—————-

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

Peter Joseph

——————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tibetan thought

Ponder this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

“Theory is good; but it doesn’t prevent things from existing.”

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

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

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

• Not everyone would define better the same
• Not all better is created equal
• Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

1. The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.
2. The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks.  Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks.  While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

—–

“When purpose is embedded into an organization’s culture, it constantly reorients people to focus on contribution.”

—–

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.”  Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.”  The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see.  Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause.  You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you know it is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

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

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

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

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.”

–

Don Marquis

===========

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok. I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better: “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.” But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point? Knowledge and experience can only take you so far. Yeah. I just said that. I .. the one who has written that common sense is anything but common, our instincts typically suck and knowledge/experience is the most powerful weapon one can bring to a context battle.

That said. This is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright thinking and big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being by a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. I will note here that most meaningful action is driven by cognitive engagement which is most typically an engagement with ‘thought’ (thinking or intellectual/brain engagement).

Anyway. This person requires a special character. Ah. Special character. This means ‘someone with good instincts.’ Many people may suggest this is the ability to adapt and bring to bear the needed resources & skills to match the contextual challenge/needs. I would suggest this ability is at its best when it combines knowledge & experience with instinct.

Now. Instinct is one of those things people hate. Because it is not tangible and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means:

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut & feel. (albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge)

But in the end it is not tangible nor proven. It is, well, just what it is.

Sure. It can be cultivated. And it can even be honed. But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this. Good instincts cannot be taught. Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts, but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.”

Mario M. Cuomo

That said. I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.” And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one — anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong. Okay, maybe not wrong, just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success, but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

Look. It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts. They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions, discerning the important from the unimportant, and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be>, but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>. And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now. Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>. It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy, but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless. Instinct is a natural aptitude. Kind of like a knack. An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa (Use the Right Word) suggests:

“instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.”

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts. While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason. In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world, ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration, well, that ain’t happening much these days.

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

“When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

–

Bob Dylan

<although … ironically … the movie Titanic made this quote even more famous … “When you have nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.” said Jack Dawson>

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

Well. In business having nothing is an entrepreneurial or ‘save the business’ type of discussion.

In Life? It’s not that cut & dried. Mainly because it is often a survival discussion. I say that especially after searching the web and finding a shitload of vapid “keep your chin up” type writing <and some horrendous writing at that>.

I am all for keeping a positive view or maintaining hope for things to be better and all that stuff … but let’s get to “ain’t got nothin’.”

I am going to offer two seemingly contradictory thoughts:

–          Nothing doesn’t come in one size. It comes in different degrees … maybe I should say that sometimes nothing still contains something. It’s just your point of view.

–          Nothing is a black hole. For everyone. When you are in the ‘aint got nothing’ hole it is simply a black hole <shallow or deep it is dark and a hole>.

–          Nothing and degrees.

Suffice it to say if you have nothing, and you have never had something, nothing looks very very different than if you have had something and now you have nothing.

This flies in the face of the baloney I found online that suggests everyone starts from nothing <although I have found a number of ‘life coaches’ who suggest this as a starting point for positive thinking>.

Rich people, poor people, successful people, non-successful people, top achievers, non-achievers do not start from the same place where they had nothing. While, factually, each of us builds our own achievements and knowledge, your environment can dictate a bunch of ‘something.’

Anyway. I read this somewhere.  Two things define your personality, the way you manage things when you have nothing & the way you behave when you everything. I like that thought. Mainly because I also believe this is based on your perspective … ‘everything’ to a middle class person is very different than ‘everything’ to someone currently in poverty. I say this because so often in my relatively comfortable middle class environment I hear far too many people talking about how people living in poverty squander money when they get it.

Well. If you have never had anything, you have no idea what it feels like to actually have something. Even if that ‘something’ is one steak dinner in the year. It may appear to be a massive misuse of funds available to someone who has something and yet it may be the momentary access to touch ‘hope’ to another group of people.

Regardless. The degrees in nothing is a combination of your environment, situation and attitude.

For example. If you feel attitudinally as if you have lost everything already. That you literally had nothing left to lose. Inevitably you will decide that nothing could be as worse as what you had already gone through.

This is a wiping the slate clean type nothing. But that is just one type of nothing. And on the way to that type of nothing you actually get to watch nothing coming down the road toward you. Painful but at least you see it coming.

