“We live mythically, but continue to think fragmentarily and on single planes.”

Marshall McLuhan

---

“We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Everything we perceive as reality is, in fact, constructed from fragments and fragmentation which, even when rationally constructed, can make life pretty confusing for the everyday person. Basically, this is a survival technique in that we grab onto some fragments to make sense of things the best we can. What becomes an existential survival crisis is WHAT fragments we grab onto. As Tony Fish suggests our root problem is that everything when framed with a maths or data mind is a decision. When framed by a psychologist or social scientist, everything becomes a choice. To someone who has authority and responsibility, or plays with complexity, everything is a judgment. Confusingly everything is an opinion to a judge. Math and data offer tantalizing fragments to judge and rationalize reality – sometimes well and sometimes not as well. That may all seem very confusing, but dependence upon different framing and beliefs, i.e., rationalizing fragments, creates some ‘life efficiency’ for each of us while simultaneously creating a brittle coherence to the community. In addition, this also tends to be reductionary. What I mean by that is inevitably this encourages us to act situationally rather than act based on scenarios. Once again, this is a reductionary life where we react as a matter of rule, work through heuristics (our rationalizing fragments) and then simply repeat the majority of our behavior, i.e., the shadows of previous decisions shine a spotlight on decision-making in the present.

Which leads me to social media’s superweapon: reinforcement learning.

Social networks are designed explicitly to command human attention and hijack free will. They are weapons of the science of persuasion and psychological vulnerabilities. Not only are algorithms designed to optimize engagement at any cost, but they triple down on that engagement through reinforcement learning – driving you down deeper and deeper into the darkness, fragment of engagement by fragment of engagement. Each step farther down into that blackness takes you farther and farther away from engaging with more meaningful, thoughtful, enlightening fragments (if not wholes). But where the reinforcement loops work hardest is by slinging endless customized content, tantalizing fragments, to captivate attention every step of the way. More and more data gets fed back into the algorithm reinforcement loops to further refine the manipulative powers and refine the ‘fragment house’ they offer as your home. It feels like a stream of consciousness when it really has little to do with your own conscious and more about fragments of consciousness some algorithm consciously teases out. Ah. But it gets a bit worse. While you feel actively engaged, you are really skimming along the top of superficial, non-demanding, fragmentation dressed up as meaningful “whole truths.” Reinforcement learning encourages you to see castles of sand as solid homes for enlightenment. And it does so deftly guiding you away from the time, and thoughtfulness, true enlightenment and understanding demands. We end up in unenlightened little fragments of cubbyholes tucked in tight with no room for any additional ideas.

Which leads me to what this means for personal identity.

Technology, through social media, aggressively attacks our identities blasting it apart in an onslaught of detailed fragments. This, in turn, makes social media & technology seem even more demanding of us, despite the fact it actually has a relatively simplistic structure (but warped by algorithms), consequently people started feeling a need that more detail was required, i.e., actually embrace the enemy. This doom loop of detail made something peculiar happen. Our identities gradually prove themselves incapable of absolute, whole, concepts. Identity simply becomes details. And, if the details aren’t coherent and well thought out, your identity simply became fragments floating out in technological space being bombarded with random algorithm driven asteroids.

As Marshall McLuhan would say we live mythically but continue to think fragmentarily and on single planes. It seems like almost all the action and reaction occurs at exactly the same time ignoring any complexity and ignoring any combinatorial consequences. So it appears that we live in the present, in some mythical way, continuing to think in the old fragmented space and time patterns. Inevitably this creates what Marshall McLuhan suggested as “the age of anxiety.”

Which leads me to unique and belonging.

Speaking of anxiety, let’s move on to uniqueness and belonging. The theory of organizational change revolves around the idea that if you cannot disturb the organizational identity filter then nothing changes. In other words, if a society wants to evolve and learn it must have the capacity for internal dialogue. Learning happens reciprocally, in context, and is vital to a thriving system. This is where diversity comes in. Diversity plays a role because it enhances community, if and only if, there is a vibrant network of relationships and if there is a free flow of information throughout. But let’s get back to uniqueness and becoming. Within lies a paradox of individuality and connectedness to un-like thinkers. The ubiquitous world of technology allows us to connect with more people, more ideas, more information. Most of it is 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 (uniqueness), which leads to a doom loop of where does who I am and what I will be (becoming) begin and end. Hanzi Freinacht is the one who suggested the idea of transvidualism where the self actually contains part of the whole (fragments) 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. But I imagine my larger point here is that people are increasingly a collection of fragments, some changing and some unchanging, and the proportionality of those two aspects is incredibly important in accepting ‘self,’ uniqueness, and belonging in a world with increasing fragments. And that becomes fairly important because if the increased fragmentation simply creates small-minded tribes that only generates societal friction. Arguably, tribes of equals are not always that smart mainly because they are hunkered down around a small campfire of fragments.

Which leads me to suggest the larger social issue actually resides in our misunderstanding of uniqueness and separateness and being part of a collective group.

Problems arise when uniqueness is associated with ‘being separate’ and when separateness gains a sense of faux specialness. When unique is tied to separate it tends to transform into an unhealthy sense of specialness (unique individualism) or a kind of narcissism feeding into a belief we can endlessly take from the collective without repercussion; because it feeds our isolated self in a zero-sum world. I would argue we far too often conflate uniqueness for separateness. Yeah. The truth is everything we do as ‘someone unique,’ we actually do as part of the collective whole. The paradox is we are unique because of the way we are interconnected with the rest of the humans. Yeah. Uniqueness is emergent from connection to other human beings (if not all nature). What I mean by that is each species in nature is unique, and plays a role in a vast symbiotic web of life, humans also play a role in a vast symbiotic web of humanity and society. What this means is a healthy sense of uniqueness, which begets healthy becoming, actually requires an active personal and societal strategy of deepening connections and integration of ‘fragments,’ not of separation. All that said. Ponder this. There is something odd about saying that everything is unique because this makes uniqueness something that everything has in common. Quite the contradiction to say that everything is the same insofar as everything shares in the quality of being unique, no? This is an important and sometimes mind bending contradiction, but I think it is important, especially in a fragmented world, to recognize uniqueness does not contradict some aspects of sameness because both sameness and uniqueness arise out of interconnection. Not to get too philosophical, but the universe is unique in relation to everything else, so everything in the universe is the same as everything else. I challenge everyone to take any two objects, or events, and list the ways they share common properties and qualities. This happens even if two things seemingly have nothing in common. But from a fragmented society perspective, what is truly ironic is it seems like we have a society obsessed with individualism and, yet, has little room for truly unique forms of self-expression. Despite individualism rhetoric, society (and social media) consistently denigrates our sense of self and does not allow for the formation of self reflectively unique personalities. I would argue fragments play a significant role in this. What I mean by that we have actually become quite limited (despite a ubiquitous online world) in how we can represent ourselves and others because communication has become overwhelmingly superficial through sound bites, tweets, and status updates which dominate connection platforms where we have to represent who and what we are. The superficiality is contrary to the type of reflective and prolonged engagements that truly foster uniqueness and self. Circling back to Marshall McLuhan, society seems to have an unhealthy focus on images, memes, superficial montages of misleading imagery, combined with an unnatural compression of time and space. What I mean by that is while time has not sped up, we actually treat time as fragments in which we use or are lost. All of this simply generates shallow forms of communication and understanding and, ultimately, differences (not uniqueness) which inevitably does not meet the true depth and nuance of uniqueness. Just as a reminder, this matters because personal clarity demands we seek places or people that remove doubts and obstacles about who and what we are. Self is an integrated image of oneself as a unique person and if we are only integrating the superficial into our self-feedback system, well, we will inevitably end up being shallow people desperately, and continuously, seeking meaning.

“The study of a situation should not seek to control the parts, or even the whole, but rather discover the underlying patterns which make up the aspects of potential.”

Which leads to me to a system that encourages fragmentation.

While its easy to point to technology, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out culture, or the overarching system itself, almost encourages fragmentation. What I mean by that is market-based capitalism emphasizes individual choice, competition, and zero-sum thinking, and the collective intelligence that arises from different choices. All that sounds good, or maybe okay, but it tends to create societies that are purposeless and fragmented and individual based (or collaboration is only seen as a necessary means to further self success), or as Arthur van den Bruck said, “gives everyone the freedom to be a mediocre man.” Yeah. Capitalism actually encourages mediocrity. Okay. How about over time the arc of capitalism bends toward mediocrity. The system is in a constant conflict by what stands and what changes, what’s bounded what is not, and how the existing power structure stratifies or doesn’t. what that means is while it often doesn’t appear like it, the system is mutually emergent; not unidirectional. And what that means is the reality is there is always a bit of resistance against the destructive fragmenting and destabilizing aspects of capitalism’s trappings. But the system encourages many people, under the guise it increases likelihood of success, to encourage individualism, alienation (zero-sum competition), fragmentation, entrepreneurial innovation, and all the things that discourage collective action which would actually force some change or at least challenge the existing power structure. Circling back to Tony Fish, maths and numbers and data are the primary weapon the system wields to encourage fragmentation (to the benefit of those in power). It is a daunting to challenge the fragmented system and society (which is monopolistic institutionally) because the system encourages individuality seeking to fragment any significant collective/community because it is actually ONLY a collective/community who can destruct an existing system and create a new one and those in power know that. That said. Beyond the increased emphasis on ‘self,’ the system almost encourages us to confuse, and conflate, what is ordinary and what is exceptional – for each individual (thereby confusing uniqueness, separateness and becoming). Sure. The system celebrates individuals, but typically not the ones who consistently invest in the greater good, more typically the economic successes. The truth is the economic narrative encourages fragmentation by encouraging everyone to believe individual successes begets collective progress. That is an incredibly flawed premise. Progress is never linear and is almost always asymmetrical and is optimized through collective action; not individual action. Lastly. The weird thing is the current system almost encourages pettiness and small-minded thinking in its facilitation of fragmentation and use of fragments, but that is another piece for another day.

“there is no ‘right time’ there is just time and what you choose to do with it”

Which leads me to connectivity and connections.

It may seem odd to end a piece on fragments with connectivity, but hear me out. Fragmentation is here to stay. We can try and wish away all the structural and transactional aspects of the larger system and society that enables fragments and fragmentation, but it’s just wishful thinking. Our efforts should be directed at educating people on how to enhance connectivity and reward communities and connections, in other words, learn to use fragments well. I have argued in the past that fractals, small linear components of a larger complex system, is where insights reside. I believe the same is true in a large, fragmented, complex society. While the blur of fragments and fragmentation encourage us to believe everything is vague and tenuous, the truth is connections and connectivity is what tethers us to sanity, community and meaning. It is within the experiences of connection which shapes us (even though we may not notice the actual shaping). Our self-identity, and ‘becoming,’ is the ultimate result of a complex series of steps, choices, and experiences over a long period of time. But, possibility, my larger point is collaboration, which is the outcome of connectivity, is just a means to an end and if the end justifies that means then you do what the end desires, not what you think is the right way to do something. Ultimately, people flow to ideas when the idea needs people. And maybe that is where fragments, in today’s world, are truly failing us. If fragments had the opportunity to flow freely and coalesce into grander ideas that benefit societal progress, I believe we would all be applauding a fragmented world because we were actually flowing to ideas that permit society to prosper – as a whole, not just individually. But that’s not the way its working. Fragments are actually driving us into smaller and smaller people and a smaller and smaller society. Ponder.

