==

“Fairytales don’t tell children that dragons exist, they know they exist. Fairytales tell them that dragons can be slayed.”

Criminal Minds

==

Slaying dragons.

Ah. Sounds like a kid’s thing.

Well. Not so much.

It may not be bad for us adults to have the imagination to believe in dragons. Or the belief that dragons can be slayed. Or even just to think about dragons.

Look.

I don’t believe life is a fairytale (nor do I believe living a life like it is one is smart).

And I don’t believe you can solely be a dreamer and be successful in the world.

Yet.

I do believe having one foot squarely set in practicality and the other foot set squarely in dreaming is a solid foundation for a happy and healthy life.

And we can learn a lot from children (who are frankly trying to learn as many things as they possibly can to figure out what the hell a ‘solid foundation’ is).

For example: Isn’t it interesting how children dream such big dreams? And the possibilities of some seemingly impossible things (like dragons and even slaying the sonuvabitches). Maybe if we dared look at a child’s life and took a second to think about it and consider some things as possibilities and not impossibilities, we could learn a lot about doing the impossible (or maybe better said … what is possible).

Yes. What I am talking about is bigger than just dragons and slaying them.

Every child dreams of slaying dragons, hitting the game winning shot, rescuing someone, maybe being the first woman president or beating whatever villain is the villain of the day.

It’s as if dreams are supposed to be part of our every day lives.  Forever. Not just in childhood.

Yet … as we get older (or some people would say ‘become more mature’) the dreams and dreamers seem to tone down into something tamer.

(yeah. I avoided the word practical here)

Somewhere along the way many of us decided that conquering evil wasn’t within our reach and so we decided to simply make some type of impact in our professional lives. Or maybe we decided ‘evil’ is simply the chore of day to day life and conquering that becomes the dragon you slay.

Unfortunately.

Dragons weren’t meant to be that practical.

So.

I guess the questions are:

When do we stop believing in dragons and dragon slaying?

When do we stop believing that dragons may not be around today, but may have been around sometime in the past so some hero could actually slay them?

When did our dragons become just trying to figure out how to get everything done in a day rather than the big stuff?

I would guess in a really obtuse way I am talking about how life can grind you down to a point where instead of looking at the horizon and wonder about what it could be when you get there you end up looking at each day as a new finish line.

The danger becomes once dragon slaying has been eliminated, uhm, what is left?

Does it mean making a difference with our career becomes simply being dependable and showing up at the job each day? I guess the danger is you keep trading your dreams one by one for other, more realistic and less noble, goals.

And when the list of dreams has been emptied?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I would argue your passion for life has been emptied. For with that list empty all that is left is “doing.”

Ok. Ok.

Sure dreaming dreams is dangerous business. It is costly in that it takes time and energy.

But, anything worth having is costly.

You have to be careful that if you give up on all the things that cost too much, you end up settling for worthless things. If you are not very very careful, step by step the dreamer became a pragmatist and loses hope for the dreams. And then those lost dreams can quickly become disillusionment and cynicism (or maybe worse you simply forget them).

The trouble is always we (myself included) get so caught up in life that we somehow seemingly constantly settle for the mundane (with the occasional not-mundane thrown in to fool ourselves that we aren’t simply going through the motions).

Oh.

And dreaming (this slaying dragon thing) really is like using a muscle. If you don’t use it you lose the confidence and the belief to do that kind of thinking. And it’s no longer just being okay with the mundane or focusing on some set of to-do’s to check off but rather you just don’t know how to do anything else but that.

Whew.

Just typing that is a tough thing. Thinking it may actually be true? Whew. Yikes.

Look. One would hope there is some higher purpose attainable for us beyond simply the mundane “getting the to do list done.”

Yeah.

Dreaming is truly a dance between a dream and reality.

And while it may seem like a slow dance it is actually a tango and reality has the lead.

Sure.

‘Slaying dragons’ is hard work, i.e., you hear descriptions about how much people have had to give up in the beginning and of hard work and sacrifice. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone speak of having fulfilled their dreams and having regretted paying the price it exacted.

The only time you hear true regret comes from those who gave up their dreams.

Oh. Also.

In today’s world it is easy to get confused on this ‘dream’ thing.

What do I mean?

‘Dream house.’ There you go. How can a house be a dream?

Dreams aren’t necessarily a tangible material thing. Or I guess in my eyes they shouldn’t always be.

It shouldn’t be getting a bigger house and nicer car. And certainly not at the expense of living a full life or being gone so often you miss out on being the ‘hero’ (dragon slayer) in the eyes of their children.

I could also add the suggestion that this is the same for the guy who transfers his dreams onto his favorite sports star watching religiously seeking fulfillment he occasionally finds in their triumphs.

Yup. This dream and slaying dragon thing is tricky.

Ok.

I would like to suggest it’s never too late to pick up dreams again.

To recapture the fact you can not only find dragons, but slay dragons.

But (and this is a big ‘but’).

The problem is, the older you get, the more verbal opponents (naysayers) become.

First. In the practical world lots of advisers suggest ‘always do the practical’ or ‘play it safe’ because now is not the time for dreaming or taking chances (but, if not now, when?).

Second. Those who fear you following your dreams. Many fear to see you fulfill your dreams later in life because it means that theirs lie somewhere dormant or lost … or worse … still attainable if they make the effort. The thought of you reaching your dream breeds fear because it means that they must confront their old fears of failure and success in achieving their dreams all over again.

Yeah. I know. That sounds kind of depressing.

