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

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.

Values is the fact we trust each other.

And, culture?

Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

Fredrick Backman

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

“You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

Colin Powell

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

Well. The relationship between secrets and culture and community is one which is fraught with contradictions, conflict and humanness.

I imagine this conflict is driven by the natural chafing between self-interest and community <I have called this community individualism & Enlightened Individualism in the past>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We talk a lot about community and team and all of that good stuff. And we talk about it with good intentions. The problem is that true community demands some sacrifice.

Therein lies our big secrets.

On occasion we decide self-interest is more important than sacrifice.

Uhm.

This is a version of ‘what you can get away with.’

That phrase sounds horribly horrible. It suggests nefarious type behavior. But the truth of it is most of us see what we can get away with on some very personal day-to-day less-than-nefarious type stuff.

• We cut some corners.

• We maybe don’t tell people how we truly feel <or who we truly are>.

• We steal some post-it notes.

These are our little secrets.

We may even have some bigger personal secrets that we decide are just not things we want to share <these are not nefarious … just personal>.

Regardless.

For many of us our behavior arcs toward what we can get away with. That doesn’t mean it is completely unethical, or some abhorrent behavior, just that while norms set a ‘median’ standard guideline Life is constantly suggesting ‘but this one time you can get away with doing this.”

Which leads me back to the real issue.

The issue resides with the friction between culture and community and self. What I mean by that is the stronger & more powerful the cultural community norm is the bigger your secret becomes if you avoid the norms. This secret takes on exponential size if you start believing that the norms that are good for you are good and the ones that don’t match up with what you believe is your self-interest are bad.

You only accept the existence of the formal and informal cultural norm structure that constitutes accepted community construct, uhm, only as long as that suits your purposes.

Your big secret, therefore, doesn’t have to do with your own behavior, but rather in your non-belief ,if not overall disdain, for the community norms.

Which leads me to hate.

Why hate?

When you decide to see what you can get away with, you have to mentally divide community into “we” and “they.” And in doing so you make ‘we’ good <which suggests what you can get away with is on the side of good> and, conversely, you make ‘they’ bad.

This is a simplistic tactic for attempting to carry the burden of a big secret.

Hate is simple and hate can be an incredibly powerful empowering emotion.

Why?

In this scenario, using hate, the world becomes much easier to understand and less confusing, in the scheme of things, if you divide everything into friends & enemies, good & evil, right & wrong and a basic we & they.

This helps us because the world is strewn with conflict. Not just physical war, but of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. Cultures, communities and classes are bombarded with conflict after conflict. And maybe because of the sheer amount of conflict one of the first things we do is pick sides. We choose a side to stand on because … well … it is easier. It is easier than thinking or, even more difficult, trying to hold parts of two ideas which appear in conflict in our heads at the same time. And once we have chosen a side we then go out and seek some information, or ‘facts’, to confirm not only what we believe but the side we have chosen – this permits us to maintain the status quo and chug along with Life as ‘normal.’

Oh. Yeah.

And then we proceed to do is demonize, or dehumanize, the other side. We diminish them. Make them, their thoughts & ideas, lesser than.

……. making “they” smaller ……..

I would suggest this all just makes you smaller as a person <carrying around a big secret>.

Which leads me to say that big secrets make small people.

Yeah. Unfortunately all of us become smaller with a big secret.

And this smallness is compounded by the unfortunate fact that you become even smaller when ‘we’ are the people who others HAVE to keep big secrets from because they believe, and know, we cannot handle them <or don’t believe in them>.

All secrets carry a weight to them.

===

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

Sam Harris

===

In fact I could argue that all knowledge is a burden. It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it, how you act because you have it, as well as how you think about you, and others, with it. Oh. Secrets ARE knowledge.

Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to believe we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact. We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose.

But knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right, but it is also a privilege and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it.

Uhm.

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it also carries such a heavy burden. Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free, i.e., everything has something attached to it.

Knowledge?