Hello darkness, my old friend

I’ve come to talk with you again

Because a vision softly creeping

Left its seeds while I was sleeping

And the vision that was planted in my brain

Still remains

Within the sound of silence

Simon & Garfunkel

What if we can no longer hear the machines?

I thought about this the other day when someone suggested over the past years people have become more aware of algorithms and their effect. I answered that there was a difference between awareness and understanding. Anyway. Technology has certainly been impacting society, and the individuals within, for centuries, but this particular generation of technology and machines seems to be having a deeper impact on both society and the individuals within.

Which leads me what I believe is happening.

In the past we always had some warning, i.e., the ominous sounds of the machines bearing down upon us or pounding on our ears. The new machines are silent. No warnings. Divested of sound our anxiety has no source. This means that history and the future simultaneously become unseen, unpredictable, and unfolding with no forewarning as to what is to come. This would suggest without warning we fall into the wretched hollow in between stimulus and response. That hollow matters because, typically, we select a from several possibilities which vary contextually from place to place and time to time, but bereft of some important cues which would not only help identify not only the appropriate response but to help identify the parameters of the place and time, we skate on the superficial surface of algorithms feeding our worst instincts and tendencies, uhm, not our best stuff to lean in on.

Which leads me to the superficial surface of human instincts.

The reality is that technology can be quite human-like, but never quite human. Technology, at best, simply mimics humans and human societies. This is dangerous if we become dependent upon technology to help us define how to act as humans and what a human society should look like. Unlike ants and bees and any other non-human animal (which acts off genetics codes) we attempt to find cues for the rules of a human society through the uncomfortable participation in connection with other humans. This has been true for generations. Writing letters, telephoning, emails, and now things like Facebook and Instagram simply augment human interaction. In fact, one could guess that all those types of communication probably only work as well as they do because they augment all the ordinary interaction that goes on at the same time. The reality is letter writing, telephoning, even emailing, is low depth communication. High depth communication includes smelling, touching, tasting, and enough visual definition to be able to see facial expressions and body language. That’s important when thinking about stealthy algorithms because we should always remind ourselves that societies are formed and maintained through people physically interacting with each other. That doesn’t mean that as time goes by, and the physical connections have become established within the societal infrastructure, that an increase in proportion of interactions can take place without face-to-face human interaction. But. As someone said about the internet: people don’t see each other, but only what the software shows them. This creates an ambiguity between what is human and what is just human-like. What are actual images of people and what are constructed images of people. And that is important because if you believe that it is people who form societies and it is through their complex interactions within which the basis of society is formed then whether you are dealing with constructed images or reality makes a significant difference.

Which leads me to patients and impatience. Algorithms are infinitely patient while humans are finitely impatient. Years ago, Jaron Lanier warned us that algorithms didn’t attempt to change us immediately but rather through relentless nudging fractions of a percentage at a time. Algorithms patiently nudge us slowly bending the arc of our beliefs and attitudes. They prowl within human impatience seeking opportunities to not just bend the arc, but to shift one’s reality. It is within this soundless subtlety where the true danger lurks unseen, unheard and unnoticed. How dangerous and how unnoticed? I still have conversations with people in the advertising business, a business whose premised structure is nudging people’s beliefs and attitudes to affect behavior, that the 2016 election voting was affected by Russia and algorithms and Bots. I often wonder if people in advertising with true experience of how people’s minds can be affected don’t understand how algorithms work or they can affect people, how the general public can grasp the concept. Its subtlety is vast and relentless and patient. As Noah Smith just noted in a piece on TikTok and Chinese ownership: “overall, the pattern is unmistakable — every single topic that the CCP doesn’t want people to talk about is getting suppressed on TikTok.” And therein lies the subtlety. Its not that algorithms just highlight content; they simultaneously suppress content thereby implying less importance (or even less true). Yeah. Salience matters (for good and bad stuff).

Which leads me to the silence in equilibrium.

Many systems have equilibrium points, but there is a wide variety of types of equilibrium and, in fact, most systems have multiple equilibrium points. Uhm. But what if we cannot ever see them, or sense them, or, worse, be encouraged to believe one is there when it is not?  Its fairly easy to sense the possible dissonance one would feel in life if they constantly embraced a false equilibrium day after day. That person would constantly be at odds with, well, reality. That is, in my mind, the outcome of the sounds of violent silence. Ponder.

==

“We have the ability to construct our own futures, albeit not the circumstances of our own choosing. Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they make it under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.”

Karl Marx

==

“I don’t really care about stuff, but it isn’t really about stuff is it?

No. It generally isn’t about the stuff. Even when it is. And even when the motivator is greed. Really just about having. Marking out your territory, making it bigger and bigger, and giving yourself more corners to put your stake in the ground as though more and bigger will protect you from, well, the sense that you can’t really control anything. So maybe ‘more’ is what protects you from the lack of control.”

SJ Rozan

I have stated a number of times Capitalism is simply a framework within which people make choices and decisions, therefore, we shouldn’t be discussing ‘the system’, but rather be focused on people and their attitudes and behaviors. That said. Systems do have power and do have influence and do inform how people shape attitudes and behaviors, i.e., institutional will. With that in mind, I will say that Capitalism over time has made some things disappear – and we should care.  Please note that while I discuss disappearances, in all instances there are forces on the edges fighting back, creating mini-systems to protect some things from totally disappearing.

Which leads me to larger systems.

When larger systems become more embedded, functionally as well as in people’s minds as “the way,” things begin to disappear. The biggest thing may actually be what people, naturally, collectively stand for. What I mean by that is the system subverts what people would do on their own to what the system suggests everyone should stand for. So, while the system makes some human instincts disappear, it also actually subverts actual beliefs. For example, Capitalism may despise the idea of the inequality, but usually participants success depends on it. Yeah. The larger system claims equality, but in effect is based on competition and as capitalistic competition develops, inequality grows and the moral failings and foibles expanded creating extremes n winners and loser. Now. the system can’t admit that so it cloaks inequality with identity bullshit encouraging micro-cultural-identity battles so they each compete and neutralize each other. Class struggle is replaced by cultural struggle, characterized by stark individualism, which gives us permission to ignore corruption and the flaws in the social contract. The larger system, the elites in particular, then place numbers and measurements on the system so that individuals compete against each other and the system games the numbers and, well, most substantive societal things disappear n the fog of competition and the individual quest for moral autonomy, wealth autonomy, and identity autonomy. Much of the societal good stuff disappears within the individualism capitalism espouses.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out reductive economic mathematics are the greatest hoax ever created. Fundamentally it makes the uber-capitalists pseudo intellectual bullies empty of moral or empathetic stances. And when attacked they defend with the pseudo-math and conflate their success with morality and intellectual superiority. Just to make a point, I could argue that the development of Purpose was simply the larger system’s keepers acknowledgement they had made everything but profit-seeking disappear and needed something to help maintain control of the system they have profited from. That would be the cynical suggestion of a disappearance.

Which leads me to education.

For all the general outrage with regard to useless degrees and useless education, the reality is that all humanities have been gutted. The diminishing of humanities from education has undermined common sense, moral restraint and has only encouraged us to lurch from extreme to extreme – measurement by measurement. All the while everyone continues to blame all issues on public education. But if we were a bit honest, is fairly easy to see a society/civilization grounded in mathematizing everything has failed humanity. it has made general dignity and morality disappear and everything has become career based with a focus on what skills someone will need to be able to have for a specific career. What has disappeared is the larger discussion of what education is supposed to do. The majority of the time this discussion gets dumbed down to some simplistic outcome-based discussion. The reality is education has multiple objectives. It should prepare young people for some future career (albeit identifying what that specific career is makes that a challenge). It should prepare young people to become well-rounded citizens who can participate successfully in the society, in the community, as well as the economy. And lastly it should prepare young people to be able to offer ideas. What I mean by that last one is that studies show that economies are driven by people with ideas. Ideas are the engine for progress and prosperity. I say that because if significant portions of the education system, humanities included, continue to get reduced solely to some metrics and career objectives; a wealth of potential ideas disappears.  Unfortunately, the existing education system is designed as a feeder mechanism which basically believes that our version of progress is simply optimizing the individual to have a job and create their own wealth (and procreate I imagine). Yeah. Schools, for quite some time, have not and have never been predominantly for the people or the children. Schools are and have been predominantly for the existing economy and its supporting social construct. The problem is this construct actually makes progress disappear. Education, under this concept, increasingly teach knowledge that is no longer relevant, develop people into roles that no longer exist, and craft mindsets needed to continue ways of life that are rapidly disappearing.  Progress disappears completely as a simplified stratified economic model of human behavior is constructed, a simplistic universal human value cost and benefit is defined, and a homogenized system makes cultural identities needs; not wants.

• · ** note: We need major changes and how we think about learning because education today cannot be primarily about achieving a functional fit if we want to reshape society to the benefit of all and a better future. I will suggest Zach Stein does a great job in “Education between two worlds” outlining how to refind some of the important things disappearing.

Which leads me to non-conformity.

Conformism, alienation, complacency are actually what a stratified capitalistic system begets. For all the talk of innovation and fresh ideas, for the most part society has conformed to capitalism. It has reduced everyone into ‘self-identity’ as the primary way to non-conform in a system conducive to conformity. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out self-identity is window dressing on the global store we all work at and shop at. It was Marcuse who said:

“Under the conditions of a rising standard of living, non-conformity with the system itself appears to be socially useless.”

In other words, why non-conform when you have been convinced conformity increases the probability of being able to participate in any wealth growth/distribution.

Which leads me to what is Capitalism -.5.

Yeah. That is a negative number. While capitalism has played a significant role in human progress, it has also created significant disparities and environmental crises. As noted at the opening, Capitalism shapes much more than an economic system. It shapes attitudes, behaviors, values, community, culture, and even ideology. At this point it is a bit difficult for the everyday schmuck to imagine alternatives that look nothing the existing capitalist system. So while we should be demanding some radical thinking, the system has made much of our imagination disappear.

With all that said.