But I just say all that to make a point that we adults make it awful hard to do this whole ‘slaying dragon’ thing.

Bottom line?

The only person capable of stopping you is the same one that greets you each time you step in front of the mirror.

Slaying dragons isn’t just for kids.

So. Go out, find a dragon and slay it.

Ponder.

——-

“If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I bet they’d live a lot differently. When you look into infinity, you realize there are more important things than what people do all day.”

Calvin and Hobbes

——-

Unfortunately, it seems like we focus a shitload on what we do every day, i.e., the ‘doing’ in Life.

Unfortunately, while Life doesn’t force us to do this, it certainly encourages us to do so.

Life does this by throwing obstacles and things to do and responsibility in front of us seemingly as we take each step into the day. Because Life does this it seems impossible to do anything BUT think what we do all day as the most important thing.

Look. I am not here to suggest what we do each day isn’t important.

Well.

Maybe I am just thinking about it.

Thinking about it because I worry it is unhealthy reductionism. In other words, it is shrinking.

Shrinking before the immensity of Life.

Uhm.

Immensity of life.

The sheer onslaught of everything day-to-day DOES seem immense. Given that, let’s face it, it is easy to shrink before it.

By shrinking, day to day, surprisingly, is actually easier for us to face everything. I am not suggesting it is less difficult; just easier. It shrinks things down to, well, things.

Things to do.

Things to say.

Things to check off on a list.

Things to put on a list.

There is never a shortage of ‘things.’

We cram all those things into Life and Life is, well, immense. Immense in its intangible and vagueness.

I imagine I am suggesting we don’t <or at least make the attempt> shrink from purpose in Life simply using ‘what we do in daily life’ as an excuse. Its not a fear of being ‘too much’, but rather it is a survival tactic.

To be clear, that whole individual ‘purpose in Life’ is tricky thing because ‘purpose’ tends to be vague.

Generally speaking it just comes down to ‘doing good (things)’ which benefit beyond your own doing self, i.e., others reap some benefits.

Yikes.

But does that mean doing good for whomever is in front of you at the expense of someone else? Or doing a greater good for the planet at the expense of someone in front of you?

Yikes <again> … yes … those choices are real.

Simplistically, in facing the immensity of Life, most of us try to believe it is simply ‘doing the right thing.’ But sometimes the right thing for you, or from your perspective, is the wrong thing from someone else.

It is ‘having a good heart’ <meaning well>. But does that absolve you from meaning well, but still causing harm because meaning well sometimes means not making the hard decision.

Or sometimes it does. Meaning well can still have some unfortunate consequences to some people.

Which leads me to suggest individual purpose, to be meaningful, is a combination of intangible higher order type stuff with some tangible daily <or weekly> decisions and choices.

You ‘think’ something and ‘do’ some other things.

And it is not easy not just because it forces you to make some choices but also because, well, Life is immense..

And it is not easy on top of what you do in your daily lives.

I do believe most of us realize there are an infinite amount of ‘bigger things’ to be done.

I do believe most of us realize there are more important things than what people do all day.

Uhm. I also believe most of us shrink before the immensity of Life.

And I do not mean that as a criticism just as something that is normal human behavior <or reaction to what is in Life>.

I don’t have answers here. Just questions. As in questioning whether I pay enough attention to things beyond what people, and I, do all day.

——

“I’d rather learn from one bird how to sing
than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.”
E.E. Cummings

——–

I imagine I believe that while I do not have the answer today, if I keep asking the questions maybe I will get closer to an answer tomorrow or in some day after that.

I kind of think looking at the stars helps a bit to remind us to question and to think about the immensity of it all.

Ponder.

——–

“I don’t think that people accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense. I think it makes people terribly uncomfortable. “

David Lynch

——-

“Compromising dreams for the stunning reality of life. 🙁 “

mnmsnickers <twitter>

——-

Well. I almost called this ‘playing the game.’ Shit. I almost called this ‘scaring the world.’

“Scare the world: Be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”
The Shock of Honesty

When I think about this I think about hollow spaces and empty people.

Why?

Well. Compromising the wrong way, playing the game as it were, is all about filling a hollow space with empty people <or an empty job or an empty anything>.

But let’s step back a second.

Once you know what you are good at, maybe even have a clear sense of what attaining your ‘dream’ would be, you kind of have a tendency to think all you have to do from that point on is to sort out the finer details.

Compromise?

Play the game?

Those words never enter your head.

Unfortunately, we soon discover that life has other plans for us. I say that fairly sure that most of us do not grow up truly believing they could have it all — all as in a great job, a viable bank balance, a perfect relationship. But I do believe all of us grow up thinking ‘big things’ for ourselves.

Call them dreams.

Call them simply being better <or going farther> than our parents.

Call it hope for a good Life.

And no matter how we grow up I tend to believe all of us find that reality is very different than what we imagined or hoped. This is where we learn the concept of compromise. Learning to compromise is okay if it brings you back down to earth, but not okay if it means compromising how good you can be.

Somewhere in-between those two things is Life, or, “the game.” Yeah. The difficult part comes in trying to play the game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You take a job because you have to.

You take a job because it ‘gets you in.’

You say something like this … ‘doing this isn’t something I would have considered before … but I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’

Ah.

‘Bettering your chances.’

Playing the game.

Managing your hope.

I will say from personal experience that after what seems like a zillion psychological tests in interview processes and maybe more zillions of seemingly endless resume ‘revisions to customize to specific companies and perceived needs’ and managing hope after what may seem like an eternity of unsuccessful job submissions, I have figured out all that really matters is the core. Core as in who you are and telling people what they are gonna get.

