My question for today is how closely locked mindfulness and equanimity are. Further, does mindfulness or equanimity--in very precise moments--exclude humor, or maybe more accurately, laughter? Is there a significant shift in mental states between the precision of mindfulness (perhaps more synchronized cortical functioning?) and whatever inconsistency in comparison that sparks laughter? I think it's likely that this can be answered by compiling existing neurophysiological data rather than needing to create more.
But seriously, folks...if samatta leads to tranquility, that tranquility is different from humor and laughter. In my own experience, it seems that there is a sort of blissful sense of possibility, like a nimbus of almost-laughter, that sometimes accompanies mindfulness meditation. Laughter itself seems like a distraction from focus, from single-mindedness and the drift into depths of equanimity. But laughter feels somewhat distinct from that nimbus that is like potential-laughing-with-me. I wonder about whether that liminal feeling full of possibility is like the anticipation that precedes a punchline. I think it is. And if that is so, if that is like Jeffrey Schwartz's equipotentiality (concerning potential brain states/responses) is there a clear and obvious bifurcation between moving towards laughter and tranquility?
It seems to me that, in an Abhidhamma sense, mindfulness may put a sharp edge on consciousness that can accentuate humor, but there is a significant shift between a moment of mindful precision that sets up humor and some actual conception or feeling of humor in a following "moment". (I'm assuming we're already ruling out nervous laughter and the type of humor that simply reduces cognitive dissonance, "manufactured laughter", "purposeful laughter".)
In this question, I think we're getting at the differences (or potential differences) between sahaj samadhi and something along the lines of nirvikalpa samadhi. In one sense, samadhi is samadhi. In another sense, oneness is eternal and ever-present and unchanging while in another, it seems eternal and ever-present and fluid.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Group Identity
This hierarchy of identities may help to direct organizational progress as well. We can compare private organizations (family), civic organizations, and professional organizations (companies). With families, it is obvious that one purpose is to "raise" the children, and it is not such a stretch to include "raising" the adults as well. With the obvious age/experience difference, the adults will have a greater accountability but not necessarily any greater ability. Nonprofit and voluntary organizations usually exist for an explicit purpose. Their group dynamics will be similar to the group dynamics that play out in for-profit organizations.
There are at least two major types of for-profit organizations. The first is private organizations that are not under the pressures inherent in the stock market. Private organizations are able to find a business niche, produce a product or service, and survive by maintaining an acceptable net profit. Public for-profit organizations are under the pressures of the interest of absentee investors. (My bias is notably, admittedly against this interest. This is where I find profit and growth acceptable but economic exploitation unacceptable.) Generally, the push from absentee investors is towards increasing profit rather than sustainable growth and profit, so this type of organization tends to grow to unsustainable size through unsustainable means. (Recently, "too big to fail".)
In order to sell, a company provides some product or service. This is analogous to the creative self. As a business, this production does not need to be playful or involve any depth of curiosity if the product or service is simple enough and if demand and competition are somewhat consistent. As competition increases, or if demand is erratic, then a greater degree of creativity and flexibility becomes important. So production of a saleable product or service is necessary in for-profit organizations.
At the level of Purpose, or able self, we encounter the bottom line. The bottom line involves staying in business. Because societies progress, industries progress, and most products also must progress. Even with products that don't change much over time--such as bread--we'll see changes in production, distribution, and sales. With products that involve technology, we'll see more noticeable, more significant change even in the products themselves. At base, then, companies must keep up with the changes in their industries even if their (energy) industries are behind social expectations. With something as competitive as software, if you're not producing those changes, the industry may pass you by altogether. So with different industries, there are different pressures, obviously. Staying in business, continuing to produce, is the bottom line even if the products one produces change. There's a strong product focus here.
At the level of Understanding, we begin to deal in management and business planning. This is the "good and right" self. As far as for-profit businesses are concerned, a good business is a successful business. At this point, then, we're focusing on effective planning and efficient management. With a hierarchical structure, the managers are not necessarily producers of product. To the extent that managers are not hands-on producers, they face multiple and competing goal sets. Bureaucracy becomes very important as managers focus less on the quality of the product and sustainability of the company and more on maintaining their own jobs. The "good" manager will be able to handle these three goal sets. At this level of abstraction, besides bureaucracy gaining ground, there is also the possibility of conceptual products: teaching, consulting, therapy, research, etc. So intellectual rights also come in.
Now, as we include increasing levels of complexity, integration becomes increasingly important. If you are an individual farmer looking to get agricultural products to a local market, your business plan may be fairly simple even if your business takes a great deal of personal investment. As multiple classes of workers come into the picture, the competition between class interests (the interests of different positions) complicate the overall process to the extent that these interests cannot be (or simply are not) integrated. Historically, managers have enjoyed a greater organizational status than front-line or ground-level workers. Recently, as the preponderance of available products also moves up this scale, managers have found their status challenged as well. This is not a new process even if it is a new class being challenged. Just as mechanization devalued physical labor, the ready availability of information challenges the expert status of "knowledge workers" and managers while devaluing every type of intellectual property except cutting-edge material. Even the valuable/saleable lifespan of cutting-edge material is shrinking.
The market also changes. Consumer expectations change. This is true for governments and their citizens as well. As the availability of knowledge becomes expected, consumers become more educated. As consumers become more educated--which occurs while production methods and products become increasingly differentiated--they have the option of becoming choosier. And in order to make what they consider to be good choices, they expect a greater degree of transparency. These expectations influence business to not only be "good" at production but also "right" (in the consumer's eyes at least) about how and what they produce. While there is no absolute transparency, information, or coordination between producer and consumer, it is generally in the interest of producers to coordinate with their consumers. All of this so far is taken for granted for the most part.
But this space between Understanding and Appreciation is full of promise...and tension. At the level of Appreciation, you have educated amateurs who can compete with businesses in endeavors that allow open-source production (Linux v. Microsoft, for example). This threatens the market share and sometimes even the existence of certain businesses. As this occurs, coordinating a group of dispersed, interested individuals (coordination) challenges the institutionalized management process (design) itself. As it turns out, coordination of educated individuals is much more effective at producing innovation because of the nature of innovation. This is interesting. Management always had to be somewhat responsive to the physical situation, ground-level workers, competition, and consumer expectations. But this expands competition to include groups that are not under the pressure to create financial profit. In the past, management could improve by focusing on efficiency; but now, management is competing against a production process where efficiency is not a significant concern. And, by taking out efficiency as a significant concern, open-sourcing can be much more effective at creating innovation. To the extent that it ends up making goods available to the public for free, its effects end up being very efficient if the public utilizes the products on a widespread basis.
Part of what this does is to emphasize the important of reputation. When someone needs a finite product within a certain timeframe and certain parameters, it's still best to hire a reputable business. But as societies meet the basic needs of their populations, those populations increasingly turn their attention to progress, to innovation and appreciation--same as happened with mechanization of agricultural production. Surplus attention moves upwards and out. Increasingly--and this is noticeable at the most creative, most competitive firms--people look for the expression of their creative, playful, and true selves where they work.
As firms look for sustainability in this changing environment, it can seem that demands come from all over. It can help to organize goals by degree of necessity in order to determine what is possible. The most basic set of necessities are the physical necessities that it takes to create and market a product. This forms one set of pressures. Integrating expectations of worker classes, reducing conflict between classes (alignment), creates another. Improving production and distribution methods towards consumer-driven expectations of ethical production is another (one which has increased and will likely continue to increase for some time). Developing and maintaining industry advantages are another. Competing with open-sourcing is one that fits hand-in-glove with maintaining and developing talent. Truly talented individuals with cutting-edge training have high expectations. Here, it can be helpful to differentiate between playful enjoyment and creativity as separate from the sense of a meaningful life. While talented individuals will want (demand) both to some extent, providing one or the other may be easier. Trying to provide both may be possible, but even so it helps to distinguish the two. In fact, it may be possible to set up the context of the work situation to also encourage flow experiences at work (pleasure, flow, and meaning being different but complimentary).
A great part of integrating company mission, worker class interests, consumer expectations, and pleasure-flow-meaning will involve being able to communicate to these different levels of goals and interests. Depending on the message one wants to convey, it will be helpful to set up communications customs and expectations to fit with these different levels. A further dialogue on customs and expectations within communications may be called for. Further exploration on where open-sourcing is more effective than institutionalized design will also be interesting.
There are at least two major types of for-profit organizations. The first is private organizations that are not under the pressures inherent in the stock market. Private organizations are able to find a business niche, produce a product or service, and survive by maintaining an acceptable net profit. Public for-profit organizations are under the pressures of the interest of absentee investors. (My bias is notably, admittedly against this interest. This is where I find profit and growth acceptable but economic exploitation unacceptable.) Generally, the push from absentee investors is towards increasing profit rather than sustainable growth and profit, so this type of organization tends to grow to unsustainable size through unsustainable means. (Recently, "too big to fail".)
In order to sell, a company provides some product or service. This is analogous to the creative self. As a business, this production does not need to be playful or involve any depth of curiosity if the product or service is simple enough and if demand and competition are somewhat consistent. As competition increases, or if demand is erratic, then a greater degree of creativity and flexibility becomes important. So production of a saleable product or service is necessary in for-profit organizations.
At the level of Purpose, or able self, we encounter the bottom line. The bottom line involves staying in business. Because societies progress, industries progress, and most products also must progress. Even with products that don't change much over time--such as bread--we'll see changes in production, distribution, and sales. With products that involve technology, we'll see more noticeable, more significant change even in the products themselves. At base, then, companies must keep up with the changes in their industries even if their (energy) industries are behind social expectations. With something as competitive as software, if you're not producing those changes, the industry may pass you by altogether. So with different industries, there are different pressures, obviously. Staying in business, continuing to produce, is the bottom line even if the products one produces change. There's a strong product focus here.
At the level of Understanding, we begin to deal in management and business planning. This is the "good and right" self. As far as for-profit businesses are concerned, a good business is a successful business. At this point, then, we're focusing on effective planning and efficient management. With a hierarchical structure, the managers are not necessarily producers of product. To the extent that managers are not hands-on producers, they face multiple and competing goal sets. Bureaucracy becomes very important as managers focus less on the quality of the product and sustainability of the company and more on maintaining their own jobs. The "good" manager will be able to handle these three goal sets. At this level of abstraction, besides bureaucracy gaining ground, there is also the possibility of conceptual products: teaching, consulting, therapy, research, etc. So intellectual rights also come in.
Now, as we include increasing levels of complexity, integration becomes increasingly important. If you are an individual farmer looking to get agricultural products to a local market, your business plan may be fairly simple even if your business takes a great deal of personal investment. As multiple classes of workers come into the picture, the competition between class interests (the interests of different positions) complicate the overall process to the extent that these interests cannot be (or simply are not) integrated. Historically, managers have enjoyed a greater organizational status than front-line or ground-level workers. Recently, as the preponderance of available products also moves up this scale, managers have found their status challenged as well. This is not a new process even if it is a new class being challenged. Just as mechanization devalued physical labor, the ready availability of information challenges the expert status of "knowledge workers" and managers while devaluing every type of intellectual property except cutting-edge material. Even the valuable/saleable lifespan of cutting-edge material is shrinking.
The market also changes. Consumer expectations change. This is true for governments and their citizens as well. As the availability of knowledge becomes expected, consumers become more educated. As consumers become more educated--which occurs while production methods and products become increasingly differentiated--they have the option of becoming choosier. And in order to make what they consider to be good choices, they expect a greater degree of transparency. These expectations influence business to not only be "good" at production but also "right" (in the consumer's eyes at least) about how and what they produce. While there is no absolute transparency, information, or coordination between producer and consumer, it is generally in the interest of producers to coordinate with their consumers. All of this so far is taken for granted for the most part.