I almost called this the de-capitalism phase. The problem is ‘de-anything’ gets crucified. So, I’m simply suggesting that capitalism dial itself back a little bit. Maybe eliminate some of the perverse incentives, maybe begin emphasizing broader wealth and value creation, and maybe think a little bit more about holistically optimizing whatever resources Earth has to offer and meeting the needs of civilization rather than just simply the wants. Maybe I am suggesting capitalism should become a bit more accountable for the things it makes disappear. Maybe I’m thinking that we should rethink happiness.

Before you think I’m suggesting something a little too squishy let me explain.

Let me begin with the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, who did not view economic growth as the path to human happiness:

“The chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved.”

So, if meaningful happiness has disappeared, the question is, how do you measure that?

And while any individual person’s sense of happiness might have more to do with personal disposition than the state of society at large, on average, I tend to believe if people perceive their happiness or well-being is increasing, then that suggests there is progress in that society. And happiness, or wellbeing, is grounded in housing situation, clean water, education, i.e., the basics which improve people’s capacities to do what they want to do. Below that threshold, or let’s say when one is disappointed in one’s situation with those things (that can be expectations, not reality), it is as Adam Smith suggested:

“it makes people unhappy because they feel ‘unheeded’ in their society.”

I say that because the truth is community thriving is inextricably attached to intellectual capital, spiritual capital, material capital and financial capital. And if you accept that you then begin viewing communities as managing their mental balance sheets, i.e., debts and assets.

“Even those who have the feeble souls can acquire a very absolute dominion over all their passions if sufficient industry is applied in training and guiding them.”

Descartes

I would argue that as Capitalism has taken root in communities it has made much of that disappear under the relentless pursuit of ‘more’. The issue is that many of the things it made disappear; are reappearing (or we are noticing) – lack of meaning, social inequality, economic inequality, environmental crisis. Things are reappearing that tug at the complex weave of economic, social, and ideological dynamics. The system, and the people who run it, will do what it can to maintain its control and power and do what they can to make important things disappear and offer less important things to take our focus from the important ones. We shouldn’t let the important things disappear – especially our imagination for something better. Ponder.

Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief … which will you be today?”

Capitalism. I am going to attempt to discuss capitalism objectively. I will admit I am getting better at doing so mostly because so many young people question me on the benefits <as well as the seemingly endless array of drawbacks>. That said. If you speak with young people there are a lot of thoughts surrounding communism, socialism and capitalism. While many of us older folk get in a tizzy over that, I do not. I believe it is healthy to discuss the nuances and aspects.

Communists view capitalism the most cynically.

“Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.”

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Schumpeter viewed capitalism with a practical and realistic eye.

“There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.”

Joseph Schumpeter

Which leads me to say I am not sure there is a more polarizing or oft-discussed issue in today’s world than Capitalism — its merits and its flaws and its effect on society & culture.

Capitalism seems to get wrapped up in right versus wrong and morals and greed and a bunch of other things. I have said it before and will say it until the day I die: capitalism is simply a system in which people work and think and behave. It may encourage some things and discourage some others, or let’s say incentivize people to do and think certain ways, but in the end it is a system in which people make choices.

That said. Stephen Covey <author of ‘7 habits of highly effective people’> reminds me of some important principles when it comes to business and capitalism. I admit I originally wasn’t a big fan of Covey and thought “7 habits of highly effective People” not only a vapid read, but the kind of tripe that encouraged non-effective people to think they were effective simply because they ‘implemented’ what effective people seemed to do <rather than make their behavior extensions of their general being>.

But I also admit that i believe almost any business book with regard to ‘what makes people successful’ tripe and relatively useless in the scheme of things <in that people tend to use them as a ‘how to be successful’ rather than thought pieces>.

So my initial thought was nothing against Covey in particular.

Anyway. In hindsight I think I missed the real point of the book (and Covey). I read the book as “a things to do” primer. By the way, my fear is the bulk of readers did as I did.

My point?

I should have taken note that he really was arguing less about discipline, but more about characteristics of personal character and purpose <beyond dollars and cents>. He was adamant that employees were not merely pistons in a machine, powered and oiled to efficiency through rewards and punishments, but rather employees were people. And, even better, individual people <not flocks of sheep>. I should have taken note that he drew inspiration from researching the past. He read almost 200 years of “success literature “.  He discovered that for almost 150 years the most common theme in American business leadership literature was character and that it was only after the Second World War it switched to touting superficial qualities such as appearance and style.

I should have taken note when he added an 8th habit:  “find your voice and inspire others to find theirs.”

I believe in hindsight I should have taken note of his steadfast belief in character above all else.

The Economist wrote this about him:

“… he tried to rescue the notion of character from both the simple minded purveyors of self-help (who imply that you can change your character as easily as your underpants) and the social service establishment (which ignore questions of character by blaming everything on the system).”

And maybe what I wish the Economist writer had noted is that it seems like we have become a working society of “how to” lists.

• How to get things done.
• How to be a better person.
• How to be happy.
• How to be a good leader.
• How to be effective.

I wish Covey were still alive because once he saw how we have become a ‘how to’ society <rather than one which learns how to on their own> I tend to believe he may have just gone back and written a new book called “oops, 7 equals zero if you don’t understand the notion of character.”

In my pea like brain I see the issue as this.

Today’s business world has become a person silo business issue.

Huh?

• Silo one – I am a person of character.
• Silo two – I am a person who can drive profit.

Uhm. And both silos are in one business person. And what this means is exactly how we get these crazy cause related business issues. What I mean is that the profit person is in one room and then goes to another room and says “well, let’s do something good.” And good is just something else you check off your list so that your character person can pat itself on the back and say “yup, I do have character.”

Do I know how to solve it?

Nope.

I know I do not believe Lenin ‘Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps’ because while I do agree that no one can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps I don’t agree that capitalists are not capable of self-sacrifice.

I also know that I wish I could send an email to Stephen Covey or even Peter Drucker.

They would know what to do and what to say.

Maybe they could address the natural challenges capitalism offers to businesses and business people that, in general, it is system that is not needs based, but rather profit based. And that translates into despite the fact we have huge needs that don’t get filled, our business world seems to remain mostly all about the profit.

Capitalism, at its worst, focuses money, profit and success on the already successful. It doesn’t oppress the poor it simply ignores the poor as the rich get richer.

Historically speaking this bears out.

Corporations used to be ‘collective’ enterprises: for the people and the people’s people <society>. Well into the 1970’s companies still defined themselves in terms of products/services offered and overall contribution to society. It was beginning in the 1980’s when finance capitalism drove vision and shareholders profits to become the ultimate objective <trumping even quality of offerings>. Raakesh khurana <Harvard> stated at a business roundtable in 1990:

“Corporations are chartered to serve both their shareholders and society as a whole.”

Ah. But then in 1997 he denied responsibility beyond that of the shareholders.

“The notion that the board must balance the responsibility to stakeholders other than shareholders fundamentally misconstrues the role of directors… “

I am not picking on him, he was simply reflecting upon the current status of the business world. What this really means is that companies, and people in companies, focused on the mere aggregation of financial assets.

This also means business simply stressed every man for himself (and, yes, i purposefully say ‘man’).

And CEOs have certainly thought of themselves. Between 1965 and 2000 the ratio of CEO pay to the typical worker expanded from 24:1 to 300:1. Maybe more concerning is the spread increased significantly between the CEO and the 3rd in command. CEO’s, due to income alone, became isolated from the real worker as well as the real world. They started living in their own bubble <or some version of a business hell>.

By the way, this aggregation of financial assets also means management became inherently more short term focused … and ended up rejecting slow thoughtful methods of decision making and became enamored with gut & instinct.

An outcome of this trend?

Leaders became charismatic; not thought leaders. They became more inspirational and less rational.

In the end I will state the obvious: the pursuit of wealth, or profit, for its own sake not only creates objective blindness, but that blindness strips all productivity of morals and ethics.

And I will also state the obvious: pursuit of wealth and profit is a complex formula.

It is very easy <too easily I may add> to make it an “I” issue. As in ‘person decision’ which inevitably leads to some random ‘psychopathic’ type discussions where this person is ‘this’ or ‘that’, but it really isn’t.

It is a societal and cultural multi-dimensional issue, as in, ‘I do some things because external factors either encourage or demand it <in business and every day Life>’. Yeah. Beyond the incentive levers of an individual business, society wields its own levers of incentives.  My last comment on this part about capitalism is that any crisis we may believe we have with regard to capitalism is first and foremost a crisis <or some derivative of crisis> of society’s character.

Which makes me circle back to Covey.

Effectiveness and ‘greatness’ in leadership begins, and ends, with character. Despite what some boardrooms suggest and some ‘results based’ ideology, profits do not measure true effectiveness.

Regardless. I will close with something David Simon <producer of The Wire> said very well about capitalism:

“Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It’s a great tool to have in your toolbox if you’re trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn’t want to go forward at this point without it. But it’s not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.”

Ah.

…. the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.

Rationalizing what is happening in today’s society is a natural tendency and it is much much easier to focus on ‘capitalism’ rather than suggesting any dysfunction as effects of modern society: over-stimulation, consumerism, something in the water, the kids today, or too much television <despite the fact we often do>. But I find it difficult to believe there was ever a time … within any economic system … when people weren’t constantly running afoul of their own basic human traits.

What do I mean? We tend to rationalize the pursuit of our own drives. We always have and always will. We tend to, well, denounce, condemn, criticize, censure, attack, rail against, lambast, vilify, revile <pick whatever word you would like> other people for pursuing theirs if theirs happens to oppose ours. All this natural conflict of our ‘humanness’ leads to general unhappiness with ‘the system.’ But before we start wagging our finger at capitalism as if it has been a naughty little boy, we should be looking in the mirror.

We should be examining our character.

Anyway. So I close this brief discussion on capitalism with words from a USA State of the Union address:

“… wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice, and fairness, and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen. The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy.”

Sometimes we take things for granted.

We certainly take aspects of capitalism for granted and when things don’t go well we lash out in a seemingly indiscriminate fashion.

We look at big things as little things we deserve.

We see what others have and expect that we should have it also.

That isn’t capitalism’s fault that is our <people’s> fault.

Honest work.

Well.

That takes character.

So maybe the issue isn’t capitalism, maybe its, uhm, our own character. Ponder.

====

“Land of the racist; land of the batshit crazy; land of the proudly ignorant.”

Johannes Rand

====

Principles are not values.

There is no ethical dilemma resulting from “conflicting” value systems if ethical management is principle-based. The difficulty of practicing principle-based ethics is the lack of identification that occurs as certain unethical behaviors become mainstream practices and personal values take precedence over values with universal applicability. The tendency is for individuals to identify unethical practices only when it affects them personally.

Bellamy, 1994

====

Patsy Cline song

“Strange how you stopped loving me, how you stopped needing me … oh, how strange.”