But that’s me. I won’t play the game.

Ok. How about there are certain things in the game that I will not play.

Look. I do know that research shows that compromising early on <maybe when you first hit the job market or maybe simply as you enter adulthood out of teens> when hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form, they can easily be trampled upon with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem.

Well. It takes on a mutated form in older adulthood.

It doesn’t attack the formative stages, it actually kills healthy esteem and confidence cells.

Maybe worse? It attacks your belief not in yourself, but in society and the structure you have prospered in up to this point.

My fear in today’s business world is that in seeking employment or even working within an organization we are constantly asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in what I would call ‘psychological constructive compromise.’ Unfortunately, it is actually destructive compromise. It destroys how good you can be.

Maybe better said it destructs real expectations of yourself.

Real expectations, the ones colored with some Life experience which are not sky-high and tainted with any sense of entitlement, are being challenged intellectually, financially or emotionally as now being thought of out of reach.

Huh? Out of reach? Being who you are and being good at what you do?

That is crazy.

And therein lies how ‘playing the game’ is simply a destructive game and one which I am surprised businesses and other ‘game managers’ allow to be played.

Let me be specific <because this is what got me thinking about this>.

Customizing your resume as you apply for a job.

I know it sounds reasonable from a 40,000 foot perspective. But <and I will talk about odds later> most times we are customizing in ways that take a square peg of information and place it into a round hole of perceived need.

That’s playing the game.

Mostly because most employers are too lazy to see anything but ‘something that fits the round hole I have.’ And the prospective employee is simply thinking ‘once I get in I can be the fabulous spectacular square peg that I am.’

Simplistically you are playing the game to get in the game.

This is ludicrous. It looks ludicrous even as I type it.

Look. We all need to be taught to keep expectations in check. But in doing so we need to be sure … really sure … that our compromising isn’t simply a dismissal of our dreams to play the game. A dose of reality can be like a slap in the face. Uhm. Ok. Maybe more like an uppercut to the jaw. But sometimes you have to learn to take the punches.

And maybe give a couple back.

But you have to make some choices.

Hard choices.

No matter what anyone tells me I just cannot see how customizing your resume or ‘saying the right words’ or, well, whatever you are being told to do to get a job or get the dream actually increases the odds.

In fact I would suggest in the end it decreases the odds of getting what you really want <longer term>.

Well. The bottom line on anything to do with ‘odds’ is that the odds suck.

Bottom line.

The odds suck.

Why? Life is playing its game <even if a business or other people are trying to ‘game the system’> and you have to figure out which player you are truly playing against. I am not suggesting you should avoid considering anyone who is actually in the game. Just who is more important than another.

Why? Because you need to ask what is at stake in the real game’.

Because the one and only answer is you. Or what some people call ‘the authentic you’ <strip away the authentic bullshit and it just being true to yourself in a genuine way>.

——-

“Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day. It’s about the choice to show up and be real. The choice to be honest. The choice to let our true selves be seen. “
Brené Brown

 ——–

The “authentic you”. I just call it ‘me.’ No fancying up with adjectives. You sometimes have to draw a line with regard to ‘me.’ And, yes, this line drawing comes with consequences.

But all line drawing does.

You just have to identify what is non negotiable, i.e., what are you not willing to compromise on? In other word, find the pieces of your life vision & your character … that you want beyond all certainty. These are non-negotiable features you are not prepared to give up for anything.

While I am certainly a dreamer type, or maybe it is that I love hope, I will admit that this exercise can incorporate some foundational basic life aspects. Things beyond ‘being passionate with what I do’ <which I actually believe is useless tripe> like being a loving mother or father or traveling regularly or checking something off on your adventurous things to do on your list of things to do.

That said.

Compromising in this type of thinking invariably comes down to what you don’t mind forsaking in return for having something else. And, in general, we suck at this type of assessment. We are typically to hopeful or ‘positive thinking’ in our assessment.

“If I take this job I can show them I actually deserve this other thing.’

Yeah. Well. It typically doesn’t work that way. The whole idea of negotiating or compromising on a dream or ‘how good you think you can be’ is a challenging reality. And it is even more challenging when you incorporate the concept that I strongly dislike … the term ‘be realistic.’

I am not overly materialistic so I can focus on other things <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

I have at least a thread of altruism so I am okay with pursuing some self desires <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

Therefore. It kind of seems to me when thinking about playing the game — why should I compromise being the best I can be when some people don’t even seem to be trying to be the best they can be <for themselves or for others>?

To be clear on being as good as you can be. It is not simply waking up every day, stretching, looking at yourself in the mirror <possibly with fist raised in the air> saying something like “I know I want to achieve adventure and fulfillment in everyday life.” Optimizing your potential takes work – hard relentless work.

My own vision for life is fairly clear. And I admit that it has changed and evolved over time. And I imagine that is quite similar to most people. I also admit that it seems to get clearer every day as I figure out what’s important to me.

I know that I challenge myself to be even better. Every day as a matter of fact.

Yup.

Every.

Single.

Day.

That’s because being better or the best you can be is a work-in-progress thing. As for compromising or ‘playing the game’? I know the type of organizations and people I want to be a part of and to surround myself with. I will not apologize for how I choose to survive.

“You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”
Clementine von Radics

Oh. And by survive … I don’t mean putting food on the table … I mean character. A lot of people will argue with me on this topic.