Responsibility. The burden of responsibility. And that is a weight you carry. One which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

Knowledge tests our ability and our character with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability and in character.

Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little uncomfortable thinking about knowledge that way>.

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden.

And secrets are tricky.

• Some are thrust upon you — unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.
• Some are gifted you — carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.
• Some are just yours — built by you and carried by you.

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret; it is also knowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden, a responsibility, and a weight.

I don’t have the scale to weigh them, but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge.

I also don’t have any research, but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

Therein lies the true test of character.

Therein lies how big secrets can make small people.

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more.

Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight.

The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically gives us and the weight of character that knowledge either makes you bigger or makes you smaller.

Whew.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on these secrets.

Which leads me to good.

As in good people doing good things. And as in good versus almost good.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that sometimes very thin line between good and almost-good can make a massive difference in life. That sometimes very thin line can decide whether your secret makes you bigger or smaller.

Look.

If you are clever enough, even if you embrace community, you can get away with a shitload of stuff. But cleverness does not eliminate the fact you gain a bigger secret burden with every action.

And you know what?

The “community” knows we struggle with this a individuals. In fact it has even created some ‘auxiliary precautions’ to help us avoid unnecessary secrets.

Huh?

This is James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 or “if men were angels” argument:

===========

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

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

We are no angels as people.

Secrets bear that truth out.

And … well … we all carry secrets.

And … the bigger the secrets the smaller we become.

Ponder.

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

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

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

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

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

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

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

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

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

——

цветы необычайной красоты

translation: “flowers of unusual beauty”

<note: these words are pulled from a random piece of Russian poetry … or maybe a very old song … I am not sure which … in which the full line is “and in the neutral zone … flowers of unusual beauty …” … it is a metaphorical reference to the beauty of fragile freedom that lies within the space between old West Germany and East Germany>

—-

Mashkawizii

translation: “strong … inner strength”

—–

The title of this uses two words – one Russian and one Ojibwe <Chippewa>.

That said. I tend to believe both inner strength and character not only lies within each of us, but actually represent the secret to Life <‘secret’ being metaphorical>.

Why? Well. I had to pick up a copy of The Secret in order to have a quasi intelligent conversation with a friend of mine <my thoughts on The Secret – , p.s. – don’t read if you like the book>.

Suffice it to say I believe, despite what the books says, there is no one secret to Life.

The secret actually is finding the key that unlocks your own inner strength, or inner character or inner passion or <to keep with the thought> the key that opens the door to your own flowers of unusual beauty. Yup. The secret is finding the flowers of unusual beauty that lie within your own walls and give them freedom to prosper in the light of day.

The secret is finding your ‘mashkawizii’ – the strength that lies within you. Now. This is a very personal individualist thing. It is not a formula and most likely not replicable <therefore I cannot write a book telling anyone what the ‘one thing’ is>.

Which makes this topic tough.

Because Life can be really really tough on us. Relentless in fact. And it would be nice if you could hand something to everyone and say “use this, it will help.” There is no one secret, but I would suggest inside everyone and, yes, I mean everyone, there is a flower of unusual beauty and strength.

No book will tell you the secret to unlocking it.

I kind of even doubt a person can tell you the secret to unlocking it.

Only one person has the key – yourself.

Now. I am not suggesting this is easy nor do I believe you always get it right the first time. Because sometimes it gets pretty dark inside as doubts & insecurities cluster around like shadows following closely on your footsteps as you look in the corners for what you seek. In addition it is kind of like a Rubiks cube of shifting thoughts and ideas inside you as you experience things. All of it makes this difficult, but I imagine secrets to life wouldn’t be easy if they were actually worthwhile to figure out.

Oh. This all gets complicated <worsened> because sometimes you find people who just don’t believe they have this inner strength or flower of beauty. I feel very very safe in giving this one piece of advice — if you run into one of these people … stop … and tell them they are wrong. 100% wrong.

It is there. They just haven’t recognized it yet. But. Everyone has it.

Everyone.