===

Well. I think USA has gone a bit batshit crazy. There is some shit going on which is real alternative universe stuff. Fantasy thinking. But. More concerning is how belief in some fringe thinking and ideas has slithered its way into mainstream and, worse, the fringe thinkers have seized some power.

Two things made me pull this out of my draft folder … two great bosses I had and things they have written. Charlie wrote a blog post that I just reread and David gave me something he had written in frustration.  It was Charlie who wrote in A More Tolerant Future:

“I thought we had already fought this fight for a more tolerant future. I thought we fought it for these kids.  And here we are, almost five decades later, as I watch the innocence wash from their faces and see them wince at that peculiar stench of prejudice and intolerance in the air. I am heartbroken.”

And David shared some thoughts under the headline of “My Country: Embarrassment/Pride” (see below).

Here were two people I genuinely respect suggesting maybe we need to do some real country soul-searching where we look at ourselves in the mirror and say “are you pleased, or satisfied, with what you see?” Personally, I would suggest the answer is no <or, at minimum, some level of disappointment>. And with that I believe we should think about the changes needed to shift away from the land of the batshit crazy, hold ourselves accountable for the things that clearly need improving and address some of the ignorance which undergirds some of the issues we face.

And maybe it is the latter I take on today.

The batshit crazy clearly remain ignorant with regard to the real nuances of what is true and even what the constitution suggests/states. And maybe that is where I want to lean in. The batshit crazy have lost the plot, the narrative, the important aspects of truth and are dwelling in the land of platitudes. I have defended the Trump voter, I have defended the people who focus on the day-to-day grind and cannot be involved in governance & voting, but I struggle to defend true “patriotic laziness.” It is within that patriotic laziness, or intellectually laziness, or ‘learning laziness’, in which the batshit crazy thrives.

And I bring that in because there is a difference in today’s environment in the batshit craziness. There is truly an asymmetry between what one would construe as right-wing batshit crazy and leftwing batshit crazy. On the Left I struggle to find the real craziness; it just may be some misguided ideas within good intentions (healthcare for everyone is not batshit crazy and no one gets hurt). Antifa is not really “left”, it is anarchy supporting (and I actually struggle to completely dislike anyone who is anti-fascist). On the Right there is some batshit crazy stuff going on and, worse, supported in some form or fashion by politicians (or some loud media voices).

But let me be clear on a couple of things just for context.

“People will try to hold on when their world starts to tilt, they will grab onto whatever is in reach.”

The Sky So Heavy by Claire Zorn

First. The United States citizenry is always in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction. The ‘public perception’ that the country was headed in the right direction has only broken above 50% 4 times since measurement began. I believe the last time was when Biden was inaugurated, the majority of the country breathed a sigh of relief Trump was gone, and then we went back to being perpetually dissatisfied again. I would also note this is partially why polls for everyone look crappy today.

Second. Every generation feels like these are “the worst of times.” That’s what generational attitudes do. I speculate it is tied to my first point in that everyone either (a) sees progress as losing something of value or (b) sees the past in a rosier fashion than it really was.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.”

Immanuel Kant

Look. Generations will be generations. Old people will bitch about young people. Young people will bitch about old people. And the ‘bitches’ are pretty much the same things <maybe different words used> every time.

I offer this as context to state the depth & breadth of the existing batshit craziness is different, and worse, than the past. And, yeah, I can point some fingers. The first finger I will point to is the world wide web known as “the internet.” Social media naturally amplifies and social media platforms create amplification of the crazy. The batshit crazy of the past maybe huddled in wood huts with a few others mumbling about a world losing its way, citizen militia, whites losing influence and Jewish space lasers. The batshit crazy of the present shout day in and day out online and it echoes throughout an ambiguous world in which pieces of truth gain the gravity of whole truths. The second finger I will point to is politicians. They have found they can use portions of the batshit crazy in a self-serving way. In other words, politicians, who should be role models for what we should be and how to act, have elected to model the worst behavior – including some aspects of the batshit crazy – in order to, well, maintain their positions and power (and money). I would suggest 95+% of politicians act like what you would typically see in any high school in the USA, but that would be an insult to most high school youth.

Regardless.

The batshit crazy have found a voice, found a platform, and found some listeners. And, as with everything, all nuance gets lost and we fall into a deep dark crevasse of binary thinking, choices and beliefs. You are a patriot or you are not. You believe USA is exceptional, or not. You are a racist, or not. You support the military, or you don’t. It’s, well, crazy. And if it’s crazy, well, the batshit crazy will find it useful in spewing their batshit craziness. And none of us are better off when this happens. None of us. People get hurt, even physically, people divide for some fairly silly reasons and people increasingly get trapped in complex discussions and forced to make some simplistic choices/stands.

Look.

I am constantly disappointed with America, yet, simultaneously, constantly proud of America which makes it difficult to create a cogent view on America’s place in the world. America defies simplistic adjectives as it navigates an idealistic nation with grandiose vision and a practical reality that often doesn’t match up with either the ideals or the idealistic vision.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be patriotic, just not blindly so.

The truth is that it was because of some good fortune, in combination with some hard-earned achievements, we are tempted to think of ourselves as “exceptional”, and yet if we are honest, we would also have to admit quite a few “exceptional” failures. But that’s a backwards looking argument/discussion and instead I suggest getting to work solving the problems that prevent exceptionalism: growing inequality of wealth; unaffordable cost of higher education; the absurd level of energy consumption (and the wrong types); the ineffective healthcare system; the lingering effects of institutional racism; a business system inherently in love with Freidman instead of Drucker. Addressing any of those things does not mean we have sacrificed, or will sacrifice, the great contributions America offers day in and day out.

These are all important things but the batshit crazies most likely (a) can’t accept the nuance needed to address them, (b) attribute the flaws/failures to some nebulous enemy – communist democrats, deep state, anti-Americans, etc., (c) apply some alternative universe extrapolation of the Constitution to solve it or (d) create some simplistic patriotic narrative grounded in some distant past which we can never replicate (nor want to).

“… what I do loathe and fear is the decline in spiritual values. truthfulness is giving place to bigotry. Cruelty is replacing tolerance. And the sanctity of the individual is being blurred by mass emotions.”

Harold Nicholson, British statesman, 1945

Batshit crazies look backwards. Period. That is the common characteristic of all the crazy tribes. And while looking backwards almost always has too tidiness of inevitability to it, they always offer some simplistic tidy headline for craziness to rally around. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out life is untidy, people are untidy, society is untidy, and culture is not even close to tidy. Why would anyone think America is a tidy idea? And yet, batshit crazies try and convince us of some tidy alternative universe idea for anything that anyone could think of.

Let me say a couple things. A greedy, corrupt and aggressive America is a total waste of our human potential. The world is a complex place, America is a complex country, the American idea is complex, and while I do not believe people are becoming more ignorant, I do believe it takes a bit more work than many people are willing to invest to be less ignorant on some important things (and batshit crazy world counts on that). In addition. I believe it was Joseph Nye who said “Americans have a long history of worrying about their decline.” 1700’s Puritans lamented a fall from earlier virtue. The Founding Fathers worried that the America republic created might crumble like ancient Rome. And throughout history famous intellectuals have consistently suggested America is in a state of collapse, the economy is ailing or failing, our ‘power’ was diminished, democracy was broken and the end of “the American century” is always imminent.

All of those concepts are the batshit crazy’s reason for being.

Which leads me to some of David’s thoughts. Just ponder these non batshit crazy thoughts.

==========

MY COUNTRY

Embarrassment/Pride

—

Religion:  I live in a country where a large segment of the population believes they live in a Christian nation, and should be governed accordingly.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country whose founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment and believed religion was a personal matter.  I’m proud of that.  I live a country whose original laws neither mentioned Christianity or any other religion.  I’m proud of that.  I live in a country whose Constitution prohibits any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, “the free exercise of religion”, promotes any religion, is used as a political test, required as a qualification for any office or public trust, relied upon to make decisions regarding any aspect of the business of the country, or the daily lives of its citizens.  I’m proud of that.

Economy:  I live in a country where one political party believes the government’s budget is the equivalent of a household budget.  I’m embarrassed by that.  I live in a country where many continue to believe “Trickle-Down Economics” and balanced budgets lead to economic growth and prosperity for its citizens.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that invests in science, technology, and the arts, and like a corporation (or a household) incurs manageable debt to revenue ratios to achieve a better life for its citizens.  I’m proud of that.

Health:  I live in a country where almost one third of all adults are obese, the highest obesity rate in the world.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country with more world class athletes than any other country.  I’m proud of that.  I live in a country that has won more than twice as many Olympic gold medals than any other country. I’m proud of that.

Fossil Fuel:  I live in country where the fossil fuel and related industries spend billions of dollars to drill for oil and gas offshore and in our national parks, blighting the landscape with rigs and risking ecological damage.  I’m embarrassed by that.  I live in country where fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is vigorously pursued by myriad energy companies and, for the most part, only supported by their own science.  I’m embarrassed by that.  I live in a country where the occurrence of contaminated ground water, and seismic anomalies following fracking are deemed coincidence by the industry.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that has set aside a larger percent of its land and shoreline for parks and recreation that any other country in the world.  I’m proud of that.  I live a country that pledged it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28% over the next ten years.  I’m proud of that. I live in a country that has become energy independent, invested in clean energy innovation when the ROI looked dubious, and now can actually produce clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels and fracking. I am proud of that.

National Defense:  I live in a country that spends more on defense than any other country in the world.  In fact, I live in a country that spends as much on its military as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, India, and South Korea combined.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country where three sitting presidents have been awarded the Nobel prize for peace.  I’m proud of that.

Justice:  I live in a country where the President, Vice President, National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, CIA Director and many of their close associates lied to Congress, and the American people, to start and prosecute the Iraq war, but were not charged with a crime.  I live in a country where wealthy are treated differently by the legal system than the less wealthy. I’m embarrassed by that. I live in a country that produced Supreme Court Justices Earl Warren, Charles Evans Hughes, John Marshall, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  I’m proud of that.

Slavery:   I live in a country that practiced slavery for 87 years.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country whose President recognized that slavery was wrong and signed the Emancipation Proclamation on the first day of 1863. I’m proud of that.

Racism:  I live in a country where individual states enacted segregationist Jim Crow laws starting in the 1890’s and were enforced for 75 years.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and The Voting Rights of 1965. I’m proud of that.

Prison:  I live in a country that incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country where the rate of violent crime is declining.  I’m proud of that.

Education:  I live in country that that once led the world in educational achievement, but now ranks <too low> among other industrialized nations. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that is home to more of the best universities in world than any other country.  I’m proud of that.

Poverty:  I live in a country where almost 16 million children live in food insecure households.  In 37 states and the D.C. 20% or more live in food insecure households. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live a country that is the most charitable in the world. I’m proud of that.