A LOT.

They will suggest <with some truth by the way> I am not being realistic. And you know what? They may be right. But it is the line I have drawn for myself.

I don’t want to hollow myself out in some empty job. And that is what empty jobs do — hollow the guts out of you. Strangle your soul and character bit by bit. I would rather starve my body than starve my character.

I would rather “scare the world … and be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”

The stunning realities of Life force everyone to do several things.

Everyone needs to learn the line they will draw.

Everyone needs to recognize where compromise is done and ‘me’ is defined.

Ponder.

===

“My idea of rich is that you can buy every book you ever want without looking at the price and you’re never around assholes. That’s the two things to really fight for in life.”

John Waters

===

“the rot of entropy is an implacable enemy of life.”

===

This is a complimentary piece to ‘one must always be careful of books’ or maybe ‘stability’ where I suggest books offer me my stability in life <that isn’t as fragile sounding as one may believe>.

Richness in Life rarely has anything to do with money other than maybe what you can do with your money. I begin there to suggest rich is a value equation.

What I mean by that is money richness has little value until that money richness is used for something. Now. this is where it gets tricky. A shitload of ‘rich people’ think of this value equation as a “composite of transactions.”

What I mean by that is a rich person can buy a massive diesel sucking boat and then turn around and make a massive donation to some cause and they place them side-by-side and call it a “good value day.” Rich, in terms of value, doesn’t work that way. Each rich transaction is of value in and of itself and these transactions are not a balance sheet.

Once again, this is about money, and it is not. It’s kind of a different version of capitalistic altruism. Or maybe, in my words, an attempt to justify one’s personal excess. I imagine a part of it is a battle between “what I deserve” feelings and “it is important that others see me in a good light.” I am kind of being brutal here with regard to altruism, but, I am doing so to pound home the point that rich is a value equation. In fact, life is a value equation. Kind of a composite of return on choices” as it were.

Which leads me to end by suggesting people are not just simple resource allocators, we are also social creatures interacting with other people and finding value in the interactions. In fact, we often make value, and values, commitments to the social interactions. These commitments give legitimacy to moral obligations and options. Complex moral problems are always about ‘us versus them.’ That includes ’our time versus their time’ as well as ‘my money versus their money.’ What that means is life’s richness, especially with richer people, settles into a “our interests versus theirs” or “our values versus theirs” (or both) space. I imagine it is within that space in which a rich person finds ‘my idea of rich.’ I guess I worry about that (for them at least) because all that seems like a lot of energy wasted on some shit that probably shouldn’t take so much energy to think about. It kinda feels like all that thinking simply encourages a weird type of life entropy and, ultimately, some moral rot I imagine.

I feel fortunate my life, and my idea of richness, isn’t that complex or challenging. Ponder.

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

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you? We all have bias; we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

Seth Meyers

===

“Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other.”

Poor Richard’s almanac

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

Ok. I wrote a deeper dive into this topic, the lazy bias argument, but I wanted to revisit the ‘bias’ claim one more time because I just ran into it again.

It seems like in today’s world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on any topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that!?!” and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>,” I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment’ combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart and factual but, unfortunately, on, well, some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with, or anyone who espouses a different view than you, is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with. Let’s be clear. Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own ideology, but nonprofessionals, and opinion people, are biased. The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased. I state that because there is a difference.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Which leads me to generalize.

I’m gonna generalize a bit to make some points. Of course, there will be some exceptions, but, directionally, I would argue much of what I’m going to say is true. Most journalists and news organizations will, disproportionately, be liberal leaning. That is just simply a reflection of people who pursue that particular career, their mindsets, and their desires to explore stories and the facts that make up those stories. That doesn’t mean that they ignore facts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t tell truth. Simply because someone may personally lean liberal, they have a job to do, for the most part pursue their job at some fairly high standards. Yeah. It simply means that their thinking will lean towards a more progressive view of life. Embedded in that thought is that a progressive mindset, or someone who is constantly in the pursuit of progress, will always inevitably challenge ideas and thinking that ‘conserve.’ Conservatives and conservatism, at its core, seeks to conserve things. That doesn’t mean that they want to conserve everything just that the underpinnings of their ideology is that some things are important to conserve. Therein lies the basis for the conflict between good journalism and everything else. It is also the most basic debate that every business has. Whether you talk about innovations or whether you talk about growth or whether you talk about scale or whether you talk about culture or any type of change, the most basic discussion revolves around ‘what do we conserve?’ and ‘what do we change?’ – toward the objective to optimize progress. I would argue this is exactly the same for individuals, communities, neighborhoods, and almost every system that’s embedded or nested within larger civilization.

Which leads me back to bias.

If your bias is to progress, your words, your writings, your thinking, your ideas, will be more likely to embrace new ideas, change, and new ways of thinking all of which typically puts you into conflict with existing ideas, existing views, and for the most part, existing institutions. This is where I find the bias argument gets extremely lazy. Simply because somebody espouses progress and pushes against the status quo and some entropy, doesn’t mean that their work and reporting is biased in a way that it should be ignored. In fact, this conflict and debate is the most basic engine of civilization. In fact, it is typically how society changes – not by sitting back and claiming that somebody is biased, but rather raucous debate and good faith discussion. Oh. This is where conservative opinion leaders are absolute masters. They don’t really have this debate in good faith. As I outlined in my piece about how to construct narratives using facts, what conservative opinion leaders are particularly good at is deconstructing factual good journalism; not constructing good faith arguments. What they do is they find one fact, or one point in the construction of the argument, bring doubt to it, and then suggest that the entire house should fall. Instead of finding one rotting piece of wood and suggesting it should be replaced, they suggest the entire house should be condemned. And that’s the world that we live in today. Bias is the small match stick used to attempt to burn the entire house down.