No matter how hard Life has been and hardened the walls of doubts, despair and disappointments within you, there will always remain … well … цветы необычайной красоты … a flower of unusual beauty.

Mashkawizii or цветы необычайной красоты it is within you and worth finding.

I call it character <probably because I am neither Ojibwe nor Russian>.

Now. While The Secret suggests happiness <or ‘attitude’> is the key to life & success I cannot guarantee that for you if you focus on my thought.

Nope. Sorry.

Heck. I cannot even suggest happiness, in & of itself, is the key to Life & success <because it seems more like an outcome than an objective>. But. What I can guarantee is that your “happies” will be more meaningful if they are a reflection of what is within because then your happy moments will always be full & have depth.

Oh. In addition. And I think I can guarantee <this is not a price back guarantee though> that your un-happies will be liveable. They won’t kill you. Maybe better said you will have the mashkawizii to be strong and hold on <without losing yourself in the process> until Life decides to move along to the next phase. This is a corollary to what I suggested on happy moments <they are more full>. This thought is in the darkest unhappy moments you will never completely empty because you’re not dependent upon anything superficial but instead relying on your ‘inner flower.’

But that is just what I think. And please do not tell me a book can give you the secret to Life.

That said. Because some people push back on how harshly I judge The Secret let me say this. While I just said I do not want anyone telling me a book can give you “the secret” to Life I will add <and I am very consistent on this> that while I do not believe people should foolishly and blindly pursue ‘get rich fast’ tricks to Life, I also believe that people need to do what they need to do to get through Life.

So, if The Secret gets you closer to where you want to go … use it.

Heck. Use any book <I suggest the Bible, Torah or Koran provides a nice possible foundation to start with> that helps you. Just be smart about whatever you gotta do to get your head straight and seek out your own ‘flowers of unusual beauty’ which reside within you.

Ponder.

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

“Capitalism is the only engine credible enough to generate mass wealth. I think it’s imperfect, but we’re stuck with it. And thank God we have that in the toolbox. But if you don’t manage it in some way that incorporates all of society, if everybody’s not benefiting on some level and you don’t have a sense of shared purpose, national purpose, then it’s just a pyramid scheme.”

David Simon

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

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly business”

The Godfather

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

I do not get (understand) investing, VC evaluation and startup support in general. Ok. I get it, it just confuses me. And I say that having:

• Been on both the good and the bad side of a VC takeover: buying out a profitable business seeing an opportunity to make it more profitable by running it better & buying out a business to break it apart to make money
• Been in multiple startup incubators (B2B & consumer) and seen a wide range of technology to non-technology startup ideas (good and bad)

All that said. Don’t ask me to explain how startups get funding, how VCs evaluate & invest nor how some ‘successful’ startups continue to get money <although this piece, “What I wish someone had told me about Venture Capitalists‘, does a nice job>. No matter how many times I’ve been involved in the process or been asked to evaluate businesses, I seem to be on the wrong side of the evaluation ‘brain.’ Why? Well. That has an easy answer. I like businesses that make money as in ‘profit’, not revenue, as my main criteria. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about revenue or the bullshit buzzword of the day, ‘scale’ (which is simply another bullshitty way of saying ‘growth’), but I like to stack profit dollars on top of profit dollars rather than cross my finger a business will cross the ‘making lots of unprofitable revenue’ Rubicon to the ‘hey, all this revenue is now profitable’ side.

** note: the exception would be what I call the ‘enabler idea products.’ These are the products which I usually call, in my non-startup pea like brain, the engine part ideas. They see the world as an engine and they develop parts which can replace existing parts or be inserted into the engine to make it run more efficiently or effectively – software ideas often fit this criteria.

What I will say is that the startup industry has become a master pyramid scheme in which the investors hope that one of the pyramid scheme bets pays for all the other bad bets. And you know what? Sometimes they do. And you know what? More often they do not. They have made capitalism a pyramid scheme. They encourage us to view business, all business and the economy, as one big gambler’s bet. And because they do they have reshaped the larger economy (forcing larger businesses to view innovation as a gambler’s bet too – if not their own business).