Living Standard:  I live in a country where today’s minimum wage buys less than half of what it bought 25 years ago when the minimum wage was $3.90.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country whose president signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for all workers. I’m proud of that.

Healthcare:  I live in a country whose healthcare system ranks, well, last worldwide according to the World Health Organization.  I’m embarrassed by that. I live a country that has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but ranks last among 11 industrialized nations including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom for healthcare outcomes. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in country that invented Pneumovax, Tetracycline, and Streptomycin, the polio vaccine, the Covid vaccine and led the mapping of the human genome. I’m proud of that.

Education:  I live in a country where a large percent of the population reviles intellectual curiosity and critical thinking. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that has won 339 Nobel Prizes, almost three times more than any other country—Medicine 98, Physics 88, Chemistry 67, Economics 54, Peace 21, Literature 11. I’m proud of that.

Banking:  I live in a country where the heads of the financial institutions that were the primary cause of “The Great Recession” we’re not prosecuted let alone jailed. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in country where key executives of the largest financial institutions–Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Lazard—are paid large bonuses if they leave for high level government positions. I’m embarrassed by that.

Economics:  I live in a country where there are politicians, citizens and some economists who think lowering taxes on “job creators” would actually create jobs.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that on average is creating more than a quarter million new jobs every month.  I’m proud of that.

Big Tobacco:  I live in country where the heads of the leading cigarette manufacturing companies lied under oath to Congress about the dangers of smoking and were never prosecuted even though millions became gravely ill or died.  I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that 45 years ago banned radio and TV cigarette advertising and mandated all packaging, labeling, other forms of advertising and promotion must include prominent warnings about the dangers of smoking.  I’m proud of that.

Infrastructure:  I live a country that worldwide ranks 13^th in quality of infrastructure.  I’m embarrassed by that. I live in a country where 11% of its bridges are “structurally deficient”.  I’m embarrassed by that. I live in country that hasn’t raised the federal 18.5 cents a gallon gasoline tax in over twenty years. I’m embarrassed by that.

I live in a country that built the transcontinental railroad and the Interstate Highway system.  I’m proud of that.

Exceptionalism:  I live a country where the idea of its exceptionalism has been co-opted by a large number of its citizens to be synonymous with economic, military, religious and historical superiority.  I’m embarrassed by that.  I live a country where a large number of its citizens are so committed to the idea of exceptionalism, they knowingly accept revisionist versions of the Nation’s history. I’m embarrassed by that.

All Said And Done:  I live in a country where the majority of its citizens recognize the nation is not perfect, are embarrassed by its flaws — past and present – but proudly applaud all that is just and right about where they live.

(well said, David)

Back to my words …

In the end I don’t believe America is the land of the racist, or the batshit crazy or even the ignorant. I do believe we have racists, batshit crazy people and ignorant people, but they are not the majority no matter how loud they shout. They are a minority and the majority can invigorate the progress the country needs – if it elects to.

In the end this isn’t about exceptionalism nor is it about achievements, it’s about people and perceptions. Its about whether the future of the country should be dictated by the batshit crazy. And when I say “dictated” that could mean someone actually be elected into a position of power to subvert America to the batshit crazy desires or it could simply be a large enough batshit craziness that puts enough barnacles on the America ship to slow progress to a mind-numbing stagnant plod.

In the end I would remind everyone of some thoughts about what America considers the greatest generation – the Lost Generation. During the First World War, the alleged stupidity of American youth became a raging issue when IQ tests indicated that half of all draftees had a mental age of under twelve. After the First World War their morals came under attack from the older generation. During the Depression, they were called “a generation of self-seekers” for wrecking “the temple of our civilization,” and throughout the 1930s were attacked as ‘nay-sayers’, “Irresponsibles,” and (as war approached) “isolationists.” And this was with what we often refer to as the greatest generation.

In the end we need to get a grip on the batshit crazy and craziness because, well, I struggle to believe anyone can be proud of “land of the racist; land of the batshit crazy; land of the proudly ignorant.” We need to disincentivize being batshit crazy and relegate the batshit crazy to the wooden huts of old and let them mumble amongst themselves while the rest of us thrive in reality. And then we, the non-batshit crazy, need to refind the ‘plot’ and recraft the narrative – for the good of America. Ponder.

“Modern society has no single designer nor an overall, coherent design. There are multiple sources of organizing principles, rules and policies, many of which compete with and contradict one another. The pressures for change are many and varied. Diverse rulemaking groups and institutions pursue their own particular interests, visions, and modes of knowledge development. Coordination and integration among different rulemaking processes, and the agents involved, tends to be weak. We refer to this condition as structural incoherence.”

Tom Burns and Helena Flam

===

“What has been lacking in the 20th century is a central cultural thought that would unify all these things – economy, technology, ecology, society, matter, mind, and spirituality.”

Nan Huai-Chin

“But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

1984

I would argue 95+% of issues arise from having a lack of unifying vision, i.e., something that encompasses economy, technology, ecology, society/community, matter, mind, and spirituality. I apply this thought to individuals, governments  (governing forces), society and businesses.  The reality is most people, businesses and even government focus on a part believing fixing that part will attain not only that objective, but (hopefully) all the other parts. Uhm. Hope is not a strategy. Maybe its we have convinced ourselves to ‘do one thing at a time’ to the detriment of having one vision to rule all the parts when we want to focus on the part.’ This is lack of understanding systems thinking, but that is another discussion for another day.

That said. Let me get to a central unifying vision of the future. I have written about civic professionalism in the business world and this is most likely an extension of that thinking in that everyone should have a sense of equilibrium between I & We – a civil mindset – in order to maintain a civil society.  To be clear, Society isn’t a ‘thing’, its people – people organized into groups and groupings, connected and disconnected and, well, sharing and not sharing. Business is the same thing. But let’s get to sharing and shared. Any construct in any of these things I am discussing demands that there is something holding the people together, a sense of community, a sense of fulfilling a vision, or sense of something, that implies ‘together.’ I could argue this is the reason everyone mentally ‘holds’ that suggests why we SHOULD belong to the same community or society. Without that there is little hope of a cohesive and sustainable institution (institution being home, community, business or society). This has evolved, societally, over time as civilization expanded beyond tribes and villages. Most typically we could point to shared religion as what was used to maintain a modicum of social coherence. But with the transition to modern countries and nation states with defined borders and larger populations, it became increasingly important that people share similar cultural touchstones, i.e., self-defined human boundaries within globally accepted geographic boundaries. Some shared collective agreement was needed to ensure peaceful and productive relations between different classes and different culturally backgrounds who now lived side-by-side in broad swaths of geography within one nation. In other words, we needed some agreements in order to have a productive civil society where people could organize and act together in pursuit of shared interests, purposes and objectives. With that vision and vague outlines of collective community spirit, citizens can organize themselves in ways that embrace ‘tribe identities’ and, yet, embrace the collective identity. Interestingly this concept embodies a sense of shared destiny. Maybe that’s my point, a unifying vision enhances the possibilities of a shared desired destiny.

Which leads me to the role of media.

The challenges to attaining a shared vision, and a shared desired destiny, has changed over time. National newspapers, network TV, public Radio, all increased national literacy, shared enough information to raise the general knowledge base of the citizenry and gave them access to a national identity narrative. During that time, it may have stifled dissenting views, but it also permitted a unifying vision to prosper. And while we can debate the positives and negatives of limited media choice, the reality was media had to make choices in what they shared and as with anyone forced to make choices, the extreme, the fringe, the outlandish, were sacrificed so that a moderate and mainstream narrative could be shared. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out mainstream is typically indicative of common beliefs, attitudes, wisdom, an indicative of some basic shared identity and shared ambitions. It’s not that media was wrong at that point; they were just reflective of the average or maybe the median of citizens. Media was neither rigid nor exclusive, but certainly offered a clarity from which every person could begin to craft their own belief system. On the other hand, today’s fragmented media has shattered all of that which makes most of us susceptible to more simplistic ideas like patriotism or nationalism which are frankly simply cheap substitutes for a richer unifying vision. In the end you would like the total media landscape to weave a comfortable blanket in which everyone can wrap themselves in a shared national identity a shared destiny and everyone should feel as equal participants in a democratic society.

Which leads me to the entropy of identity.

There’s a relationship between identity and media. First media has, and does, establish some aspects of peer to peer citizenry. Just as it became harder to tolerate racism as TV shared civil rights intolerance issues are viewed differently when people view others not being treated equally when they believe equal treatment is deserved. This gets a bit trickier in today’s world where identity is barraged with “this is what you should have” or “this is what is being taken from you” messaging. The former feeds into a sense of injustice and the latter feeds into a sense of despair, i.e., things lost. This means a unifying vision is faced with a more fragmented society and one in which shared identities are a bit more difficult to find. I would suggest that our survival and certainly our future thriving is almost dependent upon the need to find some unifying vision where people see themselves and see their future reside. I say survival thinking of the Yeats line from The Second Coming “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” In order to fight entropy our relations with one another will need to be of a much higher quality than what is typical today. Our future society depends on a community spirit and higher levels of collective interest and a healthy shared identity. The future will not be found in some elite group who subtly nudge and shape us, but rather a free, open exchange of ideas, within a shared vision, about how citizens want to shape the conditions for prosperous functional society to thrive.

“That organized social intelligence could shape society.”

John Dewey

 Which leads me to organized social intelligence.

Organized social intelligence is a double-edged sword – it can encourage tighter shapes (entropy), or expansive reshaping (evolving). This is a really important idea to those who seek to shape because whatever they deem is essential to social identity they will seek to strip as much context and interpretation as possible. Circling back to media, media does its own version of this. It simultaneously provides conflicting context analysis analogies and identity memes stripped of context. For example. The MAGA movement appropriated the American flag under the simplistic guise of patriotism, and endlessly covered by television, to such an extent non-MAGA people declined to showcase the flag as much and got trapped in never ending debates over what patriotism is (against a simplistic version). Beyond that example, not only has identity been dumbed down in today’s society, but it is actually creating obstacles to the positive aspects of organized social intelligence. Anyway. I applaud anyone who doesn’t think simplistically and embraces nuance because any unifying vision is only as successful as the coherence of nuances supporting it. That said. The flow of progress always has some directionality and yet is fundamentally open-ended in its potentiality, yet, while things have directionality, if we are not active, if not bold in our desired state, entropy will win. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out entropy is found within the principles of autopoiesis — things degrade and fall apart, and negative entropy, i.e., it is the falling apart which makes life possible. In other words, entropy is a characteristic of Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. I’m not suggesting entropy inevitably leads to social deconstruction, ok, guess I am, and social destruction fragments organized social intelligence into tighter knit networks.

Which leads me to why people ‘networks’ thrive within a unifying vision.