Which leads me to the matchstick owners.

News and journalism own the matchsticks. Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased. The problem with that is ‘bothsidism’ is almost as bad as 100% bias. I would even argue ‘balanced’ is wrong. I’d like to expect journalism to offer proportional attention to the case and the counter case. Honestly, the current journalism world sucks at that particular proportionality issue. But. While I would say most mainstream media choices are intellectually slanted toward a specific view, they still offer factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through. And for the most part journalism, and journalists, are incredibly good, accurate and factual. Almost every credible newspaper, or even broadcast entity, has an extensive editorial vetting process and are incredibly responsible with regard to what they offer the public. That may sound surprising, but let me circle back to what conservative opinion people are good at – using one matchstick to burn down the house. As I have written about before, someone like the New York Times publishes 1500 unique pieces weekly and maybe has to correct 5 of them. That’s it. But an entire media ecosystem focused on amplifying the 5 creates a perception the whole, the entire 1500, are only good for burning.

Which leads me to the real trouble in this bias bullshit.

• If everything is biased, who offers the truth?
• If who you view as biased, I view as a purveyor of truth, where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh. If it fits, than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again. This is crazy.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information. That doesn’t assist in progress. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out. But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views. I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

“We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.”

Stop using bias as an excuse to not think just a bit harder about things. Ponder.

===

“It will be over when it finish.”
Neil Mach

===

“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

James Mattis

===

I was on a zoom call with six other people discussing world issues when one of the people stated, unequivocally, the war is over. He was referring to the war between Ukraine and Russia. He is right. For all intents and purposes, the war is over, stuck in a stalemate within which neither country will be able to attend 100% of what it desires.

Ukraine will continue to receive significant amounts of armaments with which to either go on the offensive or use on the defensive. That support will increasingly come from Europe and the EU rather than the United States (as it should). Russia will seek to only utilize as much energy and resources and money as needed to keep Ukraine from having a dominant offensive effort and to maintain a defensive posture. It’s a stalemate within which from this point on the losers are the people, economies, and peace. You can debate this position or not, but from here on in this piece I offer an agreement solution. As a preface to that solution, I will say no one will get exactly what they want. Ukraine certainly deserves to be an autonomous country maintaining its natural geography including Crimea and the eastern provinces which Russia claims as its own. Russia deserves nothing. They don’t deserve one inch of Ukrainian soil. That said. Any solution at this point needs to take into consideration the reality of the existing situation

Which leads me to a possible agreement.

First, as a baseline to all the other things that I will suggest as part of the agreement, Ukraine immediately becomes a member in NATO and the EU. Without that the remainder of my suggestions almost become moot. I insure he integrity of Ukrainian geography and interests from his point forward. Included in what would be considered Ukraine in that agreement is Crimea. I will come back to Crimea after I complete the other thoughts. This establishes the integrity of Ukraine geography completely supported by NATO and EU.

Second, what does not get included into what would be considered NATO/EU Ukraine geography would be the western provinces which include parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions as temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories. This geography currently has Russia de facto governance as occupiers since 2014. For that geography I suggest it resides neither in Ukraine nor in Russia, offering Russia a buffer zone by making them an autonomous state. It has its own governance, own economy, and own relationships with other countries. I would suggest some fashion of stewardship to ensure all parties involved permit this region to establish its own autonomous government. That oversight could be a combination of some EU states, possibly China, and some other nonaffiliated country.

Third, in all other pieces of geography where Russia soldiers currently are in place, they are removed back to Russia and that geography is reinstated as part of Ukraine sovereignty. And yes, this includes Crimea.

Fourth, as part of the compromise, because Russia is exiting Crimea, I suggest Russia be permitted to establish a version of Kaliningrad along the Black Sea coast. As this is just a concept, I hesitate to offer specific location. I could see one of two options. First is an isolated port in Crimea within which Russia could have a Black Sea port. Alternatively, possibly along the coast within which Russia is currently occupying there could be an underdeveloped port that could be completely built to establish the resources to support Russia shipping & naval desires in the Black Sea. The latter idea is similar to what China is doing in Cambodia in terms of building a complete harbor port for commerce and military purposes.

None of this is easy. All of this feels a little like flippantly playing checkers with people’s lives, countries geography, and a number of issues which feel ethically dubious. However, if peace is desired none of the solutions are going to be easy. And. I can guarantee, 100%, is maintaining the war status quo will be hard for the people for the economy and for the country.

Which leads me to things that further influence this agreement.

Circling back, remember I mentioned that the United States would be providing less and less support for Ukraine as Europe increased its support. And while that may be true from a military and monetary standpoint, it is not true from a diplomatic standpoint. What I mean by that is that the Ukraine-Russia war can be impacted in a variety of ways. The most critical is Russia’s attention in global interests. While the United States has certainly brought to bear financial weapons against Russia’s economy they were also maneuvering diplomatically – in particular in the Caucuses. It seems as though the United States noticed Russia’s shift from Armenia to Azerbaijan and has tried to take advantage suggesting it would support Armenia militarily which establishes the US as a presence in a region traditionally Russia’s sphere of influence. This becomes an additional source of more vulnerability to Russia. Since the Caucasus matters more to Russia than it does to the U.S., pledging military aid to Armenia creates the remote possibility of American action. American involvement in Armenia can be seen as an effort to enhance their position for future Ukraine talks and will certainly be part of any peace negotiations.

