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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
(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)