I could simply say that self-organizing groups, with a shared ambition and shared vision, is the engine for any type of organization let alone an entire nation. It’s easier to say self-organized groups are critical to the success and progress with a unifying vision. That said. The main difference between ecological networks of nature and corporate networks of human society is that in an ecosystem nothing is excluded from the network. Conversely, many segments of a population are excluded from sociological networks. We thought technology would enable no exclusion creating broader social networks, but instead it encouraged self-sealing belief system networks. And maybe to be a little bit more precise we have found the technological divide in the separation between self and other as it enhanced social divides. As a society we seem to be having a number of different conflicts – socioeconomic, geopolitical, cultural, meaning, mattering, spiritual – as well as a fundamental conflict between self and selves. We have lost the ability to cultivate dialog. I believe it was Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who said “at its essence dialog involves a collective shift of attention from politeness to conflict, from conflict to inquiry, and from inquiry to generative flow.” Technology, oddly has stunted dialogue while we had always envisioned it would enhance dialog. I would argue the main way it has done so is in how it is fragmented our past so that the past has become a mosh pit of squabbling conflicts unless a shared understanding. This may sound counterintuitive given I am discussing a unifying vision of the future, but the past offers the lily pads of foundational underpinnings from which the future can be defined. In other words, because we typically understand society through the lens of past societies (as well as everything else) if we can’t ‘see’ the past, we cannot see the future. From there that common ‘memory,’ which is important for sensemaking and decision-making, is typically transmitted primarily through popular culture which is primarily transmitted through popular media (social media included). Popular culture is not bad, but it does distort our vision and it certainly challenges any clarity of a unifying vision.

Which leads me to say any unifying vision is less about words then it is about experiences.

Yeah. I experience; therefore I am. This means that moving from thinking to sensing demands having an effective reflective attitude on truth and belief. It is about an orientation and knowledge, but, ultimately, it is about the relationship between the self as an individual and the world as a collective. This means that experiences like stress, threat, increased complexity, urgency, can increase the individual need for certainty, in other words, avoidance of uncertainty. All of the things that I just listed create a cognitive downshift into more survival aspects of our mind and actually inhibit reflective thinking skills. The human mind inherently wants to pull the disparate the many and the diverse into unifying whole or simplistically speaking to achieve some level of simplicity or a general concept to rule which permits the mind to rest and what could be perceived as the center of things. The challenge in that is that once arriving at that general concept and resting space that center can embrace many things into that circle of unity including things that really don’t belong. What’s a bit worse is that adaptability is constrained when there is an individualist mental model and even a unifying vision can become a rigid list of characteristics and things to do.

“She felt a cozy solidarity with the big company of the voluntary dead.”

Dorothy Parker

 Which leads me to end where I began – parts versus the whole.

Without a unifying vision we end up falling back to self, self-interest, and specific plans of action against specific objectives – like economy, technology, ecology, society, matter, mind, and spirituality. And by focusing on the parts, we lose the probability to positively effect the whole. Even worse, the individual parts fly off the center, the centre does not hold, and, well, anarchy is loosed upon the world. and while it may not truly be anarchy it will feel like anarchy and, as noted above, I experience; therefore I am. None of that has to happen if we can only define a unifying vision and we all can envision a shared destiny. From there the future is what we will make of it – together. Ponder.

===

 “… Trump is a “guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar”

David Brooks

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

“This fundamentally boils down to character, and his character is rotten. He’s a narcissist who happens to have taken control of the Republican party. There’s some areas where he agrees with party orthodoxy, and some where he doesn’t. But his only doctrine is: whatever is good for Donald Trump is good for the country. When he goes down – and he will go down, at some point – one of the things that will be striking is just how quickly members of Congress will turn on him.”

Eliot Cohen, former state department counsellor to secretary of state Condoleezza Rice

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

“Ultimately, Trump is not dangerous because he is immoral, but because he is amoral. Trump has already bought into the system entirely. He is as vacuous a candidate as there can be, giving no thought to the moral questions and the theological issues that underpin those questions. He doesn’t care about who he hurts or what philosophy he takes, as long as it gains him power. He is an antichrist not because he is explicitly evil, shouting and screaming against God, but because he disregards God and morality all together.”

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

So. With some new polling coming out in the USA suggesting voters in some key states think Biden is too old and a Trump administration would be better for the economy than the Biden administration, I thought I would remind everyone how horrible Trump is, and was as a president. I will set aside the age issue because even though I would prefer a younger president its not like we are choosing between 2 spring chickens. And as for the economy, that perception is just nuts.

What isn’t nuts is just how horrible Trump is – as a person, a president, a leader and even a nation decisionmaker. Trump is a divider, he is a fierce destroyer of systems and institutions (and even results and outcomes), and consistently lies (about everything). Worse, he consistently plays to the nation’s fears, not its hopes. Trump is dangerous on so many economic, societal & cultural levels its disturbing. All that said maybe the most dangerous is he has bludgeoned our senses so much that many of us have become numb to Trump and his amorality. A significant portion of us have normalized the non-normal behavior under a “it is what it is and will not change.” And this is partially driven by the fact we are tired. Not tired of news coverage, but just tired of having to deal with the amoral incessant simplistic drivel he offers. And its even more tiring to think we need to fight this battle one more time in another election cycle. That said. In all of this tiredness society has permitted the majority of people to reside in a world of amoral relativism despite the fact they are actually quite moral. We have learned to straddle a world in which there are two moral universes and one universe is grounded in reality and the other is grounded in perceptions. The paradox is that Trump speaks in absolutes with total disregard to reality. His absolutes speak to the perceptions of a minority – a passionate minority.

Which leads me to the consequence of relativism – exception acceptance.

Everything is imperfect, but Trump has made being grossly imperfect a relative argument. The moderate Republican finds themselves saying things like “I find myself saying there are some conservative things I like but ….” Ah. “But-ism.” The idea is that “well, maybe he is imperfectly okay (which is reflective of the world in totality).” He offers this idea to undermine institutions, but it is the basis for his existence. This is not ‘what-aboutism’; this is exception acceptance. And once he puts us on the slippery slope of exceptions it cascades into a debate on what % of good is necessary to make it all okay. He creates a scenario in which there is no good or bad which enable him to suggest he is ‘good.’ This also reflects his view of “winning.”, i.e., there is no perfect way to win so don’t judge me on how I (or we) win. Suggest what is possible, not probable. This is what every conspiracy theorist does, but Trump resides solely in “possibilities not probabilities” which forces all of us to discuss everything in degrees, nuances & complexity. We do this in a world which craves simplicity. He forces us to frame off of ‘what could be possible’ rather than “let’s deal in probabilities.” He wins as soon as we offer up “the possibility of bias exists” because as soon as we admit the possibility of existence – it exists. This kills the idea that two things can exist at the same time like:

• “I can think something, have some specific beliefs, but I can still do my job.”

• “It is quite possible MSNBC is biased, but it is more probable they care about the truth.”

Anyway. He treats “what if”, i.e., exceptions, as absolutism and we debate degrees & relativism, all compounded by the fact he banks on the fact we have had it pounded into our heads that “if it is not simple it is wrong (or someone is lying).” His amorality deserves no exception relativism. It takes no exaggeration to make that point.

Which leads me to Healthy narcissism versus being a narcissistic asshat.

The difference between healthy and asshat is usually found in someone’s ‘devoid-ness.’ And Trump is devoid of … well … he is devoid. To be clear. I fully recognize some people like his bluster and bloviated sense of self. They view it as confidence; not a con man. But let’s just agree that is horrible for a leader of a country. But back to that distinction between healthy and asshat. Craig Malkin, a clinical psychologist and lecturer for Harvard medical school, suggests a Healthy narcissism is a trait that all of us carry: the drive to feel special or unique.

“In fact, people with a healthy dose of narcissism are happier, more optimistic and consistently confident than people at the low end of the spectrum”

Pathological, malignant, or asshat narcissism begins “when people become so addicted to feeling special that, just like with any drug, they’ll do anything to get their ‘high.’” Uhm.

“Now, you know, I was a good student. I always hear about the elite. You know, the elite. They’re elite? I went to better schools than they did. I was a better student than they were. I live in a bigger, more beautiful apartment, and I live in the White House, too, which is really great.”

Trump talking about himself

Trump is a narcissistic asshat who thrives on being adored AND hated. Always remember this fundamental truth about Trump: – he has always felt like the guy on the outside looking in, the guy people wouldn’t accept in their social circles and wouldn’t let into their club. Stuffing it in all of their faces is the motivation for everything in his life. His unhealthy narcissism is one driven of amoral vengeance. That amorality, and vengeance, means his legal boundaries are crooked, at best, and nonexistent, at worst. That said. The question isn’t whether Trump is a crook. The question is: What kind of crook is he? Well. An amoral one for sure.

Which leads me to a crooked version of leading.

There is a bunch I can say about having an amoral leader <one I actually called “fighting for the soul of America”> but for today what I would suggest is that it will inevitably lead to leading from behind which in Trump’s case was having a transactional relationship with the world. Obama always got crapped on for leading behind, but listening to Trump and watching some of the ‘deals’ he built he offered a different version of leading from behind – values do not matter, i.e., if you can pay, we will play. That is non-leadership leadership. This is ceding the ability to guide through power relationships, but rather simply make everything transactional. This cedes bending the arc of things to the benefit of a country, and its people, and empties everything (amorally) into dollars & cents. Simplistically his leadership was “we will provide whoever wants our arms & support <if you will pay for it>” and “we don’t want to fight but we will supply you so that you can fight.”  It is a hollow America standing behind anyone who wants to pay for our support. Our criteria beyond money? Appearance of global security. In other words … we support any global conflict under the guise of if we support it well it will end faster <and peace arrives faster>. We don’t carry the stain of intervention and yet gain the short term economic fruits.

He almost seems to believe that by standing behind he will be able to assess the pieces as they fall and gather up the ones he wants. And, yes, I wrote standing behind because this is not a leadership position; this is an opportunistic position. He seems to seek an opportunistic global strategy. In his amoral naïve approach others used him for their own gains and the world splintered using American resources to do so.  Needless to say, we are now paying the piper for that attitude and policy attitude.

On a grander note it is relatively easy to see that America, under Trump, ceded its position as global leader. Circling back to the polls I mentioned upfront, it’s almost like people are oblivious to the fact that he is the one who created the issues we are dealing with at the moment.

Which leads me to remind everyone Trump is a racist.

I have one friend who adamantly believes Trump is not a racist and that he “treats everyone equally horrible.” That’s nuts. That is actually relativism. Taken in isolation Trump is racist. And all you have to do is look to who gravitates to him. As I have stated time and time again, not all who are in the Trump cult are racist, but all racist people are in the Trump cult. Racism or not let’s call it Trump driven white victimhood <which is an extension of his belief he is always the victim>.