You may think I may be misguided or even wrong. But play a game. How many well known ‘successful’ technology startup like businesses are making a profit? Amazon? Kind of. Uber? Nope. Wework? Nope. Shit. Go into the best startup incubators, maybe even audit Techstars (who I like and admire). How many are making a profit (but showcase revenue)? Zero (okay … not many). It’s a gambler’s game. American capitalism has become a pyramid scheme. Can big business benefit? Sure. They can look at the gamblers and then buy the winners and absorb them. It limits their innovation ROI risk, but costs them in the purchase.

** note: I would suggest that many larger businesses are actually more well positioned to develop these more successful ideas but they tend to either (a) have a poor new idea evaluation process or (b) do not approach ‘startup idea innovation’ in a way that enables the focus & investment needed to make it successful.

To be clear. Companies like Techstar basically serves as the big business ‘brain’ that a small startup cannot afford.

That said. Even the exceptions I highlighted, the enabler idea products, are a gamblers game.

Here is where this version of pyramid scheme has an even darker underbelly. Conflicting interests. This new model of capitalism is an attempt to get around inefficiencies and costs imposed by larger business, but creates an ambiguous allocation of rights, and ownership as well as an ambiguous business model. Simplistically, everyone is in to get their money (let’s call it at its worst: greed). Even if the founder/owner truly isn’t overcome with a greed muscle and simply is in it for the idea, there is a dilution of control (under the guise of ‘freedom to innovate that engages a market that doesn’t yet exist’). This is nuts. Fringe business malpractice, but, simplistically, nuts. As I have noted most of the most successful businesses, and profitable ones, aren’t particularly disruptive at their onset nor do they ‘think outside the box’, but rather see the box and reconfigure it. And they make money.

I call this lazy capitalism (when I am being generous) and pyramid scheme capitalism (when I am not being generous).

** note: this pyramid scheme has a variety of bloodsuckers. For example, I have sat in on or eavesdropped on dozens of business people looking to pick the pockets of founders – the social media structuralists, the PR scale people, the ‘organic growth’ disruptors, the brand builders, the startup marketing futurists – who slither their way into founder’s (investors) wallets.

Look. I am all for startups with appealing ideas and driven founders getting the expertise they need quickly and the funding necessary to give them some traction that they may otherwise would have no access to. But over 80% of startups fail because, uhm, there is no market for their idea. and, no, this isn’t because they see a future no one else can see (i.e., they are visionaries), but rather because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT IDEA.

** note: I have never seen an angel investor or any investor sit in on those ‘pick pocket presentations’ I mentioned in my last note. If they did, they would not only hear how stupid (nonexistent possible success, i.e., ‘no real market for that idea’) some ideas they have invested in, but would also watch a pick pocket in action.

The flow of money into the startup world is absurd. I look at that money and can only dream about what it could do if invested elsewhere. But it will not stop. Why? Greed. That’s what pyramid schemes work in the first place. Greed. Easy money. All that bullshit.

There has to be a better way – and there is. Startups have a place in the world and investing in them in which dreams turn into viable businesses is actually good for capitalism. It’s a funded Schumpeter Creative Destruction and I love that. Family companies have, and should have, a new lease on life. Public companies SHOULD be challenged as they try and squeeze out more profits through their operations in a variety of misguided ways. Short term mentality, archaic hierarchies, status quo onerous non-digital business models should be gamed out. All that said. A pyramid scheme non profitable lazy capitalism startup investment model is not the way to do it. An insurgent economy should be a hybrid of smart idea, money making, startups and large public company smart non-standardization (I hesitate to call it agile so let’s say adaptable, antifragile) money-making longer-term business sense making.

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

“A job is the ultimate pyramid scheme.”