But this space between Understanding and Appreciation is full of promise...and tension. At the level of Appreciation, you have educated amateurs who can compete with businesses in endeavors that allow open-source production (Linux v. Microsoft, for example). This threatens the market share and sometimes even the existence of certain businesses. As this occurs, coordinating a group of dispersed, interested individuals (coordination) challenges the institutionalized management process (design) itself. As it turns out, coordination of educated individuals is much more effective at producing innovation because of the nature of innovation. This is interesting. Management always had to be somewhat responsive to the physical situation, ground-level workers, competition, and consumer expectations. But this expands competition to include groups that are not under the pressure to create financial profit. In the past, management could improve by focusing on efficiency; but now, management is competing against a production process where efficiency is not a significant concern. And, by taking out efficiency as a significant concern, open-sourcing can be much more effective at creating innovation. To the extent that it ends up making goods available to the public for free, its effects end up being very efficient if the public utilizes the products on a widespread basis.
Part of what this does is to emphasize the important of reputation. When someone needs a finite product within a certain timeframe and certain parameters, it's still best to hire a reputable business. But as societies meet the basic needs of their populations, those populations increasingly turn their attention to progress, to innovation and appreciation--same as happened with mechanization of agricultural production. Surplus attention moves upwards and out. Increasingly--and this is noticeable at the most creative, most competitive firms--people look for the expression of their creative, playful, and true selves where they work.
As firms look for sustainability in this changing environment, it can seem that demands come from all over. It can help to organize goals by degree of necessity in order to determine what is possible. The most basic set of necessities are the physical necessities that it takes to create and market a product. This forms one set of pressures. Integrating expectations of worker classes, reducing conflict between classes (alignment), creates another. Improving production and distribution methods towards consumer-driven expectations of ethical production is another (one which has increased and will likely continue to increase for some time). Developing and maintaining industry advantages are another. Competing with open-sourcing is one that fits hand-in-glove with maintaining and developing talent. Truly talented individuals with cutting-edge training have high expectations. Here, it can be helpful to differentiate between playful enjoyment and creativity as separate from the sense of a meaningful life. While talented individuals will want (demand) both to some extent, providing one or the other may be easier. Trying to provide both may be possible, but even so it helps to distinguish the two. In fact, it may be possible to set up the context of the work situation to also encourage flow experiences at work (pleasure, flow, and meaning being different but complimentary).
A great part of integrating company mission, worker class interests, consumer expectations, and pleasure-flow-meaning will involve being able to communicate to these different levels of goals and interests. Depending on the message one wants to convey, it will be helpful to set up communications customs and expectations to fit with these different levels. A further dialogue on customs and expectations within communications may be called for. Further exploration on where open-sourcing is more effective than institutionalized design will also be interesting.
Why Affirmation of Identities?
When we look towards emergence in social processes as opposed to looking at how to garner more power or status from the social structures and customs already in place, we are looking in a fundamentally new way. Rather than looking at a zero-sum equation (as if there is only so much affluence, power, status, whatever), we end up looking to create. One difficulty, though, is that many of us feel that desire to create without having a clear idea of what we want to collaborate on creating. This is where affirming identities can be applicable.
Essentially, we are asking the question: where is opportunity? Or, "If Opportunity is always knocking, what is possible now?" In the same way that it is somewhat true that all politics are local, all actionable opportunity is local, present, immediate. In order to seize the day, this day, this moment, we need to see the opportunity that is offered here and now. With limited vision, the easiest and surest way to do that is to garner some degree of power or status as historically (already) recognized. This is a process of painting oneself into a corner, though. Eventually, we will bump into everyone else who is painting THEMSELVES into the same corner!
Conflict only makes the limitations obvious and unavoidable--it doesn't suggest progress. What's more, the conflict is only an outcome of limited vision--not so much an inevitable consequence of human nature. When we have enough to space to grow into, most of us are more interested in growth, play, and creative exchange more than limited and limiting positions (corners). It's a high enough percentage that, once we realize what is genuinely inherent in human nature and how to recognize opportunity, there are easily enough of us to contain the psychopaths that will still be attempting conquest of various corners of the world.
In order to suggest or prompt for progress rather than ignoring conflict, winning conflict, or despising conflict, we have to train ourselves to see and utilize opportunity. Now, the physical world (ecology, pollution, economics, etc.) is too complex for me to actually control or even understand fully. But there are certain trends in psychological motivations that are based on universal brain potentials and genetic programming which coordinate our actions whether we recognize the coordination or not. An unintentional experience of these motivations will as likely lead us into competing for corners as to progress and a utilization of opportunities.
Because the world is so complex and society is so mobile, it is hard to plan explicit and concrete progress on a large scale. That's okay--human planning has always fallen far short of the mark set by those who believe in planning. And when it does, and it usually does, we rely on our resilience. If we know ahead of time that our planning is likely to come up short, it doesn't mean we shouldn't plan. It simply means that we should begin to emphasize our resilience. Focusing on resilience--as opposed to only looking at threat and security--not only teaches us about resilience but also puts us in a frame of mind that encourages creativity and action in the face of threat. Emphasizing threat and pumping people for fear, on the other hand, encourages reliance on authority, learned helplessness, and "groupthink".
From an Understanding-level interpretation of the world, we can do our power analyses, risk analyses, etc. and try to problem-solve. But unequal power structures and risk will not go away. In order to take the next step towards flexibility and agency, we need to look at how to move beyond seeing the world in terms of competitive structures/positions and problems to be solved. How? This is simple. We need to encourage intentional experience of the things that drive us. What's more, rather than seeing those things, those drives, as problems, we need to find ways to see our basic and universal drives as potentially valuable. (I say "potentially" because I am a realist; the same drives, taken in a close-minded way, also move us towards fighting in various corners.)
How do we find these seemingly elusive opportunities, these perspectives on potential value? Simple. We look at which "selves" or what qualities others are trying to feel by what they do. We are all almost always trying for something better. We almost always interpret other people's behavior as selfish or incomplete in some way. And that combination allows us to see our own aspiration in comparison to other people's limitations. Psychologically, this puts us in the one-up position, gives us comparative status or moral power in our own minds. Other people are doing the same, and in the real world, our competing visions (when I believe I'm one-up while you believe you're one-up) lead us to conflict. What we can do instead of painting ourselves into that contested and shrinking corner is to start to see our interpretation of ourselves-as-good as a bad thing. This goes into all the humans-are-corrupt, ego-is-evil interpretations. Those interpretations also set up a shrinking corner where people compete to be seen as less-selfish rather than as good or worthy. Bleh, I say, bleh.
Another option is to start to see other people's motivations as affirming in some way, just as I experience most of my motivations to be affirming. This sets up an expanding space and an expansive mindset. What we look to do with this mindset, then, is to separate the limiting aspects of behavior from the positive aspects of motivation. In other words, we combine realism and affirmation while diminishing the assumption that being in a separating/separated one-up position (shrinking corner) is so ideal. I do the same thing for myself as for you. I look at what I'm doing, what positive aspect or self this behavior is intended to affirm, and I check whether or not it is actually supporting a playful self, able self, good and right self, a mature self, a true self, a beatific self, or a fruition self.
Part of what this method assumes is that I am willing to be "right" enough in my thinking and interactions to actually question myself. Usually, when other people question us in ways we don't want, we take it as judgment and threat of our precious corner. We feel cornered. That's a pretty consistent sign. If I feel cornered, I've probably painted myself a good ways towards a corner. In such a situation, someone else competing for that corner or pointing out how I'm limiting myself is secondary to whether or not I am actually painting myself into a corner. If I can't question myself, I have already cornered myself, put my spirit in a stranglehold. If that's what I'm doing, it makes little difference--although it can be distracting--if someone else comes along and tries to choke me!
We are all looking to experience ourselves as open, clear, and free. That is truly who we are and we fight against untrue expressions of who we are. But to actually grow into that freedom--the actual, real-world truth of that freedom--we must know ourselves as creative, able, good, and mature. As Shams of Tabriz said, "All lights are friends to each other." My true self is open to your true self. When I feel closed-off, that is not my light, not my true self. When that is how I am being, I have work to do. My opportunity, at that point, is to take responsibility for how I am feeling and what I am doing. Putting in the necessary work, at that point, is the genuine authentic expression that I want to be and express who I really am. I affirm my light.
Hasrat Inayat Khan said, "Everything in this world which seems to lack harmony is in reality the limitation of man's own vision." If we want to live the beatitude in that statement, we must be true to ourselves, true to each other, true to our world. To find the beatitude in that statement or this world, we must find how it is true.
Essentially, we are asking the question: where is opportunity? Or, "If Opportunity is always knocking, what is possible now?" In the same way that it is somewhat true that all politics are local, all actionable opportunity is local, present, immediate. In order to seize the day, this day, this moment, we need to see the opportunity that is offered here and now. With limited vision, the easiest and surest way to do that is to garner some degree of power or status as historically (already) recognized. This is a process of painting oneself into a corner, though. Eventually, we will bump into everyone else who is painting THEMSELVES into the same corner!
Conflict only makes the limitations obvious and unavoidable--it doesn't suggest progress. What's more, the conflict is only an outcome of limited vision--not so much an inevitable consequence of human nature. When we have enough to space to grow into, most of us are more interested in growth, play, and creative exchange more than limited and limiting positions (corners). It's a high enough percentage that, once we realize what is genuinely inherent in human nature and how to recognize opportunity, there are easily enough of us to contain the psychopaths that will still be attempting conquest of various corners of the world.
In order to suggest or prompt for progress rather than ignoring conflict, winning conflict, or despising conflict, we have to train ourselves to see and utilize opportunity. Now, the physical world (ecology, pollution, economics, etc.) is too complex for me to actually control or even understand fully. But there are certain trends in psychological motivations that are based on universal brain potentials and genetic programming which coordinate our actions whether we recognize the coordination or not. An unintentional experience of these motivations will as likely lead us into competing for corners as to progress and a utilization of opportunities.
Because the world is so complex and society is so mobile, it is hard to plan explicit and concrete progress on a large scale. That's okay--human planning has always fallen far short of the mark set by those who believe in planning. And when it does, and it usually does, we rely on our resilience. If we know ahead of time that our planning is likely to come up short, it doesn't mean we shouldn't plan. It simply means that we should begin to emphasize our resilience. Focusing on resilience--as opposed to only looking at threat and security--not only teaches us about resilience but also puts us in a frame of mind that encourages creativity and action in the face of threat. Emphasizing threat and pumping people for fear, on the other hand, encourages reliance on authority, learned helplessness, and "groupthink".
From an Understanding-level interpretation of the world, we can do our power analyses, risk analyses, etc. and try to problem-solve. But unequal power structures and risk will not go away. In order to take the next step towards flexibility and agency, we need to look at how to move beyond seeing the world in terms of competitive structures/positions and problems to be solved. How? This is simple. We need to encourage intentional experience of the things that drive us. What's more, rather than seeing those things, those drives, as problems, we need to find ways to see our basic and universal drives as potentially valuable. (I say "potentially" because I am a realist; the same drives, taken in a close-minded way, also move us towards fighting in various corners.)
How do we find these seemingly elusive opportunities, these perspectives on potential value? Simple. We look at which "selves" or what qualities others are trying to feel by what they do. We are all almost always trying for something better. We almost always interpret other people's behavior as selfish or incomplete in some way. And that combination allows us to see our own aspiration in comparison to other people's limitations. Psychologically, this puts us in the one-up position, gives us comparative status or moral power in our own minds. Other people are doing the same, and in the real world, our competing visions (when I believe I'm one-up while you believe you're one-up) lead us to conflict. What we can do instead of painting ourselves into that contested and shrinking corner is to start to see our interpretation of ourselves-as-good as a bad thing. This goes into all the humans-are-corrupt, ego-is-evil interpretations. Those interpretations also set up a shrinking corner where people compete to be seen as less-selfish rather than as good or worthy. Bleh, I say, bleh.
