1. So, today was a more banal, jaw-clenching day than usual.
1a. However, things happen which make you remember why life is great...every time you wake up it presents an opportunity to be damn happy or to make someone else damn happy.
2. My life is easy. Rather, it's hard in the easiest ways. And that's okay, for now.
3. Watching how people act under duress is revealing. So is watching them in their most relaxed state.
4. Ain't nuttin like a good PB&J Sandwich.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Doing the little things big.
I used to think more about about big things and big moments. And by "think" I mean dream and romanticize about them. There's an allure to imagining yourself at the pinnacle of your element, doing what you always imagined. And it's healthy, because by visioning yourself performing at the highest level and immersing yourself in the thought of your greatest moment is one step required to get to that point in time.
I want to know that something I did mattered, or that I was able to accomplish something big in my life. I yearn to make an impact--just like millions of others, especially other arrogant, optimistic, passionate, young, educated people I've met or know intimately.
And yet, I'm not so sure that those moments really matter, at least not in the way I had originally imagined them.
I always thought of those moments, the "big" ones, as the times where the world changed. Like the falling of the Berlin Wall, the Apollo moon landing, 11 September 2009, or any monumental political moment (e.g., elections, major legislative victories, or Supreme Court decisions)--I thought these events were the time that defined our world and our lives within them.
But, I think I was wrong. These events are not the moments where the world changed, they are the moments that signify that the world has already changed. They are not the transformative moments they are the occurences which signal that the cat's already out of the bag. When those "big" moments happen, it shows that there's no going back to yesterday's world order.
The same goes with our lives individually or on a smaller scale. Life is changed--won and lost--with all the seemingly little moments in between the noise-making, siren-howing, bookend events. The little things--that happen in the trenches--are where the magic happens.
I have a hard time articulating this paradigm that I'm feeling--I guess what I mean is that even that the "big" moments are fun to fantasize about, the seemingly "little" moments are what deserve the majority of our effort and attention. Little opportunities happen all the time and those opportunities are important to chase after and build upon, because through those moments--little ones accumulating--that's where happiness and success lie and that's where the world's problems get solved.
The little things aren't "dues to pay" to make big things happen. Doing the little things big is what's really powerful. May that's what I mean.
Ahh, I can't really get this idea out of my head in a way that's really compelling.
I want to know that something I did mattered, or that I was able to accomplish something big in my life. I yearn to make an impact--just like millions of others, especially other arrogant, optimistic, passionate, young, educated people I've met or know intimately.
And yet, I'm not so sure that those moments really matter, at least not in the way I had originally imagined them.
I always thought of those moments, the "big" ones, as the times where the world changed. Like the falling of the Berlin Wall, the Apollo moon landing, 11 September 2009, or any monumental political moment (e.g., elections, major legislative victories, or Supreme Court decisions)--I thought these events were the time that defined our world and our lives within them.
But, I think I was wrong. These events are not the moments where the world changed, they are the moments that signify that the world has already changed. They are not the transformative moments they are the occurences which signal that the cat's already out of the bag. When those "big" moments happen, it shows that there's no going back to yesterday's world order.
The same goes with our lives individually or on a smaller scale. Life is changed--won and lost--with all the seemingly little moments in between the noise-making, siren-howing, bookend events. The little things--that happen in the trenches--are where the magic happens.
I have a hard time articulating this paradigm that I'm feeling--I guess what I mean is that even that the "big" moments are fun to fantasize about, the seemingly "little" moments are what deserve the majority of our effort and attention. Little opportunities happen all the time and those opportunities are important to chase after and build upon, because through those moments--little ones accumulating--that's where happiness and success lie and that's where the world's problems get solved.
The little things aren't "dues to pay" to make big things happen. Doing the little things big is what's really powerful. May that's what I mean.
Ahh, I can't really get this idea out of my head in a way that's really compelling.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Every Day is a Good Day
I don't think it's atypical, but I really enjoy and miss little things. Especially lately.
I miss things like playing FIFA or roommate quirks. I miss hugs and high fives and spontaneous laughter. I miss walking places and moments of total autonomy. I miss having coffee with others and having no expectations attached. Most of all, I miss spending time with close friends and family. If I had any idea how time was limited, maybe I would've realized how wonderful humdrum days really were. The best things happen on those days--they are the brick and mortar of day to day life. Memories...the really good ones are made then.