Ken Poirot

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

I believe we are seeing a shift in the underpinnings of the business world. I may not agree with all the “its about culture” people or the “purpose over profit” people, but I do believe, and have for quite some time, business is transitioning from an outcome only mentality to more of a “business is more than just business” mentality. I do believe technology is playing a role and while not in the ‘digital transformation’ camp I believe augmenting humans and thinking-conceptually-sensemaking is edging its way into the ‘way we do business.’ Someone said awhile back that business is learning that to ‘outbehave’ is the path to better performance. Within that idea is part technology and part people. Within that idea is where the startup world may find its most fruitful investments – ideas that outbehave created by a mindset that seeks to outbehave the status quo (ethically & service). Ponder.

=======

“Aesthetics is the shop window, ultimately, if there’s nothing in that shop, it has no longevity, do you know what I mean?”

Geri Halliwell

———————-

Well. Of all people in the world I never thought I would read ex-Spice Girl Geri Halliwell <Ginger Spice?> saying something relevant to business and actually use it to write something.

Anyone who has ever worked with me has heard me use the “fluff and fold” reference.

Fluff is the aesthetics.

Fold is the value.

Fluff is puffery.

Fold is the substance.

Look. We like the aesthetics. Maybe even love it, adore it and bond with it. But without the fold, the value and functionality, we end up disappointed in the aesthetics and will inevitably move on to the next thing to adore. In other words, we just see the fluff.

And, while I have never articulated this thought like Geri, I have tried to say it over and over and over again in meeting after meeting after, well, meeting. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality and if your aesthetics don’t match reality you are screwed.

I do know it is one of the most consistent discussions in business positioning, selling and marketing. And it will continue to do so because there is a natural tension between “fluffers” and “folders.”

While the most strident of each wish it would be 100% at the exclusion of their kindred enemy, most of everyone fall into a natural 80/20 versus 20/80 Pareto rule.

A fluffer understands that substance is necessary, just maybe as a period at the end of the interesting fluff.

The folder grudgingly accepts that aesthetics are necessary, just maybe as a “once upon a time” entrée to the main story of substance.

It really doesn’t matter which side you fall on in this discussion the debate revolves around the same issues time and time again:

• If they are not interested <sometimes confused with ‘entertained’> they will not pay attention
• Everybody is stressed for time and if you don’t engage them in the first 10 seconds you have lost them <a hyperbole statement at best>
• People are tired of bullshit and just want you to cut to the chase <flawed logic because this assumes substance/rational sell itself>

But regardless of how often all of us fall into this tired argument, this is where most trains go off the tracks.

Suffice it to say, businesses get mesmerized by aesthetics.

If I hear one more quote about “first impressions count” or “they have to like you before they can enter into a brand dialogue” or, well, any of the semi-intellectual strategic crap that flippantly gets tossed around like the newest office toy sitting on the conference room table … I will puke.

In the simplistic dialogues that take place you inevitably find people debating what is more important — when it isn’t a matter of importance; it is a matter of balance <or proportion>. And, yet, while I sense we all know that balance is the answer we seem to consistently slide down the slippery slope of fluff under the guise of “the substance is complex and we need to simplify!”

Huh?

Everyone wants ‘the one thing.’

Everyone wants ‘the formula.’

Nuts.

That is what I say to that.

Nuts.

Substance is substance. I am not suggesting you have to serve it up in some complex unpalatable way, but substance, more often than not, is not simple. And if we try and simplify substance too much, uh oh, it becomes … uhm … fluff.

In the end.

You cannot just have fluff.

You cannot just have fold.

You have to have both in some form or fashion. And more often than not there is no formula, but <I have to tell ya> if you can balance your fluff and fold in a quasi-50/50 split <maybe 40% fluff & 60% fold> you have a very good chance of delivering relevant information in a palatable way.

Oh. That word may get me in trouble … “palatable.”

Look. I am clearly in the substance <fold> camp.

While I enjoy the fluff I find that it maddeningly takes up an excessive amount of energy and focus away from substance <fold> which is inevitably what represents the effectiveness of whatever idea you are sharing.