Another option is to start to see other people's motivations as affirming in some way, just as I experience most of my motivations to be affirming. This sets up an expanding space and an expansive mindset. What we look to do with this mindset, then, is to separate the limiting aspects of behavior from the positive aspects of motivation. In other words, we combine realism and affirmation while diminishing the assumption that being in a separating/separated one-up position (shrinking corner) is so ideal. I do the same thing for myself as for you. I look at what I'm doing, what positive aspect or self this behavior is intended to affirm, and I check whether or not it is actually supporting a playful self, able self, good and right self, a mature self, a true self, a beatific self, or a fruition self.
Part of what this method assumes is that I am willing to be "right" enough in my thinking and interactions to actually question myself. Usually, when other people question us in ways we don't want, we take it as judgment and threat of our precious corner. We feel cornered. That's a pretty consistent sign. If I feel cornered, I've probably painted myself a good ways towards a corner. In such a situation, someone else competing for that corner or pointing out how I'm limiting myself is secondary to whether or not I am actually painting myself into a corner. If I can't question myself, I have already cornered myself, put my spirit in a stranglehold. If that's what I'm doing, it makes little difference--although it can be distracting--if someone else comes along and tries to choke me!
We are all looking to experience ourselves as open, clear, and free. That is truly who we are and we fight against untrue expressions of who we are. But to actually grow into that freedom--the actual, real-world truth of that freedom--we must know ourselves as creative, able, good, and mature. As Shams of Tabriz said, "All lights are friends to each other." My true self is open to your true self. When I feel closed-off, that is not my light, not my true self. When that is how I am being, I have work to do. My opportunity, at that point, is to take responsibility for how I am feeling and what I am doing. Putting in the necessary work, at that point, is the genuine authentic expression that I want to be and express who I really am. I affirm my light.
Hasrat Inayat Khan said, "Everything in this world which seems to lack harmony is in reality the limitation of man's own vision." If we want to live the beatitude in that statement, we must be true to ourselves, true to each other, true to our world. To find the beatitude in that statement or this world, we must find how it is true.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Integrating Aspects of Self: Affirming Identity is Affirming Life
Okay--it takes a group, a society to affirm actualization of self-identity. Without social affirmation, we may be relatively transcendental in some ways, but it won't establish in a gross-consciousness way solidly. I know everyone is tired of numbers and categories from me, but there are four steps that need to happen in order for one's actualizing self to be felt, recognized, and fully established in one's gross awareness and social identity (which necessarily involves subtle experience).
1. Experience of various types of healthy self.
2. Expression of...
3. Social recognition of...
4. Social affirmation of...
When we invest individual psychological energy or intention into self-expression, it comes out in noticeable and distinct ways that have distinct feels to them. As we actualize, we learn to intentionally experience, express, have recognized, and take in affirmation of these ways of being. When other people's sense of us does not change, when affirmation and recognition are not forthcoming, we have a surplus of attention and potential that ends up stagnating (actually rejected at the point of expression in this case)--also in somewhat particular and distinct ways (which are, as always, affected by temperament, situation, and culture).
To describe these types of self in line with the levels and skills I've already laid out. The first type is that of me as a playful self. Curiosity and creativity are part of this. The second type is of the able self. Third is the good and right self. Fourth is the mature self. Fifth is what I feel to be true self (dhyana, flow). Sixth is beatific self. And the last could be called many things that refer to eternity, peace, purity, the sacred, saintly, etc. (We can also posit a nondual self, the expression [...etc.] of all these as non-separate.) I'll call that last self the fruition self, as one comes into fruition of one's personality and realization.
This also provides a concrete means of identifying what we feel is lacking in reference to individual experience. We all have the desire to be recognized as each of these things. For some people, those "desires" are not as strong and noticeable as impulses or instincts (like hunger or lust) so they don't necessarily feel those desires as salient, tangible, psychological things. Typically, what I feel most lacking is a general awareness and expression of true self. That is different from what I'd call the genuine momentary expression of self or the right-now-moment expression of genuine self. Sometimes I want to feel able and affirmed as able, so acting able rather than from a center or psychological "place" of dhyana is fine or fitting and genuine in that particular the moment. A different expression may be genuine at the next moment.
People feel pressure when they are called upon to act from a "higher" place than what they genuinely feel at the moment. (Invoking idealization and the demand characteristic involved in expectation is often counterproductive at these moments.) We may also feel disappointed when we are not recognized and affirmed where we are at. (Experiencing and overcoming some disappointment is probably necessary and unavoidable.) In this way, expecting people to act from somewhere they are not feeling, we encourage an inauthentic self by idealizing and expecting something other than what people feel. This idealization or pull method is different from a more organic or supportive "push" method. We may find role models and try to live up to them--that is an example of introjecting an ideal. If we pretend to achieve acting from that idealized place without actually making it, we will probably project grandiosity; but if we can't pull off the pretension, we feel shame.
When we support people in their genuine experience of self, they tend to look for progress at some point. People look to push, we look to improve things, to make things better. It's natural. That is like having a surplus of energy (action potential, priming). If we put that surplus into expectation and idealization, we'll also tend to project our ideals and feel disappointed by--and maybe aggressive against--anyone not living up to our idealizations. When our idealizations become entrenched and habitual enough, they become unquestioned and often even unnoticed expectations (hidden justifications for disappointment and aggression).
We deny an individual and their human potential when we expect or hope for something other than a genuine expression of self. But, since all of these types or aspects of self are universal, we can also deny their genuine self by idealizing and projecting ideals as unrealistic idealizations. When people are supported--put into a context and relationships where they are healthy--they will naturally aspire to a full experience and expression of their potential. When our aspirations fit our expectations and our actions, we are living as inspired selves rather than not living up to idealizations or projecting ideal selves. Since we have different temperaments, we will show different types of inspired selves that involve different degrees of the various levels (or types or aspects of healthy selves).
Honing attentional skills can help increase the efficiency with which one deploys attention. Applying one's experience as to when to push oneself to achieve and when to just be genuine is an expression of individual wisdom. I call the fifth type of self "true self" because it involves a return to clarity and what buddhists call anatta (roughly, "no-self"--the center of my six points of psychological balance). Aspiring to clarity is worthwhile and reinforcing clarity as an integrated aspect of self is also worthwhile. You were meant to be clear and connected; I was meant to be clear and connected. Feeling something other than that is an expression of some sort of ignorance or muddle--it's something less than what we want and deserve. Denying or projecting our genuine desires diminishes our chances of actualizing the potential that motivates those desires.
1. Experience of various types of healthy self.
2. Expression of...
3. Social recognition of...
4. Social affirmation of...
When we invest individual psychological energy or intention into self-expression, it comes out in noticeable and distinct ways that have distinct feels to them. As we actualize, we learn to intentionally experience, express, have recognized, and take in affirmation of these ways of being. When other people's sense of us does not change, when affirmation and recognition are not forthcoming, we have a surplus of attention and potential that ends up stagnating (actually rejected at the point of expression in this case)--also in somewhat particular and distinct ways (which are, as always, affected by temperament, situation, and culture).
To describe these types of self in line with the levels and skills I've already laid out. The first type is that of me as a playful self. Curiosity and creativity are part of this. The second type is of the able self. Third is the good and right self. Fourth is the mature self. Fifth is what I feel to be true self (dhyana, flow). Sixth is beatific self. And the last could be called many things that refer to eternity, peace, purity, the sacred, saintly, etc. (We can also posit a nondual self, the expression [...etc.] of all these as non-separate.) I'll call that last self the fruition self, as one comes into fruition of one's personality and realization.
This also provides a concrete means of identifying what we feel is lacking in reference to individual experience. We all have the desire to be recognized as each of these things. For some people, those "desires" are not as strong and noticeable as impulses or instincts (like hunger or lust) so they don't necessarily feel those desires as salient, tangible, psychological things. Typically, what I feel most lacking is a general awareness and expression of true self. That is different from what I'd call the genuine momentary expression of self or the right-now-moment expression of genuine self. Sometimes I want to feel able and affirmed as able, so acting able rather than from a center or psychological "place" of dhyana is fine or fitting and genuine in that particular the moment. A different expression may be genuine at the next moment.
People feel pressure when they are called upon to act from a "higher" place than what they genuinely feel at the moment. (Invoking idealization and the demand characteristic involved in expectation is often counterproductive at these moments.) We may also feel disappointed when we are not recognized and affirmed where we are at. (Experiencing and overcoming some disappointment is probably necessary and unavoidable.) In this way, expecting people to act from somewhere they are not feeling, we encourage an inauthentic self by idealizing and expecting something other than what people feel. This idealization or pull method is different from a more organic or supportive "push" method. We may find role models and try to live up to them--that is an example of introjecting an ideal. If we pretend to achieve acting from that idealized place without actually making it, we will probably project grandiosity; but if we can't pull off the pretension, we feel shame.
When we support people in their genuine experience of self, they tend to look for progress at some point. People look to push, we look to improve things, to make things better. It's natural. That is like having a surplus of energy (action potential, priming). If we put that surplus into expectation and idealization, we'll also tend to project our ideals and feel disappointed by--and maybe aggressive against--anyone not living up to our idealizations. When our idealizations become entrenched and habitual enough, they become unquestioned and often even unnoticed expectations (hidden justifications for disappointment and aggression).
We deny an individual and their human potential when we expect or hope for something other than a genuine expression of self. But, since all of these types or aspects of self are universal, we can also deny their genuine self by idealizing and projecting ideals as unrealistic idealizations. When people are supported--put into a context and relationships where they are healthy--they will naturally aspire to a full experience and expression of their potential. When our aspirations fit our expectations and our actions, we are living as inspired selves rather than not living up to idealizations or projecting ideal selves. Since we have different temperaments, we will show different types of inspired selves that involve different degrees of the various levels (or types or aspects of healthy selves).
Honing attentional skills can help increase the efficiency with which one deploys attention. Applying one's experience as to when to push oneself to achieve and when to just be genuine is an expression of individual wisdom. I call the fifth type of self "true self" because it involves a return to clarity and what buddhists call anatta (roughly, "no-self"--the center of my six points of psychological balance). Aspiring to clarity is worthwhile and reinforcing clarity as an integrated aspect of self is also worthwhile. You were meant to be clear and connected; I was meant to be clear and connected. Feeling something other than that is an expression of some sort of ignorance or muddle--it's something less than what we want and deserve. Denying or projecting our genuine desires diminishes our chances of actualizing the potential that motivates those desires.
Happiness
This is great. The first 9 minutes of this video of Seligman is pretty boring, but after that, the content itself is exciting. He breaks down happiness into a categorization that actually is fitting and applicable. This is the first top-notch psychological material I've seen on increasing happiness. (I'd set FLOW aside as not necessarily about happiness per se without being included/contextualized as it is here.)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Back to Hierarchy
I've recently been reading CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE, and it's brought up the topic of hierarchical relationships through the lens of folks who are ready to follow unquestioningly or lead without consideration. There is something about the fear and closed mental state that go along with authoritarianism that may be the experiential antithesis of mindfulness--sort of a willed ignorance.
Acceptance lies between grandiosity and shame (the negative feelings associated with being either one-up or one-down in relationship). Mindfulness puts a bright edge on acceptance. With mindful awareness, escapism into exaggeration or avoidance can be understood and felt to be the denial of reality and denial of living that they are.
If one is always attempting escape, this life in this world appears to be a prison. If one is willing to embrace reality, the actual circumstances may not immediately change, and just "thinking positively" is like putting a dress on a pig. Mindful engagement, then, may begin as feeling like getting more intimate with a pig or taking a genuine interest in the characteristics of a prison cell.
