Couple points:

Between 0 & 211.

Don’t fool yourself into believing that something is truly happening in your life simply because you feel something (cold or hot). You may be running hard (speed) but, for the most part, you are still just water in the pot. Real change happens when it boils (velocity). The tricky part is somewhere above 120 degrees or so you start feeling comfortable. In that comfort zone you can easily be speeding along or just be comfortably stagnant. Be aware. They can look & feel very similar.

Anyway. I purposefully use heat as the indicator for 2 reasons.

Uncomfortable. While velocity itself is exciting & challenging the shift from non boiling to boiling CAN be uncomfortable. Its a shift. Some people feel the discomfort as “uh oh bad” and some feel it as “yeah, now the action occurs.”

Action. Placid water to boiling water. That is when you know something is truly happening in your life. You shift from just water in a pot that is something someone could take & drink from to something that people approach warily & can actually use to cook something up. Speed makes you feel like you’re cooking, but velocity actually permits the action of cooking. In my terms, you have achieved the velocity tipping point.

One degree.

Life is tricky. Heck. Velocity is tricky. How tricky? The difference between speed & velocity is often one degree. Its not really a tipping point its more along the lines of applying heat properly for the appropriate amount of time. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out you can be speeding along at 205degrees for a long time and it will feel hot but you will not be able to boil diddleyshit. Speed can feel like Velocity. Oh. And. My real point is one degree can make a helluva difference.

About that difference.

There is no “about to boil” sign. The shift from speed to velocity just happens. There is no warning sign. There is no dopamine hit just prior. Nothing. It just happens. I point that out to remind everyone you are never really sure if you are 183degrees or 205degrees. It boils when it boils.

Not all velocity is good. Unfortunately we don’t always make the best decisions and best choices. Therefore, you can shift from speed to velocity and vector quickly into the bad or the good. I point that out because velocity, in & of itself, feels great so you have to be careful the velocity feeling doesn’t mask the truth you are speeding off on a bad tangent. 

Anyway. 212degrees. Ponder. Ponder because it is the difference between speed & velocity.

===

“It’s OK to live a life that others don’t understand.”

—

Unknown

<on pinterest, weheartit & instagram>

===

Ok. I am a big ‘find who you are and be it” person. Therefore what I am about to say may seem hypocritical, but I, personally, do not think so.

I don’t think its okay to live a Life that others don’t understand.

Yes.

I said that.

If you live a life that others don’t understand than it is not relatable to anyone. And I mean anyone. That goes far beyond ‘being unique’ or ‘standing up for what I believe in’ … it shifts into the ‘you are out of touch with reality’ zone. It means you may be living in a universe of One.

Look. I am certainly not suggesting you have to be what everyone wants or accepts. But I am suggesting that you have to at least be relatable in some form or fashion.

That is … well … having a touchstone with reality.

If you don’t have that, you are simply living a fantasy.

Uhm.

To be clear.

That ain’t good.

Do I believe most people get this <understand this>?       Sure.

But when I see quotes like I opened with used in blogs and instagram and pinterest and tumblr and notice how many thumbs ups & likes it has … well … I start wondering if we aren’t making sure young people have a clear perspective on what is truly meant by ‘being yourself is a good thing.’

I tend to believe we mishandle this discussion with young people more often than not.

We older folk either sit on one end of the see saw or the other and ground our ‘be yourself’ discussions on either ‘accept your quirks & flaws as your version of perfection’ or, conversely,  ‘here is how to be successful by doing a, b & c.’

We don’t do with this bad intent. I think we do it because this discussion is difficult. It is strewn with nuance and intangibles and vagaries.

Mostly I think we screw I up because we want our young people to ultimately be happy and not disappointed with their lives <and believe encouraging them to be themselves no matter what is an important path to doing so>.

That said … I do think at the root of our discussion we do need to take on ‘disappointment.’

Why?

Because there is a huge difference between being yourself and not having people understand who and what you are and being yourself and disappointing people.

On the latter … people can relate & can understand who and what you are and just choose to be disappointed in you. Therefore, in THEIR disappointment you can judge whether you care or not.