So. I am not going to literally outline ever degree of nothingness.

Because all that really matters is if you feel like you have nothing to lose you only feel you only have everything to gain. In other words, there is nowhere to go but up.

By the way, while seemingly flippant that is a very very important thought.

Nowhere to go but up.

Frankly, my idea of bottom is most likely nowhere near what the true bottom is. I may feel like it is, I may feel it as close to a Life truth as one can get, but in my heart of hearts I know there is another degree of nothing below what I believe bottom is.

But. It’s my bottom. That is my ‘nothing’ in my pea like brain.

I do not believe I am that different from many people.

I tend to believe most of us define their own nothing differently than other people.

I say this point because that is why I believe it is so difficult to help someone who is in a nothing stage. Believing you have nothing to lose is most likely exactly what will make you successful. But we are prone to want to hold on to things, but once there is nothing to hold on to we have a tendency to dig deep … and realize that the only thing we can truly hold on to is something deeper and impenetrable inside us.

Let’s call that the survival instinct.

Here’s the tricky thing about survival and nothing. Those truly with nothing are better at surviving than someones who had something and lost it. In the end the people we need to worry about are the ones who have shitty survival instincts.

Yes. They can adapt <painfully I imagine>. But saying ‘do whatever it takes’ is significantly different than DOING ‘do whatever it takes.’

Hence the degrees in nothing.

Ok. My main point in breaking it out this way?

Someone close to the edge of ‘nothing’ needs help. It doesn’t matter what their degree of nothing is. Simplistically they need something more than what they have to survive — survive sometimes physically and sometimes emotionally.

At one point I have neared ‘nothing’ and I have to tell you — the feeling sucks. And you know what? The homeless guy who stands at the corner asking for money would probably laugh in my face if I described how close I was to nothing.

It’s all perspective. But it is all painful <and scary>.

Sometimes it may seem like we have not learned that everything comes at a price. Whatever your bottom in nothing is the price is tenacity and strength and resilience to move past a ‘nothing’ stage in life.

Think about that before you judge someone’s actions with regard to ‘having nothing.’

–          Nothing is a black hole.

Many many people suggest that ‘nothing’ is not really a true concept because we all have something … that undying and eternal part of us called our spirit.

In fact I found where some woman named Libba Bray said something like:

“there’s no such thing as nothing. In every nothing, there’s a something. In fact, there could be everything!”

<apparently she even said it with an exclamation point>

Well. What a bunch of bullshit.

When it is in your head ‘I have nothing’ is as real as the ground you stand on. In fact, nothing is something, it is a black hole that has sucked <or is in the process of sucking> every ounce of hope or dream you have.

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams. “

Dylan Thomas

C’mon Bruce … really? Dreams and hope?

Oh, we tend to believe there is so much hope it can never run out. So much hope as that.

Well. If you are one of those who believe that, you have never truly had nothing.

Nothing is … well … nothing. It is the abyss that contains no hope. It has been emptied of dreams and wishes and hope and all that remains is blackness … and the despair that comes with no light <at the end of any tunnel>.

Here’s the good news.

There are not many people in this hole <albeit I would suggest any is too many>.

My point? If you believe you have nothing, sometimes it is difficult to think about something like “I have nothing to lose.” Maybe because in the darkness of nothing you already think you have lost.

Feeling like ‘when you have nothing’ is a really bad feeling. Shit. Even if you start inching toward nothingness it is a bad feeling. It is such a bad feeling it is tough to listen to ‘feel good’ tripe as a way out of the hole.

Just remember that.

When you hear someone suggest they have nothing, before you start pointing out all the ‘something’ in their lives, remember attitudinally they may truly believe they have nothing. So offer them something meaningful <note: easier said than done>.

Ok. Look. Having nothing means you have nothing to lose.

It provides some freedom, but probably not as much freedom as ‘positive life coaches’ would have you believe.

But. It is freedom if you can find it within the dark of the nothingness.

“Nothing, Everything, Anything, Something: If you have nothing, then you have everything, because you have the freedom to do anything, without the fear of losing something.” 

Jarod Kintz,

In Life, positive thinking platitudes aside, nothing is scary. It can feel debilitating and in some situations it IS debilitating.

I end with that thought because I simply don’t believe, attitudinally, you can truly do “what would you do if you had nothing to lose.”