The willingness to take an interest is the first step in removing contempt and dissatisfaction from one's life. Willingness is an invitation to authenticity. Authenticity couples with inspiration.
When our experience is based in authenticity and inspiration, rather than exaggeration and avoidance, we might find that there is room enough in this world for pigs and prisons and much, much more. But right now, at this very moment, am I willing?
Acceptance lies between grandiosity and shame (the negative feelings associated with being either one-up or one-down in relationship). Mindfulness puts a bright edge on acceptance. With mindful awareness, escapism into exaggeration or avoidance can be understood and felt to be the denial of reality and denial of living that they are.
If one is always attempting escape, this life in this world appears to be a prison. If one is willing to embrace reality, the actual circumstances may not immediately change, and just "thinking positively" is like putting a dress on a pig. Mindful engagement, then, may begin as feeling like getting more intimate with a pig or taking a genuine interest in the characteristics of a prison cell.
The willingness to take an interest is the first step in removing contempt and dissatisfaction from one's life. Willingness is an invitation to authenticity. Authenticity couples with inspiration.
When our experience is based in authenticity and inspiration, rather than exaggeration and avoidance, we might find that there is room enough in this world for pigs and prisons and much, much more. But right now, at this very moment, am I willing?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Resilient, a Sidenote
I had not found a workable definition for psychological resilience, and that may simply have been because of looking at it from the right angle but not going far enough. The work on play that Dr. Stuart Brown has done really brought home to me the limitations I had assumed. Rather than dealing with resilience from a problem-solving perspective--which is understandable when you're looking at researching how to overcome emotional difficulties--resilience is really about the profusion of health that overcomes challenges.
From a psychological perspective, the positive emotional experience people have this right. Resilience, then, can be described and researched as the capability of returning to a state of creativity, playfulness, or purpose after experiencing adversity. These states, as foundational to psychological health, describe or characterize healthy functioning. Without experiencing these states on a somewhat regular basis, it is impossible to relate well. By focusing too much on the aspect of durability that may be involved in overcoming adversity, we aren't actually drawing from the most basic healthy aspects of our psyches. Being able to maintain some sense of purpose and focus is actually a poorer approximation of the more complete health involved in--and stemming from--the ability to play.
In this vein, then, we can describe play therapy as any intentional behavior aimed at overcoming blocked playfulness. This is different from play itself, which may not be intentionally focused towards overcoming anything. While play may have therapeutic affects, it is not therapy.
From a psychological perspective, the positive emotional experience people have this right. Resilience, then, can be described and researched as the capability of returning to a state of creativity, playfulness, or purpose after experiencing adversity. These states, as foundational to psychological health, describe or characterize healthy functioning. Without experiencing these states on a somewhat regular basis, it is impossible to relate well. By focusing too much on the aspect of durability that may be involved in overcoming adversity, we aren't actually drawing from the most basic healthy aspects of our psyches. Being able to maintain some sense of purpose and focus is actually a poorer approximation of the more complete health involved in--and stemming from--the ability to play.
In this vein, then, we can describe play therapy as any intentional behavior aimed at overcoming blocked playfulness. This is different from play itself, which may not be intentionally focused towards overcoming anything. While play may have therapeutic affects, it is not therapy.
Monday, June 15, 2009
VIIInnovation as Crossroads
Just as pluralist democracies are still relatively new (in the toddler stage of development), electronic exchange is relatively new. At the same time that the three major 20th century attempts to address tyranny (especially as oligarchy and hereditary aristocracy) in large, densely populated industrial societies were in conflict (fascism, communism, and expansionary capitalism), the issue of electronic exchange became significant. In comparison, the issue of the importance of fossil fuels really came into its own in the previous couple of centuries. And, just as we haven't quite figured out a commonly accepted method of redistributing and utilizing fossil fuels, we haven't quite figured out a commonly accepted method of electronic production and exchange. A relative timeline is important for considering the pace of economic progress. If we don't like the timeline that it takes to create sustainable progress, we will try for revolutionary reforms that will ultimately prove to be unsustainable. If we want changes to be sustained, we will have to institutionalize them. Now, if we see democracy as a form of governance that is inherently revolutionary (or communism for that matter, or Islamic revolution for that matter), we structure-in cyclical (at least--think of Jefferson's ideas about refreshing the tree of liberty) or consistent conflict.
Revolutionary violence seems a fairly intuitive response to colonial oppression. Cyclical or consistent violence may be called for, fitting, until the revolution is successful. The problem is that with Russia's oppression of its neighbors and America's oppression of its client states, both countries went against their own proposed political ideals. While both might have accepted that the "Third World" could be a battlefield and testing grounds, the conflict between the two appropriated huge amounts of resources from the "First World" countries, "Second World" allies, and "Third World" lowest class nations.
From the vantage point of an ecologically aware world citizen, not only is the political hypocrisy of both fomentors of "global revolution" stark, not only is the devastation...well, devastating, but that utilization of resources is unsustainable. This unavoidable--in the light of obvious fact--outcome was a largely intended result of Reagan's policies. He wanted to bankrupt the Soviet Union, wanted to prove the futility of trying to out-industrialize a more economically innovative competitor. And he was willing to pay the environmental, social, and political costs it would take. I say, "Touche, sir; well-played."
In comparison, China has so far wisely decided to avoid much of the cost of competing for global military superiority while embracing the competitive spirit of industrialization through environmental devastation. India, seemingly, has not been as able (without such a central command structure) to push environmental devastation, so they have gone more in the direction of utilizing their human resources and inviting technological investment (of course, the Chinese are hedging their bets and also working on financial and human resources investment and regional military superiority). The two major competitors in the latter half of the 20th century were able to successfully bankrupt themselves while the greatest beneficiaries of the competition over fossil fuels have done what the leisurely rich have tended to do--spend and enjoy while maintaining the status quo in their neighborhood.
In looking forward, if I am correct, the people who get caught up in things such as the debate over whether English should be dominant will do one of two things (both a waste of time): 1)resent this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism, or 2)luxuriate in the passing advantage of this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism. While the backward-looking post-colonial critics may be accurate enough in their power-analysis description of this outcome, they will already be behind the ball in comparison to the Indians who are leveraging their (also historically recent) full-scale exposure to the English language. The more provincial Islamist revolutionaries who have adopted the 20th century fascination with cyclical or continual violence (so passe) are reaping the benefits of trying to remain a cultural backwater throughout the last sixty years. Again, the various justifications for trying to remain aside are secondary, in my opinion to the effects. It's impossible to remain aside culturally. But it is possible to slow the rate of assimilation and coordination. (Interestingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has had one of the few accepted state-sponsored drives to significantly reduce population growth rates in recent decades.)
Where does all of this lead? Simple. In one way, it really is simple to understand--maybe not as simple to do, but I wonder about that. Optimally, this leads each nation, social group, and individual to something akin to what I described as balance by six points. It leads to a point of view in which one actively and consciously works on resilient progress (whether by "one" it is you as individual or as part of one/each group). It leads to the possibility--as people consider degree of coordination that they want as opposed to assimilation or rejection--of less military and cultural conflict without capitulation. It leads to a revised understanding of democracy as a utopian sort of static ideal (with concomitant cyclical violence since stasis is impossible) to the idea of democracy as the real-life process of political and social inclusion and progress. Adopting innovation as a second language is a crossroads between the post-modern post-structural prison and a post-modern post-structural reaffirmation of human history and potential.
This quote from Donald Merlin that I began with is still apropos:
Revolutionary violence seems a fairly intuitive response to colonial oppression. Cyclical or consistent violence may be called for, fitting, until the revolution is successful. The problem is that with Russia's oppression of its neighbors and America's oppression of its client states, both countries went against their own proposed political ideals. While both might have accepted that the "Third World" could be a battlefield and testing grounds, the conflict between the two appropriated huge amounts of resources from the "First World" countries, "Second World" allies, and "Third World" lowest class nations.
From the vantage point of an ecologically aware world citizen, not only is the political hypocrisy of both fomentors of "global revolution" stark, not only is the devastation...well, devastating, but that utilization of resources is unsustainable. This unavoidable--in the light of obvious fact--outcome was a largely intended result of Reagan's policies. He wanted to bankrupt the Soviet Union, wanted to prove the futility of trying to out-industrialize a more economically innovative competitor. And he was willing to pay the environmental, social, and political costs it would take. I say, "Touche, sir; well-played."
In comparison, China has so far wisely decided to avoid much of the cost of competing for global military superiority while embracing the competitive spirit of industrialization through environmental devastation. India, seemingly, has not been as able (without such a central command structure) to push environmental devastation, so they have gone more in the direction of utilizing their human resources and inviting technological investment (of course, the Chinese are hedging their bets and also working on financial and human resources investment and regional military superiority). The two major competitors in the latter half of the 20th century were able to successfully bankrupt themselves while the greatest beneficiaries of the competition over fossil fuels have done what the leisurely rich have tended to do--spend and enjoy while maintaining the status quo in their neighborhood.
In looking forward, if I am correct, the people who get caught up in things such as the debate over whether English should be dominant will do one of two things (both a waste of time): 1)resent this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism, or 2)luxuriate in the passing advantage of this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism. While the backward-looking post-colonial critics may be accurate enough in their power-analysis description of this outcome, they will already be behind the ball in comparison to the Indians who are leveraging their (also historically recent) full-scale exposure to the English language. The more provincial Islamist revolutionaries who have adopted the 20th century fascination with cyclical or continual violence (so passe) are reaping the benefits of trying to remain a cultural backwater throughout the last sixty years. Again, the various justifications for trying to remain aside are secondary, in my opinion to the effects. It's impossible to remain aside culturally. But it is possible to slow the rate of assimilation and coordination. (Interestingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has had one of the few accepted state-sponsored drives to significantly reduce population growth rates in recent decades.)
Where does all of this lead? Simple. In one way, it really is simple to understand--maybe not as simple to do, but I wonder about that. Optimally, this leads each nation, social group, and individual to something akin to what I described as balance by six points. It leads to a point of view in which one actively and consciously works on resilient progress (whether by "one" it is you as individual or as part of one/each group). It leads to the possibility--as people consider degree of coordination that they want as opposed to assimilation or rejection--of less military and cultural conflict without capitulation. It leads to a revised understanding of democracy as a utopian sort of static ideal (with concomitant cyclical violence since stasis is impossible) to the idea of democracy as the real-life process of political and social inclusion and progress. Adopting innovation as a second language is a crossroads between the post-modern post-structural prison and a post-modern post-structural reaffirmation of human history and potential.
This quote from Donald Merlin that I began with is still apropos:
In fact, the uniqueness of humanity could be said to rest not so much in language as in our capacity for rapid cultural change.
VIInnovation as Crossroads
What if it has been the case that social institutions have changed at just the right pace? Not to argue with Voltaire over this, or get too Platonic or New Agey about it, but what if? If there are constraints on the pace of social progress as well as constructs that aid progress, knowing them might help us decide. The discussion of these constraints and constructs may be more fruitful in producing further progress than what critical analyses of power differentials allows for. In fact, we generally see that the constructs or supports of earlier generations or moments shape the constraints felt by more recent generations. That's part of how we recognize or trace change as progress.
When progress is too idealistic or revolutionary to be sustainable, the later generation forgets the sacrifices, lessons, and wisdom of earlier generations, repeats historical mistakes, and history repeats itself. In this way, progress cannot be "too fast". When progress is not sufficiently thorough, old problem rear their ugly heads. Part of what this means is that we must "structure-in" progress. Any sense of progress must become part of a social institution deemed worthy of maintenance. Although we have deemed tyranny an enemy of the people, pluralist democracy is a recently proposed solution that the jury is still out on, for example.