Beyond the Caucasus I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the recent China, US, Trans Pacific discussions. China and US will always be global competitors on a variety of dimensions. But. The current reality is that China’s economy needs the US more than the US needs China’s economy. That’s a specific lever which US is currently tweaking and you can feel some of the impact of that tweaking with how China is shifting its stance towards Russia as well as the United States.

As a reminder much of diplomacy is found within the nuance, not in black and white statements, not in binaries, not in 100% winners or losers. Diplomacy is more often like a slight shift in someone’s stance to make them a little bit more comfortable.

In the end.

I am pro-Ukraine (having visited at least 10 times and have friends there), but peace should be the ultimate objective if we truly believe a stalemate is the most probable conclusion if the war continued. Ponder.

=========

“The one who wishes to wear the crown … must bear its weight …”

Kim Tan

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

Not all of us actually seek to wear a crown. Well. Maybe not a crown as the queen or king of something or some leadership spot, but I would argue that anyone who decides progress is good will seek out a crown on occasion.

Here is what I mean.

We all wish for something more than what we have. It is kind of inherent into who and what we are as people. Its not that we are perpetually dissatisfied with where we are and what we have, it’s just that there is an inner urge to discover ‘the best version of yourself’ <or at least a better version than who you are at the moment>.

Now.

I would suggest part of that best version of ourselves encompasses how we pursue “more” and how we assume the responsibility, or burden, associated with the “more” <whatever it is> in our lives. And to discover our ‘hows’, well, you gotta push out on current and existing limitations. In other words you gotta look around for a new crown to wear.

While I assume the quote I used most likely was in reference to a person in charge who will have to take responsibility for everything that leadership <the heavy burden of responsibility>, I would suggest that crowns are crowns and the burden is always a weight.

Once you assume a crown … well … assume that any little thing that goes wrong is your fault. You can have a family behind you, a team behind you, a population behind you, but when the shit hits the fan everyone looks to the one with the crown. Crowns mean you are responsible not just for the direction of efforts, and the efforts themselves, but also the outcomes, good and bad, or any and all efforts.

And while many could look at what I just wrote and say “oh, that is personal responsibility” <taking ownership of you actions & words> I would argue that there is absolutely personal responsibility and then there is crown responsibility. They are different.

Look.

There are many different types of crown in Life.

Shit.

Crowns come in all sizes and shapes.

Power, leadership, fame, family, wealth, relationships, love, the list is pretty extensive. But all have something in common. Once you pick one crown to wear, you must be ready for its consequences.

I believe it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is showing up. I would suggest the other 20% of success is how well you bear the actual burden of the crowns you wear. And, I would note, part of that burden is how well you actually push opportunity to others now that you have that crown. I say that because crown wearing is not just about problem solving or ‘leading’ or even “I” type things, it actually contains some “what am I going to do for you” type aspects.

Yeah.

Sure.

Leadership is one crown. And whether the crown wearer actually fulfills the responsibility well or not, I tend to believe anyone seeking to wear the leadership crown understands that there is a burden that comes along with it and almost all the different aspects of that burden that come along with it. They may not meet the burden, but they damn well sure know there will be a burden with the crown.

Responsibility and leadership is a well-recognized burden.

But all the other crowns?

All the other crowns are a little sneakier. Sometimes I think we forget some of the choices we make represent the fact that someone has just placed a crown upon our head.

Shit.

In fact.

Sometimes I think we actually don’t like to think of some of these choices as a “putting on a crown’ type choice.

What I mean by that is we purposefully ignore the crown.

I believe we mostly do that because it is nice to think of a choice as a choice and isolate whatever burden or responsibility we feel we should assume to that moment in time and that choice. Crowns mean … well … ongoing burden.

I tend to believe more of us, even the ones who really do not go seeking crowns, should think of more choices as moments in which a crown is placed upon us. Maybe then we would view some choices a little differently, maybe add a little more gravitas to a choice, and certainly add a little more truth to the reality of our lives. Hmmmmm … and maybe that is why wearing a crown can be a burden. You are accepting some truth. And truth, in and of itself, is a burden.

Anyway.

We all wear crowns.

And, in some way and in some situations, you actually wish to wear that particular crown. It would probably do more of us some good to admit this as truth, accept the misery it will most likely place upon you in additional responsibility and understand that this understanding will ultimately set you free to rule that particular aspect of your Life just a little bit better than before.

Ponder.

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

James A. Garfield:

“The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.”

===

“I am not human.
I am a cyborg.
I am mechanic.
That’s all I am… right?”
Marissa Meyer, Cinder

===

I like to walk, plod/jog and think (clear my mind) on a track at a local high school. For over 5 years I have watched a young woman practice softball on an adjacent softball field with her father, mother and a variety of coaches. She has literally not improved in the entire 5 years.

Which leads me to mechanics.

She has clearly been taught the mechanics. When she pitches, she has all the singular aspects of what a pitcher does to, well, pitch effectively. But she implements the mechanics mechanically. It is almost like she checks of sequential boxes of what she is supposed to do to do what she wants to do well. It fails.

She has been taught the mechanics. When she hits, she has all the singular aspects of what hitter does to, well, hit effectively. But she implements the mechanics mechanically. It is almost like she checks of sequential boxes of what she is supposed to do to do what she wants to do well. It fails.