You simply cannot envision it unless you have actually brushed against the darkness of nothingness. Even a light touch of nothingness leaves a scar you will never forget. And once you have the scar, trust me, you will never have to ‘act like you have nothing to lose and make a decision.’

You will know exactly what to do and how to think.

==================
“To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic.  It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives.

If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places — and there are so many — where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future.  The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

–

Howard Zinn

====

“Choice, not chance, determines human destiny.”

–

Robert W. Ellis

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

“Living in defiance of all that is bad.”

These days I sometimes worry we focus, and dwell, upon the things that could be construed as ‘bad’ in life. Let’s combine that worry with a general belief that things are worse than they are.

The former are things like not liking your job or maybe getting caught up in the grind of life <and feeling like there could be “more” then what you are experiencing>. The latter are things like there are wars everywhere or even that there is some mass murder somewhere in your country everyday. But both seem to be rooted in some form or fashion of, well, a desire for some grand utopian future. A world in which nothing bad would ever happen.

That may sound too grandiose for what we everyday schmucks actually think about and desire, but it isn’t really. It isn’t because while we always want things to better our version of better — those things are most typically not viewed in increments, but rather substantial change. Therein lies the ever unreachable grand uptopian future.

Let’s be clear. “Better”, all by itself, is a slippery little fellow. Better always seems somewhere other than where we are — physically as well as in time. At least it can feel that way sometimes.

I sometimes think this uncomfortable feeling is a reflection of a natural desire for wanting to know what the end looks like and yet the end hasn’t even been written.

=====

“I’m afraid we’ll always be a book with the end pages ripped out.”

Madisen Kuhn

===

I do believe many people feel uncomfortable being a book with the end pages ripped out. Not only can they not read the ending, but they also feel the inherent incompleteness in their own story as well as Life <because they cannot see the end — this is exactly like doing things at work with no strategy or vision>. Unfortunately for us, within that incompleteness Life, requires us, no, demands us to make choices … day in and day out through an infinite amount of ‘present moments’. And sometimes you will need to make decisions that direct the course of your life and that decision will not be associated with a smiley face or some positive quote you can find on instagram or facebook.

Yikes. It all sounds so frickin’ overwhelming. All these ‘presents’ and ‘choices’ and no smiley faces, well, not just overwhelming but possibly just bad <as in not how I would prefer to live my life>.

Well. This is where defiance comes in. Unless you can live defiant of bad and see the happiness which is not only inherent within life itself, but intertwined in the infinite succession of presents, you are certainly doomed to thinking everything is bad. And if you are defiant I can almost guarantee you will see quite a bit of happiness intertwined throughout your Life and the world’s life. Because if you are defiant you will not overlook the little events.

====

“For most of life, nothing wonderful happens.

If you don’t enjoy getting up and working and finishing your work and sitting down to a meal with family or friends, then the chances are that you’re not going to be very happy. If someone bases his happiness or unhappiness on major events like a great new job, huge amounts of money, a flawlessly happy marriage or a trip to Paris, that person isn’t going to be happy much of the time.

If, on the other hand, happiness depends on a good breakfast, flowers in the yard, a drink or a nap, then we are more likely to live with quite a bit of happiness. “

Andy Rooney

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

Look. While I have written about the fallacy behind “manufacturing happiness’ or the whole idea of ‘purposefully creating happiness’ I do tend to believe you can affect your happiness. It helps if your happiness is more likely dependent upon some realistic expectations, or maybe, viewing the little moments within the larger grind that is known as Life instead of seeking some larger more grand utopian vision of happiness and big events to define happiness.

Let’s say that happiness is built on discrete moments of now.

Uh oh. This means that happiness is driven not only by awareness but some common sense and clarity and there is no secret code. Darn. No secret code. Unfortunately, without a code to offer, I have to offer the unfortunate truth about happiness — you have to do something to gain happiness. Make choices. Choose to go somewhere. Choose to do something. Choose to explore something or somethings < including ideas and opinions>.

Defiantly choose to choose. And choose to live in defiance of all that is bad.

Anyway. I remember reading that JFK once said: “I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty.” Replace America with people … and I agree. Grace & beauty.