Part of what it means that each generation must learn certain lessons (like how to use the language of origin), is that the lessons that must be learned by each generation are one of the hypothetical constraints on social progress that I propose. At some point in prehistory, it became custom to teach language to every child who could learn language. Although this takes a great deal of time and effort, we still deem this valuable. Because language learning is an assumed custom, we spend our attention on HOW to improve education not on WHETHER it is worth learning to speak and--more recently and in many countries--to write. (Now, is it economically worthwhile for international world citizens to learn the most dominant language in the world today? Whether one answers yes or no, we can be certain that it will take extra investment if it is not one's language of origin.)
A further constraint to progress is too much diversity mixed with conflict (or lacking coordination). This is part of why assimilation into the dominant culture has been the preferred method of cultural exchange throughout history--it's easier in one way and generally economically beneficial to those in the dominant society. This is where cultural relativism is still relevant but also a constraint on further progress (yesterday's solutions becoming today's problems). Since dominance and assimilation as opposed to accomodation of difference and equal exchange is still the relative norm, critical power analyses and identity politics are still relevant. They are simply not optimal. They were necessary and good enough in the post-colonial period (which is still ongoing for some countries), but they are a brake on further progress for any pluralistic group attempting to move beyond post-colonial political conflicts.
I am not saying here that I've forgotten the sacrifices made in order to bring up the necessity of revolution against colonial and supremacist oppressions; I am saying it must be structured-in or we are doomed to repeat the same old thing in new forms. Or, alternatively, we may doom ourselves to repeat the same old lessons of relativism, tolerance, and a tired, monotone repetition of the value of diversity.
Although my personal interest is much more on the cultural side of cultural technology, we all must adjust to the technological side as well. It's unavoidable. Even extremely remote Amazonian tribes are forced to deal with modern-day political structures in order to face advancing economic interests in the form of oil companies (and others). Some social instances bring social tensions into stark relief, such as Evo Morales leading Bolivia.
I suppose I have two significant points to make here. The first is that, for the next generation or so (if not already for my own), the dominant world language is becoming electronica and electronic/virtual technological innovations. Genetics and other new innovations will help distinguish and define later generations. The second is that, more than any sort of social structure, democracy as an ideal is about a particular type of process. Affirming both of these can help us situate a genuine vision of sustainable global progress, help to produce coordination rather than continued conflict (including oppression).
When progress is too idealistic or revolutionary to be sustainable, the later generation forgets the sacrifices, lessons, and wisdom of earlier generations, repeats historical mistakes, and history repeats itself. In this way, progress cannot be "too fast". When progress is not sufficiently thorough, old problem rear their ugly heads. Part of what this means is that we must "structure-in" progress. Any sense of progress must become part of a social institution deemed worthy of maintenance. Although we have deemed tyranny an enemy of the people, pluralist democracy is a recently proposed solution that the jury is still out on, for example.
Part of what it means that each generation must learn certain lessons (like how to use the language of origin), is that the lessons that must be learned by each generation are one of the hypothetical constraints on social progress that I propose. At some point in prehistory, it became custom to teach language to every child who could learn language. Although this takes a great deal of time and effort, we still deem this valuable. Because language learning is an assumed custom, we spend our attention on HOW to improve education not on WHETHER it is worth learning to speak and--more recently and in many countries--to write. (Now, is it economically worthwhile for international world citizens to learn the most dominant language in the world today? Whether one answers yes or no, we can be certain that it will take extra investment if it is not one's language of origin.)
A further constraint to progress is too much diversity mixed with conflict (or lacking coordination). This is part of why assimilation into the dominant culture has been the preferred method of cultural exchange throughout history--it's easier in one way and generally economically beneficial to those in the dominant society. This is where cultural relativism is still relevant but also a constraint on further progress (yesterday's solutions becoming today's problems). Since dominance and assimilation as opposed to accomodation of difference and equal exchange is still the relative norm, critical power analyses and identity politics are still relevant. They are simply not optimal. They were necessary and good enough in the post-colonial period (which is still ongoing for some countries), but they are a brake on further progress for any pluralistic group attempting to move beyond post-colonial political conflicts.
I am not saying here that I've forgotten the sacrifices made in order to bring up the necessity of revolution against colonial and supremacist oppressions; I am saying it must be structured-in or we are doomed to repeat the same old thing in new forms. Or, alternatively, we may doom ourselves to repeat the same old lessons of relativism, tolerance, and a tired, monotone repetition of the value of diversity.
Although my personal interest is much more on the cultural side of cultural technology, we all must adjust to the technological side as well. It's unavoidable. Even extremely remote Amazonian tribes are forced to deal with modern-day political structures in order to face advancing economic interests in the form of oil companies (and others). Some social instances bring social tensions into stark relief, such as Evo Morales leading Bolivia.
I suppose I have two significant points to make here. The first is that, for the next generation or so (if not already for my own), the dominant world language is becoming electronica and electronic/virtual technological innovations. Genetics and other new innovations will help distinguish and define later generations. The second is that, more than any sort of social structure, democracy as an ideal is about a particular type of process. Affirming both of these can help us situate a genuine vision of sustainable global progress, help to produce coordination rather than continued conflict (including oppression).
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
VInnovation as Crossroads
The idea of advancement in technology can be seen in relatively simple terms. If the next generation of computer is faster, more powerful, and more reliable, the technology has advanced. If not, if some aspects have improved but others have suffered, then we should be able to say which aspects have improved and which have not. (This may lead into the development of a new/specialized/differentiated product or a revisioning process aimed at improving the next generation of personal computer.)
With social institutions, though, there is a mix of adaptability and overall improvement. Our founding fathers did not have to structure-in ways to address al-Qaeda. The Bush administration did have to adapt to al-Qaeda. The debate on whether they adapted well points out the difference between change and improvement or progress. In the same way, mushrooms may have as much evolution behind them as we do, but we have progressed beyond mushrooms' abilities towards agency. Mushrooms are well-adapted to where they are adapted to, but they have limited options compared to ours.
Democracy as a liberal form of government changes the political equation. More than a structure, democracy is an ideal concerning interactions--the social dynamic, the process, the fluid. (It is functionally very difficult to distinguish between a republic and a democracy with large populations at this point in history.) Just as this ideal dynamic signals a shift in the relationship between a government and its citizens, management theory has changed in a way that signals similar differences in the relationship between management and workers. Management theory used to mean that someone at the top of the power pyramid would give orders which would trickle down. Then it began to take on more feedback from the bottom up. (If you've earned admiral status but can't fix the nuclear engine to your aircraft carrier, you must take in feedback from specialists/mechanics much lower down the chain of command.) Now, to some extent, there is a flattening of hierarchical relationships and a movement towards an emphasis on speed and functional fit of responsiveness to changing market forces and consumer expectations.
Just as the democratic ideal is that the government express the will of the people, much of recent management theory is about meeting the demands of the market and workforce. This is adaptation rather than improvement. To make this point, consider planned obsolescence. The idea is simple: if I can sell you fifty lightbulbs over the course of ten years rather than selling you two (each of which might actually last), I might be able to increase my profit margins by selling a product that is made to wear out. Easy. But, if we consider the ecological effects of planned obsolescence, we may decide that increased profit margins provide competitive advantage (increased adaptability to this situation right now) but an overall drop-off in functional quality. In other words, while I might be beating out competing firms, I am selling environmental resources at a ridiculous loss to the future of my own firm...maybe the whole industry. Sometimes adapting really well to market forces (different from consumer demand) can go too far; same is true with workers' demands and unionization.
100 years ago when the world population was closer to 1.6 billion (6.7 billion today), waste was not as important to consider because we had fewer waste-producers per square mile than we do now. At the end of WWII, we tried to (with our allies) out-produce and out-consume the USSR. Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. Okay, maybe I'd side with Stalin if I could keep him out of America and he'd help me beat Hitler, but once we've beaten Hitler...well, ask Ike. While the history may be sensible enough, continuing to invest in the maintenance of social institutions--including customs--we've been handed down may not be good enough.
Saying so does nothing to diminish my sense of appreciation for the men and women in our armed services who, during WWII, were deployed for year after year. It's a way of saying, "Thank you," and now what can WE (my generation) do? A Keynesian focus on consumer demand along with industrial production and technological improvements in the defense industry made America's market the largest (and therefore most desirable and powerful) in the world. Now, it is time to question the ecological and social effects of defense industry spending and a focus on consumption of goods and services. We can consider this re-evaluation as a point of adaptation and also consider whether refocusing in a variety of different ways may actually be progressive (involving improvements) as opposed to being just adaptive. Planned obsolescence was adaptive for a while. And, just as our country adapted to a focus on markets and consumption between the 1900s and 1960s, we have begun a shift towards sustainability while keeping a focus on technological advancements.
Cultures take time to change even if the lifespan of a generation of personal computers is decreasing. If it took us thirty years to change from a Depression-to-post-Depression focus to one in which we were the dominant country in the world, it is not surprising--nor should it be a matter of fanatical criticism--that it has taken us from the 1960s until now to focus on renewable energy. Just as we were able to decrease the amount of pollution from our steel industry between (what?) 1900 and 1970, we will be able to do the same with energy production now that social opinion and market forces are behind that sort of change.
With social institutions, though, there is a mix of adaptability and overall improvement. Our founding fathers did not have to structure-in ways to address al-Qaeda. The Bush administration did have to adapt to al-Qaeda. The debate on whether they adapted well points out the difference between change and improvement or progress. In the same way, mushrooms may have as much evolution behind them as we do, but we have progressed beyond mushrooms' abilities towards agency. Mushrooms are well-adapted to where they are adapted to, but they have limited options compared to ours.
Democracy as a liberal form of government changes the political equation. More than a structure, democracy is an ideal concerning interactions--the social dynamic, the process, the fluid. (It is functionally very difficult to distinguish between a republic and a democracy with large populations at this point in history.) Just as this ideal dynamic signals a shift in the relationship between a government and its citizens, management theory has changed in a way that signals similar differences in the relationship between management and workers. Management theory used to mean that someone at the top of the power pyramid would give orders which would trickle down. Then it began to take on more feedback from the bottom up. (If you've earned admiral status but can't fix the nuclear engine to your aircraft carrier, you must take in feedback from specialists/mechanics much lower down the chain of command.) Now, to some extent, there is a flattening of hierarchical relationships and a movement towards an emphasis on speed and functional fit of responsiveness to changing market forces and consumer expectations.
Just as the democratic ideal is that the government express the will of the people, much of recent management theory is about meeting the demands of the market and workforce. This is adaptation rather than improvement. To make this point, consider planned obsolescence. The idea is simple: if I can sell you fifty lightbulbs over the course of ten years rather than selling you two (each of which might actually last), I might be able to increase my profit margins by selling a product that is made to wear out. Easy. But, if we consider the ecological effects of planned obsolescence, we may decide that increased profit margins provide competitive advantage (increased adaptability to this situation right now) but an overall drop-off in functional quality. In other words, while I might be beating out competing firms, I am selling environmental resources at a ridiculous loss to the future of my own firm...maybe the whole industry. Sometimes adapting really well to market forces (different from consumer demand) can go too far; same is true with workers' demands and unionization.
100 years ago when the world population was closer to 1.6 billion (6.7 billion today), waste was not as important to consider because we had fewer waste-producers per square mile than we do now. At the end of WWII, we tried to (with our allies) out-produce and out-consume the USSR. Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. Okay, maybe I'd side with Stalin if I could keep him out of America and he'd help me beat Hitler, but once we've beaten Hitler...well, ask Ike. While the history may be sensible enough, continuing to invest in the maintenance of social institutions--including customs--we've been handed down may not be good enough.