————–

“It’s about the white middle class—we have not been represented, and the only way we are going to get representation is if Donald Trump is our next president.

We’re treated like the minority, even though there are more of us.”

A Trump Follower

—-

Trump is a less bigoted version of Obama. His crime is being white.”

A Trump follower

—-

Ah. Trump and that “white thing.” 85% agreed that “America has lost its identity.” This is the group who hyperventilates over any hyphenated ethnic-Americans. They want, no demand, genuine Americans with no hyphens. They struggle to believe someone could be loyal to both American and their native ethnic culture.  It is this basic principle Trump has given voice to <under the guise of political correctness>.  In their belief, America must become culturally and politically a White, Anglo Saxon Christian (WASP) nation again. Simplistically he is shouting that America needs to put the interests of the white working classes first. Trump sees ‘victim’ as ‘white warrior.’ Uhm. That’s racism.

Trump fits the Archie Bunker archetype of “lovable bigot.” His racism signals authenticity and a willingness to tell “hard truths” to white Americans. Yeah. Not only is Trump amoral, he is also a racist.

——

“The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission.”

Peter F. Drucker

Which leads me to remind everyone what the world looked like when Trump was president.

Ah. Remember those heady days of angst, turmoil, tweets and general twattery? Everyday he was shouting into cameras what we were supposed to be thinking.

• The economy was the best ever! (it was no better than Obama’s). immigration control is stronger than ever! (all they did was hold them in Mexico and separate parents and children – and lost track of them).
• The military is strongest ever! (he pardoned amoral behavior of some military opposite what military standards desire).
• USA has never been more respected around the world! (every country’s faith in America plummeted – except Russia and Israel).

It was simplistic bloviating drivel where the louder he shouted, and the more confident he sounded, the more reality stood in proof that, objectively, what he was saying was absurd and just an alternative version of reality.

During that period, I wrote this:

• I vaguely remember when the USA was leading the world intellectually and policy wise.
• I vaguely remember a world in which the rest of the world may have occasionally mocked America for its sense of hubris but didn’t mock the country for its idiocy.
• I vaguely remember that global leadership didn’t take on the banal hues of a high school.

Trump was rude and crude and scary. He was intent on destroying anything he could get his hands on – the legal system, norms, foreign relationships and even the global economy. He was transparent  – transparently dumb, transparently ignorant, transparently a liar.

He didn’t make USA safer, didn’t make the world safer, didn’t make the USA more economically sound (but kind of encouraged the rest of the world be to be more economically sound), subsidized businesses to cloak his horrible business policies and managed the country’s finances like he did his businesses (he actually made a casino bankrupt). He is a horrible amoral man and he was a horrible amoral president heading up a horribly inept amoral cabinet only putting the country into a horrible position for the future. but, hey, some people will still vote for him. So maybe the sane rest of us should remember how horrible he was and get out and make him lose again. Ponder. Seriously Ponder.

“For better or worse business invites you to remake it, to consolidate it into a shape you can live in. You too can decide who you are and the business will again assume a fixed form around you. Decide what it is in your own identity will be revealed like a map fixed by triangulation. Businesses are quite like cities, and unlike villages and small towns, in that they are plastic by nature. We mold them in our images and they in their turn shape us by the resistance they offer when we try to impose our own personal form of them.”

Jonathan Raban

===

The world’s locked up in your head

You’ve been pouring in a concrete bed

Nada Surf

====

This is a companion piece to “the flattening of people and society.” The term ‘depthlessness’ actually comes from Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson. Jameson suggests “depthlessness” is defined by the postmodernism’s refusal of depth and focus on surface. In other words, things are superficial and have no depth beyond what is displayed on the surface, i.e., we reside in a world of superficiality. Tie this to Jean Baudrillard’s claim postmodernity was defined by a shift into hyperreality in which simulations replace the real and we are officially off to the societal race where representations replace reality. In fact it was Baudrillard who suggested we would be reaching a point where reality was replaced by false images to the level where most in society cannot distinguish between the real and the unreal. Twisting his thinking a bit what I would suggest is reality takes work to really see. What I mean by that is (using his word) representation in what we see day in and day out and, in today’s world, phone alert by phone alert, only reflects a superficial representation of reality. It has little, or no, depth.

Which leads me to that ‘depthlessness’ thing.

We often discuss a need for ‘instant gratification’ or even just the fear of missing out all of which encourages an overall lack of depth. I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest this depthlessness seems to have pervaded society and rhetoric and it has some inherent dangers. One of those dangers is loss of control. Without depth we all end up skating on the superficial surface of the mostly meaningless. Therefore, even what we would consider deep and considered decisions really are not anchored in anything deeper than anything else that other people are thinking. I believe it was Charles Newman in the New York Times, sometime in the 1980s, who said “the flattest possible characters in the flattest possible landscapes rendered in the flattest possible diction.” Flat or depthlessness all I know is the collapse of substance and thinking and of anything that could be construed as long term, combined with a preoccupation with the instantaneous, has created an emphasis on everything with lack of depth. The circling back to ‘control,’ this not only increases a sense of diminishing control it, literally, does create a loss of true individual autonomy and helplessness, i.e., control. It is within this depthlessness recurrent larger issues, some would call the meta crisis, wallow. Without depth we not only cannot understand but certainly cannot come up with any meaningful solutions and, therefore, our depthlessness has created a lack of control over issues.

Which leads me to suggest this has nothing to do with postmodernism and more to do with people, culture and sucking at critical thinking.

I’m neither a philosopher or sociologist so I’m not qualified to talk about what post modernism is or is not. For today though I believe I can talk about depthlessness in terms of technosocialism. What I mean by that for decades there have been discussions on whether technology drives society or society drives technology. Personally, I find the argument unimportant. They weave together like an intricate dance. That said. Technology has amplified flattening. Deathlessness may be a feature or characteristic of postmodernism, but what I would actually argue is from a societal standpoint it is a characteristic of people. What I mean by that is as things become more complex and complicated and fragmented, people will feel significantly more comfortable on the superficial level. And I believe everyone could agree that technology has certainly made the information world more complex, more complicated, and more fragmented.

“We erect our structure and imagination before we erect it in reality.”

Marx

We have always felt more comfortable with binaries and we have always felt more comfortable when what we imagined appeared to relate to reality. Things get a bit tricky here because both binaries and imagination thrive, or reside on contradictions to reality. It is easy to say, for example, ‘things were better back then” and the reality is “things are better now” and both things can be, simultaneously, true. It is a contradiction, even theoretically in conflict, and, yet, uncomfortably, both can be true. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that it’s the exploration of contradiction which tends to lie at the heart of all original thought as well as the heart of truth. It is within that exploration where we find the power to improvise. Shaped not only by imagination, but by experience, exploration of ‘what could be’ uncovers an almost endless ability (mentally) to test the limits of what history (the past) may have suggested is not only probable but possible. This is kind of important with regard to this depthlessness thing because inevitably a society will have people who imagine and people who don’t. It is somewhere within the space between which leads to progress, leads to cultural touchstones and the exploration of simultaneous newand permanence. Where depthlessness becomes an issue is when this becomes a conflict between two worlds of people, the depth and the depthlessness, who process similar information, but envision different future possibilities. To be clear. They can simultaneously have the same set of ‘values’ and yet envision an entirely different future state. Anyhoo. I once scribbled down the phrase this is what precisely defines the common experience. Common experience is found not in the commonality, but within the differences.

Everyone’s right and no one is sorry

That’s the start and the end of the story

From the Sharks and the Jets to the call in the morning

And life is just bets anyway

Nada Surf

Interestingly, we have having this conflict when discussing technology – LLMs to be specific. Reality and hallucinations. The machines, not really understanding the depth of any specific topic, will ‘hallucinate’ and create some alternative reality. We could even stretch this concept to human vision. Within the complexity of the eye we make up most of what we see and the components within the eye ‘predict’ the image we see.  Uhm, hallucination. Regardless, we use a lot of implicit knowledge about the world and how the world works to understand shit and depthlessness simply amplifies the likelihood of ‘not seeing’ some important shit..

Which leads me to This depthlessness reaches into the bowels of society.

What I mean by that is that it affects how individual people citizens think about some very important issues. Or maybe I should say how we don’t think about some very important issues. Whether we wanna use the complexity of everyday life as an excuse or not, the truth is the majority of people skate along the superficial surface of irrelevant data and information. For example, an important issue like the economy loses any depth as people simplistically suggest things were better than or, specifically, the economy was better for me during the Trump Administration than it Is now. Better is defined on a superficial level based on some individual things important to the individual. This isn’t to suggest that the benefit to “I” is not an important issue; just that it lacks depth. The reality is that pre-covid, at least in the United States, the government used every trick and tactic to prop up the economy for the everyday person despite some horrible policies which affected the depth, resilience, and strength of the economy. Superficially, on the surface, the duck was paddling along quite effectively, but underneath in the depths of the pond the bacteria were growing and the pond scum was rising to the top. Horrible metaphor or not, it’s an example of depthlessness. It ends up being part reality and part hallucination in society.

• ** note: I am happy to go, in depth, on the economy precovid, covid, and postcovid, at a different time. I am simply making a point on depthlessness today.

Climate and clean energy would be another incredibly important topic which most everyday people approach with depthlessness. While the powers are certainly against us understanding the depth of the issues, I would argue that exploring the depths of this particular issue is a fairly dark place. Most sane people avoid dark places. The problem is today’s corporate-dominated global capitalist system is incapable of protecting us from the ecological consequences of our current way of life which are essentially locked in by the interlocking network of business institutions imposing their will against society. Don’t believe me? Well. The young people, who still are open to exploring depth and haven’t completely fell under the sway of the Will of Institutions, know that climate change is upon us and accelerating, and that they and their descendants will disproportionately bear its escalating burdens long after the people who got us into this mess are gone. Regardless. The embrace of depthlessness permits this entire discussion to reside in a conflict of superficiality.

While I am going to move on to business, let me lastly state here, we must recognize that the damage being done to our world is not the result of natural evolution or the natural arc of history; it is the result of system policies, the system’s wealthy and powerful, and the system’s institutions, supported by those of us who tolerate or, worse, accept, this system. If we explore the depths of the issue, and the system, we can, well, design a new system.

Which leads me to business, the ‘institutions’, culpable to depthlessness.

Shorttermerism is actually grounded in depthlessness, but I would argue the worst offender of depthlessness is actually business leadership. One of my most popular writings, ‘the hollowing out of business by one generation,’ which outlines depthtlessness without ever really referring to depthlessness. Business leaders found it was to their own personal benefit to have the everyday employee skating along the superficial surface of data, information, objectives, KPIs, and milestones.