On the former … you have no evaluation of self. You are so far out of the realm of reality people cannot even be disappointed … nor appreciative … they are just … well … offering you nothing <note: this can sometimes lead to being disappointed in self>.

And, by the way, if you are receiving nothing externally then you have nothing from which to build upon internally <approval and acceptance is not the only nutrition necessary for a healthy esteem and worth. It is simply one part of the diet: professional aspirationalist>

Anyway.

This quote made me cringe. I would much rather we simply told our younger folk something like this:

===

“Despite what you may believe, you can disappoint people and still be good enough.

You can make mistakes and still be capable and talented. You can let people down and still be worthwhile and deserving of love.

Everyone has disappointed someone they care about. Everyone messes up, lets people down, and makes mistakes.

Not because we’re inadequate or fundamentally inept, but because we’re imperfect and fundamentally human. Expecting anything different is setting yourself up for failure.”

Daniell Koepke

====

Within that quote it certainly permits a young person to embrace being unique … certainly suggests that being relatable in some way is healthy … and that participating in Life <being involved in some interaction and receiving response> is necessary as part of human nature.

I don’t want to make a big deal about this because for the most part I think we do a fairly good job of nudging our young people in the right direction. But. I am a firm believer in ‘teachable moments’ … taking opportunities as they arise to drive a deeper important message so that there is some cognitive connection <which is what really matters>.

I know I immediately turned around when I saw this quote and sent it to a larger group of teachers and mentors of the young and said I would write about it and that using the quote could be an effective way to say ‘I saw this and I was thinking about it.’

Why? Because I think a young person looks at the quote, likes the quote <on its surface>, but doesn’t really think about it on a deeper level. And any opportunity I can use something that a young person actually LIKES to make a point or create a discussion … well … I believe it is one of the most effective ways to create a connection to actually generate true listening.

And that is maybe one of the most important things we can think about when talking with young people … are we simply the teacher in Peanuts <wah … wah … wah > … or have we connected enough that there is true listening.

Anyway.

What I do know for sure is telling some young person that living a Life that no one understands is pretty bad advice.

—————-

“Truth itself is an emergent distinction. It’s not a noun; it’s more of a verb.”

Peter Joseph

——————–

I had the privilege to speak with some high school students on a variety of topics … & opinions, facts & truth came up (as, of course, opinions & beliefs were being discussed). I got to share 1 of my favorite quotes.

Look. Far too often we speak of truths in absolutes and, even worse, suggest an individual fact represents truth. Both of these things are actually the nemesis of truth.

Truths are dependent upon knowledge and, well, knowledge is not only contextual to situations but is also evolving as new learning occurs. In other words, truth is emergent.

And for those who state they stand on a fact as truth, to mangle a Dr. Jason Fox thought, “conviction means you become a convict to something.” An individual fact, tightly held, is simply a cage in which you are the convict holding tight on to a conviction of which the only way you get freed is to actually let go of that conviction and seek numerous facts and the knowledge that comes along with them.

In general, when speaking of truth, we should all be annoyed with specificity and simplicity. What I mean by that is a layered truth demands more than the simplistic specificity that can be found in one, individual, fact. Let me define how i view facts, knowledge and truth (and their relationship).

• Facts. Facts are everywhere. an individual fact is nice to know but, in isolation, does not represent a full truth.

An absence of a fact is typically the root of any conspiracy theory (or false argument). “There is no proof, it is not” never trumps “there is proof that it is.”

• Knowledge. Facts, combined, create knowledge. Opinions, & conspiracy theories, combine *coincidental* facts, not correlated facts. knowledge are *correlated* facts combined. coincidental is lazy. correlation takes work & thought.
• Truth. Truth is a coherence of knowledge (combinations of facts) into a cohesive unit of facts. This means that truth adapts to changing knowledge (not individual facts).

While I’m not sure I got it all exactly right i do believe i was able to get some young people to understand one fact is simply a step toward truth and that truth, itself, is layered and often complex.

This leads me to the societal nemesis of truth – this whole ‘anti-intellectualism’ thing. I honestly don’t understand the whole anti-intellectual thing. I have tried, but the tangled web eludes me. Its quite possible knowledge, which is exponentially different than common sense (which isn’t really that common), is caught up the whole “establishment is bad” thing.