But I have also learned, and have the scars to show, that ideas, even great bigly ideas, do not explain themselves, do not sell themselves and are often not attractive in their black & whiteness. I have learned that, while starkness has its time & place, businesses <and people in general> engage with things that have a more rich & royal hue.

I imagine all us business folk should remember the famous words of that ex-Spice Girl Geri:

Aesthetics matter … but … if there is nothing in that shop … well … there is no longevity … is there?

Stick with the Spice Girl advice and you may actually do well.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

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

“No enterprise can exist for itself alone.

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

Calvin Coolidge

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

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

Bob Parsons

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

Originally posted in 2017

Let me take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Just a reminder but “fraternite” is one of the  French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité (“liberty, equality, fraternity/brotherhood” the national motto of France).

Anyway. Business. Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress. What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure (systems), part leadership, all glued together by “fraternité”. That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’ or even ‘culture.’ We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept, i.e., one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

Napoleon

Oddly enough, while this sounds like relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean? Current business is kind of in a wacky spot. It talks a lot about vision and purpose and culture as if they are “things” — like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home. By the way, I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless. Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.” That may sound like some wacky nuance, but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion. By the way, this thought is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored.

** note: most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit – things they cannot measure or score.

Anyway. Not to beat this metaphor to death, but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed. I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” as a core principle just ain’t the way business is run today. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of people talk about a “community” or “company team” or some other nice sounding platitude which sounds a lot like “fraternité”, but its mostly lip service. Its lip service because fraternité is a ‘collective’ thought and most businesses reward and incentivize individuals.

Anyway. On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters worldview versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects. Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces on both of these but, on the former, the best piece I can share is from Corporate Rebels “Cut The Crap: The Made-Up Nonsense About Generations At Work” which states all people want meaning at work (regardless of age or generational label).

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter. To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away to non-profit because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but, from a larger perspective, business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words <and the business office/working groups creates behavioral cues which ripple out into culture>.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles and principled behavior’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope and remind them, empower them and enable them that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place. They can make society and people and lives better. And they can do it in and through business, not just altruistic career opportunities. If we do that, and do that well, I tend to believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding or shared values, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

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

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

Alan Greenspan

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

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive, but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now. Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and how that shit is designed to meet specific objectives/results and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you”, i.e., extrinsic importance not intrinsic importance. Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural. Obviously, when it is not natural it is not as strong.

In the end.

Fraternité in business. I believe we have forgotten this. And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go”, i.e., there are your principles and rules for camaraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look. I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. What makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those intangible things that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership. To steal another word from the motto, by creating a fraternité organization you inevitably create liberté for the organization to be the best version of what it can be.

This is what I thought about today and “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”. With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for a fraternité organization. Ponder.

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

“You’re not like other girls.”

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

(via aussie-with-glasses)

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

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

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

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

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

=========

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

Steve Maraboli

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

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

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

None.

Ponder that for a second.

All that said.

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

And that is aggravating. Incredibly annoying in fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

================= 

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

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

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

Michael Crichton

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

Well.

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

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

Everything is uncertain in today’s world.

You have no idea who to trust.

There is a struggle to trust anything.

Facts seem to no longer be black & white

Truth now has an alternative version.

Common sense doesn’t seem common.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

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

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

Ah. The ‘filter bubble.’

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

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

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

Yup. You can change the way you see things.

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

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

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

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

All that said.

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

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

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

Now.

More research.

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

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

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

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

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

  • the ways we learn to see the world

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

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

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

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

Thomas McCrae

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

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

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

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

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

Truth takes work.

Shit.

Seeing things as they truly are takes work.

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

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

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

Gregory Galloway

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

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

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

Very few.

This includes even my best friends.

Uhm.

I don’t think this is unusual.

More often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Some words to open a thought.

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

The rest is kept up in their heads.

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

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

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

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

Now.

In business this is a little different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that said.

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

That is your choice. Choose wisely.