Well. Seems awful hard to think about those things if all you see is a bad world in turmoil. Philosophically the way to beat bad is, well, in that infinite succession of moments idea. The world can look pretty frickin’ bad when looking at the larger picture <which is a little weird because while bad things do happen in the larger scheme of things there is less violence in today’s world than almost any time over the past 200+ years>.

The only way to make things NOT look as bad is to manage life in that infinite moments way … that awareness in the present permits you to have some clarity with regard to the good that exists in the here & now.

I mean, well, if you always have your eye on the future or the larger picture you are either living in something unreal <an unwritten but hoped for future> or viewing all things around you assessing threats <the bad stuff> to maintaining your existence and reaching your desires.

Simplistically … if you avoid the succession of moments you have no chance of seeing what exists in that moment.

Defiance is not easy.

It is much much easier to not push back but go along for the ride … wishing it were better than it seems to be.

Defiance is a choice. And that is why I opened with the quote that choice defines destiny not chance.

If you are defiant, and push back, you are more likely to control the destiny of … well … your happiness let alone anything I imagine. The person and life you want to be DOES exist you just have to be defiant in the pursuit of it.

====

One Tree Hill Quote:

“There are moments in our lives when we find ourselves at a crossroads. The choices we make in those moments can define the rest of our days.””

And, of course when faced with the unknown, most of us prefer to turn around and go back.

But, once in a while, people push onto something better.  Something found just beyond the pain of going it alone. And just beyond the bravery and courage it takes to let someone in. Or to give someone a second chance.

Something beyond the quiet persistence of a dream. Because, it’s only when you’re tested that you truly discover who you are. And, it’s only when you’re tested that you discover who you can be. The person you want to be does exist; somewhere on the other side of hard work and faith and belief. And, beyond the heartache and fear of what lies ahead.

There are moments in our lives when we find ourselves at a crossroads.

The choices we make in those moments can define the rest of our days.”

=====

Living life in defiance of bad. Or maybe we should say ‘defiantly pursuing good in life.’ For if you are defiant and seek the good … the good can, and will, be seen.

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

note: this thought is also relevant to how one could view business

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

“Toil and risk are the price of glory, but it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame.”

—-

Alexander the Great

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

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

—-

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

“I would rather die right then live wrong.”

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Well. I believe Alexander’s full quote was:

It is a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame,

Macedonians!… Why do you retreat?!… Do you want to live forever?!

In the name of Zeus!… ATTACK!

So. I tend to call this “selective thoughtful recklessness.” Yeah. I am not really sure something exactly like that exists but, whether it has a name or not, it is a characteristic of winners and ‘everlasting fame’ as well as a characteristic of everyday schmucks like me who want to do the right thing, desire some everlasting fame as in ‘known for doing good shit the right way’ and am willing to work hard for it <that is the ‘toil’ part>.

This may sound a little crazy, but I do believe if you are dedicated to doing the right thing and doing good shit you have to be comfortable assuming some risk.

Now.

I get some shit for my ‘comfort with assuming risk’ <I believe security is, if not an illusion, mostly a superstition keeping people scared of shit>, my attitude in general with regard to risk, and my general disdain for people who have the absurd principle of ‘making a decision instinctually.’ All that said. I came up with my own phrase – selective thoughtful recklessness. This combination seems to me to be better than simply being rash or foolhardy in behavior. It is better because I have a full respect for consequences and hold consequences in high regard.

To be clear. There is never any absence of forethought <which is where I typically find ‘instinct’ fails miserably>. I certainly have extreme care and concern with respect to not only other people’s welfare but my own. Sure, yes, there may be a bit of daredevil in the attitude but without the flair and debonair style associated with a daredevil.

What is there is a certain defiance to odds once a decision has been made and a complete “In for a penny, in for a pound” attitude. <Cambridge Dictionary: something you say that means that since you have started something or are involved in it, you should complete the work although it has become more difficult or complicated than you had expected >.

My epitaph will absolutely be “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world”, but my mantra seems to be captured in what I said upfront … “I would rather die right then live wrong.” That is not courage, nor is it an attitude, it is a choice that simply requires some mental resilience. You feel doubt, resistances to choice and even outright disagreement but someone who embraces the selective thoughtful recklessness remains mentally resilient towards anything that attempts to stop you from doing what you believe, and maybe even know, is right.

And maybe that is where the thoughtful daredevilishness steps in.