Saying so does nothing to diminish my sense of appreciation for the men and women in our armed services who, during WWII, were deployed for year after year. It's a way of saying, "Thank you," and now what can WE (my generation) do? A Keynesian focus on consumer demand along with industrial production and technological improvements in the defense industry made America's market the largest (and therefore most desirable and powerful) in the world. Now, it is time to question the ecological and social effects of defense industry spending and a focus on consumption of goods and services. We can consider this re-evaluation as a point of adaptation and also consider whether refocusing in a variety of different ways may actually be progressive (involving improvements) as opposed to being just adaptive. Planned obsolescence was adaptive for a while. And, just as our country adapted to a focus on markets and consumption between the 1900s and 1960s, we have begun a shift towards sustainability while keeping a focus on technological advancements.
Cultures take time to change even if the lifespan of a generation of personal computers is decreasing. If it took us thirty years to change from a Depression-to-post-Depression focus to one in which we were the dominant country in the world, it is not surprising--nor should it be a matter of fanatical criticism--that it has taken us from the 1960s until now to focus on renewable energy. Just as we were able to decrease the amount of pollution from our steel industry between (what?) 1900 and 1970, we will be able to do the same with energy production now that social opinion and market forces are behind that sort of change.
(i)Vnnovation as Crossroads
What are social institutions? The answer depends on your perspective(s). In my hometown of Nazareth, PA, Mario Andretti is a social institution. He's an icon and as lasting (at least if we include his legacy) as the local love of high school wrestling. He isn't a custom, but we could consider him to be an institution. The high school he lived next to for years is another social institution, one in brick and mortar as well as nationwide or wider. In my opinion, we can consider the custom of political debate and voting to also be social institutions or established customs. All of these "institutions" are somewhat different or distinguishable from the social functions which they perform. From my perspective, Mario Andretti is as established as Nazareth Area High School and almost as significant in my life because he gave out LOTS of candy at Halloween (he's supposedly important in racing too).
Part of what distinguishes an institution for me is that people assume it. Part of what we tend to assume is that institutions will remain. Part of what I am focusing on here is that these institutions need upkeep, and assuming allows us to do the upkeep without recognizing just how much work goes into supporting institutions. The school needs upkeep, the Andretti name needs upkeep, the habit of voting needs upkeep--social investment and active maintenance. We can easily recognize that a new wing built onto the school is "innovative" in some way, it involves what some people consider to be significant progress. But, if the same tired old teaching occurs in the new wing, we could also consider it to be a continuation of the Same Old Shit. Whatever the perspective, it didn't build itself; it takes investment to maintain institutions, and one way or another, those institutions keep up with progress.
Think about it like this. One biologist I listened to pointed out that every simple fungi on the planet is as evolved as we are. The process of each specie's evolution is as long as ours. So that mushroom in your salad may not be as complex as you, but you can consider it to be as evolved. It has taken a lot of mushrooms over the millennia doing what mushrooms do to complete your salad, ravioli sauce, soup, or whatever. But we tend to assume that mushrooms will keep doing that. It is like growth is an ecological custom and law, and fungi are an institution.
Institutions are animate. The legal system does not function without constant human input. Each courthouse itself could be apartments or an office building if not for what happened in it. Corporations have become easily recognizable social institutions, but they did not exist as we know them four hundred years ago. America as the most powerful country on earth is an assumed reality right now, but it won't always be so. My point is that, if we want to improve social processes or social inputs to ecological processes, we might trip over our assumptions if we don't consider our overall investments.
My experience with old-school social criticism (like second wave feminism and Foucault's structural stuff) has often come through (or with) analyses of power positions and resources. So this sort of critical impetus for change often involves looking at measurable chunks (like whether I have more gold than you) and showing the connection between the Haves, their Havings, and status quo relationships that allow the Haves to not become Have-nots. Liberals tend to assume, at this point in history, some familiarity with social criticism and some degree of identification with "marginalized populations". They also most often seem to assume that the center will hold (that majority-supported institutions will last or that at least their functions will remain). Liberals tend to assume that they are revolutionary, which makes it difficult to see to what extent liberal ideals have become common custom. If "liberal" now means revolutionary, then liberal also means fundamentalist, as neo-fundamentalism is a powerful revolutionary force against the neo-liberal world order. But Promise-Keepers are clearly not socially liberal; they simply assume a liberal social context that allows their right to choose an interesting brand of minority values.
When self-proclaimed liberals support abortion rights, they are supporting a social custom that has lasted for over thirty years. How long does it take to invest something with the label "social institution"? This is not a question that has a right answer, but something we must agree on if we want to communicate about it. The actual high school is just a pile of stones with electrical wire and plumbing running through it, but the idea of high schools and universal public education will probably last long after that pile has ceased to function.
Part of what distinguishes an institution for me is that people assume it. Part of what we tend to assume is that institutions will remain. Part of what I am focusing on here is that these institutions need upkeep, and assuming allows us to do the upkeep without recognizing just how much work goes into supporting institutions. The school needs upkeep, the Andretti name needs upkeep, the habit of voting needs upkeep--social investment and active maintenance. We can easily recognize that a new wing built onto the school is "innovative" in some way, it involves what some people consider to be significant progress. But, if the same tired old teaching occurs in the new wing, we could also consider it to be a continuation of the Same Old Shit. Whatever the perspective, it didn't build itself; it takes investment to maintain institutions, and one way or another, those institutions keep up with progress.
Think about it like this. One biologist I listened to pointed out that every simple fungi on the planet is as evolved as we are. The process of each specie's evolution is as long as ours. So that mushroom in your salad may not be as complex as you, but you can consider it to be as evolved. It has taken a lot of mushrooms over the millennia doing what mushrooms do to complete your salad, ravioli sauce, soup, or whatever. But we tend to assume that mushrooms will keep doing that. It is like growth is an ecological custom and law, and fungi are an institution.
Institutions are animate. The legal system does not function without constant human input. Each courthouse itself could be apartments or an office building if not for what happened in it. Corporations have become easily recognizable social institutions, but they did not exist as we know them four hundred years ago. America as the most powerful country on earth is an assumed reality right now, but it won't always be so. My point is that, if we want to improve social processes or social inputs to ecological processes, we might trip over our assumptions if we don't consider our overall investments.
My experience with old-school social criticism (like second wave feminism and Foucault's structural stuff) has often come through (or with) analyses of power positions and resources. So this sort of critical impetus for change often involves looking at measurable chunks (like whether I have more gold than you) and showing the connection between the Haves, their Havings, and status quo relationships that allow the Haves to not become Have-nots. Liberals tend to assume, at this point in history, some familiarity with social criticism and some degree of identification with "marginalized populations". They also most often seem to assume that the center will hold (that majority-supported institutions will last or that at least their functions will remain). Liberals tend to assume that they are revolutionary, which makes it difficult to see to what extent liberal ideals have become common custom. If "liberal" now means revolutionary, then liberal also means fundamentalist, as neo-fundamentalism is a powerful revolutionary force against the neo-liberal world order. But Promise-Keepers are clearly not socially liberal; they simply assume a liberal social context that allows their right to choose an interesting brand of minority values.
When self-proclaimed liberals support abortion rights, they are supporting a social custom that has lasted for over thirty years. How long does it take to invest something with the label "social institution"? This is not a question that has a right answer, but something we must agree on if we want to communicate about it. The actual high school is just a pile of stones with electrical wire and plumbing running through it, but the idea of high schools and universal public education will probably last long after that pile has ceased to function.
Friday, June 5, 2009
IVnnovation as Crossroads
Just as markets work better than centralized planning partially because there are many voices or competing influences, we are adaptive creatures because we have so much going on within us--we're complex. When there is too much noise and too little coordination within that complexity, we end up being complicated as well. Same goes for societies and economics overall. And, just as human psychological needs can be organized into a hierarchy from survival demands to self-actualization, economies can be organized based on both capital influences and human needs. There is, not surprisingly, a huge problem when the interests of "capital" diverge too far from human needs or the needs for human progress.
(I'm moving towards making the case that one of our greatest needs--as well as capacities--is for progress, something Abraham Maslow and Charles Darwin didn't find surprising. This fits with the idea of innovation as a standard--like a language--that becomes increasingly important in a technologized, global environment.)
Kay writes, "Markets advance through the coevolution of technology and social institutions (p81)". Ray Kurzweil likes to talk about the increasing speed of technological innovation. Although this is within his field of expertise, any of us can recognize the significant rate of technological innovation. In fact, we are no longer surprised by most innovations because we are used to innovation itself. The Blackberry and iPhone were impressive for a blip in time. This raises a really important influence on society. The difference between my parents' generation's familiarity and comfort with changing technologies compared to current high-schoolers' familiarity and comfort is really significant. While employers are still asking whether I can use Excel, the next generation already expects that any spreadsheet program will be somewhat intuitively useful to anyone who has ever seen any spreadsheet program. They'll make allowances for differences as a matter of course.
Since Cro Magnon man began setting up trade networks and differentiation of professional specializations, humans have always used technological advancements as part of culture, part of life. Sometimes at the end of the last century, though, we in the industrialized-techonologized world became used to continuous technological innovation. Of course, my grandparents could use fire and wheels and so can I. They used innovations as amazing as automobiles, telephones, vacuums, and even microwave ovens. At this point in history, nanotechnology is putting thousands of cell-sized machines in people's bloodstreams to overcome the effects of chronic diseases. The symbiotic exchange between bacteria and more advanced biological animals and plants is huge--think of your farts here and know that you couldn't digest most of what you eat without the help of bacteria in your gut. Now we have cell-sized, man-made symbiots in our bloodstreams (still somewhat experimentally at this point) that help us function much more optimally. Probably within our lifetime, we will be doing things like growing bacteria within ourselves that can function as sunblock. Leonardo da Vinci and Jules Verne were able to imagine the future wonderfully, but we are moving towards a civilization where we improve not only our symbiotic relationships but also the chances for the Leonardos to meet and collaborate. What's more, most of these processes are impressively driven by human potential. By that, I mean that if it wasn't for Einstein laying out the theories of relativity, someone else would have not much later.
Anyway, all the futurists point out that sort of stuff. My point is that innovation itself becomes a usual aspect of life just as, throughout history, innovations had become usual parts of human life. You probably do not have the same agricultural profession that your ancestors did, and neither do I. And just as most folks from the 18th century didn't have nuclear fission in their plans for the future, we can't predict what effects free internet porn will have--let alone the further advances between cell-sized machines and genetic engineering.
But, if we become comfortable with the idea of innovation itself, we can influence some of the outcomes. So most folks won't argue that technologies are advancing. What has to happen with social institutions, then?
(I'm moving towards making the case that one of our greatest needs--as well as capacities--is for progress, something Abraham Maslow and Charles Darwin didn't find surprising. This fits with the idea of innovation as a standard--like a language--that becomes increasingly important in a technologized, global environment.)
Kay writes, "Markets advance through the coevolution of technology and social institutions (p81)". Ray Kurzweil likes to talk about the increasing speed of technological innovation. Although this is within his field of expertise, any of us can recognize the significant rate of technological innovation. In fact, we are no longer surprised by most innovations because we are used to innovation itself. The Blackberry and iPhone were impressive for a blip in time. This raises a really important influence on society. The difference between my parents' generation's familiarity and comfort with changing technologies compared to current high-schoolers' familiarity and comfort is really significant. While employers are still asking whether I can use Excel, the next generation already expects that any spreadsheet program will be somewhat intuitively useful to anyone who has ever seen any spreadsheet program. They'll make allowances for differences as a matter of course.