But, why? Why remember those silly things?
Maybe it's because those moments were most at ease. Maybe those are the times that it's possible to connect with an "inner center", with others or with broader truths in life. I don't know why I long for those moments so much...it's cliche that I do. But yet, I can't help but remember them, and savor them.
Maybe it's because idle time is so precious these days. Maybe it's because I have a long commute and am forced to sit by myself for 1.5 hours a day.
Either way, every day is a good day.
I miss things like playing FIFA or roommate quirks. I miss hugs and high fives and spontaneous laughter. I miss walking places and moments of total autonomy. I miss having coffee with others and having no expectations attached. Most of all, I miss spending time with close friends and family. If I had any idea how time was limited, maybe I would've realized how wonderful humdrum days really were. The best things happen on those days--they are the brick and mortar of day to day life. Memories...the really good ones are made then.
But, why? Why remember those silly things?
Maybe it's because those moments were most at ease. Maybe those are the times that it's possible to connect with an "inner center", with others or with broader truths in life. I don't know why I long for those moments so much...it's cliche that I do. But yet, I can't help but remember them, and savor them.
Maybe it's because idle time is so precious these days. Maybe it's because I have a long commute and am forced to sit by myself for 1.5 hours a day.
Either way, every day is a good day.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Game
Today, was my first informal lesson in "game". Sure, I've had chats with buddies about game and some anecdotal accounts of technique. But a friend of mine really knows his stuff. And, he imparted some of his wisdom, findings and challenges to me.
Which is helpful. I don't have much "game", at the very least the "game" I do have isn't traditional or particularly effective for someone in their early to mid twenties. I was an eager student.
But, it's a shame that we need game--don't naively thing that we don't--in the first place. Why? Because its essential to get the attention of the person we're interested in. We need to meet people--men or women, depending on your preference--and that takes effort. Beyond that, we REALLY need game, though because everyone else is engaging in competitive behavior.
By competing eachother we accelerate the need to advance our own interests. If we do not engage in game, we will be consumed by others playing the game. If a guy doesn't "game" at a bar, someone else will try to sweep away a woman he's eyeing and comingling doesn't really happen spontaneously at bars. (Sometimes I think that people enjoy engaging in this semi-competitive behavior, but that's a different story). Basically, if you don't play the game...you're more of less out of luck.
It's not unacceptable, but it's essentially a selfish behavior, i think. To get the attention of someone else, you have to take and be a little bit selfish.
But, as I often come back to, selfish behavior doesn't have to rule our interactions if nobody is selfish. In other words, if nobody else is acting selfishly, you don't have to.
I think this applies to game as well. If people are just being honest and making intentions clearly, there would be no reason to "game". It'd probably be simpler and probably easier. I'd say the risk involved with "gaming" is just about as severe as the risk of just being honest, though honest migh tbe a little bit tougher to bear because if you blow it being honest, there's no other recourse or place to deposit blame.
So overall -
"Game is selfish"
It doesn't have to be because if nobody does it, then theres no reason for game.
So, why "game" when you can just be honest.
It gets complicated, I think, but I think the answer here is a simple one. Don't be selfish. If most people don't act so selfishly, our social intearactions would be much different.
Gosh, I shouldn't write when I'm exhausted.
Which is helpful. I don't have much "game", at the very least the "game" I do have isn't traditional or particularly effective for someone in their early to mid twenties. I was an eager student.
But, it's a shame that we need game--don't naively thing that we don't--in the first place. Why? Because its essential to get the attention of the person we're interested in. We need to meet people--men or women, depending on your preference--and that takes effort. Beyond that, we REALLY need game, though because everyone else is engaging in competitive behavior.
By competing eachother we accelerate the need to advance our own interests. If we do not engage in game, we will be consumed by others playing the game. If a guy doesn't "game" at a bar, someone else will try to sweep away a woman he's eyeing and comingling doesn't really happen spontaneously at bars. (Sometimes I think that people enjoy engaging in this semi-competitive behavior, but that's a different story). Basically, if you don't play the game...you're more of less out of luck.