Which leads me to competency and the grind.

Lets get one of the biggest obstacles most of us have ingrained in us out of the way: your genes don’t dictate your achievement. Sure. Genes affect your physical strengths and weaknesses that could impact what you elect to do <height, weight, sight, muscular, etc.>, i.e., shift mechanics knowledge into natural implementation, but you are not born with “oh, that’s not in me” type behavioral things and, in particular, intelligence.

Significant long-term research <the Human Genome Project> suggests that genes play little or no role in explaining differences in intelligence. This means that genes are not the reason you are smarter or ‘less smarter’ than anyone else in your family. This means that almost everyone has the potential to succeed in school, life, and careers. This also means that there is no inherent reason why children from low-income families cannot succeed as much as those from wealthy families <assuming they all have similar opportunities>. This means that basic competency in almost anything is attainable – to anyone.

Studies show over and over again that if a young person believes their mental/intelligent abilities are not fixed <i.e., “you are not good at math” or “you are not artistic”> a young person can increase its performance in any subject. This is also true with almost every ‘competence.’

Let me be clearer. If parents or teachers do not start from the assumption that abilities are fixed, children will perform better. This also means if you don’t believe someone’s abilities are fixed, they will become more competent in more things more often.

Which leads me to studies on ‘exceptional success.’

Exceptional success does require exceptionally hard work. The classic illustration is the fact that all professional orchestral soloists who have been studied have done at least 10,000 hours of practice. And the typical orchestra players average around 8,000 hours.**

** Note: this is the study from which Gladwell erroneously made his suggestion that anyone can be an expert in anything if they put in 10,000 hours of anything.

What Gladwell missed, and what people should think about, is why some put in the extra 2,000 hours and why some do not. And does it matter if you do not put in the extra 2,000 hours if you end up emotionally healthy and ‘successful’ in terms of who and what you are? Regardless. I imagine my point here is to be exceptional you need to put a lot of hours in on the mechanics.

Which leads me to ‘nurturing.’

If you are going to put in all those hours there are some things that can make those hours less a grind. The environment in which young people <and I would argue this is the same in business ‘nurturing’ of employees> is groomed for future success and aspirations matters. Studies show ruthless, competitive, and perfectionist/seemingly implacable environments are more likely to nurture what is called “ego-depletion.” Later on in life this creates compensation techniques <which are most likely not the healthiest decisions>.  It produces a much greater likelihood of doing “bad” things as compensation. Put crudely, if you do that dreaded paperwork or housework for an hour, you may feel more like scarfing down a chocolate bar or having a drink afterwards. Now. The exception to all of this resides in one key foundational behavioral aspect – choice. At any age, if something is truly deemed ‘self-determined’, rather than feeling it is imposed, the ego is not depleted, but rather enhanced. There have been a number of studies that suggest if you treat aspirational hard work, training, practice and studying as a more playful activity, enjoyment tied to ‘work’, with an imagined array of dramatic wins and losses, the learning becomes more cognitive and success assessment acquires a healthier perspective. Approached this way the hundreds of hours practicing & work investment can quickly become thousands of hours. The implications are clear. The person becomes better while remaining happier. Success is not a specific goal, but rather improvement. The person just does, well, “well.” And within this simple concept of ‘doing well’ their idea of ‘exceptional achievement’ becomes self-identified and they are less likely to encounter emotional distress.  They are also less likely to be encumbered by narcissism <or me, me, me behavior>. And, maybe, just maybe, effective competence is attained, and enjoyed, and the mechanics become just a bit less mechanical, and your competence’ is just a bit more competent than the typical competence. This happens because you enjoy what you are doing rather than thinking about how to ‘do.’ I would also argue that this is the path to true expertise and exceptional success.

But exceptionalism must come from within a person and not by some external structural system.

Which leads me to some points I would like to make.

• “The mechanics” are critical to success, competency and certainly expertise or exceptionalism. Mechanics is part of the grind; and it is not. Mechanics should ultimately end in ‘flow’ or ‘joy of doing.’ If it doesn’t, its just mechanics and not the ‘craftsmanship’ which makes up meaningful doing of anything.
• Just as ‘interesting/entertainment’ is the key to engaging someone in listening to something you have to communicate; enjoyment is the key to learning & investing the work you need to put in to become ‘exceptional.’ I would suggest we should think about how flippantly we state ‘work is work and that is why it is hard’ to young people. I love doing some things and even if I put 1000’s of hours it is a version of ‘work’ I enjoy. Therefore, not all work is created equal. I kinda wish we would more often take this point of view with young people instead of pounding away on perfectionism and ‘outcome focus.’ Or at least balance this discussion out a little more often.
• Several opportunities to nurture. Far too often we say youth shapes behavior. It certainly impacts behavior maybe even significantly so. But we have a number of opportunities to significantly impact a young person’s behavior. Just as I believe teachers can ‘re-align’ young people, I believe business managers also have that opportunity. Personally, I never treated employee management as business management I considered it Life management with a focus on business. Semantics? Maybe. But the reality is when a young person steps into business for the first time their behavior is shapeable. So all this crap about ‘millennial entitlement’ or ‘young people don’t want to work’ is just that … crap. A good manager in business can ‘re-align’ a young person’s attitude and certainly their behavior. A crappy manager doesn’t even try to do so. And you are not even a manager if you don’t believe it is your job to do so.
• Exceptional is a tricky word and a tricky concept. It is tricky because there is no one simple definition. And because of that we constantly misuse it <even when well intended>. I would suggest even recognizing that ‘exceptional’ is multi-dimensional and often contextual & situational concept is a good thing for us older folk. I guess, to me, exceptional is more often than not an aspiration and not a destination many of us ever actually attain. We may see glimpses on occasion but, in its truest sense, exceptional is a very very difficult status to attain. On the other hand I could suggest that if you can be the best you can be, really the best you can be, that is exceptional.