In order to find glory <in this case I believe glory is ‘doing what is right’ and not some fame or accolades> you have to first & foremost reframe the story of what is and what is possible. I am not suggesting some alternative universe nor am I suggesting fooling yourself into believing something truly impossible is possible. This is more along the lines of the traditional disruptor definition — seeing the conventional in unconventional ways. By reframing the story the boundaries & limits in the original story become new & different boundaries & limits. Rarely do they align with the old ones and it is within these differences that the ‘thoughtful reckless’ wander.

But this also demands one other thing.

Let’s call it ‘intense listening without attachment.’

What I mean by this is you have to be aware of everything going on around you, but you do not necessarily get attached to what is being said. It’s like recognizing the clutter around you and rummaging thru it for the useful and avoiding the useless. This would also include at least being aware of your own biases and trying to un-attach your listening from them as much as possible.

Lastly.

Here is maybe the most controversial thought I will share on finding glory.

Be small. Yeah. I just said ‘be small.’

To be clear. I don’t mean live a small Life but I do mean if you want to find the kind of glory I am discussing, and you want to be selectively thoughtfully reckless, and you want to die right rather than live wrong, you end up thinking about being an energy for ‘doing’ like an atom, or a pebble in a pond, where you make yourself as solidly, strongly and distinctly rightly small — and then choose your path. Thinking about that, well, maybe that is why I balk at ‘daredevil’ so much. It sounds big & flamboyant. I find that being defiantly, and successfully, right in your choice is more often found in the ‘toil’ — in the small stuff and avoiding the small stuff at the same time.

It is more about being solidly small in your solidly rightness.

========

“Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else’s hands, but not you.” 

Jim Rohn

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

And, yes, maybe it is about a small quiet courage found in the everyday.

Do I think I am courageous? Certainly not.

Resilient? Absolutely yes.

But this kind of resilience seems to contain a version of courage that is easy to miss. It is a small resilient courage.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to stay when it is easier to leave.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to keep doing when everything says ‘quit.’

It is the small courage you hold on to … to respect difference when we would much rather judge.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to accept some vulnerability when building a wall feels much safer.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to recognize your own agenda needs to be revised to accommodate another’s better idea.

It is the small courage you hold on to … everyday <even though it takes some ‘toil’ to create it>.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to not only become who we really are … but which enables the better version of who we are.

It is the small courage you hold on to … in a world that often doesn’t seem to encourage courageous everyday acts.

Anyway.

Life isn’t easy. Business isn’t easy. And navigating both shouldn’t be easy. All I can suggest is some selective thoughtful recklessness can help you out on occasion. I can also promise, when done well and with ‘good as an intent’, it gives you a shot at glory.

Just remember.

… it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame

 I would rather die right then live wrong

=====

“Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people.

The specialist knows more and more about less and less and finally knows everything about nothing.”

=

Konrad Lorenz

——————

—————

Well. Someone asked me what I do.

I answered I am mostly a pain in the ass to current business consultants, leaders and people of my generation <50somethings who I believe, in general, have their proverbial heads up their asses>.  I write, and speak, about the changing face of the business landscape and what that means for businesses.

My view of things suggest consequences:

– Young people in business disengage from what could be learned

– Young people in business manage on instinct <disregarding what older generations have done> … which is fraught with peril

– Young people in business make unnecessary mistakes

– Young people in business are now tending to guide themselves into a generalist role/view of business rather than a specialist <and older people thrive on hiring specialists, but value ongoing performance based on generalist qualities>.

I am only going to speak to the last point today.

I cannot remember where, but I saw someone write about being a generalist. Okay, what they actually said was none of us should be just one “thing” and we all possess a variety of skills – including skills we aren’t using.

In addition … The Guardian published “Specialists or generalists: what do Employers Want.

This is one of my favorite topics to rant about. Being a specialist versus a generalist.

It drives me a little nuts that people naturally associate “being accomplished” with specialist.

It drives me a little nuts that people naturally associate “unfocused” with generalist.

Suffice it to say people’s perception when you suggest you are generalist is rarely <see: ‘never’> good. People seem to wonder if you just were not smart enough to specialize <which presumes ‘talented and skilled’> in something.

People seem to immediately assume you have some attention deficit disorder <why else could you not focus on one thing> or a general lack of ability to stay the course on one thing.