I think I wrote this today because I rub elbows with some fairly nerdy intellectual people and within some discussion on postmodernism and post-postmodernism (I told you it can be nerdy) it occurred to me this really wasn’t some sociological, or philosophical, ‘deep discussion,’ but rather depthlessness was a control mechanism by leadership and a short cut to encourage some specific objectives and more a reflection of a system imposing its will rather than some intellectual society decision. I started noodling the thought that depthlessness was simply a feature, or characteristic, of some version of Taylorism which, as I have argued a number of times, is not just a business ideology but has become a societal ideology. Yeah. I began thinking that depthlessness was an, uhm, ideology. That isn’t to say it isn’t an individual choice or mindset, but rather if we, as individuals, want to explore more depth and substance on some really really important issues than we, as individuals, probably have to make the decision to shed the shackles of an ideology to dissolve the hallucinations. Or, circling back to one of my opening quotes, we need to break up the concrete bed we poured for ourselves. Ponder.

==

“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.

===

“If the world isn’t sane, technology will not solve it.”

Jaron Lanier

===

“The new technology mimes the prime procedure of human learning and knowing.”

Marshall McLuhan 1968

===

The title of this piece is a play on Kevin Kelly’s book “What Technology Wants.” The alternative title to this piece was I thought a lot of wrong good things.

When technology first arrived on the scene, particularly in terms of ubiquitous networks, social media, emails, anything internet based, I felt like many problems would be solved, civilization would just get smarter, we would make better societal decisions, and the world would just become a better place. I never believed that everything would be solved and we would attain some utopia, but like many of us, I was envisioning a better world because of this ubiquitous technology. And while many things have improved, and certainly foundationally, we still have the opportunity to significantly improve globally and societally, some things have certainly gone wrong. In many cases very wrong. I’m not sure I got the following things wrong, but I certainly overlooked what could affect the arc of the goodness. So, to paraphrase Marshall Mcluhan, let’s now take a quick tour of the walls knocked over by technology.

The first thing I can point to is money. Somehow, I seem to forget that, well, ideas are usually beneficiary agnostic and typically created with a specific benefit in mind that the people who use them will seek to make money from those ideas. So, inevitably what happens is the sincerely good ideas for society that cannot make somebody significant wealth may not completely go away, but they certainly do not end up at the forefront. Therefore, the other ideas, regardless of whether they’re good for society or not, are wielded as tools of gaining wealth. And as we all know wealth is amoral. It does not care how you attain it. I’m not sure that I’m naïve, or was naïve, I think I felt like technology itself, and maybe even ideas, had more power than humans. I think this point alone should remind all of us that the future really is not about technology, the future is in the heads and the minds of humans.

The second thing I got wrong was most likely driven by the fact that I am not a technology person despite the fact I talk about how technology affects society, humans, progress, and economics. I did know the technology would be subverted into economic endeavors. It made sense to me mostly because I felt like many of the tools that were being developed could navigate the efficacy path and actually improve communication, work and information flow. But, as I pointed out in the first thing, as soon as technology enters into the economic sphere money subverts its use towards, well, money. But that’s not the point of the second thing I was wrong about. I thought that the knowledge evenly distributed, and information evenly distributed, would make the intellectual tide rise higher. And as intellectual tide rose we would, generally speaking, have better sensemaking skills, we would make better choices, and some of the better things for society would just become more obvious to more people. I’m not suggesting that I felt or believed that technology would make democracy ubiquitous across the globe, but I did feel regardless of an individual country’s ideology, within those constructs, better decisions and better choices would be made. The world would not be perfect, but it would certainly be better. My lack of understanding of technology itself and algorithms and what we now call artificial intelligence bit me in the ass on this one. Information was never evenly distributed and, in fact, incorrect information tended to be more amplified and distributed. And, worse, I didn’t recognize incorrect information absorbed would become an attractor for technology to actually feed more incorrect information to anyone who initially absorbed the former. And while I’m a student of Alvin Toffler, and I clearly understood his point of view with regard to cognitive overstimulation, I imagine I did not see his point with true clarity until reality struck. The reality that the ubiquitous information machine was just simply too overwhelming for almost everyone’s brains to cognitively to assimilate in any useful way in addition to the fact technology wasn’t going to help us along the way. I never envisioned technology would step in and amplify a significant number of incredibly crazy stuff which created the cloud over the incredibly non crazy smarter stuff which would have made a better society.

The third thing I missed was how innovation relentlessly pursued incremental consumer quasi-improvements and wants instead of actual needs. Yeah. At the core of this is of course making money. That said. I imagine I focused too much on the potential good things rather than the sheer quantity of the less-than-useful versus not-the-best-but-good. Technology innovations tended to be incremental, asymmetrical, and relentless. Their work was not done in giant leaps, but in relentless, small, almost unnoticeable, increments. Platforms were developed to absorb the onslaught of new technological widgets, but even the platforms became overwhelmed. Maybe that is one of my points. If the technologists were incapable of figuring out how to manage technological innovations, what chance did the everyday human have? As a subset in this was how I didn’t envision the speed of obsolescence. What I mean by that is in the race to get things to market even the really good things technology did and offered became obsolete in the blink of an eye. Because most of the technology was actually incremental it became incredibly easy to make them obsolete with other incremental improvements. This had cascading consequences on both business and people. Business, once they had made a financial commitment, their commitment was for the most part unmoving. Their commitments, for the most part, couldn’t easily absorb the new innovations so they simply, pragmatically, accepted where they were as an improvement from where they had been. They had to accept better, but not the best, all the while wallowing in the anxiety that someone, somewhere, was better. As for people, once they learned something, there was something else they had to learn – at speed. There was no time to develop an integrated routine. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all of this is good things happening, i.e., truly better technology – with some bad consequences. Asymmetrical adoption, inconsistent application, shifting foundational knowledge, it was almost like quicksand of general cognitive stress and anxiety that we were always behind. My point is while technology has wrought a lot of wrong, the underpinnings are still good, i.e., there is a lot of wheat amongst the chaff.

Still. But. I thought a lot wrong about good things happening.

Still. But. I am actually suggesting my thinking wasn’t wrong about technology, it was more about size and speed. What I mean by that is small things are different than when they are large. A tribe is, well, a tribe, but a mega-city is a mega-city – made up of multiple tribes interacting, cultures within cultures and communities within communities. I forgot social dynamics. This isn’t about complexity, or complicated, or even chaos, this is simple social dynamics. Platforms started for small, like-minded groups. They had some set of shared expectations, but when the ‘small community’ grew past their original audiences into wider audiences, and often at exponential pace, money took over some of the internal ‘scale’ aspects and expectations were subverted and no one had any time to say “hold on a second.” Regardless. Any smaller community will be affected by interaction with the larger community – especially if that larger community spans the globe. Any smaller community will be affected even if they rage against the larger machine because, well, the machine has learned to feed off that rage (Liv Boeree).

===

“The universe has no single secret. It does not even hold a single nest of secrets to which some one study holds the key.”

Mary Midgley

===

Which leads me to what I want from technology (and, hopefully, what we all want).

The only way for “us” to bring about a better future is through some sort of technological humanism.

To make that case — ultimately a case for restraint and more considered progress – we should build an optimistic story of how humanity would use technology to solve problems and thrive and that it can be integral in bringing in about visions of a fairer, more equitable future. I don’t believe technology is “the savior”, but I still believe technology can be integral to a better future.

“Survival now would seem to depend upon the extension of consciousness itself as environment.” Marshall McLuhan 1972

Yeah. I’m writing this and I’m not a technologist, but certainly of a generation that was technological optimistic, curious and ready to implement, with best intentions and some pretty good tactical objectives, some amazing things.

I tend to believe, at that time, most people thought technology was created to solve problems and in solving those problems society and the world would just become better. That didn’t exactly happen and I would argue that somewhere along the way society’s natural inclination for dystopian thinking overcame any quasi-utopian futuristic objectives, i.e., we focused on the bad consequences rather than the good consequences, so that all technology was seen as having a negative effect. As usual, a healthy future is found somewhere in between.

To be clear (part 1). I always, unequivocally, thought move fast and break things was only the harbinger of some unforeseen, but inevitable, doom. To be clear (part 2). I don’t think we are residing in a world of doom, but we certainly haven’t attained the drastically improved society of people living in harmony that many of us envisioned would occur. Part of the issue, as I have noted a number of times in the past, is that many of us were confident a better society would simply emerge. We were wrong. Not that the good parts of society do not exist, but maybe because technology had a nasty habit of over-empowering the more nasty parts of society. Or maybe we never really defined what we thought a better society was nor even offer up a vision to everyone, so that (1) technology overtly created things that would nudge us toward it and (b) show a scenario to society at large that they would incrementally nudge themselves toward somewhere within the 30000 decisions they make daily. This mistake was we treated everything as positively emergent. And in that space, I was wrong. Horribly wrong (a pragmatic business lesson lurks within there).

All that said. I imagine one of my larger points would be that rather than dwelling in the despair and the dystopian view of technology, maybe more of us should take a step back and remember the technology can offer all the positive benefits that we dreamed of at the very very beginning. Technology has never lost its ability to create a better society. Technology has never lost its ability to ensure a smarter, more intelligent, more critical thinking, public. Technology remains an incredibly useful and powerful tool to enable a better society. I say all that despite all the negative things that technology has wrought.

Let’s be clear though. The future does not really reside in technology. The future resides in humans. Decide what we want society to be, what we want civilization to be, how to be able to make people better thinkers, better sensemakers, better choicemakers, is a human choice. I am not suggesting a one worldview. I am not suggesting some global government. All I’m suggesting is that humans can decide what a good human should be. And then we design technology to enable that.

Even with all I have said today, while some technology has created some problems, we clearly are very dependent on the advantages and benefits it has provided. I imagine tucked in all the issues is a truth that the solutions technology provides outweigh the problems it has created. That doesn’t mean we should only focus on the benefits nor does it mean we should focus only on the problems, just that we should maintain some perspective.

Personally, I believe we society people and technology are in the liminal space – possibly the space defined by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock. What I mean by that is all the shock aspects that he outlined are exploding in this time in space that we live in. Or as Czech president Vaclav Havel said:

“It is as if something were crumbling, decaying and exhausting itself – while something else still indistinct were rising from the rubble.”

With that I will end with Marshall McLuhan.

“Perhaps the terrifying thing about the new media for most of us is their inevitable evocation of irrational response. The irrational has become the major dimension of experience in our world. And yet this is a mere byproduct of the instantaneous character in communication. It can be broad under rational control. It is the perfection of the means which has so far defeated the end, and removed the time necessary for assimilation and reflection. We are now compelled to develop new techniques of perception and judgment, new ways of reading the languages of our environment with its multiplicity of cultures and disciplines. In these needs are not just desperate remedies but roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

Ah. “Roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

I imagine I purposefully end on an optimistic note because in the end I believe technology has the means to offer more good than bad. Ponder.