It's not unacceptable, but it's essentially a selfish behavior, i think. To get the attention of someone else, you have to take and be a little bit selfish.
But, as I often come back to, selfish behavior doesn't have to rule our interactions if nobody is selfish. In other words, if nobody else is acting selfishly, you don't have to.
I think this applies to game as well. If people are just being honest and making intentions clearly, there would be no reason to "game". It'd probably be simpler and probably easier. I'd say the risk involved with "gaming" is just about as severe as the risk of just being honest, though honest migh tbe a little bit tougher to bear because if you blow it being honest, there's no other recourse or place to deposit blame.
So overall -
"Game is selfish"
It doesn't have to be because if nobody does it, then theres no reason for game.
So, why "game" when you can just be honest.
It gets complicated, I think, but I think the answer here is a simple one. Don't be selfish. If most people don't act so selfishly, our social intearactions would be much different.
Gosh, I shouldn't write when I'm exhausted.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Unlikely Consequences of Genetic Engineering
I was listening to a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human.html on the car ride home today. Let me summarize before I comment on it.
Biotechnolgy will drive our lives soon. Because of advances in genomics/biotechnology we can unlock our biology and have designer babies, live a long time and do lots of crazy stuff. There will be things we agree with and things we wont. But that does not matter because if people have the power to do something crazy with our genes, it will happen somewhere. (Of course, I'm crudely summarizing a really eloquent, interesting talk. Also, I'm only taking the portions which are relevant to what I'm going to comment on).
People will have tremendous power in the future to alter DNA or manipulate DNA to their own purposes. That's god-like power.
How will we handle it?
The way I see it, humans will have to learn to be tame with power before all of this starts happening. We'll have to depend on people to do the right thing at all times, especially while they hold onto this power. Legislation and enforcement can't solve everything. People have to act on their own in a way that does not negatively affect the community.
The way I see it, genomics isn't the only area in which this matters. We have increasing amounts of control over the courses of our own lives. On the internet you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want. We have the ability to influence others with our dollars, technology and ideas in a way never before possible in human history. Beyond that, in America at least, it seems as if political institutions and policymakers are trying to enable individuals with more and more responsibility. And, political institutions are having more and more difficulty containing the behavior of their respective citizenries. In short, weak individuals are becoming more powerful. Individuals are able to disrupt the community in a really, really powerful way sometimes.
It's clear that we have to tame power in our society--espeically as weaker people become stronger--if we don't many disruptive forces will start to...well, disrupt. Which is great if mroe people are empowered, and there's great benefit to societal disruption (civil rights movement, anti-apartheid, etc.).
But, if individuals are becoming more powerful and able to disrupt, those individuals have to act in a way that preserves the welfare of others, if we don't, we'll slowly (or quickly) destroy ourselves. The way I see it, if we (individually or collectively) have too much hubris, we're doomed. We have so much power, to help ourselves or hurt ourselves. If we don't use that power wisely or are too arrogant to think we're vulnerable to abusing power we're doomed.
But how?
I think it's possible to tame great power, because I see pockets of people who tame their own power...who do the right thing and do not act out of fear but out of virtue. So, I know it's possible. The problem with widespread adoption of humility and virtue is a problem of scale, I think. How do you get large numbers of people to voluntarily do the right thing. How do you get large numbers or people to trust one another and tame their own power?
I had a professor once that would call this ability--the ability to tame ones power and do the right thing--leadership. I would agree, I believe leadership is simple...do the right thing and get others to, too. The army calls it "Be, Know, Do". But I digress, my firm belief in virtue/character-based leadership is a topic for another day.
I dream of the day that leadership will no longer reference an individual, but a group of individuals or larger groups than that, like countries. As in, one might say, not that the United States has leaders or is a leader, but that the the United States is leadership. The sky is blue, the people are leadership...you know, like an adjective.
I know we can do this--tame power. And with what power we will discover in the future...during my lifetime even, we'll have to.
Forgive the poor use of language/grammar...this was a hustle post, I was afraid to lose my thought if I didn't speed on through.