Maybe worst of all, people assume being a specialist means you do have a skill and being a generalist means you do not have a skill. That last thought is most bothersome because a good generalist actually offers the highest value skill – the ability to create structural value creation.

Regardless. I admit I have a love/hate relationship with specializing.

I love the fact someone can find something they are interested in, are good at and acquire a skill which permits them to offer a service which others can not.

I hate the fact someone can often blindly sacrifice learning and ‘enlightening the mind’ under the guise of this thing called specializing.

Far too often I find specialists have sacrificed so much outside of their specialty they know more about nothing <things outside their skill> than is actually good for them. While I admit I am biased I believe if you’re multi-skilled or curious over a variety of topics & skill development you tend to be more adaptable and more ‘evolving’ as a human being — and this person ultimately adds value anywhere and to anyone <ability to offer transactional value AND structural value creation>.

I believe I have stated this before.  The world actually needs a mix of generalists & specialists and that alone means maybe we should not only give generalists a break <for not being a specialist> and maybe we should be encouraging generalist attitudes & behavior.

Anyway.

Suffice it to say successful people do not always do one thing. As a corollary doing a variety of things is not an exclusive characteristic of unsuccessful people.

My personal belief is that a generalist is too good to specialize.

And I wish more people were generalists.

I believe everyone is capable of a variety of skills and I believe most people have skills they aren’t using.

Me?

I specialize in being a generalist. And my specialty in discussions with people is to ask “what else?”

Huh?

<1> What do you do?

<2> What else?

 Maybe that is my simplest thought with regard to specialists versus generalists, I just wish more people would pursue ‘what else’ in life.

Maybe view “what’s next” with curiosity and energy more often.

Maybe be a little more perpetually dissatisfied with what they know.

In the end. I imagine I don’t really dislike specialists or like generalists I simply abhor stagnancy and, in general, I view specialization as naturally arcing toward stagnancy and generalization arcs toward progress. That, in the end, is my best argument for generalization versus specialization.

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

“A fool will always come calling.”

unknown

——————–

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

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

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

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

Don’t beat yourself up.

Don’t fight it.

Stop investing energy justifying your actions.

We all have a fool inside us.

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

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

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

Well. That sounds like a fool to me.

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

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

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

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

You will probably be less gullible.

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

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

You will probably better recognize what makes you happy.

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas Adams

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

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

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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.

Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

—-

Brian Cox

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

 “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

—–

Martin Luther King

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

I seem to find myself in more arguments and debates and discussions with regard to common sense, gut instinct and actual “learning” <knowledge> than is most likely healthy for me.

My sense is that I am not the only one.

To be clear.

For those who care to research it, in general, our instincts suck.

For those who care to research it, in general, common sense is most typically not that common <or representative of reality & truth> nor does it make sense <unless you are looking back at what has been done and not forward thinking about what could be done>.

For those who care to research it, in general, learned people <either formal knowledge gathering or informal incessant curiosity knowledge seekers> tend to be more right more often and less right less often.

For those who care to research it, in general, sincere ignorance has reached plague proportions.

I sometimes feel like we, in America, mistakenly wandered back into a cave. And in that cave we can find shelves filled with sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity available for anyone to take.

Now. We do not lack for excuses for not knowing shit we should know or investing some energy to gain some well needed knowledge. The conventional excuses are time, distractions, overwork, hectic lives, alternative facts, “I already know”, etc.

The list is fairly long and quite accessible to the everyday schmuck.

So while they may be representative of sincere actions they are also representative of sincere purposeful excuses from the strenuous job of thinking.

From an intellectual standpoint this means we remain in a continuous doom loop of Hegelian Dialectic, in fact, never leaving the loop which means ignorance is always at hand and reality is always out of reach.

From my perspective this doom loop encourages us to stay in the cave we are in and just believe what we believe and use our energy for anything other than thinking because we need energy for anything other than thinking.

What you believe to be true, is it true?

Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?

 

This is sad. It is sad because we seem to have lost the ability to think. It may be even sadder that we have purposefully decided to abstain from thinking. And, overall, it’s sad because where we should see thinking and thoughtfulness we only see faux intellectualism and random absurd theories. It is sad because all of this suggests our mental limits are some simplistic tripe soundbites and clever labels <which I would suggest are poorly understood heuristic propaganda tools>.