It almost seems like every existing infrastructure, let’s call it ‘establishment’, is being painted as “bad, stupid & incompetent.’ And they are not. Saying all politicians are worthless, or media is all tainted and crooked, or all science is driven by a liberal agenda, is as bad as me saying all old white men are sexist, xenophobic asshats.

We treat establishment as if it is one big conspiracy theory which is a little out of my realm of belief. The victim of this odd attack on establishment and those who have real factual knowledge is, well, truth. Truth is dependent upon facts & knowledge well used and well-honed in the battlefield of thinking & thought. Without it the intellectual debate resides on the superficial surface of anything meaningful.

“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.”

Tibetan thought

Ponder this.

The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.

Does knowing more than one truth <if there truly is such a thing> make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.

But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.

And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer you may have to turn your back on some things you know and face someone who knows some other facts, has some other knowledge and may even be able to share some new truths.

On a separate note (maybe on my mind because I was speaking with students).

I will say, as I discuss facts, knowledge & truth, I find the entire concept of ‘future-proof skills” absurd. There is no such thing as a future-proof skill. Okay. Maybe active learning (but I don’t think that is a skill). Which leads me to the thing that always makes me chuckle whenever I get pulled into some ‘future skills’ discussion. Its “Technique for Producing Ideas” by James Webb Young. Published in 1940 written by a man who developed these ‘skills’ in the 1920’s. The entire book is about ‘future-proofing skill development.” 1920’s. 1940. 2020. What was, is, and will be.

Anyway.

I would suggest that Truth is a puzzling maze for anyone to navigate — good person or bad person.

• Facts come and go. We have as many of them floating around as stars in the sky.
• Knowledge demands some creativity in combination of facts (think seeing constellations in a night sky), some hard work (to gather the most appropriate facts) and some wisdom (to discard less relevant facts).
• Truth demands, well, active learning and a tightly held, loose grip on individual truths themselves.

All that said. Does anyone really want to live in a world without truth?

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

“A fool will always come calling.”

unknown

——————–

<note for today: we all have a little fool within us>

I will begin by saying ‘fool’ is a tough word to direct toward yourself. The definition of fool is: those who have the quality or condition of being ignorant and confused about matters, or those employed in making jests about the general circumstances of ignorance and confusion which exists among people.

Well. Here is a truth. It is just part of Life that our inner fool will always come calling at some point.

If you are honest with yourself you will realize at some time, at some point, you will discover you have engaged in some foolish acts or foolish thinking and <foolishly> made the appropriate internal justifications to convince yourself that you aren’t a fool.

Don’t beat yourself up.

Don’t fight it.

Stop investing energy justifying your actions.

We all have a fool inside us.

I actually file a part of this thought under the whole ‘managing regrets’ topic.

If you assume the fool inside you is always fighting to get out and do something foolish then it is a waste of time to regret doing foolish things. Well. At least you shouldn’t invest a lot of energy beating the crap out of yourself for ‘being a fool’, but instead pay attention to managing your inner fool. Yes. Don’t ignore it, but manage it.

Don’t act like “well, that is not me so that is atypical behavior” because, as I said, it is you – it is typical you. You just have to recognize that you do have an inner fool who wants to enjoy Life.  Personally I think its silly to not admit it and even a little silly to not actually embrace the fact. Why? Purposefully ignoring truth because maybe you are afraid of accepting the truth means your inner fool is managing you rather than you managing your inner fool.

Well. That sounds like a fool to me.

I would suggest this  is all about assuming responsibility for all aspects of who you are — the fool and the non-fool is part of who you are and what you do.

And, yes, you are a fool if you deceive yourself into believing this is not true <or you do not have a fool within you>.

Look. If you accept this thought, then maybe you will end up understanding only a fool seeks answers and it is the wise who seek the questions.

In constantly seeking the right questions your inner fool cannot deceive you.

You will probably be less gullible.

You are probably more likely to see things as they really are.

You will probably have your own opinion <rather than just use other people’s opinions>.

You will probably better recognize what makes you happy.