Biotechnolgy will drive our lives soon. Because of advances in genomics/biotechnology we can unlock our biology and have designer babies, live a long time and do lots of crazy stuff. There will be things we agree with and things we wont. But that does not matter because if people have the power to do something crazy with our genes, it will happen somewhere. (Of course, I'm crudely summarizing a really eloquent, interesting talk. Also, I'm only taking the portions which are relevant to what I'm going to comment on).
People will have tremendous power in the future to alter DNA or manipulate DNA to their own purposes. That's god-like power.
How will we handle it?
The way I see it, humans will have to learn to be tame with power before all of this starts happening. We'll have to depend on people to do the right thing at all times, especially while they hold onto this power. Legislation and enforcement can't solve everything. People have to act on their own in a way that does not negatively affect the community.
The way I see it, genomics isn't the only area in which this matters. We have increasing amounts of control over the courses of our own lives. On the internet you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want. We have the ability to influence others with our dollars, technology and ideas in a way never before possible in human history. Beyond that, in America at least, it seems as if political institutions and policymakers are trying to enable individuals with more and more responsibility. And, political institutions are having more and more difficulty containing the behavior of their respective citizenries. In short, weak individuals are becoming more powerful. Individuals are able to disrupt the community in a really, really powerful way sometimes.
It's clear that we have to tame power in our society--espeically as weaker people become stronger--if we don't many disruptive forces will start to...well, disrupt. Which is great if mroe people are empowered, and there's great benefit to societal disruption (civil rights movement, anti-apartheid, etc.).
But, if individuals are becoming more powerful and able to disrupt, those individuals have to act in a way that preserves the welfare of others, if we don't, we'll slowly (or quickly) destroy ourselves. The way I see it, if we (individually or collectively) have too much hubris, we're doomed. We have so much power, to help ourselves or hurt ourselves. If we don't use that power wisely or are too arrogant to think we're vulnerable to abusing power we're doomed.
But how?
I think it's possible to tame great power, because I see pockets of people who tame their own power...who do the right thing and do not act out of fear but out of virtue. So, I know it's possible. The problem with widespread adoption of humility and virtue is a problem of scale, I think. How do you get large numbers of people to voluntarily do the right thing. How do you get large numbers or people to trust one another and tame their own power?
I had a professor once that would call this ability--the ability to tame ones power and do the right thing--leadership. I would agree, I believe leadership is simple...do the right thing and get others to, too. The army calls it "Be, Know, Do". But I digress, my firm belief in virtue/character-based leadership is a topic for another day.
I dream of the day that leadership will no longer reference an individual, but a group of individuals or larger groups than that, like countries. As in, one might say, not that the United States has leaders or is a leader, but that the the United States is leadership. The sky is blue, the people are leadership...you know, like an adjective.
I know we can do this--tame power. And with what power we will discover in the future...during my lifetime even, we'll have to.
Forgive the poor use of language/grammar...this was a hustle post, I was afraid to lose my thought if I didn't speed on through.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Early September, Part II - Early Childhood Education
Lots of people advocate for education--access, k-12, higher ed., etc. I'm glad they do. I haven't really been bit by the Education reform bug...not more than any other left-leaning independent anyway.
But early childhood education, I'm sold that's the best solution we've got.
I don't really mean to talk about politics here, but just write an expression of thanks.
I'm so lucky to have the parents I did. They read to me, read with me, and had me read to them...all starting by the time I was three. They brought me up with two languages. They had me doing times-tables and math from a really early age. My dad started showing me pre-algebra a few years before it was introduced in school.
It got me started learning really early in life. They supplemented my schooling in ways that were invaluable.
That shouldn't be considered "lucky".
But early childhood education, I'm sold that's the best solution we've got.
I don't really mean to talk about politics here, but just write an expression of thanks.
I'm so lucky to have the parents I did. They read to me, read with me, and had me read to them...all starting by the time I was three. They brought me up with two languages. They had me doing times-tables and math from a really early age. My dad started showing me pre-algebra a few years before it was introduced in school.
It got me started learning really early in life. They supplemented my schooling in ways that were invaluable.
That shouldn't be considered "lucky".
Early September, Part I - Fear the most
Earlier, I took a few moments to think about the topic of fear. You can find that discussion, here: http://ntambe.blogspot.com/2009/05/exploring-fear.html.