Since Cro Magnon man began setting up trade networks and differentiation of professional specializations, humans have always used technological advancements as part of culture, part of life. Sometimes at the end of the last century, though, we in the industrialized-techonologized world became used to continuous technological innovation. Of course, my grandparents could use fire and wheels and so can I. They used innovations as amazing as automobiles, telephones, vacuums, and even microwave ovens. At this point in history, nanotechnology is putting thousands of cell-sized machines in people's bloodstreams to overcome the effects of chronic diseases. The symbiotic exchange between bacteria and more advanced biological animals and plants is huge--think of your farts here and know that you couldn't digest most of what you eat without the help of bacteria in your gut. Now we have cell-sized, man-made symbiots in our bloodstreams (still somewhat experimentally at this point) that help us function much more optimally. Probably within our lifetime, we will be doing things like growing bacteria within ourselves that can function as sunblock. Leonardo da Vinci and Jules Verne were able to imagine the future wonderfully, but we are moving towards a civilization where we improve not only our symbiotic relationships but also the chances for the Leonardos to meet and collaborate. What's more, most of these processes are impressively driven by human potential. By that, I mean that if it wasn't for Einstein laying out the theories of relativity, someone else would have not much later.
Anyway, all the futurists point out that sort of stuff. My point is that innovation itself becomes a usual aspect of life just as, throughout history, innovations had become usual parts of human life. You probably do not have the same agricultural profession that your ancestors did, and neither do I. And just as most folks from the 18th century didn't have nuclear fission in their plans for the future, we can't predict what effects free internet porn will have--let alone the further advances between cell-sized machines and genetic engineering.
But, if we become comfortable with the idea of innovation itself, we can influence some of the outcomes. So most folks won't argue that technologies are advancing. What has to happen with social institutions, then?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
IIInnovation as Crossroads
Drucker's "creative destruction" is an economic analogy for evolutionary selection within a market. Diversity in an ecological or economic environment encourages a robust selection process which pressures for both specialization and, alternatively, for a generalist's resilient adaptability. Innovation requires pluralism and the competition that drives selection over entrenchment and resilience rather than over-specialization.
Dealing in human systems, "selection" involves intentional preference and adaptability to changing social reality or realities. Because of technology and preference, specialization remains important, creative destruction continues to allow differentiation to drive evolution.
Because design--rather than emergence--can be satisfying in a closed system or limited context, those satisfied by a particular design/structure/ideology are invested in particular limitations or closures. Because social systems are complex and adaptive, Kay's "disciplined pluralism" (organized experimentation), rather than a purely designed process, fits. Keep in mind that most experiments fail--perfectly natural. If the organizing effects or structure can be implicit and assumed ("Of course since sliced bread is available today and will be available tomorrow..."), then explicit effort can be directed to the pluralism/experimentation (...I can become something other than a farmer"). Without implicit organization, discipline must be explicit, or coordination will be unlikely. In other words, if we aren't all connected by a somewhat structured global food distribution network, political agreement, etc., we must explicitly coordinate in a disciplined manner if we want something other than a muddled but perhaps progressively evolutionary process. (Notice this gives us options--internal/implicit structure or disciplined coordination or muddle/competition.)
Innovation occurs through relatively small-scale (closed/understandable) design changes in products and processes. At a larger scale, differentiation is insisted upon when individuals reject unsatisfying limits and push for greater openness or different organization. Too much openness/disorganization disrupts communications, including intentional coordination.
Without a sufficiently rich and non-intrusive context, innovation suffers. ("Intrusion" here can be seen as "unwanted/unwarranted/extreme demands upon intentional deployment of attention".) Innovation, then, can be seen as the crossroads between design and emergence. Innovation is the motivated application of creative focus within a sufficiently rich socio-ecological context.
When innovation is not "structured-in", differentiations will encounter limitations in the system (closures, limitations) in equally destructive but less creative ways. Emergence will be more disruptive when less coordinated even if it can be seen as progressive.
Dealing in human systems, "selection" involves intentional preference and adaptability to changing social reality or realities. Because of technology and preference, specialization remains important, creative destruction continues to allow differentiation to drive evolution.
Because design--rather than emergence--can be satisfying in a closed system or limited context, those satisfied by a particular design/structure/ideology are invested in particular limitations or closures. Because social systems are complex and adaptive, Kay's "disciplined pluralism" (organized experimentation), rather than a purely designed process, fits. Keep in mind that most experiments fail--perfectly natural. If the organizing effects or structure can be implicit and assumed ("Of course since sliced bread is available today and will be available tomorrow..."), then explicit effort can be directed to the pluralism/experimentation (...I can become something other than a farmer"). Without implicit organization, discipline must be explicit, or coordination will be unlikely. In other words, if we aren't all connected by a somewhat structured global food distribution network, political agreement, etc., we must explicitly coordinate in a disciplined manner if we want something other than a muddled but perhaps progressively evolutionary process. (Notice this gives us options--internal/implicit structure or disciplined coordination or muddle/competition.)
Innovation occurs through relatively small-scale (closed/understandable) design changes in products and processes. At a larger scale, differentiation is insisted upon when individuals reject unsatisfying limits and push for greater openness or different organization. Too much openness/disorganization disrupts communications, including intentional coordination.
Without a sufficiently rich and non-intrusive context, innovation suffers. ("Intrusion" here can be seen as "unwanted/unwarranted/extreme demands upon intentional deployment of attention".) Innovation, then, can be seen as the crossroads between design and emergence. Innovation is the motivated application of creative focus within a sufficiently rich socio-ecological context.
When innovation is not "structured-in", differentiations will encounter limitations in the system (closures, limitations) in equally destructive but less creative ways. Emergence will be more disruptive when less coordinated even if it can be seen as progressive.
IInnovation as Crossroads
To contextualize my comments on innovation, I have two quotes from John Kay's CULTURE AND PROSPERITY.
Kay's work builds nicely upon Jared Diamond's work in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL, pointing out how certain social innovations ("institutions", above) in advanced markets present advantages over those that have been seen as more "natural"...such as natural resources like oil, timber, iron, water, etc. Just as the availability of those natural resources did not come out of nowhere in an instant, just as the advantages that Diamond points out (like animal husbandry or high quality grains) did not come about overnight, the development of progressive social institutions (including customs) did not come about overnight.
Of course, being a very adaptive type of primate, we can adjust to the presence of these institutions in the flash of a virtual evolutionary instant. For example, it is easy for us to take for granted things such as sliced bread even though sliced bread has only been with us for a few decades. In the space of a century, we can go from a primarily agricultural country to one in which only about 2% of the workers are involved in producing more food than even our obese nation can consume. To adjust to such shifts, it's necessary to allow the functioning of what Peter Drucker calls "creative destruction". While Drucker was not the first devotee of Kali-Durga, we can easily grasp that his take on the matter fits hand-in-glove with the topics of markets and affluence.
Creative destruction (of products and businesses) in markets is as natural as the cycle of birth, death, birth again. The same is true concerning social institutions and customs in cultures--at least in healthy cultures. To understand the cultural aspect of this analogy, it is helpful to think of the phrase "time is money". Time for mortals is finite, and since it is finite, we can assign a comparative value and decide whether we are using time wisely or "wasting" time. We can do the same thing with attention and say that attention is time and money. This becomes more obvious when media outlets are nonstop. By the point where we can watch Jon Stewart knocking MSNBC on the Internet whenever we want, we have adjusted far beyond expecting to find sliced bread available whenever we might want it. I have about 100 channels of television to choose from and seemingly countless websites, chatrooms, and real and simulated web-persons to interact with. I can't pay attention to all of them all the time, and any ad exec or lowly consumer easily recognizes that the more people that are paying attention to YOUR channel, site, or whatever media outlet, the more valuable it is. Attention is money. And my attention is finite.
Who cares? Well, we can ask the question of whether I am using my attention wisely or wasting it. We can take that question back a step, to a further remove, and ask whether the available media outlets in general waste attention and we can debate who is responsible if my attention is wasted. My point is just to show we are familiar with the concept of attention as "money", as measurable or comparable value and as a medium of exchange. It is interesting that the same idea--attention as valuable--also affects us on a profoundly personal level in our relationships. We show status and importance by who we pay attention to--so it is not surprising that, in our society of nonstop media output fame would be such a high-level "commodity". It has taken centuries at least, even millennia if you believe Socrates' comments on writing or take language development itself into consideration, to evolve to this point of media output and our common customs of visiting pornsites and social networking sites more than others. Whether you visit them personally or not, pornsites have become a common institution of the early 21st century and any institution so widely attended to will certainly affect cultural evolution even if we never get to the point where we publicly say, "This is the best thing to happen since free porn". So, cheer with me for Wonder Bread.
Having presented the concept that attention is money along with creative desctruction and evolution, we can now look at innovation as a crossroads.
"Rich states are rich because of a process of institutional evolution that has taken place over centuries, even millennia (p69)."
"Markets work because there is never a single voice (p120)."
Kay's work builds nicely upon Jared Diamond's work in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL, pointing out how certain social innovations ("institutions", above) in advanced markets present advantages over those that have been seen as more "natural"...such as natural resources like oil, timber, iron, water, etc. Just as the availability of those natural resources did not come out of nowhere in an instant, just as the advantages that Diamond points out (like animal husbandry or high quality grains) did not come about overnight, the development of progressive social institutions (including customs) did not come about overnight.
Of course, being a very adaptive type of primate, we can adjust to the presence of these institutions in the flash of a virtual evolutionary instant. For example, it is easy for us to take for granted things such as sliced bread even though sliced bread has only been with us for a few decades. In the space of a century, we can go from a primarily agricultural country to one in which only about 2% of the workers are involved in producing more food than even our obese nation can consume. To adjust to such shifts, it's necessary to allow the functioning of what Peter Drucker calls "creative destruction". While Drucker was not the first devotee of Kali-Durga, we can easily grasp that his take on the matter fits hand-in-glove with the topics of markets and affluence.
Creative destruction (of products and businesses) in markets is as natural as the cycle of birth, death, birth again. The same is true concerning social institutions and customs in cultures--at least in healthy cultures. To understand the cultural aspect of this analogy, it is helpful to think of the phrase "time is money". Time for mortals is finite, and since it is finite, we can assign a comparative value and decide whether we are using time wisely or "wasting" time. We can do the same thing with attention and say that attention is time and money. This becomes more obvious when media outlets are nonstop. By the point where we can watch Jon Stewart knocking MSNBC on the Internet whenever we want, we have adjusted far beyond expecting to find sliced bread available whenever we might want it. I have about 100 channels of television to choose from and seemingly countless websites, chatrooms, and real and simulated web-persons to interact with. I can't pay attention to all of them all the time, and any ad exec or lowly consumer easily recognizes that the more people that are paying attention to YOUR channel, site, or whatever media outlet, the more valuable it is. Attention is money. And my attention is finite.
Who cares? Well, we can ask the question of whether I am using my attention wisely or wasting it. We can take that question back a step, to a further remove, and ask whether the available media outlets in general waste attention and we can debate who is responsible if my attention is wasted. My point is just to show we are familiar with the concept of attention as "money", as measurable or comparable value and as a medium of exchange. It is interesting that the same idea--attention as valuable--also affects us on a profoundly personal level in our relationships. We show status and importance by who we pay attention to--so it is not surprising that, in our society of nonstop media output fame would be such a high-level "commodity". It has taken centuries at least, even millennia if you believe Socrates' comments on writing or take language development itself into consideration, to evolve to this point of media output and our common customs of visiting pornsites and social networking sites more than others. Whether you visit them personally or not, pornsites have become a common institution of the early 21st century and any institution so widely attended to will certainly affect cultural evolution even if we never get to the point where we publicly say, "This is the best thing to happen since free porn". So, cheer with me for Wonder Bread.
Having presented the concept that attention is money along with creative desctruction and evolution, we can now look at innovation as a crossroads.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Innovation as Crossroads
Donald Merlin, author of ORIGINS OF THE MODERN MIND, felt that it is cultural innovation which sets our species apart from the rest. In his words (p10):
(My interest, here, is that feeling innovative or progressive is an important part of an inspired self. When we relate to someone else as uninspired and uninspiring, we train our own consciousness in boredom, apathy, and denigration. When we expect less than inspiration from ourselves and others, we are always capable of delivering.)