We seem to have forgotten that what most likely got us out of the cave was, well, enlightened conflict. And when I say conflict I mean ‘what you think versus what I think’ & ‘what you know versus what you could know’ because all the rest is simply trappings and ego/identity/power crap.

For it was within the conflict of ideas and debate in which the people in the cave learned, and unlearned, which inevitably got all of us people to leave the frickin’ cave.

As I have written before there is certainly a battle going on with regard to being an expert <and believed> and certainly anything associated with ‘intellectual’ is poisoned in everyday households.

   =============

“An intellectual? Yes.

And never deny it.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.”

Albert Camus

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

I could argue we stay in the cave for a variety of reasons, but today I will suggest that true thinking has taken a back seat to greed and self-interest <which is less about thinking and more about outcomes>.

The effect of this is that a shitload of people really have no knowledge of their own. And that leads to a mind & thought process almost solely grounded in common opinion.

Well. If thought is a commodity, than from that point on the objective of greed & self-interest isn’t about thinking it is simply about playing the game well <and winning>. The problem with this is that in any game there are winners and there are losers <even though everyone hopes to win>.

Uhm.

Games are for winners and losers.

Thinking is not a game.

Life is not a game.

Using popular numbers in today’s rhetoric t make my point, in a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% win, the winners share some of their winnings with the 2^nd and 3^rd place winners <let’s call them the remaining people of the top 1%> and 99% are losers.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that a system that rewards only the top 1% winners ensures that everyone else loses which creates a sense that 99% of people just cannot think effectively  <I am not sure how that is good for the emotional well-being of a society>..

Well. I purposefully highlighted the Hegelian doom loop earlier because in that scenario we can think about how to break this doom loop cycle.

And, yes, this takes some <gulp> thinking.

In my simplistic mind I focus on benefits. What I mean by that is in today’s world no one sees benefits in thinking and only seeing benefits in not thinking and playing some game.

We need to reprogram that which has conditioned us into this fixed and, frankly, limiting mindset.

Here is the simplest thing I can point to – reality.

Reality 1: If everyone, 100%, thinks and debates and creates new ideas and adapt status quo to new realities … well … 100% has a chance to win. And even the 99% who don’t really “win” tangibly will win by being part of the progress <this is not conceptual mumbo jumbo … this is what any business leader with half a brain knows and does with their employee base>.

Reality 2: If everyone, 100%, doesn’t think and maintains the way we do things now … well … 1% truly has a chance to win.

Oh. And once you enter the winners’ circle you actually increase the odds you will win again.

Oh. And once you become a 99% loser you actually increase the odds you will lose again.

I have to tell ya.

Lay this out like that to people and I am not so sure a shitload of people are gonna like option number 2.

Let’s face it. We have become a “non-thinking” society as we have become, as a society, less people and more & more labels of some objectified economic relationship like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers and service users.

In fact. If you do not have one of those labels, you are an outcast.

Now. In America that ‘outcast’ group is relatively small. Almost all of America participates in consumerism. Globally only a relatively small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism. The majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare. That said. We have significantly increased intellectual poverty – in America and globally.

Mentally we are now back in a cave.

Mentally we are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that we have created a system where thinkers & thinking have little value and even less of a perceived potential reward to the majority of people. The result of that is the majority of the world then competes in a winner take all game in which those in power <past winners> tend create money out of thin air while owning as much as they want.

What this really means is that thinking is unnecessary to become rich.

It only requires a person to be lucky to be born into a past winner family. Which means if you are in the 99% you can be a frickin’ genius and getting rich is still more like a game of chance where the odds of ‘winning’, becoming rich, through talent are very rare.

Well.

That is fucked up.

What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others, and thinking, is not particularly fair to the 100%, but it is also not particularly helpful for any meaningful progress as a society.

What we need to understand is that we are all huddled in a cave – the 99 & the 1. Together.

We must stop following blindly the ideas of what we know but rather open our eyes to what we do not know.

Here is what I know.

If everyone is thinking, everyone is debating, everyone is questioning ‘gut instinct’ and common sense, 100% has a chance of winning and 100% will get better in some form or fashion.

In the world we live in today the thinkers are more likely to lose than some idiots who simply know how to play the game better. Think about that. Yeah. Think. That is fucked up. I want a world with smarter idiots, less sincere ignorance and thinkers to have a chance of winning on occasion.

I actually want a world where no one lives in a cave.

originally published July 2017