Which leads me to the good and the bad.

This entire piece began with what appears to be a young woman with a passion for something, a strong desire to be good at her passion, and a lack of natural ability to see the fruits of the efforts applied against her passion. I could argue this is why “follow your passion” is crap advice, but for today let me end with the good and bad.

• The good

Let me clear, she’s putting in the work. The essentials to actually shifting from mediocrity to better than mediocrity. Or. If she had the innate talent, from good to great. There is a part of everything, including something as fun as athletics, that is the grind. The mechanics. I think its good when anyone invests in learning the mechanics of anything they desire to do well (or people will be dependent upon them doing it well). Mechanics are the basics of competency. 1000’s of hours makes your mechanics good.

• The bad

I see fewer people, all people, putting in the grind time on the mechanics. Let’s just say that while I am sure there are people putting time against the mechanics, the grind, when I see it, I am always pleasantly surprised. I would argue the overall diminished societal ‘grind’ investment (a speculated decline in my mind) has lowered overall competency on, well, everything which leads to lower expectations on everything and lower basic quality of all work. Yeah. That is just speculation on my part, but, it feels right. That’s bad.

In the end.

Just try and remember that having exceptional success is very rarely associated with what genes you are born with; it is more likely associated with your attitude and the work you do put in on ‘the mechanics.’

Just try and remember that competency, in and of itself, is about the lowest bar one can meet. It most likely suggests someone can carry out the requirements of a specific task. Sure. It may be better than able or capable, which implies that it is possible someone may actually be able to carry out the task, but it is also not ‘qualified’ which stresses the possession of desired skills nor does it ratchet up to anything higher unless it gets attached to fit of skill, efficient or even good. I say all that because if you commoditize competency, and it is already perceived as ‘the lowest good bar for the responsibility’ then you have dumbed down the concept of what is actually needed to a place in which it appears that anyone could almost do it. and. If you commoditize competency what is the reward for mastering the mechanics?

Ponder.

=======

“I am the sea and nobody owns me.”

Pippi Longstocking

======

i would fight myself if i could

(letthechipsfallwheretheymay)

========

So. “Not being owned” sounds like a simple thing. Yet. Over and over <and over> again we permit something, or someones, to own a part of you.

It can be direct or it can be indirect.

It can be consciously or subconsciously.

To be clear.

This is not a society thing <albeit society is a nasty twit on occasion>; this is a self thing.

And this is not a corruption thing <albeit money is a nasty twit on occasion> … this is a self thing.

So what do I mean by a self thing?

One of the very very few things you can actually control in life is “self ownership.”

Owning who you are as a person. Owning your integrity. Owning your character, dignity and moral compass. And, I imagine, owning your behavior & attitudes. These are all things clearly in your control. These are all things, clearly, you own.

Now. This ownership isn’t easy. It isn’t because what you own, well,  there are a shitload of people and things and Life are constantly seeking ways to steal it. Yeah. I said steal. They try to wrest all of, well, “you” out of your control so they can steal it and replace it with something they would prefer (or want).

Please note: I will also say owning a good security system will not do shit for you.

You need to learn self-defense. And by self defense I actually mean defending against your self <and not someone or something else>. You have to choose to fight – that is your choice.

Fight against some nasty instincts <which more often than not head you in the wrong direction>.

Fight against temptation <of which the world has an endless array it constantly parades in front of you>.

Fight against some internal mind games <think doubt, fear, acceptance, etc.>.

Regardless. Many of us flippantly state “I am my own person and nothing owns me” and, yet, under the glaring spotlight of truth & reality we will find that more of us is owned by someone or something than we would like.

So what do we do when that happens?

Many of us shrug our shoulders when faced with this harsh truth and say “those are not the important things” or “that’s just Life.”

Well. Here is some harsh truth you better get a grip on. It is not ‘just Life’ and they are not just ‘little unimportant things.’ It is your Life and they are your things.

More of us should stop, take a moment, and think about whether we want to react to external ownership efforts <stealing> or proactively “fight myself” over the right to own myself. Yeah. Sometimes you not only have to be aware of what you own, you also have to be aware enough to fight your instincts to let them be stolen. Let them? Yes. We do it far too often because its either not important enough in that moment or maybe just too hard to fight at that moment. Be careful. Be careful because those moments can add up fast.

Anyway.

Each of us is the sea and no one owns a sea. Do not be owned.

Ponder.

====

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

Alan Dressler

====

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

The Dalai Lama

====

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

====

Feeling insignificant.

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

Shit.

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

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

That said. How do I feel comfortable saying this?

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

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

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that said.

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

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

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

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

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

In the end.

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

That means everyone is significant. Period.

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

Ponder.

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

“insignificant”

——–

insignificant

things

that was and were

propose to prove what once

will be

significant

again.

 

insignificant

things

rise again

to the fall of your voice

out of a scene

which takes in

to give

all words not equal

to one

or none.

 

insignificant

things

said so long ago

and now

until now

nothing to hear

anything at all

are heard

and

the insignificant

melts

the soul

to significance.