Here's an excerpt:
"...Loneliness is [what I fear], and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.
But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment."
I went to Chicago on Friday. I decided to stay the evening and fly back to Detroit on Saturday morning. Obviously, I needed a place to stay. I had three options: 1) Drop some money for a hotel room, 2) Stay out all night, 3)Find a friend to stay with. A friend from work, offered me a couch for the night in an e-mail earlier that week.
I declined. I went ahead and booked a hotel, even though she had offered. I didn't know why at the time.
I though to myself that I politely declined because I didn't want to inconvenience her. After all, I'd pretty much be staying on her couch for 3-5 hours and leaving extremely early the next morning. I thought, I was being considerate...rather, I convinced myself of it.
What I thought about Friday evening--ironically, I was walking to see Jersey Boys at the theater, alone, at the time--what that I had declined because I was scared. Even though she had offered, I was afraid she would angered by the request, refuse or think poorly of me if I had asked. In other words, I was avoiding making a request of her (a sort of confrontation, I suppose) and rejection. Why? Because rejection is the step-sister of loneliness.
Why do I bring this up? I don't know, maybe it's just for my own reflection. But also, I think it's terrific that these fears show symptoms. It's just hard to see them. And then admit them. Then do something about them. Really tough stuff.
So I guess it was nice that everyone had left town to go to Ann Arbor, my phone died--so I couldn't contact my colleagues after the show to meet up, and nobody else I had tried to make plans with had called me back. Otherwise, I would've never thought about this. But, it was pretty scary being by myself...I had felt pretty lame. As it turns out, being alone was exactly what I needed to understand why I get so anxious about loneliness.
Is that irony, coincidence or perfectly sensible? Sensible, I think.
PS - Jersey Boys, a pretty good show. Quite a pleasant surprise.
Here's an excerpt:
"...Loneliness is [what I fear], and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.
But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment."
I went to Chicago on Friday. I decided to stay the evening and fly back to Detroit on Saturday morning. Obviously, I needed a place to stay. I had three options: 1) Drop some money for a hotel room, 2) Stay out all night, 3)Find a friend to stay with. A friend from work, offered me a couch for the night in an e-mail earlier that week.
I declined. I went ahead and booked a hotel, even though she had offered. I didn't know why at the time.
I though to myself that I politely declined because I didn't want to inconvenience her. After all, I'd pretty much be staying on her couch for 3-5 hours and leaving extremely early the next morning. I thought, I was being considerate...rather, I convinced myself of it.
What I thought about Friday evening--ironically, I was walking to see Jersey Boys at the theater, alone, at the time--what that I had declined because I was scared. Even though she had offered, I was afraid she would angered by the request, refuse or think poorly of me if I had asked. In other words, I was avoiding making a request of her (a sort of confrontation, I suppose) and rejection. Why? Because rejection is the step-sister of loneliness.
Why do I bring this up? I don't know, maybe it's just for my own reflection. But also, I think it's terrific that these fears show symptoms. It's just hard to see them. And then admit them. Then do something about them. Really tough stuff.
So I guess it was nice that everyone had left town to go to Ann Arbor, my phone died--so I couldn't contact my colleagues after the show to meet up, and nobody else I had tried to make plans with had called me back. Otherwise, I would've never thought about this. But, it was pretty scary being by myself...I had felt pretty lame. As it turns out, being alone was exactly what I needed to understand why I get so anxious about loneliness.
Is that irony, coincidence or perfectly sensible? Sensible, I think.
PS - Jersey Boys, a pretty good show. Quite a pleasant surprise.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Innovation, Pressure and Leadership
I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.
I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.
The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.
So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.
I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.
I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.
The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.
So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.
I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
What was Gandhi's intent?
It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?
Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.
I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.
Or did he?
Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.
Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.
Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?
I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.
Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.
Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.
I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.
Or did he?
Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.
Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.
Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?
I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.
Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.
Eating our Vegetables
There was a question in President Obama's news conference Wednesday night, in fact a them, about what Americans are going to have to sacrifice. The President gave a nonsensical, straw-manned response. I'll liken it to the following (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course):
Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?
Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html
I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?
I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.
President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?
Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?
Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html
I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?
I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.
President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)