You will probably be deceived less by the illusion of what Life may be cluttering your life with … and see more clearly within the moment.

You will probably manage regrets significantly better because of focusing on ‘regret’ you will focus on ‘did I ask the right questions?’

And, probably, you will live a life a little closer to whatever ‘truth’ is … and that ain’t a bad place to reside <even if it can be an uncomfortable place to reside on occasion>.

Life cannot be planned in a way that is fool proof. At best you can just keep on asking the right questions and adapting.

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

Douglas Adams

I bet this quote was said thinking about how outside fools affect your design. Instead maybe we should think of this with our ‘inner fool’ in mind.

That said I think we often underestimate the ingenuity of our inner fool. Ponder that <or risk looking foolish>

=====

“I’m not much but I’m all I have.”

—

Philip K. Dick

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

“I’m still learning to love the parts of me that no one claps for.”

—

Rudy Francisco

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

“Before I travelled my road I was my road.”

—–

Antonio Porchia

=========

Me against the world.

I imagine everyone feels that way on occasion. And maybe at that time, or another time, you will also feel “whew, the world is against me” and question whether you have what it takes.

And then there will be the times you suck in your breath, stand up a little straighter and say “WTF, I’m all I have … and I better clap for the parts of me that maybe no one sees, or acknowledges, but are the things that are actually help me in the me against the world.”

Now. A shitload of people are gonna say that most people are never really alone in this “against” thing and that if you carry the burden of “against” solely, as an individual, you decrease your odds of not only being able to carry such a burden but also to actually have some success.

So, sure, it is definitely a “team” <or “village”> world.

So, sure, success is almost completely dependent upon being able to figure out at least some way to assimilate into a larger group, interact with others or share some responsibility to multiply efforts.

And, yet, ‘pulling your own weight’ is a 100% individual, I, thing.

Let’s face it. Team or no team, village or no village, organization or no organization, there will be points in Life and your career where it will be “I am all I have.” I would also note that at all points in Life we are responsible to ourselves for our own existence.

And, if you face that as a Life truth then … well … it seems that, consequently, you would want to be the pilot of your existence ship and refuse to let your path be dictated by the whims of the world <which is against you>.

And, if you buy all that … well … you are your road, you learn to clap for the parts of yourself no one sees and you realize that you are all you have.

I am not suggesting this is easy nor is this one of those things that happens in your Life like a light switch.

Most of us begrudgingly reach this point grinding our way to a point of acceptance all the way vacillating on accepting ‘I am all I have’ and ‘wishing I was more.’ That vacillation may distill down the most common and visible defect we have as people — the inconsistency in how we think about ourselves as well as inconsistency in our behavior <how we react in, and to, certain situations>.

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

“Since vacillation seems to me the most common and visible defect of our nature.”

Montaigne ‘of the inconstancy of our actions’

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

I would guess our ‘defect’ isn’t really as bad as we think mainly because I imagine most of us focus on the wrong things. We focus on the ‘deeds’ or specific actions rather than our inward impulses.

That makes sense.

It makes sense because I can see an act, see a behavior, and see an outcome. Inwards looking is a little less concrete and we are also pretty good at twisting our inward impulses through some fairly absurd navel gazing processes which mostly mangle any real conclusions.

What makes more sense is to focus on the right thing.

When we live Life right our actions remain steadfast in character so that Life cannot sufficiently bend the enough to matter and yet our actions contain a’ diversity so manifest, sudden and continual.’

Everyone should read Montaigne … he may be the ultimate spokesperson for “but I am all I have.”.

Our minds vary like the daylight day to day.

One courageous deed does not prove one brave.

One cowardly deed does not prove one a coward.

One smart deed does not prove one intelligent.

One stupid deed does not make one an idiot.

One deed is simply one deed.

What proves who you are is, well, “you are what you are as you are always on all occasions.”

As Montaigne finished ‘inconstancy’ he closes with:

“… it is not the work of a well-tempered mind to judge us simply by our outward actions; we must search the inward parts, and see by what springs the impulse give.”

No outside person can truly search the ‘inward parts’; only “I” can.

Because, well, I am all I have. And, for 99% of us, it is enough.

==========

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.

John Keats

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