Contrary to the cliche, opportunity is always knocking. But to actually engage opportunity, we have to recognize our circumstances as presenting an opportunity and we must seize the day. In his book THE ACHIEVING SOCIETY, David C. McClelland talks about the importance of teaching kids important heuristics for success by providing worthwhile stories or myths. Unsurprisingly, kids learn how to look for opportunities based on the suggestions these myths and their parents provide. Even in the Christian Gospel stories, those who already have something tend to gain even more. It is the way of the world that success breeds success.
Beyond childhood, though, adults also tend to do well when they are capable of recognizing opportunities. I contend that our current cultural myths about how adults can achieve inspiration ("First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women", etc.) fall somewhat short in teaching us to recognize opportunity. Getting onto a reality show like Danny Bonaduce may get you your fifteen minutes of fame but may not provide the spark you're (I'm) looking for. Alternatively, we've recently run into the Aesop-like fable about unrestrained speculative investing--again--as well. Throw in Youtube, the poor man's Hollywood, and we've found the trifecta of our current myths' limitations. But if fame, money, and the Internet haven't already made you into the next Vanilla Ice, does that really mean you're out of options? If I'm not feeding directly from the tits of the great whore of Babylon, do I really have to choose apocalyptic fundamentalism as my last and only resort? Is our culture as bankrupt as our country will be if we keep buying into insurance scandals and trying to float foundering companies that have already saturated the market with more of their products than can be consumed?
In fact, the uniqueness of humanity could be said to rest not so much in language as in our capacity for rapid cultural change.
In fact, the uniqueness of humanity could be said to rest not so much in language as in our capacity for rapid cultural change.To that, I would add that innovation is a great intersection for seeing similarities between institutions and individual consciousness. (Beyond this, we can extrapolate connections between institutional functioning and cultural functioning--an emphasis in direct opposition to identity politics.) In some ways, it is easier to understand the agentic aspects of an entity than the universe of circumstances that any entity inhabits. By beginning at this point, we can compare design processes with emergent processes along with intention as compared to activity (which involves both intentional choices and behaviors along with behaviors and influences that are not necessarily chosen or even noticed).
(My interest, here, is that feeling innovative or progressive is an important part of an inspired self. When we relate to someone else as uninspired and uninspiring, we train our own consciousness in boredom, apathy, and denigration. When we expect less than inspiration from ourselves and others, we are always capable of delivering.)
Contrary to the cliche, opportunity is always knocking. But to actually engage opportunity, we have to recognize our circumstances as presenting an opportunity and we must seize the day. In his book THE ACHIEVING SOCIETY, David C. McClelland talks about the importance of teaching kids important heuristics for success by providing worthwhile stories or myths. Unsurprisingly, kids learn how to look for opportunities based on the suggestions these myths and their parents provide. Even in the Christian Gospel stories, those who already have something tend to gain even more. It is the way of the world that success breeds success.
Beyond childhood, though, adults also tend to do well when they are capable of recognizing opportunities. I contend that our current cultural myths about how adults can achieve inspiration ("First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women", etc.) fall somewhat short in teaching us to recognize opportunity. Getting onto a reality show like Danny Bonaduce may get you your fifteen minutes of fame but may not provide the spark you're (I'm) looking for. Alternatively, we've recently run into the Aesop-like fable about unrestrained speculative investing--again--as well. Throw in Youtube, the poor man's Hollywood, and we've found the trifecta of our current myths' limitations. But if fame, money, and the Internet haven't already made you into the next Vanilla Ice, does that really mean you're out of options? If I'm not feeding directly from the tits of the great whore of Babylon, do I really have to choose apocalyptic fundamentalism as my last and only resort? Is our culture as bankrupt as our country will be if we keep buying into insurance scandals and trying to float foundering companies that have already saturated the market with more of their products than can be consumed?
In fact, the uniqueness of humanity could be said to rest not so much in language as in our capacity for rapid cultural change.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sambhogakaya
One of my favorite translations of sambhogakaya is "reward-body". Regardless of how we view the actual functioning of the world (as based on karma, God's law, or physics and biology, etc.), I like the idea of a reward-body. This naturally leads to the question of what one is considered to be rewarded for.
I enjoy that, to earn a reward, you must do something, accomplish something, deserve something. What? At the level of subtlety involved in Purpose, the myth of the hero describes a life-journey involving struggle, climax, denouement. The hero is rewarded for success in some trial or set of trials by an end to the trial--which is comparatively very relieving, heavenly, maybe even addicting. Alternatively, the Greek or Shakespearean tragedy may offer an ending that is less than rewarding (punishing). Glory for success, but shame and punishment for failure. We get a mythic sort of narrative. At the level of Understanding, we can consider a context of multiple myths. One of the rewards or completions at this level is a sense of comprehension, of wholeness or systematization/contextualization. "I get it. I know what is happening here." Moving on to Appreciation, we don't limit ourselves to a sense of rational satisfaction in recognizing that mythic explanations can be limiting and partial. We mindfully re-invest the myths as deeply moving, culturally rich, personally meaningful, etc. From this viewpoint, while we may have moments of ignoring the contextualization (other, competing myths), it's not desirable any longer to maintain a true-believerism, a single exclusionary perspective and narrative. We may allow ourselves to be moved by the myths like being moved by a good movie without confusing the movie for reality; we move with the myths. If we get too much into disembodied mindfulness at this point, we are "rewarded" with feeling that we transcend rational understandings, explanations, and scientific doctrine. If we deal more in appreciation-with-mindfulness, we end up feeling more embodied-intelligent rather than less. We move beyond a rational belief in--or position that sets up--the mind-body dichotomy. (That position is more of a scientism than actual, experimental science that includes exploration and emergence.)
Basically, then, we are tried by and rewarded by doing things correctly or punished by and for doing things incorrectly. Beyond that, we are tried by and rewarded by trying to "get it", and we alternatively suffer from not getting it. Another step along and the trial/method/experience is one of either being present and paying attention or missing out on what's going on. With actions, concepts, and attention, we can "do" them well or poorly. The result of doing all of these fairly well is a feeling of inspiration that is somewhat different from relief, comprehension, and connected-present-appreciation. At that point, we can compare everything to inspiration or bliss. It's like asking a guiding question at each level.
1. Am I doing the right thing?
2. Is this reasonable or wise?
3. Am I present, aware?
By the time we are somewhat familiar with inspiration, we are asking, "Is this inspiring; am I centered in and acting from inspiration?" This involves comparing actions, concepts and systems of understanding, and the intention to be present against that balance-point of inspiration. The challenge is to invest each of these with inspiration. By God's Law, karma, or simply good functioning, we end up at this point where there is almost a demand to be inspired by being inspiring and a desire to be inspiring in order to be inspired. Feeling and accepting this challenge may be as important to psychological health as the need for acceptance and love.
As we mature, most of us don't realize that we're moving towards this gold standard. Many people sort of sense it, though, and a usually vague fear arises about not being able to measure up. What blows my mind is that this standard is already implicit, already felt to some extent, and so the fear of not being able to measure up actually comes from the desire to measure up. But if we endorse the fear more than the desire, we end up denying our best aspirations and denying the part in us that allows us to measure up, the part that does measure up.
So at this point, the reward is still earned by accepting the challenge. When we are aware that this is the gold standard we already carry within each of us that we already want to achieve, the standard by which we want to find ourselves and be found worthy, we at least have a fighting chance. When we work with this standard, we actually have the chance of being inspired by what we do and who we are every day. This is universal. It is subtler than belief systems, cultural expectations, and personal temperament. It is the standard you judge me by and the standard I judge you by whether we want to or not. When we deny that, we remove our chances of measuring up, or earning the reward. At this level, it is the same as at each other level in that the trial, the action, the believing, the intention, the method--the living itself--is the reward. Are you ready? Are you in? Yeah, you can't escape even if you tried. Sambhogakaya--no way out, the red pill.
I enjoy that, to earn a reward, you must do something, accomplish something, deserve something. What? At the level of subtlety involved in Purpose, the myth of the hero describes a life-journey involving struggle, climax, denouement. The hero is rewarded for success in some trial or set of trials by an end to the trial--which is comparatively very relieving, heavenly, maybe even addicting. Alternatively, the Greek or Shakespearean tragedy may offer an ending that is less than rewarding (punishing). Glory for success, but shame and punishment for failure. We get a mythic sort of narrative. At the level of Understanding, we can consider a context of multiple myths. One of the rewards or completions at this level is a sense of comprehension, of wholeness or systematization/contextualization. "I get it. I know what is happening here." Moving on to Appreciation, we don't limit ourselves to a sense of rational satisfaction in recognizing that mythic explanations can be limiting and partial. We mindfully re-invest the myths as deeply moving, culturally rich, personally meaningful, etc. From this viewpoint, while we may have moments of ignoring the contextualization (other, competing myths), it's not desirable any longer to maintain a true-believerism, a single exclusionary perspective and narrative. We may allow ourselves to be moved by the myths like being moved by a good movie without confusing the movie for reality; we move with the myths. If we get too much into disembodied mindfulness at this point, we are "rewarded" with feeling that we transcend rational understandings, explanations, and scientific doctrine. If we deal more in appreciation-with-mindfulness, we end up feeling more embodied-intelligent rather than less. We move beyond a rational belief in--or position that sets up--the mind-body dichotomy. (That position is more of a scientism than actual, experimental science that includes exploration and emergence.)
Basically, then, we are tried by and rewarded by doing things correctly or punished by and for doing things incorrectly. Beyond that, we are tried by and rewarded by trying to "get it", and we alternatively suffer from not getting it. Another step along and the trial/method/experience is one of either being present and paying attention or missing out on what's going on. With actions, concepts, and attention, we can "do" them well or poorly. The result of doing all of these fairly well is a feeling of inspiration that is somewhat different from relief, comprehension, and connected-present-appreciation. At that point, we can compare everything to inspiration or bliss. It's like asking a guiding question at each level.
1. Am I doing the right thing?
2. Is this reasonable or wise?
3. Am I present, aware?
By the time we are somewhat familiar with inspiration, we are asking, "Is this inspiring; am I centered in and acting from inspiration?" This involves comparing actions, concepts and systems of understanding, and the intention to be present against that balance-point of inspiration. The challenge is to invest each of these with inspiration. By God's Law, karma, or simply good functioning, we end up at this point where there is almost a demand to be inspired by being inspiring and a desire to be inspiring in order to be inspired. Feeling and accepting this challenge may be as important to psychological health as the need for acceptance and love.
As we mature, most of us don't realize that we're moving towards this gold standard. Many people sort of sense it, though, and a usually vague fear arises about not being able to measure up. What blows my mind is that this standard is already implicit, already felt to some extent, and so the fear of not being able to measure up actually comes from the desire to measure up. But if we endorse the fear more than the desire, we end up denying our best aspirations and denying the part in us that allows us to measure up, the part that does measure up.
So at this point, the reward is still earned by accepting the challenge. When we are aware that this is the gold standard we already carry within each of us that we already want to achieve, the standard by which we want to find ourselves and be found worthy, we at least have a fighting chance. When we work with this standard, we actually have the chance of being inspired by what we do and who we are every day. This is universal. It is subtler than belief systems, cultural expectations, and personal temperament. It is the standard you judge me by and the standard I judge you by whether we want to or not. When we deny that, we remove our chances of measuring up, or earning the reward. At this level, it is the same as at each other level in that the trial, the action, the believing, the intention, the method--the living itself--is the reward. Are you ready? Are you in? Yeah, you can't escape even if you tried. Sambhogakaya--no way out, the red pill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)